# "Is it that the Dems don't understand white, working-class America?" No, that's not it **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 28, 2016, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-that-the-dems-dont-understand-white-working-class-america-no-thats-not-it/773291 "2016-11-28T16:35:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 38
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2017, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-that-the-dems-dont-understand-white-working-class-america-no-thats-not-it/773291/741 "2017-01-04T21:19:55Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Millions of those _who voted_. You do not know which candidate most Americans prefer. This clinging to the popular vote—which was not what the candidates were competing for is comical, yet sad in its desperation to…to…to hold on to _something_. > > Huh? What “technicality” are you talking about? I think he considers the electoral college a technicality. Its one thing to call foul when gerrymandered congressional districts result in 90% Republican delegations coming out of purple states. Its another thing to call foul on the electoral college. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2017, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-that-the-dems-dont-understand-white-working-class-america-no-thats-not-it/773291/742 "2017-01-04T22:01:33Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > In what way was she a strong candidate? She had the highest negatives of any recent presidential candidate with perhaps the exception of Trump. She has never won a competitive election in her life. The only time she won a …repeating a couple of oft-repeated talking points does not make Clinton a weak candidate. > [@](#): > > Arguments from incredulity aren’t very convincing. > [@](#): > > So you don’t think its an extraordinary claim to say that Trump was a very strong candidate? Considering that Donald Trump is going to be President of the most powerful fucking country in the history of the world no I don’t think its an extraordinary claim at all. > [@](#): > > I guess this is the new normal. It is. You better get with the programme, figure out why it happened, and make sure it doesn’t happen again. > [@](#): > > Trump is no longer some fucking clown that threaded a needle through an overcrowded Republican primary field to face a weak candidate. He was just a really, really good candidate. Yes he was. > [@](#): > > Because a little bit of nuance is called for when you have a very crowded Republican primary field. Less nuance is required when we coronated Hillary in the Democratic primary and she lost a one on one match against a bobblehead. Thanks for conceding you become a flaming moron when discussing Hillary. > [@](#): > > A) Bernie is a virtual nobody; So the fuck what? > [@](#): > > B) The Ready For Hillary Crowd thinned out the primary so almost no one else ran; So the fuck what? > [@](#): > > C) Hillary CHEATED during the primary. It probably didn’t make a difference but would it have made a difference if news of the cheating came out during the primary? maybe. Oh boo fucking hoo. > [@](#): > > Wow! > > So tell me… when and how did Trump cheat? Did he get debate questions ahead of time? Did the committees in charge of the election conspire to help Trump and hurt his opponents? I never claimed Trump would cheat. I stated he wouldn’t play fair. I stated he wouldn’t make it easy. If the Clinton campaign getting a single debate question early was so problematic for Bernie that he lost the primary then he was on track to get destroyed by Trump. > [@](#): > > Yes and the trouble she encountered trying to beat this nobody…with a face made for radio… and a voice made for print… with the charisma of a ready for retirement high school history teacher… should have told you what a horrible candidate she was. And yet you claim this nobody: with a face for radio and a voice made for print, with the charisma of a ready for retirement high school history teacher was the right person to take on a Republican candidate who had steam-rolled over his opposition and was riding high on a wave of populism. You’ve just explained why Bernie didn’t get the nomination and why Hillary was a stronger candidate than Bernie. > [@](#): > > One person in particular was more responsible for it than anyone else. Hillary. Utter bullshit. > [@](#): > > And I blame her. We are all aware of your particular obsession. > [@](#): > > He did it by running against Hillary. “You take a step back: throw your emotions aside and figure out how he did it.” Trump didn’t have a hand in who he ran against. But well done in not putting your emotions aside just so you can attack Hillary yet again. > [@](#): > > The Republicans aren’t stupid enough to nominate Hillary in 2020 so we will have to come up with a different strategy. Hillary won’t ever run as a Republican. > [@](#): > > Nominating another Hillary type is going to turn Trump into a 2 term POTUS. I think you will be happy to hear that Hillary will never get the nomination ever again. > [@](#): > > Everyone can keep trying to sweep this under the rug but coronating a plutocratic, corrupt, cheating, uncharismatic, unpopular, secretive candidate is going to hurt our chances in 2020. No-one is sweeping this under the rug. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. If we could turn back time then maybe Bernie would get the nomination, would go up against Trump, would loose, and you would be here in the pit ranting about what a weak candidate Bernie is. > [@](#): > > And until people realize that this was the primary problem this time around we will minimize its effect. But it wasn’t the primary problem this time around. > [@](#): > > I think Bernie could have won where Hillary lost. He had the populist streak that won Trump a bunch of rust belt votes. It took more than a populist streak to win the bunch of rust belt votes. > [@](#): > > I am pretty sure that Biden could have won. He has that folksy charm and he has an affable kind of stupid that compared well with the nasty bullyish stupid that Trump has. He’s also won a crapload of elections on his own without being married to Bill Clinton. I actually think that Biden would have won as well. But Biden didn’t run. > [@](#): > > I bet even Shithead Ed Rendell could have beaten Trump. He would probably have carried Pennsylvania and Ohio but he would never cross the Clintons. Not everyone wants to be President. > [@](#): > > What polls are you basing your opinion on? Are polls the only way to form an opinion? > [@](#): > > I made an error. There is one very early poll conducted 10/29-11/4 2015 where Hillary beats Trump by wider margins than Bernie. > > Hillary beats Trump 56-41 > > Bernie only beats Trump 53-41 > > Otherwise… > > [WH2016: General](http://pollingreport.com/wh16gen.htm) > > Search for Sanders. > > The most recent poll where they polled Sanders and Clinton against Trump was an IBD poll held from 5/31-6/5 > > Hillary beats trump 39-35 (the Hillary poll includes Johnson but I doubt that the Libertarian took more from Hillary than Trump) > > Sanders beats trump 49-39 > > George Washington University Poll held on 4/17-4/20 > > Hillary beats Trump 46-43 > > Bernie beats Trump 51-40 > > McClatchy Marist Poll conducted 3/29-3/31 > > Hillary beats Trump 50-41 > > Bernie beats Trump 57-37 > > Bloomberg Poll conducted 3/19-3/22 > > Hillary beats Hillary beats Trump 54-36 > > Bernie beats Trump 58-34 > > Fox News poll conducted 2/15-2/17 > > Hillary beats Trump 39-37 > > Bernie beats Trump 46-35 > > In CNN/ORC Polls held on 4/28-5/1; 3/17-3-20; 2/24-2/27; 1/21-1/24 > > Sanders beat Ted Cruz and John Kasich by larger margins than Hillary. > > They didn’t poll Hillary against Trump in those series of polls but Sanders beat Trump handily in all the polls in this series. There are several series that do not poll both Sanders and Hillary against Trump but does pol them both against other candidates and Sanders wins by bigger margins (or loses by smaller ones) in almost all of them. Taking a cursory look at your cites they are all popular vote polls. So thank you for taking the time to back up your assertions. But as I said from the outset: a poll on the popular vote is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > And its not like Bernie was polling better than every other Democrat. Biden was beating Republicans by wider margins than Bernie. Hillary doesn’t win until you restrict polling to Democrats. Hillary does better than Biden or Bernie. This is largely the effect of the ready for Hillary crowd in their self assured certainty that if they can overlook Hillary’s flaws, so can the rest of America and they were in a position to shove her down the Democratic party’s throats… by hook or by crook. Wah wah wah wah. > [@](#): > > No, you’re wrong. Unless you