FEATURE ARTICLE

Temple Chima UbochiSunday, December 11, 2016
[email protected]
Bonn, Germany

ANNOUNCE THIS ARTICLE
TO YOUR FRIENDS

FACTORS WHICH DETERMINED THE 2016 UNITED STATES' PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION'S (5)

advertisement

Continued from Part 4

By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail (Benjamin Franklin)

But no matter how much planning you do, one tiny miscalculation, one moment of distraction, can end it all in an instant (Jeannette Walls)

The blunders of the Democratic Party (DNC) as a Factor:

t's now confirmed that Hillary Clinton received more votes, for president, than any other person who has ever contested, for the White House, in history - Clinton has garnered at least 65,527,625 votes in the 2016 presidential election, the most any presidential candidate has ever received, and over 2.6 million more than the president-elect, who has received at least 62,851,436 votes. But how did the woman receive more votes than men, who have ever contested to lead America, and still failed to win?

For me, Hillary's Party, The Democratic Party, helped in kissing her dream, of being the first elected female president of the United States, goodbye.

As many have opined, the Democratic Party is reeling in shock, after this Hillary Clinton's defeat, and will be doing a serious self-examination in order to understand all about this stunning defeat, and to perhaps then reshape the party for the 2018 and 2020 races.

According to The Business Insider, many of the most prominent figures on the left have largely remained silent about how the party can move forward from a stinging loss to a deeply flawed candidate in Trump. Top donors like billionaire investor, Tom Steyer, said his team is combing through voter data, trying to figure out its best course of action. In his words: "We were both surprised and disappointed on Tuesday, November 8, by the outcomes, and therefore we're taking a look at what's happened, and trying to devise an effective plan".

Many Democrats hypothesized that a stunted primary and Clinton's maneuvering to consolidate support, before the primary, allowed a candidate out of touch with a significant portion of the party to clinch the nomination. Democrats said Clinton's path to eliminating competition within the Democratic Party, while successful, helped sideline potential rivals, but disconnected her from the grassroots. One democrat, according to The Business Insider, said that Hillary "worked the inside game really well. Leaning on bundlers, lining up big endorsements from members of Congress and key luminaries"! DNC Vice Chair, R.T. Rybak, also lamented the party's efforts to inhibit attention to other candidates during the primary, including the DNC's decision to hold a limited number of debates, and scheduled them during time slots with low viewership.

The former Minneapolis mayor said that the DNC also "made some significant tactical errors" and strayed too far from a grassroots chunk of the party attempting to communicate its distaste for the perceived front-runner, and some pundits cited that as a reason for the lower turnout and lower support among key voter demographics like black male voters. Steyer, according to The Business Insider, said that exit polls showed that young voters showed up at higher rates than in 2012, but also suggested the Democrats were ineffective at turning out the older voters it needed in key states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, two states that have been reliably blue for most presidential elections. Steyer ended up saying that "there were two feelings almost every Democrat felt: shock and sadness".

The worst mistake The Democratic Party did was to think that Hillary Clinton would be its best candidate, for the election, and for that, it shut Bernie Sanders out, right from the beginning. Even though the Party claimed it provided a level playing field for all candidates, it was biased, right from the start, for Clinton, against Sanders. As The Hill wrote, the deepest cut for many who ultimately voted for Trump, and I believe the proximate reason for his ultimate success, was the Clinton/Obama effort to squelch the campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders.

It was clear over the summer that Sanders would have been a much more formidable candidate than Clinton against Trump. And I have no doubt that he would have won the election. Because the election was not about the glass ceiling or competence! This election was about being heard. And just as Sanders heard the anguish of the many, so too did Trump.

At this point, one wonders why Hillary Clinton and the DNC blocked Sanders' chance of clinching the nomination, if she had to lose, because, Sanders would have beaten Trump hands down. The point is that the Democratic Party (DNC) subverted democracy, when it denied Sanders the nomination, because, just as medium.com noted, this was an anti-establishment year in politics, and there was an anti-establishment candidate running in both major parties. Trump was (barely) allowed to win the primary on the Republican side. On the Democratic side, despite Bernie's obvious strength and the clear preference of the grassroots, the primary was rigged to put the less popular, establishment candidate forward. It was a colossal risk to take, but the party leadership in the DNC chose to advance their favored candidate, so as to maintain their power inside the party, and their fundraising with big banks and supranational corporations. The risk backfired. Free and fair democracy would have given Bernie the nomination, likely the White House, and even better, leadership in an expanding and exciting party that was positioned to win elections for years to come.

Another point is that many aggrieved Sanders' supporters didn't followed him in supporting Hillary Clinton, and that was a point I made, in the preceding part of this article, when I wrote that the other presidential candidates depreciated Clinton's votes, and that most of them who voted for the third party or independent candidates were Sanders' supporters. Medium.com also noted that after Bernie Sanders gave Clinton a full-throated endorsement, at the Democratic National Convention, the media dropped the story line about whether millennials and other Sanders backers would close ranks behind her. Millions did, but plenty of others went to the Green Party's Jill Stein or Libertarian Gary Johnson, or stayed home.

As noted above, and in tandem with medium.com's opinion, many were apparently still concerned that Clinton and the Democratic National Committee had tried to marginalize Sanders throughout the primaries (e.g. scheduling debates late on Saturday nights), an effort to "rig the election", that played right into one of Trump's signature lines. Unlike Ralph Nader in 2000, Stein and Johnson have not been widely blamed this year for being spoilers. May be, they should be. In Michigan, their combined total was nearly 20 times Trump's margin of victory, in Wisconsin it was five times, and in Pennsylvania, nearly three times, with Johnson himself convinced he was drawing more from Clinton than Trump. Even accounting for Democrats who would have stayed home or voted for Trump, had Johnson and Stein not been on the ballot, a two-person election would likely have been won by Clinton.

To be continued!

TIT BITS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8eBGVDLZ8s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8eBGVDLZ8s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g98E2nLF5xI

THE THANX IS ALL YOURS!!!

Continued from Part 4

advertisement
IMAGES IN THE NEWS