PDA

View Full Version : The real reason Trump won



Paul Pless
12-19-2016, 10:34 AM
Hillary Clinton.

Norman Bernstein
12-19-2016, 10:35 AM
Hillary Clinton.

Thank you for your concise, specific, and nuanced subtle analysis of the election. :)

jack grebe
12-19-2016, 10:36 AM
I've been saying that.

Figment
12-19-2016, 10:36 AM
Too soon to blame Monica?

Tom Montgomery
12-19-2016, 10:41 AM
Hillary Clinton.
And Barack Obama.

There is a solid core of the electorate who emphatically opposed him from day one. Hillary Clinton represented more of the same.

leikec
12-19-2016, 10:41 AM
Thank you for your concise, specific, and nuanced subtle analysis of the election. :)

He's not wrong...

Jeff C

Sky Blue
12-19-2016, 10:46 AM
Without California in the mix, Trump dominated the popular vote count throughout the nation despite unfavorables the likes of which have never been seen.

Mrs. Clinton spent more than a billion dollars on her awful campaign. She's one of the worst candidates ever to run for President, and ran one of the worst Presidential campaigns in history.

Had Bernie Sanders been given a fair shake in the primary process, I suggest he would be the President-Elect.

The Democrats sacrificed nearly everything on the altar of Hillary Clinton's ambition.

Norman Bernstein
12-19-2016, 10:50 AM
Without California in the mix...

I didn't realize that Califronia didn't count. I guess they're not 'real' citizens.


Mrs. Clinton spent more than a billion dollars on her awful campaign. She's one of the worst candidates ever to run for President, and ran one of the worst Presidential campaigns in history.

'One of the worst campaigns in history'? You're elevating hyperbole to a new high. While she lost on electoral votes, she did win nearly 3 million more popular votes. I suggest you study history a bit, to see why that statement is possibly the most foolish one you've made so far. REALLY foolish.


The Democrats sacrificed nearly everything on the altar of Hillary Clinton's ambition.

I see... in Hillary's case, ambition was a sin... in Trump's case, it's a virtue.

.... does this have anything to do with 'virtue signalling'? :):)

Tom Montgomery
12-19-2016, 10:51 AM
It has everything to do with it of course.

David G
12-19-2016, 10:56 AM
Hillary Clinton.


He's not wrong...

Jeff C

Indeed.

Hillary as the Dem candidate contributed to the loss. She was actually an excellent candidate, in many ways. Smart. Knowledgeable. Highly xperienced. Tough - even ruthless. All of which made her the perfectly wrong candidate for THIS election. Too many 'establishment' credentials. Throw in decades of attacks and slander - which inevitably cast a pall of mistrust (however unwarranted) around her name.

Then we come to this election - where the peons, riled up by populism from both the left and right - lashed out at the status quo. Unthinkingly, wildly, stupidly, and counter-productively. Trump felt it coming. It is his sole (as far as I can tell) genius. He can read a situation and tell when it is ripe for him to step in for the Big Con. He positioned himself well, and his message (as muddy and intellectually null as it was) was sung in the perfect key to appeal to all of the legitimate angst that has been building up in the electorate for many years.

Trump was the perfect candidate to win the election, and the worst candidate to actually serve. Clinton the inverse.

Paul Pless
12-19-2016, 10:58 AM
Without California

yawn

peb
12-19-2016, 11:02 AM
Paul is dead on. As of right now, Obama has a 55% job approval average on RCP. Trumps favorablilty RCP average is 43%. That is after quite a large post-election bump.
The simple fact is that the democrats chose Hillary to be their standard bearer years ago, and it was a horrible choice. None of my election predictions were accurate, starting with that I thought for sure Biden would run because of how weak Hillary was. I feel certain that if the Democrats had chosen Biden instead of Hillary, he would have one the election rather handily.
Hillary was a horrible candidate. She came with way too much baggage. She had an old-school, inbred campaign staff. She had a horrible strategy of just attacking Trump and trying to run out the clock (starting in the 1st quarter, ie right after the conventions). She focused on the wrong states. She never had a message. "I'm with her" has got to be one of the most narcissistic campaign slogans ever used.
Many democrats were completely blind to her shortcomings.

Tom Montgomery
12-19-2016, 11:02 AM
Hillary as the Dem candidate contributed to the loss. She was actually an excellent candidate, in many ways. Smart. Knowledgeable. Highly xperienced. Tough - even ruthless. All of which made her the perfectly wrong candidate for THIS election. Too many 'establishment' credentials. Throw in decades of attacks and slander - which inevitably cast a pall of mistrust (however unwarranted) around her name.Add the Russian email hacks and subsequent leaks along with FBI Director James Comey's behavior and it added up to an impossible task of correcting the decades long demonization of the woman.

