Another reason Clinton lost....

[The Shrike]

I disagree, I think that his age, his history of disloyalty against party, his socialism, his Jewishness would all have been used against him.

Oh no doubt they would have. But he consistently polled better against Trump than Clinton did because (1) he had clearer positions on issues than she did, (2) he's a far more naturally inspiring public speaker, (3) despite his long history of public service, he's much more a populist outsider, (4) he's not plagued with indiscretions that might technically not be criminal even though they look pretty bad, (5) he wasn't automatically despised by tens of millions of Americans, and (6) he's not abjectly morally bankrupt as is so obvious in Trump.

One of the reasons why so many on the right were cheering on Bernie that that they thought he would be a much easier candidate to beat than Hillary.

I agree, but they were wrong. Had the Democrats gotten out of their own way, Bernie could have been the November surprise.

 

[Ziggurat]

I do agree that she probably should have reached out in some way, the only way to win is to gather as many votes as possible.

However I am also an incurable idealist, and frankly if the only reason you want to vote for someone is because of their religious position, then I don't care what you think, and if that means losing, so be it.

Who said that's what outreach needs to consist of? It doesn't. Outreach doesn't require Clinton changing any of her positions. It doesn't require her lying about any of her positions. It only requires her to search for common ground. And that common ground need not consist of her personal religious beliefs.

The bigotry in this thread against evangelicals (and to be clear, I'm not really talking about you specifically) is pretty damned amazing.

 

[Donal]

Looking at the way Hillary ran her campaign from the outside (I am a Libertarian and find both The Donald and Hillary unpalatable) it did seem like she did not make any effort to win over voters that may have been right leaning, but had issues with Trump. Many evangelicals disliked Trump, but saw him as the lesser of two evils. I think there was a time where Hilary could have won over my mother (and other evangelicals who had a problem with Trump on moral grounds) but the way that Hilary’s campaign tried to attack Trump did not resonate with them. Hillary’s campaign frequently attacked The Donald on moral grounds, but she always used the language of the left to do it. If she had found a way to attack The Donald’s morals, but sounded like an evangelical instead of a SJW I think she could have “de-energized” many evangelicals and lessened their turn out, and maybe pick up a few votes, especially among the religious female voters who had every reason to dislike The Donald on moral grounds.

Could you elaborate on that? Because generally, when "SJW" is used, its by bigots trying to silence or discredit opposing views. "he doesn't respect women" and "he treats working class people horribly" don't really need a lot of translating. Half of the attacks Clinton used were simply repeating his own words.

My father (and all of the other male relatives in my family) would have never voted for Hillary over 2nd amendment issues. The Donald could have held a press conference dressed in drag with Dee Snider promising to pass a law to force every American male to wear only skirts if elected and my father and uncles would have all went out on election day with kilts on to vote for The Donald over 2nd amendment issues,

Says more about your father and uncles than Clinton if they believe the nonsense.

but many religious women that I know did not like The Donald, but voted for him anyways as the lesser of two evils because Hilary just did not resonate with them.

see above

In hind-sight I think that Hilary did make a mistake by not courting the evangelical right even slightly, especially the women. She did not have to compromise on her own values, but she could have tried to find the language to attack The Donald’s morality in a way that would have connected with the women, and maybe present herself in a way that was less polarizing and more acceptable. I don’t think that she would have ever won overwhelming support among the evangelical right, but she might have been less polarizing in a way that would have de-energized their vote.

But this is all hind-sight.

Both candidates have been in the public light for decades. There is more than enough information about how they adhere to Christian values without getting a hand written love note.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Why didn’t Hillary Clinton even try to get us to vote for her?

Perhaps so as not to waste resources on a lost cause?

 

[NoahFence]

The bigotry in this thread against evangelicals (and to be clear, I'm not really talking about you specifically) is pretty damned amazing.

Send me a hundred dollars so that the lord can give me the courage to explain it to you.

 

[The Big Dog]

Perhaps so as not to waste resources on a lost cause?

Her incompetent campaign had NO trouble doing that itself.

