| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016
Member Since: 8/25/2012
Posts: 21,188
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lebanese Dude
Omg I died. This Hillary Clinton writer parody is flawless.
https://medium.com/@shitHRCcantsay/a...8d6#.f25g0ypkl
"Well, full steam ahead, America! Godspeed and go **** yourselves.
Go **** every last one of you ****ing pasty-white testosterone-brained reality-TV-popularity-contest shitheads."
"Honey, if you were undecided after the Mexican rapist speech it means one thing: You needed me to be perfect. You needed me to prove my case beyond a reasonable doubt, because the burden of proof is on whoever’s arguing that a woman could be capable of running the country.
None of you gave a **** about my email server. None of you even knows what a ****ing email server is or does. You were just waiting for any excuse — any excuse at all — to be like “yep, that’s why I hate that bitch.”"
  |
The concession speech we truly needed
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 5,905
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lebanese Dude
Too many assumptions.
It assumes those who voted for Hillary would vote for Bernie.
The democratic nominee was voted for and Hillary won by a pretty significant margin. What you're saying is that the DNC should have chosen Bernie regardless of the outcome. That's not how it works.
Also, given that Hillary was fairly confident she was going to win, she abstained from attacking Bernie the same way he attacked her. His only point of compromise was the e-mails, and even then that was just a copout.
He took far too long to endorse her, and turned many of his supporters against her.
So essentially, you're all saying that Bernie would have won because Hillary did not go all out on him. Honestly, she could have easily deleted him if she wished. Not that her restraint helped in the end.
Too much assumptions on your part.
|
1) That's not a far off assumption. Clinton's base were mostly lifelong democrats and older voters, they largely would have gotten behind whoever the Democratic nominee was, just like in '08. As opposed to young first time voters and independents making up Bernie's base, who felt no loyalty to the party and sat out the general (not to mention those who flipped to Trump).
2) ... No one denies that based on the vote counts Hillary won. And no one here is saying the DNC should have circumvented the process and selected Bernie, just that they shouldn't tip the scales in favor of their "preferred" candidate next time. The fact that Bernie did so well and won 23 contests in an election where he started off with no name recognition, and barely any press (until the media, in some cases colluding with the DNC, decided to spin negative narrative after negative narrative) says something.
3) Hillary didn't have to attack Bernie because the entire democratic establishment was in her pocket and was doing that for her. She did it to appear "above the fray" and not lose any of Bernie's voters, but when push came to shove she was too arrogant to actually work for their votes, and it cost her. Furthermore, the questions Bernie raised were all 100% valid criticisms which in part cost her the nomination in 2008, you make it sound like he was going on the bill clinton/benghazi/whitewater, etc. Pretty much the only lines of "attack" he used were the paid speeches (which was central to his campaign message of holding Wall st accountable), and later her judgement... Neither of those are "dirty" or low blows, they are valid things all Americans should be aware of when selecting a candidate. And let's be real, Bernie was no where near as "attackable" as Hillary. She could have used propaganda like "He's a JEw! Might be an atheist!?" but Hillary is savvy enough to know that would have sank her favorability ratings even lower.
4) He ALWAYS said he would endorse her as the nominee if he lost, like throughout the entire election, virtually every time he was asked. And besides, his supporters already hated her before they knew who Bernie was, the people who didn't vote for her were much less likely to support her than vice versa. If you want proof, just look at all the "I no longer respect Bernie, he's a sellout!!1" comments he got after endorsing her.
This is probably not going to get through to you at all, since you literally just said Hillary was not a flawed candidate  A candidate with mountains of scandals, net unfavorability ratings, massive "untrustworthy" ratings, and who LOST two presidential elections is "flawless"  Ok.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 28,773
|
Nnn that speech is hilariously true
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/30/2011
Posts: 2,986
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Alejandrawrrr
1) That's not a far off assumption. Clinton's base were mostly lifelong democrats and older voters, they largely would have gotten behind whoever the Democratic nominee was, just like in '08. As opposed to young first time voters and independents making up Bernie's base, who felt no loyalty to the party and sat out the general (not to mention those who flipped to Trump).
|
Have you not heard of the PUMAs from 2008? It took ages (and a lot of work from Hillary) for them to rally behind Obama.
