Why Hillary Clinton Lost

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Why Hillary Clinton Lost

Post by EquALLity »

This election, it is said that we had very divisive primaries on both sides.
Within both parties, there was an anti-establishment candidate against one/two establishment candidates.

On the democratic side, we had Bernie Sanders (anti-establishment) vs Hillary Clinton (establishment).
On the republican side, we had Donald Trump (anti-establishment) vs primarily Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio (establishment).

Both of these primaries were competitive, especially the democratic one (Trump was dominating pretty strongly throughout in contrast to Hillary Clinton). They were divisive not just between parties, but they were also divisive within the parties.

A lot of people, particularly in the mainstream media, criticized Bernie Sanders for creating such a divisive primary on the democratic side, saying it would lead to Clinton losing, and now partially blaming him for her loss. After all, if Bernie didn't run, Hillary Clinton would have easily one the democratic primary, and maybe there wouldn't have been such opposition to her from the progressive wing of the democratic party. Maybe she would've gotten more votes.

However, I don't agree with this narrative that a competitive and divisive primary is necessarily a bad thing. This primary was actually not particularly divisive compared to 2008. In June of 2008, only 60% of Clinton supporters said they'd vote for Obama if he became the nominee in a CNN poll. In exit polls in May 2008, only half said they'd support Obama as the nominee.
In contrast, in June of 2016, a poll early in the month found 55% of Bernie supporters planned on backing Hillary. A poll later in the month found that 85% planned on backing her. The first poll was done by Bloomberg Politics and includes 750 likely voters, while the other one was done by Pew Research Center and included 2,245 adults over phone.
So, it seems like the second poll is more reputable, which would suggest that Bernie supporters were far more likely to come around to supporting the nominee than Hillary's supporters in 2008 at the same time during the election.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/06/exit-polls-half-of-clintons-supporters-wont-back-obama/
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/08/clinton.voters/
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-22/nearly-half-of-sanders-supporters-won-t-support-clinton
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/12/sanders-supporters-clinton-vote-survey

In 2008, the media was also saying the democratic party was deeply divided. But in the end, the democrats still won, even though that primary was actually more divided according to polls.

Those are just polls, though. Since the election has happened, we can actually compare the amount of Bernie supporters who voted for Clinton vs Hillary supporter who voted for Barack Obama.
I can't find any statistics about that, though. Does anyone happen to have any?

Either way, I think we can establish based on that that a rough primary doesn't destroy a candidate in the general election. Even if it did hurt the candidate, is there really a solution to that? Are we supposed to never primary any candidate? If one candidate wins steadily with no competition, what leverage do we have to improve that candidate? How can the party move forward without primary competition?

The primaries aren't why Hillary Clinton lost, and neither is it because James Comey re-opened the FBI investigation. Yes, Hillary Clinton was trending ahead until then, and then Trump started to make a comeback after the investigation re-opened.
But that doesn't address the underlying issue. How the hell was this election so close in the first place?! Why did the simple re-opening of an investigation swing the election towards Donald Trump, who's absolutely horrible?

