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

[VRAMdemon]

She did not steal an election from him. Sanders lost by MILLIONS of votes.

Yes..he lost by millions of votes, but it's quite clear that the party machinery worked in favor of Clinton and against Bernie. We have the very e-mails where they basically talk about how they're going to stop Bernie from stealing the nomination. Furthermore, the Republicans ran 19 candidates. The democrats ran 4. Is their talent cupboard so bare that they can't come up with 4 people (one of which isn't really part of the party) to run for president? No, clearly there would've been people who could've made a run who stayed out because the DNC made it clear it was Clinton's year to be coronated.

The media was also complicit. NPR, often declared to be too liberal, basically ignored Bernie or occasionally mentioned him as someone who was inconveniencing the inevitable Clinton victory. CNN has been called the Clinton News Network for decades. Even something simple like counting superdelegate counts in delegate totals was deceptive. If, say, they were reporting on a primary with 20% of the vote in, which Bernie was winning by 10%, they might list all the superdelegates in that state as part of Clinton's total, against Bernie's return from that 20% of the vote, and give the impression that Bernie was massively losing the primary even though he was winning.

Having said that...I still not sure Bernie could have beaten Trump. would he have been able to convince suburban moms to vote for him?. Would he have done even worse with Latinos and African Americans than Hillary did?. Would the Democratic donor class have gotten behind him with the force that they got behind Hillary?. Trump would have made up outrageous but entertaining lies about him and Republicans and some Independents would have believed every word. And he would have lost the Deplorables that won Trump the Midwest: they might like some of Bernie's policies, but to them he's still a liberal, an elitist, a jew, a communist, frail-looking for his age, who has spent virtually his entire life 'sucking at the public teat' (as the ads would certainly have put it).

 

[buckshot24]

you're making the mistake of assuming that people who disagree with you are bigots

I think Hillary having the super delegates in hand could have influenced some votes during the primaries.

 

[jackstar7]

Because a wizard with a magic wand is what the poor always want. He'll show up and magic everything to being better.

They also play the lottery on the regular.

 

[MrSquished]

Just for referenced, demographic voter tendencies based upon exit polls:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/exit-polls/

Trump won uneducated white males big, he won educated white males smaller, he won uneducated white women well, he lost educated white women and everything else.

 

[buckshot24]

Just for referenced, demographic voter tendencies based upon exit polls:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/exit-polls/

Trump won uneducated white males big, he won educated white males smaller, he won uneducated white women well, he lost educated white women and everything else.

Do they correct these? Early exit polls had Hillary running away with this.

 

[Atreus21]

There was very low turnout, and low turnout generally helps Republicans. I mean despite the US population growing by about 20 million people Trump while winning looks likely to get fewer votes than John McCain did getting blown out in 2008.

You really don't need a more complex narrative than that.

From what I've read, turnout was only slightly below what it was in 2008: 128 million, whereas 2008 was 131.

And aren't votes still being counted?

 

[VRAMdemon]

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.

Well, Trumps' dishonesty was out in the open for all to see. Clinton's perceived dishonesty was secretive and hidden and cultivated by half of America for decades. One mattered, the other did not.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Good article on why Trump won: https://medium.com/@trentlapinski/d...erstand-why-trump-won-5a0cdb13c597#.dng93zss5

 

[Fanatical Meat]

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.

A big part of the middle was left out it wasn't all or nothing.
Look at our (Democrats) talking points. Free/reduced college education, refinanced college loans, increased min wage, more sick time. I'm not saying those are bad goals but what's in there to help out a guy in his 30-40s that took a big pay cut in 2009 and it hasn't recovered, plus his healthcare has just gotten more expensive.

 

[zinfamous]

Because a wizard with a magic wand is what the poor always want. He'll show up and magic everything to being better.

They also play the lottery on the regular.

Hey, we spend $2 per week on a single lottery ticket! won $24 this week and, so far this year, about even or ~+$2

I don't *think* I'm a poor.

Oh, I'm certainly AT poor. I'm like AT deplorable poor.

 

[yllus]

Regarding turnout, an illustration:

 

[zinfamous]

Good article on why Trump won: https://medium.com/@trentlapinski/d...erstand-why-trump-won-5a0cdb13c597#.dng93zss5

that's not an article. It's a blog post from a crazy person.

wikileaks didn't matter one bit to the nearly 1000 people that won MI for Trump and the further 20k or so that won PA and WI for him. They wanted jobs and he promised them. He showed up in MI and threatened the car industry that he will heavily tax their vehicles if they move out and build those factories in Mexico. All of that is far more important to those voters than some uninteresting campaign chatter about strategy and research groups.

There was nothing scandalous about Catholics if you actually read those emails. All completely normal. These are just absurd theories that honestly do not resonate to people that are looking for real solution to the real problems that they faced. Trump may have been blowing smoke up their asses--I am certain that he was--but he was the only one there doing it and, quite frankly, those folks were sick and tired of having the dems blow their own version of smoke up their asses for the previous 3 decades.

