But that is a flawed metric because she does NOT have the ability to dictate the course of those conversations. If she is asked "how do you feel about black lives matter" at a debate, then she answers the question and moves on. However, that is not her talking about the issue on her own volition, but instead a moderator or questioner asking her to talk about the issue. It would be like me asking you "why are you such a bad driver" and then saying "you keep talking about your driving, you must be self-conscious about it, therefore you're a bad driver."
Normally, I'd get where you're coming from, but considering the proven collusion between the media and the Clinton campaign, it's difficult to say whether she really was unable to control those conversations.
Proven collusion? Those are some fancy straws that you're grasping at. I assume you're talking about the Donna Brazile email, in which case Wikileaks indicated that one question regarding the death penalty was leaked in advance (one that Brazile forwarded without Hillary requesting her to do so). That is one question, out of 9 primary (and by the time people voted, another 3 general) presidential debates. I seriously have trouble believing that 1 leaked question indicates nefarious collusion in which she dictated the questions asked of her. What is more, even if I accept your argument that debates should be factored in with speeches, you've presented nothing indicating that it would skew her focus away from the economy to identity politics.
But nevermind that, the notion that she was in bed with the media goes full circle to the post that started this: that while Clinton mainly focused on policy, the coverage of Clinton focused on dishonesty and corruption (whereas the coverage of Trump focused on policy, no matter how ill-informed or buffoonish). Despite the fact that it is one question that arose in the course of twelve debates, since Hillary was held to a perfection standard, that one blemish is enough to give off an appearance of collusion.
There are two problems with what you're saying. The first is in regards to WikiLeaks. What it revealed goes a lot deeper than Donna's email. And the second is that the poll only covers what Americans remembered "reading, seeing, or hearing" (their words, not mine), not what the media said. That's an important difference.
It's no secret that there are some people who call themselves "anti-PC" as an excuse to be rude or bigoted. We've already established that. However, saying this extends to everybody opposed to political correctness is generalizing things way too much. It's like saying all critics of neo-conservatism hate Jews. Right off the top of my head, I can name dozens, if not hundreds, of anti-PC people who don't fit the profile, up to and including President Obama.
Also, different groups have different perceptions of "political correctness". I've heard it argued (not unreasonably) that political correctness exists on the right as well, it's just called by different names.
I understand that it may be tempting to view anti-PC people as stereotypical "angry white men." But that doesn't reflect the more complex reality. How about this: let's not try to generalize diverse groups of people. Especially not as an excuse to dismiss them wholesale.
You really enjoy that middle ground fallacy, don't you? Some little shit on twitter rambling and hurring is not the same as Milo, Bernie, or the fucking president-elect. Wholly different topic, buddy.
You're right, it's not the same. But I never said it was. I'm not talking about people being idiots on social media. If that were all PC culture was, I could live with it. Unfortunately, it's a lot worse than just that. Take a gander at what's happening on college campuses.
So, I decided just to stop the argument and throw up proof because it seems your questions are less heuristic and more to dismiss. So, I googled democratic primary debate transcript, and the first one that came up was from the April 14, debate. From that, I decided to do a small sample search, including the 2 before it (debates 7-9). I did this primarily for convenience on my part so that I wouldn't have to do all 12 debates (9 primary and 3 general). I then went through and removed all questions and statements by Sanders to focus purely on Clinton's statements. Overall, even including a number of policy issues (such as Gun and climate change) in Identity Politics, Clinton still mentioned economic issues about 2-1. Attached is the full breakdown of word appearances, and transcripts of my work.
So, I did your homework for you. As such, unless you can present evidence that including more debates would skew this breakdown, it still appears that Clinton focused far more on economic issues than identity politics.
Foreign Policy 37
Japan 0
National Security 0
Russia 4
China 4
Allies 3
Iran 3
Terror 15
ISIS 1
NATO 7
Identity Politics 89 (56 policy, including environment, energy, and guns))
Conservation 0
Right To Choose 0 (includes “Choice” in context)
Gay 0
Reproductive 1
Women’s rights 1
Abortion 0
Environment 2
LGBT 0
Renewable Energy 2
Criminal Justice 9
Latino 5
Clean Energy 10
Immigrant 5
Immigration 15
African American 5
Climate Change 5
Muslim 1
Gun 28
Economic 143
Student Debt 4
Medicine 0
Prescription drug 0
Addiction 0
Tuition 2
Bank(s) 15
Wall Street 11
Manufactur(ing) 13
Minimum Wage 3
Trade 3
Infrastructure 5
Health Care 15
College 8
Worker 6
Econom(ic) 24
Job 44