Marshmallow wrote: “That the only other viable candidate was an independent socialist who was polling at 1% at the start of the primary speaks to the dysfunction within the party.”
And the fact that the Republicans had, at one point, fifteen or sixteen candidates speaks to the dysfunction within theirs.
You can discuss how hillary is hated all you want before an election. But you don’t know how it plays until the vote, (and if she wins then it is a tautology that the effect was “overstated”) which she won most of, popularly. You have not made a case that this is not hindsight. You don’t even have a case that she was “hated by half of America.”
You left out: and that donald beat all of them.
If republicans don’t support the donald now, like some kind of stockholm victims, they appear to be cuckholded morons. Better to hold the line, and deny deny deny.
I might agree that Hillary lost in part because of “Hillary hatred.” But you can’t seem to find any irony in the fact that you are doing that yourself. You can look at yourself for the reasons.
Hillary lost because of the Electoral College. In absolute numbers, she won, in spite of being hated.
Centrists typically don’t say things like this. I’m not sure why you would try to represent one.
Clinton was getting a certain bad treatment from the press that I never made sense of, her speech I already quoted from is an example. Here is a transcript of her remarks; here is the NYT showcasing her remarks as they saw fit, note that they’ve even rearranged the order of the remarks in their accompanying video. Trumps remarks were also slanted, repackaged, embellished, whatever, I read all manner of wrong things about him this year as if the raw story wasn’t good enough. Media coverage in general is a problem.
…you are a cocky son-of-a-bitch aren’t you? You haven’t got jack shit figured out.
It isn’t that fucking simple. Trump beat Clinton. And Cruz. And Kasich. And Rubio. And Carlson. And Bush. And Paul. And Christie. And Huckabee. And Fiorina. And Gilmore. And Santorum.
Hillary won the Democratic Primary: the process that the Democrats use to determine who they think would be the best person to be President of the United States of America. Bernie lost in the Primary. He couldn’t beat this weak candidate because he ran a shitty campaign.
Trump picked up a megaphone and the other candidates all suddenly just lost.
Aha. Well thank you for your scintillating analysis. I can’t say I’m any wiser for it: and it is apparent you haven’t really thought about this very much. I guess its because you are still angry with Hillary.
He beat everybody who ran against him: not just Hillary.
A cite for my fucking opinion?
And I can cite a whole lot of polls that show that Bernie lost to Hillary. And I can show you a whole lot of polls that show that Hillary could beat Trump in a landslide. I didn’t hear you six months ago bleating that “all the polls were wrong.”
Are these cites you are going to provide: do they look like this?
“Although the Gravis poll did not show state-level results, it is safe to assume that any candidate with that type of lead in the popular vote, if the poll is accurate, would win the electoral college handily.”
Because that poll didn’t prove jack shit. And the Huffington Post is fucking wrong. Clinton won the popular vote. Maybe Bernie would have won the popular vote as well. But the popular vote doesn’t matter.
So by all means cite away.
And what the ever-loving fuck is it that you are relying on?
Now who is the one making excuses for the losers now? Why do these 17 candidates get your benefit of the doubt but Hillary doesn’t?
Why can’t you just say they lost because they were “shitty candidates and because they ran shitty campaigns?”
Is this your subjective opinion, or do you have some sort of objective measure you are using? If the latter, can you provide it? Objectively how did Hillary suck more than Bernie?
I just did search of this thread for mentions of the mafia. There are 2 mentions of mafia: and you made both of them. I’ve searched google news and I can’t find anything seemingly relevant. I’ve gone and read the “Clusterfuck in the Making” thread and I see that you are the first person to bring up the Russian Mafia. dasmoocher bought up the Russian mob in a “parody” post. But you took the mafia idea and ran with it.
So you are obsessed with the Russian Mafia. I get that. But unless someone brings it up in this thread can you leave it alone for crissakes?
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.
All the “Sanders would have beaten Trump” claims ignore one simple fact. That by the time the republican propaganda machine was done with Bernie, folks would have thought he was Joseph Stalin.
Are you serious? You think the media was tilted against Hillary? How so? Were they not calling trump a lying idiot hard enough? There was something in the paper almost daily about how Trump was a liar or said something horrible, were they in the bag for Trump because they were giving him free press about these things he said?
