Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, August 13, 2017

In a speech that outlined [Elizabeth] Warren's vision for the party's future, the Massachusetts senator offered a series of policy prescriptions, calling on Democrats to push for Medicare for all, debt-free college or technical school, universal prekindergarten, a $15-an-hour minimum wage and portable benefits. She dug in against President Trump, saying Democrats would defend undocumented immigrants brought into the United States as children and that "we're never, ever going to build your stupid wall." And she celebrated the ascendant progressive wing's takeover of the party -- which has accelerated since November's election.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Excellent.

I hope the Dems listen to her.

#1 | Posted by sawdust at 2017-08-13 02:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 2

If they shift farther left they will have to look right to see a red chineese.

#2 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-08-13 02:51 PM | Reply

#2

Both parties have done nothing but shift right over the last few decades. The Dems are now practically moderate conservatives. While the Republicans have become fascists.

#3 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-08-13 02:55 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 4

Bernie almost won the primary in 2016. With Hillary mostly irrelevant and Bernie a major player in the new DNC leadership, his wing of the party is poised to be the majority in 2020. Bernie's the most prominent national leader on the Democratic side today.

For this reason, Bernie supporters and their ideological allies should stop throwing grenades at Democrats and the DNC. They are only weakening the party apparatus they will need if they win the primary next time. The more they continue to direct fire at those of us who voted for Hillary, the less we're likely to join their movement. (Not me. I'm pretty much on board already with any left or center-left majority coalition that can win the primary.)

#4 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-13 03:01 PM | Reply

Bernie supporters and their ideological allies should stop throwing grenades at Democrats and the DNC.

#4 | POSTED BY RCADE

I'm still seeing a lot more grenades being thrown the other direction. But it's probably all a matter of perspective. I personally hope most people can find a way to rally around a message about what's best for America. And not simply what they believe is best for their party. Slow shift to plutocracy under Dems, or slow shift to fascism under Republicans, neither is good for most Americans.

#5 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-08-13 03:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The differences in policy between center left and left are slim indeed, something that most cons can't even distinguish: Boaz thinks Rogers, Danni, and I are extreme leftists, lol.

And the differences are mostly based on what people think can be stated as policy publicly and still get elected while not holding to a strict ideological position that allows for no compromise; including a willingness to lose if ideological goals are not strictly met.

The difference between center left and left on min wage, for example, was a flat 15 Fed minimum, or a 12 dollar min that allowed states and localities to go to 15 or higher, recognizing that Mississippi is not NY or CA.

Ideology leavened with a bit of practicality and pragmatism base on real world politics, ie; an electorate that has given most of the gov to conservatives in the last few years.

With a .065 difference in the EC last time, there is no reason to think that a stringent, much further left public politics is going to be more successful; it was basically a 50-50 election.

Personally, I'd love it if the electorate would get behind at least the policies the Dems offered last time, and I'd prefer much further left personally.... but if people want to move further left to get more votes, they are going to have to do a much better job of convincing the current electorate that policies that raise all boats, including minority or multicultural boats, won't harm them because that is what swung the election to Trump.

"It Was Cultural Anxiety That Drove White, Working-Class Voters to Trump

A new study finds that fear of societal change, not economic pressure, motivated votes for the president among non-salaried workers without college degrees."
May 9, 2017"

www.theatlantic.com

"The Dangerous Myth That Hillary Clinton Ignored the Working Class

To many white Trump voters, the problem wasn't her economic stance, but the larger vision -- a multi-ethnic social democracy -- that it was a part of.

www.theatlantic.com

"It's Not the Economy, Stupid.

A new analysis of the election from The Atlantic and the Public Religion Research Institute avoids the usual emphasis on economic anxiety, instead focusing on what it calls cultural anxiety to explain the real estate mogul's strength among voters.

It found, perhaps not surprisingly, that fears about immigration -- feeling like a stranger in their own country -- were much stronger predictors of whether someone would vote for Trump than worries about the economy.

The study also found that party loyalty counted for a lot.

Despite predictions that a significant number of Republicans would break from Trump after the divisive GOP primaries and after so many prominent Republicans -- from the Bush family to MItt Romney -- deciding not to endorse him, party ID was highly predictive.

If you were an identified Republican, white working-class voter, you were 11 times more likely to vote for Trump than if you weren't.

The report presents a torrent of interesting statistics. More than half of the white working-class voters surveyed said they believe whites face as much discrimination as racial and ethnic minorities -- a view that's sharply at odds with college-educated Americans, of whom more than 70 percent believe racial and ethnic minorities face greater discrimination.

The bottom line: Democrats may not be able to win back these voters simply with an appealing economic message, but may have to address their concerns about immigration and the changing culture.

www.newsweek.com

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-13 04:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"Clinton faced unique circumstances, but there are lessons from these polls for the 2020 Democratic aspirants. White working-class anxiety won't be assuaged by a growing economy or an "economic message" alone, a la Bernie Sanders, because much of it is based on cultural anxieties about immigration, affirmative action and a sense that America has changed for the worse.

And trust problems -- often more fostered by GOP charges and fueled by the press -- are very hard to overcome for any Democrat. In addition to Clinton they plagued presidential nominees Al Gore and John Kerry, who also came tantalizingly close to winning their races. (Kerry, it's often forgotten, came within around 100,000 votes in Ohio of winning the presidency.)

It took all of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama's exceptional political skills, meanwhile, to muscle through charges about their honesty, and they were elected and re-elected because of their ability to galvanize minorities while holding on to enough white voters." the Newsweek article

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-13 04:11 PM | Reply

#4, Bernie recognizes the reality that the duopoly has effectively locked out all other parties from the political process, which is why he joined the Democrats to run for President. No one has done better as a third party than Ross Perot at ~20%. The extraordinary size and diversity in the US population contributes to single issue party impotence. The ability of the controlling parties to convince people they have adopted a third party position is remarkable, considering they have no credible evidence of previous leadership or cooperation on those issues. The money required to run for office renders any notion of Democracy virtually moot, although no one did a better job of challenging that gigantic obstacle than Bernie. There is no legitimate reason why Corporations granted exclusive broadcasting rights should be able to profit from the political process. These conditions do not exist in legitimate democracies and is a monumental tragedy and violation of the spirit of the declaration of independence and our constitution's bill of rights.

It is a violation because the principle of one vote for each adult citizen is displaced with political influence as a function of wealth.

#8 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-08-13 04:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

#8

All very true... and none of which is going to change before the next election, or after it unless a Dem of some sort, even not the "perfect" sort, is elected.

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-13 04:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I've been saying so for MONTHS NOW. Noone listens to me though.

#10 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-13 06:53 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

#11

You and me both Laura, but it is hard to get past the noise of Hillary's one man band.

#11 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-08-13 07:36 PM | Reply

--You and me both Laura, but it is hard to get past the noise of Hillary's one man band.

The Self-Anointed One's book tour ought to suck all the oxygen out of the room for many months. Bet the Dems are looking forward to it.

#12 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-08-13 07:47 PM | Reply

Of course Elizabeth Warren is correct we tried a pro wall-street candidate and a good chunk of the people who voted for Obama stayed home.

I agree the Dem party has changed some as Rcade has mention here and it has changed for the better.

But what he has gotten wrong is the complete bitterness of the hillary
supporters to those who favored Bernie and to those who did not fawn all over hillary.

if the more establishment favor Dems keep attacking its left flank the Dems will lose again.

#13 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-08-13 07:54 PM | Reply

Tacking to the left won't matter if the candidate is someone like Warren or Sanders: two old white people.

It's not the ideology that Democrats stayed home. It was the palefaces. Only way to get minority turnout up is to run a minority. And the good news for Democrats is that it doesn't matter where on the spectrum said candidate is.

#14 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-08-13 08:18 PM | Reply

Considering that Sanders' policies were a bit more liberal to everyone, inducing the multi-cultural demographics, it would follow that he would have turned out even more Trump voters.... FF's instead of arguments notwithstanding. He would certainly have turned out less moderate Dems.

Not that winning matters.

#15 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-13 09:11 PM | Reply

How's Jill Stein going to do next time, btw? Another win?

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-13 09:15 PM | Reply

15 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-13

Considering the fact that the people didnt want a establishment candidate
to win the presidency and and voted against the establishment candidate and consider that many many people who voted for Obama who sat on their hands and did not vote Bernie would of won over Trump.

Jesus a slab of liver on a plate could of won over Trump but not hillery

#17 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-08-13 10:53 PM | Reply

How's Jill Stein going to do next time, btw? Another win?

#16 | Posted by Corky at 20

See what I mean Rcade it is the hillery people do not want a united Dem party they are bitter hateful, Not the Bernie people

#18 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-08-13 10:59 PM | Reply

"Jesus a slab of liver on a plate could of won over Trump but not hillery"

Sure, Punchy, nothing bitter and hateful about that. Nothing there that wouldn't make Hillary voters want to unite with Bernie voters ASAP.

#19 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-13 11:11 PM | Reply

Highly recommend as the further left they go the more votes they will attain.

#20 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-08-13 11:12 PM | Reply

#19 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-

I was responding to a nasty post directed to me but of course you ignored that post

#21 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-08-14 01:12 AM | Reply

How's Jill Stein going to do next time, btw? Another win?

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-13 09:15 P

see thats not nasty post at all but what I post in post 18 is terrible terrible right right Gal?

Clintonites uniting the Dem party

#22 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-08-14 01:17 AM | Reply

RIGHT ON

#23 | Posted by ichiro at 2017-08-14 03:52 AM | Reply

Ive been saying this for a long time. Its not so much that people want a "non establishment" candidate, its that they want a candidate that they feel is working for them and they dont feel that they get that from either party. I remember my Father telling me when I was young and I asked him why he was a Democrat, that the Democrats were the party of average working people and the Republicans were "the rich mans party". Why would people vote for Dems these days when they ARE the same as the Republicans just not as radical. If people want republican they will just vote republican, they do republican better than the Democrats. If the Democrats returned to being the party of the people (actually working for the people not just courting them) they would never have to worry about winning elections.

#24 | Posted by hamsterpants at 2017-08-14 07:46 AM | Reply

"See thats not nasty post at all but what I post in post 18 is terrible terrible right right Gal?

I didn't say that, Punchy. I was responding to your post that blamed the divide in the Dem party as only caused by Hillary voters, something you conveniently ignored:

"See what I mean Rcade it is the hillery people do not want a united Dem party they are bitter hateful, Not the Bernie people"

Why don't you just admit you don't want to unite with Hillary voters, you want them to go away? You blame them for Bernie's loss, think they are stupid and ill-informed (or whatever). I don't know if you hate them, but you sure as hell hate Hillary and can't pass up the opportunity to bitterly bash her.

#25 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 08:31 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Yes, keep moving left, and watch the right continue to win.

People need to quite defending Hillary and begin to move to a party line, but as we all see here that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

#26 | Posted by Crassus at 2017-08-14 11:27 AM | Reply

They are pretty far left now. Not sure how much room is left to move further.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-14 11:46 AM | Reply

They are pretty far left now. Not sure how much room is left to move further.