 

[soundforbjt]

Low turnout always favors republicans. 800+ less polling places than last election, voter ID, voter purges, you gotta hand it to the republicans, they know how to "win". Maybe someday they will be able to do it with issues instead of tricks. Dems were so sure people would not vote for someone like Trump (especially the religious right), they stayed home.

 

[zinfamous]

A big part of the middle was left out it wasn't all or nothing.
Look at our (Democrats) talking points. Free/reduced college education, refinanced college loans, increased min wage, more sick time. I'm not saying those are bad goals but what's in there to help out a guy in his 30-40s that took a big pay cut in 2009 and it hasn't recovered, plus his healthcare has just gotten more expensive.

good points. Bill only briefly lambasted the ACA at one appearance and he was excoriated for it. I don't recall him criticizing the ACA outright, simply admitted that it had real problems for a lot of real people. He was acknowledging a problem that a lot of people wanted to address, but it seems mentioning it was off the table. I recall Hillary backing away substantively from this--only briefly mentioning from time to time that she wants to fix things, but it was never a major issue that went back to again and again.

I don't think Trump's promise to "kill it all immediately for 'something terrific!'" would have resonated as well as it did if Hillary spent more time acknowledging those problems and offering real solutions to make it work for more people.

It felt like Trump was the only one saying anything about the ACA--at least he was the only one getting sound bites about it (again: simple, to the point effective. nonsense though it may be, he was speaking to his audience).

 

[fskimospy]

From what I've read, turnout was only slightly below what it was in 2008: 128 million, whereas 2008 was 131.

And aren't votes still being counted?

The US population is about 20-30 million larger today than it was then.

 

[sxr7171]

Good article on why Trump won: https://medium.com/@trentlapinski/d...erstand-why-trump-won-5a0cdb13c597#.dng93zss5

Great read and also explains why his victory is an indictment of the media. If the media hadn't been gung ho maybe more people would have gotten out to vote. Michael Moore played that card and actually turned out to be right. Still didn't get Hillary supporters out of bed.

 

[nickqt]

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

Destroy the establishment who clearly don't care about anyone but themselves.

 

[agent00f]

that's not an article. It's a blog post from a crazy person.

wikileaks didn't matter one bit to the nearly 1000 people that won MI for Trump and the further 20k or so that won PA and WI for him. They wanted jobs and he promised them. He showed up in MI and threatened the car industry that he will heavily tax their vehicles if they move out and build those factories in Mexico. All of that is far more important to those voters than some uninteresting campaign chatter about strategy and research groups.

There was nothing scandalous about Catholics if you actually read those emails. All completely normal. These are just absurd theories that honestly do not resonate to people that are looking for real solution to the real problems that they faced. Trump may have been blowing smoke up their asses--I am certain that he was--but he was the only one there doing it and, quite frankly, those folks were sick and tired of having the dems blow their own version of smoke up their asses for the previous 3 decades.

These are people the democrats expended considerable political capital/money saving during the financial crisis, and they literally did not give a shit soon as trump showed up to trash mexicans. So it's odd your takeaway is to double down on that abysmal failure of a strategy, particularly running against a strongman demagogue.

 

[agent00f]

Well, Trumps' dishonesty was out in the open for all to see. Clinton's perceived dishonesty was secretive and hidden and cultivated by half of America for decades. One mattered, the other did not.

They never gave a shit about (dis)honesty, it's just something people tell themselves to rationalize an already made decision.

For many, the base, the clintons represent 8 years of humiliation as they told themselves it was going to be a disaster and things turned out alright. Imagine the hate that must seethe through them as they they're reminded again and again how wrong they were. That's why a m.obama candidacy is similarly risky because it represents the same humiliation as some kenyan muslim slaps them in the face with his success. They give zero shits about governance, they want vindictive revenge.

 

[zinfamous]

These are people the democrats expended considerable political capital/money saving during the financial crisis, and they literally did not give a shit soon as trump showed up to trash mexicans. So it's odd your takeaway is to double down on that abysmal failure of a strategy, particularly running against a strongman demagogue.

My argument is that they did nothing to begin with to address their concerns. I think Obama put in many policies to address their issues, but they didn't work or haven't worked fast enough. Whether or not it was republicans bitching and whining and blocking all his efforts, nothing has made their lives substantively better. Either you accept that and keep going to MI and WI and tell these people that we now want to solve what hasn't worked and do this and that in a different way--we understand that "shit is real bad now and everything" but we're going to try something new--or you continue to ignore that policies haven't addressed their problems fast enough, assume they will vote for you anyway, and go to other states and deal with their problems.

Complain about that all you want, but Hillary ignored the heart of her base and it kicked her in the ass. Part of the problem, obviously, is that a lot of those voters probably attach her to NAFTA and various other "coal-killing" policies so it would be very difficult for someone like her to resonate with them, but continuing the same "the 1% will pay for your problems" mantra from the dems, that obviously hasn't worked in 20 years, is plain stupid.

