|
NewForumSoftware posted:Why would you vote for her in the primary though? Bernie was a much better choice In his, and my, defense we were stupid and assumed there was no way Trump would win the primary and that the general would be Clinton v Rubio or Cruz.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 06:06 |
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:George Clooney is the poster boy for Hollywood liberal elites that Rust Belt assholes hate so much Women in middle America love George Clooney. He would easily make up the 100,000 votes Hillary lost by. The brilliant part is all he has to do is act Presidential and have some well written zingers. Before the election they also allegedly hated New York elites who think they are better than everyone yet they voted Trump. Spacebump fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Glazier posted:In his, and my, defense we were stupid and assumed there was no way Trump would win the primary and that the general would be Clinton v Rubio or Cruz. Why not? The candidate you voted for in the primary was pushing for his nomination the entire time? HorseRenoir posted:Bernie was not a good candidate. Clinton's support was broad but shallow and his was deep but narrow. Intersectionality is the key to rebuilding and we need someone with Bernie's message that knows how to campaign towards people other than working class whites. What makes you think Bernie couldn't campaign towards people other than working class whites?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Bernie was not a good candidate. Clinton's support was broad but shallow and his was deep but narrow. Intersectionality is the key to rebuilding and we need someone with Bernie's message that knows how to campaign towards people other than working class whites.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:Bernie was not a good candidate. Clinton's support was broad but shallow and his was deep but narrow. Intersectionality is the key to rebuilding and we need someone with Bernie's message that knows how to campaign towards people other than working class whites.  I was a fan of Bernie's policies but always thought he was an imperfect messenger. I really hope we can find someone younger with a similar message by 2020, so that we don't end up with Cory loving Booker.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Why not? The candidate you voted for in the primary was pushing for his nomination the entire time? Again, stupidity. I was stuck in the bubble of conventional politics and assumed that fundraising and organization would be the most important factors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
B B posted:I really hope we can find someone younger with a similar message by 2020, so that we don't end up with Cory loving Booker. It's going to be Cory Booker.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
B B posted:I was a fan of Bernie's policies but always thought he was an imperfect messenger.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
The 2020 democratic candidate should have correct and ethical policy positions, and then all correct and ethical people will vote for him/her/they. just my take
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:OK that's exactly what i've been saying for years. It was pure political malpractice. The person that have worked within a group for decades will always have an advantage over the person that didn't. You might as well complain about human nature. In any case, Trump proved it can be done.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:I read something yesterday that we're now basically locked into 10+ feet of sea level rise, possibly more, depending on how quickly the Antarctic/Greenland ice sheets melt. It's gonna be a terrifying next 50 years. So what you're saying is I'm going to have beach front property in 50 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
kenner116 posted:It's going to be Cory Booker. gently caress that, I'll join the Log cabin Republicans if they do that. At least then I might be able to have some effect on policy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Somebody posted already about starting to work in a solution to this. If we want 4 years of Trump instead of 8 years, leftist and liberals on USA must find a person that is electable and want to be president and rally on that person. This person must be somebody willing to fix the problems inside the USA frontiers and not be a horrible person crippled with a trail of corruption in the past. It would be even better if realice is science that give us nice things like computers, electricity or vacines, and is not willing to sacrifice these things in the name of religion or fads.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Sorus posted:So what you're saying is I'm going to have beach front property in 50 years. oh that's adorable you think property rights will survive the collapse of coastal cities
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Why would you vote for her in the primary though? Bernie was a much better choice Being capable and productive in office doesn't always mean one is adept at campaigning. Nearly everyone expected Trump to be a loser almost by default and most of the "who is better" talk between Bernie and Hillary was not "which can beat Trump" but instead "who has the biggest margin over Trump." I mean hindsight is 20/20 and all but this idea that anyone was some Cassandra figure saying only Bernie could have beaten Trump because Clinton wouldn't push a platform that was approachable for the jobless cracker demographic is pretty ridiculous. Pages and pages were spent bickering over the extent to which the candidates were making college free and who disavowed the TPP first before derailing over poo poo like "He was getting arrested for marching with MLK while she was a Goldwater Girl." If any evidence indicated that there was a lurking rural resentment of social idealism borne from decades of harm caused by industrial deregulation and perceived isolation then the discussion over whether work-study was free enough probably would have gone differently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