So now Hillary lost because of the media (that was feeding her debate questions, leaking access Hollywood video, having a field day parodying Trump, etc).
Correct.
If the media didn’t cover Trump’s idiocy, that’s a cover up and they are in the bag for Trump. If the media did cover Trump’s idiocy, then they are giving him free publicity because they are in the bag for Trump.
Regards,
Shodan
I’ll admit to being mad but I think its pretty objective reality that Hillary was a poor candidate.
The one where pretty much every major news station outlet other than fox was almost flat out calling Trump a racist, misogynist and liar.
"and truly believe whites are superior to all races. "
Its only part of the OP so I overstated the OP’s focus on racism. The focus on racism is sprinkled throughout this thread.
Your inability to acknowledge that Hillary was the primary cause of her own demise and the implication that Trump was some sort of political juggernaut, a candidate of destiny is what makes you seem detached from reality.
After the Republicans drove the economy into the ditch in 2008, did you feel like they deserved a seat at the table? Did you feel like we should give them he keys to the car again? No, right? They should go into a corner and shut the fuck up and let the rest of us try and clean up their mess, right?
Well, the same principle applies to the “ready for Hillary” crowd that handed us this Trump victory.
Yeah right. I’m not the one that let him win, Hillary is.
Of course nothing is certain about what if scenarios but…
Hillary could have won against Donald, there is NOTHING inevitable or invincible about Trump. She was thiiiis close in half a dozen states. Her negatives weren’t so bad that se couldn’t overcome them. But she ran a horrible campaign, she ran up huge leads in places like California and New York and lost by paper thin margins in most of the swing states. That’s almost a textbook scenario for a horribly run campaign. If her negatives had not been so negative, she wouldn’t have had to make up so much ground from being so unpopular.
OTOH, if she was running against someone like Romney or Kasich, she probably wouldn’t have been able to cover the spread even with a campaign run with average levels of competence.
I voted for her in the general. I was on board with her inevitable nomination well before the DNC convention.
The notion that any part of her loss is anyone’s fault but her own because I’m not in lurv with her is retarded. She didn’t have my full throated support because she didn’t earn it, she got my vote because the alternative was Trump.
Someone really ought to have told her how the electoral college worked before she started running for President. Running up huge leads in places like California and New York is not the way to win elections.
You are the one making a case for hillary clinton as the anti-christ candidate, the be all and end all of political analysis. The alpha and omega of 2016. How realistic are you being?
You just sound butt hurt because you were told by “someone” that hillary would win and are being disappointed in an outcome for the first time in your life.
There is no such thing as bad publicity: Ever hear that? You are making a case that the media hurt donald. Look at the results again and listen to the voices out there. I have 4 relatives I know of who voted for trump.
If a guy can be elected with that much baggage and you want to pillory one person for that you are delusional. We have some sea changes in this country that you are too busy being disappointed to notice. Yes, you are part of the problem.
You said: “After the Republicans drove the economy into the ditch in 2008, did you feel like they deserved a seat at the table? Did you feel like we should give them he keys to the car again? No, right? They should go into a corner and shut the fuck up and let the rest of us try and clean up their mess, right?”
What does this even mean? You’re comparing a disappointing democratic primary process to a president who trashed the country and economy?
And you’re just sitting in the bathtub waiting for it to happen again, under freakin republicans again, no less? Are you like some kind of goldfish where you just have a new blank slate every thirty seconds?
So, in your estimation, Hillary wasn’t a weak candidate, Trump was just a very strong one? Come on, pull the other one.
Trump won the Republican primary because there were over a dozen candidates and you can probably get 20% of the Republican primary vote by saying nigger three times at every stump speech. In a field of 16, 20% makes you the front runner. Perhaps you didn’t know this because you aren’t from here but the media was in almost unanimous agreement that Trump’s total support was capped at around 30 or 40% during the primary (of course they could have been wrong) but by the time the other candidates stopped splitting the vote, it was too fucking late.
Bernie couldn’t beat Hillary because he is a nobody and he still gave Hillary a run for her money. Enough so that she felt the need to cheat (see Debbi Wasserman Schultz and Democratic national Committee email leak; see Donna Brazile feeding her debate questions). Hillary was nominated because she won the money primary early on by sucking up to the plutocrats and boxed out all the other potential candidates. She was also a huge name and she sucked all the oxygen out of the room.
