So why did Hillary lose?

[ivwshane]

Because in Trump and Clinton, you had (A) two candidates that could only possibly win against the other and no one else, and (B) the inevitable outcome that one of them had to win despite him/herself. Hillary would have lost against anyone else, and Trump would have lost against anyone else, the country just had the misfortune they were facing each other. Kinda like the "unstoppable force vs. unmovable object" hypothetical only this time it was the very real collision of two impossibly bad personalities and one had to lose. Check that, the American people lost either way, but Clinton was the losing candidate.

More intellectual laziness.

 

[bshole]

Major election fraud in Wisconsin and North Carolina.

Actually here in Milwaukee, Hillary did not get the black vote like Obama did. The black turnout was anemic and the local news commented on it. In many of the black wards you could just walk up and vote with no waiting line at all. That was not the case four years ago. Hillary did absolutely nothing to court Wisconsin voters and especially inner city black.

Of course this is the first presidential election with the new voter id law so perhaps that was the suppressing factor. If so, it shows that the Republicans knew what they were doing when they passed it.

FWIW, just about all of my children's friends are black and I know they were no Hillary fans.

 

[Hulk]

Trump is the GOP's Bernie Sanders. The guy that's too far "out there," can't win the primary, definitely can't win the general election, and poses too much of a threat to the establishment. The GOP tried with all its might to give their voters Jeb Bush and they shunned him and the party. But the GOP didn't cross the line and allowed the primary process to play out in a fair manner.

Bernie Sanders had the energy and enthusiasm of the Democrats. But the DNC forced Hillary down their throats. The Clintons ruled the party and it was "her turn." The Democrats didn't have a voice to reject Hillary, who was their Jeb Bush. In a fair primary Bernie would have won.

 

[glenn1]

More intellectual laziness.

I see you're not quite yet ready for introspection or to conduct an honest post-mortem analysis.

 

[Kazukian]

Actually here in Milwaukee, Hillary did not get the black vote like Obama did. The black turnout was anemic and the local news commented on it. In many of the black wards you could just walk up and vote with no waiting line at all. That was not the case four years ago. Hillary did absolutely nothing to court Wisconsin voters and especially inner city black.

Of course this is the first presidential election with the new voter id law so perhaps that was the suppressing factor. If so, it shows that the Republicans knew what they were doing when they passed it.

Hillary did no campaigning in WI after the primaries, they took WI for granted, it was a huge mistake. Obama made 3 swings through WI during his campaign.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/lo...cle_a76c45b5-9d38-5183-a572-3ee8a7213f4f.html

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'd kick you off your high horse but I can't reach it.

I'll take a straw man for 200 with a side of deflection...

That's the very problem. People like Texashiker fooled themselves into thinking that Trump was some outsider rebel who would fight the establishment... sorry, he is the establishment. He doesn't care about the common person -- he just cares about getting as much as he can. You think you're going to get meaningful tax reform that makes someone like Trump pay his fair share? Not as long as he's in office.

But what Hillary people failed to note is that their selection would not fight the establishment, she is the establishment and acquired a substantial fortune from her friends.

What I think you ought to consider is that money matters, but it is not primary. Why would the wealthy take a pay cut to be President?

Even movies can make a poignant point. https://youtu.be/wgN1sLcAQnw?t=36 That's what it's about. Power, and neither is too proud in how it's acquired.

There are many ready to make that metaphorical leap on both sides.

 

[Kazukian]

I see you're not quite yet ready for introspection or to conduct an honest post-mortem analysis.

How does that go?

Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Acceptance

He's been in anger mode during the whole election cycle, maybe we're looking at the wrong issue with him.

Anyone seen Meghan or Jhhnn? Safety check time?

 

[woolfe9998]

Very very true. Trump historically has been left of center on many things, but he's an individualist on steroids. Since he has no party when it comes to Congress he is either going to have to give and go from the center or be marginalized by both parties. Ironically, he may be the catalyst that forces both warring sides to force their elitists who are too good for blacks or whites out and we see some constructive bipartisanship. Yep that's the good news because we've needed change for too many years and change happens in troubled times. Maybe, just maybe, this will force some good to come about.

LOL that Trump's presidency will result in a groundswell of bi-partisanship. Sure it will.

 

[C1]

As stated on AM radio this morning :

"This election result was about the limits of abuse of what the nation's people had been willing to put up with."

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Her campaign demeaned and ignored the people who could have given her a landslide.

 

[Grooveriding]

The answer to that is going to be multi-faceted. It can't be distilled down to one reason, there may be a majority held issue, but certainly not only one issue. I think it's clear there were a lot of people sick of the state of American politics. The lobbyists, .01% and their undue influence. Much of my family lives in the US and while when I cross the border I never notice much difference socially, the few differences there are, are quite stark and the politics are one of them.

