Trump's Rise Was Rooted in These Three Things
Now that the dust has settled, protests have largely come to an end, and Donald Trump has added the title of “president” to his name, it’s worthwhile to take a breath and look back at what transpired over the past 18 months.
How did the man that millions laughed at for so many months become President Donald Trump?
It’s actually fairly simple when you study it.
The Three Factors Fueling Trump’s Improbable Rise
To say that Trump’s rise to president was as simple as a three-pronged approach would be doing a disservice to all the people who spent many sleepless nights concocting intricate strategies, quelling dangerous lies from the left, and traveling to every corner of the country for the better part of a year and a half.
But with that said, it’s easy for us to look back on the Trump campaign -- and the movement that swept the nation -- and tie his success to three significant factors.
In this article, we’re going to take a look at each of these factors and what they meant to the businessman’s success.
1. A Frustrated Middle-Class
Perhaps the most telling factor in Trump’s success has been the massive collection of frustrated middle-class families. While the lower-class and upper-class overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton, Trump cleaned up with the middle class. But before we touch on how he was able to do that, let’s take a look at why the middle-class feels so disenfranchised.
For starters, American families still earn roughly the same amount as they did in 1995 -- right around $53,000. With all the talk from the Obama administration regarding an improved economy and lower unemployment rates, the middle class simply shrugged and said, “Where’s the proof?” For families that struggle with debt, it’s nearly impossible to gain financial leverage when household income has been stagnant for more than two decades.
Another issue is the fact that white males have been falling out of the job market pretty consistently over the last few decades. In 1950, 90 percent of white men were employed or looking for work. Presently, just 72.1 percent of white men fall into this category. This is the result of increased competition from minority groups, manufacturing automation, and other factors.
Next, you have the fact that the rich are getting richer. In 2015, the “99 percent” enjoyed the fastest inflation-adjusted growth in their income since the late 20th century.
Ultimately, these issues -- and dozens of others -- have been brewing for years. When Trump arrived on the scene, frustrated members of the middle class saw him as a way to rebuild the once strong middle class and restore some of what made America so great in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.
2. An Unscripted Personality
Impromptu and brash -- those are two words that accurately describe Trump’s personality. And it’s this unscripted personality that was the second leading factor in his campaign success.
Think about a musician. There are millions of talented musicians in the world, but only a few thousand are able to be successful. Renowned music instructor Tom Hess believes one of the key factors that separates successful musicians from those who fail is polished “live performing skills.”
Well, the same is true of politicians. Anyone can run for public office, but the ones who are most successful are able to connect with voters in person. Think about some recent presidents and you’ll see this trend. Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, and John F. Kennedy -- they were all magnetic personalities on the campaign trail.
But what separated Trump during this campaign was his unscripted personality and lively rhetoric that sharply contrasted Clinton’s stoic and lethargic approach. While Clinton was lying low and waiting for Trump to mess up, the businessman was holding energetic rallies with tens of thousands of attendees.
When you couple the frustrated middle class with the unscripted personality of Trump, you get a feel for what really happened. Middle-class America was sick of politicians who spoke from politically correct scripts, flashed fake smiles, and told them that everything would be okay.
Trump came in and spoke like them, rarely used a teleprompter, and told them, “No, everything is not going to be okay.” He explained, with confidence, the problems in America and offered practical solutions with no strings attached. This was enticing to millions of Americans.
3. Ability to Control the Media Narrative
The third key factor in Trump’s rise was the real estate mogul’s ability to control the media. It’s something he’s been good at for decades and he gave every PR executive in America an 18-month crash course in what this looks like.
Trump absolutely dominated television, radio, and internet from the moment he announced he would be running until the moment he was elected. (And he’s still doing it today.) If you talk to those who are close to him, they’ll tell you that every last detail was carefully planned. In fact, just ask one longtime New York political consultant who sat down with Trump in his Trump Tower conference room back in 2013.
“He said, ‘I’m going to walk away with it and win it outright,’” the consultant recalls. “Trump told us, ‘I’m going to get in and all the polls are going to go crazy. I’m going to suck all the oxygen out of the room. I know how to work the media in a way that they will never take the lights off of me.’”
Another attendee at that meeting told Trump, “You can’t run for president on earned media,” to which he responded, “I think you’re wrong.”
Not only did Trump run on earned media, he excelled and won on earned media. While Clinton’s camp spent more than $450.6 million during the campaign, Trump spent just $238.9. That equals roughly $859,538 per Trump electoral vote, versus $1.97 million per Clinton electoral vote.
While Trump certainly said some controversial things, very few of what the media called “mistakes” were actually unplanned. As the media was calling out Trump and going on and on about how he was ruining his campaign, you have to imagine Trump was sitting in some boardroom laughing to himself.
They were playing his game and he was pulling the puppet strings.
Laughing Now
There was laughter when Trump announced he would run for president. There was laughter when he polled well in the primaries. There was laughter when he won the nomination for the Republican Party. There was laughter when Clinton surged in the polls. There was even laughter when he took an early lead on election night. Trumps’ supporters are the ones laughing now.
Trump came into a race that has historically been run by career politicians and exposed them for being out of touch with reality. He recognized a middle class that was frustrated and used his magnetic personality to control the media narrative and win the election.
Millions of people are still scratching their heads, trying to figure out how it happened, but it’s pretty easy to see how Donald Trump “trumped” the vote.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/trumps_rise_was_rooted_in_these_three_things.html#ixzz4ZiigKX4p
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
How did the man that millions laughed at for so many months become President Donald Trump?
