So why did Hillary lose?

[agent00f]

Yes, racial resentment may have been a common factor among the Trump base support. I just think those supporters are strongly conservative and would have voted for any other republican and certainly not for Clinton. But they were not sufficient to deliver the election to Trump. Some independents and democrats were needed. At least some non-racists were needed. This election turned on a dime. Clinton may have actually won the popular vote by as much as 2 points as it turns out. The sliming of Clinton was enough, way more than enough, to deliver this election to Trump.

Another factor which flipped the election was Trump's wise decision to push an anti free trade agenda as a way to woo rust belt voters. Trump won Michigan, Wisconsin and Penn by very small margins. That single message alone was also enough to deliver him the election. Yet it has nothing to do with race.

As Nate Silver just pointed out in his blog, if 1 in 100 people had flipped back from Trump to Clinton, it would have given her 2 more points and won her the election. In that case, everyone's analysis would be different. We wouldn't be talking about how "racial resentment" won an election. We'd be talking about how it was discredited as an electoral strategy and this is the year of the woman. We would have been wrong. Broad, sweeping conclusions are not warranted in either scenario, because the demographic implications would be nearly identical in either a Trump win or a Clinton win, unless either had won by a landslide. Tiny, narrow shifts one way or another can switch an outcome, but they don't really point to a different analysis of the electorate. In such a close election, any of a number of things which are unique and particular to the candidates could sway the outcome. Like a single October surprise.

Racial resentment is probably the best predictor of party affiliation these days, far better than age, sex, or pretty much anything other than race itself. Meaning if someone harbors that animosity or not, they're slotting into one party or the other.

That's Trump's campaign centerpiece, what won him the primaries and then all the way to the white house. His supporters loved that he defied the media expectation for him to stop being so casually racist, he wasn't "politically correct" just like them. Electoral politics is about identity, and just as they can identify with Bush, now they do with Trump.

I recall after Obama won in 2008 all the liberal commentators triumphantly declaring that the GOP had gone into the "political wilderness" and how they couldn't win presidential elections any more because of shifting demographics. Then they got closer in 2012, and won in 2016. Because the truth was that Obama won in 2008 because of a collapsed economy and because he was a more savvy campaigner than McCain. It wasn't really a tectonic shift then, and it isn't really a tectonic shift now. It had to do with 2 specific candidates and the circumstances/backdrop within the narrow time frame of the election. But think about this: how could Obama have won twice, then Trump wins simply because of high racial resentment among white voters?

Trump's racial messaging may have fired up turnout among his base, or perhaps not. If you listened to Trump supporters, they talked more about despising Clinton than about any of Trump's messaging. Hatred of Clinton could also have increased their turnout. I support this theory because if racial resentment was what pivoted this by firing up the turnout on the right, you'd think a black man running would have done the same, but this turnout among rural whites was lower when Obama ran. Why were the bigots fired up enough to defeat Clinton in 2016 but not enough to defeat an actual black candidate in 2008 or 2012?

Simple, traditional politician have some sense of self-respect/dignity. Hell, the republican establishment was even trying to court hispanics, and rubio supporters show very low resentment. Had the republicans ran him they most certainly would have lost. Ponder that for while. McCain nor Romney were going to hammer on kenyan muslim urban "you know what I'm talking about". Guess who did at the time and launched himself into the national limelight?

The approval ratings of our current, black president were high during this election cycle. But Clinton's approvals were not. This is not explainable by racial resentment. Racial resentment doesn't make a white democrat fare poorly, and a black democrat fare well. It doesn't explain why the black democrat did better with white voters than the white democrat. The simple truth is, Obama would easily have beaten Trump had he been allowed to run for a third term. But not Clinton.

And, if my prediction is correct that Trump will be a horrible president with mid 30's approval, and will lose by a wide margin 2020, then liberals will come out again and say his racial resentment is now discredited and the demographics have permanently shifted against the GOP, but the real reason will simply be that Trump just sucked as a president. Whatever the election result, too many people want to play amateur socialist and ignore the particulars of the candidates and specific circumstances of the election. Broader conclusions make more sense when one candidate wins by a wide margin, although it should be noted Obama won by a very wide margin in '08, yet the dems sociological analysis of that victory was wrong. Even there, it was more about the particulars.

I've noted elsewhere the particular weaknesses of clinton as a candidate. The fact remains Trump was able to shockingly turn those firewall states red. States with not surprisingly very white populations and often rather segregated communities if you ever bother to visit.

 

[TeeJay1952]

I live in Taylor Michigan. Democratic politics rule here and at county level. The much vaunted ground game advantage here was 1 union official texting me Did I know where to vote. There were 8 Trump signs scattered about my daily view. Not one HRC sign anywhere. Not one!

Obama could not carry out everything he promised (Guantanamo anyone?) Trump promised things with no way to accomplish. He took both side of many issues. I predict he will pass legislation and then Veto it. The complaint is that he was a liar. Let's hope that it true.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

I thought the country was ready. (Apparently not)

The country might be ready for a woman, we were not ready for Hilary. Too corrupt, too sleazy, too unlikable.

The Dems are probably going to run a woman next cycle too. Or if not, the one after that. And that could be yet another disaster because the dems are too in love with the optics of inclusion. They got a black guy in and now they're going to be desperate to get a woman in too. If they can find a half-Asian, half-black, half-Hispanic (shhhh, liberal math, don't check it too closely) woman in a wheelchair they're going to rig the nomination process to make her the heir presumptive and they won't bother to check that her closet is filled with skeletons holding piles of cash from her charities.

That's where the Dems have to grow a brain and look at why this went so horribly wrong for them. The country didn't reject Hilary because she's a woman, the country rejected Hilary because she's a toxic piece of crap who makes Trump look good by comparison. Run a decent woman with some charisma, some integrity, some ideas and some ability to act like a human being and she can win. Run a malfunctioning Westworld greed robot like Hilary and she won't.

 

[Indus]

The country might be ready for a woman, we were not ready for Hilary. Too corrupt, too sleazy, too unlikable.

The Dems are probably going to run a woman next cycle too. Or if not, the one after that. And that could be yet another disaster because the dems are too in love with the optics of inclusion. They got a black guy in and now they're going to be desperate to get a woman in too. If they can find a half-Asian, half-black, half-Hispanic (shhhh, liberal math, don't check it too closely) woman in a wheelchair they're going to rig the nomination process to make her the heir presumptive and they won't bother to check that her closet is filled with skeletons holding piles of cash from her charities.

That's where the Dems have to grow a brain and look at why this went so horribly wrong for them. The country didn't reject Hilary because she's a woman, the country rejected Hilary because she's a toxic piece of crap who makes Trump look good by comparison. Run a decent woman with some charisma, some integrity, some ideas and some ability to act like a human being and she can win. Run a malfunctioning Westworld greed robot like Hilary and she won't.

Maybe but I don't think Tammy Duckworth who fits the half asian, half white, wheelchair bit is wall street corrupt... YET!

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Maybe but I don't think Tammy Duckworth who fits the half asian, half white, wheelchair bit is wall street corrupt... YET!

Yet is the operative word. She's a small-timer House of Representative fish now. They'll train her for a few more years and another stint in the house, then try her for a Senate seat. If that works they'll keep grooming her and if she doesn't shit the bed they'll run her in 2024 or 2028. Each step along the way she'll get deeper and deeper under the influence of more and more special interests. She might never rise to Hilary's level of corruption (who could?), but she's already bought and paid for and if she wants to move up she needs to get into Wall Streets pockets too.

 

[Svnla]

A couple links of why HC lost:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...intons-top-aides-nailed-exactly-why-she-lost/

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/president-...-clinton-blame-stunning-election-loss-1591540

 

[zinfamous]

"What do you think, John?"

"Gee Pat, I think the next time Hillary takes the field she needs to work on getting more votes than her opponent! I think this is her core weakness."

 

[Puffnstuff]

What I find hilarious is that Trump lost in the areas where he lives. This tells us that the people who really know him reject him.

 

[nageov3t]

why is there this obsession over poor working-class white voters when Democrats would win just as easily if they won over college-educated whites?

a lot of this "soul searching" feels like the same thing Dems went through after 2004 where they convinced themselves that the only way to win would be through nominating a right-leaning, southern Democrat only to end up winning 2 terms with a guy named Hussein from Hawaii.

 

[PokerGuy]

What I find hilarious is that Trump lost in the areas where he lives. This tells us that the people who really know him reject him.

haha, yeah, because people in NY really "know" him. NY is also known as one of those deep red states, where conservatives always get elected. It's certainly a strong indicator that he's a terrible person when NY votes for the democratic candidate!

Thanks for the good chuckle

 

[PokerGuy]

why is there this obsession over poor working-class white voters when Democrats would win just as easily if they won over college-educated whites?

The dems did OK with college educated whites, Trump only won that demographic by about 4 points (according to Pew). Among non-college-educated whites, Trump had a 67-28 margin (with the difference going third party). That's a huge blowout. That particular demographic made a big difference in the swing states, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin etc.

 

[JockoJohnson]

why is there this obsession over poor working-class white voters when Democrats would win just as easily if they won over college-educated whites?

a lot of this "soul searching" feels like the same thing Dems went through after 2004 where they convinced themselves that the only way to win would be through nominating a right-leaning, southern Democrat only to end up winning 2 terms with a guy named Hussein from Hawaii.

The dems did OK with college educated whites, Trump only won that demographic by about 4 points (according to Pew). Among non-college-educated whites, Trump had a 67-28 margin (with the difference going third party). That's a huge blowout. That particular demographic made a big difference in the swing states, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin etc.

Could someone please answer why we are interested in "college educated white votes"? I ask sincerely because I see it as a back-handed way to say that if you aren't college-educated then you are stupid. And we know the stupid people must vote Republican.

Also, why aren't we polling the college-educated black vote/Hispanic vote, etc.?

 

[PokerGuy]

Could someone please answer why we are interested in "college educated white votes"? I ask sincerely because I see it as a back-handed way to say that if you aren't college-educated then you are stupid. And we know the stupid people must vote Republican.

With the way college campuses are these days, they probably mean if you haven't attended such a 4 or 5 year indoctrination camp you must be incapable of making any kind of informed decisions More serious answer: in the US we love statistics and analytics, so we can slice and dice anything into little pieces to see what we can glean from it. The amount of information captured about football stats (for example) is simply mind boggling.

Also, why aren't we polling the college-educated black vote/Hispanic vote, etc.?

I'm assuming the pew researchers did those kinds of polls as well, but the splits and demographic blocks just weren't big enough to have people talking about them in the election.

 

[Svnla]

It is white women fault that HC lost = http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/glanton/ct-white-women-glanton-20161118-column.html

 

[agent00f]

why is there this obsession over poor working-class white voters when Democrats would win just as easily if they won over college-educated whites?

There was a massive new shift in the white vote with <college going 14% one way and college+ going 10% the other. The obssession over the former is because those were the ones that mattered in the rust belt states that shifted the electoral college.

a lot of this "soul searching" feels like the same thing Dems went through after 2004 where they convinced themselves that the only way to win would be through nominating a right-leaning, southern Democrat only to end up winning 2 terms with a guy named Hussein from Hawaii.

People the political charisma of obama don't exactly grow on trees even in tropical weather.

 

[Kazukian]

There was a massive new shift in the white vote with <college going 14% one way and college+ going 10% the other. The obssession over the former is because those were the ones that mattered in the rust belt states that shifted the electoral college.



People the political charisma of obama don't exactly grow on trees even in tropical weather.

It would be interesting to see what degrees the college educated voters held.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Thanks for the good chuckle

Oh no thank you for the laugh as you failed to consider all of the data involved with my statement.

 

[buckshot24]

It is white women fault that HC lost = http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/glanton/ct-white-women-glanton-20161118-column.html

What sexist PIGS!

 

[buckshot24]

What I find hilarious is that Trump lost in the areas where he lives. This tells us that the people who really know him reject him.

He lives in liberal hotspots. What I find hilarious is Hillary Clinton isn't every going to be president.

 

[agent00f]

It would be interesting to see what degrees the college educated voters held.

Every study on the matter show a split between creative/technical vs. traditional industries:
eg: http://www.businessinsider.com/charts-show-the-political-bias-of-each-profession-2014-11

 

[kage69]

What I find hilarious is that Trump lost in the areas where he lives. This tells us that the people who really know him reject him.

That's what happens when you stiff people, both contractors and investors. He also earned a lot of animosity back in the day for his Polish Brigade, then there was his dealings with organized crime and how he got his way with the New Jersey AG. People remember that kind of stuff. As a kid I remember my grandfather in Nutley getting incensed over various Trump scandals, particularly the illegal Polish labor thing. It's hard to avoid seeing how litigation happy the guy is too, he's seen a thin-skinned pussy for good reason.

 

[buckshot24]

That's what happens when you stiff people, both contractors and investors. He also earned a lot of animosity back in the day for his Polish Brigade, then there was his dealings with organized crime and how he got his way with the New Jersey AG. People remember that kind of stuff. As a kid I remember my grandfather in Nutley getting incensed over various Trump scandals, particularly the illegal Polish labor thing. It's hard to avoid seeing how litigation happy the guy is too, he's seen a thin-skinned pussy for good reason.

No, that's what happens when you live in an ultra liberal state running as a Republican.

 

[Puffnstuff]

If Trump's behavior isn't extremely liberal I don't know what is. The fact that big religion backed him tells you that they are worthless. Most of them are going to experience this from Matthew Chapter 7 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ Can we draw some parallels between this passage and some public figures? I'm not just talking about politics here but religion in general.

Yep everyone who says they are a Christian are not and only have religion and practice religion which will earn them a permanent place elsewhere. Anybody who is supposed to know the word and is over others and influences them to violate it will be in some deep trouble in that day.

 

[Atreus21]

If Trump's behavior isn't extremely liberal I don't know what is. The fact that big religion backed him tells you that they are worthless. Most of them are going to experience this from Matthew Chapter 7 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ Can we draw some parallels between this passage and some public figures? I'm not just talking about politics here but religion in general.

Yep everyone who says they are a Christian are not and only have religion and practice religion which will earn them a permanent place elsewhere. Anybody who is supposed to know the word and is over others and influences them to violate it will be in some deep trouble in that day.

What are you talking about?

 

[Puffnstuff]

^^The whack job religious right's support of Trump professing him to be a conservative further demonstrating that they are worthless.