are willing to throw polling science out the window in the name of preserving the sanctity of the Madonna Hillary, you are wrong. Hillary lost by razor thin margins in states where Bernie beat Hillary, like Michigan and Wisconsin. To say that polling is “utterly fucking meaningless” when she lost by a handful of votes in states where Bernie’s populist appeal would have gone a long way is being deliberately ignorant of bernies strengths vis-à-vis Hillary. I’m not fucking wrong. Winning the popular vote doesn’t win you the election. We don’t know if Bernie’s populist appeal would have pushed him past Trumps populist appeal. We don’t know what sort of attacks Bernie would have had to endure if he had become the nominee. > [@](#): > > So statistics and polling science are no longer valid? Of course they are valid. But Bernie wasn’t the candidate. The Trump campaign would have played as dirty with Bernie as they did with Hillary. They already had plenty of dirt they could have used against him and they would have painted him as a “dirty socialist”. And we have no idea what impact those attacks would have had (especially in the rust belt where you said he would have been more popular.) > [@](#): > > No, mine is an educated informed guess. Oh get over yourself. You are just a random dude on the internet who spends too much time on message boards debating meaningless things with complete strangers. Just like me. > [@](#): > > Yours is a statement that we can’t actually know what would have happened. And we can’t. > [@](#): > > once again, Hillary lost by less than 100,000 votes in a few key states. States that Bernie was very popular in. And unless you’ve got a “parallel dimension hopping machine” we can’t actually know what would have happened. > [@](#): > > No, no she didn’t, not really, she trailed behind Trump in several polls during the election cycle both before and after she her nomination. Do you need another cite? “Not really?” Sure dude, whatever. > [@](#): > > You should take another look at those polls. She was beating Trump by the margin of error + or - 2%. But it sounds like you are willing to totally disregard polls going forward. That polling science isn’t valid anymore. Clinton polled better than Trump. Trump won the election. What do you think that means? > [@](#): > > Fuck underestimating. She’s just arrogant. Says the guy who claims “anyone could have beaten Trump except Hillary.” > [@](#): > > Bernie doesn’t have Hillary’s arrogance… or her insecurities. So you may claim. But his supporters (and in turn his campaign) have that arrogance: in bucketloads. Case in point: you. > [@](#): > > But I’m glad you are willing to concede that not focusing on the electoral map in an election that is based on the fucking electoral map was a mistake (I would say one among many). Now string together those mistakes with a weak plutocratic candidate who is riding on her reputation for hard work and competence and you have the Kasich campaign but without the charm. Why does it surprise you that I think Clinton made big fucking mistakes in her campaign? Maybe the “side” you think I’m on isn’t the actual side I’m actually on. > [@](#): > > Some people would call it astute observation and analysis. I call it “Clinton Derangement Syndrome.” > [@](#): > > But if you want to call it an excuse, that’s fine, I’m not going to defend the performance of any of the Republican candidates except perhaps Fiorina and Perry. Thank you for your permission. > [@](#): > > I think I have. I might have distilled it to Hillary is a shitty candidate but I have provided details as to why she is a shitty candidate several times. She has never won a competitive election in her life. She is a plutocrat running during a populist election. She is an establishment insider running during an anti-establishment election. She has negative ratings are only rivaled by Trump. She is a cheater (although we didn’t know that at the time, but I wonder if she would have still won the primary if we knew this during the primaries). Hillary won the democratic primaries. She was a former US Senator and was the former Secretary of State. More people in the United States wanted her to be president than Trump. Her campaign made some stupid strategic blunders that cost her important votes. But we can’t underestimate what Trump did to win the election as well. And you are so arrogant you have completely dismissed everything Trump did to not only win the Republican nomination, but to become President of the United States. And it is that sort of arrogance that will get Trump elected again in four years time. > [@](#): > > She ran a horrible campaign (I think you are conceding this point). Being able to run good campaigns is an important part of being a good candidate. She was bad at this. Good candidates loose elections all the time. > [@](#): > > I mean for fucks sake, how does Bernie (“never heard of him”) Sanders give Hillary Clinton a run for her money? So much so that she has to run to his left on the only issue where he hasn’t pinned the goddam needle to the left. Guns. And gun control always loses votes in the general election. Then instead of tacking back to the center on guns, she has to double down on gun control (which loses you votes in places like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) because she was busy playing to well heeled audiences in San Francisco and Manhattan where they don’t like guns. You are claiming that Bernie would have beaten Trump. But you are also claiming that Bernie shouldn’t have given Clinton a run for her money. Are you even listening to what you are saying? > [@](#): > > I thought you said you aren’t from the USA, I’m not from the USA. > [@](#): > > I don’t understand why it matters if you would vote for him. I thin it is a given that the ready for Hillary crowd wants Hillary to represent them. You miss the point. There was a huge cross-section of people on the left that hated Bernie, hated his supporters and wouldn’t have voted for him in the election. They would either have voted third party or would have stayed home. > [@](#): > > Bernie is as liberal or more liberal than Hillary on almost every front except guns. Bernie was an “old white man” representing “old white men.” As you have stated several times: he had “populist appeal in the rust belt.” > [@](#): > > So, wait. You think Hillary is more of a SJW type than Bernie? Bernie was no friend to SJW’s. > [@](#): > > How did he throw you under the bus? He sorta has a reputation as a SJW its one of his less appealing traits. And you are completely out of touch with an entire section of the left-leaning vote. Bernie a SJW? You are a fucking riot. > [@](#): > > Just to be clear, I’m not saying that Bernie is the best candidate we could have put forward. I think there are half a dozen candidates better than him. But Hillary was one of the worst. Hillary was better than Bernie. She had a better platform, more experience, better policies an had a better chance of winning. IMHO of course. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure what this random compilation of blogs criticizing Bernie’s cool relationship with minorities is supposed to prove. That relationship was so “cool” they started the hashtag #berniesoblack . > [@](#): > > He couldn’t have done worse than Hillary and he was polling better than her. She lost by a razor thin margin. He may well have done worse than Hillary. > [@](#): > > Wait, you just said that Dasmooher introduced the Russian mafia as a parody. I pointed out where Drad Dog didn’t realize it was a parody and I gave him shit for it. Your cite shows that Drad Dog did not introduce the mob to the discussion: you did. > [@](#): > > WTF are you talking about? How did I distort the argument? Drad Dog literally said that it was stupid to believe that Trump would be immune to threats of violence against himself or his family (re:the Russian mafia being able to control Trump). It is stupid to believe that Trump would be immune to threats of violence against himself or his family. But Drad Dog didn’t mention the mafia or the mob. You did. You introduced it to the discussion. > [@](#): > > You have an awful lot of anger about criticism of Hillary for someone who doesn’t live in my country. I don’t mind criticism of Hillary. I am pissed off that the people of the United States have let a dangerously incompetent man become the most powerful person in the world. The people of the world have to live with the consequences of your failure. > [@](#): > > You are on the side of the Hillary apologists or you are doing a bang up impression of a Hillary apologist. What is it, exactly that I am apologising for? > [@](#): > > No strawman. Its what Drad Dog said. There are some broken quotes in there but after Dasmoocher brought up the Russian mob in jest, Drag Dog took it seriously. You might want to take a closer look because you are going to feel a little stupid for your arrogance. Your claim is that “one side of the argument is relying on conspiracy theory to justify their position”. I am not on your “side.” I don’t believe in any conspiracy theory. Outside of a bit of speculation: who has seriously stated that “the fucking Russian mob is going to blackmail Trump into doing their bidding because he owes them money”? Please quote them exactly. > [@](#): > > Are SJW’s usually so arrogant? Oh yeah, they are. Says the guy who states with authority that Bernie would have beaten Trump. > [@](#): > > Drad Dog was. In fact I think several posters have advanced the notion of Trump as a Manchurian candidate. Have you been paying attention? I have been paying attention. That is why I am disagreeing with you. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2017, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-that-the-dems-dont-understand-white-working-class-america-no-thats-not-it/773291/743 "2017-01-04T22:37:13Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > [Like I said.](https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/12/obama-announces-russia-sanctions/511862/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheAtlantic+%28The+Atlantic+-+Master+Feed%29) > > Trump’s comments on the President’s action: > “_Computers have complicated lives very greatly_…” Are you KIDDING me? :smack: > > “_The whole age of computer…_”-- WTF is that? _"…nobody knows exactly what is going on_"? > > Holy crap, this man is so fucking ignorant-- it would be ludicrous if he weren’t about to become the President of the United States. And he is completely unaware of his own stupidity. To be fair, Trump does say he has the best brain and words. I suspect he’ll also try to hire a Mentat. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2017, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-that-the-dems-dont-understand-white-working-class-america-no-thats-not-it/773291/744 "2017-01-04T23:32:19Z")
> [@The Not-So-Great Pumpkin](#): > > “I think we ought to get on with our lives. I think that computers have complicated lives very greatly. The whole age of computer has made it where nobody knows exactly what is going on. We have speed, we have a lot of other things, but I’m not sure we have the kind, the security we need.” “…and in conclusion, computer today are very important to our American society in many important ways, which is why I did my essay on it.” _\_ “Okay, Donald. You can sit down now.” ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-that-the-dems-dont-understand-white-working-class-america-no-thats-not-it/773291/745 "2017-01-05T00:06:54Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Hillary was better than Bernie. She had a better platform, more experience, better policies an had a better chance of winning. IMHO of course. Why is it your HO that she had more experience than Bernie? Even if we grant for the sake of argument that being married to a president counts as experience – and I’m in _absolutely no hurry_ to grant that – then Hillary’s experience at being married to a president, and at being a Senator and a Cabinet Secretary, only runs from 1993 to '13; Bernie started serving in Congress in 1991, and is still a Senator right now in 2017, _after_ working for eight years as a mayor. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-that-the-dems-dont-understand-white-working-class-america-no-thats-not-it/773291/746 "2017-01-05T00:20:28Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > How exactly am I changing the meaning? > > I was just giving an example of how retarded the apologetics were getting. I will stop referring to your belief that the Russian mob will be able to force Trump into doing things he doesn’t want to do because he owes some Russians money. > > We do more than speculate. Conspiracy theorists speculate. > > No I am using this as an example of the lengths people are willing to go to ignore how horrible Hillary was as a candidate. > > Most of the world does not have secret service protection. Oh and the might of the most powerful military the world has ever known. > > Sure, presidents have been assassinated before but I don’t think presidents are generally going to be scared of organized criminals. > > I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I bet you can too. “We do more than speculate. Conspiracy theorists speculate.” What do you mean here? You may be doing more than speculating, by bringing Hillary derangement way past the expiration date. I don’t think I am. Lets’ put it this way: Your thesis as I understand it is that Hillary was a much worse (bad) candidate than trump is a (bad) president elect. (Other than that what are you investing this time here for tilting at this issue when there is no one pushing back that she was “good”?) But the whole reason for your whining is that she let _ **donald** _ be elected. So your thesis depends logically on the horribleness of donald being the winner of the contest. Other than that you have no raison here. Except maybe normalizing donald. If hillary is terrible to the extent that she let donald be elected, that already makes that argument: that he must be worse as pres elect than she was as candidate. You have already ceded the point that you should stfu and move on, but you just don’t know it yet. ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-that-the-dems-dont-understand-white-working-class-america-no-thats-not-it/773291/747 "2017-01-05T00:52:19Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Why is it your HO that she had more experience than Bernie? > > Even if we grant for the sake of argument that being married to a president counts as experience – and I’m in _absolutely no hurry_ to grant that – then Hillary’s experience at being married to a president, and at being a Senator and a Cabinet Secretary, only runs from 1993 to '13; Bernie started serving in Congress in 1991, and is still a Senator right now in 2017, _after_ working for eight years as a mayor. First Lady is a job and a rather unique one. I don’t know why this wouldn’t count as political experience. Sanders, at 26 years in, is an entrenched bureaucrat. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-that-the-dems-dont-understand-white-working-class-america-no-thats-not-it/773291/748 "2017-01-05T02:10:09Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Why is it your HO that she had more experience than Bernie? > > Even if we grant for the sake of argument that being married to a president counts as experience – and I’m in _absolutely no hurry_ to grant that – then Hillary’s experience at being married to a president, and at being a Senator and a Cabinet Secretary, only runs from 1993 to '13; Bernie started serving in Congress in 1991, and is still a Senator right now in 2017, _after_ working for eight years as a mayor. :: shrug :: …experience is subjective. Do you think Bernie was more experienced? Then I hope you voted for him in the primary. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-that-the-dems-dont-understand-white-working-class-america-no-thats-not-it/773291/749 "2017-01-05T05:33:03Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > So in other words you have no answer to any point but just need to explain that point by point? … > > You act like clinton’s badness is the only thing worth talking about for 2016. So she is the end all be all for your inquiry. You disputing that? > > You are telling _ **ordinary voting people** _ to STFU on a web forum because they had a bad primary and election, and … I am gonna sum it up… The Republican party was the real abortion this year. They had a clown car full of circus clowns, and not ONE of them could beat the big orange diaper stain in their own primaries. Not only that, but very very **VERY** few of them actually had the balls to say FUCK NO. Even after Donald Dump insulted damn near every one of them, they still acted lime a bunch of lap dogs. But somehow it’s all the Dem’s fault… So let’s talk about the badness of ALL those Repubs who couldn’t even beat a reality show asshole. Let’s talk about who had the WORSE primary. Yeah right. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-that-the-dems-dont-understand-white-working-class-america-no-thats-not-it/773291/750 "2017-01-05T16:13:37Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …repeating a couple of oft-repeated talking points does not make Clinton a weak candidate. Oft repeated? You mean by someone other than me? AFAICT, I’m the sole proponent of the “Hillary lost because she sucks” side of the argument and a shitload of Ready for Hillary types and other loyalists are lining up to make excuses for why she was really awesome despite being beaten by a bobblehead. > [@](#): > > Considering that Donald Trump is going to be President of the most powerful fucking country in the history of the world no I don’t think its an extraordinary claim at all. Yes, yes it is. I think it is a much more plausible claim that Hillary sucks than that Trump is some political mastermind. > [@](#): > > It is. You better get with the programme, figure out why it happened, and make sure it doesn’t happen again. I know why I think it happened. So why don’t you tell me why you think it happened? > [@](#): > > Yes he was. All evidence to the contrary. > [@](#): > > Thanks for conceding you become a flaming moron when discussing Hillary. It may be true but I don’t remember conceding that. > [@](#): > > So the fuck what? How the fuck does a virtual nobody give a strong (but not as strong as Trump) candidate a run for her money to the point she feels the need to cheat? > [@](#): > > So the fuck what? So we ended up with a shitty candidate that lost to a bobblehead. It resulted in a Trump presidency. > [@](#): > > Oh boo fucking hoo. Perhaps the integrity of your elections aren’t important where you are from. We had a President Nixon that resigned over some cheating. He was also a smart, hard working well informed candidate with privacy issues, a reputation for nastiness, and zero charisma. We just found out that he actually interfered in the peace process to prolong the Vietnam war so he could win in 1968. Character matters and Hillary doesn’t seem to have very much of it. > [@](#): > > I never claimed Trump would cheat. I stated he wouldn’t play fair. I stated he wouldn’t make it easy. If the Clinton campaign getting a single debate question early was so problematic for Bernie that he lost the primary then he was on track to get destroyed by Trump. I thought I just provided you with the polls showing Bernie doing better than Hillary against Trump. > [@](#): > > And yet you claim this nobody: with a face for radio and a voice made for print, with the charisma of a ready for retirement high school history teacher was the right person to take on a Republican candidate who had steam-rolled over his opposition and was riding high on a wave of populism. And he was STILL doing better than Hillary against Trump. You are operating under the assumption that Trump was a strong candidate and that Hillary lost because he was so fucking indomitable. He won because Hillary was the suck. Bernie was less suck and he would have beaten him. > [@](#): > > You’ve just explained why Bernie didn’t get the nomination and why Hillary was a stronger candidate than Bernie. That and she cheated. > [@](#): > > Utter bullshit. Wake up. Face reality. Trump isn’t some fucking political juggernaut. He won because he was running against the weakest Democratic candidate in my lifetime. > [@](#): > > We are all aware of your particular obsession. You mean with the truth? > [@](#): > > “You take a step back: throw your emotions aside and figure out how he did it.” > > Trump didn’t have a hand in who he ran against. But well done in not putting your emotions aside just so you can attack Hillary yet again. Of course Trump couldn’t control who he ran against. He just got lucky. > [@](#): > > Hillary won’t ever run as a Republican. They wouldn’t have her. Right now, nobody would. > [@](#): > > I think you will be happy to hear that Hillary will never get the nomination ever again. No not, just Hillary. A Hillary type. Some party insider that rides to the nomination based on her appeal to the electorate but on her strong political connections to other party insiders, corruption, and boxing out better candidates from the primary. > [@](#): > > No-one is sweeping this under the rug. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. If we could turn back time then maybe Bernie would get the nomination, would go up against Trump, would loose, and you would be here in the pit ranting about what a weak candidate Bernie is. I can handle losing. I didn’t blame Kerry for losing and I was much more upset about the Re-election of GWB than this one. But, Kerry didn’t cheat to get the nomination or box out better candidates so… > [@](#): > > But it wasn’t the primary problem this time around. Of course it was. > [@](#): > > It took more than a populist streak to win the bunch of rust belt votes. Really!?!?! So states that have been Democrat for fucking decades goes for Trump. What do you think attracted them to him? I suppose I would toss in that Bernie would also spend more time in the swing states and less time in silicon valley schmoozing venture capitalists to raise an even larger money advantage over the billionaire. > [@](#): > > I actually think that Biden would have won as well. But Biden didn’t run. Yes, because he “ran out of time” ISTM that he (and many others) had gotten boxed out and by the time that Hillary’s weaknesses started to become evident, it was too late for Biden to put together a decent campaign. > [@](#): > > Not everyone wants to be President. Yeah, he might not but Biden definitely did. Heck take almost any of the Democratic candidates that ran in 2008 and I think the principle would apply. > [@](#): > > Are polls the only way to form an opinion? No but shouldn’t it be more than “I’ve got a feeling” > [@](#): > > Taking a cursory look at your cites they are all popular vote polls. So thank you for taking the time to back up your assertions. But as I said from the outset: a poll on the popular vote is irrelevant. And that is a retarded statement. A change in the popular poll most likely means a change at many state level polls and you are basically saying that this would only affect already blue states when we know that Bernie beat Hillary in at least 2 of the swing states during the primary (michigan and wisconsin). I can’t identify a single blue state he would have lost and I bet he would have taken michigan, pennsylvania, and wisconsin at the very least, and I bet he would have taken Florida and perhaps Ohio as well. > [@](#): > > Wah wah wah wah. ??? Are you saying that you don’t really think it matters that Hilary is a cheater? > [@](#): > > I’m not fucking wrong. Winning the popular vote doesn’t win you the election. We don’t know if Bernie’s populist appeal would have pushed him past Trumps populist appeal. We don’t know what sort of attacks Bernie would have had to endure if he had become the nominee. Of course, we can’t state anything with certainty in “what if” scenarios. What we do know is that Bernie beat Hillary by several points in every poll taken in 2016. We know that Bernie beat Hillary in at least a few states of the swing states. We know that Bernie is an acceptable alternative to at least some of the Jill Stein voters. We know that Bernie doesn’t have anywhere Hillary’s negatives. We also know that Hillary lost by a whisker. You can keep claiming that we can’t know anything with absolute certainty but I think that the only reasonable conclusion is that Bernie would at the very least have lost by less and most probably would have won. > [@](#): > > Of course they are valid. But Bernie wasn’t the candidate. The Trump campaign would have played as dirty with Bernie as they did with Hillary. They already had plenty of dirt they could have used against him and they would have painted him as a “dirty socialist”. And we have no idea what impact those attacks would have had (especially in the rust belt where you said he would have been more popular.) WTF did Trump do to Hillary? Did he release fake emails from Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Did he release fake emails from Podesta and Donna Brazile? Did he release fake transcripts of Hillary’s secret speeches to plutocrats? What exactly do you think was the fatal blow that Donald dealt to Hilary. Hillary died a death of a thousand cuts. Most of them self inflicted. > [@](#): > > Oh get over yourself. You are just a random dude on the internet who spends too much time on message boards debating meaningless things with complete strangers. Just like me. The difference is I’m looking at this rationally and you’re not. Sometimes anger and outrage is rational. You are twisting and turning to look at things in a way that makes Hillary less culpable for losing a very winnable election. > [@](#): > > And we can’t. Yes and that’s a meaningless statement in a debate like this. Its basically saying "well why try to assign blame. Lets just move on with our lives and try again next time. If we don’t assign blame right now, we will never learn. > [@](#): > > And unless you’ve got a “parallel dimension hopping machine” we can’t actually know what would have happened. True, but I can make reasonable inferences based on what we do in fact know. > [@](#): > > “Not really?” > > Sure dude, whatever. Her leads against Trump were not large and she trailed him in several polls so she wasn’t really beating him in the polls. > [@](#): > > Clinton polled better than Trump. Trump won