Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Social Commentary

How Did Trump Win?

116 Comments

Thoughts from Clive Crook:

two things seem to loom large. First, that Hillary Clinton was an objectively bad candidate. Second, that having chosen so poorly, Democrats came up with yet more ways to repel a large segment of the electorate. If I’d been asked to advise them on how to lose an election to a manifestly unqualified opponent, I’m not sure I could have been much help: They had it covered.

From the outset, many voters were clearly fed up with Washington and all its works. Up and down the country, the political establishment was cordially detested. Step forward, Hillary Clinton, wife of an ex-president, champion of the downtrodden, somehow wealthy, trailing scandals, friends in all the right places, anointed after a rigged nomination — in short, the complete representative of politics as usual. Yet if Clinton was a bad candidate, Trump was so much worse. Even many of his supporters acknowledge his unfitness. And remember, the election was close. Something else (aside from the design of the Electoral College) was needed to put Trump in the White House.

The crucial extra ingredient, I think, was the way the case against Trump was framed. Clinton’s goal should have been to detach a slice of his support. The best way for her to do that, issue by issue, would have been to acknowledge the particle of truth in his claims, if any, and say why her approach to the problem was better. Instead, she and her supporters refused to grant the validity of any part of Trump’s pitch. Even that wasn’t enough. Trump was a racist and a fascist, they said. Support him, and you’re no better: Either that, or you’re an idiot for failing to see it.

Apparently it takes more than four years of college to understand this: You don’t get people to see things your way by calling them idiots and racists, or sorting them into baskets of deplorables and pitiables (deserving of sympathy for their moral and intellectual failings). If you can’t manage genuine respect for the people whose votes you want, at least try to fake it.

I don’t really want to concern troll Democrats and give them good advice, but really, if you want to believe that this was about racism and misogyny, you just keep telling yourself that. And you just keep continuing to become electorally irrelevant:

Republican Map

[Late-evening update]

Lefties’ arrogance elected Trump. It’s the classic Greek tragedy of hubris, as exemplified by Obama’s upraised chin and Greek columns, and then the fall. As Glenn says, it was (ironically, but not surprising to people who have long seen the projection of the Left) a culture of hate. And as I said, the best reason to vote Trump (besides the fact that he, unlike her, could be impeached) was to issue a giant EFF YOU to the Left, and the media. But I repeat myself.

116 thoughts on “How Did Trump Win?”

  1. Ok, this guy gets it. It really is amazing how many people don’t want to acknowledge how weak Hillary is as a candidate. Her only stalking horse in the primary was an old white guy in a state with a population smaller than DC and 95% white, and even he nearly beat her in a rigged primary. The media wasn’t smug; they were all in for Hillary, feeding her debate questions, skewing polls, firing people who recognized when she was obviously sick, and writing editorials about forgoing even a pretense of impartiality. With all that help, a piece of toast would have been 50 points ahead of Trump.

  2. Yeah, insulting the other guy’s voters is never a winning campaign strategy. Just ask President Romney.

      1. I’m still here. I just tend to read more and post less and that pretty much goes internet-wide for me.

        That, Crossfit and women taking up more of my free time.

        I haven’t pulled a Carl Pham and disappeared without explanation.

        I never see Barbra Skoulat much either anymore come to think of it.

        1. Carl Pham still comments a lot, just not here.

          Saw Titus in an earlier election thread. He has some sharp wit.

        2. I’m still here. I just tend to read more and post less and that pretty much goes internet-wide for me.

          Same here. Sometimes I feel like I’ve run out of things to say.

  4. Don’t forget that, according to Wikileaks emails, Clinton’s campaign actually promoted ‘pied piper’ Trump for the Republican candidate, because she was sure she could beat him.

    Clinton literally worked to nominate the man who beat her. What could be more hilarious than that?

    1. What could be more hilarious than that?

      That’s a very high bar, but a possible rival would be the superb job her ground game did in the rust belt states of getting Trump supporters to go vote. Another contender for the honor would be the way her efforts to cause violent protests to shut down Trump events, when successful, aided Trump.

      All in all, if I had to name one person who had done more than any other to help Trump win, I’d have to say it’s Hillary Clinton.