- The politics are extremely partisan and the viability of the extreme right as a relevant political force is more real than any other first world nation I can think of. For context, the democrat party is more right than the our Conservative party here.
- The enshrinement of the ability to arm yourself.
- The religious right.

Those are pretty strong emotional hooks that I see Republicans pander to to garner votes. Trump played into all of those, but I don't think he actually gives a shit about any of the issues those things generally encapsulate, except perhaps being anti-immigration and anti Muslim.

I think the main driving force was the appeal to ripping up the back scratching, big money fueled .01% percent corrupt government that has been running rampant in the US. The irony is that a member of that very same .01% is who was elected to that end... so there is that. If that was the goal of the electorate I also think only Trump could have won to that end. I don't think America is ready to elect someone like Sanders and may never be. Even though the country has all sorts of huge socialist programs that drive it, the 'socialism' boogeyman has been demonized to the point Sanders would have never won. Just look at Obama's attempt to provide universal health care, it was a good attempt but he couldn't manage a real single payer universal health care system. Instead it's the pseudo hybrid mess he managed. You'd need to completely eliminate the corporate health insurance companies and move everyone on to single payer universal to manage what most European countries. Canada and some South American nations have. Sanders' notions of things like free university and the like would have had him decimated by his opponent.

I would be most concerned now with how many of the crazy things Trump pushed on his path to election were serious intentions. I'd be hoping it was mostly all bullshit and he was just pandering to the generic Republican audience to get their votes. How significant a portion of his support base is it that believes these things are really going to take place ?

- Building a physical wall on the border with Mexico and somehow getting them to pay the 10+ billion it will cost.
- Tracking Muslim members of the population.
- Killing the families of terrorists and torturing people.
- Destroying a nebulous terrorist organization that has no real 'home base'
- Instituting draconian trade tariffs with China, the country that produces near everything, and making the cost of everything go up significantly for Americans.
- Throwing Clinton in jail.
- Abolishing abortion and 'punishing' women who have one.

I don't remember everything, there is probably a lot more crazy I think it's safe to say none of that shit is going to happen. He might play around with some of it, but not of it will come to fruition. The one I'd be really worried about are any attempts he makes with anti-terrorism in so much as it amounting to expeditions into other countries.

With an electorate that split near 50/50 in who they wanted to win. How much of the 50% that supported him was enthralled by the crazy campaign points that won't come to pass and how will that effect their approval of him when he is expected to be the non politician. ie. Not lying (LOL), corrupt etc and keeping promises. He won't be able to do anything on that list unless his plan is to suspend citizen's rights and go full crazy, which while something to worry about, is not very likely.

 

[dank69]

It's a bit more complicated than that and it always is. In this case Hillary was the least popular person who Dems could have put up IMO and the polls reflected that from the beginning. Bernie beat Trump far more than Hillary did (for that matter a few had that distinction).

But Hillary was THE candidate selected and backed by the party faithful and that cost them dearly. Why? I think in large part people took a look at the corporatist and frankly a bit too oily. Then there was the DNC who was shown to be invested to beat Bernie and have Hillary at all costs. That didn't sit well with many nor did the attitude of some supporters. I remember being told that effectively nothing matters but winning. How sad, the ideals were sold out and it showed. Excuses and attacks became the norm, and while Trump certainly had more than enough against him, that became the focus instead of credible candidates who did not make a fortune from those who take advantage of the "average citizen".

Then there are people who have not recovered from the economic problems of the past who aren't minorities. Yes, white men. Aggregate statistics of economics moving in a trend does not translate into good, secure jobs. Hillary tells us that her daughters are privileged because they are white. Well they are that and the daughter of the Clintons and have a few hundred million dollars coming their way. That doesn't matter to people who lost their jobs no matter their color and find themselves not able to make ends meet.

In essence she and their supporters said "we don't care about you, you aren't a minority". Now you may disagree, but people regardless of color do not like to be told how great they have it while drawing from their retirement and running up credit cards to make up for the ever increasing wealth divide that Clinton clearly is on the side that benefits from.

The Democrats became a party of the minorities, the transgenders, the whatever, but they forgot about the majority who live in troubled times. The Big House became much smaller.

Then you have Trump who resonated with those people. Not all of them are racists although the Democrats often tried to make them out that way. To be sure many are but many are worried and have no voice in Hillary or the Democrats. Their support of Trump is a last ditch effort for someone to listen to them, the many who aren't the 1%. Trump offered some hope that their jobs wouldn't be shipped away again.

