The "emotional group" was the left, who wanted to hear so they could hate;

And they predictably emotionally overreacted to each of these things in turn, hence actually promoting them to the people who kinda liked the ideas, and leaving no air in the room for anything else.

And this is one reason my question "What would you say was Hillary's most memorable, popularly repeated and heavily debated policy proposal?" ...got crickets.

Thus allowing the Trump campaign to have messages that were far stronger and more widely spread than the opposition, even as they were outspent two to one.

Who elected Trump, YOU did.

From the NY Times of 17 Nov 2016:
When your supporters are emotional, then fake news becomes fact. Same also 'proved' Saddam had WMDs. More examples of how Trump just kept throwing shit on the wall until something stuck. It works best on emotional adults - who still think like children. Who know what is 'true' without bothering to first learn underlying facts and 'reasons why'.

The emotional mostly focus on and are best manipulated by negative reports.

Jon Stewart explains why liberal thinking of the Trump support "monolithically" is hypocritical:

I knew it as soon as the term "Bernie Bros" became a thing--implying that "sexism" was the root cause of differing political viewpoints (and ignoring the real issue(s)--corporate money in politics, wealth inequality, and economic stagnation for the working class over a DECADES-long period).

I knew it as soon as "Bernie Bros" were called "violent" at the Nevada convention--the Democratic Establishment and their propaganda arm (mainstream media) colluded to disparage the PEOPLE (the actual VOTERS) instead of the candidate (much less the candidate's ideas).

I saw the same HRC campaign stunts in the General Election--catching Trump flat-footed with the Machada "surprise" attack--and the media already having days worth of stories and interviews ready to dominate the airwaves!--the same "liberal media" shenanigans that Conservatives had bemoaned for years--and HRC's campaign had already PROVED were true (to the Dem's own, most-enthusiastic voters!) by railroading Bernie with the same dirty attack style.

The one burning topic that the Democratic Elite failed to recognize--regular American's POCKETBOOKS--is what won the election for Trump (ironically, a billionaire con artist), and the very area where Bernie (a scandal-free, voter enthusiasm goldmine) excelled. Now the Democrats are left with no recognizable ideas that anybody cares about (like the environment, income inequality--you know, things they DIDN'T talk about), and left with the same garbage approach that lost them an election to--literally--an orangutan.

Democrats made their platform political correctness. Turned out doing that was politically incorrect.

So much THIS!!!

UK needs migration 'because native Britons are bloody stupid', says pro-EU lord

~ well that will convince them to vote for it ~

This is exactly what Mr Pie was talking about.

Sounds like the kind of thing Infi might also think bears repeating; but, wouldn't to throw someone else a bone.

Sooo well put.

Oh good. The Democrats chose Nancy Pelosi as their leader for the 8th time in the House of Representatives. That's just what they needed to do to find a new path forward into the future. I'm sure she will have lots of fresh new ideas that resonate with the voters and invigorate the party.

Yup, I'm sure everyone is THRILLED with this choice.

Awesome, because what we needed was more people on both sides of the aisle being absolutely disgusted with the tone-deafness of their own party, mentally checking out of the whole political process, and reluctantly voting for garbage candidates.

The state of journalism.

http://cellar.org/2016/bloomcty-modernjourn.jpg

It's personal anecdote time

Back in 1999 my then friend Thom (cellar username: darling) developed a large amount of the Eagles' web site, and I helped; and on Draft Day 1999, we were in the media room, building the Draft Day page as facts developed. It was supposed to be the first time fans could follow the draft on the site. No live video, this was 1999, but we would update the page throughout the day and have stories and details and whatnot.

When Donovan McNabb was drafted, one of the first things that went down was a live chat with Donovan and the fans.

After it happened we set up a web page with a bunch of questions, along with McNabb's responses to them. A bunch of reporters happened to be looking over my shoulder as I set it up, and they all kinda noticed that here were a bunch of QUOTES from the player, all ready and written down and stuff.

You see, that's what they were there for. The reporters would get quotes, put them around their story, and then they would have real journalism. That was like, the point, or something; someone specifically talked to the person, live, and asked them things, wrote it down and here it is in the newspaper.

Which is why you'd have a press conference where a bunch of reporters would ask questions.

But when the reporters noticed all the quotes, I could see the lights going on in their heads... hey there are the quotes I was looking for... real quotes of the player... and they actually jotted them down, in their notebooks, while reading the web page.

And I realized they were going to take these quotes and put them in the newspapers that would be printed and appear on people's doorsteps, 14 hours later. And I thought, wow, I am seeing the change in journalism right here.

Because everyone who gives a damn could have seen these quotes, and MANY more of them, directly from the source. There's no need to gather people in a room and ask questions. The room is now the chat room and the source is the website. Everyone see it who wants to. Everyone who wants to ask questions can ask questions. The quotes are the same they ever were. Why have sports reporters at all?

Now it's 15 years later and I don't pay so much attention to the media, now, but on Trump, it's kind of reduced to reading tweets and gathering angry reactions at them, isn't it? Well WTF does anyone need that for?

In theory, the reporters were still needed because they would make sure that you (the webmaster) didn't just make that shit up. The reporter was the guy who put his credibility on the line and said, "Yeah, I was in the room and I saw him say it and I'm willing to be fired if it turns out I'm wrong."

It's people's trust in their own egos that has allowed them to be snowed by the people who just completely, 100%, make shit up. The "I'm too smart, I read it with my own two eyes, no one could fool me," attitude. Not saying the news right now doesn't suck, it absolutely does--but that was a natural market reaction in tandem with the reporters getting lazy and the people saying they didn't need the old style of news anymore.