Trump Part VIII
- Thread starter DaveC
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
If turnout of democratic leaning voters was better, Hillary would have won.
If not for the Comey letter, Hillary likely would have won.
It took a concentrated effort by a foreign power to keep her from winning.
And she still win the popular by 3 million votes.
So this idea that the democrats can't win because they don't have a candidate that can unite the party is kinda bullshit.
If not for the Comey letter, Hillary likely would have won.
It took a concentrated effort by a foreign power to keep her from winning.
And she still win the popular by 3 million votes.
So this idea that the democrats can't win because they don't have a candidate that can unite the party is kinda bullshit.
Iggy Fizz
War Child
interesting, because your first point - which is accurate - is pretty much validated by your last point, which is also accurate but oddly you deny it.
the fact that turnout was lousy is directly related to the fact that Hillary could not effectively unite the Dem party. She was a terrible candidate.
She was not a terrible candidate.
She did, however, have a systematic propaganda campaign that she had to compete against, run by s foreign power with the cooperation of the campaign of the current POTUS.
She did, however, have a systematic propaganda campaign that she had to compete against, run by s foreign power with the cooperation of the campaign of the current POTUS.
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
I'm going to go out on a limb and say no. Trump brought out the worst people in huge numbers.
Iggy Fizz
War Child
Biden might have had a better shot than H but is also very flawed. I like JB, but he is a loudmouth and tends to get himself in trouble. Repubs would have used his own history against him, and it would not have been pretty.
But that is beside the point. To those who deny that H was a terrible candidate, I don't think they can see things objectively.
And yes, Trump did bring out lots of the worst element but that is also beside the point. The objective is to win where it matters (electoral college), not simply to count on true blue states like CA and the rest, and then ignore the key battlegrounds. That's what H did and she is responsible for that. This is part of what made her terrible.... the over-confidence, borderline arrogance....
The smart, non-sycophantic Dems will be pissed with her for a long, long time to come... and rightly so...
But that is beside the point. To those who deny that H was a terrible candidate, I don't think they can see things objectively.
And yes, Trump did bring out lots of the worst element but that is also beside the point. The objective is to win where it matters (electoral college), not simply to count on true blue states like CA and the rest, and then ignore the key battlegrounds. That's what H did and she is responsible for that. This is part of what made her terrible.... the over-confidence, borderline arrogance....
The smart, non-sycophantic Dems will be pissed with her for a long, long time to come... and rightly so...
Last edited:
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Are you serious?
They should absolutely filibuster. The filibuster is as good as dead. Harry Reid was going to use it himself (if Hillary's SCOTUS nominee was being treated the same way). May as well get rid of it so that you can have governance.
I really don't understand this logic. If we both agree that the filibuster is dead if Democrats filibuster now, then what is the point of even bothering? Just to show off how angry we are? Democrats do that a lot and it accomplishes nothing.
There are at least some Republicans who are skeptical about pulling the nuclear option lever, because it could come to bite them later. But they'll probably go for it under this circumstance, when Democrats are are filibustering someone who is, while conservative (what else would you expect for a Scalia replacement from a GOP president?), honestly quite intelligent and reasonable.
I get that Garland was mistreated. I don't like it either. But the past is the past, and I'd like to maintain the filibuster for as long as possible. I have no desire to throw it away when it has a 0% chance of being successful. If, before 2020, Trump gets another chance at this, there's at least some chance that Republicans will go along with voting against the nuclear option and force Trump's hand towards a less-ridiculous nominee. You may think it's a low chance, but it's a hell of a lot higher than the chance of the filibuster working in this case.
I want the filibuster to be a tool for the minority to block the most extreme of the other party's nominees, and actions in general. Yeah, the GOP has spent the better part of the last decade abusing it. I get it. But the long-term effects of the Democrats doing the same won't help anyone.
Oh, a loud mouth, eh? How terrible that would be for a candidate.
Look at the filibuster historically - it has been used/abused almost exclusively by the Republicans. What is it that you think the Democrats are losing by giving it up? Some unicorn off-chance that they'll use it in the future AND that the Republicans won't go nuclear anyway? This is no way to govern.
I am all for tools of the minority but this one has not functioned for a long time. So now you just have it held over your head every time.
Let's save it for the next nominee? Really? You are going to trust that they will put in somebody reasonable and if they don't that they won't just go nuclear then? I mean, I kind of feel like we are living on different planets here.
This isn't about some sort of revenge for me. I wasn't even sold on Garland, he was bland and nothing to get excited about. I just don't understand this living in la-la land as if the filibuster is a magical tool keeping us from Republican obstructionism and oppression. THEY are the ones who love to use the filibuster, what's it to the Dems (who are generally unwilling to use it anyway) if it exists or not?
Get on with governing. Maybe you face pain during Trump, but politics is cyclical.
I am all for tools of the minority but this one has not functioned for a long time. So now you just have it held over your head every time.
Let's save it for the next nominee? Really? You are going to trust that they will put in somebody reasonable and if they don't that they won't just go nuclear then? I mean, I kind of feel like we are living on different planets here.
This isn't about some sort of revenge for me. I wasn't even sold on Garland, he was bland and nothing to get excited about. I just don't understand this living in la-la land as if the filibuster is a magical tool keeping us from Republican obstructionism and oppression. THEY are the ones who love to use the filibuster, what's it to the Dems (who are generally unwilling to use it anyway) if it exists or not?