      1. My contender would be Weiner, who is only relevant because he’s attached to Huma … who is attached to Hillary. So, back to Hillary.

        Hilarious.

      2. All in all, if I had to name one person who had done more than any other to help Trump win, I’d have to say it’s Hillary Clinton.

        We have to include Trump in that number. Here’s hoping he runs his presidency better than his campaign. I doubt there has ever been a elected US president going in with lower voter expectations than Donald Trump.

        1. That is true but some of the things Trump was criticized for, like battling the media and the Republican establishment, helped him.

          In the end, Trump had respectable numbers for a Republican candidate. I wonder how many NeverTrumpers actually stayed home? Not more than he got Democrat crossovers in key states it appears.

          1. Trump received more votes than Romney, who received more than McCain. Bush got more votes in 2004, but after that, the numbers just don’t compare. Between 2000 and 2004, 17 million more voters turned out. In 16 years, we now have 25 million voters, which is very near 25% more voters than in 2000.

            If you look at those numbers and compare to census data, you may notice a few interesting things.

        2. “Lower voter expectations,” I don’t know, his supporters whom I see on the internet seem to think he is some kind of combination of Ronald Reagan and FDR who is just going to waive his arms and make everything wonderful and utopian. Even for Trump’s good ideas, they have no concept of what is involved in enacting them.

  6. Love the map. You think the dems will get Washington state to go along with California and Oregon in their succession tantrum?

    1. The more I think about this, the more scared I get. Trump might say “Goodbye and good riddance, and take Hollywood with you.”

      1. I agree that is both frightening and not completely outside the realm of possibility. I used to live in Seattle, and similar to California, liberals are concentrated in the population centers. I am think it quite possible that a serious secession effort would end up splitting that state into smaller territories.

        2. Splitting WA in half along the cascades has long been discussed. Under this scenario, the Idaho panhandle would also join with Eastern WA.

          Looking at the county by county election map, any Democrat succession would splinter their coastal coalition into about a half dozen countries.

          1. On the positive side; Caliexit would secure the rest of the United States as Republican territory (just like when the South left previously). On the negative side, it would hamper trade across the Pacific, but then again, the Panama Canal was just expanded.

    2. One of my coworkers has a son who is a freshman engineering student at Mississippi State. He attended some of the protests over the weekend. He said there were California students (at Miss State?) who were carrying signs calling for California to secede from the United States. He told them, “You can go ahead. We tried that about 150 years ago and it didn’t work out for us. Maybe no one would oppose you if you tried to secede today. Many of us would be happy to see you go. The kid’s pretty sharp.

      1. What ever happened to that group that used to mix in with protester with signs that ridiculed them? I was thinking of walking among them with a sign that said, “Chanting is reason” might be cool. More dangerous now of course since many are violent thugs.

  7. At this rate, one would like to think the Libertarian Party will become the major threat to the Republicans, once the Party gets a Libertarian Platform again. The LSM has less and less influence, but is more bought locally here by progressives. However, we must never forget that academia is assiduously churning out reactionary activists for the gray skies of Portland to rain on while they burn other people’s stuff. The Dems have one or two more heaves at the trough in them before they puke out nationally, much less in local coastal State contests.

    I’ll be going to Orycon to sit at Oregon L5 Society’s con table in Portland this coming weekend. The violent protests may last longer than anyone sane would like, and the Con Com may be nervous. I expect no small amount of nannying from Con Committee members about not “provoking” anyone, once someone reminds them I’m “one of *those* people”. If they could, they’d put a “peace tie” band over my mouth.

    1. The ‘protests’ will probably fade away soon. Soros is going to have to turn his attention to Europe again before long, or the EU will collapse while he’s preoccupied trying to keep Trump out of the White House.

      There are just too many leaks in the Globalist dike for him to keep them all plugged at the same time these days.

    1. That was a fascinating article right up to the needle-scratch of “and women knew their place.”

      If my parents weren’t already dead, I’m sure my dad–born in the late 30s–would be surprised to hear that, considering my mom ran her own small business.

  11. Remember the 2012 “autopsy” to the Republicans did, where they came to the conclusion that in order to win they had to have amnesty?
    Sometimes, the Republican Party really goes out of its way to defend its title as “the Party of Stupid.”

