@Jaxk “Since nobody gave him the slightest chance to win the primary, then they gave him no chance to win the election”
Actually, the only predictive model with a 100% track record—the 13 keys model developed by Allan Lichtman and Vladimir Keilis-Borok—predicted that Trump would win (while also predicting that Clinton would win the popular vote). Those of us who follow Lichtman’s work saw the writing on the wall while everyone else was still giving Clinton excessively high odds.
“Instead of continuous degradation of Trump, you should be trying to figure out what was wrong with your message.”
These things are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to do both. (Then again, I’ve never been a big fan of the Democrats. They need to change their policies, not just their messaging.)
“Postulating that Trump was driven to win the primaries by ‘White Supremacists’, is not trying to denigrate him?”
Irrelevant, since literally no one here has made that argument. If you think otherwise, you need to do a better job of reading.
“There are at best a few hundred ‘White Supremacist’ in the country”
This is wildly false. There are hundreds of white supremacist groups, and the most popular white supremacist website (Stormfront) has over 40,000 unique active users.
“It was the Democrats that pushed Trump to win the primary because they thought he would be the easiest candidate to beat.”
There’s no actual evidence for this, just some speculation that has been spread around on a lot of right-wing echo chambers. And considering how many registered Democrats voted for Trump in the general election, it’s hard to argue that those who voted for him in the primary did it because they were trying to beat him. Trump convinced a lot of people that he was the better candidate—not a majority, of course, but enough people in the right places.
“He paints a picture of someone that should be completely unelectable but won.”
I don’t think this is an accurate portrayal of @MrGrimm888‘s question. He painted a picture of the guy who actually did win, and then asks us to consider what might have happened if one factor had been different. Now, perhaps Trump should be completely unelectable, but recent history has already revealed that he is not actually unelectable.
“Then speculates would a black man be elected to insinuate that race is the only reason he won.”
Again, I don’t think this is accurate. Saying that someone would not have won if he was black is not the same as saying he won because he is white (which is the necessary sub-premise for the claim that race is the only reason he won). There are many reasons why Trump won. The question is whether or not him being black would have been enough to tip the scales. If you think that’s equivalent to saying it was all about race, then you need a class in multivariate logic.
@Hypocrisy_Central “What I take offence to is my white friends and brethren who voted and supported Trump to be made out like idiots, closet bigots or worse. Also to suggest there was so many White Supremacist as to nullify or overtake regular Americans, even if it were the primaries….boggles the mind to say the least.”
Well, to repeat what I said to @Jaxk: Literally no one here has made that argument. If you think otherwise, you need to do a better job of reading.
“they are just the mailmen they are not some overseers who can vote however they feel. ”
False. Electors are free to vote however they like. Only 29 states (plus Washington DC) have laws against faithless electors, no one has ever been penalized for voting against the person to whom they were pledged, only three states have laws allowing them to void the votes of faithless electors, and only one state has ever done so.