It’s actually fairly simple when you study it.
The Three Factors Fueling Trump’s Improbable Rise
To say that Trump’s rise to president was as simple as a three-pronged approach would be doing a disservice to all the people who spent many sleepless nights concocting intricate strategies, quelling dangerous lies from the left, and traveling to every corner of the country for the better part of a year and a half.
But with that said, it’s easy for us to look back on the Trump campaign -- and the movement that swept the nation -- and tie his success to three significant factors.
In this article, we’re going to take a look at each of these factors and what they meant to the businessman’s success.
1. A Frustrated Middle-Class
Perhaps the most telling factor in Trump’s success has been the massive collection of frustrated middle-class families. While the lower-class and upper-class overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton, Trump cleaned up with the middle class. But before we touch on how he was able to do that, let’s take a look at why the middle-class feels so disenfranchised.
For starters, American families still earn roughly the same amount as they did in 1995 -- right around $53,000. With all the talk from the Obama administration regarding an improved economy and lower unemployment rates, the middle class simply shrugged and said, “Where’s the proof?” For families that struggle with debt, it’s nearly impossible to gain financial leverage when household income has been stagnant for more than two decades.
Another issue is the fact that white males have been falling out of the job market pretty consistently over the last few decades. In 1950, 90 percent of white men were employed or looking for work. Presently, just 72.1 percent of white men fall into this category. This is the result of increased competition from minority groups, manufacturing automation, and other factors.
Next, you have the fact that the rich are getting richer. In 2015, the “99 percent” enjoyed the fastest inflation-adjusted growth in their income since the late 20th century.
Ultimately, these issues -- and dozens of others -- have been brewing for years. When Trump arrived on the scene, frustrated members of the middle class saw him as a way to rebuild the once strong middle class and restore some of what made America so great in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.
2. An Unscripted Personality
Impromptu and brash -- those are two words that accurately describe Trump’s personality. And it’s this unscripted personality that was the second leading factor in his campaign success.
Think about a musician. There are millions of talented musicians in the world, but only a few thousand are able to be successful. Renowned music instructor Tom Hess believes one of the key factors that separates successful musicians from those who fail is polished “live performing skills.”
Well, the same is true of politicians. Anyone can run for public office, but the ones who are most successful are able to connect with voters in person. Think about some recent presidents and you’ll see this trend. Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, and John F. Kennedy -- they were all magnetic personalities on the campaign trail.
But what separated Trump during this campaign was his unscripted personality and lively rhetoric that sharply contrasted Clinton’s stoic and lethargic approach. While Clinton was lying low and waiting for Trump to mess up, the businessman was holding energetic rallies with tens of thousands of attendees.
When you couple the frustrated middle class with the unscripted personality of Trump, you get a feel for what really happened. Middle-class America was sick of politicians who spoke from politically correct scripts, flashed fake smiles, and told them that everything would be okay.
Trump came in and spoke like them, rarely used a teleprompter, and told them, “No, everything is not going to be okay.” He explained, with confidence, the problems in America and offered practical solutions with no strings attached. This was enticing to millions of Americans.
3. Ability to Control the Media Narrative
The third key factor in Trump’s rise was the real estate mogul’s ability to control the media. It’s something he’s been good at for decades and he gave every PR executive in America an 18-month crash course in what this looks like.
Trump absolutely dominated television, radio, and internet from the moment he announced he would be running until the moment he was elected. (And he’s still doing it today.) If you talk to those who are close to him, they’ll tell you that every last detail was carefully planned. In fact, just ask one longtime New York political consultant who sat down with Trump in his Trump Tower conference room back in 2013.
“He said, ‘I’m going to walk away with it and win it outright,’” the consultant recalls. “Trump told us, ‘I’m going to get in and all the polls are going to go crazy. I’m going to suck all the oxygen out of the room. I know how to work the media in a way that they will never take the lights off of me.’”
Another attendee at that meeting told Trump, “You can’t run for president on earned media,” to which he responded, “I think you’re wrong.”
Not only did Trump run on earned media, he excelled and won on earned media. While Clinton’s camp spent more than $450.6 million during the campaign, Trump spent just $238.9. That equals roughly $859,538 per Trump electoral vote, versus $1.97 million per Clinton electoral vote.
While Trump certainly said some controversial things, very few of what the media called “mistakes” were actually unplanned. As the media was calling out Trump and going on and on about how he was ruining his campaign, you have to imagine Trump was sitting in some boardroom laughing to himself.
They were playing his game and he was pulling the puppet strings.
Laughing Now
There was laughter when Trump announced he would run for president. There was laughter when he polled well in the primaries. There was laughter when he won the nomination for the Republican Party. There was laughter when Clinton surged in the polls. There was even laughter when he took an early lead on election night. Trumps’ supporters are the ones laughing now.
Trump came into a race that has historically been run by career politicians and exposed them for being out of touch with reality. He recognized a middle class that was frustrated and used his magnetic personality to control the media narrative and win the election.
Millions of people are still scratching their heads, trying to figure out how it happened, but it’s pretty easy to see how Donald Trump “trumped” the vote.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/trumps_rise_was_rooted_in_these_three_things.html#ixzz4ZiigKX4p
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Tags
Who is online
96 visitors
It's time for liberals to study why Trump won the way he did and how he stole a huge chunk of their base.
I can also mention one other thing that he did that made a big difference.
Trump came into a race that has historically been run by career politicians and exposed them for being out of touch with reality.
Even more than exposing career politicians as out of touch, he put all of them together in a large group, separate from the mainstream. Then, he essentially told his supporters that it was OK to vilify that entire group and gave reasons why they should do so. Previously, mainstream (centrist) Democrats and mainstream Republicans had fought it out with each other for the benefit of their particular brand of career politicians, ignoring the fact that they were being incited to do so by the entire group of career politicians, the existence of which they were encouraged to ignore, but the existence of which the politicians themselves did not ignore. The politicians of both political stripes were well aware of what was in their best interest as a group. Trump pointed out to both of these groups of ordinary people that the only way for them to get what they wanted was to eliminate the power of the group of professional politicians and vote for someone who was not a member of that group.
Good point. Trump took on the political establishment in both political parties and won both the nonination and the general election with the outsiders of both parties.
Cut and pasted verbatim, as usual X. Don't you have a state to secede from?
Yes I do. The effort to break away is still on going. California is the worst state in the union by far. Speaking of secession, it seems that the big urban coastal areas of California have a country to try to break away from.
Deluded people convince themselves that Trump has some sort of mandate.
Uh , no. He won in a fluke.
He lost the popular vote, badly(considering he won the electoral). His electoral total of 306 is very sub par. He is widely opposed and has been met with the largest public protest to his presidency in history. He is widely ridiculed for incredible character flaws and unprecedented ignorance, both at home and around the world.
He should be trying to unite the country but he does just the opposite.
We are at war with ourselves and people are becoming comfortable with that.
Republicans control the House, the Senate, the White House, and a majority of state governments. Yes, they have a mandate. Sorry, snowflakes.
As a scientist you should know how a pendulum swings
As a conscious human you should know the wheel of fortune constantly turns.
So? How does that negate the Republican mandate?
Yes they do swing. You all had it all in 2009 and we have it now.
Every time you refer to people as "snowflakes" , I am going to refer to your ilk as pigfuckers? Deal?
And then I'll refer to you as Catholic pedophiles, deal?
lol. It's up to you.
Done.
No not a deal. The name calling will end. Any use of a pet term meant to degrade to a member will get a CoC violation. Clear?
Why? I'd rather be a snowflake than a *&%@#, wouldn't you? Now I'm not calling you a "Snowflake" and never have. This is a special service I can offer to you to see if you fit the description of a "Snowflake". If it doesn't I wouldn't let it bother me. You can call me snowflake if it makes you feel better.
Liberal snowflakes need to be called out, to combat the PC bullshit that is infecting our nation.
I'm going to make this clear. Years ago I banned the use of the term Teabagger, since it offended some of our conservatives who it "triggered". The word Snowflake will not be used towards a member.
Best comment of the day award for John.
I would favor 'orange spew' as a title for those who worship the Orange Weinie.
Deluded people convince themselves that Trump has some sort of mandate.
I agree. Considering how weak his performance was and how many more millions and millions of people voted against him then for him, he has no mandate. As far as I am personally concerned he lost.
Fortunately, your delusions have no power. The Republicans control all three branches. Thanks to the American electorate. That's a mandate.
As far as I am personally concerned he lost.
Didn't someone put up an article I think would interest you where everyone pretended Hillary won?
You mean Hillary didn't win the election?
You mean Hillary didn't win the election?
Are you so blind, that you cannot get past your own nanner-nanner-boo-boo's long enough to realize that this country is in serious trouble?
This mess is no longer about who won or lost the election. This is about being eyeball-deep in a never-ending nightmare without any foreseeable hope of waking the fuck up. Pardon my fucking French, but I've fucking had it!
One thing I know for certain, is that Trump doesn't give a shit about me, or my problems, or my family and friends and their problems. The other thing I know for certain is that he doesn't give a shit about you, or your problems, or your family and friends and their problems. We ALL need to figure out a way to work together to get out of the mess we're in, and frankly, I'll vote Republican all day long if the end result sends Trump and his ridiculous family free-falling into the nearest abyss. I would rather have you as the leader of this country...and I CAN'T STAND your silly, obnoxious, judgmental behind!
Trump has said, "It's the getting, not the having' that's important." So I've been operating under the assumption that Trump has been playing his silly games as part of his own ego-enhancing motivational tool. That's true to an extent, but I've just spent half the night coming to the realization that even a blithering idiot of a snowflake like myself can recognize that we've been sold to the highest bidder, and Trump hasn't been the only one doing the selling. Don't take my word for it. Please read the following links, and consider them in their collective entirety. Together, they tell the story of how we arrived at this disappointing juncture.
Whether or not you choose to believe what is really happening today, right now, this very minute in this country, is your own unfortunate business. But there is no way you can sit in your regular pew on Sunday morning, and out-amen your fellow parishioners when thanking God for Donald Trump.
And PS dearie, your candidate didn't win, either.
You should make your thoughts about this into a seed or article Sister, so they can get more exposure here.
You should make your thoughts about this into a seed or article Sister, so they can get more exposure here.
This is old fake news and you know it. This crap started way back in late 2016. McCain actually sent someone to get the information. This has been debunked already. Do you honestly think if there was anything to it Obama wouldn't have done something about it in 2016. This is repeat fake news. Unknown sources......geeeeezzzzz!!!! this is why CNN has gotten the reputation of the #1 Fake News Source.
I know this has you all worked up Sister, but try reading all of the links you've put up and act like it is your job to find flaws in it. It's full of them if you will just put your desires to the side and really take it on as a classroom project instead.
I know this has you all worked up Sister, but try reading all of the links you've put up and act like it is your job to find flaws in it. It's full of them if you will just put your desires to the side and really take it on as a classroom project instead.