Get on with governing. Maybe you face pain during Trump, but politics is cyclical.
I'm just trying to think in probabilities here. I think you and I can both agree that the filibuster has literally zero chance of actually working against Gorsuch, right? So, unless it has a downright negative chance of working against the (potentially much worse, and much more impactful) Trump nominee, what possible incentive do we have to use the filibuster now, other than senseless projection of anger?
Iggy Fizz
War Child
agree but that is beside the point.
If the Dems had fielded a better candidate, instead of defaulting to the all powerful (and vindictive) Clinton machine, we would likely not have this total asshole in the WH today.
Yes, because the GOP voters will still turn out for their candidate, no matter how shitty or bad. Dubya didn't have great approval ratings in 2004, and he beat Kerry.
There's still time for the Dems to come up with someone who can satisfy progressive/centrist in the party, but considering how quick those on the left turned on someone like Booker....I don't see how this party comes together.
Even in 2020, there will still be cries of "DNC is crooked!!!" Maybe I'll be surprised, but I will not be surprised that Trump could drop to 20% approval rating and still pull in the same voting numbers he did in 2016
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
You have 36% approval. You find someone who can run in the middle states that Dems have won in the past.
There's no hatred driving the right to get out this time. Honestly, unless Trump competently does a 180, it's an easy recipe for a win.
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
On one hand, I agree with your point here, but on the other hand, I hesitate to completely underestimate Trump. People did that in the past, and evidently, it didn't work well for them.
Now, if we're lucky enough to see him impeached in the near future, however, then obviously that would spare us this 2020 worry. Which would be one thing to look forward to.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Or you can implement a test that eliminates all votes from voters susceptible to actual fake news. You'll never have a Republican president ever again 
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
I'm sure the Russians will be hard at work playing the leftist base as unwitting tools in yet another disinformation campaign.
Iggy Fizz
War Child
How about >40% of eligible voters did not turn out. That lousy enough?
Or the fact that Dem voters were in particular not highly motivated to vote for Hillary.
Over 90 Million Eligible Voters Didn’t Vote in 2016 | Heavy.com
What does voter turnout tell us about the 2016 election? | PBS NewsHour
Democratic Voter Turnout Is Down 26 Percent | The Daily Caller
bono_212
Blue Crack Distributor
Oh yay, another one of these posters.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
I'd warn against Daily Caller articles of any sort, but I'm not sure this can qualify as "lousy" turnout, especially if you compare turnout to other elections, and especially elections that don't have Barack Obama on the ticket.
I think Hillary was a solid candidate, with a few glaring weaknesses. I'm not sure any D candidate would have done substantially better, although we'll never know. She had many weaknesses, and strengths that now no one talks about because she lost.
I just don't think the loss (by winning by 3m votes) can be attributed to only her failures. And when we do that ("she should have campaigned in Wisconsin") we seem to agree that, yes, she kind of did win, and we also overlook things like the GOP suppression of the black vote, especially in WI, NC, and PA.
The big point, though, is that the D's can't sit around and wait for another BHO to materialize. He's a once-in-a-generation politician. They need a deeper bench, and that may be a more solidly Left candidate.
Iggy Fizz
War Child
yay, another one who cannot abide an opinion that runs counter to their own...
let's demonize them.
Pitchforks? Check. Torches? Check....
hilarious.
Iggy Fizz
War Child
I partly agree with you, except on the assessment of Hillary.
I think this quote (PBS) addresses your points actually...
While Clinton is leading the popular vote by more than 1.5 million over Trump as of Sunday, she trails President Obama’s 2012 totals by more than 2 million ballots — a chasm that may have cost her the election, said David Becker, co-founder of the Center for Election and Innovation and Research.
“Several million voters didn’t come out to vote,” Becker said. “Which is telling me that this idea of the Trump wave, a huge number of voters shifting over to Trump, is certainly not the story.”
Nationally, the number of people who voted for Trump were only slightly ahead of those who supported the last Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, in 2012.
But Becker said that while turnout in purple states like Florida and Pennsylvania had a slight uptick this year, at least 19 other states saw lower turnout rates compared with 2012, a scenario that is antithetical to presidential-year voting that tends to increase each cycle when an incumbent is not a part of the race.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
I wonder why Dems were less enthusiastic. Certainly, there's missing Obama magic. But there's also voter suppression, misogyny, the Comey letter, and a group of people who were convinced by a few Russian-leaked emails that their preferred candidate was screwed over by the DNC.
I also think the nations R turnout is misleading to look at. In states like VA and CA, many traditionally R voters voted for Hillary. But I believe turnout in rural white areas was higher and more monolithic -- white voters voted like an ethnic minority.
I also think the nations R turnout is misleading to look at. In states like VA and CA, many traditionally R voters voted for Hillary. But I believe turnout in rural white areas was higher and more monolithic -- white voters voted like an ethnic minority.
Last edited:
Iggy Fizz
War Child
I hear you, but honestly the blame rests on the candidate. If you look at the Democratic turnout numbers, they were in decline during the primaries as well. All due to lack of enthusiasm for the presumptive nominee. The numbers rebounded somewhat but that was only because of the pro-Bernie/anti-Hillary factions who infused all the energy into the process. Those same people then stayed home on November 8.
Cant blame that on Comey, or the Russians, etc.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
- Status
Similar threads
