So why did Hillary lose?

[Exterous]

You are conflating two different things. Her dishonest rating is caused by Republican propaganda, that's a fact as the evidence clearly shows she is the most honest candidate in this election.

No you're ignoring the entirety of the situation with your tunnel focus on number of lies. People put stock into the context of the lie. Lying about breakfast twice will be less of an issue than lying once about killing someone. People expect and seem less bothered about the myriad of more traditional campaign lies - those about taxes, who voted for what when etc. However Hilary had some more substantial lies out there like the ones regarding her emails (and politifact agrees they are lies). She also has an established history of lying. 'No negative ads towards Bernie', 'Obama threatened to bomb pakistan' and I think we can all remember that she 'landed under sniper fire' at one point too.

Every campaign tries to put out propaganda that the other candidate lies and she gave them plenty of high profile ammunition to use. But yes it must just be republican propaganda. Its not like other Democrats ever had anything to do with it. Its not like Obama strongly suggested it:
http://www.snopes.com/obama-hillary-clinton-isnt-qualified/
Or a Democrat needed to think for a day about whether she was trustworthy:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/17/politics/hassan-clinton-honesty-answer/

 

[woolfe9998]

What do people think about how this impacts the confidence people have in polling? Bear in mind the pollsters were pretty badly off in 2012, breaking 2.5-3 too far in favor of Romney. They got the outcome right, but the margin was totally off. This time they got the outcome wrong, but were only a little more off than in 2012, this time in Clinton's favor. It isn't a partisan bias on among pollsters. It's a methodology problem, or actually problemS, because whatever methodology problem was at play in 2012, it was a different problem this time because it cut the other way.

One thing I noticed is that the state polling was pretty accurate for the western half of the country. They got it right in Colorado. She slightly over-performed in Nevada. And they were even right in Arizona - she lost there but by a low margin considering Arizona's historically red character. But in the eastern half of the country, the polling was systemically off. And not just in the rust belt. In Florida, Virginia, N. Carolina, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.

Can the pollsters ever get this right or should we just start ignoring the polls as nothing but mildly interesting noise?

 

[Kazukian]

Sanders was protesting for civil rights while Hillary was on Wal Mart's board.

 

[woolfe9998]

That's exactly why Sanders would've been a better choice - Bernie "got it" in a way Hilary never did. But then, if you supported the white male, you were obviously sexist, of course.

What you said was different than what I said. I said Bernie was the better choice because he couldn't so easily be scandalized by the right, not because he "get's it." That is your opinion, not mine.

 

[Mursilis]

What you said was different than what I said. I said Bernie was the better choice because he couldn't so easily be scandalized by the right, not because he "get's it." That is your opinion, not mine.

No, you seem to be suggesting Hilary's negatives were all just the result of a right-wing smear campaign, when in fact she brought a lot of that on herself. While it's true the right has been going after her for 20+ years, she has established a pretty clear and objective record of lying. Bernie was simply a more trustworthy candidate. He was the one major party candidate who actually had a record of standing for the principles he talked about.

 

[Mursilis]

Sanders was protesting for civil rights while Hillary was on Wal Mart's board.

This. Sanders was authentic in ways Hilary never was. The best thing you could say about her was that she wasn't Trump. That's really not much of a compelling platform.

 

[Headfoot]

You're correct that the typical narrative of the downtrodden white guy is bullshit; they're people like you, who overwhelmingly answer in the affirmative to questions like "are minority x getting ahead at the expense of whites".

No great surprise facts make you angry.

Your conclusion is only one of many possible explanations for that data. That sort of question can be answered "yes" for reasons other than "white nationalism."

I think it's far more likely that basic human psychological factors like fear of change, scapegoating and xenophobia far, far outweigh any KKK style nationalism. "Immigrants" makes a common enemy which in turn makes a common voting bloc. It's just basic psychological principles.

 

[351Cleveland]

I think she lost because her policies were "more of the same" of Obama, and people don't want it. What did Trump focus on? Immigration, Obamacare, and jobs. If the American people liked what was being done in those three areas, it wouldn't have been close. Of course her public corruption also played a role, but mostly because of the issues.

I didn't so much vote for Trump as I voted against Clinton. I have no idea what Trump will do, but I have hope that I will get some of what I want. I had no hope with Clinton.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Bernie had one great advantage that neither Hillary nor Trump enjoyed and that was a large independent contingent who looked upon him favorably. In the primary polls he soundly bested Trump, far more than Hillary ever did.

That used to be an important part of American politics. Politicians liked to be viewed as pragmatic, close to the center, not too offensive and capable of reaching across the aisle when necessary. It was a good thing to be reasonable. People too right wing were seen as nutjob war mongers who couldn't be trusted with the launch codes and left wingers were pinko commie dolphin-humpers who couldn't keep America safe. The people furthest from the center were not even embraced by their own parties other than in local politics where a town might be 100% redneck or even worse, Chicago. If you were too far from center you were seen as not being electable nationally.

