3 ms·

Disclaimer; I am in no way supportive of Trump or most of his policies. However as an outsider (I'm not American), he actually seemed more on message and reson

by tyfon 7y ago

Disclaimer; I am in no way supportive of Trump or most of his policies. However as an outsider (I'm not American), he actually seemed more on message and resonated more with his base than his opponent in 2016 so when Hillary became the nominee for the Democratic party I actually bet 100 NOK with my co-worker that Trump would win.

Loughla 7y ago
Living in the midwest, as soon as Hillary "won" the nomination, I knew Trump would win. People who don't like him genuinely underestimate the support his base provides. There is a reason republicans are falling all over themselves to lick his boots. He controls the power now.
- bloopernova 7y ago
  My correct prediction was based on one factor only: The more entertaining candidate wins. Bush was more entertaining than Gore and Kerry. Obama was more entertaining than McCain and Romney. Trump was more entertaining than Clinton. My prediction is that Trump will win again this year. I personally don't want that to happen, but I feel that it will. I'd love for Sanders to win.
  - klyrs 7y ago
    Entertainment is a key component in my theory as well. For me, I called the last election after seeing Trump's behavior in the first republican debate. After he won the election, I predicted him winning in 2020 and shooting for 2024. The other major factor I see is how Trump handles scandal: brag about getting away with it, and accuse everybody else of doing the same thing. It's certainly dramatic -- I'm loath to call it entertaining... but it's hard to tear oneself away from this news cycle
- karatestomp 7y ago
  > Living in the midwest, as soon as Hillary "won" the nomination, I knew Trump would win. Exactly the same, for (probably—also Midwestern) similar reasons. As soon as he Wile-E-Coyote'd over the cliff of his first couple big scandals in the primary and made it clear that the secret to being scandal-impervious was simply never to look down, that plus his message meant I started telling people he'd probably win the nomination. He sounded like a mash-up of every Republican I'd ever talked to, and even kinda like a lot of older-school Union Strong sorts of Dems—not like a Republican politician or "intellectual" or media figure, mind you, but a voter, which is entirely different. Not even Palin had a message that close to what you might overhear at the local coffee, beer, & bait shop. It was uncanny. Then Hillary became his opponent and while everyone else was laughing about the whole thing I was like, "Uh oh. Shit. Trump's probably gonna win. Doesn't matter if it's fair or not, fact is she's widely hated and, hate to break it to you, it's not just die-hard Republicans or irredeemable misogynists who feel that way. Should they hate her? Doesn't matter. They do." And here we are. Sigh.
karatestomp 7y ago
His message was definitely, in many ways, way more and more effectively populist than Hillary's. His wall's a great example: it's far-right from some perspectives, but from others it's what they've been speculating aloud (amongst themselves, with no public stage) as a "common-sense" solution for decades (source: been around plenty of that, for... decades). It's the definition of populism. Ditto trade issues. There's a lot of perception among voters that the average citizen got screwed by things like MFN (or whatever they renamed it to) status for China and a variety of other trade agreements and, go figure, a lot of that sentiment crosses party lines. His hard talk about those agreements and China was, again, blue-collar as hell and exactly what you could have heard anywhere in middle America (or just outside a big city) for many years before the election, but had practically no voice in either viable political party. His message was, to borrow one of his favorite words, kinda perfect. Nb I'm not using populism as a negative term here, and do not consider something automatically bad because it's populist. Now, to defend describing his supporters as having been "fooled", I'd say the strongest evidence for that would be that some of his major proposals weren't ever really proposals, and still haven't meaningful become proposals (his "most perfect" or whatever health care reform comes immediately to mind—what exactly was that supposed to be? Very good, the best, whatever it was.) and that his support many of these positions is very probably opportunistic and disingenuous. To tack back the other way, I personally would accept someone I knew or suspected to be opportunistically, rather than genuinely, supporting my interests if I believed they were likely to meaningfully advance them regardless, so my support of such a person wouldn't necessarily be evidence that I'd been "fooled". Probably some were (I mean, there've been no shortage of interviews with Trump voters all over the media in the last 3 years, and clearly some were not, uh, going in with both eyes open) but who knows how many knew he was full of shit (I mean it's kinda his thing? What he was famous for everywhere, including right-wing radio, before he became a Republican politician?) but thought he'd effectively advance their interests anyway. Possibly a lot.
- busymom0 7y ago
  > His wall's a great example: it's far-right from some perspectives I have no idea where people get this from. I am an Indian immigrant and India recently finished building their border fence/wall with Bangladesh. It works and helps reduce illegal crossing. Plus Obama, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and other democrats are on video from back in 2000s and 2012 where they advocated for the exact same thing. Simply labeling everything you disagree with as far-right is silly.

