|
theflyingorc posted:The real single decision Clinton could have made that would have secured her the presidency: Yep. Not picking Sanders was yet another example of Hillary's unwillingness to challenge the status quo, and her arrogant belief that she had the election in the bag. So she went with a very safe pick. (There's also the deeply misguided tradition that VPs should always be relatively young and energetic.)
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:59 |
|
|
ur wrong im right posted:I really hope you're right, BG! Personally I believe that liberal elites would rather Republicans win in perpetuity if it meant they didn't have to contribute to a UBI, Medicare for all, etc, so they'll continue the divide-and-conquer idpol strategy. Based on how Bloomberg was going to run as a spoiler this isn't a belief but rather an absolute fact
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The Bernie Wins Timeline: This is the dumbest thing I've read on these forums.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Die Sexmonster! posted:This is the dumbest thing I've read on these forums. I guess you never met effectronica.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
deadly_pudding posted:I predict that Trump will continue to subtweet China about how he wants to be big buddies with their enemies after he takes office, only he'll do it from @POTUS and we're all gonna die. I am very worried that you are correct, and the pseudo-accelerationist thing I posted is me hoping against hope.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
You keep saying "literally nothing happens" as if it's a bad thing, and as if we didn't just live through a nothing-happened period of government that will inevitably be seen as superior to what happened after it
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:Yeah in retrospect I don't see how Bernie winning is a good thing. I'd rather 4 years of rabid leftism boiling over trump and be ready in 2020 than have a Sanders presidency met with a total lack of cooperation from both sides of the aisle and the eternal refrain of "well we TRIED socialism and it didn't work!!!" from third-wayists I don't really have that much faith in 'rabid leftism boiling over', but the next President is going to be stuck holding the bag for AT LEAST a serious economic downturn if not a war or three (less so under than Trump/Clinton), and even if the Democrats continue to be feckless loving losers at least this way Trump's going to get his rhetoric spoiled by reality and be vulnerable to an ouster himself, instead of us all looking at a much more honed version of Trumpism riding a populist wave against the liberal establishment into Washington in 2020 and keeping it forever after.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Yep. Not picking Sanders was yet another example of Hillary's unwillingness to challenge the status quo, and her arrogant belief that she had the election in the bag. So she went with a very safe pick. Well, at the time, when I was ALSO certain that she was going to win, I preferred Sanders not being moved to the most worthless position in American politics. I'd rather have Sanders in the Senate under a Hillary presidency than as VP. But I'd rather have Bernie in a bad position than Trump as president, so I guess I was wrong!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:I don't really have that much faith in 'rabid leftism boiling over', but the next President is going to be stuck holding the bag for AT LEAST a serious economic downturn if not a war or three (less so under than Trump/Clinton), and even if the Democrats continue to be feckless loving losers at least this way Trump's going to get his rhetoric spoiled by reality and be vulnerable to an ouster himself, instead of us all looking at a much more honed version of Trumpism riding a populist wave against the liberal establishment into Washington in 2020 and keeping it forever after. If it actually worked this way, Republicans would have been a rump party after Bush gave us Iraq and the Great Recession.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
ur wrong im right posted:You keep saying "literally nothing happens" as if it's a bad thing, and as if we didn't just live through a nothing-happened period of government that will inevitably be seen as superior to what happened after it I feel like you see "literally nothing happens" and stop reading because I've said why this is bad twice now
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:All I'm really saying is that a hammer had to smack the Dems in the loving head to even consider changing their procedure of just assuming everyone would vote for them. The absolute shellacking an orange golem gave the Most Qualified Candidate to Ever Candidate is that hammer. Ellison's DNC bid is being torpedoed, Pelosi is still minority leader and is now telling people that voters don't want a "new direction" they want better messaging. It's going to be 8 years of Trump for sure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
ur wrong im right posted:If it actually worked this way, Republicans would have been a rump party after Bush gave us Iraq and the Great Recession. uhhhh you mean like they were in 2008? The Republicans have been disintegrating ever since Bush, when they're not losing in a historic landslide to Democrats the GOP establishment is getting devoured from within by Tea Party maniacs who share virtually none of their ideology or power structure. The Bush legacy forced them to basically have to publicly disavow everything they ostensibly stood for for eight years, because it was electoral poison. It took historic incompetence and uselessness on the part of the Democrats culminating in hitching their star to Hillary Clinton, the least trustworthy political figure since Satan, to lose the Presidency, and they did it to a blue dog nutso who won the primary on a platform of openly holding the Republican party and its 'conservative values' in contempt. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Squinty posted:Ellison's DNC bid is being torpedoed, Pelosi is still minority leader and is now telling people that voters don't want a "new direction" they want better messaging. It's going to be 8 years of Trump for sure. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
