• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did Trump Win or Did Hillary Lose?

Did Trump Win Or Did Hillary Lose?

  • Trump won

    Votes: 3 11.5%

  • Hillary lost

    Votes: 6 23.1%

  • Combination of the two

    Votes: 17 65.4%
  • Total voters
    26
Moderate Right

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,864
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I voted combination. Trump had the insight to go after Blue states instead of writing them off but Hillary lost because out of her convention she promised to run a positive campaign based on the issues but did nothing but run a negative campaign, mainly due to the fact that the only issues she had were an Obama third term status quo when the electorate actually wanted CHANGE. The world has been changing and getting rid of the establishment but all she offered was more of the same and scare tactics of Trump changes.
 
Something I found very interesting, from CNN's website:

6-in-10 believe Trump is not qualified to be president. Only 47% held a similar view of his challenger. And among those who said Trump was not qualified, 18% of them, almost 1-in-5, voted for him anyway.

63% feel Trump lacks the temperament to serve effectively as president, while only 43% thought Clinton did not have this trait. Again, 20% of those who took the negative view of Trump on this question still supported him.
Click to expand...
Americans held their noses to vote for Trump - CNNPolitics.com

Obviously no one wins an election without people voting for them, but this data suggests very strongly a lot of people just voted against Clinton.

Trump won because he ran a very unique campaign and, like Obama did in 08 and 12 with big data, changed campaigning into the future with the way he used media. But, ultimately, I think had his challenger been a political opponent not named Clinton, Trump would not have won. But we'll never know.

To answer your question, I think it was Clinton's election to lose and she did. But that does not take away the fact Trump played the game best out of the nearly 20 people he competed against.
 
Last edited:
Hillary lost.

The vast majority of people I know that voted for Trump were ONLY voting for Trump because they absolutely despised Clinton with a vengeance.

They were not voting for Trump. They were voting against Clinton.
 
Trump won because he was for America and regular Americans, not the elites, not the corrupt, not the glad-handing go along to get alongs, not the special interests and identity politicos.

To those of you folks still using skewed polls in the face of just how skewed and messed up those polls were/are, well, the only certain cure for ignorance is getting a bit smarter, opening your eyes to reality.
 
Dragonfly said:
Hillary lost.

The vast majority of people I know that voted for Trump were ONLY voting for Trump because they absolutely despised Clinton with a vengeance.

They were not voting for Trump. They were voting against Clinton.
Click to expand...

My belief as well.
:/
 
Dragonfly said:
Hillary lost.

The vast majority of people I know that voted for Trump were ONLY voting for Trump because they absolutely despised Clinton with a vengeance.

They were not voting for Trump. They were voting against Clinton.
Click to expand...

Outside looking in, that's exactly what so many people seemed to be saying.
 
Clinton lost.

She was near useless politically.

Not likeable, VERY establishment, in bed with Wall Street, a Hawk (more rep then dem), came across as unsympathetic to others, somewhat inept/lazy (the email scandal showed this), arrogant.

And in the end...emotionally selfish/weak. After her loss, she did not have the guts/honor to face the nation until the next day.

Frankly, other than being intelligent and able to act tough/strong, there was little to admire about her, IMO.
 
DA60 said:
she did not have the guts/honor to face the nation until the next day.
Click to expand...

Only part I don't agree with is this.
She conceded in less than 24 hours from when the polls in some states had even opened.

Her "guts and honor" might be questioned regarding all kinds of things, but I see no reason to bash her over waiting until the West Coast was actually awake to make her final appearance.
 
I think it's fairly clear that Hillary lost the election. From what I've seen of the results, Trump received fewer votes than Romney in many states he won but more importantly, Clinton received nowhere near the support that Obama was able to foster, massage and get to the polls in each of his elections. The simple fact is that the Obama majority didn't like Clinton to nearly the extent that they liked Obama. The Obama vote was largely personality based and when the personality of Clinton was substituted, there was precious little reason for a lot of people on the left to get up and vote. It's no different, really, from the way some on the right sit on their hands and refuse to vote when the Republicans choose a nominee not to their liking.

The other loser, in my view, is the Obama legacy, such as it is. What a wasted opportunity by a man who was given so very much by an electorate that adored him in 2008 and that forgave him his mediocrity in 2012 and reelected him. How cheated they must feel by his Presidency.
 
