Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 03-07-2018, 01:46 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Right, but your vote could have made a difference in getting some third party either elected, or at least better supported in your local election.
I don't care if a third party gets elected or better supported in my local elections.
  #202  
Old 03-07-2018, 01:55 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,298
So you don't actually care about 3rd party viability?

Because supporting local 3rd party candidates is what actually will help to make 3rd parties viable. You don't go from nothing straight to the presidency, you have to build a party from the ground up.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #203  
Old 03-07-2018, 02:03 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
So you don't actually care about 3rd party viability?

Because supporting local 3rd party candidates is what actually will help to make 3rd parties viable. You don't go from nothing straight to the presidency, you have to build a party from the ground up.
I cannot speak for manson1972 but I can say that in our system of elections a two party system is almost a mathematical certainty. You might get a blip here and there outside the norm but strategic voting guarantees a two party system (at least at the national level). The two parties then entrench that system with things like Gerrymandering. Again, there might be an occasional outlier but the system will strongly trend to two parties.

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 03-07-2018 at 02:04 PM.
  #204  
Old 03-07-2018, 02:05 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,974
Right. The use of third parties is to bring up issues that neither of the "real" ones has taken to heart, and make one of them embrace it. That done, the third party disappears. Examples are George Wallace making the Republicans embrace racism at a time when neither would, and Ross Perot making the Democrats embrace fiscal responsibility at a time when neither would.
  #205  
Old 03-07-2018, 03:21 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
So you don't actually care about 3rd party viability?
Nope, as I made clear. If they get matching funds, that's cool. If they don't, that's cool too. My vote could have maybe helped a 3rd party get matching funds. It sure wasn't going to help Clinton get elected, nor prevent Trump from getting elected.

Plus I get the added bonus of saying "Well, I didn't vote for him!" when people complain about Trump. Just as I would say "Well, I didn't vote for her!" if Clinton had won and people started complaining about her.

It's win-win for me really.
  #206  
Old 03-07-2018, 04:13 PM
DoggyDunnit DoggyDunnit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Fort Worth, Tex-ass
Posts: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
Hillary was considerably more liberal than her husband was.
The problem with that statement is that in today's United States, it's basically meaningless. The Overton window in this country is so far to the right it has a nosebleed. American liberals are "liberal" in the world sense - center-right - as opposed to the hard-right of the Republican Party (and in spite of the word "liberal" in this country being understood to be synonymous with "left-wing" - sure, NPR looks "left-wing" compared to FAUX Noise but that don't make it truly left).

The Democrats, being a center-right party, are mostly made up of - gasp - centrists and right-wingers, with a small (and, fortunately, now growing) Bernie wing that is right about where Bernie is - moderately leftist - and further to the left.

Seriously. The number of House members that are actually left-of-center could comfortably fit in one of them portable classroom thingies like where my band class was in the sixth grade because the cacophony drove the other teachers nuts when it was in the main building and when it comes to the Senate, hell... the actual leftists in the Senate could fit in my fucking bedroom with enough space to chill and watch the tee-vee box while I sit off to the side on my laptop playing Saints Row IV or something.

Don't believe me? Well, here's the 2016 primaries Political Compass. Note that Hillary is not only on the right-wing side, she's 7 out of ten notches to the right. The only major difference between her and the Day-Glo Dotard Himself is that Trump is hella authoritarian on the social scale - 9/10 - while Hillary is only four notches up on that axis. Economically, she's almost as far to the right as Trump as I am to the left - and I'm a Trotskyist!

So, 2016's cycle comes along, and along with the usual stable of center-right Derpocrats comes someone who is at least somewhat left wing, even if barely to the left from the center (refer to the Primaries compass above) - Bernie Sanders. Yay, finally someone who we can finally support! No more "lesser evil" voting - someone who we can vote for!

...aaaaaaand he gets crushed due to a combination of DNC corruption and "my" people - that is, African-Americans - bringing that cult of personality bullshit with the Clinton worship. Never mind the fact that the Clintons are partially or wholly responsible for letting the Republicans flamethrower what was left of the FDR/Johnson social safety net, the "tough on crime" nonsense that makes even the most goody-two-shoes amongst us side-eye every cop that passes within a 500 foot radius, kickstarting the media consolidation that crashed minority ownership in telecom, and lots, lots more.

Us non-privileged Blacks who have more than two brain cells and a road between them have the sense to abhor and despise the Clintons, but the stupid ones and the privileged ones (easily identifiable by their tacky, excessive cars) who think they're too good to share with the less fortunate helped sink Bernie.

And to them, as well as every Hillbot... well, looks like we're all enjoying Trump's America now, aren't we? I'd hope y'all at least have enough sense to not pull this shit again in 2020.