#27 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2017-08-14 11:46 AM

The Democratic party is right of center now. They are more conservative than Saint Reagan was

You only view them as left because you have gone so far right that the moderate center line looks like marxism to you

www.theamericanconservative.com

#28 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-08-14 11:55 AM | Reply

#28

They are currently far to the left of where they were under Clinton in the '90's.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-14 11:56 AM | Reply

They are currently far to the left of where they were under Clinton in the '90's.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ

And far to the right of where they were under FDR in the 30's and 40's. Or under JFK and LBJ in the 60's and 70's. Hell, today they're to the right of Nixon, FFS!

#30 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-08-14 12:35 PM | Reply

And far to the right of where they were under FDR in the 30's and 40's. Or under JFK and LBJ in the 60's and 70's

What are you basing that on? Kennedy sounded like Milton Freidman when he talked about taxes when compared with the Dem party today. I don't recall the promotion of illegal immigration being a thing under FDR or JFK.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-14 12:40 PM | Reply

The definition of left to right of the Democratic Party is based on illegal immigration? Since when? I don't recall ever reading that illegal immigration was a big issue under FDR. I also don't recall any big deal being made about it during the JFK years (I was in high school, and an avid consumer of news at the time). This is mostly a post-Reagan (amnesty) thing. As far as taxes, JFK did reduce the top marginal rate all the way down to 70% and the corporate rate all the way down to 48%. I'm good with those numbers. Let's go back to them.

#32 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-08-14 12:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

= As far as taxes, JFK did reduce the top marginal rate all the way down to 70% and the corporate rate all the way down to 48%. I'm good with those numbers. Let's go back to them.

Bravo!

But rwingers this day would faint if you proposed even Reagan rates at 50 percent.

Given that capitalism is a system that flows money upwards, only somewhat haltered by progressive tax rates, which are as American as apple pie.... the current less than 40 and often nothing for major corps, and headed downwards is criminal.

* The mathematical law that shows why wealth flows to the 1%

www.theguardian.com

#33 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 12:54 PM | Reply

Illegal immigration was one example.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-14 12:55 PM | Reply

It's the only example you have.

#35 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-08-14 01:41 PM | Reply

Oh, I have others.

The embrace of the administrative state as a means of circumventing our checks and balances is another.

The embrace of radical identity politics. Check that box.

FDR was cited - he was staunchly opposed to public sector unions. Today, the Democratic Party is their biggest enabler.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-14 01:46 PM | Reply

FDR was opposed to public sector unions, but does JeffJ think government employees should give up their right to free associate?

Try to make points you can agree with. Otherwise you're just finger pointing and name calling.

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-14 01:49 PM | Reply

but does JeffJ think government employees should give up their right to free associate?

Please point out where I said that.

#38 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-14 01:52 PM | Reply

"The embrace of the administrative state as a means of circumventing our checks and balances is another."

Merrick Garland reference?

"The embrace of radical identity politics."

Started before we were born.

Racial identity is practically in the Constitution.
States codified it with mulatto, quadroon, octaroon, and eventually One Drop of Negro blood made you second class.

What's happened really is the GOP has turned their backs on Anweicas history of racial injustice. Which is why now you claim the Democrats are race-baiting whenever race comes up. Because you've washed your hands of the notion of racial justice entirely.

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-14 01:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

My point in bringing up FDR's opposition to public unions was to highlight an issue where today's Dem party is to the left of where it used to be.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-14 01:54 PM | Reply

"Please point out where I said that."

You didn't say one way or the other.

That's why I asked you to clarify what you believe.

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-14 01:56 PM | Reply

"Because you've washed your hands of the notion of racial justice entirely."

Easy to be for "equality" when you've spent centuries handicapping the other groups.

#42 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-14 01:57 PM | Reply

"My point in bringing up FDR's opposition to public unions was to highlight an issue where today's Dem party is to the left of where it used to be."

Um... they're merely keeping with the Constitution, unless you can see a Constitutional way for public workers to lose their right of free association.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-14 01:58 PM | Reply

What's happened really is the GOP has turned their backs on Anweicas history of racial injustice. Which is why now you claim the Democrats are race-baiting whenever race comes up. Because you've washed your hands of the notion of racial justice entirely.

#39 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

The employment of identity politics in modern times is a means to an end - divide us, stoke animosity and smear ones political opponents with baseless accusations of ___________-ism and ____________-phobia.

WALLACE: Black History Month, you find ...

MORGAN FREEMAN: Ridiculous.

MIKE WALLACE: Why?

FREEMAN: You're going to relegate my history to a month?

WALLACE: Come on.

FREEMAN: What do you do with yours? Which month is White History Month? Come on, tell me.

WALLACE: I'm Jewish.

FREEMAN: OK. Which month is Jewish History Month?

WALLACE: There isn't one.

FREEMAN: Why not? Do you want one?

WALLACE: No, no.

FREEMAN: I don't either. I don't want a Black History Month. Black history is American history.

WALLACE: How are we going to get rid of racism until ... ?

FREEMAN: Stop talking about it. I'm going to stop calling you a white man. And I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. You're not going to say, "I know this white guy named Mike Wallace." Hear what I'm saying?

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-14 01:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Um... they're merely keeping with the Constitution, unless you can see a Constitutional way for public workers to lose their right of free association.

#43 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Public workers have a lot of rules governing their actions. By your logic, the Hatch Act is unconstitutional. I don't see anything unconstitutional about abolishing public sector unions.

#45 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-14 02:02 PM | Reply

"Clinton faced unique circumstances, but there are lessons from these polls for the 2020 Democratic aspirants. White working-class anxiety won't be assuaged by a growing economy or an "economic message" alone, a la Bernie Sanders, because much of it is based on cultural anxieties about immigration, affirmative action and a sense that America has changed for the worse
#7 | POSTED BY CORKY

Are you kidding me, Corky? The primary takeaway from this election was exactly that White-Working Class people are concerned with the economy more than anything else. Fear of the TPP was one of the main cited reasons rust-belt workers voted for trump over HRC. The sheer amount of self-delusion required for you to say that Sanders had less attractive policies to blue-collar workers than HRC is bordering upon the level required to assume trump is competent.

When will the "pragmatic" democrats learn, Corky?

#46 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-14 02:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The employment of identity politics in modern times is a means to an end - divide us, stoke animosity and smear ones political opponents with baseless accusations of ___________-ism and ____________-phobia"

You prove those accusations aren't baseless by denying that the problem even exists, by mocking and criticizing those who try to fix it. You are an enabler of bigots.

#47 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-14 02:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- The primary takeaway from this election was exactly that White-Working Class people are concerned with the economy more than anything else.

That was the knee-jerk reaction of mostly B Bros because economics was their whole shtick.

Several various studies, such as the ones I posted, have proven that to be incorrect; that the primary motivator for Trump voters was not economics, but rather their fear of policies that helped multicultural demographics (as well was themselves).

When will the Purity Ponies learn, Indy?

- self-delusion

You seem to have cornered that market. Try reading the articles detailing the studies.

#48 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 02:13 PM | Reply

(as well as themselves).

#49 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 02:14 PM | Reply

Warren Urges Democrats to Shift to the Left

She better call corky directly.

Corky still thinks the left can win by just nagging swing voters into voting for corporate puppets.

#50 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 02:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Obviously even a direct call from Bernie to you would not have sufficed to have you do the rational thing.

You still think the Dems can win on economics alone when that's not why Trump voters voted for him.

In the meanwhile, you might tell us when a candidate who lost their party primary ever went on to win the Presidency?

#51 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 02:26 PM | Reply

You still think the Dems can win on economics alone when that's not why Trump voters voted for him.

In the meanwhile, you might tell us when a candidate who lost their party primary ever went on to win the Presidency?

#51 | Posted by Corky

If "economics alone" means taking the side of the average american instead of the plutocrats, yes democrats could win on that alone.

You're too scared to let go of that sweet corporate bribery money.

#52 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 02:37 PM | Reply

I don't see anything unconstitutional about abolishing public sector unions.

#45 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2017-08-14 02:02 PM

The workers have the right to freely associate. That includes forming a union. If you ban public unions you are violating their constitutional right to freely associate.

You don't see it because you don't want to acknowledge it. Willful ignorance.

#53 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-08-14 02:40 PM | Reply

-If "economics alone" means taking the side of the average american instead of the plutocrats, yes democrats could win on that alone.

Obviously not, as a primary could not be won on that alone. And as the quote noted, Bubba and Barack won by mobilizing minorities and getting enough white votes. Bernie was doing neither by famously saying that economics alone could win.

They should be able to, but as we see from the fearmongered under-educated white voters, that isn't true in the real world of this electorate.

- You're too scared to let go of that sweet corporate bribery money.

You are a One Trick Purity Pony, and a liar to boot. Dem policy is to overturn CU and reform campaign financing. What their policy is not is unilateral disarmament.

As Chomsky noted, people who didn't help by voting in a way that could have stopped Trump are responsible for the pain and suffering he causes.

#54 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 02:46 PM | Reply

their fear of policies that helped multicultural demographics (as well was themselves).

#48 | POSTED BY CORKY

They were concerned these groups were taking their jobs. That would be an economic issue. I'm referring to rust-belt voters, Corky, not Southern Racists.

When the economy is good, people aren't concerned with scapegoating and fearmongering.

When democrats like you actually decide to learn from history instead of repeating the same mistakes again and again, perhaps they will win some elections.

#55 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-14 02:48 PM | Reply

In the meanwhile, you might tell us when a candidate who lost their party primary ever went on to win the Presidency?

#56 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 02:49 PM | Reply

Dem policy is to overturn CU and reform campaign financing. What their policy is not is unilateral disarmament.
As Chomsky noted, people who didn't help by voting in a way that could have stopped Trump are responsible for the pain and suffering he causes.
#54 | POSTED BY CORKY

That is why it is imperative that the DNC put forth good candidates. That is why it would have been smart to go with the politician gaining exponential support by the week instead of the one that has not had a good approval rating in 20 years.

But please, continue to tell us why your losing candidate was the better choice, in spite of losing in both predictions and reality.

#57 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-14 02:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

You are a One Trick Purity Pony, and a liar to boot. Dem policy is to overturn CU and reform campaign financing. What their policy is not is unilateral disarmament.

As Chomsky noted, people who didn't help by voting in a way that could have stopped Trump are responsible for the pain and suffering he causes.

#54 | Posted by Corky

Yeah and the american people, as dumb as they are, are smart enough to know you can't take bribe money from the plutocrats and the credibly fight against them.

That's why you and hillary lost in 2016. Scold and blame others all you want, just like trump does.

#58 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 02:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- When the economy is good, people aren't concerned with scapegoating and fearmongering.

Obviously you missed the 2016 election and the studies that found that Trump voters were motivated by cultural anxiety much more than economics. Clinton won in voters whose main concern was economics.

When people like you learn to look at all the facts rather than only those that support their prejudices, perhaps they will win some elections.

#59 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 02:54 PM | Reply

Corky, the part you are missing is that the voters in key states were concerned with the economy. HRC was never going to win the southern racists, as I stated above.

Instead of delivering an economic message, her message was "I'm not trump and I'm a woman".

When people like you learn to look at the all the facts, we will have some progress.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

Insanity is the democratic party.

Willfully ignorant is the Corky.

#60 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-14 02:59 PM | Reply

When people like you learn to look at all the facts rather than only those that support their prejudices, perhaps they will win some elections.

#59 | Posted by Corky

You are the LAST person anyone should listen to about how to win elections.

