warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Thank you for reaffirming my belief that I understand American politics
Who'll win the 2020 rematch?
- Thread starter Ryika
- Start date
Thank you for reaffirming my belief that I understand American politics
VicRatlhead5199
King
Mike Judge predicted this years ago.
But for real, I know the DNC would never support her but I'd like to see Tulsi Gabbard run. Bernie's going to be really pushing it age-wise. I think it's going to take a lot of energy to repair the damage done in the last 30 years or so.
I remain convinced that a 2020 Hillary run (and defeat in the primaries) would be extremely beneficial to the media profile of the Democratic party's race. I hope she runs again. Also, I like Tulsi Gabbard and Kamala Harris but I am very disillusioned about running a female candidate again. Booker is single, which I think is problematic if not fatal, for numerous reasons, less so because he is a Democrat but, I think ultimately, that dog isn't going to hunt.
I think Gavin Newsome is our Trump-slayer.
The incumbency issue alone makes Ted Cruz an impossibility. Even if Trump gets Nixon'ed over this Russia stuff (or emoluments), that just puts Pence in as the incumbent and I doubt Cruz would even run against the incumbent. Plus the stain of the Nixon'ing will basically guarantee Republicans lose no matter who runs. So I guess if Trump resigns in disgrace then yes, its wide open for whoever, even Bernie. Otherwise I agree that Bernie will be too old to win. He was too old this time... and the real issue is not his age per-se, its his look. He looks old, older than he actually is TBH.
I think Gavin Newsome is our Trump-slayer.
The incumbency issue alone makes Ted Cruz an impossibility. Even if Trump gets Nixon'ed over this Russia stuff (or emoluments), that just puts Pence in as the incumbent and I doubt Cruz would even run against the incumbent. Plus the stain of the Nixon'ing will basically guarantee Republicans lose no matter who runs. So I guess if Trump resigns in disgrace then yes, its wide open for whoever, even Bernie. Otherwise I agree that Bernie will be too old to win. He was too old this time... and the real issue is not his age per-se, its his look. He looks old, older than he actually is TBH.
Lexicus
Deity
I have heard...ah...an explanation for this from people I think are in a position to know. So I have to agree:
Hyperborean
Demiurge
"The world of men will fall, and all will come to darkness."
America - The Trumpening.
GoodEnoughForMe
n.m.s.s.
Why don't we just go ahead and make the election into an official celebrity reality tv contest instead of the unofficial one it currently is
Lexicus
Deity
I'm glad you went there, me and my mom were talking the other day about who the Democrats could run in 2020 and, apropos of no one, I said "There is one who could unite them. He turned from that path a long time ago...he has chosen....exile."That's a rather gross misrepresentation of the situation.
Not only has Clinton already stated that she won't run for president anymore, but she has also acknowledged her own mistakes during the campaign. It's ridiculous how some people just pick one tiny piece from a larger statement and then proceed to make claims from that. In no way, shape or form did Clinton suggest that she only lost due to wikileaks. In fact, you added another wrong item there, because her problems lay with the interference in the election, not with the things wikileaks released (which were almost completely devoid of anything meaningful against her). What she actually did say, was that there were plenty of things that went wrong, and that she takes full responsibility for the flaws of her campaign. Foreign interference was merely one of the side-points that got mentioned alongside the entire argument. And she definately wasn't wrong with that one.
Beyond that, people of the hard-left never considered her to be a good candidate. I've no idea what makes you think that. You do remember Bernie Sanders, right?
The whole criticism from the far-left was that she wasn't on the left but center to center-right. These people had such warped views that even Sanders himself couldn't get them to support her against an obviously far worse option. That's rather typical from people on the fringes of the political spectrum though, if they can't get what they want, they would rather watch the world burn than go with the best possible option left, because apparently someone who agrees with you on 75% of the points isn't any better than someone who agrees with you on maybe 1%...
VicRatlhead5199
King
Maybe I'm just getting edited sound bites but did Hillary actually acknowledge her own flaws or was it just a general "a lot of things went wrong"? I mean did she say she should have hit swing states more, talk policy more often, been less arrogant, etc. There were a lot of news shows that invited her on and would have given her a chance to appeal to voters but she turned them down. I think more than anything she was just too arrogant. I know Howard Stern said he repeatedly invited her on his show and he was definitely a supporter. Any questions he had would have been total softballs and his audience is exactly the demographic Hillary needed to woo.
So you want to reinstate the 70-year-old president as a standard 'Merican policy then?
We might as well update the ancient curse to ‘may you live in
Last edited:
Ryika
Lazy Wannabe Artista
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 9,393
From the Clinton News Network.
What she says basically boils down to: "Yeah, we made mistakes, but the people totally wanted to vote for me, and were it not for the Russians, and WikiLeaks, and everybody else, I'd be president!"
Or to quote her directly (1:35): "But the reason why I believe we lost, were the intervening events in the last 10 days."
And I mean yeah, I even agree with her on that. Were it not for these things, she would probably be president. But that's besides the point, because she ran against Donald Trump, and had support from large parts of extremely biased MSM all throughout the campaign. She should have had a massive lead, yet she somehow ended up in a situation where the two of them were so close to each other that the events of the last days allowed him to grab her... presidency. THAT is the great fault of her campaign and she hand-waves it away as "Oh, we weren't flawless!" and then spends the rest of her time talking about how everybody else is at fault.
We're talking about different points in time I think. The hard left did indeed favor Bernie while he was still in the race, but once he was booted out of the race in favor of Clinton, large parts of the hard left embraced Clinton very quickly, simply because she was the alternative to Trump. That's of course not true for the entirety of the hard-left, and I'd assume the further out you go, the less support she gets after a certain point, but I'm certain that in the non-extreme circles the "Democrats or death!"-mentality made them vote for Clinton in large numbers.
Bernie-supporters in the center were more reluctant to do that, and in many cases even switched to favor Trump because they liked Bernie for his non-establishment position.
But people didn't think that Clinton agrees with them 75% of the time. People thought, and in my opinion rightfully so, that Clinton says and does whatever she thinks she has to say and do to get in power. She stands for nothing and as long as people like her represent "the left", the left will continue to have serious problems.
That whole idea that "even Sanders himself couldn't get them to support her against an obviously far worse option" is also very one-sided, given that less people voted for Clinton overall than people voted for Romney in 2012. People overall didn't want to vote for Hillary. And why would you want to anyway? Thankfully I'm not an American, so I don't even have to make that choice, but if I were, I think I'd rather not vote for her, endure 4 years of Trump while the left crashes and burns in a cleansing fire that will hopefully get them up to speed in 2020.
The bolded is simply factually incorrect. Hillary got way more votes than Romney. Hillary's margin vis-a-vis Romney is higher than her margin vis-a-vis Trump.
In fact, the only candidate in United States history that got more votes than Hillary is Obama. That's a pretty heavy fact when you let it sink in... considering that she lost and he won in what were considered landslides.
In the same vein…
Four million votes.
Closer to 3, but yeah... Its the largest popular vote margin for a losing candidate in US History... larger than the next such margin (Bush v. Gore) by a factor of 5... and larger than the third largest such margin (Hayes v. Tilden) by a factor of 10.
In terms of pure margins, without regard to the actual winner of the election, her popular vote "win" puts her in 20th place overall in popular vote margin out of 58 elections total.
But whatever... she still lost.
In terms of pure margins, without regard to the actual winner of the election, her popular vote "win" puts her in 20th place overall in popular vote margin out of 58 elections total.
But whatever... she still lost.
Last edited:
Lexicus
Deity
It is misleading to compare absolute numbers of votes. In percentage terms it is actually one of the closest popular vote wins in history iirc.
Carter had a lower percentage margin and so did Gore... but again, its all academic because she lost afterall.
Ryika
Lazy Wannabe Artista
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 9,393
Indeed. I should have looked up the numbers instead of relying on a memory that I'm not even sure where I have it from. In fact, I knew Trump got more than him and that Hillary got more than Trump, so how did that even work in my head?
Of course it doesn't change the core issue.
Exactly. She sucked... sadly 
, and as a result of sucking, she lost.
, and as a result of sucking, she lost.
Lexicus
Deity
After looking at Wikipedia's data I'd amend that to one of the closer popular vote victories.
