It seems to have been largely ignored by the press but Wikileaks such as this where Hillary talked about droning Julian Assange genuinely shocked me.

Joking about pussy grabbing is not good but joking about killing someone with a drone in such a position of power is scary. I don't know why it wasn't picked up more by the press (groupthink?). Imagine if Donald 'my Hands' Trump had talked about killing someone in such a manner?

  • 1
    I have the feeling that it was one of the issues that contributed to build an image of non-reliable candidate among a big segment of population.
    – fedorqui
    Commented Nov 9, 2016 at 10:59
  • Technically, it's very hard to determine, but it sure contributes
    – Panda
    Commented Nov 9, 2016 at 11:59

1 Answer 1


The press largely ignored the Wikileaks revelations. As such, they don't seem to have had much effect. Most of those who would care don't actually know what they say.

They may have had a tactical effect in that NBC released the pussy groping tape earlier than it should have for maximum effect. But that may have been intended all along. Note that the timing allowed for Donald Trump to be questioned about it in the debate. It was the many accusers refuting his debate claim that really exploded that particular scandal.

Trump won roughly what a generic Republican candidate would have won except that he did better in states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania and worse in states like Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado. This seems to have more to do with his message than the leaks. Those would seem to hit Hillary Clinton hardest in more liberal areas like Chicago and New York City. He did best in states with the lowest impressions of trade deals.

I'd be interested in seeing a poll about how many people who voted actually knew about specific Wikileaks revelations. I suspect that it is small and mostly among partisans (people whose vote was determined much earlier). Most of the coverage has concentrated more on "Russians tampering with our elections!" than the leaks themselves.

The biggest reason that Clinton lost was that she was a horrible candidate. Constant ethics problems, a voice that didn't rally well (she was at her best in the debates, where the volume is much lower), and a persistent inability to connect with everyday Americans. She had great name identification and a famous name. But she ran as an insider in a year that favored outsiders.

She lost to Trump for the same reasons she lost to Barack Obama. When you get right down to it, she's just not that inspiring. Trump's message of putting America first resonated better than her message of, well, not being Trump. It's noteworthy that her signature catchphrase, "Stronger Together," was a response to Trump saying "I alone" in one of his speeches. She defined herself in contrast to him.

I also think that she has the problem of being the last white Democrat to run for president. Her inability to get blacks to vote for her is likely to lead to future candidates who are better suited to rally the minority vote. Eventually that might be Hispanics, but in the near term, expect more black candidates. And expect a more thorough vetting of ethical issues. If Sanders had answered her calls for examples of her corruption the way that Trump did, he might well have been the nominee. Rigged primaries or no rigged primaries.

  • " If Sanders had answered her calls for examples of her corruption the way that Trump did, he might well have been the nominee" wonder if there are polls addressing this?
    – user4012
    Commented Nov 9, 2016 at 15:12
  • 1
    I wonder if there are any polls addressing any of the last 3 paragraphs loaded with personal opinions.
    – Batman
    Commented Nov 9, 2016 at 16:38

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .