I think there's a bit more than just "it's easier to break another". There's also the "man bites dog" aspect. I mentioned Newt Gingrich in another context recently - he was known to be a "bomb thrower" who'd say outlandish things. Well, he saw that Rush Limbaugh could say the same things, and even nastier, and get away with it. So he got a lot of people to say those things. And now, to differentiate one's self, one has to go further out there.
This, I think, is what opened the door for Donald Trump. There's an old Simpson's episode where Krusty the Clown explains his vote in favor of the local Scrooge's movie as "what can I say? It moved meTO A BIGGER HOUSE! - oooh, I said the quiet part loud and the loud part quiet."
Trump started saying the quiet part really loud. And that was what the Republican base was primed for.
I think the other part of his support is just... well, hope. I voted for Ross Perot during his first run, for that very reason. Hope. I wanted to see if the system could be disrupted. I like to think that "my" flirtation was hope is more defensible, because it was in favor of an old fashioned gentleman with great business instincts and strong values.
(He was nearly the richest person in the world at one point (though Gates and Bezos would have overtaken him) - but he wouldn't buy into an investment because the proposal included a *really* sweet car for the person running the business. He said, no, not in the first year; that's for when the company's off the ground and making money; then you've earned it. You can get *a* car, a nice one, but not *that* nice. So other folks bought into it instead.)
The good news could be that Trump might well disrupt things. If the Republicans get blown out, they might have a come to Jesus - no, not a televangelist, *Jesus* - moment. So that's something.
Re: Hillary Clinton rigged the election (or that the DNC did, or whatever) - mathematical proof worries me. I've seen some statistical craziness that really, really bugged me - but Nate Silver is confident that polling is still weak enough that we can have craziness, like, e.g., the Brexit vote.
The major Dems did anoint Hillary long before the first primary, and there was rigging of the process, but I think she learned her lessons from Obama, and planned for the long game. And Bernie Sanders... damn it, the poor guy never had to understand courting African American votes. He was strong on civil rights and the social safety net, and he responded more warmly to Black Lives Matter than Hillary did. But Hillary knew how to do African American outreach... and Bernie didn't. So she clobbered him early in the southern states. And at that point, there probably was an air of inevitability, because Bernie hadn't gotten a fair shake from the press before then... now he had to catch up from *way* behind when people were only just now hearing his name.
*That* kind of rigging? Yes. And I won't say that the DNC or other Democratic Powers That Be wouldn't rig the vote. There *is* corruption on both sides. But I don't think it happened. I think Clinton won an unbalanced election, and it was unfair, because we lefties deserved a balanced election and debate... but I think she won without lawbreaking and ballot-stuffing.
ETA: "Brexit" is just a recent, stunning/shocking polling failure - not an attempt to say anything bad about you or your home. And I reckon you know that, but *just in case*.
no subject
This, I think, is what opened the door for Donald Trump. There's an old Simpson's episode where Krusty the Clown explains his vote in favor of the local Scrooge's movie as "what can I say? It moved meTO A BIGGER HOUSE! - oooh, I said the quiet part loud and the loud part quiet."
Trump started saying the quiet part really loud. And that was what the Republican base was primed for.
I think the other part of his support is just... well, hope. I voted for Ross Perot during his first run, for that very reason. Hope. I wanted to see if the system could be disrupted. I like to think that "my" flirtation was hope is more defensible, because it was in favor of an old fashioned gentleman with great business instincts and strong values.
(He was nearly the richest person in the world at one point (though Gates and Bezos would have overtaken him) - but he wouldn't buy into an investment because the proposal included a *really* sweet car for the person running the business. He said, no, not in the first year; that's for when the company's off the ground and making money; then you've earned it. You can get *a* car, a nice one, but not *that* nice. So other folks bought into it instead.)
The good news could be that Trump might well disrupt things. If the Republicans get blown out, they might have a come to Jesus - no, not a televangelist, *Jesus* - moment. So that's something.
Re: Hillary Clinton rigged the election (or that the DNC did, or whatever) - mathematical proof worries me. I've seen some statistical craziness that really, really bugged me - but Nate Silver is confident that polling is still weak enough that we can have craziness, like, e.g., the Brexit vote.
The major Dems did anoint Hillary long before the first primary, and there was rigging of the process, but I think she learned her lessons from Obama, and planned for the long game. And Bernie Sanders... damn it, the poor guy never had to understand courting African American votes. He was strong on civil rights and the social safety net, and he responded more warmly to Black Lives Matter than Hillary did. But Hillary knew how to do African American outreach... and Bernie didn't. So she clobbered him early in the southern states. And at that point, there probably was an air of inevitability, because Bernie hadn't gotten a fair shake from the press before then... now he had to catch up from *way* behind when people were only just now hearing his name.
*That* kind of rigging? Yes. And I won't say that the DNC or other Democratic Powers That Be wouldn't rig the vote. There *is* corruption on both sides. But I don't think it happened. I think Clinton won an unbalanced election, and it was unfair, because we lefties deserved a balanced election and debate... but I think she won without lawbreaking and ballot-stuffing.
ETA: "Brexit" is just a recent, stunning/shocking polling failure - not an attempt to say anything bad about you or your home. And I reckon you know that, but *just in case*.