Some interesting election analysis from NPR
Submitted by SnappleBC on Sun, 11/13/2016 - 3:28am
I found it incomplete in typical ways but an interesting read all the same. Make of it what you will.
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/12/501848636/7-reasons-donald-trump-won-the-p...
Comments
Thanks for posting this
Reading this I again get the sense that for the many reasons she lost the election, the narrative is still that these things merely happened to Omnishambles Clinton instead of her creating the conditions for them to happen. The common denominator is a candidate who was not leadership material, no matter how burnished up she was by the party. It's not on the voters; it's on her.
PS. SnappleBC, are you a fellow Canadian, in British Columbia?
American expat
They laughing call me a "political refugee". We escaped Obama. Victoria, BC
I'm pretty coy about posting here nowadays but I agree with your general sentiment and would go further. That's what I meant by "Incomplete in typical ways". Among all of their blathering, you'll note that there was no mention of DLC, DNC corruption, Election Rigging, Neoliberalism, etc.
All of the points which actually matter were obscured. "National Public Radio" indeed.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
. Heads the 1% wins, trails the people lose
Looking at the lesser educated vote the first reaction is: those idiots. But when you consider how dismal the alternative was that vote doesn't seem quite so irrational. Lots of folks disagreed with Trump on serious issues, but Clinton's flaws were equally horrible and visible to all even if the media downplayed them in favor of sensationalizing Trump's. For example Trump U separated many files from their money but Clinton was taking in boatloads of cash from our beloved banksters while promising us she would tell them to cut it out (maybe she would have been willing to resort to that democratic tactical nuke, The Sternly Worded Letter). Basically there was no good outcome likely from this election: the people were going to lose no matter what.
Thanks for posting this. I agree
it's worth reading. This part aligns with what Michael Moore and others predicted and confirms it with numbers, but it also theorizes:
But here's the thing--and we all know this
There's no irony there, I don't think--because after what Her and the DNC did to Bernie Sanders in the primaries, she blew up that Blue Wall for good. She knew it, too, which is why they immediately started courting Republicans.
But all year long, so many people tried--and tried and tried--to tell the campaign that there were never going to be enough "centrist GOP" and "blue collar Reds" voting for her, to make up for losing Sanders supporters. They didn't give a shit, because it was Her Turn, goddammit! They must have been rendered permanently tone-deaf and stupid from living in that DC Fishbowl for too long. Well, those miserable fucks got exactly what they deserve, IMO. Election Night 2016 seemed to be, in the end, a lot like Election Night 2012--except instead of KKKarl Rove sitting there on camera with his mouth hanging open, in shock, when Ohio was called for Obama, we were treated to the entire Famous Talking Political Punditry, sitting there dumbfounded, reduced to sputtering "What the fuck just happened??"s when
TrumanTrump beatDeweyClinton.That had to have been priceless to see, overall. One bit in particular--of course I didn't see any of this myself, but a family member told me he happened to flip to MSDNC at some point in the evening, and watched with delight while Chuckie Todd sat there, intoning over and over again "But....but....I'm just not able to find a path for Her to win....". I'm almost sorry I missed that, hehe...
Chuck the Toady not
believing his lying eyes. Priceless.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
Her Biggest Mistake Was Telling The First Voter To Phuck Off...
It was a mistake that would be repeated until the election was lost...
If you didn't like what she had done, was doing, or planned on doing you can just phuck off...
290 - 228
I'm the only person standing between Richard Nixon and the White House."
~John F. Kennedy~
Economic: -9.13, Social: -7.28,
You mean the time in Minnesota when she ...
transformed (right there on TV) into the wicked witch of the west as she thrust her spindly evil finger at that girl telling her to 'go run for something' ?
Yeah, THAT was stupid.
And of course, totally unsurprising.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
I've had enough of
your attitude. Go run for something!
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMegFe2GUp4[/video]
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
Peruse carefully the data/analysis on African American
voting.
Ultimately, the question may be: Did Clinton lose Michigan and Wisconsin (and possibly North Carolina) because:
A. She (and the DNC) failed to motivate black voters.
or
B. Republican voter suppression techniques (voter ID laws, crosscheck) prevented 10s or even hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens from voting for HRC (see c99p essay on Greg Palast ... you'll notice that NPR "doesn't go there").
or
A and B
I'm pretty sure the answer is A and B -- but as I expressed elsewhere, the great mystery to me is why the DNC, with the enormous power with which it is endowed by money and the Clintons' graftomania, was helpless to do anything about B, and in particular, the Crosscheck program.
No matter how hard I try, I cannot make sense out of the DNC's steadfast incompetence.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Heh... I've learned a lot over at GOS
in these last few days. I've come to the conclusion that it was, as I had always predicted (not bad for a total political neophyte) a battle of the bases with a low overall turnout and a very tight race. Because it was so tight, you can't really separate out one thing or another. Almost any of the individual issues were enough in and of themselves. None of them couldn't be overcome if it hadn't been failure in so many places.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
Meh
They just haven't had the practice the GOP has had at rigging elections.
I suspect that voter suppression helped Trump, but you can't put all the blame there. Hillary Clinton brought her actual loss on herself. What was stupid was the DNC supporting her crooked ass, to the point where they cheated in the primaries.
