mistermack wrote:Here's my own list.
1) Immigration. This is the big one. Basically, they all ignored what the people were thinking. It was no big secret. She should have been hard on illegals. She got some latinos but lost the big time voters. If she'd promised a wall too, she'd now be President-Elect.
2) Global warming. The voters don't believe that bollocks, and resent all the money being wasted and jobs being put in the bin, just to appease the alarmists.
3) She should NEVER EVER have raised her voice in speeches. It's the main thing that puts people off her.
It's more of a screech than a speech.
4) Guns. She should never EVER have given the slightest hint that she'd like to increase gun restrictions.
Not if she wanted to get elected. What a no-brainer.
5) She should have praised the lord at every opportunity. Another no-brainer.
She could easily have won the election, with one or any combination of the above.
It's a self-made defeat. But she thought she was winning, and didn't need to give an inch on any of the above. Over confidence did for her.
I agree with 1, but that's only part of the problem. The issue is one of fundamental fairness or the perception thereof. People don't like the idea of folks getting around the rules. It's why legal immigrants that I know get really pissed off a the illegals who come in, and scam their way to residence, and while they are here and illegal they work under the table and secure government benefits while doing it. I know people will claim that that doesn't happen, but I know for a fact that it does. We can only argue about the extent of it. But, when people think of this issue, they don't care about the detail of how often or rare it happens - it shouldn't happen. Same with improper voting, where people vote for relatives that died, or vote in multiple polling locations, and that kind of thing - the voter fraud issue - you aren't going to get most people to think it's unfair to have to have a piece of identification to vote, when we have to have a piece of identification to buy a six-pack of beer, or to open a bank account.
Also, she totally ran on the "I'll keep things the same" ticket, when the groundswell of people were not happy with it. They didn't want the candidate who is liked by Goldman Sachs and the rest of Wall Street. They don't want Obamacare, because it's costing people a lot of fucking money, except those getting the subsidies. They see their jobs being siphoned off overseas, and they see Hillary as wanting to keep on that road, while Trump was promising to turn the spigot off.
All in favor of Change? Trump was and is promising real change. Remember all the glorious Obama speeches about how "this is the moment" when we'd see the rising oceans start to subside, and we'd see all poor and downtrodden treated fairly and all that talk of wonderful change to make everything fair and make the rich pay their fair share. Well, the rich are paying the same share and the middle class got fucked in the ass, hard, no grease, and not even a kiss on the cheek. That's how the middle class feels about it.
So, what Hillary did wrong was basically tell the common person that if they like the ass fucking they've been getting, she'll keep it going with a strap on when she gets in.
It's basic shit -- the people want business and industry to succeed so that they can have places to work so they can live in a decent neighborhood and raise a family. Handouts and subsidies they don't want. Trump ran on the notion that we can improve the economy so that businesses and industry can flourish in the US, and the people will have places to work. It's really that simple.
The guns thing is one where the people perceive hillary as just being untruthful about her position. She claims to support an individual right to bear arms, and such, but I think most people know this is one of her "public vs. private" position issues. They don't believe her. Trump actually came out and said that gun owners have to be reasonable about some reasonable gun regulations. Nobody bothered much about it, because they believe him when he says he doesn't want to ban guns or the like. They believe his position on guns.
Praising the lord didn't matter. Trump never did, yet the evangelicals voted for him. The reality is, if Hillary praised the lord in her speeches all the time, people wouldn't believe her. They know she changes her accent and her promises to fit the audience. Trump never did that. He said the same shit, good, bad, indifferent, no matter what. He'd go on news programs unscripted and open to any questions and just tell people what he was thinking. Even if sometimes he said stupid shit, people at least believed he was telling them what he believed and thought. The electorate wanted that. Someone who, even if they disagree with it, is at least telling you what his true feelings are on a topic.
Global warming is something that is indirect. It's not something people are seeing right in front of them every day. So, it's a luxury issue - one where people get concerned about it after the bottom levels of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs are fulfilled. You won't have middle-America focusing on global warming when their health insurance premiums tripled, and their local factories and other workplaces have closed down, and then they're asked to pay higher taxes so that they can go to subsidize 20 million people who aren't legally in the country to begin with.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar