> This is definitely the preference falsification election.
I agree. In fact, the point at which I started to think that Trump could win was Hillary's "Basket of Deplorables" blunder. It was a blunder because the way she phrased it, she put far too many in that basket.
Paradoxically, because people believed what she said —that there are many Deplorables— she might have initiated the very preference cascade that cost her the election.
It was a terrible blunder, that might have cost her the election, and not because of the number of people she put in the basket.
It was a blunder because she called people deplorable. Had she talked about deplorable attitudes, she would have been on firm ground. I hope it doesn't sound like a fine distinction, because it isn't.
I voted for her; I am terrified of Trump -- rightly or wrongly, we'll now find out; but I knew this was a bad, bad mistake when she made it, right up there with Mitt Romney's infamous "47%" comment.
And yes, in my opinion, Trump made a lot more serious mistakes. But I am not totally surprised that a majority of Americans don't seem to agree with me.
I don't think the election was about mistakes. It was about loathing for both candidates. Turns out the loathing for Hillary was higher.
I should qualify that. Trump, for all his negatives, had people who genuinely agreed with him. He also had a bunch of "not really for Trump, but I am sick to death of Hillary and her scandals and her Machiavellian machinations" voters. Hillary had a bunch of "good heavens, not Trump" voters, some "female in office, therefore has to be good voters", and not all that many "really love her positions" voters.
With the risk of sounding "smug", I think most of this thread offers a poor analysis of the election.
The reason Trump won is, presumably, to a large extent that he managed to make his message more relevant. If this election would have been about schools, even in the same context, he most likely wouldn't have won and the deplorables comment wouldn't have mattered or even happened in the first place.
We've seen this in Europe repeatedly with new candidates offering easy solutions and a straight forward message, leaving the established parties on their heels trying to defend themselves. In Europe this normally results in 5-15% of the seats in parliament, while in the US (once you're in the running) this can win you the election because of the political system.
It doesn't sound smug, it just sounds massively over simplified and assumed.
The reasons for Trump's win probably varies wildly from region to region and person to person. Anecdotally, I know several who voted only because he was _not_ Hilary, not due to any message resonance. Hell, I mean, personally, despite being politically closest to Hilary on paper, I had no intention of voting for her, and none of those reasons had anything to do with Trump.
A large part of Trumps message was that Hillary was unsuitable as president. If Trump hadn't manage to get that message through and elevated that issue in favor of other issues much fewer people would have voted for him.
I agree. In fact, the point at which I started to think that Trump could win was Hillary's "Basket of Deplorables" blunder. It was a blunder because the way she phrased it, she put far too many in that basket.
Paradoxically, because people believed what she said —that there are many Deplorables— she might have initiated the very preference cascade that cost her the election.