Several key points, though frankly those who analyzed the situation though more objective vantage points, did see multiple pathways to his potential victory 12 to 14 months ago. They were ridiculed and ostracized.
So for me, Lesson 1: If an argument sounds rationale and it is well reasoned, it is worth examining.
What you need to understand the situation:
?Understanding of Maslow?s Hierarchy of Needs theory.
?Knowledge of the ?real? segmentation of voters and their associated motivations.
Clinton?s platform was a pitch/argument aimed to fulfill the higher level needs of voters including ?love/belonging?, ?esteem?, and ?self-actualization.? But it was a rational pitch, not an emotional appeal. Her platform was ?I have a plan, listen to me.? It was not ?I have a dream, share the dream with me.? It appealed to approximately 7 of the 16 segmentations of voters, but was not built on a strong emotional connection.
Lesson 2: Emotional arguments will bet rational arguments, most of the time.
Her platform had other serious flaws, that included her party?s failure to acknowledge that the voting majority had more-important, more-basic lower level needs - namely ?physiological? and ?safety? - that were not being met. (read: Maslow?s Hierarchy if you don?t understand what you just read.)
Lesson 3: The voting majority?s physiological and safety needs must be answered before their ?love/belonging? needs are answered.
It was wrong to label some voters as from a ?basket of deplorables? and ?uneducated.? This labelling infuriated them and had the unintended consequence of motivating them to want to ?get out and vote? against her.
Lesson 4: (Not a new one). NEVER insult a potential voter or an opponent. Insulting always stimulates a defensive reaction, which in this case meant: I will vote against her.
For the politicians reading in this space: Wha this boils down to is that Clinton?s platform was not as compelling to enough of the voting segments and collectively, the voting majority as Trump?s platform: His platform #1: ?unfettered, poorly negotiated free trade is harming the economy.? Platform #2 ?unchecked illegal immigration is hurting us and will hurt us more if not corrected?
Lesson 5: There are among the very biggest issues. To win, you need to stick to what is important (as perceived by the majority of voters).
His message to voters however, was intensely emotional (that?s why it sounds so irrational. It was a pitch to the limbic brain, which processes emotions and instincts, and not language and rationale arguments - think instinct versus reason). Essentially his message on his platform #1 topic was: ?I know you lack job opportunities, and I?m angry and frustrated like you that today?s government doesn?t acknowledge this, and yes, I understand your fear and worry over you and your children?s future economic prospects (?your physiological needs?) are serious problems?. His messaging on his second platform was more awkward, and rather insulting to many. But let?s understand what this message was: ?I acknowledge your fear. I?m afraid of them too. It is ok to be afraid of illegal immigration, and yes, (?your safety needs?) are important to me.? (Incidentally, if a reader is of the opinion that illegal immigration is not a problem, study the social opinion changes and political trends in Europe since the Syrian immigration crisis. It was one of the major drivers of Britain?s exit from the European Union, and is now dividing Europe has much as Europe was socially divided in the 1930s. Illegal immigration is not a ?self esteem? issue.
Lesson 6: Yes, these are emotional pitches, disruptive and provocative, not intended to be understood or analyzed from a rational perspective. Here is the lesson though: emotional pitches will almost always beat rationale pitches. 12 months ago, he used these emotional pitch tactics, and it was obvious to many competent brand and communications strategists that this was outstanding branding and marketing communications. (If you don?t understand why, watch the TED talk: ?Start with why?)
Lesson 7: If you leave voters needs unanswered they will react.
Clinton?s failing to win the Presidential election leaves those who voted for her unfulfilled?I have no doubt those voters feel very strongly and very heartsick to not have their ?need to see Hillary as President? fulfilled. Their sense of individual and personal worth has been left unanswered. It is a real ?pain? for these voters. That they protest now as some form of release of their personal frustrations in order to see their needs fulfilled is, frankly predictable and well within the range of normal behavior associated with the pursuit of an unfulfilled need.
In evidence, an anecdotal review of the protester?s comments during interviews would suggest ?love and belonging? and ?esteem? look to be key messages and part of the protest rationale. The intense media coverage is feeding their need for ?esteem?, and incidentally ?and unfortunately for our society, adding to the perception of others that these ?voters-turned-protesters? are ?selfish? and ?self-centered? for putting their higher level ?esteem? needs ahead of the ?physiological? and ?safety? needs of the majority of Americans (i.e. most of those who voted for Trump).
Lesson 8: There is no such thing as a President or platform not based on self interest.
If we acknowledge reality, the difficult point is that this is true: both sides are driven by self interest (?selfishness?). What upsets me is that the Democratic side has denied (or rather failed to build a platform with strong messages) that acknowledges the very large national economic problem and the majority-felt deep pain of being economically challenged and living in fear of their economic futures and personal safety.
I welcome constructive debate and comments. If however you are a basher, I will not engage with you as you only prove the argument that ?deplorable, intolerant people? exist throughout our society, and are as commonly found in democratic party circles as they are elsewhere.
https://www.quora.com/profile/Peter-Classen-1