So why did Donald Trump win? Flipside to the Clinton/lose thread

[zinfamous]

What nonsense is this? Trump had no positions. Whatever position he had one day was not only gone the next, but he would deny ever having had the position he had the day before.

look man, you can wrap your skull around this for the next four years and never get a real answer about this question, or you can seek to understand what people were actually responding to and what they feared/needed in their lives.

This election was an ass-kicking to the democratic party and the way it has systematically abandoned its core voters. Bitch about people "voting against themselves" all you want, but it won't unmake this election and it won't put the party in a better place to actually address the real, living, people that just put a fascist in charge of the most powerful country in the world as a big F you in response to their very real feelings of abandonment. Or well, dems could have just elected Bernie who actually talked directly to these people. woops.

at the same time--the only option forward now is to see what the Donald brings and if he can only mildly fuck us or who the hell knows--maybe become the Jesus he always claimed he was.

He won this thing, and deserves the people's patience to see if this wild experiment in chaos was a good idea. I think he has ~1-3 months before shit gets real.

I hate the man and everything he stands for, but so it goes.

 

[tynopik]

Ah yes, the good old call to civilized discourse.

Anti-gay activist: "Gay people are pedophiles that should be jailed and exiled from society."

Pro-gay activist:"Good sir, I respect your opinion but allow me to offer a counterpoint."

haha, nice dream world

now, let's look at what actually happened:

california voter: gays can do whatever they want, but I don't see why the government should be subsidizing them
gay activist: you evil bigot, we're going to chase you down and harass you and harass all your friends and harass your company and make sure you never work in the industry again

cake baker: I can't in good conscience write a message that disagrees with my beliefs
gay activist: there is no such thing as freedom of conscience, by not writing a message supporting my beliefs, you are actually breaking the law and we will bring the full force of the government down on you to destroy your business

 

[zinfamous]

So he's describing something that doesn't exist? I've never met a single person that thinks that way.

again, not the point. You're confusing people's perceptions with what you want their perceptions to be

 

[fskimospy]

haha, nice dream world

now, let's look at what actually happened:

california voter: gays can do whatever they want, but I don't see why the government should be subsidizing them
gay activist: you evil bigot, we're going to chase you down and harass you and harass all your friends and harass your company and make sure you never work in the industry again

As someone who lived in California when Prop 8 was on the ballot you are the one living in a dream world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gathering_Storm_(advertisement)

California aside, if you need examples of anti-gay activists saying literally everything I mentioned let me know as examples are easy to find.

 

[fskimospy]

again, not the point. You're confusing people's perceptions with what you want their perceptions to be

This makes no sense.

 

[highland145]

Was I talking about you when I said 'primarily funded'? 85% of the people participating in the marketplaces get subsidies. There are some people that do not, but to say that was a 1:1 ratio is off by literally millions of people.

Where do those fees come from excluding my case?

 

[realibrad]

What nonsense is this? Trump had no positions. Whatever position he had one day was not only gone the next, but he would deny ever having had the position he had the day before.

There were but you all missed it.

His position was that crime would be reduced by closing up the borders. Not true when looking at the data, but you all cried "RACIST".

He wants to end free trade because he thinks it will bring back jobs. This is not supported by basic economics, but Hillary dropped support of the trade deal because people dont understand economics.

Trump said he wanted to spend more on infrastructure than Hillary. Almost not talked about at all. Considering he is on the Right, that should be hypocrisy. Instead all anyone would talk about is him grabbing people by the pussy.

Trump said he wanted to ban all Muslims from coming to the country until we could figure out what was going on. The plan is stupid and would do nothing to help, but he attempted to appeal to something that many in the US fear. Islamic terrorism is not that big of a deal in the US, but it is a big concern globally. Instead of focusing on why that is bad and stupid, Racist again full stop.

He had issue and nobody went after them, they went after him. So, not nonsense.

*edit.

Look at how you responded. I broke it down issue by issue. You dismissed it all just to attack him personally. Your hatred blinded you to what was happening.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

So he's describing something that doesn't exist? I've never met a single person that thinks that way.

lol seriously, you've never met a single person that dismissed another person's or population's opinion on the account of it being uninformed, rural, uneducated, etc?

 

[agent00f]

Going to try to begin the introspection now. Particularly if you were a Clinton voter, what do you think the top things that motivated folks to vote for Trump? Be honest and give them the same credit you'd want them to give you for purity of motives instead of just unleashing with a stream of "they're just misogynists and racists, all 59+ million of them."

http://waitbutwhy.com/2016/11/its-going-to-be-okay.html

It's pretty fucking obvious why he won: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/so-why-did-hillary-lose.2491407/page-13#post-38566901
given he was the only one smart enough to pay attention to the actual studies on what americans respond to.