The Dems instead of responding to these people's worries labeled them as racist stupid hicks who hate everyone who is not a straight white male.

Well no. Straight white males is not a guarantee anymore. Those who aren't wealthy are insecure regardless of race or gender. Everyone wants a voice and that I believe is why Trump won. Not that he's a gem, the disfavorably rating proves most know that, but when there is no hope offered by the other side people will vote for a pig in a poke, and they have.

There, I highlighted everything in your post that boils down to misplaced anger. The GOP blames the Dems for all their troubles and the people who have no idea how to even begin to verify what is true and what is not just accept it as fact. Almost all the things that these people are mad about can be traced directly back to GOP policies and obstruction, but are instead convinced it is liberals' and immigrants' fault.

 

[agent00f]

I figured comprehension wasn't happening. You pick your side and look down on the ignorant white racist people, which is apparently everyone. Disregard everyone else and cry havoc. Your true equivalents on the Right will do the same and you and they will stand smug in their self rightness, standing on the corner like the Pharisees of old loudly thanking whatever higher power they might consider existing, that they are not like those "sinners".

What fools these mortals be.

The only sides here are people who comprehend something of history and those who don't think much of book learning. Doesn't seem like someone arguing "both sides are the same" here fits the former very well. Complaining about uppity darkies is a time honored tradition in this country, only covered up as of late with a fig leaf by the liberal media and educators for the sake of future generations.

It is what it is, history doesn't tell us a whole lot to be proud of.

 

[bshole]

Her campaign demeaned and ignored the people who could have given her a landslide.

Na... I think their polling was just focked up. They focused on the swing states according to their polls. The truly horrific polling indicated that there was no need to visit Wisconsin, it was a mortal lock. Worst polling eva.....

 

[bshole]

Complaining about uppity darkies is a time honored tradition in this country, only covered up as of late with a fig leaf by the liberal media and educators for the sake of future generations.

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?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

LOL that Trump's presidency will result in a groundswell of bi-partisanship. Sure it will.

Trump is historically not a right wing Republican. In fact he's shown some tendencies towards the left but has been more absorbed by his interests than any of the party. GWB wouldn't support him for crying out loud. He has been marginalized by the party proper and he's going to not be a "toe the line" kind of guy.

So Congress has two choices. Either give everything to Trump or work together to some degree for stability if nothing else. The former isn't happening even if the latter is not publically called for by the pols.

This isn't a matter of flowers and give everyone a coke. It's a matter of keeping the car on the road.

Change happens due to adversity and this qualifies. Now maybe absolute calamity will happen as seemingly hoped for so people can say "I told you so" and you will be right. Then, maybe not.

I know which I'd rather see. YMMV.

 

[zinfamous]

You can claim Hillary was a horrible candidate all you want but if you thought trump was worse then the blame for getting him elected is on those that voted for a third party or didn't bother voting is on them. Its not like trump ran away with this election either, so their vote mattered. The onus is on the voters, period.

Own it.

Ridiculous. I own nothing because I voted for Hillary in the strongest Hillary state. My vote probably counted less than yours, but I still cast it.

Trump went after the people that he said would vote for him, and he was right. Everyone dismissed him for this strategy, but it worked. There has been a real ignorance among the democrats and other gentried elites that certain sectors of demographics will be forever theirs if they just play them lip service. Well, that didn't happen this time and the aggravating thing is that this isn't the first time such districts flipped parties to vote for the "Great Promiser of things." Hillary completely abandoned Wisconsin after the primaries. She had it in the bag.

How the fuck can that be on anyone else but her and her team?

 

[woolfe9998]

I hate this argument. I may be annoyed at a percentage (far greater than imagined) of Bernie supporters that refused to vote or went Trump, but only Hillary can own that and, more importantly--Trump gets tremendous credit for grabbing them.

That is on Hillary and no one else. She and the dems alone lost the most dependable voting block for the democratic party over the last ~century plus. She lost Obama's supporters, hard. There really is no other explanation. Dems have to own that and regroup or face the same political irrelevance that many assumed was coming to the republicans after this election.

The only positive that I can hope for out of Trump is that he acts as the bi-partisan enema that this country truly needs. If he can somehow be a moderate (and not let Pence do, well, anyfuckingthing) and make enough reforms to WS and political entitlements, hell--something that actually helps these people for the first time ever, it would be a welcome change. I honestly hope he can do that and I think you should hope for that as well.

Oh, I most certainly do hope for those things. I don't want a Trump presidency to fail because I don't want America to fail. Then again, I hope for lots of things, like world peace, and winning the lottery.

