Ezra Klein: Democrats don't need to convert Trump supporters

[gollygee]

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/7/13854512/who-are-trump-supporters

Indeed, exit polls show that a staggering 60 percent of voters said they had an unfavorable view of Trump on Election Day. Clinton’s problem was that she only got 77 percent of the votes of Trump-disapprovers, likely because her own favorable ratings were also terrible.

Trump pulled off the impressive feat of crushing Clinton among voters who disapproved of both candidates, while another large chunk of them opted to vote for a third-party candidate.

The marginal Trump voter — and the median American — already doesn’t like him. He was able to win in 2016 thanks to a combination of third-party voting, Clinton’s unpopularity, and the quirks of the Electoral College. Under the circumstances, keeping up a drumbeat of criticism that “Trump supporters don’t care about” is actually a perfectly reasonable strategy.

There’s no particular need to find a magic formula to lift the scales from the eyes of Trump’s biggest supporters or to shatter his stranglehold and Republican Party loyalists. Democrats don’t necessarily need to convince a single Trump fan to stop liking him. What they need to do is find a way to convince the people who don’t like Trump to support their nominee instead.

[leftofcool]

1. It's the new Progressive era, Ezra. They love Trump. He's against the TPP.

[truebluegreen]

22. So is Hillary. Last I heard.

[90-percent]

38. "As it's currently written"

Totally set off my lawyerspeak loophole-ology meter off the charts.

Trumps anti TPP was one thing he was dead set against much more consistently than most of his tweetings. However, those of us that consider themselves adequate critical thinking progressives knew quickly that "America will be so great you'll get tired of being great", etc., was perhaps a little bit unrealistic.

I supported and still support Bernie, but voted for Hillary. Classic no real choice allowed lesser of two evils and especially PTB business as usual establishment. Hil had a line up of revolving door plutocrats and agents like David Brock, who to me is a Karl Rove strip mall bar elvis impersonator.

-90% Jimmy

[truebluegreen]

47. Yep. That was a dodge that fooled no one.

[Eleanors38]

48. You and 90 percent wrapped that up. NEXT!!

[Martin Eden]

66. It's the New "Populist" Era

Many significant factors affected this election, but perhaps the biggest was an enormous backlash against the Washington establishment.

Trump played the role of a populist who would "drain the swamp" and fix what was wrong with Washington, and the Democrats nominated someone widely perceived as an establishment politician. It doesn't matter that Donald Trump is a greedy rich asshole who doesn't give a fuck about the fools who voted for him. Perception beats reality.

Trump is certain to piss off all but his most fervent deluded fans. It's an opportunity for the Dems to claim the mantle of champion for the American worker. Real policy changes to shift the fruits of our economy away from the oligarchs and back towards the majority are very important, but even more important is the message and the perception that will be created by constantly hammering home what we will do to make things better.

We don't have to try to appease the deplorables. We have to motivate the non-deplorables to come out and vote for candidates and a Democratic Party they can believe in.

[quakerboy]

79. +1

[SHRED]

2. We just need to get Democrats to vote

[Orsino]

31. We need to get non-voters to vote, too. n/t

[putitinD]

54. why, they have to vote on broken voting machines that don't record their vote after standing in line

for 6 hours.

[Missn-Hitch]

70. That is effing outrageous.

Why in the hell do the residents of your state put up with that nonsense?

I received my ballot in the mail 2 1/2 weeks prior to election day. I voted from my recliner with 3 fingers of Johnny Walker at my side. I mailed in my ballot 1 week before election day. This is for every resident.

Cheers.

[putitinD]

78. I like to vote in person, I don't trust the absentee system, they have been known to change votes,

or just trash the ones they don't like. I vote in the suburbs, its a different world than in the inner city. Never have to wait more
than 5 minutes here.

[KittyWampus]

52. What do we do about Democrats who can't vote because if required photo id's?

When Republican state legislatures are closing DMVs in minority neighborhoods?

[Missn-Hitch]

71. Schedule transportation to nearest DMV and get photo ID.

OR you can get the hell out of there. OR hope it becomes a Democratic legislature. Since the last two options probably won't happen, see title of this post.