Me? Worked up? Pffftttt. On the other hand, check out my new driver's license photo:
But seriously, six, I started with nearly 2 dozen articles from a variety of sources. It was easy to put them in order from the most phony-baloneyist, to the least phony-baloneyist. My links are baloney free. But the good news is that when I'm verifiably wrong, I fess up to it. Tell me what you think is 'fake news', and I'll provide you with the road map and any additional links I used to help me reach my conclusions. If I'm mistaken, I'll retract whatever parts are bogus.
Excellent post!!! Thank you, Sister.
And I'm with John-- this should be its own article...
Excellent post!!! Thank you, Sister.
And I'm with John-- this should be its own article...
I agree. On both counts! Trump is America's first (and hopefully last) Russian President. That's why as far as I am concerned, he lost. That's why he is not my President. Remember "all enemies, both foreign and domestic"? As far as I am concerned Trump qualifies on both counts.
As far as I am personally concerned he lost.
A brilliant observation!
Yes, its true-- Hillary is actually our president. The Democrats control both houses of congress!
Very astute observation Randy-- this site needs more people like you!
As far as I am personally concerned he lost.
A brilliant observation!
Yes, its true-- Hillary is actually our president. The Democrats control both houses of congress!
Very astute observation Randy-- this site needs more people like you!
Actually, now that I think of it....this site has several people like you.
(On both sides of the political divide....)
John, Trump won because 20% of his voters came from out of the blue, having told no one at all they were going to vote for him before they did so. Thus the overwhelming shock to people like you. Well, I was surprised too....
He makes a good point. But from where I sit, it also applies to the right. There is hardly any engagement from the right as far as "discussion" that I can see. Both sides use their own version of "Identity" politics.
I want change also, but neither the Republicans nor Democrats are accepting of the change I want, so I cannot accept them either.
I agree so I'm independent.
Every time I hear someone say they are an Independent in a basically two party system, I wonder how they can justify it as a fact.
If you don't vote for either candidate in a Presidential election, if you have the slightest inclination to favor one over the other, you're voting for their opponent by not voting. Now this doesn't matter so much if you live in a very red or blue state, but if you live in a swing state it could matter quite a bit.
And if you're truly an Independent then it shouldn't matter who wins as you are equally dissatisfied with whoever the winner is. That is rarely the case, which brings us to the fact there are very few actual true Independents.
Saying I'm an Independent or Indie doesn't mean much to me as I realize it's like someone trying to act as though they are some sort of referee at a ballgame and if they were honest with themselves they would realize they actually do lean to the left or lean to the right and in today's world that means Democrat or Republican.
When you vote for the President, you are voting for a Party as well. No one candidate can make the difference and that is all you can vote for in a Presidential Election and hope the one you voted for wins. But by voting for that candidate you are voting for a Party, not a candidate.
So an Independent looks at the issues, like no one else does and this makes them something special? I look at the issues just like everyone else does. One issue can wipe all the other issues you agree with the candidate on off the table and motivate you to vote for the other candidate, although the other candidate may have many issues you disagree with.
Unless you are a hardcore Democrat or Republican, I think many people can claim to be Independents, but are only left or right leaning at the very best especially today as the Parties are so polarized.
By the way, Hillary Clinton had 4.7 million more votes in California than Trump did. So many votes coming from one state with such a high population of illegals and primarily coming from 3 locations within that state kind of debunks the the popular vote argument. Also, the poll workers complained about the corruption during the Democratic Primary in favor of Hillary, but it wasn't reported on by the media leaves me with questions.
The fellow on the video made some good points and I expect Socialism will overtake this country within the next 8 years and it won't be pretty.
Wow. Excellent post.
Thank you Cerenkov.
Aside from that, the country is so polarized, the hardcore Republicans can see no wrong in anything Trump does and the hardcore Democrats can see no right in anything Trump does.
The hardcore Republicans can see where the MSM is biased and pick up on every lie and twisted truth. The True Independents can pick up on these as well. The hardcore Democrats take everything negative the MSM says about Trump as being fact with no need for evidence, but the true Independents allow themselves to see the truth with no bias.
It's that way with every President these days or Party for that matter it seems.
It would appear aiming to be a "True Independent" would be a worthy goal.
Six,
I couldn't disagree with you more.
Let me spell this out for you. Independents/swing voters/third partiers have been trying to establish a third party for over 60 years now. You know what the problem is? The other two parties have the system locked up. There is no way presently to establish a nationwide third party of any worth. So we are stuck with either voting for one of the two parties OR wasting our vote on a marginal third party.
So how can you tell a indie... we have voted for both parties and even third parties. Unlike party loyals, we are not bound to them.
Now I can't help it that the GOP and the Dems have it they system locked up. That's not on us. We have tired and we are beaten down each time.
But don't tell me that I am not an independent. 2 choices is really no choice and that is where we stand.
In the history of the United States there have been exactly TWO times that a third party presidential candidate got as much as 20% of the popular vote.
There have bee 12 times that a third party candidate has gotten either 5% of the national vote or won at least one electoral vote.
There have been 56 presidential elections.
When did you become so staunchly independent, and why?
What is wrong with making one of the parties into the image that you seek?
In the history of the United States there have been exactly TWO times that a third party presidential candidate got as much as 20% of the popular vote.
There have bee 12 times that a third party candidate has gotten either 5% of the national vote or won at least one electoral vote.
There have been 45 presidential elections.
Thank you for proving my point. You know why a third party can't get more than that? Well first, let's go back to the fact that third parties can't get onto the ballet on half the states for primaries. And that as a third party voter, I can't vote in any primary, since I am not registered in a party, which is as you see a catch 22, and designed so by the parties.
