US Politics

Cal? said:
That may well be true too.

It's not about what he's done. Is it that much to ask for a Democrats to lead the Democratic party?

Of course she's made mistakes, but that doesn't change the fact that the biggest reason she didn't win wasn't in her control. Comey and Bernie gave the world Trump.

Anyway, this debate was already done to death back in Nov 2016, there's little point repeating it.
Click to expand...

Then don't keep bringing it up. Its total nonsense and the evidence backs that up. The disconnect between Clinton and DNC and the working and middle class and the utter arrogance of her and her die-hard supporters is why the world has Trump. And it looks like hubris is still a major problem with her and her supporters acting childish and still trying to blame others for their own errors and behavior.


If you don't want to debate it then don't start it. Bringing it up and then complaining about people correcting your misinformation is ridiculous. Its drive-by propaganda.
 
Eboue said:
Bernie doesn't want to join the democrats because its not helpful to building support right now. A large group of voters in this country are not happy to support democrats because they've seen democrats be weak and cowardly and beholden to corporate interests. Meanwhile this is what the Real Democrats are up to.

Click to expand...


These are the so called Democrats that need to be weeded out of the party.
 
roseguy64 said:
Unfortunately you need people like him in red states so that the majority of the time you'll have that vote to count on.
Click to expand...

He's also smart enough to know that keeping his job is tied to throwing a bit of red meat to West Virginia voters, where Trump has a very strong base of support.
 
Cal? said:
Hillary would have won if Bernie never ran and that's a fact.
Click to expand...

Hillary would also have won if no one else was allowed to run for president. Or if others were allowed to stand in the election but not allowed to campaign and if the media are not allowed to report on them and their policies at all. She would also have won if the ballot boxes at the polls were stuffed with ballots with her name marked on them.

And that's a fact.
 
Dems should seriously consider FDR-style court packing to scare these ghouls straight (they won't)
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
How? The purged are those who haven't voted in 2+ years anyway.
Click to expand...

Voters of all stripes in Ohio are affected, but the policy appears to be helping Republicans in the state’s largest metropolitan areas, according to a Reuters survey of voter lists. In the state’s three largest counties that include Cleveland, Cincinnati and Columbus, voters have been struck from the rolls in Democratic-leaning neighborhoods at roughly twice the rate as in Republican neighborhoods.

That’s because residents of relatively affluent Republican-leaning neighborhoods are more likely to vote in both congressional elections and presidential contests, historical turnouts show. Democrats are less likely to vote in mid-term elections and thus are more at risk of falling off the rolls.
...
But neighborhoods that have a high proportion of poor, African-American residents are hit hardest, the Reuters analysis found.
Click to expand...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ers-may-be-shut-out-in-november-idUSKCN0YO19D

Voting is a right.

edit:
Voting-rights advocates say they are concerned that many infrequent voters who helped drive turnout to a record in the 2008 presidential election won’t be able to vote in this year’s likely matchup between Democrat Hillary Clinton, vying to become the first female president, and Republican Donald Trump, the celebrity billionaire.
Click to expand...
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
How? The purged are those who haven't voted in 2+ years anyway.
Click to expand...

I don't think it will move the needle with voters. Healthcare, gun policy, economics, and immigration are at the top of the list and the party that can mobilize more enthusiasm and turnout in November will win.
 
Raoul said:
How so ?
Click to expand...
Hillary lost for many reasons:
1) Trying to win a third term for the same party is always difficult (the last to do it was GHWB 3 decades ago, and before him FDR/Truman during WWII).
2) Hillary is unlikable and lacks "that touch" with voters. She would make a better president than she was as a candidate.
3) Taking some voters for granted (as someone said here): didn't visit Wisconsin and went to Michigan only in the last week or two of the campaign despite being upper Midwest states that Trump was targeting (and she lost Michigan in the primary, and so that should've been a warning sign).
4) The terror attacks that happened in the two years or so before the elections and the rise of ISIS.
5) The attacks that she received from the GOP about Benghazi and Libya in general.
6) Questions about her health (especially after that incident on 9/11/2016).
7) Comey's letter 11 days before the elections that sucked the air out of her campaign. She was thinking about winning Arizona before the news broke (and she was there actually).
8) Bill infidelities that Trump used.
9) The vacant Supreme Court seat that made some moderate conservative (who didn't like Trump) vote for him and helped bringing Republicans together.
10) Democrats have an issue with voting: see 2010 and 2014 as examples (without Hillary on the ticket). They were slaughtered in these two rounds (losing the midterm election for the party in power is one thing, but losing that way is another).
11) The attacks on her character: can't be trusted, doesn't understand middle America, elite, etc.

