The Real Reason She Lost

B

BedellBrave

It's OVER 5,000!
This is both a fun insight into the world of NC BBQ. Funny that it does indeed show the sort of misfiring of the Left that we are discussing in the other thread. I like Midwood but it ain't Stamey's or Bridge's or Allen & Sons or Parker's or Lexington or Wilbur's...

Link
 
BedellBrave said:
This is both a fun insight into the world of NC BBQ. Funny that it does indeed show the sort of misfiring of the Left that we are discussing in the other thread. I like Midwood but it ain't Stamey's or Bridge's or Allen & Sons or Parker's or Lexington or Wilbur's...

Link
Click to expand...

Well at least they're finally basing these decisions on important issues and tried and true data. :)

Would you also believe the state Senator's race in OK came down to the toxicity (or perceived toxicity level) of Hilldog? The Repub candidate who I met at the county fair back in September seemed like a pretty nice and likable guy and I was actually planning on voting for him. I already knew the Dem candidate and had known him for years and while he wasn't a bad guy he was from one of those families who gets literally everything handed to them on a silver platter "just because". And trust me when I say that the actual core beliefs of both men probably didn't differ by even 5% on anything. Then about a month or so before the election the Repub buys a full page ad in the local paper talking about how "his opponent used the same marketing firm and people used by Hillary Clinton." It didn't say they agreed on policy or went fishing together or that they even attended black mass ceremonies together, all it did was make a connection between the evil that was/is Hillary Clinton and this man who was running against him. Now is there anything sorrier than that??? BBQ looks like religion, economics, and pretty much any other MAJOR issue you could possibly imagine compared to that.

Do people that dumb really deserve to vote???
 
Hillary was clearly very flawed and not up to taking Trump on mano a mano, as it were, but let's not forget that she also lost because of voting malfeasance on an epic scale:

systematic voter suppression in many states
Trump threats to minorities
Russian hacking
FBI election fake October surprise
Team Trump's daily and unprecedented lying

Without these, we would not be walking down this dark road.
 
Runnin said:
Hillary was clearly very flawed and not up to taking Trump on mano a mano, as it were, but let's not forget that she also lost because of voting malfeasance on an epic scale:

systematic voter suppression in many states
Trump threats to minorities
Russian hacking
FBI election fake October surprise
Team Trump's daily and unprecedented lying

Without these, we would not be walking down this dark road.
Click to expand...

Runnin peddling fake news.
 
As did Obama in Asheville. Now mind you, both places are superb but they are places where you get craft beer with your Q. They aren't blue-collar, traditional, eastern or western BBQ. At least the Trump campaign actually did their research.

I suppose one can give them both credit for not going to Sonny's.
 
50PoundHead said:
I get that the article is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but the Left has an image problem in this country when it comes to reaching out to the guy on the street. It can seem trivial, but it's there.
Click to expand...

I'll just leave this here:

There was always a risk that in distancing Trump from the GOP, she would be doing him a service.

After all, throughout the Republican primary, Trump had branded himself as a nationalist unconstrained by fealty to conservative dogma. At various points, he feigned openness to raising taxes on plutocrats and increasing the minimum wage — a heresy he explained by declaring, “I’m very different from most Republicans.”

A considerable amount of Clinton’s paid media was devoted to affirming this claim.

And a growing body of evidence suggests this was a bad mistake.

Just before Election Day, a survey from Politico and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health raised some eyebrows among advocates of reproductive rights: 48 percent of those planning to vote for Trump wanted the federal government to continue funding Planned Parenthood.

[...]

This notion — that Donald Trump does not share Paul Ryan’s ideology — was indispensable to the former’s victory: Trump simply could not have won without the support of white Democrats who have little affection for GOP orthodoxy.

Synthesizing data from voting returns, exit polls, the census, and preelection polling, the Upshot’s Nate Cohn concludes that Clinton did not lose because Rust Belt Democrats stayed at home, but rather, because they voted for Trump in large numbers.

[...]

Many of these voters were Obama supporters in 2008 and 2012 — in fact, 19 percent of white working-class Trump voters said they approved of Obama’s performance on November 8 of 2016. Ten percent of these voters told exit pollsters that they wanted Trump to continue Obama’s policies, while 38 percent said they hoped he would pursue policies that were “more liberal” than Obama’s.

Examining Pew data from 2014 on the political attitudes of white non-college-educated Democrats, Cohn found little support for the GOP’s platform on abortion, gay rights, the environment, health care, and Social Security — but a great deal of support for scaling back free trade and limiting immigration.

[...]

In other words: Working-class whites were Obama’s base. They were the bricks in his party’s Electoral College firewall.

Now, it’s entirely possible that Trump would have scattered those bricks, no matter how Clinton chose to attack him. As already mentioned, Trump’s message had built-in appeal with the demographic. [...] But the fact remains: Clinton lost the White House because a bunch of white Democrats who despise most of the GOP agenda — but like the cut of Trump’s jib — decided to cross the aisle.
Click to expand...

I posted a few relevant passages, but the entire article is well worth the read.

I'd also suggest the click-through to Michelle Goldberg's piece in Slate taking stock of the results from a series of focus-groups, commissioned by Planned Parenthood, which intended to probe why almost half of Trump voters support federal funding for the organization, something the President-elect had campaigned explicitly against. It includes some really revelatory quotations, such as this humdinger negation:

“That was never Donald Trump’s platform.” Said a Phoenix man in his 30s: “I think this is coming from the bible-thumper mentality. I don’t see Trump having that mentality, but [Mike] Pence, Paul Ryan, those guys, it’s like they call up God from their cellphone. They’re so out of touch with reality.”
Click to expand...
 
jpx7 said:

I'll just leave this here:

I posted a few relevant passages, but the entire article is well worth the read.

I'd also suggest the click-through to Michelle Goldberg's piece in Slate taking stock of the results from a series of focus-groups, commissioned by Planned Parenthood, that intended to probe why almost half of Trump voters support federal funding for the organization, which he had campaigned explicitly against. It includes some really revelatory quotations, such as this humdinger negation:
Click to expand...

It will be curious how the social conservatives fare under Trump. My guess is he'll give them control of the courts, which will probably suffice.

But on another matter, I've been plowing through John Ralston Saul's Voltaire's Bastards, a 585-page screed from the early-1990s that portended a lot of the frustrations I believe were evident this electoral season. A lot of Saul's examples are now somewhat ancient history, but the primary thread of his argument--that public life has become professionalized at the expense of democracy--really rings true.
 
50PoundHead said:
but the primary thread of his argument--that public life has become professionalized at the expense of democracy--really rings true.
Click to expand...

Care to expand on that in the context of the most recent Presidential election? Obviously Hillary Clinton almost represents a sort of apogee of "professionalized public life", especially of the establishment technocrat mold. But so too does the President-elect, though of a distinct fashion, having essentially built his entire fortune (such as it is) on living professional-like in public, before trading that in for political capital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top