Funding for third parties have to come mostly from either the candidate, or from some sort of grassroots movement. Read the rules here to see how hard it is for a third party candidate to get any decent funding:
When did you become so staunchly independent, and why?
I have always been this way. Both parties are corrupt and are self serving and neither represents common sense POV's. They are both driven by the radical parts of the party and have no centistism to them.
What is wrong with making one of the parties into the image that you seek?
It is impossible. Both parties couldn't be more polarized than they are now.
I have always been this way. Both parties are corrupt and are self serving and neither represents common sense POV's. They are both driven by the radical parts of the party and have no centristism to them.
What would prevent a third party from becoming "corrupt"?
I think it is a stretch to say there is no commonsense in either major party. Both parties have a spectrum of adherents that ranges from moderate to extreme. ( I believe there are many more moderate Dems than Repubs). At this point I think it is best to try and influence the major parties to adopt "common sense" views and not pin hopes on an elusive third party.
But if there were a viable third party candidate that reflected my beliefs I would vote for it.
Another big problem is that legislators don't vote their conscience any more. You might not despise the party system so much if Democrat or Republican legislators voted their conscience more and showed their own independence.
You might not despise the party system so much if Democrat or Republican legislators voted their conscience more and showed their own independence.
Most of them have no integrity to show. The scoundrels are so bold that they drag an opponent through the mud for doing something they say is heinous and then later flip position and do the same thing themselves as though it's now perfectly fine. They make me sick.
The scoundrels are so bold that they drag an opponent through the mud for doing something they say is heinous and then later flip position and do the same thing themselves as though it's now perfectly fine.
No truer statement could have been made!!!
I'm in the same boat as Perrie and agree with her completely. The number of independents continues to grow and is beginning to eclipse both parties. Good. I hope both parties collapse!
The number of independents continues to grow and is beginning to eclipse both parties.
For the last 8 years we've been told the Independents are growing, the Democrats have been growing and the Republicans have been shrinking. We were told Hillary Clinton had anywhere from a 85% to 95% chance of winning right up until the day of the election.
Now 8 years later, the Democrats have lost over 1000 legislature positions and control 5 states. What's with that? You know, someone has been spreading BS, don't you think?
I'm in the same boat as Perrie and agree with her completely. The number of independents continues to grow and is beginning to eclipse both parties. Good. I hope both parties collapse!
And then what?
I'd be willing to bet that whatever new party (or parties, plural) come into power-- nothing significant will change. Why should it?
There's an olde saying:
Be careful what you wish for....
I'd be willing to bet that whatever new party (or parties, plural) come into power-- nothing significant will change. Why should it?
There's an olde saying:
Be careful what you wish for....
-Not Ogden Nash
Actually this one may better fit your scenario:
Power corrupts....absolute power corrupts absolutely.
--Not Yogi Berra
If you think the problem is our 2 party system, c heck out the multi-oarty systems around the world. The root of the problem is the type of people who become politicians. With some exceptions, the type of people who go into politics are the type of people who seek fame and/or power-- or both.
There's an olde saying:
Be careful what you wish for....
-Not Ogden Nash
Actually this one may better fit your scenario:
Power corrupts....absolute power corrupts absolutely.
--Not Yogi Berra
If you think the problem is our 2 party system, c heck out the multi-oarty systems around the world. The root of the problem is the type of people who become politicians. With some exceptions, the type of people who go into politics are the type of people who seek fame and/or power-- or both.
Actually, this one probably captures it the best:
Revolutions have never lightened the burden of tyranny, they have only shifted it to another shoulder
BRILLIANT!
I'm in the same boat as Perrie and agree with her completely. The number of independents continues to grow and is beginning to eclipse both parties. Good. I hope both parties collapse!
And then what?
I'd be willing to bet that whatever new party (or parties, plural) come into power-- nothing significant will change. Why should it?
There's an olde saying:
Be careful what you wish for....
I'm in the same boat as Perrie and agree with her completely. The number of independents continues to grow and is beginning to eclipse both parties. Good. I hope both parties collapse!
And then what?
I'd be willing to bet that whatever new party (or parties, plural) come into power-- nothing significant will change. Why should it?
There's an olde saying:
Be careful what you wish for....
There was no original intent to have political parties and George Washington warned about how problematic they could become if they were formed. And he was right. Both parties are gradually becoming more extreme and, as they do, more moderates leave the parties. As more moderates leave the parties, a larger number of extremists remain to make the party even more extreme than it was before (become they don't have to compromise with moderates). The cycle repeats and it's accelerating.
Our parties have become so extreme that we now have two hyper partisan warring factions that cannot agree on anything. It has even reached the point where democrats have declared an open resistance to the president, especially in the area of immigration.
Political parties have reduced everything down to black and white, left and right, conservative and liberal. There's little time for one side to listen to the other before the insults start. IMHO, if political parties were abolished, it couldn't possibly be worse than this; and just maybe people could begin to think through issues on their own. We have to find common ground in order to move forward. If we don't, we will discover the truth of this old saying:
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
What form of structure would we use to nominate and elect officials, up to and including the President? The idea of a government without parties seems to me to be one that would have no form and therefore be unable to function. IMHO.
What form of structure would we use to nominate and elect officials, up to and including the President? The idea of a government without parties seems to me to be one that would have no form and therefore be unable to function. IMHO.
Some cities have non partisan elections. Essentially, there's an open primary where anybody can compete. Then a general election that's a run off between the top two. There may still be parties (because we can't stop people from forming coalitions) but the actual election would be non partisan.
