I can't remember the last time I heard a political statement from Al Gore and he has more right to grievance to a "stolen election" than Hillary Clinton.
2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Please post any counter argument or evidence or just anything of substance instead of just posting shit talking that contributes nothing to the conversation. Were you living in the US in the 1990s btw?
Dems would have to be monumentally stupid to try her again. Trump would just beat her by a bigger margin.
Yeah it would probably look like Reagan in 1984 to be honest.
I am also curious what is this opinion based on?
Gary Hart would beaten made Trump.
Yes, everyone considering 2020 made a trip to visit him last year.
What counter argument do you really need? That no one in the Democrat base likes her and she only won because of the money network she built from the Walton family and she's some sort of a Hydra like mastermind? Is this why we are losing our shit because the lady is contemplating another run for the president? You really think that we are not worried because she may swing enough of the democratic base? Do you need me to live in the US in the 1990's to form an opinion of whether she has a pull in today's Democratic party base? I mean for feck's sake.
You think the progressive base or moderate leaning swing democrats support Hilary? Then prove it. Back up your statement with something other than you talking shite and making strawmen. Provide some evidence supporting your assertions instead of just contributing zero to the conversation. I can support all my claims with plenty of articles and references and facts. Can you? The Clintons built a center-right coalition that dismantled the long standing FDR-JFK liberal coalition. They did this by dog whistling to racists harder than Bush and Perot were doing. They sought to out Southern Strategy the Rep and independent candidate and then cutting deals with the corporations and Wall Street once they got into power. That's where their support comes from.
Their base has never been the leftists and progressives. Their coalition has always been different. Who do you think the Clintons were appealing to with this picture?
You think the progressive base or moderate leaning swing democrats support Hilary? Then prove it. Back up your statement with something other than you talking shite and making strawmen. Provide some evidence supporting your assertions instead of just contributing zero to the conversation. I can support all my claims with plenty of articles and references and facts. Can you? The Clintons built a center-right coalition that dismantled the long standing FDR-JFK liberal coalition. They did this by dog whistling to racists harder than Bush and Perot were doing. They sought to out Southern Strategy the Rep and independent candidate and then cutting deals with the corporations and Wall Street once they got into power. That's where their support comes from.
Their base has never been the leftists and progressives. Their coalition has always been different. Who do you think the Clintons were appealing to with this picture?
exactly.
I have said this before.
Voting for the so called lesser evil is never an option.
In fact doing That is what has brought us Trump.
Why did the Clintons constantly get the black vote then ? And secondly why did Hilary win the primary by over a million votes ? The Clinton must have some appeal to the Dem base.
They had plenty of appeal with the Dem base, in fact there was a lengthy period from the early 90s through the late 00s when Clintons were the main power structure of the Dem base by way of building a coalition of blue collar whites, independents, african americans etc. When Obama won, he shifted everything over to his own brand of politics and when Sanders ran two years ago, things shifted once again.
Last edited:
I hope so, I'm confident of him getting the win against anyone if he runs but I'm concerned due to the difficultly some progressive have had in winning primaries that the Dem base isn't a left as I first thought.
For the first its important to understand that Blacks have voted more solidly Democrat since the 1960s then any other demographic they've kept track of and actually you notice the slight dip in the Black Vote:
So we have to consider that no matter what most blacks are just not voting Republican. Then this article puts it well:
Current Affairs said:
Basically Clinton was able to juggle the racist dog whistling and policies that decimated black communities for a while until people started catching on.Then we see with Obama in 2008 that Blacks voted in a higher percentage of other racial groupings for the first time ever:
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us/politics/21vote.html
The second question you ask, while fair, can't really be answered by one simply answer. First its important to understand that some of Clinton's support doesn't come from the Democrat base. It comes from the corporate power structure. For proof 25% of Clinton primary voters switched to McCain rather than vote for Obama!
So these are not the traditional Democrat base that supported Clinton. The Clinton base is not the same as the Democrat base. They come from a group of neo-liberals that will happily vote Republican if they don't like someone like Obama.
Then the Superdelegates were a factor - some people were saying Bernie couldn't win anyway so bother. The media pushed this narrative as well that Bernie couldn't win so many of the traditional progressive base stayed home even in the primaries. Bernie had far less name recognition at this time and had to built his name. That cost him some early votes for sure. And also I personally know quite a few people that voted for Clinton and expressed dismay at themselves for doing so so we can't just assume that someone that held their nose and voted for her actually wanted her if given better choices.