Not being flippant, just really pissed off that you have hurdles, obstacles and moats to navigate in order to cast a vote.

I don't.

Cheers.

[forjusticethunders]

81. Forget Motor Voter, try Motor State ID

[NRaleighLiberal]

3. Not only no need.....really, no possibility

Anti science, anti change, all sorts of -isms, one issue voting, and with the always inevitable exceptions - no possibility at all.

[TwilightZone]

4. Agreed. Turnout is more important.

There's a sizeable chunk of Trump voters who we'll never get through to, regardless of our message. Our time would be better spent refining our message and expanding our GOTV efforts to get more non-voters to the polls. We have the numbers in many areas, if we could just get them to the polls.

Increasing and maintaining better turnout is the key.

[duffyduff]

20. You can't get through to ANY of them.

There are literally tens of millions of people who didn't vote, and those are the ones to focus on.

Bigots you cannot change--ever.

[forgotmylogin]

5. Where's this "crushing Clinton"?

She got more votes than he did!

[gollygee]

6. Read the rest of the sentence

". . . Among voters who disapproved of both candidates."

[geek tragedy]

7. Run a relatable, scandal-free talented fresh face

who can project authenticity.

Should be simple enough ...

[Fast Walker 52]

39. Yes. It's not that complicated, though I don't know why it always seems that way

ooh look! Joe Biden wants to run!

not exactly a fresh face and scandal free but hits the other points.

He really should've run in 2016 though I'm not even a big fan of his, he would have given some extra juice to the primary and might have won the nom. He might have forestalled the Bernie people too.

[still_one]

8. They had help. Comey, the news media, the 2013 Supreme Court ruling against the voting rights act,

14 states who implemented new voter laws, targeted mostly at minority voters, along with the social media's proliferation of fake-news, and actually lying from the MSM 11 days before the election.

When Comey released the letter to the republicans in congress, the first network to LIE about that letter was MSNBC. They had it as "breaking news: email investigation reopened". That was a LIE. For the next hour, MSNBC paraded every right wing politician across their screen to perpetuate that LIE. Soon the other network lemmings followed with the same lie. Just as things were starting to quiet down, fox news bret baier came out and said "due to his inside sources within the FBI, an imminent indictment was going to happen against the Clinton Foundation". That also was a LIE. For 48 hours, that LIE went out from Google News, social media, and other outlets. Then Mr. Baier came out and apologized, and said he made a mistake, their was no indictment against the Clinton Foundation. Rachel Maddow on MSNBC was so overcome by bret baier's apology, that she told her viewers that Mr. Baier was such a good reporter because he admitted a mistake and apologized for it. However, that didn't stop fox from continuing the LIE, or the other outlets.

but a funny thing happened. In spite of all the lies, distortions, and double standards used against Hillary, she won the popular vote.

Because of that perversion in our republic, it is the red states that determine the election. That was what the whole concept of Nixon's southern strategy was about

[mopinko]

11. yeah, that's the part they got that we didnt.

not only would the bigots vote for him, the system was rigged to give the bigots more representation.

[CrispyQ]

27. Who cares about the popular vote?

The GOP controls Congress, the White House & they have a trifecta in a majority of the state governments. It doesn't matter that they did it by lying, cheating & stealing. They are in control. We are seriously fucked, while democrats placate themselves that they won the popular vote.

Click the buttons to the left of the map at this link & watch the nation turn red: https://ballotpedia.org/State_government_trifectas

[still_one]

44. you are damned right we are f**ked. Every Democrat running for Senate in a swing

state lost against the establishment republican incumbent

[CrispyQ]

53. The GOP will act fast & bold.

There will be no bipartisan outreach like the dems foolishly tried in '08. They will slash & burn the safety net, they will go after our reproductive rights, they will sell off our Commons for pennies on the dollar to their corporate contributors, they will make voting even more difficult for minorities & the poor, & they are probably already working on new laws that will keep them in power forever. The damage they will do in the next 2-4 years will be stunning. The dems didn't just drop the ball, they lost the fucking game.

on edit: I know I sound alarmist, but I'm seriously frightened for our country.

