2020 US Election (Part One)

[Berzerker]

Democrats pushing for a certain candidate is not the same thing as them picking the candidate. Jesus you;d imagine there is some cabal of dems running both sides of politics in the US. Are you turning into one of those guys?

Republicans practice the same nonsense. Trump wants to go against Sanders or Warren, he thinks that is the better bet apparently, I'm thinking he is as wrong if not more so than Hilary was in '16.

The argument was Clinton had little or nothing to do with Trump winning, she had plenty to do with that. She rigged her own primaries to screw Bernie and his supporters while telling the media to promote Trump over Bush and Rubio. And thats just 2016, we could go back and examine her record of warmongering.

 

[Ajidica]

The argument was Clinton had little or nothing to do with Trump winning, she had plenty to do with that

I dunno, I'd say the GOP Primary voters had everything to do with it.

Hillary Clinton wasn't some sort of spectre haunting the voting booths and caucus halls in the guise of a trickster-god when millions of Americans in the GOP Primary said, through their vote, that a crook and a tax cheat was, in their sober and reasoned opinion, the best person to become President of the United States of America.

 

[Kyriakos]

^I think that the mainstream media had a lot to do with Trump winning the nomination. So much free air-time...
Also, a few key figures seem to have thought Trump would just ruin the republican race and allow for an easy win for the dems. But the reason Hillary lost is an entire lernaea hydra of bad practice, scandal, ideology (non progressive) as well as republican hatred for her.

 

[AmazonQueen]

^I think that the mainstream media had a lot to do with Trump winning the nomination. So much free air-time...
Also, a few key figures seem to have thought Trump would just ruin the republican race and allow for an easy win for the dems. But the reason Hillary lost is an entire lernaea hydra of bad practice, scandal, ideology (non progressive) as well as republican hatred for her.

Add to that her record and unimpressive performance. No way the Democrats would repeat that again and pick an establishment candidate who even if he isn't corrupt has done well out of the system, has backed some pretty disasterous policies and wars in the past, and has looked pretty unimpressive in the debates so far. Do I need to post

 

[Ajidica]

^I think that the mainstream media had a lot to do with Trump winning the nomination. So much free air-time...

True, but despite what some Teahadists and Trumpists seem to think, "the mainstream media" is not the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.
Also, on a slightly more serious note, 'the media' tried a particularly lazy version of 'sunlight is the best disinfectant' in the hopes that a) Trump has a shred of shame and self-awareness and would withdraw from the race or b) voters, in their heart of hearts, wouldn't like a crook and tax cheat.

Also, a few key figures seem to have thought Trump would just ruin the republican race and allow for an easy win for the dems. But the reason Hillary lost is an entire lernaea hydra of bad practice, scandal, ideology (non progressive) as well as republican hatred for her.

At the end of the day, despite Comey's complete failure to obey DoJ guidelines and keep a properly disciplined FBI (a problem he had no trouble with when it came to Trump) Clinton ran a poor campaign in the states that, due to our no longer charmingly archaic election system, have an outsized impact on the election results.

 

[Estebonrober]

I dunno, I'd say the GOP Primary voters had everything to do with it.

Hillary Clinton wasn't some sort of spectre haunting the voting booths and caucus halls in the guise of a trickster-god when millions of Americans in the GOP Primary said, through their vote, that a crook and a tax cheat was, in their sober and reasoned opinion, the best person to become President of the United States of America.

Thanks @Ajidica. It won't change someone like @Berzerker 's mind but it will show others my general point.

 

[mitsho]

Clinton was obviously already focusing on the time after the election. She probably had her cabinet all planed out and would have been ready to go on Day One. Trump ... well, he got lucky.

 

[innonimatu]

I think that the queen of warmongers still hasn't given up on being crowned. She does still think that bad lock of a russian conspiracy was what defeated her. Not herself.

 

[Zardnaar]

Primary cause was Hilary herself.

And how Trump campaigned. He made a heap of contradictory comments.

 

[caketastydelish]

Primary cause was Hillary wins the popular vote by a comfortable margin and loses anyway.

 

[Berzerker]

I dunno, I'd say the GOP Primary voters had everything to do with it.

Hillary Clinton wasn't some sort of spectre haunting the voting booths and caucus halls in the guise of a trickster-god when millions of Americans in the GOP Primary said, through their vote, that a crook and a tax cheat was, in their sober and reasoned opinion, the best person to become President of the United States of America.

She told the media to promote Trump and hurt his opponents. Now why would someone vote against the tax cheat and crook when the alternative was a lying warmonger with a foundation getting millions from tax cheats and crooks who want favors? Thats how she gave us Trump, she was Trump+wars. Well, thats not fair to Trump. He aint Hillary crooked, but who is?

 

[Ajidica]

She told the media to promote Trump and hurt his opponents.

As I noted in the other thread, the 'promote Trump' was an effort by Democratic surrogates and spokescritters during the GOP Primary to try and make the nutjobs and wierdos the face of the Republican party as opposed to more 'reasonable' candidates like Kasich or Jeb!. That, of course, is standard political strategy for centuries if not millennia.

