Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#1
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,197 posts

I know.  The 2016 election is over with.  Why create a thread on that topic when another thread on the same topic has beenlocked.

 

Well, look at which forum this is in.

 

Yes, that is right, the history forum. The 2016 election is now history.  So why not a thread about it in the history forum?

 

What I do not want to see in this thread:  any stories that belong in the news forum section.  So any topics that are making the headlines should be avoided.  First and foremost, no discussion of the Trump-Russia connection. At least not until that becomes less than a red hot item in the news. We already have at least two other threads that are appropriate for such news articles.

 

What I do want to see.   Articles, comments, and observations that give us insight as to why voters might have voted for Trump.

 

I suppose I need this thread for therapy reasons.  I simply do not understand how any rational adult could have voted for Trump.  Witty one liners like "because they are stupid" do not cut it for me.  They are way too simplistic, insulting to Trump supporters, and generate much heat and little light.

 

With that introduction, here is my first submission for your consideration:

 

https://lareviewofbo...rump-end-times/

 

Extract:

 

In Left Behind, a small group of Christians, who convert after the rapture, form a militia to battle a hostile world. Morally imperfect but virile leaders emerge with names like Rayford Steele and Buck Williams. Dispensationalism appeals to the sense of being among a besieged people, surrounded by chaos and decadence. It promises strong leaders who will guide the faithful to paradise. It has deciphered a pattern in the Bible, one that speaks, if in a very different context, to Martin Luther King’s “fierce urgency of now.” And it has deciphered a pattern in current events, one that tells the same story as the Bible: you are embattled, but the end is near, and you will be saved.

 

Trump, by fortuitous accident, has tapped into this narrative and the anxieties that drive it. He too depicts the world as chaotic and decadent — the irony! — and promises to restore order. His people are besieged by apparently inexorable forces. Salvation awaits the next election. We will all be saying “Merry Christmas.” Jobs will return. Threatening invaders will be repulsed by a big, beautiful wall. America will be great again. You don’t have to believe in dispensationalism to be seduced by this story, but it helps.

 

Many of the people gathered for the caucus training had lived hard lives. They had seen factories close, been laid off, worked multiple jobs to make ends meet. The key difference between Trump and Ted Cruz is that Trump has broken, at least in rhetoric, from the Republican Party’s economic orthodoxy. He calls for tariffs on Chinese goods and higher taxes for hedge fund managers. Decades of economic frustration have paved the way for this message to resonate. The New York Times sifted through census data and found “that Trump counties are places where white identity mixes with long-simmering economic dysfunctions.” Variables that make someone most likely to support Trump, according to the Times, include: identifying as white and having no high school diploma; living in a mobile home; working in agriculture, construction, or manufacturing; and being an evangelical. Trump’s salvation narrative recognizes these people — white, evangelical, working class — who feel forgotten, lost.

 

“We are the Titanic,” said the man in front of me…voice trembling, “and we’re heading for the iceberg.”

 


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#2
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,197 posts

Ok.  I first realized that many of those who believe that we are in the end times were also supporters of John McCain when he ran for president.  It was almost as if they hoped that McCain would bring on the destruction of the planet so that in the rapture that followed they would be brought up to heaven.  Now, these sorts are genuinely crazy, at least in my mind.  They vote for candidates not because they think they will be the best leaders for the United States, but because they think they will be the worst. It is as if they want to commit suicide, fear they will not go to heaven for such a mortal sin, so they want to hurry the end times along.  In essence, to take the rest of us with them so that they will be selected to go to God's kingdom as a result of the rapture.

 

Think I am making this up?

 

 Read this and see what you think:

 

 

 

 

So yes, I will be supporting Donald Trump for president, as I believe him to be God's choice to fulfill prophecy. I do hope that America will see better days before the end, I truly do. But as a Bible believer, this world is not my home, I look for a 'better country', a Heavenly one. I don't want to see 'King Jesus for President', as He has no intention of ruling America. But He will rule this Earth from Jerusalem one day, and I have already signed up to work in His administration in whatever capacity He wishes for me to fulfill.

"And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God." Revelation 19:15 (KJV)

Listen to me, America, the time is growing ever shorter. Get your eyes off of red vs. blue and conservative vs. liberal, you will never see the truth that way. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is getting ready to insert Himself into our world in a very visible and tangible way. These are the days of prophecy. The Church of Jesus Christ is getting ready to be called up and out of here in the Rapture, and if you are not in that number you will be left behind to face Antichrist.
God is preparing to shake the nations of the world, and I believe He is going to use Donald Trump to do it.