We did it your way and lost.

Now shut the hell up and let us try a different strategy.

#61 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 03:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- it would have been smart to go with the politician gaining exponential support by the week instead of the one that has not had a good approval rating in 20 years.

How many ways could that be more wrong? Sanders had great rallies.... which did not translate into votes as he lost by 4 million of them.

And the only comparably popular pols to Hillary in America were her husband and Obama. You are still terribly myth-informed.

-your losing candidate

Lost by a statistical fluke in the EC... not a cause for panic as far as policy goes. And we now know that it was cultural anxiety that motivated Trump voters, not economics, which was Bernie's total shtick.

-the american people, as dumb as they are, are smart enough to know you can't take bribe money from the plutocrats and the credibly fight against them.

That's you perspective which you consistently, and most boringly, always project on the electorate as a whole. They are also smart enough to know that you don't punt on third down because your ideology.

In the meanwhile, you might tell us when a candidate who lost their party primary ever went on to win the Presidency?

#62 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 03:01 PM | Reply

= Corky, the part you are missing is that the voters in key states were concerned with the economy.

More myth, in the studies, swing state voters who voted on economics voted for Clinton, and Trump voter's motivation was cultural anxiety, not economics, just as in other states.

Willfully ignorant appears to be your forte.

= let us try a different strategy.

You lost a primary in a landslide with that strategery. And given that economics were not the major concern of swing state voters, you would have just double down on that in the general.

If this last weekend's news hasn't emphasized the cultural anxiety in the country to you than you are politically deaf.

It's not the economy, stupid. Dems need to help resolve that anxiety, and economics alone has proven unable to do so.

#63 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 03:08 PM | Reply

"Sanders had great rallies.... which did not translate into votes as he lost by 4 million of them"

Christ, what part of gaining exponential support week over week do you not understand? Not to mention closed primaries in many states. Not to mention that the DNC officially nominated HRC before CA even voted.

This is why all the level-headed independents on this side lump you together with the fools that think trump won legitimately. You have to bend over backwards cherry-picking bits in order to fit your narrative that Bernie wasn't/isn't popular. It is absurd.

"They are also smart enough to know that you don't punt on third down because your ideology."

I'm sorry but I wasn't aware that phony "pragmatism", voting for a woman just for the historical milestone, and forgoing democratically elected officials in lieu of "passing the torch" to the party elite next in line weren't ideological.

"In the meanwhile, you might tell us when a candidate who lost their party primary ever went on to win the Presidency?"

Can you point to another primary election where the party has openly stated that they actively tried to suppress the one candidate over the other?

#64 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-14 03:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

= gaining exponential support week over week

lmao! That sounds like GOP Magic Growth economics.... kinda like what Bernie used in his oh so disappointing health care economics.

-Not to mention closed primaries in many states

Not to mention undemocratic Caucuses that gave Bernie so many states.

- voting for a woman just for the historical milestone,

Your dull assignation of motivation is underwhelming.

- all the level-headed independents

More logical fallacies. You are getting quite expert at that.

- the fools that think trump won legitimately

He had Vlad' help, and yours if you didn't vote for Clinton.

- tried to suppress

More laughable sour grapes. A few snarky emails... or anything else the DNC did did not add up to a 4 million vote loss. You make yourself ridiculous by claiming such.

#65 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 03:18 PM | Reply

I did vote for Clinton, Corky. Because she was the best general election candidate available, not because of blind party affiliation as you are clearly guilty of.

You helped lose the election for the left, Corky, whether you are too dense to realize it or not.

And it sounds like you'd like the left to continue losing elections.

#66 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-14 03:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

More myth, in the studies, swing state voters who voted on economics voted for Clinton, and Trump voter's motivation was cultural anxiety, not economics, just as in other states.

Bernie won Michigan and Wisconsin specifically because he was talking economic issues that resonated with blue collar voters. Bernie didn't beat Clinton in both those states because of cultural anxiety. It was economic populism. If Bernie were the VP nominee, the swing states would have gone to the Dems, and the election wouldn't have been close. The fatal flaw wasn't "Bernie as the nominee", it was always "Tim Kaine, corporate shill as VP", and Kaine was a forgone conclusion as Hillary's VP in the post-Obama reelection.

The economy was the issue in those swing states, and the DNC will never acknowledge it because it exposes their negligence in their ground game by blowing an astronomical lead against their hand picked opponent and their assumption that blue collar labor was a given for Democrats.

#67 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2017-08-14 03:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- blind party affiliation

More with the blind assigning of motivations logical fallacy. I voted for the policies and who I thought would win the primary, not the person, and would have gladly voted for Bernie or most any other Dem who would lead on those same policies.

The rest of your post is caricature and ad hominem, not argument.

Your candidate lost the primary, he got over it, so should you.

And as we have evidence that Trump won on cultural anxiety, like what we saw this last weekend, not economics, your insistence that you MUST be correct that Bernie, who was ALL about the economics, would have won the general looks ever the more like your ego talking, not your political analysis.

You are helping to lose the next election by looking more at yourself than the facts of the last election.

#68 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 03:44 PM | Reply

- The economy was the issue in those swing states,

The studies say that Trump voters were more motivated by cultural anxiety in those and other states than economics, and Clinton won the economic voters in those states.

What's hard for rwingers, and some Indies, to admit is that the decades of GOP covert fear mongering and Trump's overt fear mongering on cultural and racial issues won him that election.... even if it was by a statistical fluke.

#69 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 03:48 PM | Reply

Speak, Indiana and Ben, Corky drags out the Atlantic article and the ones that cite to it as the sole authority on why Hillary lost, completely ignoring a plethora of studies commissioned by the DNC and others that support our points that the Hillary Campaign completely ignored the swing states and that a better message needs to be put forth for ALL Americans rather than just the Democrats on the Coasts.

You will never get past the walls of Corky's individual echo chamber, so stop trying and let him wallow in his own little world.

#70 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-08-14 04:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

ugh alright I'm going to help out Dr Jones here dammit....

Corky I didn't vote because NONE of the Candidates were worth a S@#t! 3rd party of the Big 2 (ha pun btw)

I'm conservative...

If the DNC had ran someone worth a S#$t I would have thought about voting for them.... Guess what they didn't....

Your trying to get voters like me that think the republicans are going in the wrong direction too.

Guess what that isn't further left!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! if they go further left I won't even be considered a conservative any more.

#71 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-14 04:03 PM | Reply

How's Jill Stein going to do next time, btw? Another win?
#16 | Posted by Corky at 20
See what I mean Rcade it is the hillery people do not want a united Dem party they are bitter hateful, Not the Bernie people

#18 | POSTED BY PUNCHYPOSSUM AT 2017-08-13 10:59 PM | FLAG:

"Jesus a slab of liver on a plate could of won over Trump but not hillery"
Sure, Punchy, nothing bitter and hateful about that. Nothing there that wouldn't make Hillary voters want to unite with Bernie voters ASAP.

#19 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2017-08-13 11:11 PM | FLAG:

And you dopes say the Republican party can't unite.

#72 | Posted by fishpaw at 2017-08-14 04:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"And you dopes say the Republican party can't unite.
#72 | POSTED BY FISHPAW"

The establishment democrats just really don't want independents on their side.

"ugh alright I'm going to help out Dr Jones here dammit."
#71 | POSTED BY PINKYANTHEBRAIN

What a time to be alive.

#73 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-14 04:39 PM | Reply

#73 You just keep your limp whip to yourself ok.....

#74 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-14 04:43 PM | Reply

You prove those accusations aren't baseless by denying that the problem even exists, by mocking and criticizing those who try to fix it. You are an enabler of bigots.

#47 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

I mock and criticize those who stoke racial resentment for political gain. People such as yourself.

#75 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-14 04:50 PM | Reply

I mock and criticize those who stoke racial resentment for political gain. People such as yourself.

#75 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2017-08-14 04:50 PM | FLAG:

"For political gain?" Now who is assigning motives?

As to what you are doing, you are mocking and criticizing people who point out real racially inequality that you self servingly chose to ignore. And that, chum, makes you a racist.

#76 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-14 04:54 PM | Reply

As to what you are doing, you are mocking and criticizing people...who stoke racial tensions for political OR personal gain. That would be certain left-wing pols and pundits and race-baiters, such as your self.

who point out real racially inequality that you self servingly chose to ignore.

Except, I don't ignore it.

And that, chum, makes you a racist.

#76 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN AT 2017-08-14 04:54 PM | REPLY | FLAG: Race baiter

#77 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-14 04:58 PM | Reply

I mock and criticize those who stoke racial resentment for political gain. People such as yourself.

#75 | Posted by JeffJ

Actually you write post after post in defense of those people - the trumps.

#78 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 04:59 PM | Reply

"real racially inequality that you self servingly chose to ignore."
Except, I don't ignore it.
#77 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

We'd be lucky if you did. Instead you actively try to thwart any racial discussion by claiming it is a tool used for political gain.

And you should have flagged Dirkstruan as "racist baiter" because you are a racist and you are the one being baited.

Only racists call others "race baiters".

#79 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-14 05:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Except, I don't ignore it."

Right. You are more like a denialist.... which is worse, really.

#80 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-14 05:12 PM | Reply

- Corky drags out the Atlantic article

And the Newsweek article and similar articles on recent studies published by Washpo, NYTimes, Salon, Slate, The Nation and others....

... but you always have caricature in lieu of any argument to their varsity.

One supposes that some people are more interested in justifying their prejudices than learning from the actual history and making policy and presentation changes so the mistakes are not repeated.

#81 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 05:17 PM | Reply

"Except, I don't ignore it."
Right. You are more like a denialist.... which is worse, really.

#80 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

I don't ignore it nor do I deny it. I will point out that this country has made tremendous strides over the past 50 years, but still has a way to go.

#82 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-14 05:20 PM | Reply

Only racists call others "race baiters".

#79 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

Not true. Al Sharpton is a race-baiter, just like you.

#83 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-14 05:20 PM | Reply

Actually you write post after post in defense of those people - the trumps.

#78 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I would say that 75% of your posts contain at least one straw man.

I'll ask it again: Is intellectual dishonesty fun?

#84 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-14 05:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I don't ignore it nor do I deny it. I will point out that this country has made tremendous strides over the past 50 years, but still has a way to go.

#82 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2017-08-14 05:20 PM | FLAG:

But somehow anyone who talks about the work still to do is a race baiter and an SJW and whatever other name you want to throw out there. Like a typical privileged soul, you are fine setting limits on what people can and cannot question, discuss, complain about.

#85 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-14 05:25 PM | Reply

Not true.
#83 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2017-08-14 05:20 PM | FLAG:

Totally true. And thanks for singling out a black man for criticism and proving the point.

#86 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-14 05:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Simmer JeffJ you know as well as I do that Dirkstruan calling someone a racist is like a Texan calling a Pepsi a Coke, just because it a pop....

#87 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-14 05:26 PM | Reply

"One supposes that some people are more interested in justifying their prejudices than learning from the actual history and making policy and presentation changes so the mistakes are not repeated."
#81 | IRONICALLY POSTED BY CORKY

"Not true. Al Sharpton is a race-baiter, just like you."
#83 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Acknowledging that racism exists is not race baiting. Complaining about the acknowledgement of racism as race-baiting is racism.

