[yardie]

There were far more candidates that did not run on racist, misogynist platforms, ie. Bush, Rubio, Johnson. Trump was never the most moderate. The Republican party didn't even choose him. Their constituents did. And if they had been paying attention they would have known a demagogue could have walked off with the party base.

[diryawish]

I take that back; Kasich was the most moderate. He also had very little charisma, unfortunately. He could have been a perfect VP for this administration if the two could get along.

Trump was typically more moderate on the economy and tax policy, abortion, military. His stance on immigration is the more conservative than the rest. Rubio and most of the rest were very strict on abortion, had typical Republican ideas on tax, support interventionist military campaigns, but had varying but less conservative stances on immigration. Although Trump's behavior was boorish and comedic at times, that appeals to Americans and gets you media exposure. Just like the coolness of Obama and Bill Clinton.

If the DNC didn't engage in shenanigans, wouldn't the Democratic demagogue have had a much better chance at winning than Hillary?

[justin66]

> I take that back; Kasich was the most moderate.

Which is interesting, because Kasich is not in any objective sense a moderate. (I live in his state) Relative to the rest of that field, sure, but that's what is alarming.

[ygaf]

I was thrown by your claim, but that all makes perfect sense.

[humanrebar]

Well, the media liked giving him lots of attention and air time. It was in the best interest of left wing demagogues to get a fresh new bad guy for the new season of American Politics.

[yardie]

Sadly, you have either say outlandish things or buy airtime.

Also, I don't think anyone on the left needed a new, worse bad guy. We've had plenty sitting in Congress.