Skip to main content

The Blame Game of Hypotheticals

We're four days removed from the election, so as is often the case for the losing party, many progressives and Democrats alike are playing the blame game and asking the what ifs. Some are blaming FBI director James Comey. Others are blaming Bernie Sanders. Many are blaming Sanders' die-hard supporters. I can understand the disappointment and frustration. Trust me, I feel similarly. But while it's perfectly understandable to try and find a scapegoat for the disappointing results, we have to acknowledge the fact that there's plenty of blame to go around.

I, for one, voted for Bernie Sanders in the Ohio Democratic Primary. I feel the man is a progressive hero and was better suited electorally to win a third consecutive term for the Democrats in the White House. But Hillary Clinton won the party's nomination and I was forced to choose between her and Donald Trump for president (sorry, but I wasn't going to waste my vote on either Jill Stein or Gary Johnson). To me, it really wasn't a choice at all. It was the epitome of "no-brainers." My two options were: A) An individual with 30 years experience in the field and numerous accomplishments along the way or B) An individual with absolutely no experience in the field and more lawsuits on his hands currently than there are states. Yes, I went with A). In conjunction with these major professional disparities, many declared Donald Trump's campaign to be the worst in U.S. history, and Hillary Clinton had a fairly healthy lead in the polls leading up to election day. So, what happened? What went wrong?

Like I said, there's plenty of blame to go around. Hillary Clinton had been dominating in the polls prior to James Comey's big announcement, but while he definitely put a stop to Clinton's momentum, it's difficult to ultimately say lost the election for her. Bernie Sanders certainly had some harsh words for Clinton during the Democratic Primaries, but he joined ship when the race was over and emphatically told his supporters to elect her as the next president. So again, he and his supporters may have played a minor role in Tuesday's results, but it's difficult to pin all the blame on them. Two parties I think need to take more responsibility for this upset are Democratic leaders and Democratic voters. Democratic leaders took too many votes for granted. Instead of focusing on what Hillary Clinton would do to help progress this nation and improve people's lives, they focused most of their attention going negative on Donald Trump. They thought this would result in record turnout among Latinos. They took other minorities' votes for granted as well, blacks in particular. Instead of making certain they upheld what's been known as the "blue wall," they took several such states as certain victories and spent more money in typically red states, which stayed red on Tuesday. The strategy of Democratic leaders failed on multiple fronts and that played a definite factor in the disappointing results on Tuesday night. Democratic voters have to share some of the blame too. As of today, just 54% of eligible voters partook in this election, which leaves 46% who didn't vote. Donald Trump didn't provide a voting surge for the Republican Party this year. Democrats simply didn't show up to support their candidate, Hillary Clinton. Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee, earned 60,933,504 votes, falling short to President Barack Obama, who earned 65,915,795 votes. To this point, Donald Trump has earned 60,265,858 votes, almost 700,000 fewer than Romney, while Hillary Clinton has earned 60,839.922 votes, about 5 million fewer than Obama. Democrats can point their fingers wherever they'd like, but when it all comes down to it, we only have ourselves to blame. Let's use this as a learning moment and make sure this never happens again.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"