This Florida county voted for Trump. But it's a lot like the sanctuary cities he loathes. Volusia Co

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/im...ed-trump-it-s-lot-sanctuary-cities-he-n867051

ON, Fla. — When a trio of squad cars pulls up to the fern field, the workers — bent over, piling up bundles of freshly cut feather-like fronds in the late-morning sun — grow tense.

Sgt. Roy Galarza, 34, and his brothers, both sheriff's deputies, jump out. Roy jokes in Spanish about who will cut the most ferns that day, and greets an uncle who works there. Slowly, the workers, many of whom are undocumented immigrants from Mexico, walk over to the cruisers and begin to chat: One woman complains about a traffic stop; another talks about a friend’s misunderstanding with police involving her children.

Volusia County elected both Trump and a sheriff bent on restoring trust within the immigrant community.

===============================================================================
Largely rural counties, like Volusia County in Florida, which favored Trump in 2016 by 13 points, but whose law enforcement officials say they need to protect immigrants working in the community and are pushing back on federal, state and local efforts to shut them down.

Volusia County - where economic reality of migrant labor meets The Donald.

Trump could only have won against Clinton, just as Clinton could only have won against Trump. It was truly a match made in Hell.

Jesse Booth said:

Trump could only have won against Clinton, just as Clinton could only have won against Trump. It was truly a match made in Hell.

Click to expand...

I whole heartily agree. Any other Democrat besides Hillary Clinton, alive or dead would have trounced Trump. Any other Republican would have beaten Hillary by a good ten points in the popular vote instead of losing the popular by 2. It was like both major parties held a huge meeting, then decided which of their candidates was disliked the most by America as a whole, which candidates the majority of Americans didn't want as their next president and then nominated them just to show this nation that neither party gives a darn what its citizen want or wish for.

Perotista said:

I whole heartily agree. Any other Democrat besides Hillary Clinton, alive or dead would have trounced Trump. Any other Republican would have beaten Hillary by a good ten points in the popular vote instead of losing the popular by 2. It was like both major parties held a huge meeting, then decided which of their candidates was disliked the most by America as a whole, which candidates the majority of Americans didn't want as their next president and then nominated them just to show this nation that neither party gives a darn what its citizen want or wish for.

Click to expand...

would you rather have prefered the democrats keeping the rule that a democratic primary canididate has to win 2/3rds of the delegates in order to win the parties nomination outright?

Unitedwestand13 said:

would you rather have prefered the democrats keeping the rule that a democratic primary canididate has to win 2/3rds of the delegates in order to win the parties nomination outright?

Click to expand...

So can you tell us why Debbie Wassermen Schultz was fired?

Perotista said:

I whole heartily agree. Any other Democrat besides Hillary Clinton, alive or dead would have trounced Trump. Any other Republican would have beaten Hillary by a good ten points in the popular vote instead of losing the popular by 2. It was like both major parties held a huge meeting, then decided which of their candidates was disliked the most by America as a whole, which candidates the majority of Americans didn't want as their next president and then nominated them just to show this nation that neither party gives a darn what its citizen want or wish for.

Click to expand...

Okay, let's be fair - Santorum probably would have lost to Clinton, since he didn't have a snowball's chance of flipping states like Michigan and Pennsylvania. :lol:

I do find it fascinating how perfectly Clinton and Trump acted as character foils to each other; they were both rich white baby boomers, both born into wealth (albeit on vastly different levels), and tied to each other by campaign donations and social circles. Despitetheir common ground, their campaigns were absolute opposites; Trump had his wealth and personal brand to back his campaign and nothing else, while Clinton used a massive web of financial backers and political allies; Trump was off the cuff and unpredictable, while Clinton was practically a poll of politically viable statements stuffed into a skinsuit; Trump focused on appealing to the most extreme part of his base as hard as he could, while Clinton paid lip service to as many different demographics as she could. And in the end, the ultimate insider and the ultimate outsider were equally despised by most of the country, despite being the most popular candidates.

