Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › My fear
- This topic has 33 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 3 months ago by
zn.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 27, 2019 at 1:27 pm #104369
waterfieldParticipantNow that it appears Sanders, Warren,and Biden are in a three way tie (according to some “polls”) I’m thinking that if either Sanders or Warren become the nominee Trump will have another 4 yrs to appoint more justices to the SC, do far more damage to the environment, continue a broad spectrum of gerrymandering, carry on the mission of the Koch bros, and generally piss off every ally we’ve ever had.
IMO the engine that drove Trump to victories in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Penn. which gave him the White House was blue collar workers. These are the people that shower when they get home from work. They were promised by Trump things would be better-a promise yet to be fulfilled. They are disappointed in him and could easily turn the tables on him EXCEPT they are the most vulnerable when it comes to claims that Trump or Warren would usher in a regime bent on socialism-true or not that WILL be the attack. For the most part they have neither the time nor the energy to look carefully into the benefits of democratic socialism or at least do a critical analysis of the arguments. They may well excuse their support for him by saying he simply needs more time. Socialism, communism, this stuff frightens these people-they see it as taking away stuff they work so hard to get and also loosing their freedom to do what they want to do. It doesn’t matter if the fear is unfounded because it does exist. While younger people don’t see it the same way they were not the voters who got Trump elected. (Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn.)
I do not want another 4 yrs of the most incompetent President this country has ever seen.
August 27, 2019 at 1:30 pm #104370
znModeratorI don’t know why you think Trump beats Sanders.
August 27, 2019 at 5:43 pm #104375waterfieldParticipantThought I explained why. This election will be identical to 2016 in that it will be decided by electoral votes not on the plurality. Trump won Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania based on the blue collar vote and that put him into the Presidency. As I wrote above no matter how much those people believe Trump failed them I don’t think they will do anything different than they did in 2016 if to do so they would have to vote for what they consider to be a “socialist”. They will give Trump another try at fulfilling his promises to them in 2016. OTOH if its Biden he can draw their vote as he does have appeal with the blue collar voter.
Of course this is all my opinion and to be honest I don’t really care who the democratic nominee is as long as he or she can beat Trump.
August 27, 2019 at 7:55 pm #104382
wvParticipantThought I explained why. This election will be identical to 2016 in that it will be decided by electoral votes not on the plurality. Trump won Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania based on the blue collar vote and that put him into the Presidency. As I wrote above no matter how much those people believe Trump failed them I don’t think they will do anything different than they did in 2016 if to do so they would have to vote for what they consider to be a “socialist”. They will give Trump another try at fulfilling his promises to them in 2016. OTOH if its Biden he can draw their vote as he does have appeal with the blue collar voter.
Of course this is all my opinion and to be honest I don’t really care who the democratic nominee is as long as he or she can beat Trump.
=================
Well, there’s big problems no matter who the corporate-dem-party selects. If its Biden then the progressives may very well vote green-party or stay home. You dont seem to put that in your calculations. Do you not agree about that?
And of course if the dems choose Bernie, the centrists might stay home or vote trump or whatever.
And no matter who wins, the Senate and House and everything else is in the pockets of the Rich/Corps. So its a Hindenburg no matter what happens.
Trumps got a good chance. So does Biden. So does Bernie. Its like the Rams, Saints, and Chiefs. Hard to predict how all the algebra is gonna add up.
w
vAugust 27, 2019 at 8:54 pm #104383znModeratorThought I explained why.
I should have put that differently. That is, I don’t buy your reasons for it and I honestly don’t get why you do.
I should also say that’s not an effort on my part to offer a reasonable argument, it’s more just a little quip meant to underscore how completely differently we 2 see these things.
August 27, 2019 at 9:57 pm #104386
CalParticipantDon’t be so sure that Trump completely failed the blue collar workers in the rust belt. As a result of Trump’s dumb tax cuts my middle class family got a thousand dollar refund in 2019. In 2018 I had to PAY $600 to the federal gov’t.
I have 3 young kids so doubling the child tax credit made a huge impact. Blue collar families might remember that in 2020.