All of that is correct in my view.

But, when I say that Bernie was one reason for her loss, I mean the following:
1) Bernie questioned her judgement, echoing the GOP/Trump
2) Bernie said that Hillary was unqualified to be president. That was a gift to the GOP/Trump.
3) Bernie questioned whether she understands middle America, echoing the GOP/Trump
4) The Bernie or Bust folks (maybe not his fault that they exist, but he tried to bring them on Hillary's train only late in the game). Remember the drama at the beginning of the Democratic Convention with the Bernie people?
5) He stayed in the primary race too long in my view, which led to the following question to be frequently asked: "Why can't she beat a 74-year-old socialist?". "She must be a weak candidate/doesn't appeal to the working class, etc." Staying in the race too late also meant that she continued to work on the primary elections for longer than desirable. Trump was basically done with Cruz/Kasich/Rubio, and started directing his attacks on Hillary. And, sadly, we know that he is effective in attacking others.
6) I know people who didn't vote for Hillary because they thought that, because of Bernie's base, the Democratic party is going too much to the left/becoming too socialist, etc. They preferred a business man over a party with that type of base. Whether I agree with that or not is a different disucssion, but it was a factor.

Bernie Sandres should've understood that the 2016 elections were extremely important and should've refrained from attacking Hillary's character and judgement or calling her unqualified. He also should've left the race when it was clear that she has a big lead (especially among the super delegates) and Trump was in his way to secure the nomination.

And just to be clear: I would love to see a universal healthcare system, I would love to see cheaper college (I see students in my classes every day, and I know that the costs are too high), etc. But, in 2016, there was a more important goal than that.
 
Bernie did all of that because a primary race is where people compete against each other to win the nomination for the Presidential race. So long as you believe in democracy he shouldn't be blamed for Hilary's defeat. Once the primaries were over he backed her fully and argued for her to become President.
 
ManUtd1999 said:
Hillary lost for many reasons:
1) Trying to win a third term for the same party is always difficult (the last to do it was GHWB 3 decades ago, and before him FDR/Truman during WWII).
2) Hillary is unlikable and lacks "that touch" with voters. She would make a better president than she was as a candidate.
3) Taking some voters for granted (as someone said here): didn't visit Wisconsin and went to Michigan only in the last week or two of the campaign despite being upper Midwest states that Trump was targeting (and she lost Michigan in the primary, and so that should've been a warning sign).
4) The terror attacks that happened in the two years or so before the elections and the rise of ISIS.
5) The attacks that she received from the GOP about Benghazi and Libya in general.
6) Questions about her health (especially after that incident on 9/11/2016).
7) Comey's letter 11 days before the elections that sucked the air out of her campaign. She was thinking about winning Arizona before the news broke (and she was there actually).
8) Bill infidelities that Trump used.
9) The vacant Supreme Court seat that made some moderate conservative (who didn't like Trump) vote for him and helped bringing Republicans together.
10) Democrats have an issue with voting: see 2010 and 2014 as examples (without Hillary on the ticket). They were slaughtered in these two rounds (losing the midterm election for the party in power is one thing, but losing that way is another).
11) The attacks on her character: can't be trusted, doesn't understand middle America, elite, etc.

All of that is correct in my view.

