Board 8 > Hillary on why she lost to Trump

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hillary-clinton-explains-why-she-really-lost-to-trump/ar-BBzvnN0?li=BBnb7Kz&OCID=HPDHP

Kristof of The New York Times.

She largely cited these factors for her defeat:

- Russia. "A foreign power meddled with our election," she said, labeling it "an act of aggression." She called for an independent, bipartisan investigation into the Kremlin's involvement and said the probe should examine whether there was collusion with the Trump campaign.

- Misogyny. "Certainly, misogyny played a role. That has to be admitted," she said. Clinton added that "some people — women included — had real problems" with the idea of a woman president.

- Comey. Clinton cited as damaging to her campaign his unusual decision to release of a letter on October 28, less than two weeks before Election Day, that said he was looking at additional emails related to the FBI probe of the former secretary of state's use of a private server.

- WikiLeaks. Weeks of disclosures of stolen emails from the personal account of then-Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, were particularly harmful, Clinton said, adding that it "played a much bigger role than I think many people yet understand."

She said the combination of Comey's actions and the WikiLeaks' revelations "had the determinative effect."

---

who wants my
---

Hillary herself
---

Nanis23 posted...

Hillary herself

---

Voted Hillary, can confirm she is the biggest reason she lost.
---

I mean she's not wrong about any of that, but she was also horrible and no one liked her
---

Hillary.

Her campaign team.
---

being Crooked.
---

Hillary lost because liberals can't vote for a candidate they don't fall in love with. While Republicans can and do.
---

WikiLeaks. Granted it's also the DNC's fault in the first place, even if the events weren't as bad as hyped. But either way it changed the overall narrative of the election.

Clinton went from being hated by a vocal minority to much more widespread dislike. That increased voter apathy among democrats, which is already a huge problem for democrats.

The DNC went from whatever to part of the EVIL establishment, that's "totally clueless and can never win an election again". Just earlier that year, people would've said the same thing about the GOP.

Bernie went from being a candidate that people liked, and his supporters would've voted for Clinton if he lost. To a martyr that was screwed over by the DNC, Clinton, and the establishment. I think there's no way that Bernie gets any faithless electoral votes if the leak didn't happen, and more Bernie supporters would've voted for Clinton.

Trump went from a joke candidate to people taking the "drain the swamp" narrative a lot more seriously. Voters were more motivated than ever to vote against the corruption of Clinton and the DNC.

Stuff like Benghazi and the private email server weren't a huge deal really. They weren't great, but Trump had plenty of skeletons in his closet too.
---

Comey from what listed...but also herself and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. It's not hard to get behind a female politician -- Elizabeth Warren's great and I like what I've seen from Nikki Halie -- but Hillary and Debbie brought a bunch of baggage that didn't sincerely reach out to appease Bernie's base almost at all. They got arrogant and cost us.
---

Comey...in that she still wins despite all of that if he didnt bumble around with that non story.
---

DeathChicken posted...

I mean she's not wrong about any of that, but she was also horrible and no one liked her

This and the Streisand Effect, IMO.
---

DeathChicken posted...

I mean she's not wrong about any of that, but she was also horrible and no one liked her

---

HaRRicH posted...

Comey from what listed...but also herself and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. It's not hard to get behind a female politician -- Elizabeth Warren's great and I like what I've seen from Nikki Halie -- but Hillary and Debbie brought a bunch of baggage that didn't sincerely reach out to appease Bernie's base almost at all. They got arrogant and cost us.

To be fair, Republicans are already pushing the whole "shrill bitch" label on Warren in a way they don't attack male Dems.
---

StifledSilence posted...

Nanis23 posted...

Hillary herself

---

NBIceman posted...

StifledSilence posted...

Nanis23 posted...

Hillary herself

---

AdmiralZephyr posted...

NBIceman posted...

StifledSilence posted...

Nanis23 posted...

Hillary herself

---

I voted other because there isn't a crazyisgood option
---

Eddv posted...

Comey...in that she still wins despite all of that if he didnt bumble around with that non story.

---

KujikawaRising posted...

AdmiralZephyr posted...

NBIceman posted...

StifledSilence posted...

Nanis23 posted...

Hillary herself

---

UltimaterializerX posted...

Espeon posted...

HaRRicH posted...

Comey from what listed...but also herself and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. It's not hard to get behind a female politician -- Elizabeth Warren's great and I like what I've seen from Nikki Halie -- but Hillary and Debbie brought a bunch of baggage that didn't sincerely reach out to appease Bernie's base almost at all. They got arrogant and cost us.

