Missing millions

T

Tranquillus in Exile

New member
We often hear about the millions of voters who supposedly abandoned the Democrats in 2016. Various theories are proposed to explain this: the Democrats were too elitist or too focused on minorities, Hillary was a poor campaigner, "something big" had changed, and so on.

In fact Hillary Clinton polled almost exactly the same number of votes in 2016 (65.8 million) as Obama in 2012 (65.9 million), and both polled more than Trump (63.0 million). Wherever Trump's millions came from, they apparently weren't defecting Democrats.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Results
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Results

My question is: where did Trump's millions come from, and what if anything does it signify?
 
Hillary's millions were in the wrong places. Her campaign, among its many, many mistakes, overly targeted blue strongholds relying on super majority turn out there to offset republican gains elsewheres. They didn't even try to go for swing voters in swing states.
 
Kacper said:
Hillary's millions were in the wrong places. Her campaign, among its many, many mistakes, overly targeted blue strongholds relying on super majority turn out there to offset republican gains elsewheres. They didn't even try to go for swing voters in swing states.
Click to expand...

geniuses after the fact. After Trump won on electoral college with far fewer votes, many Repubs suddenly read up on the electoral college, now claiming everyone should have known it all along. It has not been the big deal very often. Last time 2000. Again helping a loser Repub win.
Hillary lost the 3 industrial states by narrow margins. they were not ignored. She had a huge ground game in all 3.
 
Nordberg said:
geniuses after the fact. After Trump won on electoral college with far fewer votes, many Repubs suddenly read up on the electoral college, now claiming everyone should have known it all along. It has not been the big deal very often. Last time 2000. Again helping a loser Repub win.
Hillary lost the 3 industrial states by narrow margins. they were not ignored. She had a huge ground game in all 3.
Click to expand...

Hillary lost 10% of union led households that Obama won. Bill Clinton reportedly warned them repeatedly they were making a mistake writing off white rural voters that Clinton lost by better than 2 to 1 margins. Clinton obsessed about social justice instead of economic opportunities. Instead of having big events to amp up support at the grass level and talk directly to the people, she held "cozy" event with captive audiences and bombarded the airwaves with Trump attack ads that played up the very things everybody but her true believers saw as his more redeeming positions. Keep blaming the FBI, the Russians, or anybody that makes you feel better at night, but that will not change Clinton's campaign not only ignored most of America--it insulted them too. A pollster like Benenson should never have been allowed to be the chief strategist for the campaign.
 
Nordberg said:
geniuses after the fact. After Trump won on electoral college with far fewer votes, many Repubs suddenly read up on the electoral college, now claiming everyone should have known it all along. It has not been the big deal very often. Last time 2000. Again helping a loser Repub win.
Hillary lost the 3 industrial states by narrow margins. they were not ignored. She had a huge ground game in all 3.
Click to expand...

lol we won by using the electoral college in 2000 and 2016 and you think WE don't understand it?.......
 
Kacper said:
Hillary lost 10% of union led households that Obama won. Bill Clinton reportedly warned them repeatedly they were making a mistake writing off white rural voters that Clinton lost by better than 2 to 1 margins. Clinton obsessed about social justice instead of economic opportunities. Instead of having big events to amp up support at the grass level and talk directly to the people, she held "cozy" event with captive audiences and bombarded the airwaves with Trump attack ads that played up the very things everybody but her true believers saw as his more redeeming positions. Keep blaming the FBI, the Russians, or anybody that makes you feel better at night, but that will not change Clinton's campaign not only ignored most of America--it insulted them too. A pollster like Benenson should never have been allowed to be the chief strategist for the campaign.
Click to expand...

and Hilliary got 130,000 fewer votes in Detroit than Obama, losing the state by 11,000 votes........
 
Kacper said:
Hillary lost 10% of union led households that Obama won.
Click to expand...

Then she must have regained those votes somewhere else. As I said in the OP, Hillary polled almost exactly the same number of votes in 2016 (65.8 million) as Obama in 2012 (65.9 million), and both polled more than Trump (63.0 million).

Is that an epoch-making shift? Maybe it was the shock of an ignorant p.o.s winning on points, so to speak, but people seem to be drawing conclusions from 2016 that simply aren't in the figures.
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
Then she must have regained those votes somewhere else. As I said in the OP, Hillary polled almost exactly the same number of votes in 2016 (65.8 million) as Obama in 2012 (65.9 million), and both polled more than Trump (63.0 million).

Is that an epoch-making shift? Maybe it was the shock of an ignorant p.o.s winning on points, so to speak, but people seem to be drawing conclusions from 2016 that simply aren't in the figures.
Click to expand...

Obama originally won with 69M votes. he lost 5M votes between 2008 and 2012. Trump picked up 3M over the prior GOP performance in 2012 and 4M over GOP 2008 performance. Widening the gap in places like California doesn't matter. It gets you no more electors.
 
Kacper said:
Trump picked up 3M over the prior GOP performance in 2012 and 4M over GOP 2008 performance.
Click to expand...

And 1M more than George W Bush in 2004. But at least Dubya got a majority that time. :awesome:

Added
That was the only time a Republican presidential candidate won a majority of the votes since 1988.
 
Last edited:
Tranquillus in Exile said:
And 1M more than George W Bush in 2004. But at least Dubya got a majority that time. :awesome:

Added
That was the only time a Republican presidential candidate won a majority of the votes since 1988.
Click to expand...

Majorities don't elect presidents. In fact, the dems can get a nationwide majority in the next election and still not win control of the house for exactly the same reason. Woah what---I thought them polls mattered......
 
Kacper said:
I noticed that Detroit's population continues to decline.
Click to expand...

actually that didn't seem to matter between 2008 and 2012 when people were actually moving out......during that period the Inkster schools lost over 50% of their students, but polled just as many demmycrat voters.......interesting, isn't it.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top