11 ms·

A lot of Trump voters did it just to spite liberals. Small things like whether the candidate would do a good job running the government didn't really enter into

by guelo 10y ago

A lot of Trump voters did it just to spite liberals. Small things like whether the candidate would do a good job running the government didn't really enter into the picture because hate of "the other side" is the only thing that mattered. And it continues now, I was just reading someone saying that the choice of Bannon is great because it upset liberals. Apparently that's the only qualification you need to run the government of the world's largest economy and military. This logic, if liberals hate it it is good, is going to be the ruin of the republic.

ardit33 10y ago
Dream on. I am liberal/democratic and I think this election was lost because the dems had the wrong candidate and didn't offer any thing different. It was an election of "pick the least worse choice" for many people. Period.
- ap22213 10y ago
  Very early on the Republican (and later, Trump) strategy was to discredit and bring suspicion to Clinton - enough so that people who would normally vote for her wouldn't show up. Remember that when Clinton was Secretary of State her approval ratings were above 60% and peaked at 66%. When it was rumored that she was going to be the only candidate fielded by the Democrats, the long discredit campaign began. You can see it in the gradual decrease of her likability from 2013 onward. Also: remember that Bill Clinton, when he left office, was one of the most liked presidents in history [1]. And, that was even after the impeachment hearings. The mid-late 90s were a very positive period. So, considering those two things together, the Republicans were extremely successful. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Bill_Clinton https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Bill_Clinton
  - monksy 10y ago
    > Very early on the Republican (and later, Trump) strategy was to discredit and bring suspicion to Clinton - enough so that people who would normally vote for her wouldn't show up. Remember that when Clinton was Secretary of State her approval ratings were above 60% and peaked at 66%. When it was rumored that she was going to be the only candidate fielded by the Democrats, the long discredit campaign began. You can see it in the gradual decrease of her likability from 2013 onward. Which that is the standard strategy for running for office. Discredit your opponent. It goes both ways. Clinton tried many approaches (even some shady ones) to try to discredit Trump. She did a number on Bernie with the DNC's help. Speaking of the discrediting, even Obama did a fantastic job discrediting Hillary. (Despite turning around and endorsing in this last election.)
    - ap22213 10y ago
      True, but when you have hundreds of millions of dollars directed at one person over several years, approval can slide from 66% to less than 40%, even with the best defenses. Take me, for example. I was a big supporter of Clinton in 2012. I even donated to her campaign. But, several times during the 2016 campaign I actually caught myself thinking that I didn't trust her. And, I had to remind myself why I liked her. So, whatever they did, it was very, very effective. It really sapped a lot of supporters motivation, at the very least. George Lakoff has written some interesting books on the topic of reframing. I recommend reading some of his work. I'm sure that the science has evolved considerably since 2004, when I first read him. https://www.amazon.com/George-Lakoff/e/B000APCCII https://www.amazon.com/George-Lakoff/e/B000APCCII
      - monksy 10y ago
        > when you have hundreds of millions of dollars directed at one person over several years, approval can slide from 66% to less than 40% Yes. This is SOP. > But, several times during the 2016 campaign I actually caught myself thinking that I didn't trust her. And, I had to remind myself why I liked her. Don't take this the wrong way, but to me that sounds like cognitive dissonance. If you believe that it was actually unfactual information, I would suggest researching what influenced you badly and try to identify that next time. Most of this stuff has remained the same since Robert Caldini wrote about it in his book Influence. It's just the tactics and strategies on how to apply them.
        ap22213 10y ago
        I had to look up cognitive dissonance, but I suppose that fits. I had an emotional response and a logical response, and they were in conflict. I had to actually physically list out all of the things that I liked about Clinton vs. what I didn't like to make a rational decision. By far, my list was in favor of Clinton. So, that my emotions said otherwise was odd.
      - nyolfen 10y ago
        >Take me, for example. I was a big supporter of Clinton in 2012. I even donated to her campaign. a little unusual since she didn't run for office in 2012
  - boona 10y ago
    > the long discredit campaign began You think too little of Hillary. She broke the glass ceiling on that one and did it nearly all be herself.
    - ap22213 10y ago
      I'm not looking to fight. The election is over.
      - boona 10y ago
        My point is that Hillary wasn't discredited because of some mass disinformation campaign like the new york times recently admitted to (http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-trump/ http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-tr...), it was done by whistleblowers. Who cares who called 911 to report the crime? The issue is the criminal.
zeroer 10y ago
I like liberals. I am a liberal. Even still, I voted Trump, because of how corrupt the Clintons are.
- jedberg 10y ago
  You may want to reevaluate your stance after you look more closely at the evidence. For example, the supposed "smoking gun" emails about her rigging the primary. Do you know what everyone failed to report on those? The date the emails were sent. They were all sent after Sanders had already lost. Clinton was already the nominee. Of course they would talk about how they are going to help her in the general -- because she was already the candidate. It was important details like that that were intentionally left out of the reporting to make her look worse. Edit: Not that it should matter, but I voted for and contributed to the Sanders campaign. I wanted him to win, but I also believe in facts.
  - wavefunction 10y ago
    Why then were some of them about targeting Bernie Sanders re: his Jewishness, for example? I downvoted you for a very good reason.
    - jedberg 10y ago
      Because he had already lost and they were trying to get him out of the race because at that point he was just dragging the party down. Using his Jewishness was wrong, but not corrupt.
      - ta_donk_gt 10y ago
        What about the one discussing getting the New York primary moved up if Clinton were to get a big challenger so that she could get an early victory and kill that momentum? What about the ones discussing moving the Illinois primary back so that moderate republicans could not get early victories (and further the narrative that the right is extremist)? And what about the ones where Donna Brazile fed debate questions? And what about the ones showing clear collusion across the board with the media to appease Clinton and push the preferred narrative against her competition? Were any of those indicative of corruption?
rfrank 10y ago
Whatever makes you feel better.