For those of you who think I'm crazy, consider ....

 

 

Read more at :http://rapturewatch....ld-trump-chosen


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#3
Cody930

Cody930

    An Apple Pie from Scratch

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,509 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey, US

I remember we partly had this discussion before in another thread. This article (which I think you've seen before) and this article (it's pretty long) from the Atlantic had a few interesting takes on the results itself and why the Democrats have drifted afar since the 70s, respectively. A combo of economics and cultural changes were definitely at work here.


"Since we first emerged, a few million years ago in East Africa, we have meandered our way around the planet. There are now people on every continent and the remotest islands, from pole to pole, from Mount Everest to the Dead Sea, on the ocean bottoms and even, occasionally, in residence 200 miles up - humans, like the gods of old, living in the sky."


#4
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,132 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

Ok.  I first realized that many of those who believe that we are in the end times were also supporters of John McCain when he ran for president.  It was almost as if they hoped that McCain would bring on the destruction of the planet so that in the rapture that followed they would be brought up to heaven.  Now, these sorts are genuinely crazy, at least in my mind.  They vote for candidates not because they think they will be the best leaders for the United States, but because they think they will be the worst. It is as if they want to commit suicide, fear they will not go to heaven for such a mortal sin, so they want to hurry the end times along.  In essence, to take the rest of us with them so that they will be selected to go to God's kingdom as a result of the rapture.

 

Think I am making this up?

 

 Read this and see what you think:

 

 

 

 

So yes, I will be supporting Donald Trump for president, as I believe him to be God's choice to fulfill prophecy. I do hope that America will see better days before the end, I truly do. But as a Bible believer, this world is not my home, I look for a 'better country', a Heavenly one. I don't want to see 'King Jesus for President', as He has no intention of ruling America. But He will rule this Earth from Jerusalem one day, and I have already signed up to work in His administration in whatever capacity He wishes for me to fulfill.

"And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God." Revelation 19:15 (KJV)

Listen to me, America, the time is growing ever shorter. Get your eyes off of red vs. blue and conservative vs. liberal, you will never see the truth that way. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is getting ready to insert Himself into our world in a very visible and tangible way. These are the days of prophecy. The Church of Jesus Christ is getting ready to be called up and out of here in the Rapture, and if you are not in that number you will be left behind to face Antichrist.
God is preparing to shake the nations of the world, and I believe He is going to use Donald Trump to do it.

For those of you who think I'm crazy, consider ....

 

 

Read more at :http://rapturewatch....ld-trump-chosen

It's called accelerationism

Would you be surprised if I told you that there is a surprising number of hardline communists who support the Republican Party precisely for this reason? To them, the welfare state is the worst innovation in history because it staved off actual socialist revolution, and without it, capitalism would quickly show itself for what it is and voila, communist revolution.

 

Sad part is, they're probably not wrong. A lot of people (usually the same sort who rail against welfare statism) have absolutely no idea how close the US was to a bonafide socialist revolution at multiple points throughout its history, and how far away from it the US became suspiciously after FDR. It's actually at the point where I'm suspicious as to whether if a lot of an-caps are actually deep-cover Marxists because it's easily available information. Same sort of shit as those who want the candidate who they believe will bring about the End Times. 

 

I'm also an accelerationist, at least in terms of Singularitarianism.


Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#5
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,197 posts

Thank you both for your contributions made to this point.

 

I thought I would pick up on a theme contained both in my opening post and in Cody's links. That is the theme of people who have suffered hard lives, or even have perceived that they have suffered hard lives.  How might that have inclined them to vote for Trump?

 

I recently came across this passage in John Rawl's A Theory of Justice:

 

 

Yet sometimes the circumstances evoking envy are so compelling that given human beings as they are no one can reasonably be asked to overcome his rancorous feelings.  A person's lesser position as measured by an index of objective primary goods may be so great as to wound self-respect; and given his situation, we may sympathize with his sense of loss.  Indeed, we can resent being made envious, for society may permit such large disparities in these goods that under existing social conditions these differences cannot help but cause loss of self-esteem.  For those suffering this hurt, envious feelings are not irrational; the satisfaction of their rancor would make them better off.  When envy is a reaction to a loss of self-respect in circumstances where it would be unreasonable to expect someone to feel differently, I shall say that it is excusable.  SInce self-respect is the main primary good, the parties would not agree, I shall assume, to count this sort of objective loss as irrelevant....

