How was the GOP able to demonize Hillary Clinton to the extent they did?

[kentuck]

Trump branded her as "Crooked Hillary" but the demonization began a long time before Trump.

It goes all the way back to Vince Foster and Whitewater and before.

In the end, Republicans would have preferred the Devil himself over Hillary Clinton. She was the most evil woman that ever walked this Earth.

We cannot minimize the power of propaganda over many years. With attacks from FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, and all of the right-wing media outlets in America, it took a heavy toll on Hillary's credibility. She had none with them.

We should not under-estimate the power of propaganda in the next election either.

[get the red out]

1. It can't be underestimated at all

The GOP propaganda is ruthless, a conspiracy theory factory, and makes the people who listen feel like they are the "good Americans", it is very tribal. Lies for years and years, decades, this is the reason people will vote against their interests.

[forgotmylogin]

22. Also, she's a woman.

I think many people have an ingrained misogyny that makes so-called bad men "scoundrels" and so-called bad women "ruthless bitches".

Being a "bad boy" is to some extent expected and, by many people, secretly admired. Being a "ruthless woman" makes one subject to scorn and does not carry the same balance of positive connotations.

A "dangerous woman" scares people more than a "dangerous man".

Also, saying bad things to and about a woman openly doesn't create a sense of risk avoidance. "What is she gonna do?" With a man, there's a measure of respect because you never know when they might turn around and sock you in the jaw for it.

(These are stereotypes and tropes I've inferred from observing other's behaviors and not reflective of my own beliefs.)

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

28. You've nailed it.

It also didn't help that Hillary Clinton had started off by offending a lot of women by (perhaps unintentionally) pissing off a lot of women by denigrating the cookie bakers.

People on the liberal side of the spectrum may not understand just how many people out there, both men and women, still think that no woman ever belongs in public life.

So the Republicans had a solid foundation of dislike of her that was very easy to build on.

I felt all along that Hillary Clinton was a very poor choice as our nominee largely because she was such a polarizing figure. I was at least partially wrong in that she did win the popular vote, but because of the electoral college system she's not President.

Here's what is so very disturbing about any and all continued conversation about her, and especially all the times Trump mentions her: She lost the election. He won. I'd say that she's pretty much let it go (or at least she doesn't go on and on about it in public) but he hasn't. He's the one who should be seeking professional help about this.

You're also absolutely correct about the "bad boy" aspect. Boys (and adult men) are all too often given a pass on despicable behavior with the "boys will be boys" excuse. Girls (and women) are expected to be perfect every time, and to live up to some impossible ideal, be it of beauty, behavior, or accomplishment.

[LisaM]

33. Oh, come on. They made Kerry and Gore polarizing figures, too, with almost zero cause.

All three would have made very fine Presidents and the country (and world) would have been far better for it. By saying that she's polarizing, you're giving into their narrative.

It's a tactic they use, and I think to some extent Democrats - and certainly the media - allow it to happen. Every time she's actually served in a role, her popularity numbers have been very high.

[forgotmylogin]

40. Kerry and Gore haven't received such the avalanche of continuous ire Hillary has.

Kerry is still working and hasn't been lingeringly scapegoated after he lost. Gore does his thing and although he is often the butt of conservation jokes, there's a neutral sense of "well, that's who he is" about it that is not as malicious.

[LisaM]

60. But, they were treated as polarizing figures as nominees, which is what you said.

The oppos against Gore, the weird narrative that he said he "invented the internet" (when he never said that), the mockery of his stance on climate change - and then the swift-boating of Kerry - which should never, ever be forgotten - it's part of what they do. They take these decent people and find some false narrative and flog it relentlessly. Hillary has come in for more of it, but I'm just saying that it's part of what the GOP does to its opponents.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

59. What Forgotmylogin said.

Hillary was a polarizing figure a very long time ago, long before she ran for President. That's a statement of fact, NOT giving in to their narrative.

Kerry and Gore were not turned into polarizing figures, but they did manage to trash the reputations of both men. There's a difference.

I will absolutely agree that the media allowed these things to happen.

[onit2day]

37. They attached so much baggage to her it was impossible to respond to the bulk of propraganda

So she ignored a lot of it. People believe what they want to be true until you prove to them it isn't true and that is backwards. The republican deplorables don't investigate for truth, only for support of already held beliefs. When you prove them wrong they won't admit they were wrong. They just get angry and change the subject or attack the messenger while they feed on that propaganda stew.