JacksinPA said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/im...ed-trump-it-s-lot-sanctuary-cities-he-n867051

ON, Fla. — When a trio of squad cars pulls up to the fern field, the workers — bent over, piling up bundles of freshly cut feather-like fronds in the late-morning sun — grow tense.

Sgt. Roy Galarza, 34, and his brothers, both sheriff's deputies, jump out. Roy jokes in Spanish about who will cut the most ferns that day, and greets an uncle who works there. Slowly, the workers, many of whom are undocumented immigrants from Mexico, walk over to the cruisers and begin to chat: One woman complains about a traffic stop; another talks about a friend’s misunderstanding with police involving her children.

Volusia County elected both Trump and a sheriff bent on restoring trust within the immigrant community.

===============================================================================
Largely rural counties, like Volusia County in Florida, which favored Trump in 2016 by 13 points, but whose law enforcement officials say they need to protect immigrants working in the community and are pushing back on federal, state and local efforts to shut them down.

Volusia County - where economic reality of migrant labor meets The Donald.

Click to expand...

Migrant labor is welcomed as long as it is done legally! Break our immigration law and ICE will arrest you!

Unitedwestand13 said:

would you rather have prefered the democrats keeping the rule that a democratic primary canididate has to win 2/3rds of the delegates in order to win the parties nomination outright?

Click to expand...

I'd rather the Democrat's didn't pick their 2016 candidate four years before in a secret meeting between Obama, Bill and Hillary and that the DNC and Democratic Party Leaders didn't jury rig the primaries in Hillary's favor.

Being as old as I am I remember the pre-modern primary system which actually began in 1976. I had no problem the pre-modern system either. You're talking about the pre-modern system that produced FDR, Truman, Stevenson, JFK, LBJ and Humphrey who never ran in a primary in 1968.

For the Democrats, Stevenson lost, but FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ all all ranked in the top 13 presidents. 2, 6, 11 and 13. Throw in Eisenhower who is ranked 9th. The thing about the pre-modern system is that it wasn't a beauty contest. Competence and chance of winning determined by the state party leaders were at the core of the choice. Since the modern primary system began we only had 2 presidents ranked in the top 20, Reagan at 15 and Bill Clinton at 20.

Jesse Booth said:

Okay, let's be fair - Santorum probably would have lost to Clinton, since he didn't have a snowball's chance of flipping states like Michigan and Pennsylvania. :lol:

I do find it fascinating how perfectly Clinton and Trump acted as character foils to each other; they were both rich white baby boomers, both born into wealth (albeit on vastly different levels), and tied to each other by campaign donations and social circles. Despitetheir common ground, their campaigns were absolute opposites; Trump had his wealth and personal brand to back his campaign and nothing else, while Clinton used a massive web of financial backers and political allies; Trump was off the cuff and unpredictable, while Clinton was practically a poll of politically viable statements stuffed into a skinsuit; Trump focused on appealing to the most extreme part of his base as hard as he could, while Clinton paid lip service to as many different demographics as she could. And in the end, the ultimate insider and the ultimate outsider were equally despised by most of the country, despite being the most popular candidates.

Click to expand...

Despised by America as a whole. Hillary was popular only among Democrats, not independents as their election day unfavorable view of her at 70% attest. Trump's dislikes was at 57% among independents and that was enough for Trump to win the independent vote over Hillary 46-42 with 12% voting third party. Trump had the backing of around 35% of all Republicans during the primaries, he benefited from the extra large field as the rest of the GOP couldn't decide on who to back against him. In such a large field, 35% was quite sufficient.

2016 set a record for the lowest favorable ratings of any major party candidates. 36% and 38%. The previous record low for a major party candidate was 43% by Goldwater in 1964 and the second lowest was G.H.W. Bush at 46% in 1992. No other presidential candidate since FDR had a 50% or lower favorable rating other than Trump, Hillary, Goldwater and Bush.