If the Democrats want to stop the cycle of hurting, they need to embrace democratic socialism. Not social democracy, but democratic socialism. Bernie identifies himself with the "S" word and managed to become the most popular politician today from it. From that to the growing number of "Berniecrats" getting swept into offices in waves (including in areas the Republicans thought they had a lock on) like Kshama Sawant, Lee Carter, Mik Pappas, Larry Krasner, et cetera in and since '16 has shown that it's time for the Democratic Party to stop trying to emulate the Republicans (you'd think they'd have learned that with the Blue Dog Massacre, a.k.a. the 2010 election - "Fascist or crypto-fascist?" is like "microbrew or Miller Lite?" and in fact is also applicable to Trump vs. Hillary) and embrace real leftism. Us real leftists are mobilized now like ain't been seen since the '60s thanks to Bernie restoring our hope that maybe we can finally be able to get people we can support - rather than just tolerate because "lesser evil" - into offices up and down, side to side across the land. The Democratic Socialists of America are the most prominent example from this beast awakening, but it's far from the only entity involved. The Democrats would be wise to embrace this rather than blow it. Them donkeys are masters of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Side note: take special note of Lee Carter's Wikipedia page, particularly the part where one of the other Dems decided to pull a "hurr durr hammer n sickle see cuz lee's a commie!!!!" joke while in session. That's the kind of Derpocratery that will continue to make us true progressives stay on our butts on election days and lose the Democrats more shit if it doesn't stop.

People have grown tired of the establishment's mess. As someone who is gay, atheist, disabled, black, and an "American untouchable" I sure as fuck am. This is why Bernie is so popular, and that's why Trump crushed Hillary (despite his "anti-establishment" rhetoric being bullshit, but by this point people will cling to anything/anyone that even just says they're anti-establishment). Time to toss the Clintonista DLC shit aside and get on the main line to real progress.

Last edited by DoggyDunnit; 03-07-2018 at 04:17 PM.
  #207  
Old 03-07-2018, 04:17 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Nope, as I made clear. If they get matching funds, that's cool. If they don't, that's cool too. My vote could have maybe helped a 3rd party get matching funds. It sure wasn't going to help Clinton get elected, nor prevent Trump from getting elected.

Plus I get the added bonus of saying "Well, I didn't vote for him!" when people complain about Trump. Just as I would say "Well, I didn't vote for her!" if Clinton had won and people started complaining about her.

It's win-win for me really.
Why the hell do you care about matching funds?

Sounds like you just wanted to ride the fence and then get to feel superior regardless of the result. I guess that's one kind of citizenship...
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #208  
Old 03-07-2018, 04:22 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Why the hell do you care about matching funds?
Maybe matching funds might do something. Maybe not. Interesting to see anyway.

Quote:
Sounds like you just wanted to ride the fence and then get to feel superior regardless of the result. I guess that's one kind of citizenship...
If my vote would have made a difference, I would have voted for Clinton of course. I'm not a moron.
  #209  
Old 03-07-2018, 05:09 PM
Ulf the Unwashed Ulf the Unwashed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
...
Then he started losing. All of the sudden, the system was rigged. Southern states shouldn't count, since they were red. ....
My bolding.

I wish the issue had in fact been that those states were red. Of course that wasn't really the problem--if it had been Sanders would've disavowed his own victories in Kansas and Idaho, Utah and West Virginia, Alaska and Oklahoma, none of which had a prayer of going in the general election for Sanders, Clinton, or anyone else without an R beside his or her name.

No, the problem with those Southern states wasn't the color red...it was a different color, as hinted at by EddyTeddyFreddy upstairs. And given that Sanders felt comfortable saying that the south didn't count, you don't need to look much further for reasons why he received less than a quarter of African American votes.

(Well, I think there were several other reasons, and of course the trend was well under way before he made that remark. But the comment displays a mindset that doesn't speak well of the man.)

Last edited by Ulf the Unwashed; 03-07-2018 at 05:11 PM.
  #210  
Old 03-07-2018, 06:02 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,102
DoggyDunbit, I happen to sympathize more with the OP than with your overall message, but it was a pleasure reading your post — important observations, entertainingly stated.
  #211  
Old 03-07-2018, 06:15 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
So you don't actually care about 3rd party viability?

Because supporting local 3rd party candidates is what actually will help to make 3rd parties viable. You don't go from nothing straight to the presidency, you have to build a party from the ground up.
Thank you for spelling out how stupid that is.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
  #212  
Old 03-07-2018, 06:16 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I cannot speak for manson1972 but I can say that in our system of elections a two party system is almost a mathematical certainty. You might get a blip here and there outside the norm but strategic voting guarantees a two party system (at least at the national level). The two parties then entrench that system with things like Gerrymandering. Again, there might be an occasional outlier but the system will strongly trend to two parties.
Duverger's Law.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
  #213  
Old 03-07-2018, 06:18 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Maybe matching funds might do something. Maybe not. Interesting to see anyway.



If my vote would have made a difference, I would have voted for Clinton of course. I'm not a moron.
matching funds already have happened and did nothing. I don't see evidence you're not a moron.


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
  #214  
Old 03-07-2018, 06:59 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoggyDunnit View Post
The problem with that statement is that in today's United States, it's basically meaningless. The Overton window in this country is so far to the right it has a nosebleed. American liberals are "liberal" in the world sense - center-right - as opposed to the hard-right of the Republican Party (and in spite of the word "liberal" in this country being understood to be synonymous with "left-wing" - sure, NPR looks "left-wing" compared to FAUX Noise but that don't make it truly left).

The Democrats, being a center-right party, are mostly made up of - gasp - centrists and right-wingers, with a small (and, fortunately, now growing) Bernie wing that is right about where Bernie is - moderately leftist - and further to the left.

