william.scherk
Message added by william.scherk

"Finally, with Red Hat still firmly on, Trump lost because of loathing, not rational fear, not reason.  The supine media and the fractured, corrupt party, and the 'got' functionaries of Clinton Inc put a false mark upon him and triggered an hysterical emotional reaction. They stoked phobia, hatred and division, and blamed Trump.They stoked loathing of the man and excused their complicity in feeding the hate. "

Why did Donald Trump lose the 2016 election?

william.scherk

Entry posted by william.scherk

4,379 views

 Share

This is no longer a placeholder.  Some 'on the record' wild guesses are already out -- notably our Bob Kolker -- so  I too am going to publish a prediction/analysis, knowing full well I might be picking through bird bones on November 9.

 I think Donald Trump will lose the election on November 8th. I have some definite reasons why. I thought to post the reasons here, even if I am shown to be gawdawfully wrong later on. How 'off' will my analytic take be? Only time will tell. 

BQcDAAAAAwoDanBnAAAABC5vdXQKFmxwVjRTaUo3

Reason? Reasons?

Donald Trump lost because of the Republican Lady Vote, ultimately. He could have rallied a few more Latinos and African-Americans and other visible minorities to his base within his party's grasp, but that wouldn't have mattered as much as a seizing and a hold on Educated Lady votes.

That is the main reason he lost, looking back at me from the crystal ball. Ladies.

By state, he didn't capture the ladies of the Philadelphia suburbs, which cost him. He failed to capture the urban-suburban college-educated lady vote in Ohio and lost more crucial electoral votes.  He failed to capture the conservative educated ladies in Florida in enough numbers to beat Romney's showing in 2012  He failed with the ladies of Utah.  He failed with the ladies of North Carolina. He didn't get the crucial lady vote in states he needed.

There may be nuance, and other subsidiary reasons rooted in Mr Trump's behaviour and the challenges every Republican faces in terms of hostile and adversarial media.  There may be ground-game reasons, money reasons, biases galore, party mutiny and backstabbiness, ghost-voting, sinister plots and precinct rigginess beyond the pale, but when the totals were officially-certified in places Trump had to dominate to be the Winner, he fell short with the ladies ...

 

-- with my Red Hat on, my reasons all turn on treason, or behaviour just-shy-of treasonous, by a panoply of bought and paid for agents against democracy.  Not with a centre anywhere in particular, no grand plot, just a functional-structural bias on every dimension against Mr Trump. In the whole landscape of media small and large and fringe and newsworthy in themselves, it was ultimately Bannon and Trump against the world's sleaziest big-audience manipulators.  That built-in structural disadvantage was key. Allied structural impediments were important but secondary and amplified by his own party's elite class, whether in the party itself or in positions of prominence and power in Wall Street and Washington.  

That covers treasonous, bought, biased and elite party elders and candidates. Where were they when he needed them?

Those factors 'conspired' in a sense to depress turnout among previously likely voters.  The ticket-splitters and the stay-homers of the GOP great coalition of voters gave Hillary Clinton an extra advantage that was totally undeserved, a side-effect of elite 'treason' against the candidate.

Finally, with Red Hat still firmly on, Trump lost because of loathing, not rational fear, not reason.  The supine media and the fractured, corrupt party, and the 'got' functionaries of Clinton Inc put a false mark upon him and triggered an hysterical emotional reaction. They stoked phobia, hatred and division, and blamed Trump.They stoked loathing of the man and excused their complicity in feeding the hate.

 Share

109 Comments

Recommended Comments

Recommended

Posted by william.scherk,

Fun with recursion ... emphases added.  Narcissism, definitions, utility, questions, cautions ... Additionally: More discussion ... Less discussion, which MSK excised in a response**: Back in time ... "Well, aren't  you special ...?" plus a bit more of WSS opinions and takes ... And yet ... mild word-based spanking: He gets annoying ... To the post  that suggested to me I do a search on my mentions of narcissism and the limits of lay diagno

We discuss and yet don't discuss criteria ... for Narcissism/narcissism

Recommended by william.scherk

  • Thanks

1 reaction

Go to this comment


KorbenDallas

MSNBC has a good, quick summary on how Trump won, "First Read: How Rural America Fueled Trump's Win"
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/first-read-how-rural-america-fueled-trump-s-win-n681316

How Rural America fueled Trump's win

One of the biggest reasons Donald Trump shocked the world last night was that he overperformed -- big league -- in Rural America, especially in the previously blue Midwest states he flipped to surge above 270 electoral votes. Just look at these numbers:

  • Michigan: Per the exit polls, Trump won rural and small towns by a 57%-38% margin -- up from Mitt Romney's 53%-46%.

