- Joined
- Jan 31, 2013
- Messages
- 30,810
- Reaction score
- 22,360
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I disagree. This election was a rejection of status quo.
First to be rejected was Democrats insistence of "Inclusion." People said no to refugees, illegal aliens, BLM, etc. Why? Well, IMO, it was because the D version of "inclusion" excluded the uneducated or lower income white working class. In short, the party of tolerance was intolerant of those who do not tolerate their PC, multiculturalism BS. In the end, excluding these people, making fun of them even, cost them dearly.
Another problem is that the D have become the Political Elite. A class by themselves who surround themselves with highly educated --often rich--liberals. As a result, they no longer have an ear for those less educated folks who do not toe the liberal line (white or black). Like I said, they make fun of these people: whites are rednecks, blacks are Uncle Toms. That cost them dearly too.
.
What was wrong with Hillary? Well, for one, the Clinton's are a political powerhouse. They blocked any and all moderate competitors from gaining a foothold in the party. Hillary is so well connected with the elite that Chelsea Clinton landed a $600,000 salary working as a junior reporter for NBC. Great work if you can find it.
Now the Republicans: Basically they are the same as the Democrats: a party of elites. The big exception being instead of being married to "inclusion" and multiculturalism, they are tied to the religious folks. But, make no mistake, the Party is beholden to the elites: the rich, the intellectuals on the Far Right Religious.
All of a sudden, here comes Trump with his own money. He says, "Screw You!" to all those elites and manages to connect to the forgotten class: the uneducated, the redneck, the Uncle Tom, and anyone else who has had it with PC, multicultural elites and their BS intellectualism.
Perhaps, but it interesting to note that rejection or acceptance was pretty evenly split. It is also interesting to note that once Republicans and Democrats are eliminated from the equation, you have Trump winning the independent 48-42. But that is the same six point margin Romney won independents back in 2012, only he won them 51-45. Then too you have the low voter turnout and the increase in third party candidates votes from two percent to five percent.
Whenever an out of power party wins, one can state it was a change election. Getting rid of the status quo. That why I said perhaps. But this election was fought more on personalities of the two candidates and what they did wrong in their personal lives and scandals than on any issues of substance. Both Romney and Trump received the same percentage of the vote 47.2%. Romney more of the establishment candidate also received more votes than Trump in 2012. It was Clinton who really took the fall. As for the status quo Democrats they picked up two senate seats from the Republicans and in the House the Democrats gained 6 seats with six more still to be decided.
A rejection of the status quo would have had the Republicans picking up seats instead of losing them, it was a rejection of Hillary Clinton. Was it an acceptance of Donald Trump? Again perhaps, but then answer the question of how can the agent of change who received less votes than the status quo candidate, the change party lost seats in congress, Trump actually received less votes than Romney. To me it seems more of an election Clinton lost than Trump won. But that means little to nothing unless one is trying to figure out the whys and wherefores. Trump will be the next president. Perhaps that is all that counts in the end.