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.
Just my opinion, but it seemed like a pretty simple recipe. Tell people what they want to hear (whether it was true or not didn't matter) and stoke fear, anger and resentment.
Then the media put the frosting on the cake by giving him publicity 24/7 in their quest for ratings.
But what most of the media gave him was negative coverage in their quest to support Hillary. That was not lost on the general public, nor is it lost now when the liberal media is in near hysterics each and every day trying to undermine him. The major media has largely lost touch with the general public, and like Hillary it doesn't seem they realize it. They need to get out of their echo chamber and start covering the news instead of trying to make the news.
Hillary was indeed an awful candidate. One hopes that much of the Trump-vote was really an anti-Hillary vote. If - a huge "IF"! - the Democrats field a serviceable candidate in 2020, hopefully our latest dalliance with populism will end.
Well, that's a big question mark. Remember that the Democratic Party is almost broke and it has hemorrhaged seats in Congress, state houses, and governors mansions since Obama won the presidency. They may make up some ground in the mid-terms, but I don't know it will be enough.
Looking ahead to 2020, however, and I'm not optimistic. If the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Harris, Sanders, or Warren, it will be a repeat of the 1972 elections where George McGovern had his clock totally cleaned. Remember that Richard Nixon, an unpopular man, only won by a squeaker in 1968. But McGovern was so far to the left that rational people chose the devil they knew over the devil they didn't.
Just my opinion, but it seemed like a pretty simple recipe. Tell people what they want to hear (whether it was true or not didn't matter) and stoke fear, anger and resentment.
Then the media put the frosting on the cake by giving him publicity 24/7 in their quest for ratings.
Keep telling yourself that. It's time to retire the hoary narrative that Americans re-elected a black man in 2012 and then turned into a howling mob of racists in 2016, especially in states such as Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Nope. It's time to say the emperor has no clothes. Obama was a feckless president with few accomplishments, of which even fewer will stand the test of time. He floated in on a cloud of goodwill from the press and managed to skate through eight years.
Well, that's a big question mark. Remember that the Democratic Party is almost broke and it has hemorrhaged seats in Congress, state houses, and governors mansions since Obama won the presidency. They may make up some ground in the mid-terms, but I don't know it will be enough.
Looking ahead to 2020, however, and I'm not optimistic. If the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Harris, Sanders, or Warren, it will be a repeat of the 1972 elections where George McGovern had his clock totally cleaned. Remember that Richard Nixon, an unpopular man, only won by a squeaker in 1968. But McGovern was so far to the left that rational people chose the devil they knew over the devil they didn't.
If the economy clicks along, Trump wins.
I agree that Trump would defeat a liberal Democratic nominee in 2020 within the context of a strong economy. But it won't be a repeat of the 1972 landslide where McGovern carried only DC and Massachusetts, since the nation is far more polarized today. Even a very weak Democratic candidate is strongly favored to win over 100 electoral votes - several West Coast, mid-Atlantic and Northeast states are not going to support Trump under any realistic circumstances.
If the Democratic party doesn't see a net gain of governors, state legislatures and House members in the midterms (the Senate is excepted due to the bad map) then I think it's time to seriously overhaul their platform and leadership - and stop focusing on the minutia of Trump's considerable liabilities as the electorate's interests are elsewhere.
Bill knew as well, Hillary just didn't listen to him.
She listened to Robby Mook instead.
We are rewriting history here.
Both campaigns spent time in states they eventually lost and both ignored states they could have won.
Trump spend 3X as much time in Colorado, Nevada and Virginia than Clinton did. Losing all 3
Both sides spent little time in Wisconsin and Michigan at all(36 stops total), and virtually the same amount of time in Pennsylvania 26 stops for Clinton, 28 for Trump.
Both sides say internal polls said Clinton had a comfortable lead in each state, attacking her for not going there just because she lost is just as flawed as attacking her for not going to the other 3 states I mentioned where she won and polls actually had Trump closer in .
I agree that Trump would defeat a liberal Democratic nominee in 2020 within the context of a strong economy. But it won't be a repeat of the 1972 landslide where McGovern carried only DC and Massachusetts, since the nation is far more polarized today. Even a very weak Democratic candidate is strongly favored to win over 100 electoral votes - several West Coast, mid-Atlantic and Northeast states are not going to support Trump under any realistic circumstances.
