General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHoly cow! WaPo talks to voters in Clinton country
Here is my favorite quote from the article:
Much more at the link: https://washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/01/26/deep-in-clinton-country-voters-stand-by-their-candidate/
babylonsister
(171,091 posts)BumRushDaShow
(129,448 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)In fact, I'm going to write it down for next time I make up a sign.
Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)Are they sure they didn't rather want to interview more white Trump voters? I think there might be a handful who have not yet been interviewed.
PatSeg
(47,586 posts)The media is constantly showcasing the ignorance and shallowness of Trump voters. It is painful to watch and I usually fast-forward through that crap. I guess it didn't dawn on me that they rarely interview Clinton voters, even though there were more of them.
The media helped create the monstrosity that is President Trump and then they turn around rub our faces in it by putting the spotlight on Trump supporters.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)posting here that we didn't "reach out" to and "don't represent" most Americans. They believe it simply because it is what they see everywhere.
Tell a lie often enough and some people will believe it. Even when it's about themselves.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity. ...
PatSeg
(47,586 posts)pretty much all I heard was criticism of the Democratic party and the Clinton Campaign. I thought the Clinton campaign was run very well and Hillary was a far better candidate than I'd expected. Then there was criticism about messaging and policy, all while Trump is calling Hillary a liar and a crook.
There was plenty of talk about policy, but it was always upstaged by Trump's vulgar and unconventional attacks. He was doing all the mudslinging, but she was blamed for fighting back. I can't even imagine how she got through that campaign.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)the culmination of a quarter century of increasing warfare against her. Amazingly, she knew what she was getting into when she stepped forward.
Frankly, thinking about it, I might like her to run again, and not just to spit in the faces of all those who betrayed themselves and their nation by putting Trump and the Koch in power.
Not saying she's automatically got my vote, no one ever does, but who's going to be half as prepared, as able to fight just as hard to implement her agenda as she was to get there? Even if she didn't win the primary, she'd elevate the discussion of policy to standards some others would prefer to avoid. Could be wrong, so often am, but the Republicans may be readying a bit more of the electorate to wonder what our next president and congress will do with their power.
PatSeg
(47,586 posts)about Hillary have been mixed, but I can say that she always came across as competent, experienced, and knowledgeable. I have no doubt she would have been an excellent president and with what she has endured for 25 plus years, she is as tough if not tougher than any male president.
Hillary is not a natural politician, but she is a natural leader. There are plenty of charismatic politicians out there, but their charm doesn't always translate into dynamic leadership. Sadly in this country, many picked politicians, like contestants on American Idol - all personality, but little substance.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)with Sanders' ability to excite from the stump, Putin and the Kochs would all be increasingly on the ropes right now.
Oh, well. Next decade.
PatSeg
(47,586 posts)there is a certain spark that Hillary lacks on the campaign trail, but it was there in the early Clinton years. At that time, I found her refreshingly forthright and engaging. Years of attacks from the right and a brutal media, caused her to become cautious and understandably defensive.
When she appeared before congress promoting her healthcare plan, she was charming and witty, which evidently was threatening to many republicans, especially the men.
I've read about her time as a senator in New York and she was really impressive. There was a side of her that only her constituents were aware of, a side the rest of us didn't see. We still didn't see it when she first ran for president, because the real Hillary was drown out by her political advisers. Watching her, you could pretty much tell what was the last thing people like Mark Penn had said to her. Evidently no one told her to be herself.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)for senate. And I couldn't disagree with even clearly biased descriptions that in the period she was too reserved, too prone to hide herself behind policy details for a politician. As you say, and for good reason. I didn't blame her, but those who need to connect with a person, not policies, did.
But she was really impressive in this last campaign with how she had learned to present herself. She was fantastic! She'd always really known her stuff, but now she was warm, charming, engaging, had learned hit her beloved policy points every time but restrain herself to very briefly.
