Do you think Clinton's "Basket of Deplorables" remark hurt her campaign as much as Romney's "47 percent" comment hurt him in 2012?

@ITpro -- Sorry, but you are simply WRONG, both on a moral and practical basis.

On a practical basis, the "deplorables" HRC spoke about were NEVER going to vote for her in any significant numbers, regardless of what she said.

On a moral basis, I see NO reason why I'm supposed to "connect with" and "represent" people who are fundamentally deplorable. I see no reason to shape political policies so people who believe The Moon Is Made of Green Cheese can have their views represented. I ESPECIALLY don't see any reason to accomdate those beliefs when they will result in discrimination and possibly violence.

By that argument the 47% was not going to vote for romney in significant numbers. But his statement still lowered him and offended many who would vote for him. We do not all take kindly to insults of others.

If you are elected as a representative it is your job to represent those whose views you share and views you do not share. If they are very wrong in their views then connect with them in a reasonable way and have discussion to understand their position and have them understand your position. People who believe in the cheese moon are still paying taxes and contributing to society and their belief in a moon of cheese does not mean you do not include them in a discussion about bank regulation. That is how leadership can bridge a two party system and things which are good for everyone can happen instead of one group of people simply disagreeing with anything the other group puts forth as reflex.

Did you know that he's also been a Democrat? He changed his party registration something like seven times since about 2010. And how do you know that folks who leaned toward Trump but might not have bothered to vote weren't motivated by that to actually turn out? This post was edited by Stu Spelling Bee at November 10, 2016 1:35 PM MST

@StuB -- I have heard about Trump switching parties, but it's not relevant to the discussion.

He was the GOP nominee this election cycle. There never really was a plausible scenario where significant numbers of self-identified Republicans were going to vote for HRC. At the end of the day, most people will vote for their party's candidate unless given a compelling reason not to. We saw this in the Congressional elections where incumbents returned to office in line with historical norms.

And, of course, Hillary was bucking history. It's extremely rare for a candidate who wasn't a sitting president (like Truman or LBJ, who ascended from VP) to be elected to succeed a president of the same party. I believe the only times it happened in the last 120 years or so were Taft after Teddy Roosevelt and GHW Bush after Reagan.

A substantial number of people was not what determined the election but rather a small number of people in particular states.
To lose just 1 percent of a vote to a very dumb comment can be to lose an election.
It is not what loyal republicans or democrats thought of that comment that matters but rather what undecided voters in the center and voters with no motivation on the left and right fringe thought of such a comment. To say trump supports are deplorable racists does not win votes in the center or motivate voters of the far left. It probably does motivate voters of the far right.