    Well, the Democrats are now doing their own “autopsy”, and guess what they seem to be concluding; they lost because they weren’t far enough to the left. Solution? Make Harlan Ellison the new chairman of the DNC! He’s perfect… far left, radical, and for added goodness, has terror ties such as to the Muslim brotherhood, and a past with the Nation of Islam. Yep, that’s just the perfect way to reach out to all those middle class working folks who went for Trump this time.. right?

    What I’m wondering now is whether this is part of a strategic move by the Democrats to challenge Republicans for the moniker “The Party of Stupid”. If so, it looks like a winning strategy.

    1. Keith Ellison, not Harlan.

      Though the very thought of Harlan Ellison running the DNC is positively…Lovecraftian?

      1. OOPS!

        My bad…

        But… you’re right, putting Harlan Ellison in as DNC chair would be…. interesting, and surely would be better for them than Keith Ellison (though that’s a very, very low bar…)

    2. It’s pretty much the same reaction the Labour party had in the UK. The Tories won a landslide, the SNP took over Scotland, so clearly Labour had to go further to the left in future.

      To make it worse, their current leader was campaigning against Brexit before the referendum. So, while the Tories can at least say they dumped their anti-freedom leader and replaced him, Labour are now stuck with being far-left anti-Brexit, which is a tiny constituency. The UKIP may well end up replacing them as the official opposition.

    3. In 2004 the Republicans won the House, Senate and White House. Four years later the Democrats responded by nominating a black man with an African name, and then they won the House, Senate and White House. Now, eight years later, the Republicans have won all three again. We seem to be an era of dramatic reversals of party political fortunes.

      1. Not really. No.

        Sure, there are cycles, but there are various graphs going around showing that despites local peaks and valleys; the shift has been going towards more Republican control, because quite frankly, Democrat run locals seem to be cesspits of racism and intolerance.

        The fun is watching paid progressives tear up mostly progressive enclaves because they didn’t get a trophy for losing. Of course, they could try expanding their path of destruction into non-progressive enclaves, making it clear their terrorist leanings; but not every place puts out blanket orders to give rioters room to breathe.

      2. Hillary losing certainly isn’t the death knell of the Democrat party, just like losing in 2008 wasn’t for Republicans despite the claims from Democrats.

        The most foolish, and bigoted, thing about Democrat ideology, is the assumption that a person’s ethnicity or gender predetermines their political ideology. It doesn’t. Identity politics will lead to either failure of the Democrat party or the failure of the country.

        This bigoted view is causing Democrats to think not only that racial chauvinism will keep ethnic blocks united in racism against people Democrats hate but that big cities will always vote Democrat.

        How Democrats react to losing will be just as interesting to watch as how Republicans react to winning.

      3. With just two exceptions (1976 and 1988), the presidency has changed party every 8 years since 1952. Only two sitting presidents have lost reelection (Carter and Bush ’41) in that same timeframe. Past performance is no predictor of future results, but political pendulums do tend to swing in pretty regular intervals.

        The one thing that may change this dynamic is the changes at the state level. Republicans now control 33 governorships and 66 of 99 state legislative bodies.

  12. There are hundreds of plausible explanations for the outcome, but Occum’s razor states that the simplest explanation is to be preferred. The simplest explanation for Trump’s win is that Comey sent his letter 11 days before the election, narrowing Clinton’s advantage in popularity enough for Trump to win narrow victories in PA, WI and MI. If Comey hadn’t send the letter, we’d have President-elect Clinton today.

    1. Exit polls clearly say otherwise.

      The destruction of the Democrat Party in the Nation – 1000 legislative seats lost, share of governorships going down, continued loss of the Senate and House – clearly say otherwise.

      But I understand how you have to repeat this fiction to yourself over and over so that you can avoid facing the truth.

    2. That’s wishful thinking. The race was tightening before Comey’s letter, and people in places like Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania were getting the bad news on their health-insurance premiums skyrocketing (on top of her earlier totally credible threats to put coal out of business). There was no single cause, but the bottom line was you stupidly ran a shit candidate, and you paid for it.

      But I hope you continue to delude yourself like that, because when you do, you’ll continue to lose, and continue to be unable to exercise political power over the rest of our lives.