If you don't want people to think you are a racist, Jeff, stop exclaiming "race-baiter" every time someone brings up racism's existence. It really isn't that difficult, unless you are a racist of course.

#88 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-14 05:26 PM | Reply

#88 what so you want to call Dirkstruan then Dr Jones? Reverse Racist ??????

#89 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-14 05:28 PM | Reply

I think it's funny that the guy who refuses to be called a Nazi sympathizer is out there calling everyone else a race-baiter.

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-14 05:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Evidence suggests financially troubled voters in the white working class actually preferred Clinton over Trump.

Besides partisan affiliation, it was cultural anxiety -- feeling like a stranger in America, supporting the deportation of immigrants, and hesitating about educational investment -- that best predicted support for Trump.

This data adds to the public's mosaic-like understanding of the 2016 election. It suggests Trump's most powerful message, at least among some Americans, was about defending the country's putative culture."

washingtonmonthly.com

Let's Call 'Cultural Anxiety' What It Is
And voter suppression, too.

The quick and dirty conclusion here is that "anxiety about cultural change" is merely the most recent euphemism for that which we all have been quite good at creating euphemisms for over the past 500-odd years.

And, yes, these figures show that "economic anxiety" is the worst euphemism we've come up with in a long time. These data delineate clearly some very real monsters of the mind that are driving our politics.

www.esquire.com

"Pundits and politicos of all ideological stripes are making the same mistake this primary season as they struggle to grasp the rise of Donald Trump. National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru has wisely counseled against strong single-factor explanations for his success, but the view that economic anxiety explains the rise of Trump has become prevalent on both the left and the right.

There is, however, little evidence that points to that conclusion.

Trumpism is being driven primarily by cultural anxiety -- by dissatisfaction with cultural change and perceived cultural decline.*

Read more at: www.nationalreview.com

* An early understanding of voter motivations from March of last year.... the others are from May of this year.

If you think an economics only cure-all approach for coming elections will werk, you aren't thinking at all.

Dems have to figure out how to address xenophobia, racism, and bigotry, not to mention voter suppression, and gerrymandering, not just economic issues.

And that won't be easy.

#91 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 05:31 PM | Reply

Actually you write post after post in defense of those people - the trumps.

#78 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I would say that 75% of your posts contain at least one straw man.

I'll ask it again: Is intellectual dishonesty fun?

#84 | Posted by JeffJ

Where's the straw man?

Are you going to make me embarrass you by linking your post history where you defend the trumps all the time, or pretend that he's no worse than democrats?

This is a time to choose sides. YOu can choose the civilized ethical modern society side, or you can choose the trump/putin/KKK side. IN thread after thread you keep coming down on the latter. YOu pretend you're playing some kind of intellectual devil's advocate, but in effect, you're just another trump chump.

#92 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 05:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

| IRONICALLY

You can stop being an ------- anytime you like, or maybe you can't. It doesn't help your case.

#93 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 05:33 PM | Reply

Dems have to figure out how to address xenophobia, racism, and bigotry, not to mention voter suppression, and gerrymandering, not just economic issues.

#91 | Posted by Corky

Dems have to stop listening to the people who lost the last election for them. People like you.

#94 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 05:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#94

Not an argument.

Bernie got in trouble early on for addressing black issues with a general economics for all approach.

And he's right that in theory that will werk. But in this political climate it isn't enough.

Try it again and see what happens.

#95 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 05:37 PM | Reply

I was right about the Dem primary, btw, and the general was a statistical fluke. So you were wrong at least as often as I was.

Of course, if you ever get over that primary, we can have really big party.

#96 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 05:39 PM | Reply

I was right about the Dem primary, btw, and the general was a statistical fluke. So you were wrong at least as often as I was.

Of course, if you ever get over that primary, we can have really big party.

#96 | Posted by Corky

You were RIGHT about picking the candidate who polled worse against trump to run against trump?

GOOD JOB!

And your pathetic "fluke" comments are irrelevant. CLOSE isn't good enough. A non corporate puppet would have beaten trump. Your plutocrat couldnt beat the ------------. You suck at choosing candidates. Dems should do the opposite of anything you say.

#97 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 05:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"You can stop being an ------- anytime you like, or maybe you can't. It doesn't help your case.

#93 | POSTED BY CORKY"

Your comment was literally what Speaks and I have been saying this whole thread and what people have been telling you since November. It was ironic because you fail to see that you are the one being blinded by his own prejudice.

Just the fact that you can't even understand that "cultural anxiety" is the result of economic stress. The only reason trump was able to use cultural anxiety to beat out Clinton was because of the myth that jobs are being lost to immigrants and overseas labor. Bernie's message that this was all the result of stagnant wages due to the top 1% gaining all the newfound wealth of the last 30 years resonated with people of all demographics. Bernie helped people see the real root of the problem, trump capitalized on the myth of cultural anxiety, and HRC did essentially nothing.

I'll stop being an ------- when you stop assisting my side losing elections.

#98 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-14 05:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"And he's right that in theory that will werk. But in this political climate it isn't enough.

#95 | POSTED BY CORKY"

Jesus, the democrats really are the new republicans. You're even starting to think like Newt Gingrich, with your feelings over facts stance.

youtu.be

#99 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-14 05:49 PM | Reply

= who polled worse against trump to run against trump?

Who went untouched by Trump and the media during the primary. Bernie would have been Comrade Bernie when Trump got finished with him.

The rest of your post is argument-free, as per usual. You have HDS (according to you, almost every elected official is a "corporate puppet} and are upset that your guy didn't win and you always will be, we get that.

The rest of us would like to look at the real motivating factors in the last general election and decide what lessons can be learned and how to proceed.

#100 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 05:49 PM | Reply

And the Newsweek article and similar articles on recent studies published by Washpo, NYTimes, Salon, Slate, The Nation and others....

Reading is nothing without comprehension Corky, I said "Corky drags out the Atlantic article and the ones that cite to it as the sole authority on why Hillary lost".

One supposes that some people are more interested in justifying their prejudices than learning from the actual history and making policy and presentation changes so the mistakes are not repeated.
#81 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2017-08-14 05:17 PM

SELF-RETORTING RETORT OF THE YEAR CANDIDATE!

#101 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-08-14 05:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Who went untouched by Trump and the media during the primary. Bernie would have been Comrade Bernie when Trump got finished with him.

#100 | Posted by Corky

Just because your puppet had a bunch of skeletons and mistakes in her past doesn't mean bernie did.

YOu just can't comprehend that anyone would possibly have been any better than clinton can you?

#102 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 05:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The rest of us would like to look at the real motivating factors in the last general election and decide what lessons can be learned and how to proceed.
#100 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2017-08-14 05:49 PM

Which you seem singularly incapable of doing...

#103 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-08-14 05:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

*munching popcorn*

#104 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-08-14 05:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

- you are the one being blinded by his own prejudice.

I'm the one looking at the most recent studies of voter motivation.

You are the one stuck in your myths.

- "cultural anxiety" is the result of economic stress.

Perhaps if you actually read the studies rather than repeating your prejudices to us ad nauseum.... naw, you are still just pissed that Bernie lost. Get over it. He did.

- the myth of cultural anxiety,

You obliviously haven't clue number one.

- the democrats really are the new republicans

Most Indies are closeted GW voters. A few are disgruntled lefties to whom Obama was a turncoat because he lived in the real world and not in their fantasies.

#105 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 05:54 PM | Reply

YOu just can't comprehend that anyone would possibly have been any better than clinton can you?

Its not just that, it's the slavish devotion to the singular idea that this is a statistical aberation that is just mindblowing.

#106 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-08-14 05:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#101

Dumbass of the Year Winner.

- Which you seem singularly incapable of doing...

I'm the one presenting the newer studies of the motivating factors in the election. You are blindly cheer-leading.

What we have here are some BernieBros who don't want to hear that economics isn't the cure-all it might once have been.

Given the events of this past weekend, one might think you could pay a little more attention to the real motivations behind Trump's voters... and a little less to your fragile egos.

#107 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 05:59 PM | Reply

Most Indies are closeted GW voters. A few are disgruntled lefties to whom Obama was a turncoat because he lived in the real world and not in their fantasies.

#105 | Posted by Corky

Yeah it's just a FANTASY that when the bankers crash the global economy, they should go to jail instead of being promoted, given free money and bonuses.

What a wild fantasyland we live in!

We FANTASIZE about a world where a candidate can deliver justice to the evil plutocrats because they're not taking their bribe money like your transparent sellouts.

#108 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 05:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

What we have here are some BernieBros who don't want to hear that economics isn't the cure-all it might once have been.

#107 | Posted by Corky

No what we have here is a stupid stubborn hillbot who cant admit the distaste americans have for the elites. So you'll offer them another elite candiate, lose again, and give trump 4 more years.

#109 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 06:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#102

Can't comprehend that if Hillary's center-left policies motivated Trump voters to come out, that Bernie's farther left ones would have done moreso.

Or that Bernie got a free ride from Trump and media criticism during the primary that he would not have gotten during the general.

Just more sour grapes, really.

#110 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 06:02 PM | Reply

I'm the one looking at the most recent studies of voter motivation.

LOL.

NRO article, March, 2016.

Atlantic article, December, 2016.

Esquire article (covering and extensively quoting Atlantic article), May 2017.

Washington article (covering and extensively quoting Atlantic article), May 2017.

Newsweek article (covering and extensively quoting Atlantic article), May 2017.

NY Times article (covering and extensively quoting Atlantic article), May 2017.

Corky, citing articles that quote the same article and study over and over again is merely echo.

#111 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-08-14 06:03 PM | Reply

IMO Bernie would have been savaged by Trump and the PACs.
Socialist, commie, jew...

Call me crazy but i don't see the "unite the right" folks voting for Bernie like I did.

#112 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2017-08-14 06:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#108

Hey, you can be Mr. Super Holier Than Thou Lefty if you want. Only a couple of others here will fight you for that title.

Dems, however, have to understand what motivated Trump voters, and cultural anxiety is the nice way to say it.

#113 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 06:05 PM | Reply

My old man had two sayings: Always pick up money found in the street, and never turn down advice from fake Native Americans. Sorry Cork- you're wrong.

#114 | Posted by cookfish at 2017-08-14 06:05 PM | Reply

Can't comprehend that if Hillary's center-left policies motivated Trump voters to come out, that Bernie's farther left ones would have done moreso.

Or that Bernie got a free ride from Trump and media criticism during the primary that he would not have gotten during the general.

Just more sour grapes, really.

#110 | Posted by Corky

Yeah just sour grapes. It has nothing to with the fact that your strategy resulted in the greatest tragedy in american history.

Trump voters didn't care about hillary's policies. They didn't vote for policies. They voted to say SCREW YOU to the elites. If you had nominated bernie, their SCREW YOU vote would have landed in his column.

You still don't get why you lost. That's why you should shut the hell up about what to do next.

#115 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 06:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#111

The studies, of which there are several, all say the same thing... which isn't really even necessary since you only talk about them; you have no argument to either the studies themselves or the ANALYSIS by the various news orgs.

#116 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 06:08 PM | Reply

Dems, however, have to understand what motivated Trump voters, and cultural anxiety is the nice way to say it.

#113 | Posted by Corky

Yes he has his base of bigots. That wasn't enough for him to win.

He also need the swing voters who wanted CHANGE. Dems didn't offer it.

