Trump, the Fools that Voted for Him, and the Fools that Stayed Home

Wow, thanks for saying that, coz until you said it, I was convinced the election was rigged for some reason.

 

And I didn't realize this was the first time a candidate won the electoral but lost the popular vote... silly me

 

Maybe the election was rigged because Donald comes before Hillary in the alphabet.

 

Are you implying something about Bush/Gore? You mean "no-WMD-Iraq-War-for-15-years-->ISIS" George W. Bush?

Oh yeah, that electoral college victory only resulted in the US invasion of a foreign country for no reason whatsoever, overthrow of their government, killing their leader, for NO WMD's. Iraq: innocent; US: 100% war crimes. Yeah, that electoral college thing didn't have any consequences at all

 

I haven't seen any one use the votes to raise protest; most accept the results - which, not to pat ourselves on the back but given the pre-election rhetoric from Trump, is how it should be handled.

But being told repeatedly that the Democrats ran an incompetent, lying, murdering psychopath doesn't align with the popular voting results.

 

It's easy for any of us to say "manufacturing jobs aren't coming back". If she had done so, both Sanders and Trump would have pounced on her and left the bloody, quivering scraps for the hyenas.

As far as "vision", maybe you're right. Sanders and Trump did share in that populist "all personality, no plan" vision thing. ("Let's burn down Wall Street!" "Great, what's your plan?" "Er, uh, er, uh....") She's no natural politician. She speaks more to the brain than to the heart. And she was way too vulnerable to attack. By the time Comey sent out the "nothing to see here" letter two days before the election, the damage had already been done; but she shouldn't have given her opponents such ammunition in the first place, even if the media glossed over so much of Trump's spoilage.

 

Goodness. I wasn't attacking Hillary, calling her voters names, or praising the electoral college decisions in the passed... Just stating the laws, and earlier people were using it to their argument that Hillary should have won.

Not even going to touch all the comments on the Bush presidency and foreign affairs.

Lol I thought the sports forums were hostile. Osweiler for President!

 

OK, well if your previous post was in earnest, it's NOT the first time someone has won the popular vote but lost the electoral college vote. Bush/Gore in 2000 was the last time.

 

No I knew about Bush/Gore, I was just using it as an example that it does happen, not that it turned out amazing or anything.

 

And the 2000 EC results were in dispute; the last time there was a thorough distinction was 1888. It happens, sure - but rarely and it is, frankly, difficult to rationalize as the will of the people will not be recognized. BUT... we all knew the rules; we accept the results.

I just don't think any narrative disqualifying Clinton as a viable candidate holds much water in light of it.

 

Not at all. In my opinion neither was a viable candidate. I'm not a huge Obama fan, but if there was a box that said "Give Obama one more year and lets try this all again with 2 new candidates" I would have marked it as many times as possible.

 

Yes and I will accept that share of the blame.

I fully admit when it comes to politics I take a very cerebral view and am very skeptical of campaigns driven mostly on passion. My heroes are technocrats and pragmatists. I have a long record of supporting candidates who have done great in newspaper endorsement yet get swamped in actual elections.

I was listening to an interview with a younger voter today and she said "I voted for Clinton and um...she's really qualified and really smart but you know she's not so likable and inspiring like Obama or Bernie.. you know... What she should've done is do a lot of talk shows and made fun of herself more and then more younger voters would've um. .. voted for her."

Frankly if that is what was needed to get the youth vote then Amercia deserves Trump.

 

This. There's no tangible prize for voting for your conscience (Stein or Johnson) when your conscience has zero chance in actually putting your principles in action. If you want results then you had only two people to vote for. If you want meaningful change then how about actually electing a green or libertarian candidate to a congressional position and build on that.

 

This. It's tough to have that sort of mind during times like these where slick ads and appeals to emotion reign king.

 

I disagree here. People want charismatic leaders. I mean, it's part of what leadership is - understanding that people make emotional choices. If everything everyone did was completely rational the advertising industry would shrink down to 1/100th of what it is today.

Obama won because he inspired millions of people to come out and vote for him unlike Kerry and Gore. Clinton didn't do worse than Kerry or Gore. The reality is that Dems bought into the story of how the country was turning blue when in reality it wasn't. It's turning red - look at the state legislatures, the house, and the senate. All strong Republican - and that didn't happen overnight.

In the modern era there has been 2 democrats elected president since Jimmy Carter (who by the way ran as a reformer untainted by scandal).

Bill Clinton - incredibly charismatic, inspired blacks to vote (Dubbed first black president)
Obama - A change agent who inspired masses with his soaring rhetoric.