Fuck the DNC. I'm done making excuses for them and I am sure as hell done voting for their compromised candidates.
I don't buy B.
Latino turnout increased from 10% to 11% of all voters. Crosscheck suppression is far more likely to flag Jose Blanco than John White, so Latinos should have experienced dramatically more suppression than blacks but didn't.
The truth is Clinton is no Obama. People don't like her, whether they're white or black. And there's no way any white candidate could generate as much excitement among black voters as the first black president did.
It's cute that people are making excuses for Clinton and mouthing all kinds of conspiracy theories to account for her loss. But no CT is needed -- she's a lousy candidate and people don't like her, so she lost. End of story.
I support your comments,
but, you know, she won the popular vote by more than Gore did in 2000. The troubling thing is that the Electoral College system is what worked for Trump and for GW Bush.
I'm relieved that she didn't win because war is the most important issue for me. But the Electoral College is a system that has to be succeeded in, somehow, and I don't think most of us understand how that works exactly and what the DNC failed to do to win. I would like to see a discussion here about that. But I'm very relieved that she failed to win it.
According to a number of sources, votes are still being counted
and Her lead is shrinking in the popular vote count. Not that it matters.
Seems simple beyond that, though I'm with you in liking the idea of "more discussion" (out of curiosity more than anything). But here's the bottom line, I think--the DNC failed The Left from sea to shining sea because they were entirely too stupid, incompetent and corrupt to get behind Bernie Sanders.
With their captured Media machine, they could have forged an actual blue wave. They could have downplayed the whole "socialist" nonsense dogging Sanders, and won this thing. Easily. But they didn't, because Her Heinous is a pompous, out-of-touch spoiled old hag, and she isn't BLUE enough. She was also--and still is--too damned crooked and corrupt to be of any use to anybody.
I'm not interested in making excuses for HRC, but
I've been really angry about the voter suppression laws for at least 5 years now, and it would rather ... dkossish ... of me to suddenly act like i don't think it matters.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Ooops....
All voter suppression matters, that didn't come out right earlier, I think! When I said "not that it matters now", however, it's true as far as this election goes--nobody's going to throw it back to Her if she ends up actually winning the popular vote (see: Gore, Albert). But keep that "suppression" thing in the back of your mind for going forward, because it absolutely must be dealt with.
I haven't analyzed the numbers
But maybe the popular vote win can be explained by the fact that she won three of the top five most populous states, with California being the biggest by far. So she's liked in NY, California and one of her home states, Illinois, and hated everywhere else. (This is almost pure bitchery on my part as I love the idea that people hate her, they really, really hate her.)
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur.
C.
Hillary lost Michigan because she told the (black) people of Flint that they would have to wait 5 years while she "studied" lead contamination "nationwide" ( the problem really is nationwide, but "study" is code for "we don't want to spend the money to fix it" - because you're black)
On to Biden since 1973
A reality the dem establishment does not want to hear and see
From just the numbers I read about WI and MI, African American voter was much worse than expected by the dem establishment. While having the female family members of murdered black people on stage at the dem convention was a powerful symbol, did it really resonant. Where was Obama and Clinton on the safe drinking water issue in Flint? A study needed? A DNC memo instructed Congressional candidate how to marginalize BLM if they encountered the movement. Did Hillary appointing a failed white DNC chair instead of an African American matter?
The Hillary democrats used African America support as the basis for racism charges against Sanders. Did black voters see Hillary only concerned about African America votes and nothing more? Hillary got black leaders to mouth off right wing talking points used against black people and applied them to Sanders, like Sander supporters only want free stuff. Clinton attack every one of Bernie's policy mandates which would have greatly helped African Americans.
Vox claims voter suppression not a factor
Vox which seemed to be pro-Hillary came to the conclusion that voter suppression did not change the outcome of the race.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13597452/voter-suppres...
The reason for the result
other than the obvious fact that she was a highly disliked and, more importantly, distrusted, politician is the old clinton triangulation. Instead of operating from a set of principles, they played the game maximize their advantage. Being so shortsighted, they never contemplated the next step. They must have been so insecure about her chances that they appeared to adopt an- let's get through this immediate problem- without contemplating the consequences. So, in the primary, they reasoned that increased voter energy and participation would hurt her, so they discouraged engagement. I wouldn't be surprised if that fear carried over into the general election, because their voter drive activitiy appeared to be targeted to specific locations and specific populations (the so-called Obama coalition).
Nearly every step this campaign made was a misstep. It was almost divine justice that every current event fell right into trump's pocket- because clinton refused to stake out any uneqivocal position. Good riddance to the clinton machine.
Neither one of them can
drop dead fast enough. Pity they pro-created, now we have to look forward to that rotten apple daughter of theirs.
Man, I had such high hopes for Chelsea Clinton, once upon a time. I figured she'd end up somewhere, doing charity or activism like Amy Carter did. But then she married the banker guy, and I knew at that point all bets were off. I'll bet 20 years from now, she'll make Hillary look benevolent, so angry and bitter will she be about What We All Did to Her Mother.
UGH.