3. Trump brought together enough of GOP coalition to win & Clinton's lost enough of Dem coalition for same reason: Clinton's unpopularity
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet
4. I had read articles making plausible arguments about Clinton's weaknesses as a candidate like this from
@karpmjhttps://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/02/karp-bernie-sanders-electability-clinton-republicans-trump-election/ …2 replies 14 retweets 111 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
5. This from
@willwilkinson was also very prophetic:http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2016/05/29/why-trump-might-win/ …3 replies 19 retweets 109 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
6. I had tended to discount such articles because, based on 2008/2012, I assumed Dems would run super competent campaign (GOTV etc).
8 replies 11 retweets 111 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
7. In Dem primaries I preferred Sanders for political reasons but thought (wrongly) that Clinton had better shot at winning presidency
24 replies 15 retweets 165 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
8. Connected: I had doubts about Clinton's strategy of pursuing moderate Republican voters, which I voiced but should have foregrounded
15 replies 13 retweets 109 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
Jeet Heer Retweeted Glenn Greenwald
9.
@ggreenwald is right on journalistic responsibility here but the proviso is 2016 presented a special challenge:https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/856166415405076481 …Jeet Heer added,
5 replies 13 retweets 58 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet @ggreenwald
10. American journalism has framework for evaluating 2 party races where both candidates roughly equivalent in qualities. 2016 not like that
7 replies 40 retweets 138 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
11. Clinton was flawed but no more than Romney or Obama or McCain. Trump was off-the-charts terrible (corruption, racism, misogyny etc).
20 replies 191 retweets 630 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Who did you support in 2004?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.