This election was all about personality, persona, not much substance or ideals or a vision of where one or the other wanted to take the country. Sure anti illegal immigrationist were avid Trump supporters and pro illegal immigrationist avid Clinton supporters, but they didn't make up that much of the electorate one way or the other.
Looking at the anti vote, those who vote against a candidate and are not for or care if the other candidate wins, just as long as either Clinton or Trump lose. Those were the one's that decided this election. Trump received far more anti-Clinton votes than Clinton received anti-Trump votes. The very anti candidate while not particularly caring for the other candidate was there in all the polls for us to see and in all the exit polls. It was just most of us to include the political pundits and prognosticators spaced over it to include myself.
It boiled down to a bit less than a quarter of the electorate really wanted Trump and a bit less than a quarter of the electorate really wanted Clinton to be our next president. The rest of both of their votes were the anti type or the hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. Then you have all those who stayed home or voted third party who didn't like either and showed it in their own way.
This year we had 251 million eligible to vote 126 million did. In 2012 235 million were eligible, 129 million did. In 2008 230 million eligible 132 million did. That's the story and part of the reason Trump won, 6 million less voters than in 2008 even though 21 million more were eligible. The bottom line is although the Democrats had the larger base vote, 32% to 27% for the Republicans, Trump excited his base, Clinton didn't, she was dull and boring.
Another reason Trump won in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania is Clinton was too busy running to California, New York, Illinois for fund raisers instead of having rallies in those three states. Trump held rally after rally and spent very little time at fund raisers whereas Clinton spent quite a bit of her time doing so.
I disagree. This election was a rejection of status quo.
First to be rejected was Democrats insistence of "Inclusion." People said no to refugees, illegal aliens, BLM, etc. Why? Well, IMO, it was because the D version of "inclusion" excluded the uneducated or lower income white working class. In short, the party of tolerance was intolerant of those who do not tolerate their PC, multiculturalism BS. In the end, excluding these people, making fun of them even, cost them dearly.
Another problem is that the D have become the Political Elite. A class by themselves who surround themselves with highly educated --often rich--liberals. As a result, they no longer have an ear for those less educated folks who do not toe the liberal line (white or black). Like I said, they make fun of these people: whites are rednecks, blacks are Uncle Toms. That cost them dearly too.
.
What was wrong with Hillary? Well, for one, the Clinton's are a political powerhouse. They blocked any and all moderate competitors from gaining a foothold in the party. Hillary is so well connected with the elite that Chelsea Clinton landed a $600,000 salary working as a junior reporter for NBC. Great work if you can find it.
Now the Republicans: Basically they are the same as the Democrats: a party of elites. The big exception being instead of being married to "inclusion" and multiculturalism, they are tied to the religious folks. But, make no mistake, the Party is beholden to the elites: the rich, the intellectuals on the Far Right Religious.
All of a sudden, here comes Trump with
his own money. He says, "Screw You!" to all those elites and manages to connect to the forgotten class: the uneducated, the redneck, the Uncle Tom, and anyone else who has had it with PC, multicultural elites and their BS intellectualism.
