No, it is not analogous. Trump said “They’re rapists, they’re murderers…and some, I assume, are good people.” He said there definitely exist rapists and murderers, and as an afterthought he added that he “assumes” some are probably good people. He didn’t assert that there are; he shrugged and said “Eh, probably there are some good ones in there too.”
Hillary explicitly said there were two groups of Trump supporters: the alt-right racists and homophobes and bigots, and the people who are so frustrated they just want change. She expressed empathy for the second group. She very carefully drew a solid line between them and the KKK. She did not say “Trump supporters are a basket of deplorables…and some, I assume, are good people.”
Trump was being blatantly racist and fearmongering. Hillary was correctly identifying Trump’s core supporters, though we can quibble about the ratios. Fuck false equivalencies.
The Republicans have been attacking her for just about a quarter century because they don’t like her husband. This cycle, Bernie’s supporters piled on from the left. It’s pretty much that simple.
Clinton is very popular when she’s in office, and largely unpopular when she’s running for office, which might suggest that she’s better at doing the jobs than she is at being a politician. Weird that that’s exactly what people claim to want and yet when they get it, they whine that she’s (1) not pure enough, or (2) just as big a liar as Donald Trump. It’s… frustrating to watch.
What “middle ground Trump supporters”? Is there any evidence that such people exist? Most of the evidence I’m aware of suggests that the overwhelming majority of Trump’s support comes from extremist bigots.
The “run to the right” strategy is only compulsory if you assume that Clinton and Trump supporters make up the entirety of the electorate. But they aren’t; Trump and Clinton supporters are outnumbered by folks who oppose both.
Clinton could base her campaign on attempting to attract old-school Republicans who don’t like Trump (i.e. what she’s been doing so far). Or, she could focus her campaign on maximising turnout from the left and the disillusioned (i.e. what Bernie was doing).
The first strategy may win the Presidency, but it won’t take the House. Given that the legislature holds the bulk of American political power, maintaining the political status quo is a Pyrrhic victory at best.
I just did some commutes through the rural midwest on the order of dozens of hours), out of sheer curiosity listening to assorted conservative radio since I had time on my hands.
Maybe the evangelicals won’t ever vote Hillary, but if she doesn’t pissed them off, they may not vote. A few radio hosts were trying to whip up their followers to stomach voting for Trump because of that. The gist of the appeal is, “Trump is not our guy, but if you don’t stand with him, you will stand to lose congressmen who support conservative values”.
Yeah, yeah, “Conservative values” are shit largely…
I suspect that a lot of never-Trump Republicans will be filling in their down ticket ballots and leaving the Presidential slot blank. And that the handful of them willing to vote for Clinton will be assuaging their consciences by maintaining their traditional R vote in the House and Senate.
If you want any political change, you need to take the House. Given the extent of the Republican gerrymander, the only way to do that is to increase Democratic turnout.
Dennis Skinner, MP, aka “The Beast of Bolsover”, was called upon by the Speaker of the House to retract his statement when he said, “Half the Tory members opposite are crooks.” He withdrew his remark and said, “OK, half the Tory members aren’t crooks.”
This whole “political violence” thing, do you mean things like the woman who attacked two other woman because they were wearing muslim headscarves? Or the attacks on and jeering of those who look Latino?
No, seriously, who has been assaulted for being a Republican voter?
What are you basing this on? He got 3 million less votes than Clinton, so he didn’t even carry the party. Trump wanted to run against Sanders, which should tell you something - he knew about Americans’ inherent distrust of the word “socialism” (despite socialist policies benefitting them) and knew he could beat the “he wants to take your money and give it to the poors” drum that scares middle-america and undecideds. So if you’re going to make the case he’d be faring any better against Trump, you’ve got to make a better case than just declaring it.