| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016
Member Since: 3/5/2011
Posts: 15,589
|
Quote:
Originally posted by King Maxx
This is very sexist of you. Democrats aren't playing that game. We like the candidate, we vote for them.
Hillary didn't lose because she's a white woman (popular vote agrees). She just had bad luck in certain areas and it was the difference between lose and win where it counted.
|
White women don't support their own, so why should we?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by King Maxx
This is very sexist of you. Democrats aren't playing that game. We like the candidate, we vote for them.
Hillary didn't lose because she's a white woman (popular vote agrees). She just had bad luck in certain areas and it was the difference between lose and win where it counted.
|
Well, I do think sexism played a role in people criticizing her, albeit small. I agree, we should not let that concern who we vote for, because that would make us sexist. Those that truly wouldn't vote for a woman probably wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyways. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/21/2009
Posts: 11,151
|
Quote:
Originally posted by King Maxx
This is very sexist of you. Democrats aren't playing that game. We like the candidate, we vote for them.
Hillary didn't lose because she's a white woman (popular vote agrees). She just had bad luck in certain areas and it was the difference between lose and win where it counted.
|
......Annnnnnd this fixation on "breaking the glass ceiling" , "omG xenophobia!!11 TRIGGERED I NEED A SAFE SPACE" and identity politics is exactly why the Democrats lost and continue to stay losing. And this is coming from a pro-Black minority.
No, she didn't lose because she was a white woman or had "bad luck", she lost because her campaign was too stuck on behaving like voting for her was the "morally superior" choice. And it was a strategic mistake to ostracize and isolate working class whites. And Democrats still have their noses upturned to the hillbilly 'deplorables' even while
People didn't like Hillary. Not even the majority of white women wanted her. They hated and were afraid of Trump more. If Democrats want to start getting W's again, they need to, put a likeable candidate without 30+ years of baggage up. They played the whole "If you vote Trump, you're a bigot, racist, etc. etc." game and literally nobody cared, and even after the election ya'll are still trying it and the silent majority is still cackling in private.
Like, ATRL is so thirsty for a female president just so they can shout "YASSS QUEEN" nobody is even focusing on the most qualified person regardless of gender. If Hillary, as experienced as she was couldn't do it, what makes ya'll think ya'll are going to break the ceiling with amateurs? Its almost like the Democrats want to be losers. 
Quote:
Originally posted by Meh
Looks like observations are reads nowadays. Making an issue out of a non-issue must be a past time of yours, no?
 |
Being investigated by the FBI is a non-issue?
Oh, aight. Ya'll hold on to that one.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
Hillary Clinton got more votes than any white male candidate this century thus far with record high turnout with record high voter registration. She's also closing in on the first black president's 2nd term numbers.
I really need you Trump supporters to sit for a second and realize you're candidate does not have a mandate. Never had one, and never will.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by LuLuDrops
Pick a Bernie-type: Republicans will start the socialism slander
Pick a center-left type: They're not liberal enough
Damned if you, damned if you don't  |
Well, the Republican base aren't going to vote for a Democrat no matter what.  I think anyone that grew up after the soviet union doesn't care about buzz words such as "socialism!!" Bernie Sanders isn't even a real socialist.
Quote:
Originally posted by Achilles.
|
History comes in cycles. Huge political alliances and majorities are fragile at best. If Trump is as unpopular as a president as he was a candidate, then we should have no problem winning a lot in 2018. Gerrymandering will continue to be a problem, but governor's races should be easy. A lot of them were close in 2014, despite" the Republican wave".
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 3,103
|
Quote:
Originally posted by NE.
Being investigated by the FBI is a non-issue?
Oh, aight. Ya'll hold on to that one. |
Did you even read the quote that slw quoted saying that "it's always the Britney stans?" So I said that being investigated by the FBI is a non-issue? Oh, aight. Hold on to that one that I didn't even say.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/6/2014
Posts: 19,122
|
Did Slw honestly say a few pages back that they would have voted for Bernie? Another socialist who suddenly turned alt-right  such strongly held beliefs. Let me not say anything mean and just calmly block it
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/21/2009
Posts: 11,151
|
Quote:
Originally posted by King Maxx
Hillary Clinton got more votes than any white male candidate this century thus far with record high turnout with record high voter registration. She's also closing in on the first black president's 2nd term numbers.