I doubt these people are as populist, looking for free money, blaming their problems on everything else, outright ignorant, that both parties have classically made them out to be when "they don't get their way." I think they just want opportunities for decent jobs and a chance to restore their communities out from the meth-addled shit holes that they have fallen to. Now, I think it's largely true that those old jobs aren't coming back, free trade and globalism are an unavoidable necessity in the progress of humanity, but trying to convince these people of that and encouraging them to reinvent themselves is a non-starter. I don't think they see great enemies such much as they see a lack of leadership in those that treat them as the unfortunate data points in a system that balances out to be "good" for everyone as a whole.

When you realize that you are that unfortunate data point, how do you react? Someone comes in and has, as simple and threatening as it may sound, an idea to demand that factories stay in town and in this country unless they want to be priced out of the market, that resonates. It doesn't matter if it works in the end or if that is something that Trump can actually do, what matters is that it is a pretty clear idea that--if it does magically work--could indeed mean instant salvation for their problems. The dems keep pushing more and more, "we'll let the 1% pay for programs to help you guys" which, in their minds, not only sound a lot like welfare, it sounds that it is going to take a long time for anything to happen.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Emotions are running high right now, obviously. Unfortunately the result is that nothing has changed, just the side doing all the hating and accusing has flipped. We went from secret Muslim born in Kenya, here to destroy our country. To rapist, racist, Russian puppet, here to destroy our country.

The Obama admin did a good job all things considered. I know some of you only concentrate on the negative, and could not impartially judge his 8 years if it were life or death, and that's cool. But he did much better than any of the haters predicted, and captained the ship competently through a massive economic storm. We took on more water than we'd like, and she is still listing a bit, but it could have been much worse. And the previous skipper was almost Exxon Valdez bad before he was replaced.

I suspect Trump will not live down to all the terrible traits he is having attributed to him. He will likely prove more competent than W, Carter, Ford, LBJ, or Nixon. But we will endure 4 years minimum of the some treatment Obama got around here. It will just be the other side doing all the doom and gloom, and concentrating on every foul up. Biz as usual.

 

[highland145]

Hey, we spend $2 per week on a single lottery ticket! won $24 this week and, so far this year, about even or ~+$2

I don't *think* I'm a poor.

Oh, I'm certainly AT poor. I'm like AT deplorable poor.

Maybe I can get you an honorary membership but it'll take 2/3 vote. Not looking good.

You might have a better shot with the Sons of the Confederacy. I'll put in a word.

 

[Jaskalas]

And the previous skipper was almost Exxon Valdez bad before he was replaced.

Funny thing is Bush was a stimulus and bailout guy. Obama's "economy" was simply continuing Bush's policy.
Statistical differences are simply a matter of timing and waiting out the housing crisis.
I suppose that's easy to forget when GOP goes Tea Party on economic policy. Bush was never a Tea Party guy.

For the record, I subscribed to it for a while... but stimulus has proven itself.
Moreover, Robert Reich's economic argument may have turned me Left of most people here.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

When you realize that you are that unfortunate data point, how do you react? Someone comes in and has, as simple and threatening as it may sound, an idea to demand that factories stay in town and in this country unless they want to be priced out of the market, that resonates. It doesn't matter if it works in the end or if that is something that Trump can actually do, what matters is that it is a pretty clear idea that--if it does magically work--could indeed mean instant salvation for their problems. The dems keep pushing more and more, "we'll let the 1% pay for programs to help you guys" which, in their minds, not only sound a lot like welfare, it sounds that it is going to take a long time for anything to happen.

Good post. I want to add even if there are programs, even if they are free and realistic there are two problems. First I kind of liked that factory job, I kinda don't like the idea of being a home health aid. Another important point is what does a 52 year old guy do? Again we'll assume College is free. First he has to back to school which is going to be difficult since some of the basic foundation stuff is forgotten, second he needs to graduate (see the first item), third who the hell is going to hire a 56 year old app developer or Cisco Certified Network guy with next to zero industry experience. Age discrimination happens all the time.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Funny thing is Bush was a stimulus and bailout guy. Obama's "economy" was simply continuing Bush's policy.
Statistical differences are simply a matter of timing and waiting out the housing crisis.
I suppose that's easy to forget when GOP goes Tea Party on economic policy. Bush was never a Tea Party guy.

I dislike the "funny thing", since no one ever laughs and the following content is never funny.

And I will not play the P&N game of tit for tat, with the usual back and forth, because I think someone on the internet is wrong. I look at it from the overall how did the country do? What the actual causation is/was, when it started, not important in such an evaluation. Only what happened on your watch. So W had one of the worst admins in modern times, by my estimations, and right there with LBJ for war cluster fucks.

And I am hopeful that Trump will have a much better admin than say W, in the most important metrics. He will goof, all of them do. He will enforce some platform stuff the other side will hate, they all do. But if the country continues to improve, and have the "small fires" issues we have had since scaling back the Iraq mess, and mortgage meltdown, I would call that a good admin.