 

Similarly the particular envy roused by competition and rivalry is likely to be stronger the worse one's defeat, for the blow to one's self-confidence is more sever and the loss may seem irretrievable.

 

...they see their social position as allowing no constructive alternative to opposing the favored circumstances of the more advantaged. 

 

 

Now, it is tempting to say that Trump supporters were a bunch of losers who voted for Trump  simply because they saw "no constructive alternative."   This may very well touch upon an important motivation.  Yet, for liberals there is a great danger to retreat into the moral smugness of looking down one's nose at these "losers".   The situation begs the question: why was there no perception that a "constructive alternative" did not exist?

 

With Hillary Clinton at the head of the ticket, can anybody be blamed for thinking that no "constructive alternative"  existed?

 

 After all, it was the Clintons who were closely identified with the free trade deals of the 1990's, and the Clintons who were associated with the de-regulation of Wall Street that many believed resulted in the financial crash of 2008.  Bernie had stoked the anger.  Without Bernie at the head of the ticket, why not go with the guy who at least seemed to understand the hostility to the establishment?

 

Now, liberals like me are very quick to point out that Trump was very much a part of that elite establishment.  It is very tempting to write it all off as yet another instance of "false consciousness" in the Marxian sense.  Yet, liberalism itself bears at least a portion of the responsibility for this "false consciousness".  Moreover, thinking in such terms is itself a form of elitism.  It is like looking down the nose of at the great unwashed tisk tisking about heir stupidity.   Such an attitude itself begs for a backlash.

 

It is like what I understand the plot of Murder On The Orient Express is all about.  Everybody was guilty.  Or like the story of the martyred Christ.  Christ died on the cross in part because even the liberals of their time disavowed him. He died for all of our sins.

 

Yes, we can utilize the notion of "false consciousness" to explain how people were  fooled into voting for Trump.  However, in doing so we need to understand how our own snobbery may have contributed to the problem.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#6
Cody930

Cody930

    An Apple Pie from Scratch

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,509 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey, US

I think it'd be useful to breakdown broadly what his coalition was - a section of the working class looking for change (most didn't turn out across the board, those who did likely voted for Obama twice; white and upper Midwesterners), small business owners (average income of his voter base was like ~$71k), the religious right, and social conservatives (upper and lower class). In the end though, Trump's right-wing populism was trying to replace the old "liberal" elite with the "forgotten" elite which is supposedly small capital and what not. 

 

You hit part of the problem here and that was that liberalism turned into its own kind of elitism unfortunately. Hilary gained a lot in upper middle class neighborhoods. Bernie riled up the working classes, youth, and progressives, including liberals who leaned away from the establishment. It definitely became more evident as he gained in the upper Midwest and western states although it was too late by then. They clearly didn't want to hear Clinton's relationship to free trade or the perception she'd be a third term Obama. They also did not want to hear that everything was fine from some liberals when clearly they weren't for some people. Trump definitely hit a nerve even if most of his voters were holding their nose at all his bigotry, racism, etc. He called for change and it worked just enough to barely flip 3 states in the now defunct "Blue Wall."

 

I'm curious if this election is causing a sort of "de-alignment" like some historians have discussed between 1968 - 1980. We'll have to see how Trumpism plays out in the wings of the GOP.


"Since we first emerged, a few million years ago in East Africa, we have meandered our way around the planet. There are now people on every continent and the remotest islands, from pole to pole, from Mount Everest to the Dead Sea, on the ocean bottoms and even, occasionally, in residence 200 miles up - humans, like the gods of old, living in the sky."


#7
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,221 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables
Study: Hillary Clinton ran one of the worst campaigns in years

 

A new study by the Wesleyan Media Project has found that the 2016 presidential campaign run by Hillary Clinton is without a doubt one of the worst-run political operations in years.

Interestingly, the directors of the study dispute the argument that “advertising doesn’t matter” in elections. Clinton’s failure to advertise in certain key states, they argue, was the biggest reason for her defeat by Donald Trump.

The study also backs the view that Clinton’s focus on identity politics and emphasis on condemning her opposition contributed to a campaign message devoid of substance with no clear message on policy.


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#8
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,132 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

Study: Hillary Clinton ran one of the worst campaigns in years


YA THINK?! YA-..Y-ya-ya think?!
 

