And we're off and running!

Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

And we're off and running! - 08/01/19 10:18 PM

The Democratic Party has started the debates, a few states have primaries coming up very soon, it is time to start a whole new forum, Campaign 2020.

And-d-d-d-d-d they're off and running!
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/03/19 06:43 PM

This post didn't make it onto the current topics list BUMP
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/03/19 06:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
This post didn't make it onto the current topics list BUMP


LOL oh crap I had that problem once before, have to figure out how to fix it.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/05/19 02:18 PM

Joe, are you losing your marbles?

Joe Biden offers sympathy for "the tragic events in Houston" hours after El Paso shooting.

Quote:
Biden, 76, mistakenly referred to the shootings as “the tragic events in Houston today and also in Michigan the day before," but later corrected himself, according to a pool report. Biden seemingly confused Houston for El Paso and Michigan for Ohio when speaking to donors about the shootings.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/05/19 05:32 PM

Biden Trashes Millenials In His Bid To Become Even Less Likeable

Quote:
"The younger generation now tells me how tough things are. Give me a break. No, no, I have no empathy for it. Give me a break. Because here’s the deal guys, we decided we were gonna change the world. And we did. We did. We finished the civil rights movement in the first stage. The women’s movement came to be. So my message is, get involved. There’s no place to hide. You can go and you can make all the money in the world, but you can't build a wall high enough to keep the pollution out. You can't live where—you can't not be diminished when your sister can't marry the man or woman, or the woman she loves. You can't—when you have a good friend being profiled, you can't escape this stuff. And so, there's an old expression my philosophy professor would always use from Plato, 'The penalty people face for not being involved in politics is being governed by people worse than themselves. It's wide open. Go out and change it."


Millenials are NOT going to be backing Biden. Biden needs to be winning the votes of the 25-38 year old age group, not using them as a stepping stone to win the votes of older democrats.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/11/19 08:39 PM

Elizabeth Warren is now in second place behind Joe Biden, having eclipsed Bernie Sanders.
A few more Joe Biden moments where he pens bite-sized hagiographies to his neoliberal past or trips over his own tongue and Warren may indeed take the top spot.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/11/19 08:56 PM

I'd rather she ate into Biden's lead...
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/11/19 08:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Elizabeth Warren is now in second place behind Joe Biden, having eclipsed Bernie Sanders.
A few more Joe Biden moments where he pens bite-sized hagiographies to his neoliberal past or trips over his own tongue and Warren may indeed take the top spot.

The Left need to get over Biden's senior moments. Biden is the only Democrat that moderates and Independents agree on to replace Trump.

I love Lizzy Warren - she's a better candidate for me than Hillary ever was, but the "socialist" label placed upon her by the Right will give us another four years of Trump if she is the Dem nom.

I'd want Lizzy to be FedChair in a Biden Administration. Harris as AG. Inslee as SecInterior. Buttiegig as VP. Booker FBI Director. Castro as DHS Director. O'Rourke HUD or SecEd.

Let's play this next election safe, then move the left. smile
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/11/19 09:24 PM

Calling her a socialist is a denial of reality. In 2008 she was appointed to lead the Senate committee that oversaw TARP among other things. Bailing out banks is not exactly socialist! Her CV is filled with academic appointments where she taught or was dean at various law schools (in Texas, even!), and in about 2011:

Quote:
Although she published in many fields, her expertise was in bankruptcy and commercial law. In that field, only Bob Scott of Columbia and Alan Schwartz of Yale were cited more often than Warren.


She is actually fabulously qualified. But I guess qualification doesn't mean much when we have a game-shoe host as President.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/11/19 10:04 PM

Warren is a social democrat. She's more capitalist than socialist but she understands that more money needs to be funneled downward. She knows how money works and how the laws that control money works.
This lady is smart and at the peak of her career. She'd be a dab hand at re-assembling the government that Trump has broken and has a plan to make the economy work for everyone.

