twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:50 pm
lobster wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:41 am
twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:05 am
I think you vastly underestimate the number of people who will be simply voting against Trump. None of the most likely Dem candidates would be a sure win for Trump.
I am just guessing -- obviously I do not know what is going to happen. My theory is that whenever people are "voting against someone", the other person usually wins. This happened in 2004 when Kerry lost, and in 2016 when Clinton lost. You've got to have someone who people can feel excited about in the beginning. Yang, Gabbard, Warren, Sanders -- all of them represent something new. If you have just the old VP as the guy as damage control, he probably won't win.
People didnt know enough to vote against Trump in 2016. My guess is the he was the beneficiary of many votes from people voting against Clinton.
You're not wrong. There was definitely a lot of that. But a lot of Trump's support came from people who liked that he spoke his mind and didn't try to act like a traditional politician. A lot of people were genuinely excited by his ideas. Other voters chose him because they felt like they were part of the blue-collar group who was left behind. In other words, it was a little complex in how he got support.
One other really important thing that helped Trump win was his support on the internet and Youtube. Some of the new democrats are going on shows like Joe Rogan and Dave Rubin because they realize the internet has more power these days than the news outlets. Don't underestimate the importance of Youtube, Reddit, and all the internet sites that spread information.