7 ms·

That's really the problem. Republicans were trained over the years to pick someone "electable". They figured it would go better with the population, electoral

That's really the problem. Republicans were trained over the years to pick someone "electable". They figured it would go better with the population, electoral votes. So in 2008, they went with McCain, a Republican who supported campaign finance reform. In 2012, they went with Romney, a Republican who was governor of Massachusetts, a traditionally moderate/liberal state, who implemented Romneycare. Both of them were normal, Romney made a faux-pas regarding the %47 line, but all in all he would have been an OK president, and kept the Republicans moderate. The media slaughtered him in the general election. Called Republicans racists (which I didn't notice him being), classists (umm, do you think Clinton would live in a project?), and he couldn't answer back. That's why in 2016, the base got fed up with having to hold their nose and vote a moderate, they decided that if they're losing anyways, they might as well pick someone "who says it the way it is". Now when the media says that he's a racit, they say "Oh, like they called Bush (who had an African American Secretary of State) racist? They just hate Republicans". Liberals cried wolf. They refused to have a conversation, and we ended up with Trump.

generic_user 10y ago
The evolutionary process in the republican party has been going on since Ross Perot ran as an Independent candidate in 92 and split the republican vote and gave the election to Clinton. There has been a slowly growing populist faction on right that reject the Neo-con aggressive military policy. And has an America first trade policy that rejects NAFTA style free trade. That movement had been building and finally broke through with Ron Paul in 2008. The populist movement and Liberty movement after Ron Paul has grown exponentially. It was only a matter of time before the Washington wing was challenged by the populists for control of the party. That is what has allowed Trump to win the nomination. The populists in the party establishment supported Trump and the Washington wing was out numbered and had to concede and surrender. This is a process that has been in motion for over 20 years to bring the Republican party to the quite amazing transformation.
in_cahoots 10y ago
That's one way to look at it. Another way (and I'm trying hard not to endorse one viewpoint or the other, I've heard both) is: Liberals are tired of the Clintons. They're tired of nominating people just left of center who fail to inspire them, while candidates who speak their mind and call for change (Bernie) are ignored by both the DNC and the mass media. They perceive, rightly or wrongly, that Republicans have been fighting a battle while Democrats make concessions to people who are unwilling to compromise. And now that the most outspoken, uncompromising candidate has won the election, they're being told to compromise again, to swallow their emotions and have a conversation with people who aren't interested in talking with them. The media told them this was Hillary's turn. They were told to vote against Trump, but nothing about what they were voting for. They were told that feelings don't matter and to vote for the greater good, even while candidates within the party and without inspired based on emotion. Is it any wonder that turnout was down?
- AOsborn 10y ago
  As an outsider (New Zealand National), your opinion appears spot on from what I can tell from our media. A chart that sums up the election for me: http://imgur.com/TOGIbcP http://imgur.com/TOGIbcP Trump didn't win the election, dropping Democrat turnout lost it.
  - oldmanjay 10y ago
    Yeah if we just spin things the right way that'll fix...something.
  - viscanti 10y ago
    It's almost like Trump ran a campaign to intentionally try to suppress Democratic turnout and was successful with it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/27/donald-trumps-risky-plan-to-use-the-internet-to-suppress-hillary-clintons-turnout/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/27/do...
    - Sacho 10y ago
      I don't think Trump was the only one running such a campaign. How else would you describe the resounding message from the Clinton campaign that a vote for Trump is a vote for "racism, sexism, homophobia", etc..? Both Trump and Clinton's campaigns seem successful - there was less voter turnout than in 2012. However, the angles they took seem to have reshuffled support in a way that ended up with Trump winning.
      - vonmoltke 10y ago
        > Both Trump and Clinton's campaigns seem successful - there was less voter turnout than in 2012. Turnout this election was 2% higher than 2012. It just doesn't look that way because everyone is focused on Clinton's and Trump's totals. This election saw the most votes cast for alternate candidates (a hair over 5% according to Wikipedia) since Ross Perot's run in 1996.
    - hga 10y ago
Natsu 10y ago
It was a DNC plan to give the Republicans a more extreme "Pied Piper" candidate like Trump. That's why the media helped boost his campaign early on. You can read more from the PDF link on this email: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1120 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1120

generic_user 10y ago

The evolutionary process in the republican party has been going on since Ross Perot ran as an Independent candidate in 92 and split the republican vote and gave the election to Clinton. There has been a slowly growing populist faction on right that reject the Neo-con aggressive military policy. And has an America first trade policy that rejects NAFTA style free trade. That movement had been building and finally broke through with Ron Paul in 2008. The populist movement and Liberty movement after Ron Paul has grown exponentially. It was only a matter of time before the Washington wing was challenged by the populists for control of the party. That is what has allowed Trump to win the nomination. The populists in the party establishment supported Trump and the Washington wing was out numbered and had to concede and surrender. This is a process that has been in motion for over 20 years to bring the Republican party to the quite amazing transformation.

in_cahoots 10y ago

That's one way to look at it. Another way (and I'm trying hard not to endorse one viewpoint or the other, I've heard both) is: Liberals are tired of the Clintons. They're tired of nominating people just left of center who fail to inspire them, while candidates who speak their mind and call for change (Bernie) are ignored by both the DNC and the mass media. They perceive, rightly or wrongly, that Republicans have been fighting a battle while Democrats make concessions to people who are unwilling to compromise. And now that the most outspoken, uncompromising candidate has won the election, they're being told to compromise again, to swallow their emotions and have a conversation with people who aren't interested in talking with them. The media told them this was Hillary's turn. They were told to vote against Trump, but nothing about what they were voting for. They were told that feelings don't matter and to vote for the greater good, even while candidates within the party and without inspired based on emotion. Is it any wonder that turnout was down?

AOsborn 10y ago
As an outsider (New Zealand National), your opinion appears spot on from what I can tell from our media. A chart that sums up the election for me: http://imgur.com/TOGIbcP http://imgur.com/TOGIbcP Trump didn't win the election, dropping Democrat turnout lost it.
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  Yeah if we just spin things the right way that'll fix...something.
- viscanti 10y ago
  It's almost like Trump ran a campaign to intentionally try to suppress Democratic turnout and was successful with it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/27/donald-trumps-risky-plan-to-use-the-internet-to-suppress-hillary-clintons-turnout/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/27/do...
  - Sacho 10y ago
    I don't think Trump was the only one running such a campaign. How else would you describe the resounding message from the Clinton campaign that a vote for Trump is a vote for "racism, sexism, homophobia", etc..? Both Trump and Clinton's campaigns seem successful - there was less voter turnout than in 2012. However, the angles they took seem to have reshuffled support in a way that ended up with Trump winning.
    - vonmoltke 10y ago
      > Both Trump and Clinton's campaigns seem successful - there was less voter turnout than in 2012. Turnout this election was 2% higher than 2012. It just doesn't look that way because everyone is focused on Clinton's and Trump's totals. This election saw the most votes cast for alternate candidates (a hair over 5% according to Wikipedia) since Ross Perot's run in 1996.
  - hga 10y ago

Natsu 10y ago

It was a DNC plan to give the Republicans a more extreme "Pied Piper" candidate like Trump. That's why the media helped boost his campaign early on. You can read more from the PDF link on this email: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1120 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1120