Now it's the opposite. Instead of pragmatism American politics have devolved to fanaticism. People near the center are thought of as weak, not committed to the party, enemy sympathizers, etc. Both parties are going for the people as close to the fringes as possible. Trump was hated by a shitload of Republicans, Hilary was hated by a shitload of Democrats. If the Reps had run somebody less polarizing and closer to center the Hilary haters would have reached across the aisle and it would have been a landslide. If the Dems had run Sanders or somebody closer to center, less corrupt, less toxic than Hilary Trump would have been abandoned by all reasonable Republicans and gotten creamed.

Dems were desperate for somebody else to vote for and just couldn't bring themselves to vote for Trump. Non Tea Party Republicans wanted to jump off the Trump wagon and just couldn't because the alternative was Hilary. If either party had run somebody that could even marginally appeal to the moderates in the other party they would have won in a cakewalk.

 

[bshole]

Your conclusion is only one of many possible explanations for that data. That sort of question can be answered "yes" for reasons other than "white nationalism."

I think it's far more likely that basic human psychological factors like fear of change, scapegoating and xenophobia far, far outweigh any KKK style nationalism. "Immigrants" makes a common enemy which in turn makes a common voting bloc. It's just basic psychological principles.

Well said. Agent can be very binary at times.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Your conclusion is only one of many possible explanations for that data. That sort of question can be answered "yes" for reasons other than "white nationalism."

I think it's far more likely that basic human psychological factors like fear of change, scapegoating and xenophobia far, far outweigh any KKK style nationalism.

That's where a more scientific approach would be useful. We understand that there are many contributory factors but picking one out of context and saying "this must be the main causative factor" isn't a good approach. Fears and concerns play a role with little doubt, those who are racists and those who are worried because of what the have lost or stand to lose. One must be rational and empathetic to approximate the full measure of reasons for the results we see. It's not all one side, but many which form a whole. That we may see some as valid or not makes no difference through the eyes of a person with a given worldview.

 

[Zorba]

Being in Oklahoma I didn't see many ads, but the ones I did see for Hillary were pretty terrible at actually motivating people. The were basically along the lines of Trump would be a bad role model, he says mean things, etc. Trump gave so much real ammunition to hit him, but they constantly went back to the "he's a jerk" card. Everyone already knew he was jerk, hit him on his flip-flops, lies and crazy policies. I just don't see how that would've really motivated anyone that wasn't already going to vote for her. Someone earlier in the thread talked about identity politics hurting her, and I would agree, even though I lean left (especially on social issues) some of the mentality of identity politics turns me off a lot and I know it turns off others far more.

She also took the rust belt for granted, even though Bernie beat her there. I never saw her really take a stand against outsourcing in any real way, and I can understand the people in that part of the country being sick of all the good jobs going away (not that I think Trump will fix that).

She was also a very easy target to sling mud at, and Trump is extremely good at slinging mud. She could've helped herself out by not using the private server or coming clean on it day one. It probably would've also been better to release the speeches, etc. But the hacks and the October 28th FBI letter were out of her control and could've made a big enough difference in this election and both allowed a lot more mud to stick. Her lack of press confidences all fed the untrustworthy/secretive narrative.

Finally, she is also just not inspirational. I can easily watch Obama or Bill speak, but even though I supported her, I never could watch her give a stump speech. I also couldn't stand listening to Trump, but he obviously inspired some people.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Where in the hell do you get this meme? People complaining about "Uppity darkies"? I come from a family of conservative racists and I have never heard anything about "uppity darkies" in my entire lifetime. Is this something you made up and what does it mean?

Sadly, it is probably easy for him to come up with these memes because he either is a racist or believes everyone who doesn't think like him is a racist. So he either speaks like this in real life or imagines that those imagined racists of his speak like this -- Nothing to do with reality.

He is one of the worst posters to have visited this forum in years (and that is saying a lot). I have been lurking since 2000 and finally signed up years ago. This guy just flat-out accuses anyone of being racist if they don't think like he does...and he is not alone. He is a good part of the reason why people voted for Trump...a big F U to the as$wipes that keep accusing everyone of being racist.

 

[MrSquished]

Everyone is saying that people voted for change, and the exit polls do show that was a significant factor. What doesn't jive with this is Obama's 55% approval rating for much of the last few months of this process. If you like the current status quo so much then why vote for the usurper?

 

[LegendKiller]

Everyone is saying that people voted for change, and the exit polls do show that was a significant factor. What doesn't jive with this is Obama's 55% approval rating for much of the last few months of this process. If you like the current status quo so much then why vote for the usurper?

To be honest, this is the one thing I have a harder time reconciling. Was discussing it at work and we couldn't come up with a great reason, other than poor polling.

 

[jackstar7]

Because the bubbles are real.

 

[jackstar7]

To elaborate, she didn't campaign enough in states that easily could have turned for her. Her campaign failed.

To me, the telling thing is that the debates didn't amount to jack shit.

