“Deplorables” Turns Five Years Old

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has been the Managing Editor of Ordinary Times since 2018, is a widely published opinion writer, and appears in media, radio, and occasionally as a talking head on TV. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter@four4thefire. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast. Subscribe to Andrew'sHeard Tell Substack for free here:

Related Post Roulette

56 Responses

  1. North says:

    Ah Hilldog, five years on it still stings and I say that as a supporter. Ya only had one job.Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to North says:

      She did her job. She received more votes than Trump. I see very little evidence that this blew it for her except but for from overpaid pundits and people who wish to be overpaid pundits.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        Personally, I consider the Afghanistan war from 2016-2020 to be her doing.Report

      • North in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        She did not Saul. Can we please put this canard to bed? The rules of the game were well known in advance. Winning the popular vote doesn’t even get you an NPR tote bag, let alone the Presidency.

        Hillary ran for President which means the buck with her campaign stops with her. Sure, we can point at a million other factors, any one of which would be the difference between victory and defeat; Comey flat out put his finger on the scale to try and cover his posterior for instance. But that doesn’t change the fact that she let it get as close as she did. She hired the advisors who made the messaging, strategic and tactical calls.

        I genuinely like Hillary Clinton. I voted for her in the primary with enthusiasm and still think to this day she’d have been a fine President. That doesn’t change the fact that she lost to Donald Fishing Trump.

        If she’d run her general campaign with even half the mastery she showed when she logistically sealed the Democratic nomination for herself, we’d be living in a vastly different world today. She lost the election. She will always be the candidate who lost to Donald Fishing Trump. This isn’t green lantern theory- this is history.Report

        • Saul Degraw in reply to North says:

          What is your but for evidence that HRC would have won the electoral college if she did not make this sentence? Anyway, lots of people have proven their horribleness during the Trump years and beyond. I see no reason why we need to pretend otherwise and constantly coddle their eggshell feelings.Report

          • Koz in reply to Saul Degraw says:

            Saul has a point. HRC was a horrible, unlikeable person and candidate, and the deplorables thing aggravated the adverse perceptions of her. But, as a practical matter it would be really hard to get away from since so much of the motivating energy of activist libs is tied to that.Report

            • Saul Degraw in reply to Koz says:

              Please state why she is unlikable without regurgitating 30 plus years of right-wing propaganda constantly droned on in the meida.Report

              • North in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                Eh, likability is subjective so you can go round and round on that. The more interesting, and also incorrect, statement was the assertion that a statement like what HRC made was required by the Dems activists. That was entirely falsified in 2020 where a candidate basically ignored the twitterati activists and won the nomination decisively.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to North says:

                To an extent but I observed plenty of young millennials express HRC hatred in 2016 and the only way they would have received it is through unconscious absorbing of right-wing talking points when they were young children.

                I don’t exactly think she was wrong and I am increasingly out of a word not allowed on this blog to bend over backwards to the MSM narrative created by old white dudes who are threatened by a woman being successful or any myth that Trump voters are somehow the “real Americans.” Going along with that gains nothing and puts Democrats constantly at a disadvantage.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                the only way they would have received it is through unconscious absorbing of right-wing talking points when they were young children.

                If this is true, I’d say that the fight over education makes a lot more sense.

                bend over backwards to the MSM narrative created by old white dudes who are threatened by a woman being successful

                I just thought that this part deserved to be admired.Report

              • If I might interject something here: Hillary Clinton, IMO to her credit, spent an entire chapter in her “What Happened” book to address the “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business” incident (which happened after the “deplorables” one and fed the narrative) and her reactions to it, including meeting miners and dealing with it in person which didn’t go well but she did show up and take the slings in person. The reason I cite it is yes there is a narrative drum beat around “likability” but there are some legit things buried under that, and contrary to the caricature of HRC she’s acutely aware of it and if nothing else at least for political reasons tried to work on it, even if she didn’t fully understand it or find it fair.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Andrew Donaldson says:

                Clinton did get screwed by Sanders.

                She did, of course, have the opportunity to not be.

                She was going to need eight months and all the energy she could get together to convince the country that yes, they really were going to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton in November 2016. Unfortunately, she had to burn all that six months early to keep Sanders down. All those favors she planned to call, all that money she planned to spend, all those saved emails she planned to send screenshots of; those were supposed to be for the general election, and she ended up having to use them in the primary. By the time she was confirmed as the nominee she’d mostly emptied her magazines, and people were just done with the whole thing.

