Miscellaneous musings, post-election
My first thought: wow, what a ride.
My second: boy, am I tired. I was up till 7 AM although I went to bed quite a while before that. Just too much “seething cranium” to sleep. So whatever thoughts follow might be a bit more disjointed than usual, and if so, I plead exhaustion.
I am glad it’s over, as I said I would be. But I know that now begins that long hard slog through actual governing, and all the events that can throw even the most well-intentioned administration a curve. The GOP is firmly in control of the presidency and both houses; now they have a chance to show what they are made of and what they can accomplish. I hope (as I said I would hope, if Trump wins) that Trump’s better nature (and the GOP’s for that matter) is firmly in the ascendance, and that the gravity and responsibility of the office helps him always function from that better and wiser nature.
We (and he, and they) will need all the help we can get, from fate and luck and the deity, to get through and try to heal the awful divisiveness of this nation, and the conflict in the world.
On a much lighter note, Melania Trump will be the first foreign-born First Lady since Louisa Adams. I predict some rather nifty fashion from Melania, and the ability to wear it with the grace of the model she once was.
Hillary Clinton’s political career is probably over. That’s just fine with me, and most of America. The Democrats need some new blood.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s retirement plans are probably on hold for the next four years.
Trump won most of the swing states but usually by just a little bit, so his victory was broad but not deep. That indicates that whatever was happening was happening across many areas of the country, although the west coast and New England were markedly immune. It also indicates that the remarkable divide, nearly 50/50, within the American electorate continues. The popular vote margin is razor-thin (Trump is ahead as I write this but just barely, and it’s been changing hands throughout the early morning), as it was in 2000 and 2004. But I take nothing away from Trump: he worked hard, and he won.
I think that Trump’s victory as well as that of the Republican Congress tells the tale of what can happen when a party in power (the Democrats) muscles through policies and legislation that the majority of the American people don’t support. It can be done, but the people do not appreciate it. Not at all.
Trump has an unusual opportunity: a fully Republican Congress to go with his victory. George Bush had much the same thing between 2003 and 2006, and one of the things that angered a lot of people on the right was that he and they didn’t use it to further many conservative causes. My prediction is that this time it will be different, and in particular that the nuclear option will be used to facilitate Trump’s judicial appointments, much as the Democrats did with Obama’s when they controlled the Senate in 2013-2015. The Democrats don’t have a leg to stand on if they try to object when the Republicans do it now, but just watch the Democrats attempt it.
A lot of people are saying the polls were wrong. Well, they were wrong in that they were not exactly right, but they weren’t really far off in terms of the built-in margin of error. People often ignore the margin of error when they look at polls, but after the tightening of polls that occurred after the Comey letter, there were many close states that entered margin-of-error tossup territory. The average and the average over time, however, did point to a Clinton victory, and that turned out to be wrong.
White evangelicals went for Trump about 82% (I heard that on the news in the wee hours of the morning); I would imagine it had to do with abortion. Trump got 46% of the late-deciders to Clinton’s 44%, and that may have given him a slight edge over poll predictions.
If Trump can sustain the tone of his victory speech, and follow it up with the actions that he promises (or even half of them), protect liberty, and help keep this country safe, I will be more than pleased to praise him.
Big, big win. When I predicted a slim DJT win yesterday it was mostly aspirational.
The Trump rallies I attended showed me how much frustration there was in America and how excited people were for Trump.
Now it is execution. He can do it.
We need 4% economic growth. We need to kill the CAGW scam. No more deaths like that of Iowa’s Sarah Root.
Mostly Trump’s win was about restoring the Rule of Law. That’s the immigration thing. A big part of making America great again.
Glad the Clintons are gone. Obama needs to pardon Hillary. But Cheryl Mills, David Kendall and others deserve the full Scooter Libby treatment. The Platte River Networks guy will flip on them. Bank on it.
TRIUMPH!
Some of these votes in PA and FL are likely fraud. Just my first thought.
And Trump managed to win without the support of many Republicans in office. That’s a huge deal.
Plus the Never Trumpers.
2020 will be even better for Trump. His policies will have affected change. The first 100 days looks incredible, if you take the time to read it. So much good here.
EXCITED FOR THE FUTURE!
We also need to hold to account all of those clebs who said they would leave the country. Cher, Babs, Lena Dunham, etc.