[progressoid]

64. They have no problem supporting women like Bachmann, Palin, Ernst etc.

And conversely, a lot of women support(ed) the misogynist in Chief, Trump.

So I'm, not sure being a woman is all that clear.

[bdtrppr6]

2. the so called liberal

MSM did nothing to actually support her or campaign. and it has gone on for years. all the stupid benghazi hearings that EVERYONE knew were total bullshit and media treated it as anything but the proverbial witch hunt. GOP and 90% of media go hand in hand. just like the news channels hate drumbf and his people, but it's only pukes on the screen talking about any subject. heaven forbid a rational Dem get to lead the exchanges.

[onit2day]

45. No such thing as Liberal media only Liberal talking heads. It's all corporate media

Any Clinton drama was better than none at all for these guys. Such a shame that anyone would accept the lies told about this woman without first checking out the sources. Because of all the accusations and investigations in this witch hunt Hillary has become the most vindicated person in America but still no apologies from these bloodsuckers. It's a shame and it is wrong but still it is the reality democrats have refused to accept. Hillary Clinton is tainted, scarred by innuendo and false accusations. It is an unfair reality but a reality all the same. All I can do about it is continue to support her against shameful adversity.

[tonyt53]

3. You left out the people most responsible - those that feel for that nonsense without questioning.

Hell, on here every day people were repeating that nonsense.

[SFnomad]

4. Repeat a lie, again and again and again

and eventually even "progressives" were repeating the Republican talking points and they have been for decades.

[Skidmore]

34. Yup, even here.

[DrDan]

5. I think rush gets credit for this - decades of Clinton-demonization

[MFM008]

6. Because there is

No difference between the parties. ......

[SDJay]

7. Lots of Reasons IMO...

1. As mentioned above, the pukes have a formidable propaganda machine. They've managed to turn the word 'liberal' into a slur.
2. One of the reasons this machine is so powerful is that it plays the age-old game of targeting rubes, making them feel left out and then 'empowering' them with 'knowledge' and such.
3. The Clintons came in after a period when 20 of the previous 24 years had seen a puke in the WH, with only one of them resigning in disgrace. That was a big change.
4. Bill Clinton was seen as a POTUS who only won on a plurality because of Perot, ie illegitimate.

Most importantly, I think HRC was and is a strong, incredibly intelligent and incredibly accomplished woman. She didn't take any shit from anyone and she doesn't suffer fools. A woman like this scares the fuck out of beta-men repukes who just want their stupidity to go unchallenged. In essence, she was an easy mark for the rube-mobilization machine because of her character and personality. A WOMAN telling me how things are? No way!

[L. Coyote]

8. Their hatred goes all the way back to Watergate, bright, young woman attorney bringing down Nixon.

And they went after her for using her "maiden" surname after she married Bill.

The Roy Moore saga replays the thing Republicans are trying to accomplish with hyper-partisanship --- the Devil himself is preferable to any Dem, no matter how saintly, allows them to elect their entire troupe of corrupt bastards.

[kentuck]

11. Yep.

They have been able to portray themselves as more "moral" and more principled and more Christian and more righteous and more "American" than the Democratic Party.

On closer inspection, they are none of the above.

[Madam45for2923]

9. The worst part was the left soaking it up.

[HughBeaumont]

10. They targeted the Clintons almost with as much fervor as they did the Kennedys.

The GOP is and has always been threatened by anything they felt could become a dynasty.

Reagan and Bush I economically screwed this country almost beyond repair. They were losing lots of blue collar votes by the time Bill arrived on the scene. Both Clintons have become targets ever since. Charismatic Democrats are always going to beat old white Fascists on the issues . . . therefore, attack the person and church-addicted Americans fall for it.

[exboyfil]

14. You mean Edward "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy

whatever else he did in his career that was good, it should have ended the moment that he did not immediately report the accident.

[joshcryer]

57. "Almost"? They spent tens of millions of taxpayer dollars "investigating" them.

The witch hunts didn't span administrations they spanned GENERATIONS. We're talking decades and decades of investigation after investigation. Every single act done by the Clintons was scrutinized. It's why they are legitimately the cleanest politicians in history, because it started very early, and they have done everything they can to do things cleanly.

[exboyfil]

12. She did hand them a sword

by going with a single email for personal and State department business. Even though the precedent existed for some mixing, she basically did not use her official State department unclassified email. I still cannot understand why she would do this. Understanding the complexities with obligated retention of government material and the fact that, while the system was not classified, it did deal with sensitive information. Ownership of that security legitimately resided with the State department and not her.