[still_one]

59. You are right to be frightened. What we are depending on is a few republicans in the Senate who

will allow the filibuster to stand.

For social security and medicare, there might be enough republicans who might prevent that, but it will be close.

We have 65 million people under the safety net, and they are very popular programs.

The ACA has insured 20 million people, many who could not get coverage before.

For reproductive rights, we are dependent on Kennedy and Roberts. Not a very comfortable situation, and yes, women's reproductive rights and health issues are at risk.

The poor and the minorities are going to be impacted the most, though we will all feel the pain.

Problem is 2018 doesn't bode well for the Democrats, and as you said the potential for damage in the next 4 years, is a nightmare

[Fast Walker 52]

40. No doubt, as I have written many times-- the media killed the Dems more than any other factor

because EVERYTHING is filtered thru the media.

[Eleanors38]

49. Everything? Twitter, too?

[mopinko]

51. yeah, which tweets get good play and which dont.

[Eleanors38]

58. Heh. Tens of millions read tRump's twits; the media must wait to pick over 'em.

Even the finest critic must first wait, then sift through the leavings of the poorest artist. Trump knows social media better than the most hep cat among us.

[Eleanors38]

80. You touched on the crux: What institution gives legitimacy?

How long will the reign of MSM last, and when will it lose its ability to legitimize our societal mythology through "good play?" Trump used MSM as a secondary institution. By violating all the rules of civil discourse, and legitimizing himself via Twitter, he may be heralding the future.

[yallerdawg]

9. Why is voting for a racist, piece-of-shit pig...

not the one common denominator we should be highlighting regarding each and every Corrupt Trump voter and the enablers who wasted their votes on ridiculous choices?

Why are the lies and the ignorance and the self-serving actions since November 8 not the media/reporters focus?

Why are they perpetuating a myth of his 'normalcy'?

I know I'm not buying what they are selling.

[Drunken Irishman]

10. Democrats don't have to radically alter anything...

There is no need for knee-jerk reactions to this election loss. It sucks. It stings. But it was the perfect storm for Democrats. And even then, their candidate won the popular vote by a comfortable margin.

The Democrats got bogged down in what hurt Republicans in 2012 - a nominee who spent the whole campaign on the defense. Romney was constantly defending past statements, Bain, his tax returns, his elitist image ... and it was just an avalanche to contend with. To be sure, Trump had his huge faults too...but at the end of the day, his appeal overshadowed the steady hand of Hillary's, who not only failed at authenticity (Trump sucked, but he was authentic...which I think helps candidates fight back scandal, as Bill Clinton was the master of this during his presidency) but the narrative she was a corrupt politician. Was it fair? Absolutely not ... but it is what it is.

If the Democrats run someone who's relative clean, with no scandals, even if they're not the most exciting candidate, they should win in 2020.

[NewJeffCT]

12. Democrats don't do well with boring candidates

Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry and Hillary Clinton. While they were all smart and competent policy wonks, they were not exciting candidates. Jimmy Carter was boring, but he was running after the biggest political scandal of the 20th century took down the previous president.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were exciting candidates and charismatic speakers. I don't think Hillary, Kerry, etc were bad speakers, just not as exciting as Bill or Barack.

And, remember when Watergate happened, Democrats had big majorities in both the House (250+ seats in total) and Senate (56 seats?). If a more serious scandal happens under Trump - a distinct possibility - will there even be Congressional hearings because Republicans control both houses?

[mountain grammy]

16. You've got something there.

Obama captured people's imaginations, and considering how bigoted a large number of Americans are, that was quite an accomplishment.

[Blanks]

30. I agree with you...

Especially when you compare Jimmy Carter's reelection bid versus Bill Clinton and Obama.

Carter looked defeated in 1980. Clinton and Obama touted their accomplishments, and kept touting them even when their detractors were tearing them down. Carter didn't respond that way, and both Gore and Hillary weren't really dynamic on the campaign trail because their message was "we are heading in the right direction, but more work needs to be done".

