Both of your points go back to the same underlying issue- Americans don’t do their homework. Expecting the American population to do their own independent research into candidates and select the candidate that objectively best serves their interest is not a winning proposition. I really wish this was different, but that is just not a thing that happens.
But that means that a candidate wins or loses on marketing. This marketing is a combination of having the reach, and hitting those people with the right message.
That’s a big reason why I say DNC handed the nomination to Hillary. The DNC was supposed to remain neutral until the primary was finished, however they helped the Hillary campaign by sharing their mailing lists. So you say Bernie was unpopular, thank you if you limited that to voters who were familiar with his platform as well as Hillary’s I think you would have a different result.
But look at Trump. He won the PR game. He said lots of crazy shit that got him constantly in the news, then when he got the spotlight he used it to say things that directly addressed the American people’s pain points. His message was that he sees the country not working for the average person, but instead working for companies that outsource American jobs. So to stop that he will throw some tariffs and bring jobs back! If you’re in American Blue collar worker or especially factory worker, that is the first time back in quite a while that a politician has said ‘I hear you, you matter and I’m going to stand up to big business and fix your problem’.
Now you can objectively point out problems in his budget proposals and his stated agendas as of campaign season, you can point to the gop’s track record of abandoning lower classes, but that all just becomes more words on a very crowded page, more talking heads. None of that overcame the power of Trump’s message.
Obama did the same thing by the way, the whole hope, change, yes we can campaign was brilliant and it did the same thing of speaking directly to the American people’s pain points. And it was also simple enough to resonate in someone’s mind.
Unfortunately Obama had the right idea and he was a good president but he didn’t have the balls needed to railroad his desired reforms through.
My point is though, if the DNC had two brain cells to rub together they would be learning from this. You need a candidate who’s willing to stand up to big business, who is willing to ruffle feathers among the donors. That wasn’t Hillary. And it wasn’t Kamala either.
Both of your points go back to the same underlying issue- Americans don’t do their homework. Expecting the American population to do their own independent research into candidates and select the candidate that objectively best serves their interest is not a winning proposition. I really wish this was different, but that is just not a thing that happens.
But that means that a candidate wins or loses on marketing. This marketing is a combination of having the reach, and hitting those people with the right message.
That’s a big reason why I say DNC handed the nomination to Hillary. The DNC was supposed to remain neutral until the primary was finished, however they helped the Hillary campaign by sharing their mailing lists. So you say Bernie was unpopular, thank you if you limited that to voters who were familiar with his platform as well as Hillary’s I think you would have a different result.
But look at Trump. He won the PR game. He said lots of crazy shit that got him constantly in the news, then when he got the spotlight he used it to say things that directly addressed the American people’s pain points. His message was that he sees the country not working for the average person, but instead working for companies that outsource American jobs. So to stop that he will throw some tariffs and bring jobs back! If you’re in American Blue collar worker or especially factory worker, that is the first time back in quite a while that a politician has said ‘I hear you, you matter and I’m going to stand up to big business and fix your problem’.
Now you can objectively point out problems in his budget proposals and his stated agendas as of campaign season, you can point to the gop’s track record of abandoning lower classes, but that all just becomes more words on a very crowded page, more talking heads. None of that overcame the power of Trump’s message.
Obama did the same thing by the way, the whole hope, change, yes we can campaign was brilliant and it did the same thing of speaking directly to the American people’s pain points. And it was also simple enough to resonate in someone’s mind. Unfortunately Obama had the right idea and he was a good president but he didn’t have the balls needed to railroad his desired reforms through.
My point is though, if the DNC had two brain cells to rub together they would be learning from this. You need a candidate who’s willing to stand up to big business, who is willing to ruffle feathers among the donors. That wasn’t Hillary. And it wasn’t Kamala either.