Community >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 16,121
In Reply To

Member Since: Sat Feb 25, 2017
Posts: 176
Subj: Re: Very troubling...
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 at 05:04:30 pm EDT (Viewed 299 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Very troubling...
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 at 11:20:09 am EDT (Viewed 315 times)

Did not read everything, so I apologize.

I never said it was the reason she lost. I said it was a reason she lost. Neither candidate was popular. Both never polled that high compared to past elections and the whole system moved up and down from scandal to scandal.

The email issue was big. Or else I doubt Trump would not have talked about it so much. Whenever a new relevant revaluation was brought up it was covered at extreme levels.

Really, the supporters of Trump wanted her arrested and the supporters of Clinton did not think it mattered, but there is a wide gap in the middle of those to. Many people had years of not trusting Clinton for various reasons. Some of them valid and some of them repeated but probably not as true as some would think. Reality is that it all comes down to perception.

I do agree that messaging was important. Clinton's message seemed mostly to be look at the guy over there and it is my turn to do this. Trump did have a clear message with regards to "Make America Great Again". Even though during the campaign, or I would argue now, he does not appear to have much of an idea of how to go about that.

That hurt, but really most politics is tribal. It is about getting your votes out more than the other guys. The african american vote was substantially down. And that will always hurt Dems. Hispanic and Asian vote was up, meaning Clinton may have won if the AA turn out was near what Obama had. Although that was probably unrealistic. The white vote was up.

I have heard several different reasons from different analysts that are probably true. And mattered more because of particularly weak candidates.

1. Trump appealed to the working class. Shifting voters from Obama to Trump. And that clinton failed to reach them with messaging. This may be true, I think the analysis I saw, or the report of it, said about 70% of the reason she lost.

This seems valid. At least from the things I have seen a fair number did turn away. The reasons for this vary some. Strangely, Clinton's economic policies faired better on surveys that I saw, but Trump was able to channel the anger and frustration, rightly or wrongly, towards things like NAFTA or Mexican workers etc. His policy positions themselves were never that clear or changed, but he had a consistent message.

2. There is a great deal of cultural unease in the US. Several reports have found this out, and it is in line with my hypothesis above. Many American's, particularly white American's, do not like the direction the country is taking culturally. This is a perception issue based mostly on extremes of reporting in my view.

We hear a great deal of over reporting on things that turn into hot button issues. And most people are resistant to change. There seems to be a generational divide on this subject. With the broad generality tending to be younger tend to be more open to change and the elder leaning towards either the good old days or maintaining.

I am not making a value judgement and this is a broad stroke to make, but the reports I saw seemed to make the case. IMO, points 1 and 2 are related.

3. Neither candidate was likable. Like no other election this one shifted on each scandal. Sometimes more and sometimes less. In the closing weeks the polling narrowed a fair bit. This was for various reasons and some state polling turned out to be fairly wrong. Even from normally reliable state polling firms.

We can pretend that the last scandal before the election did not matter but it seems to be missing the ebbs and flows of the scandal ridden campaigns. Comey's statements at the end did probably affect some people's choices. People probably holding their noses while doing it but to them it reinforced what Trump was saying enough to make the difference for them.

Do I think that is why she lost? Not alone, but I think it mattered more than zero. And given how close the margins were in most swing states things did matter.

Flat out, she lost. And we ended up in a strange situation of a president winning the EC and not the popular vote. This has happened before but is not really normal either. I have heard some try to drop California as making the difference but I do not think that is a fair analysis. The results were what they were. Trump won the system to elect the president. Winner takes all means winning a state by 0.7% is as good as winning it by 10%. Well, except potentially in Nebraska and Maine.

That said, I think the loss of the popular vote is reflected by extremely low approval ratings. My thought, at least in part, on this has to do with many voting on Trump and hoping he would change and appear more presidential with the job. That has not really come to pass.

It is possible that things swing, it is up and down for presidents, but in my life time I do not remember a president starting out with this low of an approval rating and so many scandals following him around.

A little ironic, given he said Clinton as president would lead to constant investigations. SEems we got that either way. Even if exonerated in the end of some of these misdeeds (say the Russian collusion scandal) it is impossible for him to make it out scott free at this point.

One could point to the media, but one has to accept that Trump has done a ton of this to himself. His ego cannot get out of his own way. And he seems particularly obsessed with overtly calling out enemies and making factually questionable remarks consistently.

I digress though. But from what I have seen of the election coverage the above seemed to be most of what I saw. I do not do the analysis myself and may not have seen every last one.


      While its perfectly possible this did not affect the election enough to make a difference, ignoring it is a very bad sign and it does make Trump look very very bad.


      Possible, but seems unlikely that it had no impact. We already know that Russia was responsible for the email dump that hurt Clinton so much.

    I think to say that the e-mail dump hurt her her "so much" is overstating the case.

    The mails were red meat for those who already decided not to vote for Clinton, and they were ignored by most others. I myself was not a fan a Clinton, but still found very little in Podesta's or DNC mails that was interesting. I think you have a steep hill to climb to demonstrate the mail dump had any impact on the election.

    Even Chris Mathews and the Daily Kos have stopped blaming Russia for Hillary's loss. The e-mail dump had nothing terribly exciting that would sway enough independent voters. In the last 10 weeks Trump made 50% more stops in Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Hillary's avoidance of Michigan and Wisconsin in the final days is now famous. Russia didn't put up barriers preventing Hillary from traveling.

    Bill Clinton had a much stronger relationship with the American people, and Hillary couldn't come close to Bill's charisma. He told her to spend more time in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. He told her that she needs to connect with those people. But she and her campaign ignored that advice.

    I'm sure both of us have spent a lot of time analyzing the election results. One thing I've seen is that only Clinton supporters point to the e-mails and Russia as why she lost. To get the real reasons, we have to look at why independents said they swung for Trump, not focus on suppositions of democrat voters. Outside of major metropolitan cities people didn't think Hillary cared about the loss of factory jobs, coal jobs, etc. Trump promised to bring those back. The argument whether or not he can fulfill that promise is a separate topic. But relevant to why people voted for him, he was talking about what rural, middle class voters wanted to hear....traditional jobs that their family has held for maybe generations, and lower taxes for example. Trump got big numbers from unions in Ohio. Unions typically vote democrat, but many union members voted Trump because his message resonated better.

    In the heartland many people believe in American exceptionalism, and are more patriotic generally than those in the coastal cities like NY and LA. Trump would speak in terms of "we" when he spoke of Americans, and he spoke of Americans as one people quite often. And that's something that democrats have gotten away from. Democrats speak of the African American community, the gay community, the Latinos, the rich, the whites, the poor, etc, but Trump was more likely to speak of Americans as a whole. The DNC didn't think it was important to display American flags in the arena. Things like that may not matter to you personally, but it did matter for many people who voted Trump.

    Hillary's non-existent message is also now accepted by most democrats. She seemed to be out there simply because it was "her turn". There was an arrogance that some saw.

    I'm sure you don't think of me as having an unbiased mind here, and that's fair. But what I'm suggesting is that you look at interviews from actual Trump voters, especially those who are not registered republicans. Look at columns written by people who voted for Trump, and who also voted for Obama both times.


    .....not sure why my post is centered. Apologies if the format is distracting.


Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 54.0 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2018 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2018 Powermad Software