The underlying issues are core to the democratic party and the way politics is run in general. People didn't like Hillary Clinton because she represented the establishment, just like pretty much all politicians who ran did. People don't like the establishment. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are both anti-establishment, which was why the primary on the democratic side was so competitive and why Trump won on the republican side.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/02/us/politics/money-in-politics-poll.html?_r=0
poll wrote:Thinking about United States elections, do you think all Americans have an equal chance to influence the elections process, or do you think wealthy Americans have more of a chance to influence the elections process than other Americans?
66% say wealthy have more influence.
poll wrote:Thinking about the role of money in American political campaigns today, do you think money has too much influence, too little influence or is it about right?
84% of Americans said money has too much influence. Just like the bipartisan nature of the rise of anti-establishment candidates during the primaries, disdain with the establishment (corruption) is bipartisan.
poll wrote:How often do you think candidates who win public office promote policies that directly help the people and groups who donated money to their campaigns — most of the time, sometimes, rarely or never?
55% say most.
poll wrote:Which of the following three statements comes closest to expressing your overall view of the way political campaigns are funded in the United States:
1) On the whole, the system for funding political campaigns works pretty well and only minor changes are necessary to make it work better.
2) There are some good things in the system for funding political campaigns but fundamental changes are needed.
3) The system for funding political campaigns has so much wrong with it that we need to completely rebuild it.
46% of Americans said we need to COMPLETELY rebuild our system for funding political campaigns.
poll wrote:Looking ahead, are you optimistic or pessimistic that changes will be made to improve the way political campaigns are funded in the United States?
58% pessimistic.
poll wrote:Which one of the following two positions on campaign financing do you favor more: limiting the amount of money individuals can contribute to political campaigns, or allowing individuals to contribute as much money to political campaigns as they would like?
77% say limit.
poll wrote:Currently, groups not affiliated with a candidate are able to spend unlimited amounts on advertisements during a political campaign. Do you think this kind of spending should be limited by law, or should it remain unlimited?
78% say limit.
poll wrote:Do you think groups not affiliated with a candidate that spend money during political campaigns should be required to publicly disclose their contributors, or do you think it's O.K. for that information to remain private?
75% say disclose.
poll wrote:Do you consider money given to political candidates to be a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution or not?
54% say no.
poll wrote:In general, which political party do you think benefits the most from the amount of money in politics today — the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, or do both parties benefit about equally?
58% say equally. It's bipartisan.


The majority of people believe that the current establishment is not working, and it's completely bipartisan. The majority also are pessimistic about something changing. So when there are candidates who exist and offer change, such as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, they surge.
Bernie Sanders had barely any name recognition and little media coverage, so he didn't surge enough to win. But Trump did.
And when the general election came, with those statistics I just listed... Is anyone really shocked that Donald Trump won knowing that information?
Hillary Clinton represented the establishment, which pretty much everyone is sick of. Donald Trump was the complete opposite- he offered change in a world where most people didn't think it would happen. So it shouldn't be very surprising that he won.

If the democratic party wants to beat candidates like Donald Trump, they need to support progressives who campaign on actual change. They didn't, and that is why they lost.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10370
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Why Hillary Clinton Lost

Post by brimstoneSalad »

It was more globalist vs. nationalist that got Trump support of the frustrated working class in those swing states.

You can't necessarily say that Sanders or Comey didn't get Trump elected. It was close, and lacking either of those she may have won. We can't test this.

In terms of the support of Sanders voters, it may just have been higher because the alternative was Trump; it it was somebody more respected like McCain it might have been a lot worse. We don't know. But we do know the primary was incredibly hostile. If it were less hostile, Hillary might have won: again, every little thing adds up, and anything could have tipped the scale.

This is a good argument, though:
EquALLity wrote:Even if it did hurt the candidate, is there really a solution to that? Are we supposed to never primary any candidate? If one candidate wins steadily with no competition, what leverage do we have to improve that candidate? How can the party move forward without primary competition?
I would answer that the primaries should keep it more about the issues, and avoid the personal attacks (which came from both sides), since assaults on character are going to hurt the candidate in the general election.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Why Hillary Clinton Lost

Post by EquALLity »

brimstoneSalad wrote:It was more globalist vs. nationalist that got Trump support of the frustrated working class in those swing states.
Well, if you're talking about the rust belt, I think you're probably right. In fact, Trump even got Michigan and Wisconsin, which are solidly blue states.

That issue (trade deals) is strongly connected with the general issue of corruption via big money interests. The perception is (and it's accurate) that these trade deals are supported by large multinational corporations, and that's why many politicians support them.

Not all areas were necessarily impacted by that substantially. That mostly impacted people with manufacturing jobs in the rust belt. It probably didn't impact New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, yet Trump won those states.
Why?
Because, like the statistics show, people believe the establishment is corrupted by money in politics. They don't believe anything is going to change with the current establishment, which Hillary Clinton represents. Trump represented change.
brimstoneSalad wrote:You can't necessarily say that Sanders or Comey didn't get Trump elected. It was close, and lacking either of those she may have won. We can't test this.
First of all, I never said Comey didn't play a roll. Sure, after the FBI re-opened the investigation, Trump started gaining in the polls. But like I said, why was this election so close in the first place? Why was it so easily swung, given how horrible Trump is?
The main reason I see, based on polling and the state of this election with both primaries, people want change from the establishment.

