How?
Another reason Clinton lost....
- Thread starter Bob001
- Start date
How?
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
Yes, Hillary's campaign displayed arrogance, foolishness, and/or dismissive attitude to not simply answer the people who wanted to talk to them. What on earth did they have to lose? Either the people cherry pick and demonize her (which they were going to do regardless if they were so inclined) or they were willing to listen. Hell, even if neither was true other people were paying attention to that exchange. Maybe they thought they didn't need the votes, which in hindsight is wrong, but it still doesn't cost anything. Maybe they thought it wasn't in good faith, but it still doesn't cost anything. The, many times justified, paranoia of the campaign kept getting in it's own way.
Most Republicans and right wing types were going to twist everything against her, but many Trump voters were independents. How many could have been convinced to not vote for Trump, even if they were not able to be convinced to vote for Hillary?
Many, many miscalculations on the campaign, but as always, we have hindsight. I wish Bernie had gotten the nomination, but I'm not confident it would have turned out better anyway. Maybe.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
I think this is spot on.
The weekend before the election I was driving a lot, and Hillary's campaign was saturating the radio station I was listening to (an all news station) with an ad about how awful Trump was, and all I could think when listening to it was that she sounded like a whiny liberal. I don't use the term "SJW" much, but if that term had occurred to me, I would have thought it fit perfectly with that ad, and that's not a good thing.
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2016
- Messages
- 6,416
Winner-winner chicken dinner :9.
We successfully courted (and won) the votes of the (perhaps 'milder' form of) intolerant, bigoted people for 4 or 5 decades. Then we lost sight of the fact that being righteously superior but losing is a dangerous thing because now we are out of power and all of the people we claim to want to protect are at risk of being exploited and harmed.
I've boiled this down to a simple juxtaposition. "It is a dark fact of the human condition that self-preservation overrides ethics. However, the glimmer of hope we have is that self-preservation also overrides bigotry."
"When will we learn that the key is discussion? If you are unwilling to discuss, then you are creating the conditions in which Donald Trump and people like him can thrive." -Jonathon Pie
"What are you going to do? Put like 20 million people on the naughty step and say 'you're racist, I can't deal with you!' Well...they still get to vote." -Mark Blyth
By not getting her message out to people who rely on popular evangelical media as primary sources of information. It actually doesn't matter exactly what she might have said as much as the fact that she would have been willing to take them and their concerns seriously. To borrow Woody Allen, "90% of life is just showing up," and Clinton didn't even show up for a big percentage of the electorate.
They're just so "deplorable".
Hi Donal,
I did struggle with how to say this. I will try again.
Many evangelical voters did not like Trump from the start. My parents, uncles, aunts, and many older family friends fall into this this category, and seem to be the norm nationally.
The males are very pro 2nd amendment, and that is their litmus test. As I tried to portray, because of her outspoken views on the Heller decision, and generally being pro-gun control, Hillary was a no go for them. They would have voted for anyone, as long as they were slightly pro 2nd amendment. You cannot say that this perception of Hilary is “nonsense”, it is clear.
The women voters are “traditional morality” voters. They long for the idealized “traditional morality” that made America great. Hilary could have used this, if she had found the right language, to attack Trump. Trump is vulgar, brash, and mean. These traits seem to be attractive to Trump's core supporters, but not attractive to the evangelical voters. Hilary’s campaign attacked Trump on these issues, but the attacks used the language of the left, and as such the attacks held no weight for evangelical voters. If she had used targeted attack ads that used language that evangelical voters could recognize I believe that she would have lessened the turn-out for Trump, and maybe picked up some of the more “liberal” of the evangelical people that I know.
Trump’s misogyny, for example, should have made him a weak candidate. Trump has made many statements (the famous “grab them by the pussy” is the easiest one to sound bite) that make him sound like a like a woman-hating jerk. Yet from the election data women voted for Trump at about the same rate as they did for Romney and McCain. On the face of it, it is surprising that Hilary, the first woman presidential candidate, could not pick up a higher percentage of female votes. Her attacks on Trump were used liberal, feminist language. This made the attack pieces impotent for convincing conservative-Christian women. If she could have made focused advertisements attacking Trumps misogynistic record, but from the point of view of a conservative-Christian woman, I think that Hilary could have increased her support amongst conservative women, or at least made Trump too bitter a pill. You said that “half of the attacks that she used were simply repeating his own words”, which if humans were rational, may have been enough. People are not rational. When Hilary attacked Trump, she sounded like a liberal feminist attacking a fat-cat misogynistic 1%er capitalist. The problem is, for evangelical women while “fat-cat and misogynist” are bad, “capitalist” is good, and this attack was coming from an “outsider” (liberal feminist). She needed to attack Trump’s morals, but she needed to tailor the attacks to sound like they were coming from an old fashioned “school marm” with a ruler smacking the knuckles of an ignorant and naughty child (Trump), and target this to the Bible-belt. She did not have to lesson her stances on feminism, but she needs to tailor her message to appeal to others besides her core voters.