Neo,
The polls were wrong because they presupposed the wrong turnout assumptions. As it turned out, blacks and millennials didn’t show up for Hillary like they did for Obama in 2008/2012, as the polls assumed they would. (Of course, there was no reason to assume that they would in the first place. Pollsters should have looked to primary turnout earlier in the year and not the 2008/2012 GE turnout.)
Also, Trump would have won the popular vote if not for all the disaffected conservatives and/or Republicans who voted for “independent conservative” McMullin in Utah and Johnson everywhere else.
I also suspect Trump would’ve won Nevada, if not for Clark County fraud (or, as some in the media might put it, the Democratic party’s stellar “ground game” in Clark County). And I do think fraud cut into Trump’s lead in Florida. Polls with more realistic turnout assumptions were projecting a bigger win for Trump in Florida and I am inclined to think that fraud might’ve been the cause of that lead shrinking. Also, something similar could also be said for Pennsylvania, there were a number of reports of voting irregularities in that state yesterday which all favored Hillary, somehow I doubt that’s all coincidence.
One of the more honest takes on this election at the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/business/media/media-trump-clinton.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-abc-region®ion=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region
Cornhead:
The “leaving the country” threat is no joke to me. I don’t care about Streisand. But several people I love very very much are frightened enough that they have been talking about leaving if there’s a Trump victory. This is of very very deep concern to me. Very.
Meh:
Agreed about turnout (I think I mentioned turnout in one of today’s posts). I’ve said many times that turnout would be highly unpredictable this year, and it was.
What’s interesting is how many things didn’t change. It’s hard to argue that this was a paradigm-shifting election. There appear to have been 12 seats in the House that changed parties, and 1 seat in the Senate.
I haven’t seen numbers about minority turnout yet, and frankly they’d be near worthless this early.
“Mostly Trump’s win was about restoring the Rule of Law. That’s the immigration thing. A big part of making America great again.” – Cornhead
But, from what I read on his website, and what’s he’s said, he won’t be deporting every illegal immigrant.
I keep hearing phrases like that thrown around, but it certainly lacks clarity if one means 100% deportation, or just applying the law to a subset.
In this blog, I see comments that indicate either expectation.
What is your expectation, Cornhead?
Cornhead,
I was hopeful yesterday, but I couldn’t really see Trump winning Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (and Michigan is likely red, too). I thought Trump had to win VA- I was confident he would win FL, OH, and NC along with IA. I thought VA was mandatory, and when the vote count in VA was about 50% through, I realized he was probably going to lose the state based on what was left- but out of left field came the counts in WI and PA.
I don’t if any of you followed the NYTimes election predictor last night, but it was a marvelous piece of programming. It saw the Trump win early in the evening after the first returns came in from WI and PA. And it performed well the entire night, even though its modelling functions were skewed, too by the fact that Trump actually underperformed Romney’s results in 2012- for example, it predicted at various times that Trump would win MI by 2-3% based on what was left to count, but it overestimated because he also underperformed from 2012- Clinton just underperformed much worse.
@Nick – right. But, overall it seems there were 9M fewer voters in 2016 vs 2012.
And, if the final numbers hold their relative positions, a tiny majority of the popular vote was for clinton – hardly a mandate one might think based on ec votes.
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president
The upside is with GOP holding the House and Senate, there is some possibility they show the leadership in moving forward on some conservative initiatives, rather than waiting for trump to define all the initiatives.
The downside is the possibility of overplaying their hand and losing one or more majorities (as the dems did in 2010).
Need to sell the public on the changes we want.
Yancey,
No way Trump was going to win VA. Sadly, Republicans are losing VA and CO to the left for reasons of demographics and changing culture.
But, from what I read on his website, and what’s he’s said, he won’t be deporting every illegal immigrant.
I keep hearing phrases like that thrown around, but it certainly lacks clarity if one means 100% deportation, or just applying the law to a subset.
In this blog, I see comments that indicate either expectation.
What is your expectation, Cornhead?
I’ll tackle this. First, he will not deport all at once. He will deport the criminal ones first b/c that is easiest to do. Second, he talked about ‘enforcing the law,’ which means enforcing employment law and laws about who receives benefits, that will cause many illegals to self-deport when they cannot work nor receive benefits. Third, the construction of a border wall and tougher border security & enforcement will stop the flow and make it easier to focus on who is in our country.
Lastly, he has said before there will be a ‘big beautiful door’ in the wall. People who are here illegally will have an opportunity to leave the country on their own and then come back in legally. I think many will take him up on this offer, rather than wait for the axe to fall.
