• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

American politics

scaramanga said:
Maybe not, but they had very good reason to think that was the correct choice. Had it not been for butthurt Sanders voters, Clinton would have walked that election.
Click to expand...

Clinton lost because she lost in the rust-belt, which is the same reason Sanders would beat Trump. Those voters want change and she just assumed they'd vote for her, without her making an offer of real change to them. These are the places where you get districts that voted for Obama twice but took a punt on Trump last time out.

Just more Democrat/Clinton dodging why they lost "It was Russia! "It was Bernie!" -- Nobody made her decide not to campaign in a state like Wisconsin, that was her decision. The Democratic Party (elite) stitch-up to make sure she won the nomination back-fired, yet it's Sanders who cost her the White House. Cloud cuckoo land.
 
scaramanga said:
Maybe not, but they had very good reason to think that was the correct choice. Had it not been for butthurt Sanders voters, Clinton would have walked that election.
Click to expand...

This 'fact' is repeated so often that, like so many things on the internet, it has become almost gospel, when what evidence we have indicates that it is not true.

We 'know', with the polling we have, a few things about the 2016 election and the Sanders/ Clinton/ Trump dynamic. We know that somewhere between 6-12% of people who voted for Sanders in the primaries ended up voting for Trump. We know, again with the estimates we have, that approximately 75% of Sanders voters ended up plumping for Clinton in the end, with the other 13-19% going to other candidates.

In isolation, this seems pretty shocking and like it would back up your point. If it wasn't for a couple of things. Firstly, despite the caricature that it was a bunch of disillusioned hippy democrats who voted for Sanders and then refused to vote for Clinton, what we see is that a lot of the people who voted for Sanders and then refused to vote for Hilary actually self identified as conservative or at least independent and actually were not members of the democratic party initially.

What we also know is that in 2008, about 24% of the people who voted for Clinton in the primaries vs Obama voted for McCain in the general election (ie more than double the Sanders voters who ended up voting for Trump).

As I said above, its an easy caricature to score cheap political points, used to explain a very complex topic but which doesn't have basis in facts.

Clinton lost in 2016 for many reasons. Is it partly because she's a woman? I'm sure that was an aspect to some. Was it also because she's a Clinton? Because she represented a continuation of the status quo that is no longer working for so many Americans? Because she has been held up as a bogey (wo)man by Republicans for years now? Because she is an almost uniquely bad candidate? Because she compaigned on continuing the current system and more important, campaigned essentially on not being Trump, whereas he, for all his faults and regardless of what you think of his actual policies, actually campaigned for tangible things? Clinton lost middle America and the rust belt and the Democrats did not bother actually appealing to voters properly.

I hope they have learnt their lesson because if they're still crying about Russia/Sanders in 2020, they're going to see another 4 years of Trump and most likely, an entire generation of a conservative Supreme Court.

Some references below if you want to get a bit further into it:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...vote-what-does-that-mean-for-his-chances-now/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lection/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.70748779b281
 
Hootnow said:
This 'fact' is repeated so often that, like so many things on the internet, it has become almost gospel, when what evidence we have indicates that it is not true.

We 'know', with the polling we have, a few things about the 2016 election and the Sanders/ Clinton/ Trump dynamic. We know that somewhere between 6-12% of people who voted for Sanders in the primaries ended up voting for Trump. We know, again with the estimates we have, that approximately 75% of Sanders voters ended up plumping for Clinton in the end, with the other 13-19% going to other candidates.

In isolation, this seems pretty shocking and like it would back up your point. If it wasn't for a couple of things. Firstly, despite the caricature that it was a bunch of disillusioned hippy democrats who voted for Sanders and then refused to vote for Clinton, what we see is that a lot of the people who voted for Sanders and then refused to vote for Hilary actually self identified as conservative or at least independent and actually were not members of the democratic party initially.

What we also know is that in 2008, about 24% of the people who voted for Clinton in the primaries vs Obama voted for McCain in the general election (ie more than double the Sanders voters who ended up voting for Trump).