Carter looked 'all in'. Wonderful human being that he is, he just didn't get newcomers to politics motivated and excited with a message of 'stay the course'.

They could probably have been conditioned to combat that 'boringness' but honestly, they (at least Gore and Hillary) won, so it seemed like it was working.

I guess we've learned a very costly lesson.

[NewJeffCT]

33. Yes Al Gore and Hillary Clinton won the popular vote

but, it was close enough that Bush and Trump were able to steal it. Maybe a more charismatic politician wins in 2000? (Biden? Not sure who else was viable in 2000? Bill Bradley was another smart, very competent and boring type) Maybe Julian Castro wins this year because he is young and exciting and a good speaker (per his 2012 DNC speech)

But, to be honest, it's the same for the Republicans - Reagan was exciting to them, so he won. Bush Sr was boring, but was going up against more boring Mike Dukakis. However, once Bush Sr was up against the young and charismatic Bill Clinton, he lost. Then, boring Dole lost in 1996. "Fun" Bush Jr defeated boring Gore and Kerry because he was the guy that people wanted to have a beer with, and he excited Republicans. McCain and Romney were boring and up against young and charismatic Obama and lost. Trump - for all his lies and his faults - was exciting, good for TV ratings, and he turned out a lot of those rural white voters and won.

[Blanks]

60. I liked Gore...

But in hindsight, there are some things that they could have done to 'energize' him a bit.

Same with Hillary. I liked her, and after the first debate when she smiled, moved her shoulders and said "OK", if that had been the Hillary that we saw in the two weeks before the election. She'd have crushed Trump.

...but, and I said this at the time. She was ahead in the polls, there is no reason to drag Trump through the dirt, she was winning. I don't believe the results, because it's so unlikely that he turned it around the way we are led to believe, but I guess next time a 'no holds barred' approach might be better.

[Drunken Irishman]

68. Big reason I think Biden woulda cleaned his clock.

Joe is charismatic and good for TV. Plus he's tough as nails. Woulda loved seeing him debate Trump.

[lark]

36. Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden would have won in a landslide.

Both are charismatic and passionate defenders of the middle class and have no big negatives. I'm hoping Elizabeth will run for president in 2020. Joe's getting a little old, however if he's up to it, I say let them compete n the primary and then win the presidency.

[Drunken Irishman]

67. Yup. Hillary was always going to be a tough candidate to run.

[mopinko]

13. hillary's problem was that she only had one problem

whereas cheeto did something, or something came out, every.damned.day, more wretched than the last, but they just kept getting pushed off the front page by the next days outrage.

but w hillary it was email,email,email,email,email,email. all day, everyday.

it was a perfect storm.

[duffyduff]

19. The only problem she had was she was a woman.

The emails were nothing. It was all about the fact she is a woman, and these mostly white males can't stand for any woman to be better than they are.

[Eleanors38]

50. I don't think it was "email..." She most likely lost for the same rason she lost in '08.

She was a known quantity who wasn't very appealing or exciting, and not very specific (well, maybe about gun control). Florida went for medical pot by 71+%, and a black man won the state TWICE to get and retain the presidency. She 's been toting the same baggage for years. As one observer remarked: "She doesn't get more passionate, only louder."

[Gore1FL]

74. Her only problem was that she was a Clinton.

Jeb Bush got beaten too for the same reasons. George W. Bush ended political dynasties in the near term.

[McKim]

21. Au Contraire

Yes, we do need to alter something. We need to present candidates that have a wider appeal and who people can identify with a bit more. I cringed during the campaign and prayed that Hillary would dress in a more low key way and talk about working families, not just the middle class.
It is the Reagen Democrats that we need to attract as an important sector. A few more of these and she would have won. Yes, there was a barrage of false news and the media made a god out of Trump, but we have to look at our own stuff too. Otherwise we learn nothing.

[gollygee]

23. How could she have dressed in a more low key way?

What? You think her clothing choices were a factor?

She did talk about working families, both middle class and not. (Middle class families are working families.)

[mopinko]

77. are you joking? you think her clothes mattered?

i think you should think a little harder. jeebus.

