Poll: Who really was responsible for Donald Trump's victory in 2016

This post is circling around the debate in the Donald Trump thread. Who do you think was the main party that was responsible for Donald Trump winning the 2016 election.

Some say it was the Alt-Right (the vanguards being Andrew Anglin (Daily Stormer crowd), Richard Spencer (and supporters), etc.) and their memes (4chan, 8chan, etc.) because it encouraged white nationalists, closet white nationalists, whites in particular, etc. to be more proactive in the political environment in reaction to the anti-white culture propagated by Barack Obama and his (((patrons)))

Some say it was the Alt-Light (the vanguards being Milo, Gavin, Mike Cernovich, Lauren Southern, Sargon of Akkad, Breitbart and InfoWars Crowd, etc.) because they reached out to people (whether they be black, white, Hispanic, Asian, etc.) who were sick and tired of the Social Justice Retards ruining everything (see GamerGate as the starting point) and wanted to elect Donald Trump to spite them.

Some say it is a multifaceted approach with both the Alt-Right and Alt-Light working independently (and interdependently) to get Donald Trump elected

Others will probably say this is all one big fucking psyop by the government because it ties in with their plans.

Well, what is it?

Quote

Quote

I think it was Trump himself. He has some kind of gift to be able to sway public opinion and defeat his enemies like noone I've ever seen.

Quote

Ann Coulter, Steve Bannon would probably be the main kickstarters.

Quote

(02-03-2018 02:50 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Ann Coulter, Steve Bannon would probably be the main kickstarters.

Ann Coulter is definitely an Alt-Right figure, Steve Bannon is murkier though.

Quote

Some say it was the American people.

Quote

(02-03-2018 02:53 PM)PharaohRa Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 02:50 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Ann Coulter, Steve Bannon would probably be the main kickstarters.

Ann Coulter is definitely an Alt-Right figure, Steve Bannon is murkier though.

I don't think anyone but Spencer and Andrew Anglin identify as alt-right these days.

Quote

Silly poll imo.

Quote

The heart of the American spirit.

Quote

It was RvF.
Have you not seen the thread? That's why he won.

Quote

...

Quote

Quote

This is such a bad poll, but I voted alt-light just to piss people off anyways.

Quote

None of the above. It was the average American working person, tired of political correctness and other bullshit that doesn't help their lives who voted for the God Emperor.

Quote

DNC and Hillary Clinton

Quote

Flash Gordon

Quote

Quote

The premise of this thread means that the obvious answer is rejected, correct?

In other words, NOT Democrat voters in rustbelt states voting for change; not the pissed off voters in other states who quietly defied the polls and hostile publicity to vote for the hated Trump!

But why not?

Or are you simply searching for additional rationales for the Trump victory?

Quote

(02-07-2018 09:39 AM)Orson Wrote:  The premise of this thread means that the obvious answer is rejected, correct?
In other words, NOT Democrat voters in rustbelt states voting for change; not the pissed off voters in other states who quietly defied the polls and hostile publicity to vote for the hated Trump!
But why not?
Or are you simply searching for additional rationales for the Trump victory?

Trump got what... 61 Million votes? Obama got 70 million.

Listen, let's not be stupid and take the wrong lesson from this election.

Trump won because one of the KEY legs of the Obama coalition didn't vote... black people. If black people had high turnout like in 2008 and 2012... Hillary would have crushed Trump. Just look at the turnout numbers from Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida... ect.

If Democrats run a black person in 2020 it's a slam dunk win for them. It won't even be close.

Quote

Well, Trump got nearly 63 million votes in the 2016 Election.

Obama received 69,498,516 votes in 2008, and 65,915,795 in 2012.

So yeah, there was a noticeable drop off in enthusiasm (and votes) for "Hope and Change" by the time the 2012 election took place for the novelty of having a black president continue with a 2nd term.

By contrast, Clinton received 65,853,516 votes. Only a slight dip from Obama's own 2012 numbers for (on this particular occasion) the novelty of having the first female president.

Having said that, consider me very skeptical about the idea that if the Dems run a black person, it's an automatic win.

2008 was a perfect storm of sorts for a democrat, any democrat, to win the White House, following 8 years of a unpopular Republican President, along with the stock market crash that occurred just a little over a month prior to the election. By 2012, Obama's "coalition" saw a glaring drop off in votes that are incredibly akin to what Clinton herself received in 2016. And this was against a guy (Romney) who had one of the most uninspiring, detached, and bland campaigns in recent memory.

I think the novelty act game in presidential politics is important to some people, especially liberals, but at the same time it's also understated that there are clearly millions disillusioned with Obama by the time his 2012 re-election took place, and those same popular vote numbers only dipped slightly for Clinton in 2016, who, BTW, lost the electoral race in the process. Dems reaching out for another novelty act, while going so far left during Trump's first term, that they appear unhinged, clearly isn't going to do them any favors with voters Trump flipped.

Repeating a 2008 sort of victory, in terms of both electoral and popular vote, must be a cuddly thought for a democrat, but by this stage it's also incredibly out-of-touch with reality. Just like the party itself.

Quote

I think the Dems will choose Cory Booker or Gavin Newsom in 2020. If Joe Biden was younger he could beat Trump regardless of what most people on here think of him.

Quote

NWO. That's who.

Quote

(03-02-2018 08:00 AM)compactdisc Wrote:  NWO. That's who.

Really makes you think, man.

Quote

I think The Emperor ran some psy-ops of his own..

I honestly have to wonder what kind of think tank worked on Trump’s campaign. Trump calculated every move he made. Not in a ‘he knew the outcome’ sense, but was (and is) sharp enough to hit the right spots with voters.

Just this video alone (from 2000) gives off a vibe of ‘familiarity’ or ‘comfort’ as far as Trump/POTUS.. making the idea of Trump as President not seem so far fetched as some would believe.

Ignore the shitty music:




Side note: It wouldn’t surprise me to find out that someone in the 2015 video was hired to drop that sign at that precise time.

Quote

If you watch interviews of Trump from the 80s and 90s, he was saying the same things he's saying today, most notably how he's tired of seeing America being ripped off.

I think Trump's message (especially about the economy and national security) and incredible frame got him elected, as well as normal people getting tired of insane SJWs/political correctness and the corruption and incompetence of Democrats and RINOs. It's refreshing to see a Republican fight back against the shaming tactics of overly sensitive lefties, instead of bending over like most Republicans.

Quote