Very interesting..... Thanks!
I wonder if the Democrats lost this time because....
1. They nominated on of the least liked, least respected candidates of either party in US history.... with negatives running close to 60% at times!!!!!!!! The only thing that helped the Dems was the Republicans did the same thing.
2. She never gave any reason to vote for her; she ran a "It's MY turn!" election based on being a Democrat, a Clinton, a woman, and endorsed by Obama (hoping to be seen as a 'third term' of Obama).
3. She couldn't energize the elements that put Obama over the top, twice in a row: African-Americans, Hispanics, working-class union workers. She won those - but they didn't show up to vote in the numbers they did for Obama and her hubby. For decades, the Dems have taken these people for granted... but they just didn't show up at the polls in the numbers needed and as did in some past elections. This proved critical in a few swing states that "flipped" this year, giving Trump the election.
4. The continuing decline in the power of the media. Always in the pocket of the Democrats - and filled with HATE for Trump (as they were for both Bush's) - fewer and fewer people swallow whole what they say. The liberals just can't count on the Media doing a lot of their work for them, Americans in increasing numbers are "on" to them and their bias.
- Josiah
It is curious to think that "just about anyone could have beaten Trump" and Clinton still managed to lose. As you say she was a deeply unpopular candidate, made worse by ideas that really are truly silly (like the idea that the only reason not to vote for her was sexism).
Interestingly, as Tim Carney is quoted as saying in the article I linked (I'm not familiar with him, but the point he makes appears valid) - low-income rural white voters in PA elected Obama in 2008 and then Trump in 2016, and the reason is white supremacy? It's absurd. It's probably safe to say that the people who were saying the only reason not to vote for Clinton is sexism weren't lining up to support Sarah Palin in 2008.
A large part of the issue with Clinton seems to be the same that plagued McCain/Palin back in 2008. When Palin was nominated as McCain's running mate the party faithful cheered but at a stroke any chance of winning over moderate Democrat voters was lost, and floating voters probably weren't impressed either. Solidifying the hardcore Republican vote achieves nothing - these are the people who would vote for a turnip if it had the right colored rosette on it. In the same way Clinton may have been the darling of the party faithful but the only way she was going to win over moderate Republican voters would be if they were sufficiently distressed by Trump representing them that they would jump ship. And there's no way of knowing whether floating voters would be happy to stick with the Clinton name and the "safe pair of hands" offering little more than another four years of the same, or conclude that they too wanted a change.
I suspect the relentless publishing of Wikileaks material also did major damage to her campaign. Given she must have known what was in the emails, once it was clear the emails had been hacked and were likely to be leaked at some point it's quite interesting that she did just battle on regardless.
As you say, the way the media demonises people who vote for Trump is unlikely to achieve much more than to inspire them to vote in greater numbers. Insulting huge swathes of voters doesn't seem like a particularly smart election strategy, and insisting the only reason you lost was because of some combination of racism, sexism, misogyny and outright stupidity just means you won't learn anything for the next election.