Emails that were under subpoena where also destroyed. See above for why that was a problem. That is a huge no no and a red flag. Who gave the order? Apparently they were already supposed to have been destroyed prior to the subpoena.

If they are going to try to throw her in jail for having classified content on an unclassified system (whether it is the State department system or her own server), then everyone who stripped the classified information from classified documents should also be prosecuted going back as far as the statute of limitations through all past and even the current administration.

[Steven Maurer]

25. "I still cannot understand why she would do this."

Simple. Because it was always the way it was done.

The thing to understand about the Clintons is that regular stuff isn't a scandal until they do it.

Republicans and Republican owned media (which is nearly all of it) will never them for disproving the trickle-down theory. In 1993, Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, and far from taking the economy, it boomed.

The accelerationist left is similarly angry, because they really think that by putting Republicans into power to destroy the economy of the United States, the public will "wake up" to the virtues of Communism. They've never forgiven the Clintons for their center-leftism.

[NewJeffCT]

13. they have a huge media platform and discipline

with RW radio, all those RW newspapers and columnists, plus Fox News. If Rush says something, all the rest of them follow his lead and repeat his daily talking points almost to a fault. Once the anti-Hillary talking point makes the rounds there, the mainstream media then picks up on the story - even if they debunk the BS, the fact that it's been reported meant it was newsworthy. Repeat enough of the BS talking points over the years and some of it starts to sink in (the Clintons are too smart/too scary to be caught - "Slick Willie" wasn't just a sexual innuendo for Bill Clinton, it was also that he was too slick to get caught in RW eyes)

Not to mention, they have all those Scaife, Koch and other big money funded think tanks that generate BS books as well - Clinton Cash anyone?

If Democrats get talking points, they're not nearly as good at repeating them and staying on point. And, they're certainly not consistent about using them over the long-term, either.

and, the RW media machine can get fired up really quickly as well - after she testified before Congress for 11 hours on Benghazi and made the GOP look like fools, Hillary Clinton's poll numbers hit all time highs. But, the RW machine was able to quickly bring her numbers down with questions about her emails and the Clinton Foundation.

(And, the same thing would have happened to Sanders if he won the nomination - he would have been torn down in no time by the RW machine. His honeymoon to the USSR would have been a major issue, but Trump's Russia ties would also have been ignored until it was too late like they were with Clinton... the financial issues at the college his wife worked at would have been huge, but Trump's bankruptcies barely would have been talked about...)

[DownriverDem]

41. Rich win again

The right bought up the media and began their march to propagandize and brainwash the country. I've always leaned left and would never vote for anyone but a Dem. We have a two party system and by not voting for the Dem you just hand it to the repubs. I will never understand how folks thought if they voted 3rd party it would all work out. All that did was hurt so many of us every day.

[tblue37]

43. Dems don't do talking points or bumper sticker soundbites--but since the voting

public in general doesn't do nuance, Dems need to learn how to do sound bites and talking points.

[Caliman73]

15. I agree about not underestimating the lows to which they will sink.

I do not doubt that they will go after whoever the next Democratic nominee, or rising star in the party is. We have already seen it with Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker, etc... Hillary Clinton is a special case in the respect that she has been on the right wing radar for such a long time. Even looking on Facebook, there was that segment on Trump supporters who think that Hillary Clinton should be impeached despite her having no government position and really not even being that active in the Democratic party at all. There is a special delusional process that the right has with Hillary.

There is no real way to affect Fox viewers and those who stick to right wing media outlets. I think that in order to fight the right wingers in the general media, we need to focus less on the "personalities" we have in the party, and more on the platform and policies that will help people. We want to select a candidate that can articulate and defend Democratic positions well, and whose record is consistent on the positions, but I think we tend to focus too much sometimes on the face of the party and not the message.

We also have to keep letting the Republicans light themselves on fire.

[kentuck]

16. True...

They are very effective when they have been doing it for 20-30 years, as they did with Hillary.

"Pocahontas" has already been copyrighted by Trump.

[Caliman73]

27. I actually think that "Pocahontas" will backfire.

I mean, anything will work with Trump's base, but Scott Brown tried to use the whole Native American thing on Warren and that did not work.

I think that enough people in the country are understanding of the stupidity of using those kind of slurs that it would not really do more than charge up his base and turn other people off.

I think that plain sexism would work better, but I don't think that Trump would be able to help himself on the "Pocahontas" thing.