You say that both candidates have been in the public records, and this is true, but one of the candidates has consistently had a clear trajectory that oddly enough made her an easy target, while the other one has been all over the map, oddly making him more flexible and harder to attack. I agree that Trump’s public record seems counter to “Christian Values”, the problem is that the religious right sees Hilary as also against their “Christian values”. Trump said the right things about some of the key issues that they wanted addressed, while Hilary did not.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
I find that, generally, when "bigot" is used it is by SJWs trying to silence or discredit opposing views.
paulhutch
Master Poster
When a politician completely ignores requests for an interview, the groups that requested the interviews would see the rudeness as meaning the politician does not want their votes. Even just a polite written reply saying, she can't schedule time for an interview but here's a few things I'd like you to know, can go long way toward showing that you'd like their votes.
That he may be, but any attempt to attack him on moral grounds would likely run into difficulties. If she tried to attack him as a serial womaniser and someone who did not take their marriage vows seriously then unfortunately for Hillary, Bill's reputation precedes here. While "standing by your man" works in country songs, Hillary sticking by Bill wasn't a case of a woman sticking to her marriage vows, it was a dangerously ambitious harpy being a sexual assault enabler - at least as far as the right wing media was concerned.
Likewise, attempting to attack Trump because of his casino business and dodgy business practices wouldn't work because people are convinced that there's something wrong with the Clinton Foundation. Nevermind the millions raised and the good works performed, it is tainted.
Pretty much every discussion about this election has come back to the same overall topic, just with the demographics swapped out.
Why did Clinton lose?
Well because Demographic X didn't vote for her?
Well why didn't Demographic X vote for her?
Because she didn't reach out to Demographic X
But would Demographic X have voted for her in any circumstance?
And so forth and so on, 20 GOTO 10 with a new Demographic X.
I mean on one hand it's obviously true, when you don't win an election by definition not enough people voted for you. But that's sorta self defining and circular, really nothing more than a truism or a thought terminating cliché. It's true obviously but it's not meaningful in and off itself.
Did Hillary spend too much time pandering to her base? Maybe. Did she overlook certain demographics because she thought courting them just wouldn't be worth the time and effort. Very possibly.
But more so I think what happened was an us versus mentality where no distinction was made between the extremists of the "other side" and the entire concept of "the other side."
Was Hillary ever going to connect (in statistically significant numbers) with Trump's hardcore "Cult of Personality" supporters, or the extreme right wing, or the deep fundamentalist Christians or hard core Pro-lifers or a lot of the Deep South or Rural votes? No oh course not. But Trump supporters, the Right Wing, Christians, Pro-lifers, the South and Rural voters do exist that could have been reachable and she didn't really try.
I think a jump, largely pushed by her own base, was made from that to "Let's not waste any time trying to court or even listen to anyone from those broad demographics" or worst the "Their votes are beneath us" mentality I've mentioned before and in doing that she probably did lose the Rust Belt and the Rural vote and that did cost her the election.
Why did Clinton lose?
Well because Demographic X didn't vote for her?
Well why didn't Demographic X vote for her?
Because she didn't reach out to Demographic X
But would Demographic X have voted for her in any circumstance?
And so forth and so on, 20 GOTO 10 with a new Demographic X.
I mean on one hand it's obviously true, when you don't win an election by definition not enough people voted for you. But that's sorta self defining and circular, really nothing more than a truism or a thought terminating cliché. It's true obviously but it's not meaningful in and off itself.
Did Hillary spend too much time pandering to her base? Maybe. Did she overlook certain demographics because she thought courting them just wouldn't be worth the time and effort. Very possibly.
But more so I think what happened was an us versus mentality where no distinction was made between the extremists of the "other side" and the entire concept of "the other side."
Was Hillary ever going to connect (in statistically significant numbers) with Trump's hardcore "Cult of Personality" supporters, or the extreme right wing, or the deep fundamentalist Christians or hard core Pro-lifers or a lot of the Deep South or Rural votes? No oh course not. But Trump supporters, the Right Wing, Christians, Pro-lifers, the South and Rural voters do exist that could have been reachable and she didn't really try.
I think a jump, largely pushed by her own base, was made from that to "Let's not waste any time trying to court or even listen to anyone from those broad demographics" or worst the "Their votes are beneath us" mentality I've mentioned before and in doing that she probably did lose the Rust Belt and the Rural vote and that did cost her the election.
Last edited:
Maybe I didn't express myself well enough.
I have no particular view on 'evangelicals'. Not my country, no skin in the game. I have great respect for people of faith, and no particular concern about anybody's belief system.
I think Hilary's loss was, in part, due to a lack of engagement with evangelical communities who are clearly an important demographic in the US. Outreach, in whatever form, may have helped with that.
However, I also think that a discussion of faith has no part in the political process, and if your disagreement with a candidate is faith-based, then I consider that your problem, not theirs. (of course it is their problem, because they need votes, but like I said - it's an idealist position). Which is pretty much what you said.
The thing I'm worried out about isn't whether or not Hillary missed out on an opportunity to court a small number of people in a demographic which was heavily leaning towards her opponent (white evangelicals) but that the evangelicals, having conquered the GOP and ensured that GOP policy is evangelical policy where it matters, are now setting their sights on the Democratic Party.
