This election year is so unusual that I don’t think we can project anything from it, like the viability of a demagogue populist who isn’t running against someone with enormous unlikability. I’d love to see how Trump would be doing against Mr Average Democrat. I suspect he would be getting crushed.
Here’s my favorite part of that article:
Whether or not Latino voters turn out - and no one has done more than Trump to see that they do - they are certainly motivated: Hispanic voters and the 2016 election | Pew Research Center
Even if they turn out in their standard numbers losing even more of the Latino vote is still a death sentence.
On one of the shows this morning, Katrina Pierson called the Morning News a liberal newspaper. The same “liberal” newspaper that hadn’t endorsed a Democrat for President since 1964.
Katrina Pierson is dumber than the dried sweat from the ball sacks that was rubbed onto one of those ducks mentioned above.
IMHO.
And the Republican (Trump) Party retreats ever rightward, until in the future it will consist of a few thousand far, far right-wingers who will say that anyone who does not call for violent ethnic cleansing is a “liberal”
We need it to be close because both parties were stupid this time. Historically awful approval ratings for both candidates and they had those ratings long before they even started the voting. This just should not have happened. We need to return to a time when primary voters would take unpopularity with the general public into account. And when resumes mattered more than famous family names or the ability to give a speech someone else wrote. Experienced candidates might as well not even show up anymore. Just marry into the right family, it’s easier.
We don’t want another Trump, but I also don’t want to see Democratic voters blithely ignore their own candidates’ shortcomings again. When they thought they had a better alternative, Democrats kicked that lady to the curb with no remorse. It shouldn’t take an Obama to beat a Clinton in a Democratic primary.
The two aren’t even close to comparable.
Hilary can’t remember! Hilary can’t remember! Hilary can’t remember!
Jesus H., you need to stop friggin’ doing this. The Democrats elected Hilary Clinton as their nominee gladly, a few Bernie-bro’s not withstanding, with no rigging, no cheating, no nothing like that. This incessant instance of yours of explaining what everyone on the planet thinks, knows, feels and wants on pretty much any political subject is goddamned infuriating … hence my close to a warning up there a few posts ago.
Listen, Ace. Just because your party fucked up and nominated a hairbag with toenails, don’t go projecting your inadequacies on the rest of us. Sane? Thanks.
The pathology is the same though. While I thought Obama was a BS candidate, I at least got that many Democratic voters saw something special in him. Clinton got nominated for no other reason than that she was the only big name candidate in the race and she had only to deal with a primary challenge from the far left(which was still difficult for her). The party establishment never considered an alternative despite a wealth of qualified individuals and the voters never gave anyone else a real chance. It was just poor decisionmaking and we’re seeing a possible disaster because of it.
And then there’s what my side did. Ugh. I am still convinced that this wouldn’t even be a race if even someone as inexperienced as Rubio was the candidate.
No, it’s totally different. Hillary had experience and competence and will be a decent president. That means she’s at least an okay nominee. Trump is none of those things.
I realize you probably hadn’t read my post to you when you posted last, but thanks anyway for proving my point.
ETA: to adaher
Clinton was nominated because every Democrat knows her, and most Democrats like her. It’s as simple as that, and that’s not pathology or any other bullshit comparison to the Republican party this year.
Terrible candidate though, and with the ability to completely send her Presidency off the rails if she decides rules and laws don’t apply to her because she’s the President. Yes, she’s capable of being a very good President. If she can behave herself.
Still, there were many better out there. Her name is what got her here. Note to young Democrats: marry Sasha or Malia and take their name.
You have the wrong gender of pronoun in your first paragraph. And political party.
No, not a terrible candidate - just not a great one. She still would have beaten most of the Republicans, and been competitive with all of them.
Why, again, are you criticizing a party for nominating someone you acknowledge would make a decent president?
This is ridiculous. “Her name is what got her here?” As if the only thing anyone knew about her was “wife of a former president”? Of all possible viable candidates in this cycle, Hillary had by far the most extensive political resume and proven skill set. Bernie was a great candidate but would have scared off a lot of moderates and independents, and Joe Biden decided not to run, and here we are.
The Republicans had a whole clown car full of candidates, and a few of them were actually sane – Jeb, Rubio, Christie, among others, and to some degree even the evangelical nutjob Kasich. And who did your side pick? A sideshow huckster, a relentlessly dishonest self-serving conman with an ego the size of the solar system, the pathological insecurity of a field mouse in a house of a hundred cats, and absolutely zero knowledge of anything. The mere fact that he’s even in the running has to be profoundly embarrassing to the entire country because the whole world is watching.
Just happened to see this cute cartoon in the New Yorker and though I would share. 