So somehow giving Bernie a 100% useless job that has absolutely no power would have been enough for you guys?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
ur wrong im right posted:If it actually worked this way, Republicans would have been a rump party after Bush gave us Iraq and the Great Recession. The voters memory on this type of thing is exactly long enough to draw the worst possible conclusions. I mean - Obama won by a landslide, in large part by promising to not be George W Bush. But the census year was also a midterm, which made 2010 perfect for Republicans to harness all that racial/cultural resentment against Obama. The whole political universe we're living in right now is defined by the 2010 election. If it weren't for gerrymandering and voter suppression, the Republicans would have been getting steamrolled this whole decade because of demographics - and they're still poisoning the well on their own future (unless they manage to fully flip rust belt whites permanently). The Republicans have avoided becoming a rump party by undermining Democracy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Squinty posted:Ellison's DNC bid is being torpedoed, Pelosi is still minority leader and is now telling people that voters don't want a "new direction" they want better messaging. It's going to be 8 years of Trump for sure. How is it being "torpedoed" All I am seeing is right wing racist rags like Frontpage claiming he's an antisemite. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
ur wrong im right posted:If it actually worked this way, Republicans would have been a rump party after Bush gave us Iraq and the Great Recession. It did work that way, the GOP was just able to use the next 8 years to recover. But in 2008 they were really dead in the water.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:How is it being "torpedoed" All I am seeing is right wing racist rags like Frontpage claiming he's an antisemite. I thought Dean dropping out was a pretty good sign for him (though I also think Dean would likely do a good job)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:All I'm really saying is that a hammer had to smack the Dems in the loving head to even consider changing their procedure of just assuming everyone would vote for them. The absolute shellacking an orange golem gave the Most Qualified Candidate to Ever Candidate is that hammer. If Pelosi 's comments are any indication the message still hasn't sunk in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
ur wrong im right posted:...ok? So now instead of thousands you have to pay every month, it's only a new car payment and the thousands come after you need it. "The ACA limits out-of-pocket maximums, the max amount of costs for covered services you'll pay out-of-pocket in a policy period on your health plan. For 2017, your out-of-pocket maximum can be no more than $7,150 for an individual plan and $14,300 for a family plan before marketplace subsidies." http://obamacarefacts.com/health-insurance/out-of-pocket-maximum/
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Oh, one thing Clinton's team shouldn't have missed: Ohio was the canary in the coal mine that they ignored. They were only ahead in the state when she was radically up on Trump, and she lost Ohio by EIGHT POINTS. Obama won it by 3. Even if you're charitable, she was down by ~5 there for most of the election. Her 8 point polling swing in Ohio (let alone her 11 point swing in voters) should have had her whole team very, very worried. (and Nate Silver talked constantly about how fragile her electoral firewall was in the midwest. People made fun of him)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Oh, one thing Clinton's team shouldn't have missed: Ohio was the canary in the coal mine that they ignored. They were only ahead in the state when she was radically up on Trump, and she lost Ohio by EIGHT POINTS. Obama won it by 3. Yeah we need to admit SIlver was right on that. ON the other hand ignore his punditry. Because he is the demographics is destiny person the neolibs love.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:a blue dog nutso who won the primary on a platform of openly holding the Republican party and its 'conservative values' in contempt. Except now that he's in power he's giving those very same Republican conservatives and elitists power. And it actually seems to be pissing quite a few people who voted for him off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Space Cadet Omoly posted:Except now that he's in power he's giving those very same Republican conservatives and elitists power. It sure is strange to have someone who is a pathological liar not do what he says isn't it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
wait would Sanders have even wanted to be VP
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:wait would Sanders have even wanted to be VP Spike Lee: Were you ever offered the VP position, sir? Bernie Sanders: No. Absolutely not. Spike Lee: Would you have taken it? Bernie Sanders: Er. Probably, yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
interesting, legitimately had never heard about that anyway, yeah, picking kaine was dumb in hindsight but it was even dumber that they basically used him as an annoying little yapping attack dog during the VP debate instead of trying to have a substantive debate about the iss--ahh who cares
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Space Cadet Omoly posted:Except now that he's in power he's giving those very same Republican conservatives and elitists power. It's entirely possible Trump will serve to backdoor-politic a little more relevance for the Party of Reagan instead of make his own thing, but if that's what they're reduced to to hold office now they're screwed
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:So somehow giving Bernie a 100% useless job that has absolutely no power would have been enough for you guys? Considering the fact that we would likely not have Trump as President now, yeah?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:So somehow giving Bernie a 100% useless job that has absolutely no power would have been enough for you guys? it would've actually had forced hillary to somewhat adhere to the progressive policy platform that was 100% genuine and not just pandering after she had an ounce of difficulty in the primary. you know, the platform she magically stopped talking about once she was realized she might be able to win on "I AM NOT DONALD TRUMPS"