  • Pennsylvania: He won rural and small towns by a whopping 71%-26% -- versus Romney's 59%-40%.

  • Wisconsin: He won rural and small towns by 63%-34% -- up from Romney's 53%-46%.

By contrast, Hillary Clinton slightly underperformed in these states' urban areas. Still, she carried Philadelphia by about 450,000 votes, which was the same margin Obama won in 2012. In the waning days of the 2016 election, so much of the talk was about Latinos in Florida and Nevada, or college-educated white voters in the suburbs. But the story of last night was white voters coming out in droves for Donald Trump.

 

Obama's coalition didn't turn out as much when he wasn't on the ballot

On Tuesday, we wrote how Election Night 2016 was going to be the final Obama battle. And guess what, his coalition didn't come out in the numbers it previously did:

  • African Americans broke for Clinton, 88%-8% -- down from Obama's 93%-6% in '12

  • Latinos broke 65%-29% -- down from 71%-27% in '12

  • Millennials went 55%-37% for Clinton -- down from 60%-37% in '12.

Those might seem like small changes, but they matter in a close race. Indeed, Trump's popular vote total (59 million and counting) is going to similar to Mitt Romney's in 2012 (61 million), but Clinton's total (and equal 59 million -- she just over took Trump in the popular vote)is going to be far short of Obama's 66 million in 2012. Those are 5-7 million Obama votes that didn't go for Clinton. In the eight years of Obama, Democrats won big the two times he was on the ballot (2008, 2012), but they lost big the times he wasn't on the ballot (2010, 2014, 2016).

[...]

 

Link to comment
william.scherk
40 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

Those are 5-7 million Obama votes that didn't go for Clinton.

Good summary. It is somewhat chilling to think of a deep disconnect between Trump Nation and non-Trump Nation. It is of course more nuanced than a simple rural/small town vs urban split, and I think I got the best taste of this through the writings of Salena Zeto.  She mostly just let folks from "Trump Nation" tell her what they were feeling about the state of their worlds.

Link to comment
BaalChatzaf

If it had been Sanders who ran,  he might have won...The reason why Hillary lost,  is Hillary herself. 

Hillary, Hillary my fat hen

She lays eggs for gentlemen.

Maybe nine or maybe ten

Hillary Billary my fat hen.

 

But this time the eggs did not hatch....

Link to comment
KorbenDallas

This WSJ article just came through, I selected parts that talk about the Latino vote across the US and then Florida:  "Latino Turnout Up From 2012 Nationwide, But Not Enough to Stop Donald Trump"
http://www.wsj.com/articles/latino-turnout-up-from-2012-nationwide-but-not-enough-to-stop-donald-trump-1478733888

PHOENIX—This was supposed to be the year that Latinos made their mark on a presidential race, motivated by Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric. But their vote totals in key states weren’t enough to counter the tide in favor of the antiestablishment Republican candidate.

“It appears the angry white vote washed out most of the Latino surge,” said Joe Rubio, lead organizer at Valley Interfaith Project in Arizona, part of a 14-group coalition that conducted a registration and get-out-the vote drive in the southwestern state.

[...]

Latino Decisions, which specializes in Hispanics, said that it estimates 79% of Latinos supported Hillary Clinton and 18% backed Mr. Trump, a forecast that it says is corroborated by analysis of results coming in from Latino-majority precincts in states across the country.

“As we went from Rio Grande Valley in Texas to Miami to Milwaukee, the actual precinct results are showing that it was very close to a 20-80 distribution,” in favor of Mrs. Clinton, said Matt Barreto, managing partner of the polling firm.

In three majority-Latino precincts in Kissimmee County in Central Florida, between 78% and 80% of Hispanics voted for Mrs. Clinton.  [...]  in Miami-Dade County majority-Latino precincts, turnout was up six to 16 points compared with 2012.

In Florida statewide, according to the firm, Mrs. Clinton garnered 67% of the vote compared with 58% for President Obama in 2012.

