I think you can basically say “all of the above”, it was a close election. Something like 109,000 votes swung HRC’s way in the rust belt states and she’d have flipped enough of the Trump states that she gets to 270. In a race that is that close it seems pretty likely to me if you remove even on of the “big negatives” that happened to/were caused by Hillary and she likely wins.
Here’s a list of reasons from various pundits about why the Democrats got whipped. Agree / Disagree?
The Republicans controlled Congress and kept Obama from accomplishing much of anything. So no, there* hasn’t* been 8 years of Democrats.
There’s been 8 years of Republican domination, then 8 years of deadlock, and now essentially total control by the Republicans.
I think Comey did have an effect on the election, but his legal argument was correct–she mishandled classified information but in the nearly 100 year history of prosecutions for this stuff only one other ever went forward due to someone who mishandled classified information accidentally/negligently versus intentionally, and he didn’t identify which case it was but some have speculated, and that case was a bit different from this one. Most negligent actions related to classified information result in simple occupational sanctions or dismissal, which wasn’t relevant in this situation since she was no longer working for the government.
I also think Hillary could’ve done more to get ahead of the email stuff. She played coy about it for ages, but she had to know, or at least suspect, what was on her email server. A huge part of the delay in the email server investigation was caused by her behaviors dating back more than a year before the election. Some of it near the end was absolutely on the FBI, either through simple bandwidth issues or a more deliberate desire to time the release of things. I think the traditional “Clinton defense” which we’ve seen time and time again with Clinton scandals (both the real scandals and the ones which were just manufactured by their enemies), had the bad tactical effect here of pushing out more dramatic turns in the case deep into the election.
Now, the Weiner emails and their timing were probably going to happen regardless, but I think if Hillary had done some big move to try and take responsibility and get out in front of the email thing ages ago it would’ve been less powerful. I mean she maintained for a long time that it wasn’t even improper to use a private email server, and that was clearly not the truth at all.
This. The Dems weren’t “whipped”. She won the popular vote and went close otherwise. No doubt it’s fun for Trumpsters to play it up like his victory was inevitable and huge, and that the Democrat campaign was hopeless and misguided. But the fact is, they only just won.
When a poll shows 13% in favor of a Giant Meteor striking the Earth then it’s probably time to rethink the whole polling process.
The Dems had full control of Congress during Obama’s first two years, split control during the next four, and only during the last two did the Reps have full control. It’s a pity that the Dems couldn’t have accomplished more during 2009-2011 (aside from watered-down healthcare reform and some infrastructure bills) and that may have in fact played into party dissatisfaction.
So much of the punditry seems basically to be saying, “Even though I didn’t see this coming, I’m immediately going to tell you why it happened.” It’s hard to treat any of it as very solid. This election will be hashed out for the rest of our lives.
I’d just like to apologise for my post above. It’s too late to edit now, but I hope you know that what I meant to type was “… his victory was inevitable and 'uuge…”
As a non-American, the impression I got is that both sides were trying to lose like the post was radioactive and the Democrats just happened to be more effective.
You mean republicans pretending to care, right?
Because with Benghazi for example, a ridiculous number of inquiries have found her innocent of any wrongdoing, yet in the court of public opinion there must be fire somewhere under all that smoke, or “She’s lying…you can just see it in her eyes”.
Last time around, when Clinton didn’t get the nomination, there wasn’t any question about it: she didn’t get nominated because she was unelectable. She was unelectable because too many people had already decided that they didn’t like her.
So what changed? Nothing.
You could be right but I’d be interested in the basis for this conclusion. Wasn’t Obama a popular and charismatic candidate? Didn’t HRC give him a very good run for his money? How is the conclusion reached that she wasn’t nominated because she was unelectable.
This is a lot of it. I remember in '08 after McCain had essentially wrapped up the GOP nomination and Clinton was still battling it out with Obama, Republicans were voting for Clinton in open primaries because she would be the easier one to defeat. Things, unfortunately, did not get better for her. Her experience as SecState was not a benefit.
It takes a truly terrible candidate to lose to the worst opponent at least in my lifetime.