It was also interesting to see where 25% of all Americans disliked both candidates and wanted neither on as their next president. 54% of all independents disliked both major party candidates, although they disliked Hillary more than Trump. This is why I call the 2016 the anti election. More people voted against a candidate than they voted for a candidate. So we ended up with a president that was the candidate Americans wanted the least to lose between Hillary and The Donald.

One in Four Americans Dislike Both Presidential Candidates

I also found it interesting that according to CNN exit polls, out of the 46% Trump received, 23% were anti-Clinton votes, not necessarily for Trump, any Tom, Dick or Harry would have done as long as the last name wasn't Clinton. Again showing it was the anti-Clinton vote that propelled Trump to the Oval Office.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

I think you stated the situation quite nicely. I agree with it.

Jesse Booth said:

Trump could only have won against Clinton, just as Clinton could only have won against Trump. It was truly a match made in Hell.

Click to expand...

Eh, she could probably have beaten a Rick Perry.



For all her faults that made her unlikeable to a lot of people on the left and in the center, she mainly lost because she ignored three key states. Ground reports were of an unorganized ground operation that was essentially ignored by the campaign.

Had to be one of the dumbest campaigns ever run....




Of course, if the GOP got over itself and ran Huntsman in 2020 or someone very much like them, he'd win in a crushing victory. That's with the caveat that he runs as he did in 2012 and doesn't bastardize his beliefs to appeal to the primary base a la McCain 2008.

All I know is that the GOP had a winning candidate in John Kasich, and they blew it. I voted for Kasich in the republican primary, and I sure as hell would have voted for him in November, as would a large chunk of both democrats and independents. We could have had a president the nation was proud of, which would never have been the case with either Hillary or Trump.

So here we all are, our democratic process tarnished from within by corrupt party leaders on both sides, stuck with a corrupt 250-lb toddler with twitter tantrum complex, for all the world to see.

"Ain't democracy grand, world? Don't you wish you had what we have?"

Rings kinda hollow right now, doesn't it?

DiAnna said:

All I know is that the GOP had a winning candidate in John Kasich, and they blew it. I voted for Kasich in the republican primary, and I sure as hell would have voted for him in November, as would a large chunk of both democrats and independents. We could have had a president the nation was proud of, which would never have been the case with either Hillary or Trump.

So here we all are, our democratic process tarnished from within by corrupt party leaders on both sides, stuck with a corrupt 250-lb toddler with twitter tantrum complex, for all the world to see.

"Ain't democracy grand, world? Don't you wish you had what we have?"

Rings kinda hollow right now, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

I'm not as sure about Kasich, but if the GOP ran Huntsman he'd have gotten my vote. He'd also have gotten it in 2012.



Sadly, to pass through today's primaries a GOP candidate has to be "severely" and/or insanely "conservative"; if they want to get re-elected, they have to act that way during their first term.


Edit: oh, damn, I just said that.

Perotista said:

I whole heartily agree. Any other Democrat besides Hillary Clinton, alive or dead would have trounced Trump. Any other Republican would have beaten Hillary by a good ten points in the popular vote instead of losing the popular by 2. It was like both major parties held a huge meeting, then decided which of their candidates was disliked the most by America as a whole, which candidates the majority of Americans didn't want as their next president and then nominated them just to show this nation that neither party gives a darn what its citizen want or wish for.

Click to expand...

...and the sore losers blame Trump. Ironic, isn't it? Mickey Mouse could have won against him, but they blame everyone else but themselves or Hillary.

DiAnna said:

All I know is that the GOP had a winning candidate in John Kasich, and they blew it. I voted for Kasich in the republican primary, and I sure as hell would have voted for him in November, as would a large chunk of both democrats and independents. We could have had a president the nation was proud of, which would never have been the case with either Hillary or Trump.

