17 ms·

I have a lot of thoughts, but here's one: Hillary focused her entire campaign on why people should stop Trump, at the expense of talking about why she should be

by huac 10y ago

I have a lot of thoughts, but here's one: Hillary focused her entire campaign on why people should stop Trump, at the expense of talking about why she should be president. In general, making the case against someone else rather than the affirmative case for yourself doesn't work. It's reaction versus action. It's undoubtably true now that there was a very real populist anger towards the existing political order, and as a corollary, the political and economic elites. Instead of harnessing that energy and attempting to create a movement (see: Sanders, Bernie), the Democratic party anointed a candidate who is the definition of establishment. The results are showing that Hillary lost, at least in large part, due to lower voter turnout, especially among liberal-leaning populations. With all else equal, Podesta, DWS, Neera Tanden, and the rest of the DNC cutup squad ignored the people and ran on the "man, Dangerous Donald, obviously you're not gonna vote for him!" platform. That, and shaming Bernie/Stein supporters about their support for a candidate who can't win - rather than explaining how Clinton's policies would be good. Well, the Democrats and 'moderates' didn't vote for Trump, but they sure didn't have a reason to vote for Clinton either.

jbkrule 10y ago
I disagree with you entirely on your first point. Trump's entire campaign was based on hate and that's why he won. It was all about building the base of people who hate the other side more.
- cloakandswagger 10y ago
  The next four years is going to be very confusing for you if you can't ask yourself objective questions about your opposition and resist the reflex to paint them as a cartoon villain.
  - knz 10y ago
    Trump condoned crowds chanting "Hang that bitch" at his rallies. Regardless of how you feel about the usual left vs right arguments - tapping into anger in this fashion is playing with fire.
    - cloakandswagger 10y ago
      Just like he welcomed his KKK endorsement by not explicitly "disavowing" it?
- ltorresv 10y ago
  If you ever watched a rally he'd talk about Hillary 10% of the time. The rest was about America and his plans. OTOH Hillary rallies were 90% Trump bashing distributed among different groups. - now all women!! - now all hispanics! - now [insert group name here] You can't compare how both candidates ran their campaigns and it's hard to argue that HRC main campaign points were: 1. I'm a woman. 2. I'm not Trump.
gthtjtkt 10y ago
> at the expense of talking about why she should be president. Hillary couldn't make that argument because it would've drawn more attention to her most damning flaw: The fact that she's a textbook demagogue who was on the wrong side of every progressive issue until she found it politically expedient to "evolve". That's why so many people were so passionate about Sanders. You could go back to C-SPAN videos from 1992 and hear him saying the exact same things he said throughout the whole primary season. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vabeos-F8Kk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vabeos-F8Kk
- komali2 10y ago
  There's that picture of him being arrested during civil rights protests.
- weaksauce 10y ago
  he would have been something you can set a clock to and someone that was on the right side of history before it was politically expedient to be on.
- btkramer9 10y ago
  > That's why so many people were so passionate about Sanders. You could go back to CSPAN videos from 1992 and hear him saying the exact same things he said throughout the whole primary season. This was this the exact same case with Ron Paul 4 years ago but it seemed to hardly matter
  - 13years 10y ago
    Yes, and the same thing happened to Ron Paul. The RNC colluded to ensure he didn't get the nomination. They actually changed rules during the convention to make sure that couldn't happen. I'm sure if we had wikileaks of the RNC during that time, it would have revealed much of the same type of insider corruption.
    - clifanatic 10y ago
      In fact, I seem to recall that the Ron Paul rule itself helped Trump win the nomination this time around.
criddell 10y ago
> Hillary focused her entire campaign on why people should stop Trump, at the expense of talking about why she should be president. I couldn't disagree more. This campaign was all about emotion, not rationality. Apparently facts don't matter and that's very hard to deal with.
