| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016
Member Since: 9/10/2011
Posts: 20,982
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike91
135 million people vote in the general election. Less than 30 million people voted in the democratic primaries. Hardly comparable. 
I love how people try to attack Bernie as if he destroyed the democratic party. It wasn't under Bernie when dems lost almost 1000 seats across the country.  Nominating more of the same will only lead to the same results. |
ِA 30M sample of Democrats and independents of all colors in battleground states is far more legitimate in representing a 150M outcome than flop national polls that showed Bernie beating Trump by wider margins (polls which have been debunked over & over and proven to be incredibly inaccurate, if not usually false).
You also ignored my points on Trump obliterating Bernie in Florida and potentially Nevada due to Bernie previous tapes speaking positively about Castro. Not only would Cuban Americans overwhelmingly choose Trump, but also flock in bigger numbers to vote against Sanders.
And yes, he did destroy the party. I can only imagine how different the outcome would have been had he dropped out 3 months earlier, when it was mathematically impossible for him to have a path forward. That's 3 months without the left attacking Hillary and 3 more months of unity, good press, and less resources spent on primary states.
All Hillary needed was a few thousand voted in white-working rust belt states, which could have easily gone blue had Bernie been by her side since March, instead of mid-June.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 23,857
|
I don't think Bernie destroyed anything except made a few sourpussies who probably wouldn't had voted if he wasn't in the race.
Not that the party is destroyed anyway. The Democrats definitely need to reevaluate everything from the Reps to the President.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 28,773
|
We need governships, first and foremost. I'm happy with Trump getting an even more red congress but we should focus on the states. I wish I didn't live in California for this reason so that I'd work to elect democrats.
As for the reps and senators, let them get a congress that's republican enough. Their agenda will destroy so many livelihoods which is great for the next election. Notice how they're trying to push the ACA repeal until after 2018. They're snakes and they know they might cost Trump 2020.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 1,311
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lord Blackout
Most hated politician of all time!!11!
This is what's funny about the " not that woman" argument as if they weren't all tweeting Hillary on her blackberry memes a few years ago then all decided to hate her out of nowhere. |
To be honest though, its a lot easier to look good during one's tenure in a role, than after it. Its only after you see the effects and can assess it. Didn't George Bush have pretty good approval ratings during Iraq? 
I really wouldn't assess her role as SoS as a success.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
We were doomed in Florida no matter what with Hillary or Bernie. There's only so much big cities can fend off from 80% of the state. It would've had to be a popular local with no recorded Castro comments to save us.
Nevada is already contemplating the thought of Las Vegas/Reno areas not being enough against rural areas and working on a strategy to make inroads with them. Even though Democrats slayed on every level there from top to bottom, the margin was closer than what they wanted so they are looking to increase the gap as much as possible and keep both NV and Washington DC as blue as possible. Don't just expect everyone to turn out, you need a plan B if more people than you wished stayed home.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 3,103
|
The good thing about governorships is that 27 out of 38 of the 2018 openings are Republican-held. So Dems definitely have the opportunity to take back key seats (especially if Donald Trump has a terrible first two years, which...come on).
But Dems are politically lethargic and I don't expect them to get out and vote even with all the social media posts they make against Trump.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 28,773
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dessy Fenix
I don't think Bernie destroyed anything except made a few sourpussies who probably wouldn't had voted if he wasn't in the race.
|
Hillary's voters in 2008 were so likely to vote republican that McCain and Palin campaigned to get them relentlessly until she brought out her "No way, no how, no McCain" slogan at the DNC and gave most of them to Obama.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 28,773
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Jacketh
To be honest though, its a lot easier to look good during one's tenure in a role, than after it. Its only after you see the effects and can assess it. Didn't George Bush have pretty good approval ratings during Iraq?
I really wouldn't assess her role as SoS as a success. |
Not sure what you're talking about seeing as Bush's second term had an approval rating in the lower 30s and his favorability now is even higher than Obama's.
You can only judge Hillary's tenure on 2009-2013. The rest is on John Kerry.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
Top things to do on the DNC list is to patch up the Blue Wall and get back those 3.
Second is to increase popularity in CO/NV/MN and add as big a cushion as we can; in MN people voted the hell out for both sides and we bested them in the end, but don't take it for granted.
Then come the swing states and trying to flip others.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 23,857
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Meh
The good thing about governorships is that 27 out of 38 of the 2018 openings are Republican-held. So Dems definitely have the opportunity to take back key seats (especially if Donald Trump has a terrible first two years, which...come on).