 

[Mumbles]

I do agree that she probably should have reached out in some way, the only way to win is to gather as many votes as possible.

However I am also an incurable idealist, and frankly if the only reason you want to vote for someone is because of their religious position, then I don't care what you think, and if that means losing, so be it.

No, you are correct. Some evangelicals would certainly have welcomed much of her message, and she only lost due to missing roughly 80k votes in a few important states.

It's certainly true that there were other reasons that also had a negative effect - the free advertising that news programs gave to Trump, James Comey's meddling, and possibly Russia's hacking (I'm not convinced of this, however). But it was still up to her to deal with all of it, and reach as many people as possible, and she clearly ignored many groups.

ETA: If you want to see someone who does this well at the state level, look to Rev. Barber, who started the "Moral Mondays" protests in North Carolina.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Just another example of a lousy candidate running a lousy campaign, although the intolerance in this thread towards those holding evangelical opinions is a real eye opener.

It's not even 'another' reason. It's just a rehash of the same finger-pointing tirade.

Last night I gave a very measured response to someone who posted an article about why we should never forgive Trump supporters. The gist of it was a tear down of every statement with even the slightest hint of suggestion that maybe 'they' aren't all bigoted morons. It railed against the idea of finding new ways of engaging in discussion with people. I pointed out that might be a bit short sighted since it doesn't seem to be a very successful strategy.

So they deleted their post and are now very upset with me. So basically this person engaged in the exact kind of refusal to listen and blind rejection of a slightly different opinion on a specific issue that I was talking about.

I get that stages of grief take a while to get through, but I was hoping we'd move beyond Denial and Anger a little quicker than this.

Buckle up people, we're going to have 8 years of this if we keep it up. Plus whatever (possibly worse, and yes it can get much, much worse) candidate follows him.

 

[paulhutch]

The_Don, I think you might have a strange and warped idea about what an Evangelical is. It's just a doctrinal position that salvation comes through grace alone, and not from the works of the individual. Most Protestant faiths adhere to this.

A more accurate version is, most Protestant faiths have some congregations or members that adhere to this and also congregations or members that do not adhere to this.

Yes it does:
http://www.evangelicalbeliefs.com/

There is nearly infinite diversity in what tenants individual evangelicals follow. How one particular group defines it is not definitive.

 

[paulhutch]

The bigotry in this thread against evangelicals (and to be clear, I'm not really talking about you specifically) is pretty damned amazing.

People should keep in mind that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was an evangelical and the Rev. Pat Robertson is an evangelical. I greatly admire the former and despise the latter.

 

[paulhutch]

Send me a hundred dollars so that the lord can give me the courage to explain it to you.

I'm tempted to send you the cash to find out what about the Rev MLK Jr. you find so objectionable.

I'm going to guess you just have a silly stereotype in your head and don't actually know much about the enormous variation in beliefs and actions of evangelical Christians. In fact the begging money bit is not an evangelical thing but a televangelist, especially prosperity gospel, thing.

 

[Resume]

There is nearly infinite diversity in what tenants individual evangelicals follow. How one particular group defines it is not definitive.

If that particular group is evangelical, then its tenets that set it apart from other christians seem kind of important.

http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/evangelical-christians-beliefs/2015/04/02/id/636050/
http://nae.net/what-is-an-evangelical/
http://prayerfoundation.org/evangelical_characteristics_and_beliefs.htm
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/blackwhiteandgray/2013/03/what-exactly-is-evangelical-christianity/
Individual evangelicals might have differing beliefs, and these might appear "infinite," but biblical innerancy seems a core belief.

 

[paulhutch]

If that particular group is evangelical, then its tenets that set it apart from other christians seem kind of important.


Individual evangelicals might have differing beliefs, and these might appear "infinite," but biblical innerancy seems a core belief.

It's not just individuals it's whole evangelical church congregations. Biblical inerrancy as understood by most people is not a core belief for many evangelicals including the late Rev. MLK Jr.

