It seems to be a similar play from 2016 with Correct the Record and worked then:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-troll...

Real Clear Politics Average currently has Bloomberg nearly tied for second place. Extrapolate what you wish from that, but something is working.

> Edit: does facebook and twitter require that you disclose any payments you get for posting?

This in particular is an active area of development. Instagram initially said no, but then they changed it to yes.

https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/14/instagram-ads-bloomberg-me...

Yes, 90% of the population is fooled by this.

Is this based on facts or just your opinion? I'm willing to bet 90% of the population isn't fooled by it.

Do you think advertising is ineffective?

Isn’t fooled, but doesn’t really care, and it has the intended subconscious effect.

Hasn’t this been going on for years? People made the same complaints about spending on TV adverts. Is it substantively worse in this election, or just spending a bit more on a different type of media? I don’t know, genuine question from a Brit.

Part of the problem is that it's a self-funded campaign. It's one thing when a campaign raises a bunch of money from donors and does an ad blitz, because at least it in theory represents real people (with contribution caps) who donated. When it's a billionaire self-funding, that's not the case. (PACs are also problematic, because they side-step the contribution caps)

What's the alternative though? Even assuming it would be constitutional to cap Bloomberg's political spending, I don't see why Bloomberg's supporters should have to donate money to the campaign of the 9th richest person in the world.

>Are anyone going to be fooled by this?

I think that is a lot harder to know and an eternal debate I have.

Yeah lots of media is buying a lot of attention...in the end someone chooses to vote for that person, or not, or stay home.

I strongly worry about the influence / advantage of such money, but folks still pick them and provided they're not illegally ... imprisoning candidates (extreme example of course)... it's still an election.

I don't know how to tell how much these things really change people's minds or if they really do just get extra attention and folks pick the person they want.

Kinda feels like anything goes at this point. You just gotta win :-|

It is super effective. I was in FL last weekend and the tv stations were flooded with ads; the positive tone seeps into your brain whether you like it or not.

We are seeing both parties run Populist demagogues.

Yes people are getting fooled real bad.

The decline of democracy is here.

The democratic party is not yet running anyone; the two major party members running are Biden and Klobuchar who are neither populist nor demagogues; it's unlikely Bloomberg is the preferred choice of anyone there; Bloomberg is not populist (and I would also argue against demagogue); and Sanders, who might reasonably be called populist (but also not a demagogue) is also far from the DNC's preferred choice, maybe even below Bloomberg.

But sure, "both."

Was Hillary Clinton "buying the election" when she outspent Donald Trump roughly 2:1?

Or is it only "buying the election" when it's a candidate you dislike?

My vote isn't for sale and I assume that's true for other Americans. If I thought otherwise, I'd have a hard time convincing myself that democracies can work.

A big difference is Bloomberg currently is 100% self funding his campaign while the '16 Hillary campaign had a lot of money yes but it came from donors supporting her. Bloomberg is self funding and is only where he is because of the massive amount of money he's throwing around from his own pocket.

Also it's not about explicitly buying votes but there's a lot of lower information voters out there who currently are principally hearing from Bloomberg because he's spending lots of money in later states where the more traditionally funded campaigns haven't because they're on lower cash reserves.

> A big difference is Bloomberg currently is 100% self funding his campaign while the '16 Hillary campaign had a lot of money yes but it came from donors supporting her. Bloomberg is self funding and is only where he is because of the massive amount of money he's throwing around from his own pocket.

It's not clear at all that Bloomberg would have failed had he run a traditional campaign.

I'm not bothered by self-funded campaigns because my vote isn't for sale (and I assume the same is true for others). Winning elections is about convincing people, not brainwashing them. Money increases visibility, but it didn't save Hillary Clinton.

> Also it's not about explicitly buying votes but there's a lot of lower information voters out there who currently are principally hearing from Bloomberg because he's spending lots of money in later states where the more traditionally funded campaigns haven't because they're on lower cash reserves.

"Lower information voters" is just code for "dumb people who disagree with me". Your perspective is that voters are dumb animals who flock to whoever spends the most on ads.

>Winning elections is about convincing people, not brainwashing them.

Are you suggesting that political advertisements don't use the same sorts of psychological manipulation as non-political advertisements? Or you do consider psychological manipulation to just be a form of "convincing"?