As for Bernie, there is no evidence that he did. The mainstream media needs to stop blaming Bernie Sanders for daring to primary Hillary Clinton. There's no evidence he caused her to lose, and in fact his supporters were more supportive of her than her supporters were of Barack Obama. The only evidence we have points to the direction that he didn't cause it.
It distracts from the real problem, which is that democrats nominated an anti-change candidate.
brimstoneSalad wrote:In terms of the support of Sanders voters, it may just have been higher because the alternative was Trump; it it was somebody more respected like McCain it might have been a lot worse. We don't know. But we do know the primary was incredibly hostile. If it were less hostile, Hillary might have won: again, every little thing adds up, and anything could have tipped the scale.
On the democratic side, I see no reason to believe it was any more hostile than in 2008. Obama said nasty things to Clinton, Clinton's campaigned insinuated he wasn't a real American. It was actually arguably more hostile in 2008.

Yeah, there are variables we cannot factor for, ok. But again, the only evidence we have points in the direction that Bernie supporters were more supportive of Clinton than Clinton supporters were of Obama.
People need to stop blaming the opposing primary campaign for HILLARY'S loss. There's no evidence to support it and it distracts from the real issue.

Including you. :D
You wrote:A third still refused to back Clinton in August, and this is basically unprecedented in politics. The amount of hate and distrust he generated has outlived his campaign.
Actually, no, it's not at all unprecedented, according to the polls that I just posted. ;)
brimstoneSalad wrote: I would answer that the primaries should keep it more about the issues, and avoid the personal attacks (which came from both sides), since assaults on character are going to hurt the candidate in the general election.
Well, Bernie Sanders made comments about the system being corrupt, and Hillary Clinton being apart of the system. She personally identified it as a character attack during a debate. Bernie never directly said anything like, "You care more about money than human beings".

I see an argument for it being a character attack anyway, but it's the reality, and ignoring the reality of it isn't going to change anything whatsoever. According to those polls, everyone sees the establishment as corrupt already.

On top of that, sometimes personal attacks are necessary to stop a monstrosity. If one candidate is saying things that are outright bigoted, such as denying everyone from a particular religious group the same rights as everyone else, that needs to be identified as bigotry so it isn't normalized.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10370
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Why Hillary Clinton Lost

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote:
brimstoneSalad wrote:It was more globalist vs. nationalist that got Trump support of the frustrated working class in those swing states.
Well, if you're talking about the rust belt, I think you're probably right. In fact, Trump even got Michigan and Wisconsin, which are solidly blue states.
All it would have taken is one of many factors to give the election to Hillary instead of Trump.
I think this was the biggest failing (not addressing this issue), which could have changed. The campaign focused too much on ad hominem, instead of addressing the actual issues these voters cared about. "Locker talk" wasn't one of the issues that appealed to them, that was a huge mistake in the campaign.
EquALLity wrote:That issue (trade deals) is strongly connected with the general issue of corruption via big money interests. The perception is (and it's accurate) that these trade deals are supported by large multinational corporations, and that's why many politicians support them.
That's a conspiracy theory.
We don't know that a single politician today supports anything at the behest of multinational corporations.

If you want to know why politicians support free trade, look into the effects of international trade on people, and look into the effects of trade wars. And basically just ask them. There's a good reason this is a bipartisan issue, and it's not because all of the politicians are bought and paid for.

Politicians understand that free trade is the right thing to do. The fact that corporations also like it because it's good for business is secondary to preventing trade wars, getting consumers cheaper products to increase quality of life and spending power, and helping people in developing countries who need the jobs (which would otherwise just be automated in the U.S. anyway).