- huac 10y ago
  There are emotional and rational ways to make any particular argument. She just chose to focus on arguments that only her staffers care about, rather than appealing to the (obviously) very real populist energy and anger. Facts do matter, and I think it's disingenuous to really argue that they don't, even to the American electorate. I think the overriding truth is that politics is about engagement, and it's a battle - just because you have the 'right' ideas doesn't mean you will win. You need to engage, encourage, and motivate people to vote for you - which the Clinton campaign could not do.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > Facts do matter Obviously. I think the point being made though is that they seem to matter less than many people thought. Trump ran a campaign that was light on facts, and in many cases used misinformation in lieu of facts. The fact that this is less important than what, if it's true, amounts to a very slight level of corruption in the other candidate (I'm unsure why I should have considered the idea that money given to a charity would get you semi-favorable treatment with regard to an audience as the horrible thing it was presented as) is something I find upsetting. I understand that people are upset with their governance, but the only thing that comes to mind when I think of this situation is "to cut off your nose to spite your face."
    - jazzyk 10y ago
      >"money given to a charity" 1. money given to her charity 2. charity or "charity"? - valid question, given large percentage of its income is spent on overhead
rconti 10y ago
I'm quite sure every campaign speech would disagree with you. But that's not what gets coverage.
- huac 10y ago
  The one where Hillary spoke about cartoon frogs?
Scirra_Tom 10y ago
> Hillary focused her entire campaign on why people should stop Trump Until now I thought that wasn't a bad strategy against Trump as he had said and done so many repulsive things far far beyond what I would of thought the voting population would of tolerated. For example, "grabbing women by the p*y" I would of thought would have alienated the entire female voting population. For some reason, some women voters seemed to of tolerated this. It should of been easy win for Hilary.
- BryantD 10y ago
  Yeah, this is a lot of why I am rejecting the easy answers. John Edwards was one of the most populist Democratic candidates we've seen in a while, and his political career ended because he had an affair. I can't really blame anyone for thinking that Trump's sexual misadventures would be a serious weakness.
  - brandnewlow 10y ago
    I think this analysis is incorrect. Edwards' affair was a problem because it told people he wasn't a trustworthy or professional guy. He brought his mistress along on the campaign trail. Meanwhile he depicted himself as a standup guy. It outed him as a phony with bad judgement.
- gaius 10y ago
  But consider, "got 'em by the balls" is a commonly used expression. If Hillary had said that she had got Col Ghaddafi "by the balls" no-one would have batted an eyelid. It certainly would not have alienated the entire male voting population. The double standard meant that focussing on this one line, undermined Hillary's campaign.
  - maket 10y ago
    "Got 'em by the balls" is a colloquialism and if Clinton were to use it, she wouldn't be using it in the same sexual context of Trump's comments.
  - 10y ago
croon 10y ago
> In general, making the case against someone else rather than the affirmative case for yourself doesn't work. It's reaction versus action. Well that's blatantly false. That was Trump's entire campaign. All I've heard all year was "Benghazi", "emails" and "crooked", all of which were just rephrasing of the same thing, repeated in perpetuum. It most definitely worked.
- maratd 10y ago
  > All I've heard all year was "Benghazi", "emails" and "crooked" It's true, that's all you heard, but that's not all that he was saying and the part that you didn't hear ... that's why he won. Those who voted for him heard a different message, one specific to their economic circumstances. It's always the economy. And while the aggregate macro picture looks good, we are going through some major shifts underneath those numbers.
- gregd 10y ago
  And his supporters continue to shout, "Jail her!".
- lumberjack 10y ago
