The Election Night Thread - Part 2

Biden would have captured many white blue collar voters. This is why, he would have beat Trump. They can't relate to Clinton. What was that Wikileaks? Hasn't driven a car in 35 years.
 
Biden would have stomped Trump

Hillary was winning until she came under investigation again. All the democrats had to do was nominate a likable candidate who didn't have a long history of corruption.

Its got to be embarrassing to lose to Trump when he averages at about a 60% disapproval rating in polls, and isn't even president yet
 
Two things: first off, I have to wonder had Clinton won, would her backers be fine with Trump supporters taking to the streets and proclaiming "Not my President" or would they want them to stop bickering, put the race behind them, and focus on moving forward.

Second, on a less serious note this:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/09/canadians-stunned-realizing-they-are-now-stuck-with-lena-dunham/

Lena Dunham told Andy Cohen at the Matrix Awards that “I know a lot of people have been threatening to do this, but I really will. I know a lovely place in Vancouver.” The star and creator of HBO’s “Girls” has been a vocal advocate for Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...

Lena Dunham was one of the folks who thought about leaving the U.S. if Trump won...so I propose that in exchange for Dunham, Canada has Tatiana Maslany come to the U.S.
 
ThePhantasm said:
Biden would have stomped Trump

Hillary was winning until she came under investigation again. All the democrats had to do was nominate a likable candidate who didn't have a long history of corruption.

Its got to be embarrassing to lose to Trump when he averages at about a 60% disapproval rating in polls, and isn't even president yet
Click to expand...

I think this highlights how much Trump's victory was about an anti-Hillary feeling rather than pro-Trump. 61% disapproval in polls but wins the election? That has to be unprecedented. The democrats are going to have to do some serious thinking.

We went within a 30 day period from the Republican party "tearing itself apart" to the Democrat's losing an almost unlose-able election from the perspective that Trump is the antithesis of good leadership.
 
DeadPresident said:
I think this highlights how much Trump's victory was about an anti-Hillary feeling rather than pro-Trump.
Click to expand...

that, and Hillary simply failed to inspire her base

seems like Dems stayed home by the millions on election day instead of going to the voting booths

she just never energized the party like Obama (or arguably Bernie) did
 
Bernie would have never reached minorities.
 
ThePhantasm said:
who is lena dunham
Click to expand...

A regressive leftist whose arguably part of the systemic identity politics problem dividing the USA.

ThePhantasm said:
that, and Hillary simply failed to inspire her base

seems like Dems stayed home by the millions on election day instead of going to the voting booths

she just never energized the party like Obama (or arguably Bernie) did
Click to expand...

Which is a massive indictment of the democratic party's political machine. They misread this entire election so badly that instead of it being the republicans operating in some kind of "alternate reality" it was the democrats. They fooled themselves into believing that despite all her baggage Clinton was a sure thing. They had their own "God couldn't sink this ship even if he wanted to" moment and sure as day Hillary hit a Trump-shaped iceberg.
 
DeadPresident said:
Even Trump reached minorities. Let that sink in. This notion that Bernie wouldn't have reached minorities is spurious in the extreme.
Click to expand...

Exit polls show he did better with Latinos, than Romney AND McCain. :funny:
 
After Obama won the first time, did Republicans come out and say that they were going to work with him and root for him?
 
Paradoxium said:
Exit polls show he did better with Latinos, than Romney AND McCain. :funny:
Click to expand...

This is what I don't understand about people saying Bernie wouldn't have appealed to " - X"…You have a candidate endorsed by the KKK who made disparaging remarks about Hispanics and a host of other demographics who did better than arguably reasonable (by today's standard) Republicans with those groups.

Then they want to say that a man who threw his lot in with MLK waaaaaay before it was cool somehow won't appeal to minorities? For **** sake. I think Bernie's ideas are a little too radical but people propping Hillary up as a candidate by trying to make it seem like Bernie wasn't an infinitely more palatable character and person is absurd.
 
DeadPresident said:
I think this highlights how much Trump's victory was about an anti-Hillary feeling rather than pro-Trump. 61% disapproval in polls but wins the election? That has to be unprecedented. The democrats are going to have to do some serious thinking.

We went within a 30 day period from the Republican party "tearing itself apart" to the Democrat's losing an almost unlose-able election from the perspective that Trump is the antithesis of good leadership.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe anti-establishment as well, with Hillary being the epitome of the establishment, and all her years of experience ultimately serving as a weakness rather than more than qualifying her for the post. Maybe what Trump always said that "she has experience, but it's all bad experience" is partly true in a way. Not in that her experience wasn't worth anything or that she wasn't knowledgeable, but that it actually worked to her detriment in this case because the American people wanted someone who wasn't a politician, and Hillary and all her experience represented precisely that.

