The Trump presidency
- Thread starter brogdale
- Start date
- Status
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
When your politics don't allow you to see Clinton as a deeply flawed candidate who ran a spectacularly bad campaign, you have to warp the world in some very strange ways and the way that it is being warped here is to posit a gameshow orange rapist with a 5 second attention span as unbeatable.
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
On the subject of the media...
Final newspaper endorsement count: Clinton 57, Trump 2
No media environment will ever be as hospitable to a candidate as the overall US media environment was to Hillary Clinton.
It was so favourable to her that it helped hand her not only the Democratic primary, but also the Republican primary to her favoured candidate.
How the Hillary Clinton campaign deliberately “elevated” Donald Trump with its “pied piper” strategy
Final newspaper endorsement count: Clinton 57, Trump 2
No media environment will ever be as hospitable to a candidate as the overall US media environment was to Hillary Clinton.
It was so favourable to her that it helped hand her not only the Democratic primary, but also the Republican primary to her favoured candidate.
How the Hillary Clinton campaign deliberately “elevated” Donald Trump with its “pied piper” strategy
CRI
Registered Chooser
Perhaps, but to have a properly supported campaign, he would have needed the backing of the Democratic party and it's core base of voters. Even if he'd managed to win the nomination somehow, I don't think he'd have won over enough of the "party faithful" to get that essential support. I'm not talking the DNC or party machine at state level, although I doubt they'd have fallen into line that easily. On-the-ground party stalwarts at county level around where I come from, the ones who organise the fundraisers, man the stalls, knock the doors, ferry people to the polls, etc. would were skeptical of Sanders. Many were put off by his wanting to overhaul the party five minutes after joining and not turning up for Democrats down ticket. I think he could have done more to bridge the gaps between the wings of the party, but perhaps there wasn't enough time to make that happen. Also, he never really engaged with African American voters in a meaningful enough way to get their backing. I suspect rather than reluctantly voting Sanders, many would have stayed home on polling day, which would also have hurt the Democrats down ticket.
Even a properly supported Clinton campaign didn't quash the clamour about emails, Benghazi, her husband's previous affairs or for pity sake, her having supported the Republicans as a teenager.
The Republicans would have had a field day with the skeletons in Sanders closet. Neither his nor her skeletons were the least bit relevant to their suitability to for the job of President, but that wouldn't have stopped the GOP nor the Trump train loving media from using them. Would have also been the case with Warren, or frankly anyone the Dems put up I think. 
little_legs
Поехали!
So then how come even the vile Fox News poll shows that Sanders is the most popular politician in the US?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
Perhaps, but to have a properly supported campaign, he would have needed the backing of the Democratic party and it's core base of voters. Even if he'd managed to win the nomination somehow, I don't think he'd have won over enough of the "party faithful" to get that essential support. I'm not talking the DNC or party machine at state level, although I doubt they'd have fallen into line that easily. On-the-ground party stalwarts at county level around where I come from, the ones who organise the fundraisers, man the stalls, knock the doors, ferry people to the polls, etc. would were skeptical of Sanders. Many were put off by his wanting to overhaul the party five minutes after joining and not turning up for Democrats down ticket. I think he could have done more to bridge the gaps between the wings of the party, but perhaps there wasn't enough time to make that happen. Also, he never really engaged with African American voters in a meaningful enough way to get their backing. I suspect rather than reluctantly voting Sanders, many would have stayed home on polling day, which would also have hurt the Democrats down ticket.
Even a properly supported Clinton campaign didn't quash the clamour about emails, Benghazi, her husband's previous affairs or for pity sake, her having supported the Republicans as a teenager.
You could just have said "the top of the party would have tried to sabotage his campaign" - the actual workers in the party and its base would have backed him (including African-American voters, who of course were repeatedly told that Sanders was a bit of a racist) against Trump, but those in charge never would have.
