Chomsky is an interesting speaker, but in the end not all that convincing. As an example, he says that elections are essentially bought, and then tortuously tries to rationalize that statement with Trump's victory (who spent far less than Clinton), claiming that free media (even though it was predominantly negative) made up for the shortfall in spending. To address the bulk of his address in the most succinct way possible, most of it jumps from the springboard of the listener accepting certain positions (global warming, economic conspiracy of an American aristocracy, the inherent correctness of secular views of pregnancy control vs. religious views) that would be difficult to defend if challenged.
As might have been predicted, you claim it was a victory for Trump to win millions fewer votes than Clinton. But to twist that into an argument that elections aren't bought because he spent less than she, stretches your logic past the breaking point, and in no way addresses Chomsky's assertion. He got the fewer votes he paid for.…he says that elections are essentially bought, and then tortuously tries to rationalize that statement with Trump's victory (who spent far less than Clinton), claiming that free media (even though it was predominantly negative) made up for the shortfall in spending.…
Let's keep this one simple. Trump spent far less than Clinton. The media coverage that Trump got, if it was greater than the attention Clinton got, was overwhelmingly negative. Trump won. Unless Chomsky also believes that voters are prone to do the opposite of what the media thinks they should do, the media coverage did not help Trump win. Ergo, the 2016 election is either an outlier from Chomsky's point of view, or disproof of his theory.As might have been predicted, you claim it was a victory for Trump to win millions fewer votes than Clinton, but to twist that into an argument that elections aren't bought because he spent less than she, stretches your logic past the breaking point, and in no way addresses Chomsky's assertion.
That would be more convincing had you not separated out and ignored the first part of that theory — which he actually states in the interview: That Trump's failure to win as many votes as Clinton aligns with his failure to raise and spend the money she did.Let's keep this one simple. Trump spent far less than Clinton. The media coverage that Trump got, if it was greater than the attention Clinton got, was overwhelmingly negative. Trump won. Unless Chomsky also believes that voters are prone to do the opposite of what the media thinks they should do, the media coverage did not help Trump win. Ergo, the 2016 election is either an outlier from Chomsky's point of view, or disproof of his theory.
Sorry, I assumed Chomsky knew how the electoral system worked. Maybe not.That would be more convincing had you not separated out and ignored the first part of that theory — which he actually states in the interview: That Trump's failure to win as many votes as Clinton aligns with his failure to raise and spend the money she did.
As for your media coverage, I didn't see what you call his "torturous rationalization" that "free media (even though it was predominantly negative) made up for [Trump's] shortfall in spending". But that's plain analysis, and accounting for results, what he stated earlier was a commonly held political theory, which the results confirmed.
Trump most certainly got more coverage, particularly in the non-MSM which devoutly favoured him, but also in the MSM which couldn't (still can't) get enough of his eyeball-grabbing clown show. That free publicity likely got him the votes he didn't have the money to buy, and he got them where they translated into Electors, which got him the job.
If you want to set up a Chomsky Media Theory, and knock it down, then it either has to fail because Trump got more coverage but fewer votes i.e. lost (I buy that, but as I said, I don't find evidence of such a general theory). Or it has to fail because he got less coverage and more votes, and while you claim he didn't get the coverage, we all know she got the most votes. QED. You've proven Chomsky right.
Of course truth is, he's in the White House because the system he called "corrupt and rigged", loudly and often put him there put him there. And fixing it will aalways be last on his TDL. But Chomsky's politics are not that sort of down in the mud stuff.
He also got fewer votes then Clinton.Let's keep this one simple. Trump spent far less than Clinton.
You must mean how it is operated. Clearly it isn't working when it puts the loser of the vote in office, and even he claims it's rigged.Sorry, I assumed Chomsky knew how the electoral system worked. Maybe not.
How much did Putin spend?The popular vote nonsense will last as long as the recount version did with Bush.
The fact that Trump won spending a fraction that Hillary did shows just how little impact money has on elections.
Most recent house race in GA is an even more dramatic example, Dem spent 6X the GOP canidate In a district that Trump won by low single digit % and yet the GOP canidate won.
Your ignoring the PACs. Clinton still spent more but not by the dramatic amount you claim.The fact that Trump won spending a fraction that Hillary did shows just how little impact money has on elections.
Most recent house race in GA is an even more dramatic example, Dem spent 6X the GOP canidate In a district that Trump won by low single digit % and yet the GOP canidate won.
You must mean that buying three hundred Electoral votes comes a good deal cheaper than winning the votes of most Americans. There's no disputing that.The popular vote nonsense will last as long as the recount version did with Bush.
The fact that Trump won spending a fraction that Hillary did shows just how little impact money has on elections.
…
Heck, if Bernie shoulda come outta his convention the winner, then there's any number of Republicans who shoulda beaten Trump, going in and coming out. I always though Kasich was the most reasonable-sounding.If the popular vote meant anything it would have been a Trump vs Bernie election. But Clinton got way out ahead of Bernie due to her political clout (which she has all but destroyed since).
Cash isn't the only form of capital.Chomsky is an interesting speaker, but in the end not all that convincing. As an example, he says that elections are essentially bought, and then tortuously tries to rationalize that statement with Trump's victory (who spent far less than Clinton), claiming that free media (even though it was predominantly negative) made up for the shortfall in spending. To address the bulk of his address in the most succinct way possible, most of it jumps from the springboard of the listener accepting certain positions (global warming, economic conspiracy of an American aristocracy, the inherent corr