But, when I say that Bernie was one reason for her loss, I mean the following:
1) Bernie questioned her judgement, echoing the GOP/Trump
2) Bernie said that Hillary was unqualified to be president. That was a gift to the GOP/Trump.
3) Bernie questioned whether she understands middle America, echoing the GOP/Trump
4) The Bernie or Bust folks (maybe not his fault that they exist, but he tried to bring them on Hillary's train only late in the game). Remember the drama at the beginning of the Democratic Convention with the Bernie people?
5) He stayed in the primary race too long in my view, which led to the following question to be frequently asked: "Why can't she beat a 74-year-old socialist?". "She must be a weak candidate/doesn't appeal to the working class, etc." Staying in the race too late also meant that she continued to work on the primary elections for longer than desirable. Trump was basically done with Cruz/Kasich/Rubio, and started directing his attacks on Hillary. And, sadly, we know that he is effective in attacking others.
6) I know people who didn't vote for Hillary because they thought that, because of Bernie's base, the Democratic party is going too much to the left/becoming too socialist, etc. They preferred a business man over a party with that type of base. Whether I agree with that or not is a different disucssion, but it was a factor.

Bernie Sandres should've understood that the 2016 elections were extremely important and should've refrained from attacking Hillary's character and judgement or calling her unqualified. He also should've left the race when it was clear that she has a big lead (especially among the super delegates) and Trump was in his way to secure the nomination.
Click to expand...

Fair points, but don't you think she could've done enough by herself in terms of moving to more progressive policies, decoupling herself from corporate interests, being a bit more emotionally accessible to voters, campaigning a bit more in the rust belt states and generally marketing herself better to the middle America ? Had she done any of these things, it would've likely been enough to move the needle in her favor. The very fact that Bernie even existed as a viable candidate is a pretty damning indictment that the Dems were disconnected from the social issues that have historically been their strength.
 
Eboue said:
So bernie should have just not run in the first place then?
Click to expand...
That's not what I'm saying. Running is fine, but calling her unqualified? questioning her judgement this way? Staying that long? That's always something that primary candidate avoid, because they don't want to become part of the problem of their party.
 
ManUtd1999 said:
That's not what I'm saying. Running is fine, but calling her unqualified? questioning her judgement this way? Staying that long? That's always something that primary candidate avoid, because they don't want to become part of the problem of their party.
Click to expand...

Can you point to an example of a primary where opposing candidates didnt criticize their opponent?
 
Raoul said:
Fair points, but don't you think she could've done enough by herself in terms of moving to more progressive policies, decoupling herself from corporate interests, being a bit more emotionally accessible to voters, campaigning a bit more in the rust belt states and generally marketing herself better to the middle America ? Had she done any of these things, it would've likely been enough to move the needle in her favor. The very fact that Bernie even existed as a viable candidate is a pretty damning indictment that the Dems were disconnected from the social issues that have historically been their strength.
Click to expand...
Yes, she was the PRIMARY reason of why she has lost. I'm just trying to say that Bernie played his part too.

With respect to the bold part, Hillary faced a big dilemma and she had no easy choice:
1. Go more towards Bernie's policies (more progressive policies) that would bring more of his folks to her side; or
2. Try to stay more moderate in an attempt to win the votes of some unhappy republicans (the never Trumpers and alike).

Maybe she should've picked the first option, but I thought that a lot of the damage was already done when she had to go all the way to June to clinch the nomination. These little things play a role in a closed election like the one that we had in 2016.
 
ManUtd1999 said:
Maybe she should've picked the first option, but I thought that a lot of the damage was already done when she had to go all the way to June to clinch the nomination. These little things play a role in a closed election like the one that we had in 2016.
Click to expand...
Didn't seem to hurt Obama, who had Hilary on his tail until the end "just in case he gets assasinated" being her reasoning.
 
ManUtd1999 said:
Yes, she was the PRIMARY reason of why she has lost. I'm just trying to say that Bernie played his part too.

With respect to the bold part, Hillary faced a big dilemma and she had no easy choice:
1. Go more towards Bernie's policies (more progressive policies) that would bring more of his folks to her side; or
2. Try to stay more moderate in an attempt to win the votes of some unhappy republicans (the never Trumpers and alike).

Maybe she should've picked the first option, but I thought that a lot of the damage was already done when she had to go all the way to June to clinch the nomination. These little things play a role in a closed election like the one that we had in 2016.
Click to expand...

It shouldnt have been a remotely close election. It should have been the easiest election ever but the neoliberal wing of the party led by a candidate with massive unfavorables blew it.
 