In the past I thought she was probably un-electable, but here she sits in second place so I'm letting myself get my hopes up.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/11/19 10:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
I'd rather she ate into Biden's lead...


She just moved from 3rd to 2nd.
That IS eating into Biden's lead.
Let him spew another 10 or twenty monster gaffes and his lead will begin to evaporate.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/12/19 02:21 AM

Well, on his worst day Biden's about 1000 times less likely to "misspeak" than Trump. But I guess we don't hold Trump to any standards at all now.
Posted by: HumblePi

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 03:34 AM

Maybe Joe Biden wouldn't mind being VP? I think we're at the stage in our country's development that we're ready for a strong woman to lead. After 3 years of not only Trump's misogyny, but the whole dark, dirty Jeffrey Epstein scandal, more people (well maybe mostly me) think it's time for a woman to be president. Tell you one thing, there won't be any sexual assaults or blowjobs in the Oval Office. There won't be any patriarchal rich white men's sexcapades at the top of the administrative food chain going on with a woman at the very top of government.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 03:44 AM

Originally Posted By: HumblePi
Maybe Joe Biden wouldn't mind being VP? I think we're at the stage in our country's development that we're ready for a strong woman to lead. After 3 years of not only Trump's misogyny, but the whole dark, dirty Jeffrey Epstein scandal, more people (well maybe mostly me) think it's time for a woman to be president. Tell you one thing, there won't be any sexual assaults or blowjobs in the Oval Office. There won't be any patriarchal rich white men's sexcapades at the top of the administrative food chain going on with a woman at the very top of government.


It might be entertaining to see "Biden Veep II" but I am almost sure he's not interested in accepting that gig for a third term.
Can you imagine Liz rolling her eyes at him every time he commits a gaffe?

I'll get behind Liz. Thing is, her and Bernie agree on a ton of things but she's actually trying to be electable. I'd love it if Bernie was as electable as she is, but he's not.
I'll vote for him if he wins the nom but it sure is looking like we're gonna get Prezzy-dint Pocahontas.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 04:04 AM

Originally Posted By: HumblePi
Maybe Joe Biden wouldn't mind being VP? I think we're at the stage in our country's development that we're ready for a strong woman to lead. After 3 years of not only Trump's misogyny, but the whole dark, dirty Jeffrey Epstein scandal, more people (well maybe mostly me) think it's time for a woman to be president. Tell you one thing, there won't be any sexual assaults or blowjobs in the Oval Office. There won't be any patriarchal rich white men's sexcapades at the top of the administrative food chain going on with a woman at the very top of government.
Hi Pi! Welcome aboard.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 04:06 AM

VOTE BLUE, NO MATTER WHO
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 04:10 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
[quote=HumblePi]I'd love it if Bernie was as electable as she is, but he's not.


Groan...
There it is again.
Electability...

Care to share how the second place position now leading in New Hampshire and out raising the rest of the field (second choice for biden voters, BTW) is not electable?

I'm making popcorn on this one.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 04:11 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
VOTE BLUE, NO MATTER WHO


Even when they're Republican!!!
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 04:21 AM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
[quote=HumblePi]I'd love it if Bernie was as electable as she is, but he's not.


Groan...
There it is again.
Electability...

Care to share how the second place position now leading in New Hampshire and out raising the rest of the field (second choice for biden voters, BTW) is not electable?

I'm making popcorn on this one.


Hey, if he's climbing back up, good for him and I'm happy.
I already said that if he wins, he can count on my vote.
What more do you want?

Are you never satisfied?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 06:00 AM

I see electability being used by the pundit class again. No shame with them. I just wondered what you had that made you think he was not as electable. It's a fair question to a discredited qualifier isn't it?

I'm not trying to defend Sanders from any criticism. I'm challenging the idea of 'electability'. You can vote for Biden or Butttigieg or anyone else. It's this weird 'electability' that gets used, usually to destroy a candidate's public perception by punditry. 2016 should have schooled most everyone.