Also the skeletons in his closet might well have figured less than Clinton's did - let us not forget that the email scandal (which was the one that gained the most traction and caused the most damage) was real, they did actually send them and they did contain what may well have been what they actually thought and did. Even Benghazi, without mentioning any of the absurd conspiracy theories, was at the end of the day something that happened to people she was responsible for.
CRI
Registered Chooser
I haven't seen that poll. Do you have a link?
Being popular in a poll doesn't mean you'll get the most votes at the polls, and that's what counts.
CRI
Registered Chooser
Um, can I ask why you are so confident that African-Americans would have definitely backed Sanders had he won the nomination?
Do you really think the reason that African American voters strongly favored Clinton over Sanders in the primaries was simply because "they were repeatedly told that Sanders was a bit of a racist?" Do you not think African American voters are able to make informed decisions on voting based on their own observations and assessments of a candidate's track record, policies, approach and statements?
In a rally in Boston on Friday, 3rd April, Sanders said, "Some people think the people who voted for Trump are racists, sexist and homophobes, just deplorable folks. I don’t agree, because I’ve been there." Did you see responses from African Americans and other Americans of colour to this statement? Do you think such a statement indicates understanding of or sensitivity to the abuse people of colour have experienced in America since the election, from Trump supporters and from agents of the state?
Do you think more moderate, grass roots grafters in the Democratic party would have put quite as much effort in electing a nominee who'd not done enough to convince them on his ideology or shown appreciation for their hard work on the ground?
Do you really think the GOP and mainstream media would have treated Sanders with kid gloves, patting the skeletons on the head and locking them back in the closet?
Do you genuinely think Clinton was solely responsible for the outcome in Benghazi? Have you actually read about the incident and decisions leading up to it?
Last edited:
coley
Well-Known Member
Not so stable, narcisstic, ego driven leader with access to nuclear weapons and limited launch systems is looking for similiar with a big fat carrier group to 'play' GSOH, OOH, reply soon.
CRI
Registered Chooser
One of my nephews is in the US Navy, somewhere on a nuclear submarine at the moment. More than a tad worried.
CRI
Registered Chooser
CRI
Registered Chooser
True - I'd prefer more discussion of how to resist Trump and the GOP congress agenda (and links to regular reminders of how ghastly the bastards are), routes for holding the Government to account and/or picking off the rotten apples one by one if necessary - not just Trump and tactics for flipping as many US Senate, house and state legislature seats in 2018 (it's not all about the president.)
I suppose all of this is just head wanking on a forum like Urban, where only a handful of contributors even have a vote in the US, but hey . . .
coley
Well-Known Member
One of my nephews is in the US Navy, somewhere on a nuclear submarine at the moment. More than a tad worried.
My two sons have done 'their time' but both are still on the active reservist list, I imagine a lot of Russians feel the same anxiety.
Things aren't looking too good for common sense to prevail, oil and war, two little three letter words inextricably linked to profit and suffering.
Last edited:
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
Um, can I ask why you are so confident that African-Americans would have definitely backed Sanders had he won the nomination?
Do you really think the reason that African American voters strongly favored Clinton over Sanders in the primaries was simply because "they were repeatedly told that Sanders was a bit of a racist?" Do you not think African American voters are able to make informed decisions on voting based on their own observations and assessments of a candidate's track record, policies, approach and statements?
Of course, though that does beg the question as to why then the Clinton campaign and its surrogates were so keen to repeatedly portray him as a racist, often on absurd grounds.
Look, people did not en masse vote for Trump because they are racists, sexists, homophobes or deplorable - some of them did, but that ignores the very real issues that caused those people to vote for him. Trump is not an appealing demagogue, an especially persuasive orator or someone who makes salient and coherent points. It is obvious what he is, and who he represents. That millions of poor people voted for him because they found him more appealing than the alternative should say as much about the alternative as it does about them. I would have thought that most African-Americans, and Americans of colour, would recognize that.
Compared to the response that Clinton got? If he had beaten her in the primaries? Yes.
