So why did Hillary lose?

[crashtech]

Exactly. Her message was anti trump. That doesn't work. I'm in California and was still bombarded by her negative ads and I thought they became annoying after a while. We get it! Trump sucks! But why should we vote for you? And I never saw an ad that articulated that reason very well.

Well, the problem was that there just wasn't any compelling reason to vote for her instead of just against Trump. She was a lackluster nominee, completely uninspiring.

 

[Double Trouble]

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.

The approval rating for Obama can easily reflect people liking him personally, not necessarily people liking the status quo. When you contrast Trump and Hillary with Obama, it's not hard to see how a lot of people would view him favorably. The problem is that he was not on the ballot. They liked him personally but not the status quo, and absent Obama on the ballot they voted against status quo. Makes sense to me.

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

Approval ratings for congress are (and always have been) useless. People have a very low rating of congress as a whole, but they do generally approve of their particular reps. Living in Ohio, I assure you people approved of Rob Portman (the incumbent) and easily brought him back, while at the same time voting completely against the establishment, Trump trounced Hillary here.

Another overlooked factor is the resentment many whites are starting to feel when they are constantly accused of being racist and anti-black and such tripe. In some instances it's warranted, but most of the time it's become a cudgel to smash whites over the head when they don't agree with something. I don't like Hillary, that doesn't mean I'm sexist, racist or anything like that.

 

[Svnla]

La Times - http://www.latimes.com/nation/polit...-are-voting-against-1478621533-htmlstory.html

LEGALS - si, ILLEGALS - no.

 

[Double Trouble]

This accurately describes my thoughts. Im not glad trump won, im just glad clinton lost.

Same for me. I wish there was a better alternative, but I'm glad she won't be in the white house.

 

[pcgeek11]

Well peeps are about to get what they asked for. I'm so happy our form of government has a system of checks and balances to keep one branch from overpowering the other. My biggest concern right now lies with the appointment of Supreme Court Justices as the Republicans stalled filling the open seat and now they will push through their right leaning picks. The right is not right nor is it righteous so look out for the radical religitards to take over the court.

To quote Obama.

He won, get over it.

 

[agent00f]

As a liberal who supported Obama and Hillary, I've been struggling to make sense of this. On one hand I recognize that I fell victim to the reflexive dismissal of these disaffected rural voters as racists and bigots. Now for a good deal of these people I think that perception is absolutely true, but thats not really the point. The plight of poor blacks manifests undesirable behaviors as well, yet liberals like myself for some reason extend more sympathy to these people due to the historical victimization of blacks as a whole, while they both are legitimately hurting. Democrats and Republicans alike have both victimized this group in different ways. Democrats outright dismiss them, while Republicans have exploited their resentment for the political ends of their donor class while actually working against their interests by helping dismantle trade unions and fighting universal health care. The Republican party likely thinks this has been some kind of validation of conservative orthodoxy, but I think that would be a grievous misreading of the message they have sent. These people dont want what the Paul Ryan's of the party have been selling. They want respect, jobs, and opportunity. If they are given these things, much like poor blacks, the rough edges will be smoothed over, and deplorable can give way to respectable.

The positive I am trying to take from this is that Trump might have wrecked both party establishments, and may give rise to new coalitions that might actually be interested in governing rather than pandering. Much like Trump's ex-wives, he might have little use for the voting coalition that got him there and may ditch it for a new one that sits in the middle somewhere. Trump could propose a deficit funded single payer healthcare system, or a massive infrastructure program and his supporters would gobble it up. His desire for personal greatness should hopefully compel him to be a successful and transcendent president, and spending his time in office catering only to the people who got him there would not further that goal.

With that said, it's far more likely that this will be a fucking disaster, but I'm seeking any silver lining in this mess that I can find.

Your initial impression of the situation was correct, it's really not that complicated of one given the people involved.

Where you went is the line of thinking for the solution. That guy moonbeam is very astute to point out that it's a liberal brain defect to want to help people, that there's some reward in it. Evidently that's just hippie bullshit jesus used to try get people to do good, not some actual wisdom.

See, trump realized the only goal was to get their vote, so he just said whatever was necessary to attain that. Seems some folks were right that he good business instincts, at least when it come to conning simpletons. Anyone familiar with democracy should be able to inform you of this; hope the goodie two shoes here learn their lesson from this.

 

[Mxylplyx]

The big question is WHAT are his intentions? So he conned the simpletons to get into office...whats next? Try to do something meaningful while in office and continue to smash the political order to pieces from the inside, or just bask in his victory at having achieved what we consider the greatest office a citizen can achieve and let his surrogates run the show? I don't imagine he intends for his presidency to be a disaster and sully his achievement.

 

[pcgeek11]

The big question is WHAT are his intentions? So he conned the simpletons to get into office...whats next? Try to do something meaningful while in office and continue to smash the political order to pieces from the inside, or just bask in his victory at having achieved what we consider the greatest office a citizen can achieve and let his surrogates run the show? I don't imagine he intends for his presidency to be a disaster and sully his achievement.