Was it the Iowa fair crowds? The corn kernel vote? I'm just asking.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 02:29 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
I see electability being used by the pundit class again. No shame with them. I just wondered what you had that made you think he was not as electable. It's a fair question to a discredited qualifier isn't it?


-Dude, it's a totally fair question.
My opinion only, after eighty years of hysteria over the tag "socialism", I think Bernie's big mistake is something mothers learn early when it is time to give small children medicine.
You trick or fool them into thinking it is tasty and you choose medicine that doesn't have an unpleasant flavor.

Plenty of Americans have already learned that socialism isn't a big bad scary word, plenty have learned that we're not going to turn into Venezuela.
But still "not enough" of them. Not yet, maybe not enough in the next ten years. (depending on other factors)

So why not do what politicians do all the time?
FDR even argued that his ideas weren't socialism and by the time he was done, the only people who still thought so were people who never voted for him and NEVER WOULD anyway.

If Bernie can manage to hit the same levels, this argument of mine will be moot and I would be delighted if it turns out that way.

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle

I'm not trying to defend Sanders from any criticism. I'm challenging the idea of 'electability'. You can vote for Biden or Butttigieg or anyone else. It's this weird 'electability' that gets used, usually to destroy a candidate's public perception by punditry. 2016 should have schooled most everyone.

Was it the Iowa fair crowds? The corn kernel vote? I'm just asking.


No, it's not anything except a question of marketing pizazz.
I am NOT one of those pundits, I'm a guy who grew up during the tail end of the Red Scare.
This is familiar territory to me.
Republicans have invested gazillions into recreating the HUAC era all over again and now they have an ARMY of Joe McCarthy's, not just the one.

So why doesn't Bernie rope a dope them?
He should and he is capable of doing it, he's way smarter than they are.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 08:07 PM

Not sure I would agree with the socialist boogeyman theory.

4 million new millennial voters come on line every year. Boomers numbers will be reducing. Millennials have a higher favorability for socialism than capitalism. It's an entirely different set of economic circumstances facing them than faced boomers.

Sanders ran as a democratic socialist and didn't seem to have much of a problem with it. He had more problems with the press and DNC than with voters themselves.

I just don't think red baiting is the handy tool it once was.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 08:14 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Not sure I would agree with the socialist boogeyman theory.

4 million new millennial voters come on line every year. Boomers numbers will be reducing. Millennials have a higher favorability for socialism than capitalism. It's an entirely different set of economic circumstances facing them than faced boomers.

Sanders ran as a democratic socialist and didn't seem to have much of a problem with it. He had more problems with the press and DNC than with voters themselves.

I just don't think red baiting is the handy tool it once was.


I am inclined to agree with you if for no other reason than the sands of time. You want I should help you pick up that big-ass hourglass and we both shake it up and down real hard to make the sand move faster?

I'd give it a try. But I doubt we can hurry it up enough in time for 2020. In 2024 it's a pretty good bet my argument will be 100% moot and yours will be the only logical one.

I promise you Chunks, you will not see me crying or whining about that. I'll be relieved.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 09:11 PM

Our Rvolution
Justice Democrats
Working Families Party

If your serious bout giving it a good shake...
laugh
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 09:23 PM

Quote:
4 million new millennial voters come on line every year. Boomers numbers will be reducing. Millennials have a higher favorability for socialism than capitalism. It's an entirely different set of economic circumstances facing them than faced boomers.

No new Millenial voters have "come on line" for several years. The youngest Millenial is 25 now and the oldest around 40. If boomers thought Millenials were weird just wait til the Z-Gen starts voting in earnest.