  Well your problem is you are using the wrong news sources then. I'm not even American and I know at the very least that Trump started out with a very bombastic and completely un-Republican plan that immediately got the people's attention. He promised huge tax cuts, a reformed health care system which is more accessible and tariffs that brought back manufacturing jobs. He promised a lot of other things but I'm mentioning what attracted the working class towards him. He only started attacking Hillary much later.
  - euyyn 10y ago
    He only started attacking her when both of them were the candidates, obviously. During the debates she kept trying to discuss policies.
- TheGRS 10y ago
  That's one piece of the puzzle though. I wouldn't say he won only on that platform. He also won on platforms of change, law and order, and a return to old school America. I personally thought it was a disgusting campaign that used fear mongering and hate to vilify numerous parts of the nation, but I would not say his only platform was "don't vote for Hillary". But for Hillary I would definitely say the opposite was her strongest message, perhaps even her only one.
BryantD 10y ago
On the other hand, Trump focused his campaign on populist anger against Clinton, which seems very similar to making the case against someone else. "The woman, Hillary, it would be a disaster if she was elected and I can save you from her." I'm not convinced by this argument.
- macspoofing 10y ago
  That was part of his argument. He also pushed immigration and anti-trade.
  - BryantD 10y ago
    Primary source: Clinton's stump speech. See http://www.npr.org/2016/09/15/493924325/inside-hillary-clintons-stump-speech-annotated http://www.npr.org/2016/09/15/493924325/inside-hillary-clint... She definitely attacks Trump. She also calls for: * investing in infrastructure * solar energy * expanding broadband access * more technical education, with the strong implication that there are other reasonable paths beside the elite four year college path * moratorium on student debt * public health funding It's not accurate to say she didn't talk about why she should be president.
daodedickinson 10y ago
>turnout "Obama got 65.9m votes in '12, Romney 60.9m. Clinton has 59.3m, Trump 59.1m. R vote didn't go up; Dem vote went down. 6.6m missing votes." https://twitter.com/MaxBoot/status/796378238306160641 https://twitter.com/MaxBoot/status/796378238306160641
- vkou 10y ago
  We don't have final counts yet - these numbers will increase. Voter turnout this election was high.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  I sat out as a Sanders supporter. I am sure I am not alone. EDIT: 1. I viewed Sanders support of Clinton as forced/coerced, as in "We let you compete in the Democratic primary, now you owe us". EDIT 2: By agreeing to support Clinton, she adopted some of his left leaning policies (in show only though, such as not supporting fracking or the TPP). 2. Of course I voted down ballot. EDIT 3: Getting really tired of these HN throttling limits.
  - readhn 10y ago
    A lot of my friends did the same.
  - kristjansson 10y ago
    Did you at least vote down-ballot?
  - grzm 10y ago
    How did you view Sander's support of Hillary?
  - grzm 10y ago
    After Hillary became the Democratic candidate, what was Sander's incentive for doing endorsing and continuing to support Hillary? What leverage would force/coerce him? He had at least two other options: remain silent, or endorse Trump.
jarnix 10y ago
It's not entirely true. During the previous elections in France, people voted against Sarkozy, they did not vote for François Hollande.
pcunite 10y ago
>> ... and shaming Bernie/Stein supporters This ... the voting public was told over and over what to think, told what was best for us. We decided for ourselves.
DominikR 10y ago
This is true, she didn't make a strong positive case for what her policies would look like. And if she did then she didn't spend her time effectively trying to convey this. (can't actually remember even a single policy of hers except for easier abortions and confrontation with Russia over Syria) But what I feel is problematic is that Trump was painted as some kind of Hitler, which is ludicrous if you spent a few hours watching some of his rallies. He says things he shouldn't say, and some might say he's an a-hole, but he certainly doesn't come across as a Hitler, a fascist or a Nazi. Why is it so problematic for everyone? It increases the likelihood of violence, not just against Trump and his family, but against everyone showing public support for him. In some way not only the people engaging in violence are to blame, but also the media and the campaigns, because when you somehow convince a large chunk of the population that a candidate is literally like Hitler then many will use violence believing it's justified in order to prevent a new Holocaust. Also the Hitler comparison is used today too often. I believe we currently have 4 Hitlers according to the political establishment: Trump, Putin, Erdogan, Duterte