by guelo 10y ago

ardit33 10y ago

Dream on. I am liberal/democratic and I think this election was lost because the dems had the wrong candidate and didn't offer any thing different. It was an election of "pick the least worse choice" for many people. Period.

ap22213 10y ago
Very early on the Republican (and later, Trump) strategy was to discredit and bring suspicion to Clinton - enough so that people who would normally vote for her wouldn't show up. Remember that when Clinton was Secretary of State her approval ratings were above 60% and peaked at 66%. When it was rumored that she was going to be the only candidate fielded by the Democrats, the long discredit campaign began. You can see it in the gradual decrease of her likability from 2013 onward. Also: remember that Bill Clinton, when he left office, was one of the most liked presidents in history [1]. And, that was even after the impeachment hearings. The mid-late 90s were a very positive period. So, considering those two things together, the Republicans were extremely successful. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Bill_Clinton https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Bill_Clinton
- monksy 10y ago
  > Very early on the Republican (and later, Trump) strategy was to discredit and bring suspicion to Clinton - enough so that people who would normally vote for her wouldn't show up. Remember that when Clinton was Secretary of State her approval ratings were above 60% and peaked at 66%. When it was rumored that she was going to be the only candidate fielded by the Democrats, the long discredit campaign began. You can see it in the gradual decrease of her likability from 2013 onward. Which that is the standard strategy for running for office. Discredit your opponent. It goes both ways. Clinton tried many approaches (even some shady ones) to try to discredit Trump. She did a number on Bernie with the DNC's help. Speaking of the discrediting, even Obama did a fantastic job discrediting Hillary. (Despite turning around and endorsing in this last election.)
  - ap22213 10y ago
    True, but when you have hundreds of millions of dollars directed at one person over several years, approval can slide from 66% to less than 40%, even with the best defenses. Take me, for example. I was a big supporter of Clinton in 2012. I even donated to her campaign. But, several times during the 2016 campaign I actually caught myself thinking that I didn't trust her. And, I had to remind myself why I liked her. So, whatever they did, it was very, very effective. It really sapped a lot of supporters motivation, at the very least. George Lakoff has written some interesting books on the topic of reframing. I recommend reading some of his work. I'm sure that the science has evolved considerably since 2004, when I first read him. https://www.amazon.com/George-Lakoff/e/B000APCCII https://www.amazon.com/George-Lakoff/e/B000APCCII
    - monksy 10y ago
      > when you have hundreds of millions of dollars directed at one person over several years, approval can slide from 66% to less than 40% Yes. This is SOP. > But, several times during the 2016 campaign I actually caught myself thinking that I didn't trust her. And, I had to remind myself why I liked her. Don't take this the wrong way, but to me that sounds like cognitive dissonance. If you believe that it was actually unfactual information, I would suggest researching what influenced you badly and try to identify that next time. Most of this stuff has remained the same since Robert Caldini wrote about it in his book Influence. It's just the tactics and strategies on how to apply them.
      - ap22213 10y ago
        I had to look up cognitive dissonance, but I suppose that fits. I had an emotional response and a logical response, and they were in conflict. I had to actually physically list out all of the things that I liked about Clinton vs. what I didn't like to make a rational decision. By far, my list was in favor of Clinton. So, that my emotions said otherwise was odd.
    - nyolfen 10y ago
      >Take me, for example. I was a big supporter of Clinton in 2012. I even donated to her campaign. a little unusual since she didn't run for office in 2012
- boona 10y ago
  > the long discredit campaign began You think too little of Hillary. She broke the glass ceiling on that one and did it nearly all be herself.
  - ap22213 10y ago
    I'm not looking to fight. The election is over.
    - boona 10y ago
      My point is that Hillary wasn't discredited because of some mass disinformation campaign like the new york times recently admitted to (http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-trump/ http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-tr...), it was done by whistleblowers. Who cares who called 911 to report the crime? The issue is the criminal.

zeroer 10y ago

I like liberals. I am a liberal. Even still, I voted Trump, because of how corrupt the Clintons are.

jedberg 10y ago
You may want to reevaluate your stance after you look more closely at the evidence. For example, the supposed "smoking gun" emails about her rigging the primary. Do you know what everyone failed to report on those? The date the emails were sent. They were all sent after Sanders had already lost. Clinton was already the nominee. Of course they would talk about how they are going to help her in the general -- because she was already the candidate. It was important details like that that were intentionally left out of the reporting to make her look worse. Edit: Not that it should matter, but I voted for and contributed to the Sanders campaign. I wanted him to win, but I also believe in facts.
- wavefunction 10y ago
  Why then were some of them about targeting Bernie Sanders re: his Jewishness, for example? I downvoted you for a very good reason.
  - jedberg 10y ago
    Because he had already lost and they were trying to get him out of the race because at that point he was just dragging the party down. Using his Jewishness was wrong, but not corrupt.
    - ta_donk_gt 10y ago
      What about the one discussing getting the New York primary moved up if Clinton were to get a big challenger so that she could get an early victory and kill that momentum? What about the ones discussing moving the Illinois primary back so that moderate republicans could not get early victories (and further the narrative that the right is extremist)? And what about the ones where Donna Brazile fed debate questions? And what about the ones showing clear collusion across the board with the media to appease Clinton and push the preferred narrative against her competition? Were any of those indicative of corruption?

rfrank 10y ago

Whatever makes you feel better.