But Dems are politically lethargic and I don't expect them to get out and vote even with all the social media posts they make against Trump.
|
Aren't most of them in red states too? I don't expect a major victory tbh
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
To all of the above, add local level popularity; we can't just be winning the Presidential race in all these states, we need to turn them purple then blue and get more voting rights/agendas passed.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 28,773
|
The rust belt always votes against the incumbent party after two terms. After one term, they're too patriotic to vote against the president they voted for before. I think the truest thing Mitt Romney said was the 47% comment.
We need to energize minorities like Obama did or else we're not winning 2020.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 23,857
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dessy Fenix
Aren't most of them in red states too? I don't expect a major victory tbh |
HOLD UP 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 1,311
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lord Blackout
Not sure what you're talking about seeing as Bush's second term had an approval rating in the lower 30s and his favorability now is even higher than Obama's. .
|
Bush's approval rating at the end was largely down to the financial crash - nearly every Western leader's ratings went down.
His favorability being higher now shows how people assessing his whole legacy - in 2008 they would be assessing him in 2008.
Fact is, once history progresses and the effects become known, then people judge history differently. Sure, Clinton had good ratings during her tenure, but what people learnt and the stories regarding Benghazi, Libya, Syria, Russia, Iran, all become public knowledge, and more importantly, the public are informed on it, then people view things differently.
Its stupid logic to assume just because someone was popular at the time, that they were doing the right thing and should be popular forever.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 3,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lord Blackout
Not sure what you're talking about seeing as Bush's second term had an approval rating in the lower 30s and his favorability now is even higher than Obama's.
You can only judge Hillary's tenure on 2009-2013. The rest is on John Kerry. |
1% of Americans never heard of George W. Bush?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 3,103
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dessy Fenix
Aren't most of them in red states too? I don't expect a major victory tbh |
There are opportunities for quite a few pick-ups, though. New Jersey (lol), Maine (which is ripe for someone to snatch from LePage), Florida, Michigan, Nevada, and New Mexico. Seats are also open in New Hampshire, Wisconsin (do they still like Walker there?).
Then there are places like Ohio (but Kasich ain't losing), Illinois (popular incumbent), and Massachusetts (but Baker is very popular).
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
I only have high hopes in Nevada (it would complete the slayage) and New Mexico (same) if the Western Latino magic holds up 
In fact, I think we might lose some states to moderate GOP 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/2/2014
Posts: 200
|
Quote:
Originally posted by slw84
IIIIIIIIII
WANNNNNNT
Oprah to be the first female president. Queen Michelle won't do it.
You all need a credible women that has a great track record and resonates.
I was thinking either in 2020 or 2024 you all can get that kamala girl because it reminds me of the quote that donahue gave:
paraphrase: he would get taken down by a black women.
His point was that a smart strong black woman has the power to connect with multiple audiences and resonate especially if her track record is great.
WHEW, lettuce pray.
Oprah betta make history again.
Clinton was never the organic tea...moreso the brisk high fructose version.
give us organic herbal tea Oprah.
|
Could you imagine Trump trying to come for Oprah? Or any GOPer?
The mess that would ensue.
Oprah Winfrey - The First Female President Of The United States.....that sounds about right.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 28,773
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Jacketh
Bush's approval rating at the end was largely down to the financial crash - nearly every Western leader's ratings went down.
His favorability being higher now shows how people assessing his whole legacy - in 2008 they would be assessing him in 2008.
Fact is, once history progresses and the effects become known, then people judge history differently. Sure, Clinton had good ratings during her tenure, but what people learnt and the stories regarding Benghazi, Libya, Syria, Russia, Iran, all become public knowledge, and more importantly, the public are informed on it, then people view things differently.
Its stupid logic to assume just because someone was popular at the time, that they were doing the right thing and should be popular forever.
|
That's like blaming George Bush for ISIS. Bush wasn't responsible for what happened in Obama's terms and his rating increase showed that. No one blames him for that.
People only blamed Hillary for things now because she was running for president and they desperately needed something to blame her for. Truth is she ran the state department brilliantly and the world wasn't in the mess it was in now. Even Henry Kissinger, the guy who made the SoS position an important one, said she ran the state department better than anyone else.
If the world is a mess now it's because Kerry is weak and ineffective. Iran's gone out of control, Libya has been ignored, Iraq is a mess etc. Those were all not issues during her tenure. In fact, even back during her tenure, the things she advocated for but Obama wouldn't listen turned out to be the right things in hindsight (Military presence in Libya, not getting the troops out of Iraq etc.)
You guys have no clue how much it took her not to throw Obama under the bus and take responsibility for many of his decisions.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 28,773
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Jan
|
You should probably add that to disapprove since it's obviously a snarky response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