>Your perspective is that voters are dumb animals who flock to whoever spends the most on ads.

Voters are human beings, most of which are highly susceptible to being manipulated through an array of time-tested psychological tricks that advertisers have been using for over 100 years.

I'm not saying it's a 1 to 1 correlation between dollars spent and winning just that without being able to spend piles of money a lot of people who've gone from Biden to him wouldn't have heard much about him and that his large spending is artificially increasing his numbers in polls above where'd they be if he didn't have the funds to spam states later in the primary cycle.

No 'low information' is just that people who don't, either through apathy, time or lack of interest, seek out or read that much about the various campaigns. Tons of smart people are low information.

Also your vote might not literally be for sale but it's definitely influenced by the amount of media and information you see about campaigns which is correlated with money. Consider the degenerate case of a campaign with nearly zero money but a perfect fit with your politics. Can't vote for it if you haven't heard of it.

It doesn't work like that. The big spenders drown out any alternative and they offer only a different interface for pretty much the same back end.

Since the US green party had 200-300 views per youtube video for them out of a million voters about 1 or 2 are not fooled. With candidates further "down" the list we all are fooled. I read maybe half the program for 1% of the alt-candidates. Definitely fooled I was.

I'd say yes to both, but I'm not from the US so I have no horse in this race

Can you back this up with... anything? I'm not denying the Russian interference, but the numbers include PACs:

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidentia...

From your link you are presumably comparing $1,190.7M to $646.8M correct? Those values don't reflect the 66M of Trumps own money, don't reflect Russian interference (which has been going on since approximately the Magnitksy act), and don't reflect the in-kind gifts Trump gave by using his own private jet and numerous Trump properties for rallies. Maybe (and I truly mean maybe), the 100:1 remark was hyperbole on my part, but I personally don't doubt that the GRU spent billions.

> Or is it only "buying the election" when it's a candidate you dislike?

You could have just said "yes".

I don’t think trump voters were “fooled”, they did in fact own the libs and will likely continue to try and own the libs. For many in america this culture war shit is the only substantive choice at the polls.

It’s true, the libs were owned. And owned hard. It’s all that matters to a lot of them. I wouldn’t be surprised if some are cheering on this Bloomberg phenomenon because of the potential damage it could do to the credibility of the Democratic Party, setting up the libs to get owned yet again in November.

Many would argue a hard left socialist would ruin the credibility of the party more. It’s happened here in the UK

Hah, the UK media got the candidate they tried to elect. Blame them.

Good thing no "hard left socialists" are running on the Democratic ticket.

That's a bleak and destructive ideology, if all they care about is hurting people they disagree with. What happened to political movements being for something, instead of just against everything?

That's not all they care about, it's just all they have left. Their values have been systematically eliminated from education, entertainment, and the courts. Their regions are socially and economically ruined. They have some representation in politics and the media but it's mostly just exploitive lip service. Their states are used as shorthand for incest and illiteracy in the punchlines of jokes.

I would guess that when there's a riot in an urban neighborhood you don't say they have an ideology which only cares about hurting people and destroying things. You should look at this in a similar way.

I think you nailed it. It is so easy to dismiss their complaints and then people are surprised when it turns out that people don't like being dismissed. Who knew?

Who exactly is being dismissed here? And who's doing the mismissing? Because we're talking about Trump voters only caring about "owning the libs". That is dismissing a massive chunk of the population. Yeah, of course liberals don't like that, but you don't see them going on a destructive rampage, they just want to elect better politicians who are going to fix the country. Their complaints are entirely legitimate.

Politics isn't a game, it's about running an actual country where people live.

Heh. Interesting. The meme of 'owning the libs' is clearly a strong one and happily repeated by left leaning talk show/radio hosts. Are you talking with 'representatives' of the population? I try. The sense I am getting is the frustration of not being heard, being ignored.. or having their voices simplified into a sound bite along the lines of 'owning the libs'. It can get annoying.

Trump is a symptom of that. A big giant scream that says simply 'can you hear me now?'.

I even disagree with you about it not being a game. It is. It has real life stakes and consequences, and scary ones at that, but it is a game.

As for liberals just trying to fix the country, while saying equivalent of 'we r gonna nix insurance companies, coal factories and big coke' may simply not be perceived as such. It needs to be addressed and not shoved down people's throats.

