Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 07-18-2018, 02:51 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 37,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkis is Willin' View Post
There weren't many candidates the Democrats could have trotted out that would have lost to Trump in 2016. There may have only been one, actually. For Hillary to run again would be a comically egregious blunder.
.
See, this is what I am talking about. Actually, yes, Sanders would have lost even worse. Maybe her Veep might have won, Kaine, since he is rather bland and a Southerner. Same with OMalley.

Sanders would have been called a Commie. If you dont think the Kremlin can fake up a communist party ID card with Sander's name on it, you are sadly naive. The fake news would have had a field day. Combined with other Sanders issues, he wouldn't have even carried half the states Clinton did.


Fake news and propaganda by Karl Rove and the Kremlin could work vs any candidate.

Appeals to the white laid off factory workers in the rust belt, and appeals to the racists and the xenophobes would still have gotten Trump his votes.

Sure, I guess a different plan of attack, not being over confident and working for Electoral College votes instead of Popular votes might have won. Maybe. But that was a tactical error by the DNC and Hillaries advisors. Likely the same people would have given the same bad advice.

Trump was indeed a perfect candidate at that time. His charisma, his not being a Washington insider, and the fake news would have made it tough sledding for any Dem candidate.
  #102  
Old 07-18-2018, 03:25 PM
Barkis is Willin' Barkis is Willin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,982
I didn't sense that the anti-Bernie sentiment was as strong as the anti-Hillary sentiment in 2016. I think he might have been able to take Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. But I guess if you assume that fake news was going to drum up a bunch of stuff, anything could'a happened. Honestly, during the primaries, I thought O'Malley was probably the best choice.
  #103  
Old 07-18-2018, 03:30 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 37,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkis is Willin' View Post
I didn't sense that the anti-Bernie sentiment was as strong as the anti-Hillary sentiment in 2016. I think he might have been able to take Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. But I guess if you assume that fake news was going to drum up a bunch of stuff, anything could'a happened. Honestly, during the primaries, I thought O'Malley was probably the best choice.
No, because Rove and the Russians ain't stupid, they knew Clinton would be the candidate, not Sanders. So they started fake news and lies vs Clinton, not Sanders. In fact, they, in effect, helped Sanders.

Few Americans would vote for a Communist.
  #104  
Old 07-18-2018, 05:52 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,340
Is Bernie a fake Communist or a real Communist?
  #105  
Old 07-18-2018, 05:54 PM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 28,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, because Rove and the Russians ain't stupid, they knew Clinton would be the candidate, not Sanders. So they started fake news and lies vs Clinton, not Sanders. In fact, they, in effect, helped Sanders.

Few Americans would vote for a Communist.
Socialist = Communist? I mean I know Socialist is a very hard sell in the US but I don't think they are considered the same by most people.
  #106  
Old 07-18-2018, 06:23 PM
dalej42 dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 13,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkis is Willin' View Post
I didn't sense that the anti-Bernie sentiment was as strong as the anti-Hillary sentiment in 2016. I think he might have been able to take Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. But I guess if you assume that fake news was going to drum up a bunch of stuff, anything could'a happened. Honestly, during the primaries, I thought O'Malley was probably the best choice.


Clinton refrained from going negative on Bernie, especially after Super Tuesday when Sanders was all but mathematically eliminated. Her campaign incorrectly assumed that Sanders would soon drop out like most normal candidates do. Bernie should have been thoroughly embarrassed by his ass kicking in New York, but instead continued his vanity show including his, ‘take it to the convention’ nonsense
  #107  
Old 07-18-2018, 06:24 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 37,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
Is Bernie a fake Communist or a real Communist?
The Kremlin would make very very sure that about half of Americans thought he was a real Commie. Fake ID card. Find some old pictures of him attending a rally or meeting in his college years, maybe he checked out a book or took a course by a pinko.. If none can be found , make them up. Make him deny it.
  #108  
Old 07-18-2018, 06:25 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 37,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by What Exit? View Post
Socialist = Communist? I mean I know Socialist is a very hard sell in the US but I don't think they are considered the same by most people.
Did you read? Look, I know Bernie is not a Commie. But the Kremlin could make a bunch of Americans believe he was one.
  #109  
Old 07-18-2018, 10:02 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post


You know, it's possible for someone to believe both that Clinton was a bad and uninspiring candidate AND that Trump was obviously far worse.