Offer it next time or lose again.

#117 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 06:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#114

When I want a Trump voter's opinion, I'll ask TRat.... and then laugh.

#118 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 06:10 PM | Reply

Wesleyan Media Project: Study: Hillary Clinton's TV ads were almost entirely policy-free:

Hillary Clinton's campaign ran TV ads that had less to do with policy than any other presidential candidate in the past four presidential races, according to a new study published on Monday by the Wesleyan Media Project.

Clinton's team spent a whopping $1 billion on the election in all -- about twice what Donald Trump's campaign spent. Clinton spent $72 million on television ads in the final weeks alone.

But only 25 percent of advertising supporting her campaign went after Trump on policy grounds, the researchers found. By comparison, every other presidential candidate going back to at least 2000 devoted more than 40 percent of his or her advertising to policy-based attacks. None spent nearly as much time going after an opponent's personality as Clinton's ads did. A shocking 7%
of Clinton's ads focused on her policies, down from an average of over 45% of candidates since 2000.

Wesleyan Media Project: Study: Clinton Campaign failed to air ads in toss up states until last week of election:
A new study conducted by the Wesleyan Media Project found that ineffective advertising, including messages they claim were "devoid of policy discussions," likely played a role in Hillary Clinton's 2016 election loss to Donald Trump.

New research has found that Hillary Clinton's loss in the 2016 presidential election may have been related to her campaign's ineffective use of advertising.

According to a news release, the Wesleyan Media Project study concluded that "Clinton's unexpected losses came in states in which she failed to air ads until the last week."

Wesleyan Media Project: 2016 Election Study

#119 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-08-14 06:11 PM | Reply

-the greatest tragedy in american history.

So... you want the Miss Drama Queen title, too?

That's just greedy.

#120 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 06:11 PM | Reply

Most Indies are closeted GW voters. A few are disgruntled lefties to whom Obama was a turncoat because he lived in the real world and not in their fantasies.
#105 | POSTED BY CORKY

You even speak like a republican now. If I'm such a Bernie Bro, why did I vote for HRC and why am I for free trade and the TPP?

The democrats will lose every voter under 30 if they don't move left. If I didn't love this country so much I would take pleasure in how much the conservative democratic wing is suffering from their historic loss.

Even using your own point about Bernie losing to HRC in the primary shows that HRC was an awful candidate; seeing as she lost the general. So at best Bernie would have won and at worst he would have lost, but that means the worst Bernie could have been in the general is still equal to the absolute best we know Clinton was capable of. So why you continue to defend her losing strategy is beyond rationality.

#121 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-14 06:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

-the greatest tragedy in american history.

So... you want the Miss Drama Queen title, too?

That's just greedy.

#120 | Posted by Corky

So that's your latest defense of your clinton support?

"Trump's not so bad?"

#122 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 06:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

= They voted to say SCREW YOU to the elites.

NO dummy, Trump voters voted to say SCREW YOU to anyone with policies that helped minorities they are afraid of.

-That wasn't enough for him to win.

Obviously it was, just not by much.

I'm sorry, but Bernie just called and told you to STFU! and get over that primary. He did.

#123 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 06:14 PM | Reply

Global Strategies Group/Priorities USA: Study: The Real Reasons Hillary Lost:

Election 2016: It took a lot of numbers-crunching, but Democratic Party pooh-bahs say they now know why Hillary Clinton lost: Many of the "base" voters she counted on in Blue States didn't show up, and switched to Donald Trump instead. It took them nearly six months to figure out the blindingly obvious, but it still doesn't get at the truth.

The findings of a poll and focus groups conducted by Priorities USA for the Democratic Party advisory firm Global Strategy Group were devastating not just for Hillary Clinton, but for Democrats as a whole: It found that many former supporters of President Obama flipped and voted for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton.

For Democrats, it should be disquieting that the findings completely contradict their own carefully-managed self-image as champions of the underdog: Some 50% of those who voted for Obama and then defected to Trump said their incomes are lagging behind the cost of living, while another 31% said they were just treading water, the Washington Post's The Plum Line blog noted.

Most devastating of all, 42% of these former Obama voters who moved over to vote GOP said congressional Democrats' economic policies favor the rich. That compares with 21% who said the same thing about Trump.

In short, to many Americans now living through economic tough times, the Democrats have become the party of the rich and the connected. Some 77% in the poll said that Trump's policies would help all classes of Americans, vs. just 58% for congressional Democrats.

IBD: The Real Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Lost In 2016

#124 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-08-14 06:16 PM | Reply

"Trump's not so bad?"

Now you are just lying.

But hey, you never have an arguement so I guess that's all you have.

WWII, among many other tragedies, was a worse tragedy than not having Bernie as the gen election candidate, especially since he was only guaranteed to win in your mind, not in the real world.

#125 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 06:18 PM | Reply

-HRC was an awful candidate;

.065 percent too awful to be exact.

"Hell hath no fury as a BernieBro scorned!" - Bill Shakespeare

#126 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 06:21 PM | Reply

"Finally, 54 percent of white working-class Americans said investing in college education is a risky gamble, including 61 percent of white working-class men.

White working-class voters who held this belief were almost twice as likely as their peers to support Trump.

"The enduring narrative of the American dream is that if you study and get a college education and work hard, you can get ahead," said Robert P. Jones, the CEO of PRRI.

"The survey shows that many white working-class Americans, especially men, no longer see that path available to them. ... It is this sense of economic fatalism, more than just economic hardship, that was the decisive factor in support for Trump among white working-class voters."

"Evidence suggests financially troubled voters in the white working class actually preferred Clinton over Trump.

Besides partisan affiliation, it was cultural anxiety -- feeling like a stranger in America, supporting the deportation of immigrants, and hesitating about educational investment -- that best predicted support for Trump.

This data adds to the public's mosaic-like understanding of the 2016 election. It suggests Trump's most powerful message, at least among some Americans, was about defending the country's putative culture."

washingtonmonthly.com

#127 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 06:24 PM | Reply

#127

"in today's environment of exploding tuition costs, maybe it's just a needlessly risky investment that does not guarantee a more comfortable life.

Polling conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute and The Atlantic bears out that this view is pervasive."

Yet another article based on and quoting the Atlantic article on the PRRI poll.

What else you got that isn't echo?

#128 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-08-14 06:27 PM | Reply

I'm sorry, but Bernie just called and told you to STFU! and get over that primary. He did.

#123 | Posted by Corky

I love how you decided to start listening to bernie the day after the primary ended.

Ignore everything he said about why clinton was the wrong choice, and just focus on when he said she's better than trump.

Youre pathetic.

#129 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 06:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

#125;

Invoking WWII as a worse tragedy is just being pedantic about Speaks' choice of words. Deflection.

Also the tragedy was HRC losing to a nazi-sympathizing reality television host, not the DNC colluding against Bernie. He wasn't the only one guaranteed to win, just the one most likely to win between the three.

"NO dummy, Trump voters voted to say SCREW YOU to anyone with policies that helped minorities they are afraid of."

Yeah, after trump spent a year convincing them that the minorities were responsible for their economic concerns, not the 1%. Meanwhile HRC was telling the same voters she has a different public and private version of herself and that her Goldman Sachs speeches were no big deal.

#130 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-14 06:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Medicare for all, debt-free college or technical school, universal prekindergarten, a $15-an-hour minimum wage and portable benefits."

I'll vote for that, even if you do tear down the wall I want. :)

#131 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-14 06:29 PM | Reply

"Finally, 54 percent of white working-class Americans said investing in college education is a risky gamble, including 61 percent of white working-class men.
White working-class voters who held this belief were almost twice as likely as their peers to support Trump.
"The enduring narrative of the American dream is that if you study and get a college education and work hard, you can get ahead," said Robert P. Jones, the CEO of PRRI.
"The survey shows that many white working-class Americans, especially men, no longer see that path available to them. ... It is this sense of economic fatalism, more than just economic hardship, that was the decisive factor in support for Trump among white working-class voters."
"Evidence suggests financially troubled voters in the white working class actually preferred Clinton over Trump.
Besides partisan affiliation, it was cultural anxiety -- feeling like a stranger in America, supporting the deportation of immigrants, and hesitating about educational investment -- that best predicted support for Trump.
This data adds to the public's mosaic-like understanding of the 2016 election. It suggests Trump's most powerful message, at least among some Americans, was about defending the country's putative culture."
washingtonmonthly.com
#127 | POSTED BY CORKY AT

Hahahaha How can you seriously quote a bunch of economic reasons and then just state it was cultural anxiety instead?

#132 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-14 06:32 PM | Reply

#104 trade you some M&M's for some of that popcorn.... ?

#133 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-14 06:45 PM | Reply

So I looked up Hillary Clinton's horoscope. This is the #1 hit on google:

"Our look at the horoscope of Hillary Clinton, a Scorpio with Pisces moon and a mysteriously unknown ascendant."

astrostyle.com

I'm betting the 'mysteriously unknown ascendant' is the Draconis star cluster, which is where the Reptoids come from.

Google can't silence everyone. The truth will get out.

#134 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-14 06:46 PM | Reply

Oops. Wrong forum. That was supposed to go on the nooner.

#135 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-14 06:47 PM | Reply

I'm betting the 'mysteriously unknown ascendant' is the Draconis star cluster, which is where the Reptoids come from.

Google can't silence everyone. The truth will get out.

#134 | Posted by HeliumRat

The sad thing is trump voters are so retarded we can no longer tell if you're kidding or not.

#136 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 06:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Even using your own point about Bernie losing to HRC in the primary shows that HRC was an awful candidate; seeing as she lost the general. So at best Bernie would have won and at worst he would have lost, but that means the worst Bernie could have been in the general is still equal to the absolute best we know Clinton was capable of. So why you continue to defend her losing strategy is beyond rationality.

If he had lost by more than she did, it would have made Trump feel like he had even more of a mandate and be even more insufferable. So, the worst Bernie could have done is actually worse than she did.

#137 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 06:52 PM | Reply

"#104 trade you some M&M's for some of that popcorn.... ?"

*hold out hand, passes popcorn*

#138 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-08-14 06:55 PM | Reply

#137

That is a completely valid point, and any guess that Bernie would have done better than Hillary is just that.

#139 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-08-14 06:56 PM | Reply

How can you seriously quote a bunch of economic reasons and then just state it was cultural anxiety instead?

Because the Atlantic article said so.

#140 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-08-14 06:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Also the tragedy was HRC losing to a nazi-sympathizing reality television host, not the DNC colluding against Bernie. He wasn't the only one guaranteed to win, just the one most likely to win between the three."

If Bernie expected equal treatment in the primary he was a fool. Why should the DNC have given him the same treatment they gave a lifelong Democrat? Independent Bernie came along and wanted to carpetbag the Democratic party. He wanted to use them; they wanted to use him. So, they "agreed" to work together. Bernie got what he wanted out of the deal. The DNC got more than they bargained for. Without the DNC Bernie might not have been more than a Jill Stein blip in the 2016 election.

#141 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 06:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

That is a completely valid point, and any guess that Bernie would have done better than Hillary is just that.

#139 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer

We KNOW picking the corporate puppet was a losing strategy. We have to admit that before we can find a winning strategy. The only thing for sure is that following the same strategy again would be suicide.