You have to be willingly blind to your own side propaganda to not see this big emergent picture.

I'm an outsider, but I talk to a lot of people online. The frustration I'm seeing is indeed one of not being heard and being ignored. Power is in the hands of a minority. The country is heading in a different direction than most people want it to go, because of the grip on power that the Republican Party has. And they're willing to bend and twist the Constitution to hold on to that power.

Seeing it as a game is a massive part of the problem. It's not a game. It's real. Trying to "win" at the cost of the country and the people in the country is doing very real damage.

The liberals are the ones who are trying to get everybody affordable health insurance. It's the Republicans who keep sabotaging that. The reason the solution is starting to look like one without private insurance companies, is because those companies deep desperately trying to be part of the problem: not paying people for the treatment they need, using any excuse to deny people coverage. All that is doing is proving to the people that this system is not going to work. Hence the increasing popularity of Medicare-for-all type systems.

The insurance companies are not the goal, good health insurance is. The Republicans and their supporters keep insisting insurance companies are more important than health coverage for Americans.

I see the picture. I'm not subject to your propaganda, as I'm seeing this from the outside, but I do see that your arguments try to paint black as white and white as black.

I apologize. It is possible I used too strong a characterization for the sake of effect. Still, with regards to propaganda, you are subject to it. Best you can do is be aware of it and act accordingly. Maybe it would a little less unnverving if I used term advertising since they are closely related and propaganda has more negative connotations?

But going back to the original thread. How are my arguments miscolored? I think your internal frame reference might be off. Could you elaborate? I do not want to assume and I find the conversation interesting.

I don't know if your arguments are miscolored, but they all seem to apply just as much the other way around. How exactly do Trump supporters get ignored or denied? Trump's primary policy seems to be that he wants to ignore and deny various minorities. It really appears to me that the primary reason Republican voters are angry at liberals, is that the liberals don't want them to discriminate foreigners, LGBT people, and women. Republicans claim they're being persecuted merely because other people are receiving the same rights they have. Many of Trump's policies are specifically about hurting people, denying them rights, and protecting people who hurt people.

Do you understand why I find it hard to have any sympathy for that?

I absolutely do. Being able to understand other individual's point of view is at the center of my argument. May I suggest that you conflate support for Trump and support for his policies? It is not a meaningless distinction. Without going too much into the weeds and reciting quotes from "Hillbilly Elegy", it helps to understand that Trump supporters, on average, were not in that great of a shape financially. They were literally abandoned by the elites, called various forms of deplorables, and then expected to vote for not-Trump, because... what exactly? They just had their livelihood decimated by trade deals that brought money to conglomerates, but left them in the dust. "Their" representatives in congress and senate pay lip service to what they think they want to hear, but nothing ( some cynically note by design ) gets done. Their farms are slowly being bought out by agrobusiness as they are effectively forced to compete with low wage immigrants. No politicians would dream of suggesting companies should stop hiring them, so fines don't follow, but a token level of enforcement makes it look like something is going on.

Along comes Trump and uses that pain to his advantage. We won't go after the companies, but we will sure deport them all. Kinda stupid idea given the sheer number of illegal aliens, but it is better than nothing. Some people nod. We will then build a wall. Kinda stupid, but it is a good visual. Some people nod. We will renegotiate NAFTA. People are listening. They know this is one of the reasons their little community fell apart. Nodding intensifies. And so it went on.. Trump was better than doing nothing.

It was a scream for help and it was ignored by everyone, but Trump, Bernie and Yang. Everyone else pays lip service, but do not seem to understand the underlying socio-political current in the US.

And more to your point, all the policies that you disagree with, the discrimination and all that jazz stems straight from that pain. Those people feel persecuted not because someone is getting equal rights, but because the country that they were born and raised in, sold them out in a truly American fashion. They felt betrayed. They would likely give zero to no shits about LGBTs, foreigners or women if their bellies were full and were left alone. But they are not and were not. Foreigners are a proxy for NAFTA issues. LGBT is a proxy for change. ( I think you may be onto something with women.)

And you have no sympathy for that? And you are surprised they are lashing out?

Then get ready for another 4 years of Trump. Unless you.. we somehow manage to go beyond our comfort zones and openly talk about what ails us, there is no hope for reconciliation, the polarization will increase with likely even worse results than what we have now; though I fear to speculate.