[...]

“There is no question that more Latinos showed up than ever,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, an immigrant advocacy group, citing their impact on Nevada, Colorado and Virginia. “Their vote was enough in some states and not enough in others.”

[...]

Latinos in Florida couldn’t counter the white force for Trump, said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, an immigrant advocacy group. “Latinos did their part,” he said.

[...]

Link to comment
KorbenDallas

More about Florida, from Politico: "How Trump won his map:"
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/anatomy-of-trumps-election-231154

[...]

1. Miami-Dade County

As much as any other place in the nation, Florida’s biggest county drove the pre-election storyline that the nation’s biggest swing state was seeing an epic surge in Hispanic turnout, one that would all but ensure Clinton’s path to victory.

Without Florida, Trump had no path to the White House. And the way things looked in Miami-Dade — with its long lines and early vote that was up 80 percent above 2012 -- there seemed to be no path for him to overcome the county’s expected margins for Clinton.

In the end, it was indeed a blowout here. Clinton won Miami-Dade by a slightly bigger margin here than Barack Obama did in 2012, and roughly 100,000 more votes were cast.

But it didn’t matter because of Trump’s own margins in the rest of the state. He crushed in north Florida and the panhandle -- exit polls put his margin at 58-37 in an area that cast roughly 20 percent of the vote. He ran even better in the Gulf Coast/Mid-Florida area, with its many Midwestern retirees, 63-37.

As evidenced by those regional breakdowns, Trump won a greater share of the white vote than Mitt Romney in 2012: Trump won 64 percent, compared to Romney’s 61 percent. Hillary Clinton managed to win exactly one out of three white votes in a state where, for all its diversity, white voters still cast 62 percent of the vote.

[...]

 

Link to comment
  • Featured Comment
william.scherk
  • Featured Comment

Fun with recursion ... emphases added.  Narcissism, definitions, utility, questions, cautions ...

On 10/16/2016 at 1:01 PM, william.scherk said:
On 10/16/2016 at 12:52 PM, jts said:

I think Sam Vaknin knows more about narcissism than I know

[...] I should mention that I have thought that the evident or non-evident, obvious or obviously wrong notions around Trump's alleged narcissism are ... almost besides the point.  Besides the point because, to my eyes, whatever the obstacles to a narcissist taking political power, there are leg-ups over a non-narcissist. In other words, narcissism, or a small measure of it, can help a person navigate the procedure of getting elected to power.

More on that later. I should give some attention to what OLers have had to say about Narcissism and Mr Trump.  It isn't clear to me that we should speak of an attribute of personality as a pathology or a personality disorder.  

So, from the get-go, knowing nothing, What are the signs and behaviours of narcissism (can it be reliably diagnosed?)?  How would narcissistic behaviour shape a candidate''s campaign? How did it do so in this instance, this thought experiment? -- why would it make any difference?

Additionally:

On 2/25/2017 at 9:52 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
Quote

In a letter to the New York Times, Frances, a retired Duke University professor, wrote that Trump "may be a world-class narcissist, but this doesn't make him mentally ill, because he does not suffer from the distress and impairment required to diagnose mental disorder."

In other words, if you are saying President Trump is a narcissist meaning he's mentally ill, that's wrong.

If you're saying he's a narcissist, meaning he's self-centered or selfish, OK. Maybe even an asshole at times, OK.

More discussion ...

On 7/21/2016 at 6:17 PM, SteveWolfer said:
On 7/21/2016 at 6:04 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here's a tip. Look at Trump's family, then at the families of clinically diagnosed narcissists...

Clinically diagnosed narcissists come in considerable varieties - some with very good families and considerable success in business.  It is a defensive mechanism that can actually accelerate success in business.  It isn't good for the president of a constitutional government.

Less discussion, which MSK excised in a response**:

On 9/18/2018 at 10:15 AM, william.scherk said:

What is Narcissistic Personality Disorder?  How is it diagnosed?  Is such a diagnostic entity a relict or artefact of psychological guesswork, bias, conceptual emptiness -- or other epistemic barrier to its reality in people we live with?

Once these questions are adequately answered in your mind, dear reader, would it be useful to cite a particular argument that ascribes narcissism to the President?

Back in time ...

