Well, not an election where they say what they will do.
Both parties say they will cut taxes. Both say they will cut spending. Both say they will control our borders. Both say they do not favor gun control.
Only one of those parties is telling the truth. Clinton lost in part because she came closer to running as a true liberal than any previous Democrat. Tax and spend, amnesty, gun control.
My definition of a fair election is where Democrats run as Democrats and Republicans run as Republicans and the public decides which direction they want to go in. I hope we’ll see that in 2018. Because as Obama would say, “Make no mistake. Every one of these Senators supports me and my agenda.” Except for Manchin, they are all liberals and when the chips are down, they’ll vote the way the DC liberal establishment wants them to.
Still with the ‘Republicans are more honest than Democrats’ silliness?
No point in disputing this kind of repeated nonsense – we’ve done it over and over again, with cites. If you want to have a reasonable discussion, set aside this ridiculousness.
Obama promised a net spending cut. He said he was against gay marriage. He promised tax cuts for 98% of Americans.
He was also the last Democrat to win the Presidency. The next Democrat to win the Presidency will also promise those things. Well, except the gay marriage part. But on economic issues, guns, borders, God, conservativism reins supreme and every Democratic campaign concedes those issues. Except the last one.
Are you predicting now that red state Democrats will run as liberals? Or will they distance themselves from their leadership as much as possible, as they did in 2014?
Yes, John, because American citizens would announce plans to overthrow the Presidency of the United States of America on publicly visible internet message boards where posts can’t be deleted. That’s a thing smart people do. [/sarcasm in case you can’t tell]
Strangely, I did not hear any of that stuff from Clinton. I’ve never seen a more progressive campaign before. It kinda surprised me. It also lost to Donald Trump, but I guess that’s just what happens to progressive campaigns.
Bernie Sanders, the same year, for a start? Jesse Jackson, ever?
Well, the Democratic Party used to run progressive campaigns, back in the middle 20th Century. It worked well for them. “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country;” and, “…see things as they never were, and ask why not;” are pretty progressive on the surface level, even if JFK wasn’t a “liberal.” And FDR was far more progressive than that, and unambiguously so.
It’s weird that we’ve become so unambitious in the last several decades. For too long. The GOP offer nothing more than tax cuts. The Democrats seem to have turned into old-fashioned “this far and barely any further” moderate conservatives.
It was part of her problem, yes. She was speaking only to the base, thinking she could reignite the Obama coalition. I just don’t think things like no tax cuts, promising to deport only criminals, massive new spending, no promises of budget cuts whatsoever(outside of defense) was a very smart way for a Democrat to campaign. I think her staff must have thought that “demographics are destiny” made it unnecessary for her to appeal to anyone but the base.
Couldn’t have had anything to do with, say, Comey unprecedentedly interfering in the election, Trump leaving no stone unturned in his untrue insinuations about her, very possible Russian interference (and we’ll throw Assange into that category too), BernieBros letting their youthful idealism blind them to the reality of what would happen if they didn’t vote for her, her own unintended complicity in contributing to her character assassination, or people cluelessly reaching for a strongman with serious and well-known character flaws just because they didn’t like the establishment?
No, it was because she ran a progressive campaign. Hokay…
(As an aside, I liked the plans she put forward. But then I supported her from the beginning.)
I still think Hillary Clinton lost the general because
a) she didn’t run against Congress as she should have, instead running for more of the same and divided government in a bad year for that;
b) she was Mrs. Bill Clinton, and the Bushes and Kennedys are bad enough;
c) she showed no signs of fixing the giant gaping hole in Clintonism where industrial policy and economic development would be; and
d) she had had a quarter-century of stuff thrown at her to wreck her & Bill’s reputations in voters’ eyes, which she could no longer overcome.
Speaking as a progressive, I think she ran hard to (a version of) “center,” actually. Too much so, even basically talking about how Republicans would work with her and not that stinky socialist Sanders, and how well she got on with Henry Kissinger. Actually, she ran right of center in some ways.
Anyway, enough of adaher’s fantasy-history hijack.
I think that those who love their country have to think seriously about whether Trump’s egomania and mental deficiencies will lead to an irrevocable act. Hypothetically, what would you do given a moderate probability that a madman in the White House would suddenly fire nuclear weapons at Iran?
Hope everyone in the nuclear chain of command really, *really *second-guesses any launch orders.
For that matter, I can’t imagine everyone in that process launching Trump nukes without question.
The good news is that he can’t do it by himself; it needs seconding from the Pentagon, and that won’t happen. (No single person, alone, can launch a U.S. nuclear strike. Thank GOD!)
If he did give such an order, I would hope that it would become public knowledge, so that impeachment hearings could begin. Meanwhile, there would have to be a Nixon-style diverting order put in place, so he couldn’t give commands to the military (e.g. conventional-weapons air strikes on North Korea.) A 25th Amendment solution might be necessary.
