Thom is the most articulate liberal along with Noam Chomsky as to why the disaffected leftists, anti-war liberals and those disgusted with HRC's propensity to favor the rich and powerful over the poor and powerless should hold their collective noses and vote against Trump by voting for the Democratic candidate not Jill Fields or the crazy Libertarian Party. Thom's clear thinking, well spoken defense of the Clinton campaign is compelling. He has even convinced me. Though I am not in a swing state and still am planning to vote Green, if I were in a swing state, I would vote the anti-Trump ticket. But I am not the one who needs convincing. So why does Clinton contiunue to "sink like a stone" in the polls? It is not so complicated. Many decisions that humans make are emotionally based not logically based. The simple fact is she does not reach most people emotionally. In her speeches she connects to the "UGoGirl" 1970 feminists. They respond to her with emotion and enthusiasm, as they have during the 24 years of her endless campaign to be the first woman President. However, they are not enough. She needs to connect to Union employees, anti-war leftists, egalitarian idealists, those fighting for racial justice and most importantly people crushed by both party's tilt to the right and both party's elites mutual support for Neo-conservative economics as well as the Neo-conservative foriegn policy. These are the voters most likely to be taken in by Trump as they are alienated from both parties and he presents himself as the ultimate out-sider. Hiliary on the other hand appears to be tone deaf to their needs and concerns. Elizabeth Warren aka Pochahantis served up the Wells Fargo CEO on a Tee for HRC to score points with group. All she had to do was support Warren and emotionally and enthusiatically call for the prosecution of the Wells Fargo Plutocrats and the rest of the corrupt Wall Street community who have skated away Scott free under Obama's "too big to fail, too big to jail" policy. Yet, she passed. On foriegn policy where Bernie did not spend quite enough time exploring her pro war and even criminal foriegn policy moves as Secretary of State, she calls for a "consensus" foriegn policy that the Republicans agree on. That is what we already have. How could she be so oblivious to this? Does she think Ralph Nadar or Noam Chomsky have crafted our positions in the Middle East? I would say the Bush-Obama plan goes on without question or debate. Here again she has a chance to inspire the anti-war left by calling for an end to the "Drone Wars" which are probably war crimes and to begin the process of completely withdrawing our troops from the mid-east, WWII Europe and Asia. Those wars are over. Time to leave.
Clinton's choice for VP was designed not to inspire but to protect and win Virginia, kind of a single issue VP with zero charisma. Maybe she did not want to get lost in the glow of Sanders or Warren but she could have gotten someone who could give a speech that would motivate the above groups. But no.
Finally her surrogates endless attacks on Trump's supporters as offal from the trailer parks is costing her votes right now. Bill Mayer, Sam Seder, Norman Goldman, the MSNBC crew and others seem to relish pointing out how dumb and gullible the Trump supporters are. If you want to do this fine. Do it with class the way Bob Dylan did a half century ago with his song, "Only A Pawn in Their Game". Just play the song and say it is as appropriate today as it was then. Don't attack voters who are hurting for screaming very loudly: "I am sick of this, enough.". And to make matters worse the same crew delights in calling Bernie supportes who are not planning to vote for HRC all kinds of names. Possibly they are ignorant and only hurting themselves, but say it in a way that reaches them. Hilliary's surrogates all seem to be laying the ground work for blaming Bernie and his supporters when she is defeated. Yet, Bernie threw himself on the sword for her and got nothing in return. Clinton in return for supporting Obama got named Secretary of State and truthfully she did not help him and he did not need her at that point.
Time for Clinton to stop the bleeding or she will lose big to Trump, and she may be the only Democratic candidate actually capable of accomplishing that. Bernie or E. Warren would be ten points ahead now. She needs to stop blaming voters for her problems and give them a reason to support her and charge them with positive emotions. Her moves to the right are big mistakes. Those Republicans she courted are now all supporting Trump. The few who were architets of the gulf war not withstanding as Trump blew the whistle on the Republican con as no Democrat could and earned the eternal anger of the Karl Roves and Bushes. But the rest of the Republicans have predictably fallen in line.
Clinton is in big trouble and has herself and her advisors to blame, not Bernie supporters who are 21 years old and voting for the first time.