Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump because Democrats were too inclusive: Study
Money Control ^ | September 10, 2018 | The Press Trust of India

Posted on 09/10/2018 2:07:58 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

The study, published in the journal Leadership, suggests that the Republicans viewed Trump as strongly representing what they stand for creating party unity and success in the election.

Hillary Clinton may have lost out to Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential elections because the Democrats were too willing to welcome others with differing views into their party, a study has found.

The study, published in the journal Leadership, suggests that the Republicans viewed Trump as strongly representing what they stand for creating party unity and success in the election.

However, Democrats' greater inclusiveness and willingness to integrate members of other groups as part of their own meant that they identified more with non-Clinton supporters weakening party cohesion and leading to election defeat, researchers said.

"Political group processes had a major influence on the election," said Julie Christian from the University of Birmingham in the UK.

"The Democrats' approach valued inclusion and welcoming divergent views, whereas the Republicans were much more tightly-knit," Christian said. One of the keys to Trump's unexpected campaign success was that Republicans viewed him as truly representative of their group, researchers said.

"By contrast, the Democrats' greater inclusiveness meant that they struggled to view Hillary Clinton as representative of the group," said Christian.

The study shows that Republicans displayed solidarity only with their own group and held more negative attitudes towards those not supporting their group's values.

This greater solidarity was a factor that may have enabled them to act more as a single entity.

Inclusiveness meant that, rather than members drawing a sense of distinctiveness from their Democrat party affiliation, they gained esteem by integrating others into their party.

This emphasis on the collective approach worked against Clinton by hampering Democrat supporters' ability to perceive her as delivering on and embodying the group's values, said researchers, including those from Claremont McKenna College in the US.

This outcome occurred because the group became too flexible with the inclusion of the opposition, they said.

The absence of endorsement for the leader and the use of this integration strategy worked to undermine the chance of a Democrat win.

"When groups must share a common environment after an election, the Democrats' inclusive approach would probably help to pull competing parties together," said Christian.

"However, a more inclusive approach looking for co-operation before the competition is won results in too much integration and loss of momentum for the group," she said.

The researchers note that the strategy of the Republican group to win the election is not necessarily suited to holding leadership after the election.

Their view is that the strongest option for the Republicans, post-victory, would have been to embrace as many Democrat 'out-group' members as possible to grow their 'in-group'.


TOPICS: New York; Campaign News; Issues; Parties; State and Local
KEYWORDS: 2016; 2018election; 2020election; blamegame; democrats; deplorables; diversity; election2018; election2020; gop; hillary; hillary2016; juliechristian; republicans; trump; unitedkingdom; uofbirmingham
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last
Gobbledegook or is there some truth to it? Isn't that another way of saying diversity?
1 posted on 09/10/2018 2:07:59 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

There’s no diversity of thought in the Socialist ‘RAT party.


2 posted on 09/10/2018 2:10:37 AM PDT by nickedknack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickedknack

One example is “Medicare for All” versus “Single-Payer.” Isn’t that saying pretty much the same thing?


3 posted on 09/10/2018 2:13:05 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (You cannot invade the mainland US. There'd be a rifle behind every blade of grass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

It’s a way of saying that the Democratic Party’s constituent elements are at odds with each other. Which they are.

Blacks and illegal immigrants, for example, have almost completely opposing economic interests.

Feminists and men who want to wear womens’ clothes and demand the world consider them women are irreconcilable.

Union members and one-world globalists, same problem. And so on and so forth.


4 posted on 09/10/2018 2:16:40 AM PDT by thoughtomator (Number of arrested coup conspirators to date: 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Clinton lost because there are more voters who recognize her for what she is than voters who worship her regardless of the damning evidence in front of them.

Translated via the Electoral College, and not merely a popular vote, which is highly susceptible to fraud.

She was a terrible candidate, both visually and perceptually.


5 posted on 09/10/2018 2:29:45 AM PDT by TADSLOS (Are you Humbly Grateful or Grumbly Hateful?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

It is true, they were too inclusive to the exclusion of everyone else.


6 posted on 09/10/2018 2:31:42 AM PDT by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Nonsense. What different views do they welcome other than full blown leftist? Anti abortion? Pro second amendment? Anti affirmative action? Strong borders?


