How money much was all the free media coverage Trump got worth? I think we need to do a value analysis on that before saying “He didn’t raise as much money as Clinton”
No, seriously. You said you searched google for it and came up empty. What were the search terms you used? I bet that’s your problem.
Let me know what words you googled and I’m sure that can be fixed.
It’s especially true since the Democratic win in the popular vote rests entirely on the high number of votes in New York and California - without CA, Trump won popular the vote by 1.4 million, without CA and NY Trump won by 3 million (slightly more than Clinton’s ‘mandate-sized-win’ in the overall popular vote). Lots of Republicans don’t bother to vote in NY and CA races because the states are so heavily blue that there is no chance they’d swing it, unlike the other 2 of the top 4 largest states, Texas (red but fairly close) and Florida (definite swing state). And Clinton spent a lot of money and campaign time on those two states trying to rack up popular vote totals while ignoring swing states like Wisconsin (first major party candidate since 1972 to not even visit the state). As much as I dislike Trump, the claim that people ‘preferred’ Clinton because she spent a lot of money on racking up a higher count in a side contest while losing the main contest just doesn’t ring true for me.
And if voting was changed so that the Presidential election was based on popular votes, you’d see radically different voting patterns (especially in Democratic strongholds like NY and CA) and campaigns would be run in a dramatically different way. Clinton’s strategy might actually not have been as bad of a choice in that hypothetical, but it’s also obvious that Trump would have run a different campaign. Regardless of how much people rant about him, he’s obviously much smarter at winning elections than anyone the Democrats can come up with.
It’s an irrelevant fact.
We have generally known for a long time – not as a hard-and-fast rule but as one important indicator – that politicians who can’t raise money often don’t get as many votes.
It’s totally relevant to this discussion.
Definitely a hopeful sign, the “small donor” phenomenon. But it more proves that non-traditional sources are viable than it shows that money isn’t necessary. I think the decline in the power of printed and televised advertising is a more important consideration, even as I shudder to think of Facebook as a political mechanism. But if that’s what the people do, then that’s what the right answer is.
“Yeah but you voted for Trump” is going to be the comeback liberals use anytime conservatives lecture about morals, corruption, criminal behavior, incompetence, integrity, etc for the next several decades.
No matter what you and Starving Artist think, those attempting to obstruct Trump’s agenda will use the fact he lost the popular vote by such a large margin as a justification for their actions when appealing to the media and the masses, and they should. This is politics and everything (thats legal) is fair game.
I’m not sure I see it.
Surely the comeback to that comeback will be a quick “Yeah, over Hillary Clinton.” And at that point, the discussion – what, switches to bickering about exactly how incompetent she was, and whether she was as incompetent as Trump is; and, well, yes, she was under criminal investigation by the FBI; but the question is whether she should’ve been under criminal investigation by the FBI; or, rather, whether Comey should’ve stopped upon laying out the case that she was extremely careless but no reasonable prosecutor would’ve pressed the point on the letter of the law, and that later press release unfairly made her look worse; and so on, and so on?
Won’t that be their go-to response?
All he proved is that a bobblehead could have beaten Hillary. I doubt he would have gotten the same results with Biden or even Bernie.
I’m guessing that in the years to come, even for conservatives, the irrational hysteria over all the alleged enormities that Clinton was reflexively accused of committing or speculatively predicted to commit if she were elected will fade somewhat by comparison to the ones Trump actually commits.
Nah. Nobody remembers the losing candidate.
Not necessarily. It might also be that in the minds of many liberalism had screwed things up so badly for so long and had created so much resentment that the electorate was willing to jump on the Trump bandwagon despite his faults. When you’re unhappy with the way things are being handled regarding illegal and/or wanna-be terrorist immigration, a thoroughly screwed up health care plan, Supreme Court dominance, ever-increasing wealth redistribution, a screwball educational system that embraces ‘social promotion’ and churns out snowflakes in need of safe spaces, the never-ending insults and aggravations of political correctness, and overall societal degeneration, Trump’s flaws are minor and don’t come close to being a deal-breaker given his reputation as a tough negotiator and get-things-done kind of guy who isn’t under either corporate or political party control and has a proven ability to ride herd over and handle complex and difficult undertakings.
You can always count on a Starving Artist post for a refreshing Opposite Day effect. This claim, for instance, is precisely the opposite of what’s been happening under Obama and the administrations preceding him: namely, continual redistribution of wealth upwards to the richest Americans, not downwards to the poorest.
