American Politics Thread: Orange is the new POTUS

[Senator Clay Davis]

Superdelegates do not have anything to do with the Democratic base being primarily made up of minorities and women. Bernie lost badly with them, so keep ignoring that fact if you'd like and go with the conspiracy angle instead. And using the "Obama built momentum" and they "prevented Bernie from doing so" argument is laughable. Obama won the southern states (aka the base of minorities and women) to build his momentum. Bernie lost many of those states by 30% or more. The reason Trump usurped the GOP nomination is that he stole the base. Bernie did not. Try and make it more complicated and nefarious than it was, but it was all about wonderful math.

The enthusiasm gap is an interesting point, because Bernie shares blame in that. The math made it abundantly clear he had lost the primary process after Super Tuesday (true story: by going to the end he ended up losing by more delegates than if he had he quit after Super Tuesday). You think it might have made a difference if he quit after Super Tuesday instead of spending three more months attacking her in a fruitless effort that needed a miracle for him to win (namely her getting indicted)? Nevermind that he was effectively untouched from an attack perspective, and his time in the 80s kicking it with Central American communist, anti-American governments was going to be a big problem in the general. Bernie supporters still can't get over that he was not the foolproof, shoo-in candidate they want to deify him as.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

You can't just take the 2016 election results map and say "here's where Bernie would have done better and here's where he would have done worse". It would have been a completely different election cycle. There's no way of knowing how it would have turned out. But going into it, the obstacles facing a national Bernie for President campaign were much more significant than those facing Clinton. That was one of the best arguments for Clinton as nominee: at the time, it was obvious that she had the better chance of winning. She should have been able to do it without difficulty. It looked like she was going to, despite the Comey letter. That appearance of inevitability even worked against her in terms of turnout on election day.

It's possible Bernie would have won where she lost. But I'm inclined to think he would also have lost for totally different reasons.

[DownInFlames]

Jeff Sessions has doubled down on the war on drugs.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ag-se...ry?id=47371598

[Thor]

This fking group of morons, back to private prisons, stupid prison mandatory minnimums, absolutely the tool of the richest while screwing over everyone else.

Swamp draining complete!

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You can't just take the 2016 election results map and say "here's where Bernie would have done better and here's where he would have done worse". It would have been a completely different election cycle. There's no way of knowing how it would have turned out. But going into it, the obstacles facing a national Bernie for President campaign were much more significant than those facing Clinton. That was one of the best arguments for Clinton as nominee: at the time, it was obvious that she had the better chance of winning. She should have been able to do it without difficulty. It looked like she was going to, despite the Comey letter. That appearance of inevitability even worked against her in terms of turnout on election day.

It's possible Bernie would have won where she lost. But I'm inclined to think he would also have lost for totally different reasons.

While there's no proof that the analysis suggesting Sanders would have won is right, there is at least proof that the analysis showing Hillary was an obvious choice for an easy victory was very wrong.

Hillary was a candidate that didn't fit the desires of the electorate and still doesn't fit the direction the electorate is moving. Saying it was obvious she had the better chance of winning and should have done so without difficulty just reflects analysis that missed out a lot of important factors and didn't really understand what was going on with voters. Seems similar to how plenty of analysis said Trump had no chance of winning the nomination and was going to get crushed in the general. Totally off the mark.

It's also telling that since the election, Hillary's disapproval ratings (53%) have been climbing as her approval ratings (42%) have been falling, giving her a negative balance overall in the view of Americans (-11%). Sanders meanwhile has great approval ratings (57%) and disapproval ratings (32%) that make him on balance the most popular active politician in the U.S. across demographics (+25%).

[Thor]

Lets get back to today, and the fun of this administration, and I'm happy to have found an image that accurately reflects how many of us feel.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

While there's no proof that the analysis suggesting Sanders would have won is right, there is at least proof that the analysis showing Hillary was an obvious choice for an easy victory was very wrong.

Sure, now there is. The overestimation of Hillary's chances as a candidate doesn't suggest that the pessimism about Bernie's chances and the assessment that he would have faced a lot of challenges was wrong. Hell, it's possible that we were overestimating both of them, while underestimating Trump (I certainly wouldn't have predicted at the time of conventions that he could get 46% of the popular vote). We just never got to find out, in Bernie's case.

Sanders meanwhile has great approval ratings (57%) and disapproval ratings (32%) that make him on balance the most popular active politician in the U.S. across demographics (+25%).

