December 17, 2016 at 12:15 pm #25657VitalogyParticipant
No Democratic candidate with a score below 15 has ever won the presidency. Bernie Sanders, needless to say, is way below 15. There’s not a snowball’s chance that he could have won the presidency.December 17, 2016 at 2:32 pm #25663AndrewParticipant
I sincerely doubt Bernie would have done better than Clinton against Trump, although we’ll never know of course.
But the article you link to is not particularly persuasive. The idea that “being liberal” can be quantified as a single digit number that can be used to compare candidates over 60 years is a bit silly. For one – what was a “liberal” issue 50 years ago might not be today. (Eisenhower was a strong proponent of Social Security and labor unions, for example.) Today’s big “liberal vs. conservative” issues were not even around 50 years ago – for example, guns, abortion, and illegal immigration. The end of the Cold War and the civil rights movement have re-aligned politics a lot in the last 50 years.December 17, 2016 at 8:15 pm #25665mwdxer1Participant
No one could have won against Trump, as the news media gave him Billions in free advertising. The first time in history. Trump did not honestly win this election, because between the news media, the Russians, and whatever else. The cards were stacked against any candidate. There were many decent Republicans that could have been the nominee but thanks to every news channel changing to the “Trump Channel”, Thump was shoe in. Add to that the mud they kept throwing at Clinton. This country has elected probably the worst ever. If he get out of line, which is expected, lets hope the GOP can reel him in. Good luck. He has always upset several World leaders and he isn’t even president as yet.December 17, 2016 at 8:37 pm #25670
I don’t know that Bernie would have won. My own personal assessment is he would have cleaned the floor with Trumps hair piece.
But, let’s say he would have lost big. It’s plausible, and totally worth discussing.
Seems to me, Clinton should have co-opted the best of the movement, propped Bernie up somewhere acceptable to most.
Doing that would have absolutely improved her performance in the important rust belt States.
She could have won.
And taking this line of reasoning a bit further, she was the right nominee then, correct?
Hey, I’m good with that.
It also means she really does own the loss, as we were doomed to get Trump anyway, unless a very serious effort was made.
All this does is validate my assessment she lost for failing to do that work and for telling people she needed that they were not needed.
Seems to me everyone is pissed at the Russians for revealing the truth about how the DNC manipulated elections?
None of that makes any sense to me currently. If it’s valid, more will come out, and I way more open to discuss at that time. Right now I’m seeing a repeat of “There are WMD’s somewhere” and I absolutely do not like what I see.
Number one tell?
It’s being used as an excuse for a political loss, and it’s super important we recognize that loss, not get distracted by some shiny thing.
There are important economic considerations a lot of important people would prefer to gloss over. I’m not going to play ball on any of that.
Until we get something far more material and or actionable, it’s looking like a fat distraction at best to me.December 17, 2016 at 9:56 pm #25671mwdxer1Participant
I do not blame Clinton or even Trump for the outcome of the election. It is all from the News Media and the Russians that want Trump in the White House, if it wasn’t for the news media to keep Trump on the screen all of the time, Trump may not be President. If there is anyone to blame, it is the News Media and I have worked in news, but today’s media is nothing like it was years ago. The only thing that counts are the ratings. If Trump makes the ratings, then lets give him all of the free coverage he wants. Even when Clinton paid for all of the advertising, Trump was getting free coverage. I got so tired of it, I started watching news from other areas like the BBC, France 24, DWTV, etc. I would love to get behind any decent President, but so far Trump has not proven to me he is fit to hold the office. Time will tell, but again he is nothing like we ever seen.December 17, 2016 at 10:24 pm #25672
Where we make the case “it’s the media”, does that not also make this “fake news” discussion somewhat awkward?December 17, 2016 at 10:26 pm #25673AndrewParticipant
Doug, many of the Bernie Bros turned on Bernie the minute he endorsed Clinton. To too many of them, she was simply “corrupt.” She was toxic to them, and they were beyond reasoning with. I tried to talk to a number of them on Facebook; it was pointless, like trying to reason with cult members.
Before the election, I assumed the average American voters – not the alt-right and the hard-core Republican voters – would see through all of the anti-Clinton nonsense, realize it was BS, and do the right thing. But as I’ve talked to people since the election, I’ve been shocked to the extent that even so-called “average” voters bought into to all of the anti-Clinton propaganda. I don’t blame “fake news on Facebook” or Wikileaks for this – it was just icing on the cake. The real reason Clinton was so poisoned was the “regular” news media, so eager and willing to report on anything negative about Clinton. How many times did they react to every new piece of irrelevant new info about the email server as if it were Watergate?
I used to listen to a radio station that used AP Radio News, and I was amazed at the way they reacted to the email scandal in particular as if it were a murder trial, and even if only a minor irrelevant detail came out in the news, they’d report the whole thing breathlessly yet again as if it were a big breaking story. When this kind of nonsense was repeated over and over and over again, while real stories like the Trump University swindle were largely ignored, no wonder people bought into it.
Even some Democratic voters who voted for Clinton believed the BS about her and voted against Trump, not “for” her. One of my very liberal friends (who held her nose and voted for Clinton) mentioned Benghazi to me before the election, and I tried to point out how unfair the whole Republican series of investigations was (EIGHT separate investigations that found NO wrongdoing at all by Clinton???). Her response was: yeah, but have you SEEN THE MOVIE? (“13 Hours”)? Had I gotten my facts about Benghazi from a fictional Hollywood movie??? Of course not – but like her, many people probably were swayed by the movie and by all of those taxpayer-funded Congressional investigations designed to “bring her numbers down” as Kevin McCarthy admitted on Fox, and surely many of those people voted trump or for Stein or Johnson or not at all, when they probably voted for Obama in 2012.December 18, 2016 at 10:33 am #25676
Yes they did, though increasing numbers of them are letting that go.
In my discussions, a lot of what drives “corrupt” involves anger over the disconnect between things like recovery and the non recovery people are experiencing.
Mistrust runs very high.
And we do have a problem in that what many people would label corruption is legal in US politics. That doesn’t make it OK.
Those things drove a lot of Obama, Obama, Trump or protest votes, IMHO.
Giving people clear things to vote for could be a nice check on a lot of this BS, BTW.
Done that way, it favors the left in general.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.