If Hillary was inevitable then why/how did she lose?

This is something I've been trying to figure out and my imagination gets the best of me every time! For some reason, I think if I understood the answer to why/how Hillary lost after such high expectations, I would better understand the games/strategery in DC now. So I'm wondering what my fellow ATSers are thinking...

Prior to the election, conventional wisdom told us that Hillary was inevitable... that she couldn't lose... that she was going to be the next POTUS. So what happened? How did the inevitable become the evitable???

Did she just not have the voter support that everyone believed?
Did Trump just have greater support than everyone believed?
Did the Democrats not have the election rigged as well as they believed?
Did someone sabotage the best rigging efforts of the Democrats?
Did the Republicans just rig the elections better than the Democrats?
Did the talking heads just say she was inevitable hoping it would lead to more votes?
A combination of the above?
None of the above???

What's your best educated guess?

Because she was inevitable no one bothered voting for her. Why vote when 98% polls say it's already won. Fake news.

a reply to: Boadicea

Its a big stage show. Hillary wasn't (S)elected, Trump was.

What's your best educated guess?

"Educated" people are conditioned to say the "Establishment" is fair and impartial , that elections are honest and results honored.

If I was to guess, I'd say that no matter who sits in the oval office, overall the track this runaway train of a country is on isn't changed one bit by elections, in a lonnnng time.

a reply to: Boadicea

well, you could read her award winning book "What Happened" to find out why she lost...... LOL!

I think the main reason is the population...... You can have all your ducks lined up in a row and have every political back door propped open, but when it comes to the minds of over 120 million people.... There's always a chance for the unexpected.

a reply to: Boadicea

It doesn't really matter. Why look a gift horse in the mouth?

a reply to: Boadicea

The going theory is that she was overconfident and instead of shoring up her base in states like Wisconsin that she believed were guaranteed blue states she went for the throat and campaigned primarily in red states. This had a double effect of weakening her support in reliably blue states (that would become battleground states) as well as passing off the perception of making her look overconfident and entitled to the Presidency.

Dems can't even stuff a ballot box right

Here in the D, over 80% of the votes would have been ineligible for recount because of procedural errors.
If they had done a recount Trump's win would have been even greater

originally posted by: Boadicea
This is something I've been trying to figure out and my imagination gets the best of me every time! For some reason, I think if I understood the answer to why/how Hillary lost after such high expectations, I would better understand the games/strategery in DC now. So I'm wondering what my fellow ATSers are thinking...

Prior to the election, conventional wisdom told us that Hillary was inevitable... that she couldn't lose... that she was going to be the next POTUS. So what happened? How did the inevitable become the evitable???

Did she just not have the voter support that everyone believed?
Did Trump just have greater support than everyone believed?
Did the Democrats not have the election rigged as well as they believed?
Did someone sabotage the best rigging efforts of the Democrats?
Did the Republicans just rig the elections better than the Democrats?
Did the talking heads just say she was inevitable hoping it would lead to more votes?
A combination of the above?
None of the above???

What's your best educated guess?

Hillary lost to Trump because he had a better message that resonated in key states that gave him the electoral college - specifically states like Michigan, WI, PA. These states typically vote Democrat, but they switched to Trump because of his message regarding immigration and protecting American jobs. He basically won the white male union vote that the Democrat party essentially demonized and wrote off with their identity politics strategy.

With that said, the bigger story is how Trump took the Republican nomination. The Republicans had it rigged for Jeb Bush. They were no better than how the Democrats rigged things for Hillary over Bernie. The problem was the Repubs really did not expect Trump, nor did he expect him to push issues like immigration. If you recall, the traditional Republican candidates were all for open borders.

Ultimately, I think many people voted for Trump as a F' you to the traditional establishment candidates. I know that was one of the reasons I voted for Trump.

a reply to: Boadicea

Washing DC does not care about us, the little people. They view us as small and insignificant. Beneath contempt. They bring us out and use us for nice commercials and pretty speeches that are designed to elicit emotions and make us feel wanted, needed and cared for.

The DC people have formulae, programs, designs, polls, etc that tell them what we will do when hit with a certain stimuli.

Like a rat with electrodes wired into it's brain.

But sometimes science errs and mistakes are made.


Hillary was supposed to win.

DC, both parties, were sure of it. They had all their plans, and programs in place. But "the rat" zigged instead of zagged when hit with the stimuli.

DC assumed we were that stupid.

Well, they were almost right.