How did conning Democrats get him into office?

See your comment above demeaning anyone that doesn't agree with your opinion. Hillary did this same thing and the Deplorables were awakened.

 

[disappoint]

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.

Did you just dehumanize people as stupid dogs? You sure you don't want to round up those deplorables and stick them in gas chambers so you can have your candy date win next election there Adolph?

 

[disappoint]

yeah I was telling my mom this weekend that if Trump miraculously wins, you will see RGB hooking herself up to machines and permanently installing a medical bed at the SCOTUS bench just to hang on for 4 more years.

Man, I wonder how Souter feels now, retiring so, so "young." (not that this matters in terms of influence, as his seat went to Soto-Mayor?)

Today I learned that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a pixel on my smartphone where the background is a picture of Donald J. Trump mouthing the word wrOng!

Just pulling your leg Zin, I know it's just a simple typo, I make those all the time.

 

[UglyCasanova]

So he conned the simpletons to get into office...

One of the major reasons the dems lost. Hopefully there's some self reflection that occurs, it might still be a bit early for that.

 

[Mxylplyx]

One of the major reasons the dems lost. Hopefully there's some self reflection that occurs, it might still be a bit early for that.

If you read my thread and the response I was replying to those weren't my words. I'm fully aware that this dismisiveness is part of the problem.

 

[zinfamous]

Today I learned that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a pixel on my smartphone where the background is a picture of Donald J. Trump mouthing the word wrOng!

Just pulling your leg Zin, I know it's just a simple typo, I make those all the time.

I noticed that pretty soon after I typed it but was like fuck it, I'm leaving it in.

 

[ViperXX]

Because she's a liar, a cheater, a murder, a wise and beautiful woman, also a old lady wise and beautiful woman bag or she's a dirty lying wise and beautiful woman bag, or a dirty lying cheating murdering old wise and beautiful woman bag. ETC...

 

[lopri]

Clinton and her team did as much as they could. I do not know what else she could have done more or differently. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.

I personally do not buy the "economic insecurity of white working class" argument. Clinton has repeatedly said that the top 1% should pay their fair share so that the middle class can get a chance to get ahead. She also wanted the U.S. to be a "Clean Energy Superpower" and she staked out her position to build infrastructure for it, which requires labor (e.g. jobs). She was quite clear about it.

Americans instead chose fossil fuel and tax cuts for the 1%. Sometimes you cannot help.

 

[dank69]

Did you just dehumanize people as stupid dogs? You sure you don't want to round up those deplorables and stick them in gas chambers so you can have your candy date win next election there Adolph?

First of all, the person I was responding to was the one who started the dog metaphor, I just ran with it because it was convenient. Secondly, you have to admit that the dog being fooled by a tennis ball is a perfect analogy to how easily fooled most of the electorate is. Finally, do you need a safe space? You seem to have been triggered. I mean, why else would you invoke Godwin's like a little bitch? Oops, there we go with the dog metaphor again, since I'm sure you missed it until I pointed it out for you just now. Wouldn't want you to miss any of this high level humor while you froth over your keyboard, pretending that calling people stupid clearly means I want to gas them all. Jeez I did it again, now you're not just a dog but a rabid dog, my god will it ever stop?

 

[lopri]

Did you just dehumanize people as stupid dogs? You sure you don't want to round up those deplorables and stick them in gas chambers so you can have your candy date win next election there Adolph?

Dogs, fat pigs, slobs, etc.

(NOT my words)

Edit: It is amazing how sensitive some people are when their cause has been "Political Incorrectness."

 

[agent00f]

The big question is WHAT are his intentions? So he conned the simpletons to get into office...whats next? Try to do something meaningful while in office and continue to smash the political order to pieces from the inside, or just bask in his victory at having achieved what we consider the greatest office a citizen can achieve and let his surrogates run the show? I don't imagine he intends for his presidency to be a disaster and sully his achievement.

His whole lifelong modus operandi has been to enrich himself/family by any means, which isn't terribly uncommon for strongmen with many examples in history around the world, and the american presidency is a pretty good position to leverage towards that end.

Did you just dehumanize people as stupid dogs? You sure you don't want to round up those deplorables and stick them in gas chambers so you can have your candy date win next election there Adolph?

Personally I've always favored the blue coastal areas secede from the idiots. It would solve a plurality of their problems and they can build a wall to keep out the riff raff.

 

[ivwshane]

I think it's interesting that in California bernie Sanders backed proposition 61 and that proposition failed.

Either Bernie didn't have the influence people thought he had or he wasn't recognized, or people didn't support his message.

 

[sportage]

I've talked to a few Trump people and they admit they were too scared to tell anyone they supported Trump.
Why?
Because people would think them a bigot.
And if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck......