No, I think that they would have made a similar mistake to the one she made with Trump and retreated into lambasting a stereotype. They would have gone on and on about how he was going to raise taxes, bring about socialism and generally destroy America. They would have lost in much the same way that she did.
That is not what I said. Clinton was head of the State Department when that happened. The people affected were employees of the State Department. She was responsible for them.
coley
Well-Known Member
There should be a time and place for analysis of the the election and how to take in any lessons learned but I'm sure there is another thread dealing with this? Calling pogofish
This thread should be about how the US/and other governments are dealing with, and discussing the affects of a seemingly democratic nation electing an >>>insert personal description here<<< and the present and future potential side affects.
CRI
Registered Chooser
Response to Agricola's post #6800 above, with apologies for the cack formatting.
Comments about Sanders being insensitive and/or ill informed on race that I read were all from people of colour. Did you not see those? Also, at the rally in Boston, he didn't say "not all Trump voters are racist," he said that Trump voters weren't racist. That was straight from his mouth. Do you not see anything wrong with his statement or any reason why Americans of colour might be angry with him for saying this?
Perhaps not every person who voted Trump was racist, sexist or homophobic. However, each person who voted Trump was content to accept statements he made and go along with policies he advocated that were racist, sexist or homophobic. Do you think if a Trump voter claims they chose him for other reasons they shouldn't be open to any criticism for their choice? Should they get a pass because they weren't overtly bigoted, but were content to allow the bigotry?
Also, I've provided links several times showing that Trump's core support was from white people across the income and education spectrum. Most of those in the lowest income brackets voted Clinton. It's a myth that poor people backed Trump and Clinton was out of touch and only got votes from the better off and the elite. It just doesn't bear out in the figures.
We'll agree to disagree on this one, but the ones I've talked to where I come from were suspicious of Sanders' policies and he'd have had to work hard to get them to believe in him enough to put their guts into working for him.
I think you're agreeing with me on this point at least. Not only would the GOP have played on the fears many Americans have of high taxes, socialism, and loss of the "way of life" but would have also made hay with the personal skeletons in his closet. If he had any advantage over Clinton in terms of smearing, at least as a white guy, he looked the part of a president. Being Jewish though wouldn't have played well in many quarters. Nothing that could be criticised would have been sacred.
Well yes, in the same way a ward sister is responsible for the student nurse giving a patient the wrong drug or the Fire Chief is responsible for the death of fire officers on his or her watch. Clinton made a statement claiming responsibility for the actions of staff in her department, but seven investigations failed to find that she specifically acted inappropriately.
I'm going to follow coley's advice and let this go. Clinton is staying out of the political fray and has shown no indication of returning. Sanders will likely stay on as an Independent Senator, will still say what he thinks the Democratic party should do, but I doubt he'll throw his hat in the ring again.
I've said my piece that the "learning" takeaway for Democrats from the last election is to galvanise and extend their existing voting base and not waste their efforts on Trump voters. The ones who regret their choice will figure out how to not vote GOP next time.
Comments about Sanders being insensitive and/or ill informed on race that I read were all from people of colour. Did you not see those? Also, at the rally in Boston, he didn't say "not all Trump voters are racist," he said that Trump voters weren't racist. That was straight from his mouth. Do you not see anything wrong with his statement or any reason why Americans of colour might be angry with him for saying this?
Perhaps not every person who voted Trump was racist, sexist or homophobic. However, each person who voted Trump was content to accept statements he made and go along with policies he advocated that were racist, sexist or homophobic. Do you think if a Trump voter claims they chose him for other reasons they shouldn't be open to any criticism for their choice? Should they get a pass because they weren't overtly bigoted, but were content to allow the bigotry?
Also, I've provided links several times showing that Trump's core support was from white people across the income and education spectrum. Most of those in the lowest income brackets voted Clinton. It's a myth that poor people backed Trump and Clinton was out of touch and only got votes from the better off and the elite. It just doesn't bear out in the figures.