I admit to being angry with Hillary. She delivered a Trump presidency to us, if she delivered Trump as your head of state, you’d be angry too.
So… what now? Trump was invincible Maybe. I have a lot of trouble with that concept. I think its one of those extraordinary claims that people keep saying requires extraordinary proof.
Oh, it was an opinion. OK, you have any basis for that opinion? Or are you going to say that the fact that she won the primary means that she was a batter match against Trump than Bernie? The reason I ask is because every fucking poll right up until the Democratic national Convention had Bernie beating Trump by larger margins than Hillary. We have since learned that Polls can be wrong but its all we have to go on.
All those same pollsters were saying that Bernie beats Trump by larger margins than Hillary.
Are these cites you are going to provide: do they look like this?
“Although the Gravis poll did not show state-level results, it is safe to assume that any candidate with that type of lead in the popular vote, if the poll is accurate, would win the electoral college handily.”
Because that poll didn’t prove jack shit. And the Huffington Post is fucking wrong. Clinton won the popular vote. Maybe Bernie would have won the popular vote as well. But the popular vote doesn’t matter.
So by all means cite away.
[/quote]
So you don’t think there is any significance to the fact that Bernie polled better than Hillary?
We can just ignore polls from now on, they are meaningless?
Hillary was winning in practically all the swing states by more than the margin of error in many case and she couldn’t pull off the win because she spent all her time running up huge leads (and raising tons of cash) in places like California.
Statistically significant polling samples.
Because I saw what happened during the primaries. Everybody did. Trump appealed to bigots, racists and xenophobes and cornered the market on about 20% of the Republican base. In an 18 man field. That was enough to make him the front runner for months on end until people started dropping out.
I think most of the Republicans are shitty candidates. But what killed them was that this field of mainstream Republi9cans were splitting the vote and ceding the batshit crazy vote to Trump and in a field of 18 candidates, that was enough to give him a plurality in primary after primary.
Well its a qualitative statement so its subjective but the reason I think Hillary sucks more than Bernie is because Bernie did not cheat did not pander to the plutocrats, did not have issues with pubic trust and did not cause the sort of revulsion that Hillary did from a pretty big chunk of the country.
This is the first post that I respond to the notion that the Russian mafia might be involved:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19868032&postcount=251
I did not respond to Dasmoocher’s parody post. I responded to Drad Dog’s response to Dasmoocher’s parody post. Dasmoocher responded to my reaction to Drad Dog taking the parody seriously. That’s how fucking distorted the argument had become.
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:
If one side of the argument is relying on conspiracy theory to justify their position and the other side sounds really mad about Hillary’s suckage allowing Trump to become the next POTUS, might I suggest that one side of the argument is more rational than the other.
And which Hillary voters would he have lost?
Perhaps he would have picked up some Jill Stein voters (like all of them). I’m pretty sure he would have picked up some working class white voters too. He was bashing NAFTA before it was cool.
Thanks for proving my point about your analytical prowess.
Once again: That you believe a political press bias against HRC means a necessary tilt in favor of anyone else reveals you as a dunce. Since it’s useless to try and shut you the fuck up with rational argument, I recommend that rational and informed posters skip your myriad posts. There is both more entertaining blather and more persuasive contrarianism easily available.
And that there is pretty much the only voters that bernie would have gotten that hillary didn’t.
People that voted for hillary in the primary would have had no problem voting for bernie in the general. I think he would have lost quite a bit of the middle. As a socialist, he’s not exactly mainstream. I know a number of conservative people that voted for hillary that would not have voted for the “commie”.
The fact that people that voted for bernie in the primary chose to support trump rather than vote for hillary is a large part of why she lost. In fact, if everyone who voted for bernie in the primary had turned out for hillary in the general, she would have won handily.
So, what you are trying to state here, is that hillary supporters were more responsible than bernie supporters?
Now, I get it, you really don’t like hillary. You feel that she betrayed you by not winning. You feel the democrats betrayed you by “allowing” her to win the primary. You feel that other posters here are betraying you by not jumping on your bandwagon and blaming everything on hillary.
Tell ya what. We won’t run hillary again in 2020, and in return, you start helping to ensure that democrats have a better chance in 2018 and in 2020, cause all this complaining about hillary isn’t helping anything at all.