 

[Estebonrober]

She told the media to promote Trump and hurt his opponents. Now why would someone vote against the tax cheat and crook when the alternative was a lying warmonger with a foundation getting millions from tax cheats and crooks who want favors? Thats how she gave us Trump, she was Trump+wars. Well, thats not fair to Trump. He aint Hillary crooked, but who is?



Hey, there's a quote function. Don't be too chicken to use it and let whoever you are sniping at know that you are trying desperately to be a jerk.

blah blah blah blah emails, benghazi, HIIIILLLAAARRRYYY the mastermind of all evil!!!!!!

So tiresome.

 

[Berzerker]

As I noted in the other thread, the 'promote Trump' was an effort by Democratic surrogates and spokescritters during the GOP Primary to try and make the nutjobs and wierdos the face of the Republican party as opposed to more 'reasonable' candidates like Kasich or Jeb!. That, of course, is standard political strategy for centuries if not millennia.

and it backfired

blah blah blah blah emails, benghazi, HIIIILLLAAARRRYYY the mastermind of all evil!!!!!!

So tiresome.

I didn't mention Benghazi or her emails, just her warmongering and Foundation.

 

[Ajidica]

and it backfired

Did it? The Republican Party is now firmly the Party of Trump. "Moderate" Republicans have fled the party like rats fleeing a sinking ship. The GOP took a hammering in 2018 in traditional swing districts and suburbs due in no small part to how toxic they are. The Republican brand has become incredibly toxic in vast swathes of the country that once Trump is out of office, it will be a very long time before the Republican party is able to cleanse themselves of his stench. What the Clinton campaign and Democratic campaign organizations misjudged is just how many Americans wanted a boorish, bullying, tax-cheating crook who is increasingly divorced from reality and prone to toilet-tweeting unhinged tweetstorms.
The "responsible" GOP of people like Arlen Specter, to say nothing of Gerald Ford or Nelson Rockefeller, is well and truly dead.

 

[Zardnaar]

Did it? The Republican Party is now firmly the Party of Trump. "Moderate" Republicans have fled the party like rats fleeing a sinking ship. The GOP took a hammering in 2018 in traditional swing districts and suburbs due in no small part to how toxic they are. The Republican brand has become incredibly toxic in vast swathes of the country that once Trump is out of office, it will be a very long time before the Republican party is able to cleanse themselves of his stench. What the Clinton campaign and Democratic campaign organizations misjudged is just how many Americans wanted a boorish, bullying, tax-cheating crook who is increasingly divorced from reality and prone to toilet-tweeting unhinged tweetstorms.
The "responsible" GOP of people like Arlen Specter, to say nothing of Gerald Ford or Nelson Rockefeller, is well and truly dead.

They might win 2020 (I doubt it but still).

 

[Ajidica]

They might win 2020 (I doubt it but still).

I'm putting it at 60% Trump victory in 2020. I feel the number of people who had voted for Trump in 2016 but will now vote someone else/abstain is far less than the number of people who voted someone else/abstained in 2016 but will now vote Trump. If I remember the maps rights, the House districts the democrats flipped in 2018 are mainly concentrated in states Clinton won. Plus, not much has changed with how skewed the Electoral College with is bias toward rural states and its winner-take-all vote allocation. I'm honestly not sure how many actual 'independent' voters are out there for the Democrats to compete for*, and I'm also not sure the Democratic strategists will have the balls to abandon the third way/Clintonesque strategy of trying to convince the mythical 'moderate voter' when (imo) convincing people to turn out through a compelling and positive agenda/message seems like the way to go in 2020.

*To be completely honest, I'm not sure I want the Democrats fighting for the vote of people who go "I'm not sure if I find baby cages morally repulsive or not".

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm putting it at 60% Trump victory in 2020. I feel the number of people who had voted for Trump in 2016 but will now vote someone else/abstain is far less than the number of people who voted someone else/abstained in 2016 but will now vote Trump. If I remember the maps rights, the House districts the democrats flipped in 2018 are mainly concentrated in states Clinton won. Plus, not much has changed with how skewed the Electoral College with is bias toward rural states and its winner-take-all vote allocation. I'm honestly not sure how many actual 'independent' voters are out there for the Democrats to compete for*, and I'm also not sure the Democratic strategists will have the balls to abandon the third way/Clintonesque strategy of trying to convince the mythical 'moderate voter' when (imo) convincing people to turn out through a compelling and positive agenda/message seems like the way to go in 2020.

*To be completely honest, I'm not sure I want the Democrats fighting for the vote of people who go "I'm not sure if I find baby cages morally repulsive or not".

It's there own fault if they lose then.

Something needs to be done about immigration but the Dems won't go there.

Trump's immigration policy is abhorrent.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

*To be completely honest, I'm not sure I want the Democrats fighting for the vote of people who go "I'm not sure if I find baby cages morally repulsive or not".

Maybe, just maybe, they need to fight for the votes of people who do find baby cages morally repulsive. The problem the progressive extremists have is that those people are not likely to be sufficiently motivated by that repulsion to vote for someone who can and will be painted as a grenade jumping self immolating destroyer of the USA.

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: Kindly stop trading naked insults in the thread and get back to discussing the topic. The worst posts have been deleted.