Do you think that would work in a national election? I mean I would think that there would be thousands of people in the nation Presidential primary. Or would it still be done and a state level?
It would have to be at the state level because states vote on electors to the electoral college.
I'll just put my comment down here.
What are you disagreeing with Perrie? This is my first statement:
Every time I hear someone say they are an Independent in a basically two party system, I wonder how they can justify it as a fact.
You don't do anything different than what I do. I never mentioned anything about a three, four or five Party system. I confined it to a two party system, which is exactly what we have as far as any possibility of someone winning the Presidential election. I look at the issues just like you. I make my decision just like you, except you live in a state who has not supported a Republican since Reagan. I live in a state that supported a Republican this last election, a Republican the election before that and a Democrat the election before that. In other words, today I live in a swing state. You on the other hand can vote any way you want today and it will not matter one bit, because New York is a stanch Democratic state. If it makes you feel better to call yourself an Independent, but you're doing nothing different than I do and I am a registered Democrat. Democrat, Republican or Independent don't mean anything to me. It's the issues just like you say it is to you.
I also made this statement, narrowing it down a little more:
And if you're truly an Independent then it shouldn't matter who wins as you are equally dissatisfied with whoever the winner is. That is rarely the case, which brings us to the fact there are very few actual true Independents.
I mean if you are truly working for a third party, then keep voting for that third party. I guess you have to choose who that third party is going to be. If you are a True Independent then you vote for whoever you want to vote for just like me. So I'm just as much a True Independent as you. I look at the issues just like you and decide which ones I find I agree with the most and then I vote, but I also realize, like in a battle, it is not always beneficial to charge straight at the enemy, but rather take the path which may be longer, but will still be aiming toward my ultimate goal of finding more things that will suit my desires somewhere in the future.
So you're conservative on foreign issues, so am I. So you're liberal on many domestic issues, so am I. We're not exactly the same, but we still have quite a bit of commonality in our political desires.
So you say:
So how can you tell a indie... we have voted for both parties and even third parties. Unlike party loyals, we are not bound to them.
Now I can't help it that the GOP and the Dems have it they system locked up. That's not on us. We have tired and we are beaten down each time.
But don't tell me that I am not an independent. 2 choices is really no choice and that is where we stand.
And I have to say I'm a Democrat and I've voted for both Democrats and Republicans. I haven't voted for the third Party because I live in a swing state and my vote actually counts. I live in the reality that one of two parties are going to win the election and I'm forced to make a choice. You're not forced to make that choice in New York. You can vote for Uncle Leonard if you want and it will still be insignificant.
Presidential Elections
Year State Republican Democrat Independent
1996 NY 30.61% 59.47% Difference
1996 NC 44.04% 48.73% Difference
2000 NY 35.23% 60.21% Difference
2000 NC 56.03% 43.20% Difference
2004 NY 58.37% 40.08% Difference
2004 NC 56.02% 43.58% Difference
2008 NY 36.03% 62.88% Difference
2008 NC 49.38% 49.70% Difference
2012 NY 35.17% 63.35% Difference
2012 NC 50.39% 48.35% Difference
2016 NY 36.15% 58.40% Difference
2016 NC 49.83% 46.17% Difference
I hope you can understand a vote from me for one of the two parties, the only candidates that can win is much more significant than any vote you can make toward anyone. I'm just as Independent as you are and a registered Democrat, but my state isn't a stanch Republican or a stanch Democrat state, so if I want to have any influence at all I have to live in the real world in my state and vote for one of the two Parties, which doesn't make me any less Independent than you are, but makes me accept the reality of the situation.
So how can you tell a indie... we have voted for both parties and even third parties. Unlike party loyals, we are not bound to them.
You and 1ofmany have similar situations, neither of you are significant. This is the flaw in the Popular vote. The individual States are like the Popular Vote, whereas the combination of all the states are like the Electoral Votes. If you were a stanch Republican, you'd be like someone in Wyoming in having a word in the election of the President of All of the States.
The District of Columbia has never supported a Republican since 1964. Hillary received 22 votes to every one vote that Trump received in the District of Columbia. So 1ofmany can vote for the Man on the Moon and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.
My whole premise was there are very few "True Independents". There are a lot of Independents, but they either lean left or right.
All you Independents in stanch Republican or stanch Democrat states will have to do the job yourselves, because during the meantime, we can't afford to let one party become so dominant there is no hope for a third party. And that was just about to happen if Hillary Clinton had won the election. We still have a pendulum that still swings, but if Clinton had won, the Establishment would have won, many more undocumented Democrats would have ended up with citizenship, many more refugees would have been allowed into this country, many more people would have become dependent on the state for their existence and survival, the Democrat Party would have so many voters no one could have challenged them for the foreseeable future and they would have kicked your third party to the sidewalk and walked right over you when you became even less significant than you are now and told you they didn't need your vote any longer, they have it wrapped up now.
Oh my my my, what have I done? I read the above comment and realized I had written "stanch" instead of "staunch" and I'm just heartbroken over it. And I expect someone who is speaking everyday in front of loads of people to never misspeak.
Well, just screw it.
Both parties are corrupt and are self serving and neither represents common sense POV's.
Whereas, of course, throughout our history, third parties have been bastions of moderation & reason, are never self-serving, and completely represent common sense.
UNFAIR!
"What is wrong with making one of the parties into the image that you seek?"
You really believe you can make one of the existing parties into the image you seek? That actually explains a lot.
