They were not willing to play as dirty as the GOP.
Why did the Democrats lose the election?
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
Oh look Tiassa, Iceaura, another one that sees the fucking obvious! How is that primary vote feeling now?
I'm not sure that Bernie could have defeated Trump but at least he isn't a miserable creep, like the other two candidates and he should have been given the chance to try. But no. The DNC had to sabotage him. I hope the Clintons just disappear -- it would be the best thing they could do for the Dem party.
I'm not sure the DNC "sabotage" was either effective or went farther than internal discussions. But I agree that Democratic politics are deeply flawed. And I'm a Democrat.
Two Birds and Rainy Day Women? No, Wait, That Isn't Right
Click to get your ruckus on.
I don't understand what either of you expect to accomplish by attacking Democratic-sympathizing voters.
Furthermore, given that the functional difference―(i.e., considering Clinton's 2.8m vote advantage)―is less people than it takes to fill an American football stadium spread out over three states where an ideological and political heritage concomitant with a sociopolitical identity bloc helped establish the policies that bloc now laments, I'm not certain what we expect of the short-term examination. In the end, there are plenty of questions for the Democrats, but the historical examination twenty years hence will look considerably different than the proximal postmortem. Certes, poor handling of a range of issues contribute to the question of how things get so close in the first place, but Michigan, for instance, is a Republican-governed state, and as long as the tyranny primarily takes it out on black people, queers, and orphans, the state will likely stay that way for a while.
The trade deals were never popular, but, like "right to work" laws in states where voters have long helped bust unions, even to their own detriment, this sort of stuff doesn't come about without the working-class blocs in question. Seriously, NAFTA wasn't foisted on Rust Belt industrial workers by some strange coalition of rich people and minorities; it was the traditional coalition of Tea & Crumpets voters.
Michael Moore once wrote that Horatio Alger must die; part of what has happened in these working-class blocs is pretty much at the heart of what he was on about.
One of the things history will need some time to comprehend is just how blind Democrats were to certain omens; deafness to the clamor is one thing, but the conservative portion of the cacophony transformed quickly.
And while playing holier than thou unto the majority of Democratic voters is one thing, there is also the bit about the actual vote total. That's a lot of voters you're talking down to. More than it takes to elect a president, in fact.
Click to get your ruckus on.
I don't understand what either of you expect to accomplish by attacking Democratic-sympathizing voters.
Furthermore, given that the functional difference―(i.e., considering Clinton's 2.8m vote advantage)―is less people than it takes to fill an American football stadium spread out over three states where an ideological and political heritage concomitant with a sociopolitical identity bloc helped establish the policies that bloc now laments, I'm not certain what we expect of the short-term examination. In the end, there are plenty of questions for the Democrats, but the historical examination twenty years hence will look considerably different than the proximal postmortem. Certes, poor handling of a range of issues contribute to the question of how things get so close in the first place, but Michigan, for instance, is a Republican-governed state, and as long as the tyranny primarily takes it out on black people, queers, and orphans, the state will likely stay that way for a while.
The trade deals were never popular, but, like "right to work" laws in states where voters have long helped bust unions, even to their own detriment, this sort of stuff doesn't come about without the working-class blocs in question. Seriously, NAFTA wasn't foisted on Rust Belt industrial workers by some strange coalition of rich people and minorities; it was the traditional coalition of Tea & Crumpets voters.
Michael Moore once wrote that Horatio Alger must die; part of what has happened in these working-class blocs is pretty much at the heart of what he was on about.
One of the things history will need some time to comprehend is just how blind Democrats were to certain omens; deafness to the clamor is one thing, but the conservative portion of the cacophony transformed quickly.
And while playing holier than thou unto the majority of Democratic voters is one thing, there is also the bit about the actual vote total. That's a lot of voters you're talking down to. More than it takes to elect a president, in fact.
Meh. I've heard these words from people who voted for Trump too often since the election: (paraphrased) "I really didn't want to vote for Trump but the alternative was down-right awful." I voted for Clinton, while holding my nose, because (for me) she was just a pile of a bit less smelly shit.
America got what it deserves.
I'm even beginning to look more fondly on G. W. Bush.
America got what it deserves.
I'm even beginning to look more fondly on G. W. Bush.
To get you to vote for a better candidate next time?