Hillary Clinton had been demonized with the idea that she was devious and calculating since the early 90's in a concerted manner. Trump just came in and in his vulgar, carnival barker style, stoked the fires that were already wide spread. Hillary also suffered for Bill's ego. He was really dumb for going to Lynch's plane, even if it was only to talk about the grand kids. Then there was the issue at the polling location. Those had nothing to do with Hillary at all, but his dumb behavior got tacked right on. She has been so maligned that a good chunk of the population will believe anything, even if they are complete lies (which 99% usually are).

[Skittles]

17. it's not just the right

there was an unbelievable amount of trash coming from DUers

[kentuck]

18. I think a lot of Democrats were guilty of buying into the propaganda...

...especially those that deserted the Party and voted for Donald Trump.

[Skittles]

20. I don't think any real Democrat could ever have voted for Trump

there was another option: not voting

the odd thing to me is the one thing I felt she could be trashed for - her IWR vote - was never mentioned by repukes, for the obvious reasons

[ehrnst]

19. She has been vetted more than any candidate ever.

They never find evidence of these "crimes" she has supposedly committed.

I've always thought, if she was able to hide all that evidence from all those who were trying to find it, she wouldn't need to run for office.

She could run the world from a bunker.

[njhoneybadger]

21. The same way 15 people were hanged in Salem

The Christian Right has been demonizing Hillary for as long as I can remember

[maddiemom]

35. Good Analogy!

[hamsterjill]

23. You are correct.

We cannot under estimate the POWER nor the AMOUNT nor the DEGREE of absolute HATE in this country either, particularly of strong women.

There is a percentage of the population that is not going to ever change. We have to circumvent those idiots and quit trying to reason with them or bring them over to our side. They are hopeless. The secret to a Democratic victory is in getting the large number of Democrats (there are more than Republicans!!!!) to the voting booth!!!!!!

[DownriverDem]

36. Agree

And part of the country hates Dems too. Why else is the hate for the Dems stronger than the hate for Moore the pedophile?

[populistdriven]

24. The Clintons earned extreme GOP demonization when Bill stole GOP voters

by compromising with the GOP and signing the bipartisan DOMA, DMCA, NAFTA, GATT, PRWORA, and the 1994 Crime Bill.

[DownriverDem]

32. Sad

The Art of politics is compromise, but the repubs destroyed that too.

[populistdriven]

68. Exactly! Obama trolled them even worse and left the GOP incapable of governing.

Passing Republican Health Care as Obamacare, with no GOP votes was the ultimate troll. All that is left of the GOP are the Trump Kleptocrats and the Bannon Nihilists. The only way the two sides can even cooperate is with financial assistance from the Putin Mafia. Hard to believe the Evangelicals fell in with the Kleptocrats until you realize they are used to getting ganked by Christian Right.

[Mr.Bill]

26. How did they do it? Repitition.

Why did they do it? Because they feared her.

[delisen]

29. It takes a Village to Stop Bullies - no matter who it is

No matter how strong one person thinks he or she is, it still takes the community to end bullying.

They were able to demonize because we did stand up to the Republican bullies

To a lesser extent we let the Republican bullies demonize
both Gore and Kerry.

[SunSeeker]

30. Sexism on both the left and the right created a fertile ground for such propaganda.

It became established, and the virulence of the propaganda made many of those who disagreed with it reticent to speak up and push back.

[DownriverDem]

31. Yep

The worst part for me is the left leaners who believed all the lies about Hillary in 2016. Every day I wake up disgusted over trump and the repubs. It saddens me to think what could have been.

[StevieM]

38. I completely disagree with the answers being given on this thread.

HRC had stunningly high job approval and favorability numbers when she was Secretary of State. And they lasted for a couple years after that. Hillary's problem wasn't long-standing attacks--it was new attacks.

In the end, she could have beaten Donald Trump in a landslide had it not been for the FBI getting involved and then scheming to destroy her to the extent that they did. That made it possible for even Donald Trump to beat her.

The answer to your question is simple: The GOP was able to demonize Hillary Clinton to the extent that they did because they had the FBI doing the job for them. That is an advantage that they have never had before. Actually, that is an advantage that by definition you are not supposed to have in a democracy.

[Podkayne K]

49. Say what?

The FBI has always been and remains today a right wing, paranoia machine that would rather go after non-threatening peace groups and liberals than the violent and virulent cretins that make up the anti-democratic white supremacists who have taken over the government, many religious institutions and businesses in this country and in many parts of the world. They hate the Clintons--and Comrade Comey was one of the leaders of that group--who would do almost anything to "get" them.