                You’d think that an experienced, savvy politician would say “hey, I hate this son-of-a-bitch, but a lot of people really do seem to like him. Let’s loudly and publicly announce that he’ll be part of the administration so that all those people come and vote for me; and then put him somewhere he won’t do jack squat. Let’s see how he likes being Secretary Of Transportation.”

                Clinton didn’t do this.Report

          • InMD in reply to Saul Degraw says:

            I would say the fact that Joe Biden basically won the election from his basement in Delaware is as telling as anything.Report

            • Marchmaine in reply to InMD says:

              Yes, but counterpoint:Report

            • Rufus F. in reply to InMD says:

              Well, my mother said she voted for Trump over Clinton because it was the devil you know versus the devil you don’t. After 4 years, people did know what type of President he would be and could go by that a little better.

              People had a good idea of Biden by that point too, but it’s a bit like what the French used to say of Napoleon: One does not *love* him; one *prefers* him.Report

          • North in reply to Saul Degraw says:

            I’m not quite making the claim that HRC could have won had she not made the deplorables flub. I mean with as narrow as her loss was it’s pretty plausible that removing any single flub could have pushed her over the edge (it was really close) but that isn’t my position.

            But the deplorables comment was just part and parcel with HRC’s whole strategy which was to double down on that particular sort of theme. It was a strong theme for electorally inefficiently placed voters in urban centers and a terrible one for electorally efficiently positioned voters in suburbia and ruralia.

            And, as InMD points out, Joe basically won his campaign from his basement by ignoring twitter entirely and running a middle of the road campaign. HRC could easily have gone more middle of the road (though in fairness to Hillary she was facing off against the cyclical left wing purity dragon that felled Gore before her and was dormant during Joe’s run).

            But this is just armchair quarterbacking. She did lose Saul. She’ll always have lost. That is what happened. There’s no sugarcoating it. I wish she hadn’t but she lost. Her only job as the Democratic Nominee was to not lose and the buck stops with her.Report

        • CJColucci in reply to North says:

          All right, which state(s) did the “deplorables” comment lose? She wasn’t going to win in coal country like W. Va. or Ky. no matter what, and there is precedent for going somewhere you’re bound to lose anyway to state a locally-unpalatable truth.Report

          • North in reply to CJColucci says:

            The Blue wall states. Again, the margin was so close that removing even a single error from that jenga tower knocks over Trumps victory; lord(lady?) knows that there were plenty of issues outside her control but as the candidate HRC is responsible for the strategic, tactical and messaging issues that ended up costing her the election. The buck does stop with her.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to North says:

              If I were to pick 5 things that Clinton did wrong, I think the list would be:

              1. “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of work.”
              2. “Basket of deplorables.”
              3. Not campaigning in Wisconsin.
              4. Moving people from campaigning in Michigan to campaigning in Illinois to make sure that she didn’t lose the popular vote
              5. Passing out at the 9/11 service

              Now, out of all of those, I’d say that #5 was the closest to “not being her fault”… but if you remove any three of those, I think we see a Clinton victory.

              “Point to one thing!”

              I can’t point to one thing.

              I can only point to a list of five things and say “take three of these off and you’ve flipped the election”.Report

              • 1 and 2 go together, they fed each other and aren’t as bad without the other. If you had to go with “one thing” it would be Wisconsin, and that smacks of a campaign decision more than probably just her deciding it alone, not that the one state wins it but it was the sign that the open door Trump would electorally slip through to win was left unattended. Unlike words that can be taken out of context or events the Clinton campaign could not control, that one is all on them.Report

              • Douglas Hayden in reply to Jaybird says:

                1. She was a woman. To borrow a thought from Tod, anyone who isn’t a tall white guy is already fighting their way uphill

                2. She was the quintessential insider going up against a celebrity outsider and we saw where that went in 2008.

                She had to run a flawless calm and cool campaign and instead she took Trump’s belligerence and incompetence for granted, and well…Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Douglas Hayden says:

                Edit:

                6. Being a womanReport

              • DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird says:

                It’s been posted here (twice!) but when someone did a debate with “reskin Trump as a woman and Clinton as a man”, not only did the audience like Trump-woman more than Clinton-man, but they liked Trump-woman better than the actual article.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Jaybird says:

                I don’t recall any solid evidence that Clinton’s or Trump’s numbers went up when they campaigned in an area. I think the evidence leaned in the other direction. We may have crossed the line where we’re nominating people so detestable that they’re better off staying in their basement during the campaign.Report

              • Fish in reply to Pinky says:

                ^^^^This.