These younger kids are like millenials on steroids.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 09:24 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Our Rvolution
Justice Democrats
Working Families Party

If your serious bout giving it a good shake...
laugh


I was one of the first to sign up with WFP.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 09:26 PM

Right on! Well sometimes something good will fall out of NY...
FDR for one.
AOC for another!
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 09:30 PM

Your right Gregor. I kinda lump em all the same as I get older. But you made my point better. I agree with you cept there's an allful lot of racism cropping up in those younger yutes too
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/17/19 02:46 AM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Your right Gregor. I kinda lump em all the same as I get older. But you made my point better. I agree with you cept there's an allful lot of racism cropping up in those younger yutes too


And some of them are channeling all that crap into hundred round magazines. They load up on Orwellian Doublespeak from TrumpCo and now they're wound up. Watch 'em go.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/18/19 01:48 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Well, on his worst day Biden's about 1000 times less likely to "misspeak" than Trump. But I guess we don't hold Trump to any standards at all now.


But on his supposedly best day, he seems anxious to appease Republicans.

‘There’s an awful lot of really good Republicans out there’: Joe Biden at Cape Cod fundraiser

Yeah we know, Joe. But at the outset of the 2020 Democratic campaign season, who exactly are you signalling to? Most of those "really good Republicans" already left the party, and most of the ones that still remain are the Party of Trump.

Is Lindsey Graham one of those really good Republicans? How about Steve King? Mitch McConnell? Is he a really good Republican, Joe?
What about Devin Nunes? Are you signalling to Nunes?

Are you sure you joined the right party?
Posted by: itstarted

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/18/19 02:54 PM

need:
Stability
Trust
Judgement
Compromise
... and the desire and ability to listen.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/19/19 12:57 AM

Quote:
there's an allful lot of racism cropping up in those younger yutes too


Less than you would think. The racists and alt-right are just nosier, so they look like they have large numbers. I like to watch 4chan/b to see what the young folks are up to. Yes, there are alt-right and racist posts and threads, but more celebrate gay and trans sex, and they practically worship what they call "BBC" which is an acronym for part of Black male anatomy reputed to be larger than average. You see about 20 gay , trans, or dick comparison threads for the one "gay is a mental illness" thread.

Likewise, I suspect alt-right threads that are not just punks trolling the board are much rarer than "Trump is a cuck[old]" or "Why is this guy still President" threads.
Posted by: HumblePi

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/06/19 08:20 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: HumblePi
Maybe Joe Biden wouldn't mind being VP? I think we're at the stage in our country's development that we're ready for a strong woman to lead. After 3 years of not only Trump's misogyny, but the whole dark, dirty Jeffrey Epstein scandal, more people (well maybe mostly me) think it's time for a woman to be president. Tell you one thing, there won't be any sexual assaults or blowjobs in the Oval Office. There won't be any patriarchal rich white men's sexcapades at the top of the administrative food chain going on with a woman at the very top of government.
Hi Pi! Welcome aboard.


Thank you for the welcome smile
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/06/19 10:57 PM

Originally Posted By: HumblePi
Maybe Joe Biden wouldn't mind being VP? I think we're at the stage in our country's development that we're ready for a strong woman to lead. After 3 years of not only Trump's misogyny, but the whole dark, dirty Jeffrey Epstein scandal, more people (well maybe mostly me) think it's time for a woman to be president. Tell you one thing, there won't be any sexual assaults or blowjobs in the Oval Office. There won't be any patriarchal rich white men's sexcapades at the top of the administrative food chain going on with a woman at the very top of government.


I'll not vote for any woman candidate just because she's a woman. Same for a man. I'll vote for a candidate that I think will make a good president regardless of sex or gender or political party. When I disliked both major party candidates, I have no qualms in voting third party against both major party candidates which is exactly what I did in 2016.

What I hope from the Democrats is that they look for the most qualified and best candidate available to become the next president leaving gender and race entirely out of it. Look for the candidate that would make the best president, period.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/06/19 11:56 PM

Warren would be very qualified. Maybe the best qualified candidate, but I hope the Democrats don't nominate her. I read stories about interviews with people in those mid-western Trump states in which a LOT of women said they don't trust women. Which I find very sad, but you have got to pay attention to your voter's prejudices. Politics is the art of the possible, not "what the losers wish was true".