the election. What do you think that means? Not all of the polls had her ahead and many of them were within the margin of error. I think polling science can be wrong from time to time but its pretty silly to say we should disregard polls. > [@](#): > > Says the guy who claims “anyone could have beaten Trump except Hillary.” Well, I guess I shouldn’t have said “anyone” > [@](#): > > So you may claim. > > But his supporters (and in turn his campaign) have that arrogance: in bucketloads. Case in point: you. I still don’t think that bernie spends his time raising money in silicon valley from venture capitalists as his leads slip in Wisconsin and Michigan. > [@](#): > > Why does it surprise you that I think Clinton made big fucking mistakes in her campaign? Maybe the “side” you think I’m on isn’t the actual side I’m actually on. Well, I thought it was pretty clear that you are on the “don’t blame Hillary” side. Its why I call you a Hillary apologist. > [@](#): > > I call it “Clinton Derangement Syndrome.” You can call it “potato” if you like but a rose by any other name… > [@](#): > > Thank you for your permission. You’re welcome. > [@](#): > > Hillary won the democratic primaries. She was a former US Senator and was the former Secretary of State. More people in the United States wanted her to be president than Trump. Her campaign made some stupid strategic blunders that cost her important votes. Hillary cheated during the Democratic primaries. The New York Democratic party literally cleared the field for her during the primary, they told everyone else to drop out. She did a good job as secretary of state but you don’t need to win elections to be nominated for a cabinet position. Those stupid strategic blunders are part of her suck. > [@](#): > > But we can’t underestimate what Trump did to win the election as well. And you are so arrogant you have completely dismissed everything Trump did to not only win the Republican nomination, but to become President of the United States. And it is that sort of arrogance that will get Trump elected again in four years time. OK, so what did he do right? AFAICT, he threw away the dog whistle to win the primary and he won the general because he was a populist outsider while Hillary was a corrupt, plutocratic insider. I submit that Bernie was also a populist outsider and he wasn’t corrupt. > [@](#): > > Good candidates loose elections all the time. Yeah, to good candidates, not to fucking bobbleheads like Trump. > [@](#): > > You are claiming that Bernie would have beaten Trump. But you are also claiming that Bernie shouldn’t have given Clinton a run for her money. Are you even listening to what you are saying? Yes. Because Hillary was so weak that even with all the cards stacked in her favor and all the name recognition, she was such a weak candidate that Bernie was able to catch up to her. > [@](#): > > You miss the point. There was a huge cross-section of people on the left that hated Bernie, hated his supporters and wouldn’t have voted for him in the election. They would either have voted third party or would have stayed home. Name two blue state that you think Bernie would have lost. > [@](#): > > Bernie was an “old white man” representing “old white men.” As you have stated several times: he had “populist appeal in the rust belt.” > > Bernie was no friend to SJW’s. So the guy that literally marched with Martin Luther King Jr. The guy that fought for gay rights before it was cool. So in what way is Bernie no friend of SJWs (not that I give a shit about his relationship with SJWs) > [@](#): > > And you are completely out of touch with an entire section of the left-leaning vote. Bernie a SJW? You are a fucking riot. Can you explain? > [@](#): > > That relationship was so “cool” they started the hashtag #berniesoblack . They were also hash tagging #hillarycheated, so? > [@](#): > > He may well have done worse than Hillary. Not likely. > [@](#): > > Your cite shows that Drad Dog did not introduce the mob to the discussion: you did. Dasmoocher did. Drad dog ran with it. I gave him shit. > [@](#): > > It is stupid to believe that Trump would be immune to threats of violence against himself or his family. > > But Drad Dog didn’t mention the mafia or the mob. You did. You introduced it to the discussion. He was referencing Dasmoocher’s parody post that referenced the russian mafia. I don’t know how they do it where you’re from but we have the secret service. Presidents still get assassinated but Presidents have generally been immune from intimidation from threats of physical violence. > [@](#): > > I don’t mind criticism of Hillary. really because you seem to be taking it awfully personal. > [@](#): > > I am pissed off that the people of the United States have let a dangerously incompetent man become the most powerful person in the world. The people of the world have to live with the consequences of your failure. You mean Hillary’s failure. I’m mad too. Couldn’t you tell? > [@](#): > > What is it, exactly that I am apologising for? > **[Google](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=apologetics)** > > Search the world's information, including webpages, images, videos and more. Google has many special features to help you find exactly what you're looking for. > [@](#): > > Your claim is that “one side of the argument is relying on conspiracy theory to justify their position”. I am not on your “side.” I don’t believe in any conspiracy theory. There were a few posters referencing Trump as a Manchurian candidate. If that’s not conspiracy theory then i don’t know what is. Its like the Democratic version of birtherism. > [@](#): > > Outside of a bit of speculation: who has seriously stated that “the fucking Russian mob is going to blackmail Trump into doing their bidding because he owes them money”? Please quote them exactly. Drad Dog. > [@](#): > > I have been paying attention. That is why I am disagreeing with you. Try harder. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-that-the-dems-dont-understand-white-working-class-america-no-thats-not-it/773291/751 "2017-01-05T16:18:05Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > You may be doing more than speculating, by bringing Hillary derangement way past the expiration date. I don’t think I am. I am doing better than speculating. > [@](#): > > Lets’ put it this way: > > Your thesis as I understand it is that Hillary was a much worse (bad) candidate than trump is a (bad) president elect. (Other than that what are you investing this time here for tilting at this issue when there is no one pushing back that she was “good”?) I think Trump is a fucking disaster. Have you missed all the posts from various Hillary apologists saying that Hillary was a good candidate but Trump was just a VERY good candidate? I am fighting THAT fucking ignorance. The notion that Hillary lost because Trump was THAT FUCKING GOOD. Hillary lost because she sucked. Sucked even more than Trump. > [@](#): > > But the whole reason for your whining is that she let _ **donald** _ be elected. So your thesis depends logically on the horribleness of donald being the winner of the contest. Other than that you have no raison here. Except maybe normalizing donald. > > If hillary is terrible to the extent that she let donald be elected, that already makes that argument: that he must be worse as pres elect than she was as candidate. You have already ceded the point that you should stfu and move on, but you just don’t know it yet. WTF are you talking about? Hillary wasn’t a horrible candidate because she would have been a horrible president. Hillary was a horrible candidate because she can’t win competitive elections. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-that-the-dems-dont-understand-white-working-class-america-no-thats-not-it/773291/752 "2017-01-05T19:10:16Z")
Then leave me out of it when talking to other people about your disputes with them. “_ **I was just giving an example of how retarded the apologetics were getting. I will stop referring to your belief that the Russian mob will be able to force Trump into doing things he doesn’t want to do because he owes some Russians money.** _” _**"WTF are you talking about? How did I distort the argument? Drad Dog literally said that it was stupid to believe that Trump would be immune to threats of violence against himself or his family (re:the Russian mafia being able to control Trump)."**_ Who in this thread is relying on a conspiracy theory? Name them: call the out or shut up about it. Stop arguing against fucking strawmen. \*\*\*“Drad Dog was. In fact I think several posters have advanced the notion of Trump as a Manchurian candidate. Have you been paying attention?” “I gave him shit.” * * * Outside of a bit of speculation: who has seriously stated that “the fucking Russian mob is going to blackmail Trump into doing their bidding because he owes them money”? Please quote them exactly. _ **"Drad Dog."** _ So you admit you are just flinging shit. This is pretty poor if you’re actually trying to argue something. But it doesn’t seem like you are. And you are going to keep citing me over and over as part of whatever it is? C’mon. Engage with the world we’re in. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-that-the-dems-dont-understand-white-working-class-america-no-thats-not-it/773291/753 "2017-01-05T19:15:28Z")
