I haven't seen any discussion on this but do you all think that he would have won if the Stormy Daniels story came out in OCT, say shortly after the Access Hollywood reveal? Assume that Cohen wouldn't have paid the 130K.

Regardless of whether her story was true or false, I believe it would have convinced a lot of voters to not vote for him. They might not have voted for his opponent but they would not have voted for him.

I doubt it would have changed anything. If the Access Hollywood tape didn't turn off his followers, then revelations that he'd been dallying with a porn star wouldn't bother them either

ER757 wrote:

I doubt it would have changed anything. If the Access Hollywood tape didn't turn off his followers, then revelations that he'd been dallying with a porn star wouldn't bother them either

I doubt it either. So many were voting for him in just enough states to win office by the twisted EC vote.for his anti-immigrant, anti-China, racist, anti-tax ideas, that HRC was a bad campaigner, and people wanting 'change' from the Obama years.

I think it would have made a difference to see the Porn star vs email debacle that happending at the end of the 2016 election.
Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan could have all swapped votes with enough suburban women being upset about it.

However that is not what happened. So I see no point in revisiting it.

Most of us knew going in he was a crooked liar just by the Access Video tape, and his behavior towards judges,journalists, and ralley protestors. But alas the GOP chose the abusive liar that they wanted.

I don't think it would have made a difference. After the Access Hollywood tape, everyone knew (or should have known) exactly what Trump's personal life was. A lot of Trump's appeal came from his 'successful businessman/not a politician/call how I see it' uncouth billionaire image. Affair with a porn star? Meh, it's not really an October surprise if no one's surprised.

And HRC had a lot of personal and political baggage too, likely had lots of people voting against her, not necessarily 'for' Trump.

I believe that lot of Trump votes came from people who thought he had no chance to win.
If they knew he could win, they wouldn't have voted that way.

And no, the Stormy Daniels story wouldn't have changed any votes,

I don't think it would have changed anything.

Between the Access Hollywood tape, his comments about dating his daughter, and his generally shady business dealings it was pretty clear that Trump was a creep towards women and a not-so-great businessman.

If someone takes pride in supporting a deplorable, or identifies as a deplorable themselves, then supporting a guy that bangs a porn star while his wife and newborn are at home, and then pays to cover it up, is par for the course.

I agree with TangoandCash that people were not so much voting "for" him but "against" Hillary and the perceived "establishment" Democrats. I know I didn't vote for Hillary in the primary but I did hold my nose and vote for her in the general. A lot of people did. Enough that she won the popular vote. Another historical theory is that the party in the White House will not stay in the White House more than three terms, FDR excluded. Hillary would not have won reelection period if she had won the Electoral College. But she did win the popular vote.

It has to be said. Republicans keep constantly replaying the 2020 and 2022 elections with all their "the vote was stolen" and shouts of "fraud" and lawsuits. They can do that but no one else can bring up facts?

Anyway, I think enough people were apathetic in 2020. I really think that is what it was. "I will vote for him because he will lose because he is a fraud, so what do I have to lose?" was probably the thought process with some. With others, it was "I don't like either, so I will leave that one blank." Everyone knows/knew he is/was a fraud and a cheat. After the national conversation about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, no one cared about an affair.

Paying hush money and the "law and order" party supporting bribes is something that needs to be shouted from the rooftops every single day.

seb146 wrote:

I agree with TangoandCash that people were not so much voting "for" him but "against" Hillary and the perceived "establishment" Democrats. I know I didn't vote for Hillary in the primary but I did hold my nose and vote for her in the general. A lot of people did. Enough that she won the popular vote. Another historical theory is that the party in the White House will not stay in the White House more than three terms, FDR excluded. Hillary would not have won reelection period if she had won the Electoral College. But she did win the popular vote.

It has to be said. Republicans keep constantly replaying the 2020 and 2022 elections with all their "the vote was stolen" and shouts of "fraud" and lawsuits. They can do that but no one else can bring up facts?

