I was one of those who believed one of the main reasons why Hillary Clinton lost the recent Presidential election was due to her failure to craft a viable economic message (or really a coherent message of any kind), and enough poor working folks in the swing states voted for Donald Trump in large enough numbers to provide him with an Electoral College majority.
But according to this well-reasoned analysis from Sam Harris (which you can view for yourself below), exit polling revealed that the majority of those who thought the economy was a primary issue in the campaign voted for Clinton. The reasons Trump won, according to Harris, was (1) a desire for change, (2) a rebellion against "political correctness’ and, most important of all, (3) the fear of terrorism and its origins. In trying to embrace all Muslims, Clinton failed to acknowledge the fact that radical Islam is responsible, in the minds of most voters, for the insecurities they feel as a result of terrorist activities.
At the same time, however, it must also be recognized that Harris mentions, but, in my mind, glosses over the real reason for Clinton’s loss. And that comes when he notes than Clinton received 10 million less votes than Obama in 2008 and six million less than the outgoing President won in 2012. That to me is really the crux of the problem. Too many Obama supporters simply did not, for one reason or another, like Clinton and they either voted for Trump, a third party candidate or simply did not vote at all. I know because I am one of those who will gladly admit supporting Obama in his two elections, but who could not, under any circumstances, find a way to vote for Clinton. And my decision was not based on her views on anything because, having worked with the Clintons in previous professional incarnations, I am fully aware of her political vision or lack of same. I voted for a third party candidate because I didn’t think Trump was qualified and because I didn’t trust Clinton. One of the main reasons I couldn’t trust her was not only her complete lack of political integrity, but the fact that I simply could not get past the notion that for the last quarter of a century whenever I saw or heard the word "Clinton," I would also see or hear the word "scandal."
At any rate, Harris makes some interesting points here and it is something to consider.