That's normal. If the left or Democrats wanted the support of the working class they would have nominated a different candidate than Wall Street Clinton. But they took the working class for granted. You can only do take certain segments of voter for granted for so long before they bite back.
Most of this is nothing more than rhetoric. They talk a good game and then do nothing except take care of all those mega money donors be it corporations, wall street, lobbyist, special interest and the like. Both parties are guilty of this. Its like young voters this time around, not that they are supporting Trump, but they don't like Clinton or her ties to Wall Street. Quite a lot of them are going third party or planning on staying home rather than vote for either candidate. So we'll see what happens, Clinton's support comes from mostly old voters, at least they are the most avid backers of her. Not the young or as you pointed out, the working class. Clinton has the union leaders in her hip pocket, but not necessarily union members. It will be interesting to see how all this plays out.
Clinton was a weak candidate through and through.
Never should of run her, never.
From a tactical standpoint, even with boatloads of money, dual party support and insider advantage she's failing.
To be fair, the Republican line up was completely abysmal.
I know normal GOP pols said they supported working class folks, but I don't think anyone really believed them.
It just seems like a huge betrayal of them to **** all over the very people they said they loved so much.
This is an election of true colors, if there ever has been.
For me, this election is between two major party candidates that I don't want either to be seen within a million miles of the Oval Office. If Trump could stay away from his foot in mouth disease and shore up the uneasiness a lot of people have about concerning his leadership traits, he could win. When Trump doesn't say or tweet whatever pops into his head, he seems to rise in the polls. But he can't stay on message. He then spouts some outrageous thing and falls back.
The majority of Americans trust neither major party candidate. The majority dislike both candidates. This is an election that many Americans do not want to make a choice between them. One polling firm made up a fictitious candidate, Nutz I believe as I didn't save the poll. They gave voters a choice between Trump, Clinton and Nutz. Nutz received around 15% in the poll. About what Johnson and Stein are getting together today. Two no name candidates that most people have no idea whom they are, with no money, no media coverage, no nothing except their last names are not Trump or Clinton.
Whomever wins, Trump or Clinton, the majority of Americans will not be happy. The majority of Americans will not like the winner at all.
If $5,000 is the price for buying a Presidential debate I could rig them. This is delusional.
I've heavily waffled.
I like Trumps off the cuff speaking style, I think we've been too polite.
At the same time, the unknown of him can be troubling.
One thing I'm sure of is, I do not want Hillary.
End of story.
Why? Is it because she is not progressive enough?
She has too many masters, that aren't necessarily interested in the benefit of the state and people who live here.
She has a history of messing things up badly.
I do not trust her at all.
She is her own master and she serves the American public.
Debate Rules Being Set by Hillary Donors | LifeZette
Plenty of plausible deniability if the debates don't turn out weel for Trump.
The inverse will not be true for Hillary.
Is there a source for this other than a Right wing rag?
The rules are not the questions, and the questions and the answers they receive and the replies made are what will tell the story of the debates. My guess is the rules, i.e., where the candidates are positioned on the stage, the amount of time they have to answer a question and give a reply, to make a closing statement, requiring silence from the audience during debating time, etc., are probably about the same as they have been.
This story sounds like today's entry in the ongoing saga of 'most everyone's unfairness to Donald Trump'.
I miss leftism that stood on the principal "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Now it seems leftism stands on "I'll defend to the death your right to agree with me, otherwise not".
A quote by a British author based on Voltaire is now considered a leftism principle? Says who?
She is her own master and she serves the American public.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?