Why did the Democrats lose the election?
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Because more people found Trump to be less distasteful than Clinton. Also more working class people felt that they weren't being listened to or represented. Many people were tired of politics as usual which is why Trump got the nomination in the first place.
Most people just don't like Clinton. There are many factors that lead to the train wreck.
Most people just don't like Clinton. There are many factors that lead to the train wreck.
I agree , I voted give me anything other then I have now . That was the idea of Ross Perot , unfortunately in this country is hard to form a meaningful third party
An odd question. The Dems got a majority of the national vote (for the House and the Senate, as well as the Presidency), and were probably defrauded of electoral wins in four or five States that appear to have been rigged.
And the wrong question.
A better question would be why Donald Trump won the election. And in this, the role of the corporate media in creating, enabling, promoting, and protecting his candidacy is the obvious first thing to look at. He had no other constituency than his audience on TV. His home base, his neighbors and the people who know him best, treated him with scorn in the first place and voted overwhelmingly against him the first chance they got. Nobody who knows him outside his Party and chosen companions thinks he's fit for the job. He got elected by a TV audience - so that's where to look for why.
And the wrong question.
A better question would be why Donald Trump won the election. And in this, the role of the corporate media in creating, enabling, promoting, and protecting his candidacy is the obvious first thing to look at. He had no other constituency than his audience on TV. His home base, his neighbors and the people who know him best, treated him with scorn in the first place and voted overwhelmingly against him the first chance they got. Nobody who knows him outside his Party and chosen companions thinks he's fit for the job. He got elected by a TV audience - so that's where to look for why.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
OK
What do you think?
Which is kind of funny given the fact that Trump is everything they detest in American politics. He is corrupt, and he has done all the things he has accused his rivals of doing, and, unlike Trump's assertions, there is ample evidence to prove it. Trump is the least transparent president and most conflicted president-elect we have had in modern times. Additionally, Trump is entering office with a 44% job approval rating: the lowest rating in the history of the metric. That doesn't bode well for Trump's presidency.
Most people voted for Clinton over Trump: a fact Republicans like to gloss over or deny. The fact is a few thousand lesser educated white males voted for Trump over Clinton in a few states. That's why Trump won.
Now why those few thousand lesser educated white males voted for Trump over Clinton is uncertain. I think there was no single reason, but rather a number of reasons:
1) Clinton had been the brunt of decades of Republican political slander
2) Clinton's VP selection left a lot to be desired. While Kaine is a nice guy and a competent guy; he is also Mr. Boring. She needed someone like Bernie or Warren to spice up her ticket. I think her VP selection was a mortal moment in her campaign.
3) Her private email problem: even though there wasn't any there, there, it was a constant distraction and provided a convenient vehicle Republicans could and did use to unfairly smear her reputation.
But given all those liabilities, Clinton could have still won were it not for the following:
4) Comey's intervention and his last minute letter to Congress.
5) Russia's intervention with fake news and the hacking and release of Democratic emails each day for the last few weeks of the campaign. It was designed to divert attention from the campaign and keep Clinton off message, and it worked. There was nothing scandalous in the emails, but it allowed Republicans a platform to create conspiracies like Pizzagate. Lesser educated white males aren't the brightest bulbs on the shelf and they tend to believe crap like Pizzagate.
If Clinton had fewer liabilities, she would have won those few thousand votes and she would be the POTUS.
Last edited:
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Yet, that's not what happened and Trump is President. While Kaine was not the best choice for VP I don't think he (or any other VP candidate) affected the outcome.
The Comey situation was unfortunate but I doubt that it really changed the outcome either. People who were going to vote for her probably didn't change their minds and the other's don't matter.
Very few people who voted for Clinton were thrilled about their vote and very few who voted for Trump were thrilled for their vote either. It wasn't just uneducated males.
I know some people who voted for Trump while holding their noses figuring that he would be better for gun issues and would pick someone for the Supreme Court more to their liking.
Many voters for Clinton did so just because a vote for Trump seemed so ridiculous and not because of any great confidence in Clinton.
It was a "dirty" situation all the way around. Hopefully both parties will clean up their act next time but I'm not holding my breath.
I think more and more people will just do as the Italians do and that is just ignore government as being relevant to their lives.
Yet those things did happen.
That's why Trump is president-elect.It probably didn't change the minds of people who were going to vote for her. But it probably changed the minds of many undecided low information voters: the kind of voters responsible for Trump's success.
And you know this how? Where is your evidence to support that assertion? It was just under educated white males. Under educated white males are Trump's base.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/why-trump-won-working-class-whites.html
I'm sure many Republicans voted for Trump because it was the Republican thing to do. Republicans have a long history of voting the party line.
Perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact that Trump's core appeal and the people who put him over the top were lesser educated white males. And there were many more Democrats who voted for Clinton because they truly liked her.
Where is the equivalence? You are attempting to draw a false equivalence. Democrats ran a fairly good campaign. They had a good candidate. They had a well qualified candidate. Don't smear Democrats with Republican bullshit.
Republicans or so self described "Republicans" would love it if that were the case. But let's hope that's not the case. I think it will have the exact opposite effect. I think Trump will rile Democrats up. I don't think 2018 will be kind to Republicans. The majority of Americans will at some point rise up against the tyranny of the minority as Mark Levin, a Republican talk show host, is fond of saying.
Yeah, but he won the Democratic Derby↱ in response to the GOP budget resolution with the simplest, least grandstanding of speeches: "Madam Clerk, when I was sick, you visited me. I vote No."