Yes, of course his numbers are better than Hillary's - he didn't just go through a campaign and lose to Trump. Many people who supported Hillary were upset at her personally - there's a sentiment among some that she dropped the ball. Meanwhile, the hindsight, revisionist history and "what if" that's been evident in this very conversation explains why Sanders now looks much more appealing than he might have at the time. But he wasn't tarred for months as a "godless atheist communist jew who wants to raise your taxes, hates our troops" and used to talk about abolishing the CIA, not to mention what scandalous gems opposition research might have found (which was brought to bear for years on Hillary but had never had occasion to be used for him). There is, again, no way of knowing what those numbers would have looked like if he'd spent six months in the crosshairs of the Republican party.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Hillary was a candidate that didn't fit the desires of the electorate and still doesn't fit the direction the electorate is moving. Saying it was obvious she had the better chance of winning and should have done so without difficulty just reflects analysis that missed out a lot of important factors and didn't really understand what was going on with voters. Seems similar to how plenty of analysis said Trump had no chance of winning the nomination and was going to get crushed in the general. Totally off the mark.

So, I find this analysis interesting.
I think it is very basic, an angry, gullible and possibly, not so bright, voter base fell for a mentally unstable, narcissistic, liars lies.

Hills offered retraining for unemployed coal miners, Trump promised to bring back coal jobs

But maybe you can describe the missed analysis and which part of the voters was misunderstood.

Also, which direction is the electorate moving?

[Itse]

Comeys last minute witch hunt ended up having a huge effect at least in polls.

Very likely it decided the election for Trump. It was also obviously intentional. Makes me think that it might not have mattered that much who the Democratic candidate was. The FBI could have manufactured a similar scandal for Sanders. When there's a will there's a way.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Itse

Comeys last minute witch hunt ended up having a huge effect at least in polls. Very likely it decided the election for Trump.

It absolutely did... but that's not saying much. Given the margin of victory, there are at least a dozen things you could point to that, if they'd gone the other way, would have produced a Hillary win.

[oldschoolcalgary]

A bit of a tangent, but remember when disaffected Bernie voters vowed not to vote for Clinton and that a vote for Hillary 'was just as bad' as voting for Trump?

Man, I thought that line of reasoning was idiotic at the time...

I wonder what these morons think now? Someone should follow up with those folks because in an election that was this tight, I have no doubt that they could have changed the election results...

Water under the bridge now...but it pissed me off, even though i wasn't necessarily a Hillary fan either...but i knew she was 1000x better than Trump...

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

A bit of a tangent, but remember when disaffected Bernie voters vowed not to vote for Clinton and that a vote for Hillary 'was just as bad' as voting for Trump?

Man, I thought that line of reasoning was idiotic at the time...

I wonder what these morons think now? Someone should follow up with those folks because in an election that was this tight, I have no doubt that they could have changed the election results...

Water under the bridge now...but it pissed me off, even though i wasn't necessarily a Hillary fan either...but i knew she was 1000x better than Trump...

I agree, those people were selfish, childish a--holes. We always use the words "party over country" when talking about the Rebublicans. During the election, the Bernie or bust people pretty much used that same line of thinking, and not once did they stop to look at the bigger picture. Hard to say whether or not they would have swayed the election in Clinton's favor, but she sure could have used their help. Especially after the Comey thing.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by direwolf

I agree, those people were selfish, childish a--holes. We always use the words "party over country" when talking about the Rebublicans. During the election, the Bernie or bust people pretty much used that same line of thinking, and not once did they stop to look at the bigger picture. Hard to say whether or not they would have swayed the election in Clinton's favor, but she sure could have used their help. Especially after the Comey thing.

agreed.

Considering one of the reasons for that loss was losing the electoral colleges of Wisconsin/Michigan/Pennsylvania, which are traditionally Democratic regions, by only a total of 114, 000 votes, it seems like the Bernie Supporters who decided to vote for someone else, or not vote at all, probably fell within the margin of error...

[AltaGuy]

I don't think Bernie would have won, and I do have quite a few issues with many of his ideas/policies: but one thing I do know is that Bernie Sanders is a really good person.

Anytime anyone wants to draw false comparisons between the hard left and hard right - especially in the US - and their relative harmfulness/merits, look no further than the stark contrast between the respective populist leaders on either side of the spectrum.

