3 ms·
Yes, of course they were. They also made better use of Twitter, and took advantage of the broken clickbait-based news market by generating cheap controversies a
by nukeop 9y ago
Yes, of course they were. They also made better use of Twitter, and took advantage of the broken clickbait-based news market by generating cheap controversies and using strong language to get free publicity. There's no meme that spreads faster than anger, people love sharing things that make them angry, and it was heavily exploited by this campaign. No matter what you think about his policies, Trump is a master politician that knows how to play his opponents and the media like a fiddle. It's low brow, and it's brutal, but it works.
- jakeogh 9y agoOR... it is possible that people researched the history and positions of the Bush/Clinton dynasties?
- beefield 9y agoPossible that people researched something instead of falling victim of confirmation bias and internet memes? Unless you mean by researching something very different than me, you even thinking that is possible makes me guess your sample of "people" is heavily biased.
- jakeogh 9y agoI don't assume people are so easily fooled. Especially by those two families. Take 5 minutes to research the latest creepy front runner (JB). There's not even a chance, but the central news pretends. I think the data (a solid win by an outsider) supports that.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]