Did Clinton beat herself?
Nov. 17th, 2016 05:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drwexhttp://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/losing-the-popular-vote-wont-rein-in-president-trump
Numbers are only part of any story but this article puts some interesting numbers out there. The depressing one is that as few as 55,000 votes shifted in PA, OH, and MI would have tipped those electors into her column. Voter suppression is a thing, y'all, and I have no clue what we can do about it, especially once President Pussygrabber gets his people on the Supreme Court.
THAT said, there is a very instructive bit in the article showing that Trump not only underperformed Romney (which we knew, but hey there was low turnout all around) but he also underperformed more traditional-Republican Senatorial candidates in states where both Trump and the Senate candidate won. That is interesting because it may mean that Trump's white nationalist brand of demagoguery (sp?) actually caused him to do less well than a traditional Republican would have done. Trump may have held down his own numbers.
Another way to read that is that a traditional Republican candidate would have beaten Ms Clinton by a larger margin, perhaps even taking the popular vote.
And a third way to read that is that news of America's headlong descent into fascism and radical hate may be somewhat premature. Those people who came out to vote (and were able to vote) both preferred the sane candidate and where they had a choice of a sane Republican and an insane one they preferred the sane one, even in very red states and even where that other candidate was one that Trump defeated in the primaries.
As with voter suppression, there are other factors that need to be considered before 2020, including a decade-plus of gerrymandering, liberal flight (Ms Clinton appears to have won California by something like a 2:1 margin despite the Peter Thiel faction), and a host of outside influences all tipping the scale against Clinton. One of those factors, though, may well be that Ms Clinton contributed to her own defeat and Trump was just a handy (if horrifying) vehicle for something that would have happened anyway.
I don't find that super-comforting (see President Pussygrabber) but I do want to believe I live in a country that is not in fact Wiemar America.
Numbers are only part of any story but this article puts some interesting numbers out there. The depressing one is that as few as 55,000 votes shifted in PA, OH, and MI would have tipped those electors into her column. Voter suppression is a thing, y'all, and I have no clue what we can do about it, especially once President Pussygrabber gets his people on the Supreme Court.
THAT said, there is a very instructive bit in the article showing that Trump not only underperformed Romney (which we knew, but hey there was low turnout all around) but he also underperformed more traditional-Republican Senatorial candidates in states where both Trump and the Senate candidate won. That is interesting because it may mean that Trump's white nationalist brand of demagoguery (sp?) actually caused him to do less well than a traditional Republican would have done. Trump may have held down his own numbers.
Another way to read that is that a traditional Republican candidate would have beaten Ms Clinton by a larger margin, perhaps even taking the popular vote.
And a third way to read that is that news of America's headlong descent into fascism and radical hate may be somewhat premature. Those people who came out to vote (and were able to vote) both preferred the sane candidate and where they had a choice of a sane Republican and an insane one they preferred the sane one, even in very red states and even where that other candidate was one that Trump defeated in the primaries.
As with voter suppression, there are other factors that need to be considered before 2020, including a decade-plus of gerrymandering, liberal flight (Ms Clinton appears to have won California by something like a 2:1 margin despite the Peter Thiel faction), and a host of outside influences all tipping the scale against Clinton. One of those factors, though, may well be that Ms Clinton contributed to her own defeat and Trump was just a handy (if horrifying) vehicle for something that would have happened anyway.
I don't find that super-comforting (see President Pussygrabber) but I do want to believe I live in a country that is not in fact Wiemar America.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2016-11-17 11:31 pm (UTC)I feel like publicizing that sort of behavior has to some extent normalized it and directly let to an increase in sexual assault and decrease in safety. The sooner we can go back to having that sort of behavior be so beyond the pale that polite people don't mention it, the safer I'll feel.
To be clear, I'm not asking you to stop, just letting you know how I feel.
no subject
Date: 2016-11-17 11:56 pm (UTC)I guess the question is what else can you do but publicize that sort of behavior?
no subject
Date: 2016-11-18 04:47 pm (UTC)If you want to publicize the allegations of child rape of a 13 year old, I have no problems. Pretty much everyone agrees that's bad.
no subject
Date: 2016-11-18 11:04 am (UTC)Duh!
Of course!!!
Trump did everything wrong and still won. This amply proves what the DNC should've realized after 2008, that Hillary Clinton is her own worst enemy politically and a whole lot of people don't like her. The perception was that her #1 shining quality was that she was not Donald Trump. For this reason alone we should've elected her (perhaps to only one term) but this did not exactly motivate and energize a lot of voters.
The Democrats need to stop nominating nerds.
--a whole lot of "told you so" from a Bernie voter
no subject
Date: 2016-11-18 02:23 pm (UTC)There is very clearly a segment of voters that Trump brought out who sat out the last two elections. There is also a clear segment of deplorables that he has given a voice and a figurehead. He's legitimized a lot of hate that a traditional Republican would not have.
To say that he's done "everything wrong" is to presuppose that those two voter groups do not matter, which I think is a serious error.
In addition, Trump out-polled Romney among Latinx voters, a demographic he demonized over and over. To say that was 'wrong' is an interesting statement. It's certainly morally wrong, but from a political calculus point of view it seems to have been a better strategy.
In my opinion there's a very serious question ahead of us - are we living in a country that is spiraling into white fascist nationalism for which Trump is a figurehead or is Trumpism a different thing?
no subject
Date: 2016-11-18 03:42 pm (UTC)I really have to get off the iPad as I've already lost hours, but this is a really important line. A few days back
In the few days since I ended up talking with someone who pointed out that those of us who have been through college are comfortable with the idea that there is stuff we don't know and that guy over there knows a ton about it; hence his doctorate, and so leaving details about X to him makes perfect sense. But otherwise "no, I can't explain the details but that guy over there will handle them" sounds like 'you're too stupid to understand.'
And yeah it is elite to expect people who may or may not have the education or time between multiple jobs to wade through policy papers.
I'm kinda freaked about this all, because it feels contrary to dem ethos to consider a populace stupid. I am very uncomfortable if I have to admit that about someone. But the other guy spoke in fourth grade language, and that appealed.
no subject
Date: 2016-11-18 07:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-11-18 06:33 pm (UTC)