It's a difficult problem to win the votes of those people who lost manufacturing jobs without lying to them. Take those jobs out of China, and companies will just automate production in the states. This is not a zero-sum-game, and Trump doesn't understand that.

Democrats might have been better served by coming up with an alternative to guarantee jobs, and talking about automation and how Trump's plan is pointless -- and gotten Republicans to speak up about it too.

EquALLity wrote:Because, like the statistics show, people believe the establishment is corrupted by money in politics. They don't believe anything is going to change with the current establishment, which Hillary Clinton represents. Trump represented change.
And that is largely Sanders' doing.
To his credit he campaigned hard for Hillary, but it's a problem when you undermine the establishment like that with conspiracy theories. The Sanders campaign lit a powder keg of conspiracy theories about money in politics and Trump is riding the explosion to the white house. Accusations of racism and misogyny were not enough to stop him, people just saw it as attacks on his character because they couldn't challenge his arguments.

EquALLity wrote:First of all, I never said Comey didn't play a roll. Sure, after the FBI re-opened the investigation, Trump started gaining in the polls. But like I said, why was this election so close in the first place? Why was it so easily swung, given how horrible Trump is?
Most elections are close. The point is that without the Comey 'revelations' or Sanders undermining Hillary's credibility in the primaries, it may not have been enough for Trump to take the election.
EquALLity wrote:The main reason I see, based on polling and the state of this election with both primaries, people want change from the establishment.
Which is something Sanders helped galvanize.
EquALLity wrote:The mainstream media needs to stop blaming Bernie Sanders for daring to primary Hillary Clinton.
That's not the problem, it's how he did it.
EquALLity wrote:On the democratic side, I see no reason to believe it was any more hostile than in 2008. Obama said nasty things to Clinton, Clinton's campaigned insinuated he wasn't a real American. It was actually arguably more hostile in 2008.
If true, that wasn't appropriate either.
EquALLity wrote:Actually, no, it's not at all unprecedented, according to the polls that I just posted. ;)
Sanders did a pretty good job of convincing many of his supporters to turn out for her. He deserves credit for that, he campaigned hard.
He also helped create the monster.
So did Hillary, if the birther rumor is true.

Hostile primaries are a problem. Hostile general elections are a problem too. Things need to get down to the issues.
EquALLity wrote:Well, Bernie Sanders made comments about the system being corrupt, and Hillary Clinton being apart of the system.
That's all it takes. A is B, B is C, therefore A is C. He called her corrupt, that's absolutely horrible, and basically handed Trump the election among some independents.
EquALLity wrote:I see an argument for it being a character attack anyway, but it's the reality, and ignoring the reality of it isn't going to change anything whatsoever. According to those polls, everyone sees the establishment as corrupt already.
Are you asserting again that it's a reality that she's corrupt? Seriously?

THIS is why Trump won. Not because she's corrupt, but because people think she is. A large part of that was Bernie Sanders.

EquALLity wrote:On top of that, sometimes personal attacks are necessary to stop a monstrosity. If one candidate is saying things that are outright bigoted, such as denying everyone from a particular religious group the same rights as everyone else, that needs to be identified as bigotry so it isn't normalized.
I thought it might be working too. I was misled by the polls like others (although I did think Trump had a better chance of winning than the polls indicated).

In this thread:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2557#p26015
brimstoneSalad wrote:It's a weak argument. Accusations like these really should not make or break an election, policy should. But that's not the world we live in, so whatever.
This is like employing two wrongs to make a right. I'm not overly troubled that the same practices Trump has used to slander Clinton are being used against him.
I guess it is, since the slander against Trump didn't work, and policy won him a lot of votes.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Why Hillary Clinton Lost

Post by EquALLity »

brimstoneSalad wrote:All it would have taken is one of many factors to give the election to Hillary instead of Trump.
I think this was the biggest failing (not addressing this issue), which could have changed. The campaign focused too much on ad hominem, instead of addressing the actual issues these voters cared about. "Locker talk" wasn't one of the issues that appealed to them, that was a huge mistake in the campaign.
Yeah, I don't think talking about raping people really qualifies as locker room talk. At all.
And people did care about that- that's when Hillary's lead started to get so significant that most people thought it was in the bag. His numbers went down significantly and immediately.