IMO this whole thing is clearly a "if only you had pandered to us more you *might* have won" opening salvo which will, unless the Democratic Party guards against it, will have evangelical-friendly policies rapidly making their way into the Democratic Party manifesto:
- Increasing restrictions on abortion leading eventually to a banning
- Teach the controversy - allow creationism and/or intelligent design to be taught as science
- Tolerance for intolerance - allow (Christian) religious exemptions from intolerance laws where states wish it
- Increasing presence of Chrsitian religious symbols in government institutions (courthouses, state capitols, schools, police stations and so forth) where there is local demand for it
- Allowing states to institute laws to ensure that office-holders and senior public servants are "good Christians" where there is local demand for it
I'm not disagreeing with you in the abstract but if the position the Democratic Party is in right now is "They can't court enough voters without sacrificing their core values" that doesn't leave a lot of places for them to go politically outside of building up a nice enough moral high ground to have a spectacular view of their own destruction.
Now to be fair I don't think it's that simple. Call me a Pollyanna if you must but I don't think we as a country are that far gone. There was a sizeable number of people that the Democratic Party could reach out to without selling their souls.
To be honest some of this sounds like sour grapes. "Oh all those disenfranchised people we ignored and didn't get their votes? Oh well they never would have voted for us anyway" If it's not true it's dangerously delusional from a political perspective, if it is true the Democratic Party is dead anyway and it doesn't matter.
Rattling off a list of all the tragedies that are going to happen if you don't win isn't a campaign strategy.
Last edited:
There are, but IMO allowing the evangelicals to start influencing your party is not the way to do it. To me this whole thing is an evangelical land-grab for a second party having already taken over the GOP like a parasitic wasp takes over a caterpillar.
Heck, IMO a younger, more charismatic, male candidate with less baggage could have been all it needed.
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
It's better to get the non-voters to the polling booth. That's the group that the Democrats need to reach. Screw the evangelicals.
Honestly I'm not sure if we can treat "Evangelicals" as the boogeyman in this. Religious affiliation is on the downslide in America and I'm not buying that as the population ages and dies off we're seeing more Evangelicals now then we did in, say, the Reagan era. I don't see how they could be a bigger factor in this election then the last one or one before that.
As someone noted in an article I read 4 of the states that went for Trump legalized (in some form, to some degree) marijuana on the exact same night.
This ain't our grandfather's GOP or our Grandfather's Religious Right. There's an X Factor in this.
Yeah other than demographic misreading on a massive scale the other issue was the Democratic Party running someone that they felt had earned their chance at a run rather then someone that connected with the voters.
The Democratic Party treated this entire election like it was Hillary Clinton's Prize (or worst yet entitlement) for just being in the game so long.
It's still the same question though. You still have to go after non-voters.
Democrats are going to be fighting with one hand tied behind their back as long as the youth vote stays so minimal. If Facebook outrage and Campus Protesting counted as voting I'm sure Hillary would have won with the biggest margin in history.
That's always been Conservatism's biggest advantage. The young people post furious tweets and hold up protests signs and the old people write angry Letters to the Editor and waggle their canes at people but the difference is at the end of the day old people then go vote.
I am halfway serious when I wonder how much of a paradigm shift in American politics online voting is going to be if and whenever it happens.
My gut feeling? Have online voting and Democrats wouldn't be able to lose an election if they tried and Lord knows they love to try.
If the evangelical right are on the wain, the hold they have on the GOP doesn't seem to reflect that. The marijuana decision is a state-level one and I think that's what the evangelicals want, increasing states' control over the things they want controlled, ability to discriminate on religious grounds, reproductive and abortion rights, teaching creationism in schools, displaying the 10 commandments in courtrooms.
Tbh I don't think they aspire to be able to implement these rules in intensely blue states (though I'm sure they'd prefer a country where their views were pretty uniformly held) but for sure they want them implemented in their red state without that mean federal government telling them they have to serve or marry gays or cannot ensure that access to contraception is severely restricted.
Where were the other candidates. Bernie was, IMO more flawed than Hillary so where was the young blood ?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,643
We should probably never do online voting. I don't see how we can possibly make it secure or auditable.
You are correct that Bill’s history did not help Hilary at all. She was not going to win the Christian-right if she stood beside Trump and said “see, I’m more righteous than him”. She needed to make focused attack adds that would be understood by the Christian-right, and keep herself out of the picture. She would not have gained overwhelming support by them, but she could have gained some support, and more importantly I believe she could have suppressed their support of Trump, and lessened turn out.
I agree that there is no point in attacking Trump’s business practices in appeals to the Cristian-right. Inside every attack of that nature is the fact that Trump is a successful business man. That tactic may be appropriate for tailored attack ads made for different demographics. If Hilary could have ads connecting Trump’s infamous “grab them by the pussy” phrase as an assault on mid-western high school girls for example, there would have been less votes for trump in the Midwest. Would it have been enough to swing a close state from red to blue? Who knows?
I do know that the Christian-right women hated Trump during the primaries, and slowly, grudgingly, decided that their other choice was “That Woman”, and voted against her. With some effort from Hilary I think she could have gotten many of them to abstain from voting.