I tend to think Trump will be easy to beat because Hillary was a crap candidate for those 3 states (and the rest of the US!) and he’s such a moron. But I do worry about the economy.
It will be interesting decide what those places decide next time around.
August 27, 2019 at 10:38 pm #104388
Billy_TParticipantTax cuts have to be paid back, eventually. And since rich people write our tax laws, and always, without exception, receive the vast majority of those tax cuts and won’t give that money back . . . . guess who ends up paying for them?
We do. The average Joe and Jane.
Rich Americans and corporations have seen massive reductions in their taxes, almost non-stop, since 1965, when LBJ lowered the top rate from 91% to 70%. The corporate rate used to be 52% or higher. Capital gains rates were double or triple what they are now. Again, that money has to be paid back, eventually.
The rich aren’t going to be the ones to make up for all of those losses to the Treasury, the prime source for our 22 trillion in debt. It’s going to be the poor, the working class and the middle class who pay it back, one way or another.
Trump didn’t help a soul, other than himself and his rich friends.
August 27, 2019 at 10:48 pm #104389Billy_TParticipantSomething that really, really frustrates me . . . I suspect the Dems in power know this, but the rank and file seems not to:
Elections aren’t about policy. Which means you can’t be “too far left” on those. If elections were about policy, the GOP would never win a single national election, because their policies are forever unpopular. Trump never described his. He won anyway.
Elections are all about “stories,” sales teams and united fronts. The side that tells the best stories, sells them, and keeps a united, confident front, wins.
American voters really aren’t all that sophisticated. Most pick a team and stick with it. The red or the blue team. Doesn’t matter who the nominee is. They stick with their team colors. The persuadables (who haven’t chosen yet) go on best story, best sales job and most confident, united front. So the Dems could easily sell Sanders or folks well to his left if they backed them unconditionally, with sales skilz, vigor and confidence. They’d keep their lifers regardless, and add the persuadables, if they have a better story than their opponent, etc. etc.
IMO, it really is that simple.
August 27, 2019 at 11:15 pm #104390
ZooeyModeratorElections aren’t about policy. Which means you can’t be “too far left” on those. If elections were about policy, the GOP would never win a single national election, because their policies are forever unpopular. Trump never described his. He won anyway.
Elections are all about “stories,” sales teams and united fronts. The side that tells the best stories, sells them, and keeps a united, confident front, wins.
I agree with that entire post, not just the part I copied here for emphasis.
This is what I have been saying. The Dems need to sell the Green New Deal as a job and wage-building investment that will lead to the coolest hi-tech world you can possibly imagine…while saving the planet from climate change.
They can sell that vision.
The “pragmatic” Baby Steps approach Biden et al offer is not going to get people out to vote.
August 28, 2019 at 10:51 am #104396wvParticipantDon’t be so sure that Trump completely failed the blue collar workers in the rust belt. As a result of Trump’s dumb tax cuts my middle class family got a thousand dollar refund in 2019. In 2018 I had to PAY $600 to the federal gov’t.
I have 3 young kids so doubling the child tax credit made a huge impact. Blue collar families might remember that in 2020.
I tend to think Trump will be easy to beat because Hillary was a crap candidate for those 3 states (and the rest of the US!) and he’s such a moron. But I do worry about the economy.
It will be interesting decide what those places decide next time around.
===============
On that note, 89 year-old wv-mom who lives on a small fixed income, told me she got more money under trump than Obama. I cant remember if she meant at tax time or in general, but I know she benefited in some way under Trump. So there’s that. And its very big to her.
w
vAugust 28, 2019 at 10:59 am #104397wvParticipantElections aren’t about policy. Which means…
Elections are all about “stories,” sales teams…
American voters really aren’t all that sophisticated. Most pick a team and stick with it…
.==========================
Agreed, in general.
But once you’ve said that….i dont think there’s much hope. I mean think about the natural consequences of those three things.
People with hope, usually end up talking about ‘magic’. They say things like “The Democrats just need to…”
And then they talk about magic. Like “The Dems just need to be a real opposition party, and take on the special moneyed-interests, etc” Um…yeah…but that would require… magic. The Dems are what they are. They are corporate-capitalists. 96 percent of em.sorry, i know how old this getz. I repeat myself.
w
vAugust 28, 2019 at 11:54 am #104400Billy_TParticipantElections aren’t about policy. Which means you can’t be “too far left” on those. If elections were about policy, the GOP would never win a single national election, because their policies are forever unpopular. Trump never described his. He won anyway.
