[coolsdude2282]

I am a midwest Obama voter who voted for Trump. I don't like anything about him in all honestly. I voted quite literally because of Assange. I followed each leak that was dropped religiously and had a lot of fun bonding with others who searched through them on various reddit boards uncovering information.

All this is to say that generalizations like the one you made are almost never correct, and never tell the whole story. I voted for Bernie in the primary.

Acting like the subcategory I'm in doesn't exist and only furthers misunderstanding of the various complex social systems that were at play in this election creating the outcome.

[divbit]

This is how I see it: Post-primaries, I think Hillary was a much better candidate. However a large number of liberals chose to campaign for her by just straight up calling the other side racists, while ignoring her flaws / blaming them on Russians. (We are all flawed, just accept it and don't blame it on others, otherwise you might just come across as narcissistic). In the case this was done in a false-flag fashion, then the democrats didn't catch it / didn't do the obvious thing to combat it. I mean come on guys.

It is likely true that there 'are' lots of racist / deplorable voters however it is analogous to this: If I were fat, I would probably not like people yelling "hey fattie! / run forrest run" at me while I am out jogging trying to improve myself. In the end, although I did not vote for Trump, (and am not fat), it did kind of seem to me that Democrats / liberals during this election, came across (regardless of whether they actually are, which I strongly doubt) as the gang from globo-gym, and I can just picture an image of a White Goodman (Ben Stiller's character) calling the other side 'deplorable.'

(To Hillary's credit she seemed very apologetic during the second of the three debates)

Add to this exchanges like the one between Podesta / Assange [1] which just served to reinforce this image, and you have a recipe for the election upset which happened.

I am sure at the end of the day there will be some voters you cannot reach, but I imagine, if you just use basic human empathy, it will reach a whole lot of people.

The moral of this story, for either side, should be:

1. Don't treat the other side poorly / call them names. Instead, use reasoning about policies, compassion, and acceptance of your own flaws to win voters.

2. Be wary of possible false-flag tactics- no one has brought up evidence that this happened, but I wouldn't be at all surprised.

3. Don't rely solely on things like this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11...

humans are not machines to feed variables and get out votes- use actual compassion / empathy/ and talk to people. Or maybe, smarter, don't rely solely on your super algorithm sauce - obviously data analysis will help, but it shouldn't be the whole picture.

[1] http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/301069-podesta-fires...

[divbit]

Apparently cannot edit comments after they are made anymore within two hours (it used to be three I believe), but I was going to add a point to the analogy in the second paragraph, since I know things are easily taken incorrectly: I am not trying to make equivalent fat <-> racist (there is nothing wrong with being fat, and yes there are things wrong with being racist), the equivalence I am trying to point out is that if we attack / look down on people, for whatever reason, we are not being helpful.