I think you just listed ways the Republicans have ruined the country.
Of course you can. All it takes is to take a claim made in one context and apply it to a completely different one, as you’ve done here.
Several errors here.
First of all, what you’re talking about is not ‘redistribution’ but ‘distribution’. As such, it’s organic and natural and is a good thing. It occurs when people want the goods and services offered by the wealthy more than they want the money in their pockets. Thus the rich do indeed get richer, but they do so by giving people what they want. Cars, houses, clothing, computers, smart phones, heat and air systems, cable TV, appliances, sporting events, etc., etc., etc., ad-virtually-infinitum are all the result of people with wealth developing and bringing these things to market, and people desiring them enough to part with their hard earned pay to get them. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. It provides the populace with many desirable, enjoyable or necessary items that they wouldn’t have otherwise.
Further, there’s nothing wrong with the fact that a relatively few people hold the majority of the wealth. This ‘wealth’ largely takes the form of manufacturing facilities where the research, development and creation of these products and services take place, and in the delivery systems required to bring them to market. It’s not like the wealthy are a bunch of Scrooge McDucks holding mountains of dollar bills in a mansion-sized vault somewhere.
But even if they were, so what? The money that goes to them comes from expansion in the economy. It’s wealth that they create, and without their creation of it, it simply would not exist. It’s a fallacy comparable to belief in the popular vote count that if so much money weren’t going to the rich, it would go the poor instead. But that simply isn’t so. People’s earnings are based on the value of what they bring to the labor market. They aren’t going to make one dollar more even if every billionaire in the country lost every penny, and they aren’t going to make one dollar less if every billionaire in the country doubled his money overnight. For example, has the money that’s flowed to Bill Gates, Steve Jobs or Warren Buffet negatively impacted your income in the slightest? And what if they suffered a huge reversal and suddenly lost it all? Would your income suddenly shoot up as a result?
The answer to both is clearly no. The economy is not a zero sum game, and the amount the wealthy have and the amount everyone else has have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
Still, the fiction persists that for the rich to get richer the poor must get poorer. This idea is usually promulgated by the left, for whom childish and petty resentment over the fact that some have more than others is so strong that it led to the creation of communism and some of the most brutal, murderous and worst forms of government the world has ever known, where efforts to create a ‘classless society’ inevitably resulted in millions being killed or starved and millions upon millions of others forced to live lives of privation, oppression and misery, totally devoid of hope to improve their lot in life.
But I digress. In short, the only way the wealthy negatively impact the poor in this country is by fighting efforts by the government to take more of their money to spend on everyone else (i.e., ‘redistribution’, according to its genuine meaning).
Macroeconomics literally does not and cannot work that way.
SA, one cannot logically hold the simultaneous positions that there’s nothing wrong with the rich getting richer and nobody else shares in the growing wealth of the country; and that Trump won because there’s a lot of pissed-off poor and middle class voters who have been left out in the cold because they can’t get ahead.
It’s absolutely nutso crazy to hold both of those positions simultaneously.
Trump was under investigation too.
But yes, that false equivalency will be their go to response.
So we seem to be in agreement that the cited statistics show that over the past 20 years or so, including during Obama’s administration, income and wealth have become more concentrated in the wealthiest 1% and 10% of the population, while the share of wealth held by the bottom 50% has decreased. (At the same time, poverty rates have risen.) And you’re arguing that this upward wealth concentration trend is a natural and beneficial economic phenomenon. Okay.
In that case, SA, why is it that, according to you, there are so “many” people upset about liberal-imposed (downward) “wealth redistribution” which has not actually been happening?
:dubious: I agree that this alleged liberal imposition of “ever-increasing wealth redistribution” has indeed been going on for a long time “in the minds of many”.
It just hasn’t been happening in reality.
In fact, for the past several decades wealth redistribution (as in, from the rich to the poor) has not been increasing under liberal administrations (or conservative ones either, for that matter). On the contrary, it’s been decreasing, as higher percentages of total wealth become concentrated at the top, and poverty rates increase.
So where’s all this resentment and unhappiness “in the minds of many” about “ever-increasing wealth redistribution” coming from, since (downward) wealth redistribution has actually been decreasing for quite a long time? It sounds as though these “many” have an ideological grievance that they’ve simply decided to stay mad about, irrespective of whether it bears any relation to the facts.