Elections are all about “stories,” sales teams and united fronts. The side that tells the best stories, sells them, and keeps a united, confident front, wins.
I agree with that entire post, not just the part I copied here for emphasis.
This is what I have been saying. The Dems need to sell the Green New Deal as a job and wage-building investment that will lead to the coolest hi-tech world you can possibly imagine…while saving the planet from climate change.
They can sell that vision.
The “pragmatic” Baby Steps approach Biden et al offer is not going to get people out to vote.
The essential thing about that three-legged chair is this: A great “story,” told by a great salesperson, backed by a unrelenting sales team, inspires people to vote who would normally stay home. In 2016, roughly 105 million Americans did just that.
So, not only does this approach work on the fence-sitters . . . it gets out the base and expands it. The highest percentage possible. And because the Dems’ base is bigger than the GOP’s, the Dems win that kind of election. The reason the GOP wins, more often than not, is that its strategy of telling those stories (without any talk about actual policy), and selling them really, really well, maximizes their base . . . while the Dems seem to counter with wonky stiffs and no unified party front.
“Centrists” are boring. They inspire no one. Moderates are boring. They inspire no one — except for the donor-class, whose total votes aren’t enough to matter.
Yes. The Green New Deal is a great way to “get out the vote,” and it’s excellent policy too. Ironically, it’s a thousand times better for those “blue collar” voters than anything Biden would do, and X times a thousand times better than Trump.
August 28, 2019 at 12:02 pm #104401Billy_TParticipantElections aren’t about policy. Which means…
Elections are all about “stories,” sales teams…
American voters really aren’t all that sophisticated. Most pick a team and stick with it…
.==========================
Agreed, in general.
But once you’ve said that….i dont think there’s much hope. I mean think about the natural consequences of those three things.
People with hope, usually end up talking about ‘magic’. They say things like “The Democrats just need to…”
And then they talk about magic. Like “The Dems just need to be a real opposition party, and take on the special moneyed-interests, etc” Um…yeah…but that would require… magic. The Dems are what they are. They are corporate-capitalists. 96 percent of em.sorry, i know how old this getz. I repeat myself.
w
vWV, I’m saying it’s actually quite liberating . . . Reality is. All too many Dems say they can’t run “to the left” because Americans hate those policies. My point is, Americans don’t care about policies. Or, the steak. They care about the sizzle. Always have. We basically invented marketing. I mean, what other people could manage to get millions excited about shit, literally? Marketing created a guano craze back in the 19th century, and for a time, people were out of their minds going after it. Americans can sell or be sold anything. Which means they can be sold “socialism” too. They can be sold an end to capitalism. They can be sold the saving of the planet. All it takes is the right sales team, the right story, and a truly united front.
IMO, the first two legs of that stool aren’t all that tough to find. It’s the latter one that is the real challenge. But, at the risk of killing this metaphor, that front can be sold on this idea as well.
Americans really will buy pretty much anything — including what’s best for them and the planet. In my view, if they can be convinced to buy stuff that’s terrible for them, it’s just self-evident that they’d go for the good stuff as well, with the right team, story, unified front and “sizzle.”
-
This reply was modified 5 years, 3 months ago by
Billy_T.
August 28, 2019 at 12:21 pm #104403Billy_TParticipantJust in case what I’ve said comes across as waaay too cynical and manipulative.
I’m saying that Americans have been sold truly horrifically bad shit since Day One. Mostly via those stories, marketing, etc. etc. Very little “good stuff.” Almost always shit. And it’s had a tremendously ugly cumulative effect. It’s also been coupled with stories, marketing, etc. etc. telling Americans that really great ideas (socialism, real democracy, egalitarian systems, social rights, human rights, environmentalism, civil rights, the end of war and empire, etc. etc), that would be fantastic for us and the planet, are “dangerous,” “anti-American,” blah blah blah.
