Why didn't Hillary have a big margin in New England?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:42:18 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Dereich)
  Why didn't Hillary have a big margin in New England?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Why didn't Hillary have a big margin in New England?  (Read 1876 times)
buritobr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,604


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 06, 2020, 08:17:44 AM »

In comparison to other recent democrats, Hillary did not very well in New England. She had >60% only in Massachusetts. In Vermont, Trump kept the 30% of McCain and Romney, but Hillary had <60%, unlike Obama. There were many votes for write-ins. In the other states in New England, Hillary had <55%. She lost Maine's 2nd CD. Maine was close. She almost lost New Hampshire and she had a bigger national margin than Al Gore.
Logged
Hope For A New Era
EastOfEden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,729


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 18, 2020, 01:09:14 AM »

Because she was a bad fit for virtually all rural areas.
Logged
Calthrina950
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,937
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 20, 2020, 06:16:34 AM »
« Edited: September 20, 2020, 06:20:54 AM by Calthrina950 »

Because she was a bad fit for virtually all rural areas.

This much is true. It's interesting to look at the many differences between Gore's defeat and Clinton's defeat, and the extent to which the country changed in just sixteen years. Almost everywhere-and this was certainly true in New England, Gore significantly outperformed Clinton in rural and small-town America, while Clinton ran ahead of him in urban and suburban areas. In Massachusetts for example, Clinton did better than Gore in the liberal, university towns of the far west, Boston, and the suburbs of Middlesex County, while Gore outran her in the rural and working-class areas of Worcester, Hampshire, Plymouth, and Norfolk Counties.

Clinton won New Hampshire (which Gore narrowly lost) by significantly outrunning him in Grafton County, but appears to have done worse than him in blue-collar areas such as those in Coos County. And of course, Clinton did significantly worse than Gore in Maine's 2nd District, and in blue-collar parts of that state generally. Rhode Island had the starkest disparity between their performances; while Gore got 61% there, Clinton only received 54%.

And outside of New England, there were hundreds of counties, in West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, among other states, carried by Gore, that went to Trump by overwhelming margins. Legendary Elliott County, Kentucky, for example, gave Gore 64%, while Clinton got only 26% there. It still astonishes me the extent to which rural areas in New England and elsewhere despised Hillary Clinton-though I fully understand why, and it's particularly interesting given that Gore and Clinton are both part of the same ideological wing of the Party, if you will.
Logged
DPKdebator
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,076
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.81, S: 3.65

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 20, 2020, 07:41:41 AM »
« Edited: September 21, 2020, 07:05:21 AM by DPKdebator »

The rise of the religious right caused New England to significantly trend left in the 90s, as the region is traditionally one of the most secular in America. In 2000, some residual ancestral Republican voting patterns could be seen in Bush's win in New Hampshire and decent showing in Maine and Vermont. However, in 2004 northern New England swung to the left as the Iraq War and Bush's cowboy persona didn't play well in the region. Additionally, John Kerry was from Massachusetts so he probably got a regional favorite son boost. Today New England continues to be Democratic-leaning, but there are favorable trends for the GOP in much of the region. Trump significantly improved on Romney's performance in rural and working-class areas, while doing much worse in metro Boston and the Gold Coast. Trump was less explicitly religious compared to past GOP nominees, which helped him make inroads in secular New England. Northern New England is a pretty protectionist area and pockets of it very much so resemble the Rust Belt, so Trump's message on trade played really well in the region.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,717
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 20, 2020, 01:48:59 PM »

Because she was a bad fit for virtually all rural areas.

This much is true. It's interesting to look at the many differences between Gore's defeat and Clinton's defeat, and the extent to which the country changed in just sixteen years. Almost everywhere-and this was certainly true in New England, Gore significantly outperformed Clinton in rural and small-town America, while Clinton ran ahead of him in urban and suburban areas. In Massachusetts for example, Clinton did better than Gore in the liberal, university towns of the far west, Boston, and the suburbs of Middlesex County, while Gore outran her in the rural and working-class areas of Worcester, Hampshire, Plymouth, and Norfolk Counties.

