[djsumdog]

The leaders of tomorrow are the leaders of today. Prescott Bush groomed his son to be president and the same with W and H.W. Obama was most likely sifted out of the pool in U Chicago by all the Strauss followers. The Clintons are a pretty powerful family and had Hillary won, it would have been a continuation of the Bush Clinton dynasty.

Trump might seem like an outlier, but he's more like Reagan: an actor. He's a puppet on stage and the corporations actually running the show know they can play him. He's there to distract America from all the interest groups that really run things and they selected him because he's so out there.

Make no mistake, the future leaders will either be groomed from an early age to be very careful with their public image or the puppet masters will latch onto actors who will be bombastic to keep America distracted.

The rules are different for the rich. Their PR departments build worlds around them that use social networking. If there's any doubt, remember Obama joked about predator droning people interested in his daughter and people laughed.

[eldavido]

I don't see it man. I think this was the most democratic election in US history, where the people finally got what they really wanted - a blustering populist without a shred of actual policy experience. I mean, come on - the wall, tariffs, and now the death penalty for drug dealers? Is there any mainstream academic/intellectual on either side of the aisle that's really "running the show" here? I don't think so.

[exelius]

I think we had an election where misinformation was being spread like wildfire and used to inflame passions to support a populist candidate against the mainstream academics / elite. But the divisions were already there and had been growing for decades; but they hit a turning point during the (very uneven) recession recovery where middle America saw wages and unemployment stagnate, while the top 10% of the country reaped almost all the rewards of the recovery in the form of stock market gains.

I think any other Democrat besides Hillary would have won easily; but a lot of Dems stayed home because they felt a shitty Trump presidency was better than setting a precedent for dynastic politics. I voted for her, but grudgingly for that reason — she’s totally qualified, she has the experience, but there are other people who are qualified and had the experience too; Hillary beat them in the primaries because lots of people owed her favors due to her influence with her husband. She ingratiated herself to the party elites (unelected “superdelegates” who cast a huge percentage of the votes that determine the candidate to represent the party) and won that way.

Hillary ran a tone-deaf campaign, but I think her loss really highlighted how the Democrats lost because they were basically telling people in rural areas that their problems weren’t really problems, and if they were smarter they could figure that out. The Dems need to realize that wealth inequality has disproportionately hit these rural areas, and all the issues we see with Trumpism (Nazis, racism, anti-immigrant sentiment) are essentially borne out of frustration that individuals feel they have less control over their lives than they used to.

[Spooky23]

Not really.

One of the reasons that the Russia thing is such a big deal is that nobody, including Trump, expected Trump to win. Laser targeted ads deployed in a few swing states turned the election much more effectively than anticipated, and the impact of Trump's investments there were amplified by the other social media fodder.

There was also alot of specific targeting of disaffected union guys that moderated the GOTV efforts that are usually fruitful for democratic candidates.

End of the day Hillary was a machine candidate, except the machine broke down.

[eldavido]

Having read the Mueller report, I'm not ready to jump quite that far yet. But I do know it's certainly changed my view of what's possible, from Russia messing with the US election being "total conspiracy level stuff" to "they probably interfered, but it's not clear how effective it was".

I think the bigger point is exactly what you said though, the machine is broken. The candidates are going "direct to voter" and bypassing the "intermediaries" of the party.

[ghfbjdhhv]

Hillary had the majority of non-superdelagates, too.

[saget]

Can't speak for the nation, but in Colorado Sanders won the primary by a landslide yet received exactly 0 super deligate votes. Anyone who lived in a state where this happened could feel the elitism the previous comment was talking about

[exelius]

Yeah, Trump picked up a lot of votes simply because he addressed it as a problem while Hillary said “everything’s fine”. That was pretty insulting for a lot of people, and I don’t think the Democrats realized they were alienating their blue collar base.

[jazzyk]

Just to be fair:

Wasn't Obama a "blustering populist without a shred of actual policy experience", either? And, no business experience.

Also, Trump's message (however controversial) was more concrete than "hope and change".