UB3fKxG.jpg


  • Roh234 and nomad like this
Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#9
nomad

nomad

    The Darkness

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 548 posts

Mother of god, that sick burn! I think I have radiation poisoning from my monitor now.


Cats.


#10
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,197 posts

UB3fKxG.jpg

 

 

There are several items listed that are either false or highly miss leading.

 

  • The entire mainstream media shilled for her.  Trump received far more coverage and spokespersons for his campaign were frequently interviewed or involved in debates. 
  • Muslim nations gave her millions.  This makes it sound like funds went directly to her campaign.  No such funding occurred.  A non-profit agency her and her husband were involved in did receive contributions from foreign sources. None of those funds were used for her presidential campaign.
  • The DNC rigged the primaries for her.  Favoritism and a tilting of the playing field - yes.  Still, "rigging" is a bit of an overstatement.
  • The GOP establishment supported her. There were some defectors for the establishment, but it is a great overstatement to indicate that the entire establishment supported her.  In the end, the vast majority fell in behind Trump.  At least that is the impression I received. 
  • Her serious health problems were covered up. A delay of maybe a couple of days occurred in announcing she had pneumonia. Hardly a cover up as implied in this statement.
  • People were murdered on her behalf.  This smells of being a fantastic conspiracy theory unworthy of scholarly mention except perhaps to explain how some perceived her.
  • They rigged the debates for her.  Again, too strong a word.  At best she received some advanced information concerning a question or two that was to be asked.  At least that is my recollection.

Is is disappointing to see this show up in a serious discussion of the election.


  • Erowind likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#11
Cody930

Cody930

    An Apple Pie from Scratch

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,509 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey, US

I think Bernie shilling for her is a little to out of context too. His message wasn't different in terms of the programs he was laying out. Yeah some of his base was not pleased with the move (even I was a little wary) but all that is over and Bernie is back to his old self, on the ground railing against Trump's initiatives. He was just down with Nissan workers in Mississippi last week marching with them to unionize their factory. 


  • caltrek and Water like this

"Since we first emerged, a few million years ago in East Africa, we have meandered our way around the planet. There are now people on every continent and the remotest islands, from pole to pole, from Mount Everest to the Dead Sea, on the ocean bottoms and even, occasionally, in residence 200 miles up - humans, like the gods of old, living in the sky."


#12
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,197 posts

The March 20, 2017 edition of The Nation has "Media in the Trump Era" as its theme.  It has many insights that supplement the insights contained in Jakob's excellent citation. 

 

For example:

 

Fox News Channel has 2.5 million prime time viewers versus 1.1 million for MSNBC

 

 

Perhaps more revealing:

  1. The top ten Cable-TV news shows by audience size as of January 2017 (just two months give or take after the election) were all on the Fox News channel.
  2. Fox News channel has 15 million reach through Facebook and 13.4 million through Twitter.
  3. The Wall Street Journal has 5.5 million through Facebook and 9.17 million through Twitter.
  4. Brietbart News has 3.19 million through and 638,000 through Twitter.

Countervailing forces on the left are comparatively weak.

  1. The Huffington Post reaches 9 million through Facebook and 9.17 million through Twitter.
  2. The New York Post has 3.9 million through Facebook and 1.18 million through Twitter.
  3. MSNBC  1.86 million through Facebook and 1.59 million through Twitter.
  4. The Young Turks 1.78 million through Facebook and 287,000 through Twitter.

 

As far as You Tube subscribers:

 

  1. Fox News with more than 500,000 subscribers

Versus:

 

  1. The Huffington Post with more than 200,000 YouTube subscribers.
  2. MSNBC with 300,00 subscribers.

So, You Tube is a relatively favorable forum, although less centralized than on the right.

 

 

This all has obvious implications for messaging capabilities.  The individual candidates may not be able to control the content of these outlets, but this is very much the terrain in which such candidates must operate.  


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#13
Roh234

Roh234

    Capitalism is the only way to survive.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Location11 Dimentional Hyperspace

You're all forgetting Reddit and 4/8chan /pol/ and the role they had in the election. Months of work have gone into helping Trump. It was a glorious campaign, attacking Hillary from both the left and right, getting material to be viewed by a million people daily. Three great times, when Trump got the nomination, Brexit and when Trump won the presidency. Makes me proud that I was part of history.