I agree that they should've focused more on policy, but with that issue specifically, it was probably in the best interests of Clinton to bury trade under the bus, because she's been so inconsistent on it that bringing it up probably just hurts her.
brimstoneSalad wrote:That's a conspiracy theory.
No offense, but something isn't a conspiracy theory just because you disagree with it.
brimstoneSalad wrote:We don't know that a single politician today supports anything at the behest of multinational corporations.
Of course they don't admit to it, but we have evidence of politicians doing things to benefit their donors. I've given you examples before.
brimstoneSalad wrote:If you want to know why politicians support free trade, look into the effects of international trade on people, and look into the effects of trade wars. And basically just ask them. There's a good reason this is a bipartisan issue, and it's not because all of the politicians are bought and paid for.

Politicians understand that free trade is the right thing to do. The fact that corporations also like it because it's good for business is secondary to preventing trade wars, getting consumers cheaper products to increase quality of life and spending power, and helping people in developing countries who need the jobs (which would otherwise just be automated in the U.S. anyway).

It's a difficult problem to win the votes of those people who lost manufacturing jobs without lying to them. Take those jobs out of China, and companies will just automate production in the states. This is not a zero-sum-game, and Trump doesn't understand that.

Democrats might have been better served by coming up with an alternative to guarantee jobs, and talking about automation and how Trump's plan is pointless -- and gotten Republicans to speak up about it too.
I think there's a point to be made there, of course. I don't think that all politicians have every position because of corporate influence.
brimstoneSalad wrote:And that is largely Sanders' doing.
To his credit he campaigned hard for Hillary, but it's a problem when you undermine the establishment like that with conspiracy theories. The Sanders campaign lit a powder keg of conspiracy theories about money in politics and Trump is riding the explosion to the white house. Accusations of racism and misogyny were not enough to stop him, people just saw it as attacks on his character because they couldn't challenge his arguments.
Again, it's not a conspiracy theory just because you disagree with it.

Bernie Sanders brought that issue to the forefront, which was the best thing about his entire campaign, in my opinion. People already knew the establishment was corrupt way before his campaign, though.
brimstoneSalad wrote:Most elections are close.
Yes, but this wasn't a typical election. Trump wasn't like most candidates. He made fun of DISABLED people- that alone should've disqualified him in the eyes of people.
brimstoneSalad wrote:The point is that without the Comey 'revelations' or
Comey's revelations may have swung it in the end, but the core issue is why it was so easily swung in the first place.
brimstoneSalad wrote:Sanders undermining Hillary's credibility in the primaries,
No, not according to polling, he didn't play a role more substantial than Hillary did in hurting Obama in 2008.
brimstoneSalad wrote: it may not have been enough for Trump to take the election
"May" doesn't really matter. It shouldn't have been so close in the first place.
brimstoneSalad wrote:Which is something Sanders helped galvanize.
Yes, the Sanders campaign brought money in politics to the forefront and energized people- including me, that's why I volunteered on it. :D
brimstoneSalad wrote:That's not the problem, it's how he did it.
I don't think so. There was nothing particularly harmful to Hillary Clinton's campaign from the primary. Again, his supporters supported her more than her supporters supported Obama. If you're going to say his strategy hurt her especially then you need EVIDENCE.

If it didn't hurt her especially, that means it didn't hurt her more than any other primary, which means the media is essentially blaming Bernie for primarying Hillary Clinton.
brimstoneSalad wrote:If true, that wasn't appropriate either.
Her campaign, for example, released a photo of him in a turban.
brimstoneSalad wrote:Sanders did a pretty good job of convincing many of his supporters to turn out for her. He deserves credit for that, he campaigned hard.
He also helped create the monster.
So did Hillary, if the birther rumor is true.