He came across as a one issue candidate, everything was about fighting Wall Street and the 1%.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Tei posted:Somebody posted already about starting to work in a solution to this. If we want 4 years of Trump instead of 8 years, leftist and liberals on USA must find a person that is electable and want to be president and rally on that person. https://ourrevolution.com/ kenner116 posted:He came across as a one issue candidate, everything was about fighting Wall Street and the 1%. If you just watched the brief media soundbites, sure. If you actually had looked at his policy or listened to a speech, not so much. FAUXTON posted:I mean hindsight is 20/20 and all but this idea that anyone was some Cassandra figure saying only Bernie could have beaten Trump because Clinton wouldn't push a platform that was approachable for the jobless cracker demographic is pretty ridiculous. If you don't think anti-establishment sentiment was at an all time high this entire election cycle and that it didn't have a big part to do with why Clinton lost and why Bernie would have done better... well, that's some pretty poor analysis imo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:Bernie was not a good candidate. Clinton's support was broad but shallow and his was deep but narrow. Intersectionality is the key to rebuilding and we need someone with Bernie's message that knows how to campaign towards people other than working class whites. He did great with minority millenials. The disconnect was generational.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
kenner116 posted:He came across as a one issue candidate, everything was about fighting Wall Street and the 1%. Which is something a lot of people want to hear right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
kenner116 posted:He came across as a one issue candidate, everything was about fighting Wall Street and the 1%. Everything IS about fighting the 1% though
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
From my perspective: I think Sanders did a very good job at articulating his core message about economic inequality, and a bad job articulating a position on other kinds of inequality, and on foreign policy issues. I think he was decent on the envrionment, but I also think American feelings on environmentalism run for skepticism to outright hatred. I didn't dislike Sanders - again, I preferred him to Clinton - but I wasn't as enthusiastic about him as a lot of people. He was fine. I would have liked more candidates to choose from, and I think where the DNC and the party machine really failed was in depressing the candidate pool. People talked a lot about how nobody wanted to run against Clinton, since she was the party favorite.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:Which is something a lot of people want to hear right now. Not enough to beat Hillary in the primaries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Spacebump posted:I've actually said this would be the best chance to beat Trump if the Dems want to punt experience out the window and hope Amal would be a good shadow President. Clooney would easily take back the rust belt states Clinton lost. The plot for Ocean's Fourteen is getting wierd.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:Everything IS about fighting the 1% though And this administration makes that VERY clear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Glazier posted:If she's willing to get out of the way of progressive reforms and make her primary job to ensure Trump is a one term President she will have my support. Which state so you live in
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Spacebump posted:Women in middle America love George Clooney. He would easily make up the 100,000 votes Hillary lost by. The brilliant part is all he has to do is act Presidential and have some well written zingers. If we're doing celebrities let's draft John Cena. Nietzschean posted:Which state so you live in Florida
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:From my perspective: I think Sanders did a very good job at articulating his core message about economic inequality, and a bad job articulating a position on other kinds of inequality, and on foreign policy issues. I think he was also decent on the envrionment, but I also think American feelings on environmentalism run for skepticism to outright hatred. I didn't dislike Sanders - again, I preferred him to Clinton - but I wasn't as enthusiastic about him as a lot of people. He was fine. I would have liked more candidates to choose from, and I think where the DNC and the party machine really failed was in depressing the candidate pool. People talked a lot about how nobody wanted to run against Clinton, since she was the party favorite. That's all fine and good, I don't think he was "perfect" and I think there is definitely fair criticism to make. What I don't get is people who looked at all of this and then voted Clinton because... she could win the election... which she didn't, and largely because she lost demographics Bernie crushed. Kind of makes the logic fall apart unless you're willing to put forth that Bernie would have done worse than Hillary with other demographics. The problem is nobody can find a demographic that HRC beats Bernie in other than upper middle class Democrats(maybe Wall Street republicans), who are the ones who have the most power during the primary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:That's all fine and good, I don't think he was "perfect" and I think there is definitely fair criticism to make. What I don't get is people who looked at all of this and then voted Clinton because... she could win the election... which she didn't, and largely because she lost demographics Bernie crushed. Kind of makes the logic fall apart unless you're willing to put forth that Bernie would have done worse than Hillary with other demographics. The problem is nobody can find a demographic that HRC beats Bernie in other than upper middle class Democrats(maybe Wall Street republicans), who are the ones who have the most power during the primary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:The problem is nobody can find a demographic that HRC beats Bernie in other than upper middle class Democrats(maybe Wall Street republicans), who are the ones who have the most power during the primary. People of Color.