Clinton won New Hampshire (which Gore narrowly lost) by significantly outrunning him in Grafton County, but appears to have done worse than him in blue-collar areas such as those in Coos County. And of course, Clinton did significantly worse than Gore in Maine's 2nd District, and in blue-collar parts of that state generally. Rhode Island had the starkest disparity between their performances; while Gore got 61% there, Clinton only received 54%.

And outside of New England, there were hundreds of counties, in West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, among other states, carried by Gore, that went to Trump by overwhelming margins. Legendary Elliott County, Kentucky, for example, gave Gore 64%, while Clinton got only 26% there. It still astonishes me the extent to which rural areas in New England and elsewhere despised Hillary Clinton-though I fully understand why, and it's particularly interesting given that Gore and Clinton are both part of the same ideological wing of the Party, if you will.

I fully understand why too, and I suspect we fully disagree.
Logged
Calthrina950
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,937
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 20, 2020, 02:26:42 PM »

Because she was a bad fit for virtually all rural areas.

This much is true. It's interesting to look at the many differences between Gore's defeat and Clinton's defeat, and the extent to which the country changed in just sixteen years. Almost everywhere-and this was certainly true in New England, Gore significantly outperformed Clinton in rural and small-town America, while Clinton ran ahead of him in urban and suburban areas. In Massachusetts for example, Clinton did better than Gore in the liberal, university towns of the far west, Boston, and the suburbs of Middlesex County, while Gore outran her in the rural and working-class areas of Worcester, Hampshire, Plymouth, and Norfolk Counties.

Clinton won New Hampshire (which Gore narrowly lost) by significantly outrunning him in Grafton County, but appears to have done worse than him in blue-collar areas such as those in Coos County. And of course, Clinton did significantly worse than Gore in Maine's 2nd District, and in blue-collar parts of that state generally. Rhode Island had the starkest disparity between their performances; while Gore got 61% there, Clinton only received 54%.

And outside of New England, there were hundreds of counties, in West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, among other states, carried by Gore, that went to Trump by overwhelming margins. Legendary Elliott County, Kentucky, for example, gave Gore 64%, while Clinton got only 26% there. It still astonishes me the extent to which rural areas in New England and elsewhere despised Hillary Clinton-though I fully understand why, and it's particularly interesting given that Gore and Clinton are both part of the same ideological wing of the Party, if you will.

I fully understand why too, and I suspect we fully disagree.

Why do you think Clinton did poorly in these areas? Was it sexism?
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,463
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2020, 09:32:20 AM »

In the case of Vermont, many of those write-ins were probably for Bernie.

However, Hillary still vastly outperformed Gore in the state.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2020, 09:57:29 AM »

Because she was a bad fit for virtually all rural areas.

This much is true. It's interesting to look at the many differences between Gore's defeat and Clinton's defeat, and the extent to which the country changed in just sixteen years. Almost everywhere-and this was certainly true in New England, Gore significantly outperformed Clinton in rural and small-town America, while Clinton ran ahead of him in urban and suburban areas. In Massachusetts for example, Clinton did better than Gore in the liberal, university towns of the far west, Boston, and the suburbs of Middlesex County, while Gore outran her in the rural and working-class areas of Worcester, Hampshire, Plymouth, and Norfolk Counties.

Clinton won New Hampshire (which Gore narrowly lost) by significantly outrunning him in Grafton County, but appears to have done worse than him in blue-collar areas such as those in Coos County. And of course, Clinton did significantly worse than Gore in Maine's 2nd District, and in blue-collar parts of that state generally. Rhode Island had the starkest disparity between their performances; while Gore got 61% there, Clinton only received 54%.

And outside of New England, there were hundreds of counties, in West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, among other states, carried by Gore, that went to Trump by overwhelming margins. Legendary Elliott County, Kentucky, for example, gave Gore 64%, while Clinton got only 26% there. It still astonishes me the extent to which rural areas in New England and elsewhere despised Hillary Clinton-though I fully understand why, and it's particularly interesting given that Gore and Clinton are both part of the same ideological wing of the Party, if you will.

