So, we still don’t have the Big Reveal from the OP? These tenterhooks, getting a mite uncomfortable…
I know, right?
I’m just struggling with which would be a bigger surprise from the OP on his reasons why Trump won:
- A nuanced and insightful discussion of the changing nature of the electorate, that reveals why so many people would vote for someone that is so polarizing, incompetent, and unpopular… or,
- That Russia did it.
I can’t say which answer would be a bigger shock to me.
If Russia had no influence on the election, why did they go to all those lengths to influence the election?
Sort of a hijack, but I just came across this interesting article on Russian trolls. The main flavors are called Right Troll and Left Troll. The Right Troll behaves like “bread-and-butter MAGA Americans, only all they do is talk about politics all day long.” The Left Troll is more of the Black Lives Matter, anti-Hillary agitator. Funny how both flavors of Russian trolls hate Clinton!
Just because one tries to do something doesn’t mean one is going to be successful at it.
Plus, they could have had some influence on the election, but not to the point of changing the result. We will almost certainly never know just how much influence they had, if any.
So it’s just a coincidence that the election went as well as they could have dreamed of? How fortunate… for them…
Yes. “Coincidence” is the most likely conclusion. There were only 2 possible outcomes after all, and almost countless variables leading up to one outcome or the other. And since we will never know, the question is moot.
The only reason anyone could possibly conclude that Trump was either of those things was the (R) after his name. So basically, people voted for a fascist monster just because he was a Republican, and that’s all that matters.
Sounds like justification for every country in the world to start interfering in our elections because, after all, there are many variables so who can say what had any effect?
I think that self-determination is an important thing for a free and democratic country to have, but I guess that concept is becoming somewhat quaint and naive in this era.
So, then, we don’t know and cannot know how much influence such skulduggery actually had, but you are here to reassure us that however much it was, it wasn’t enough. X is unknown, but X is greater than Y, because reasons.
Some studies have the number of crucial votes to be 88,000, most hover just above that. A number that could be reached, perhaps, just by moving a few Dems in the crucial states, from Bernie Bros to Never Hillarys.
So, yeah, it could have been done.
Of course, your guess is as good as mine. It just isn’t better.
Really? You missed it? Pay close attention, it’s in there:
The answer is pretty clear, and it ties perfectly into what I said before about propaganda. Meanwhile, I’d pretend I was disappointed, but… I’m not. My expectations are pretty much exactly where they need to be for a thread like this.
Does fascism under Mussolini also count as leftist?
The Democrats lack a good Agricultural policy, & do not have a jobs retraining policy, aimed at small town America.
And what is Trumps ‘good’ agriculture policy?
“America First”, wasn’t it?
Prompt China (“It’s pronounced Gina”) to impose hefty tariffs on US soybeans and then pay US farmers US tax dollars to offset their losses.
ETA: Wharton business school right there.
Also noting that Clinton had that plank in her platform. The laid-off coal miners didn’t want that. They wanted someone to force people to buy coal (or at least promise that) so they could go on doing what they’d always done.
I don’t buy the theory that racist white people have Trump a win. If that were the case, then Obama would have lost, unless we posit that there are a whole bunch of racist black People that only voted for Obama because he was black and wouldn’t vote for Clinton due to racism against white people. I don’t actually believe that theory, but the only other two theories Icam see regarding racism and 2016 are that it didn’t make a difference (which is what I believe) or that racist white people voted for a black man but not a white woman.
Looking back at the pattern of previous presidential elections, with 1992 being the only exception, it seems like there is a group of voters in the middle that are always changing their minds by going from one party to the other and back again. Why they do that, however, is something I don’t get. Consider the upcoming midterms (which are predicted to turn out in favor of the Democrats), and almost all the previous midterms two years into a new term where the opposition party makes gains. The only way I can make sense of this is that there is a large group of wishy washy voters in the middle that are always changing their minds.
No, that’s not at all what I said.
If they influenced the election at all, then they changed the result. By definition.