      1. Usually, a negative point laid on a candidate cannot go unanswered, and the Clintons were masters of the “War Room” and “Rapid Response.” But this was a Bizarro election where front is back, cold is warm — everything is reversed.

        The Democrats waived the Bloody Shirt at their convention, Mr. Trump responded by impugning the sincerity of a Gold Star mom, and his poll numbers took a dive, largely because he kept talking about it.

        When the Bloody Shirt episode had faded from short-term memory, Mr. Trump’s snarky remarks to the winner of one of his beauty pageants were introduced into the campaign, he “pushed back”, and his poll numbers dropped again. Miss Venezuela did not appear to be a good exemplar of the benefits of immigration, but Trumps’ talk-talk-talk certainly kept the spotlight on him and whether immigration from Germany (and Northern Scotland) had been such a great idea.

        Ms. Clinton fainted (or stumbled, or had a seizure or “froze up”) and had to be stuffed bodily into her campaign limo. Some say she had “tied one on”; others say she has Parkinsons. Parkinsons, unfortunately, is not a rare disease and especially as a person gets older. Just after announcing the passing of Janet Reno from its effects, NPR just yesterday sniped that the Parkinsons speculation constituted “conspiracy theories.”

        So Hillary Clinton had “pneumonia”, it wasn’t the contagious kind when she hugged a young girl in a photo op hours after fainting, only it was the contagious kind because many of her staffers had it, as corroboration that pneumonia was “going around.” It was Pluribus Unum pneumonia (see Huckleberry Fin). All of the talk went away from Mr. Trump and back to Ms. Clinton as to just what her condition could be as no one ever heard of pneumonia that was not contagious to young girls but quite contagious to middle aged male staffers. Her poll numbers took a dive.

        With Trump foundering after the reveal regarding his version of “game”, the Chief Boy Scout dutifully reported to Congress about the treasure trove of Clinton e-mails on Anthony Wiener’s laptop.

        No one cared about the e-mails, that was old news. It was all about the counter-snicker factor of everything that Anthony Wiener had to offer, spouse to Hillary’s confidant Huma. Snicker, snicker, snicker. Water cooler gossip. Hillary is married to a “horn dog”, Huma is recently estranged from a “horn dog”, Hillary’s doggie hubby officiated at the wedding of Huma to Anthony, snicker, snicker, snicker, and what is the deal with Hillary and Huma each being married to those two guys, anyway?

        Enter the Paul Milenkovic campaign strategy

        1. Get Jim and others to spend the week before the election calling “foul” on the Comey letter.

        2. Get Trump to zip it for that week.

        . . .

        3. President-Elect Trump!

        Thanks, Jim, for following my script and getting Mr. Trump elected! I had serious doubts about Mr. Trump, but he appears to be taking that Presidency gig seriously enough, and who knows?

        1. The question to me is, are the voters who supply the margin of victory really so fickle and volatile, or is it the polls? After all, the polls were wrong on election day. Why should we assume they were right before election day?

          1. If some stranger calls you and asks who you’re going to vote for, why should you tell them? They have your phone number so they know who you are. That can open you up to retribution for having “unapproved thoughts” like what happened in California after Prop 8.

          2. After all, the polls were wrong on election day.

            The national polls were very close: the final RCP average was Clinton +3.2, and it looks like the actual result is going to be about Clinton +1.8. That’s a much better showing than in 2012, when the final poll average was Obama +0.7 and the actual result Obama +3.9.

            The state polls weren’t as accurate, particularly in PA.

          3. Current difference is 0.5%, and there are indications Clinton has reached her high water mark (which, incidentally, is another argument in favor of the Electoral College – it’s been a week since election day, and we still do not know for certain the winner of the popular vote).

            But, even if what you say were true, (3.2-1.8)/1.8 = 78%, and off by 78% is wrong. Saying the 2012 results were even more wrong does not help your case.

    3. Well, you should know. You told us Hillary would have 300 plus electoral votes.

      No, Jim. You are still living in a bubble. You’ve been told about the incredible suffering of millions of Americans while you dined of filet mignon. You might as well have told working Americans to just eat cake–you are that clueless.

      Occam’s Razor tells us the polls were wrong, the media is owned by the democrat party and a lot of Americans find your party disgusting.

