Even if republicans did harp on the Clinton loss more than democrats– something I seriously doubt…
John Obvious

From what I’ve seen, the Clinton stuff has largely died down on the Democrat side after the initial reaction to the election, but it could simply be that I’m not as deep into the Clinton-support circles as some people are (as I mentioned to Scott, I’m not a Clinton supporter, myself).

The issue that I have with the smug Republicans is that they’re shutting down dialog on actual, legitimate concerns of people from all walks of life on the basis of those people being “whiny snowflakes” who are upset that Clinton didn’t win, and it’s always these people (the smug Republicans) who brought up Clinton to begin with in these discussions, completely ignoring the criticisms and concerns of the people to which they’re responding.

From what I’ve seen in the sources I tend to frequent, most citizens on the Democrat side, after their initial shock reaction over the election result, has been focused on where things went wrong, where they failed, etc., or criticisms and concerns with Trump’s handling of his position (without mention of any Clinton, as they’re critiquing Trump on his own standing).

Actionable, polished solutions and whatnot haven’t come up yet that I’ve seen (though I may have missed them, as I don’t follow them that closely), and it certainly hasn’t trickled up into the politicians, but most of that simply takes time (there’s the usual “get out and vote in the local and early stuff!” but that to me is pretty boilerplate, I’m referring to things more along the lines of campaigns for new people, ousting the lame ducks, bill proposals, etc, which need time to hammer out).

That said, I don’t disagree that the politicians and the more extreme end of the Democrat side are doing harm and are arguably doing more harm than good. The entire atmosphere of this last election cycle seemed to have a polarizing, extreme-generating effect, and the Democrats were not innocent in it.

Also, while it doesn’t surprise me that there are some who support Chelsea running for president, from what I can find, it seems pretty small, and the response to such rumors have been mixed, at best (latest news has “not running” one day and “leave door open for campaign” the next). I even found a piece from WaPo of all places that says the best thing for her regarding politics is to disappear. So, I’m not inclined to see that as a “groundswell of support,” though it wouldn’t surprise me if those supporters are doing it for the reasons you’ve mentioned. While four years is certainly a long time, I think it would take a lot of change on her part to really be able to gain any traction as a serious presidential candidate, and I’ve seen three or four other women with more grassroots backing than Chelsea, and have shown to be able to stand or fall on their own merits.

A single golf clap? Or a long standing ovation?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.