Why did the Democrats lose? Each analyst, columnist and expert reads the results and expresses good points, many of which are found in statistics of the election.

A compelling, overarching reason for the Democratic loss is their static view of the electorate and issues. The Democrats constructed a model, like a model guiding stock market trades. The Democrats enunciated the model and gave it support at every opportunity. The pre-election polls indicated the model was sound; the Democrats were favored.

The model included philosophy as well as philosophy of governing; where to spend money. It included psychology, how to react to things (insults), what to say, how to contact the electorate, etc. The model representing the theory of philosophy and the psychology was imprecise and incomplete. Bless her, Hillary Clinton stuck with the model.

What the model also overlooked was Hillary Clinton’s effectiveness as a candidate. At the beginning of the campaign the candidate and the Democrats knew of her flaws and ingrained behaviors. Hillary is bookish; her speech can be elevated to obscurity and incomprehension – she spoke in complete sentences; her movements and motions before a crowd can seem defensive. Hillary Clinton did improve as a campaigner, but she also lapsed into more familiar ways. There are things – Certainly if talk is in complete sentences, but talk in short sentences. Never say Motor Vehicle; say car. Use the Anglo-Saxon side of the language rather than the French (Latin). The grammar is Anglo-Saxon. Mark Twain also observed, At a dime a word, I never use metropolis when I can use city. [Note Metropolis is used in cartoons today.]

Hillary Clinton also had a public record that was known to the American people. Whether they believed she did some or all the things listed, her ratings on trustworthiness were very low. She never got a positive trustworthy rating, even in comparison to her opponent. She carried that load through the election but lost to another New Yorker whom Americans also did not trust. In the end Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate beaten by another flawed candidate.

Analysts, columnists and experts don’t talk about the best candidates. I am not referring to Bernie Sanders, who was incredibly sincere and seemingly honest in his campaign. He spoke well and had enthusiastic crowds, but the Democrats would have suffered the same fate. Bernie was more to the Left and easily placed there. The Democrats who came to Trump would not have gone elsewhere in large numbers.

A Sanders nomination, along with Trump, would have brought forth a real third party – Michael Bloomberg. He had the revenues, he had the ability, he had the resume, he had the ability and he had conducted polling. He could have taken the middle of America. Second Amendment people complain about him, but in California and especially in Nevada, his local, small-step gun control measures won in referenda. Bloomberg did not run.

The Democrats lost their best choice, Joe Biden. Certainly, he was part of the Obama Administration; he had that baggage. But he likes people and attracts crowds; he seems openly friendly. Despite a long public record, he had no glaring embarrassments to bite him.

Sanders’ supporters believed if Hillary Clinton were dropped or were rejected in the Winter 2016, Bernie would have gotten the nomination. Head to head with Biden, it is likely Sanders would have lost.

This speculation over candidates and each of their strengths is why columnists, analysts and experts forego looking at the Democratic nominee. Nobody wants to believe that Hillary Clinton lost one or two-tenths of a percent of the vote in Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin based upon perceptions of her earlier public life. The percentage of the vote lost in each state may be narrower.

Now, reporters, analysts and experts are coming from the woodwork for their year-end analyses. THIS IS WHY IT HAPPENED. In The Big Short, Michael Lewis, quotes a trader who sums up his trade and the after reaction from the financial community:
“I must say that I have been astonished by how many people now say they saw the subprime meltdown, the commodities boom and the fading economy coming…And if they don’t always say it in so many words, they do it by appearing on TV or extending interviews to journalists, stridently projecting their own confidence in what will happen next. And surely, these people would never have the nerve to tell what’s happening next, if they were so horribly wrong on what happened last, right? (p. 246)
Guess what journalists, experts, analysis’s and columnists are doing today, all without doing much thinking, doing no research, doing no analyses and failing to be trustworthy and honest. They’re just moving their mouthes because that’s all these jokers can do!