Seriously. The number of House members that are actually left-of-center could comfortably fit in one of them portable classroom thingies like where my band class was in the sixth grade because the cacophony drove the other teachers nuts when it was in the main building and when it comes to the Senate, hell... the actual leftists in the Senate could fit in my fucking bedroom with enough space to chill and watch the tee-vee box while I sit off to the side on my laptop playing Saints Row IV or something.

Don't believe me? Well, here's the 2016 primaries Political Compass. Note that Hillary is not only on the right-wing side, she's 7 out of ten notches to the right. The only major difference between her and the Day-Glo Dotard Himself is that Trump is hella authoritarian on the social scale - 9/10 - while Hillary is only four notches up on that axis. Economically, she's almost as far to the right as Trump as I am to the left - and I'm a Trotskyist!

So, 2016's cycle comes along, and along with the usual stable of center-right Derpocrats comes someone who is at least somewhat left wing, even if barely to the left from the center (refer to the Primaries compass above) - Bernie Sanders. Yay, finally someone who we can finally support! No more "lesser evil" voting - someone who we can vote for!

...aaaaaaand he gets crushed due to a combination of DNC corruption and "my" people - that is, African-Americans - bringing that cult of personality bullshit with the Clinton worship. Never mind the fact that the Clintons are partially or wholly responsible for letting the Republicans flamethrower what was left of the FDR/Johnson social safety net, the "tough on crime" nonsense that makes even the most goody-two-shoes amongst us side-eye every cop that passes within a 500 foot radius, kickstarting the media consolidation that crashed minority ownership in telecom, and lots, lots more.

Us non-privileged Blacks who have more than two brain cells and a road between them have the sense to abhor and despise the Clintons, but the stupid ones and the privileged ones (easily identifiable by their tacky, excessive cars) who think they're too good to share with the less fortunate helped sink Bernie.

And to them, as well as every Hillbot... well, looks like we're all enjoying Trump's America now, aren't we? I'd hope y'all at least have enough sense to not pull this shit again in 2020.

If the Democrats want to stop the cycle of hurting, they need to embrace democratic socialism. Not social democracy, but democratic socialism. Bernie identifies himself with the "S" word and managed to become the most popular politician today from it. From that to the growing number of "Berniecrats" getting swept into offices in waves (including in areas the Republicans thought they had a lock on) like Kshama Sawant, Lee Carter, Mik Pappas, Larry Krasner, et cetera in and since '16 has shown that it's time for the Democratic Party to stop trying to emulate the Republicans (you'd think they'd have learned that with the Blue Dog Massacre, a.k.a. the 2010 election - "Fascist or crypto-fascist?" is like "microbrew or Miller Lite?" and in fact is also applicable to Trump vs. Hillary) and embrace real leftism. Us real leftists are mobilized now like ain't been seen since the '60s thanks to Bernie restoring our hope that maybe we can finally be able to get people we can support - rather than just tolerate because "lesser evil" - into offices up and down, side to side across the land. The Democratic Socialists of America are the most prominent example from this beast awakening, but it's far from the only entity involved. The Democrats would be wise to embrace this rather than blow it. Them donkeys are masters of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Side note: take special note of Lee Carter's Wikipedia page, particularly the part where one of the other Dems decided to pull a "hurr durr hammer n sickle see cuz lee's a commie!!!!" joke while in session. That's the kind of Derpocratery that will continue to make us true progressives stay on our butts on election days and lose the Democrats more shit if it doesn't stop.

People have grown tired of the establishment's mess. As someone who is gay, atheist, disabled, black, and an "American untouchable" I sure as fuck am. This is why Bernie is so popular, and that's why Trump crushed Hillary (despite his "anti-establishment" rhetoric being bullshit, but by this point people will cling to anything/anyone that even just says they're anti-establishment). Time to toss the Clintonista DLC shit aside and get on the main line to real progress.
The progressives will be absorbed and marginalized by the Democrats. You all have no alternatives.
  #215  
Old 03-07-2018, 07:30 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Pretty sure I explained it above. It could have been ANY party. A chance for a 3rd party to get matching Federal funds. That's it.


Okay, but why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #216  
Old 03-07-2018, 07:30 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
The progressives will be absorbed and marginalized by the Democrats. You all have no alternatives.
Progressives are democrats.
  #217  
Old 03-07-2018, 07:38 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
Indeed. Ross Perot's Reform Party got matching funds for getting 8% of the vote in 1996. In 2000 that meant that Pat Buchanan got about 13 million dollars. He got .4% of the vote. And that was the last time a party got matching funds. The end.

I actually think that was a conspiracy by the GOP to do a hostile takeover of the Reform Party and then kill it. Pat Buchanan did suspiciously little with his campaign, while his sister Bay was a high level operative in the Bush campaign. Very fishy.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #218  
Old 03-07-2018, 07:42 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Okay, but why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
why not?
  #219  
Old 03-07-2018, 07:43 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
matching funds already have happened and did nothing. I don't see evidence you're not a moron.


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Maybe they will next time. Who knows? Interesting to see.
  #220  
Old 03-07-2018, 07:52 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,516
Doggydunnit, in what universe does a candidate who gets three million fewer votes “crush” their opponent?