They voted for a Black man, but not for a White woman. Misogyny runs deep, and it's not just men. There's obviously something wrong with how we teach girls to relate to other girls.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/07/19 12:15 AM

Warren/Buttigieg ThumbsUp
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/07/19 01:03 AM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Warren would be very qualified. Maybe the best qualified candidate, but I hope the Democrats don't nominate her. I read stories about interviews with people in those mid-western Trump states in which a LOT of women said they don't trust women. Which I find very sad, but you have got to pay attention to your voter's prejudices. Politics is the art of the possible, not "what the losers wish was true".

They voted for a Black man, but not for a White woman. Misogyny runs deep, and it's not just men. There's obviously something wrong with how we teach girls to relate to other girls.


You're talking about Democratic women or just midwestern women all the way around?
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/07/19 01:18 AM

Actual Democratic women, who had families who voted for Democrats for decades. It just killed me, because I thought women in general were more sensible than that.

I really think the DNC needs to run their own poll: Just ask Middle America's women their Party (if any) and if they would vote for a woman.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/07/19 09:06 PM

There are 9 female republicans in the house, there are 89 female democrats. The score is 8 to 17 in the Senate. Democrats seem perfectly capable of electing women. Republicans haven't even noticed that their party has become a white christian sausage fest.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 01:00 AM

I think they will elect female Senators, Representatives, and even Governors. President is a whole quantum leap different. Hillary was 1000 times more qualified that Trump, yet a lot of White women did not vote for her. If it was about their own best interests, they would have.

Instead they voted for their own worst enemy. I think a significant percentage of that vote would have gone the other way if the Democratic candidate had been male.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 01:16 AM

Uh...I think you're crazy to suggest that Hillary lost because Democratic women didn't vote for her. Because she's a woman.

It's a lot more likely that their husbands who are marginally democrats would be caught up in Trump's snare.

But I'm just sayin'...I think that's nuts. There are a lot or reasons she lost that race but that aint one of 'em.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 01:57 AM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
I think they will elect female Senators, Representatives, and even Governors. President is a whole quantum leap different. Hillary was 1000 times more qualified that Trump, yet a lot of White women did not vote for her. If it was about their own best interests, they would have.

Instead they voted for their own worst enemy. I think a significant percentage of that vote would have gone the other way if the Democratic candidate had been male.
There's many reasons Hillary lost. One of the biggest is independents really, really disliked her. 27% of independents had a favorable view of her vs. 70% who had an unfavorable opinion of her. Trump wasn't loved by independents either, but at 40% favorable, 57% unfavorable, that was enough for him to win the independent vote and thus the White House. Questions 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

What's interesting is that more women had an unfavorable view of Hillary, 52% than a favorable view of her 47%. Hillary just wasn't liked much. 38% of all Americans had a positive view of her, 56% a negative one. Trump was worst among all Americans, 36% positive, 60% negative. But it was independents that decided 2016. Independent men voted for Trump 50-38 with 12% voting third party against both major party candidates. Independent women went to Hillary 47-42 with 11% voting third party against both.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

I'll add this, in my opinion almost any other democrat, alive or dead would have trounced Trump. The Democrats choose about the only candidate that stood a chance of losing to him. Such is life and elections.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 04:44 AM

Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
I think they will elect female Senators, Representatives, and even Governors. President is a whole quantum leap different. Hillary was 1000 times more qualified that Trump, yet a lot of White women did not vote for her. If it was about their own best interests, they would have.

Instead they voted for their own worst enemy. I think a significant percentage of that vote would have gone the other way if the Democratic candidate had been male.
There's many reasons Hillary lost. One of the biggest is independents really, really disliked her. 27% of independents had a favorable view of her vs. 70% who had an unfavorable opinion of her. Trump wasn't loved by independents either, but at 40% favorable, 57% unfavorable, that was enough for him to win the independent vote and thus the White House. Questions 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

What's interesting is that more women had an unfavorable view of Hillary, 52% than a favorable view of her 47%. Hillary just wasn't liked much. 38% of all Americans had a positive view of her, 56% a negative one. Trump was worst among all Americans, 36% positive, 60% negative. But it was independents that decided 2016. Independent men voted for Trump 50-38 with 12% voting third party against both major party candidates. Independent women went to Hillary 47-42 with 11% voting third party against both.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

I'll add this, in my opinion almost any other democrat, alive or dead would have trounced Trump. The Democrats choose about the only candidate that stood a chance of losing to him. Such is life and elections.