It’s all fiction. None of it is true. Not the sales job to push through terrible policies — wars, genocide of indigenous peoples, coups, environmental destruction, etc. etc. — or the lies and demonization of the really good stuff that would make lives better for everyone.
So when I say we need to counter those fictions with our own stories, effective sales teams and unified fronts . . . I’m not saying that we engage in “manipulation” via lies. We don’t have to. We can tell the absolute truth, unlike our enemies. They can’t tell the truth if they want to win. We can.
But without truly compelling narratives, narrators and unified fronts, we’re not going to be able to defeat their lies and demonization. We won’t defeat them simply with “the truth.” We need to make the truth “sizzle,” relentlessly, and with, as the young kids used to say, mad skilz.
August 28, 2019 at 7:59 pm #104415waterfieldParticipant“Elections aren’t about policy”
Not sure about that. Was the democratic victories in 2018 all about policy- namely the issue of health care ?
August 28, 2019 at 8:38 pm #104416CalParticipant“Elections aren’t about policy”
Not sure about that. Was the democratic victories in 2018 all about policy- namely the issue of health care ?
I agree. Most of you just don’t agree with the policies that republicans vote for.
Republicans vote for 1. Making abortion illegal. 2. Protecting people’s access to guns. 3. Making abortion illegal. 4. Cutting taxes. 5. Protecting corporations because they drive the economy supposedly. 6. Having a strong military to fight terrorist so 9/11 doesn’t happen again.
Like most of you, I don’t believe these priorities lead to good government. But there’s millions of people who vote based on their religious beliefs. Or their love of guns or the American military.
This is certainly the minority of people in America. But these people show up and become the majority since only 75% of the population shows up to vote anyway.
And Trump has delivered on a lot of these promises it seems to me. Republican voters got what they voted for to a large degree.
-
This reply was modified 5 years, 3 months ago by
Cal.
August 28, 2019 at 8:43 pm #104418ZooeyModerator“Elections aren’t about policy”
Not sure about that. Was the democratic victories in 2018 all about policy- namely the issue of health care ?
Mmmm…yeeeah. I think. The ISSUES matter. The VISION matters. To some extent healthcare was a big deal in 2018. But I don’t think people were well-informed on that issue. I mean…nobody knows how the ACA works, but they know what little healthcare people have is better than nothing, and shouldn’t be repealed by the GOP. They know and care about it that much.
But people don’t sit around with their BINGO cards on issues with the answers they like all over the card, and making decisions based on how many squares each candidate aligns with. Very few voters are THAT discerning about the person they vote for. If they were, few of our representatives would win elections since Medicare-for-all, expanded social security, increased spending on public education, higher wages, and so on are desired by a significant majority of Americans, but opposed by almost all our representatives.
So…they go for the Vision Thing, and candidates lie about that.
August 28, 2019 at 9:19 pm #104419Billy_TParticipantCan anyone name a Republican president who won on policies? I can’t remember one after Ike.
Reagan avoided talking about them like the plague. So did Dubya. So did Trump. They all made it about “vision,” and told stories enough voters really liked. They connected on an emotional level with enough voters to win.
Kennedy, Clinton and Obama did this too. They won because they told stories and presented a vision enough people liked, and they mostly stayed away from wonky discussions of actual policies. They mostly remained in the abstract. Not quite to the degree of a Reagan, a Dubya, or a Trump. But not all that far from them.
Voters choose their team colors and stay with them, usually for life. The percentage that doesn’t generally goes with the person/party that moves them emotionally. We may tell ourselves we vote “rationally.” But few Americans really do. The “rational” thing would be to reject both major parties, and choose persons or parties who actually represent us, not their donors, not the super rich.
And about those 2018 elections? The Dems who won told the best stories about health care, etc. They reached voters on an emotional level. If all they had were white papers and wonkiness, they lost. It’s kinda like the difference between a truly boring, overlong text book and a rip-roaring novel . . . . or one of those junior high (deadly dull) health documentaries, or a great movie.
It’s sales. It’s connection. It’s emotion. Dull rarely sells, even if it has the best policies. Exciting usually wins, even if it has the worst.