I bet the liberals making fun of him for being stupid and not doing research must feel pretty dumb right now that it's undeniable he got the most important issue right, something his entire party in their rush to avoid the stigma of racism got wrong and kept losing before as a result.

The other main reason why trump won is the reality that conservatism is reliably tied to loyalty, and when it came down to it they turned up to pull for their team no matter how bad the outlook, no matter how much they professed belief in jesus and their choice was a degenerate, and the democrats didn't. Ever wonder how people that mentally subpar didn't die out from evolutionary forces; there's why.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

look man, you can wrap your skull around this for the next four years and never get a real answer about this question, or you can seek to understand what people were actually responding to and what they feared/needed in their lives.

This election was an ass-kicking to the democratic party and the way it has systematically abandoned its core voters. Bitch about people "voting against themselves" all you want, but it won't unmake this election and it won't put the party in a better place to actually address the real, living, people that just put a fascist in charge of the most powerful country in the world as a big F you in response to their very real feelings of abandonment. Or well, dems could have just elected Bernie who actually talked directly to these people. woops.

agreed, I was going to like this post but I don't want to get cut.

The Democratic party has become the party of non workers and wealthy/highly educated workers. A big chunk of the middle is missing.
Personally I am very disappointed about the amount of big money Hillary attracted, our Democratic Representatives not speaking more forcefully about no more trade deals because god forbid you say something bad about your President. They have also completely failed at improving the ACA/Obamacare. I agree the Republicans are being difficult and childish about it but thats what it is figure out a plan to get them involved instead of shelving everything because it could be overturned.

 

[tynopik]

California aside, if you need examples of anti-gay activists saying literally everything I mentioned let me know as examples are easy to find.

i'm not going to deny you can find examples of people saying anything, but they typically don't have any power and can be ignored

what you're ignoring is the behavior of gay activists. Saying they merely engage in 'polite disagreement' is ludicrous. But beyond the tone or content of their message is the power they're wielding. They are using their power to crush dissent, which is quite disturbing.

 

[fskimospy]

There were but you all missed it.

His position was that crime would be reduced by closing up the borders. Not true when looking at the data, but you all cried "RACIST".

He wants to end free trade because he thinks it will bring back jobs. This is not supported by basic economics, but Hillary dropped support of the trade deal because people dont understand economics.

Trump said he wanted to spend more on infrastructure than Hillary. Almost not talked about at all. Considering he is on the Right, that should be hypocrisy. Instead all anyone would talk about is him grabbing people by the pussy.

Trump said he wanted to ban all Muslims from coming to the country until we could figure out what was going on. The plan is stupid and would do nothing to help, but he attempted to appeal to something that many in the US fear. Islamic terrorism is not that big of a deal in the US, but it is a big concern globally. Instead of focusing on why that is bad and stupid, Racist again full stop.

He had issue and nobody went after them, they went after him. So, not nonsense.

*edit.

Look at how you responded. I broke it down issue by issue. You dismissed it all just to attack him personally. Your hatred blinded you to what was happening.

Literally none of those things are positions that can be attacked because he never elaborated on any of them. People repeatedly tried to attack him on those positions and he would simply respond with 'no, the way I'm going to do it will work and be great'. When asked how, he wouldn't say anything more. For example he didn't want to end free trade, he wanted to get a magical 'better deal'. What was this better deal? Nobody knows. As for infrastructure, why would liberals attack him on something they support? I could go on and on.

I mean just look at what you're saying. Go look at his website and try to pull up ANY specifics on any of these proposals. There's really only one with any specifics to it and that's his tax plan. What did people do then? Attack him on his policy, not personally.

I don't know how you got duped in all this, but it's obvious to anyone who even attempts to look into his proposals that they didn't exist in any way that could be debated.

 

[agent00f]

agreed, I was going to like this post but I don't want to get cut.

The Democratic party has become the party of non workers and wealthy/highly educated workers. A big chunk of the middle is missing.
Personally I am very disappointed about the amount of big money Hillary attracted, our Democratic Representatives not speaking more forcefully about no more trade deals because god forbid you say something bad about your President. They have also completely failed at improving the ACA/Obamacare. I agree the Republicans are being difficult and childish about it but thats what it is figure out a plan to get them involved instead of shelving everything because it could be overturned.