Hostile primaries are a problem. Hostile general elections are a problem too. Things need to get down to the issues.
I don't see what that has to do with the fact that you were wrong in calling it unprecedented. ;)
brimstoneSalad wrote:That's all it takes. A is B, B is C, therefore A is C. He called her corrupt, that's absolutely horrible, and basically handed Trump the election among some independents.
Do you have any evidence for this claim whatsoever? No?
Right, because Bernie's supporters supported Hillary Clinton more than her supporters supported Barack Obama.

Trump was already going to win a lot of independents, because they aren't partisan, which suggests they are even more anti-establishment. I doubt they'd all vote for the most establishment candidate in the country.
brimstoneSalad wrote:Are you asserting again that it's a reality that she's corrupt? Seriously?

THIS is why Trump won. Not because she's corrupt, but because people think she is. A large part of that was Bernie Sanders.
This is kind of ironic.
Yeah, I think she's corrupt. No, I didn't mean I know that for a fact, I don't know anything empirical for a fact.

If you don't support assertions, then you shouldn't assert that what I'm saying is why Trump won.
brimstoneSalad wrote:I thought it might be working too. I was misled by the polls like others (although I did think Trump had a better chance of winning than the polls indicated).

In this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2557#p26015
I think that sometimes personal attacks don't work because calling someone bigoted is good if a large part of their base is bigoted, which Trump's base was according to polling.
But you have to call it what it is, because most people aren't bigoted... Just don't ignore policy.
brimstoneSalad wrote:I guess it is, since the slander against Trump didn't work, and policy won him a lot of votes.
What policy?
If you're talking about trade, then I kind of agree with you.

But note that Hillary Clinton switched her policy to being against TPP. Policy wise, on paper, they were quite similar on this issue. The difference is that people didn't trust Hillary Clinton, because she had flip-flopped so many times, and because she was apart of the establishment.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10370
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Why Hillary Clinton Lost

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote: Yeah, I don't think talking about raping people really qualifies as locker room talk. At all.
That's your opinion, but enough people who weren't sexist were willing to ignore that to get him elected. Clinton couldn't even capture the white female vote (except college educated).
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-couldnt-win-over-white-women/

You might say these non-college-educated women are sexist against women (and it's true for some), but those were the demographics we were dealing with.
EquALLity wrote: And people did care about that- that's when Hillary's lead started to get so significant that most people thought it was in the bag. His numbers went down significantly and immediately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect
EquALLity wrote: I agree that they should've focused more on policy, but with that issue specifically, it was probably in the best interests of Clinton to bury trade under the bus, because she's been so inconsistent on it that bringing it up probably just hurts her.
She couldn't flip on it, she needed to promise another route to jobs. She needed to support free trade openly (which she does 'privately" support), be honest, and talk about how she's going to get everybody jobs anyway.
EquALLity wrote:
brimstoneSalad wrote:That's a conspiracy theory.
No offense, but something isn't a conspiracy theory just because you disagree with it.
It's a conspiracy theory because it's a "theory" about a conspiracy.

The main differences between that and the flat Earth 'theory' are that more people believes it (it's socially acceptable), and it's more harmful because it distracts from real issues.
EquALLity wrote: Of course they don't admit to it, but we have evidence of politicians doing things to benefit their donors. I've given you examples before.
You've shown correlations which are easily explained by other means, not evidence. This is the same thing flat Earthers or any other conspiracy theorist does.

Actual evidence would be discriminating: it would support the conspiracy theory but not have an equally viable alternative explanation as I have provided.
EquALLity wrote: I think there's a point to be made there, of course. I don't think that all politicians have every position because of corporate influence.
Do you understand that it's possible that ALL politicians are actually sincere (as far as they consciously understand), not paid off, and that they hold positions because they believe in them, and that when they flip-flop it's because they change their minds (or are making a political trade, support of one bill in exchange for another which does happen)?

When a politician holds a position that you think is bad and you can't understand why an honest person would hold that position, you make the assumption that the politician is corrupt and you turn to a conspiracy theory when you should be trying to understand the other position and WHY some people sincerely believe it.