August 29, 2019 at 11:25 am #104443wvParticipant<
WV, I’m saying it’s actually quite liberating . . . Reality is. All too many Dems say they can’t run “to the left” because Americans hate those policies. My point is, Americans don’t care about policies. Or, the steak. They care about the sizzle…”==================
Well (and you already know what I’m gonna say), ‘americans’ may not care about ‘policies’ but the democrat-politicians do. They care because their owners care (the one percent). And so the politicians have no desire to win elections by using a great PR campaign that ‘sizzles’ with leftist ideas, when they can still win the elections by using corporate-friendly-stories that please their masters.
I am simply saying, Yes, the Dems could win with a sizzling progressive story. But thats not who they are so they will always try and win with a corporate-friendly-story. Always. I mean, just look at who they nominate year after year after year after year….Kerry, Clintons, Gore, Humphrey, etc etc. You have to go back to the 40s to find a progressive. FDR.
They dont CARE about winning the progressive way. They’d rather lose, i suspect than win ‘that’ way. Ask Waterfield 🙂
w
vAugust 29, 2019 at 1:10 pm #104444waterfieldParticipantWV “hey dont CARE about winning the progressive way. They’d rather lose, i suspect than win ‘that’ way. Ask Waterfield ”
Your kidding of course! I’ve written before that at this point I don’t care who the Dems nominate as long as he or she beats Trump. And I want the one with the best odds of doing that.
August 29, 2019 at 2:27 pm #104446Billy_TParticipant<
WV, I’m saying it’s actually quite liberating . . . Reality is. All too many Dems say they can’t run “to the left” because Americans hate those policies. My point is, Americans don’t care about policies. Or, the steak. They care about the sizzle…”==================
Well (and you already know what I’m gonna say), ‘americans’ may not care about ‘policies’ but the democrat-politicians do. They care because their owners care (the one percent). And so the politicians have no desire to win elections by using a great PR campaign that ‘sizzles’ with leftist ideas, when they can still win the elections by using corporate-friendly-stories that please their masters.
I am simply saying, Yes, the Dems could win with a sizzling progressive story. But thats not who they are so they will always try and win with a corporate-friendly-story. Always. I mean, just look at who they nominate year after year after year after year….Kerry, Clintons, Gore, Humphrey, etc etc. You have to go back to the 40s to find a progressive. FDR.
They dont CARE about winning the progressive way. They’d rather lose, i suspect than win ‘that’ way. Ask Waterfield :>)
w
vI agree with that, WV. They don’t run leftist campaigns because that would piss off their corporate masters. My point is, it’s not because they can’t win elections “running to the left.” I think far too many Dems in the rank and file believe that’s the case. That the Dems have to “run to the center” or they’ll lose.
Again, if the Dems in power wanted to, they could run leftists and win, and do this anywhere. They just don’t want to . . . for the reasons you mention.
And we can add the fear of the S word too: All the folks you mention were tarred with that word. It doesn’t matter if the Dems being chosen are to the right of Attila the Hun, the GOP will try to paint them as “socialists.” So why not run the real thing? At least then, you get an agenda that really would help the nation and the planet — especially those blue collar workers everyone talks about once every four years.
Etc.
August 29, 2019 at 2:28 pm #104447wvParticipantWV “hey dont CARE about winning the progressive way. They’d rather lose, i suspect than win ‘that’ way. Ask Waterfield ”
Your kidding of course! I’ve written before that at this point I don’t care who the Dems nominate as long as he or she beats Trump. And I want the one with the best odds of doing that.
===============
Yeah, thats true. I got carried away 🙂
You think a centrist like Biden/clinton/obama/gore/Kerry has the best chance.
I wonder which matters more — the Dems winning the Presidency, or what happens in the Senate. What are the chances the Reps lose enuff senate seats to make a difference?
w
vw
vAugust 29, 2019 at 4:00 pm #104448waterfieldParticipantWell I don’t think clinton/obama/gore/Kerry have much of a chance at all -for several obvious reasons. That leaves Biden. And yes, fortunately, or unfortunately, he in my mind does have the best chance. OTOH if the Dems took the Senate and kept the House I wouldn’t be all that upset if Trump wins. Indeed, impeachment would likely be the first order of business. If a Dem wins the Presidency and the Republicans win the Senate it will be Obama era all over again-nothing much will get done.
