Meet the leaders who’ll make the news this election season
“The biggest news story of the year,” the New York Times headline declared at the start of its story about the 2016 presidential election.
The article, published on Nov. 18, said the election would be “the most consequential election in modern American history.”
“A month later, the nation’s first woman is president,” it continued.
“This election is shaping up to be the most consequential presidential election in American history, with all the consequences that entails.”
A week later, at the top of its article on the election, the Times said, “Americans will finally see how they voted.”
But then came the first major story about a potential winner.
“The election is a coronation, and the news will be about a coronating Trump,” the Times declared.
“And what’s in store for all of us in the coming months?”
What was going on?
Was the election being played for a TV audience?
Or was it an event broadcast live on cable networks?
What if the news had been more in-depth, like what it had been for the last four years of the George W. Bush administration?
Or the election had been a national spectacle, like the 1996 race between Bill Clinton and Al Gore?
The 2016 election has never been about the election.
It has been about who wins and loses the most votes.
And this year, there’s a lot of work to do to ensure that happens.
The political system has been stacked against voters of all political persuasions.
The media has been in a constant state of spin and spin-doctoring about who is going to win and lose, and who is doing well and who isn’t.
And it’s hard to imagine a system that doesn’t continue to be rigged in favor of the few at the expense of the many.
As the news broke that Donald Trump would be the next president of the United States, for example, the Washington Post headlined its story, “Donald Trump Has a Chance.”
“He’s the next Republican president,” the article declared.
But the headline didn’t tell the full story.
“Trump is not the next GOP president,” wrote John Solomon at National Review.
“He may be the last Republican president.”
“Trump has no political party.
He is an egoist, an opportunist, and an ignoramus,” wrote David Brooks at The Washington Post.
“His only goal is to gain power and get ahead.”
“His campaign strategy is to become president, while pretending that he’s not,” wrote Charles Krauthammer at Fox News.
“There’s no such thing as a perfect candidate for president, and he will have to work with whoever is in office.”
And there’s plenty of work left to do on that front.
In the wake of the 2016 election, there was a lot written about how the system was rigged in Trump’s favor.
It was a major theme of the campaign, as the Post’s story from Nov. 16 made clear.
“We now know that the electoral college was rigged,” the story declared.
And that was enough to set off alarm bells among Democrats.
After all, even the most cynical of observers knew that the election was being rigged against Trump, and even some of those most critical of the system, like former Democratic Senator Max Baucus, had warned about the possibility of rigging the election before the 2016 elections.
“I’m deeply concerned about the potential for voter fraud in this election,” Baucus told a congressional committee.
“It would be a very serious matter for us to investigate.”
But what about the Democrats themselves?
They were the ones who had rigged the system against Trump.
The Democratic National Committee had long been in the habit of rigging elections, as former party chairman Howard Dean has explained.
In 2008, Dean was the keynote speaker at a conference of the American Political Science Association in Washington, DC.
“When I got there, I was stunned,” he said.
“In the room, I found people with their hands up saying that this was the way the election should have been.”
But Democrats also knew that, if the party was going to get back into power in 2020, it needed to take care of Trump’s supporters.
In 2012, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, now a candidate for the Democratic nomination, made the case that Democrats needed to focus on the voters who didn’t support President Obama and “stop giving him a pass.”
She argued that they should focus on people who didn�t support the president in 2016, but who supported Trump in 2016.
“You can’t just be a loyal opposition party,” she said.
That was a reference to the Democratic Party, which had a long history of supporting Republicans who voted for the president, even when it didn’t reflect their values.
And yet Democrats had been the party that had consistently supported President Obama, even while Republicans had supported him.
And as a result, it had become the party of the Republican Party.
The Democrats’ 2016 election was an example of why. They won