Hillary Clinton Showing Her True Colors?

[_EAllusion]

I don’t see anything here that is all that convincing. You are telling me that people who voted for a black guy (good on them) over two white guys suddenly discovered their inner racist and refused to vote for a white woman because they just ate up that old time racism.

On its face that is completely preposterous.

What's so preposterous about people who like racism voting for a candidate who has as one of his main appeals the ability to make racists feel validated? Trump is both a cause and a symptom of further self-sorting of people along the lines of racial animus into and out of Republican voting patterns.

This isn't an exotic position.

All the research I've seen so far trying to look at the "economic anxiety" vs. "racism" question points rather strongly towards the racism side in terms of explaining shifting voter demographics where Trump is concerned. Why do you think there was a such a strong shift in the most racist voters of all economic walks of life to Trump, the candidate of racism, again?

Regarding Obama, I again think you short shrift the fact that voter behavior is driven by lots of things, not just one issue. It is entirely possible that Obama under-performed his popularity relative to a generic Dem because of being black, but it wasn't enough to defeat him given the conditions he was in. Maybe he bled more voters. Maybe more of his voters were more reluctant.

The Obama presidency is marked by him entering quite popular as a contrast to the implosion of the Bush admin, a gradual decline in popularity into being relatively unpopular, a brief spike around 2012 to get him barely above water in time to be reelected, followed by years of more unpopularity, and eventually ending in a return to popularity on the way out probably as a result of the heating economy and a contrast to the horror-show of the 2016 election process.

His personal unpopularity for the majority of his presidency hurt Democrats up and down the ticket. Don't forget that Democrats were simply crushed under his watch. Being black probably played some role in that, especially in Appalachia. It's not the only or most important factor to be sure, but it's a mistake to think that just because he won more votes than John McCain, that doesn't mean he wasn't turning voters with greater racial animus away from voting Democrat.

[_Kishkumen]

Regarding Obama, I again think you short shrift the fact that voter behavior is driven by lots of things, not just one issue. It is entirely possible that Obama under-performed his popularity relative to a generic Dem because of being black, but it wasn't enough to defeat him given the conditions he was in. Maybe he bled more voters. Maybe more of his voters were more reluctant.

The Obama presidency is marked by him entering quite popular as a contrast to the implosion of the Bush admin, a gradual decline in popularity into being relatively unpopular, a brief spike around 2012 to get him barely above water in time to be reelected, followed by years of more unpopularity, and eventually ending in a return to popularity on the way out probably as a result of the heating economy and a contrast to the horror-show of the 2016 election process.

His personal unpopularity for the majority of his presidency hurt Democrats up and down the ticket. Don't forget that Democrats were simply crushed under his watch. Being black probably played some role in that, especially in Appalachia. It's not the only or most important factor to be sure, but it's a mistake to think that just because he won more votes than John McCain, that doesn't mean he wasn't turning voters with greater racial animus away from voting Democrat.

Yes, it seems to me that people are still looking for answers as to how it is so many people who happily voted for Obama decided to vote for Trump. Calling it sheer racism is an inadequate explanation, which you yourself recognize when you note that "voter behavior is driven by a lot of things." You are happy to invoke that to explain Obama, but then tighten up when it comes to the struggle between Clinton and Trump. In any case, I don't see the point of continuing this argument. I understand the need to place the blame on racism. Racism is very ugly indeed. It represents some of the worst aspects of humanity. And, I certainly agree that it is among the more powerful drivers of behavior.

[_EAllusion]

Yes, it seems to me that people are still looking for answers as to how it is so many people who happily voted for Obama decided to vote for Trump. Calling it sheer racism is an inadequate explanation, which you yourself recognize when you note that "voter behavior is driven by a lot of things." You are happy to invoke that to explain Obama, but then tighten up when it comes to the struggle between Clinton and Trump. In any case, I don't see the point of continuing this argument. I understand the need to place the blame on racism. Racism is very ugly indeed. It represents some of the worst aspects of humanity. And, I certainly agree that it is among the more powerful drivers of behavior.