Given Whack-a-Mole's sig line, I'm guessing he didn't vote for Trump, as you seem to be assuming he did.
...I didn't assume anything. I know perfectly well who Whack-a-Mole voted for.

The narrative that "Clinton was a "bad and uninspiring candidate" is simply that, "a narrative." A story. Like how she didn't articulate a vision. Or how "Bernie would've won."

The reality is that a whole lot of things happened at the last election and you can't point to a single one and say "that's why Trump is President." The gerrymandering. The voter suppression. Whatever it is that the Russians did (and I suspect it will be years before we really know the full extent of what they did.) And you can't escape the reality that millions of people in America support Trump, they support his policies, they support his white supremacist rhetoric, they don't care about the poor or the marginalized.

The Republicans have been planning this for decades. They are now systematically attempting to destroy from within the institutions that that many hold dear. They are ignoring laws, replacing career civil servants with partisan hacks and broadcasting propaganda daily. So lets stop pretending that this is all the fault of one person and realize that as a nation you bought this on yourself.
  #110  
Old 07-19-2018, 02:01 PM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...I didn't assume anything. I know perfectly well who Whack-a-Mole voted for.

The narrative that "Clinton was a "bad and uninspiring candidate" is simply that, "a narrative." A story. Like how she didn't articulate a vision. Or how "Bernie would've won."

The reality is that a whole lot of things happened at the last election and you can't point to a single one and say "that's why Trump is President." The gerrymandering. The voter suppression. Whatever it is that the Russians did (and I suspect it will be years before we really know the full extent of what they did.) And you can't escape the reality that millions of people in America support Trump, they support his policies, they support his white supremacist rhetoric, they don't care about the poor or the marginalized.

The Republicans have been planning this for decades. They are now systematically attempting to destroy from within the institutions that that many hold dear. They are ignoring laws, replacing career civil servants with partisan hacks and broadcasting propaganda daily. So lets stop pretending that this is all the fault of one person and realize that as a nation you bought this on yourself.
Yes, I don't disagree with anything you say in the last two paragraphs. It was a very close election, and there are innumerable factors that might hypothetically have tipped the balance the other way. What I don't understand is how pointing out that the Democrats nominating a bad and uninspiring candidate is one of those factors constitutes "pretending that this is all the fault of one person".

You may say that her being bad and uninspiring is only my opinion, but the data clearly shows that, unlike any major party candidate in history (other than her opponent), she had a negative net approval rating at the time of her nomination. This is democracy; if the majority think that someone is a bad* candidate, they are by definition correct.

*"Bad" in the sense of "unlikely to win election", not in the sense of "not smart or well qualified".
  #111  
Old 07-19-2018, 02:18 PM
Human Action Human Action is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 7,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
See, this is what I am talking about. Actually, yes, Sanders would have lost even worse. Maybe her Veep might have won, Kaine, since he is rather bland and a Southerner. Same with OMalley.
I don't understand why you're framing blandness as a virtue, or a desirable trait for a candidate to have. At least in my lifetime, the bland candidates (Gore, Kerry, H Clinton) have lost, and the charismatic ones (W Clinton, GW Bush, Obama) have won. Marketing a presidential candidate isn't all that different from marketing a car or a toothbrush, and blandness is not a good starting point.
  #112  
Old 07-19-2018, 02:23 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 37,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Action View Post
I don't understand why you're framing blandness as a virtue, or a desirable trait for a candidate to have. At least in my lifetime, the bland candidates (Gore, Kerry, H Clinton) have lost, and the charismatic ones (W Clinton, GW Bush, Obama) have won. Marketing a presidential candidate isn't all that different from marketing a car or a toothbrush, and blandness is not a good starting point.
Because things have changed. The Rove/Kremlin hate machine was a major player in the last election.

Bill was pretty bland, politically.

GW Bush was about as charismatic as a dead shrub.

Hillary was anything but bland.

But I am talking bland politically, not personally.
  #113  
Old 07-19-2018, 06:21 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Yes, I don't disagree with anything you say in the last two paragraphs. It was a very close election, and there are innumerable factors that might hypothetically have tipped the balance the other way. What I don't understand is how pointing out that the Democrats nominating a bad and uninspiring candidate is one of those factors constitutes "pretending that this is all the fault of one person".
..."bad and uninspiring" is only your opinion. Millions considered otherwise.