As I said above, its an easy caricature to score cheap political points, used to explain a very complex topic but which doesn't have basis in facts.

Clinton lost in 2016 for many reasons. Is it partly because she's a woman? I'm sure that was an aspect to some. Was it also because she's a Clinton? Because she represented a continuation of the status quo that is no longer working for so many Americans? Because she has been held up as a bogey (wo)man by Republicans for years now? Because she is an almost uniquely bad candidate? Because she compaigned on continuing the current system and more important, campaigned essentially on not being Trump, whereas he, for all his faults and regardless of what you think of his actual policies, actually campaigned for tangible things? Clinton lost middle America and the rust belt and the Democrats did not bother actually appealing to voters properly.

I hope they have learnt their lesson because if they're still crying about Russia/Sanders in 2020, they're going to see another 4 years of Trump and most likely, an entire generation of a conservative Supreme Court.

Some references below if you want to get a bit further into it:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...vote-what-does-that-mean-for-his-chances-now/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lection/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.70748779b281
Click to expand...
Your numbers miss one fairly large group - those who voted for Sanders who stayed home on election day.

It's a couple of years since I saw the figures, but I'm fairly sure they were large.
 
scaramanga said:
Your numbers miss one fairly large group - those who voted for Sanders who stayed home on election day.

It's a couple of years since I saw the figures, but I'm fairly sure they were large.
Click to expand...

It doesn't at all, the 538 link has that included quite early on. 3.5% of his voters in the primary did not vote in the general election.

Not to mention like I said that Sanders had a quarter of his primary supporters not vote for Clinton (due to a mixture of different reasons including voting for 3rd party candidates), whereas a quarter of Clinton's primary supporters in 2008 not only didn't vote for Obama but actually directly voted for Mccain, who let's not forget had Palin as his running mate. Its always dangerous to assume anything, in any field really. But I really doubt those were the only Clinton voters that ended up not voting for Obama. So we have as many Clinton primary voters deciding to vote for the GOP as we did Sanders voters not voting for Clinton period.

The difference? Obama was a better candidate, without baggage, actually put forward policies rather than 'I'm not the other guy' and didn't arrogantly assume he would win.

Like I said, it's a caricature. Stupid hippy leftists don't want to compromise and ruined the election. Actually, seems more like conservatives who didn't usually vote democrat jumped back to the GOP once they went for a status quo candidate, seems like most of his voters voted for Clinton anyway and seems like a lot more of her voters in 08 voted directly for the opposition than Sanders' did in 16, despite her supporters being the mature, sensible ones I guess?

It's an easy one to follow though cos it allows people to shape it to how they believe. Some more right wing people use it to continue with this belief that the left wing candidate is silly and ruined the election. Democrats like it because it means they don't have to approach why they lost an election to an almost uniquely bad candidate. Some liberals like it because they can feel less bad that so many people in the country support Trump. And republicans who hated him, were and are embarrassed by him and his antics, can hide away from the fact that behind some of his more extravagant mishaps... He really isn't too far away from the GOP when it comes to most policies.
 
Robbo said:
Not slating old people here, but are we potentially looking at a 79 year old battling it out with a 74 year old for the presidency? With an 80 year old woman as house speaker?

They could all get alzheimers and die before their term is over. Why not find someone for the future?
Click to expand...

Pete Buttigieg, Beto O' Rourke and Andrew Yang, pete is 37, the others are in there 40's, Buttigieg would be the first gay president, Yang would give every citizen $1000 a month as universal income stipend and Beto, well he thinks he's a rock star. All have received substantial donations already.
 
Hootnow said:
This 'fact' is repeated so often that, like so many things on the internet, it has become almost gospel, when what evidence we have indicates that it is not true.