Looking at the entire election and asking about the substance and method to convey it, plus scrutinizing the candidates. is important. The whole thing did not need changing. Hillary Clinton won a majority of the popular vote; she came close to victory. Democrats now cannot turn off her voters. But the message of the Democratic Party should be more hopeful. For example,
the problem with Obamacare is Bill Clinton is correct: It’s crazy to double costs and cut in half services provided. As costs got worse over the years, the Democratic Party never announced solutions to address the issue. They stuck with the model; they adhered to theory. They worshipped Health Insurance figureheads that might be idolized. No one in Congress proposed anything resembling healthcare – paying for health insurance does not mean one has healthcare. Happily one roadblock is removed in January 2017. Old-timer, Harry Reid was a deceitful, detestful man whose slime trail leads to the flames of Hell.


The oil comes from the fruit of trees. When ancient man could not make wine, beer or spirits from the liquid of the fruit, a woman came along and learned, this is good for cooking. Now, the Olive Oil world should be investigated.

The Internet says stuff, once cherished but made overseas, is being debased but is still labeled as fabulous Olive Oil. Those Internet writers do not tell what is wrong with premium olive oil from Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Turkey and other countries. They cannot attest to an old, or an odd olive, changing the taste, smoothness or quality of the product. It is inferred that the octane is now 20 rather than 90, but nobody gives any laboratory evidence. Instead, they give their preferred procedures.

Pick up a bottle of speciality olive oil from California, United States of America: “My country tis a vie…” There are all sorts of dates on the bottle: Date Olives were picked; date squashed, date processed, date frozen, date bottled, used by date. Each date has a particular function and adds to the flavor or quality. No one will tell when the THC is added, a well known ingredient like the gasoline additive, Petrox, to put a tiger in the tank. After using California Olive Oil, no one cares what the food tastes like. Any food will do.

Because the product comes from California and results from the finest agricultural techniques, olive oil in the state is funded and hyped by people writing the Internet articles. It is like the old days when hippies argued that brown rice was better than anything else. No one can say what the finest agricultural techniques are, or that the new product of technology is truly better than the oil fashioned stuff, made with millennia of experience, or why an old olive tree is slimier than a new one. Why not have bits of fertilizer in the morning’s milk? That’s better than drinking milk that’s pasteurized. And users of the California olive oil pay super premium prices, at least $70 a gallon.

This olive oil problem arose when giant, greedy corporations without name, honor or reputation began taking over growers, producers and sellers. Specifically Michael Corleone announced, “The Corleone family has sold all its interests in the olive oil business.” The Corleone family had a stake in producing and selling the best product around. They were honorable and maintained their reputation. If they didn’t do so, they knew their goose was cooked. They were also a family and of a people who would like higher prices for their product, but they knew the market. So the Corleone family never charged excessive prices, ($70.00 a gallon) like they were principals of a pharmaceutical company, selling at excessive prices all the while degrading the competition.


The improbability this election presented was Trump’s victory after using offensive statements, jests and situations in today’s America. Not only did it seem Trump said everything wrong, but he frequently did everything wrong. Seldom did he say he was sorry but heart-felt apologies were ridiculous. It was obvious that no one believed Trump’s sincerity; they learned later that Trump had done or said something else which was more grossly offensive. And in the end everyone wondered, with the same question: How could this man have become president?

There are two reasons why Americans excused Trump’s language and behavior. In the current culture in words and action, a lot of Trump’s words and actions, are heard and seen everywhere, not just locker rooms. There is an acceptance of them uttering and sensing, hearing and sometimes experiencing. But do people actually engage in those actions, outside of TV? Most Americans don’t like to realize that someone might actually do gross, rude, obscene and criminal acts. Those words and phrases are part of the general vocabulary, confronting people every day. When saying a woman bleeds from her eyes “or wherever,” there has to be Halloween costumes worse than that; there may be more costumes among “undead outfits.” Movies and TV are worse. I’ve seen characters (players) that have no skin – it’s just blood.