Quote:
You may say that her being bad and uninspiring is only my opinion,
I just did!

Quote:
but the data clearly shows that, unlike any major party candidate in history (other than her opponent), she had a negative net approval rating at the time of her nomination. This is democracy; if the majority think that someone is a bad* candidate, they are by definition correct.
You are citing a single data-point that in isolation doesn't tell us a lot. Considering the totality of the things that were going on behind the scenes of the last election I'm not going to take something that what appears to be a statistical outlier as particularly important.

Quote:
*"Bad" in the sense of "unlikely to win election", not in the sense of "not smart or well qualified".
Clinton was very likely to win the election. Every poll said so. So if we are using "likeliness" as a metric then Clinton wasn't a bad candidate at all but a very very good one. Trump was unlikely to win the election, but it was possible that he might and he did.
  #114  
Old 07-19-2018, 06:39 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 12,337
That's like saying that if Goliath defeats David, that proves that Goliath is a "very very good warrior." A Goliath, by definition, has the tremendous upper hand over David. It would take a very bad Goliath to only narrowly defeat David - and in this instance, Goliath actually lost.
  #115  
Old 07-19-2018, 07:19 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
That's like saying that if Goliath defeats David, that proves that Goliath is a "very very good warrior." A Goliath, by definition, has the tremendous upper hand over David. It would take a very bad Goliath to only narrowly defeat David - and in this instance, Goliath actually lost.
..."likeliness to win" was the metric used by Thing Fish to quantify that Clinton was a "bad candidate." But it didn't do that, it did the opposite. That was all I'm pointing out. Its a bad metric. And you've just proven that for me.
  #116  
Old 07-19-2018, 07:34 PM
Lamoral Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,064
Hillary, no. But Chaffee should take another run at it. He was by far the best part of the Democratic primary. Chaffee was clearly chiefin' the cheeba before that first debate, and God bless him for it.
  #117  
Old 07-19-2018, 08:08 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 15,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...
The reality is that a whole lot of things happened at the last election and you can't point to a single one and say "that's why Trump is President." The gerrymandering. The voter suppression.
Figure I'll point out for the billionth time since the election: gerrymandering doesn't affect the Presidential vote.
  #118  
Old 07-19-2018, 09:33 PM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
..."bad and uninspiring" is only your opinion. Millions considered otherwise.



I just did!



You are citing a single data-point that in isolation doesn't tell us a lot. Considering the totality of the things that were going on behind the scenes of the last election I'm not going to take something that what appears to be a statistical outlier as particularly important.



Clinton was very likely to win the election. Every poll said so. So if we are using "likeliness" as a metric then Clinton wasn't a bad candidate at all but a very very good one. Trump was unlikely to win the election, but it was possible that he might and he did.
What do you mean, a "single data point"? What "statistical outlier"?

Can you show me a single poll from 2016 that showed Clinton with a positive net approval? Do you even know what net approval is? Once again: that means that MOST AMERICANS DISLIKE HER. The only reason she came close to winning is that Trump was even more unpopular. Any normal Republican would have won in a landslide.

I mean, what part of "Don't nominate someone who most people don't like" do you not understand? I realize you and millions of other people really like her, but you're in a minority. This is not my opinion, this is objective fact.

Clinton wasn't "very likely" to win the election. On election day, 538 had her winning the popular vote by 3 points, giving her a 2-1 chance of winning. You think having only a 33% chance of electing Trump was good enough? Hypothetical polls consistently showed that Bernie would have beaten Trump by about ten points. Every other Democrat whose name was polled also outperformed Clinton.
  #119  
Old 07-19-2018, 11:18 PM
Tamerlane Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Hypothetical polls consistently showed that Bernie would have beaten Trump by about ten points.
I'm on your side of this argument, as I also thought Clinton was a poor choice of candidate overall. Some of which was her fault, some of which was not.

But IMHO those hypothetical polls are pretty worthless. Also IMHO( obviously )Sanders would have lost by an even larger margin - his "socialism" and lack of appeal to many minority voters( already an issue in Clinton's defeat )would have doomed him as soon as the GOP had a hard target to focus on. And I say that as someone who's politics are probably a little closer to Sanders than Clinton.