Good post, thanks for this.For the first its important to understand that Blacks have voted more solidly Democrat since the 1960s then any other demographic they've kept track of and actually you notice the slight dip in the Black Vote:
So we have to consider that no matter what most blacks are just not voting Republican. Then this article puts it well:
Basically Clinton was able to juggle the racist dog whistling and policies that decimated black communities for a while until people started catching on.Then we see with Obama in 2008 that Blacks voted in a higher percentage of other racial groupings for the first time ever:
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us/politics/21vote.html
The second question you ask, while fair, can't really be answered by one simply answer. First its important to understand that some of Clinton's support doesn't come from the Democrat base. It comes from the corporate power structure. For proof 25% of Clinton primary voters switched to McCain rather than vote for Obama!
So these are not the traditional Democrat base that supported Clinton. The Clinton base is not the same as the Democrat base. They come from a group of neo-liberals that will happily vote Republican if they don't like someone like Obama.
Then the Superdelegates were a factor - some people were saying Bernie couldn't win anyway so bother. The media pushed this narrative as well that Bernie couldn't win so many of the traditional progressive base stayed home even in the primaries. Bernie had far less name recognition at this time and had to built his name. That cost him some early votes for sure. And also I personally know quite a few people that voted for Clinton and expressed dismay at themselves for doing so so we can't just assume that someone that held their nose and voted for her actually wanted her if given better choices.
Alright, it was in all in my mind. Clinton won purely because of Super delegates and in no way won the black vote in 2016. I'm convinced by that vote analysis, yes he lost some early votes because of lack of name recognition and later due to Obama's backing but Sanders always had it in the bag. I mean, I personally know people who voted for Clinton only by mistake because I've seen Clinton dog whistle photos in 1989 Arkansas.
Great post, thanks for this. Absolutely not worried about Clinton. Good night.
Alright, it was in all in my mind. Clinton won purely because of Super delegates and in no way won the black vote in 2016. I'm convinced by that vote analysis, yes he lost some early votes because of lack of name recognition and later due to Obama's backing but Sanders always had it in the bag. I mean, I personally know people who voted for Clinton only by mistake because I've seen Clinton dog whistle photos in 1989 Arkansas.
Great post, thanks for this. Absolutely not worried about Clinton. Good night.
Why don't you feck off back to General with these low quality WUM posts that contribute nothing and leave Current Events to the adults. Thanks kid
I think your being a bit unfair, Sanders really did start off as a literal nobody so it would be very different today than in 2016 , Clinton losing against Trump will have a effect on some dem voters who voted for her in primaries because - ''It's her time now''(That's a actual quote from a voter)and we did see near the end of the primaries(Although I might be wrong as it was two years ago)Clinton coming under real pressure from younger black activists.
Alright, it was in all in my mind. Clinton won purely because of Super delegates and in no way won the black vote in 2016. I'm convinced by that vote analysis, yes he lost some early votes because of lack of name recognition and later due to Obama's backing but Sanders always had it in the bag. I mean, I personally know people who voted for Clinton only by mistake because I've seen Clinton dog whistle photos in 1989 Arkansas.
Great post, thanks for this. Absolutely not worried about Clinton. Good night.
Doesn't mean it's in the bag for Sanders(Although I really do think if he runs then he'll get a massive win)
I don't know about the black vote but I do know a dozen people who voted Clinton in the primary because they thought she was more electable even though they preferred Bernie,
This is a fair point but I absolutely refuse to concede a situation when we are sitting on our asses thinking Scorpions have sung the Winds of changes for the Dems and Sanders will coast it in. Absolutely need Clinton not to run, I was sitting there night after night watching primary results coming in with Clinton winning 80% of the black vote banks while thinking Sanders has the better agenda for these lot.
You probably don't realize it but people like you are exactly why Trump won.
Where were you in the 1990s?
My point wasn't that she'd beat Sanders, personally I think he'd kick her ass regardless of superdelegates this time. My point was that if its a Sanders-Clinton race and something causes him to have to unexpectedly drop out halfway through the primaries (and bear in mind that he's very old), we could end up with a Clinton candidacy pretty much by default. And that likely means losing in 2020.
Last edited:
I'd like to see her as president.
Cal, assuming you haven't been trolling all this time - give me your top 5 policies (foreign or domestic) that make you gravitate towards Hillary, and why said policies would be better than what any other Dem might offer.
she will never get my vote whatever happens.
To be honest, I haven't really considered some out of the box incident that may happen to Sanders and if he is not running, Clinton could very well beat all other candidates. However, whether or not Sanders beats her easily, I'd much rather Clinton not run for elections but channel all her support structure to help Dems beat Trump/Republicans. I don't know what all that entails but that is something Sanders and Clinton can work out within themselves without publishing all details. My only point is, Dems need to be united and put the best foot forward. Clinton had her chance and her message didn't resonate with the voters, now it's time for a united Dem front, not a fractiousness primary. I'm not even sure Sanders will run too, but he has considerable clout in the Democratic party and I wish he would have a significant amount of influence in how they shape up to 2020
That's not how fanboyism works, Raoul.