Thus, little sympathy is advised.

edited voting record out

I have sympathy for their economic problems, absolutely. But they vote for the party that's primarily responsible for those economic problems. Over the past 40 years, the middle class has been hollowed out, and that's been done primarily thanks to Reagan. Before Reagan, the US had more left-wing economic policies and a stronger middle class. They'd be better off voting for Sanders than Trump. Trump hasn't realy done anything for them except some symbolic gestures, but he has made it harder for them to export their agricultural products.

They keep voting for the party that's hurting them, because that party keeps lying to them, and they keep buying those lies.

I will open by saying that the US party two party system is the root of a fair amount of issues in US. Normally, I would argue for some sort of rebalancing to ensure that the system works, but the power centers are too firmly entrenched and any real change would require major political capital. After all, levers are known. Who knows what kind of levers new system would introduce. In that sense, the party system is too far gone.

And it is a feature Trump successfully exploited. It is interesting to note that Sanders and Bloomberg are also exploiting that system; just in different fashions. And I am perfectly OK with both of their approaches though I favor Sander's as it seems more honest.

All that said, with your point about being better off under Democratic reign of terror versus Republican reign of terror, I just gave you an entire list of grievances of the forgotten class ( as the current president sometimes dubs them ). Those grievances did not get addressed by either party over the last 40 years. Worse, Clinton signature is on NAFTA papers.

I would agree with you on Trump vs Sanders as they, amusingly, shared a lot of the populist message. I have my pet theories, but they would just derail this thread altogether.

I would like to note that it is hard for me to argue that Trump policies ( with exception of Soybeans and the bailout there ) has not done anything for them. For better or for worse, Trump is very keen on listening to his core supporters. He seems to genuinely care about his ratings, which does lead to all sorts of theatrics ( as you note ).

That said, note that regardless of how it was achieved and how we are going to pay for it in the future, unemployment now is low and entry level wages are up. Just that fact alone should give you pause, because that likely means that some do feel relief under Trump.

You have to admit that from that perspective a voter may be inclined to vote for Trump again in 2020.

I certainly agree that the two party system, and correspondingly, the first-part-the-post district system, is crippling the US political system. Proportional representation in Congress and some sort of ranked or approval voting system for the president and similar offices, would do a lot of good.

I certainly think it'd be good if the Democratic and Republican parties both disappeared, but it's not true that both are equally corrupt or equally guilty to the problems facing the US. It really is since Reagan that economic inequality started to rise, middle class wages stagnated, and national debt started to spiral out of control. It's absolutely true that the Democratic party has been controlled by its conservative wing, with presidents Clinton and Obama not significantly changing the neoliberal direction set out by Reagan. Even so, the current economic recovery in the US was started by Obama, and that's what Trump is currently benefiting from.

But if voters want real change, the progressive wing of the Democratic party would be a better bet than voting for increasingly conservative Republicans.

I think I agree, but I wonder whether people actually want change. Hell, I hesitated myself when Sanders announced US-wise rent control.

The big obstacle is that everybody with power is afraid to lose it. A multi-party system would be much better at representing the will of the people, but to change that, the party in power will have to give up much of that power, and that's unlikely to happen. Especially in the current political climate.

"Winning" happened.

I mean I didn't like any of the alternatives either. There's only two teams and I don't like them. What do I do?

This is my problem exactly. All this money, all these issues, and we're stuck with these clowns? Whatever happened to statesmen and women? Nope, we're stuck with politicians that act like pro wrestlers. We don't need to overthrow the government. We just need to overthrow the parties.

I had such high hopes for humanity with the emergence of the internet. With the all the world's knowledge at our fingertips, including detailed information about political fundraising, voting records, etc., it would be SO EASY to find and elect the "right" people.

I truly long for thoughtful discussions about real issues. I'm still holding out a little hope for the next great awakening.

With all the world's knowledge at our fingertips, including detailed information about political fundraising and voting records, people have increasingly realized that politics isn't the right place for thoughtful discussions about real issues. It's like going to Nike headquarters and asking why everyone's so focused on sportswear.

I strongly disagree with your Nike / sportswear comparison. Maybe I didn't communicate my point clearly here. I'm specifically talking about governance / political science vs. popcorn politics. There are plenty of real issues to be discussed in the world of political philosophy, public administration and government that don't involve stage shows and rabble rousing.

Starting with local politics first, then regional, THEN national - the question of who will govern us and set rules and make laws is of critical importance. What good does it do to solve the world's problems if our representatives are robbing the coffers and crashing the plane into the mountain?

Right, that’s the premise I don’t agree with. Politics is the art of stage shows and rabble rousing, and tackles larger issues only to the degree that they make a good show or easily rouse the rabble. Important questions usually aren’t and usually shouldn’t be solved through politics.

You go vote for someone else in the democratic primaries? He isn't the candidate

It's too bad more people don't realize the answer is to vote third party.

Voting for somebody you don't want to win is the definition of "throwing your vote away."

I have only ever voted third party. But they continue to not get any traction and I feel more and more that my time would be better spent almost literally anywhere besides trying to be involved in politics.

Bit of a chicken and egg issue. It's hard to convince people that this is a viable option until a third party receives a critical mass of votes at least once.

There were obvious and appreciable difference between the two candidates of those two teams, between their campaign promises and between their political and personal histories. Even if you didn't "like" either, you can still think about these differences and decide which one you think is more fit to serve as president.

Even if you're unwilling to do that, then practically speaking, there were more than 2 teams. If a party receives 5% of the popular vote, they qualify for federal funding in the next election. It might not necessarily get them on the debate stage, but we're talking about a lot of money to get their messages out there one way or another. Libertarians got 3.28% of the popular vote in 2016. It might be naive to think that they or the Green party could have reached 5%, but I'm not one to take the defeatist attitude that voting for a 3rd party is throwing your vote away.

Vote for the candidate who doesn't make you seriously question whether there will be another election in 4 years?

No one who is grounded in reality is seriously questioning that. You are just being hyperbolic.

You know a lot can be said about deficiencies in the democratic process in the U.S. but the crazy guy would just be removed. He'd need decisive support from the military to stay and ride out the fact that he lost all democratic legitimacy. I don't see a coup on the horizon. Do you?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Trump's actions that you imagine to be constitutional violations are probably actions that you personally disagree with, but are not actually constitutional violations.

Republicans as a group care deeply about the Constitution, and the Constitution is clear about when the term of the presidency ends. He would not have the support of the Republicans in the Senate if he chose to remain in office past the expiration of his term.

> Republicans as a group care deeply about the Constitution

Well, they say that a lot, I can't see any evidence that it's particularly true in general (it's definitely true that there are things that they care about that they cite their particular interpretation of the Constitution to support, though on issues like executive vs. legislative power their deeply held Constitutional beliefs seem to flip 180° when you flip which parties are in power in the respective branches; the Constitution seems to be more of an identity touchstone than a document whose actual content is of particular concern.)

> Republicans as a group care deeply about the Constitution

...you mean power. It’s just a means to an end.

The only thing that makes me question that is noting which candidates are trying to disarm every citizen who isn't on a police force.

I think the vast majority of folks who voted for Trump felt that they received what they were expecting to receive. I think most who voted that way the first go around will likely vote for him again should they return to the polls.

Most of my family was so nihilistic after the press called Romney a nazi for transporting their dogs on top of their vehicles that they were happy to do whatever made the press mad.

At first the press only talked about Trump to ignore real republican thought, then it became a reinforcing cycle as people bought into the despair.

>should they return to the polls.

Illinois counties downstate (I live in a bordering state) ran out of Republican primary ballots last election. These people come out in droves. They will continue to come out in full force, 150%. I believe we will see record turn out in the fall, and it will be mostly Trump supporters.

And what, exactly, were they expecting to receive?

Edit: at least point out why you're downvoting me, this is a straightforward answer to the question.

--

- The wall

- Fight against sanctuary cities, including now support for a bill that would allow relatives of murdered US citizens who were victims of aliens protected by Sanctuary laws, to sue those sanctuary cities.

- Travel ban, which for me is a litmus test as to whether you are a "crazy leftist" by whether or not you actually think it's a "muslim ban."

- Stronger economy through less regulation

- Bring back jobs to US

- Rational trade deals that prioritize US, not sacrifice it. (China, USMCA, etc.)

- A general aversion to taking other first-world countries' shit, who simultaneously exploit us for money and protection, and say how horrible we are.