                Also, everybody should always ignore twitter all the time unless it’s #twittersupperclub.Report

              • InMD in reply to Fish says:

                IIRC this was Clinton’s explanation for not campaigning in the ‘blue wall’ down the stretch.Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to North says:

      Structural criticism and change is hard. Green lanternism is easy.Report

  2. Pinky says:

    “Basket of deplorables” was not in Clinton’s prepared remarks. She often improvised in speeches.

    She was the least spontaneous candidate we’ve ever seen. She used the deplorables line first a couple of days before, and I’m sure it was tested before that.Report

  3. Jaybird says:

    In her defense: the people who move here from out of state are really obnoxious.Report

  4. Saul Degraw says:

    How is the whole people poisoning themselves with horse dewormer thing going?Report

    • JS in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Well, Rand Paul seems to think he’s gonna make money on it, which is weird because even it’s manufacturers are “No, it doesn’t help, stop taking it”

      More seriously, I’ve found the bots pushing it keep referring to a recent meta-analysis, but strangely stop engaging when you point out the primary driver of that meta-analysis (a study that showed a whopping 90% improvement due to ivermectin use) was withdrawn for, well, being incredibly fraudulent. Clearly faked data, etc.

      And as that whopping 90% improvement was so huge, once it’s removed, the meta-analysis shows…no effect from ivermectin whatsoever at clinical doses.

      The doses people are actually taking, at least those dosing themselves from a farm supply store, are sloughing off intestines. Which, in an irony, is also what a lot of those fancy purges and enemas did back before COVID, and apparently instead of being ALARMED at long ropy bits of flesh coming out in your stool, they’re certain it’s good news.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      It’s pronounced “hors d’oeuvres”, Saul.Report

  5. Chip Daniels says:

    In 2016 we had awful, unlikable candidate who lost by a razor thin margin in a few key states.

    In 2020 we had a terrific, enormously likable candidate who won… by a razor thin margin in a few key states.

    The idea that the 2016 loss can be laid to any one variable seems like the Pundit Fallacy.

    If likability is the strong variable why didn’t Biden do better?

    If saying unkind things about Americans caused people to not like Hilary, why would these same people vote for a guy who openly despises 80% of Americans?

    My theory is that the Unlikability Theory is appealing because it absolves the deplorables of agency, that they surely would not have voted that way unless some dark force propelled them to do it.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      My issue with 2016 was that the observation that the candidate was awful and unlikable was considered to be objectively false and the only people making it were partisans who opposed her for partisan reasons.

      Now, in the current year, this observation is something that is known to have been true.

      For what it’s worth, I think the people who were observing it at the time were not necessarily displaying poor or partisan judgment. The people who were denying it at the time, however, *WERE* displaying poor or partisan judgment.

      Momentary lapses of judgment can happen to everybody, of course.
      And sometimes even stopped clocks tell the correct time.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

        Why do you take issue with it being seen as objectively false?

        As opposed to say, being seen as objectively true?

        Is there some contest where people vote for who they like, and Hillary got fewer votes?Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          Why do you take issue with it being seen as objectively false?

          Because when something that is obviously true in perfect 20/20 hindsight was seen as false at the time, that indicates, a handful of potential problems that go deeper than a mere difference of opinion.

          I’d like to see evidence of the potential problems having been addressed.

          Or recognized.

          Is there some contest where people vote for who they like, and Hillary got fewer votes?

          There is, indeed, something like that. It involves an electoral college, though.

          (It might be worth investigating stuff like “did Clinton move staff from campaigning in swing states to focus on sure things because she thought she might lose the popular vote while winning the electoral college?” because, if stuff like that happened, it might be important to see if judgment that bad results from a particular groupthink. That groupthink might need to be corrected!)Report

  6. Jaybird says:

    If you’re wondering “did we discuss the ‘deplorables’ thing at the time?”, you’re in luck! We did!

    Here’s where we discussed it in comments.

    Here’s the post where we discussed Ta-Nehesi Coates’s take on it.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Jaybird says:

      Oh, yes, on the first thread I wrote, “If it were possible to get me to support Trump, statements like Clinton’s would be why….It’s a lot easier to forgive someone for lying to you than lying about you.” I’m glad something I said during that election held up.Report