So here we all are, our democratic process tarnished from within by corrupt party leaders on both sides, stuck with a corrupt 250-lb toddler with twitter tantrum complex, for all the world to see.

"Ain't democracy grand, world? Don't you wish you had what we have?"

Rings kinda hollow right now, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

Kasich would have made me vote R.

Lovebug said:

...and the sore losers blame Trump. Ironic, isn't it? Mickey Mouse could have won against him, but they blame everyone else but themselves or Hillary.

Click to expand...

I've ran down many times the main reasons why Hillary lost with numbers to prove it. From her laziness on the campaign trail, to her inept campaign strategy, to even rigging of the Democratic Primaries making Sanders supporters very angry at her and the Democratic Party. To her very uncharismatic personality of a wet mop which left many independents feeling she was an aloof elite, she was and is. To her ho hum campaign as if she thought being next in line and being a woman was enough to win it.

And on and on. Hillary lost because of Hillary, it is that simple.

Lovebug said:

Kasich would have made me vote R.

Click to expand...

Well Kasich is a Democrat (RINO), so that makes sense.

Perotista said:

Despised by America as a whole. Hillary was popular only among Democrats, not independents as their election day unfavorable view of her at 70% attest. Trump's dislikes was at 57% among independents and that was enough for Trump to win the independent vote over Hillary 46-42 with 12% voting third party. Trump had the backing of around 35% of all Republicans during the primaries, he benefited from the extra large field as the rest of the GOP couldn't decide on who to back against him. In such a large field, 35% was quite sufficient.

2016 set a record for the lowest favorable ratings of any major party candidates. 36% and 38%. The previous record low for a major party candidate was 43% by Goldwater in 1964 and the second lowest was G.H.W. Bush at 46% in 1992. No other presidential candidate since FDR had a 50% or lower favorable rating other than Trump, Hillary, Goldwater and Bush.

It was also interesting to see where 25% of all Americans disliked both candidates and wanted neither on as their next president. 54% of all independents disliked both major party candidates, although they disliked Hillary more than Trump. This is why I call the 2016 the anti election. More people voted against a candidate than they voted for a candidate. So we ended up with a president that was the candidate Americans wanted the least to lose between Hillary and The Donald.

One in Four Americans Dislike Both Presidential Candidates

I also found it interesting that according to CNN exit polls, out of the 46% Trump received, 23% were anti-Clinton votes, not necessarily for Trump, any Tom, Dick or Harry would have done as long as the last name wasn't Clinton. Again showing it was the anti-Clinton vote that propelled Trump to the Oval Office.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

I think you stated the situation quite nicely. I agree with it.

Click to expand...

here is a hypothetical question: suppose a democrat runs for the democratic primary and he has the ultimite appeal to independent voters and if he ran in the general election that person would dominate that particular ideological voter. HOWEVER: on the flip side, this canddate is downright toxic to democratic voters because that person has voted for policies that are unforgivable to the core base of the democratic party.

that supposed unicorn of a canedate may win the independent vote in the general election, but in the democratic primary that canidate is doomed. either he has to devote completely to the policies of the democratic parties base, losing that independent streak, or else come in last place agianist a democrat more aligned with the base of the democratic party.

Mr Person said:

I'm not as sure about Kasich, but if the GOP ran Huntsman he'd have gotten my vote. He'd also have gotten it in 2012.



Sadly, to pass through today's primaries a GOP candidate has to be "severely" and/or insanely "conservative"; if they want to get re-elected, they have to act that way during their first term.


Edit: oh, damn, I just said that.

Click to expand...

Agreed I may have voted for Kasich, but I absolutely would have voted for huntsman.

I don't necessarily like Hilary, I dislike trump farm more, however between the two Hilary was by far more qualified, and possibly the most qualified candidate to ever run.

Between her and a businessman who has lost more than twice as much as be has ever made. We picked the wrong one...