Looks like I’m stuck with people like you in my Democratic Party, and you’re stuck with people like me. Rest assured that I will continue to do my best to make sure candidates like Bernie (and Warren, etc.)are not nominated. You will do the opposite. So we’ll see what happens!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #221  
Old 03-07-2018, 08:41 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Doggydunnit, in what universe does a candidate who gets three million fewer votes “crush” their opponent?
I am willing to bet HRC was crushed when she learned she lost by negative 3 million votes.

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 03-07-2018 at 08:41 PM.
  #222  
Old 03-07-2018, 08:46 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I am willing to bet HRC was crushed when she learned she lost by negative 3 million votes.


True!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #223  
Old 03-07-2018, 08:51 PM
Stonebow Stonebow is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Lower 48
Posts: 1,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Nope, as I made clear. If they get matching funds, that's cool. If they don't, that's cool too. My vote could have maybe helped a 3rd party get matching funds. It sure wasn't going to help Clinton get elected, nor prevent Trump from getting elected.

Plus I get the added bonus of saying "Well, I didn't vote for him!" when people complain about Trump. Just as I would say "Well, I didn't vote for her!" if Clinton had won and people started complaining about her.

It's win-win for me really.
My assumption is that you are an able bodied heterosexual white male. If this is your political mindset, please understand that this is why anyone who isn't might greet you with less than open arms. And why Bernie and his supporters were looked on with suspicion by the democratic party. Yes, he resonated with middle and upper class white liberals, but the underatanding was that he was prepared to throw the rest of the coalition under the bus if he needed to, for the 'greater good.'
  #224  
Old 03-07-2018, 09:02 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Doggydunnit, in what universe does a candidate who gets three million fewer votes “crush” their opponent?
In the universe where the Electoral College is how you win elections.

Now, we can argue whether or not Trump's win constitutes "crushing" Hillary in the EC. That vote tally was 304 - 227, meaning Trump got 34% more EC votes than Hillary's total. It's subjective, but I can see how some might consider that a "crushing" defeat. OTOH, a very small percent of the vote going the other way in a few states would have flipped the election to Clinton. So maybe not so "crushing" after all. It all depends on which statistics are really more important. Winning a ton of votes in CA is not so impressive.

However, winning more of the popular vote, in and of itself as Hillary did, means nada. Nothing. Zilch. Neinschleppen. That and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Philz, if you care to wait in line long enough. It's long past time to get over that, and I can't imagine why some folks keep bringing that up. It would be like harping that the Yankees didn't really lose to Boston in The World Series because NY scored more total runs in the series, when Boston won 5 of the 7 games*. The goal is not to score more runs. The goal is to win more games.

*That scenario is made up for illustrative purposes only.

Last edited by John Mace; 03-07-2018 at 09:04 PM.
  #225  
Old 03-07-2018, 09:21 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,516
John Mace, you are wrong (and guilty of what poker experts call “results-based thinking”): it very much does matter. And it matters for the precise reason that “crushed” verbiage was used, as a cudgel to prod Democrats to throw out their old playbook and start anew, as though what they have been doing for the past few cycles is ineffectual and needs to be scrapped. When in fact, winning the popular vote by three million and still losing in the EC is a sign of bad lucks, not a bad campaign or an unpopular party brand.

When Bill Clinton ran in 1992, Democrats had lost five out of the previous six presidential races, which represented four blowout losses, one narrow win, and one narrow loss. But three of the blowouts had occurred in the three contests immediately preceding ‘92.

THAT is when you stop as a party and evaluate whether it’s time to take a new approach.

Whereas right now, the Democrats have won the popular vote in the presidential race three cycles in a row and six out of the last seven. Two of the past three elections, the Democratic candidate got over 51% of the vote, which a Democrat had not previously done since 1964.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #226  
Old 03-08-2018, 12:11 AM
Do Not Taunt Do Not Taunt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulf the Unwashed View Post
My bolding.

I wish the issue had in fact been that those states were red. Of course that wasn't really the problem--if it had been Sanders would've disavowed his own victories in Kansas and Idaho, Utah and West Virginia, Alaska and Oklahoma, none of which had a prayer of going in the general election for Sanders, Clinton, or anyone else without an R beside his or her name.

No, the problem with those Southern states wasn't the color red...it was a different color, as hinted at by EddyTeddyFreddy upstairs. And given that Sanders felt comfortable saying that the south didn't count, you don't need to look much further for reasons why he received less than a quarter of African American votes.

(Well, I think there were several other reasons, and of course the trend was well under way before he made that remark. But the comment displays a mindset that doesn't speak well of the man.)
In case it wasn't clear from my tone, I was offering 'the southern states were red' not as my understanding of the reason Sanders supporters had for wanting to discount them, but merely as the reason they gave. The fig leaf, if you will. As you point out, it's not even a believable fig leaf. In addition to red states in the Sanders column being okay, it ignores that the same logic demands that we ignore solid blue states, too. Washington is going to go for whoever the Democrat is. Should our votes count?

Now, as for the real reason: I really don't think it was because the majority of Democratic voters in the South are black. Sanders supporters can certainly be tone-deaf - I'm sure I can be too - but I don't think they're explicitly racist. No, the real reason that southern states shouldn't count as much is because Clinton won them. The same reason closed primaries - or primaries where you have to register in advance - shouldn't count as much. It was just that simple.
  #227  
Old 03-08-2018, 12:59 AM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
It would be like harping that the Yankees didn't really lose to Boston in The World Series because NY scored more total runs in the series, when Boston won 5 of the 7 games*. The goal is not to score more runs. The goal is to win more games.