Theology like philosophy, psychology and most other fields of study dealing with human belief and cognition do not support black & white thinking.

 

[Resume]

It's not just individuals it's whole evangelical church congregations. Biblical inerrancy as understood by most people is not a core belief for many evangelicals including the late Rev. MLK Jr.

Theology like philosophy, psychology and most other fields of study dealing with human belief and cognition do not support black & white thinking.

I think you're confusing inerrancy with literalism.

ETA: Which is not to say that some self-described evangelicals don't take a biblical literalist view. I'll be having lunch with one Sunday.

 

[Meadmaker]

Hahahhahaha!

Oh mercy, please tell me you were being ironic?

You've got a point there.

I once wrote a post about a former member here:

Soandso isn't a bigot. He's a Catholic. Anyone who can't tell the difference is a bigot.



Most people didn't get it.

 

[Bob001]

The same reason she didn't waste resources on other interest groups whose votes were essentially unavailable to her.

From the linked story:

In the end, according to exit polls, only 16 percent of that cohort [white evangelicals] voted for Clinton, compared with Obama’s 26 percent in 2008 and 20 percent in 2012. Trump’s share of the white evangelical vote, 81 percent, exceeded that of Mitt Romney in 2012 (78 percent), John McCain in 2008 (74 percent), and George W. Bush in 2004 (78 percent).

I don't recall Obama "pandering" to evangelicals or pretending to be one of them. Yet he got a quarter of their votes in 2008. Clinton's core problem was that she didn't seek the votes of people who weren't already supporting her. The "basket of deplorables" snark was one example; refusing to talk to evangelicals is another.

 

[theprestige]

The mere fact they are obliged to evangelise indicates the lack of tolerance they have for other beliefs.

That's not what "evangelical" means.

 

[The Don]

That's not what "evangelical" means.

Nope that's exactly what it means

 

[theprestige]

Methodist isn't evangelical?

Nope.

"Evangelical" refers to a demographic of Protestant Christians who share the same core beliefs as most other Protestants, but have distinct attitudes--one of which is seeing no value in adopting formal denominational identification.

In the 80s and 90s these non-denominational Protestants were relatively moderate, though there was a wide range of specific attitudes and doctrinal emphases. This is what you'd expect from a faction that by definition eschewed hierarchical organization and factional membership.

In the 2000's, the more fundamentalist fringe of the "evangelical" Protestants became much more vocal, and doubled down on some of the more extreme and silly doctrinal points on evolution, homosexuality, reproductive rights, etc. They also have pursued the "megachurch" structure, which used to be uncommon. Nowadays, the term pretty much refers to these vocal, fundamentalist, megachurch Protestants. Moderate non-denominational Protestants, who a decade or two ago would have thought nothing of referring to themselves as "evangelical", are now effectively silenced. And of course the modern "evangelicals" are no longer a fringe minority of Protestants.

One important thing to note is that while many (most?) Protestants value missionary work as an important part of practicing their faith, the term "evangelical" is not a literal reference to evangelism, then or now.

 

[The Shrike]

It's just a rehash of the same finger-pointing tirade.

Bernie Sanders talking with Trump supporters in Wisconsin this week and Steve Inskeep's remarkable conversation with voters in York, PA illustrate two important points.

First, it is absolutely maddening to hear voters admit to being so ill-informed about issues they claim are important to them. One ardent Trump supporter in WI complained about cuts to Medicare but was oblivious to the fact that she supported the party looking to make the cuts she opposed. Another Trump voter in PA said she was ashamed that she never thought how the slogan Make America Great Again was alienating and insulting to African Americans who suffered so much during those supposed good ol' days. You ask yourself what kind of rock these people were living under for the past 18 months of the campaign to not have encountered these ideas until a month after the election and it's exceedingly frustrating. This I think is why a lot of folks are stuck in this fed-up "Never Trump" place where everyone who voted for him is a moron and deserves well-earned derision.

The good news, however, is that these examples show how people can be reached and disavowed of their ignorance, bigotry, etc. The answer appears to be as simple as "sitting down and talking with them."