Dragonfly said:
Only part I don't agree with is this.
She conceded in less than 24 hours from when the polls in some states had even opened.

Her "guts and honor" might be questioned regarding all kinds of things, but I see no reason to bash her over waiting until the West Coast was actually awake to make her final appearance.
Click to expand...

She needs to be bashed for not coming out and speaking to the thousands of supporters who showed up at her campaign "victory" party and waited late into the night/morning to hear her speak. Sending out John Podesta to tell the crowd to go home was gutless and classless.
 
Dragonfly said:
Only part I don't agree with is this.
She conceded in less than 24 hours from when the polls in some states had even opened.

Her "guts and honor" might be questioned regarding all kinds of things, but I see no reason to bash her over waiting until the West Coast was actually awake to make her final appearance.
Click to expand...

She conceded to Trump over the phone that night...so there was no need to wait.

She obviously could not face the nation...or her supporters.

They worked their tails off for her - for nothing. They waited all night as the results came in. The least she could have done - after she had conceded to Trump - was to make an appearance and thank them for their hard work and address the nation. It would not have killed her and it would have shown strength and class.

What little respect for her I had I lost with that silliness. When push comes to shove, she was weak when the chips were down. Not the sign of a good leader.

A good leader puts aside their personal feelings for the sake of others...she did neither that night. She clearly just wallowed in her own misery.
 
Last edited:
CanadaJohn said:
I think it's fairly clear that Hillary lost the election. From what I've seen of the results, Trump received fewer votes than Romney in many states he won but more importantly, Clinton received nowhere near the support that Obama was able to foster, massage and get to the polls in each of his elections. The simple fact is that the Obama majority didn't like Clinton to nearly the extent that they liked Obama. The Obama vote was largely personality based and when the personality of Clinton was substituted, there was precious little reason for a lot of people on the left to get up and vote. It's no different, really, from the way some on the right sit on their hands and refuse to vote when the Republicans choose a nominee not to their liking.

The other loser, in my view, is the Obama legacy, such as it is. What a wasted opportunity by a man who was given so very much by an electorate that adored him in 2008 and that forgave him his mediocrity in 2012 and reelected him. How cheated they must feel by his Presidency.
Click to expand...

Well said.

Obama had charisma and likability...Hillary Clinton had neither.
 
DA60 said:
She conceded to Trump over the phone that night...so there was no need to wait.

She obviously could not face the nation...or her supporters.

They worked their tails off for her - for nothing. They waited all night as the results came in. The least she could have done - after she had conceded to Trump - was to make an appearance and thank them for their hard work and address the nation. It would not have killed her and it would have shown strength and class.

What little respect for her I had I lost with that silliness. When push comes to shove, she was weak when the chips were down. Not the sign of a good leader.

A good leader puts aside their personal feelings for the sake of others...she did neither that night. She clearly just wallowed in her own misery.
Click to expand...

How long would Trump have waited to concede if he'd won the popular vote but lost the election on the EC count?

If I recall, he'd publicly stated he wouldn't conceded at all no matter how he lost.
 
Dragonfly said:
How long would Trump have waited to concede if he'd won the popular vote but lost the election on the EC count?

If I recall, he'd publicly stated he wouldn't conceded at all no matter how he lost.
Click to expand...

And he would have been a jerk and a wimp and a sore loser in that situation.

That is no excuse for her though.

She had already conceded to Trump that night. She should have addressed both her people and the nation right after that.

That is the decent, honorable thing to do. Something good leaders do. Thinking of others before themselves.

When the chips were down, she thought only of herself.
 
Well, initially I wanted to vote, "Trump Won." Which is true.

But, while it is still true that Hillary lost, it is more accurate to say, "she didn't win enough," seeing as how she carried the popular vote.

So, I ended up checking "Combination of the two."
 
Moderate Right said:
I voted combination. Trump had the insight to go after Blue states instead of writing them off but Hillary lost because out of her convention she promised to run a positive campaign based on the issues but did nothing but run a negative campaign, mainly due to the fact that the only issues she had were an Obama third term status quo when the electorate actually wanted CHANGE. The world has been changing and getting rid of the establishment but all she offered was more of the same and scare tactics of Trump changes.
Click to expand...
For the most part, Hillary (and the Dem Party, which I think should be included in this overall discussion) lost.