I fully understand why too, and I suspect we fully disagree.

Why do you think Clinton did poorly in these areas? Was it sexism?

Just imagine a few of the most hollow, judgmental explanations possible, and you won't have to wait for him to respond with his *analysis*.
Logged
Alcibiades
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,851
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -6.96

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2020, 11:10:23 AM »
« Edited: September 27, 2020, 11:32:23 AM by Alcibiades »

For largely the same reasons she did poorly in the Midwest, and rural areas more generally. New England working class whites have been, and still are, the most Democratic in the country. But as Hillary sustained massive losses among this group nationwide, she had further to fall in New England than pretty much anywhere else. She did make improve over Obama in the wealthy towns of Fairfield County and suburban Boston, but nowhere near as much as she lost in the rural and blue-collar parts of the region. Basically, by the Obama years, Dems were pretty much maxed out in New England (and they still are at the congressional level).

Vermont is a different case altogether. Trump actually got a lower vote share than Romney (by 1pp), but Clinton did 11 points worse than Obama. Essentially it seems a significant share of the state’s left wing Democrats, upset at the defeat of their man Bernie, wrote him in or voted Green (Bernie + Stein equalled almost 8%, most of it Bernie!). Only Utah had a higher third party vote share. Incidentally, Vermont was also the only state where Trump got fewer than 100,000 votes (also he obviously did in DC), and after DC and Hawaii his worst margin. So here it was definitely a case of Hillary doing badly, not Trump doing well.

Edit: Checking all New England states, Hillary actually did better than Obama (both margin- and vote share-wise) in MA and Trump improved on Romney’s vote share by less than 1 percentage point in both CT and NH. Only in RI and ME (the two most blue-collar New England states) did Trump actually significantly improve on Romney.
Logged
Intell
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,817
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2020, 11:53:48 AM »
« Edited: September 27, 2020, 01:27:41 PM by Intell »

Because she was a bad fit for virtually all rural areas.

This much is true. It's interesting to look at the many differences between Gore's defeat and Clinton's defeat, and the extent to which the country changed in just sixteen years. Almost everywhere-and this was certainly true in New England, Gore significantly outperformed Clinton in rural and small-town America, while Clinton ran ahead of him in urban and suburban areas. In Massachusetts for example, Clinton did better than Gore in the liberal, university towns of the far west, Boston, and the suburbs of Middlesex County, while Gore outran her in the rural and working-class areas of Worcester, Hampshire, Plymouth, and Norfolk Counties.

Clinton won New Hampshire (which Gore narrowly lost) by significantly outrunning him in Grafton County, but appears to have done worse than him in blue-collar areas such as those in Coos County. And of course, Clinton did significantly worse than Gore in Maine's 2nd District, and in blue-collar parts of that state generally. Rhode Island had the starkest disparity between their performances; while Gore got 61% there, Clinton only received 54%.

And outside of New England, there were hundreds of counties, in West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, among other states, carried by Gore, that went to Trump by overwhelming margins. Legendary Elliott County, Kentucky, for example, gave Gore 64%, while Clinton got only 26% there. It still astonishes me the extent to which rural areas in New England and elsewhere despised Hillary Clinton-though I fully understand why, and it's particularly interesting given that Gore and Clinton are both part of the same ideological wing of the Party, if you will.

I fully understand why too, and I suspect we fully disagree.

Considering White working class women swung to Trump- sexism wouldn't be the answer. Racial/Cultural Conservatism amongst existing democratic white working class voters would probably be the correct answer to this.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 27, 2020, 07:04:14 PM »

Trump was a Northeasterner and considerably less overtly pandering to The Religious Right. Surely those are factors.
Logged
Battista Minola 1616
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,278
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 29, 2020, 07:35:32 AM »

I fully understand why too, and I suspect we fully disagree.

