3 ms·

Besides West Virginia, what rhetoric was there? A large portion of middle and rural America didn't vote republican because they thought coal would come back, i

Besides West Virginia, what rhetoric was there? A large portion of middle and rural America didn't vote republican because they thought coal would come back, it's because a large majority didn't like the Washington status-quo in which Clinton represented. However, Donald Trump was a wild card and not part of the "establishment". If Sanders or a different republican was in the race it would be an entirely different story. Now...if you are referring to West Virginia, then the issue revolved around bill Clinton initially making a lot of promises there and never following through, and as a result you had so much bent up friction from it that Hillary barely even campaigned there. With your comment, it makes it sound like you are saying "look how trump hasn't helped you at all, I bet you wish you voted for Clinton now". Ultimately the president was elected based upon how middle America felt they have been treated by the government over the last roughly 20 years. In other words, trump won because he gave people hope and was willing to speak against established parties (even his own). On the flip side, Hillary is a conservative democrat (I would personally consider her more republic than democrat in terms of today's views). Along with this she would have had a republican house and congress. The out come by either would likely be the same no matter who won. The only difference is that since many news outlets are liberal leaning that the headlines would be friendlier.

cmurf 10y ago
All jobs exported to other countries, e.g. China, where those same jobs are increasingly subject to automation. Republicans historically don't support labor movements, they've supported breaking up unions. Democrats created a vacuum by supporting the environment over the worker. It is way too soon to know whether Trump voters will experience buyer's remorse. The real question is hardly even Trump, it's whether Republicans will sign on to this new idea of defending the worker, defending their job, protectionism, and even a trade war in the form of tariffs as promised by the leader of the party. If it's true Trump represents non-establishment, and threatens its existence, we can expect at some point Democrats and Republicans will figure out a way to throw him under the bus. That he spends more time feeding his narcissism by punching down, and sending his press secretary to lie on TV on the level of 2+2 does not equal 4, he will squander any ability to form the political barriers he will need to survive 4 years let alone 8. The 200 year history of parties getting the presidency 3 terms in a row shows how rare it is. I think that's a bigger factor in the election, that people were sufficiently less enthusiastic about Hillary rather than enthusiastic about Trump, and in fact the raw numbers support that. Likewise that 200 year history shows it's even more rare for a president who loses the popular vote, but wins the electoral college, to win a 2nd term. Does Trump stop his TV show inspired pissing matches? Those are appealing to some degree by angry voters during a campaign, but broadly very distasteful and unbecoming of a president. To be a successful president he's going to have to stop getting hung up in minutiae of his own creation. Do Republicans or Democrats (or both) have some sort of transformative realignment, necessarily demoting previous priorities in doing so, or do they collude together to make an outsider president, already acting like a nut case as he keeps stepping on his own dick, an unwitting scape goat and destroy him in favor of Pence, a stable predictable known quantity?

cmurf 10y ago

All jobs exported to other countries, e.g. China, where those same jobs are increasingly subject to automation. Republicans historically don't support labor movements, they've supported breaking up unions. Democrats created a vacuum by supporting the environment over the worker. It is way too soon to know whether Trump voters will experience buyer's remorse. The real question is hardly even Trump, it's whether Republicans will sign on to this new idea of defending the worker, defending their job, protectionism, and even a trade war in the form of tariffs as promised by the leader of the party. If it's true Trump represents non-establishment, and threatens its existence, we can expect at some point Democrats and Republicans will figure out a way to throw him under the bus. That he spends more time feeding his narcissism by punching down, and sending his press secretary to lie on TV on the level of 2+2 does not equal 4, he will squander any ability to form the political barriers he will need to survive 4 years let alone 8. The 200 year history of parties getting the presidency 3 terms in a row shows how rare it is. I think that's a bigger factor in the election, that people were sufficiently less enthusiastic about Hillary rather than enthusiastic about Trump, and in fact the raw numbers support that. Likewise that 200 year history shows it's even more rare for a president who loses the popular vote, but wins the electoral college, to win a 2nd term. Does Trump stop his TV show inspired pissing matches? Those are appealing to some degree by angry voters during a campaign, but broadly very distasteful and unbecoming of a president. To be a successful president he's going to have to stop getting hung up in minutiae of his own creation. Do Republicans or Democrats (or both) have some sort of transformative realignment, necessarily demoting previous priorities in doing so, or do they collude together to make an outsider president, already acting like a nut case as he keeps stepping on his own dick, an unwitting scape goat and destroy him in favor of Pence, a stable predictable known quantity?