But the whole reason for your whining is that she let donald be elected. So your thesis depends logically on the horribleness of donald being the winner of the contest. Other than that you have no raison here. Except maybe normalizing donald. If hillary is terrible to the extent that she let donald be elected, that already makes that argument: that he must be worse as pres elect than she was as candidate. You have already ceded the point that you should stfu and move on, but you just don’t know it yet. Damuri Ajashi said: \*\*\*“WTF are you talking about? Hillary wasn’t a horrible candidate because she would have been a horrible president. Hillary was a horrible candidate because she can’t win competitive elections.” * * * No. You said she was a horrible candidate because she couldn’t beat trump. You don’t know how she fares speculatively. You are spinning tales again. Cya ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-that-the-dems-dont-understand-white-working-class-america-no-thats-not-it/773291/754 "2017-01-05T19:27:21Z")
> **[Clapper: Trump rhetoric on intel agencies alarming U.S. allies](https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/russia-hacking-us-response-john-mccain-233218)** > > “I think there’s a difference between skepticism and disparagement,” Director of National Intelligence James Clapper says. If one just keeps repeating that concerns about ties between donald and russia are “conspiracy theories”, then one is choosing to own the unfolding shitstorm now. Unless one stopped reading the news on November 9. Or has an agenda where curiosity has no place for some reason. Very strange. ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-that-the-dems-dont-understand-white-working-class-america-no-thats-not-it/773291/755 "2017-01-05T21:21:13Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Its just an example of how far people on YOUR side of the argument are willing to go to make your arguments. The fucking Russian mob is going to blackmail Trump into doing their bidding because he owes them money. :rolleyes: Maybe there’s something to my parody theory: [When It Comes To Russia, So Far Donald Trump Mostly Stands Alone](http://www.npr.org/2017/01/05/508221093/when-it-comes-to-russia-so-far-donald-trump-mostly-stands-alone) > [@](#): > > According to Molly McKew — an expert on information warfare and a foreign-policy consultant who has advised the governments of Georgia and Moldova — the national-security community can’t quite figure out Trump’s unwavering devotion to the Russian line. But theories abound. > > “I think the discussion in the region and intelligence services that deal with Russia,” McKew said, “is that his behavior looks like someone who may be compromised or may be concerned about something and nobody knows what that is — if it’s financial ties or financial leverage, if it’s something more than that. I don’t know. I think there’s a lot of different things. I think there probably are long-term relationships with Russians and Russian oligarchs that we don’t understand, that we don’t see.” ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-that-the-dems-dont-understand-white-working-class-america-no-thats-not-it/773291/756 "2017-01-05T23:06:25Z")
\*\*\*"WTF are you talking about? How did I distort the argument? Drad Dog literally said that it was stupid to believe that Trump would be immune to threats of violence against himself or his family \*\*\* (sic) _**(re:the Russian mafia being able to control Trump)."**_(sic) > **[List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots)** > > Assassination attempts and plots on the president of the United States have been numerous, ranging from the early 19th century to the 2010s. Andrew Jackson was the first president to experience an assassination attempt, on January 30, 1835, when Richard Lawrence twice tried to shoot the seventh president in the East Portico of the Capitol after Jackson left a funeral held in the House of Representatives Chamber. The attempt failed when both of Lawrence's pistols misfired. > Four sitting presid... Of course donnie is just as invulnerable and strong as they need him to be, in their minds. You know in 1966 some people were kind of worried that Bob Dylan might be such a lightning rod that someone would make an attempt on his life. Think of the bad karma and rancidness spewed over the last year. If anyone else said the things donnie has said in public, and engaged in such exploits, they would be talking about this all the time. But donnie has magic fairy dust on him, because we don’t need no stinking truth anymore. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-that-the-dems-dont-understand-white-working-class-america-no-thats-not-it/773291/757 "2017-01-05T23:17:47Z")
Damuri Ajashi said: "Presidents still get assassinated but Presidents have generally been immune from intimidation from threats of physical violence. You know whenever I am informed of an assassination plot on my life I just say thank god I’m immune from intimidation and threats. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-that-the-dems-dont-understand-white-working-class-america-no-thats-not-it/773291/758 "2017-01-05T23:40:47Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > I’ve seen in different threads attempts to figure out what makes Trump supporters tick. There doesn’t seem to be any logic or self-interest at work. There is one reason that most Dems on the board refuse to acknowledge: many people feel Hillary Clinton was a worse choice than Donald Trump for President. Combine that with our de facto two-party system and you have a significant block of Trump supporters that are not “deplorables”. I get it, 2016 was pick the less terrible of two bad choices and the vitriol thrown around was nothing new but I have never seen a group of people turn a blind eye to their own candidate’s failings as much as the Dems did this year. What that has turned into is a cult of people that are “OMG how come you didn’t vote for Hillary?” and when people try to explain voting against her (and unfortunately that means voting for Trump\*) they close their eyes, put their fingers in their ears and yell, “NO NO NO YOU’RE WRONG!” as loudly as they can. - FTR I voted Johnson ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-that-the-dems-dont-understand-white-working-class-america-no-thats-not-it/773291/759 "2017-01-06T01:36:13Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > There is one reason that most Dems on the board refuse to acknowledge: many people feel Hillary Clinton was a worse choice than Donald Trump for President. Because the Democrats don’t want to admit just how awful and stupid many Americans are. Because only an idiot or scum\* would\* believe that. They want to convince themselves that people didn’t know what they were voting for, so they don’t have to admit that millions of Americans knowingly support and admire psychopathy and bigotry. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-that-the-dems-dont-understand-white-working-class-america-no-thats-not-it/773291/760 "2017-01-06T01:41:26Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Oft repeated? You mean by someone other than me? AFAICT, I’m the sole proponent of the “Hillary lost because she sucks” side of the argument and a shitload of Ready for Hillary types and other loyalists are lining up to make excuses for why she was really awesome despite being beaten by a bobblehead. …oh get over yourself you big baby. You are not the "sole proponent of the “Hillary lost because she sucks” side of the argument. But lets pretend that you are the “sole proponent” of the “Hillary lost because she sucks” side of the argument. Do you think you are just smarter than everyone else in the world? Are you so arrogant that you have some sort of unique insight that no-one else can see? > [@](#): > > Yes, yes it is. I think it is a much more plausible claim that Hillary sucks than that Trump is some political mastermind. Strawman again. I never claimed Trump was some sort of a political mastermind. > [@](#): > > I know why I think it happened. So why don’t you tell me why you think it happened? I talk about what I think happened here: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=19771732#post19771732](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=19771732#post19771732) I have more thoughts on