Remember those times when conservatives defend against the reality of racism by claiming there are racists in the democratic ranks, too, particular blue collar union types? Well, they're completely right about that, and all credit to trump for seizing on it by making it the central plank of his strategy.

Interesting that for each their own reasons, establishment conservatives *and* liberals (you know, pretty much everyone here) don't want to give trump his dues for hitting this one spot on. The former arguably more amusing since they lost badly by failing to ramp up the birtherism & shit when trump found the solution for them.

 

[realibrad]

Literally none of those things are positions that can be attacked because he never elaborated on any of them. People repeatedly tried to attack him on those positions and he would simply respond with 'no, the way I'm going to do it will work and be great'. When asked how, he wouldn't say anything more. For example he didn't want to end free trade, he wanted to get a magical 'better deal'. What was this better deal? Nobody knows. As for infrastructure, why would liberals attack him on something they support? I could go on and on.

I mean just look at what you're saying. Go look at his website and try to pull up ANY specifics on any of these proposals. There's really only one with any specifics to it and that's his tax plan. What did people do then? Attack him on his policy, not personally.

I don't know how you got duped in all this, but it's obvious to anyone who even attempts to look into his proposals that they didn't exist in any way that could be debated.

You are going to be too upset to understand it now. Just remember, I was not for Trump and I am not for Trump. Hillary would have likely been better.

Yes, he had position. Even if you believe that he never said anything that could be questioned, that itself could be questioned. Not sure why you think it would have been needed to get him to admit it, because its the supporters that need to be reached.

See, those on the Left believe that the supporters on the Right were not thinking and just would vote for anyone with an R. For a lot, that is true but that is the same on the D side. He did not win the election with those votes alone. He got a lot of people in the middle for all the reason I gave you. Because your side was so rabid and hated him so much, you took the bate and attacked him. Again, even if you think he had no policy positions, then you should have focused on that. Instead it was all personal attacks that people just dismissed. They dismissed it because the Left exaggerated anything and everything.

 

[agent00f]

Literally none of those things are positions that can be attacked because he never elaborated on any of them. People repeatedly tried to attack him on those positions and he would simply respond with 'no, the way I'm going to do it will work and be great'. When asked how, he wouldn't say anything more. For example he didn't want to end free trade, he wanted to get a magical 'better deal'. What was this better deal? Nobody knows. As for infrastructure, why would liberals attack him on something they support? I could go on and on.

I mean just look at what you're saying. Go look at his website and try to pull up ANY specifics on any of these proposals. There's really only one with any specifics to it and that's his tax plan. What did people do then? Attack him on his policy, not personally.

I don't know how you got duped in all this, but it's obvious to anyone who even attempts to look into his proposals that they didn't exist in any way that could be debated.

Funny how people determined not days ago on just how unsophisticated these folks are are now concocting rather elaborate arguments/excuses to explain that situation.

Turns out trump knew to keep it simple for simple folks. Smart guy.

 

[SP33Demon]

Ah yes, the good old call to civilized discourse.

Anti-gay activist: "Gay people are pedophiles that should be jailed and exiled from society."

Pro-gay activist:"Good sir, I respect your opinion but allow me to offer a counterpoint."

And yes, anti-gay activists have frequently made exactly those arguments and have codified them into law in some cases. On what planet should that sort of behavior be met with anything but contempt?



The ACA is primarily funded through taxes on the rich and fees on the insurance industry. Your kids aren't factoring into that.

The ACA is funded by the American people which is why it's going away in the first 6 months of Trump's presidency.

 

[SP33Demon]

I don't buy that, mainly because most people saw through the email releases for what it was: mostly nothing.

I think the truth about the Bernie supporters abandoning her was simply what you said previously: Trump spoke to them directly in the places where they lived and where they actually beat Hillary in the primaries: PA, WI, MI.

I didn't believe that enough Bernie supporters would easily move over to a fascist, but they did, and I don't blame them for it. The dems and especially Hillary are at fault for not listening to/taking them seriously regarding their real issues. Trump wisely capitalized off of it despite what all of his advisers told him to do "Ignore those states, because she already won them." "Nah, fuck you," he said, "These guys are going to listen to what I say because she hasn't shown up at their doorstep in months! She's complacent and they'll listen."

These were the deciding voters in the end (Hillary would not have needed FL, NC, Ohio if she just won those states that she was supposed to win) and Trump shrewdly stole them away. Bully for him. Those people made up their minds about this long before wikileaks and, quite frankly, nothing about emails was going to help them get jobs.