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Considering the fact that we would likely not have Trump as President now, yeah? In that case i think it really says something about how dumb liberal voters really are that they would prefer to lose one of the most aggressive liberals in Congress to give him a completely symbolic job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:It's entirely possible Trump will serve to backdoor-politic a little more relevance for the Party of Reagan instead of make his own thing, but if that's what they're reduced to to hold office now they're screwed yeah i don't see the republicans surviving when their only contributions for a generation are Bush Jr, the Tea Party, and Trump in 2020. the only way they stay in power is if that NC gerrymandering case is spiked
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:it would've actually had forced hillary to somewhat adhere to the progressive policy platform that was 100% genuine and not just pandering after she had an ounce of difficulty in the primary. you know, the platform she magically stopped talking about once she was realized she might be able to win on "I AM NOT DONALD TRUMPS" This isn't remotely what happened and your interpretation is kinda stupid Khisanth Magus posted:In that case i think it really says something about how dumb liberal voters really are that they would prefer to lose one of the most aggressive liberals in Congress to give him a completely symbolic job. Dude - they'd prefer him in congress, but not as much as they'd prefer for Trump to not be president.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:In that case i think it really says something about how dumb liberal voters really are that they would prefer to lose one of the most aggressive liberals in Congress to give him a completely symbolic job. He's equally useless in a Dem-minority Congress under a President Trump so this isn't a fair comparison.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:This isn't remotely what happened and your interpretation is kinda stupid The "Bernie being the VP pick would mean Trump would have lost" is dependent upon the assumption that liberal voters are dumb enough to not know how the government works because he could have done a gently caress ton more in the Senate under a democratic president that he would in a position where the highest profile thing he will have is the onion articles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:The "Bernie being the VP pick would mean Trump would have lost" is dependent upon the assumption that liberal voters are dumb enough to not know how the government works because he could have done a gently caress ton more in the Senate under a democratic president that he would in a position where the highest profile thing he will have is the onion articles. What is your argument here, that Dem voters who like Bernie would have NOT voted for him if he'd been VP because they want him in the Senate?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:yeah i don't see the republicans surviving when their only contributions for a generation are Bush Jr, the Tea Party, and Trump in 2020. the only way they stay in power is if that NC gerrymandering case is spiked Right now is probably not a good time to predict the death of the Republican party. They're more likely to cement their power for a generation with legal barriers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:What is your argument here, that Dem voters who like Bernie would have NOT voted for him if he'd been VP because they want him in the Senate? That anyone who would have voted for Hillary because she gave the most pointless and powerless loving position in the government to one of the only people pushing for actual progressive policy in the Senate is a loving moron.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
it is hard to believe the GOP is disintegrating when they have assured control of the entire federal government for 4 years, and have full, complete, unilateral control of 26 states, compared to the democrats 6 six loving states. rhode island, oregon, hawaii, connecticut, delaware, and california. they don't even have washington secured. they don't even have massachusetts secured. they don't even have new loving york or illinois secured they'll probably at least get back New Jersey next year, because the Republican running on the heels of Chris Christie is a nobody against the relatively important Ray Lesniak. I don't have faith Virginia is flipping though. they may also get a governorship in NM in the big 2018 round, but that might be cancelled out by Republicans completely and totally flipping Pennsylvania, and very few of the other 2018 state races look particularly competitive. considering Trump's upsets in the rust belt I don't have a lot of faith Democrats will take back the governorships up for election then, but maybe they can take back Florida? still, it is not looking like a good upswing. It genuinely looks like a solid 4 years of Republican-majority literally everything to me, and that is not a disintegrating party, that is a political institution that holds all the cards and can wield a lot more power to combat the Democrats in seemingly safe states. when was the last time a single party held this much power? it'd be interesting to see some big data graph of some sort on the balance of political power both in the states and in the fed over the course of the country's history
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:59 |
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:yeah i don't see the republicans surviving when their only contributions for a generation are Bush Jr, the Tea Party, and Trump in 2020. the only way they stay in power is if that NC gerrymandering case is spiked The Republicans are going to be able to put Ted Cruz on the Supreme Court and keep him there until we're eligible for AARP membership if they want to. Saying that Republican survival is in doubt is absurd.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 00:24
|
|