Yup, I'm going to virtue-signal the hell out of that one.

[photon]

Trump tweeted by accident, which resulted in some pretty funny replies.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Superdelegates do not have anything to do with the Democratic base being primarily made up of minorities and women. Bernie lost badly with them, so keep ignoring that fact if you'd like and go with the conspiracy angle instead. And using the "Obama built momentum" and they "prevented Bernie from doing so" argument is laughable. Obama won the southern states (aka the base of minorities and women) to build his momentum. Bernie lost many of those states by 30% or more. The reason Trump usurped the GOP nomination is that he stole the base. Bernie did not. Try and make it more complicated and nefarious than it was, but it was all about wonderful math.

The enthusiasm gap is an interesting point, because Bernie shares blame in that. The math made it abundantly clear he had lost the primary process after Super Tuesday (true story: by going to the end he ended up losing by more delegates than if he had he quit after Super Tuesday). You think it might have made a difference if he quit after Super Tuesday instead of spending three more months attacking her in a fruitless effort that needed a miracle for him to win (namely her getting indicted)? Nevermind that he was effectively untouched from an attack perspective, and his time in the 80s kicking it with Central American communist, anti-American governments was going to be a big problem in the general. Bernie supporters still can't get over that he was not the foolproof, shoo-in candidate they want to deify him as.

I'm not suggesting Bernie couldn't have done things differently. I find it interesting that he couldn't get more support from minorities than Clinton did, he was always been very active in the civil rights movement, attended rallies Martin Luther King spoke at, although I guess Bernie doesn't go over the top to use those things to sway people politically and as awful as it is to say it, that hurts you in politics.

My opinion is still the same though, out of him, Clinton and trump, he would have been the most sensible choice. A leader with integrity may not always do the best overall job, but they will do their best to serve the people, meanwhile a leader with personal financial motives will serve themself.

It would have been very interesting to see how voters would have reacted had sanders been the democratic nominee and lost to trump mainly due to his ties to anti-America governments, only for those voters to then find out they in fact elected an anti-america government with ties to an anti-American government.

[direwolf]

So Trump did the commencement speech at Liberty University in Virginia this morning. Apparently it's a private, mostly Trump-friendly Christian institution, so it's no wonder he agreed to do it. But it appears that not everybody there was happy to see him. The look on this dude's face says it all, lol.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

So, I find this analysis interesting.
I think it is very basic, an angry, gullible and possibly, not so bright, voter base fell for a mentally unstable, narcissistic, liars lies.

Hills offered retraining for unemployed coal miners, Trump promised to bring back coal jobs

But maybe you can describe the missed analysis and which part of the voters was misunderstood.

Also, which direction is the electorate moving?

Haha. So your response to Hillary losing is not that the campaign failed, it's that the voters weren't good enough?

You're right that Hillary's platform was actually promising things that made sense, but they didn't succeed in connecting with the electorate. They lost to a known scheister who had rape charges pending against him and a recording of him talking about grabbing #####.

Products fail in the marketplace all the time by failing to understand their customers and communicate effectively with them. It's a bitter solace to be found in saying the customers were wrong while someone else makes all the sales.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Haha. So your response to Hillary losing is not that the campaign failed, it's that the voters weren't good enough?

You're right that Hillary's platform was actually promising things that made sense, but they didn't succeed in connecting with the electorate. They lost to a known scheister who had rape charges pending against him and a recording of him talking about grabbing #####.

Products fail in the marketplace all the time by failing to understand their customers and communicate effectively with them. It's a bitter solace to be found in saying the customers were wrong while someone else makes all the sales.

Ya, is it really so wrong to suggest the American public is to blame for falling for a populist bozo selling snake oil?

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Haha. So your response to Hillary losing is not that the campaign failed, it's that the voters weren't good enough?

You're right that Hillary's platform was actually promising things that made sense, but they didn't succeed in connecting with the electorate. They lost to a known scheister who had rape charges pending against him and a recording of him talking about grabbing #####.

Products fail in the marketplace all the time by failing to understand their customers and communicate effectively with them. It's a bitter solace to be found in saying the customers were wrong while someone else makes all the sales.

How did Hillarys campaign fail? Didn't lie enough or what?

Also, explain the missed analysis and misunderstood voters, and how she should have dealt with it?

Also, which direction is the electorate moving?