The wikileaks were mostly nothing? No way. www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com

And what about Hillary AND Trump meeting directly with their Superpacs? Both should have been disqualified just off of that alone. What the hell is the FEC doing? Jordan from Young Turks explained it well:
https://youtu.be/igBYZuRHcYg

 

[VRAMdemon]

The baggage that Clinton brought to the party wasn't a big deal... to Democrats. It was most certainly a huge deal to a lot of other people who didn't like Bill, and see her as a continuation of what they perceive as their corrupt behavior.

Trump certainly brought his own baggage - nobody's disputing that. But what he brought was baggage that was out in the open - verbal diarrhea, a certain 1960s style caveman mentality, and a refusal to really give a shit what the polls or media said. To a lot of people, that implies an inherent unsuitability for the presidency, but to others, it's stuff that can be overlooked; a lot of people DO have that 1960s style caveman mentality, especially some 50-something and older voters.

What it boiled down to as far as I can tell, is which candidate's baggage was more easily overlooked by voters. This wasn't an election of issues, or even of parties. It was an election of the candidates themselves, and I'm not sure Clinton realized that, as she ran a campaign of a more conventional sort, (at first) where the candidate is sort of like the pointy tip of their party's legislative spear, while Trump ran his in a totally self-centered, non-party focused way. So everyone looked at the people, and not at the parties, policy proposals, etc.Trump's celebrity and bombast riled them up, and every time a celebrity or city newspaper or TV journalist pointed out how awful, racist, misogynistic, inexperienced and fraudulent he was, his supports become more and more determined. It was a big FU to the elites.

A huge chunk of the population, they felt like the Clintons' reputation for being above the law, perceived dishonesty and shady character was a far worse thing than Trump's faults, and harder to overlook. It came down to what people found more odious- arrogant dishonesty (how Clinton is perceived) or being obnoxious, narcissistic and mercurial (how Trump is perceived), and people found Trump to be at worst, more acceptable than Clinton in this regard.

Yes, running someone who wasn't the most hated Democrat in American would have helped.

 

[Jaskalas]

Have you watched Trump? He is the protectionist\nationalist guy. Not a free market advocate. Hillary was for free trade candidate. Bernie was also for economic protection\nationalism.

I think this trend is the really scary part about this election. I suspect in 2020 democrats will also run an economic nationalist. It will hurt our economy long term.

That's a reflex from being harmed these past 30-40+ years.
If "economic nationalist" is not a solution, then what is? One way or another an economic revolution is needed / is going to happen.

 

[IAteYourMother]

The bigger question now for Democrats is if they can get back those voters in the Rust Belt, or if this will continue to be a trend over the decades. As democrats continue to urbanize, the Democratic Party will continue to be at a major electoral disadvantage, at least until Texas/Arizona flip. Or maybe this was just because the Democrats cleared their primary to run the most polarizing establishment politician of all time, and any other run of the mill Democrat would've won.

Also, I'm not sure how this country will afford to pay for a wall, deportations, massive infrastructure improvements while simultaneously cutting taxes massively and causing huge economic upheaval in the wake of renegotiated trade agreements that would theoretically bring manufacturing back home.

 

[Indus]

I do blame Sander's supporters. absolutely.

And you're an idiot along with myself for one reason. We forgot history. Those who forget history are doomed to relive it.

Hillary Clinton was an absolutely terrible matchup for Donald Trump. In May when every poll that was released showed Bernie crushing Trump, but Hillary consistently struggling against him. Time and time and time again, polls showed Hillary struggling against Trump. Instead of taking the time to truly understand them, expert pundits and pollsters opted to repeatedly dismiss the validity or methodology of those polls. Clearly, polls like the LA Times/USC poll, which consistently showed Trump ahead, but was widely dismissed as junk science as a result, were on to something.

The Clinton voters in the primaries didn't understand they were gonna get "scholonged" with her again.

 

[agent00f]

The baggage that Clinton brought to the party wasn't a big deal... to Democrats. It was most certainly a huge deal to a lot of other people who didn't like Bill, and see her as a continuation of what they perceive as their corrupt behavior.

Trump certainly brought his own baggage - nobody's disputing that. But what he brought was baggage that was out in the open - verbal diarrhea, a certain 1960s style caveman mentality, and a refusal to really give a shit what the polls or media said. To a lot of people, that implies an inherent unsuitability for the presidency, but to others, it's stuff that can be overlooked; a lot of people DO have that 1960s style caveman mentality, especially some 50-something and older voters.