The background drumbeat of words, once shocking, are now incorporated into the vernacular as verbalizations or major restatements of society. There is no refinement. It is a greater denigration leading to decadence. Early in life Americans are subject to the torments of personal abuse. Before puberty some girls are being destroyed; some are called sluts by classmates. They are critiqued by body size, brain size (head shape I suppose) and bra size. Many of those comments has been present throughout the post-elementary school experience. Words will be said. Now any infraction raises the cry, bully. Not every statement is one of a bully; the heart and soul of the speaker may not be in it. But no one knows, and Americans must learn that not every one went to the Ivy League and has manners, and took speaking lessons, mastering something George Orwell called newspeak.

Words, meanings and insinuations do carry too far. Being vulgar, boorish, uncouth is not penalized now. Being loud, aggressive and ignorant is accepted. Gentleness, understanding and diplomacy are weaknesses. Firmness, responsibility and social obligations (once known as public virtue) are obsolete. Fact, reason, wisdom and judgment are eschewed. Displays of emotions and drama entertain but fail to substitute for politics – policies, legislation and putting words into action. During the election of 2016 that is what Americans saw, and that is the choice they had:
When people want to give Trump a chance or they claim Trump wasn’t truly elected, it is on these points, his manner of appealing as an entertainer, making emotional appeals and producing phony dramas. That way forward should unsettle all Americans. In our politics we have learned to take concrete steps into the future.

It is unlikely Trump will differ much from Obama. During its beginning months, a sentence of policy emerged from Obama: A crisis is a terrible thing to waste. It is not clear that Trump will abandon his campaigning ways (anymore than Obama did). Americans seem stuck with what is presented to us in a semantic conundrum: “Versions are released for the people from above and can be altered the very next day. There is no reliable criterion of truth apart from what is the declared truth at any moment. Thus, the lie in fact, becomes the truth, or at any rate the distinction between the truth and lies, in the ordinary sense of the words, disappears. This is a great triumph … in the sphere of knowledge: to the extent that it succeeds in demolishing the notion of truth, it cannot be accused of lying.” Volkogonov, Dmitri, Autopsy for an Empire, The Free Press, N.Y. 1998, p. 393.

If I were in the Democratic Party camp and had money, I would spend on facts, reason, judgment and wisdom. I would fund legal research on one issue within the English speaking world: Conflicts of Interest. A couple of thousand law review articles written by summer’s end should provide enough of a foundation. If these facts within Trump’s administration might already present themselves; the Democrats must be totally prepared: Dump a thousand cases on Trump and the Republicans showing a conflict of interest. When the next conflict of interest arises, dump another thousand cases.

Trump owns a so-called luxury hotel in Washington DC. Should any department or agency of the United States government patronize that hotel while Trump is in the Presidency? No. Why? Conflicts of Interest. Democrats should keep a list of who uses that hotel, and what favors and meeting those people get from the Trump administration. And journalists, always short on research and shorter on leg work, will have to be ready. Will anyone step up and review actions of Trump’s actions as he tries to be President and run his businesses. Some of that research should have been done during the 2016 campaign. Trump will claim Executive Privilege, and the Democrats following Obama’s lead should agree, believe nothing should be investigated. Democrats approved of Obama’s claiming Executive Privilege went beyond his person and the White House staff; entire agencies and Departments fell under Executive Privilege protections.

Perhaps, the Democrats should insist a special prosecutor be appointed. Oddly enough, a special prosecutor was the same action Republicans proposed to investigate issues among Democrats. Obama, and the Democrats refused. If Americans want to return to fact, reason, judgment and wisdom, they must start in a place where those traits are prized and used. Otherwise, the country will receive no solace for four years: Language will become more intemperate and more demeaning with Ivy League newspeak, or schoolyard trash-talk.