Norman Bernstein
12-19-2016, 11:08 AM
Paul is dead on. As of right now, Obama has a 55% job approval average on RCP. Trumps favorablilty RCP average is 43%. That is after quite a large post-election bump.

It will be interesting to see how that statistic changes with time. Considering what Trump has 'done' since the election, and even before inauguration, it's pretty hard to see how that number is going to rise. Of course, he could pull off some sort of 'miracle'... but I'm not going to hold my breath.


I feel certain that if the Democrats had chosen Biden instead of Hillary, he would have one the election rather handily.

I'm not nearly as sure. I happen to be a big fan of Biden... I think he's the most honest politician in Washington today... but he had some baggage of his own, mostly, the 'gaffes' which would have been replayed constantly in the media.


Many democrats were completely blind to her shortcomings.

I wasn't a big fan of her, either... but in terms of experience, knowledge, and ability, she would have made a good president. Yes, the mistake was that she couldn't shed 30 years of 'baggage'.... even though most of that baggage was largely false. When a politician gets a 'reputation', whether fair, or unfair, it's nearly impossible to shed it. Much of her 'reputation' was indeed unfair.

David G
12-19-2016, 12:09 PM
Future investigations will reveal Hillary's run suffered death by a thousand cuts. And the United States may be headed for the the same fate.

Yes... this is a chunk of it.

seanz
12-19-2016, 02:16 PM
It's bothered me for a while now, after Clinton was beaten 8 years ago by a work-experience senator from Illinois, why would she be the main chance this time around?

And Kaine? What were they thinking? The most motivated section of the Dems was the Left, and they got nothing. Couldn't they have run a lefty woman as Veep instead?

Did they want to lose?

Paul Pless
12-19-2016, 04:44 PM
Thank you Sean!

PeterSibley
12-19-2016, 04:46 PM
A specifically undemocratic (one vote one value) voting system.

David G
12-19-2016, 04:46 PM
It's bothered me for a while now, after Clinton was beaten 8 years ago by a work-experience senator from Illinois, why would she be the main chance this time around?

And Kaine? What were they thinking? The most motivated section of the Dems was the Left, and they got nothing. Couldn't they have run a lefty woman as Veep instead?

Did they want to lose?

I don't think they wanted to lose.

I think they simply were not tuned into the zeitgeist. Few were. To our chagrin... Trump was. If the resentment - both legitimate and manufactured - hadn't come to a head... in a normal election, Hillary would have won easily, methinks.

seanz
12-19-2016, 04:53 PM
I think they simply were not tuned into the zeitgeist.


Noooooo!

They weren't tuned into their own party. The section of the Dems with the most energy was the Left. All the recognition they got amounted to a pat on the head and a tut tutting, because we know you can't have a radical candidate or radical policies, that wouldn't be sensible.

PeterSibley
12-19-2016, 04:54 PM
A specifically undemocratic (one vote one value) voting system.

Anywhere else Clinton won.

Boater14
12-19-2016, 04:54 PM
Looking back he won the moment he announced his candidacy based on hate. I wanted biden but can't honestly say he'd have won. Paul got you going but sorry Charlie, it ain't so. Good friend is still saying Bernie could have won....get this....BASED ON THE POLLS. we're a rotten country. No one had a chance against him. She's gone....who you gonna hate now....Sean hannity will tell you who. Who's left....Pelosi? Trump and the right can't survive without someone to hate. The NYT....WAPO? Gerber babyfood? Where's the next focus for their hate while we get fleeced?

Osborne Russell
12-19-2016, 05:09 PM
Trump and the right can't survive without someone to hate. The NYT....WAPO? Gerber babyfood? Where's the next focus for their hate while we get fleeced?

Very pertinent question. I expect the administration to try a few minor targets first, probably via surrogates, to get an idea of what they can get away with.

And then there are the free-lancers. Lots of confederate flags, even swastikas. Such people are actually pretty easy to organize and command. It's pure tribalism. Don't want or need a focus, just a uniform and marching orders.

johnw
12-19-2016, 05:11 PM
Hillary Clinton.

Give Trump a little credit, he got about 2 million more votes than Romney. The man turned out his base.

Osborne Russell
12-19-2016, 05:21 PM
Noooooo!