To be fair, Republicans are already pushing the whole "shrill bitch" label on Warren in a way they don't attack male Dems.

This happens to conservative females, too. Have you seen the garbage that gets said about Palin, Ivanka, Conway, Fiorina, and Condy Rice?

I'll give you Fiorina for sure (though again, she was attacked more by republicans since dems didn't really worry about her.). Condi? I remember bizarre bullshit about her having an affair with George W., so yeah, I'll give you that too. Palin and Conway? They don't really get attacked on a gender basis so much as they get attacked for stupidity and lies (in the same vein as the Spiceman.). And Ivanka isn't really attacked on a woman basis so much as just general disbelief over her role in the administration.

Regardless, I'm glad you agree that women are held to an unfair standard and are much more harshly attacked in politics than men.
---

I apologize. That came off as needlessly antagonistic in response to a rational post. I have something else to say, but I'm on mobile and wanted to make my apology a priority.
---

I will completely agree that both sides of the aisle are willing to make gender-based attacks on female members of the opposition. I'd say the same thing about minorities. This is a bad thing regardless of political affiliation.

However, it often feels like Democrat women get hit harder than vice versa, if only because they're trying to be taken more seriously. Attacks on Barack or Hillary or Michelle Obama or Elizabeth Warren are more intense because they're viewed as faces of the progressive movement.

With your conservative women and minorities, yes there's often talk of them being "traitors", but it's tamer because they don't really get elevated to positions of high visibility within the party (at least in comparison to their white male counterparts). It's still bad to have these personal attacks levied against them...but it never feels like it's the same level.
---

Eddv posted...

Comey...in that she still wins despite all of that if he didnt bumble around with that non story.

This was the straw that broke the camel's back, but misogyny was the single biggest factor. It affected things on its own and also increased the impact of all the other factors.
---

Comey is the one for which we have the best estimate of the size of the effect (~2% by Sam Wang's analysis). I'm not sure which had the biggest overall effect, but take away any one and I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount that she would have won.

(Actually I should clarify that that 2% is just from the October Surprise Comey letter; it doesn't take into account his summer press conference, so we can probably attribute even more to him).
---

KokoroAkechi posted...

KujikawaRising posted...

AdmiralZephyr posted...

NBIceman posted...

StifledSilence posted...

Nanis23 posted...

Hillary herself

---

She lost it the moment she was surprised by balloons.
---

DeathChicken posted...

I mean she's not wrong about any of that, but she was also horrible and no one liked her

LordoftheMorons posted...

Comey is the one for which we have the best estimate of the size of the effect (~2% by Sam Wang's analysis). I'm not sure which had the biggest overall effect, but take away any one and I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount that she would have won.

(Actually I should clarify that that 2% is just from the October Surprise Comey letter; it doesn't take into account his summer press conference, so we can probably attribute even more to him).

Honestly, if October had been the only time Comey had stepped into the spotlight, I'd expect it to have a WAY stronger impact. Hell, I might have taken him more seriously.

Also, at the risk of attacking an analysis I haven't even heard of, how was that one measured better versus everything else? If it's just because of proximity to the election, I have a tough time buying that. Especially since a good portion of the swing states she lost actually have pretty plausible explanations already. Most notably in Trump actually visiting the Rust Belt at all versus Hillary...not doing that.
---

It's because the Comey letter was a single, high profile event when not much else was going on news-wise; this corresponded to a sudden, sharp decrease in her poll numbers. In comparison, the leaks were a continuous drip that would be hard to isolate in the polling data (and sexism of course would be a constant effect).

Edit: here's the aforementioned analysis: http://election.princeton.edu/2016/12/10/the-comey-effect/
---

Espeon posted...

UltimaterializerX posted...

Espeon posted...

HaRRicH posted...

Comey from what listed...but also herself and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. It's not hard to get behind a female politician -- Elizabeth Warren's great and I like what I've seen from Nikki Halie -- but Hillary and Debbie brought a bunch of baggage that didn't sincerely reach out to appease Bernie's base almost at all. They got arrogant and cost us.

To be fair, Republicans are already pushing the whole "shrill bitch" label on Warren in a way they don't attack male Dems.

This happens to conservative females, too. Have you seen the garbage that gets said about Palin, Ivanka, Conway, Fiorina, and Condy Rice?