And people were hoping that a Clinton victory would be not that everyone was pro-Hillary but anti-Trump. It didn't work out that way unfortunately.
 
Dark Raven said:
Well, maybe anti-establishment as well, with Hillary being the epitome of the establishment, and all her years of experience ultimately serving as a weakness rather than more than qualifying her for the post. Maybe what Trump always said that "she has experience, but it's all bad experience" is partly true in a way. Not in that her experience wasn't worth anything or that she wasn't knowledgeable, but that it actually worked to her detriment in this case because the American people wanted someone who wasn't a politician, and Hillary and all her experience represented precisely that.

And people were hoping that a Clinton victory would be not that everyone was pro-Hillary but anti-Trump. It didn't work out that way unfortunately.
Click to expand...

From a political establishment point I think you're right, yeah. From a general 1%er point I don't think so, since Trump is as establishment as it comes when we're talking about being part of the elite.

I think the experience part is correct, Clinton has far too many skeletons and far too much information about her mistakes out there and that dominated the election. With any other candidate there would've been a minimal amount of scandal to throw at them. The worst they'd do with Bernie is say he's pretty rich for a guy who punts socialism. And the anti-Semites would've had some things to say, but that's about it.

Clinton has a laundry list of questionable or at least debatable conduct, and she's about as engaging as dry rot. An experienced and competent candidate yes, but that isn't what gets people elected, unfortunately. This election cycle has shown a lot of the faults in the American democratic system, and people should think hard about them. The precedent has been set that no matter your qualification, character or intent you can become the president of the United States of America as long as you've got money and you can win a glorified popularity contest - aided and abetted by a completely conscience-less media.
 
Elektra1 said:
After Obama won the first time, did Republicans come out and say that they were going to work with him and root for him?
Click to expand...

Obama told Republicans that he wasn't going to work with them: https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxn...-tells-republicans-sit.amp.html?client=safari

Obama had majority his first two years and was doing whatever he wanted. He didn't need to work with Republicans. He then publicly tells them to get in the back and guess what happens in 2010? Voters end his House majority lol.
 
There wasn't much Democrats could have done. Clinton rigged it with Debbie Wasserman Schultz. I am confident most Democrats here would not have picked her if there was a bigger selection pool.
 
Well, one good thing about this election is that Debbie, Hillary and Donna are gone.
 
DeadPresident said:
I think this highlights how much Trump's victory was about an anti-Hillary feeling rather than pro-Trump. 61% disapproval in polls but wins the election? That has to be unprecedented. The democrats are going to have to do some serious thinking.

We went within a 30 day period from the Republican party "tearing itself apart" to the Democrat's losing an almost unlose-able election from the perspective that Trump is the antithesis of good leadership.
Click to expand...

That's what people seem to not understand, I know a lot of good (maybe misguided) people that voted for Trump who outright said they think a lot of what he says is crazy/wrong but there were one or two key issues that they couldn't move from. I think the vast majority of Trump's votes were either a f*** you to the establishment on both sides and/or this one key issue they felt was more important than anything else.

Hillary never being able to go "off script" and come across as a real genuine person that cared about why large swaths of the country felt like they weren't being heard is another huge mistake from the Dems. She thought she could go the safe tried and true route to an easy victory but proved once again that when the Dems try and take this tactic they will always snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Paradoxium said:
There wasn't much Democrats could have done. Clinton rigged it with Debbie Wasserman Schultz. I am confident most Democrats here would not have picked her if there was a bigger selection pool.
Click to expand...

I don't think they did much to "rig" the primary (haven't looked into it much so of course I could be wrong), the issue for me lies with nobody in the establishment Dems wanting to rock the boat because Hillary has made it known since she lost in 2008 that her next candidacy was inevitable.

Then, the DNC f***ed themselves by understanding the wave of anger which lead to Trump on the right and Bernie on the left. Hillary made the crucial mistake of not bringing Bernie into the fold for her VP as soon as she had the nomination in the bag. She goes the safe, boring route with Kaine. Had they been able to harness Bernie's momentum into her campaign coupled with Bernie playing the attack dog role so she could sit back and give her scripted stump speeches it would have really been able to give Trump a run for his money.

Instead they disenfranchised a large amount of the youth vote because they wanted to play it safe to appeal to moderate undecideds. The old saying victory favors the bold comes to mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
The Election Night Thread - Part 1
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
70K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
The Trump Thread!!! - Part 2
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
54K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
The President Obama Thread: "Election Year" Edition III
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
34K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
The Clinton Thread II - Part 2
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
89K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Sticky
🌎 The Political Satire & Cartoon Thread II - Part 2
249 250 251
Replies
6K
Views
280K
Brutikus
Brutikus

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Staff online

Members online

Total: 3,300 (members: 26, guests: 3,274)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,296
Messages
22,081,874
Members
45,881
Latest member
lucindaschatz

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"