RiverDog wrote:I've wondered the same thing. I'm a self described fiscal conservative and social moderate, never voted for a Dem for national office in my life (voted for several at the Gubernatorial level) and I never even considered voting for Trump. My guess is that a lot of people just can't stand the Clintons and voted for Trump because they didn't want to see 4-8 years of that old hag. The fact that Trump's approval rating has been in the tank ever since he took office reinforces my opinion.
This is pure speculation. Many people that vote Democrat love the Clintons. They still think of the Clintons in a very positive manner and remember Bill very well. The Clinton name may be reviled by conservatives, but it's a good name for a Democratic candidate. I think you vastly overestimate the dislike if Hilary. And once again, explain how Trump won the Republican nomination against many well-funded and politically savvy politicians? It wasn't like he was well-supported by the Republican Party or even well-liked. I don't even think his own party cared if he won. Yet you keep touting the dislike of Hilary a the primary driver, when you could easily say a similar or greater number of people disliked Trump for his stances, attitudes, and the like.
You, me, and Hawktalk are all usually Republican voters that didn't vote for Trump. What proof do you have that people hated Hilary more than Trump? I can find none. I would say there is a stronger argument to be made that Hilary was more liked by her party and its supporters than Trump by his. Where are you getting this idea that Hilary was more reviled than Trump? Just because she lost? Is that your sole reliance? You certainly can't prove it any other way. Trump was disliked by many in his party. He was attacked constantly by the media. He was on public record saying things that offended even you about immigrants and he insulted publically politicians and their wives. Why would hate for Hilary somehow Trump hate for Trump? Not sure this was his advantage.
I hear that a lot, that the polls were wrong, when in fact is not true, or at least not entirely true. As a matter of fact, the national polls nailed it as they predicted that Clinton would win by 2%, which is exactly the way the election broke. But as we all know, the election isn't decided by the popular vote. State wide polling is much more difficult to forecast than polling nation wide, but even so, the critical swing states, only WI showed a mild surprise. The week before the election in PA, Clinton was up by 1.9% and Trump won by 1.2%. In Michigan, Clinton was up 3.4 percent and ended up losing by .23%. Those are both well within the margin of error. In WI Clinton was up 6.5% and Trump ended up winning by .7%, but one has to keep in mind that those were week old numbers and HRC never set foot in WI during her entire campaign, allowing Trump to run barefoot through the entire state.
Fact is the polling and predictions based on the polling is a large reason why Trump is able to undermine the media. They were against him. It was obvious. They tried to use polling data to predict his loss. They were wrong. He has been hammering on them ever since.
Well, I'm not going to be money on it, either. I didn't think Trump had a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election and since I'd mailed off my ballot weeks before the election, had sort of fell asleep and I quit following it until election night. But I do think that he'll be easy to beat in 2020, and I base that on the fact that Trump has had such meager support during his first year in office, usually a honeymoon for most newly elected POTUS's. That's why I think that HRC had a very large negative effect on the Dems. If Trump won by means of his own popularity, he wouldn't be getting historically bad job performance numbers.
If you think he'll be easy to beat, then bet money. I don't know. I wouldn't bet on it. I think you've been off-base with poor analysis for a while. Your whole Hilary hate made Trump win makes about as much sense to me as the world is flat theory. Trump was universally reviled. There was no more hated man running for president in history than Trump. The man was crass. He argued with his own party. He derided people relentlessly. The media splashed his crazy talk everywhere. The Republican Party was divided on him. Big Republican names like Bush, Romney, and Ryan didn't care for him. And somehow you think the hate for Hilary was greater than the Hate for Trump and that won him the election.
It's like saying a 600 lb. fat man beat a 400 lb. fat man because the 400 lb. man was fat. The Hate for Trump was far greater than the Hate for Hilary...by a huge measure.
I don't "hate" Trump, either. I have a much narrower definition of that term than many. But I have very little respect for the man. IMO he's a spoiled rich kid that's used to getting nearly everything he's ever wanted by simply flashing his money or his name. It's not that I dislike anyone that's grown up privileged. But when you combine privilege with arrogance as is the case with Trump, I seem to have less respect for them than I do a person that's simply arrogant.
Trump doesn't seem to care who respects him or not. Don't think he ever has. He just goes and gets it. He earned his name and money. Trump name was good in New York, Trump made it good in the world.
I don't think that Trump "got lucky" and won the Presidency anymore than I think that the Seahawks "got lucky" and won a Lombardi. But Trump did have some stars line up for him, in particular, his opponent's incompetent way in which she ran her campaign.
Now we're falling back on Hilary's incompetence. When once again Trump was a political neophyte at running campaigns. His campaign manager was who? Kelly Anne Conway? I don't know if he had many big names running his campaign.
What you and a lot of others don't want to admit is Trump just won. He took it. Majority of the media against him. His party divided on him. Hollyweird against him. Democrats against him. Attack after attack after attack on his character. Tapes released at key times about grabbing women. The guy just went and got it against one of the most powerful political machines the Democrats have. Clinton was no political neophyte or complete incompetent like you like to surmise. Clinton was one of the most powerful first ladies of all time. She was a Senator in New York. She was Secretary of State. She had the backing big money and powerful Democrats. The main thing she had going against her was her gender as we had never had a female president. That may have lost her the election as our nation can still be quite sexist. If you wanted to make that argument, I might buy it more. But as far as hate goes, Trump had more hate. As far as political experience and competence, Hilary had more by a large measure.
Somehow Trump won. We'll see if a man can beat him next election. That might be enough to push the vote against if the man is any good at all.
You do underestimate religion, gender, and race's effect on elections. Maybe it's the Obama Effect on you, I don't know. We'll see if that heralds a new age of politics or if the usual factors will still be considered. I imagine we'll find out the next few elections. I do believe a quality Hispanic candidate has a good chance of winning in this new America if either party can find one.