If the Democratic party doesn't see a net gain of governors, state legislatures and House members in the midterms (the Senate is excepted due to the bad map) then I think it's time to seriously overhaul their platform and leadership - and stop focusing on the minutia of Trump's considerable liabilities as the electorate's interests are elsewhere.
In truth, it doesn't matter if the Democrats have 269 votes or 0 votes in the Electoral College. They would still lose in a boneheaded unforced error.
You'd think the Democrats would learn from their massive losses over the past four elections that the country isn't terribly interested in what they're selling since the party lurched leftward. It's almost as if they keep talking to each other in a massive echo chamber, and anybody who disagrees is either racist or insensitive to the poor.
Remember all the years that Obamacare slogged through Congress? Opinion poll after opinion poll decisively showed the American people didn't want it. Yet a Democratic Congress rammed through a Rube Goldberg solution that, upon rollout, predictably failed. Heck, they couldn't even get the website to work. If that wasn't an apt metaphor, I don't know what is. Of course, the Democrats will say that the Republicans killed it off, but it is doomed to die of natural causes.
If the Democrats really want to win in 2020, they need to ignore the pied pipers of Bernie Sanders and the rest of the well-meaning nitwits on the far left and nominate a good centrist candidate who actually understands economics. I mean, everybody talks about Trump being a populist. Yet they never apply that label to Bernie Sanders, even though he is about as daft as they come.
Don't be complacent. We have to vote a straight Republican ticket in November to be safe. I mean that literally. Listen to Scott Adams who doesn't belong to a political party and has never voted. He will vote a straight Republican ticket in November. Scary.
Both campaigns spent time in states they eventually lost and both ignored states they could have won.
Trump spend 3X as much time in Colorado, Nevada and Virginia than Clinton did. Losing all 3
Both sides spent little time in Wisconsin and Michigan at all(36 stops total), and virtually the same amount of time in Pennsylvania 26 stops for Clinton, 28 for Trump.
Both sides say internal polls said Clinton had a comfortable lead in each state, attacking her for not going there just because she lost is just as flawed as attacking her for not going to the other 3 states I mentioned where she won and polls actually had Trump closer in .
hindsight is 20/20 though.
The above doesn't delineate when specifically that time was spent in those states, and where the stops were. Among other things, Hillary didn't return to Wisconsin after the convention.
There was a story that was published nationally...I don't remember who wrote it or which publication it was in...but it was written by a guy who was spending a fair amount of time with Bill at the time. In one passage in the article, he was standing next to Bill on a balcony in Little Rock and Bill was talking to Hillary on a cell phone trying to convince her to change the campaign stop schedule. She hung up on him, and he was upset enough that he threw the cell phone.
The above doesn't delineate when specifically that time was spent in those states, and where the stops were. Among other things, Hillary didn't return to Wisconsin after the convention.
There was a story that was published nationally...I don't remember who wrote it or which publication it was in...but it was written by a guy who was spending a fair amount of time with Bill at the time. In one passage in the article, he was standing next to Bill on a balcony in Little Rock and Bill was talking to Hillary on a cell phone trying to convince her to change the campaign stop schedule. She hung up on him, and he was upset enough that he threw the cell phone.
The definitive book on the subject is Shattered, written by two NYT staffers embedded in the campaign from the beginning. They had complete access on the condition that they couldn't publish their account until after the campaign was over.
Of course, the Clinton campaign thought it was going to be a coronation march. Instead, it was one botch after another performed by amateurs and deluded nitwits.
The lament I hear a lot is how much better the country would be run if Clinton had won the Oval Office. Really? Given the sheer chaos of her campaign, what makes anyone think the White House would be any different?
Mind you, none of this is an endorsement of Trump. I didn't vote for him and can't imagine a situation where I would. In 2016, I wound up voting for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian. Of the three candidates, he was actually the best qualified, having run the state of New Mexico in a pretty competent way.
And, given the past 18 years, simple competence is something this country desperately needs.
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.