On 8/18/2016 at 10:19 AM, william.scherk said:

If either candidate is hiding a 'debilitating' condition then this would be a terrible scandal, I figure.  But what has been dredged from the slough of speculation this round is pretty  feeble.  Is Mr Trump insane or mentally disordered?  Yikes.  Is Mrs Clinton afflicted with seizures?  Oh no. 

I trust Objectivish-types to argue over epistemology, to try to get facts nailed down, to not be easy marks for misinformation.  So, is it a fact that Mr Trump has a narcissistic personality?  Is it a fact that Mrs Clinton has a seizure disorder?  Is it a fact that Mrs Clinton has piled on 103 pounds (as the National Enquirer told me yesterday)?

So, yeah. Objectivish folks are pretty good at sorting things into piles (or conceptual hierarchies).  I suggest a mental pile for Exciting Speculation and another one for Reasonable Questions, and other piles starting with Debunked, Unsupported and Peculiar.

"Well, aren't  you special ...?" plus a bit more of WSS opinions and takes ...

On 10/7/2016 at 1:19 PM, william.scherk said:

In the counter-reality where Trump loses big league and any 'rigging' whines will be comical, I see an ultimate reversion to the mean.  All that is seen as squalid and tawdry about Trump, all that is attributable to narcissism, all that gave him Ick Factor, all this will wash out, and his reputation as at least a purveyor of luxury will be intact. The Trump stamp on things will always be associated with all that money can buy. 

He will then turn a loss into a win. Much like he is currently gaming expectations going in to Sunday's Town Hall.

And yet ... mild word-based spanking:

On 10/24/2016 at 1:31 PM, william.scherk said:
On 10/23/2016 at 11:52 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Your elitism is showing...

I should hope so. I have only recently reached Elite Status as beloved-if-warty elder at OL. My opinions are read by handfuls of folks of a Randian bent, scores even, maybe hundreds on a good weekend. My elitism is of course like narcissism, good perhaps only in setting aside nagging self-doubts and buttressing self-esteem. When it slides into amour-propre, it can be nasty.

Next year, I am going in for a spot with OL Elite Reason Cheerleaders. My cheering for Reason is pretty clumsy still, unpersuasive. Thank you for pointing out my falls. It hurts a little bit a first, but. 

He gets annoying ...

On 7/5/2018 at 10:17 AM, william.scherk said:

Tony Schwartz has turned into a Very Lit Up commentator on Trump. His worst offense in my eyes is thinking he can diagnose Narcissistic Personality Disorder and from that Dx advance to horror scenarios that just veer away from Everyone Dies Horribly.  You Americans must get tired of all the posturing and histrionics. 

To the post  that suggested to me I do a search on my mentions of narcissism and the limits of lay diagnosis ...

______________________________

** "Always say never ... "

On 9/18/2018 at 10:39 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

William,

Why... we never started speaking past each other on narcissism before. So why now? Hmmmm... We never did until I started laughing about it mocking it right now. Imagine that...

In all other times candidate--then President--Trump has been called a narcissist (and mocked for it by anti-Trumpers) right here on OL, I don't recall you asking about what that term means. Not once. Not even when I posted videos from a site about narcissism by a man helping people get out of relationships with narcissists. (I guess that guy looked like alt media, not anything respectable like CNN, huh? :evil:  )

It's funny now that the idea is laughable and tanking the good tank how you suddenly became interested in defining it...

:evil:  :) 

(You know that name's not going to stick to President Trump with the general public. It did not stick and it will not stick. You're intelligent enough to know that.

Sticky!

Edited by william.scherk
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
william.scherk

There' wrong and then there's "how wrong?" and there's wrongs. Wrongs to right, wrongs to tolerate, wrongs under the bridge, and The Wronged. "How exactly is it wrong?"

 

Link to comment
Peter

I haven't been following this thread but Mr. Trump lost because he distanced himself from the Republican Party and spoke disparagingly of Cruz and Rubio. If he had only had those two and Paul Ryan really working for him during the campaign, he might have picked up enough electoral votes to win. Now we have two more years of economic stagnation under Clinton, with a possibility of four more years after that. On the positive side we have eliminated North Korea with a mere 70 atomic bombs and we no longer need to prop up Israel. It was good of Hillary Clinton's ICE to allow a million Israeli's to immigrate to America but there are still quite a few living in concentration camps in Palestine. Let's hope for the best.  

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now