It will work. It will just take time. It will be done in waves. Criminals first. Border wall up. Those are HUGE first steps.
Big Maq – a tiny plurality of the popular vote.
@ neo: hate to say it, but let them leave. Shake their hand, give hugs, and make dates for the holidays. Move on.
GRA:
I know you mean well. But what you are saying could not be more wrong. There are certainly people about whom that would be good advice, and relationships. But not these people and not these relationships. Period, end of discussion.
The vote by gender and race
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/11/09/11/3A3288B200000578-0-image-a-71_1478689949812.jpg
Trump got a majority of white women 52%, and 33% of latino men.
Meh,
Virginia was winnable, Trump just didn’t contest it. I thought it was a mistake to spend so much time and late money on WI, MI, and especially PA, but their internal polling must have been convincing enough to make that push. Clinton was probably seeing it, too, but it was too late to stop Trump’s rise.
The standard immigrant narrative in U.S. history was of people leaving their birth nation due to oppression or lack of opportunities, and coming to the U.S. to begin life afresh. The history of the American frontier contains a similar narrative: moving on to a distant place in order to escape whatever was holding them back.
It really shouldn’t be a surprise that some of the descendants of these immigrants or frontier settlers would choose to behave in a similar manner.
That’s why the idea doesn’t upset me, even if it might include people whom I would miss dearly. People do what they believe to be necessary for themselves. One part of respecting them as people is to respect their decisions.
Nick,
Minority turnout was a lot lower last night
In Wayne County, Michigan (Detroit), for example, Clinton underperformed Obama’s margin of victory by almost 90,000 votes, mostly from depressed turnout. The same applied in a number of big cites around the country.
Neo: “But several people I love very very much are frightened enough that they have been talking about leaving if there’s a Trump victory. This is of very very deep concern to me. Very.”
That’s really a sad thing to hear. I hope they don’t leave and I hope Trump doesn’t give them any reason to. Trying times no matter who won.
Of course, Vanderleun put this up today, which t I though pretty humorous. But not if someone you care about is leaving.
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/bad_americans/canadian_army_fortifies_b.php
Re: Neo’s remark about people leaving. JUST left attending a soccer game in Old Lyme CT; a place even more blue and elitist than the rest of the state. Conversation on the sidelines was of palpable fear. These rich liberals are shaken to the core. I didn’t know whether to laugh or just shake my head and roll my eyes. Thesee people really live in a bubble that rivals academia.
Interesting is the fight-or-flight reaction to political change. Conservatives did not flee during the looong Obama years, years of corruption., p*ssing on the country and its Constitution, and lying at the highest levels. We endured.
People who would flee now can’t handle opposition, IMO. They like force on their side, for their use. They have implicitly approved of the same high-handed rule which they now fear. Shoe is on the other foot.
Trump did not pull together a powerful movement on the right and thereby crush the Democrats.
The facts are that Trump received fewer popular votes than Romney and McCain. He even received fewer votes than Hillary Clinton.
Trump won because the Obama coalition collapsed after eight years of Obama’s failures and with the hideous, scandal-ridden candidacy of Hillary Clinton.
So Trump’s real accomplishment was not managing to lose a very winnable election. Had the election be held at some earlier points or some of breaks gone different, he could well have lost.
As Instapundit quotes Han Solo: “Don’t get cocky, kid.”
I had various Bay Area friends say they were going to leave in 2004 if W. won. They didn’t.
I am certainly in favor of “trying to heal the awful divisiveness of this nation, and the conflict in the world”. I’m also in favor of winning the lottery with just as good a chance of that happening as the divisiveness in this nation being reconciled and the conflict in the world lessening.
There’s too basic an ideological divide between the Left and conservatives. And far too much hesitancy in confronting the wolves. More confrontation is needed because that’s the only path toward eventual peace.
Drain the swamp. Destroy ISIS. End the enabling of terrorism by rogue countries, which includes the Saudis and Qatar. Enforce the law and go after the employers of illegals.
Restoring our military is the only chance for avoiding war with China. “Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. If you would have peace, prepare for war” “Epitoma Rei Militaris”, by the Roman Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus
“In Wayne County, Michigan (Detroit), for example, Clinton underperformed Obama’s margin of victory by almost 90,000 votes, mostly from depressed turnout. The same applied in a number of big cites around the country.” – Yancey
Can we say that this election puts the lie to the “massive fraud” in our presidential elections?
