Fair enough and a good point.
Speaking of polls why is it that up to this election just about every modern day Presidential election has been called spot on by the polls.
Most legitimate modern day Presidential polls were incredibly accurate up to this election
If I can throw out a guess, it’s because the focus shifted very heavily from a “standard” election to this one (dislaimer, I’m young so I haven’t been through many elections).
The “standard” election is usually “VOTE FOR ME BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT I’LL DO” whereas this election put a stupid amount of emphasis on “DON’T VOTE FOR HIM/HER BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT HE’LL/SHE’LL DO.”
The entire goal seemed to shift AWAY (edit from here out, hit enter? i think) from motivating your own supporters to DEmotivating the other guys’
Trump wasn’t the winner based on the popular vote (Clinton +2.9 million), which is what the national polls are based on. If you want to believe that Trump’s approval rating is actually much higher than it is, go right ahead.
I think that is a really good analysis. Not that there hasn’t been negative ads run through out Presidential history. But, this one was far different than any that I’ve seen in the past in that regard.
Well, I don’t think that Trump’s numbers are very high at all. Both he and Hillary broke records for being the two most unpopular candidates to ever run against each other for the Presidency. Also, when you have the MSLM attacking you every chance they get it tends to drive down popularity. They also did this to GW Bush. His mistake was never responding. Trump’s mistake might be responding too much.
This election seemed to take the concept of a “smear campaign” to a totally other level. Unfortunately, as a side effect, I feel like we can expect future elections to follow suit.
Would Russian influence create EC results, by chance?
…insert smiling semi trolling emoji here…
Have you seen “The Campaign” with Will Ferrell and Zach Galifucknakis (spelling?) seems oddly accurate as to how these campaigns were run, and how future campaigns very easily could look.
I think we’d first have to have two characters like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I am not saying that there won’t be these types. But I think we can all agree that it was very weird circumstances that threw these two into the Presidential race.
For example a Rubio/Biden race would not have been nearly as nasty. And both would have had higher positives and far lower negatives than Clinton/Trump.
Whomever runs against Trump in four years will certainly be dragged through the mud. So he or she better be ready to throw some as well.
But when we are past the Trump, Clinton era (and we are past the Clinton era now right?) it might clean itself up a bit.
Unfortunately, I don’t think Pandora is going back in the box on this. Both sides of the fence will do whatever it takes to win, and this election just proved that whoever has the more effective smear campaign matters more to the American population than the actual policies.
Well, the fact is negative advertising works. Most people will say that they want the candidates to discuss the issues, but they are more heavily influenced by negative campaigning. This has always been a fact nothing has changed in decades. The only thing that has changed is the degree to which the candidates will roll in the mud.
One more thing should be clear. While Trump personally verbally assaulted Hillary at every opportunity it was Hillary who spent the most money attacking Trump. I don’t recall the exact figure but she outspent Trump in negative ads something like 5 to 1.
One only need look back and ask themselves what did Hillary want to do as President? I cannot recall one thing other than her wanting to raise taxes.
But we can all recall that Trump wanted to build a wall, lower taxes, appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court etc.
But yes both were negative no question.
I put just as much blame on the dems as I do the republicans for the negativity of this election to be frank. Both parties are beyond deserving of a carpet bombing to shake things up.
Because his self worth is built entirely upon his brand, which is driven by public perception. He doesn’t WANT to be loved, he NEEDS it.
How is this different than the YouTube video’s you posted about HRC supposedly having Parkinsons?
Be sure to wear a scrub next time you see him. Just in case.
Completely? You have a doctor in the field breaking down the symptoms she’s displaying. She literally collapsed in public.
edit: Hillary Clinton first hand admitted she had brain damage from a fall she suffered and couldn’t answer questions from investigations due to it.
Steven Beutler’s a physician…
When did HRC admit to having brain damage?