This is like Teo not understanding how rockets work, so alleging that they don't work and it's a conspiracy. He just needed to understand the physics. You just need to understand the politics, economics, and religious views which are behind politicians holding these positions.

Once you understand why positions are really held (instead of saying it's corruption [conspiracy] and ignoring it) you may either change your view on that policy, or at least be able to better argue against it.

This is also the harm of creationism: "God did it" as an explanation for everything rather than seeking real answers.
It's one of the biggest problems in religion, and you've recreated it without the god belief by substituting conspiracies of human malevolence instead. It's not good for you since it demotivates your understanding of the real issues, and it's not good for the world. If you rejected belief in the "corruption"/"money in politics" explanations, you'd be curious enough about why people could possibly believe these things to look into and understand the real reasons, and you and the world (which you would then be better equipped to change) would be better for it.
EquALLity wrote: Bernie Sanders brought that issue to the forefront, which was the best thing about his entire campaign, in my opinion. People already knew the establishment was corrupt way before his campaign, though.
Some people already believed in that conspiracy theory before the campaign, just as some people were already racist before Trump's. That doesn't mean it's a good thing to popularize it more and galvanize independents to the cause.
EquALLity wrote: Yes, but this wasn't a typical election. Trump wasn't like most candidates. He made fun of DISABLED people- that alone should've disqualified him in the eyes of people.
Not everybody feels the same way you do. That's irrelevant to his policies. His supporters saw a difference between the flawed man and his policies which they liked.
Trump said he could have shot somebody in the street, and that may have been true.
EquALLity wrote: Comey's revelations may have swung it in the end, but the core issue is why it was so easily swung in the first place.
EVERY factor was important. Take away one, and Trump likely wouldn't have won.

It's like a Rube Goldberg machine: you're trying to find and blame the first cause, but any break in the chain could have given Hillary the presidency.

In that respect, Comey and Sanders are just as much to blame as Hillary's poor decision not to focus on important policies to the middle class and on how she was going to create jobs. All of those factors were necessary for a Trump win.
EquALLity wrote: No, not according to polling, he didn't play a role more substantial than Hillary did in hurting Obama in 2008.
If Obama had lost because of that bullshit, Hillary would have been to blame there too.
If McCain won in part by stirring up "Islamophobia" and saying Obama was a Muslim, then Hillary's campaign might have been to blame for stirring that up.
EquALLity wrote:
brimstoneSalad wrote:That's not the problem, it's how he did it.
I don't think so. There was nothing particularly harmful to Hillary Clinton's campaign from the primary. Again, his supporters supported her more than her supporters supported Obama. If you're going to say his strategy hurt her especially then you need EVIDENCE.
Polls were obviously broken; many of them put Trump at something like a 1% chance of winning.
This is interesting: http://odintext.com/blog/whats-really-wrong-with-polling/
Asking people what they're going to do is a very poor predictor of what they're actually going to do, in terms of voter turnout.

Sanders' supporters were very reluctant to turn out for Hillary, and it's that camp that did the most to advance the narrative of Hillary's corruption before the general (which seems to have been the deciding sentiment in this one, opposite Trump's promise of jobs).
Maybe some of them went to the polls, but the dislike for the candidate, coupled with early polls telling us that so many Sanders supporters were considering voting Trump I just haven't seen before.
EquALLity wrote:If it didn't hurt her especially, that means it didn't hurt her more than any other primary, which means the media is essentially blaming Bernie for primarying Hillary Clinton.
That's fine. We know in hindsight that he shouldn't have done it.
EquALLity wrote:I don't see what that has to do with the fact that you were wrong in calling it unprecedented. ;)
Did you see the reports on the primary exit polls?
One of the most striking—and disturbing—takeaways from Tuesday’s West Virginia Democratic primary were exit polls that found large numbers of Bernie Sanders supporters saying if not Bernie, they would actually vote for Donald Trump next fall.