Along with alleged liberal media such as the NY Times and even WAPO, plus a group of elitists, HRC was harassed unmercifully for well over 40 years. The fact that she almost survived all of that and missed being President by the actions of one of her main adversaries Comrade Comey-is amazing in and of itself. But along with Heir Comey and his ilk, there is a lot of blame elsewhere.

Remember only two could win. If you didn't vote for her (or didn't vote), YOU VOTED FOR HIM!

[StevieM]

58. I agree with some of what you are saying but I disagree that anyone can compare to James Comey

in terms of their impact on this election.

Without Comey interfering she would have won in a landslide, all other factors not withstanding.

[Podkayne K]

65. Maybe it wasn't my best writing...

but I thought that's what I also was saying.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Calculating]

39. I know some women who hated her for not leaving Bill

It really crippled her moral high ground in their opinion, and they basically thought she only stuck with her "pervy" husband for political benefits.

[MatthewG.]

42. Part of it was her and her husbands flawed record.

Part of the problem with Hillary Clinton, who I did vote for, is that she and her husband were not in touch with the Party base on key issues. Consequently, many Democrats didn’t much like them, and people in the middle and the relatively apathetic heard anti-Clinton criticism from both sides for decades and assumed that they had to be awful people.

In terms of Hillary herself, her support for Bush Jr’s Iraq War - she was probably the most enthusiastic high profile Democratic supporter of that conflict - was a huge mistake. For many Democrats, including me (yes, I’m biased, although I was not a Sanders supporter, if that matters here) that conflict was not only obviously doomed to failure from the start, but a genuinely immoral effort. On top of that, supporting that war was perversely opposed to what polls showed was the position of (I think) over 3/4ths of the rank and file. Hillary was certainly criticized at times by Democrats before the Gulf War, but she was very rarely HATED by any Democrats - in my observation at least - until then. Once she became hated by a substantial portion of the base, with all the concomitant insults thrown her way by Democrats, it was natural for many in the middle to assume she must really be awful to be so hated by chunks of her own party.

There are other policy reasons Democrats have criticized Hillary - her hardline drug war stances as well as her late support for same sex marriage come to mind - but the Gulf War was the issue that really made her toxic to a percentage of her own party base, and I believe indirectly strengthened the force of Republican anti-Clinton propaganda.

—�-

In terms of ethics there are some valid issues one could have with the Clintons ; Bill Clinton’s tawdry sexual history, especially combined with Juanita Broaddrick’s credible rape accusation tainted his reputation among some moderates and liberals - and fair or not some of that stuck to Hillary, and there are some legitimate concerns about the Clinton Foundation and the degree to which it gives the inpression of pay-for-play politics ; that is non-criminal but uncomfortable favoritism to wealthy donors. (Interested parties should look up the Raj Fernando story, in which a Foundation donor seems to have been given favoritism for a government job ; it’s not jaw dropping corruption but it looks bad .)

In short, it’s not hard to make a flawed person look like a monster, especially in politics where observers are already inclined towards extreme cynicism.

[Cary]

44. And how did Barack Obama manage to avoid their lies and their smears?

The answer to that is equally important.

[MatthewG.]

50. Hes got a less problematic record.

Going with my post above, I’d answer by saying Obama’s ethical record is better than the Clintons (he’s pretty much unimpeachable in terms of professional ethics, and even honest conservatives who truly hate his guts, like Orson Scott Card, will often admit he’s a morally decent man in his private life.). Also, Obama’s politics, whatever one thinks of them, were mostly in line with the Democratic base, or at least didn’t deviate too much from theirs on core issues of high concern.


Its harder to make the case to the average joe that someone is a monster when there are no outward indications of such and huge numbers of people are willing to passionately argue the opposite is true.

[Cary]

63. "...admit hes a morally decent man in his private life..."

As opposed to his "non-private life?"

There is something wrong with your answer. You concede that there is something wrong with Hillary Clinton when there's no good evidence of that. Smear after smear was proven to be just that and nothing more, yet you're conceding here that there's something to it. That's a huge concession and it's also false, so you give the liars something for their efforts. You reward their smears.

The fascists are at war against the truth. They are at war with the facts and with reality because they don't have any merit to anything they have to offer. Your answer isn't good enough. Sorry, but it isn't.

[MatthewG.]

66. I dont agree with your argument.

When I spoke about conservatives conceding Obama is a morally decent person in his private life, the comparison there would be to Bill Clinton, a philanderer repeatedly accused of inappropriate sexual activity, and perhaps Trump.