ManUtd1999 said:
Yes, she was the PRIMARY reason of why she has lost. I'm just trying to say that Bernie played his part too.

With respect to the bold part, Hillary faced a big dilemma and she had no easy choice:
1. Go more towards Bernie's policies (more progressive policies) that would bring more of his folks to her side; or
2. Try to stay more moderate in an attempt to win the votes of some unhappy republicans (the never Trumpers and alike).

Maybe she should've picked the first option, but I thought that a lot of the damage was already done when she had to go all the way to June to clinch the nomination. These little things play a role in a closed election like the one that we had in 2016.
Click to expand...

I think she misdiagnosed the mood of the country by thinking she could run exclusively to the establishment side and pick up enough independents to cross the finish line. In the process, she miscalculated that there were a lot of progressive voters she could've brought in early on, had she brought in some of the Bernie policies before Bernie even became a factor. The fact that he nearly roared out of nowhere and almost beat her if not for the help of superdelegates, is a good sign that Dems need to recalculate where the votes truly are. She should've made a strong case for more progressive policies earlier on and then marketed them the way Sanders did. Had she done that, she would've won with room to spare.
 
Silva said:
Didn't seem to hurt Obama, who had Hilary on his tail until the end "just in case he gets assasinated" being her reasoning.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Here is the thing though: in 2008, everything was in favor of Obama/Democrats: the third term challenge, the war in Iraq, the financial crisis, the almost flawless Obama, Sarah Palin (which raised questions about McCain's judgement), etc. And so even though Hillary stayed in the race until the end, it had less of an impact than Sanders staying too long in 2016. In other words, the little things matter when you're at the margin. When you lose by 1% in Wisconsin and by 0.2% in Michigan, the little things become important.

Eboue said:
It shouldnt have been a remotely close election. It should have been the easiest election ever but the neoliberal wing of the party led by a candidate with massive unfavorables blew it.
Click to expand...
I think that we agree on that, but Bernie's approach just helped raising her unfavorables and echoed Trump's attacks.
 
Last edited:
ManUtd1999 said:
Agreed.

Here is the thing though: in 2008, everything was in favor of Obama/Democrats: the third term challenge, the war in Iraq, the financial crisis, the almost flawless Obama, Sarah Palin (which raised questions about McCain's judgement), etc. And so even though Hillary stayed in the race until the end, it had less of an impact than Sanders staying too long in 2016.
Click to expand...
The republican candidate in 2016 was an almost literal dumpsterfire who is almost universally despised. Hilary and her team had email chains where they were laughing and crossing their fingers he would be the candidate because he's so shit. The Democrats could have run "no one 2016 - let's just not president for a bit" and won, but instead they went all in on the one candidate that could have lost it. It has feck all to do with Bernie, it's entirely on the shoulders of Hilary Clinton and her halfwit team.
 
ManUtd1999 said:
But, when I say that Bernie was one reason for her loss, I mean the following:
1) Bernie questioned her judgement, echoing the GOP/Trump
2) Bernie said that Hillary was unqualified to be president. That was a gift to the GOP/Trump.
3) Bernie questioned whether she understands middle America, echoing the GOP/Trump
4) The Bernie or Bust folks (maybe not his fault that they exist, but he tried to bring them on Hillary's train only late in the game). Remember the drama at the beginning of the Democratic Convention with the Bernie people?
5) He stayed in the primary race too long in my view, which led to the following question to be frequently asked: "Why can't she beat a 74-year-old socialist?". "She must be a weak candidate/doesn't appeal to the working class, etc." Staying in the race too late also meant that she continued to work on the primary elections for longer than desirable. Trump was basically done with Cruz/Kasich/Rubio, and started directing his attacks on Hillary. And, sadly, we know that he is effective in attacking others.
6) I know people who didn't vote for Hillary because they thought that, because of Bernie's base, the Democratic party is going too much to the left/becoming too socialist, etc. They preferred a business man over a party with that type of base. Whether I agree with that or not is a different disucssion, but it was a factor.

