3 ms·
This is the real story of the 2016 election: an increasing number of people are sick of the status quo. This led Republican voters to choose Trump over any est
by jmyeet 4y ago
This is the real story of the 2016 election: an increasing number of people are sick of the status quo.
This led Republican voters to choose Trump over any establishment candidate that in earlier years would've been the candidate.
On the Democratic side, this almost led to Hilary being upset a second time (the first was in 2008 obviously). But this progressive movement ultimately failed due to the full force of the Democratic Party establishment uniting to defeat Bernie Sanders. Seriously, look into how the DNC funded the primaries and the career of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the then DNC chair who then joined the Hilary campaign.
Democrats like to jump up and down about Russian interference, which is a huge distraction. Hilary was a terrible and unpopular candidate and (IMHO) the only person capable of getting Donald Trump elected.
This context is important to understand the current political landscape. Nothing has changed.
Here's a good comparison: Republicans fear their base. The Democrats despise their base. Republicans actually do things for their base out of this fear (eg court-stacking). Democrats throw their hands up and say there's nothing we can do while controlling the White House, the House and the Senate.
Why? Because Democrats don't actually want to do anything. They want to fundraise off how terrible the Republicans are. They tell their voters to vote harder next time. These are the actions of a controlled opposition party.
This is why any narrative about the "radical far left" is just so laughable.
- tanaros 4y agoWhile it’s clear the DNC didn’t want Sanders as the candidate, the reality is that he just didn’t have the votes, regardless of how many thumbs were on the scale. The RNC didn’t want Trump as the candidate either, but guess what? He got the votes.
- UnpossibleJim 4y agoThere were moderate Republicans who would have crossed the aisle to cast their vote for Bernie (according to polling) thanks to a strong ground campaign and (while poo poo-ed) YouTube and Podcast support as well as a strong minority support from African Americans and Latinos due to not just "expecting their vote" like the Democrats did, but doing the work and actually campaigning to them and addressing their concerns. Bernie support was stronger than was given credit, rather Hillary liked it or not, and that disenfranchisement was a large part of her loss, and led a lot of people to just not vote, or in the case of Latinos, vote on the single issue of abortion.
- fullshark 4y agoSanders wins if the dems hadn’t cleared the field for Hillary. Not sure about eliminating superdelegates but I think you’re right on that.
- coryrc 4y agoIt's a structural problem. If you got a pit bull, raised it without special consideration, and it mauled a child, you could say it was a bad dog, sure, but you raised the chances heavily right in the beginning. Our FPTP voting system with parties and primaries does the same thing. Each round, usually 40-60% of voters' preference is ignored; with a primary and open election, that's about 40% voting for who they want, 60% holding their nose for the open vote, and only 20% getting who they want. The whole system is stacked heavily against moderate people who compromise; it's a testament to incumbency advantage that any exist at all.
- Glyptodon 4y agoPreach. If the Democratic elites are supposed to be the "adults in the room," then they're the ones responsible for Trump more than anyone else. Nominating Hillary was a bluffing game of Russian roulette that the DNC shouldn't have played when it was obvious most of the country was in the mood for a figurative double homicide. Though the whole system is definitely not working.
- Ekaros 4y agoI believe that Trump could certainly have been worked with. Give and take reasonably, after all he is essentially older generation Democrat. But, it seems that appearances trumped actual goals.