- Reversal of Iran deal

- Efforts to remove US from middle east

- Prison reform

- Drug price transparency

- "Drain the swamp" / exposure of the "deep state" / revelation that this concept is real and simple: the natural bias that occurs within government when there is a 90%/10% political imbalance. (Currently 90% democrat/10% republican.) This manifests as things like the Mueller report: based on a lie, started by hostile government actors, causes a shit-ton of political casualties who would not even be considered if they were on the other side, wastes everybody's time and money. And it is only possible for it to happen one way: against Republicans. This is transparent and obvious.

- 5 year foreign lobbying ban

- Repeal and replace Obamacare. (As an anecdote, my mom said that out of the whole 8 years of Obama as president, the only thing that really changed for her is that she paid more for insurance while receiving less, a direct result of Obamacare.)

- Support the vets / VA

- Space Force

- Supreme court justice

- Protection of religious expression in schools

- "Fuck you" to liberal elites [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDL3Yjl31K8

> Edit: at least point out why you're downvoting me, this is a straightforward answer to the question.

> which for me is a litmus test as to whether you are a "crazy leftist"

Implying that those who disagree with you are "crazy leftists" might be one reason for a downvote, for a start.

That's a bad faith response. He literally said if you believe it's a honest-to-god muslim ban he will categorize you as a 'crazy leftist', not if you disagree with him about whether or not it is good or bad. It is objectively not a muslim ban as anyone from those countries was barred, and the demographics of the countries don't automatically make it a muslim ban or imply any malfeasance by the president.

I'll bite.

>- Travel ban, which for me is a litmus test as to whether you are a "crazy leftist" by whether or not you actually think it's a "muslim ban."

Can you elaborate on this? While it's not a literal ban on muslims, it does disporportionately affect muslims.

>- Bring back jobs to US

What Trump policies can be attributed to this? AFAIK there a bunch of reports that a bunch of companies that "brough back" jobs were planning on doing it anyways (eg. carrier/honeywell, couldn't remember which).

>- Efforts to remove US from middle east

Sure, he hastily pulled out of Syria, but earlier this year we were on the brink of war with Iran. What gives?

>- the natural bias that occurs within government when there is a 90%/10% political imbalance. [...] This manifests as things like the Mueller report: [...]

But Mueller is a registered republican?

>- Prison reform

>- Drug price transparency

>- Protection of religious expression in schools

I'm not aware of any of these. Can you elaborate?

I will address one of the points as the other ones have been addressed by someone else already.

> But Mueller is a registered republican?

One thing you will notice is that a lot of Trump supporters hate both Democrats as well as many Republicans. Trump himself ran on attacking the Bush era. Remember his debate with Jeb Bush? Same with him hating on McCain (who gave the Steele Dossier to the FBI). That's why, Trump and a lot of his supporters dislike majority of dems but also many republicans.

I really dislike that you are asking me to do your homework for you. But,

> Can you elaborate on this?

The countries are predominantly muslim but how does that make it a "muslim ban"? Are muslims still allowed from other countries? Yes. Are Christians from those banned countries allowed either? No. Seems straightforward then that it is not a muslim ban. The list of countries was composed by the Obama administration, not Trump. Trump just made a rational application of it. If there were a European ban, would it be a Christian ban? It would "disproportionately affect" Christians. Seems outlandish to think so. This characterization is ridiculous.

> What Trump policies can be attributed to this?

China trade war tariffs, for example. The China trade deal more broadly. The USMCA. The effort to make the US energy independent and a net exporter. [1]

> earlier this year we were on the brink of war with Iran

This depends on your choice of media and its bias and characterizations. The choice to strategically eliminate a single terrorist general with a missile, rather than wait for the plans he was brewing to bubble, prevented things from escalating and did it with zero casualties. This is an example of, not a counterpoint to, efforts to remove.

> But Mueller is a registered republican?

This seems like a very hollow thing to say. Whether or not the specific investigator is of a certain party is generally meaningless when his appointment is the decision of someone else, and the work on his team was mostly not carried out by him, but his staff. This would be true anyway, but it was clear in his deposition that he was also a mostly ignorant figurehead, unaware of a lot of what was happening. More broadly, I used the mueller investigation as an example of a wide trend, and that Mueller is a republican has nothing to do with that trend, or the statistical makeup of DC.