    4. Jim, you actually have a brain, but instead of using it your nose is so brown (from what? That’s rhetorical.) That all you can do is parrot Hildabeast’s talking point. Let’s follow the chain…

      Comey did what he did, why? Because the crime was out there.
      Was there a crime? Yes. That is not at issue. The question (which shouldn’t be) is, did the sweet little ol’ grandma mean to do more felonies than we can count? Though not a requirement, her actions prove beyond any doubt, her criminal intent.

      Criminal intent of what? Destruction of the entire world! Not that a lefty could understand that. This is not hyperbole. What are they doing still today? Playing a dangerous criminal astroturf campaign. For what purpose? We are going to find out.

      If Trump let’s these ctiminals off the hook, he will be a failure regardless of whatever else he may get right.

      Her side is cancer to any kind of civil society.

      I’m just hoping Trump isn’t too soft hearted.

      Hillary cheated and still lost.

      Trump won because he ‘conned’ decent people with truth so that they finally had a reason to vote. It isn’t about Trump. It’s that regular people understand substance over BS.

      What Trump did was reveal all those champions of the people that were not… Glenn Beck being a perfect example.

    5. “For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
      For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
      For want of a horse the rider was lost.
      For want of a rider the message was lost.
      For want of a message the battle was lost.
      For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
      And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.”

      Comey was several levels deep in that particular failure cascade.

    6. To clarify (somewhat), Comey was perhaps at the “for want of a message” level but he certainly wasn’t the horseshoe nail (the initiator of the cascade).

    7. That’s not the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation is that on average, voters preferred Trump to Clinton.

      1. Careful with that one as Mr. Trump was behind in the popular vote.

        Mr. Trump “gamed” the Electoral College, but the Electoral College is the game. If the game were popular vote, it would have been played, he could have played it differently.

        And then the Cubs victory in the World Series was illegitimate because it was so close it could have gone either way and they won on games, not total runs scored?

        But just as the World Series is decided by best of 7 games, the Presidency is decided by the Electoral College, and a win is a win. Until next time.

        1. All the entreaties to the popular vote could still be premature. There are still many millions of votes to be counted, much more than Hillary’s current popular vote margin. California alone is still only reporting 70% and, if the bulk of that is in the hinterlands, it could swing things Trump’s way.

          It’s a moot point because, as you say, the contest unfolded based on the method by which it would be scored. But, it would still be nice if the numbers were to reverse, and remove that particular talking point off the table.

        3. It certainly is the case, going state by state. The contest is one of 50 different votes for each state choosing who they think should be President.

          Although, it isn’t surprising that Democrats come down on the side of tyranny and oppression on the matter.

    8. The simplest explanation for Trump’s win

      The idiot that predicted Hillary winning over 300 electoral votes still thinks he is the smartest guy in the room.

      Hillary is attacking Comey because while she lost the election; she still hasn’t been exonerated of the crimes under investigation. But fine, I propose Trump fire Comey and replace him with someone capable of running an investigation. I heard Jo Arpaio is available.

    9. That seems unlikely. Hillary’s email problems were baked in. People came to terms with it months ago.

      The more likely explanation is that the voters in those states didn’t care for how Hillary and the Democrats had treated them over the past 8 years.

      1. Enough with e-mails, already. It is time to “move on” Trump won, Hillary lost, and it would be an ungracious winner to pursue further criminal investigations against a person who lost in their last bid to be President.

        But Hillary Clinton is still complaining about them (the fallout from the e-mails). Gee, maybe there was something to them? Perhaps they need to be investigated further?

        1. I am OK with a pardon if it comes with an admission of guilt, the shuttering of the Clinton Foundation, and Hillary never running for office again.

          1. I dunno. One part of me wants justice. Another would just like to see the last of the Hill and Bill carnival of grift, and move on.

          2. I’m good with the admission of guilt and shuttering the foundation, but Bill and Hill already won’t run again. What needs to be stopped is their cronies, Podesta, Mills, Abedin, and especially Blumenthal, from having a security clearance. And nothing can be done to stop Chelsea from running, and if she wins; the influence peddling will be on again.

          3. …but Bill and Hill already won’t run again.