Yes, it may exist here and there, but when I see above that just pokes a hole in that balloon.
It’s become a regular talking point every single election and particularly heats up when it looks like our candidate is losing. Yet, how many states have GOP Governors, and how many cases have been brought forward.
I have no doubt that were the election results in favor of clinton by similar small margins across several swing states, there’d be yells of fraud and lawsuits would fly to contest the results.
Over at Daily Kos the boys and girls are all about “licking their wounds, grieving,” then preparing to “f*cking fight.” They seem to believe they are in Season 7 of “The Walking Dead.”
On other fronts they are convinced Trump’s election could only be because of white supremacy and the Electoral College. They have a plan for eliminating the EC without amending the Constitution.
I argued in an earlier topic that Democrats seem less prone to splintering because they have been winning for a while at the national level and in the cultural war.
Trump’s victory broke their winning streak. We will see how much splintering takes place.
There’s too basic an ideological divide between the Left and conservatives.” – GB
You need to make the distinction between divisiveness between the citizens vs between political partisans (whose numbers are FAR fewer).
“And far too much hesitancy in confronting the wolves. More confrontation is needed because that’s the only path toward eventual peace.”
Sometimes, and depends on how you mean to do the “confrontation”. That it follows that it is the “only” path to peace is false. It can just as easily escalate things.
@huxley – I’ve seen it described as a “whitelash”.
To be expected given trump’s campaign catering to those eager for a racial confrontation, I guess.
Best to ignore that and make the case for conservative policies that trump would “hopefully” implement.
“I argued in an earlier topic that Democrats seem less prone to splintering because they have been winning for a while at the national level and in the cultural war.” – huxley
An excellent case could be made to say that the dems have been on the losing side for most everything but the POTUS, when one considers state and local, and the House and Senate.
Change was probably coming whether it was trump or not heading the GOP.
Big Maq,
I agree that voter fraud did not play a significant role in this election.
“You need to make the distinction between divisiveness between the citizens vs between political partisans (whose numbers are FAR fewer).”
Hillary winning the popular vote and Trump’s narrow victory argue otherwise. Whatever the reason, those voting for the democrats are enabling the Left’s attempt to end liberty.
“depends on how you mean to do the “confrontation”
Go after the employers of illegal aliens. Legitimately exercise executive powers to pull up root and branch the Left’s networks. Defund Planned Parenthood, PBS and NPR. Abolish entire Federal departments. Bring RICO charges against democrat orgs and media outlets. Prosecute Soros with relevant charges. Declare a legal war on the Left. Call for an Article V convention. Weather the blowback and prepare for the conflict that confrontation will bring.
I’ll be curious to see if it starts feeling safer not to be progressive.
I don’t expect Trump to do anything specific here, but without the Obama people agitating behind the scenes to stoke anger towards the right and encourage the sense of progressive inevitablilty, maybe things will improve.
Is professing to be afraid virtue-signaling? Or do they believe their own propaganda?
An excellent case could be made to say that the dems have been on the losing side for most everything but the POTUS, when one considers state and local, and the House and Senate.
Big Maq: True. In the past two years it’s the way Obama seemed to be running the table with his pen and phone and “You can’t impeach me — I’m the first black president, you racists,” which gave one the impression Republicans were losing all the time.
The reality is that Obama’s constant overreaching was winning high-profile battles but losing the Democrats’ overall war against the GOP.
Democrats gambled everything that they could drag Hillary across the finish line with the media in their pocket and the Obama DOJ running interference on Hillary’s scandals.
If they had managed to elect Hillary, it would have worked. They could have cemented the Obama legacy in the courts, brought in millions more immigrant Dem voters, and we would have been close to becoming Mexico.
And it almost did work.
I still maintain that Trump was the worst possible candidate. His victory was nothing impressive, aside from confounding pundits and pollsters.
Trump did not expand the Republican base. Accounting for the increased population, Trump oversaw a shrinkage from McCain and Romney.
He only won because Democrats lost ten million votes since Obama’s messianic victory in 2008.
The Democrats are in a pickle now. They’ve lost the White House, the Senate and the House. The Supreme Court will likely get a conservative to replace Scalia. At the state and local levels it’s even worse.
Furthermore, they have lost a generation of younger talent in their state and local routs and by allowing the national level to be dominated by doddering old boomers.