> Prison reform

Please literally google "trump prison reform". The First Step Act on Wikipedia is the first result.

> Drug price transparency

Please literally google "trump drug price transparency". The whitehouse fact sheet is the first result. [2]

> Protection of religious expression in schools

Please literally google "trump protection of religious expression in schools". The whitehouse fact sheet is the first result. [3]

--

If you are genuinely surprised you've never heard of these things before, you may consider what aspects of your information intake may be bubble-like and self-reinforcing. It would be healthy to question the media narratives that you tend to consume, and/or opening your stream to other news sources.

--

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential...

[2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-do...

[3] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-do...

> The countries are predominantly muslim but how does that make it a "muslim ban"?

Because a Muslim ban was what Trump said he was going to do, and he explicitly linked the policy in question as the fulfillment of that commitment?

https://www.cato.org/blog/dozen-times-trump-equated-travel-b...

Okay... but a perceived motive and characterization of something doesn't actually make it so.

Announced intent + evident actual intent + major effect make it a reasonable description. Sure, it's not exact in a logically pure sense, but that's not how most descriptions of things in reality rather than analytical ideals are intended.

Your characterization is wrong. "Major effect" - to what end? Not the end of banning muslims. If that's the goal, it's doing a really, really bad job at it, since the majority of muslims in the world are unaffected. The most recent 6 counties added to the list are not even predominantly muslim.

If you have a child that claims he's going to dig a hole to china, but people tell him this is futile and he should consider digging a well instead, which is an action sort-of in the same direction but meaningfully different and actually practical, and then he agrees and digs a well, then you appreciate the well and call it a "well," you don't continue to call it a "hole to China," which it clearly is not. You could, but you'd be displaying your attachment to your original anger.

Tax cuts and a big middle finger to the democrats.

I don't think they honestly cared about tax cuts. It's all about "Owning the libs" and making America "great" which Fox news tells them is exactly what America is now thanks to Trump and no no other countries are laughing at us constantly that's "Fake news"

The far right is obviously very obsessed with "owning the libs".

There is a massive, silent, and barely political segment of the population between far left and far right. For that silent majority, the only real impact they will have noticed from the Trump presidency is that they paid slightly less in tax.

Most people genuinely don't care about politics. Everyone cares about their money. I think the tax cuts are more important than you let on.

If they honestly cared about the tax cuts then they would have noticed how transparent they were and how after a couple years they wouldn't benefit the average American at all.

It is nearly impossible to overestimate the stupidity of the average person.

They don't know or care about tax policy, what deductions apply when, how rates are calculated, none of it. They will only notice that they paid less this year than normal, and that will make them happy.

I believe most wanted a bull in a china shop to gore the sacred cows of the media elite, policy wonks, and "experts".

Trump did not buy the election like Bloomberg is trying to do. Sadly Bloomberg is pretty much evidence of that in three years the Democrats have not managed to formulate a message of other than "not Trump". Bloomberg is much more authoritarian bent than any current candidate or Trump. Trump might be an embarrassment but because he is under the Republican banner we know the press is more than willing to ride his ass no matter how long he remains in office. The real threat is if we get someone in who the press turns a blind eye to their actions.

Congress has abdicated responsibility for far too long to the Administrative branch. The greatest example is on immigration where they would rather act by decree, issued by court or their own guy as President. Unfortunately Congress answers to their party affiliation first and the people last. Used to be committees made Congress work but they have been slowly torn down since the Republican take over in 96 and Democrats have shown no desire to bring them back.

Congress works when both sides work it out and debate, this only happens with a strong committee structure and until it returns Congress will be controlled by their parties who have the power to punish members of the party.

Trump spent less than Clinton and she lost [0]

[0]https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/politics/campaign-spen...

Your assessment is pretty accurate based on some of his talks I listened to. Trump is scary to me partly, because he is not that competent and has low impulse control. Bloomberg is scary, because he is competent and seems to have very.. top-down view of things. His talk about regressive taxes in particular was illuminating.

It feels like a Simpsons episode. We are the democratic party. I don't know how we are going to blow it, but we will give it our best shot.

It gets very depressing.

Disclaimer; I am in no way supportive of Trump or most of his policies.