Quote:
|
2) ... No one denies that based on the vote counts Hillary won. And no one here is saying the DNC should have circumvented the process and selected Bernie, just that they shouldn't tip the scales in favor of their "preferred" candidate next time. The fact that Bernie did so well and won 23 contests in an election where he started off with no name recognition, and barely any press (until the media, in some cases colluding with the DNC, decided to spin negative narrative after negative narrative) says something.
|
I don't believe a few dodgy emails flipped 2 million votes from Bernie to Hillary.
Quote:
|
3) Hillary didn't have to attack Bernie because the entire democratic establishment was in her pocket and was doing that for her. She did it to appear "above the fray" and not lose any of Bernie's voters, but when push came to shove she was too arrogant to actually work for their votes, and it cost her. Furthermore, the questions Bernie raised were all 100% valid criticisms which in part cost her the nomination in 2008, you make it sound like he was going on the bill clinton/benghazi/whitewater, etc. Pretty much the only lines of "attack" he used were the paid speeches (which was central to his campaign message of holding Wall st accountable), and later her judgement... Neither of those are "dirty" or low blows, they are valid things all Americans should be aware of when selecting a candidate. And let's be real, Bernie was no where near as "attackable" as Hillary. She could have used propaganda like "He's a JEw! Might be an atheist!?" but Hillary is savvy enough to know that would have sank her favorability ratings even lower.
|
She worked with Bernie to reform her healthcare proposals, her education plan, etc. She didn't have to do that. She already had the nomination. But she knew it was important for many of his voters to come around. She tried.
Quote:
|
4) He ALWAYS said he would endorse her as the nominee if he lost, like throughout the entire election, virtually every time he was asked. And besides, his supporters already hated her before they knew who Bernie was, the people who didn't vote for her were much less likely to support her than vice versa. If you want proof, just look at all the "I no longer respect Bernie, he's a sellout!!1" comments he got after endorsing her.
|
Bernie didn't commit to endorsing her. He said he would have to take a look at her platform first, that's why they negotiated.
Quote:
|
This is probably not going to get through to you at all, since you literally just said Hillary was not a flawed candidate A candidate with mountains of scandals, net unfavorability ratings, massive "untrustworthy" ratings, and who LOST two presidential elections is "flawless" Ok.
|
Nobody thinks Hillary is flawless. Hillary supporters were not as delusional as Trump's or Bernie's in thinking their candidate was the literal Messiah. Being fully aware of her "scandals" while simultaneously recognising that she has never been found guilty of any wrongdoing is not ignoring them.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 832
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Alejandrawrrr
1) That's not a far off assumption. Clinton's base were mostly lifelong democrats and older voters, they largely would have gotten behind whoever the Democratic nominee was, just like in '08. As opposed to young first time voters and independents making up Bernie's base, who felt no loyalty to the party and sat out the general (not to mention those who flipped to Trump).
2) ... No one denies that based on the vote counts Hillary won. And no one here is saying the DNC should have circumvented the process and selected Bernie, just that they shouldn't tip the scales in favor of their "preferred" candidate next time. The fact that Bernie did so well and won 23 contests in an election where he started off with no name recognition, and barely any press (until the media, in some cases colluding with the DNC, decided to spin negative narrative after negative narrative) says something.