I'll give you Fiorina for sure (though again, she was attacked more by republicans since dems didn't really worry about her.). Condi? I remember bizarre bullshit about her having an affair with George W., so yeah, I'll give you that too. Palin and Conway? They don't really get attacked on a gender basis so much as they get attacked for stupidity and lies (in the same vein as the Spiceman.). And Ivanka isn't really attacked on a woman basis so much as just general disbelief over her role in the administration.

Regardless, I'm glad you agree that women are held to an unfair standard and are much more harshly attacked in politics than men.

I'd fuck Ivanka that's for sure
---

Less votes.

oh wait
---

And to play a bit of devil's advocate, but in regards to the whole "shrill bitch" label put on women in politics: The number one thing male politicians like to attack each other over when they don't have something notably specific is weakness. Weak on crime, weak on jobs, weak on immigration, weak on whatever. They may actually be worried that calling out a woman for being weak would be viewed as even more misogynistic.

Granted, one could argue that merely not even attacking their female opponents in the same way is in itself misogynistic, but I understand why they'd shy away from it. The whole "shrill bitch" angle to me shows more a lack of creativity than anything else. Since it arguably worked so well against Hillary, we'll probably keep seeing it until it get we get a clear occasion of it not working so well, at which point everyone will drop it and act like they never did it.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

It's because the Comey letter was a single, high profile event when not much else was going on news-wise; this corresponded to a sudden, sharp decrease in her poll numbers. In comparison, the leaks were a continuous drip that would be hard to isolate in the polling data (and sexism of course would be a constant effect).

Edit: here's the aforementioned analysis: http://election.princeton.edu/2016/12/10/the-comey-effect/

I mean, he does sort of mention undecided Republican voters coming home. His article on each makes sense to me on their own, but if it is a significant factor anyway, my counterpoint would be that Comey may have affected the polls more than the actual election. The argument would be that it just got more people to voice support for Trump that would have eventually voted for him regardless, rather than an actual loss of support for Hillary.

Granted, that's a broad look from the outside in, but I didn't see anything to suggest why it wouldn't be a possibility. (Of course I may have missed something.)
---

Well, iirc something like 70% of last minute deciders broke for Trump. I think it's hard to argue that Comey + Conway managing to get Trump to mostly shut up for the last 2-3 weeks of the campaign didn't have a lot to do with that.
---

I mean, to quote his other article (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/opinion/why-i-had-to-eat-a-bug-on-cnn.html):

I suggest that we retire the concept of the “undecided” voter. Based on cognitive science, so-called undecided voters might be mentally committed to a choice, but either can’t verbalize it or want to keep it to themselves. We humans are like this in all kinds of domains, from what to have for lunch to whom to marry.

At best, they affected which "undecided" voters actually voted, but the actual notion of a "last minute decider" seems mostly a misnomer to me. He also goes on to say that straight-ticket voting is at an all time high, and I'm not sure how that can be affected by any one individual event.
---

Hillary has always had a hard time appealing to working class white men. The rust belt democratic fire wall fell. Does some sexism play a part? Yes. But it wasnt the main reason why she lost.
---

Looking at who voted for her and who didn't, it was probably more racism than any of these. But the margin was so small that you throw out any random factor and it might change the result.
---

Sam Wang was probably wrong about Clinton having a 99% chance of winning based on the available data. However, it's a lot harder to predict election results than it is to see a huge dip in Hillary's polls when literally the only notable thing that happened at the time was the Comey letter and connecting the dots.
---

"shrill bitch" is somehow an unacceptable gendered misogynistic attack

says the group of people that have been guffawing over "tiny hands" "orange" and "fake hair" for six months

my point is, political attacks are political attacks. missiles aimed at a certain characteristic. if elizabeth warren is getting painted as a shrill bitch it's probably because she's acted that way and painted the target. the same way Trump gets attacked for the sixty different hilarious things he does that paints the target.
---

ugh first politics post from me in a long time.
---

ExThaNemesis posted...

"shrill bitch" is somehow an unacceptable gendered misogynistic attack

says the group of people that have been guffawing over "tiny hands" "orange" and "fake hair" for six months

I mean, none of the latter are misogynistic or even gendered. Where's the hypocrisy?
---

Hillary was shown (granted via the hacked emails) to be the establishment candidate. The DNC schemed behind the scenes to sink her opponent that had extensive social networking support.

Trump was the outsider that the RNC didn't want. The RNC was very public about not wanting him and did things in full view of the public to sink him.

The lesson: The public doesn't like the establishment pulling strings.
---