Their bright spot is the culture war, which they are winning. Further out, the millenials — at least until they get tired of paying the bills for retired boomers — are still firmly Democrat voters, repulsed by the conservative worldview.
I have a lot of respect for neo neocon and the comment section. Mostly because there seems to be a large effort on the part of neo neocon that people not be too “casual” in their words or arguments.
“whitelash” was a term used a day or so again by the proudly self proclaimed communist Van Jones. i would suggest that it is Mr. Jones “catering to those eager for a radical confrontation” rather than the Trump campaign. imo.
Also it is interesting to note that now Mr. Jones thinks it important to be able to speak “honestly”.
http://tinyurl.com/pwxzprs
.
My brother wants Obama to investigate voter fraud via voting machines and voter “intimidation.” The election, you see, was stolen. He’s nuts, but he lives in CA.
Cornhead: If one voter in one hundred changed their vote, Hillary would have won.
Then I guaran-damn-tee you, Trump and his supporters would be screaming voter fraud and that the election was rigged.
Still, congrats on calling this one for Trump. I salute you!
Maybe your brother is correct about the fraud via voting machines. I’m shocked, shocked that almost 2 out of 3 of my fellow Californians voted for Hillary. That result just must be the result of fraud via voting machines.
Richard Aubrey Says:
November 9th, 2016 at 9:59 pm
Is professing to be afraid virtue-signaling? Or do they believe their own propaganda?
Yes.
Huxley,
I am asking you a straight up question- which Republican candidate other than Trump, could have won Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania last night?
Maybe another candidate could have won Virginia, Ohio, and Florida- possibly added Iowa and maybe Nevada, but would have lost all the other states that Obama won in 2012.
Trump enlarged the base- what you are focusing on, gross vote, isn’t the real standard. The standard you should be looking for is what states did Trump make competitive that the GOP had found unresponsive the last 28 years? Trump showed the GOP how to compete in the upper midwest and Pennsylvania. Trump, had he the resources deployed, probably could have made New Jersey and Delaware competitive. That is the model the GOP is going to have to use going forward. This is especially true with the explosive growth of the DC area making Virginia a slightly blue leaning state now.
And let me put it another way- Trump finished the same popularly as Bush in 2000, but won 35 more electoral votes- Trump ended up not even needing Michigan and Pennsylvania- they were just gravy after Arizona and Alaska came in with the Maine district.
Frog Says:
November 9th, 2016 at 5:46 pm
Interesting is the fight-or-flight reaction to political change…
People who would flee now can’t handle opposition, IMO. They like force on their side, for their use. They have implicitly approved of the same high-handed rule which they now fear. Shoe is on the other foot.
* *
Pop over to PowerLine and read the statements being put out by University presidents to their precious snowflakes.
Who are melting, melting….
Hillary winning the popular vote and Trump’s narrow victory argue otherwise. Whatever the reason, those voting for the democrats are enabling the Left’s attempt to end liberty. – GB
No. There is a very large population over whom elections are won – there is hardly ideological divide with these folks.
From your assumption, you want to get busy with “confrontation”.
“Bring RICO charges against democrat orgs and media outlets. Prosecute Soros with relevant charges. Declare a legal war on the Left.” – GB
These kinds of things are exactly how we lose those folks.
Yes, where there are well established facts on broken laws that can be proved (i.e. >85% chance conviction) against a well funded legal team, go for it. If trump’s admin does this and loses too many, it will come across as a partisan witch hunt.
Worse, not being selective encourages more abuse by partisan zealots such as the “Jane Doe” cases in WI vs Walker’s supporters.
When you go this far, I have to call it out as grave error, as very much begins to look like a call for “revenge”.
“Also it is interesting to note that now Mr. Jones thinks it important to be able to speak “honestly”.” – gracepc
Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
These kinds of things are exactly how we lose those folks.
That’s sort of like claiming the Catholic CHurch would have lost the faithful if they had actively sought out and got rid of the homosexuals and child molestors in their ranks before the lawyers got wind of the honey pot they could harvest from lawsuits against the Catholics.
It’s mistaking short term gains and stability, for long term strategic victory.
Yes there is a cost to using Lawfare against the Left and using the laws on the books, but the cost will be far less than what happens when people like me start being the same as the popular acclaim in the US. A few crazy people, you can handle. Not tens of millions however.
When you go this far, I have to call it out as grave error, as very much begins to look like a call for “revenge”.
GB had the same concerns as you a few years ago, probably before 2013. His concerns, as are yours, are of little impact against the power the Leftist alliance will bring to bear. Besides, justice is something the System is responsible for, not the planners here.
@Ymarsakar – I’m not disagreeing about being more proactive in “lawfare”, but we absolutely need to recognize there is a line at which point we lose, if we cross it.
Perhaps if “our” side gets into abusing “Jane Doe” type laws, you think “the cost will be far less than” not using them to attack political enemies?
The first part of what GB mentions, I think are fair game. But, then, he goes MUCH further, as I have quoted.
@Ymarsakar — I’m not disagreeing about being more proactive in “lawfare”, but we absolutely need to recognize there is a line at which point we lose, if we cross it.
Unless you’re part of King Trum’s executive Czar or cabinet, there’s no reason to worry about that “point”, cause you won’t be the one making it nor will you be given power to enforce/implement it. There’s no reason to worry about it, since as normal citizens, you are powerless, literally powerless, to change what is going up in DC once it starts moving.
This is why Mao said something like political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. He was right, for the most part. He was also wrong too.
The first part of what GB mentions, I think are fair game. But, then, he goes MUCH further, as I have quoted.
And if GB was Trum’s commissar, CZAR, or cabinet level member, that’d be an issue. It isn’t. This is the difference between “fantasy dreams” I see in Americans and practical exercise of power.
“Unless you’re part of King Trum’s executive Czar or cabinet, there’s no reason to worry about that “point”, cause you won’t be the one making it nor will you be given power to enforce/implement it.” – Yarm
That’s rather silly – you won’t be either, so why are you bothering to enter the debate about it?
.
Anyway, yes, none of us really knows what trump will do – that is true. And, yes, GB is expressing a wishlist.
In absence of that knowledge, all we have is the hope / trust that the people trump surrounds himself with are conservative and confident enough to influence how trump exercises power.
That’s rather silly — you won’t be either, so why are you bothering to enter the debate about it?
Because I have something called free will. But that doesn’t mean I think my Will is magic, that if I fear something, it’ll become reality and jump out of my computer screen and kill me. There’s a difference between Fantasy and exercising Power over humans.
Talking about a Point of No return as if it is something we here will be responsible for, is out of line and irrational to boot. We’re just along for the ride. Once they get your votes, your use to them is over. Well, there’s always taxes, right.
Anyway, yes, none of us really knows what trump will do — that is true. And, yes, GB is expressing a wishlist.
GB is brainstorming and expressing his beliefs. To counter his beliefs by saying they will pass a “Point”, which only exists to those in power who implement the plan, is mixing fantasy with reality here. Yes, there is a “point” that people will go crazy, like when Trum uses the IRS against people who talk back to him, but that won’t be because GB pulls the trigger or whatever ideas he has. That’ll be because of somebody else doing it.
As for what I am concerned about, I am not concerned with people here or even elsewhere brainstorming and coming up with ideas.
What matters is how actual humans, actually implement them. The devil is in the details. So Which Czar or Dictator wannabe, is going to be put into power by King Trum to Implement this?
That is the only thing that matters. Because if that guy is a freak or a sociopath or has blackmail on him the Left can use, then it will Really matter, in terms of Power used to crush humans, not just fantasies on a computer screen.
I am asking you a straight up question- which Republican candidate other than Trump, could have won Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania last night?
Anyone that bothered to ask the people what they should be promised in return for their vote, will have gotten some of that support, although Trum’s popularity empowered the promises.
The various Breitbart and grassfire surveys of what people wanted the Trum Campaign to do, for example. All of it went into the Gettsyburg address and other “Presidential speeches” people noticed at the end of campaign.
The Sandie Berger voters going to the Trum boat, is probably what sealed the boat, as gaining a Democrat voter for Trum is far better than gaining an “undecided” or “independent” vote. As it takes away a vote from Hillary.
Also, anyone with the propaganda support of the Alt Right, would have done as well, if not better.
As with the Left’s propaganda, that’s worth about 5-10 points by itself.
Also, as for “big win”, if Bush was running against a child predator and rapist in the form of Clint, as well as a criminal in the form of his wife… why wouldn’t Bush II have won as great an electoral college victory?
You don’t even need to smear your enemies, their allies already smeared them.
If your candidate is so horrible, they should have gotten LESS Than 50 electoral votes. The fact that they even got a 100, is why the country is messed up in the head and heart. While DC is messed up, the USA may take a little bit longer to become just as corrupt.