Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 7
th, 2024 at 9:12am:
This is my analysis as to why Donald Trump, a convicted felon and habitual liar who consistently attacked the very core of American democracy as fraudulent (i.e. the election itself) won a second term after being rejected by voters four years ago.
The fact that Joe Biden initially ran for a second term and took up a lot of campaigning time is a major factor that can't be ignored. Then there was the substance of the campaign run by Harris, or the lack thereof. She fell into the trap set by Trump when she attacked the person (him) rather than his policies (or the lack thereof) because Trump ran a campaign basically devoid of policy detail but full of empty promises and slogans. Harris' campaign spent too much time focusing on Trump and not nearly enough time on putting her own policy agenda out there to differentiate her from him. Neither Harris nor Trump put any comprehensive plans out there for cost of living, border control, child care affordability, etc and in the absence of any real plans, voters went with the populist candidate.
Harris spent too much campaign time basically saying, "Trump bad, Harris good" without offering any real alternative beyond that and that worked just fine for Trump because his supporters couldn't give a crap about substance - they're populist voters and he just had to tell them what they wanted to hear, which they lapped up. Just look back at Trumps' last term. What did he achieve that he said he would do? Basically nothing. Repealing the Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare) was something he constantly said he would do while campaigning, but did nothing. Building the border wall and getting Mexico to pay for it was another big campaign promise. He failed on both counts - the wall is unfinished and Mexico basically told him to bugger off with regard to paying.
So, firstly on Biden. He was increasingly frail in both mind and body toward the end of his term and should have early on ruled out a run for a second term for the sake of the Democratic Party and the country. The rush to remove him from the candidacy and install his Vice President was a colossal stuff up that was both hasty and should've taken place long ago. Is Kamala Harris a better choice for President than Donald Trump? Without a doubt. Is she the best choice? No. I think the best person to take on Donald Trump was Pete Buttigieg.
Why do I think Pete Buttigieg would have beaten Donald Trump? Look at his record as Secretary of Transportation, where he has excelled. Watch any of his interviews - especially on conservative broadcasters and podcasts. He didn't dance around answering questions - he took the bull by the horns and delivered factual arguments, factual rebuttals and eloquently stated his plans and positions on issues without ambiguity. In short, you weren't left wondering his stance and he also not only called out lies from conservative interviewers but why they were lies. He was very strong in town halls and in formal interviews. Harris obfuscated too much in the rare interviews she gave and offered too little detail on policy, if any at all. Regarding the homosexuality of Buttigieg, it's irrelevant to him running for office, and it's not something Trump could attack without losing a lot of gay voters (and sympathisers) and sending them to the Democrats. Had we seen Buttigieg running against Trump, we'd have seen policy substance running against populist nonsense and I think Buttigieg would have won in the end.
The other big impact on the election result was Trump making himself out to be a victim. He made himself appear to be a victim of government (both state and federal) going after him, even though that isn't the case, in court and at the polling booth through what he claimed without any evidence whatsoever to be a rigged, fraudulent election perpetrated by the Democrats. It might not be a big thing here, but in America, there's a heck of a lot of people who despise government, are suspicious of it and Trump played on their feelings like a fiddle. We all know the election was never rigged but that didn't matter to Trumps' supporters. It's a conspiracy theory that's been debunked many, many times and the proof is in the pudding - Trump won both the electoral college vote and the popular vote and looks very likely to control both the House and the Senate. Rigged election? What rigged election?
Elon Musk. He came into play relatively late in the campaign, but his social media platform gave Trump a huge advantage by allowing the unimpeded circulation of ridiculous conspiracy theories and outright lies while also contributing to the campaign financially in a very big way. There was also confirmed influence from places like Russia and China and Iran in this campaign that undoubtedly would have helped Trump gain votes.
So, that's my two cents. I might be right, I might be completely wrong, but that's how I saw it.
You're completely wrong. President Trump has been a victim of "lawfare", a political tool used against the innocent by the opposition. In his New York trials he was found guilty before the first word was spoken in court. His business dealing were sound and that skank accused him of rape sometime between 1990 and 2005 without any evidence. We don't want the whole country to look like our democrat run cities or be the financial burden of California.
Forum
Pages: 