what happened than this: but I’d much rather put the work into starting a new thread on it in the next few weeks. So if you don’t mind waiting… > [@](#): > > All evidence to the contrary. And Trump is President Elect. The evidence seems to be on my side, not yours. > [@](#): > > It may be true but I don’t remember conceding that. Thank you for conceding it may be true. > [@](#): > > How the fuck does a virtual nobody give a strong (but not as strong as Trump) candidate a run for her money to the point she feels the need to cheat? Cite that Hillary Clinton felt the need to cheat? And please quote her directly thanks. > [@](#): > > So we ended up with a shitty candidate that lost to a bobblehead. It resulted in a Trump presidency. You seem to be faulting the process: not the candidate. > [@](#): > > Perhaps the integrity of your elections aren’t important where you are from. What an incredibly stupid thing to say. > [@](#): > > We had a President Nixon that resigned over some cheating. He was also a smart, hard working well informed candidate with privacy issues, a reputation for nastiness, and zero charisma. We aren’t talking about the elections here. We are talking about the Democratic Primaries. > [@](#): > > We just found out that he actually interfered in the peace process to prolong the Vietnam war so he could win in 1968. Character matters and Hillary doesn’t seem to have very much of it. Clinton Derangement Syndrome strikes again. Are you seriously talking about “character” when you are comparing Hillary Clinton with Donald Fucking Trump? > [@](#): > > I thought I just provided you with the polls showing Bernie doing better than Hillary against Trump. Yes you did. And? > [@](#): > > And he was STILL doing better than Hillary against Trump. You are operating under the assumption that Trump was a strong candidate and that Hillary lost because he was so fucking indomitable. He won because Hillary was the suck. Bernie was less suck and he would have beaten him. Of course I’m operating under the assumption that Trump was a strong candidate. Because Trump was a strong candidate. You have said nothing to convince me otherwise. > [@](#): > > That and she cheated. Oh get over it you big baby. > [@](#): > > Wake up. Face reality. Trump isn’t some fucking political juggernaut. He won because he was running against the weakest Democratic candidate in my lifetime. Are you 16 years old? > [@](#): > > You mean with the truth? Not the truth. Your obsession. > [@](#): > > Of course Trump couldn’t control who he ran against. He just got lucky. You just keep thinking Trump “got lucky”. And in four years time he will be President again. > [@](#): > > They wouldn’t have her. Right now, nobody would. And I think everybody accepted that on the night of the election. And yet here you are, a month later, still can’t let it go. > [@](#): > > No not, just Hillary. A Hillary type. Some party insider that rides to the nomination based on her appeal to the electorate but on her strong political connections to other party insiders, corruption, and boxing out better candidates from the primary. I agree. > [@](#): > > I can handle losing. I didn’t blame Kerry for losing and I was much more upset about the Re-election of GWB than this one. But, Kerry didn’t cheat to get the nomination or box out better candidates so… Oh grow up you big baby. > [@](#): > > Of course it was. Of course it wasn’t. > [@](#): > > Really!?!?! So states that have been Democrat for fucking decades goes for Trump. What do you think attracted them to him? I suppose I would toss in that Bernie would also spend more time in the swing states and less time in silicon valley schmoozing venture capitalists to raise an even larger money advantage over the billionaire. Bernie is a “dirty socialist who wants to spend your taxes.” Sure Bernie was a populist candidate. But could he have out-trumped Trump? You think yes, I think no, what we both think doesn’t really matter. > [@](#): > > Yes, because he “ran out of time” If he ran out of time then that is his fault: no one elses. > [@](#): > > ISTM that he (and many others) had gotten boxed out and by the time that Hillary’s weaknesses started to become evident, it was too late for Biden to put together a decent campaign. Biden should have run if he wanted to run. Running because they considered Clinton to be “weak” would have been a foolish move not only for Biden, but for the people of the United States. > [@](#): > > Yeah, he might not but Biden definitely did. Heck take almost any of the Democratic candidates that ran in 2008 and I think the principle would apply. Then he should have ran. > [@](#): > > No but shouldn’t it be more than “I’ve got a feeling” I’ve got more than just “I’ve got a feeling.” > [@](#): > > And that is a retarded statement. A change in the popular poll most likely means a change at many state level polls and you are basically saying that this would only affect already blue states when we know that Bernie beat Hillary in at least 2 of the swing states during the primary (michigan and wisconsin). I can’t identify a single blue state he would have lost and I bet he would have taken michigan, pennsylvania, and wisconsin at the very least, and I bet he would have taken Florida and perhaps Ohio as well. I’m saying that things are infinitely more complicated than you make them out to me. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. If Bernie were the nominee, and if he had have lost the same states that Hillary lost, we would be sitting here lamenting that “I can’t identify a single blue state she would have lost.” > [@](#): > > ??? Are you saying that you don’t really think it matters that Hilary is a cheater? Oh for fucks sakes. It doesn’t matter that Trump grabs them by the pussy. It doesn’t matter that Trump kisses them and doesn’t even ask. It doesn’t matter that Trump doesn’t pay his bills. After this trainwreck of an election: are you really still obsessed with calling Hillary a cheater? Its no wonder your side lost. Calling Hillary a “cheater” is the same tactic the Trump campaign used. Keep repeating things until they become ingrained in the consciousness’s of their voters. Its how the “deplorables” hurt her campaign so much. It was nothing compared to anything that Trump said and she even apologised for it: but that didn’t matter. So congrats on learning something from Trump. And I learnt something from the elections as well. Everytime you use the word “cheater” or a variation on the word “cheat” I’m gonna call you a big baby. > [@](#): > > Of course, we can’t state anything with certainty in “what if” scenarios. What we do know is that Bernie beat Hillary by several points in every poll taken in 2016. We know that Bernie beat Hillary in at least a few states of the swing states. We know that Bernie is an acceptable alternative to at least some of the Jill Stein voters. We know that Bernie doesn’t have anywhere Hillary’s negatives. Bernie had a fuck load of negatives. You’ve named many of them. I’ve named a few. If Bernie had been the nominee maybe Hillary would have beaten Bernie by several points in every poll taken in 2016 instead. Real life is like that. A butterfly flaps its wings in Siberia and everyone goes and takes a dump. > [@](#): > > We also know that Hillary lost by a whisker. You can keep claiming that we can’t know anything with absolute certainty but I think that the only reasonable conclusion is that Bernie would at the very least have lost by less and most probably would have won. That isn’t a reasonable conclusion to make at all. > [@](#): > > WTF did Trump do to Hillary? Did he release fake emails from Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Did he release fake emails from Podesta and Donna Brazile? Did he release fake transcripts of Hillary’s secret speeches to plutocrats? What exactly do you think was the fatal blow that Donald dealt to Hilary. Hillary died a death of a thousand cuts. Most of them self inflicted. ROFL! > [@](#): > > The difference is I’m looking at this rationally and you’re not. BWAHAHAHAHAHHA! You are freaking hilarious. > [@](#): > > Sometimes anger and outrage is rational. You are twisting and turning to look at things in a way that makes Hillary less culpable for losing a very winnable election. No I’m not. I’m perfectly happy to say that the Clinton campaign fucked up. But you are obsessed with putting the entirety of the blame for the loss of this election on the shoulders of Hillary Clinton. You are incapable of stepping back and taking a nuanced, unbiased look at what happened. This election was not “very winnable.” Thats the kind of fucked up arrogance that got the Democrats to loose in the first place. > [@](#): > > Yes and that’s a meaningless statement in a debate like this. Its basically saying "well why try to assign blame. Lets just move on with our lives and try again