What it boiled down to as far as I can tell, is which candidate's baggage was more easily overlooked by voters. This wasn't an election of issues, or even of parties. It was an election of the candidates themselves, and I'm not sure Clinton realized that, as she ran a campaign of a more conventional sort, (at first) where the candidate is sort of like the pointy tip of their party's legislative spear, while Trump ran his in a totally self-centered, non-party focused way. So everyone looked at the people, and not at the parties, policy proposals, etc.Trump's celebrity and bombast riled them up, and every time a celebrity or city newspaper or TV journalist pointed out how awful, racist, misogynistic, inexperienced and fraudulent he was, his supports become more and more determined. It was a big FU to the elites.

A huge chunk of the population, they felt like the Clintons' reputation for being above the law, perceived dishonesty and shady character was a far worse thing than Trump's faults, and harder to overlook. It came down to what people found more odious- arrogant dishonesty (how Clinton is perceived) or being obnoxious, narcissistic and mercurial (how Trump is perceived), and people found Trump to be at worst, more acceptable than Clinton in this regard.

Yes, running someone who wasn't the most hated Democrat in American would have helped.

Let's not pretend this is about "(dis)honesty" when this is trump we're talking about here. When people are blatantly hypocritical it reveals what they actual consider irrelevant, ie simply using to rationalize a decision or such made on another basis.

Eg. tell your wife you bought a certain car/whatever because it's "practical". Well, other alternatives you looked at were even more practical. Hmm... on further reelection turns out you actually bought it because the salewoman was a great flirt---not really something you'd want to use as an argument.

Now exactly was it that actually differentiated trump: looks like that open racism and misogyny all the establishment told us was going to sink a campaign. Turns out he & fans knew better but that's hardly a strategy to brag about.

 

[sonoma1993]

People want change. They voted Trump to disrupt the status quo in Washington, that really is the crux of it. Not racism, not sexism, not Islamophobia (although of the three that one would hold the most water). They are sick of politicians and it really is as simple as that.

This confuses me about the voters. They want the status quo, establishment, corrupt, etc out of Washington. But they keep voting to send the same people back to congress that are supposedly corrupted and part of the establishment. Can't the voters make up their minds? If the voters really wanted to end the establishment and corruption. They would vote all of the incumbents out of congress.

 

[fskimospy]

You are going to be too upset to understand it now. Just remember, I was not for Trump and I am not for Trump. Hillary would have likely been better.

Sorry but that's a dodge. Who you preferred has nothing to do with this, what you said was just wrong. He had virtually no articulated positions and the positions he did articulate changed constantly as they were attacked on the merits. (That or he simply denied he had ever had them)

Yes, he had position. Even if you believe that he never said anything that could be questioned, that itself could be questioned. Not sure why you think it would have been needed to get him to admit it, because its the supporters that need to be reached.

What you are suggesting was done constantly. He and his supporters simply falsely claimed that he did have positions on those issues. When asked he would reiterate the same factless positions or make up new ones and then deny he ever had the old ones. Go back to the debates, to countless articles written, his lack of proposals is criticized everywhere. Maybe you didn't see it because it wasn't what you wanted to see.

I've noticed people would frequently try the same tack with Obama. They would ask why, in the spirit of compromise, Obama didn't propose certain policies. These would turn out to be the policies he had already proposed. They never realized it because they thought they had developed a sober and fair evaluation of the situation. In reality they had been duped.

See, those on the Left believe that the supporters on the Right were not thinking and just would vote for anyone with an R. For a lot, that is true but that is the same on the D side. He did not win the election with those votes alone. He got a lot of people in the middle for all the reason I gave you. Because your side was so rabid and hated him so much, you took the bate and attacked him. Again, even if you think he had no policy positions, then you should have focused on that. Instead it was all personal attacks that people just dismissed. They dismissed it because the Left exaggerated anything and everything.

Actually that's not true, Trump won because he retained a greater percentage of self identified Republicans than Clinton did self identified Democrats. If you're citing some evidence that independent voters decided to vote for Trump based on the left attacking him personally I would love to see it. It would be particularly ironic considering Trump focused his campaign on personal attacks, haha.

 

[MrSquished]

agreed, I was going to like this post but I don't want to get cut.

The Democratic party has become the party of non workers and wealthy/highly educated workers. A big chunk of the middle is missing.

She got 60 million votes, 200K over Trump. So how do you break it down. 30 million welfare recipients and 30 million very wealthy? please edumacate us.