 

[Double Trouble]

I've talked to a few Trump people and they admit they were too scared to tell anyone they supported Trump.
Why?
Because people would think them a bigot.
And if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck......

Dogs, fat pigs, slobs, etc.

(NOT my words)

Edit: It is amazing how sensitive some people are when their cause has been "Political Incorrectness."

There is a fundamental difference between saying something about a candidate versus blanket slander of everyone who voted for him. Trump is an ass who said plenty of insulting things, criticism of him is legit. Many democrats though (including dank69 in his post) and even Hillary herself (with the deplorables comment) insist on blanket applying insulting or demeaning labels to anyone who voted for or supported Trump. That is simple bigotry.

Definition of a bigot: "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions". I really think that mentality of ridiculing/insulting anyone who was thinking about voting Trump or not voting Hillary was one of the driving forces for getting out the Trump vote, a lot of people are sick and tired of being insulted for holding a different opinion. A little self reflection might be in order for many.

 

[agent00f]

There is a fundamental difference between saying something about a candidate versus blanket slander of everyone who voted for him. Trump is an ass who said plenty of insulting things, criticism of him is legit. Many democrats though (including dank69 in his post) and even Hillary herself (with the deplorables comment) insist on blanket applying insulting or demeaning labels to anyone who voted for or supported Trump. That is simple bigotry.

Definition of a bigot: "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions". I really think that mentality of ridiculing/insulting anyone who was thinking about voting Trump or not voting Hillary was one of the driving forces for getting out the Trump vote, a lot of people are sick and tired of being insulted for holding a different opinion. A little self reflection might be in order for many.

People who argue that 2+2=22 are stupid. Just telling it like it is.

 

[Double Trouble]

Exactly. Her message was anti trump. That doesn't work. I'm in California and was still bombarded by her negative ads and I thought they became annoying after a while. We get it! Trump sucks! But why should we vote for you? And I never saw an ad that articulated that reason very well.

Well put. I was one of the fence-sitters who didn't like either one of the candidates. Trump is an ass and it was easy to use his own words against him, negative ads about him were easy and effective. However, there was nothing presented about the topics that he was talking about that actually resonated with a lot of people, and there was no clear reasons laid out on why I should vote for Hillary, just that Trump is an ass -- which I already knew. It was obvious to me that Hillary had much more specific plans, but she really failed to articulate a compelling reason to vote for her other than "Trump sucks, vote for me".

 

[Kazukian]

What's that definition of insanity?

Oh yeah, doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result...

Perhaps a period of reflection of how we got here might be a good thing, instead of doubling down on what didn't work.

Threads like this are hilarious, "why did Hillary lose?" LOL

 

[zinfamous]

Clinton and her team did as much as they could. I do not know what else she could have done more or differently. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.

I personally do not buy the "economic insecurity of white working class" argument. Clinton has repeatedly said that the top 1% should pay their fair share so that the middle class can get a chance to get ahead. She also wanted the U.S. to be a "Clean Energy Superpower" and she staked out her position to build infrastructure for it, which requires labor (e.g. jobs). She was quite clear about it.

Americans instead chose fossil fuel and tax cuts for the 1%. Sometimes you cannot help.

If you don't believe it, then you should look at her "lock" states that she lost to Trump. The states that haven't gone republican since, at least, 1980. Those are the working class voters that you think she was talking to and, county by county, they responded very favorably to Bernie and, after Hillary decided to ignore them through the general, they responded heavily to Trump.

The difference in these 3 states, that were "guaranteed" for her, was something like 30k votes, I think, (only ~1k in MI alone).

Part of the problem is believing that those voters couldn't possibly have mattered. The other part is thinking that the oft-repeated dem message of "making the 1% pay" still resonates. I do believe that still sells, but this looked like an election about personality. She's out there giving substantive policy messages with details and real solutions, Trump is running around saying "Life bad. Jobs good. Me make jobs and make bad people pay!" All the while, The only message and ads the party put out against Trump were about pussy grabbing and such. Yes, she spent tons of time talking about the vacuousness, incompetence, in inexperience, fantasy of his policies, but those weren't in the ads--the things people see.

Trump killed it with getting his vile self on TV and steering the media towards talking about what a terrible human he was, rather than talk about how terrible his policy proposals were.

That is freaking important.

You and I and others spent plenty of time on these pages doing the same: The repubs go after bill Clinton talking about how horrible he was blah blah, but when you point out Trump, it just doesn't matter. Why? Because they don't care. We already elect horrible people to office every year, in every single position. I think the American public has pretty much accepted that as the status quo. So, the more we talk about these things, the less we talk about what a terrible president he would be. Again, not that people weren't talking about these things, but it was largely drowned out by Pussy Grabbing and making fun of disabled people.

I'm just as upset as you are about this result, but we have to live with it, at least, for 2 more years and hope the opposition can start working their asses off to swing Congress into a position to keep this motherfucker under control.