Bernie Sandres should've understood that the 2016 elections were extremely important and should've refrained from attacking Hillary's character and judgement or calling her unqualified. He also should've left the race when it was clear that she has a big lead (especially among the super delegates) and Trump was in his way to secure the nomination.

And just to be clear: I would love to see a universal healthcare system, I would love to see cheaper college (I see students in my classes every day, and I know that the costs are too high), etc. But, in 2016, there was a more important goal than that.
Click to expand...

Hilary Clinton should've understood that the 2016 elections were extremely important and abandoned her obsession for personal power and allowed the Democratic party to conduct an honest primary hunt for the best possible candidate.

Instead they promoted crony capitalism and the worst Democratic candidate in the last 120 years.

Then the Clinton political machine tried to shame women into voting for Hilary. Its remarkable how much the Clintons and Trump have in common once you look beneathe the surface. They both love to use language that implies they are the righteous chosen ones with these "special place in hell" lines
Albright: 'special place in hell' for women who don't support Clinton
Click to expand...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/06/madeleine-albright-campaigns-for-hillary-clinton
 
https://www.ajc.com/news/state--reg...l-hurt-gov-race-rival/pEYWRLXdjoNufNbsAO0emI/

Secret recording shows Cagle backed ‘bad’ bill to hurt gov race rival


Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle told a former rival in a secretly recorded conversation that he engineered the passage of a bill he described as bad “a thousand different ways” because it would deprive another opponent in the race for governor of millions of dollars in support.

Cagle told Clay Tippins in the recording that he circumvented the state Senate’s top education leader and swallowed his own misgivings over the bill, which raised the cap on tax credits for private school scholarships to $100 million, purely to prevent Hunter Hill from receiving financial help from a super PAC.

“They wanted that $100 million SSO,” Cagle told Tippins in the recording, referring to the abbreviation for the tax credit program, Student Scholarship Organizations. “And, you know, I was the only guy standing in the way. Is it bad public policy? Between you and me, it is. I can tell you how it is a thousand different ways.”
...
Pressed by Tippins, Cagle identified the group as the Walton Family Foundation, which backs charter school initiatives across the nation. Hill, a former state senator who finished in third in the primary, is an outspoken supporter of school choice efforts.

“Oh, no. If he got $3 million from the Walton Foundation, he’d have been money,” Tippins said. “That makes him formidable.”
Click to expand...
 
Sure, she was her biggest enemy. But, let me ask: do people here believe that Bernie played no role at all in her loss?

I’m seriously asking and understand that opinions vary on this matter.
 
ManUtd1999 said:
Sure, she was her biggest enemy. But, let me ask: do people here believe that Bernie played no role at all in her loss?

I’m seriously asking and understand that opinions vary on this matter.
Click to expand...

Bernie definitely played a role because he ran against her. I mean, what do you expect him to do? Run a token campaign praising her? This is like asking, do you believe Republican voter turnout played a part in Clinton's loss. Yes it did, because that's what it is supposed to do
 
Raoul said:
I think she misdiagnosed the mood of the country by thinking she could run exclusively to the establishment side and pick up enough independents to cross the finish line. In the process, she miscalculated that there were a lot of progressive voters she could've brought in early on, had she brought in some of the Bernie policies before Bernie even became a factor. The fact that he nearly roared out of nowhere and almost beat her if not for the help of superdelegates, is a good sign that Dems need to recalculate where the votes truly are. She should've made a strong case for more progressive policies earlier on and then marketed them the way Sanders did. Had she done that, she would've won with room to spare.
Click to expand...

I don't think she ever had a chance in hindsight because it wasn't just progressive voters she had a problem with. She also lacked the respect from religious liberals after her years of defense of Bill's bad behavior to name just one other group among several. This horrible reputation went beyond Democrats though.

The Mormons hated Trump. When Romney made his anti-trump comments he was echoing what was said in a lot of Mormon churches. But Hilary was the exact wrong person to capture that disgruntled Republican vote. None of the Mormons I know would have even considered voting for her. They just stayed home. They might have switched to vote Bernie, Obama, Biden or some other Democrat against Trump though because they hated him that much. But they hated Hilary too.

ManUtd1999 said:
Sure, she was her biggest enemy. But, let me ask: do people here believe that Bernie played no role at all in her loss?