What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty. -Hans Hermann Hoppe


#14
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,132 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

You're all forgetting Reddit and 4/8chan /pol/ and the role they had in the election. Months of work have gone into helping Trump. It was a glorious campaign, attacking Hillary from both the left and right, getting material to be viewed by a million people daily. Three great times, when Trump got the nomination, Brexit and when Trump won the presidency. Makes me proud that I was part of history.

I'd hate to break it to you but Trump's victory didn't come from 4chan or Reddit or anywhere online. At least, not in the beginning. Instead, it came from Hillary herself.
 
It was called the Pied Piper strategy, and the DNC utilized it to deliberately promote Trump (and Cruz and Carson) as a means of giving Hillary a better chance in the general election. Because to them, obviously Hillary's gonna win. So they needed to make the most outrageous candidate emerge victorious in the RNC, and they chose Trump. The little effect Reddit/4chan/8chan had on the election was arguably manufactured as well. You've heard of "Correct The Record", right? How Hillary paid millions for online shills to spread her good news? There's a damn good chance they did the same with Trump, deliberately setting up obviously reactionary trolls to shill for him as a means of making him more unpalatable than he actually was. 
 
At some point, the reaction went critical on its own and became self-sustaining, but there's little doubt in my mind that it was all manufactured in the beginning as a means of getting Hillary in the White House.
 
 
A lot of Trumpettes don't want to believe this just like how a lot of Clintonoids completely discount CTR. They can't accept or entertain the possibility their side was in any way "manufactured". In fact, it's even possible some of Bernie's support was manufactured just to make Hillary seem less like a shoe-in. 
Problem being, this isn't some dystopian novel (though we still get the dystopia). This is real life. Every single plan backfired. Some might say "Maybe they wanted Trump to begin with", but for that, a lot of threads that once fit perfectly have to be severed and, as a result, everything seems jumbled and nonsensical. When you accept that the establishment wanted Hillary and Trump was a wild card, everything fits.
 
 
It reads like a Shakespearean tragedy. They said Hillary had an extreme level of hubris, but this is just ridiculous.
 
Read more:
http://dailycaller.c...ted-in-primary/
https://www.rt.com/u...-podesta-trump/
http://observer.com/...o-help-clinton/
http://www.ramanmedi...lped-trump-win/
https://twitter.com/...7880581?lang=en
http://www.salon.com...piper-strategy/
http://www.express.c...ump-pied-pipers
https://www.reddit.c...inton_campaign/

1AJvr9Z.jpg

4chan was probably the trump card (ha!) that threw the election one way, but I would recommend not overestimating its influence in such a controlled environment. It was about as influential as a thunderclap inside a bedroom stacked with marbles.
Really opens your eyes as to how much of a sham this "democracy"/"republic" really is. I've been envying China more and more, even though I strongly disagree with their politics, all because I've been noticing how much shit they get done. They're not psychotic like North Korea nor are they regressive like Saudi Arabia. Directing that towards another, more civilized cause would do wonders.


Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#15
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,197 posts

^^^You have done a good job of demonstrating that the email in question existed and proposed the "Pied Piper"  straegy.  What I don't see so well documented is how extensively did this become the strategy of the campaign.  How many resources were sunk into this aspect of the Clinton strategy?  Hpw much influence did it really have on media coverage, etc.?

 

Also, to what extent did Hillary herself support this strategy?

 

Clearly, Podesta was an idiot.  Did Hillary follow his lead?


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#16
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,197 posts

A 2016 Review: Turnout Wasn’t the Driver of Clinton’s Defeat

 

https://www.nytimes....ss&emc=rss&_r=0

 

Introduction:

 

In the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election, many analysts suggested that Hillary Clinton lost to Donald J. Trump because of poor Democratic turnout.

Months later, it is clear that the turnout was only modestly better for Mr. Trump than expected.

 

To the extent Democratic turnout was weak, it was mainly among black voters. Even there, the scale of Democratic weakness has been exaggerated.

 

Instead, it’s clear that large numbers of white, working-class voters shifted from the Democrats to Mr. Trump. Over all, almost one in four of President Obama’s 2012 white working-class supporters defected from the Democrats in 2016, either supporting Mr. Trump or voting for a third-party candidate.

 

This analysis compares official voter files — data not available until months after the election — with The Upshot’s pre-election turnout projections in Florida, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. The turnout patterns evident in these states are representative of broader trends throughout the battleground states and nationwide.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#17
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,132 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

Is is disappointing to see this show up in a serious discussion of the election.

Maybe it was a bit too jokey, but the song remains the same. Clinton was betting that she was destined to become the president and that us commoner plebians would fall in line behind her.