- ltorresv 10y ago
  I remember the leaks mentioned something about reinforcing the "Trump = Hitler" idea. This was all manufactured by the DNC and it didn't work. I wouldn't be surprised if they're currently planning ways to disrupt Trumps inauguration or other events during the next 4 years to see if he snaps and they can use that as ammo for the next election. At the end of the day it's politics and playing dirty is expected but now that one side has been exposed it's hard to brush it off thinking everybody does it.
  - DominikR 10y ago
    I agree that it is a normal (but nasty) part of politics to paint an unfavourable picture of an opponent (both candidates did that), but inciting violence is where it goes too far for me. I imagine how many people in the US are now fearing for their lives because the DNC made them believe that Trump will probably build forced labour camps. And how many of them are not just frightened but even read to use violence. When I check my Facebook newsfeed it's full of posts from friends who seem to be very afraid about what has happened. If something terrible happens then it might be that the DNC has created the illusion which justified the violence.
notacoward 10y ago
> Hillary focused her entire campaign on why people should stop Trump I don't believe that. It might be what you saw but that's because the media wouldn't cover anything substantive. She tried; it just got drowned out by all the smears (including those against Trump) and horse-race coverage.
CountSessine 10y ago
The results are showing that Hillary lost, at least in large part, due to lower voter turnout, especially among liberal-leaning populations I can't help but think of the similarity to the 2012 election where rank-and-file middle-class conservative voters were being asked to support a Republican candidate who built his fortune firing Americans and off-shoring their jobs. They didn't vote for Obama, but they sure didn't vote for Romney either.
maxxxxx 10y ago
I have heard something on the radio that rigs true: The Democrats used to be party for blue collar workers but they have totally abandoned them. At least Trump said the right things. I agree that Clinton never made a case for electing her other than being there for some reason. In general, the Republicans have the courage to take clear positions no matter right or wrong. Whereas the Democrats and especially Clinton are super wishy-washy.
- mch82 10y ago
  In what way has the Democratic Party abandoned blue collar workers? By supporting labor unions? By supporting labor laws? By supporting anti-discrimination laws? I agree with you that the Democratic Party is horrible at communicating with voters.
CatMtKing 10y ago
I thought Michael Moore's reasons were pretty on point: http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/ http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/ Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were indeed critical to the election, though it was by a hair that Trump won. The liberal vote was not very enthusiastic, whereas Trump pulled in people that were die-hard fans.
- disease 10y ago
  Wow, this is eerily prescient and the best explanation I've seen so far of the Trump phenomenon. Great read for someone like me who like so many others, didn't know a single person voting for Trump.
pmuk 10y ago
This is very similar to what happened in the UK with Brexit; the remain campaign focused their arguments on the negatives / fear of leaving rather than the positives of being part of the EU.
btreecat 10y ago
That and we should take away the message that voter suppression efforts in states like NC worked.
ianai 10y ago
With how close it was it's disingenuous to look for reasons why she lost. People simply didn't think the entire rural population would vote enmasse and they underestimated the size of that voting block. Full stop.
SonicSoul 10y ago
I agree. Combine that with her pretty much saying what she thinks people want to hear, and no real history of standing for anything, she really sucked as a candidate. I also believe that the Dems suppressed Bernie in order to have Hillary as their nominee. I don't think Trump had a chance against Bernie. I am hopeful that this will be a blow to the 2 party system where we're forced to vote for lesser evil.