Considering White working class women swung to Trump- sexism wouldn't be the answer. Racial/Cultural Conservatism amongst existing democratic white working class voters would probably be the correct answer to this.

I don't think areas swung to Trump only because of sexism, but women can be sexist too.
Logged
Calthrina950
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,937
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 29, 2020, 10:36:35 AM »

For largely the same reasons she did poorly in the Midwest, and rural areas more generally. New England working class whites have been, and still are, the most Democratic in the country. But as Hillary sustained massive losses among this group nationwide, she had further to fall in New England than pretty much anywhere else. She did make improve over Obama in the wealthy towns of Fairfield County and suburban Boston, but nowhere near as much as she lost in the rural and blue-collar parts of the region. Basically, by the Obama years, Dems were pretty much maxed out in New England (and they still are at the congressional level).

Vermont is a different case altogether. Trump actually got a lower vote share than Romney (by 1pp), but Clinton did 11 points worse than Obama. Essentially it seems a significant share of the state’s left wing Democrats, upset at the defeat of their man Bernie, wrote him in or voted Green (Bernie + Stein equalled almost 8%, most of it Bernie!). Only Utah had a higher third party vote share. Incidentally, Vermont was also the only state where Trump got fewer than 100,000 votes (also he obviously did in DC), and after DC and Hawaii his worst margin. So here it was definitely a case of Hillary doing badly, not Trump doing well.

Edit: Checking all New England states, Hillary actually did better than Obama (both margin- and vote share-wise) in MA and Trump improved on Romney’s vote share by less than 1 percentage point in both CT and NH. Only in RI and ME (the two most blue-collar New England states) did Trump actually significantly improve on Romney.

Obama received 60.67% in Massachusetts, while Clinton obtained 60.01%. But she did win by a wider margin than Obama, because of the larger third-party vote in the state compared to 2012.
Logged
Alcibiades
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,851
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -6.96

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 29, 2020, 10:50:32 AM »

For largely the same reasons she did poorly in the Midwest, and rural areas more generally. New England working class whites have been, and still are, the most Democratic in the country. But as Hillary sustained massive losses among this group nationwide, she had further to fall in New England than pretty much anywhere else. She did make improve over Obama in the wealthy towns of Fairfield County and suburban Boston, but nowhere near as much as she lost in the rural and blue-collar parts of the region. Basically, by the Obama years, Dems were pretty much maxed out in New England (and they still are at the congressional level).

Vermont is a different case altogether. Trump actually got a lower vote share than Romney (by 1pp), but Clinton did 11 points worse than Obama. Essentially it seems a significant share of the state’s left wing Democrats, upset at the defeat of their man Bernie, wrote him in or voted Green (Bernie + Stein equalled almost 8%, most of it Bernie!). Only Utah had a higher third party vote share. Incidentally, Vermont was also the only state where Trump got fewer than 100,000 votes (also he obviously did in DC), and after DC and Hawaii his worst margin. So here it was definitely a case of Hillary doing badly, not Trump doing well.

Edit: Checking all New England states, Hillary actually did better than Obama (both margin- and vote share-wise) in MA and Trump improved on Romney’s vote share by less than 1 percentage point in both CT and NH. Only in RI and ME (the two most blue-collar New England states) did Trump actually significantly improve on Romney.

Obama received 60.67% in Massachusetts, while Clinton obtained 60.01%. But she did win by a wider margin than Obama, because of the larger third-party vote in the state compared to 2012.

Sorry you’re right. I checked at first on Wikipedia, which for some reason, unlike the Atlas, doesn’t include write-ins.
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,588


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 29, 2020, 11:06:49 AM »

I fully understand why too, and I suspect we fully disagree.

Considering White working class women swung to Trump- sexism wouldn't be the answer. Racial/Cultural Conservatism amongst existing democratic white working class voters would probably be the correct answer to this.

I don't think areas swung to Trump only because of sexism, but women can be sexist too.

