| The numbers aren't there. I read 100K, and that's not even going to register. Then I read 500K. Ok, maybe move the needle a twitch. Clinton spent over a BILLION. Some are making the case it was really close, which it was. Now, if all that $500k were applied to the region and people , just in the right spot? Could have an impact. Use that money to fund people on the ground? Bet your ass that will have an impact. However, exactly none of that even competes with why it was so close. Was close for a few reasons: One, first and foremost. Clinton just didn't do the work. I'm not going to argue why, or what, just that work didn't happen. Major league impact. Two, Clinton told about half her potential support to get lost* Worse, she told people vote their conscience. Worse yet? She told people moderate Republican voters would carry her into the White House. Solid impact. *Berners, progressives, greens, basically the economic left, which currently isn't represented in American politics, save for the likes of Bernie and a few outliers. Neither party does that. Now, there is another aspect to all of this not being discussed much at all, and that is the no and protest voters. Protest voters were significant. No voters are huge, and present in nearly all State elections. Some States have good turnout. Many do not. Let's say for shits and giggles, that $500k spent by "the Russians" mattered somehow, some small amount. And let's just say the points above are somehow factored out. So it's "just close enough" for "the russians" to "matter." With me? What is the single most important thing we can do to reduce that impact: A. Regulate Internet media, social media to the already morbid degree traditional media is? Complete with consolidation of ownership, and all that which drove people to the Internet anyway? , or B. Actually run politics people would want to vote for, and by doing so, bring the no and protest voters firmly into the camp. You can bet your ass B would marginalize even a 10x "the russians" influence. And make no mistake, I'm being extremely charitable here even speaking to influence, as the numbers just aren't there at all. And that's why I'm not concerned about this matter. It's a distraction. We have the crappy election result we do, because people didn't feel they had a good choice. Clinton had issues, Trump is basically all issues. LOL Seriously. Somehow, most of the politics have moved from explicit public good, real goals, and such, to this implied model, where it's assumed good will happen, if only we the people just agree to something. The primary example of this happens to be, "I am not Trump", which is a whole lot of what Clinton did, and the implicit good is there for the taking, not hard to miss is it? On the other hand, say she ran on "Make Medicare For All Happen?" No contest, and all those gaffes above would have not mattered, she still could not have done the work, whatever, and she would have won hands down. That's the discussion to have. I can boil it down into a very simple expression: VOTE AGAINST or VOTE TO PREVENT HARM do not result in a greater, or common public good. That's implied, but not an outcome a voter can link to their vote easily, and if they do, not with out an awful lot of faith and assumptions. This is why we have a lot of no voters, and or protest voters. VOTE FOR, and or VOTE TO MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN, can very easily result in an explicit, common public good. People can get invested, know what they are working for, and the rest follows easily. One guy out there is doing that, and his name is Bernie Sanders, and that's why he's the most popular politician out there today. Here's the money shot on all that: He damn near won a Democratic Party Presidential Primary on small donations, starting with almost no name recognition, 60 plus points down, and near zero dollars, against a well oiled, mature, potent, relevant, well recognized political machine. One of the best in the world at the time. How? Actually spoke to the need out there, and we can say whatever we want, there is an awful lot of need out there. Majority need. Need most Americans feel isn't necessary at all. Yeah, populism. It's not favored among those of us of means. And that's understandable. No need to vilify anyone. It's just perspective. Today, money drives most politics, and that's reflected in the policy, and it's reflected in the tepid voting performance too. It's time to revisit the politics that got us here. We have Trump because we aren't putting the people into the process anywhere near the degree necessary for the majority of them to feel like it's representative. At best, a majority of them feel it's harm limiting, like "it could be worse, so vote", not "vote, because we need to get health care sane again." Huge impacts possible here. And should we embrace more of those things, frankly? Outside chatter won't even move the needle, if it even did. Call Corbyn. The UK is struggling with all this too. The world is watching. Maybe we should act instead of making theatre. |