The losers: Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton. What did those 5 have in common? None of them were particularly charismatic or inspiring. None. Kerry got 59MM votes compared to Clinton's 60MM. People thought the country was turning blue when Obama got 69 and 65 million - it wasn't. He was getting people who normally didn't vote to vote for him. Think about it - how else did he beat Romney with the unpopularity of Obamacare, gridlock, and a weak economic recovery? It wasn't the country turning blue, it was that people loved Obama.

Romney got 61M votes. Obama 65M. Trump got 59M Clinton got 60M

Had she any charisma or pull whatsoever she would have won. But she didn't even do well with women. She is that uninspiring.

I don't think we deserve Trump. Had Sanders won the ticket, he would have gotten 65M or more votes and it would have been a blow-out. The only reason Sanders didn't win the nomination was because he was fairly unknown at the start of his campaign. But he has what Obama and Bill Clinton has and what Hillary lacks - inspiring charisma.

 

No one pays attention to platforms except partisans and intellectuals who think anyone actually reads it. Her branding is what matters, her marketing. The messaging that gets repeated over and over. She got about the same number of votes as John Kerry and millions less than Obama. So i reject the claim she resonated with anyone anymore than John Kerry did. And John Kerry didn't resonate with anyone. People voted for the (D) next to Kerry, and they voted for the (D) next to Hillary. She didn't even win the women vote to the degree prior democratic MEN did.

The platform and rationale you see is not what was projected. Sure she said it in a speech or a debate but no one will get it. Trump understands it. "Make America Great Again" "Build a wall". "ban muslims" "China is killing us" "Stop free trade"

He repeated those things hundreds if not thousands of times. That's a platform. Yes its branding because that's what a good platform is - you want people to take an action - you better make it simple and resonate. What you quote above was neither of those. It's long, technical, intellectual, and devoid of inspiration. This is what I do for a living, and I knew she was getting killed in the debates. I wrote that on this BBS and you guys didn't buy it then and still don't buy it now.

She needed to develop a populist movement to counter Trump. "Rebuild America" . "No minds wasted" . "Trade wars kill jobs and raise prices" She should have gone to the midwest and said - "trade wars will not bring jobs back, they will only cost us our current exports". She should have attacked Trump as someone that was going to double the cost of everything you buy and still the jobs wouldn't come back. You'd now will double your misery. Which is TRUE.

What use is a platform if you can't sell it.

 

She didn't lose because of that letter, she lost because of the debates. I didn't think she won them. I think she got killed on the key issues of trade and jobs. Trump successful painted a picture of the economy being bad and things falling apart - and she didn't have an answer to any of it.

She could have counter strike, "You have a naive view on trade. This country has been losing manufacturing jobs long before Nafta. A trade war will cost us jobs, not create new ones, and it will also raise the price of everything from cars to iphones - no matter what those jobs won't come back because even with tariffs it's much cheaper to make things overseas. That's the reality. You can't change reality. It's been happening for 50 years long before I got into politics, so don't buy this man's snake oil that he can change the fact that other countries can make things at a fraction of the cost, you. I supported TPP originally because it actually isolates China by banding ever country together in Asia to force China into more fair practices. It would boost our exports, not erode what manufacturing we have already. I do believe free trade helps us by helping export American goods to the world. The proof is that U.S. manufacturing is at an all-time historic high - can you believe it?. People don't feel it though because 6 out 7 jobs aren't lost to trade, they are lost to automation. It's fools goal to bring manufacturing jobs back. They are being replaced by robots and automation. It's not the future. Trump is living in the past and wants to go backwards. We must move forward. The race is on and if we don't focus on getting the jobs that pay well and can revitalize our country we will decline - do not let this man take us further down the road of a disappearing past. To all those hurting from lost manufacturing - I know you are suffering. But the answer is not trade wars. It will only add to your suffering in higher prices but no jobs will come back. The key is education. The future are your children. We must get them educated so they can compete."

 

I disagree completely. It should be the voter's responsibility to do their own research on both candidates and make a choice based on what they've said and their party's platform. For example, also pay attention to what senators, house reps, governors, from that party say during elections.

No one should need political speeches full of empty promises from a candidate to be convinced to vote for them.

People who vote for a job as serious as the POTUS based on how well they inspire a crowd is like filling out a March Madness bracket based on whether you like the team's mascot or color schemes. It's mind-numbingly idiotic.

 

Facts aren't going to work in this kind of election. You're not going to win over an uneducated, enraged base by saying "those jobs aren't coming back". Those voters are looking for any light of hope even if it's just completely fabricated lies. Trump was a performer and gave hope to his followers. Despite having no political experience, he's a far better politician than Hillary because he can lie and get away with it. Clinton isn't a natural politician and she's admitted it herself. Keeping it real wouldn't have won this election.