3) Hillary didn't have to attack Bernie because the entire democratic establishment was in her pocket and was doing that for her. She did it to appear "above the fray" and not lose any of Bernie's voters, but when push came to shove she was too arrogant to actually work for their votes, and it cost her. Furthermore, the questions Bernie raised were all 100% valid criticisms which in part cost her the nomination in 2008, you make it sound like he was going on the bill clinton/benghazi/whitewater, etc. Pretty much the only lines of "attack" he used were the paid speeches (which was central to his campaign message of holding Wall st accountable), and later her judgement... Neither of those are "dirty" or low blows, they are valid things all Americans should be aware of when selecting a candidate. And let's be real, Bernie was no where near as "attackable" as Hillary. She could have used propaganda like "He's a JEw! Might be an atheist!?" but Hillary is savvy enough to know that would have sank her favorability ratings even lower.
4) He ALWAYS said he would endorse her as the nominee if he lost, like throughout the entire election, virtually every time he was asked. And besides, his supporters already hated her before they knew who Bernie was, the people who didn't vote for her were much less likely to support her than vice versa. If you want proof, just look at all the "I no longer respect Bernie, he's a sellout!!1" comments he got after endorsing her.
This is probably not going to get through to you at all, since you literally just said Hillary was not a flawed candidate A candidate with mountains of scandals, net unfavorability ratings, massive "untrustworthy" ratings, and who LOST two presidential elections is "flawless" Ok. |
I never said she wasn't flawed. What kind of messiah complex do you think I had? I said she wasn't extremely flawed, because that implies some sort of monumental failure of a person.
I'm not even sure why I should address the entirety of your post as it's just more assumptions over more assumptions.
Do you really think people would just rally behind a socialist Jew that easily? Do you think minorities would vote for someone like Sanders who doesn't even address their issues? What about moderates who take offense by his extreme plans?
Bernie's base and Hillary's weren't mutually exclusive. The entire way the primary played out as BECAUSE Hillary was confident that she would win. The DNC didn't even have to "rig" anything (and they did do a few sketchy things).
Nobody ever said that Bernie didn't have valid criticisms. The issue is that he highlighted them severely and fanned the flames in order to win, permanently turning off many of his supporters against her. The very same attacks were used by Trump in order to continue where Sanders left off. Because Hillary was a previous figure in poltiics, his remarks not only formed a lasting impression on younger voters, but it legitimized those of people who were familiar with her politics.
If Hillary ever felt she was under threat to lose, she would have used the stash of oppo that she had against him. She never did, but you would bet your ass that if she did the image of Sanders would be nowhere near as pristine. Well... of course his supporters would continue to portray him as a messiah but that's another story.
Also stop that BS regarding name recognition. Hillary may have been more known but she was someone who was consistently under intense scrutiny for issues she always ended up being vindicated for.
Frankly your continued justification as her as a bad candidate just plays into the idea that the attacks against her were justified. The media completely overplayed their hand by dedicating 24/7 coverage on the e-mails. Don't even try to pin this as her fault.
Frankly a lot of her opposition (wikileaks, FBI, etc) didn't really factor in until it was already way too late to realistically change the nominee. So trying to pin her as a weak candidate is nothing short of rewriting history.
In short, I can highlight many things Hillary or her campaign did wrong. I'm not a delusional fool. Her #ImWithHer slogan has no campaign message. She foolishly ignored the rust belt. She relied too much on her internal polling. Her campaign was too restrained. Her GOTV operation brought out many Trump supporters, etc...
But the entire point of MY argument was that the assumption that Sanders could have done better is nothing more than that, an assumption, that can only be backed by the flimsiest of arguments that doesn't take into consideration many factors such as as the fact hat Trump based his campaign on ******** and lies and could have easily turned the tables on Sanders and drowned out his message.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 14,905
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lebanese Dude
|
TL;DR: Live it up while you can because Trump's presidency means we're the last generation to live above water.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/24/2012
Posts: 4,192
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lebanese Dude
Omg I died. This Hillary Clinton writer parody is flawless.
https://medium.com/@shitHRCcantsay/a...8d6#.f25g0ypkl
"Well, full steam ahead, America! Godspeed and go **** yourselves.
Go **** every last one of you ****ing pasty-white testosterone-brained reality-TV-popularity-contest shitheads."