Neither campaign ran on issues. Issue statements by Trump were vague, to the point of being pretty much meaningless. Half of Hillary's issues seemed to be things she was pushed into by Sanders' popularity (i.e.: student loan issues, etc.) that she herself didn't really care about, then she ran mostly on what a bad guy Trump is. Trump ran with dividing the country, which also had the effect of supporting the rural (and white, let's be honest) base, and that eventually won the election for him, while Hillary and the Dems and her supporters vilified said rural/white base.

As I sit here a couple days later and have been digesting what happened, I am thinking more and more that Hillary and the Dem Party and her most rabid supporters got too cocky and way overestimated this "whites will no longer be a majority and thus don't matter" spiel and mindset that they pushed and pushed hard. What was the result of that? Rurals and whites voted, and they voted in large part to reject what they perceived as a threat to them personally. They voted their own self-interest, which is simple human nature, and shouldn't be surprising to any reasonably and intelligently objective person.

I do not believe that most of them (Trump voters) were necessarily enamored with Trump (some were, sure), but if you're going to be an objective observer you have to acknowledge that Trump was the only candidate addressing that particular demographic as if their vote meant something... and that appeals to them just as being recognized appeals to you. I wouldn't say that Hillary and the Dem Party took them for granted in the same way they have come to take the blacks and Latinos for granted, however. Hillary and the Dems outright dismissed them, which alienated them, and it bit Hillary and the Dems in the butt.

Here's the lesson that the Dems SHOULD learn from this, but probably won't: "Tolerance" and "inclusion" aren't just words and noble-sounding rhetoric for whipping the base into a frenzy. If you are going to preach tolerance and inclusion, you need to actually BE tolerant and inclusive. That means everybody, not just the ones you like. That means not ridiculing those with whom you disagree. Valuing only those you like is the exact opposite of tolerance and inclusion. It's hypocrisy, and talk is cheap, and many people are going to see through it.

Note: I would like to phrase things in ways that would not encourage the racial divide, but maybe certain things need to be said, and maybe BOTH SIDES need to see the true ramifications of their own chosen tactics and actions. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
radcen said:
Here's the lesson that the Dems SHOULD learn from this, but probably won't: "Tolerance" and "inclusion" aren't just words and noble-sounding rhetoric for whipping the base into a frenzy. If you are going to preach tolerance and inclusion, you need to actually BE tolerant and inclusive. That means everybody, not just the ones you like. That means not ridiculing those with whom you disagree. Valuing only those you like is the exact opposite of tolerance and inclusion. It's hypocrisy, and talk is cheap, and many people are going to see through it.
Click to expand...

Amen. I agree with all of what you wrote but you really hit the nail on the head with this part. The left constantly lashes the right over and over about intolerance while they themselves have no tolerance whatsoever for opposing views. It's their way only or the highway. Hillary campaigned on a theme of "Stronger Together" and said a few times that that meant including all Americans, even Republicans, but then offered up zero thoughts on how she would incorporate even one Republican ideal into America being Stronger Together. Like a lot of Democratic talk, it was nothing but meaningless and empty rhetoric. After the election some on the left immediately started calling half of all who voted bigots for voting for Trump. Most of those people aren't bigots at all (merely wanting change) and don't appreciate being called bigots. Not a good way for the left being inclusive in order to turn these votes around for the next election. Countries around the entire world are getting rid of the establishment and all Hillary could offer up is an Obama third term and claiming that Trump offers up only bad change. They always falsely believed that when polls showed the country going in the wrong direction it meant getting rid of Republicans. I'm not sure they learned that or ever will.
 
Last edited:
Dragonfly said:
Gee, sounds like the vast majority of all politicians.
Click to expand...

99.9% of politicians don't come within a hair's breath of being POTUS.

She should have faced the nation after she conceded...period.

The fact that she clearly did not have the guts to PLUS in a jam she thought only of herself (and not the nation) proves she has the wrong temperament to be a good POTUS.

You want to make excuses for her...find someone who gives a damn.

When the chips were down - she thought only of herself...useless cow.

We are done here...good day.


And btw, I am neither dem nor rep.
 