Except you know the old cliche (ironically coined by one Mr. Bill Clinton), right? Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line.

She thought she was entitled to the presidency, that all her experience played second fiddle to what she wanted. And as I've been saying, the elite have a way with dealing with commoner plebians who fail to fall in love and fall in line: call them bigots. It works with immigration and economics — the truth is that the super rich want to pay people absurdly low wages to squeeze out just a bit more money, but the common tune is that if you oppose diversity, you're a racist xenophobe.

Same thing can work with Clinton. You don't support her? You must be a sexist and even a racist. 

Just to drive it home, let's use the Pied Piper strategy to make sure that the opposition really is sexist and racist. And when you put common opposition together with extremism, it makes sense that you'd just create more extremists. And that's what happened here. 

taildrop

During the 2008 campaign, the DNC had two strong candidates on their hands. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. At some point towards the end of the primary, it was decided that Obama had the best chance of being elected so he became the preferred candidate.
A deal was cut with Hillary that she would drop out and help them elect Obama. In exchange, she was promised the full backing of the DNC in either 2012, if he lost, or 2016 if he was re-elected in 2012. She was also promised the job of Secretary of State so that she could get foreign policy experience. SS was chosen instead of VP because it would make it easier for her to resign in time to start her Presidential run.
So Obama gets re-elected in 2012, she resigns as SS and the race is on. All the other Democrats are warned against running so the deck is cleared for Hillary. Since it would look very strange for her to run 100% unopposed, they draft the hapless Martin O’Malley as a straw man opponent. Unfortunately for them, Bernie Sanders wasn’t a member of the DNC so he never got the message and wasn’t in on the plan.
So, now the stage is set for the 2016 election cycle and Hillary is set to be the nominee. All that’s left now is to beat the Republican nominee. Realizing she is a weak candidate and will have a tough time against a strong Republican candidate, a plan is hatched. They will use their friends in the media to prop up weak Republican candidates and drive out any strong contenders. Someone remembers that Donald Trump had mulled over running in the past, so someone reached out to him and a few media types and he got into the race. He had no idea any of this was a plan by the DNC.
So the primaries begin and the DNC looks over the potential RNC field. Since they are afraid they will have a tough time with a few of the stronger candidates (Rubio especially), it’s decided to prop up a few of the weaker candidates like Trump and Carson. Given his strong media savvy and flair for the dramatic, Trump is an easy selection for the media to prop up. Despite the fact that he is barely a Republican and is out of touch with most of the Republican core “values”, he is quickly elevated to front runner status using the methods described in this article.
Since the media is basically giving him millions of dollars of free publicity, and because he has a great way with the public, he climbs to be a top contender. The few remaining Republicans in the race face stiff opposition from both the DNC and the media who is coordinating with the Democrats. This results in Trump getting the nomination and Hillary’s preferred candidate is now in place.
At this point, the previously friendly media turns on Trump to lessen the chance he can defeat Hillary. This would have all worked and she would have been the President Elect right now if it just wasn’t for the fact that she has the appeal of a month old dead fish. Even with the friendly media propping her up, she still couldn’t bring out her base and she ended up losing the election.

Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#18
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,197 posts

^^^ That the material was submitted in jest definitely makes it more palatable.  Still, there are so many crazy ideas floating through the internet that it is difficult for me to always detect when somebody is joking and when they are being serious.  Many of the conspiracy type theories cited about Hillary were actually believed n some quarters.

 

As to the Pied Piper story.  I still see precious little evidence to back up the claims made in that story.  A thinking out loud type email from Podesta and the citation that a courtesy call was made by Bill Clinton to Trump early in the Trump campaign.  Hardly supportive of the conspiracy theory tone shown in your citation. 

 

Meanwhile, the questions I posed go entirely unaddressed:

 

 

What I don't see so well documented is how extensively did this become the strategy of the campaign.  How many resources were sunk into this aspect of the Clinton strategy?  How much influence did it really have on media coverage, etc.?

 

Also, to what extent did Hillary herself support this strategy?


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#19
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,132 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

This is one of those library books I kept mentioning

f6KK2qw.jpg


Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#20
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,221 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

The actual Hillary would be smashing the Statue of Liberty to bits, claiming it's triggering to gay black Muslim transgenders.


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: 2016, United States, Presidential Election, Blue collar voters, Evangelicals, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Donald Trump, White supremacists

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users