Gleichschaltung?

[Dill]

(01-28-2017, 01:02 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: See, this is my problem with it. Third party voters didn't cost Hillary anything. Hillary cost herself by not making herself a more appealing candidate to those third party voters.

People treat votes like they're something that belongs to the two main parties. "They very easily could have cost her"... they could have determined it, but they didn't cost her anything.

If Hillary spent less time focusing on Trump, and spent more time talking about issues (and visiting states that she thought she had in the bag), she probably would have easily won.

I agree 3rd party voters did make much difference. But I am not sure what more Hillary could have done, except campaign more in PA and Michigan and Wisconsin. But the polls were telling her that firewall was secure. It made sense to concentrate on Florida and NC.

She thumped Trump in the debates while he looked immature and easily managed. Yet people didn't care about that. So what could she have said about issues that she didn't say?

Trump did so many things what would have killed any other politician--and yet people preferred him, and his vulgarity, to experience and competence.

I think Hillary's number one opponent was right wing news media, which were in play long before the election. They drove the faux Benghazi scandal which uncovered her emails. They circulated fake news and innuendo about corruption which reduced her supporters by just enough percentage points, while the same innuendo, and Trumps far worse actions, had little affect on the Republican base.

With the biggest economy and most powerful military in the world and rising employment, a critical mass of American voters wanted to make America great again and elected a demagogue ignorant of domestic and foreign policy to take them there.