I originally wrote the following (slightly edited here) as a reply to Booman’s post A Contrary View on Trump’s Big Day. Overall I found it a thoroughly well-reasoned post, but I disagreed with one important part of it. Here it is.
=================================
I am now beginning to wonder…is Trump’s ongoing success “despite” almost total mass media disapproval, or is he being successful because of that solid wall of media opposition?
HMMMmmmmmmmm…
Read on.
Booman wrote:
…what Trump did in both Mexico and Arizona will be filtered through the media before most people become aware of it at all. And, overall, the media hated it. Therefore, what Trump did in both Mexico and Arizona will be filtered through the media before most people become aware of it at all. And, overall, the media hated it. Therefore, despite demonstrating that he’s capable of standing on a stage with a foreign head of state without being an imbecile, and despite crafting his immigration speech in a very effective way, few people will experience those accomplishments. Instead, they’ll hear how he wimped out in Mexico and lied about whether he discussed who will pay for the wall. They’ll hear that he’s reverted to a hardline (and unpopular) immigration stance. They’ll see his speech compared to a Klan rally or Hitler speech. They’ll read about Latino Trump-supporters jumping ship. And the folks who get positive reviews will be the folks who only consume right-wing media, and those folks are mostly in Trump’s corner anyway.
But Booman…that sort of thing is exactly what has been happening in modern elections since…oh, I don’t know, since JFK/Nixon when you get right down to it. That is the fix, or at least the primary fixing mechanism, and with the possible exception of the Jimmy Carter/Gerald Ford campaign it has worked very well.
Until now.
It has not worked on Trump and I do not believe that it will work. Why? Because the information revolution has had one primary result…many, many voters no longer trust the media, on plentiful evidence. In fact, many voters actively distrust it. Ditto government in general, starting with the Feds and going right on down to as local as you want to go.
The media will report that he did things. It’s the job that they do and they cannot afford to stop doing it. But…their opinions about it? Whether expressed straight on (as straight as the media ever get, anyway) or subliminally…headlines, tones of voice, facial expressions, body language, images, etc…whatever they say is not only effectively ignored, but for many people it is seen as something to be disbelieved. Actively disbelieved, as in taking action in whatever directions the media say that they should not act. This is the real secret of Trump’s success, and it will quite likely be the reason for Clinton’s defeat if it happens.
A large group of Americans now believe that:
1-The mass media are owned lock, stock and barrel by Big Corp.
2-On huge amounts of evidence it is becoming more and more clear that said Big Corp not only does not have the interests of the American people in mind, it is in truth a totally unelected, internationalist group that does not put the welfare of the U.S. or any other nation before that of its own members.
Enter Trump; enter HRC. Trump understands this set of public opinion movements bone deep, and his astounding success so far is due to his success in expressing that idea publicly. HRC is stuck…she cannot unload her corporate baggage no matter what she says or does. She is stuck with it. Thus the popular vote outcome of this election…again, barring unforeseeable events including electronic vote fraud… will hinge on a three-part question.
What percentage of the voting public is:
A-Smart enough to see through the media fix.
B-What percentage of that percentage is angry enough and/or dumb enough to vote for Trump?
and
C-What percentage of that percentage is so fed up with the system that they will not vote at all?
Combine those questions with the electoral vote savvy of the Clinton campaign and you have a horserace right to the finish line.
Bet on it.
AG
P.S. Plus or course the following ever-present and rarely publicly discussed wild card. From a good-sized outlier to the mainstream media, U.S. News and World Report:
A Candidate’s Death Could Delay or Eliminate the Presidential Election
The presidential election could be delayed or scrapped altogether if conspiracy theories become predictive and a candidate dies or drops out before Nov. 8. The perhaps equally startling alternative, if there’s enough time: Small groups of people hand-picking a replacement pursuant to obscure party rules.
The scenarios have been seriously considered by few outside of the legal community and likely are too morbid for polite discussion in politically mixed company. But prominent law professors have pondered the effects and possible ways to address a late-date vacancy.
“There’s nothing in the Constitution which requires a popular election for the electors serving in the Electoral College,” says John Nagle, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, meaning the body that officially elects presidents could convene without the general public voting.
“It’s up to each state legislature to decide how they want to choose the state’s electors,” Nagle says. “It may be a situation in which the fact that we have an Electoral College, rather than direct voting for presidential candidates, may prove to be helpful.”
—snip—
OOOOOOOOoooo…!!!
I repeat:
“It may be a situation in which the fact that we have an Electoral College, rather than direct voting for presidential candidates, may prove to be helpful.”
The question remains…helpful to whom?
There are trillions…more, unfathomable power and riches…at stake.
If the Controllers really begin to believe that they have totally lost control of this (s)election?
All bets are off.
Bet on that as well.
Watch.