by huac 10y ago

jbkrule 10y ago

I disagree with you entirely on your first point. Trump's entire campaign was based on hate and that's why he won. It was all about building the base of people who hate the other side more.

cloakandswagger 10y ago
The next four years is going to be very confusing for you if you can't ask yourself objective questions about your opposition and resist the reflex to paint them as a cartoon villain.
- knz 10y ago
  Trump condoned crowds chanting "Hang that bitch" at his rallies. Regardless of how you feel about the usual left vs right arguments - tapping into anger in this fashion is playing with fire.
  - cloakandswagger 10y ago
    Just like he welcomed his KKK endorsement by not explicitly "disavowing" it?
ltorresv 10y ago
If you ever watched a rally he'd talk about Hillary 10% of the time. The rest was about America and his plans. OTOH Hillary rallies were 90% Trump bashing distributed among different groups. - now all women!! - now all hispanics! - now [insert group name here] You can't compare how both candidates ran their campaigns and it's hard to argue that HRC main campaign points were: 1. I'm a woman. 2. I'm not Trump.

gthtjtkt 10y ago

> at the expense of talking about why she should be president. Hillary couldn't make that argument because it would've drawn more attention to her most damning flaw: The fact that she's a textbook demagogue who was on the wrong side of every progressive issue until she found it politically expedient to "evolve". That's why so many people were so passionate about Sanders. You could go back to C-SPAN videos from 1992 and hear him saying the exact same things he said throughout the whole primary season. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vabeos-F8Kk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vabeos-F8Kk

komali2 10y ago
There's that picture of him being arrested during civil rights protests.
weaksauce 10y ago
he would have been something you can set a clock to and someone that was on the right side of history before it was politically expedient to be on.
btkramer9 10y ago
> That's why so many people were so passionate about Sanders. You could go back to CSPAN videos from 1992 and hear him saying the exact same things he said throughout the whole primary season. This was this the exact same case with Ron Paul 4 years ago but it seemed to hardly matter
- 13years 10y ago
  Yes, and the same thing happened to Ron Paul. The RNC colluded to ensure he didn't get the nomination. They actually changed rules during the convention to make sure that couldn't happen. I'm sure if we had wikileaks of the RNC during that time, it would have revealed much of the same type of insider corruption.
  - clifanatic 10y ago
    In fact, I seem to recall that the Ron Paul rule itself helped Trump win the nomination this time around.

criddell 10y ago

> Hillary focused her entire campaign on why people should stop Trump, at the expense of talking about why she should be president. I couldn't disagree more. This campaign was all about emotion, not rationality. Apparently facts don't matter and that's very hard to deal with.

huac 10y ago
There are emotional and rational ways to make any particular argument. She just chose to focus on arguments that only her staffers care about, rather than appealing to the (obviously) very real populist energy and anger. Facts do matter, and I think it's disingenuous to really argue that they don't, even to the American electorate. I think the overriding truth is that politics is about engagement, and it's a battle - just because you have the 'right' ideas doesn't mean you will win. You need to engage, encourage, and motivate people to vote for you - which the Clinton campaign could not do.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > Facts do matter Obviously. I think the point being made though is that they seem to matter less than many people thought. Trump ran a campaign that was light on facts, and in many cases used misinformation in lieu of facts. The fact that this is less important than what, if it's true, amounts to a very slight level of corruption in the other candidate (I'm unsure why I should have considered the idea that money given to a charity would get you semi-favorable treatment with regard to an audience as the horrible thing it was presented as) is something I find upsetting. I understand that people are upset with their governance, but the only thing that comes to mind when I think of this situation is "to cut off your nose to spite your face."
  - jazzyk 10y ago
    >"money given to a charity" 1. money given to her charity 2. charity or "charity"? - valid question, given large percentage of its income is spent on overhead

rconti 10y ago

I'm quite sure every campaign speech would disagree with you. But that's not what gets coverage.

huac 10y ago
The one where Hillary spoke about cartoon frogs?

Scirra_Tom 10y ago

> Hillary focused her entire campaign on why people should stop Trump Until now I thought that wasn't a bad strategy against Trump as he had said and done so many repulsive things far far beyond what I would of thought the voting population would of tolerated. For example, "grabbing women by the p*y" I would of thought would have alienated the entire female voting population. For some reason, some women voters seemed to of tolerated this. It should of been easy win for Hilary.

BryantD 10y ago
Yeah, this is a lot of why I am rejecting the easy answers. John Edwards was one of the most populist Democratic candidates we've seen in a while, and his political career ended because he had an affair. I can't really blame anyone for thinking that Trump's sexual misadventures would be a serious weakness.
- brandnewlow 10y ago
  I think this analysis is incorrect. Edwards' affair was a problem because it told people he wasn't a trustworthy or professional guy. He brought his mistress along on the campaign trail. Meanwhile he depicted himself as a standup guy. It outed him as a phony with bad judgement.
gaius 10y ago
But consider, "got 'em by the balls" is a commonly used expression. If Hillary had said that she had got Col Ghaddafi "by the balls" no-one would have batted an eyelid. It certainly would not have alienated the entire male voting population. The double standard meant that focussing on this one line, undermined Hillary's campaign.
- maket 10y ago
  "Got 'em by the balls" is a colloquialism and if Clinton were to use it, she wouldn't be using it in the same sexual context of Trump's comments.
- 10y ago

croon 10y ago

> In general, making the case against someone else rather than the affirmative case for yourself doesn't work. It's reaction versus action. Well that's blatantly false. That was Trump's entire campaign. All I've heard all year was "Benghazi", "emails" and "crooked", all of which were just rephrasing of the same thing, repeated in perpetuum. It most definitely worked.

maratd 10y ago
> All I've heard all year was "Benghazi", "emails" and "crooked" It's true, that's all you heard, but that's not all that he was saying and the part that you didn't hear ... that's why he won. Those who voted for him heard a different message, one specific to their economic circumstances. It's always the economy. And while the aggregate macro picture looks good, we are going through some major shifts underneath those numbers.
gregd 10y ago
And his supporters continue to shout, "Jail her!".
lumberjack 10y ago
Well your problem is you are using the wrong news sources then. I'm not even American and I know at the very least that Trump started out with a very bombastic and completely un-Republican plan that immediately got the people's attention. He promised huge tax cuts, a reformed health care system which is more accessible and tariffs that brought back manufacturing jobs. He promised a lot of other things but I'm mentioning what attracted the working class towards him. He only started attacking Hillary much later.
- euyyn 10y ago
  He only started attacking her when both of them were the candidates, obviously. During the debates she kept trying to discuss policies.
TheGRS 10y ago
That's one piece of the puzzle though. I wouldn't say he won only on that platform. He also won on platforms of change, law and order, and a return to old school America. I personally thought it was a disgusting campaign that used fear mongering and hate to vilify numerous parts of the nation, but I would not say his only platform was "don't vote for Hillary". But for Hillary I would definitely say the opposite was her strongest message, perhaps even her only one.

BryantD 10y ago

On the other hand, Trump focused his campaign on populist anger against Clinton, which seems very similar to making the case against someone else. "The woman, Hillary, it would be a disaster if she was elected and I can save you from her." I'm not convinced by this argument.

macspoofing 10y ago
That was part of his argument. He also pushed immigration and anti-trade.
- BryantD 10y ago
  Primary source: Clinton's stump speech. See http://www.npr.org/2016/09/15/493924325/inside-hillary-clintons-stump-speech-annotated http://www.npr.org/2016/09/15/493924325/inside-hillary-clint... She definitely attacks Trump. She also calls for: * investing in infrastructure * solar energy * expanding broadband access * more technical education, with the strong implication that there are other reasonable paths beside the elite four year college path * moratorium on student debt * public health funding It's not accurate to say she didn't talk about why she should be president.

daodedickinson 10y ago

>turnout "Obama got 65.9m votes in '12, Romney 60.9m. Clinton has 59.3m, Trump 59.1m. R vote didn't go up; Dem vote went down. 6.6m missing votes." https://twitter.com/MaxBoot/status/796378238306160641 https://twitter.com/MaxBoot/status/796378238306160641

vkou 10y ago
We don't have final counts yet - these numbers will increase. Voter turnout this election was high.
toomuchtodo 10y ago
I sat out as a Sanders supporter. I am sure I am not alone. EDIT: 1. I viewed Sanders support of Clinton as forced/coerced, as in "We let you compete in the Democratic primary, now you owe us". EDIT 2: By agreeing to support Clinton, she adopted some of his left leaning policies (in show only though, such as not supporting fracking or the TPP). 2. Of course I voted down ballot. EDIT 3: Getting really tired of these HN throttling limits.
- readhn 10y ago
  A lot of my friends did the same.
- kristjansson 10y ago
  Did you at least vote down-ballot?
- grzm 10y ago
  How did you view Sander's support of Hillary?
- grzm 10y ago
  After Hillary became the Democratic candidate, what was Sander's incentive for doing endorsing and continuing to support Hillary? What leverage would force/coerce him? He had at least two other options: remain silent, or endorse Trump.

jarnix 10y ago

It's not entirely true. During the previous elections in France, people voted against Sarkozy, they did not vote for François Hollande.

pcunite 10y ago

>> ... and shaming Bernie/Stein supporters This ... the voting public was told over and over what to think, told what was best for us. We decided for ourselves.

