I am reminded reading about the 2nd Ranger Battalion at Omaha beach. They were the ones tasked with scaling the bluffs at Pointe du Hoc as chronicled in the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan. When they got to the top of the bluffs the German defenders tried to surrender but, as the writer delicately put it, “The Rangers were having none of it.”
Intransigence begets intransigence.
Didnt the same happen in 2016 when Hillary said “why am I not ahead by 50 points”?
The democrats and their buddies in the MSM really dont have a handle on what the average american thinks as much as they think they do.
The overall point here is true; a larger margin and some House and Senate gains would definitely have been a more thorough rejection of Trump, and probably encourage the GOP to turn its back on him. I would prefer to live in that universe.
But I don’t see what the polls have to do with anything. Looks like Biden will end up winning by 3-4%, so they were off by 4-5%, which is worse than usual but not dramatically so. If the results were just what they are, but the polls had been off in the other direction and predicted a super close election, do you think these results would have been worse for Trump or given Biden more of a “mandate”?
The problem is that about 48% of Americans suck, not that some journalists wrongly predicted it would be only 46%.
I don’t know about buddies. But normal politicians are obsessed with that stuff and eat up focus group results.
Democrats and Republicans each win half the time because they are both trying to appeal to the median voter, in the focus group, without losing their base.
Each party has electoral challenges. The Democratic base wants a BLM agenda while the median voter wants to crack down on looters, and even on peaceful demonstrators blocking roads. The Democratic politicians probably have a good handle on what the average Joe wants but the base won’t let them completely go there.
As for the GOP, the median voter wants the election to be over, but the base . . .
That was a rhetorical question on Clinton’s part. What she said to her audience was the following:
As usual, right-wing media has taken her remark out of context to make it sound as though Clinton was cluelessly wondering about why she wasn’t more popular instead of clearly indicating that she understood it very well. And as usual, right-wing voters have naively fallen for the spin.
In fact, Democrats and journalists know quite well what the average right-wing American thinks: they think what right-wing media tell them to.
I mean, could anyone blame her if she were cluelessly wondering? She was a seasoned Secretary of State, former Senator, polished pro, going up against a reality TV star with shocking words and views. It was quite legit to wonder why she wasn’t leading him by 50%.
Given Clinton’s long political experience, deep familiarity with voter opinions on all manner of issues, and decades of being personally demonized by right-wingers, yes, I for one would blame her if she were genuinely wondering why she wasn’t leading Trump by fifty points.
I wouldn’t blame the average Democratic voter in 2016 for wondering that, perhaps, but someone like Clinton would have no excuse for not understanding that many Republican voters preferred Trump to her, despite (or perhaps even because of) his total worthlessness as a statesman.
And indeed, her speeches and her tactics during the campaign made it perfectly clear that she did understand the situation. Admittedly, her judgement wasn’t perfect on her campaigning choices, and she didn’t manage to win the electoral college vote (which perhaps wouldn’t have been possible for her even if her judgement always had been perfect), but she did soundly win the popular vote.
The myth of Clinton as a clueless out-of-touch “liberal elite” assuming that she would win in a walkover, and not understanding why lots of Americans would prefer to vote for a cretin like Trump instead, is one that’s been sedulously fostered by right-wing media and folklore, but it’s not an accurate depiction of reality.
urbanredneck2, given this utter repudiation of your comment, do you think you could come back and say thanks for the education or something? Can you try and step up your game? Your statement was utterly wrong and misleading.
Can I steal the “circular firing squad” bit?
Sure. Thanks for the clarification. However I think the point still stands, the democrats have trouble grasping just why dont people overwhelmingly vote for their candidates?
I don’t think the point stands at all. Can you provide a cite for any prominent Democrat making the claim?
People on message boards say all kinds of things.
I don’t think that point stands. What Democrats tend to have trouble grasping is why so many Republicans are content to be so misinformed and so deep in denial about so many basic facts.
When so many Republicans are out there proclaiming “Global warming is a hoax!” and “COVID is a hoax!” and “Trump brought peace to the Middle East!” and “Trump built the wall!” and “Trump’s a great businessman!” and on and on and on and on, Democrats tend to have a hell of a lot of trouble grasping how anyone could be credulous enough to fall for those clearly untrue claims.
Democrats find it pretty easy to understand why people in such deep denial of reality aren’t voting for the Democratic candidates that conservative media are endlessly calling socialists and traitors and ineligible for office and lizard aliens or whatever. Sure, if I believed such smears about Democratic candidates, I wouldn’t vote for 'em either.
What’s tough for Democrats in general to understand is how Republicans can be so ill-informed and credulous as to believe such patently false smears in the first place.
Even if true, it doesn’t mean Democrats were working with Republicans.