You really believe you can make one of the existing parties into the image you seek?
An excellent point.
(One exception-- in a very small area, such as a small town or perhaps even a very small county, if you can convince enough other people, you can influence an election.especially is one with a lot of issues that most voters don't care about. An active, motivated, intelligent person can in some cases motivate enough others to participate and actually change the out come of something like a local schoolboard election. Etc. But on a larger scale?
NOPE!
(I think I exceeded my Trumpian 140 characters on that one, Oh well...)
No offense Perrie, but and Independent Party is an oxymoron.
By the way, Hillary Clinton had 4.7 million more votes in California than Trump did. So many votes coming from one state with such a high population of illegals and primarily coming from 3 locations within that state kind of debunks the the popular vote argument.
It doesn't debunk shit.
In the national popular vote total EVERY vote is of equal importance as every other vote. This is actually self-evident to people who actually take the time to think about it. Saying that Clinton's votes came from California makes no more sense than saying that Trump's votes came from wherever they came from. What state put Trump over the top? Texas? Florida? Pennsylvania? North Carolina?
In the popular vote , every vote is equal. The votes for Clinton in New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, even Texas or Kentucky, count every bit as much towards her popular vote margin over trump as the votes in California do. Period, end of story.
"In the national popular vote total EVERY vote is of equal importance as every other vote. "
Nope. Read the Constitution, snowflake.
You are clueless Cerenkov.
You are clueless Cerenkov.
At least I know that the popular vote is not how we elect presidents.
I'm not going to argue with you about this John. It seems you'd be the first one wanting to hang the outlaw the Sheriff is trying to get to trial alive. Matt Dillon would really be pissed off at you.
when it comes to presidential elections, the national popular vote is the single most meaningless part of it. It is 51 separate non cumulative popular votes to win the electoral votes of each single state. That is all that matters. Hillary got the same result from California had she won it by 1 vote or 4.7 million votes. She got 55 electoral votes.
In the national popular vote total EVERY vote is of equal importance as every other vote.
Yep, the vote of an illegal alien is equal to the vote of a citizen so democrats want to keep as many illegal aliens in the country as possible to elect Democrats. My proof? I don't need any. Since speculation and innuendo is good enough for democrats to say that Trump is a Russian stooge, then the same level of "proof" should be sufficient to establish that 3 million illegal aliens voted for Hillary in California.
Well, that would be great for you if we lived in a democracy , but we don't. (we live in a republic, governed by a constitution- a republic that you didn't seem to have a problem with until, oh, say, the beginning of November 2016).
That's your view of independents, six, but it's not mine. The very purpose of a political party is to establish particular goals, elect as many candiates as they can, and then work to achieve as many of the parties' goals as possible. I don't completely (or even substantially) align with the goals of either party nor do I try to align with them. What I do is examine each issue and take the position I think is right, without regard to what the parties think. Any alignment with a particular plank in a party platform is happenstance. My approach is entirely nonpartisan and it would be fine by me if political parties were abolished tomorrow.
Obviously, a presidential candidate from one of the two major parties will come with party baggage. I will vote for whichever one best aligns with my views at the time or I may choose to vote for neither of them. This election cycle I chose neither candidate because both were completely unacceptable to me. Since I have no alligence to either party or their candidates and examine each issue independent of what parties think, the proper designation in my mind is independent. In fact, I don't see how it can possibly be seen any other way.
You pretty much describe what I said 1ofmany. If you are a True Independent, then you are no more dissatisfied with Trump than you would have been with Hillary. I didn't care for either one of them either, but I live in a swing state, so my vote was important. I don't know which state you live in, but if it isn't a swing state, then you can be whatever you want and it will not make any difference anyway.
I looked at the issues and made my decision just like you and I'm a Democrat. I see no need to change it to Republican, Independent or anything else, because I look at all the issues just like you and make my decision just like you as to which candidate I either agree with the most or disagree with the least.
Certainly you had some issues you either agreed or disagreed with between the candidates. By the way which state do you live in?
I'm in DC.
I live in California so it didn't matter that I voted independent. All I did was help make Hillary's margin here slightly larger and help them whine about winning the meaningless national popular vote. You can bet that if there were a national popular vote than meant anything that I would have been out there supporting Trump with all I had because Hillary was so much worse and the greater of the two evils.
I'm in DC.
Ah-- no wonder!
Every time I hear someone say they are an Independent in a basically two party system, I wonder how they can justify it as a fact.
If you don't think it is a fact, how about some alternative facts. Some people choose not live in a box marked R or D. It may not be as many as identify themselves in polls as independents, but there are those who choose not to live, or vote, that way.
What is the justification for being a D or an R?
Every time I hear someone say they are an Independent in a basically two party system, I wonder how they can justify it as a fact.
If you don't think it is a fact, how about some alternative facts. Some people choose not live in a box marked R or D. It may not be as many as identify themselves in polls as independents, but there are those who choose not to live, or vote, that way.
What is the justification for being a D or an R?
If you don't vote for either candidate in a Presidential election, if you have the slightest inclination to favor one over the other, you're voting for their opponent by not voting.
Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils Is Absurd on Its Own Terms
"So we arrive at a delightful irony. The same third party voters that are routinely ridiculed for being unrealistic actually have a far more realistic understanding of their vote than the average LOSE (Lesser Of Some Evil ) voter."
Your statement may make you feel good, but it has no logical basis whatsoever. You may as well say "If you don't vote for the winner, you have wasted your vote." Which was actually said to me by my mother's second husband.