Taking Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin for granted did not help. In hindsight, she probably should have cut bait on Ohio much earlier and focused on those other states.
I think those are major reasons. Michael Moore compared Trump to a human molotov cocktail that people who felt forgotten could use to get revenge on ‘the system’.
Putin did it.
As this thread relates directly to the election, I’m relocating it from IMHO to Elections.
Carry on.
Do you have any idea how often this claim has been rebutted on this message board?
But, fine. Let’s do it again.
Can you name a single person given a prison term of any duration whatsoever after mishandling classified information the way Secretary Clinton is said to have done?
Even one?
There was an interesting comment in Sunday’s NYT Weekly Review section. Letters written regarding an Op Ed from the previous week, one write wrote (paraphrasing):
Not to worry-- the Democrats will when again when the nominate someone who is honored by the nomination, not someone who thinks she is entitled to it.
OK, I’ll play
*1: FBI Director Comey’s last minute antics Explanation most favored buy HRC, Pelosi and the campaign staff * That was a large part of it. Her polls took a sharp dip following the announcement that should not have been made, and the last minute attempt to correct it pissed of the right wing even more.
*2: Male voter sexism – Most American men will not vote for a woman period * That was a big part of it, they may toss a token bone to a bimbo like Palin but to have a woman in charge is too much for a lot of people.
*3: Internalized misogyny by white female voters - 53% voted for Trump - * More like Stockholm Syndrome- the oppressed beginning to identify with the oppressor.
4: Lack of effort/candidate visits to turn out vote in critical rust belt swing states by HRC campaign I buy this one. Hillary should not have tried to run up the score by visiting AZ, she should have spent more time in rural MI and PA.
5: Complacency by HRC campaign based on inaccurate poll projections I don’t by complacency on the part of the campaign, just on the electorate.
*6: HRC’s lack of charisma and/or not likeable or relatable enough * Bingo. There are some people that are not liked by a lot of people, she’s one of them.
*
7: HRC’s overall arrogance/entitlement attitude * She does give that aura, not helped by her essentially clearing the field before it even assembled.
8: HRC’s political baggage and past statements Nah, that was just red meat for the GOP base.
9: Too many Democratic black, Hispanic and young voters stayed home and did not vote True enough. In retrospect, if Bernie were on the ticket with her, they would have won easily.
*10: Smug, self satisfied attitude by the left in general that they were on the right side of history and held the moral upper hand in their positions caused disaffected Democratic voters with traditional views to move to Trump. * It ain’t smugness when it’s true. Liberals ARE on the right side of history and do indeed hold the moral upper hand.
11: Overarching history of cultural/political cycles. People just want change after 8 years of Democrats. * Some truth to that.
*
12: Identity politics. Democrats and liberal institutions in general, especially Colleges and Universities, have spent so much effort encouraging identity politics among various groups that white Americans finally became an identity group themselves and turned out at the polls to give Trump the margin he needed. “Live by identity politics, die by identity politics”. White racism was around long before any “identity politics” on the part of Democrats.
*13: Obamacare structural and actuarial problems were causing health insurance costs to skyrocket for various working class/middle class groups, especially in swing states, and they were desperate to find some way to control or deal with these. Trump was an anti-Obamacare vote for these voters. – Note this is my personal hot button. I voted for Hillary but if I had voted for Trump this would have been why. *
Part of it- the cost increase announcements were not well-timed. The Obamacare resistance was based on lies, however, so it might not have mattered. Now let’s see what the GOP replaces it with.
*14: Inaccurate polling led to Democratic and media echo chamber where liberal never realized what was actually happening on the ground until election night. * I don’t think this is true- we were hearing about “the tightening race” like we ALWAYS do.
*15: Embarrassed white voters lied like rugs when polled about whether they would vote for Trump. * Yeah, who the hell wouldn’t be embarrassed?
I think the biggest factor is that people vote for change when given a chance, even when the status quo has been steadily improving their lot for 8 years.
I’ve noticed that when people lose an election, they like to blame factors outside their control rather than factors in their control.
I would blame the fact that fewer people voted for Hillary. Except, they didn’t.