actually, a sizeable portion of the electorate was explicitly stating on election day that they consider both candidates to be huge turds, and that they voted for the lesser of two evils.

2 weeks out from election day, around 20% of the voters hadnt made up their mind yet, and those late-deciding voters broke towards trump at roughly a 3:1 ratio.


so yes, for many voters, trump was the lesser of two evils. if you are a classical conservative, would you rather see an incompetent buffoon in the white house who doesnt get much done; or would you rather see a professional career politician efficiently enacting an agenda which is diametrically opposed to your own policy preferences?

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 23 2018 05:13am

The other excuse makes him feel superior to you on an internet video game forum

little fella thor thinks “conservatives” all are like the people he watches in his tiny little town

how the hell can little fella thor feel superior to anyone lmfao

born with privilege most of the world would give anything for
will ultimately waste the rest of his 20s and early 30s (maybe even longer) crying about drumpf here
state subsidy takes care of him
mommie-in law buys his groceries
wrong about everything politics related for years now
outsmarted by flat-earth dude

oh what I would give for a full 12 hour video of hillary's election night.... approaching her that night must have been suicidal.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 24 2018 01:57am

well, she was right that they were never going to like her. trying to make her more likeable would have been the wrong move for her campaign. as was demonizing trump.

what she should have done, and where she failed, is making a compelling point to the american people that her presidency would be good for them policy-wise, that it would be better than what people could expect from a trump presidency.

if there's a textbook example of karl rove's "dont attack their weaknesses, attack their strenghts" paradigma, it's the 2016 campaign.

no no, you're still getting it half-backwards. Clinton's team got it halfbackwards too.
Karl Rove's lesson to american politics was that you win by running a dirty negative campaign that attacks their strength. Hillary got the dirty negative campaign part realized, you got the attack-the-strength realized, but you need to put the two together. Hillary ran whisper campaigns and did muckraking and a bimbo eruption and all that jazz, but all it did was reinforce Trump's image as a brutally honest politically incorrect billionaire playboy: His machismo was his strength. You think Hillary could have made a better policy pitch and fought Trump on his economic platform by making a better argument, but positive campaigning isn't nearly as effective as smearing feces on your opponent.

I've said on PARD for years now, since before the election even, that Hillary could have won if she deconstructed Trump's persona instead of reinforcing it. If she had worked to subvert him by casting him as an out of touch, decrepit impotent doddering old warbly fool, she would have won. If America's picture of Trump was him being a celibate, germophobic senile diaper-wearing washed-up robber baron out-of-touch elitist snob, all his populist support would have evaporated.

Hillary thought her silver bullet would be a tape of Trump bragging how he's so alpha that women let him grab them by the pussy. A real silver bullet would have been if they had one of Trump's previous flings say he couldn't even get his dick up and started blubbering like a cuck and how repulsed she was.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Apr 24 2018 02:35am

I gotta disagree here.

Clinton would have had to make compelling and practical points about how trumps immigration policies would hurt safety in communities, how his anti-free trade stance would hurt even the coal and steel workers in the midwest, and so on. plus, of course, explain her own convincing ideas about how to help those places, how to tighten immigration and so on.

for example, she could have made a huge 10-year plan on infrastructure, strongly state subsidized and explizitly designed to put steel workers in the midwest into work. she could have said something along the lines of "America needs the greatest roads and houses, so we're gonna overhaul our entire infrastructure. It's long overdue. You great people of the Midwest know how to build them, nobody builds better cars and roads than you. So my infrastructure plan will provide you with great jobs for years to come."

Something like that would EASILY have been enough for her to carry pennsylvania, wisconsin and michigan.

------

if she had tried to subvert his machismo, his success with women, his wealth or anything like that, she would have fought an uphill battle. fighting trump with dirty personal attacks is fighting hm on his turf. he's a trained veteran in this kind of mud-slinging fights, while it didnt suit clinton at all. so no, in my opinion, her mistake was not simply that she targeted the wrong aspect of his personality with her dirt campaign - focusing on the personal attacks at all was the key mistake.

trump already did a good job pissing off and making himself unelectable to half the country. all she needed to win was the slightest glimmer of an inspiring, positive idea that resonates with the people in the heartland. by focusing her policy platform exclusively on lefty sjw topics, she gave the obama-trump voters in the midwest no reason to vote for her and thus enabled trump to pick up those votes in the first place.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 24 2018 06:15am

so to give a tldr:

you, goomshill, say that clinton should have attacked trumps strength on a personal level, while I say that she should have done so on the policy front.