Anyway, I think enough people were apathetic in 2020. I really think that is what it was. "I will vote for him because he will lose because he is a fraud, so what do I have to lose?" was probably the thought process with some. With others, it was "I don't like either, so I will leave that one blank." Everyone knows/knew he is/was a fraud and a cheat. After the national conversation about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, no one cared about an affair.

Paying hush money and the "law and order" party supporting bribes is something that needs to be shouted from the rooftops every single day.

Agree, the swing in 2016 was pretty much an anti-establishment, you will not force that woman down my throat vote. That, and her campaign forgot where the midwest was, had a particularly gnarly October surprise, and she rolled out the "deplorables" gaffe just in time for people to internalize it all.

Now, if none of those things had happened? This would probably be Hillary's second term. If maybe the deplorables gaffe and Stormy Daniels came out, and not Comey, then maybe she wins?

I'm not one for hypotheticals without significant hinge points - I don't think it's very material, it would have been a kinda large raindrop in the pond. I'm all for throw the book at him, indict him for whatever sticks, but this seems like a real minor issue that would usually be solved with a fine and some sort of settlement with state regulators. This whole story already is silly, but it might end up looking even more silly, and affect further attempts to prosecute him.

I actually think Trump was carried into office on a wave of anger that was fostered by conservative media, with Fox News leading the charge. The messaging was that Trump as an outsider, would "drain the swamp" and "fix" Washington.

The Russians assisting the Trump campaign with timely releases of "dirt", and James Comey's reluctance to conceal that unsubstantiated information from the American people, also played a role in pushing him over the top.

In that environment, a hush money scandal would not have made much difference.

We've seen now how all of that turned out, and the credibility of all those claims is well and truly shot. So the wonder now is that Trump still has broad support. There are still a lot of angry people, and he has continued to stoke that anger at every opportunity, as well as to milk it for campaign donations.

Avatar2go wrote:

I actually think Trump was carried into office on a wave of anger that was fostered by conservative media, with Fox News leading the charge. The messaging was that Trump as an outsider, would "drain the swamp" and "fix" Washington.

They quite literally stoked so much hatred after the humiliation of the end of the Bush era, and the presidency of Obama, the cauldron boiled over, and a swing to the right was probably inevitable. CNN was going to live, breaking news anchors and interrupting programmed segments over Trump tweets. He had a social media and TV media presence that has never been seen before, and right as social media was becoming ascendant as the primary method for people interacting with the news.
As cordcutting increased, we all ended up consuming a lot less Lester Holt and a lot more Sean Hannity. Or worse, you get sucked into the Candace Owens/Ben Shapiro/etc. universe of crazy YouTubers and podcast hosts.

There was so much in play in 2016, and unfortunately, I think there's way more now. Pod Save America had a very good (disclaimered) deep fake of Biden and Obama that was believable. That's scary. Twitter has turned into a laboratory for radicalization of discourse, and TikTok is a wild place, you'll get exposed to crazy political stuff even if you just like watching cooking videos.

I really think something's changing rapidly in this country, and it's really alarming. I'm far more concerned for the future than I am about what happened in the past.

We should all know by now that for his most hardcore supporters there is literally nothing he could do that would dissuade them (except for encouraging Covid vaccination apparently).

I tend to worry too. Although Trump's followers are in the minority, the volume of conservative media has not lessened, and has found many more outlets in social media.

The Internet and huge selection of public media allows people to construct a cocoon of information, so that they only are exposed to things that they already believe. It's the ultimate form of confirmation bias. And it destroys critical thinking skills.

That says something about human nature, that when presented with a huge variety of thought and opinion, we tend to select only those that are consistent with our existing beliefs.

The new phenomena of Chat AI plays directly into that. You get the answer you ask for, as the algorithms are tailored to gain approval and further usage. The system learns what pleases the user. There is no standard of logical, factual argument or reasoning. None of the rules of formal debate are implemented. Yet the results are confidently presented as fact. It's a purposefully designed echo chamber. And the exact opposite of what is needed.

