Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Mainstream Romney-Ryan conservatism, with its platform of deregulation, free trade and tax cuts isn't popular with these voters," said George Hawley, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama, questioning whether it was popular enough in the country as a whole. Hawley made headlines for correctly predicting the presidential results in 48 out of 50 states.
Take away Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan and the Republican presidential ticket is down to 260 electoral votes. Subtract Ohio and the number falls to 242. Where would a non-Trump Republican make this up?
. . .
Hawley pointed out that while Trump's 58 percent of the white vote was actually slightly less than Romney's national share, the 2016 nominee increased his percentage of the white vote in the states where it mattered most. The states where his share declined or held steady were mostly already safely red or blue.
This is a point that I bought up in the forums pre-election multiple times. While I think that Kasich or Rubio were well-positioned to defeat Clinton by scoring wins in the "traditional" battleground states (i.e. Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, FL, etc.), Trump's appeal--thanks in no small part to his position on trade--made him a stronger candidate overall due to his appeal to white working class voters in the Midwest.
As for those folks who were pushing Cruz: as much as I love Senator Cruz for his vision and defense of the Constitution, I just didn't see how he had a realistic path to 270. Even though much of the characterization of his by the media is false, he was far too polarizing among folks from all camps (Trump was polarizing, but not to those who mattered most) to be viable IMO.
Granted, nominating HRC certainly helped Trump, too, and this observation of mine is solely limited to the fact that HRC was the Dem nominee (I personally don't think that any GOP nominee would have defeated Sanders).
Yes because he was the only one that focused squarely on angering uneducated White men in and the women that worshop them.
It was all about White America vs. Everyone else.
With your attitude, its clear that many Clintonistas/leftists didn't learn their lesson. Keep it up. This attitude will only ensure that Trump wins reelection in 2020 and that Dems remain relegated to the minority party in this period, thereby cementing a GOP hold on the Supreme Court, etc.
Like all mainstream media outlets, the Washington Times is a limp shill rag.
I think both the question and answer could be phrased differently.
Trump won because he is an independent NYC-based commercial real estate businessman, a political outsider who plays both sides of the street, who successfully executed a hostile takeover of the so-called republican branch of the establishment party.
Indeed he focused on legitimate grievances that both branches of the establishment party choose to ignore. And it worked.
And not out of context here, in a single sustained economically efficient campaign, Trump trumped both establishment party dynasty candidates in one fell swoop, first Bush then Clinton, dynasty figureheads of the establishment party who have chosen to ignore legitimate grievances among a large swathe of the population - people with average incomes on US soil - for far too long.
Indeed the racist perspective is most welcome, even though it is all about average incomes on US soil, because it will help more independents achieve positions of power, posing a challenge to the establishment party and maybe leveling the playing field a little bit.
While I agree with your assessment on the WaPo, this is from the Washington Times.
Opps, you are right, my bad.
But I will way this, which is what I've said for the last 1.5 years. Donald Trump was the only candidate that was able to win this election this year. The corrupt political party didn't matter except that it presented Trump with one of the most corrupt and unqualified competitors possible. The Democrats should be completely embarrassed that all they could give us was Bill Clinton's wife.
Yes because he was the only one that focused squarely on angering uneducated White men in and the women that worshop them.
It was all about White America vs. Everyone else.
lol, Trump just gathered them up like Easter Eggs after Obama excluded them from the inclusion party. Lip service diversity democrats with alligator mouths and humming bird butts wouldn't come out and support a white women. Had she been other than white they would have been all over her like ants at a picnic.
Both candidates were white so the white man couldn't lose which blows your race theory. This was a gender election for some more so than race.
This is a point that I bought up in the forums pre-election multiple times. While I think that Kasich or Rubio were well-positioned to defeat Clinton by scoring wins in the "traditional" battleground states (i.e. Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, FL, etc.), Trump's appeal--thanks in no small part to his position on trade--made him a stronger candidate overall due to his appeal to white working class voters in the Midwest.
As for those folks who were pushing Cruz: as much as I love Senator Cruz for his vision and defense of the Constitution, I just didn't see how he had a realistic path to 270. Even though much of the characterization of his by the media is false, he was far too polarizing among folks from all camps (Trump was polarizing, but not to those who mattered most) to be viable IMO.
Granted, nominating HRC certainly helped Trump, too, and this observation of mine is solely limited to the fact that HRC was the Dem nominee (I personally don't think that any GOP nominee would have defeated Sanders).
IMO only Trump had a chance! The Hillary machine was very powerful and none of the others were even able to defeat Trump which says it all!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