I really need you Trump supporters to sit for a second and realize you're candidate does not have a mandate. Never had one, and never will.
|
And she still lost. Twice. 
Like I said, her turnout was fueled by fear, not inspiration. Her weak rally turnout was testimony to that. Liberals just cannot fathom that their candidate was not desirable.
But but....she's the "people's president"...
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/13/2012
Posts: 7,285
|
Quote:
Originally posted by slw84
It's not like it's ok to say non Britney stans were willing to elect a woman still under FBI investigation as read...
certainly you can come up with stronger reads.
I thought the loss was going to be accepted much better overtime.
Apparently, not so much...
|
Where was the read? Anyone who reads this thread can see a lot of the LGBT Trump support (lol) comes from people with Britney in their avatars or sigs. But then again, why should we be surprised at the stan base known for racism when dragging other acts (specifically Beyoncé)?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/21/2009
Posts: 11,151
|
And I think what liberals fail to understand is, most of Trump supporters don't believe he was a good choice either. I think it was a common understanding that America felt these two were the worst candidates in history. Aside from his misguided uneducated voters, most people Trump voters were simply tired of the establisment, the Clinton dynasty corruption, and the moral politics, so they were not letting Hillary's bloody hands in the Oval Office. Cased closed.
They know Trump is a bigot.
They know he's inexperienced.
Guess, what? They don't care.
Yes, bleeding heart libs, read it and weep. THEY. DO. NOT. CARE.
They do not care about your tears, your cries of misogyny, xenophobia, etc. And shoutout to all the white liberals who are now suddenly "woke" about racism that we've talked about for centuries, now they suddenly realize never left. The same ones who thought we were in a post-racial society because we had a black president.
This election was like choosing between dying by gas (AKA Hillary, hidden but deadly) or fire (AKA Trump, out in the open where they could see it and knew what to expect)
What Democrats are hoping for is that his voters will somehow "regret" their choice and long to go back in time for their Queen Hillary to come and save them lol. The fact is, Trump could be impeached, resign, or be the worst POTUS in U.S. history for all people care, that's fine. As long as it meant Crooked Hillary was CANCELLED for eternity, that was satisfying enough.
So the Dems need to grow a pair of balls, stop analyzing the outcome and acting like sensitive wimps, cut the corny white feminist and kumbaya memes and get back to focusing on inspiring voters for REAL change in this country. If this isn't a wake up call, I don't know what tf is.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 19,066
|
Even if Hillary won the popular, that's cold comfort considering GOP have the governorships, state houses, and everything in between. Maybe Dems need to run more Blue Dogs?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf
Even if Hillary won the popular, that's cold comfort considering GOP have the governorships, state houses, and everything in between. Maybe Dems need to run more Blue Dogs?
|
The thing is that if we do, then we risk turning off liberals.
There are not many conservative Democrats and there aren't many liberal Republicans. Like it worked for Gov. Edwards here in Louisiana, but I would be very surprised if Foster Campbell takes the Senate seat.
Also this Blue Dog scenario seemed to look promising in Missouri (Kander/Koster) and Indiana (Bayh/Gregg), but we still came up short BIGLY. There is one problem we need to fix: turnout. Even Obama couldn't turnout so of course Hillary couldn't, and I would be really shocked if the country is here for someone like Bernie. Ugh it's all so confusing.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 3,103
|
Quote:
Originally posted by King Maxx
The thing is that if we do, then we risk turning off liberals.
There are not many conservative Democrats and there aren't many liberal Republicans. Like it worked for Gov. Edwards here in Louisiana, but I would be very surprised if Foster Campbell takes the Senate seat.
Also this Blue Dog scenario seemed to look promising in Missouri (Kander/Koster) and Indiana (Bayh), but we still came up short BIGLY. There is one problem we need to fix: turnout. Even Obama couldn't turnout so of course Hillary couldn't, and I would be really shocked if the country is here for someone like Bernie. Ugh it's all so confusing.
|
I think the approach works in Missouri. Kander ran 8 points ahead of Hillary and only lost by 3%, compared to HIllary losing by 19 points to Trump.
Kander probably would have won if a more popular candidate was at the top of the ticket.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 23,857
|
Quote:
Originally posted by King Maxx
The thing is that if we do, then we risk turning off liberals.
There are not many conservative Democrats and there aren't many liberal Republicans. Like it worked for Gov. Edwards here in Louisiana, but I would be very surprised if Foster Campbell takes the Senate seat.
Also this Blue Dog scenario seemed to look promising in Missouri (Kander/Koster) and Indiana (Bayh/Gregg), but we still came up short BIGLY. There is one problem we need to fix: turnout. Even Obama couldn't turnout so of course Hillary couldn't, and I would be really shocked if the country is here for someone like Bernie. Ugh it's all so confusing.
|
Bayh was too corrupt in the end and both him (and Hillary) sunk Gregg.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Meh
I think the approach works in Missouri. Kander ran 8 points ahead of Hillary and only lost by 3%, compared to HIllary losing by 19 points to Trump.
Kander probably would have won if a more popular candidate was at the top of the ticket.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dessy Fenix
Bayh was too corrupt in the end and both him (and Hillary) sunk Gregg.
|
That's the issue I'm addressing. Blue Dogs do better in midterms, but they come up short in presidential years because of the disconnect with the top of the ticket.
Hillary had more of a liberal problem than anything in those states not her "establishment" issue. Obama and Hillary hurts down ballots. ESPECIALLY Obama in 2010 and 2014. And to some extent 2016. Bernie has that outsider approach that would work in certain areas, but I don't think it would have been any better for down ballots like in Indiana and Missouri. He def wouldn't help people like Foster Campbell down here in the South.
Someone like Sherrod Brown at the top of the ticket could help down ballots, but would it hurt the idealistic, far left that we need to a presidential election. Reverse that with Elizabeth and she could help down ballots in certain places and risk in others.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 3,103
|
Quote:
Originally posted by King Maxx
That's the issue I'm addressing. Blue Dogs do better in midterms, but they come up short in presidential years because of the disconnect with the top of the ticket.
Hillary had more of a liberal problem than anything in those states not her "establishment" issue. Obama and Hillary hurts down ballots. ESPECIALLY Obama in 2010 and 2014. And to some extent 2016. Bernie has that outsider approach that would work in certain areas, but I don't think it would have been any better for down ballots like in Indiana and Missouri. He def wouldn't help people like Foster Campbell down here in the South.
Someone like Sherrod Brown at the top of the ticket could help down ballots, but would it hurt the idealistic, far left that we need to a presidential election. Reverse that with Elizabeth and she could help down ballots in certain places and risk in others.
|
I don't think this is a disconnect with the top of the ticket. Dems don't vote in midterms - the only exception so far is 2006 when Bush was widely hated by people on both parties. If Obama hurt downballots, then 2012 would have been a disaster. Except we actually won seats that year (including one in Indiana and keeping a seat in Montana, of all places).
IMO, we just have a bigger problem with running as a functional political party. If only every state could imitate what Harry Reid has done in Nevada, we wouldn't be in such a bad state.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/16/2011
Posts: 3,776
|
all of this is history unfolding...this election cycle & Trump presidency is going to be made into a movie
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 11/5/2010
Posts: 7,796
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 2,755
|
Quote:
Originally posted by King Maxx
Hillary Clinton got more votes than any white male candidate this century thus far with record high turnout with record high voter registration. She's also closing in on the first black president's 2nd term numbers.
I really need you Trump supporters to sit for a second and realize you're candidate does not have a mandate. Never had one, and never will.
|
.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 2,324
|
Omg Ana and Kayleigh going to war on CNN
|
|
|
|
|
|
]