Sounds like your parents vote for the peace candidate. Good for them. If only the peace candidates would be more peaceful once in office…
Only maybe? That point deserves far more scrutiny than it’s gotten, and I really don’t get why so many want to tiptoe around it. Avoidance doesn’t help fix the problem.
Of course it played a role, a major one, in the decades-long smear campaign against her, and of course that eventually had an effect. Is there really any doubt about the number of voters who can accept having a woman in a secondary position in some organization, but not in charge? Okay, you can lump that in with the fear- and hate-mongering that any tinpot pols can do, but that only works if the genuine worry being mongered into fear already exists. Just look at all the hate, including gender-specific invective, being spewed at any other Democratic woman at high levels. It works.
Took me about forty years, but yeah.
Unemployment went way down. Bush gave Obama a 10% rate, which Obama reduced to 5%.
Yes, kinda. But not really:
Because the GOP spent all of it’s time trying to torpedo Obamacare.
Then they found out that Obamacare was widely popular.
I’d say, as much as anything else, the left’s embrace of identity politics and political correctness tied to it.
-
You probably remember the Great Recession of 2008-2010. That fiasco was turned over to Obama and was a drag on the economy for several years into his tenure. The rosy situation inherited by Trump was due to the efforts of his administration to right the boat.
-
The idea that Obama contributed to the national debt “more than all other presidents combined” is factually incorrect.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/01/15/obamas-federal-debt-grew-at-a-slower-rate-than-reagan-h-w-bush-or-w-bush/#1f9c7c119172 -
Obamacare has been a godsend for many people, and has been popular with those who have it. In fact, Democrats are starting to use it as a talking point as one of their most significant accomplishments.
Actually a big part of the reason they voted for Trump was they thought Hillary would get us into another Middle East War; they blamed Libya and such on her. I tried telling them that she believes in realpolitik but Fox News had them believe otherwise.
Nothing to do with having a name like “Barack Hussein Obama”?:dubious:
Could be events like the “Day Without Whites” event at Evergreen college.
Earlier racial incidents like at the University of Missouri.
This woman, the head of the Idaho democrats, says its her job to tell white people to "shut up".
Why should I as a white person want to join a party who tells me my job is to shut up?
Also Hillary was just a bad candidate.
Matter of fact, most democrats I knew were upset the DNC offered NO other candidates. It was Hillary or nobody. Shut up and do what your told.
Sorry, I disagree. Sarah Palin had alot of male support.
There was every reason Libya’s current mess could be blamed in large part on Clinton. She was trying to get a big showpiece for her 2016 run, but it was an utter disaster and a travesty for the region.
Her insane call for a no-fly zone in Syria would have had us deploying troops by the tens of thousands, and her tough talk on Russia was deeply disturbing. She was advised on foreign policy by the same firm that advised the deranged hawk Marco Rubio.
Bill Clinton was all in on NATO expansionism, and Clinton herself was onboard as well. She would have the nuclear warheads flying over a threat to Montenegro.
I only began to come around on her candidacy once her crony deals with Russia were brought to light, reassuring me that the Russia instigation was pure bluster.
There is no doubt that Trump was the peace candidate. His strident anti-war rhetoric was unmatched in the modern age. Unfortunately, he has blundered and amplified Obama’s wars in Yemen and Syria, and has done nothing to show wisdom beyond a few meetings.
So yes, your parents decades-old anti-war instincts did not fail them, but they did not have much to work with. Very much like the Obama-Mccain contest. You had Obama bizarrely calling for a ramp up in Afganistan, but being called the peace candidate nonetheless. “Peace candidate” is a relative term, especially in the US.
You mean after the Primaries & Convention? Yes, there would be only one candidate.
Before then, the DNC does not offer any candidates, whoever wins, wins.
First of all “no fly” zones dont deploy any ground troops.
Clintons Crony deals with Russia? Clinton? There were none, are you confusing Trump with Hillary?
You have been reading fake news spread by the Kremlin.
We dont have any “wars” in Syria or Yemen. There are a few advisors and anti-terrorist fighters. All of whom are there by Trumps authority. Trump’s strident anti-war rhetoric was a obvious lie. He was the freaken GOP candidate, after all.
I definitely agree that lying and exaggeration are a major problem. Unfortunately, because many American voters do not have very high IQ’s, the only way to get them to vote for either side may be to lie and exaggerate to them. 
But let’s try to avoid exaggerations at SDMB.
I’m happy to agree with your overall point. However Wikipedia tells me that SNAP was 1.8% of 2016 federal spending (even when off-budget programs like Soc Sec are included in the total). Unless you forgot to move the decimal by two positions as required by “percent,” I think your claim is exaggerated.
.
I may be, I’m remembering from a calculation in a discussion a couple of years ago.
Thanks for the correction.
How many democratic candidates were in the primaries - ONE!
Remember how in the old days of the convention there would be this big shout out about how many delegates their would be from places like Texas? This time it was all Hillary! Again, the DNC who run the party, would allow NO OTHER candidates!
Remember Bernie was a socialist who just kind of shoved his way in.
This is just factually false. Martin O’Malley, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chaffey all ran as Democrats for the nomination. They didn’t get more than a tiny thread of support because most Democrats supported Hillary Clinton. And most of the rest, plus lots of progressive-minded independents, supported Bernie.
You misspelled “FIVE”.
There *is *only one candidate at *any *convention. Where do you get the idea it’s settled there, not in the primaries?
The thread is based on a false premise. White voters party preference barely changed in 2016, nor was white turnout significantly higher. The meaningful changes were
- Black turnout dropping sharply
- Republicans making incremental improvements among all racial groups.
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/%3Famp=1