Best thing we could do, would be to invest in & restore the focus on civics, formal debate, and history in schools, as well as science and math, which require critical thinking and don't allow for falsehoods. We have lost those basic skills in a sizable portion of the population.

The question in the opening post may be interesting to debate over a cup of coffee or glass of beer but otherwise is of no importance.

The simple facts are, sufficient numbers of people voted for the man for whatever set of reasons made sense to each of them, he served his term of office, and he is now a former president.

The question that matters now is how many votes - if any - this lingering scandal (or the multiple other scandals) will cost him in the upcoming elections.

Avatar2go wrote:

I tend to worry too. Although Trump's followers are in the minority, the volume of conservative media has not lessened, and has found many more outlets in social media.

The Internet and huge selection of public media allows people to construct a cocoon of information, so that they only are exposed to things that they already believe. It's the ultimate form of confirmation bias. And it destroys critical thinking skills.

That says something about human nature, that when presented with a huge variety of thought and opinion, we tend to select only those that are consistent with our existing beliefs.

The new phenomena of Chat AI plays directly into that. You get the answer you ask for, as the algorithms are tailored to gain approval and further usage. The system learns what pleases the user. There is no standard of logical, factual argument or reasoning. None of the rules of formal debate are implemented. Yet the results are confidently presented as fact. It's a purposefully designed echo chamber. And the exact opposite of what is needed.

Best thing we could do, would be to invest in & restore the focus on civics, formal debate, and history in schools, as well as science and math, which require critical thinking and don't allow for falsehoods. We have lost those basic skills in a sizable portion of the population.

Yet, in schools across Florida (and soon other red states), they are banning books and any education that offends the majority. Race is now left out of the Rosa Parks story! How can you teach about Rosa Parks without race?

stl07 wrote:

Yet, in schools across Florida (and soon other red states), they are banning books and any education that offends the majority. Race is now left out of the Rosa Parks story! How can you teach about Rosa Parks without race?

Yes, that direction is quite worrisome. Altering the public understanding of history, was one of the Nazi strategies in the Weimar Republic of Germany after WW1. It allowed them to stoke anger against the Jews and the political factions that opposed them. That anger eventually swept Hitler into power. And he immediately acted to oppress all those groups.

We are far enough out from WW2 now for those lessons to fade from the memories and teachings of citizens. But it did happen, and it can happen again.

The best defense we have, is an accurate knowledge of history, and critical thinking skills to identify when a false narrative is being put forward. But that requires an investment in developing those skills within each succeeding generation. There's a reason why that education is being attacked and altered in schools.

Avatar2go wrote:

stl07 wrote:

Yet, in schools across Florida (and soon other red states), they are banning books and any education that offends the majority. Race is now left out of the Rosa Parks story! How can you teach about Rosa Parks without race?

Yes, that direction is quite worrisome. Altering the public understanding of history, was one of the Nazi strategies in the Weimar Republic of Germany after WW1. It allowed them to stoke anger against the Jews and the political factions that opposed them. That anger eventually swept Hitler into power. And he immediately acted to oppress all those groups.

We are far enough out from WW2 now for those lessons to fade from the memories and teachings of citizens. But it did happen, and it can happen again.

The best defense we have, is an accurate knowledge of history, and critical thinking skills to identify when a false narrative is being put forward. But that requires an investment in developing those skills within each succeeding generation. There's a reason why that education is being attacked and altered in schools.

Certain states banning discussion of history from other points of view should be terrifying. However, promoting this discussion is terrifying to some and being made illegal. We just need to forget Emmett Till and Matthew Shephard and Tulsa and smallpox blankets because those are offensive somehow.

I hate hearing about this stuff but I need to. Disgusting as it was, I need to be an ally and learn how I can be a better person. A rising tide raises all ships.

seb146 wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

stl07 wrote:

Yet, in schools across Florida (and soon other red states), they are banning books and any education that offends the majority. Race is now left out of the Rosa Parks story! How can you teach about Rosa Parks without race?