We'll agree to disagree on this one, but the ones I've talked to where I come from were suspicious of Sanders' policies and he'd have had to work hard to get them to believe in him enough to put their guts into working for him.
I think you're agreeing with me on this point at least. Not only would the GOP have played on the fears many Americans have of high taxes, socialism, and loss of the "way of life" but would have also made hay with the personal skeletons in his closet. If he had any advantage over Clinton in terms of smearing, at least as a white guy, he looked the part of a president. Being Jewish though wouldn't have played well in many quarters. Nothing that could be criticised would have been sacred.
Well yes, in the same way a ward sister is responsible for the student nurse giving a patient the wrong drug or the Fire Chief is responsible for the death of fire officers on his or her watch. Clinton made a statement claiming responsibility for the actions of staff in her department, but seven investigations failed to find that she specifically acted inappropriately.
I'm going to follow coley's advice and let this go. Clinton is staying out of the political fray and has shown no indication of returning. Sanders will likely stay on as an Independent Senator, will still say what he thinks the Democratic party should do, but I doubt he'll throw his hat in the ring again.
I've said my piece that the "learning" takeaway for Democrats from the last election is to galvanise and extend their existing voting base and not waste their efforts on Trump voters. The ones who regret their choice will figure out how to not vote GOP next time.
Newspaper endorsements don't matter much anymore. The cable news networks broadcast virtually every Trump rally live because it was good entertainment. They also pounded away on the Hillary e-mail "scandal" relentlessly.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Repeating that fallacy over and over doesn't make it true.
Study: racism and sexism predict support for Trump much more than economic dissatisfaction
Top Democrats Are Wrong: Trump Supporters Were More Motivated by Racism Than Economic Issues
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Yossarian
⏭️
One of these stories is satire from The Onion, the other is real news - I think it's going get harder and harder to tell the two apart the longer the Trump administration lasts.
Ben Carson Tours Affordable Housing Complex, Gets Stuck in Elevator
Sean Spicer Hires Press Secretary to Deal With the Media
Ben Carson Tours Affordable Housing Complex, Gets Stuck in Elevator
Sean Spicer Hires Press Secretary to Deal With the Media
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
Considering that the American electorate put a black Democrat in the White House two times immediately before electing Trump, I think that saying it's just those stupid proles being racist thickos lacks a certain nuance. As for voter suppression, why didn't that prevent Obama getting elected twice? It's not as if Obama-era Republicans were embracing the spirit of democracy before suddenly rejecting it once he left office. It's something that they always try and do, but as we have seen it doesn't always work.
If the Democrats really want Trump to be a one-term president, then they really need to take a good hard long at themselves and see what lessons they can learn, rather than blaming the voters who recent history shows can be convinced, despite voter suppression, to vote for something that at least sounds progressive. That's why people on this thread keep bringing up the Clinton campaign. Because judging from the refusal by some on this thread to even admit that the campaign screwed up, it looks like history is doomed to repeat itself.
If the Democrats really want Trump to be a one-term president, then they really need to take a good hard long at themselves and see what lessons they can learn, rather than blaming the voters who recent history shows can be convinced, despite voter suppression, to vote for something that at least sounds progressive. That's why people on this thread keep bringing up the Clinton campaign. Because judging from the refusal by some on this thread to even admit that the campaign screwed up, it looks like history is doomed to repeat itself.
CrabbedOne
Walking sideways snippily
In The Guardian 'Great chemistry': Trump abandons China criticism as Russia ties suffer
The little flirt.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
First off, most of the people on this thread can't vote in an American election, so whatever misconceptions exist here, will have zero effect on anything happening in the US.
Second, not sure who you're talking about: the consensus on this thread and its predecessor, was that Clinton was a bad candidate, and that the Democratic campaign wasn't handled well.
None of which changes the evidence that racism and xenophobia motivated Trump voters more than economic unease.
- Status
Similar threads
