Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Yep. 1+1=2
Whatever they had (not) voted, all people I mentioned prefer Trump over Clinton. And have criticized Clinton more than Trump. They're fine with all this. Better than 8 years Obama.
Last edited:
USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
Yea I guess my point is more that the net of possible democratic voters is pretty wide. I think these voters could’ve gone for Sanders’ populism (especially in the rust belt), but I don’t think Sanders’ policy is as popular as it seems on the internet/media. Medicare for all seems to be a winning issue though.
It’s not even so much that these voters would go for Trump over Sanders, more that they may choose to stay home or vote third party if they’re scared off by the socialism thing. Despite the “us vs them” mentality exhibited in other posts here, many voters do not have loyalty to one party or another. But Hillary had the same problem. She won the popular vote by such a huge margin because people on the coast were so energized against Trump, but this didn’t help her in the states where it mattered. I don’t know if Sanders would have done better there (my gut says yes) but I think they should’ve at least tried instead of running a candidate mired in scandals who was under FBI investigations during the primaries. He certainly had an enthusiastic base, I don’t remember seeing anyone who was actually excited to vote for Hillary.
Black Wizard
Pleb Hunter
Katy Perry and Ellen DeGeneres.
I never actually said whataboutism would work in a campaign against Sanders. I seem to recall acknowledging that it probably wouldn't work, my point being that yelling "Communist!" would.
Either way, it's all speculative. We don't know if there will be a Sanders-Trump race in 2020.
Collin
Chasing Ponce De Leon's Phantoms
So because I don't like Hillary means I automatically like Trump??
Foro, you don't anything about me. You clearly have a bias that has obscured your view. Just because I don't like Person A does not mean I am for Person B. I can be in favor of person C without being in favor of the other two.
I hope Sanders doesn’t run. I’m still not completely sold on anyone but I like Kamala Harris lately.
Yea, the “coastal elites” that turned off voters in the heartland.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Prefer Trump.
It really isn't that hard to deduce from your posts. E.g.
Last edited:
Collin
Chasing Ponce De Leon's Phantoms
Just goes to show how much I dislike Hillary. I still don't like either.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
There is, I voted Libertarian, obviously knowing he would not win, but at least the personal satisfaction I did not vote for either of the other 2 scum bags (3 if you count the Green Party candidate) and still voted for things down ballot where there were much better choices (all the way down to town council)
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Pretty much ... dislike a lot of things he has done .. trade, "the wall"/immigration/some of the law and order kind of stuff, and again .. the guy is just a jackass
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
A little late and I know we talked about this over and over during the election ... but to recap about the mail server. The mail server was not the problem, if she just came out and said something that conveyed "look, I fucked up, it was a mistake, will never happen again" and maybe add in a (legit) excuse of "I am not an IT person, but the buck stops here .. my bad" it would have been talked about on right wing sites/radio ... but would have been over for the general public and they would not have cared.
But she gave a good reminder of a Clinton trait most people cannot stand ... deny, deny, gradually admit to something when facts come out, blame others, deny more, admit some truth when more facts come out, appear that rules that govern others do not apply to them ... and on and on. Plus it kept it in the news forever. All that is what made that a problem for her plus it was a repeat performance for her/them.
The mail server itself was not really the issue, it was how she handled it
But she gave a good reminder of a Clinton trait most people cannot stand ... deny, deny, gradually admit to something when facts come out, blame others, deny more, admit some truth when more facts come out, appear that rules that govern others do not apply to them ... and on and on. Plus it kept it in the news forever. All that is what made that a problem for her plus it was a repeat performance for her/them.
The mail server itself was not really the issue, it was how she handled it
I think the only thing we disagree with is that the issue would have ended. The right wing fever swamps would have kept trying to make it a thing. I believe the degree of success would have been lower, though.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
I think the success would have been near zero, people that would not have voted for her in any circumstance would have been the only ones talking about it ... the general public/swing voters would have pretty much said "it's over, we are sick of hearing about it" and at most it would have been an incredibly minor input to them in deciding who to vote for. Like the 30th tie breaker or something like that.
It's certainly possible. That's how she handled Benghazi and it was never mentioned again, after all.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
True and good point, but that was more a criticism of her public service and involved people being killed versus a mail server. In any case, at a minimum she could have made the whole email thing much less of an impact ... and it being in the news (mainstream) for so long and letting the whole thing paint her as untrustworthy is all on her
Yes, I agree with that statement. Clintons gotta Clinton.
The Flash
Dennis Wilcock did 9/11
The thing is, Foro, the assertion that "The 2016 election was only about Trump vs Clinton" is your own conclusion. I'm not saying whether that's a correct assessment or not, but you're projecting that conclusion to everyone else's decision making process. Some viewed Trump and Clinton as different shades of black and that the result would be a disaster either way, and chose to vote for the candidate that they genuinely liked but had no shot of winning.
There are times where the "lesser of two evils" situation consists of a dark grey option and a black option and going with dark grey is the wiser move. I think you see it that way with Clinton, though I'm not sure if you view her as a bad candidate at all, but some didn't. You're entitled to feeling the way you do, but do not assume everyone had the same decision making process as you did. That's what you're doing with the "libertarians who voted for Gary Johnson thought rather Trump than Clinton" assertion.
I don't think there will be. Sanders will be 79 in 2020. I think the most likely Democratic candidate, at the moment, is Elizabeth Warren. Though she has already started to shoot herself in the foot with the "See, DNA-test shows I'm Native American (to a lesser extent than the average white American, but hey)" nonsense.
Black Wizard
Pleb Hunter
Someone has been arrested in connection with the packages.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Yeah, no clue what she was thinking with all that ... idiotic to say the least.
I think it's too early to say who the most likely candidate is. It definitely won't be Warren though IMO. I don't think she was ever a good candidate, but the DNA test thing was probably the final nail in her campaign's coffin. Really dumb move. We will get our first real look at what the bench looks like after the midterms. The 2020 strategy is going to differ heavily based on an outcome that can range anywhere from Dems failing to take the House to Dems winning the Senate because of red states like Texas and Tennesee.
Florida Man strikes again!