So as a European ... Clinton didn't spend enough time in the Upper Midwest expecting to carry those states, but Trump had an actual message for them (NAFTA, etc.) while Hillary didn't, and they don't care that he is racist and sexist, they want their jobs back, so the election was called by a 40+ white demo in an economically depressed region just like old Middle England called Brexit. About right?
TBH I don't think there was anything Clinton could've done to alter this election result, other than not being female and (possibly) not getting involved in so many scandals beforehand. This was a widespread popular-vote miss: Clinton lost across a large number of states (PA, WI, MI, FL, NC) that she had polled ahead in, and even in ones she carried (like NH, ME, or MN) the margin of victory was much less than expected. It seems like a large number of Americans just don't like the vision of America that Hillary Clinton represents.
For the sake of you, me, and all other women out in the world, please don't let Clinton being a woman let the first thing that comes to mind. Your reasoning after that is much more sound and argued. But reinforcing the separation of sexes can only help men. Look at Western Europe: our gender is not even considered, so please don't let people consider it. It can only turn negative.
Keep strong, friend.
I'm confused by this response (not the OP). Do you think that they were saying Clinton's being a woman would make her a worse president?
I took it to mean that there are a decent-sized group of Americans who do believe that (probably not including the OP), and as a result nothing she could have done would have won her those votes.
I don't know how many people voted against Clinton because she's a woman, but I guarantee you it's not 0. As a result, it needs to be talked about. While it'd be a better world if people didn't focus on such irrelevancies, the fact that some do means we can't act like it's non-existant.
It's a great point you make. Because we're not allowed to think like that, we can't talk about it. However, we do base our decisions on it. So here we are. Still not allowed to mention the elephant in the room. PC gone mad.
She could have won it if her platform offered hope and excitement for the future of a regular person.
She offered free college education... that doesn't work very well if you quit high school to work in a factory or if you are like me and horrible at math (I can do everything else but that).
Job retraining doesn't work very well because many people train for the same thing. One great NPR story had a person who retrained in HVAC but he said that around 100 other people in the plant trained for the same thing unless if people move they need some sort of manual labor job.
People who worked in a factory are unlikely to start building websites, apps, manage databases, go into business management etc... they need another factory job or a basic income.
> (possibly) not getting involved in so many scandals beforehand
I don't think there's any "possibly" involved here.
While I'm no fan of Sanders, I honestly feel like he could have swept the floor with Trump solely based on the fact that he has an impeccable background and seems like a genuinely nice guy. Instead, the DNC shut out Sanders and used dirty tactics to ensure that Clinton got the nomination. That galvanized a non-negligble number of the young people in my social circle against her.
Well, we have Strache, Le Pen, Farage, Wilders, Orban, Petry,... And we sure aren't as economically depressed as rural USA. Worse - we have unstable times ahead and people will vote for these populists even more. And even worse - a climate change denier as POTUS exactly at the worst possible time.
You cannot ignore entire demographics - working class, uneducated etc - and not expect consequences. The Westminster bubble acted as if only London and the SE existed. Clinton and to be fair, most of the political establishment, have been in favour of free trade and NAFTA and ignored the consequences.
In 2012 Mitt Romney lost Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, which Trump now won, some solidly, some barely.
With no major demographic shift there, seems also fair to assume a good portion of the voting-age population in those states saw no noticeable improvement in the past 4 years.
Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. are traditionally Democratic states, but it's a region Trump spent a lot of time targeting with anti-globalist messages around the decline of domestic industry.
The predicted safe margin in the other direction, the narrow win, the demographic stats, the issues on the table ... it's all highly reminiscent of how I experienced Brexit.
Florida and North Carolina were considered competitive or "tossup" states, while several of the upper Midwestern states were considered fairly safe Democrat territories, probably because they were historically dominated by unionized manufacturing workers. That latter assumption has proved to be very unsafe, and it's become apparent that many of those formerly-reliable Democrat voters have switched sides, at least for this election.
That catchphrase originated from a campaign that took place during an actual economic recession. The current overall state of the economy was not a decisive factor in this election, though perceptions or fears about it might have been.