Primary voters are not the same things as general election voters, more so many independents and even light republicans liked Bernie and would rather have voted for a candidate they believed principled over a pig boar or that women they hated as much as the devil, despite disagreeing with Bernie on some things, and you would be surprised what they agreed with Bernie on by the way. The other clue we have that Bernie would have won is that Bernie beat Trump in polls by a significantly higher margin than Clinton. Finally yes there is no way to prove Bernie would have won the 2016 presidental election against Trump, none the less we know with 100% certainty that Hillary Clinton would not have, therefor we can say the uncertain outcome should have been the choice. Had it been the other way around and had Bernie lost to Trump you could give me shit every day like a harpy, I would deserve it, thus you deserve my daily hate for handing us trump.
Finally I would think Historians in the future would agree, as automation saps the sanity out of the middle class we are likely to see even further political swings in either direction, likely the only means of returning sanity, hope and prosperity will be very progressive policies like progressive taxation on the wealthy, universal healthcare and basic income guarantee, as such Bernie was ahead of the curve.
I think Bernie was/is squeaky clean, a rarity in politics. He couldn't have been attacked by the Trumpites, like they were able to attack Clinton.
That private server of hers was the stupidest idea. If it was her idea then she is stupid. If it was someone else's idea then she has bad judgement. Either way, she was a crap candidate. Between she and Bill, they have more horrible baggage than will fit in their new home in NY.
That private server of hers was the stupidest idea. If it was her idea then she is stupid. If it was someone else's idea then she has bad judgement. Either way, she was a crap candidate. Between she and Bill, they have more horrible baggage than will fit in their new home in NY.
So you have changed your mind - it wasn't the people like me rallying the uneducated white folks by calling them names and telling them if they didn't like it they should vote for Trump, but the Democratic Party establishment nominating a baggage-ridden candidate who failed to attract voters.
And the role of the corporate media in that "baggage" - my focus throughout - is what: not even on your radar?
And somehow my primary vote, whatever it was, is relevant. The one I cast in between campaigns of screaming names like "racist" and "misogynist" and "fascist" at people.
Do you realize how much of your argument depends on making assumptions regarding people you know nothing about ? What do you suppose your odds are, of having reality match such ill-supported imaginings?
You misunderstand and greatly underestimate the media operations supporting Trump, if you think reality is a significant barrier to their launching effective attacks.
I agree it was a mistake to set it up like that, but it was
1) something almost everybody in her position in government seems to have done, including all her predecessors in her job, which suggests a problem with the official setup - an aspect of the story nobody seems to have addressed in detail.
2) in her case, probably the only way she could avoid having her personal stuff hacked. Notice that her server is just about the only one involved in this mess that was not, as far as we know, stolen from. And the hit squad that's been following her around for twenty or thirty years now, dedicated to destroying her personally and publicly and financially and professionally, is financed by billionaires with ties to considerable expertise.
I have explained this repeatedly to you: there are multiple factors that came to cause the election of trump, and I have said repeatedly the first was running Hillary Clinton, that despite you and your ilk whining on about racism and sexism we would still have won had we run Bernie. None the less you and your ilk supporter her during the primaries because "first women president" and those that didn't you derided as "Berniebros" and accuse us of being sexists, this cost Hillary Clinton votes in the general election, thus your ilk is part of why we lost and partially responsible even if we don't count your poor choice of primary vote.
And I have been over this with you: decades of attacks on hillary, two ongoing FBI investigations, simply does not compare to having to do an attack campaign in just a few months on a relatively unknown senator. This is why we trampled the republicans with Obama in 2008!
You've managed to talk yourself all the way into the bag, which should be an interesting and informative experience for you - this is what happens when you allow entities like Breitbart and 4chan and the Fox-addled major media to tell you things, and forget that they are not just a viewpoint or "side" but instead are liars and bullshitters with a really bad, no kidding seriously malignant, agenda.
In pursuit of that agenda, they inculcate amnesia. You have to rewrite history to incorporate what they are telling you as "information", and that means you have to forget stuff wholesale. Stuff you actually knew at one time. Stuff you've seen with your own eyes.
The fact that he was, and is, largely unknown, is probably why he lost the primaries, and would have been a severe handicap in the general. Trump's name recognition, his familiarity, was an enormous advantage for him initially and increasingly - it was a lot of the benefit of all the extra free media time he got.