Agreed, Hillary turned people off...TWICE!! ROTFMOL (2008-2016)

Policy wonk? CHECK
Capable? CHECK
Integrity? CHECK - debatable but miles above Trump

Trouble is, she's arrogant. I don't care if she feels entitled, you have to drop the mask and meet the people, not stand around waiting for your coronation.
And when the Feds tell you that you have to upgrade your ancient Blackberry, the thing you DO NOT DO is thumb your nose and take your server private just so you aren't inconvenienced having to learn new tech.

People just flat out disliked her.
I liked her okay but she was not my first choice. Bernie was.
Over the months I watched and began to dislike her more, and get this:
Her contribution to S-CHIP is why my son is still alive today.
So, I can't HATE her!
I STILL did not WANT to vote for her - even though I did under protest.

A lot of people just stayed home, voted oppo out of spite, wrote in...too many did just that, mostly the former.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 12:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
I think they will elect female Senators, Representatives, and even Governors. President is a whole quantum leap different. Hillary was 1000 times more qualified that Trump, yet a lot of White women did not vote for her. If it was about their own best interests, they would have.

Instead they voted for their own worst enemy. I think a significant percentage of that vote would have gone the other way if the Democratic candidate had been male.
There's many reasons Hillary lost. One of the biggest is independents really, really disliked her. 27% of independents had a favorable view of her vs. 70% who had an unfavorable opinion of her. Trump wasn't loved by independents either, but at 40% favorable, 57% unfavorable, that was enough for him to win the independent vote and thus the White House. Questions 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

What's interesting is that more women had an unfavorable view of Hillary, 52% than a favorable view of her 47%. Hillary just wasn't liked much. 38% of all Americans had a positive view of her, 56% a negative one. Trump was worst among all Americans, 36% positive, 60% negative. But it was independents that decided 2016. Independent men voted for Trump 50-38 with 12% voting third party against both major party candidates. Independent women went to Hillary 47-42 with 11% voting third party against both.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

I'll add this, in my opinion almost any other democrat, alive or dead would have trounced Trump. The Democrats choose about the only candidate that stood a chance of losing to him. Such is life and elections.


Agreed, Hillary turned people off...TWICE!! ROTFMOL (2008-2016)

Policy wonk? CHECK
Capable? CHECK
Integrity? CHECK - debatable but miles above Trump

Trouble is, she's arrogant. I don't care if she feels entitled, you have to drop the mask and meet the people, not stand around waiting for your coronation.
And when the Feds tell you that you have to upgrade your ancient Blackberry, the thing you DO NOT DO is thumb your nose and take your server private just so you aren't inconvenienced having to learn new tech.

People just flat out disliked her.
I liked her okay but she was not my first choice. Bernie was.
Over the months I watched and began to dislike her more, and get this:
Her contribution to S-CHIP is why my son is still alive today.
So, I can't HATE her!
I STILL did not WANT to vote for her - even though I did under protest.

A lot of people just stayed home, voted oppo out of spite, wrote in...too many did just that, mostly the former.
I was one of 9 million folks who voted against both Hillary and Trump. My disdain for both was sky high. Yeah, Hillary came across as elitist, aloof and had the personality of a wet mop. Trump with his brash in your face, obnoxious, uncouth persona was more fit for a wrestler in the WWE than the presidency.

One huge difference was that Trump energized his supporters, filled them with enthusiasm to where they were willing to go to the four corners of the earth for him. Hillary had more supporters, perhaps a lot more. But she was ho hum and failed to energize them. That failure lead to many just staying home. She either couldn't or didn't inspire Democrats to go to the polling place for her.