They weren't tuned into their own party. The section of the Dems with the most energy was the Left. All the recognition they got amounted to a pat on the head and a tut tutting, because we know you can't have a radical candidate or radical policies, that wouldn't be sensible.

Has the most energy, i.e. goofy. Free stuff and freedom, above all for freaks. Safe spaces. It's not so much that these people lack enthusiasm for the party's positions as it is that they are entirely ignorant of what they are and where they came from. They are impatient that respect for the rights of others, especially those with whom you disagree, is fundamental; few things demonstrate this like the history of the evolution of Democratic Party principles. You know, old school. History, books. They think injustices exist simply because the government hasn't gotten around to outlawing them all, which would be easily done.

Combine that kind of ignorance with plenty of energy, it's a recipe for disaster. Unable to rule, most importantly, unable to combat the reaction they would provoke.

David G
12-19-2016, 05:23 PM
Noooooo!

They weren't tuned into their own party. The section of the Dems with the most energy was the Left. All the recognition they got amounted to a pat on the head and a tut tutting, because we know you can't have a radical candidate or radical policies, that wouldn't be sensible.

Evidence of the fact that most of us had no clue that Trump had tapped the vein of resentment so gushingly --

https://www.yahoo.com/news/merriam-webster-surreal-is-the-word-of-the-year-for-2016-195744626.html

(https://www.yahoo.com/news/merriam-webster-surreal-is-the-word-of-the-year-for-2016-195744626.html)Merriam-Webster: ‘Surreal’ Is the Word of the Year for 2016 Merriam-Webster, which has been announcing a Word of the Year (https://www.merriam-webster.com/video/2016-word-of-the-year-behind-the-scenes) since 2003, defines “surreal” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surreal) as “marked by the intense irrational reality of a dream” and pointed to the way its use in news coverage was followed by spikes in lookups: the terrorist attacks in Brussels in March, as well as the coup attempt in Turkey and the terrorist attack in Nice in July.

But the largest spike in searches occurred after the U.S. presidential election in November, when the businessman and former reality TV star Donald Trump defeated the heavily favored candidate, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Tom Montgomery
12-19-2016, 05:32 PM
Give Trump a little credit, he got about 2 million more votes than Romney. The man turned out his base.And that base is vile.

The base cannot elect a candidate on its own. It requires others. And that is where one encounters the result of decades of the dumbing down of America.

bob winter
12-19-2016, 05:54 PM
Without California in the mix, Trump dominated the popular vote count throughout the nation despite unfavorables the likes of which have never been seen.

Mrs. Clinton spent more than a billion dollars on her awful campaign. She's one of the worst candidates ever to run for President, and ran one of the worst Presidential campaigns in history.

Had Bernie Sanders been given a fair shake in the primary process, I suggest he would be the President-Elect.

The Democrats sacrificed nearly everything on the altar of Hillary Clinton's ambition.

I am inclined to agree with you. The recent cluster***k is kind of pathetic for a major power like the USA. I can't see much good coming out of the Trump administration but I can see a lot of bad. As a Canadian descended from UE Loyalists, I can't say I give a tinker's damn about what happens in Confused States but I fear there will be spillover.

BrianW
12-19-2016, 06:00 PM
And Barack Obama.

There is a solid core of the electorate who emphatically opposed him from day one. Hillary Clinton represented more of the same.

I agree that many conservatives disliked Obama, I heard plenty of them expressing that sentiment over the last 8 years.

But during this election his name rarely came up with those same people. They simply hated Hillary Clinton enough that there was no need to find another reason to not vote for her.

There was no need to get worked up over Obama this time around, as they knew he was gone come January.

I don't think they gave President Obama a fair shake, and that's too bad.

seanz
12-19-2016, 06:02 PM
Evidence of the fact that most of us had no clue that Trump had tapped the vein of resentment so gushingly --



i know, I know...trump trump trumpity trump.....buuuuuut....the DNC ignored an active and activist section of their own party. They didn't just underestimate Trump, they underestimated their own party. This should be addressed.

Tom Montgomery
12-19-2016, 06:02 PM
"They" are you, BrianW.

You own the next four years.

Good luck with that.

BrianW
12-19-2016, 06:03 PM
Had Bernie Sanders been given a fair shake in the primary process, I suggest he would be the President-Elect.


Or Joe Biden (aka Shotgun Joe ;) )

I'd have voted for Joe in a heartbeat this time around.

Tom Montgomery
12-19-2016, 06:05 PM
You both have now got the president you deserve.

The rest of the nation and the world will now hold you to account.