[anthony_romeo]

I mean, he was a professor of constitutional law at one of the top law schools, a community organizer, a state senator, and a US senator.

Also, Republicans in the 2008 election cast him as only having "hope and change," but his campaign website had detailed policy proposals, with like, tables and charts and stuff.

[smokeyj]

Remember when Romney called Russia the greatest threat to U.S democracy and was made into a joke? I remember.

[anthony_romeo]

Yes.

[yazan94]

> Wasn't Obama a "blustering populist without a shred of actual policy experience", either? And, no business experience.

I think it is a stretch to say Obama didnt have a shred of policy experience[1]. Without trying to delve too much into politics here, but I would like to know how Trump's business experience is helping him. I haven't heard about too many terribly good decisions he has made in office regarding the economy.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Legislative_caree...

[mjrpes]

That would be very unfair. Obama was Illinois senator for 3 terms, elected to US Senate in landslide, president of Harvard Law School, attorney, professor, liked by everyone who knew him, great listener, worked across the aisle, etc. So yes, almost stark opposites.

[dexterdog]

He was a STATE senator for ~2.5 terms. He was only elected to the US senate once. It was a landslide mostly because it's Illinois and also because he outspent his opponent $14m to $2.5m. He served half of that term most of which was spent running for president.

Worked across the aisle? Have you ever read how his major legislation was passed? Sure the Republicans were basically obstructionists, but I've never heard him to be known as "working across the aisle."

[ims]

Just a quick correction, he was president of the Harvard Law Review - not the school.

[cgmg]

Obama was a senator for 13 years before being elected president.

[jazzyk]

10 years, to be precise:

- IL Senator 1997–2004

- US Senator 2005-2008

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

[cgmg]

I stand corrected.

[rovek]

> the wall, tariffs, and now the death penalty for drug dealers?

I think this backs up djsumdog's point that Trump's purpose, or the one for which he's being used, is misdirection.

[joering2]

What do you actually mean when you say “most democratic”. How “much more” was last election versus previous now.

From what I see coming out more and more evidence is that this was the most sophisticly hacked election in the modern times. The genius behind electing Trump seems to be his success with social media.

Just few days ago Facebook admit their info was not properly used. Basically voters were swayed to vioe Trump because they were unaware the been targeted based on their music taste and all other types of likes they feed Facebook with over the years. Brillian probably not illegal but totally unmorral. Hence stock is negative 5 today (for a stock this size that significiant move)

I say probably not illegal because what comes out is that Russia paid in most for Facebook pro-Trump advertising. And thats illegal to the tune of $20 mil. Will see if anything comes out of it but obviously dont hold your breath if you think current administration will investigate itself if it won illegally.

The genius behind social hack of our election goes deeper than just purchasing large stock of flashy ads and using trillion data points to target with surgeons knife precision.

Take the recent story done by CNN of some older lady that voted Tump and ran a rally for him with other “trump voters” (im on mobile i cant add links).

What turned out is the group she belonged to was started by russians and feed by russians. Basically what it was she was meeting other americans that have been duped by the same group, believing to her core the group is started and run by caring and loving patriotic americans. Even pressed by CNN with evidence said group was started by Russian advertising company, she refused to believe! This is a classic form of foreign romance scam taken to the new levels!

In romance scam, someone from third world country starts conversation with vulnerable women on Facebook telling her how much in love he is... Until he needs $1k to get out of hospital he just got in. Or bail his son from immigration jail, etc. such women after losing all her savings and 401 and pensions, when faced with truth that they been just scammed, rarely can believe in facts, and simply believe the offshore love of her life was stuck in hospital or had some other problems because she didnt send him the money! Its trully evil-brillian how this century old scam was used to shway recent election, at least when it comes to Facebook.

[Simon_says]

The Clintons are powerful now, but Bill came from rather inauspicious origins.

[glibgil]

> Bush Clinton dynasty

oxymoron

[djsumdog]

https://web.archive.org/web/20161110042000/https://en.wikipe...

It was originally titled "Bush Clinton Dynasty" then the "Bush Clinton Era" and now it's been deleted entirely.