Trump losing to a sausage? I’d rather it be a taco, but that’s just me.
We’ve had enough sausages in the White House.
5 Likes
sure but i think part of the reason obama was able to to that was because of enthusiasm. all the celebrity endorsements in that song etc. all the people putting posters and bumpers stickers on their cars and property. Trump had a lot of that. Obama had a lot of that. Clinton didn’t. you can throw money into organizing, but it helps if people want to volunteer and it’s a “cool” campaign. I’m not saying it’s fair. I think a lot of the problems hillary had were because of 25 years of right wing media bashing her and Bill. But it is a popularity contest at the end of the day.
1 Like
In future news: Donald Trump loses popular election, 39% to 45%, electoral college declares him winner anyway.
5 Likes
Yeah, pretty much the only ticket Trump/Pence could beat right now is Williamson/her bag full of crystals & essential oil vials.
3 Likes
Still too dignified just because he doesn’t deserve to be likened to Elvis.
4 Likes
If you were really going to get into that elaborate seventh-guessing game, one theory would be that Fox wants to discourage Democrats from coalescing around Biden (or any other candidate) for as long as possible. The 2020 election will be Democrats’ to lose, and one way they could try to lose it is with an overlong, acrimonious, unsatisfying primary slog; so that’s what Fox wants to happen.
(I don’t think this poll can or should make much difference to what Democrats do, but that doesn’t mean Fox News wouldn’t try)
2 Likes
As long as the scum sucking sh*tbag is out of our whitehouse, and forever, I’ll be satisfied.
I would vote for the sausage at this point if it meant I no longer have to hear that idiot’s thoughts as news every goddamn 3 minutes!
1 Like
If all the Stein voters in Wisconsin had voted for Clinton, HRC would have won Wisconsin. Same in Michigan. (Of course, they’re not people who stayed home, they’re people who came out to vote.)
2 Likes
Yeah, but if you’re going to play that game, you’ve got to hand at least some percentage of the Johnson votes to Trump, and you’re right back where you started.
2 Likes
Some of the Stein voters would have doubtlessly given their vote to Trump over Clinton since they were more interested in sticking it to the establishment than actually supporting a qualified candidate.
5 Likes
Just as I’m happy to blame Stein voters for Trump’s win in those states, I’d be equally happy to blame libertarian voters who decided to vote for Trump.
The reality is that we have a binary system, and those who chose not to participate (either by staying home or by voting for an irrelevant party) could have made a difference.
This is all to argue against @anon73430903’s assertion that “sitting it out” was not the cause of the problem. That might be true, but data indicate that it might also be false. Anyone who didn’t vote for HRC but despises Trump should take this as a cautionary tale about the possible effects of the decision to not participate, either passively (by not voting) or actively (by voting for spoiler parties).
2 Likes
Any warm body that’s not a Clinton, anyway…
I cannot (and will not) forgive Harris for the shit she has done. Still, I would vote for a platypus over Trump.
If nothing else, it will be really humiliating for Trump if he has to run against her and she wins.
4 Likes
But not Pennsylvania (unless you are arguing that people with no intention of voting Democrat under any circumstance would have). Hillary needed all three states to win. Florida and one of those states would have also won it for her, but Stein voters also don’t make a difference there.
3 Likes
In 2012 2,990,274 Pennsylvania voters voted for Obama (way down from the 3.27 million in 2008). In 2018 the total for HRC was down to 2,926,441. I don’t think this 63k voter difference consisted of “people with no intention of voting Democrat under any circumstance”, and I doubt many of the 350k voters there who voted for Obama in 2008 but not HRC in 2016 shifted to Trump. Most likely they did what @Jim_Campbell suggested and sat it out.
I don’t know if these out-sitters were on the “left side of the Democratic Party”, but they were Obama voters who didn’t vote for her, which means they were probably on her left (since that’s the relative concept-space Obama occupied, regardless of actual policies.)
I don’t think @Jim_Campbell said they were being “lazy”, and I don’t think they were either. They were just not inspired by HRC. But, but, as a citizen you shouldn’t be waiting for someone to inspire you, you should take fucking responsibility for the government that belongs to you. Sometimes – in fact, almost always for those of us at the end of the political spectrum – that means voting for someone you don’t like.
1 Like
And the candidates should not just expect to win votes by simply being the democrat.
I am going to ask the most important question that should be asked of every candidate.
How are they going to win the votes of those who didn’t vote for Hillary at the last election?
If the answer is to arrogantly expect their votes no matter what, then hope they don’t get the nomination or prepare for another four years of Trump. Pissed off people don’t make reliable voters. If you expect them to act rationally because Trump is worse then you are falling into the same trap as the Ayn-caps with their belief in homo economicus.
4 Likes
It is an interesting question, though it is dangerous to make “electability” a criterion in the primaries. I usually vote in primaries for the candidate whose views I like, not for the more “electable” one. The hope is that winning more primaries is evidence of electability, but if that’s also a criterion for voters’ choice then it becomes an imperfect instrument.
Oddly, in our system the candidate doesn’t have an ethical responsibility to win. If they can’t attract our votes, we still have to take the blame. I think it is different in your system, as the party leaders have a responsibility to the other party members to attract voters (though not to the voters themselves), since that’s an explicit part of the job when the party makes them leader.
That’s not what @anon73430903 is suggesting, instead they are saying that the democrats need to actually offer something to the voters, to give them a reason to back them, instead of just expecting that they’ll vote for them because trump is worse. This isn’t about electability, it’s about having candidates that will actually talk to the voters about what they plan to do once in office. Clinton did not do that. Obama actually did that. THAT in my view was the difference between the two candidates, not whatever conceptual space they inhabited. Sanders and Warren have been doing this right since they announced. They did not just give feel good noises to the voters, they have given the voters something real and tangible. They have policy ideas that they talk about to the voters. Clinton had some vague stuff (and probably more robust plans on her website), but she wasn’t as good about talking about it to the voters in rallies and talks. And she generally ignored the 3 states that lost her the election.
6 Likes
Sure she did. She might not have been the most persuasive orator, or said things that excited the base, but she gave many and detailed proposals in 2016, and even in 2008, not only in her website but also on the stump.
But the question, “how are they going to win the votes of those who didn’t vote for Hillary at the last election?”, is literally the electability question. Enumerating policies is one way of attracting voters, but it only answers that question for a voter if that voter believes those policies will be attractive to others, in which case they are the ones answering it, not the candidate.
