11-14-2016, 02:47 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".
Trump had way more campaign appearances than Clinton did. I have considered that lack to be evidence in favor of Clinton having and serious undisclosed chronic health issue. Hillary had trouble filling a school gym and Trump was consistently filling stadiums and ended up turning people away. Its ironic they got the Republican they wanted to run against and still managed to lose.
If the Democrats continue to refuse to learn from their mistakes then that could very well be the outcome. If at the end of four or eight years the economic conditions of people in those states improve then that is a very likely outcome.
If Sargon of Akkad is right then they won't learn anything.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises