03-14-2017, 10:52 AM
(11-14-2016, 02:13 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: One could argue that Trump simply had a better run campaign. He was campaigning in all the really close states at the end, while Clinton was neglecting half of them and spending a lot of time campaigning in states that were not close.
Or one could argue that is was a realigning election with respect to the upper midwest. One could say it was the "northern strategy".
Donald Trump ran a ruthless campaign, one that exploited mass distress with promises of a secret cure. The secret cure is the demolition of 90 years of social progress while most of the profit is reshaped into easy collection of exorbitant rents and monopoly profits, with other ways of making money more than enough for an standard of existence impossible. In such a world, even small business has no chance unless it is outright crime. Now that many Americans know what the secret is, they might not like it.
Realignment? We shall see in 2020. If it is a realignment, then I am glad that I have no children or grandchildren to suffer in a new manifestation of feudalism in which great suffering is for the many and great indulgence is for the few. Even that could be temporary.
I see evidence that Donald Trump is unpopular in Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania in statewide polls and that even in a district poll (Paul Ryan's WI-01) that in a safe Republican district, Trump and Ryan both have but middling support.
Fluke elections (1976?) happen, and fluke elections generally aren't replicable in the next general election.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.