            Bill I’ll grant you but Hillary running again in 2020 would not surprise me in the least. She wants to be president worse than Ted Kennedy ever did.

          5. But I doubt her health will allow it.

            She’s as healthy as Trump and presumably he’ll run in 2020. If she had won this year she would certainly have run for reelection.

          7. After the chants of “drain the swamp” and “lock her up” at the rallies, there would be a revolt if Trump pardoned Hillary.

            Instead, whomever Trump appoints as Attorney General must convene at least one Grand Jury and let the legal system sort it out. Either that, or appoint a special prosecutor and again, let the legal system sort it out.

            It is only after that process has occurred that Trump should entertain thoughts of a pardon. The penalty for her mishandling of classified information includes never again being allowed to serve in public office in the United States. And that’s not even going into the Clinton Foundation.

            He has to let the legal system handle it.

          8. Wodun,

            I understand the rationale you have but there’s this:

            The people have been shown that in DC there’s a different set of rules for the Big Shots. You or I make the slightest mistake with classified data and we go to jail.

            Part of me thinks we have to re-establish in a very serious way that we are a nation of laws not people.

            The only way I see to do that is if Hillary faces the same consequences that you or I would.

            Finding them guilty and then pardoning them is just another Big Shot move.

          9. You can’t have it both ways, Rand. You can’t say

            But I doubt her health will allow it.

            in one post and follow it with

            …we don’t know how either of their health is.

            Well, you can, of course, but then you descend to the level of tabloids claiming she has Parkinson’s or something.

          11. That video of her collapsing into the van with her head lolling is proof to me that she is not in good health. That’s just not normal and healthy.

          12. It’s more than assigning guilt which doesn’t really matter. The problem is the beast (not just Hillary) is wounded when it needs to be dead. It remains an existential threat to life and liberty.

    10. I notice you ignore that Glorious and Brilliant decision Clinton made to brand half of Trump supporters as racist, homophobic, xenophobic and misogynist…….

      That was absolutely certain to win her the election……

      sheesh

    11. I’m certain that it had an effect, but I couldn’t say with certainty whether it helped or hurt her. On the one hand, it put her back under investigation by the FBI, something one would normally consider disqualifying (the media obfuscated that part of it sufficiently by saying it was her server that was under investigation). On the other hand, it gave the media (who have now openly admitted they were supporting her, rather than reporting the news) to focus on something other than the deadly Wikileaks.

      Besides, Comey coming out the Sunday before the election to say that they found nothing new in the 650,000 emails processed over the course of one week (after taking a year to process 30,000 emails) allowed the New York Times to lie and say that he had “cleared her again.” That, in turn, allowed voters who might have been on the edge to become more confident that she’s not the crook she is. He didn’t “clear” her in the first place, of course. He just said that he wouldn’t recommend prosecuting her, which isn’t in his job description to begin with, despite the fact that she broke the law in ways he described in great detail.

    12. I think Jim has it largely right on this one; Comey’s actions contributed heavily to the Democrats’ loss.

      Not his October letter though, but his July statements. Had Comey and also the Justice Department followed the law, Hillary Clinton would have been indicted. Then, the Democrats could have run someone else, and pretty much anyone they chose would have likely beat Trump. Only in Hillary Clinton did they have a candidate who was even more flawed than Trump.

      So, it really is in part Comey’s fault; he didn’t save the Democrats from themselves. Which of course begs the question; why were the Democrats in such need of saving from themselves? Why did they rig the primaries to keep the field narrow to help her (thus forgetting the reason the primaries exist)? Why did they cheat in order to nominate the one candidate Trump could beat?

      If we’re using Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation is that the entire DNC was secretly in the tank for Trump. 🙂

    13. Just saying it’s Comey is like saying the patient died of heart failure without mentioning the self-inflicted gunshot and the sucking chest wound.

  13. narrowing Clinton’s advantage in popularity enough for Trump to win narrow victories in PA, WI and MI

    Jim, you are aware he could have lost any two of those three and still won right?

    1. Maybe if the Democrat AG on PA wasn’t thrown into jail just before the election… Maybe if Democrat prosecutors didn’t run the John Doe investigation in WI… Maybe if the entirety of MI wasn’t blamed for the Flint Democrats water problem…

    2. Right, Clinton needed all three. But all three were close, within 1%. The polls narrowed more than that after the Comey letter’s release.