You're right, some swung due to racism.
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 29, 2020, 10:23:45 PM »

Because she was a bad fit for virtually all rural areas.

This much is true. It's interesting to look at the many differences between Gore's defeat and Clinton's defeat, and the extent to which the country changed in just sixteen years. Almost everywhere-and this was certainly true in New England, Gore significantly outperformed Clinton in rural and small-town America, while Clinton ran ahead of him in urban and suburban areas. In Massachusetts for example, Clinton did better than Gore in the liberal, university towns of the far west, Boston, and the suburbs of Middlesex County, while Gore outran her in the rural and working-class areas of Worcester, Hampshire, Plymouth, and Norfolk Counties.

Clinton won New Hampshire (which Gore narrowly lost) by significantly outrunning him in Grafton County, but appears to have done worse than him in blue-collar areas such as those in Coos County. And of course, Clinton did significantly worse than Gore in Maine's 2nd District, and in blue-collar parts of that state generally. Rhode Island had the starkest disparity between their performances; while Gore got 61% there, Clinton only received 54%.

And outside of New England, there were hundreds of counties, in West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, among other states, carried by Gore, that went to Trump by overwhelming margins. Legendary Elliott County, Kentucky, for example, gave Gore 64%, while Clinton got only 26% there. It still astonishes me the extent to which rural areas in New England and elsewhere despised Hillary Clinton-though I fully understand why, and it's particularly interesting given that Gore and Clinton are both part of the same ideological wing of the Party, if you will.

I fully understand why too, and I suspect we fully disagree.

Considering White working class women swung to Trump- sexism wouldn't be the answer. Racial/Cultural Conservatism amongst existing democratic white working class voters would probably be the correct answer to this.

I think a better answer in many cases (especially the Francophone areas) would be simply neutrality on racial issues because it has no impact on their communities. There's a reason why Aroostook County was George Wallace's worst county in 1968.
Logged
Calthrina950
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,937
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 30, 2020, 09:08:49 AM »

For largely the same reasons she did poorly in the Midwest, and rural areas more generally. New England working class whites have been, and still are, the most Democratic in the country. But as Hillary sustained massive losses among this group nationwide, she had further to fall in New England than pretty much anywhere else. She did make improve over Obama in the wealthy towns of Fairfield County and suburban Boston, but nowhere near as much as she lost in the rural and blue-collar parts of the region. Basically, by the Obama years, Dems were pretty much maxed out in New England (and they still are at the congressional level).

Vermont is a different case altogether. Trump actually got a lower vote share than Romney (by 1pp), but Clinton did 11 points worse than Obama. Essentially it seems a significant share of the state’s left wing Democrats, upset at the defeat of their man Bernie, wrote him in or voted Green (Bernie + Stein equalled almost 8%, most of it Bernie!). Only Utah had a higher third party vote share. Incidentally, Vermont was also the only state where Trump got fewer than 100,000 votes (also he obviously did in DC), and after DC and Hawaii his worst margin. So here it was definitely a case of Hillary doing badly, not Trump doing well.

Edit: Checking all New England states, Hillary actually did better than Obama (both margin- and vote share-wise) in MA and Trump improved on Romney’s vote share by less than 1 percentage point in both CT and NH. Only in RI and ME (the two most blue-collar New England states) did Trump actually significantly improve on Romney.

Obama received 60.67% in Massachusetts, while Clinton obtained 60.01%. But she did win by a wider margin than Obama, because of the larger third-party vote in the state compared to 2012.

Sorry you’re right. I checked at first on Wikipedia, which for some reason, unlike the Atlas, doesn’t include write-ins.


That's fine. There are many discrepancies between Atlas and Wikipedia on electoral results. Atlas is more accurate, because it includes a thorough collation of all the relevant data (such as write-ins), which Wikipedia doesn't.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 03, 2020, 08:08:47 PM »

2016 Trump was very good at wooing Northeastern working class whites in a way no Republican since Nixon was able to do. (2020 Trump has been terrible at that and will not do as well with them.)