2020 if anything like 2018, Trump is providing that inspiration. I doubt many Democrats will stay home taking the election for granted.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 03:03 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
2020 if anything like 2018, Trump is providing that inspiration. I doubt many Democrats will stay home taking the election for granted.
That is my hope. My fervor for third party candidates has evaporated under the pall of the last 3 years. Unlike many, I believe the Democratic field is full of genuine possibilities. None are perfect, the process certainly isn't, but "blue, no matter who" is the only logical choice this election. The risk to the country and the planet is too great otherwise.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 05:06 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: perotista
2020 if anything like 2018, Trump is providing that inspiration. I doubt many Democrats will stay home taking the election for granted.
That is my hope. My fervor for third party candidates has evaporated under the pall of the last 3 years. Unlike many, I believe the Democratic field is full of genuine possibilities. None are perfect, the process certainly isn't, but "blue, no matter who" is the only logical choice this election. The risk to the country and the planet is too great otherwise.


My vote depends on whom the Democrats nominate. I know I won't be voting for Trump. Now rather my vote goes to the Democratic or to a third party candidate is solely based on who the Democratic nominee is. There's three or four I would hop on their bandwagon and support all the way, another two or three that would drive me to vote third party again. Against both Trump and whomever.

I think the ball is in the Democrat's court. Who they hand that ball to will probably determine whether they win in a landslide or if another 2016 is possible. I'm not a Democrat, so it's their decision. The key voting group is independents. Independents really, really disliked Hillary. They disliked Trump also, but not as much.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 05:19 PM

Except, of course, that any vote not for the Democrat is a vote for Trump. That's what happened in 2016.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 05:45 PM

Quote:
2020 if anything like 2018, Trump is providing that inspiration. I doubt many Democrats will stay home taking the election for granted.


We're in complete agreement in regards to the past and future.

Except that I actually liked Hillary and think the world would be in a much safer place with her at the helm.

But yes. 2020 is set to be a bloodbath. It's a chance for progressives in America to take the helm and spin the wheel hard a-port.

But instead they're gonna nominate Biden. And the American Left will be dead in the water.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 06:19 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Except, of course, that any vote not for the Democrat is a vote for Trump. That's what happened in 2016.


Actually no. The third party vote helped Hillary. According to CNN exit polling when third party voters were asked whom they would have voted for in a strictly two candidate race, no third party candidates. 19% answered Trump, 16% Clinton. 65% responded they wouldn't have voted.

In other words with no third party candidates considering 9 million people voted third party, Trump would have added 1.7 million more votes than he received, Hillary an additional 1.4 million. If no third party candidates, 5.9 million who those who voted wouldn't have. Such was the disdain for both major party candidates that officially registering their vote against both Trump and Clinton drove them to the polls.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

Hillary was actually the beneficiary of the third party vote. Third party voting usually hurts the Republican more than the Democrat.

Having voted third party I've been told many times by Clinton supporters my vote for a third party candidate was a vote for Trump. I also have been told by Trump supporters my vote a third party candidate as in reality a vote for Clinton. It was against both. Neither Trump nor Clinton seen their vote tally go up by one once my vote was counted. It was a neither vote which helped neither major party candidate.

Hence, it is vital the Democrats come up with a candidate attrictive to independents. In 2016 3% of Democrats voted third party, 4% of Republicans voted third party, 12% of independents voted third party. Time to learn from the mistakes of 2016 when it comes to nominating a candidate. Candidates matter.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 11:15 PM

That analysis ignores who the Third Party candidate is: A popular leftist Third Party candidate would indeed take votes from the Democrat and help elect the Republican. Likewise, a popular right wing candidate would take votes from the Republican and help elect the Democrat. In general, a Third Party candidate can only help elect the mainstream candidate the least like them. This is why people say Third Party runs can only hurt their cause.