Most people do not understand just how dependant the AG industry relies on immigrants, both legal and illegal.

If you want cheep food and you want your cows milked and your vegetables picked by legal workers you have to loosen immigration laws not tighten them.

The largest immigration bust in US history was under Obama and in postville Iowa. It shut down the whole community for a very long time
Iowa immigration raid largest ever - US news - Crime & courts | NBC News

Unitedwestand13 said:

here is a hypothetical question: suppose a democrat runs for the democratic primary and he has the ultimite appeal to independent voters and if he ran in the general election that person would dominate that particular ideological voter. HOWEVER: on the flip side, this canddate is downright toxic to democratic voters because that person has voted for policies that are unforgivable to the core base of the democratic party.

that supposed unicorn of a canedate may win the independent vote in the general election, but in the democratic primary that canidate is doomed. either he has to devote completely to the policies of the democratic parties base, losing that independent streak, or else come in last place agianist a democrat more aligned with the base of the democratic party.

Click to expand...

I don't think that was what was asked in 2016. What was asked is the Democrats nominate someone else other than Hillary Clinton. Back in February of 2016 there was a poll which showed 56% of all Americans wanted the Democrats to nominate someone besides Hillary. Ignored of course.

Against Trump, I know I would have voted for Sanders, O'Malley and especially Jim Webb since Webb was my first choice. Biden also, but he didn't run. I wished he would have, old Joe would have got my vote, but not Hillary. Looking at favorable/unfavorable polls going back into 2016, Sanders, Kasich although not a Democrat and Rubio were the only three candidate to have a plus on the favorable sie of the ledger. Clinton and Trump, in the dumps.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/22/politics/2016-election-poll-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/index.html

Independents weren't asking the Democrats to abandon their principles or core values, just nominate someone other than Hillary. Take a look at this, Sanders vs Trump

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

You can also take a look at this one:

https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/PPP_Release_National_51016.pdf

Favorable/unfavorable Independents only
Sanders 43% favorable 39% unfavorable
Clinton 25% favorable 61% unfavorable
Trump 29% favorable 60% unfavorable.

PPP doesn't have Biden, I wish it did. Remember independents went for Trump 46-42 over Hillary with 12% voting third party. Without winning the independent vote, Trump would have never won. I'm sure Sanders, Biden, Webb, O'Malley would all have won the independent vote. It was the fact independents disliked Hillary far more than Trump that led to her defeat. Look at question 10 and 11 below on a YouGov poll taken 7 November 2016

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

Independents only again, Hillary Clinton 27% favorable/70% unfavorable. Donald Trump 40% favorable/57% unfavorable. There's your election in a nut shell. I'm sure independents would have voted for almost any other democrat over Trump other than Hillary Clinton. It wasn't that independents were asking the Democrats to abandon their principals, quite the contrary, just someone other than Hillary.

One last question, do you think a Sanders, a Biden, O'Malley, Webb or any other candidate other than Hillary Clinton would have allowed Donald Trump to both out work and out campaign her by a margin of 116 campaign visits/stops from 1 sep 2016 through 8 Nov 2016 to 71. Part of Hillary's 71 was fund raisers in deep blue California and New York. So she was out worked and out campaign by a much greater margin than the numbers show. I'm sure none of those I mentioned would have allowed that.

I think the Democrats failed to realize or ignored how much Hillary was disliked by America as a whole. I don't think a Biden, Sanders, Webb or a O'Malley would be doing as you stated in your post. That was about all that was asked. Give us someone other than Hillary and you got our vote. I also think the vast majority of the 8 million folks who voted third party would have voted for the Democratic nominee if the Democratic nominee last name wasn't Clinton. Add that to a different Democratic nominee winning the independent vote, you almost have a landslide. But in my opinion the Democrats nominated the only person who could and did lose to Trump.

GDViking said:

Most people do not understand just how dependant the AG industry relies on immigrants, both legal and illegal.