 

[zinfamous]

Everyone is saying that people voted for change, and the exit polls do show that was a significant factor. What doesn't jive with this is Obama's 55% approval rating for much of the last few months of this process. If you like the current status quo so much then why vote for the usurper?

yeah, it's very strange. Obama = 55% approval and Congress = 17% ...but the public voted the complete opposite.

Yes, it could be poor polling (obviously have a lot of that going on now), but I also think one factor is that dreaded: "uninformed voter" issue, regarding the issue with the House and Senate.

Obviously, people really are pissed at Congress, but those numbers are probably being looked at the wrong way:
--now seems more likely that those truly pissed think Congress is doing too much to help Obama (which doesn't square with his approval rating; but if his numbers are bad, then so must be these numbers)
Or, simply not processing what they are voting for (I think the real issue):
--These days, presidents and especially presidential elections are more of a means, a vessel, to get out the vote. to motivate the base to vote on issues. The president only does so much, but when that person brings out the popular vote, the down ticket candidates always benefit from that more motivated electorate. This has just always been true, afaik. It isn't so much an issue of voters really engaging with the issues, it's really just a a function of "well, I'm here and voting for this person, may as well vote for those like them since they are on this same paper!"

It kinda makes sense, here: Which disliked person was better at motivating people to come out and vote for their dislike? Trump, obviously. Might as well vote for those like him if you dislike the other candidate more than him. It squares with the pre-election polling that showed a more motivated Hillary base and a clear Hillary win, attached to the dems taking the senate. Obviously, that polling was wrong and it makes sense that thsoe numbers being married together based on motivation, both reverse scenarios would happen.

 

[NesuD]

White => 196,817,552, 63.7 % of America, of those that voted: 58% went Trump & 37% went Clinton.
Black => 37,685,848, 12.2 % of America, of those that voted: 8% went Trump & 88% went Clinton.
Hispanic => 50,477,594, 16.3 % of America, of those that voted: 29% went Trump & 65% went Clinton.
Asian => 14,465,124, 4.7 % of America, of those that voted: 29% went Trump & 65% went Clinton.

Hillary Diane Rodham-Clinton lost because she failed to get the majority White vote.

Actually she didn't need the majority. A few percentage points more of the white vote and the electoral picture could have been radically different. Clearly what happened here is she alienated a large part of the white vote. She didn't even get a majority of white women. Don't you people see it? White america just got tired of the abuse finally and turned on HRC and the Dems. You can only kick that dog so many times before it turns on you and bites your ass.

 

[Ancalagon44]

I love reading how Michael Moore blames the loss on minority voters being unfairly disenfranchised, when in reality, Trump got more Hispanic votes than his Romney did.

They just can't accept the reality that nobody liked Hilary, not even her own party.

 

[dank69]

This. Sanders was authentic in ways Hilary never was. The best thing you could say about her was that she wasn't Trump. That's really not much of a compelling platform.

Sanders also said Clinton was leaps and bounds better than Trump. What, you going to start cherry-picking which things Sanders was authentic about now? Why don't you believe Sanders when he tells you you are full of shit?

 

[dank69]

Actually she didn't need the majority. A few percentage points more of the white vote and the electoral picture could have been radically different. Clearly what happened here is she alienated a large part of the white vote. She didn't even get a majority of white women. Don't you people see it? White america just got tired of the abuse finally and turned on HRC and the Dems. You can only kick that dog so many times before it turns on you and bites your ass.

Turns out you can kick that dog as often as you like as long as you make them believe that the Democrats are the ones kicking and not really you. You see, dogs are stupid and easily fooled. Pretend to throw a tennis ball and they will spend hours looking for it.

 

[dank69]

What do people think about how this impacts the confidence people have in polling? Bear in mind the pollsters were pretty badly off in 2012, breaking 2.5-3 too far in favor of Romney. They got the outcome right, but the margin was totally off. This time they got the outcome wrong, but were only a little more off than in 2012, this time in Clinton's favor. It isn't a partisan bias on among pollsters. It's a methodology problem, or actually problemS, because whatever methodology problem was at play in 2012, it was a different problem this time because it cut the other way.

One thing I noticed is that the state polling was pretty accurate for the western half of the country. They got it right in Colorado. She slightly over-performed in Nevada. And they were even right in Arizona - she lost there but by a low margin considering Arizona's historically red character. But in the eastern half of the country, the polling was systemically off. And not just in the rust belt. In Florida, Virginia, N. Carolina, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.

Can the pollsters ever get this right or should we just start ignoring the polls as nothing but mildly interesting noise?

Maybe they over compensated due to 2012?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Turns out you can kick that dog as often as you like as long as you make them believe that the Democrats are the ones kicking and not really you. You see, dogs are stupid and easily fooled. Pretend to throw a tennis ball and they will spend hours looking for it.

That might be oversimplifying things too much. It's more like the dogs have enough shit to do, to not be worrying about what's going on over in the farmer's house. They may come knocking when food hasn't been put out for the 3rd day straight though.

Unfortunately those who live in the farmer's house have mastered the art of releasing just enough information in just the right way to get all the hounds riled up.

 

[senseamp]

Comey.