[Renew Deal]

14. Klein's argument makes no sense and he knows it

We can't pretend that we can ignore some people that voted for Trump. Even more effective is convincing the non-Democratic supporters that Democrats are a better choice.

[duffyduff]

18. Nope. You can't do anything to reason with these people.

You forget almost half of the population doesn't vote.

Why the hell should Democrats waste their time on bigots and idiots?

I don't think you understand the mindset of the Trump voter.

[Renew Deal]

41. Many of "these people" voted for Obama

Twice! Were they bigots when they voted for Obama?

[TwilightZone]

69. Is there data to support that?

From what I've seen, we lost WI, MI, PA, because numbers in critical demographic groups were down, not because people switched from D to R.

One analysis, from Slate: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/12/the_myth_of_the_rust_belt_revolt.html

Their assertion is that Trump didn't flip votes - some of the Obama voters just didn't show up. Their numbers seem to largely back that up.

If that's the case, targeting Trump voters en masse won't help, at least not in those particular instances. We would instead need to improve turnout in the groups that reliably vote D, which, frankly, I think is a better approach anyway.

Obviously, we target everyone we can, but I'm not sure the "Obama voters flipped to Trump in significant numbers" assertion can be substantiated.

[JI7]

82. not many

There are some who voted Hillary but not Obama also. But not many.

[lark]

37. We can't ignore ALL the people who voted for drumpf.

A lot of them, the KKKers, the Aryan Nationals, the I hate all immigrants or I hate brown folks or I hate Muslims, or I hate any woman as a leader will never ever come around. These are the deplorables Clinton mentioned. It's the ones who were snowed by the media's lies about Clinton, that didn't like don the con and hate lots of things about him that maybe can be won over by sanity. However, I also think we'd make a hell of a lot more headway with the non-voters than with anyone who had the awful stupidity to vote for Drumpf.

[Renew Deal]

43. At some point we have to convince people we are the better way

We can't just write some people off and hope for the best. Many are Obama supporters. In fact, most people like Obama now. A portion of those same Obama supporters voted for Trump.

I agree with the argument that you don't have to be racist to support Trump, but you have to overlook his racism. There are reasons other than race that people voted for Trump. We need to turn that around.

[Eleanors38]

55. Good points. More than a few DUers have been accused of racism, sexism, etc.

Are they off-limits and "deplorable?"

If DU members are to some degree racist, sexist, etc., then we are going to have a hard time finding many potential voters that pass a purity test or survive the mind field of conversation, here and at-large.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

15. There were families that proudly voted against a Clinton and then went out for ice cream.

[duffyduff]

17. The Democratic Party doesn't need racists and sexists.

Those who don't vote--half of the adult population--are a much better prospect than people who were raised a certain way and cannot change.

[Eleanors38]

56. Half that don't vote: You have scant respect for prospecting the militantly apathetic.

[DeminPennswoods]

24. Let's face facts

A LOT of people just did not like Hillary, in fact many people actually hated her. A friend of our family was like that. There was no real reason for it, but hate Hillary our friend did. I suppose that's a product of 30 years of scandal-mongering against her and her own personality which isn't bubbly and warm on the surface.

[StevieM]

42. Her popularity was sky high 3 or 4 years ago. Then the McCarthyism began.

It would have happened to any Democratic nominee.

[OnionPatch]

63. I agree

30 years of RW lies and smears did the job on her image. I know a few people who normally vote Dem but did not vote at all this time because they just didn't like her. When I pressed them for reasons, they couldn't really come up with any. Mostly just that they didn't trust her.

[ancianita]

25. Do not recruit. Never recruit.

[Eleanors38]

57. Oh, no! That is work and humility. You sweat. Get B.O. Drink cheap beer at 11 p.m.

[TwilightZone]

72. No, we're going to recruit.

The question is whether we're going to focus mostly on a group that includes a significant number of people who are likely unreachable or on a group who usually supports Dems but didn't show up to vote as heavily as in past elections.

The latter option is worth our time more than the former, in my opinion. I think refining our message and focusing on turnout of reliably Democratic groups is a better option than trying to convert Trump supporters. Probably much more efficient, too.