If you want cheep food and you want your cows milked and your vegetables picked by legal workers you have to loosen immigration laws not tighten them.

The largest immigration bust in US history was under Obama and in postville Iowa. It shut down the whole community for a very long time
Iowa immigration raid largest ever - US news - Crime & courts | NBC News

Click to expand...

Also the if you are anti food stamps you are anti agriculture. The snap program is nust a fraction of the farm bill and farmers rely on the poor to be able to buy food as well as the billions in subsidies, when you drive down the road and see a brand new combine Chances are you helped pay for it.

And most of the subsidies go to large corporate farms many of them foriengn owned.

Perotista said:

I don't think that was what was asked in 2016. What was asked is the Democrats nominate someone else other than Hillary Clinton. Back in February of 2016 there was a poll which showed 56% of all Americans wanted the Democrats to nominate someone besides Hillary. Ignored of course.

Against Trump, I know I would have voted for Sanders, O'Malley and especially Jim Webb since Webb was my first choice. Biden also, but he didn't run. I wished he would have, old Joe would have got my vote, but not Hillary. Looking at favorable/unfavorable polls going back into 2016, Sanders, Kasich although not a Democrat and Rubio were the only three candidate to have a plus on the favorable sie of the ledger. Clinton and Trump, in the dumps.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/22/politics/2016-election-poll-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/index.html

Independents weren't asking the Democrats to abandon their principles or core values, just nominate someone other than Hillary. Take a look at this, Sanders vs Trump

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

You can also take a look at this one:

https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/PPP_Release_National_51016.pdf

Favorable/unfavorable Independents only
Sanders 43% favorable 39% unfavorable
Clinton 25% favorable 61% unfavorable
Trump 29% favorable 60% unfavorable.

PPP doesn't have Biden, I wish it did. Remember independents went for Trump 46-42 over Hillary with 12% voting third party. Without winning the independent vote, Trump would have never won. I'm sure Sanders, Biden, Webb, O'Malley would all have won the independent vote. It was the fact independents disliked Hillary far more than Trump that led to her defeat. Look at question 10 and 11 below on a YouGov poll taken 7 November 2016

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

Independents only again, Hillary Clinton 27% favorable/70% unfavorable. Donald Trump 40% favorable/57% unfavorable. There's your election in a nut shell. I'm sure independents would have voted for almost any other democrat over Trump other than Hillary Clinton. It wasn't that independents were asking the Democrats to abandon their principals, quite the contrary, just someone other than Hillary.

One last question, do you think a Sanders, a Biden, O'Malley, Webb or any other candidate other than Hillary Clinton would have allowed Donald Trump to both out work and out campaign her by a margin of 116 campaign visits/stops from 1 sep 2016 through 8 Nov 2016 to 71. Part of Hillary's 71 was fund raisers in deep blue California and New York. So she was out worked and out campaign by a much greater margin than the numbers show. I'm sure none of those I mentioned would have allowed that.

I think the Democrats failed to realize or ignored how much Hillary was disliked by America as a whole. I don't think a Biden, Sanders, Webb or a O'Malley would be doing as you stated in your post. That was about all that was asked. Give us someone other than Hillary and you got our vote. I also think the vast majority of the 8 million folks who voted third party would have voted for the Democratic nominee if the Democratic nominee last name wasn't Clinton. Add that to a different Democratic nominee winning the independent vote, you almost have a landslide. But in my opinion the Democrats nominated the only person who could and did lose to Trump.

Click to expand...

Pero, the problem is that you don't seem to realize how much the democratic party wanted clinton to be the nominee. hilliary clinton recieved her first endorsement from a democratic senator on june 18th, 2013, way before clinton had announced that she was a canididate. the party was coalescing around a clinton candidacy.

i will admit clinton was a flawed candidate, but she would have been a better government official.

Unitedwestand13 said:

Pero,

Click to expand...