You’re saying that I’ve implicitly conceded that there’s something wrong with Hillary’s private life, but that wasn’t it. The point was that many honest conservatives would acknowledge Obama was a genuine role model to many, whatever his politics.

It is true that Bill Clinton’s sexual scandals have tainted the Clinton name to a certain degree, and I think they’ve been attached to Hillary by association - perhaps subconscious association. If you want my thoughts on Hillary specifically they’re basically all in the post I made above this one ; post # 42 in this thread

[Cary]

67. Except I have only seen one single "conservative" say that

That was John McCain, who blows hot and cold.

[MatthewG.]

70. Ive seen a few.

I mentioned Orson Scott Card, and that really surprised me, because he hates Obama with the intensity of a blazing star.

Mike Huckabee said something similar.

I could find more, and I know there are others, though I admit to not knowing names off the top of my head. If you want to read conservatives willing to appear sane in public (LOL), you want to look at the National Review or Commentary.

I think the larger point is that if you’re going to demonize someone for their personal or moral failures, it’s really tough to do with Obama. The absolute worst truthful thing you could probably say about him is that he sometimes seemed overly cocky (and really, once he became the President, even that basically ended.)

With Bill Clinton there are some legitimate character issues which, fairly or not, hurt the overall Clinton name.

[NurseJackie]

46. They had help. (And that's all I'll say about that.)

[moondust]

47. Fox News launched on October 7, 1996.

The rest is history.

I remember canceling a cable TV service in 1999. For some reason the phone rep asked me what I thought of Fox News. "No thanks," I said. "It's just a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party."

Propaganda works on a lot of people.

[Initech]

48. The GOP owns the media.

They have AM radio in their back pocket. They own Fox News. They own most of the major media outlets in the country. And now they're about to own 90% of the country's local TV stations. They can control most of what you see and here on the news. That is how they are able to demonize Hillary the way they did.

[NCTraveler]

51. They knew when she took the lead on healthcare...

As First Lady that she was going to be a powerhouse moving forward.

[loyalsister]

52. Secrecy, lies, and, just enough substance

Both Clintons handed everything to them on a silver platter. Big banks have been associated with corruption for a long time. Giving speeches to them then being secretive about them has just enough appearance of corruption to be easily accepted. Then came the email stupidity which again made her appear to be secretive.
When people seem to hide things it raises suspicion. Someone who runs for president should be as transparent as possible and follow every rule to the letter. She was not deliberate in finding out the most transparent ways to handle her official correspondence.
Continuing to be loyal to a known liar also worked against her. "If someone puts up with being lied to they must not have a problem with lying."

Loyalists see it all as unfair, but that's not the point. The wounds from 2008 are still fresh for a lot of people. It didn't take a lot of mining to spin a believable story of corruption at a time when massive corruption had been so recently discovered.

[efhmc]

53. Mostly because she has a vagina.

But a big part is also her husband.

[beachbum bob]

54. the extreme left of the democratic side assisted in demonizing clinton too

lets not forget....how many times we heard here in this forum "I can;t vote for lesser of 2 evils"...

[Blue_Tires]

55. Short answer? They had a LOT of help from the so-called left

mutual interests and all that...

[Hamlette]

56. They called FDR "that man in the White House"

so it started at least back then. Which is what I call Trump.

[Lil Missy]

61. Fox Snooze was a major part of the dumbing down of the gullible

[VOX]

62. Long ago, Repugs learned how to bloodlessly assassinate a leader.

No need for all that mess. Just run an embellished and biased story of the individual’s accomplishments, but all the while twisting the truth until it all becomes “something bad.” Then make sure every RW outlet gets on-message, and cranked up with mock outrage. Repeat the living hell out of it. Insert the negative message into everything. Say it until people are sick of it.

Simple psychology: reveal an individual in an unattractive light (using the ugliest photo available), and print some negative words. Soon, the idea starts to grow legs, because outrageous, conspiracy-type claims attract attention as a basic message. Then beat it all like a drum, steady and unceasingly. Make it out to be a major attack on some freedom — they’ll take away guns, start a war, raise your taxes, sell baby parts, run child sex rings, force your kids to attend a “government school,” wiretap everything, etc.

After awhile, the individual’s actual identity and deeds give way to a simplistic comic-book status, which can be modified on a dime. This was done to the Clintons, John Kerry, and (ineffectually) to Barack Obama.

To add some seasoning, throw in the Russian trolls, who always deploy the negative-spin.

[Sancho]

69. Endless amounts of money and years of marketing...

the GOP are master manipulators.