It would be completely different if we had a parliamentary form of government, where a Third Party could form a coalition with the mainstream Party most like them, But we don't.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/09/19 12:03 AM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
That analysis ignores who the Third Party candidate is: A popular leftist Third Party candidate would indeed take votes from the Democrat and help elect the Republican. Likewise, a popular right wing candidate would take votes from the Republican and help elect the Democrat. In general, a Third Party candidate can only help elect the mainstream candidate the least like them. This is why people say Third Party runs can only hurt their cause.

It would be completely different if we had a parliamentary form of government, where a Third Party could form a coalition with the mainstream Party most like them, But we don't.


I say you're correct in your synopsis. The reason I stated third party candidates usually hurt Republicans more is that the Libertarians are on the ballot in all 50 states presidential wise. They also run candidates for governors and senators. Most Libertarians would vote Republican if limited to just the GOP and Democratic candidates.

Johnson received 3.28% of the total vote in 2016, Jill Stein 1.07%, McMullin 0.54%. Libertarian and Conservative votes to Johnson and McMullin dwarf Stein's. My word usually doesn't mean every time, just most of the time.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/09/19 03:45 AM

By the way, Perostista...Northwest Ponderer is NWRatCon on DP, in case you didn't know.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/15/19 02:16 AM

Too many on the Left sat home and sulked, too many Dems sat home, thinking we already had it in the bag, and that left mostly people who have been conditioned to not trust our institutions, not trust any form of government or even trust what they see and hear in the media....i.e. acting like the lady who stayed on the toilet for two years.

Basically by sitting home and sulking, or believing we had it in the bag, we let the idiots on the right make our choices for us.
But by being complacent, or acting like spoiled brats, we were the bigger idiots, bigger because we ought to have known better.

I sincerely hope that this four year long Trump bukkake party will permanently disabuse enough liberals of the idea of staying home and not bothering to vote. If not, then they will get treated to another four year long Trump bukkake session, with some scatological fun thrown in for good measure.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/15/19 03:37 AM

Quote:
I sincerely hope that this four year long Trump bukkake party will permanently disabuse enough liberals of the idea of staying home and not bothering to vote


This time it's personal. Voters want to hurt this guy and they want to hurt him bad. Everybody is going to want to be part of it. Like the Popeye's Chicken sandwich!

Something on my radar is how Trump is gonna play the China agreement into his re-election plan. Early guess is a shoddy agreement that makes him a hero for ending the trade war that he started. He declares it a victory and throws himself a parade. Republicans love him all the more for ending the trade war that THE DEMOCRATS started.....

Anybody imagine a future where that doesn't happen?
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/15/19 11:29 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
I sincerely hope that this four year long Trump bukkake party will permanently disabuse enough liberals of the idea of staying home and not bothering to vote


<snip

Something on my radar is how Trump is gonna play the China agreement into his re-election plan. Early guess is a shoddy agreement that makes him a hero for ending the trade war that he started. He declares it a victory and throws himself a parade. Republicans love him all the more for ending the trade war that THE DEMOCRATS started.....

Anybody imagine a future where that doesn't happen?


Nope, that is how it will be played out, and the Bubbas on the right, better known as Republicans, are going to take it hook, line and shaft.

Bukkake: a type of ... several men ... on another person. ROTFMOL Bow allhail
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/16/19 01:23 AM

Jill Biden admits her husband's policies SUCK, but please settle for him anyway.
Joe won't even be in the race next March if he's already stumbling this badly at this point.
If he is, God help us.

Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/16/19 12:49 PM

How dare voters stay home and not vote for candidates to screw them over! Don’t they understand how politics work?! Well Trump surely showed them their errors. Maybe now voters will fall in line with another corporate hack promising access to the bananas if they can only jump high enough.
Stay at home sulkers should really take a look at themselves in the mirror and reflect on how they, and they alone, have been responsible for the Parties presidential defeat. Clearly some folks don’t know what’s good for them. Who the adults in the room are and other patronizing gibberish.