It was the Democratic Party choice for sure. Yes, the Democratic Party wanted Clinton so bad to be their nominee that they totally ignored everything else. Then there was that meeting prior to the 2012 election between Obama, Bill and Hillary to where a lot of us think that was where Hillary was chosen to be the democratic nominee. Then the DNC and Democratic state party leaders went to work to ensure she got it.

Obama made 'secret deal to support Hillary Clinton's 2016 run in exchange for Bill's support during re-election campaign' | Daily Mail Online

https://nypost.com/2013/06/02/obama-was-pushed-by-clintons-into-endorsement-of-hillary-in-2016-book/

Today, a lot of us look back on that as the Democratic Party having jury rigged the primaries in Hillary's favor. Nevada was a prime example a long with states Sanders won, but due to the super delegates, he received less delegates than Hillary. Out of 712 super delegates, Sanders received 48. Another example of the game being rigged. That cost Hillary in the election, perhaps the election itself.

Bernie Sanders Voters Helped Trump Win and Here's Proof

I've probably harped on the choices for way too much and way too long. I am still bothered by them. But you're correct, we have a President Trump because of the choices and decisions made by both major parties back in 2016. Then Hillary ran a ho hum campaign, her supporters for the most part were ho hum, she was lazy, her campaign strategy inept. She came across as aloof and elitist, at least to those who weren't Hillary supporters. Still, she went against Trump was was seen as an obnoxious oaf by those who didn't support him.

You know my friend, it will probably be 2020 before I get over the choice offered by the two major parties for 2016, if then. I suppose the bottom line is the Democratic Party got what it wanted. Perhaps that old adage of, "Be careful what you wish for, you might get it," applies. For someone who isn't a Republican, a Democrat, not all that partisan and not an ideologue, I still can't see how the Democrats would nominate about the only person capable of losing to Trump. They really must have wanted her bad. But I'm not sure they really did due to the jury rigging of the primaries along with four years of the DNC and state party leaders working their butts off to ensure Hillary received the nomination.

Perhaps it was what the members of the Democratic Party wanted so much, but what the Democratic establishment, the party leaders, the elites of the Democratic Party wanted. They had four years to impose, influence and set the rules to ensure she got it. I don't know, I'm not a Democrat. With my independent mind, a mind of my own I refuse to turn over to a political party for indoctrination in what to be for and what to be against without weighing the merits, I never will belong to either major party.

I don't think Hillary would have been able to govern any better than Trump. Both had approximately 60% of the nation against them. The scandals and investigations against Clinton would be full blown especially since the Republicans controlled congress and the investigation committees. She like Trump would have been stuck at around 40% approval. Most Americans already decided, had their minds made up they didn't like either one and that would have continued. 2016 was an election of dividers, not uniters. I doubt Clinton supporters and democrats will never acknowledge how much of a divider Clinton was.

Perhaps there is no one who could ever unite the country coming from either major party. Both parties have shrunk to where only hard core ideologues are left in each. Middle America, the center, center right and center left have left both parties. Today, gallup puts the Republican Party at 24% and the Democratic Party at 29%. Together they make up 53% of the total electorate. A far cry from the 80% they did back in the 50's and 60's and the 70% they did prior to Reagan and the 60% up and until Obama.

Less and less Americans, as a percentage of the total electorate are now choosing the nominees. We'll see a lot more Trump's and Clinton's in the future because of that. I use to think the growing number of independents, the non-affiliate was great and good for the country. But when the two major parties remain in full control of our political system, a monopoly, I've come to the conclusion that it isn't. That this country was far better off when 70-80% of the electorate identified with both major parties. The addition had a moderating influence on both parties and the ideologues less power. Ideologues have all the power in both parties. Middle America has no political home anymore. Middle America, all they can do is elect one party one election, the other the next and back to the first the election after. So be it.

Sorry for the book, but I let it all out.