Just out of curiosity, how did Trump win? (From what little I know, I've read his team focused on getting electoral votes while Hillary's team focused on some fancy data science strategy that ignored important districts. But, everyone else keeps saying it was fake news and Russian covert ops.)
Here is Clinton's exact quote, taken from the Wikipedia article on the "basket of deplorables" remark[0].
"You can take Trump supporters and put them in two big baskets.
There are what I would call the deplorables—you know, the racists and the haters,
and the people who are drawn because they think somehow he's going to
restore an America that no longer exists."
Can you explain why white Trump supporters have chosen this as a banner to rally around rather than reject those elements and that ideology from their platform or their identity? Why is it wrong to deplore racism and hatred?
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America."
The key word that you omitted is "irredeemable"- basically she is saying that there is no hope for redemption for people have certain beliefs. What does that imply about how she would have governed people who are, in her words, irredeemable?
> basically she is saying that there is no hope for redemption for people have certain beliefs.
Well, sure, if you omit the part where she admits to being "grossly generalistic" and where she says she believes only "some of those folks" are "irredeemable," then you might interpret it as a statement about people who hold certain beliefs rather than people who refuse to be persuaded from their beliefs... but that would be omitting the full context.
>What does that imply about how she would have governed people who are, in her words, irredeemable?
Nothing. Obviously, she was speaking in the context of campaign strategy, reading something more ominous into it would be disingenuous.
Hillary Clinton has all the charisma of a sack full of angry cats but I don't think she did insult her voter base.
She insulted racists, bigots, sexists, etc... but those people aren't her base. Angry, disenfranchised rural white voters and their embrace of Trump's populism by way of race-culture supremacy/identity as a reaction against America's demographic and cultural shift has been thoroughly documented. Also, her description of the rationale for the rest of Trump voters is one that Trump voters themselves admit to.
What didn't happen is Hillary Clinton calling all Trump supporters (or, by extension, all white people or all working class people) racist and "deplorable."
> She insulted racists, bigots, sexists, etc... but those people aren't her base
She said that "half" of Trump voters are those things.
> What didn't happen is Hillary Clinton calling all Trump supporters (or, by extension, all white people or all working class people) racist and "deplorable."
Trump voters know other Trump voters. They look around themselves and don't see "half" of them being those things - therefore, they infer that Hillary Clinton had misidentified many of their friends as being those things.
>She said that "half" of Trump voters are those things.
Was that bigoted? Yes, and she paid for it. Imprecise, yes, but I don't think she was literally claiming 50% of Trump supporters were those things. But was it entirely untrue?
I lived through the same election cycle as everyone else. I've seen the racist elements of American white supremacism and the alt-right embrace Trump for whatever reason, and I've seen the contempt in which some Trump supporters appear to hold the rest of the country. They voted for a man who has said far, far worse things than Hillary Clinton, yet it's more important for them to form solidarity with racists than to admit that maybe she wasn't entirely wrong. When you're willing to get in bed with swine you won't wake up smelling like roses.
I would question your premise. Clinton, and the left wing and Democratic Party, have taken a number of policies/opinions and labeled them to be racist.
It’s part of a particularly odious strategy: make a bold stand against “hate,” then describe everything your opponent stands for as hateful, regardless of the reality.
1. The US-Mexico border wall. The purpose of the wall is to prevent people from illegally crossing the border to enter the US. Say what you will about its effectiveness. I doubt it would be that effective and think our money is better spent elsewhere. But if you support it, you'll be branded a racist.
2. Deporting illegal aliens. If you agree that people who are in the US illegally should be deported, you'll be branded a racist. Race has nothing to do with it. It's the legality of it. If you don't like the law, lobby for it to be changed. You'll also be accused of hating all immigrants (i.e., ones here legally) which has no basis.
> If you don't like the law, lobby for it to be changed.