by tyfon 7y ago

Loughla 7y ago

Living in the midwest, as soon as Hillary "won" the nomination, I knew Trump would win. People who don't like him genuinely underestimate the support his base provides. There is a reason republicans are falling all over themselves to lick his boots. He controls the power now.

bloopernova 7y ago
My correct prediction was based on one factor only: The more entertaining candidate wins. Bush was more entertaining than Gore and Kerry. Obama was more entertaining than McCain and Romney. Trump was more entertaining than Clinton. My prediction is that Trump will win again this year. I personally don't want that to happen, but I feel that it will. I'd love for Sanders to win.
- klyrs 7y ago
  Entertainment is a key component in my theory as well. For me, I called the last election after seeing Trump's behavior in the first republican debate. After he won the election, I predicted him winning in 2020 and shooting for 2024. The other major factor I see is how Trump handles scandal: brag about getting away with it, and accuse everybody else of doing the same thing. It's certainly dramatic -- I'm loath to call it entertaining... but it's hard to tear oneself away from this news cycle
karatestomp 7y ago
> Living in the midwest, as soon as Hillary "won" the nomination, I knew Trump would win. Exactly the same, for (probably—also Midwestern) similar reasons. As soon as he Wile-E-Coyote'd over the cliff of his first couple big scandals in the primary and made it clear that the secret to being scandal-impervious was simply never to look down, that plus his message meant I started telling people he'd probably win the nomination. He sounded like a mash-up of every Republican I'd ever talked to, and even kinda like a lot of older-school Union Strong sorts of Dems—not like a Republican politician or "intellectual" or media figure, mind you, but a voter, which is entirely different. Not even Palin had a message that close to what you might overhear at the local coffee, beer, & bait shop. It was uncanny. Then Hillary became his opponent and while everyone else was laughing about the whole thing I was like, "Uh oh. Shit. Trump's probably gonna win. Doesn't matter if it's fair or not, fact is she's widely hated and, hate to break it to you, it's not just die-hard Republicans or irredeemable misogynists who feel that way. Should they hate her? Doesn't matter. They do." And here we are. Sigh.

karatestomp 7y ago

His message was definitely, in many ways, way more and more effectively populist than Hillary's. His wall's a great example: it's far-right from some perspectives, but from others it's what they've been speculating aloud (amongst themselves, with no public stage) as a "common-sense" solution for decades (source: been around plenty of that, for... decades). It's the definition of populism. Ditto trade issues. There's a lot of perception among voters that the average citizen got screwed by things like MFN (or whatever they renamed it to) status for China and a variety of other trade agreements and, go figure, a lot of that sentiment crosses party lines. His hard talk about those agreements and China was, again, blue-collar as hell and exactly what you could have heard anywhere in middle America (or just outside a big city) for many years before the election, but had practically no voice in either viable political party. His message was, to borrow one of his favorite words, kinda perfect. Nb I'm not using populism as a negative term here, and do not consider something automatically bad because it's populist. Now, to defend describing his supporters as having been "fooled", I'd say the strongest evidence for that would be that some of his major proposals weren't ever really proposals, and still haven't meaningful become proposals (his "most perfect" or whatever health care reform comes immediately to mind—what exactly was that supposed to be? Very good, the best, whatever it was.) and that his support many of these positions is very probably opportunistic and disingenuous. To tack back the other way, I personally would accept someone I knew or suspected to be opportunistically, rather than genuinely, supporting my interests if I believed they were likely to meaningfully advance them regardless, so my support of such a person wouldn't necessarily be evidence that I'd been "fooled". Probably some were (I mean, there've been no shortage of interviews with Trump voters all over the media in the last 3 years, and clearly some were not, uh, going in with both eyes open) but who knows how many knew he was full of shit (I mean it's kinda his thing? What he was famous for everywhere, including right-wing radio, before he became a Republican politician?) but thought he'd effectively advance their interests anyway. Possibly a lot.

busymom0 7y ago
> His wall's a great example: it's far-right from some perspectives I have no idea where people get this from. I am an Indian immigrant and India recently finished building their border fence/wall with Bangladesh. It works and helps reduce illegal crossing. Plus Obama, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and other democrats are on video from back in 2000s and 2012 where they advocated for the exact same thing. Simply labeling everything you disagree with as far-right is silly.