General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Anyone else noticed that without Senator Sanders, discussion of issues has all but disappeared? [View all]Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)In the primaries, Sanders made a conscious decision not to go after Clinton's "damn emails" or any of the other personal attacks that might have gained votes. Instead, he focused on their ideological differences. Clinton, expecting to win and not wanting to alienate the Sanders supporters any more than necessary, similarly did little to attack Sanders personally. (Of course, she had less material in the first place. Some of her supporters said Sanders's insensitivity to issues of racial justice was shown by his decision to move from New York to Vermont. I'm sure no one on Clinton's staff thought "Vermontgate" had any legs.) The media covered issues because neither candidate was giving them much else to talk about.
The general election is different. Trump has addressed issues somewhat -- such as his call to repeal Obamacare -- but his focus has been, shall we charitably say, less substantive overall. For Clinton's part, she articulates issue positions, as in the press releases and website pages that numerous posts in this thread have trumpeted. Nevertheless, in terms of winning over the undecideds or persuading Republicans to switch, that's not where the action is. Most of the voters who oppose huge tax cuts for the rich are already supporting Clinton. By contrast, tearing down Trump by attacking his personal lack of qualification for the Presidency promises a much greater reward. On top of that, the media, given the choice, will cover a juicy personal issue (be it "Second Amendment" remedies or Clinton Foundation emails) in preference to somebody's boring five-point plan to rebuild the infrastructure or whatever.