Corky appears to be suicidal. Her recommendation is pick another corporate puppet but just nag and shame people into voting for them even harder next time.

#142 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 07:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

And now Bernie is an Independent again but still trying to control the DNC. If you want to be a Democrat Bernie, be one. If you want to be an Independent, be one. Stop jockeying back and forth as you think it best benefits you.

#143 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 07:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Without the DNC Bernie might not have been more than a Jill Stein blip in the 2016 election.

#141 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

And the DNC is witnessing the results of ignoring bernie supporters as they lose offices from coast to coast.

#144 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 07:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#144 Unfortunately, Democrats were losing offices from coast to coast long before Bernie came along.

#145 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 07:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If Bernie was so popular across the country why didn't he win the nomination? Don't tell me it's because the mean DNC did him in. If he couldn't overcome the DNC shenanigans and the mild attacks from Hillary, there is not way he could have beaten Donald Trump and the full force of the RNC.

#146 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 07:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#138

*takes popcorn, gives two full handfuls of Red M&M's*

#147 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-14 07:13 PM | Reply

#144 Unfortunately, Democrats were losing offices from coast to coast long before Bernie came along.

#145 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

Exactly. And rejecting his philosophies is going to continue that trend.

Bernie's rise in the primaries was the best thing to happen to dems since 2007. But instead of accepting what the grassroots were telling them, they worked behind the scenes to stifle it and hand the nomination to their billionaire-approved puppet.

#148 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 07:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- everything he said about why clinton was the wrong choice

If I thought he might have won the primary and the election, I would have voted for him. But I was right, he could't even come close to winning the primary... which you will never get over.

#149 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 07:17 PM | Reply

BY LEFTCOASTLAWYER

If you come up with an argument about how the study was poorly done or theirs or the analysis by multiple news orgs is all wrong, please do get back to us.

#150 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 07:19 PM | Reply

That is a completely valid point, and any guess that Bernie would have done better than Hillary is just that.
#139 | POSTED BY LEFTCOASTLAWYER

As is any guess that he would have done worse. That is why you can only use the binary; Bernie is in the Schrodinger realm; he would have won or lost. Hillary did lose.

Why should the DNC have given him the same treatment they gave a lifelong Democrat?
Without the DNC Bernie might not have been more than a Jill Stein blip in the 2016 election.
#141 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Because he was their best chance at winning, I believe.

That is a problem inherent in our 2 party system.

If Bernie was so popular across the country why didn't he win the nomination? Don't tell me it's because the mean DNC did him in. If he couldn't overcome the DNC shenanigans and the mild attacks from Hillary, there is not way he could have beaten Donald Trump and the full force of the RNC.
#146 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

How many times do you clintonians have to be reminded that the DNC officially nominated HRC before California and other states even voted? Or the states where independents couldn't vote in closed primaries?

I get that technically the party can do what it wants, but what it did was suicidal and goes against their own proclamation of being "democratic".

trump isn't a normal republican either, but in practicality you cannot win the presidency outside of one of the two parties.

#151 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-14 07:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If Bernie was so popular across the country why didn't he win the nomination? Don't tell me it's because the mean DNC did him in. If he couldn't overcome the DNC shenanigans and the mild attacks from Hillary, there is not way he could have beaten Donald Trump and the full force of the RNC.

#146 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

Because he's an old white man. And there are a large group of dem voters who have spent a lifetime suffering at the hands of old white men. They couldn't get past his skin color or genitalia to hear his message.
Those voters are concentrated in red states that don't matter in the general election, but they were enough to give the nomination to hillary. They preferred a female puppet of their oppressors over a white male warrior for their interests.

#152 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 07:19 PM | Reply

- a worse tragedy

The tragedy is not being able to get past one's own perspective that, in this case, if Bernie won the primary he would have absolutely won the general election.

Which was by no means a sure thing.

#153 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 07:21 PM | Reply

- Corky appears to be suicidal. Her recommendation

You know, I can't decide which is worse, misogynists or "corporate puppets".

#154 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 07:23 PM | Reply

- But instead of accepting what the grassroots were telling them, they worked behind the scenes to stifle it and hand the nomination to their billionaire-approved puppet.

More lame Conspiracy Theories.

Nothing the DNC did cost Bernie 4 million votes, dimmy. Not even the snarky emails, rofl!

#155 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 07:25 PM | Reply

You know, I can't decide which is worse, misogynists or "corporate puppets".

#154 | Posted by Corky

ahaha you're really going to bring back your "if you don't support hillary you must be a misogynist" argument are you?

Yeah good feminists vote for candidates who take bribes from goldman sachs because they have a vagina.

#156 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 07:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#146 To say nothing of potential Russian meddling. IMO< the reason Hillary lost is because Comey came out days before the election and said he was reopening the investigation. Without that--or if Comey had also mentioned Team Trump was under 2 FBI investigations--I believe she would have won. It wouldn't have taken much to flip 45,000 votes in 3 states.

#157 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 07:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If you come up with an argument about how the study was poorly done or theirs or the analysis by multiple news orgs is all wrong, please do get back to us.

It's one of many, Corky, but your slavish recital of it when you get cornered doesn't automatically make it the sole authority on why Hillary lost, which is the point that me, Speak, Gal, Indiana, are trying to make.

The Wesleyan Study and the DNC commissioned Global Strategies Study are also helpful, and focus not on blaming others but on what the Hillary Campaign did wrong.

Someone recently said "One supposes that some people are more interested in justifying their prejudices than learning from the actual history and making policy and presentation changes so the mistakes are not repeated." The article from The Atlantic is all about "justifying prejudices", if you can't see that then we can't help you.

#158 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-08-14 07:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- the DNC officially nominated HRC before California and other states even voted?

Um, because she had enough delegates to win already and she was agoing to be a landslide winner in CA.

You Conspiracy Theorists need some new material.

#159 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 07:28 PM | Reply

You Conspiracy Theorists need some new material.

#159 | Posted by Corky

And you need a new strategy.

YOur old one lost the election and resulted in an american tragedy.

#160 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 07:29 PM | Reply

#156

NO, but thanks for proving yet again that most mycologists don't know that they are. I was referring to your derogatory depiction of me as female, thinkingdimly.

#161 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 07:30 PM | Reply

"How many times do you clintonians have to be reminded that the DNC officially nominated HRC before California and other states even voted? Or the states where independents couldn't vote in closed primaries?"

I'm not a Clintonian, but the fact that you have to call everyone who speaks in anyway positively about her that, is very telling.

How many times do Bernie Bros need to be reminded that Bernie stayed in the race after it was statistical possible for him to win? How many times do they have to be told Bernie won several caucus states only to lose them by wide margins in the following primaries?

#162 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 07:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

NO, but thanks for proving yet again that most mycologists don't know that they are. I was referring to your derogatory depiction of me as female, thinkingdimly.

#161 | Posted by Corky

If you think being female is derogatory that's your problem.

#163 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 07:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Because he's an old white man. And there are a large group of dem voters who have spent a lifetime suffering at the hands of old white men. They couldn't get past his skin color or genitalia to hear his message.
Those voters are concentrated in red states that don't matter in the general election, but they were enough to give the nomination to hillary. They preferred a female puppet of their oppressors over a white male warrior for their interests.

I'm sorry, Speak, but you are misogynist if that is your assessment of why female voters voted for Hillary rather than Bernie.

#164 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 07:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- The Atlantic is all about "justifying prejudices", if you can't see that then we can't help you.

It's all about scientific studies and unraveling motivations. Which is why a rwinger like you has trouble understanding it.

And of course, it reflects the deep racism and xenophobia of your party.

- YOur old one lost the election

Again, your old one, and still your current one, couldn't even win a primary that was much more centrist than the general election... it lost in a 4 million vote landslide.... as many of us thought it would.

#165 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 07:35 PM | Reply

--thanks for proving yet again that most mycologists don't know that they are.

You should lay off the magic mushroom tea.

#166 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-08-14 07:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

#163

You are the one using it as invective, not me.

#167 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 07:36 PM | Reply

#166

You should go back to being the faux Bill Reilly.

Little did we know how accurate a handle that was for you.

#168 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 07:37 PM | Reply

#162 And how many times do I have to remind you of the time during the second presidential debate that Hillary distended her lower jaw and swallowed a live white mouse on national television, then slurped the tail? And I'm the only person I know that remembers that?

Because your brain won't you remember it.

But go ahead and support the War Goddess and Bank Puppet. I'd rather have Trump than her. At least he's somewhat independent, despite his many flaws.

#169 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-14 07:38 PM | Reply

O'Reilly.

#170 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 07:38 PM | Reply

I'm sorry, Speak, but you are misogynist if that is your assessment of why female voters voted for Hillary rather than Bernie.

#164 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

Yeah I'm such a misogynist my first political contribution in my life went to elizabeth warren.

Plenty of hyper feminists were so eager for a female president they overlooked all her weaknesses and picked the worse candidate against trump.

#171 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 07:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

You should lay off the magic mushroom tea.

#166 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2017-08-14 07:35 PM | FLAG:

Go back to digging your bunker against North Korea you flash-fried crackpot.

#172 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-14 07:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Um, because she had enough delegates to win already and she was agoing to be a landslide winner in CA.
You Conspiracy Theorists need some new material.
#159 | POSTED BY CORKY "

That is simply not true unless you are falsely counting super-delegates that hadn't yet voted.

"I'm not a Clintonian, but the fact that you have to call everyone who speaks in anyway positively about her that, is very telling.
How many times do Bernie Bros need to be reminded that Bernie stayed in the race after it was statistical possible for him to win? How many times do they have to be told Bernie won several caucus states only to lose them by wide margins in the following primaries?

#162 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY "

My bad, your DNC-approved defense of her made me assume you are a die-hard like Corky. I guess you forgot about the super-delegates too because Bernie did not stay in the race after it was mathematically impossible to win. It was only mathematically impossible under the false assumption that Clinton already had the votes of all the duper-delegates.

Again, I acknowledge that the party can technically do what it wants, but to call itself "democratic" while behaving as it did is a misnomer.

#173 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-14 07:40 PM | Reply

- I'd rather have Trump than her

Apparently so would a lot of these other supposed liberals.

Teach America a lesson. Trump is what they get if they aren't left enough for Pure Lefty.

- I'm sorry, Speak, but you are misogynist if that is your assessment of why female voters voted for Hillary rather than Bernie.

He must be as he assigns that asinine motivation every time he talks about this. Even earlier in this thread.

#174 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 07:40 PM | Reply

#166 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Christ that is a great comment. Underappreciated.

#175 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-14 07:42 PM | Reply

I wonder how many of you idiots know the difference between misogynist and mycologist.

#176 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-08-14 07:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- hyper feminists

Yet another Warning Sign, lol!

IF you don't agree with his HDS, that's what you MUST be.

#177 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 07:42 PM | Reply

- falsely counting super-delegates that hadn't yet voted.

Um, it was the SDs doing the counting.

#178 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 07:43 PM | Reply

And how many times do I have to remind you of the time during the second presidential debate that Hillary distended her lower jaw and swallowed a live white mouse on national television, then slurped the tail? And I'm the only person I know that remembers that?

It wasn't a live mouse; it was Trump's spare toupee!

"But go ahead and support the War Goddess and Bank Puppet. I'd rather have Trump than her. At least he's somewhat independent, despite his many flaws."