However as an outsider (I'm not American), he actually seemed more on message and resonated more with his base than his opponent in 2016 so when Hillary became the nominee for the Democratic party I actually bet 100 NOK with my co-worker that Trump would win.

His message was definitely, in many ways, way more and more effectively populist than Hillary's. His wall's a great example: it's far-right from some perspectives, but from others it's what they've been speculating aloud (amongst themselves, with no public stage) as a "common-sense" solution for decades (source: been around plenty of that, for... decades). It's the definition of populism. Ditto trade issues. There's a lot of perception among voters that the average citizen got screwed by things like MFN (or whatever they renamed it to) status for China and a variety of other trade agreements and, go figure, a lot of that sentiment crosses party lines. His hard talk about those agreements and China was, again, blue-collar as hell and exactly what you could have heard anywhere in middle America (or just outside a big city) for many years before the election, but had practically no voice in either viable political party. His message was, to borrow one of his favorite words, kinda perfect.

Nb I'm not using populism as a negative term here, and do not consider something automatically bad because it's populist.

Now, to defend describing his supporters as having been "fooled", I'd say the strongest evidence for that would be that some of his major proposals weren't ever really proposals, and still haven't meaningful become proposals (his "most perfect" or whatever health care reform comes immediately to mind—what exactly was that supposed to be? Very good, the best, whatever it was.) and that his support many of these positions is very probably opportunistic and disingenuous.

To tack back the other way, I personally would accept someone I knew or suspected to be opportunistically, rather than genuinely, supporting my interests if I believed they were likely to meaningfully advance them regardless, so my support of such a person wouldn't necessarily be evidence that I'd been "fooled". Probably some were (I mean, there've been no shortage of interviews with Trump voters all over the media in the last 3 years, and clearly some were not, uh, going in with both eyes open) but who knows how many knew he was full of shit (I mean it's kinda his thing? What he was famous for everywhere, including right-wing radio, before he became a Republican politician?) but thought he'd effectively advance their interests anyway. Possibly a lot.

> His wall's a great example: it's far-right from some perspectives

I have no idea where people get this from. I am an Indian immigrant and India recently finished building their border fence/wall with Bangladesh. It works and helps reduce illegal crossing. Plus Obama, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and other democrats are on video from back in 2000s and 2012 where they advocated for the exact same thing.

Simply labeling everything you disagree with as far-right is silly.

Living in the midwest, as soon as Hillary "won" the nomination, I knew Trump would win. People who don't like him genuinely underestimate the support his base provides.

There is a reason republicans are falling all over themselves to lick his boots. He controls the power now.

My correct prediction was based on one factor only:

The more entertaining candidate wins.

Bush was more entertaining than Gore and Kerry. Obama was more entertaining than McCain and Romney. Trump was more entertaining than Clinton.

My prediction is that Trump will win again this year. I personally don't want that to happen, but I feel that it will. I'd love for Sanders to win.

Entertainment is a key component in my theory as well. For me, I called the last election after seeing Trump's behavior in the first republican debate. After he won the election, I predicted him winning in 2020 and shooting for 2024.

The other major factor I see is how Trump handles scandal: brag about getting away with it, and accuse everybody else of doing the same thing. It's certainly dramatic -- I'm loath to call it entertaining... but it's hard to tear oneself away from this news cycle

> Living in the midwest, as soon as Hillary "won" the nomination, I knew Trump would win.

Exactly the same, for (probably—also Midwestern) similar reasons. As soon as he Wile-E-Coyote'd over the cliff of his first couple big scandals in the primary and made it clear that the secret to being scandal-impervious was simply never to look down, that plus his message meant I started telling people he'd probably win the nomination. He sounded like a mash-up of every Republican I'd ever talked to, and even kinda like a lot of older-school Union Strong sorts of Dems—not like a Republican politician or "intellectual" or media figure, mind you, but a voter, which is entirely different. Not even Palin had a message that close to what you might overhear at the local coffee, beer, & bait shop. It was uncanny.

Then Hillary became his opponent and while everyone else was laughing about the whole thing I was like, "Uh oh. Shit. Trump's probably gonna win. Doesn't matter if it's fair or not, fact is she's widely hated and, hate to break it to you, it's not just die-hard Republicans or irredeemable misogynists who feel that way. Should they hate her? Doesn't matter. They do."

And here we are. Sigh.