But not to worry. They won't make the same mistake again.

a reply to: Boadicea

One word ...POKEMON

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

The going theory is that she was overconfident and instead of shoring up her base in states like Wisconsin that she believed were guaranteed blue states she went for the throat and campaigned primarily in red states. This had a double effect of weakening her support in reliably blue states (that would become battleground states) as well as passing off the perception of making her look overconfident and entitled to the Presidency.

In other words, she "assumed" and took everything for granted, because reality TV star.

I actually agree with your post. Good observation.

originally posted by: Templeton
Because she was inevitable no one bothered voting for her. Why vote when 98% polls say it's already won. Fake news.

Ahhhhh... if so, I'd love it! What sweet irony that would be... convince people that everyone else is voting for Hillary so they want to jump on the Hillary bandwagon too, only for people to be so convinced that they don't bother voting themselves... sweet!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

The going theory is that she was overconfident and instead of shoring up her base in states like Wisconsin that she believed were guaranteed blue states she went for the throat and campaigned primarily in red states. This had a double effect of weakening her support in reliably blue states (that would become battleground states) as well as passing off the perception of making her look overconfident and entitled to the Presidency.

Precisely correct. Best analysis I've read is she repeatedly ignored Bill's advice re: blue collar workers in the rust belt. Bill was very good at connecting with them, but she simply failed to see the importance of doing that.

Another failure was the fact that they didn't account for the fact that during the Obama elections, a large number of non-college educated whites in fly-over country failed to turn out to vote because they were disgusted with the GOP candidates.

a reply to: Boadicea

You forgot the obvious:

IT WAS GOD's WILL.

There's no doubt of that.

Hillary would have destroyed America. It's not "our time" to go. Not yet.

originally posted by: Boadicea
This is something I've been trying to figure out and my imagination gets the best of me every time! For some reason, I think if I understood the answer to why/how Hillary lost after such high expectations, I would better understand the games/strategery in DC now. So I'm wondering what my fellow ATSers are thinking...

Prior to the election, conventional wisdom told us that Hillary was inevitable... that she couldn't lose... that she was going to be the next POTUS. So what happened? How did the inevitable become the evitable???

Did she just not have the voter support that everyone believed?
Did Trump just have greater support than everyone believed?
Did the Democrats not have the election rigged as well as they believed?
Did someone sabotage the best rigging efforts of the Democrats?
Did the Republicans just rig the elections better than the Democrats?
Did the talking heads just say she was inevitable hoping it would lead to more votes?
A combination of the above?
None of the above???

What's your best educated guess?

Why are you wasting your time thinking about Hillary? We have our eyes in the front of our heads so we can look ahead, not behind..

a reply to: Edumakated

Its true, some folks were tired of the BS in Washington, instead of the usual pandering and pillow talk, rather opted for a Hammer.

Trump is that hammer, like our daddys and Uncles, he is an American swearing SOB designed to get s# done and crack on those that would take away from the American people.

I voted for this Hammer and what a ride it has been. I am so happy to have been born in this era.

Another reason I think Trump was able to win is that he was immune to the character assassination techniques.

Everyone already knew Trump was a buffoonish philanderer. He was a somewhat controversial personality prior to running for office already, so the typical "pootang grabbing", cheating, and other last minute stories that would take down a normal candidate, Trump could brush off...

In other words, if someone has already openly cheated and been a playboy, it becomes much harder to bring up that dirt when everyone already knows about it.

Clearly Hilary was not inevitable, because she lost.

Perhaps one of the reasons why Hilary lost is because she felt she was inevitable.

Nothing the voters like worse than an smug candidate who thinks they'll win.

a reply to: Boadicea

A combination of people knowing what Clinton was all about and what she would do in office, 8 years of Obama and the knowledge that Clinton would continue those policies and an extreme dislike of the status quo in government.

The other issue was the left believing all the lies they put out about how popular Clinton was and how she was going to win in a landslide. All the polls / left wing media outlets said Clinton would win and anyone who follows politics know that if a person is expected to win in a landslide the voters assume they dont need to vote because it is a done deal.

Finally I think a lot of people opted for paper ballots rather than use the electronic voting machines.

a reply to: intrptr

Its a big stage show. Hillary wasn't (S)elected, Trump was.

Yes, I have considered that possibility as well. At one time, I considered it a probability. And I sure haven't ruled it out yet. I'm still cautiously optimistic that the swamp is being drained, but I need to see something far more substantial than the leaks and rumors we're getting now. And even if the current swamp creatures are being removed, how are we to know the vacuum won't be filled with other swamp creatures???