The Republican candidate Donald Trump received such negative coverage during the Presidential Election campaign last year which was unprecedented in the history of the election whereas Hillary Clinton was the darling of the media as compared to him. However, the final outcome was much to the dismay of the media houses. This very much explains his intense dislike towards press. Question is, what implication could be drawn from the victory of President Trump in the light of such negative publicity?
Those that voted in Trump are extremely frustrated with the last several decades of US politics. He may be a flash in the pan, or change the nation;s political direction. Time will tell. He may well surprise the world. He can be compared to Theodore Roosevelt who believed the US had a great future and believed in a strong nation that considered its self interests. Time will tell.
Many people in the US (not myself) highly distrust media coverage of conservative politicians, such that bad publicity is seen by them as reason to further--and I would argue blindly--support those politicians.
Nt so as Brand Hillary won 3 million more votes than Brand Trump. Trump won because of the anti-democratic (deliberate) effects of the Electoral College.
Dear Jill Vickers:
Do people refer to you as Brand Jill? A brand is a unique design, sign, symbol, words, or a combination of these, employed in creating an image that identifies a product and differentiates it from its competitors.
Human beings are not products and to refer to them as "brands" may be cute but is actually demeaning and inappropriate for intellectual analysis. What's more, politics involves dozens of factors - economics, religion, affiliation to ethnic, racial and others groups, as well as the combined impact of current events and the behavior of the candidates themselves. The grand dynamics of all this far exceeds your theory of people as brands. But maybe you can elaborate by providing us with the specifics of the Jill Brand.
As to the electoral college, it is part of the constitution since we are not a democracy of majority rule but a constitutional republic designed to protect the minority against majority abuse and which allows for all states to be addressed in national elections and not just the states with the largest population. Most Democrats understand this which is why there has not been any serious efforts by them since the 2016 election to change the Constitution. Senator Barbara Boxer of California tried to pass a 2017 resolution to move for a constitutional change on this issue but the majority of her Democratic colleagues would not join her and the resolution did not even come up for a vote on the Senate floor.
However, I would love to hear your founding fathers conspiracy theory as to why all this is "deliberate." However, I highly recommend you read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers first (our ideological triad) in order to assist in your intelligent commentary which I am looking forward to reading. Thank you for the question.
Those that voted in Trump are extremely frustrated with the last several decades of US politics. He may be a flash in the pan, or change the nation;s political direction. Time will tell. He may well surprise the world. He can be compared to Theodore Roosevelt who believed the US had a great future and believed in a strong nation that considered its self interests. Time will tell.
After 35 year professor of political science, I find these debates mostly a waste of time. They can be useful in helping us framing research questions or finding ways to enhance teaching. But too often they are used by people with few publications trying to build their reputations. Has Research Gate considered monitoring them the way the H- e.g. H-Nationalism series does? .Right now it is too much like reality TV.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Media