I have to agree that they are some of the best fundraisers & organizers the Republicans have. They’ve helped build the GOP into the nigh-unassailable powerhouse it is today.
Bingo. The plutocrats will still be absurdly wealthy under progressive policies, and if their positions of being de-facto powers-that-be are even marginally less solidified, it’s a small price to pay to prevent the unrest that’s sure to follow if income inequality is not addressed and the well being of the populace is not seen too.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable”. John F Kennedy
- She’s married.
- No.
I know I haven’t been on the SDMB so much lately, but I don’t remember margin that well. Is a table-pounding freakout as we saw in this thread in character?
So . fucking . what.
He wasn’t going to get any of that shit done because Obama had proposed only doing a fraction of that and Obamacare was the best he could come up with – and he was rewarded with a batshit insane, obstructionist Republican majority of both chambers of congress in 2010 because of it. What do you NOT understand about this? All of the magical unicorn shit that Bernie bros wanted…they didn’t really seem to support in 2009 and 2010. They just got an erection because St Bernard talked about “revolution” in 2015. It’s easy as fuck to talk about revolution but it’s the hardest thing in the world to deliver it. Lazy-assed Bernie Bros are the reason that congress went to the GOP in 2010 and the reason why we can’t have good things.
You really need to turn down the fury my friend. I voted for Hillary, and for every down ballot Democrat on the ticket. And I voted in the midterms. So I certainly did not get the GOP elected. The solution to gop obstructionism is to call them out at every turn and get them unelected, not capitulate, since they wont thank you anyways, just fuck you harder.
There were plenty of Democrats here on the Dope who were urging people to vote for Trump in the primaries, because “he couldn’t win”. So that’s one lesson learned, at least.
Asked and answered by this entire fucking thread. It’s fascinating to watch to what extent people will twist reality, rewrite history and ignore all evidence to the contrary to blame Hillary Clinton for absolutely everything.
Personally, I think there’s more than enough blame to go around. It wasn’t all Hillary’s fault - it wasn’t even mostly her fault - but that doesn’t mean she didn’t screw up big time.
Now see, that’s a reasonable assessment. Of course she made several material mistakes during the campaign that had a negative effect, but noting that there were other, more substantial factors involved is also key here. As opposed to, for example:
Anyone handwaving away the effect of the 25-year right-wing smear campaign against her, active Russian propaganda and hacking efforts, the effect of Comey’s last-minute announcement about the investigation and, last but certainly not least, the fact that a disturbing number of Americans admire Donald Trump for being an alpha asshole who gets away with the kind of shit they wish they could get away with, isn’t really interested in a realistic analysis of the last election and is just looking for an excuse to continue the aforementioned smear campaign.
Yes, she made some significant mistakes as a candidate and isn’t a terribly likeable person but Trump is also a terrible person who was literally in the middle of a fraud court case during the campaign so why is it that Clinton bears the full weight of her loss and his victory? The minor Comey bump aside, I’d argue that the other three factors I mentioned had a lot more to do with the election result than her failure to schedule a few more election stops in Michigan. And it’s not “running around like a headless chicken” to point that out.
But no, if it makes any of y’all happy to blame Hillary for everything, go right on lying about her. It’s not like we’re all not used to that sort of thing already.
That was very significant, and she handled it very badly.
How does one handle being blindsided? Well, given the nature of modern election cycles, it should be expected. The candidate, especially at that level, needs to have a team of strategists specifically organized to deal with the October Surprize. Anyone caught off guard like that does not deserve the office they are running for.
And that was her biggest problem. She deserved to be in the Oval Office, and it was going to be handed to her on a plate. It was hers, and all she had to do was smile and make a few witty comments.
That was why she pissed so many people off. We owed it to her. Arrogant twit.
You’re doing it again. Why assume that “it was going to be handed to her on a plate”? That was just the conventional wisdom - the same conventional wisdom that assumed that most Americans weren’t stupid enough to vote for an openly-narcissistic conman, the same conventional wisdom that was staggeringly wrong. The default was never “It’s Clinton’s election to lose” - that view also ignored the various forces arrayed against her. Yes, she still could have won if she’d run a better campaign, but that’s just claiming that the last straw to break the camel’s back did so because it was the heaviest.
As wife of a former president, you can’t deny that she benefited from a certain amount of nepotism. Not as much as, say, George W. Bush, but in the same wheelhouse. Is it wrong to assume that it involved a certain amount of entitlement?
Maybe the first time she ran in 2008 and lost the nomination to Obama.
Even then, I’d argue against it.
But in 2016? Unlikely.
This is the unvarnished truth.
Because that was how she was fucking acting. We owed to her. She believed that it was her turn and she did not have to bust her ass to get there, like everyone else in history. I mean, look how the Party capitulated and handed her the nomination. The rest of the country was supposed to see the oil on her forehead and accept her. All she had to do was step over a troublesome dirt clod.
Sure, if you get to define handful as less than 1%. I think she lost about
If you take that 5 million vote popular vote “victory” in California and spread it out over some of the other states, she would have had a landslide victory. So (A) really bad politician and (B) the popular vote “victory” powered mostly be turnout in California) is meaningless.
With a total of 136 million votes cast, if she could have moved the needle on 1% or 1.36 million of those votes in the right states, she would have won at least 126 more electoral votes. But at least she won California by 5 million votes.
Because it keeps campaigns affordable, it focuses on the swing voters, it doesn’t ignore rural voters, and discounts the opinions of the most partisan states.
That is the dumbest comment I have seen from you in a long fucking time. Do you really think I don’t understand how the Electoral College works?
The point is that Obama won by a shit ton of electoral votes and Hillary didn’t just lose ground, she lost by a healthy margin of electoral votes. And her popular vote tally is meaningless.
Trump could just as credibly say that if he were going for the popular vote, he would have won that bigly. And you couldn’t prove otherwise. But Hillary could not really say that she would beat Trump in an electoral vote election because she didn’t.
This is the equivalent of the Panthers claiming they are the ACTUAL winners of the superbowl in 2016 because they got 50% more yards than the Broncos and their 24-10 loss reflects a problem with the rules of how football games are determined.
This doesn’t refute anything I said. You said “it wasn’t three states”, when that is a factually false statement – Hillary lost the election by just 3 states.