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:That's all fine and good, I don't think he was "perfect" and I think there is definitely fair criticism to make. What I don't get is people who looked at all of this and then voted Clinton because... she could win the election... which she didn't, and largely because she lost demographics Bernie crushed. Kind of makes the logic fall apart unless you're willing to put forth that Bernie would have done worse than Hillary with other demographics. The problem is nobody can find a demographic that HRC beats Bernie in other than upper middle class Democrats(maybe Wall Street republicans), who are the ones who have the most power during the primary. Of course you don't understand, because you don't want to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
kenner116 posted:Not enough to beat Hillary in the primaries. Enough to pull 40% despite showing up late and unprepared as a protest candidate. That should be the take away. These issues engage the public.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
This is all disregarding the fact that so many voters weren't making an informed decision, that there was a massive amount of both media manipulation and straight-up media failure, etc. That's all harder to predict.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
botany posted:People of Color. You think People of Color would have voted for Donald Trump over Bernie more than they did for HRC?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:The problem is nobody can find a demographic that HRC beats Bernie in other than upper middle class Democrats(maybe Wall Street republicans), who are the ones who have the most power during the primary. ...yeah, which states did Bernie lose again?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:oh that's adorable you think property rights will survive the collapse of coastal cities There will be new coastal cities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:You think People of Color would have voted for Donald Trump over Bernie more than they did for HRC? PoCs voted for Clinton more than for Sanders. The safe assumption is that in the case of a Sanders candidacy, their turnout would have been lower than it was for Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Being capable and productive in office doesn't always mean one is adept at campaigning. Nearly everyone expected Trump to be a loser almost by default and most of the "who is better" talk between Bernie and Hillary was not "which can beat Trump" but instead "who has the biggest margin over Trump." I said as much at the time. Or more specifically I said that the people voting for Hillary had no comprehension of how.much she was hated among right wing circles and just how poisonous her candidacy would be to people Bernie could have reached. I said so because I live in a deep red state and I saw what people were saying on the ground. . I didn't expect it to matter then and it doesn't now. Bernie was the right candidate for the time but Hillary's institutional advantages were too strong; she won the "invisible primary" before Bernie was anything more than a weird gimmick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
botany posted:PoCs voted for Clinton more than for Sanders. The safe assumption is that in the case of a Sanders candidacy, their turnout would have been lower than it was for Clinton. BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:...yeah, which states did Bernie lose again? The states where they didn't know who he was yet. Nobody is saying Bernie didn't have a problem with campaign outreach, but his policies resonated with minorities much more than HRCs did. The question isn't "does HRC beat Bernie in the primary" it's "does Bernie beat DJT in the general". The entire point of the primary is to pick the "right" candidate. It failed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
botany posted:PoCs voted for Clinton more than for Sanders. The safe assumption is that in the case of a Sanders candidacy, their turnout would have been lower than it was for Clinton. Maybe older people but younger people, of all races, were won by Sanders in huge numbers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 06:06 |
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:That's all fine and good, I don't think he was "perfect" and I think there is definitely fair criticism to make. What I don't get is people who looked at all of this and then voted Clinton because... she could win the election... which she didn't, and largely because she lost demographics Bernie crushed. Kind of makes the logic fall apart unless you're willing to put forth that Bernie would have done worse than Hillary with other demographics. The problem is nobody can find a demographic that HRC beats Bernie in other than upper middle class Democrats(maybe Wall Street republicans), who are the ones who have the most power during the primary. Literally everyone I know who voted Hillary in the primary had been planning to vote for her since 2008 if not before. It was all baked in. And to be fair to them she did win the popular vote by a huge margin and would have won the swing states without voter suppression.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:47
|
|