I'm not going on my mere supposition here. There's been multiple analyses that suggest the most significant explanatory factor in explaining the behavior of voters who shifted away from Democrats towards Republican direction in 2016 is racial animus whereas factors like "economic anxiety" explain that same shift poorly. This makes sense as Trump ran on overt white identity politics that appeals to racial animus whereas recent previous Republican candidates were at least less overt. Racists really like Trump because Trump is racist out in the open and they like that because they feel shamed by the broader culture. (Of course, they don't necessarily see themselves as racist - just believers in unpopular truths.)

This doesn't count 3rd party voters, people who did not vote at all, etc. but it is certainly part of the story and you can't understand the election, and possibly future elections, without grappling with it.

Obama probably drove the more racist Democrats away form the party as well. We have good evidence of that, such as a white convicted felon primary challenger in WV getting over 40% of the primary vote against him in 2012. Clinton probably reaped some of that bitter fruit in her election. It's just that Obama being black is probably not as significant as Trump being so overtly pro-racial animus.

When someone like Ajax on this board gets firm and tells you that we are going to build a border wall, you are going to pay for it, and if you don't like it get out, what he's communicating is that his culture is ascendant now, not yours. That's what Trump represents, and it just appears that the bordeline Ajax's of the world care even more about that than Obama being black.

[_moksha]

I feeling sorry for Hillary Clinton continually being maligned as "Crooked Hillary" by a man who has distinguished himself as the biggest liar in the history of American politics.

[_Paracelsus]

I feeling sorry for Hillary Clinton continually being maligned as "Crooked Hillary" by a man who has distinguished himself as the biggest liar in the history of American politics.

You should not drabble a man who has defined the new meaning of the word "is"!

Bill can be compared to Josh Sith, who only created a new English word to adding a Greek prefix to a Latin suffix - without the root word.
tele+?+stial = "telestial"

See its meaning in Bible Dictionary of lds.org - or anywhere.

[_subgenius]

I feeling sorry for Hillary Clinton...(snip)...

you should pray for her.

Hillary Clinton has been forced to publish a lengthy explanation for recent comments that attracted the ire of Republicans and Democrats for suggesting that white women often voted the same way as their husbands.

During a trip to India, she also described how her voters tended to come from more wealthy areas than Trump voters.

[_Kishkumen]

I'm not going on my mere supposition here. There's been multiple analyses that suggest the most significant explanatory factor in explaining the behavior of voters who shifted away from Democrats towards Republican direction in 2016 is racial animus whereas factors like "economic anxiety" explain that same shift poorly. This makes sense as Trump ran on overt white identity politics that appeals to racial animus whereas recent previous Republican candidates were at least less overt. Racists really like Trump because Trump is racist out in the open and they like that because they feel shamed by the broader culture. (Of course, they don't necessarily see themselves as racist - just believers in unpopular truths.)

This doesn't count 3rd party voters, people who did not vote at all, etc. but it is certainly part of the story and you can't understand the election, and possibly future elections, without grappling with it.

Obama probably drove the more racist Democrats away form the party as well. We have good evidence of that, such as a white convicted felon primary challenger in WV getting over 40% of the primary vote against him in 2012. Clinton probably reaped some of that bitter fruit in her election. It's just that Obama being black is probably not as significant as Trump being so overtly pro-racial animus.

When did Obama drive them away? Before, during, or after his re-election? I think there are problems with people’s approaches to these questions. Racism is a worldview, not a genetic trait. Some may be more susceptible to it than others, but the factors that go into voting decisions are probably, in this regard, not completely understood. Whereas few people would admit to being poor but instead hold onto the identity of middle class, racism is ideologically easier to identify.

So, I remain unconvinced. Racism is too easy and too ideologically convenient an explanation for the failure of a WHITE woman to get elected. Something is dubious about it. I say that poor people value clinging to the luxury of being better than others in whatever way they can. If they can’t have it one way, they’ll have it another, and few would admit to being poor OR racist. The guy who tells them he’ll return them to the middle class and keep immigrants from getting in the way of getting there will be their lifeboat of desperation. I don’t place too much weight on the racism in that formula. It is there. It is piquant in the circumstances, but it is not the overriding factor pushing them into Trump’s arms.

[_EAllusion]

When did Obama drive them away? Before, during, or after his re-election?

All three. He was gradually driving away the most racist voters in the American public over time.