It also means that 1) the Reps can build the media identity they want for him, via lies and slanders (crazy old man, unstable, would be my first guess) 2) he would have a difficult time establishing the key factor that makes a Dem candidate electable, which is the appearance of competence. He has no public record.
Really says the person following putins plan in attacking bernie sanders supporters. Your mentality was a vote for sanders proved someone voice should be discounted. and than you lied about the DNC hatchet job against him. hate to break it to you but your hands are just has bloddy as theirs on this so don't get on a high horse attacking people for something you your self did.
and you think belittling people works to do that. all it accomplishes is making people think I'm going to just the opposite to spite that asshole. you win far more battles with empathy and compassion than assholery and dick waving/measuring but no by all means continue.
That sounds like the logic my step-mother had on raising my half-brother, now he grew up to be a high school drop out asshole narcissists that sell pot illegally for a living. Sometimes negative reinforcement is the only option.
So your counter-argument is to attack me, attack them, and not acknowledge my argument, well I guess my argument wins then.
Yeah totally handicapped Obama in 2008, that why he lost to Hillary Clinton... oh wait the opposite happened. This time around Hillary had spent the last 8 years increasing her stranglehold on the party, taking Obama's election network to insure she would not get "obama-ed" again, and she didn't, good for her, bad for the nation though because she could not even win a general election against a pig boar!
Take a moment to consider trump is the least popular just elected president EVER, that he was polling as least like candidate, with Hillary running a close second. Trump is INFAMOUS, and so is Hillary, that puts a different spin on "name recognition" and "familiarity" in that this election came down to which ever candidate was hated least. Now had we run anyone, any random person off the street, that was clean of investigations into misconduct or huckstery, that was consistent in policy, that had not been flipping from one party to the next, or flipping on glass-steagall and gay marriage, we wold have won.
Yeah totally that is why Obama lost in 2008 against McCain.
Anyways for you regressives, there will hopefully be the likes of Tulsi Gabbard and/or Elizabeth Warren for you to get behind, but than you will pull out your "I'm with Her" signs which will cost us votes, at least Hillary Clinton won't be running again... oh... OH NO:
You don't have an argument, you have a world of delusion, and interestingly enough (if memory serves) one which you did not have a year ago. I'm mocking it - I would be more civil, and not hang you out like this, but after the past few weeks of abuse from you I think I'll just let you walk around on those stilts for a while.
That's not how name recognition works. Trump doesn't mind high negatives - he uses them to motivate his followers. If he didn't have it, he'd have had to invent it somehow. The key is that everybody knows who he is. Meanwhile, Clinton won the primary largely on name recognition among the black voters of the Confederacy, who had no idea who Sanders was and no real chance to find out, and apparent vote rigging in a couple of States (especially California, if the numbers don't lie).
Obama got lots of publicity. CNN ran his speeches.
Meanwhile, it took the complete collapse of the US economy under Republican supervision just weeks before the vote, the loss of a major port city to Republican incompetence, a losing war started by Republicans and marked by atrocity and corruption, in general a Republican President who failed at everything he touched, to set up the deathblow of Sara Palin. And after all that, it took record black turnout to win it for him - McCain won the white vote, 55% (compare Trump's 58%).
That seems unlikely, he was far less popular than Clinton.
Delusion... projection much? Clinton lost, you choose for her, us "BernieBros" were right, those are the facts. I will keep screeching and clawing and biting at you with reality until you concede!
Bernie got lots of publicity, he managed over 200 million dollars in individual donations, not sure if the Clinton news network ran his speeches in full though.
As for the black voters of the confederacy, yeah they choose poorly too.
Yeah and? Are you saying the blacks simply would not have turned out to vote for Bernie in the general election? How did they turn out to vote for Clinton, oh that right she even lost 1%-2% of the black vote to Trump, how pathetic.
Which is more probable: the 100% chance that Clinton lost the election or the unknown chance Bernie would have lost as well?
Second of all maybe you should have look at the polling then: Bernie was running better odds against trump consistently in head to head match-ups against trump. Bernie was better liked even by republicans as he was seen as principled and consistent even though they disagreed with him they respect that, unlike Clinton.
If Bernie had lost (which he would have) you'd be asking exactly the opposite question.