Bernie would not have been our savior in the last election. Both of the main D contenders had some serious structural flaws built in.
  #120  
Old 07-19-2018, 11:28 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 37,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Can you show me a single poll from 2016 that showed Clinton with a positive net approval? Do you even know what net approval is? Once again: that means that MOST AMERICANS DISLIKE HER. The only reason she came close to winning is that Trump was even more unpopular. Any normal Republican would have won in a landslide.
...You think having only a 33% chance of electing Trump was good enough? Hypothetical polls consistently showed that Bernie would have beaten Trump by about ten points. Every other Democrat whose name was polled also outperformed Clinton.

Yes, and it is interesting:
http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/...oval-timeline/

She actually had a high 65% approval rating until she announced her presidential bid and the kremlin and Karl Rove stepped up their fake news attack on her.

Sure, Bernie was more popular- which would have been gone in 10 seconds after Rove and the Russians stopped attacking Hillary and started attacking him.

Bernie would have gone down in flames.

Now, Americans are a little wiser about Fake news, and the NSA & FBI have stopped most of the Russian stuff.
  #121  
Old 07-20-2018, 12:22 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
What do you mean, a "single data point"?
...it means what I said.

Quote:
What "statistical outlier"?
"Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump head into the presidential race with the worst favorable ratings of any presumed Democratic or Republican nominee in decades."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...orability.html

Quote:
Can you show me a single poll from 2016 that showed Clinton with a positive net approval?
I don't need too.

Quote:
Do you even know what net approval is?
Yep.

Quote:
Once again: that means that MOST AMERICANS DISLIKE HER.
Net approval rating measures, get this, this may shock you, but it measures approval. I might like someone, but not approve of their actions. So if you want to measure likability, then show me the polls that measure that.

Quote:
The only reason she came close to winning is that Trump was even more unpopular. Any normal Republican would have won in a landslide.
This doesn't make any sense. Trump destroyed every single Republican. They didn't even really come close. You can't pretend this was a normal election. There is no basis to predict that "Any normal Republican would have won in a landslide." Nothing at all.

Quote:
I mean, what part of "Don't nominate someone who most people don't like" do you not understand?
What part of the Democratic Primary process do you not understand?

Quote:
I realize you and millions of other people really like her, but you're in a minority.
You are missing the point.

I really don't care to re litigate what happened in the last election.

But you really need to understand exactly what happened.

Your country got fucked.

It got fucked by the Russians.

It got fucked by the social media companies, that turned over data to people who used it in ways that it shouldn't have who used it to devastating effect.

It got fucked again by the social media companies who took a "hands-off" approach to content, allowing people to curate their own feedback loops to supply themselves with constant 24 hour propaganda.

It got fucked by the electoral college, a stupid ridiculous antiquated system that has no place in a modern democracy.

It got fucked by the so-called "main-stream-media", which decided that both Trump and Clinton were "equally as bad" so it made it look like "Hillary's emails" were as bad if not worse of a scandal than "grab them by the p#$sy" or Trumps connections to Russia.

It got fucked by the main-stream-media again who had the Steele Dossier story in their hands months before the election but decided not to publish.

It got fucked by Comey who considered that it was his duty to release information about Hillary's emails just before the election but didn't release any of the Trump/Russia story.

And I could go on and on and on. We are still learning stuff. Like the Illinois database hacks. It will be years before we know everything.

Stop pretending this was all about people "not liking Clinton." It was so much more than that. If Sanders had run he would have had to deal with all of the above as well and worse. America has never seen anything like this before in the history of the country. And you are still under attack. The article cited in the OP is just part of the process. Learn to recognize it. Don't be part of the problem.


Quote:
This is not my opinion,
I think it is.

"Page Not Found"


Quote:
Clinton wasn't "very likely" to win the election.
She was if we used your metric.


Quote:
On election day, 538 had her winning the popular vote by 3 points, giving her a 2-1 chance of winning. You think having only a 33% chance of electing Trump was good enough?
I haven't argued it was "good enough." Even if she had a 10-1 chance of winning that wouldn't be "good enough" if she eventually lost.

Quote:
Hypothetical polls consistently showed that Bernie would have beaten Trump by about ten points.
Yeah we've had this discussion. And if I remember correctly we destroyed these "hypothetical polls." But if you think you've got a point, feel free to cite them again and we will take a look.

Quote:
Every other Democrat whose name was polled also outperformed Clinton.
Was that the poll you cited once that included names like Sean Spicer and Jared Kushner?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017