I’m seriously asking and understand that opinions vary on this matter.
Click to expand...

Nope, not at all.

Her loss was entirely on her history as a politician and her team's immense hubris, arrogance and complete lack of due diligence. The Democrats should never nominated her.

I think you have the psychology of Bernie supporters completely backwards. No one started 2015 as a Bernie die-hard. They supported Bernie because they were never going to support Hilary in the first place and Bernie was the only option.
 
let me guess: it's because the democratic party offers nothing to the poor and lower middle class and has a gutless stance on immigration and meaningless platitudes and identity politics are more likely to work on suburban college graduates whom the system works in favor of
 
Everybody has very valid points over the last couple of pages but when it came to the crunch a vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump would have been the sensible thing to do. There was no real danger in a Hillary presidency no matter what Eboue might say. Congress would grind along slowly as it is doing now and under Obama and Russia would certainly be taken to task over their blatant disregard for our way of life. She would have talked a tough game but very unlikely to put boots on the ground outside of a humanitarian crisis. I also doubt JayZ & Beyonce would be involved in denuclearization talks with a dictatorship either. Dennis fecking Rodman my arse.

Half the electorate also never turned up and voters didn't do their due diligence with the candidates. Johnson and Stein voters knew feck all about the candidates they were voting for and Obama voters who went for trump seemed to believe the bullshit surrounding Clinton and ignored the very real concerns regarding this buffoon of a man.
Regardless of how bad a candidate Hillary was she should have still been the adult choice to make.
Donald Trump for feck sakes. It's one of the most embarrassing things to happen to a western democracy I've ever witnessed and a whopping big mustard diarrhea stain on this country that wont come out for a long time.
 
GiddyUp said:
Everybody has very valid points over the last couple of pages but when it came to the crunch a vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump would have been the sensible thing to do. There was no real danger in a Hillary presidency no matter what Eboue might say. Congress would grind along slowly as it is doing now and under Obama and Russia would certainly be taken to task over their blatant disregard for our way of life. She would have talked a tough game but very unlikely to put boots on the ground outside of a humanitarian crisis. I also doubt JayZ & Beyonce would be involved in denuclearization talks with a dictatorship either. Dennis fecking Rodman my arse.

Half the electorate also never turned up and voters didn't do their due diligence with the candidates. Johnson and Stein voters knew feck all about the candidates they were voting for and Obama voters who went for trump seemed to believe the bullshit surrounding Clinton and ignored the very real concerns regarding this buffoon of a man.
Regardless of how bad a candidate Hillary was she should have still been the adult choice to make.
Donald Trump for feck sakes. It's one of the most embarrassing things to happen to a western democracy I've ever witnessed and a whopping big mustard diarrhea stain on this country that wont come out for a long time.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Hillary (or Bernie) would not have moved the needle much in terms of policy given the GOP congress. It would've simply been more gridlock until 2018 or 2020.
 
GiddyUp said:
Everybody has very valid points over the last couple of pages but when it came to the crunch a vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump would have been the sensible thing to do. There was no real danger in a Hillary presidency no matter what Eboue might say. Congress would grind along slowly as it is doing now and under Obama and Russia would certainly be taken to task over their blatant disregard for our way of life. She would have talked a tough game but very unlikely to put boots on the ground outside of a humanitarian crisis. I also doubt JayZ & Beyonce would be involved in denuclearization talks with a dictatorship either. Dennis fecking Rodman my arse.

Half the electorate also never turned up and voters didn't do their due diligence with the candidates. Johnson and Stein voters knew feck all about the candidates they were voting for and Obama voters who went for trump seemed to believe the bullshit surrounding Clinton and ignored the very real concerns regarding this buffoon of a man.
Regardless of how bad a candidate Hillary was she should have still been the adult choice to make.
Donald Trump for feck sakes. It's one of the most embarrassing things to happen to a western democracy I've ever witnessed and a whopping big mustard diarrhea stain on this country that wont come out for a long time.
Click to expand...
This, if it was any other country, I'd just laugh at them. Unfortunately it happened to be the most powerful country in the history of the planet. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.