"Honey, if you were undecided after the Mexican rapist speech it means one thing: You needed me to be perfect. You needed me to prove my case beyond a reasonable doubt, because the burden of proof is on whoever’s arguing that a woman could be capable of running the country.
None of you gave a **** about my email server. None of you even knows what a ****ing email server is or does. You were just waiting for any excuse — any excuse at all — to be like “yep, that’s why I hate that bitch.”"
|
I am GAGGING at how true this is. What kind of parody lethal dragging  
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 28,773
|
Mark Burnett will never tweet again, will he?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 14,905
|
Quote:
Originally posted by geo
I don't believe a few dodgy emails flipped 2 million votes from Bernie to Hillary.
|
lmaoooo you're a MESS 
the real thing that tipped the scales in Hillary's favor was the Democratic primary process itself - the superdelegate system basically ensures that the candidate who is more of an "establishment policitian" (a.k.a. EXACTLY WHAT PEOPLE WERE FED UP WITH) would win every time. The way news stations discussed this basically presented the primary as a foregone conclusion because Hillary started off with a massive superdelegate lead.
If the Democratic primary had been run the same way as the Republican primary, Bernie would have won hands down.
What's more, the Democratic operatives should paid more attention to which candidate was performing better in swing states and traditionally-blue states: instead a lot of focus was given to the fact that Hillary was ~crushing~ Bernie in South Carolina and Louisiana which are essentially non-factors for Democrats in a general election.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 832
|
But Hillary won votes in locations that the democrats needed too, so the argument is flawed.
Hillary won in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Iowa, North Carolina, Nevada, Florida, Ohio ...
The only "swing" states that Bernie won were Michigan, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire.
The argument is nonsensical. Yes she lost many of the swing states that she and Bernie won but that's irrelevant to the argument. There is nothing to prove that Bernie would have won when he lost so much.
Even if you exclude superdelegates, she still had enough delegates to win the nomination far before the last few states were run (where Hillary won most anyway). They were literally irrelevant.
-
Enough. She was 4 million ahead in the primary, and she's on track to break another record of having the second most votes for a president in US history after Barack Obama.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 832
|
I'm going to make a counterpoint.
Sanders was a weaker candidate because he failed to win the primary by a huge margin. Had he run a better campaign, and not focused ONLY on economy and actually discussed minorities rather than pander to them, he may have won and he would have deserved it.
I don't see you calling him out for his colossal failure of a campaign. Why do you not hold him responsible? Saying it's the DNC's fault is hypocritical, because even if you argued that Sanders was fighting against a rigged system, one can make the exact same argument regarding Hillary and the general.
In one you blame the winner, and in another you blame the loser.
Enough. Stop being hypocrites.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/17/2011
Posts: 9,051
|
So SOS is between Giuliani and John Bolton (GWB's ambassador to the UN, the guy who lied about weapons of mass destruction)....yes #draintheswamp Donald
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/16/2011
Posts: 19,718
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lord Blackout
Mark Burnett will never tweet again, will he? |
considering that's one demographic that could have changed the results of the election had they been incentivized to come out in droves 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/23/2012
Posts: 20,204
|
Rubio > Trump
Had he been elected, these protest wouldn't be happening right now
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 3,179
|
Hillary officially won NH and the 4 electoral votes. If only she held onto PA, MI, and WI 
She was so close
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TaggedGalaxy
Hillary officially won NH and the 4 electoral votes. If only she held onto PA, MI, and WI
She was so close |
She was always ahead in NH, it's just that theoretically the gap was within the threshold of a recount, but since the Trump campaign ignored the results and didn't try to contest within the time limit, NOW they can says it's officially hers even if she led all this time 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
Trump won Michigan, but has it been made official yet?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/22/2011
Posts: 55,626
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ryanpittman97
Say what you want but the people elected Hillary, the system elected Trump.
|
Continuing to take steps away from full acceptance teas.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/22/2011
Posts: 55,626
|
Glad the OP changed the thread title.
It's time to accept and pray for the best
|
|
|
|
|
|