If the message is sound, the reasonable Trump supporters will probably consider us after a couple years of Trump anyway.

[DK504]

26. Think maybe Comey had anything to do with her defeat?

Where the hell is the AG? Where the blasting statement for him going over her head and fix the election. Thanks Comey.

[vi5]

28. There are more non-voters likely to be convinced than Trump voters.....

That's who we should be focusing on. For many of them their goals and beliefs are progressive. And rightfully or not they don't see the current Democratic party as doing enough to support those goals. So maybe if we work harder on convincing them that the Democratic party DOES and WILL, that will be a much more fruitful endeavor that will yield actual results than will pandering to racists and idiots who voted for Trump.

[certainot]

29. the majority of clinton unpopularity was a direct result of

giving a few hundred think tank scripted blowhards a free speech free ride on 1200 radio stations a free speech free ride for 25 years - because it was based on bullshit only that unchallenged PSYOPs could sell

the amazing thing is as many as 1/3 of those stations, including most of the loudest ones, parasitize more than 90 and as many as 150 major university sports programs

the stations need to be able to rent those logos to attract advertisers to pay to deny global warming and defund public education (to privatize it and raise tuition! ) and excuse racism (on the backs of a lot of black athletes!).

without that PSYOPs getting a free speech free ride from liberals, without those universities crapping all over their mission statements, the right and trump would be paralyzed.

and they wouldn't be able to swiftboat the next lineup of dem candidates

send this email to student groups and uni newspapers:

xxxxx

Your school is on a list of 88 universities at republiconradio.org that broadcast sports on 257 of Rush Limbaugh’s 600 radio stations. They could also be called Trump radio stations.

Your university is not only mocking it’s own mission statement, it is undermining the interests of most of its students, faculty, employees, and surrounding communities.

That makes your own school a legitimate place to protest any issue related to the Trump agenda.

Many of those relationships began prior to the 90’s, before they all began broadcasting propaganda for one party. There is no reason for those schools not to start looking for apolitical alternatives immediately.

The school administration will claim that it does not make business decisions based on politics.This is a question all those schools need to ask: If a radio station went to KKK programming would the university still let its mascot be used to sell a KKK agenda?

Those stations weigh in on elections for university regents and selection of administration including presidents and chancellors - is there a conflict of interest?

All of those stations will continue to deny global warming, deny reproductive rights to women, excuse racism and homophobia, and promote and excuse the Trump agenda. Republicans want to privatize public education, social security, and the post office. Their policies will raise college tuition. They want to reverse gains in health care reform. They want to end net neutrality. Those stations will be cheerleaders for the next war, as they were for the last one.

The station pays a licensing company a fee and the school gets a part of that. The station then gets to use the school logos, mascot, and community standing to attract advertising revenue. It gets to declare things like “850 KOA, home of the Buffs,and Rush Limbaugh!” Compared with TV licensing revenue talk radio stations pay very little.

Advertising revenue is used to fund station operating costs and pay for the national and local talk show hosts that broadcast from them most of the day.

Except for occasional innocuous programming all of those stations operate exclusively for the benefit of the Republican Party. They are coordinated with national and state GOP and their allied think tanks

If Trump would pay $1000/hr for a radio ad, 1200 nationwide stations x 15hrs/day x 5 days/week are worth about $5BIL/yr FREE for Trump. 255 x $75,000 = $19,125,000/WEEK FREE for Trump, or about $1BIL/yr endorsed by institutions of higher learning.

Those stations, licensed to operate in the public interest, are heavily dependent on the schools they parasitize and they all:
- deny global warming and science
- use public airwaves to sell voter suppression legislation
- use and excuse racism, misogyny, homophobia, and hate to divide communities
- work to deny reproductive rights for women and access to contraception
- fight environmental regulation, push fracking, and always support fossil fuel solutions over renewables
- fight to defund and privatize public education, attack teachers and work to lower their salaries, attack their unions, push voucher solutions and standardized testing, and obstruct efforts to lower student debt
- fight efforts to increase minimum wage
- undermine the economic and environmental interests of their communities
- use public airways to repeat propaganda that is demonstrably false and continue to lie after being corrected
- use public airwaves but use call screeners to exclude dissenting callers

How much revenue does the licensing company pay for radio broadcasting portion compared to the TV portion? Could donors make up the difference if there is a monetary loss? If there is a loss, how does it compare with the harm it is doing to its own principles, funding, students, and surrounding communities?

Are they violating their 501c3 tax exempt status? Here’s the IRS rule for political activity:
“Political activity. -  If any of the activities (whether or not substantial) of your organization consist of participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, your organization will not qualify for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3). Such participation or intervention includes the publishing or distributing of statements.”

No university has a good excuse not to reexamine it’s relationship with partisan radio stations and look for apolitical alternatives. If an existing contract cannot be voided without penalty, can donors be found to cover it?

Any university, state or private, supporting Republican talk radio is shooting itself in the foot, demeaning its mission statement and professed goals and values, and harming its students’ futures.

Here is that list of universities ($1000 x 15hrs/day x 5days = $75,000/week):

ALABAMA 8 $600,000 Auburn 3, Alabama 2, Southern Alabama 2, Troy 1
ARIZONA 1 $75,000 Arizona St. 1
ARKANSAS 3 $225,000 Arkansas 3
CALIFORNIA 5 $375,000 San Jose State 2, USC 2, Fresno St. 1
COLORADO 4 $300,000 Air Force 2, Colorado 1, Colorado State 1
CONNECTICUT 1  $75,000 Connecticut 1
FLORIDA 20 $1,500,000 Florida 10, Florida St. 4 Miami 2, South Florida 2, Central Florida 2
GEORGIA 14 $1,050,000 Georgia 7, Georgia Tech 5, Georgia Southern 2
IDAHO 7 $525,000 Boise St. 4, Idaho 3
ILLINOIS 7 $525,000 Illinois 7
INDIANA 11 $825,000 Notre Dame 6, Purdue 4, Indiana 1
IOWA 5 $375,000 Iowa 4, Iowa St. 1
KANSAS 4 $300,000 Kansas St. 2, Kansas 1, Wichita St. 1
KENTUCKY 3 $225,000 Louisville 2, Kentucky 1
LOUSIANA 3 $225,000 LSU 2, La.-Monroe 1
MARYLAND 2 $150,000 Maryland 2
MASSACHUSETTS 1 $75,000 Boston College 1
MICHIGAN 19 $1,425,000 Michigan St. 11, Michigan 7, Western Michigan 1
MINNESOTA 4 $300,000 Minnesota 4
MISSISSIPPI 6 Mississippi St. 3, Mississippi 2, Southern Miss 1
MISSOURI 6 $450,000 Missouri 6
NEBRASKA 6 $450,000 Nebraska 6
NEVADA 1 $75,000 Nevada 1
NEW JERSEY 2 $150,000 Rutgers 1, Seton Hall 1
NEW MEXICO 3 $225,000 New Mexico 2, New Mexico St. 1
NEW YORK 7 $525,000 Syracuse 6, Army 1
NORTH CAROLINA 16 $1,200,000 North Carolina 8, North Carolina State 3, Duke 3, East Carolina 2
OHIO 10 $750,000 Ohio St. 6, Toledo 1, Dayton 1, Bowling Green 1, Xavier 1
OKLAHOMA 5 $375,000 Oklahoma St. 3, Oklahoma 1, Oral Roberts 1
OREGON 12 $900,000 Oregon St. 7, Oregon 5
PENNSYLVANIA 14 $1,050,000 Penn St. 11, Pittsburgh 2, Temple 1
SOUTH CAROLINA 4 $300,000 South Carolina 2, Clemson 2
TENNESSEE 7 $525,000 Tennessee 4, Memphis 3
TEXAS 16 $1,200,000 Texas A&M 9, Texas Tech 4, Texas 1, Texas Christian 1, Baylor 1
UTAH 1 $75,000 Utah St. 1
VIRGINIA 6 $450,000 Virginia Tech 5, Virginia 1
WASHINGTON 6 $450,000 Washington 5, Washington St. 1
WEST VIRGINIA 2 $150,000 West Virginia 1, Marshall 1
WISCONSIN 5 $225,000 Wisconsin 5

There is no excuse for any school to support Trump radio.

[McKim]

75. Brilliant Post

This is a brilliant and important idea. We need to squelch Republican Radio. It is poinsoning. The airwaves and dumbing down our country. This is the first idea I have seen that would give us a way to defund this dangerous propaganda machine. I am grateful to the writer and would be happy to contribute to anyone who wants to take this on.

[certainot]

76. thanks. i think it comes down to some organization that can do this

preferably the organizations at the schools
they need to know their activism is being negated by their own unis.

another angle is all those sports talk stations and some music stations out there that would love to get those broadcasting rights. the sports talk stations might have incentive to do stories that would expose this parasitism.

most sports talkers are much more connected to reality than the rw radio blowhards and their hardcore audience - and much of their livelyhood depends on being sensitive to racism - there's an issue - black athletes forced to support racist talk radio.....

[perdita9]

32. Have you watched an interview with an avid Trump supporter?

They don't care about his record or how many lies he's told. It's a cult of personality with them which will be scary when things start to go wrong--we won't be able to reason with them.

[gollygee]

34. Anyone who can believe

The stupid Comet Pizza fake story can't be reasoned with.

[Squinch]

35. He's not talking about the avid Trump supporter.

[StevieM]

45. The problem is that whoever the Democrats nominate will turn out to be a terrible human being

after the GOP gets done with them.

Remember the Swift Boat Veterans?

Remember when Al Gore was made out to be a mentally ill pathological liar because he said he went to Texas with the Director of FEMA when he had really gone with the Deputy Director of FEMA?

They would have brutally attacked Bernie Sanders, trying to turn him into Hugo Chavez. And I can only imagine what they had in store for Martin O'Malley. But there would have something, and it would have been good. And it probably would have involved the same corrupt FBI involvement.

And don't forget, HRC had stunning job approval and favorability numbers 3 or 4 years ago. Then the McCarthyism began.

The Democrats need to learn to better prepare for GOP lies.

[andym]

46. It was a battle of candidates with high unfavorables

Comey tipped the scale in his favor at the end. Clinton's unfavorables were resulted from an orchestrated GOP campaign to weaken her over several years. Trump's were built in.

[Cosmocat]

61. This is all fine and well - except Rs control by large margins every branch of government

from DC through the states.

People are whistling past the graveyard if they don't acknowledge the stage 4 cancer of stupid that this country now is fully infested.

[LaydeeBug]

62. He was able to perpetrate a fraud with assistance from a hostile foreign government

and they are just trying to explain away their complicity in this

[bucolic_frolic]

64. I can't help feeling

that the night is darkest prior to dawn

The Trump administration would be a house of cards

Because not one member, not one, not Trump, or Pence, or any of
his announced appointees, nor the people he associates with, nor
his media allies from Beck to Rush to Hannity

Not one of them is the brightest guy in the room

You or I wouldn't select them for dog catcher

Stupidity can't govern. It can rule, but it has no legitimacy in people's hearts.

This will be an unmitigated disaster.

[Cha]

65. Ezra's the one who said "We are the Majority.. start acting like it"

"We are the Opposition Party"

Thank you gollygee

[standingtall]

73. We should not ignore

all Trump supporters. I agree there are many that cannot be reached,but we can make a dent in it. There is room there especially among the independents that broke for Trump. You know the badly uninformed people that vote for change just for the sake of voting for change without considering it could be bad change.

We cannot rely on swelling the numbers of non white voters alone to win elections at least not yet. Maybe 50 years from now.

Getting the other 50% to vote may sound good,but it is not a reasonable expectations. For one thing if we have to rely truly inspiring candidates every election cycle. Our victories will be few and far between. We better teach people to get inspired by issues. Also 50% turnout is about right on the mark of what turnout usually is in America. I think only a few times has it been at or around 60%. Finally to get the turnout up about in every election. You need Government legislation to do that and right now we have very little power in Government.