*That scenario is made up for illustrative purposes only.
I do not know if you meant to or not (or even know of this) but there is an article published over 20 years ago that argues for the electoral college and uses that analogy.

Personally I am on the fence on this one. Food for thought though:

Quote:
The same logic that governs our electoral system, he saw, also applies to many sports--which Americans do, intuitively, understand. In baseball’s World Series, for example, the team that scores the most runs overall is like a candidate who gets the most votes. But to become champion, that team must win the most games. In 1960, during a World Series as nail-bitingly close as that year’s presidential battle between Kennedy and Nixon, the New York Yankees, with the awesome slugging combination of Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris, and Bill "Moose" Skowron, scored more than twice as many total runs as the Pittsburgh Pirates, 55 to 27. Yet the Yankees lost the series, four games to three. Even Natapoff, who grew up in the shadow of Yankee Stadium, conceded that Pittsburgh deserved to win. "Nobody walked away saying it was unfair," he says.

Runs must be grouped in a way that wins games, just as popular votes must be grouped in a way that wins states. The Yankees won three blowouts (16-3, 10-0, 12-0), but they couldn’t come up with the runs they needed in the other four games, which were close. "And that’s exactly how Cleveland lost the series of 1888," Natapoff continues. "Grover Cleveland. He lost the five largest states by a close margin, though he carried Texas, which was a thinly populated state then, by a large margin. So he scored more runs, but he lost the five biggies." And that was fair, too. In sports, we accept that a true champion should be more consistent than the 1960 Yankees. A champion should be able to win at least some of the tough, close contests by every means available--bunting, stealing, brilliant pitching, dazzling plays in the field--and not just smack home runs against second-best pitchers. A presidential candidate worthy of office, by the same logic, should have broad appeal across the whole nation, and not just play strongly on a single issue to isolated blocs of voters.

SOURCE: Math Against Tyranny
  #228  
Old 03-08-2018, 05:38 AM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I do not know if you meant to or not (or even know of this) but there is an article published over 20 years ago that argues for the electoral college and uses that analogy.

Personally I am on the fence on this one. Food for thought though:
Only if Games 1, 4, and 6 are worth more wins. Using the World Series as an analogy for the Electoral College is as dumb now as it was 15 years ago.
  #229  
Old 03-08-2018, 08:31 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,516
No one is going to comment on the fact that it’s impossible to win five games in a World Series?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #230  
Old 03-08-2018, 08:49 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,974
Not in over a century, anyway. The early ones were best of nine.

Also, Boston and the Yankees are in the same league, as the peasantry may not know.
  #231  
Old 03-08-2018, 09:23 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Using the World Series as an analogy for the Electoral College is as dumb now as it was 15 years ago.
Would you prefer stoke play vs match play in golf?

There is nothing "dumb" about the analogy when explaining how the system works. It's actually one of the best analogies out there. What would be "dumb" is making the argument that "if it's good enough for The World Series, it's good enough for a presidential election". Which, you'll note, I was not doing.
  #232  
Old 03-08-2018, 09:37 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
No one is going to comment on the fact that it’s impossible to win five games in a World Series?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Heh. I started to write 4 to 3, but wanted to get the "crushed" part in there, too. But yeah, impossible to go 5 games to 2. Which is perhaps why the golf analogy is better!
  #233  
Old 03-08-2018, 12:03 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoggyDunnit View Post
The problem with that statement is that in today's United States, it's basically meaningless. The Overton window in this country is so far to the right it has a nosebleed.
Don't hate the player, hate the game. It doesn't change the fact that Hillary is far more liberal than her husband was.

Also, the Democrats allowed someone even more to the left who was never even a Democrat to run as one in the primary. He lost the primary by over three and a half million votes. His name was Bernie, something... Maybe you recall. Despite losing by more than three and a half million votes he still had unprecedented say in the platform. He even called it the most progressive platform in party history.

Complain all you want about how national politics are too far to the right and Democrats too far to the center, but the fact is that you are in the minority and that those who reject the most leftward candidates because they are not as far left as they would like cause things to go the other way. In other words: You're not helping.

Quote:
...aaaaaaand he gets crushed due to a combination of DNC corruption
Eat shit, conspiracy theorist.

Quote:
and "my" people - that is, African-Americans - bringing that cult of personality bullshit with the Clinton worship.
Marcus Johnson doesn't think it's bullshit:
Quote:
Black people fondly remember the growth of the black middle class under the 1st Clinton administration, and significant drop in black unemployment (despite what Michelle Alexander says, this wasn’t due to mass incarceration. I could go on, but that’s a topic for another day.). Under Clinton, black people prospered economically, and those are economic times that we’d like to return to.

