5 Likes
Sanders on Colbert tonight talking the first sense I’ve heard since the DNC convention started. If you can’t listen to him and understand how he would have defeated Trump, then you have your head deep up your ass.
2 Likes
The drop in turnout in the key states bears you out, and just mauls “Baron”-whatever.
In 2008, Obama won ‘despite’ his inexperience at the national level. But it seems that he really won because of his inexperience. Bill Clinton? Arkansas governor only (no national politics). GW Bush? Just Texas gov, who beat the policy wonk who was a former Senator and VP.
1 Like
2 Likes
Additionally, the crypto-Trump voters who apparently lied to the pollsters when given a hypothetical Trump-Hillary matchup, would totally not be lying when given a hypothetical Trump-Bernie matchup-- and would magically switch to Crazy Bernie over Crooked Hillary any day!
2 Likes
Are you seriously suggesting that people supporting Bernie was why people voted for Trump?
1 Like
Not exactly. This stuff started before there were any pledged delegates.
An excellent and very fair question, thank you. So far, the only direct evidence I’ve encountered is fairly anecdotal, for example:
…and there are plenty of other articles like this. At any rate, many counties that went for Obama went for Trump. Whether it was stay-at-home Obama voters or Obama Trumpers…well, we ended up in the same place. The important takeaway is that the Democrats need to be a far better job of reaching their traditional constituents that they took for granted, this so-called “Blue Wall”.
At any rate, many counties that went for Obama went for Trump. Whether it was stay-at-home Obama voters or Obama Trumpers…well, we ended up in the same place.
When turnout goes down in those precincts, the distinction is absolutely relevant. I get that you have an idea in your head about why this happened. I get that you find this idea compelling, but it isn’t real.
And this is where we lose the white, working class. By setting ourselves up as the elitist saviors of the nation, while we ignore the vast contributions people make through their churches, their children’s schools, their communities, then we alienate so many people. I was in Alabama during the super tornado storms of 2011 that devastated so many communities and the churches were there first - with water, with food, with comfort. I’m agnostic, but it was … well, it was something I had not expected to experience from my hard-core charismatic Christian friends and neighbors. It was human.
I don’t know the answer, but aren’t the Democrats the party of inclusion? That means inclusion of everyone – not just the people you like.
Well, whatever. Just trying to digest everything and not grab my family and flee to parts unknown.
2 Likes
Over a million more Americans voted for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump. Saying “America didn’t want another Clinton presidency” is incorrect. A plurality of the ones who turned out to vote most certainly did.
2 Likes
Yeah and they wanted Al Gore too. We didn’t get him.
I’m sorry, but the Clinton vote was perhaps a hope for some but it was also a vote of desperation for many, many others because the alternative was not even an option. I hated the fact that I had to vote for a politician I had no desire to vote for. She was the wrong pol at the wrong time and the DNC was absolutely blind to that fact. So the plurality is a fluke due to a lack of choice.
you remember the warnings as gloating? Found your problem.
2 Likes
I don’t deny that a lot of people didn’t want to vote for Clinton, but that doesn’t go against the fact that a significant plurality of voters picked her. I wasn’t saying they loved her or yearned for her win, but that they wanted her.
Also, the DNC line is a little off. The DNC has very little ability to actually pick the candidate. The states and state parties run the primaries and caucuses, not the DNC. The DNC actually has little control over anything but the debates (and even then the candidates did debates the DNC didn’t want) and the convention itself (though as we saw they didn’t control the platform or rules committees very well, either).
It’s possible that their machinations could move the meter some, but not by the 4 million votes or 13 percent that Clinton beat Sanders by. The fact is that the rank and file of the Democratic party picked Clinton, not the DNC. The DNC wanted her, yes, but so did the people who cast votes.
I agree that my use of DNC may be over-reaching but leadership within the DNC (Schultz) along with the “superdelegates” who made up their minds before the primary process really began taking shape are the ‘establishment’ democratic party members that shaped this election for Hillary to be the only choice we had to choose from. The fact that Sanders courted independents that in many cases were not allowed to vote in the democratic primary, through no fault of their own and the party rules, gave the false impression of HRC’s primary victory and reinforced the party establishment’s desire and vision which was incredibly flawed. Sanders would have won AZ if independents were able to vote and probably by a large margin which would have been an instance where the momentum of his campaign could have continued to shift the dialogue.
In a perfect world, Sanders should have run as an independent as should have trump but because of this 2 party system, these two candidates had to shoe-horn themselves into those limited boxes, with the result being the destruction of both parties as they have been know to be for the past 50 years. Both parties are now completely different beasts and, while both are in shambles, one is in power and one is not.
Those days are long gone. Unfortunately.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