The point is that if you do vote, you shouldn’t do it because you think it is actually going to determine the outcome of the current election. Don’t just vote for the lesser of two evils coughed up by the two major parties. If you’re going to vote, vote for the candidate you actually believe in. Or, since that probably won’t exist, vote for the one you disagree with least. Not too inspiring, but it’s the best we can do.
That was from your link in your comment. Your article was completely off base except this little section above in my opinion. Let me put it to you this way. I would rather have a shot in the ass than a shot in the head. Both of those choices are pretty depressing or evil if you will, but I think I have a better chance of making it with another hole in my ass than another hole in my head. So voting for the lesser of the two evils is far better in my opinion when my vote counts in a swing state than voting for my ideal candidate who hasn't got a chance in hell of winning or not voting at all because my candidate doesn't have a chance of winning.
It doesn't make me feel good either way, but it does offer another chance to vote in the future.
Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils Is Absurd on Its Own Terms
Not if the only two candidates who realistically had any chance of being elected were Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
TERRIBLE SITUATION!
If you don't vote for either candidate in a Presidential election, if you have the slightest inclination to favor one over the other, you're voting for their opponent by not voting.
What if you did indeed have a slight preference for one of the major candidates over the other, but really dislike both-- so you don't vote for either but rather vote for a 3rd party candidate?
IMO that would mean you're an Independent. (Or at least mean you voted as an independent in that election).
Steve,
Up until the election, few Republicans would claim Trump as a part of their party, since the election a few have decided to not be passed by as the history train comes rolling through, but I hardly think the RNC really feels all that much love for Trump. Besides that, you're right there are only a few Republicans reaching out to people
Steve,
Up until the election, few Republicans would claim Trump as a part of their party, since the election a few have decided to not be passed by as the history train comes rolling through, but I hardly think the RNC really feels all that much love for Trump. Besides that, you're right there are only a few Republicans reaching out to people
1. A Frustrated Middle-Class
I didn't realize how frustrated they were. It was like they had been having meetings and I was never invited, but the silent majority in the many states were tired of the path we were on and were motivated to go out and vote. Democrats, Republicans, Independents and minority groups said they had enough of the Obama policies, which Hillary clearly stated were going to be her policies for the most part.
2. An Unscripted Personality
As bad of a candidate Hillary was, she had all the elite, the MSM and the people who thought she was going to increase their entitlements even more supporting her. The Establishment on both sides supported her. She had everything a candidate could ask for except her baggage. I really don't think any other Republican who ran against Trump could have beaten her. It took a person with a lot of energy and drive to overcome the obstacles Trump overcame. One thing you don't hear from the MSM, who still are determined to get rid of Trump is Trump was campaigning all over the place, sometimes several times, He was in front of many thousands more people than Hillary was during the campaign, driving a wedge between him and all those who wanted the same old same old. He spoke spontaneously and made many comments that weren't even true, but it didn't even matter, the same people who were true believers in Trump were no different than Obama's true believers. They heard both of them speaking, but they heard what they wanted to hear.
3. Ability to Control the Media Narrative
He played the media like a violin and I might add he made them sound like Bob Hope playing the violin on his TV program. They all wanted him on their programs to drive up ratings, which it did, but it drove up ratings for him every time as well. And he did it without spending a dime. They did play right into his hands without even noticing it was happening. Some call him a con artist and some call him a great motivator of the people. He certainly wasn't a great speaker, but whatever the case he was able to pull it off. I would say he was a great motivator to many and definitely a con artist to many as well.
Anyway we have Trump, who is not a Conservative in the least, but has appointed an unprecedented number of Conservatives to his Cabinet, one of the most conservative in modern times. I've heard it isn't Trump who has made Trump successful, but the people who work for him. I guess we will see, if the opposition isn't able to find some reason to throw him out of office. I think that would be a revolutionary act as it would have been to have thrown Obama out of office.
I agree with the way it was described, that Hillary sat on her duff and waited for Trump to self-destruct. I believe that's what killed her chances to be President (again).
Even with his shortcomings there is lot to like about Trump and I sure am glad he won and Hillary didn't. She was parading around with an admitted socialist on one arm and Obama on the other promising more of the same downward liberal spiral. I've been feeling much better about our country ever since Trump won.
Dean, I too am more optimistic about our country than I was before the election. The middle class was ready to rebel against the rich and the poor.
Not a bad article.
My take:
1. The main reason Trump won was the Middle Class-- & their economic problems. Especially blue collar workers, union people in the rust belt states who had good, secure jobs...
Until they didn't.
But also other members of the Middle Class who had been working hard for years, and who's lifestyle was worse than it was 20 years ago.
Add to that that whatever Trump's fault's, Trump (or actually probably not him but rather Jared Kushner) was smart enough to realize this & really addressed those concerns. Whether true or not-- its the voters' perception that matters. The Trump campaign made those promises that resonated with many voters. (Incidentally that's not only why they bea Hillary-- its also why Trump upset the odds n favourite in the primaries).
Hllary's campaign, OTOH, did not make that the major focus-- and again, regardless of the reality, they never got across the message that they really cared a lot about the Middle Class-- especially blue collar workers.
2. Next in importance: The candidate. To many folks, Hillary comes across as a sleaze. You can argue all you want about Republican's being racist, sexist, & being cruel to cute little puppie dogs & flowers, etc....but just like #1 (allegations Dems didn't care about the Middle Class)-- its the perception that counts. And many voters perceived Hillary not to care about the working class, & to be untrustworthy. (And not all of them were Repubicans).
[That's my objective, non-partisan analysis. P.S: I voted for Hillary]