August 29, 2019 at 4:47 pm #104449Billy_TParticipantThis poll is, of course, way too soon to matter all that much, but given the likelihood that the economy will be worse in 2020 than it is now, it may well hold:
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3638
Quinnipiac
August 28, 2019 – All Top Dems Beat Trump As Voters’ Economic Outlook Dims Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Dem Primary Stays Stable With Biden Holding The Lead
Trend Information
Sample and Methodology detailIf the 2020 presidential election were held today, 54 percent of registered voters say that they would vote for former Vice President Joe Biden, while only 38 percent would vote for President Trump. Matchups against other top Democrats show:
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders topping Trump 53 – 39 percent;
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren ahead of Trump 52 – 40 percent;
California Sen. Kamala Harris beating Trump 51 – 40 percent;
South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg leading with 49 percent to Trump’s 40 percent.Looking at all of the matchups, President Trump is stuck between 38 and 40 percent of the vote. These low numbers may partly be explained by a lack of support among white women, a key voting bloc that voted for Trump in the 2016 election. Today, white women go for the Democratic candidate by double digits in every scenario. Though it is a long 14 months until Election Day, Trump’s vulnerability among this important voting group does not bode well for him.
Biden isn’t the only candidate who can defeat Trump, by any means.
August 29, 2019 at 5:06 pm #104450
nittany ramModeratorThis poll is, of course, way too soon to matter all that much, but given the likelihood that the economy will be worse in 2020 than it is now, it may well hold:
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3638
Quinnipiac
August 28, 2019 – All Top Dems Beat Trump As Voters’ Economic Outlook Dims Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Dem Primary Stays Stable With Biden Holding The Lead
Trend Information
Sample and Methodology detailIf the 2020 presidential election were held today, 54 percent of registered voters say that they would vote for former Vice President Joe Biden, while only 38 percent would vote for President Trump. Matchups against other top Democrats show:
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders topping Trump 53 – 39 percent;
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren ahead of Trump 52 – 40 percent;
California Sen. Kamala Harris beating Trump 51 – 40 percent;
South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg leading with 49 percent to Trump’s 40 percent.Looking at all of the matchups, President Trump is stuck between 38 and 40 percent of the vote. These low numbers may partly be explained by a lack of support among white women, a key voting bloc that voted for Trump in the 2016 election. Today, white women go for the Democratic candidate by double digits in every scenario. Though it is a long 14 months until Election Day, Trump’s vulnerability among this important voting group does not bode well for him.
Biden isn’t the only candidate who can defeat Trump, by any means.
I think Bernie, Biden, or Warren could beat Trump. They could lose too.
I wouldn’t put too much stock in the polls. The polls had Clinton beating Trump pretty handily. Clinton was up by 7 points a month prior to the election.
August 29, 2019 at 6:32 pm #104453Billy_TParticipantI think Bernie, Biden, or Warren could beat Trump. They could lose too.
I wouldn’t put too much stock in the polls. The polls had Clinton beating Trump pretty handily. Clinton was up by 7 points a month prior to the election.
That’s why I prefaced it with the “way too soon” part. It’s kinda like doing a mock draft for 2020 at this point.
As for those polls in 2016? In my view, they would have been right if not for Comey announcing that Clinton was back under investigation, eleven days out. I’d bet a gazillion in virtual money that she would have won the election if Comey had remained silent . . . or, if he had said, publicly, he was investigating Trump.
America really didn’t like either candidate — and rightfully so. They had record level unfavorables. But I think it’s safe to say, America would have picked the highly disliked Clinton over the highly disliked Trump, if not for Comey’s last second revelation. Which leads to this as well, in my view:
It was truly stupid of the Dems to run someone under investigation to begin with. They should have known it was possible that it would come back to bite them — again. And she had other baggage, of course . . . like the other Clinton. If not for his sexual history, Trump couldn’t have gotten away with the “He did it too!!” shtick after the Hollywood Access tapes came out. I think that would have ended Trump’s run for good. It almost did even with Clinton being such an easy (counter)target. Another candidate wouldn’t have given him that opening.
