Imagine a country on the way to a presidential election.
Presidential candidate A is criticized for lying constantly, trying to overturn the last election, stealing top secret documents from government, being involved in financial fraud, and having sexually abused a woman.
Presidential candidate B is criticized for being 4 years older than candidate A.
Then imagine, that this presidential election is a toss-up, because candidate A is really entertaining to watch on tv.
This is where we are.
@randahl We saw this in 2016. Hillary Clinton was one of the most experienced Presidential candidates in US history, and the bar was incredibly high for her while there was none for Trump.
Was she? I remember her only for the huge blunder of letting the embassy cables be distributed to junior analysts like Manning all over the world, and then trying to shift the blame to Assange.
The Dem Party chose her because of internal party politics. Not because of her qualifications as future President, or her appeal to voters.
@JorgeStolfi @cosettepaneque @randahl yeah, definitely not because of appeal, she was a singularly uncharismatic candidate. I mean that is a stupid reason not to vote for her, just sayin'.
Considering that there were tens of millions of diehard voters on either side, surely there were many millions in the middle of the spectrum, who ended up voting for Trump, or stayed home, just because of that "feature".
@JorgeStolfi @ech @cosettepaneque @randahl That “feature” was a feature of how the media selectively portrayed her.
@Pineywoozle @ech @cosettepaneque @randahl
Was it really? I haven't seen her shine in public speeches or interviews ever -- during, before, or after the campaign.
What were her accomplishments as a State Secretary? One that I recall (besides that blunder of leaking the super-confidential embassy "cables") was her order to the ambassadors to try to collect fingerprints and DNA of foreign leaders in the respective countries. That is, act like spies -- which is totally taboo for ambassadors.
@JorgeStolfi @Pineywoozle @cosettepaneque @randahl ok, if you don't like the DNA thing, then you *really* aren't going to like Trump, so that doesn't really explain why she lost. Like, his whole brand is about throwing out norms that get in the way of results.
And the "it" here is charm/political skill/charisma, not accomplishments.