BrianW
12-19-2016, 06:05 PM
"They" are you, BrianW.

You own the next four years.

Good luck with that.

Whatever you need to believe to make it through the day.

BrianW
12-19-2016, 06:06 PM
You both have now got the president you deserve.

The rest of the nation and the world will now hold you to account.

:D

Drama much?

:D

Tom Montgomery
12-19-2016, 06:08 PM
Denial much?

See me in four years time.

BrianW
12-19-2016, 06:10 PM
Denial much?

See me in four years time.

See the thread title, and post #1. Then stop blaming others.

;)

Tom Montgomery
12-19-2016, 06:13 PM
I saw both. Obviously I disagree.

I hold you and your fellow travelers responsible.

Sabe?

paulf
12-19-2016, 06:14 PM
Hillary Clinton.

No, the real reason is the stupidity and laziness of the American people...us, our own worst enemy.

BrianW
12-19-2016, 06:15 PM
I saw both. Obviously I disagree.

I hold you and your fellow travelers responsible.

Sabe?

Again, whatever it takes for you to make it through the day.

Maybe a safe room would help?

TomF
12-19-2016, 06:16 PM
The reason Trump won is that people in more states voted for him. Decided that they preferred his bragging and belittling to Clinton's lawyer-talking. They believed he wasn't as corrupt, somehow.

Madness, that.

Tom Montgomery
12-19-2016, 06:19 PM
Again, whatever it takes for you to make it through the day.

Maybe a safe room would help?
Feel free to be as rude as you wish.

So you are refusing to accept Donald J. Trump as representing your interests?

So who did you vote for?

switters
12-19-2016, 06:20 PM
You are all wrong, it is my fault. I voted third party.

not sorry

Tom Montgomery
12-19-2016, 06:24 PM
Meaning your hands are clean if the Trump administration turns out to be a disaster for the nation?

BrianW
12-19-2016, 06:24 PM
Feel free to be as rude as you wish.

I entered this thread in a very nice way. You made it personal.

Don't go whinging now.

Tom Montgomery
12-19-2016, 06:26 PM
If my contention that "you own it" (along with many others) is a personal attack then by all means take it up with the moderator.

McMike
12-19-2016, 06:27 PM
Without California in the mix, Trump dominated the popular vote count throughout the nation despite unfavorables the likes of which have never been seen.

Mrs. Clinton spent more than a billion dollars on her awful campaign. She's one of the worst candidates ever to run for President, and ran one of the worst Presidential campaigns in history.

Had Bernie Sanders been given a fair shake in the primary process, I suggest he would be the President-Elect.

The Democrats sacrificed nearly everything on the altar of Hillary Clinton's ambition.

Cheese and rice!!!! A post from you and I actually agree with the whole thing. Amazing.

paulf
12-19-2016, 06:37 PM
Cheese and rice!!!! A post from you and I actually agree with the whole thing. Amazing.

ie, were stupid, plane and simple!

TomF
12-19-2016, 06:54 PM
The reason Trump won is that people in more states voted for him. Decided that they preferred his bragging and belittling to Clinton's lawyer-talking. They believed he wasn't as corrupt, somehow.

Madness, that.

johnw
12-19-2016, 07:06 PM
And that base is vile.

The base cannot elect a candidate on its own. It requires others. And that is where one encounters the result of decades of the dumbing down of America.

Most people vote for the same party year after year, regardless of the candidate. That's the bulk of the votes. Campaigns are won at the margins -- the voters that either turn out or don't, for the most part.

BrianW
12-19-2016, 09:05 PM
If my contention that "you own it" (along with many others) is a personal attack then by all means take it up with the moderator.

I said you made it personal. You added the 'attack' part, not me.

Your full quote...


"They" are you, BrianW.

There's never been a more perfect example of 'making it personal' :D

You lose.

Again.

Durnik
12-19-2016, 10:47 PM
It's bothered me for a while now, after Clinton was beaten 8 years ago by a work-experience senator from Illinois, why would she be the main chance this time around?

And Kaine? What were they thinking? The most motivated section of the Dems was the Left, and they got nothing. Couldn't they have run a lefty woman as Veep instead?

Did they want to lose?

last time 'round, Romney did everything wrong.. It's like the Dems were taking lessons.

And yes, after 8 years ago, Hillary shouldn't even have been in the running. Add the zeitgeist of change in the air & there was only one choice.

Meanwhile, rumors have it Pence is the one getting intelligence briefings.. a lot of people are going to die to appease his god.