In short, the polls weren’t as off as the narrative goes. Take away Comey’s public revelation and Clinton is the president right now. Of course, I’m betting she would have been impeached early on by the Republicans. Not sure about her removal. But the GOP would have started impeachment proceedings in the first few months, I’m betting.
It’s really, really time for an end to the duopoly.
August 29, 2019 at 9:38 pm #104457CalParticipantIn short, the polls weren’t as off as the narrative goes. Take away Comey’s public revelation and Clinton is the president right now. Of course, I’m betting she would have been impeached early on by the Republicans. Not sure about her removal. But the GOP would have started impeachment proceedings in the first few months, I’m betting.
It’s really, really time for an end to the duopoly.
So people don’t care about policies because they primarily pay attention to stories? But they do pay attention AND decide their vote based on the FBI announcing an investigation? And then they just ignore that the FBI announces the investigation is over and the person is cleared?
I don’t buy it. The polls were inaccurate and didn’t capture how much people disliked Hillary. She was a crap candidate who was wrong on policies. Policies that were really easy, like the Iraq War & gay marriage, mattered in 2016.
She was also linked to another failed policy that was big in 2016: NAFTA. I forget how she handled her connection to Bill and his advocacy for NAFTA, but she was clearly a pro-corporation, global markets are good politician for most of her life. And Trump effectively hammered her for that position in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.
August 29, 2019 at 10:07 pm #104458CalParticipantLook at Michigan. In 2016 222,000 people voted for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. Jill Stein increased her total from 22,000 in 2012 to 51,000 in 2016.
Thirty thousand people didn’t switch from the Democratic candidate to Jill Stein because of Comey’s announcement. Those people switched their votes from Obama to Stein because Hillary was a phony.
I don’t know why 170,000 people voted for a libertarian when typically those candidates receive 25,000 votes.
Anyways, approximately 200,000 people made a protest vote in a state Hillary lost by 11,000 votes. Just 11,000. I don’t think she lost those protest voters because of the FBI investigation. Many of those people, much more than 11,000, switched from Obama votes in previous Michigan elections and voted Libertarian or Jill Stein because Hillary was a shitty candidate even before Comey’s announcement.
August 29, 2019 at 10:43 pm #104460Billy_TParticipantCal,
Clinton was a terrible candidate. She was abysmal. One of the worst the Dems have ever run.
But Trump was even worse, and far more corrupt. His entire career is one of massive corruption, ripping off employees, supply lines and bankrupting his own companies — six times. He inherited 400 million from his father and he still bankrupted company after company, including casinos.
It takes mad skilz to bankrupt casinos.
If there were an Olympics for corruption, for screwing over the average Joe or Jane, between the Clintons and Trump, he gets the gold, and it’s not close. Yeah, they’re corrupt too, and they get the bronze. Several of them. But no one comes close to Trump.
And, yes, people don’t care about policies. They buy into stories, narratives, vision. And the story was that Clinton was uniquely corrupt. The last-second Comey revelation gave fuel to that fire and put Trump over the top.
Stories win. Fictional narratives win. Not policies. Even though Clinton’s policies were crap, Trump’s were far worse. There is not a single issue in which Trump’s policies are more beneficial to Americans than hers, and hers were lousy.
Again, he won because he made the sale. He sold his fiction. She couldn’t. IMO, it’s as simple as that.
August 29, 2019 at 10:53 pm #104462Billy_TParticipantConsider this as well:
We learned after the election that the FBI was investigating Trump too. Comey and the FBI didn’t let the public know that until after the election.
He made sure to tell the public on two different occasions that HRC was under investigation, while keeping it secret that Trump was as well.
IMO, no objective person can honestly say this wasn’t a huge factor. And in my view it also tells us, point blank, slam dunk, that the entire right-wing narrative that the so-called “deep state” was trying to take Trump down is absurd. If they had really wanted to do that, if they had really wanted to throw the election to HRC, they would have reversed things. They would have kept silent about the Clinton investigations and gone public with the Trump investigation.
It’s not rocket science.
-
This reply was modified 5 years, 3 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