You got a Neo-Nazi enabler and a Putin Puppet. The fact that you think Trump is independent is hilarious. Trump is a slave to his own narcissism.

#179 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 07:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#176

Sir Fuggles Bottomworthy knows! He's drinks Pompous Ass ale!

#180 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 07:44 PM | Reply

He must be as he assigns that asinine motivation every time he talks about this. Even earlier in this thread.

#174 | Posted by Corky

It's less asinine than crying misogyny every time someone insults your corporate puppet.

#181 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 07:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#180

Projecting again I see.

#182 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-14 07:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Um, it was the SDs doing the counting.
#178 | POSTED BY CORKY

No, it was just the news networks. How could the SD's count vote's they haven't cast. Try again.

#183 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-14 07:46 PM | Reply

All I know is that Clinton dropped out in 2008 long before Bernie did in 2016. Why? Because she is a true Democrat and saw the handwriting on the wall.

#184 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 07:46 PM | Reply

I wonder how many of you idiots know the difference between misogynist and mycologist.

#176 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2017-08-14 07:42 PM | FLAG:

Does pointing it out qualify you as a "fun guy?" Should we be tipping our caps to you?

#185 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-08-14 07:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"All I know is that Clinton dropped out in 2008 long before Bernie did in 2016. Why? Because she is a true Democrat and saw the handwriting on the wall.

#184 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY"

That would make sense except that in 2015-16 Bernie was Obama and HRC was still HRC. She should've stepped aside for the greater good again but this time she was determined it was her turn.

#186 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-14 07:48 PM | Reply

All I know is that Clinton dropped out in 2008 long before Bernie did in 2016. Why? Because she is a true Democrat and saw the handwriting on the wall.

#184 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

The true democrat is the one who doesn't take bribe money from bomb makers, insurance companies, big pharma, big banks, monsanto, walmart, and every other evil industry in the country.

Hillary is a plutocrat, not a democrat.

#187 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 07:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

-every time someone uses "her" as invective

Fixed that for you.

And again, to you most everyone in gov is a "corporate puppet", so that's nothing special.

What it does do is make people roll their eyes at the ad nauseum crying Wolf! until it becomes less important than it should be.

Thanks for that.

#188 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 07:49 PM | Reply

I still wonder what her private policy was, the one she only told the bankers. World domination by the Reptoid race? Probably.

#189 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-14 07:50 PM | Reply

- How could the SD's count vote's they haven't cast.

You really don't understands how that voting works. I guess that's a good excuse.

Bernie said the vote was legit. Are you calling him a liar?

#190 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 07:50 PM | Reply

"Apparently so would a lot of these other supposed liberals.
Teach America a lesson. Trump is what they get if they aren't left enough for Pure Lefty."

I lost all respect for folks like Susan Sarandon. Only someone who is privileged, selfish and self-centered could think that maybe having a Trump presidency would be a good thing because it might usher in something better once he was through trashing the country.

#191 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 07:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#182

Let me guess, as rwinger, you are more Pinky than the Brain.

#192 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 07:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

And again, to you most everyone in gov is a "corporate puppet", so that's nothing special.

#188 | Posted by Corky

And to you, since everyone is taking corporate bribe money, then there's nothing wrong with it, and there's no reason to support a candidate who rejects that bribe money when one finally comes along.

Of course the reason the dems stopped turning up to vote is because their party is a pile of transparent sellouts. Give them a non sellout, and they'll show up. Or don't and lose again.

#193 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 07:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"That would make sense except that in 2015-16 Bernie was Obama and HRC was still HRC. She should've stepped aside for the greater good again but this time she was determined it was her turn."

Except Bernie wasn't Obama. The vote totals between Obama and Hillary were closer than the ones between Hillary and Bernie. Also, Obama had the SD votes, Bernie didn't.

#194 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 07:53 PM | Reply

- The true democrat is the one who doesn't take bribe money from bomb makers, insurance companies, big pharma, big banks, monsanto, walmart, and every other evil industry in the country.

Like I said, in Speaksville there are no true Dems, and the world holds few true libs... other than him of course.

#195 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 07:54 PM | Reply

#193 Give it up Speaks, your talking to Corky.

#196 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-14 07:54 PM | Reply

"And again, to you most everyone in gov is a "corporate puppet", so that's nothing special.
#188 | POSTED BY CORKY"

That is because the OG corporate puppets like Clinton have created a political environment that makes being a corporate puppet almost the only way to be a successful politician.

Trump won because he (duped his supporters into thinking he) isn't a corporate puppet. Because he had a history of not being a puppet and had a campaign that was successfully funded without corporate donations, Bernie became popular fast.

I seriously struggle to comprehend why it is so difficult (especially in hindsight) for you to see that she was a weaker candidate than Bernie.

Let's nominate another HRC-type democrat. Doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results is totally healthy and not insane.

#197 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-14 07:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Bernie said the vote was legit. Are you calling him a liar?
#190 | POSTED BY CORKY"

It was once they finally voted but that was after months of the DNC and the media ignoring Bernie's pleas not to count them for HRC until after they voted. I know people personally that didn't vote in the primary because the news were already saying Clinton one. When you have to separate pieces of the puzzle in order to fit your narrative, the pieces don't actually back you up.

#198 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-14 07:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Because he's an old white man. And there are a large group of dem voters who have spent a lifetime suffering at the hands of old white men. They couldn't get past his skin color or genitalia to hear his message.
Those voters are concentrated in red states that don't matter in the general election, but they were enough to give the nomination to hillary. They preferred a female puppet of their oppressors over a white male warrior for their interests."

Dare I say, that comment is also racist? Yes, I dare because it is. Black women gave Hillary the vote in your view because they were too stupid or wounded to recognize what was good for them? Mmmkay. You just doesn't seem to get that some people didn't like Bernie as much as Hillary for legitimate reasons.

#199 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 07:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- And to you, since everyone is taking corporate bribe money, then there's nothing wrong with it,

Glad you admitted I was right about you, but I, like Clinton and most all Dems am against CU and for campaign finance reform. We are just against unilateral disbarment.

I wonder what some of these radical Bernie Bros who refused to listen to hiom after teh primary would have done if he had won the primary and then started taking PAC money because he couldn't win without it?

Harikari?

#200 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 07:59 PM | Reply

We need a democrat who says "fight for 15!", or "tax the rich to balance the budget!", or maybe even "no more Mexican child slave-labor".

That person would get a lot of votes.

#201 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-14 08:02 PM | Reply

- I seriously struggle to comprehend why it is so difficult (especially in hindsight) for you to see that she was a weaker candidate than Bernie.

Well, no surprise there considering your lack of comprehension about the myths you propagate here.

If she was a weaker candidate than Bernie, she would not have won the primary... which, again, was of more centrist and center left voters than the more conservative general election.

#202 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 08:02 PM | Reply

#192 | POSTED BY CORKY

Corky I'm the type of voter the DNC needs and can't get going in a further left direction.

I think for myself and don't vote just for a D or R....

I'm a former republican that has seen the republican's shift to far to the right to bother listening to them anymore.

So when the DNC threatens to do the same I laugh my --- off.

#203 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-14 08:03 PM | Reply

- Dare I say, that comment is also racist? Yes, I dare because it is.

It absolutely is. Although most racists know they are.

- unilateral disbarment.

lol, no that would be about ROC... disarmament.

#204 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 08:05 PM | Reply

- Corky I'm the type of voter the DNC needs and can't get going in a further left direction.

You are like most Indies.... who mostly end up voting Republican

You should explain this to the far left here who think they need to put up a more leftist candidate to get your vote.

Good luck with that!

#205 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 08:07 PM | Reply

Like I said, in Speaksville there are no true Dems, and the world holds few true libs... other than him of course.

#195 | Posted by Corky

And in corky's world it's IMPOSSIBLE to turn down corporate bribe money when it's offered.

And when someone does come along who turns down corporate bribes, they should be attacked as "unrealistic."

People like you are the reason repubs rule the country.

#206 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 08:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

FWIW, my mother is an old white woman who voted for Hillary in the primary in PA. Then she vote for her again in election. She didn't like really Hillary, but she liked Bernie even less and Trump even less than that.

#207 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 08:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- corporate bribes

Sorry, I was drinking every time you said that and I'm 3 sheets to the wind now.

#208 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 08:10 PM | Reply

Also FWIW, black women voters are part of the reason Hillary won in places like NY. Would they have come out for Bernie in the same number as they did for Hillary? I don't know. I think so. They are loyal Democratic voters, and Bernie is going to need them if he is the nominee in 2020. You might consider trashing them less and respecting them a little more.

#209 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 08:12 PM | Reply

#206

People who trashed Clinton in the general and did't follow Bernie's advice about their vote are, as Chomsky said, responsible for all the pain Trump causes.

#210 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 08:12 PM | Reply

He's going to need them in places like PA too. Think about that before you post that racist, misogynist BS about them in the future. And Corky is right: you say that all the time and been doing so for months.

#211 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 08:13 PM | Reply

#205 Wrong Corky. Last few I've looked at the 3rd party people. They've sucked to so haven't bothered to vote.... I'm not even looking for a perfect candidate anymore just one that not completely S@#t which neither side has brought to the table...

#212 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-14 08:14 PM | Reply

#210 Yes. So much much glorious, delicious pain. Like shutting down illegal immigration, renegotiating NAFTA, pulling out of Syria, and putting tariffs on China.

Thank you sir, may I have another?

#213 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-14 08:15 PM | Reply

- Corky I'm the type of voter the DNC needs and can't get going in a further left direction.

I don't see you getting a response, Pinky.

Wonder why?

Could it be that the far left thinks you don't exist?

And are, in fact, among the deciding swing voters?

Or are they just more concerned about the purity of their own ideals rather than compromising just a little and winning elections?

#214 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 08:17 PM | Reply

should be.... When you are in fact, among the deciding swing voters?

#215 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 08:18 PM | Reply

#214 Can't you compromise? Ditch globalism so the working class can recover and stop taking bribes from banks? Jesus.

#216 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-14 08:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hillary is the far left. Bernie just happens to be left of her. But not by far and at least he had a message.

#217 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-14 08:20 PM | Reply

Jesus hates Trump voters.

Cthulhu does too.

#218 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 08:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Like shutting down illegal immigration, renegotiating NAFTA, pulling out of Syria, and putting tariffs on China.

You sound like you think that stuff has actually happened.

#219 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-08-14 08:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- Hillary is the far left.

See what I mean, kids? This is your moderate swing voter.

I rest my case.

#220 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 08:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#216 you nailed it!

#221 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-14 08:23 PM | Reply

President Bill Clinton wasn't as far out there as HRC was, go back towards the center if you want votes.

#222 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-14 08:25 PM | Reply

- corporate bribes

Sorry, I was drinking every time you said that and I'm 3 sheets to the wind now.

#208 | Posted by Corky

If you drank every time hillary took one of them you'd be dead of alcohol poisoning.

#223 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 08:27 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#221

The only thing TRat ever nailed was George Takei, and that was long after the series ended.

#224 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 08:27 PM | Reply

Hillary is the far left. Bernie just happens to be left of her. But not by far and at least he had a message.

#217 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain

YOu can't be far left and give secret speeches to goldman sachs.

I'm sure anyone to the left of the KKK seems "far left" to you.