So, I remain unconvinced. Racism is too easy and too ideologically convenient an explanation for the failure of a WHITE woman to get elected.

I think you are ignoring my repeated point that it isn't so much about running away from Clinton as it is running towards Trump. Trump ran as the candidate of racists. Why do you find it so preposterous that voters were able to recognize this and have an affinity for it to the extent they shared racist views? There's a lot of racism in America.

That said, I did just get back from a policy discussion at UW with two local professors and Matthew Yglesias where this did come up in the discussion with the audience. There was also the argument that Clinton ran as the candidate of minority voters against Bernie Sanders, which is quite true, and that she carried this taint into to general and wasn't able to distance herself from it. I'm not sure how true that is, but it is worth nothing that Clinton wasn't just a white woman. She was a white woman openly pandering to progressive racial policy in the exact way voters with racist views would find unlikable and she did it for a sustained campaign. I probably have undersold this in my mind because of Trump's overt white identity politics. For example, you have a candidate of BLM policy recommendations, which Clinton was, running into the teeth of of a white public that hates BLM. And Clinton lost the votes of people who are most likely to have the most antipathy towards BLM. That is about Clinton.

[_Kishkumen]

All three. He was gradually driving away the most racist voters in the American public over time.

And, conveniently for your argument, Hillary Clinton was the one who uniquely paid for it. Of course, below you say that the voters were running toward Trump, not away from Clinton, or maybe running away from Clinton because she was taking a certain approach against Sanders. Is your head spinning yet? It should be.

Because all signs point to the apologia for Clinton be that, whatever happened, it was not her fault, unless you count her nobility driving bad people to vote for someone else.

[_EAllusion]

And, conveniently for your argument, Hillary Clinton was the one who uniquely paid for it.

Even though you say otherwise, you post as though you think that voter behavior and election outcomes are binary. Obama probably paid for it too. Just not enough for him not to win his election, though probably enough to provide a minor assist in crippling legislative support to advance his agenda.

Think of it this way. We have good evidence that Trump is suppressing the Mormon vote for Republicans. Republicans are still dominating the Mormon vote. These two things can be true at the same time.

Of course, below you say that the voters were running toward Trump, not away from Clinton, or maybe running away from Clinton because she was taking a certain approach against Sanders. Is your head spinning yet? It should be.

You are aware it can be both, right? I think it's primarily that Trump just happened to appeal to people who are most likely to habor racial animus. This is evidenced by the fact that racial animus is one of the single strongest correlates of both Trump support and of switch to Trump support. Having attended a political panel discussion where this topic got some play, I also acknowledge that I might have undersold the extent to which Clinton running on a racial progressive platform to exploit Sanders' weakness with minority voters may have also played a role in that trend.

(She also was a major surrogate for the Clinton admin's approach to criminal justice and its racist undertones, which is exactly the approach BLM and related groups are trying to reform. Clinton's aggressiveness on this aspect of her agenda probably was related to protecting against that weakness.)

As it happens, part of the Cambridge Analytica stories going around was this piece:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 24ba0e0c86

It turns out that what Cambridge Analytica, under Steve Bannon's direction, was trying to do was test and craft messages that appeal to people with racist sympathies. Your stance on this, it would seem, is that they weren't successful. This despite a boatload of data suggesting this kind of messaging did have appeal. So you have a campaign trying its hardest to appeal to racial animus and an outcome that suggests people who harbor racial animus were attracted to that campaign. Your stance on this is the idea that racial animus played a significant role in that campaign's appeal is that this is crazy-talk requiring too many cycles and epicycles to take seriously.

Because all signs point to the apologia for Clinton be that, whatever happened, it was not her fault, unless you count her nobility driving bad people to vote for someone else.

Understanding what happened isn't "Clinton apologia." Perhaps you just have a deep need to focus on what makes Clinton look as bad as possible and any facts that get in the way of this are inconvenient truths.

The crazy thing here is the single biggest reason Clinton lost isn't white identity politics. That's just an explanatory factor that probably is large enough to be a decisive. The most significant issue, in terms of things that could've easily been otherwise, is that she was covered as though she was in the middle of Watergate. You seem iffy on this too, because that was objectively unfair, and apparently anything that doesn't force the conclusion that Clinton is terrible cannot be acknowledged.