Yes, that direction is quite worrisome. Altering the public understanding of history, was one of the Nazi strategies in the Weimar Republic of Germany after WW1. It allowed them to stoke anger against the Jews and the political factions that opposed them. That anger eventually swept Hitler into power. And he immediately acted to oppress all those groups.

We are far enough out from WW2 now for those lessons to fade from the memories and teachings of citizens. But it did happen, and it can happen again.

The best defense we have, is an accurate knowledge of history, and critical thinking skills to identify when a false narrative is being put forward. But that requires an investment in developing those skills within each succeeding generation. There's a reason why that education is being attacked and altered in schools.

Certain states banning discussion of history from other points of view should be terrifying. However, promoting this discussion is terrifying to some and being made illegal. We just need to forget Emmett Till and Matthew Shephard and Tulsa and smallpox blankets because those are offensive somehow.

I hate hearing about this stuff but I need to. Disgusting as it was, I need to be an ally and learn how I can be a better person. A rising tide raises all ships.

My friend, it will be my honor to be hit in the face with a teargas canister with you.

I fear we are sliding into a very dangerous media/social media environment where reality no longer matters, violence is praised, and veracity is measured by your audience. With the internet, we've created the ultimate populist engine - misinformation is spread rapidly to millions, there's an entire economy to influence which really means clicks, and there's an incentive to be more and more ridiculous than the content the user came for, so maybe they'll subscribe to you.

It's unrelated, but it's a perfect pressure cooker for the degradation and elimination of minority rights. Today we have the "Libs of TikTok" creature entirely funneling her obscure religious cult anger at transgender people, but who's next? To fuel this engine, you need enemies. First, it was immigrants, then it was Muslims, then for a time liberals, then immigrants again; now, they seem to want to do some gay bashing.

Looping this back - the cycle continues, Trump, or Trump's avatar, wins every time as long as the content environment (media and social media) retains the ability to scare people. He trafficks in the fear, ad hominem attacks, and conspiracies, and as long as social media and the internet are willing to light that up, he's got a superpower.

Why would that change anything?

He’s a known scumbag with women and been accused of much worse. Doesn’t seem to stop people from supporting him.

casinterest wrote:

I think it would have made a difference to see the Porn star vs email debacle that happending at the end of the 2016 election.
Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan could have all swapped votes with enough suburban women being upset about it.

However that is not what happened. So I see no point in revisiting it.

Most of us knew going in he was a crooked liar just by the Access Video tape, and his behavior towards judges,journalists, and ralley protestors. But alas the GOP chose the abusive liar that they wanted.

Totally agree.

The time period between Cohen's action to shut it down and Election day was too far apart. Too much time to have media rounds with Stormy interviews then McDougal ..jeez that would have gone on and on and the chase to get Melanoma's opinion (Remember, she refused to move down to DC for 5 months after her inauguration appearance) constant reminders that she was pregnant went the Stormy doinking went down...it would have a media nuke of a story. Hillary's emails couldn't compare to this.

Look at Melanoma now, all worked up over Bragg pressing forward about now.

Nope, it would have made a HUGE difference.

BN747

While Trump was a known douchebag, it's difficult for people to remember what they thought about him back then vs now.

The cult wasn't as strong, so it might have swayed enough votes.

Would not have changed a thing Comey saw to that....

The Grand Jury on the Ms. Daniels hush money probe reconvened today (Mon. March 27th) and heard testimony for a 2nd time from Mr. David Pecker, former editor and publisher of gossip paper 'National Enquirer'. Pecker (got to love his last name ). gave cover to Trump, paying money to other women who were claiming sexual acts with Trump, for exclusive rights to publish their stories but didn't. He was basically paying hush money for Trump. This just adds to the bigger pattern of Trump or who got others to pay hush money to cover up his affairs and sex outside of marriage. As the old saying goes, it may not be the initial crime that gets you, but the cover up. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... -rcna76525