Hillary Clinton is promising to build on Obama’s legacy, not tear it down in the attempt to create a faux socialist utopia. Hillary has a plan to fund both public and private HBCUs (historically black colleges and universities) while Bernie’s public college plan would let private HBCUs fall into disrepair and close down. Black politicians and black institutions — public and private — are something that black people take pride in. There are black people who got an education at an HBCU that couldn’t be provided to them at a major public institution. Bernie doesn’t understand that, because he doesn’t understand the black experience in America. He’s never had to in Vermont. It’s exactly why black voters are looking past him at the ballot box. And its why he’ll continue to lose diverse states, in March and beyond.
Never mind the fact that the Clintons are partially or wholly responsible for letting the Republicans flamethrower what was left of the FDR/Johnson social safety net, the "tough on crime" nonsense that makes even the most goody-two-shoes amongst us side-eye every cop that passes within a 500 foot radius, kickstarting the media consolidation that crashed minority ownership in telecom, and lots, lots more.
Quote:
Barney Frank, the liberal former congressman from Massachusetts, makes this point explicitly in his recent memoir. "At the time, many on the left believed he was 'too moderate,'" Frank writes. "In the political climate of the times, I continued to believe that Bill Clinton was the most liberal electable president."

Politico
Barney Frank frequently sparred with Bill Clinton over how he wasn't liberal enough and even he admits that during the time, he was as liberal as we were going to do.

You do that a lot, decrying how things actually are. Sorry that reality bugs you but a person can only be so far out of step with the mainstream and succeed within it. The first person in the pool didn't become President and change, say, marriage equality. But having more liberal people in politics allowed for it to happen gradually which is why under the Obama administration - which nobody will confuse with a Liberal paradise - incremental changes were made to push things in the right direction.

I realize incremental change isn't as sexy as a revolution but small steps forward beats big steps back which is what we have with Trump in the White House, thanks in no small part to people with attitudes like yours.

Quote:
Us non-privileged Blacks who have more than two brain cells and a road between them have the sense to abhor and despise the Clintons, but the stupid ones and the privileged ones (easily identifiable by their tacky, excessive cars) who think they're too good to share with the less fortunate helped sink Bernie.
Oh, I see. You know better than three quarters of the black population all of whom are so stupid they don't even know who to vote for. Hopefully you leave here and become their leader soon. My understanding is that they love it when white people tell them all that they know better for them than they do. Maybe you'll have better luck.

Personally, I think your opinion is trash but Donald Trump appreciates all you did for him and you're the gift to him that keeps on giving.
  #234  
Old 03-08-2018, 12:05 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Maybe they will next time. Who knows? Interesting to see.
Still no evidence you're not a moron.
  #235  
Old 03-08-2018, 12:14 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,516
JSLE, I agree with most of your response to DoggyDunnit, but I think you may have missed that s/he is black.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #236  
Old 03-08-2018, 01:19 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
Eat shit, conspiracy theorist.
Well...

Quote:
Hillary Clinton’s campaign took over the Democratic National Committee's funding and day-to-day operations early in the primary season and may have used that power to undermine her rival Senator Bernie Sanders, according to the party's one-time interim chairwoman.

The DNC official, Donna Brazile, now a political analyst, wrote in Politico Magazine on Thursday that she discovered an August 2015 agreement between the national committee and Clinton’s campaign and fundraising arm that gave Clinton “control (of) the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised” in exchange for taking care of the massive debt leftover from President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign.

It wasn't illegal, Brazile said, "but it sure looked unethical."

SOURCE: http://www.newsweek.com/clinton-robb...brazile-699421
I hate that you and I share the same party affiliation. I do not want you in my party/I do not want to be in your party.

You have done nothing but deride anyone, even those largely on your side, if they did anything other but line up behind Clinton like good little soldiers and sing her praises. Anyone who doesn't is clearly an idiot to be forever scorned. Never do you consider or allow that Clinton was a deeply flawed candidate and that maybe, just maybe, she had something to do with her own loss.

Such a stagnant, rigid, unbending, wrathful mindset is much more apropos of the republican party. I'm sure they'd love to have you. You'd fit right in.

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 03-08-2018 at 01:19 PM.
  #237  
Old 03-08-2018, 01:27 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,298
Bernie supporters were way more like the Tea Party then they care to admit. Also fell for a lot of that Russian disinformation being pushed on Facebook and Twitter. I saw many of the same anti Hillary memes being shared by both Trump and Bernie supporters. It's not as simple as you want to think. We have Trump in the White House for gods sake. Can we please focus on the actual enemy and stop falling for Putin's desire to seed resentment and hatred between our political factions?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #238  
Old 03-08-2018, 01:35 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Maybe matching funds might do something. Maybe not. Interesting to see anyway.



If my vote would have made a difference, I would have voted for Clinton of course. I'm not a moron.
As I said, and a bit of a departure from the OP, that is a strategic vote. And you should always vote in the way that you feel your vote makes the most difference in the direction you want to go. If you feel that making a token effort to get third parties matching funds was the best, then that's your opinion.

