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'.
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 2020.
—
[Thumbs up!]
And I find it curious that her name is "Christian".I'd be willing to wager everything I own that she's an atheist.
I wonder about that.If there's one thing that I'd wager everything I own on it's that the Rat Party will never again nominate a white,"straight" male.Assuming I'm correct that kinds narrows things down a bit.
LOL! So, Diversity was a weakness! Hahahah.
You’re assuming that they will continue winning presidential elections. Based on all the other types of elections nationwide, that’s a big assumption to make, especially with the cast of characters lining up for their nomination in 2020. Parties die, ask the Democratic-Republicans, Whigs, KOGC, Know-Nothings and Dixiecrats.
Preposterous
Democrats do everthing in lockstep. They are Borg.
Aamazing obfuscation. The left intentionally excluded the Deplorable class, that is, the majority.
Instead of working her butt off every single day and night, like it mattered, Hillary found that addressing small crowds was too depressing and instead made herself unavailable. A NY Times reporter that was imbedded with her campaign, wrote in an email that was released with a bunch of others by WikiLeaks, said that at first she thought Hillary pounding shots with the fat-cats in PA was just to impress them...Wrong!, or in other words, Hillary was bombed most of the time.
BS....she lost because she was LAZY...
....Incapable of maintaining the pace to campaign.... Calling half of the citizenship “deplorables”....and believing the MSM and their lopsided polls...BESIDES having
the personality and likability of a
useless bent rusty nail
Mebbe because her and her husband have run one of humanities all time great CON jobs for almost 40 years offa what she retrieved from J Edgar Hoover’s control files?
For starters
This means that Democrat claims that Trump Republicans are racists, sexists, homophobes, and minority haters are not true. Otherwise, why would these so-called "non-Clinton supporters" be a part of Democrat target demographic groups?
Perhaps the Democrat coalition of identity-group politics is starting to break down in the Trump era?
-PJ
She lost because she’s a horrible person with ZERO ideas...
....she dresses like a feedbag with fat feet....smells of either booze or urine....or both....and lies like a nuzzie prayer rug
She lost and she sucks!
What hogwash. The Democrats who crosses over for Trump were what remains of Blue Dogs who were largely alienated and disenfranchised.... they knew damned well what Hillary stood for and wanted none of it.
This outcome occurred because the group became too flexible with the inclusion of the opposition, they said.”””
This is dementedly delusional. There’s just no denying it, they’ve all gone crazy...
The biggest reasons she lost were that she and her crew did not devise the appropriate electoral college strategy and she didn’t have the stamina to execute it. Trump won because he understood the EC and he was the most energetic campaigner in my lifetime.
Don’t forget that she won the popular vote by a good margin, even after calling half the electorate evil names.
Translation: Hitlery pi$$ed off the White working class. Oops.
“My study found that it was those Bernie Sanders supporters who stayed home that caused Hillary to lose. Bernie 2020.”
I used your study in the footnotes section of my study. My study found that a drunk, sick old hag who is disliked by over 50% of the country and didn’t campaign in Pennsy, Michigan and Wisconsin had no chance in hell of winning.
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.