DominikR 10y ago

This is true, she didn't make a strong positive case for what her policies would look like. And if she did then she didn't spend her time effectively trying to convey this. (can't actually remember even a single policy of hers except for easier abortions and confrontation with Russia over Syria) But what I feel is problematic is that Trump was painted as some kind of Hitler, which is ludicrous if you spent a few hours watching some of his rallies. He says things he shouldn't say, and some might say he's an a-hole, but he certainly doesn't come across as a Hitler, a fascist or a Nazi. Why is it so problematic for everyone? It increases the likelihood of violence, not just against Trump and his family, but against everyone showing public support for him. In some way not only the people engaging in violence are to blame, but also the media and the campaigns, because when you somehow convince a large chunk of the population that a candidate is literally like Hitler then many will use violence believing it's justified in order to prevent a new Holocaust. Also the Hitler comparison is used today too often. I believe we currently have 4 Hitlers according to the political establishment: Trump, Putin, Erdogan, Duterte

ltorresv 10y ago
I remember the leaks mentioned something about reinforcing the "Trump = Hitler" idea. This was all manufactured by the DNC and it didn't work. I wouldn't be surprised if they're currently planning ways to disrupt Trumps inauguration or other events during the next 4 years to see if he snaps and they can use that as ammo for the next election. At the end of the day it's politics and playing dirty is expected but now that one side has been exposed it's hard to brush it off thinking everybody does it.
- DominikR 10y ago
  I agree that it is a normal (but nasty) part of politics to paint an unfavourable picture of an opponent (both candidates did that), but inciting violence is where it goes too far for me. I imagine how many people in the US are now fearing for their lives because the DNC made them believe that Trump will probably build forced labour camps. And how many of them are not just frightened but even read to use violence. When I check my Facebook newsfeed it's full of posts from friends who seem to be very afraid about what has happened. If something terrible happens then it might be that the DNC has created the illusion which justified the violence.

notacoward 10y ago

> Hillary focused her entire campaign on why people should stop Trump I don't believe that. It might be what you saw but that's because the media wouldn't cover anything substantive. She tried; it just got drowned out by all the smears (including those against Trump) and horse-race coverage.

CountSessine 10y ago

The results are showing that Hillary lost, at least in large part, due to lower voter turnout, especially among liberal-leaning populations I can't help but think of the similarity to the 2012 election where rank-and-file middle-class conservative voters were being asked to support a Republican candidate who built his fortune firing Americans and off-shoring their jobs. They didn't vote for Obama, but they sure didn't vote for Romney either.

maxxxxx 10y ago

I have heard something on the radio that rigs true: The Democrats used to be party for blue collar workers but they have totally abandoned them. At least Trump said the right things. I agree that Clinton never made a case for electing her other than being there for some reason. In general, the Republicans have the courage to take clear positions no matter right or wrong. Whereas the Democrats and especially Clinton are super wishy-washy.

mch82 10y ago
In what way has the Democratic Party abandoned blue collar workers? By supporting labor unions? By supporting labor laws? By supporting anti-discrimination laws? I agree with you that the Democratic Party is horrible at communicating with voters.

CatMtKing 10y ago

I thought Michael Moore's reasons were pretty on point: http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/ http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/ Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were indeed critical to the election, though it was by a hair that Trump won. The liberal vote was not very enthusiastic, whereas Trump pulled in people that were die-hard fans.

disease 10y ago
Wow, this is eerily prescient and the best explanation I've seen so far of the Trump phenomenon. Great read for someone like me who like so many others, didn't know a single person voting for Trump.

pmuk 10y ago

This is very similar to what happened in the UK with Brexit; the remain campaign focused their arguments on the negatives / fear of leaving rather than the positives of being part of the EU.

btreecat 10y ago

That and we should take away the message that voter suppression efforts in states like NC worked.

ianai 10y ago

With how close it was it's disingenuous to look for reasons why she lost. People simply didn't think the entire rural population would vote enmasse and they underestimated the size of that voting block. Full stop.

SonicSoul 10y ago

I agree. Combine that with her pretty much saying what she thinks people want to hear, and no real history of standing for anything, she really sucked as a candidate. I also believe that the Dems suppressed Bernie in order to have Hillary as their nominee. I don't think Trump had a chance against Bernie. I am hopeful that this will be a blow to the 2 party system where we're forced to vote for lesser evil.