We 'know', with the polling we have, a few things about the 2016 election and the Sanders/ Clinton/ Trump dynamic. We know that somewhere between 6-12% of people who voted for Sanders in the primaries ended up voting for Trump. We know, again with the estimates we have, that approximately 75% of Sanders voters ended up plumping for Clinton in the end, with the other 13-19% going to other candidates.

In isolation, this seems pretty shocking and like it would back up your point. If it wasn't for a couple of things. Firstly, despite the caricature that it was a bunch of disillusioned hippy democrats who voted for Sanders and then refused to vote for Clinton, what we see is that a lot of the people who voted for Sanders and then refused to vote for Hilary actually self identified as conservative or at least independent and actually were not members of the democratic party initially.

What we also know is that in 2008, about 24% of the people who voted for Clinton in the primaries vs Obama voted for McCain in the general election (ie more than double the Sanders voters who ended up voting for Trump).

As I said above, its an easy caricature to score cheap political points, used to explain a very complex topic but which doesn't have basis in facts.

Clinton lost in 2016 for many reasons. Is it partly because she's a woman? I'm sure that was an aspect to some. Was it also because she's a Clinton? Because she represented a continuation of the status quo that is no longer working for so many Americans? Because she has been held up as a bogey (wo)man by Republicans for years now? Because she is an almost uniquely bad candidate? Because she compaigned on continuing the current system and more important, campaigned essentially on not being Trump, whereas he, for all his faults and regardless of what you think of his actual policies, actually campaigned for tangible things? Clinton lost middle America and the rust belt and the Democrats did not bother actually appealing to voters properly.

I hope they have learnt their lesson because if they're still crying about Russia/Sanders in 2020, they're going to see another 4 years of Trump and most likely, an entire generation of a conservative Supreme Court.

Some references below if you want to get a bit further into it:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...vote-what-does-that-mean-for-his-chances-now/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lection/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.70748779b281
Click to expand...

This is bang on the money.
The democrats have never ever owned their part of the loss, a loss that could easily have been turned into a win despite everything. Clinton simply didn't think she needed to adopt the tone which was necessary to win over the rust belt et al. Trump won on one thing - attacking Clinton. She couldn't mount a credible "fudge you asshole" defense, which was necessary. It became a power-tinkling contest except she wasn't up for tinkling back on him as I suspect she felt it was "beneath" her. as the case may be, but her primary job was to win, and it needed more of that from her which she sadly wouldn't do.
 
the dza said:
Yeah, that's why we have President Clinton, because the way to beat Trump is to put up a "pragmatic centrist."

Zzz...

The hardest part of all this for Bernie is he is fighting against the elite of the Democratic Party (Schumer, Pelosi etc.) They only just kept him out last time, but he started with no name recognition and 60 points behind Clinton in the polls. No such disadvantage this time. It seems the grassroots are solidly behind him.
Click to expand...

Yeah, cause if you are on the left, what you really want is a do nothing neo liberal...wait... wait... Clinton is a progressive right?
 
jts1882 said:
Sanders isn't even a member of the Democratic Party. . Sander's supporters complain that the Democratic machine favoured Clinton over Sanders, but fail to explain why members of a party should want a candidate who isn't a member of their party. If Sanders hasn't changed his independent affiliation since his last run, why should the Democratic Party want him this time when he is the reason we have Trump in the White House?
Click to expand...

He is now!
 
nayenezgani said:
Pretty clear groundwork for impeachment or legal proceedings once he's out of office.
Click to expand...
The financial crimes being investigated, tax fraud, insurance fraud, campaign finance, the inauguration, emoluments, etc. are enough to send Trump and his kids to prison irrespective of any of the so called 'collusion' crimes. But these are small fish compared to other investigations hinted at but redacted in the report. The redacted sections relate to cases that sprang out of the initial counterintelligence operation against Trump and these were farmed out to other units. Ultimately it will show that this will be about money for the lifting of sanctions against Russia and nuclear tech to the Saudis

Impeachment is a politic process and Trump still has too much support in the Senate for it to be successful now.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back