Last edited:
radcen said:
For the most part, Hillary (and the Dem Party, which I think should be included in this overall discussion) lost.

Neither campaign ran on issues. Issue statements by Trump were vague, to the point of being pretty much meaningless. Half of Hillary's issues seemed to be things she was pushed into by Sanders' popularity (i.e.: student loan issues, etc.) that she herself didn't really care about, then she ran mostly on what a bad guy Trump is. Trump ran with dividing the country, which also had the effect of supporting the rural (and white, let's be honest) base, and that eventually won the election for him, while Hillary and the Dems and her supporters vilified said rural/white base.

As I sit here a couple days later and have been digesting what happened, I am thinking more and more that Hillary and the Dem Party and her most rabid supporters got too cocky and way overestimated this "whites will no longer be a majority and thus don't matter" spiel and mindset that they pushed and pushed hard. What was the result of that? Rurals and whites voted, and they voted in large part to reject what they perceived as a threat to them personally. They voted their own self-interest, which is simple human nature, and shouldn't be surprising to any reasonably and intelligently objective person.

I do not believe that most of them (Trump voters) were necessarily enamored with Trump (some were, sure), but if you're going to be an objective observer you have to acknowledge that Trump was the only candidate addressing that particular demographic as if their vote meant something... and that appeals to them just as being recognized appeals to you. I wouldn't say that Hillary and the Dem Party took them for granted in the same way they have come to take the blacks and Latinos for granted, however. Hillary and the Dems outright dismissed them, which alienated them, and it bit Hillary and the Dems in the butt.

Here's the lesson that the Dems SHOULD learn from this, but probably won't: "Tolerance" and "inclusion" aren't just words and noble-sounding rhetoric for whipping the base into a frenzy. If you are going to preach tolerance and inclusion, you need to actually BE tolerant and inclusive. That means everybody, not just the ones you like. That means not ridiculing those with whom you disagree. Valuing only those you like is the exact opposite of tolerance and inclusion. It's hypocrisy, and talk is cheap, and many people are going to see through it.

Note: I would like to phrase things in ways that would not encourage the racial divide, but maybe certain things need to be said, and maybe BOTH SIDES need to see the true ramifications of their own chosen tactics and actions. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Fine words and well chosen.

But - with great respect on this - I think you are reading a tad too deeply into it.

Clinton won the popular vote.

IMO, she lost the election because she is inherently 'unlikeable'. She has no charm at all, little sense of humor, was a proven liar and just plain 'blah'. Plus, she seemed more a rep then a dem on most issues - she is a hawk, pro establishment and very close to Wall Street.
The only reason she even got to where she did was her sex and her hubby (and her brains).

Trump is a pig AND a buffoon...he did not beat her; she simply did not offer ANY compelling reason for non-diehard Dems to vote for her...none.
And since too many people (IMO) believe voting for a lousy candidate is better than not voting at all - they reluctantly voted for Trump.

If the Dem candidate was intelligent and experienced and had just a tiny shred of charisma/likability...I think the Dems would have won fairly easily. Especially if they had been a woman and/or 'black'.

With campaigns that go on far, FAR too long...you can only talk about issues for so long; eventually personalities come into play. And she had none. And was maybe the most hated/disliked Democrat candidate ever.

Imo, you have to be either respected or liked (to some extent) to be a successful Democrat...she was neither.
 
Last edited:
Dragonfly said:
Hillary lost.

The vast majority of people I know that voted for Trump were ONLY voting for Trump because they absolutely despised Clinton with a vengeance.

They were not voting for Trump. They were voting against Clinton.
Click to expand...

...and boy did they ever make a mistake. It'll hit'em hard within 4 months.
 
Dragonfly said:
Hillary lost.

The vast majority of people I know that voted for Trump were ONLY voting for Trump because they absolutely despised Clinton with a vengeance.

They were not voting for Trump. They were voting against Clinton.
Click to expand...

But the opposite was also true so that analysis is a wash.
 
Isn't it true that if 22 of the electorates chooses to vote for Clinton instead of Trump on 19th of December then Hillary Clinton will be the next american president? So how is it really possible to answer this question? The people of the United States choose Hillary Clinton for president, but the electorates so far Donald Trump. However the electorates are not bound to stick to their candidates of choice. They can change their decision and vote for Clinton. Am i wrong or not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom