I never thought I would agree with liberal loon Frank Rich about anything, but he has an interesting comparison between Ronald Reagan and Trump, and how I hate having those two names even close to each other, as candidates in a New York magazine article. The money quote:
Go here to read the rest. Much of the article is typical wrong headed liberal myopia, especially the comments on Reagan, but Rich does draw interesting comparisons between 1980 and 2016. In both years the voters were angry and fed up with an establishment that they believed were clueless and had misgoverned the nation. Like the Obama years, the seventies were a time of defeat abroad and of a dismal economy at home. Reagan campaigned as the ultimate outsider, and to the disbelief and dismay of both establishment Republicans and Democrats triumphed. Trump has stumbled into the Reagan role this year. Many of the attacks against him merely reinforce his image as the outsider who is going to clean up Washington and bring back America. The tragedy for the nation is that Trump is to Reagan as a lightning bug is to lightning. However, do not at all be surprised if he rides the still building wave of voter anger to the White House.Â
Hillary Clinton “stands for all good things”? I just got nauseous.
Every so often Frank Rich gets it right. Wherever she goes Hillary creates an enthusiasm vacuum in contrast to Trump. Boring Hillary is no match for bombastic Donald. Given that most folks seem to live for entertainment of one kind or another Trump should be able to win since even his handicaps feed the public’s need for novelty and excitement. Generally the public has lost it’s ability to perceive reality live in a kind of virtual world where wishes are horses, e.g., Bernie, Obama, Hillary, Trump.
Check out Scott Adams’s blog (the author of Dilbert. He has a lot of good analysis of Trump vs Hillary as ‘persuaders’ and of course HRC is left in the dust. Here’s his take on their respective campaign slogans:
http://newsblur.com/site/6038863/scott-adams-blog