7 posted on 09/10/2018 2:40:57 AM PDT by Brooklyn Attitude (The first step in ending the war on white people is to recognize it exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

She is/was too ugly to win.
On so many levels.


8 posted on 09/10/2018 2:41:19 AM PDT by Palio di Siena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Hillary Clinton may have lost out to Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential elections because the Democrats were too willing to welcome others with differing views into their party

What a Bunch of Crap.

If your not for Black Lives Matter, Antifa, Pro-Choice, Socialist, Pro-Gay, Radical Environmentalist - Your Out!

White Christian - Your Definitely Out!

9 posted on 09/10/2018 2:45:35 AM PDT by CptnObvious (Question her now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: D Rider

If you watch a video of Hillary’s supposed “Victory Party” at the Jacob Javits Center and the people arriving, crying for hours and then leaving it doesn’t look like the America that most of us picture in our mind’s eye.


10 posted on 09/10/2018 2:47:10 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (You cannot invade the mainland US. There'd be a rifle behind every blade of grass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The American Left gets more delusional every day.


11 posted on 09/10/2018 2:48:14 AM PDT by UnwashedPeasant (Trump is fixing the world's problems just to distract us from Russia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

God sunk the Spanish Armada because the English were unworthy of receiving the Truth Faith.

This game is easy to play.

America is unworthy of Hillary.

We did not deserve Obama. (Okay, this I agree with.)


12 posted on 09/10/2018 2:56:28 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Molon Labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Maybe this is what the author has in mind for what the Dems should do..
13 posted on 09/10/2018 2:59:20 AM PDT by OttawaFreeper ("The Gardens was founded by men-sportsmen-who fought for their country" Conn Smythe, 1966)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Nonsense.

They are selling “-ism”.

Still.

It’s all they’ve got.

They will welcome anyone that they can get to buy into it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz9fX_HfsXA


14 posted on 09/10/2018 3:01:20 AM PDT by EasySt (Truth will Prevail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“Hillary Clinton may have lost out to Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential elections because the Democrats were too willing to welcome others with differing views into their party, a study has found.”

My study found that it was those Bernie Sanders supporters who stayed home that caused Hillary to lose. Bernie 2020.


15 posted on 09/10/2018 3:05:55 AM PDT by McGruff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGruff

> My study found that it was those Bernie Sanders supporters who stayed home that caused Hillary to lose.

Dunno if you were off-the-cuffing that one, but it does turn out that Bernie voters who - instead of merely staying home - voted for Trump, put him over the top in several key states and may well have been a decisive bloc in the election.

In a sense they became deplorables too - they knew they were cheated, and they voted Trump to retaliate and stop the cheating. Sound familiar?


16 posted on 09/10/2018 3:10:35 AM PDT by thoughtomator (Number of arrested coup conspirators to date: 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
You can look at this from the standpoint of "why did ILLary lose?" or "why did Trump win?".

IMO it's easy to answer to both questions.

ILLary lost because "Middle America" didn't like her,didn't trust her and didn't want a 3rd Obama term.

Trump won because "Middle America",although aware that he was certainly an imperfect man,very much liked what they heard him say about things like America's greatness,the Wall,and The Swamp....and other things as well.

17 posted on 09/10/2018 3:18:43 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (I've Never Owned Slaves...You've Never Picked Cotton.End Of "Discussion".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

It wasn’t because she was mean and ugly. Ooooh, no. It couldn’t have been that. Watch what happens when Kamala Harris runs, and you’ll see what I mean. ;-)


18 posted on 09/10/2018 3:21:07 AM PDT by familyop ("Welcome to Costco. I love you." - -Costco greeter in the movie, "Idiocracy")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop

We won’t see another black president in our lifetimes. You can write that one down.


19 posted on 09/10/2018 3:22:23 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (You cannot invade the mainland US. There'd be a rifle behind every blade of grass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TADSLOS

“She was a terrible candidate, both visually and perceptually.”

Yep, physically she embodies weakness when she needs to appear strong and her manner is totally repulsive to anyone who is capable of clear thought. Only a fool would imagine that she cares one iota for the welfare of anyone who cannot advance her cause. Trump, on the other hand, for all his brashness comes across as a strong person who wants to make a better world, I have evolved from thinking Donald Trump was a joke to voting for him in 2016 and looking forward to voting for him again in 23020.


20 posted on 09/10/2018 3:24:20 AM PDT by RipSawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson