Or you can say that it’s a failure of a nation which let it happen.
Agreed. We get the government that we deserve. American turnout was low in 2016. And we're paying price for that.
I don't know why these things persist, but we actually had a
record turnout in 2016 (the third highest for president since the voting age was lowered to 18 in 1971 no less).
It's only "low" when you compare it to the first place outlier of 2008, but no one should do that for obvious reasons. You don't use the record holder as a mean baseline, unless you have an agenda to make
anything you would compare that with lesser than it actually was (and/or are duped by people with such an agenda as it seems is the case with so many in the press and on the left that keep repeating this misnomer).
By the way, it works with Obama as well. If you compare 2008 to 2012, then turnout was "low" for 2012. But, again, you don't use the highest record ever as a mean baseline for comparison to properly assess it, other than to say something truly impressive (such as, it was the third largest turnout since 1971 or the like).
And, while we're at it you
also don't factor in the total pool of eligible voters (or, for that matter,
registered voters) other than as a factor of potential votes. As has been abundantly established, there are a myriad of reasons why someone doesn't vote (or register to vote), the majority of which having little to nothing to do with partisan/candidate issues (i.e., indicating a dislike of a candidate). Again, those on the right and with an agenda within the Democratic party always try to write the narrative that NO ONE liked Hillary--that everyone just "held their nose and voted" and other right wing talking points--but we have conclusive evidence that this is simply not the case.
Once you unpack all of the decades of Republican lies constantly hurled at Clinton and strip away ALL the undeserved feces from Sanders bots and look at her actual record dispassionately and without agenda, she has been nothing but a tireless defender of Democratic rights her entire life. I think the worst anyone can objectively say about her is that she is not as dynamic a speaker as her husband. In all other ideological matters, she is firmly and consistently left of center. She believes strongly in intelligent government regulation; a strong, but surgical and last resort military; diplomacy in all matters first and foremost; equal rights for all, equally applied; a strong economy promoting American interests (as all Presidents should); and a society of inclusiveness where everyone helps each other to work out mutual problems/issues. Etc.
Yes, I know, I can hear the feces sluicing down your collective colons--most likely "neoliberalism" weighted--but, again, if you set aside your own political bias/ideology for just ten seconds and think instead what qualities are necessary for the
job of President--and it is a job--the fact that she doesn't give great speech (ironically) is the most irrelevant part of the job.
Plus, the very fact that ten thousand tons of shit have been dumped upon her for three decades from the Republicans (which has infected a small but vocal and persistent minority of liberals) conclusively proves that she was the one they most feared. If nothing else sinks in,
that fact--that they went to such herculean lengths to repeatedly beat her down for
decades--proves all on its own how much they feared what she could have accomplished in the office against their agenda.
It can't be both ways; that she's "just like them" while at the same time they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the decades to constantly undermine her at every turn. Again, that fact
alone should be all the proof anyone would need in regard to where she stands in the political landscape.