      2. A letter was sent because Comey told congress he would alert them if the status of the investigation changed. It did, so he did. Had Clinton not used a private server (which her own staff was concerned about), the investigation would not have existed, which would have relieved Comey of the duty of sending the letter.

        1. Of course, if State had told the truth about Benghazi (it was a planned attack), then perhaps no one would have learned about the private server.

          1. But then that would have exposed Hillary as incompetent and crooked! Much better to find some patsy to take the fall, like some nobody filmmaker.

      3. Trump had a ground game that focussed on those states and the issues used to motivate voters were about “making America great again” for the groups Democrats have been abusing.

        They prepared several paths to victory through these states and it turns out, Trump didn’t even need Florida to win. But they also had a strategy for Florida.

        It turns out that Trump ran a more complicated and strategic campaign than he was given credit. Democrats and the media misunderestimated him.

  14. Jim, Democrats don’t accept the peaceful transition of power. The DNC is organizing and funding violence across the country, just like they did during the election.

    Democrats have been brainwashed by their corrupt party.

    How many more people have to be killed and beaten by Democrats before Democrats rise up against their fascist leaders? I have little hope because in the aftermath, Democrats are looking toward the militant socialist block.

    Things will only get uglier as Democrats pit one race, gender, and age against another rather than allowing them to identify as Americans.

    Its going to be a long four years of riots but we all know, Democrats don’t believe in anything they badger others about.

    1. The democrats are criminals. Their followers are mostly mindless thugs. But the guilt for this lies directly with those that don’t deal with them. You don’t reason with criminals and mindless thugs. You separate them from decent society. You take away their power. You don’t give them any chance at all to stick the knife in your back.

      People that don’t learn this deserve the knife.

  15. The best part of the Trump victory was seeing (if only briefly) the smug look wiped off Queen Cacklepants’ fat face. The second-best part: the tears of the Democratic Eloi.

    1. I never had any interest in watching the election coverage. I never watched any of the debates. But I must admit; I watched the ABC coverage, and the schadenboner was solid.

  16. RCP Average: Clinton +3.6

    Final: Clinton 0.6

    Jim is wrong. He’s trying to fudge the polls to fit his theory about Comey.

    All we heard was that Clinton would win in a landslide. Jim himself told us Clinton would receive 300 plus electoral votes.

    You were wrong Jim. Your Comey theory is wrong.

    1. Not to mention, most polls had Clinton up 4, 5 and 6 points. The lower numbers were “outliers” and considered wrong. So this was a blowout and the pollsters were wrong.

      1. Not to mention, Hillary cheated to win about half a dozen states and tried to steal the final four but didn’t have a plausible enough number in the precincts they were holding back from reporting starting in Florida… 99% reporting and they still didn’t call it for over an hour.

    2. The Comey theory is simply a way to head off the very real and dangerous threat that Hillary is indicted. Her losing the election has nothing to do with the investigations into her various crimes. Its one thing to have national leaders wanting a refund, but its a bigger deal if the entire foundation is shutdown for fraud.

    3. No less authority than Hillary herself said Comey’s letter was a non-issue as everyone had made up their minds about the email thing already. Of course that was back when she thought she’d be President.

  17. It was a close election. Move things 1% and Clinton might well have won. And it seems from the exit polls that the main reason Clinton lost is that lots of her regulars didn’t show up. Her excellent GOTV operation apparently wasn’t up to the task of getting a lot of people who are reliable Democratic votes but really didn’t like her or trust her – to the polls.
    If the election were held again, she might win. Change any number of variables and she might have won.
    On the other hand, if Trump and his new Congress do a reasonable job, and the Democrats continue their freak-out and continue hurling poison at anyone who likes him – Trump might do much better in the next election. Reagan did.
    Just so they don’t screw it up. Do things that are popular. Only idiots will be upset if Trump actually builds a wall and controls immigration, and makes sure that felons get deported. Don’t overdo it and push for deporting everyone. Only idiots will be upset when they replace Obamacare with something _simple_ that makes sure that the poorest aren’t bankrupted by medical care; everyone else will rejoice. Same with appointing originalist judges to the Supreme Court. (Stop talking about Roe v Wade.) Same with getting rid of a whole lot of pointless and even counterproductive regulation, and shrinking the bureaucracy by fiat or by attrition. Same with helping poor people get vouchers for decent schools. Same with simplifying the tax code. Same with cancelling all of President Obama’s executive decisions. Don’t start any wars.
    There are so many things that can be done that will show people that Republicans can rule responsibly. Or, they can do things like the Democrats did, things that were only popular with their base and that infuriated enough other Americans that this election was the direct result. Remember that you represent America, and don’t stuff things down everyone else’s throats.

