On that eighth day of November in that year of two-thousand and eleven, citizens of United States of America decided between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump. As votes tallied across that nation became known, it would be Donald J. Trump to emerge as winner of a contest for electorates. Trump’s trump card, that is –what allowed Donald J. Trump to become President-Elect Donald J. Trump– began to be questioned and teased out from a variety of principles.
Finding A Blame For Forty-Fifth
Almost immediately thinkers in media space, scholars of media analysis, political pundits, and political scientists began to look for something, anything, to point their scurrilous fingers at. Initially, voices began to blame US Black voters. US Black voters are credited with that “meteoric” rise of United States’s 44th President, Daddy Obama, so many felt Hillary’s chances of a win resided with them. While overall voting numbers for those in favor of a Democratic ticket were down in 2016, exit polls would show that Black voters once again turned out in a solid bloc behind Beyonce’s call for formation.
Trump’s Trump:::Media Blame
Others less spurred by an ontology of identity have pointed to mainstream media’s insatiable fascination with Donald J. Trump’s curious candidacy. Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu, a media analyst that coined “Net Neutrality”, has suggested that media gave Trump a totalitarian state level of media attention. While Wu does not directly state this, he does imply that Trump’s media driven marketing is due to United States’s private media. Private media as opposed to public media, which is hinting at profit motivations steering decision makers to focus highly on Trump during news cycles. I am not sure I am willing to concur with these sentiments. To state that Donald Trump owes his presidency to media oversaturation based on reporting on his scandals and spectacle would mean that Hillary should have won when media decided to discuss what Wikileaks released. And yet, in regards to Hillary and Wikileaks, media is blamed for assisting in her losing. So, when Trump is being scandalized in media, it is good, but when Clinton is scandalized in media, it is not good. Yes, an interesting contradiction of that sore loser variety to say as little as one can on that subject.
Trump’s Trump:::Blaming Blacks
What should be as concerning as Donald Trump’s win–due to media, or not–is Hillary’s loss. From a Black Media Trust, or Black Media analysis, lens, I find it troubling that CNN published an article blaming US Blacks and Latinos for Hillary’s loss when Hillary was unable to secure Whyte Women voters. If we are to play this identity politics game, then I believe it only fair to note what each identity group of relevance delivered what.
According to exit polls from New York Times, Hillary lost 42% of women voters polled to Trump’s campaigning. Interestingly enough, New York Times has decided to present data of Whyte college educated versus Whyte noncollege educated, but not Whyte Women versus Women of other groupings. Or college educated versus noncollege educated of other racial or ethnic makeups. Stay classy, guys. Based on CNN’s very own exit polls, Hillary was unable to secure 53% of Whyte Women who voted that were also polled from Donald Trump. Fifty-three percent of Whyte Women who voted in 2016’s Presidential Election polled by CNN voted for Donald J. Trump and yet CNN blames Blacks and Latinos for Hillary losing to Donald J. Trump. Simply amazing…
I find my Self experiencing difficulty understanding why media outlets cannot just plainly state Trump’s main trump card: he was interesting and his opponents, including Hillary, were not. Hillary was boring in a contest for popularity. Despite what many would like to believe about this oh so grave and solemn governmental dynamics, US society is one that reduces politics to spectacle and even democracy is reduced to a popularity contest. Regardless of CNN and other established(establishment) media’s inability to assess that which is most obvious, please do not blame US Blacks for Trump’s political ascendancy. While I do not believe in individuals representing groups of strangers that did not ask said individual to represent them, I will deviate and speak for all US Blacks when I write:
New York Times also has a well designed interactive infographic on their site detailing another flavor of “why Trump trumped Hillary”. I do not like assessing Trump’s win or Hillary’s loss by measuring them against Romney’s loss and Obama’s win(s). This is exactly what New York Times does in this elegantly crafted data map. It is more of an objective examining of where shifts of ideology may have occurred, but not exactly why they occurred. While it definitely works for more quantitative measures of media analysis, it fails to produce an answer to exactly how it occurred, which is what it purports to do. Showing me that something happened is not showing me how that something occurred. There does seem to be more of an acceptance that a case for Mike Judge’s “Idiocracy” becoming a US reality lies squarely on shoulders of USA’s Whyte populations, however. But not directly enough…
New York Times and CNN both seem quite content with hinting that much of Trump’s trump cards are that suit of undereducated rural lower class Whytes. Yet, both provide data, while presented in very specious manner(they make sure you see Whyte college educated versus Whyte noncollege educated), that reveals Trump’s more cross-sectional appeal.
I find it nauseating, yet informative, that it is easier to find out how many people didn’t vote from a Google query,“How many people voted?”, than actually finding out how many people did vote. Approximately One-Hundred and Nineteen Million people voted, roughly fifty percent of eligible voters. Tom Bonier, CEO of TargetSmart, said national registration now stands at 200,081,377 voters. There were 241 million people of voting age. For context, in 2012 US Presidential election, 62,615,406 US citizens voted for Incumbent Barrack Obama; 59,142,004 US voters pledged their ballot to Romney.
A total of 129,085,410 votes were cast for presidential election in 2012, when incumbent Democratic President Barack Obama faced Republican Mitt Romney. While it was the electoral college that ultimately decided the president, Obama earned just shy of 5 million votes more than Romney. AOL.COM EDITORS
I want to use a well-aged term that still holds relevance in media circles. Donald Trump was able to successfully galvanize a base because he understood public opinion. He understood that vast swaths of United States lived in homogenous counties with no sense of curiosity about how others lived. He understood a language of crude ignorance born of “24” reruns, “Lockup”, and evening news portrayals of urban communities.
Hillary Clinton was not inspiring as would be history-making First Woman President. Her primary campaign against Bernie Sanders was wrought with scandal. Her public policy resume was tattered with vacillations on key issues from Gay Marriage to Incarceration Disparity. Her focus on foreign policy was inconsiderate of a nation drowning in college debt and blood spilled domestically by abusive authorities. She simply was incapable of capturing imaginations on USA’s Left in a manner necessary to meet a populist demand.