This is typical of how many male journalists described her anyway. This is about her acceptance speech when she became the first woman nominee for president of the United States:
Link to tweet
Dark money, professional swiftboaters like Judicial Watch, GOP, Comey, the hostile left, Russia all working together, sure, but nothing was a bigger opponent than our MSM, particularly plain old misogynists hiding in plain sight as just what they were.
PatSeg
(47,586 posts)during the campaign, where the writer wanted to find out why people who worked for Hillary liked her so much. It was really an eye-opener. They saw what we don't see on TV. Hillary was not only hard-working, but she listened to constituents and took notes about each encounter. Once every week or so, they would take all the notes and put them on a table and tried to address the issues. Person after person said her strongest quality is she LISTENS.
I think that she did so much better in this last campaign, because she probably took charge of her own campaign and did it her way. In 2008, her handlers worked at creating an image, instead of showcasing an already strong candidate. Have to be strong as a man, but not too strong or you look mean. Smile more. Then it was laugh more, because people think you are cold and humorless, which made her sound kind of wacky. Don't back down (weak), but don't appear too aggressive. Watching her at times, I could almost hear what an adviser had said to her before she went on stage.
Then you get this crap like what Andrew Sullivan wrote. Trump was a totally undisciplined, bizarre, off-the-wall candidate, the worst we've ever seen, but the media criticized Hillary because she "didn't connect with me"? And besides Andrew, I don't friggin' need to "warm up" to my president. He/she is not my best buddy or significant other. Geez man, get a teddy bear! You know, I didn't warm up to Barack Obama until he had been in office for several years. I didn't vote for him because he was cuddly and no one else did either.
Expectations for women are far more unrealistic than for men. As with so many occupations, in politics women have to work two or three times as hard, and get half the credit.
Gamecock Lefty
(700 posts)Why the hell is the media always talking to the 32% BDTs (brain dead trumpys). Who cares what they think? Why not speak to the 68% who don't support him and ask US what we think???
Pepsidog
(6,254 posts)We know Trump supporters are ignorant and misinformed. Should the market collapse and a depression from follow Trump supporters will still be loyal to their man. 1/3 of the Republicans will never abandon him so lets move on and concentrate on vast majority of the population who despise Dear Leader. In fact, I cannot remember watching an interview or focus group of Trumps detractors. I for one cannot sit through another interview of Trump supporters. I would happily watch interviews of Trump haters all day.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)liberalmuse
(18,672 posts)Its been a bit tiring seeing so many Trump country articles, so this was refreshing. Maybe petty, but I found myself a bit disgusted with the two who didnt vote, and admired those who didnt want to vote for Clinton, but who had the insight to do so regardless. Its also nice to read about well-informed voters, instead of those who spout idiotic conspiracy theories shoveled out by Fox News.
yonder
(9,674 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Clinton voters exist. If you notice, the article quotes almost no positives about her and instead relies extremely heavily on negatives about Trump to explain "Clinton voters." When they did use quotes about her, those tended to run from "can't stand" her to lukewarm.
And this was the wrapup about this supposed report on CLINTON voters:
The 2016 presidential election is a political World War I, partisan trench warfare. In Clinton country, as in places that backed Trump, Americans are hunkered down for a long term fight."
Not a word about the great regret for what could and should be. Bastards.
Johnny2X2X
(19,114 posts)3 million more people voted for Hillary than the Orange Menace. Yet all we've heard for a year and a half is all about Trump voters.
It's time for the majority to make their voiced heard, just over 9 months from now is the chance to sweep the Dems into power.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)CNN's ratings have gone up while adding Fox sharks to its lineup. Democratic cable junkies are a very large part of Morning Joe's audience.
Saying an emphatic NO is a political statement that would speak far louder and longer than a rare march. It would hurt them, which marches do not.
If enough do, it'll make a difference.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Maybe we can hear a little more from the majority of the voters who didn't vote for Trump?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Yes, some made a dreadful mistake in 2016, but that's past and the midterms are coming fast.
Mike Nelson
(9,966 posts)...many more Hillary voters, it's nice to see their voices!