 

[zinfamous]

Trump is historically not a right wing Republican. In fact he's shown some tendencies towards the left but has been more absorbed by his interests than any of the party. GWB wouldn't support him for crying out loud. He has been marginalized by the party proper and he's going to not be a "toe the line" kind of guy.

So Congress has two choices. Either give everything to Trump or work together to some degree for stability if nothing else. The former isn't happening even if the latter is not publically called for by the pols.

This isn't a matter of flowers and give everyone a coke. It's a matter of keeping the car on the road.

Change happens due to adversity and this qualifies. Now maybe absolute calamity will happen as seemingly hoped for so people can say "I told you so" and you will be right. Then, maybe not.

I know which I'd rather see. YMMV.

It's not so much Trump that worries me, but the rather smart and diabolical people that will become his braintrust. It's Dubya all over again--the mindless rubber-stamping puppet that does the bidding of those around him.

Can you stomach the idea of people like Pence, Giuliani, Christie, etc taking over key cabinet and power positions? Giuliani possibly as attorney general? Dark days ahead....

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There, I highlighted everything in your post that boils down to misplaced anger. The GOP blames the Dems for all their troubles and the people who have no idea how to even begin to verify what is true and what is not just accept it as fact. Almost all the things that these people are mad about can be traced directly back to GOP policies and obstruction, but are instead convinced it is liberals' and immigrants' fault.

That's on the Republican side. For independents like me I have no misplaced anger when dealing with a corporate darling hawk donning the robes of a progressive, or whatever. I'm not sure anyone knowns.

But yes there is anger. See it from those supporting Trump who are racists. See it from the Dems who look down on whites who are concerned and have problems of their own.

There's enough anger and hate, but one thing distinctly lacking is a leader who talks to people not as minorities or whites and brings a common vision where all have a real chance regardless of who they are or are not.

Inclusiveness does not exist and that's a shame. I don't mean some sham slogan, but making America a better place for the immigrant or the white blue collar worker.

There is no such person in authority.

 

[Triloby]

Hillary lost because she did a god-awful job of trying to relate to the average American, plus the fact that the DNC snubbed Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries really put a sour taste in a lot of people's mouths. Even for those that wouldn't have voted for Trump, they did not like how the DNC treated Bernie and they decided to show their outrage at the polls on Election Day.

The bigger problem, however, is the fact that the establishment is still in power. The Republicans now control all three branches of our government. Last I checked, they are nowhere near as anti-establishment as Trump is. The thing is, Trump has proven that he isn't exactly as right-wing or as conservative as the rest of the GOP is. This may play well with those that aren't socially conservative, but the Evangelicals and the overly religious might not approve of this.

If Trump conducts himself in a "less than right-wing" manner as President, I'm pretty certain the GOP can choose to not work with him on whatever the issue is. The President can't always control or determine whatever goes on in both the legislative and judicial branches of government. Sure, Trump could veto whatever bill Congress tries to pass if he doesn't like it himself, but Congress can always to choose to kill a bill or law that Trump would've liked and there would be nothing that he could do about it.

Trump is a wild card. He could be good, or he could be bad. Right now, there's no way to tell. Especially considering the victory speech he gave, which was a complete 180 from how he acted during the election.

 

[agent00f]

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?

Try to recall their reaction whenever some minority doing anything untowards is in the news or such, that's what it refers to.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's not so much Trump that worries me, but the rather smart and diabolical people that will become his braintrust. It's Dubya all over again--the mindless rubber-stamping puppet that does the bidding of those around him.

Can you stomach the idea of people like Pence, Giuliani, Christie, etc taking over key cabinet and power positions? Giuliani possibly as attorney general? Dark days ahead....

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that everything is roses in any way, but my mantra for today is that reform happens due to adversity.

Also remember that Trump may very well get himself kicked out of office if he decides he isn't bound by law and flaunts the fact.

I'm not losing any sleep in any case.

 

[bshole]

Try to recall their reaction whenever some minority doing anything untowards is in the news or such, that's what it refers to.

What does "untowards" mean? Are your referring to when a black offender murders a white person? Please be more clear.

 

[norseamd]

ivwshane, I don't want you to agree with me, but it'd be nice if you re-evaluated your behavior and attitude. I'm a Democrat and you embarrass me. Develop some diplomacy and people skills, alienating/insulting people who disagree with you isn't a way to win elections or friends.

Win friends no, but winning elections is entirely fundamentally irrelevant, those that base their vote off that which is not the candidates & elections themselves are only to blame, and they are undermining society, and often unashamed and regretless about it. They are not worth the air they breathe, nevermind worth worrying about.