@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:
I can't remember anyone ever saying that Hillary was invincible? She had the 2nd highest negatives of any presidential politician ever. She was running to be the first female president in our nations history. She's been hated and scorned for almost 30 years by the right. There were so many cracks in that armor.
It's pretty clear that despite her flaws as a campaigner, a public official, and as a human being, the Democrat Establishment, their allies in the MSM, and True Blue among the rank and file, were certain that she was going to win. I think one of george's points is that while yes, there was certainly no rational reason to believe she was invincible, she campaigned and her allies and supporters acted as if she was. That they truly believed she was, and weren't hiding their fears and concerns behind a facade of confidence, was demonstrated by the widespread shock and despair they clearly and uniformly displayed when she lost. Obviously, a significant and decisive number of American voters were all too cognizant of the flaws that didn't really bother the elites and zealots, or she would have won. (And if this isn't george's point, it is mine
)
Quote:What people were surprised about were how many people had no problem electing Donald Trump (or at least, compared to Clinton).
A far more accurate statement would be "What
Clinton supporters were surprised about were how many people had no problem electing Donald Trump (or at least, compared to Clinton)" and my response to it would be
"No kidding?"
First of all, Trump wasn't elected solely by a group of voters who believe he was without flaws, in fact most of his voters recognized his flaws. What you and those who think like you can't wrap your head around was that the Trump voters who recognized his flaws, also recognized hers and decided that, for a president, his were more acceptable than hers. It certainly did mean that they were blind to his flaws or that they all embraced them (some, of course, did to the extent that they saw them operating as virtues if he exercised control).
We can argue back and forth for years and will likely never agree on the relative severity and significance of the two candidates' individual flaws as respects serving as POTUS, but from a political strategy standpoint, it's meaningless. The fact is that there was a Democrat Brand prior to the election that was shaped in large part by Clinton and her wing (the controlling wing) of the party, albeit with considerable assistance from Barrack Obama. That brand was rejected by a significant and decisive segment of the electorate. The 2016 Election will never be described as one in which voters mused,
"Gosh, but this is a tough choice! We've been presented with two excellent candidates here and I'm having a rough time deciding which one is the best." I would argue that more voters who pulled the lever for Trump did so as a vote for the person, than those pulling the Clinton lever. Clearly there were many voters who pulled one lever or the other as a vote against the other candidate, and Clinton had her zealots who truly thought she was just about perfect for the job, but for the most part, votes for Clinton were a vote for the Democrat Brand, a continuation of the Obama presidency. (I think she probably got more votes for being a woman than for being
Hillary Clinton). So the sense of invincibility that existed wasn't attached as much to Clinton as the Democrat Brand.
Since the election it appears that the Democrat Party hasn't bothered to examine their brand, or if they have, they haven't found any problems with it. In practice, they seem to have decided to intensely reinforce the brand, or those elements of it most rejected by Trump voters, rather than attempt to modify them to attract those voters the next time around.
This is the sort of thing that seems to always happen after a devastating loss in the presidential election. Because the creators of the party brand lost the election, their power and influence is greatly diminished and as a result the wing of the party that is far more focused on ideology and had been kept under control, gains power and influence. With that new strength they never argue
"Well, our influence on the brand was one of the big reasons the party lost so we have to restrain our influence even more." Of course not. Instead they argue that if the party had more thoroughly embraced their ideological influence it would have won. It's precisely what we are seeing now with Bernites and the far left wing of the Democrat Party. Because in politics, people and factions who lose elections, lose respect and influence, and those who can claim they had nothing to do with the loss, gain power, the parties, (and this is particularly true with the Dems) after a devastating loss, often double down on what lost them the election, setting themselves up for another loss the next time around.
Quote:I think back to all the claims of impropriety and character flaws that I seen the right throw to the left...and here we have Trump, who is the personification of most of those flaws. Guess those things don't matter too much after all.
This is another classic reaction to a major loss. Blame those who voted for the other guy, the other brand and not the losing candidate or brand.
It may be an understandable manifestation of human nature, but it in no way will win future elections, particularly when it represents a key element of the losing brand that led a significant and decisive number of voters to reject it.
But hey, keep on keepin' on. I'm certainly not rooting for Democrats to figure out why they lost and correct their problems.
