How are the Clinton hating dems feeling now?

Still feeling really righteous?

Just wondering.


This is not a useful opening post. If you want to rant, the Pit is your place. I’ll reopen in the Pit at your request.

Otherwise, this thread is closed due to a lack of content and lack of direction.


Welcome back, stoid! It’s been a minute.

(Disclaimer: I realize it’s not your FIRST post in a while, but it’s the first time I’ve seen ya. So welcome back)

You said it all. Hear hear.

I’m feeling like Clinton represents the faction of the Democratic Party whose mismanagement and incompetence has led us here. You know, the jackasses who talk about how we need a Republican Party and who are so afraid of upsetting the Republicans that they have stood by as mere observers as the Republicans have successfully manipulated the levers of power to lead us to this point.

Fuck neoliberalism. It’s why we’re here. Clinton (both of them) represents the Appeasement Caucus of the Democratic Party. They can go straight to hell with their Republican “colleagues.”

With their hands?

We do need a sane Republican Party. Know where one’s on sale for cheap?

What the hell for? I can’t think of anything they bring to the table or any way in which we would be worse off without them.

Well, someone to be the other party, anyway, and they already have all the stationary printed with that name, sooo….

Generally, we need at least two (sane) parties. I don’t think it’s a good idea for any one party to become entrenched in power with no opposition. Regardless of whether they start with noble intentions, if there are no checks on what they are doing, rot and corruption will set in sooner or later. A loyal opposition is one such check.
I would love to see more than two parties btw. A multi-party state would require more compromise than we have now, and maybe we’d get more done. Maybe.

Doesn’t that describe the current Republican Party?

Care to be specific? About either the problem actions or what you believe would have been effective correct actions?

If you take the French equivalent (remember Jacques Chirac?), it can be had for about 3-4% of the votes, in monetary terms I guess you could keep them for under 100,000 €. May get cheaper still.
Just a reminder that the big parties today are not immovable facts: the Whigs disappeared too. The Socialist Party (rermember Mitterand?) is at the same level, btw.
The problem with that, at least in France, is that the whole middle ground has collapsed: only the far left (Mélenchon), the far right (LePen) and la Macronie (read that in Libération recently and just had to steal it) are left standing. Which is a disgrace, even if I am not the one who will ever shed a tear for those two vanished parties.

How are the Clinton hating dems feeling now?

Undoubtedly humbled by Hillary’s keen insights and sound political strategies which proved so successful in 2016.

And there’s no reason why that needs to be the Republican Party rather than, let’s say, the The Rent Is Too Damn High Party.

I can’t find it now, but there was an Onion (?) headline at the time that said something like, “Clinton, Trump fortunate to run against the only candidate they can beat.” Still rings true, and encapsulates what was so frustrating about that election.

:smile: Agreed. I would vote for The Rent Is Too Damn High party.

I can tell you how they probably feel: vindicated. They probably think Bernie could have won.

All parties concerned are already convinced that their strategy was the winning one, had it been supported enough. There is just absolutely no point in all this lateral-punching crap about which group of liberals failed to stop this moment.

Is it worth fracturing what’s left of our coalition so that some people can enjoy preenng about their pure and stainless strategy that would have prevented this? I don’t think so.