3 ms·
> If I had to argue a point in a university essay, and argued in the fashion the media has for the last year, any of my profs would have failed me. I'd argue t
by untog 10y ago
> If I had to argue a point in a university essay, and argued in the fashion the media has for the last year, any of my profs would have failed me.
I'd argue that elections have never been won this way. They've always been about identity and attacking your opponent. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but that the 2016 Democratic campaign was not unique in that regard. Hell, Trump's own campaign was run as a referendum on Hillary Clinton as much as it was anything to do with his strengths.
- Mikeb85 10y agoEven by that token, they should have taken a different angle on Trump. The guy is shameless, most of his dealings are out there for everyone to see, and they take the one angle that couldn't be proven - that he's racist, based on what, comments about illegal immigration? Had they not stacked the deck against Sanders, they'd have a principled, likeable candidate in the general, and then they could have used the angle of Trump being unprincipled. Unfortunately Hillary is equally unprincipled, and less likeable.
- woofyman 10y ago>he's racist, based on what, comments about illegal immigration? He claimed judge Curiel couldn't do his job because of his ethnicity. He claimed the Central Park five were guilty even though they were cleared by DNA evidence. His company was fined for not renting to blacks and Hispanics. The whole birtherism stuff.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- chillwaves 10y agoSeems the democrats did not count on so few people caring that Trump is at least a little racist.