next time. If we don’t assign blame right now, we will never learn. I’d much rather we weren’t in a “debate”. But you keep saying stupid things. And here you are saying more stupid things. I run my own business. When things go wrong I don’t look for “someone to blame”. I identify what went wrong and take the appropriate correct action (whatever that may be) both in the short-term and the long term. What happened this election was a “perfect storm” of a whole lot of things “going wrong” that led to the eventual election of President Trump. You are ignoring that storm. And putting the blame on a single person. I think that is fucking stupid. > [@](#): > > True, but I can make reasonable inferences based on what we do in fact know. Your inferences aren’t reasonable. > [@](#): > > Her leads against Trump were not large and she trailed him in several polls so she wasn’t really beating him in the polls. But there was a lead yes? > [@](#): > > Not all of the polls had her ahead and many of them were within the margin of error. I think polling science can be wrong from time to time but its pretty silly to say we should disregard polls. Clinton polled better than Trump. Trump won the election. I never said we should disregard the polls. I asked you what you thought that this means? > [@](#): > > Well, I guess I shouldn’t have said “anyone” That really doesn’t make you any less arrogant. > [@](#): > > I still don’t think that bernie spends his time raising money in silicon valley from venture capitalists as his leads slip in Wisconsin and Michigan. Nope. He would have been “labeled a dirty rotten socialist who wanted to raise taxes and put people out of home.” > [@](#): > > Well, I thought it was pretty clear that you are on the “don’t blame Hillary” side. If that is what you are talking from my posts then you are a giant flaming moron. You can blame Hillary as much as you fucking want too. But blaming Hillary exclusively is just fucking stupid. > [@](#): > > Its why I call you a Hillary apologist. You were wrong then and you are fucking wrong now. > [@](#): > > You can call it “potato” if you like but a rose by any other name… You dismiss Trumps victory in the GOP Primaries as an accident of statistics. Yet you put the entirety of the blame the election of Trump to the presidency of the United States on the shoulders of a single person. “Clinton Derangement Syndrome” is accurate. > [@](#): > > Hillary cheated during the Democratic primaries. Oh stop whining you big baby. > [@](#): > > The New York Democratic party literally cleared the field for her during the primary, they told everyone else to drop out. She did a good job as secretary of state but you don’t need to win elections to be nominated for a cabinet position. Those stupid strategic blunders are part of her suck. A divided bloody war probably wasn’t in the best interests of the Democratic Party back then. So a cleared deck made perfect sense. > [@](#): > > OK, so what did he do right? AFAICT, he threw away the dog whistle to win the primary and he won the general because he was a populist outsider while Hillary was a corrupt, plutocratic insider. “As far as you could tell?” Fucking hell. Is that all you could see? “Populist outsider” and “corrupt, plutocratic insider” are just labels you’ve assigned based on your perception, not reality. Trump was perceived as in “outsider” because his campaign portrayed it that way. But there is no bigger “insider” than Trump. Trump ran a better propaganda campaign. It successfully managed to fool you. The Trump campaign tore up the rule-book. He told outright lies at every step of the campaign. He had no hesitation in out-right abusing people and groups. The Trump campaign were complete and utter hypocrites. They did everything that the “experts” would say is the wrong thing to do in a general election. And they won the election. You might think that Hillary is to blame for this. But the reality is much bigger than that. And every time I think about it it scares me a little bit more. It is much too big to deal with here. But if you ignore what the Trump campaign actually did: if you and people that think like you “win out” to take control of the Democrats then things are going to be a disaster in four years time. > [@](#): > > I submit that Bernie was also a populist outsider and he wasn’t corrupt. And the Trump campaign would have destroyed Bernie because he was a “dirty stinking socialist who wanted to raise your taxes.” Labels are not a one-way-street. > [@](#): > > Yeah, to good candidates, not to fucking bobbleheads like Trump. Your arrogant streak is showing. > [@](#): > > Yes. Because Hillary was so weak that even with all the cards stacked in her favor and all the name recognition, she was such a weak candidate that Bernie was able to catch up to her. You can’t both claim that Bernie was a weak candidate that shouldn’t have caught up to Hillary AND that Bernie was such a strong candidate he would have beaten Trump to the presidency. That doesn’t make any fucking sense at all. > [@](#): > > Name two blue state that you think Bernie would have lost. I think he probably would have lost all of the states that Hillary lost. > [@](#): > > So the guy that literally marched with Martin Luther King Jr. The guy that fought for gay rights before it was cool. So in what way is Bernie no friend of SJWs (not that I give a shit about his relationship with SJWs) And here you are throwing a large segment of the left-leaning voter under the bus as well. I know very well you don’t give a shit about his relationships with “SJW’s.” Bernie went on a march? He fought for gay rights? That is the very least any of us could do. Have a read of the timeline of the Angry Black Lady regarding her views of Sanders. [https://twitter.com/search?q=bernie%20from%3AAngryBlackLady&src=typd](https://twitter.com/search?q=bernie%20from%3AAngryBlackLady&src=typd) Her views of course are her own, and she is by no means representative of any movement, especially one which is usually used as an insult like “SJW.” But it is obvious that “Bernie being unpopular” is news to you. So at least here is a place you can start. > [@](#): > > Can you explain? How about you explain how the fuck Bernie Sanders could be considered a “Social Justice Warrior?” > [@](#): > > They were also hash tagging #hillarycheated, so? Oh grow the fuck up you big baby. > [@](#): > > Not likely. In your MOST HUMBLE of opinions. > [@](#): > > Dasmoocher did. Drad dog ran with it. I gave him shit. You put words in his mouth and then gave him shit for something he/she didn’t say. Strawman. > [@](#): > > He was referencing Dasmoocher’s parody post that referenced the russian mafia. You attributed something to him that he/she didn’t actually say. > [@](#): > > I don’t know how they do it where you’re from but we have the secret service. Presidents still get assassinated but Presidents have generally been immune from intimidation from threats of physical violence. They are not “immune.” They don’t have a magic bubble that stops a distant cousin from being kidnapped, threatened with violence and the President intimidated. This is of course very unlikely: but to claim the President is “immune” is simply incorrect. > [@](#): > > really because you seem to be taking it awfully personal. Well I’m not. And guess what? Next time you ask, you are gonna get the very same answer. > [@](#): > > You mean Hillary’s failure. I’m mad too. Couldn’t you tell? You are mad at the wrong thing. > [@](#): > > [Google](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=apologetics) I am aware that my arguments are well reasoned. Thanks for acknowledging that. But you didn’t answer my question. > [@](#): > > There were a few posters referencing Trump as a Manchurian candidate. If these people exist then go fucking argue with them then. I am not on their fucking side. Stop attributing to me arguments I haven’t made. > [@](#): > > If that’s not conspiracy theory then i don’t know what is. Its like the Democratic version of birtherism. I would suspect that what these people actually said is very different to what you claim they have said. You don’t do nuance very well. > [@](#): > > Drad Dog. And yet you can’t quote him/her saying “the fucking Russian mob is going to blackmail Trump into doing their bidding because he owes them money” because he/she never fucking said it. They are even in this thread pleading with you to stop misrepresenting them and you are ignoring it. Sad. > [@](#): > > Try harder. No need to. I asked you to back up your assertion and you failed miserably. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-that-the-dems-dont-understand-white-working-class-america-no-thats-not-it/773291.md?page=37) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-that-the-dems-dont-understand-white-working-class-america-no-thats-not-it/773291.md?page=39)