Anyway, if she runs and somehow wins the primary, I can see the main election being one of the most humiliating elections ever with Trump winning by an extremely large margin. I think that a lot of people voted for her in 2016 because 'she is better than Trump', but this time they would say 'feck it'. The selfishness for her to run after that defeat, and after the entire primaries were more or less fixed in her favor is incredible.
I think though that in a fair contest, Bernie would obliterate her this time around. The party has moved to the left, Bernie is much more popular than back then when not many knew him, her popularity is much lower especially after the debacle vs Trump, and well her winning the primaries more or less means another 4 years for Trump.
indeed.
A Sanders (or other equivalent) primary win with a Hillary Clinton endorsement sounds much better in terms of unifying the party forward.
He is running, assuming that he keeps healthy. He has given all the signs that he is running.
If he doesn't run, I guess it'll be a walk in the park for Biden to win the primaries. Warren got damaged after the Native American thing, IMO, and Harris doesn't really look like a president material, despite her impressive performance on Kavanaugh hearing.
She obviously wont see it that way - in fact, everyone in the Clinton orbit sees 2016 as an election they were well on their way to winning until the Comey letter came out 2 weeks before election day, which when combined with Russian interference, suppressed enough of her voter enthusiasm to allow Trump to squeak by with 80k votes in 4 states.
Joe Kennedy may well change his mind if Sanders cannot run and Hillary runs.
I'm an immigrant born in India, living in the US from 2005. My year of birth, my religion, my political leaning or my sexual preference has feckall to do with any of my posts. Yeah, it's people like me who caused the Trump win, as a job stealing immigrant.
Unifying the party is unnecessary and overrated. The greatest achievements of the Democrat party came out of eras where the party didn't just unify around one person (FDR fought his way through communists, socialists, fascists, laissez-faire fundamentalists). JFK and LBJ fought to the bitter end at the convention and we say the investment in Space and then the Great Society.
The worst thing the Democrats could possibly do at this point is to try to artificially "unify" behind some anointed pre-selected candidate. They need a fractious primary to stress the message and give the voters a fecking say in who should be their nominee. Best thing for the Democrats is getting 6-7 candidates in debates through the first Super Tuesday where California votes. Only way to really stress test the party.
The worst thing the Democrats could possibly do at this point is to try to artificially "unify" behind some anointed pre-selected candidate. They need a fractious primary to stress the message and give the voters a fecking say in who should be their nominee. Best thing for the Democrats is getting 6-7 candidates in debates through the first Super Tuesday where California votes. Only way to really stress test the party.
That might well be the case, but I think that she is both less popular and more hated now than she was a couple of years back. And well, if you lose against Donald fecking Trump from all people, you must not run ever again.
He has a nice surname, but can't see him being a contender this time around. Too early and he is too young.
Way to completely miss both points.
The 1990s comment was in reference to your clear lack of knowledge about the Clintons throughout the 1990s and how you're extremely late to the party in figuring out that Clinton should not run.
And you being the exact type of person that caused Trump to win is because of your ignorance of American history and politics mixed with your arrogance in thinking you know everything so you just laugh and mock other people instead of engaging with facts, history and logic. You basically remind me of a few guys during the 2004 Kerry-Bush campaign cycle. Limousine liberals or latte liberals they were called. Thought they had everything figured out and just laughed and mocked people who brought up different points. Turns out they were wrong.
joe kennedy sucks shit
Its absolutely certain all she and her cronies did to steal the nomination will come out again and this time with a lot more clarity and detail.
Trump will be certain for a second term.
Trump will be certain for a second term.
Never once I've implied in this board that I know everything about US history. I see a big disconnect in you saying Clinton has no support with the Democratic party base. It doesn't matter if you personally lived in Arkansas as Clinton's biographer in the 90's if there is a disconnect between what you say and what we/I could observe in the 2016 election. Of course, I could be wrong. I've long acknowledged that I always get my posts wrong and I've given grief to Raoul and Red Dreams for posting as if they are sure of what is going to happen.
It's also sad that I studied in Tiruchirapalli, India and yet knew more about United States even before I moved here in 2005 than about 50% of US population. If you are going to blame Trump's election on the lack of knowledge in American history and politics, I'm afraid we're going to have Trump elected in 2020 as well.
- Status