Hillary was a poor cultural fit for New England. The lunchpail guys in the old mill towns saw her as a cold elitist. The "good government" progressives who often fuel independent political campaigns saw her as a corrupt, establishment hack.

And Bernie got something like 6% of the vote in Vermont as a write-in candidate.
Logged
Oregon Eagle Politics
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,198
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 10, 2020, 12:40:24 PM »

Because she was a bad fit for virtually all rural areas.

This much is true. It's interesting to look at the many differences between Gore's defeat and Clinton's defeat, and the extent to which the country changed in just sixteen years. Almost everywhere-and this was certainly true in New England, Gore significantly outperformed Clinton in rural and small-town America, while Clinton ran ahead of him in urban and suburban areas. In Massachusetts for example, Clinton did better than Gore in the liberal, university towns of the far west, Boston, and the suburbs of Middlesex County, while Gore outran her in the rural and working-class areas of Worcester, Hampshire, Plymouth, and Norfolk Counties.

Clinton won New Hampshire (which Gore narrowly lost) by significantly outrunning him in Grafton County, but appears to have done worse than him in blue-collar areas such as those in Coos County. And of course, Clinton did significantly worse than Gore in Maine's 2nd District, and in blue-collar parts of that state generally. Rhode Island had the starkest disparity between their performances; while Gore got 61% there, Clinton only received 54%.

And outside of New England, there were hundreds of counties, in West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, among other states, carried by Gore, that went to Trump by overwhelming margins. Legendary Elliott County, Kentucky, for example, gave Gore 64%, while Clinton got only 26% there. It still astonishes me the extent to which rural areas in New England and elsewhere despised Hillary Clinton-though I fully understand why, and it's particularly interesting given that Gore and Clinton are both part of the same ideological wing of the Party, if you will.

I fully understand why too, and I suspect we fully disagree.

Why do you think Clinton did poorly in these areas? Was it sexism?

No, Clinton's Elitism, and Trump's Populism and Protectionism and Anti-Interventionism messages.
Logged
Calthrina950
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,937
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 16, 2020, 09:56:02 PM »
« Edited: December 22, 2020, 12:08:58 AM by Calthrina950 »

Because she was a bad fit for virtually all rural areas.

This much is true. It's interesting to look at the many differences between Gore's defeat and Clinton's defeat, and the extent to which the country changed in just sixteen years. Almost everywhere-and this was certainly true in New England, Gore significantly outperformed Clinton in rural and small-town America, while Clinton ran ahead of him in urban and suburban areas. In Massachusetts for example, Clinton did better than Gore in the liberal, university towns of the far west, Boston, and the suburbs of Middlesex County, while Gore outran her in the rural and working-class areas of Worcester, Hampshire, Plymouth, and Norfolk Counties.

Clinton won New Hampshire (which Gore narrowly lost) by significantly outrunning him in Grafton County, but appears to have done worse than him in blue-collar areas such as those in Coos County. And of course, Clinton did significantly worse than Gore in Maine's 2nd District, and in blue-collar parts of that state generally. Rhode Island had the starkest disparity between their performances; while Gore got 61% there, Clinton only received 54%.

And outside of New England, there were hundreds of counties, in West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, among other states, carried by Gore, that went to Trump by overwhelming margins. Legendary Elliott County, Kentucky, for example, gave Gore 64%, while Clinton got only 26% there. It still astonishes me the extent to which rural areas in New England and elsewhere despised Hillary Clinton-though I fully understand why, and it's particularly interesting given that Gore and Clinton are both part of the same ideological wing of the Party, if you will.

I fully understand why too, and I suspect we fully disagree.

Why do you think Clinton did poorly in these areas? Was it sexism?

No, Clinton's Elitism, and Trump's Populism and Protectionism and Anti-Interventionism messages.

I know why Clinton did poorly. I was asking HagridOftheDeep why he thought Clinton did poorly, and whether or not he thought it was sexism. Given his political viewpoints, it was a reasonable question to ask.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.069 seconds with 13 queries.