What we're looking at is the nastiest campaign in over 100 years. No campaign until 2016 can match the ugly presidential race of 1884. The shots fired between S. Grover Cleveland and James G. Blaine through their surrogates made their electoral campaigns about how big of a sleaze-bag the other was, in addition to employing racism as an overall theme. This is the closest possible example in our history to describe the use of racism by Donald Trump's campaign as an electoral strategy is, even if it's completely disgusting and infuriating to most Americans (including the author), a winning one and why Hillary Clinton is powerless to stop Trump from winning.
However, the use of racism is only one of the various themes that make 2016 mirror 1884. Others include reining in the corruption on display in our politics by seeing our elected officials being easily bought by the titans of industry. This is just another example of how 2016 is a near mirror image of 1884. Another factor to take into account is the levels of scandals dogging both major-party candidates. Just as in 1884, the candidates of 2016 have scandals because of their legal ongoing issues. Trump being jammed up for defrauding students at Trump University and plausibly bribing, via political contributions, some state attorneys-general (especially the incumbent Attorney General of Florida, Pam Bondi) to drop any case against him; while at the same time, Hillary getting embroiled in even worse trouble with being the subject of subject of, or an involved party in, ongoing investigations into her using her private email server when handling classified information and family charities for running a pay-to-play scheme.
By trying to paint Trump in a negative light, Hillary's campaign, to its detriment is quickly losing its credibility with various blocs of the electorate whose support Hillary badly needs in order to win in November. The fact remains that Trump has Hillary's number to the tee, which is why attacking him is a losing strategy. When he brings up the fact that he donated heavily to candidates from both parties (including Hillary) and in return he would get political favors, he'll have an easy time explaining how she's only responsive to the donor class and not the American public at-large. Don't take this as a ringing endorsement of Trump or anyone affliated with him, as he, just like Hillary, is running a con job, but one on a completely different level. The fact is that Trump, like Hillary, is only seeking the presidency to enrich himself at our expense.
By trying to paint Trump in a negative light, Hillary's campaign, to its detriment is quickly losing its credibility with various blocs of the electorate whose support Hillary badly needs in order to win in November. The fact remains that Trump has Hillary's number to the tee, which is why attacking him is a losing strategy. When he brings up the fact that he donated heavily to candidates from both parties (including Hillary) and in return he would get political favors, he'll have an easy time explaining how she's only responsive to the donor class and not the American public at-large. Don't take this as a ringing endorsement of Trump or anyone affliated with him, as he, just like Hillary, is running a con job, but one on a completely different level. The fact is that Trump, like Hillary, is only seeking the presidency to enrich himself at our expense.
Posts