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Do you really think that many people were sitting on the fence between Clinton and Trump a month before the election? I don't.
I don't think I need "evidence" to support my assertion that many people who voted for either of them weren't thrilled by their vote. You're not particularly objective regarding politics are you?
Democrats aren't known for voting for Republicans either.
Where is your evidence for stating that there were many more Democrats voting for Clinton because they truly liked her? How would one even come up with evidence for truly liking someone?
If there wasn't equivalence Clinton would have won. Obviously Clinton is not Trump but neither candidate was what most people would have preferred. Sure Clinton was more qualified but she was more qualified than Obama and she still lost.
Again, you aren't particularly objective are you? Any argument that you don't agree with apparently is "Republican bullshit" even though I'm not a Republican. I think in past discussions any statement that you didn't agree with must have come from Fox News according to you.
Being a fanboy is best reserved for rooting for sports teams.
That could happen or it could not. If the Democrats don't improve their offering they may be the out party for quite some time. It would be a mistake IMO for them to blame Trump supporters for all of their problems. A better Democratic candidate should have beat Trump. The Democrats need another "outsider" as very few people truly support the status quo.
That's why Bernie Sanders raised so much traction. Hillary was as likely to continue our warring ways as Trump. Hillary is actually more supportive of Wall Street than Trump. People just don't like Hillary and it's tough to shove a candidate like that down everyone's throat as though she is simply entitled to the job.
Last edited:
According to the statisticians it swung the election. All the last minute deciders went for Trump, and there were a lot of them.
But so did the rigging, via fraud and suppression and manipulation of the vote. Trump won by very thin advantage in a couple of key places.
Are you really trying to draw an equivalence between Trump and Clinton as reasonable Presidential votes? Seriously? Nominating Clinton you are trying to describe as equivalently "dirty" to nominating Trump?
For fifty years now the Dems have nominated nothing but sound, reasonable, likely candidates for office - Potus and VPotus both. The Republicans have nominated W&Cheney , Palin, and Trump, in the last twelve years alone. And that's giving Romney the benefit of the doubt. The Dems do not need to "clean up" anything. The Republicans, on the other hand, should probably by normal ethical standards dissolve their Party and have most of its nominated politicians resign on principle. They have undermined, damaged, disgraced, embarrassed, and betrayed their country.
There is no equivalence here. There's nothing "both parties" have to do alike.
Frankly, their continued support for a "President" who openly advocates for nuclear proliferation; torture; sexual assault; crony capitalism and corporate favoritism (see latest L.L. Bean tweet); spying (hacking) by non-friendly foreign powers; and various forms of discrimination against and disenfranchisement for various demographics of the populace ought also have them be tried for treason.
Moreover, this incoming administration's egregious refutation of the Declaration of Independence is immediate grounds for their forced removal from office:
In fact, as soon as the Affordable Care Act is repealed--or at least the provision which guarantees non-discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions is removed--I, personally, will interpret that as a threat and endangerment to my right to life, and may choose to respond accordingly...
Last edited:
It doesn't matter what the Dems did. They should have won running a badtempered cocker spaniel. This election had nothing to do with the Dems.
I'm actually kind of interested in what percentage of Trump voters know that the ACA and "Obamacare" are the same thing. I've already run into a couple of apparently sincere Republican voters who are celebrating the upcoming riddance of Obamacare, and are sure they are going to be ok because they get their insurance through the Affordable Care Act.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
The question is not for me, but, of course, I would not draw an equivalence.
Clinton was openly promising, as a pre-election promise, war with Russia (the promised no-fly zone would require such a war to be enforced, and, given that there was no hope for Russian agreement, it makes sense only as a proposal enforced against Russia). Trump did not openly promise any war. So, there is certainly no equivalence.
LOL....except that very blatantly not true comrade. Facts matter comrade. Clinton has made no promise to go to war with Russia. Clinton would continue to hold the line on Russian aggression whereas Trump would not: if left to his own devices. A no fly zone could only lead to war if Russia refused to recognize it. Clinton in the past has supported the idea of a no fly zone in order to protect Syrian civilians and keep them from fleeing to other countries. That's a good thing, unless of course you want to continue to murder civilians as your beloved Mother Putina and Assad have done.
Facts matter here comrade, we are not Russians.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Still unrepentantly russophobic joe.
I gotta ask:
WHY?
..........................
shades of tailgunner joe?
..............edit
Treatments for Russophobia
I gotta ask:
WHY?
..........................
shades of tailgunner joe?
..............edit
Treatments for Russophobia
- Behavior therapy, anti-anxiety medication
- Psychotherapy
- Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT)
- Behavioral therapy
- Exposure therapy
Last edited:
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
That means, it would lead to war. Because it is well known that Russia has repeatedly vetoed such proposals.
And, as I have already explained you, it was Obama who was the chicken in the recent chicken game in Syria, where Obama vial Washington Post has openly speculated about attacking Syrian troops or airports, and Russia has, in response, officially delivered S-300 and clarified that they will be used against any American attack against Syrian army positions. So, there was no hope, after this, that Putin would allow a no-fly zone simply because he would be afraid or so.
The only thing one could have hoped for, without war, would have been
1.) Clinton openly forgetting their pre-election promises (ok, this would be 95%)
2.) Clinton declaring a no-fly zone, Putin ignoring it, Clinton remaining the chicken like Obama.