So on this particular point, I was clicking through a bunch of Youtube videos last week while bored and saw one in particular that stuck out. The particular point was about refugees, not illegal immigrants, but it seems that at least some people are absolutely convinced that there's already an authority above the US government that makes enforceable laws, and that Trump/etc is just ignoring those laws. No amount of arguments or explanation during the video could convince the person that there is no such law.
Specifically, he won the election by edging a thin margin of electoral votes in key swing states, while losing the popular vote by millions. How exactly that came to be is stil a matter of debate.
That's not precisely correct -- it's very well understood. Many, if not most, of those millions of votes came from states he could not win no matter what he did (CA, NY) -- as a result there was no reason or incentive to spend time or money campaigning there.
Well, there is debate on the tactical decisions that lead to that. I've heard that Clinton's campaign chose to make non-optimal decisions for winning the presidency to try and help downticket races, because they assumed presidential victory was assured. Whether that was the right strategy is up for debate, kinda I guess, I mean, we know who won.
Trump won because the Democrats ran Hillary. She was the problem. Her giving the impression of a divine right to hold the office. Her history of scandals. Her lack of charisma. There were a lot of people who held their nose and voted for Trump, not because they were racist or sexist, not because they wanted Trump, but because they were voting "not Hillary".
If most news media is to be believed, Russia hacked the election.
Though what they mean by that is that Russia hacked the DNC servers and exposed illegal or quasi-illegal action by those at the top causing mass disillusionment with the DNC among those on the fence.
In addition they (russia) apparently spent less than $300,000 on facebook/social media ads. (For context, the DNC and hillary spent over 1/2 billion on ads/commercials and trump spent a little more than $300 million.)
Trump won the election because his message resonated with the voters where it mattered. Clinton won the popular vote because all the people who voted for her live in the same 4 states.
>(From what little I know, I've read his team focused on getting electoral votes while Hillary's team focused on some fancy data science strategy that ignored important districts. But, everyone else keeps saying it was fake news and Russian covert ops.
All of that is likely true, but to what degree is a matter of debate.
It does seem to be true that the Democrats tried to play it safe with Clinton and that she failed to connect with the same demographics that other Democratic candidates, or Trump, succeeded with.
It also seems to be true that there was some effort on the part of the Trump campaign (with or without his knowledge) to engage with Russian "covert ops" and that these efforts were at least somewhat successful, given the admission on the part of the DNC that the damage caused by Wikileaks was too great to overcome. Connect the dots between Wikileaks, Russia and Trump wherever you like... no one here can offer anything but conjecture on the matter.
I think a lot of it has to do with the simple fact that out of the entirety of the Democratic and Republican fields, Trump alone was the most charismatic and showmanlike and was most able to entertain and capture media attention. Modern elections are more about hype and the news cycle than competence and intellect. Clinton found herself a magnet for the disillusionment and impotent rage for which Trump provided catharsis and, in a close election, that was enough for him to squeak by.
There's a lot of fear and anxiety in America, at least parts of it.
You've got millions of American's one paycheck away from being homeless. [1] There's the insane cost of college, yet you still need a degree to succeed. The insane cost of healthcare. There's the wealth inequality. Wages are stagnate. And global warming is only getting worse. Etc.
Now there's three paths that I think are taken when this sort of thing happens. You've got the fix the problems route, or the scapegoating route, or a combination of the two. Hillary Clinton didn't really address these fears, she represented the status quo. Trump, on the other hand, was the clear scapegoat candidate. He was the candidate you vote for if you believe or feel all the problems stem from brown people, women, etc. opwieurposiu's comment above/below demonstrates this feeling, I think. People like him/her voted for Trump. Trump's slogan was "Build the wall". If you believe the problem is caused by minorities, you vote for the candidate that wants to great rid of minorities. So yeah, he'll probably win again unless the Dems run a candidate that actually addresses these problems, which isn't likely. As the problems get worse, I imagine the scapegoating will as well.