CBS News reported 44 percent said they’d vote for Trump, 23 percent for Hillary Clinton, and 32 percent for neither.
(I'm trying to find the original CBS report)

Due to the Bradley effect, some of those Trump supporters apparently went into the closet. And due to the discrepancy between what people say and do, a significant number just seemed to have not turned out for Hillary because while they said they supported her, they didn't really care that much.

It's going to be very hard to figure out what people actually did on this one.
EquALLity wrote:Do you have any evidence for this claim whatsoever? No?
Right, because Bernie's supporters supported Hillary Clinton more than her supporters supported Barack Obama.
I'm unconvinced that's true, given how poorly polls performed, but the corruption charges carried the sentiment about Hillary, and that came largely from Sanders who kicked it off during the primaries and who Trump even referenced.
Trump knew his demographic, and he knew he was getting a lot of votes from Sanders supporters which is why he spoke so positively about Sanders.
EquALLity wrote:Trump was already going to win a lot of independents, because they aren't partisan, which suggests they are even more anti-establishment. I doubt they'd all vote for the most establishment candidate in the country.
They might have voted against Trump's apparent racist rhetoric if they weren't already convinced Hillary was corrupt, or they might have stayed home instead of voting for Trump.

Sanders hurt Clinton a lot during the primaries. Clinton hurt Obama too, but not enough to cost him the election; that's a crucial difference. She also helped create Trump in some ways. There's plenty of blame to go around.
EquALLity wrote:If you don't support assertions, then you shouldn't assert that what I'm saying is why Trump won.
There's evidence for it in terms of public perception, and it wouldn't have taken that much to give Hillary the support she needed among Democrats. She needed higher turnout, and she didn't get it among Democrats and independents because of perception of corruption which Sanders helped create.

I'm not saying you specifically, I'm saying the mindset.
EquALLity wrote:I think that sometimes personal attacks don't work because calling someone bigoted is good if a large part of their base is bigoted, which Trump's base was according to polling.
That's just [many] fundamentalists for you. It's irrelevant what the large part of his base was. He won with the vote of the non-bigots, and thanks to the non-bigots who didn't turn out for Hillary.
EquALLity wrote:But you have to call it what it is, because most people aren't bigoted... Just don't ignore policy.
Every second you spend calling him a bigot is a second you aren't addressing policy, and it's also shutting down conversation. People won't listen on policy issues if you insinuate that they are bigots. Even bigots don't usually think they're bigots. And it clearly didn't stop his non-bigot supporters from turning out who recognized it as ad-hominem, or inspire Hillary supporters to turn out enough. It was a failing of the campaign to waste time on that; people who were concerned about him being a bigot were probably convinced very easily, and the rest was wasted breath.
EquALLity wrote: But note that Hillary Clinton switched her policy to being against TPP. Policy wise, on paper, they were quite similar on this issue. The difference is that people didn't trust Hillary Clinton, because she had flip-flopped so many times, and because she was apart of the establishment.
Hillary needed to stay firm on free trade (an amended TPP), and focus on other means of creating jobs. That was her mistake.

That other difference -- that perception -- is largely thanks to Sanders' slander of her as corrupt. You can't ignore the effect of that kind of character assassination from the inside.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Why Hillary Clinton Lost

Post by EquALLity »

Perfect example of what I'm talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvNkdakBexU
So easy, you just need to support changing the system.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1209
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Re: Why Hillary Clinton Lost

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz »

I'll just leave this here:
Image
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Why Hillary Clinton Lost

Post by EquALLity »

I know you're a troll, but I like your point.^ :D :lol:

Of course, some of the other things likely played a roll, especially Russia in particular (according to the non-liberal FBI and CIA). But this election shouldn't have been so close that it could've been impacted by most of those things enough to let Trump win. The reason it was that close is, because like I showed with the polling statistics, people want change, and Trump was the only candidate who advocated for it.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10370
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Why Hillary Clinton Lost

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:I'll just leave this here:
I blame Clinton too; she made a lot of mistakes in her campaign. But then I'm not a Democrat.

Any one of those things, if different, could have resulted in a different outcome (I think sexism was among the least of the issues though, so maybe not that one).
Post Reply