I disagree with it, both in that I don't think that it would have accomplished what it is that you are trying to do, and that I also don't think that your goal has much utility either. But, you are not the sort of person that I (I can't speak for the OP) find to be shameful (at least about your vote) as you didn't refuse to vote for clinton because you think that she stole the primary, or because she's no better than trump, or whatever reason that your best russian friends can come up with for you. You acknowledge that if you have been in a battleground state, you would have done the responsible thing, and that if things had played out differently than expected in your state, then at least you would be acknowledging your error, rather than doubling down.
  #239  
Old 03-08-2018, 01:41 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Never do you consider or allow that Clinton was a deeply flawed candidate and that maybe, just maybe, she had something to do with her own loss.
Two words: President Trump.
  #240  
Old 03-08-2018, 01:49 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,298
Yeah I don't see how the "but Hillary was a flawed candidate" carries any weight when we actually have president dumpster fire in office right damn now. Was Hillary as flawed a candidate as Trump? Clearly not. Was Bernie without flaws? Clearly not. Can you name one candidate for any office ever in our history that had zero flaws? Somehow I doubt it.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #241  
Old 03-08-2018, 02:14 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Yeah I don't see how the "but Hillary was a flawed candidate" carries any weight when we actually have president dumpster fire in office right damn now. Was Hillary as flawed a candidate as Trump? Clearly not. Was Bernie without flaws? Clearly not. Can you name one candidate for any office ever in our history that had zero flaws? Somehow I doubt it.
Since pollsters started asking the question Trump polled as the most disliked candidate ever. The second most disliked candidate ever was Hillary Clinton.

Is Clinton better than Trump? Obviously but don't act surprised that the second most disliked candidate ever didn't excite people to go to the polls to vote for her.

And despite what her cheer-leading squad here would have you believe there are legitimate reasons to not like her as a candidate that have nothing to do with Russian propaganda or misogyny.

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 03-08-2018 at 02:16 PM.
  #242  
Old 03-08-2018, 02:22 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,298
And we will never be able to take power back from Trump and the GOP if we can't get over this and start working against the enemy rather than against each other. The Republicans all got behind Trump even if they disliked him personally because they knew it was about more than the person on the ballot. Some Democratic voters went the other way, and now we all pay the price for that.

It honestly feels like the Russians don't even need to bother continuing their campaign to divide us and sow discord, since we are doing such a bang up job keeping that going ourselves...
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 03-08-2018 at 02:24 PM.
  #243  
Old 03-08-2018, 02:49 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
And we will never be able to take power back from Trump and the GOP if we can't get over this and start working against the enemy rather than against each other. The Republicans all got behind Trump even if they disliked him personally because they knew it was about more than the person on the ballot. Some Democratic voters went the other way, and now we all pay the price for that.
I think what we saw in the last election was a repudiation of the status quo in Washington. Trump beat a huge field of republican contenders. How? He was not the status quo candidate when the rest were.

Clinton was the embodiment of the status quo in Washington. It'd be more of the same and few wanted that. Additionally the DNC was in the bag for Clinton and it hurt her in the end.

And the DNC is STILL working against people in its own party (see below). So I am hard pressed to be enthused by a party run by people akin to John_Stamos'_Left_Ear who expect me to vote for the candidate they picked because they know best. Fuck 'em. Let the people pick their candidates and I'll get back on board with the party.

Quote:
On April 28 the transcript was released from the most recent hearing at a federal court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., on the lawsuit filed on behalf of Bernie Sanders supporters against the Democratic National Committee and former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz for rigging the Democratic primaries for Hillary Clinton. Throughout the hearing, lawyers representing the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz double down on arguments confirming the disdain the Democratic establishment has toward Bernie Sanders supporters and any entity challenging the party’s status quo.

SOURCE: http://observer.com/2017/05/dnc-laws...rs-supporters/
Quote:
But thanks to an intricate system of state-by-state rules governing who gets access to that data—a system critics say is tailor-made to protect incumbents—some Democratic primary challengers, like Clark, are being denied access to this critical pool of information by their own party.

SOURCE: https://www.wired.com/story/justice-...ty-voter-data/
Quote:
Houston Democratic congressional candidate Laura Moser is under attack from a national group in her own party that said her "disgust for life in Texas" means she couldn't win the general election.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee slammed Moser on Thursday in negative research posted on its website. The committee calls Moser a “Washington insider” and accused her of moving to Houston for the sole reason of running for Congress.

SOURCE: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2018...ington-insider
Quote:
It started a week ago when U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer antagonized Houston Democrats, particularly in the city’s Latino communities, when he opted to endorse Tahir Javed for Congress, a recent Beaumont transplant who moved to Houston just last year. Javed is the only non-Latino running in the seven-person Democratic primary to replace U.S. Rep. Gene Green in the 29th Congressional District, which includes east Houston and parts of Pasadena, South Houston and Galena Park. Hispanics make up 77 percent of that district, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

“Exactly how tone deaf is Senator Schumer to endorse a non-Hispanic, carpetbagging, millionaire for our Congressional District 29?” asked J.C. Salazar, a Democratic voter in the 29th Congressional District for 65 years and who is backing attorney Roel Garcia in the race.

SOURCE: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/new...m-12714873.php
  #244  
Old 03-08-2018, 02:58 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
And despite what her cheer-leading squad here would have you believe there are legitimate reasons to not like her as a candidate that have nothing to do with Russian propaganda or misogyny.
Saying that voting for Hillary was the obviously rational choice when she was the only possibility to be president other than Trump is not == cheerleading. It's just stating an objective truth. My evidence is everything we've seen happen since November 2016, as well as *gestures broadly around* what we have right now.

Also, there were legitimate reasons to not like Bernie as a candidate as well. Socialists don't generally win many elections on a Federal level in this Country. You know that word would have been played up as much as or more than "her emails". He also was not doing very well at all with the AA vote which would have been essential to win the general election.

I know that I will be doing everything I can to help the Democrats win the midterms. I hope that we can at least agree that we all should want that.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #245  
Old 03-08-2018, 03:03 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,298
ok I guess we can't even agree on that...

