WE NEED YOUR HELP!
Please donate to keep ReaderRant online to serve political discussion and its members. (Blue Ridge Photography pays the bills for RR).
So Between the two candidates, there's less than 10% that separates them? Looks fairly evenly split to me on this surface pass. I suppose there might be more to say drilling deeper into individual donations and average size but I can't be bothered to read the entrails as there doesn't seem to be much difference between these two men except their style of corruption, hubris and greed.
This run up to the election has the same atmosphere as the run up to the Iraq invasion. It has the same surreal hypernormalization of reality that those earlier naked imperial days had. Fantastic myths talked about in place of any reality that could pass the sniff test but everyone resigned to the outcome.
So one side thinks Trump is a genius businessman that's been kicking butt and taking names as well as fighting sexual preverts in underground tunnels where the adolescent sex slaves are held.
Meanwhile Libs are self-flagellating in front of the altar of the security state for protection from the preternatural social media manipulations of the red Ivans lest the country be turned into Putin Manchurian candidates.
There has been some attempts to talk about what happened in 2016 in a more detailed reality driven way. Bob Urie published a good piece in Counterpunch recently that distilled down much of whats been discussed in more critical venues than infotainment media:
"The question of elections is typically answered through demographic analyses of the people who voted. This view assumes that not voting by people who are eligible is either immaterial, or that the implied politics is irrelevant or indeterminate. Additionally, given the income and wealth skew amongst those who vote, the contention that the rich elected this candidate or that implies inclusive representation of the polity that simply isn’t the case. These are more than abstractions. As is illustrated below, voters who didn’t vote in 2016, or who switched from one party to another in ways that are inexplicable within the official view, had a large impact on the outcome."
Most of that 100 million strong voting bloc gets dismissed in various ways in Liberal oriented media. Derisive dismissal or misdirection seems most common to me.
The Sanders campaigns "theory of change' strategy failed to tap that enormous pool of voters. It's a shame really as that lane will be left for the far right to make inroads into. The Liberal class seems unwilling to try for it as FDR could and did. That would inconvenience their world view on the way to brunch I guess.