    1. I’d add that Trump in many ways was brilliant. He added some important tools to the conservative bag of tricks. His overt contempt for the media is a breath of fresh air to those of us who have been chafing for a decade or more about the enormous bias of the Mainstream Media. My mother still reads nothing but the LA Times, but how many like that are left? And now he will have a bully pulpit (really has had one all through his campaign): people are going to hear his message whether the media wants it or not.
      He managed to win the presidency spending less than one half of what his opponent spent. He managed to completely keep his outsider bona fides, even though of course he’s really a well-connected billionaire, don’t know how that’s possible.
      He opened up a whole new category of Republican voters, one that had been completely forgotten.
      I still believe that he can open up the black vote, if he plays his cards right. He already weakened their allegiance; they are sick of being taken for granted. If they stop seeing him as crazy they may turn.
      I know he really isn’t a conservative, but a conservative Congress plus him as a hired gun to blow things up may turn out to be a really good combination.

    2. Yup! (To both of your comments)

      It is interesting to think about how close it would be without McMullin in the race. Without McMullin, Trump could have won Minnesota and his popular vote total would have been almost 400,000 more.

      With a Hillary loss, McMullin probably wont be landing at the Clinton Foundation but time will tell.

      1. Why would you think that McMullin voters would have gone Trump? My impression is that they were #NeverTrumpers looking for a place to land.

        Re Minnesota: Clinton 46.9% / Trump 45.4% / Johnson 3.9% / McMullin 1.8% / Stein 1.3%

        Do you really think that more than four fifths of the McMullin vote would have gone Trump if their first choice hadn’t been on the ballot? For the most part, these were the solid Republicans who just couldn’t bring themselves to vote Trump and who would have written in “Mike Pence” or “John McCain” (or left the top field blank) before doing so.

        1. Who knows? There was a significant effort to depress Republican turnout by both Hillary and McMullin.

          Most people tend to vote with their party, even if their preferred candidate didn’t win the primary. McMullin supporters were Republicans and could have showed some party loyalty if he wasn’t running to get Hillary elected. I am not sure they were ever solidly Republican though.

          McMullin is a disgraceful backstabber who had zero chance of winning the election and whose only realistic purpose was to get Hillary elected.

  18. Juicy little factoid Just for Jim:

    “In the waning days of the presidential campaign, Bill and Hillary Clinton had a knock-down, drag-out fight about her effort to blame FBI Director James Comey for her slump in the polls and looming danger of defeat.

    ‘I was with Bill in Little Rock when he had this shouting match with Hillary on the phone and she accused Comey for reviving the investigation into her use of a private email server and reversing her campaign’s momentum,’ said one of Bill Clinton’s closest advisers.

    ‘Bill didn’t buy the excuse that Comey would cost Hillary the election,’ said the source. ‘As far as he was concerned, all the blame belonged to [campaign manager Robby] Mook, [campaign chairman John] Podesta and Hillary because they displayed a tone-deaf attitude about the feeble economy and its impact on millions and millions of working-class voters.”

    Bill didn’t buy Jim’s excuse.

    Bill thought the reason she was losing was because she ignored Middle American, Blue Collar voters.

    All the exit polls, vote counts and counties Hillary lost say precisely the same thing.

  19. A few points I’ve noted about Trump:
    He’s unafraid to offend people with his viewpoint. He’s unafraid to fight back when attacked. And he masterfully got the major media to echo his statements even as they were trying to ridicule him. Very much the opposite of Republican candidates that have lost recent elections.

    1. Ann Coulter has been pointing this out for decades. To win, republicans can’t pretend to be democrat light.

Comments are closed.