By the way you said "Let the people pick their candidates and I'll get back on board with the party." - Which people? Hillary got 3.7 million more votes in the primary. Are those not real people? Do their votes not count? Do we just go with whoever you declare is entitled to the nomination?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #246  
Old 03-08-2018, 03:31 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Saying that voting for Hillary was the obviously rational choice when she was the only possibility to be president other than Trump is not == cheerleading. It's just stating an objective truth. My evidence is everything we've seen happen since November 2016, as well as *gestures broadly around* what we have right now.
I agree Clinton is objectively better than Trump but what you stated is hindsight. Still, it is about what I expected and as I have already stated I voted for Clinton because of this for which JSLE derided me as not destined for hell but purgatory.

Quote:
Also, there were legitimate reasons to not like Bernie as a candidate as well. Socialists don't generally win many elections on a Federal level in this Country. You know that word would have been played up as much as or more than "her emails". He also was not doing very well at all with the AA vote which would have been essential to win the general election.
If you don't like Sanders fine but while we can never know for certain the good money is that Sanders would have beat Trump in the election.

Even his own pollsters think so:

Quote:
My view, stated throughout the 2016 campaign, was that whether one supported Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders in the presidential primaries, it was vital that all Democrats fully understand why Sanders ran so far ahead of Trump in polling — usually by double digits — and markedly stronger than Clinton in match-up polling against Trump.

As reported recently in The Hill, Trump’s own pollster, Tony Fabrizio, stated flatly at a recent Harvard University Institute of Politics event that Sanders would have beaten Trump. He said Sanders would have run stronger than Clinton with lower-educated and lower-income white voters. I could not agree more, on both counts.

The real working-class hero candidate was always Sanders, not Trump, who has always been a crony capitalist pretending to be a populist.

SOURCE: http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/...rump-pollsters

Quote:
By the way you said "Let the people pick their candidates and I'll get back on board with the party." - Which people? Hillary got 3.7 million more votes in the primary. Are those not real people? Do their votes not count? Do we just go with whoever you declare is entitled to the nomination?
I was speaking of the primaries mainly. The DNC had its thumb on the scale for Clinton all along as did the MSM (and seems to be doing it again in some races as noted in my earlier post). Despite this Sanders ran pretty close for a bit. Who knows what might have happened if the DNC and MSM hadn't taken sides? Sanders might well have been another dark horse candidate. Had that happened we would not have president Trump but president Sanders which, I am sure you would agree, would have been a better result.

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 03-08-2018 at 03:33 PM.
  #247  
Old 03-08-2018, 03:44 PM
Do Not Taunt Do Not Taunt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I was speaking of the primaries mainly. The DNC had its thumb on the scale for Clinton all along as did the MSM (and seems to be doing it again in some races as noted in my earlier post). Despite this Sanders ran pretty close for a bit. Who knows what might have happened if the DNC and MSM hadn't taken sides? Sanders might well have been another dark horse candidate. Had that happened we would not have president Trump but president Sanders which, I am sure you would agree, would have been a better result.
This is the kind of thing I was getting at in my first post in this thread. The election (primary phase) wasn't close. Minor ways in which the DNC may have favored Clinton wouldn't have had the impact you seem to think. And "the MSM" (what a stupid fucking term that is) is not a monolithic entity and didn't favor Clinton in any meaningful way.

This is where I get irritated. The voters of the Democratic party selected Clinton as their nominee. Sanders supporters didn't like it, so we've been hearing these ridiculous conspiracy theories ever since, and the bad-will that stirred up was relevant in the general election.
  #248  
Old 03-08-2018, 03:45 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I agree Clinton is objectively better than Trump but what you stated is hindsight.
If it wasn't completely obvious to you at the time, you have no one else to blame. It was, shall we say, extensively discussed. IOW cut the shit.

Quote:
the good money is that Sanders would have beat Trump in the election.
That was, too. Cut that shit too.

Quote:
I was speaking of the primaries mainly. The DNC had its thumb on the scale for Clinton all along
Yes, the Democrats supported the Democrat. The "rigging" charge is, however, unfounded, given that Sanders got a higher percentage of delegates than votes. More shit you can cut.

Quote:
Who knows what might have happened if the DNC and MSM hadn't taken sides? Sanders might well have been another dark horse candidate. Had that happened we would not have president Trump but president Sanders
And monkeys might ... Oh, never mind, your mind is permanently made up.
  #249  
Old 03-08-2018, 03:48 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
And "the MSM" (what a stupid fucking term that is)
Well, yes. That does make these people hard to distinguish from Trumpies. For both, the guiding principle isn't making our country and our world better, but just hating Clinton.
  #250  
Old 03-08-2018, 03:59 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
If you don't like Sanders fine but while we can never know for certain the good money is that Sanders would have beat Trump in the election.
I didn't say I didn't like Bernie. I would have gladly voted for him had he won the nomination, but he didn't. My point is that no candidate is perfect, all candidates have flaws. You seem to be averse to acknowledging that this applies to Bernie too.

And I don't agree that it was certain that he would have beaten Trump. You don't know what would have happened once the GOP turned its knives toward him, and once the Russian trolls started doing what they did to Hillary to help Trump.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 03-08-2018 at 04:02 PM.
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 06:41 AM.

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