#225 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 08:28 PM | Reply

#223

That doesn't even border on creative or funny.

You DO owe Pinky an explanation of how a far left candidate is going to win his vote, though.

#226 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 08:29 PM | Reply

People who trashed Clinton in the general and did't follow Bernie's advice about their vote are, as Chomsky said, responsible for all the pain Trump causes.

#210 | Posted by Corky

Poeple who nominated a corporate puppet to run in an anti establishment election are the ones who created the trump presidency. Much like trump, they're now trying to blame others for their mistakes.

#227 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 08:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- Bill Clinton wasn't as far out there as HRC was, go back towards the center if you want votes.

The Pure leftists consider Hillary a far right wing sell out.

They are light years from understanding moderate middle American swing voters.

#228 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 08:32 PM | Reply

#228 Naw, just a regular right wing sellout. To the bankers and the globalists.

#229 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-14 08:33 PM | Reply

#227

Wow, Speaks or Chomsky on voting that helps the progressive cause... I just can't decide...

#230 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 08:33 PM | Reply

Who are you going to vote for in 2020, Corky? Hillary again?

#231 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-14 08:34 PM | Reply

So was she. If that's truly the case Guess DNC is as lost in the wilderness as the GOP..... Great now my hopes go for a solid 3rd party in 2020 then.

#232 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-14 08:36 PM | Reply

#230 Shut up and take your lumps. You voted for an alien telepathic shape-shifter that would have enslaves the Earth!

#233 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-14 08:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Who are you going to vote for in 2020, TRat? Trump again?

And again in 2024 and 2028.... he's another Putin after all.

#234 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 08:36 PM | Reply

#233

Your alien shtick was old after the first 5 mins a couple of years ago.

#235 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 08:38 PM | Reply

They are light years from understanding moderate middle American swing voters.

#228 | Posted by Corky

We have solid PROVEN EVIDENCE that you don't understand middle america's swing voters.

It's called the 2016. Where those swing voters rejected the candidate you insisted on giving them.

So please refrain from giving advice in a subject you clearly suck at.

#236 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 08:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#235 Do you recognize how old your Hillary shtick has gotten here, for everybody?

#237 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-14 08:40 PM | Reply

Wait around, Pinky.

Speaks is going to tell you why Hillary is a rwinger and why you will be voting for Jill Stein next time.

Any moment now....

#238 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 08:41 PM | Reply

#234 I liked Elizabeth Warren's platform. I'll vote for her, or someone like her, in 2020.

#239 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-14 08:41 PM | Reply

--You voted for an alien telepathic shape-shifter that would have enslaves the Earth!

And what's worse, that was her good side!

#240 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-08-14 08:42 PM | Reply

Hillary never would have supported raising taxes on the .01%. Warren does.

#241 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-14 08:43 PM | Reply

- It's called the 2016.

You mean when the lefty candidate lost to the center left candidate in the Dem primary in a landslidem which voters were much more left than the in the general election?

That 2016?

#242 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 08:43 PM | Reply

#234 I liked Elizabeth Warren's platform. I'll vote for her, or someone like her, in 2020.

#239 | Posted by HeliumRat

Many people did. That's why it was a tragedy when she didn't run. She'd be president right now.
If you liked her platform, bernie's was the closest.

#243 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 08:44 PM | Reply

You mean when the lefty candidate lost to the center left candidate in the Dem primary in a landslidem which voters were much more left than the in the general election?

That 2016?

#242 | Posted by Corky

No I mean when fake liberals picked a corporate puppet to offer frustrated anti establishment voters and them blamed their loss on the voters refusing to accept a corporate puppet instead of on their choice of candidate.

#244 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 08:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- Hillary never would have supported raising taxes on the .01%. Warren does.

Liz and Hil agreed on tax policy that raise the rates on 1 percenters, Mr Know Nothing.

www.vox.com

#245 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 08:46 PM | Reply

Someone up thread said Hillary could have won if she had picked a different VP. I wanted her to pick Bernie or barring that Sherrod Brown.

#246 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 08:46 PM | Reply

I also wanted her to pick Elizabeth Warren, but everyone said two women wouldn't fly. I think Liz could have made mincemeat of Pence. LOL

#247 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 08:47 PM | Reply

#244

So, the gen election voters were more liberal voters than the Dem primary voters?

You are thoroughly confused.

Pinky is still waiting for an answer.

#248 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 08:48 PM | Reply

Corky, you know that's just public policy, not private policy. She would have backed her banker pals all the the way through her administration.

#249 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-14 08:51 PM | Reply

If she was a weaker candidate than Bernie, she would not have won the primary... which, again, was of more centrist and center left voters than the more conservative general election.
#202 | POSTED BY CORKY

I love how despite the party admitting to colluding against Bernie and despite it being obvious to anyone paying attention at the time, you still consider her winning the primary some sort of confirmation that she was a stronger candidate.

I love how her illegitimate win is evidence of competence in your mind but trump's is not. Sound logic there.

I really love how one of your go-to offenses against Bernie is that he isn't a real Democrat so "why should the party support him?" even though the biggest block of the electorate is independent.

#250 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-14 08:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

#249

Psychic Helium-soaked Rats, What will they think of next?

#251 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 08:53 PM | Reply

I also wanted her to pick Elizabeth Warren, but everyone said two women wouldn't fly. I think Liz could have made mincemeat of Pence. LOL

#247 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

In all fairness, even Kaine made mincemeat of pence. It was a low bar to hurdle.

#252 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-14 08:53 PM | Reply

Fantasies of Hillary still abound. Sad but not surprising considering the cult following.

#253 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-14 08:55 PM | Reply

- you still consider her winning the primary some sort of confirmation that she was a stronger candidate.

One would be an idiot not to, considering that nothing the DNC might have done even in your most Alex Jones moments would have cost Bernie 4 million votes.

- I really love how one of your go-to offenses against Bernie is that he isn't a real Democrat so "why should the party support him?"

Considering that I've never, ever said that, I would advise you to seek counseling... or at least a jr high level reading comprehension class.

#254 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 08:56 PM | Reply

So, the gen election voters were more liberal voters than the Dem primary voters?

You are thoroughly confused.

Pinky is still waiting for an answer.

#248 | Posted by Corky

The gen election voters you keep crowing about were in irrelevant red states. You spent all your time trying to please voters who don't matter in the general. Congrats. YOu win second place in the general election.

Answer about what?

#255 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 08:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Someone up thread said Hillary could have won if she had picked a different VP. I wanted her to pick Bernie or barring that Sherrod Brown.

#246 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 08:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

I also wanted her to pick Elizabeth Warren, but everyone said two women wouldn't fly. I think Liz could have made mincemeat of Pence. LOL

#247 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

When you're a puppet of the banks, you have to pick another puppet as your VP. The banks can't risk you dying and not having a puppet in the oval office.

#256 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 08:58 PM | Reply

*throws popcorn in the air shakes head wonders off to another thread (muttering obscenities), hands over rest of M&M's to RoC, then places order for a pizza*

#257 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-14 08:59 PM | Reply

#255

Take out her red state wins and Bernie's undemocratic Caucus wins... and she still wins.

And winning more moderate voters is a good thing in a more moderate general election, duh.

-Answer about what?

"Wait around, Pinky.
Speaks is going to tell you why Hillary is a rwinger and why you will be voting for Jill Stein next time.
Any moment now...."

Your perfect opportunity to convince a moderate swing voter how a farther left candidate will win their vote.

Least you could do is try to keep up.

#258 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-14 09:03 PM | Reply

"I seriously struggle to comprehend why it is so difficult (especially in hindsight) for you to see that she was a weaker candidate than Bernie."

Because young people loved Bernie but older people did not

because I thought he was promising the too much and his numbers didn't add up

because I knew Trump would hang the socialist label on him and tell folks Bernie is going to take all your money and give it to everyone else

because I knew Trump would say I am a billionaire business man and Bernie is Jewish socialist who never had a job outside of politics

because no high profile Democrat backed him the way they did Obama, which made me wonder if he was electable and to be trusted (if Warren had backed him, I would have changed my vote)

because I didn't know how he would handle foreign policy

because his supporters were so vicious and dismissive (my bad, shouldn't have held that against him)

I went back and forth between them for months. I decided to vote for him one night while watching a live rally. He said something I found very moving (now I can't remember what) and I thought, "That's it. I'm voting for Bernie." It was a heart decision, but after a few days, my head took over and I decided to vote for Hillary. I wanted both a head and heart candidate like I'd had with Obama but didn't get it.

I still don't know she was the weaker candidate. Bernie is pretty untested, and she took a beating over and over again and still got more in the popular vote. Who could have known about Comey's announcement in advance? Would could have known about the Russian meddling? Who can honestly say they know Bernie would have won? That the Russian meddling wouldn't have impacted him? Good for you if you can. I can't.

#259 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 09:07 PM | Reply

*pokes head in and yells to speaks* I'M FROM A RED STATE. I'm from Omaha so you could have turned it blue even though the rest was red.

*walks away again*

#260 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-14 09:08 PM | Reply

"When you're a puppet of the banks, you have to pick another puppet as your VP. The banks can't risk you dying and not having a puppet in the oval office."

Screw you, Speaks. She wasn't a puppet of the banks, but thanks for playing.

#261 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 09:09 PM | Reply

Take out her red state wins and Bernie's undemocratic Caucus wins... and she still wins.

#258 | Posted by Corky

And still loses the general. Because swing voters pick the president. And they REJECTED your corrupt puppet.

Trump won because he won the swing states, because dems picked the LOSER who SUCKED in the swing states.

If pinky wants to ask me something he can. If you're getting tired of defending your obviously horrible judgement just say so. Don't try and get someone else to tag in for you.

#262 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 09:11 PM | Reply

"Fantasies of Hillary still abound. Sad but not surprising considering the cult following."

Screw you, too, Laura. People who voted for Hillary aren't in a cult. If anything, Bernie's following is more cult like than hers was.

#263 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 09:12 PM | Reply

Screw you, Speaks. She wasn't a puppet of the banks, but thanks for playing.

#261 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

Yeah sure they paid her hundreds of thousands of dollars to show up and sign autographs. Contributed millions to her campaign. Not because they were buying influence. They just like flushing money down the toilet. That's how banks get rich isn't it?

#264 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 09:13 PM | Reply

And Trump's following is the most cult-like of all. Some of them think he is God's gift to this country, literally.

#265 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 09:13 PM | Reply

Hillary would have kept the banking regs Warren advocates in place.

#266 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 09:15 PM | Reply

You girls win. You know everything. Good luck in 2020.

#267 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 09:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hillary would have kept the banking regs Warren advocates in place.

#266 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

Maybe. She'd have more credibility on that if her husband hadn't repealed them resulting in the collapse of the world economy, after taking donations from the same bankers she did.

#268 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 09:17 PM | Reply

"because his supporters were so vicious and dismissive"

Jesus you buy into the HRC propaganda. There were a few crazy bernie supporters but they were just as few and fat between as the crazy Hillary supporters.

"People who voted for Hillary aren't in a cult."

Then stop acting like you are and be objective in criticizing your party's mistakes.

It is sad to see two people on the left recalling the election with as much delusion as the average trump supporter...

#269 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-14 09:26 PM | Reply

Bernie would have gotten the same Democratic votes Hillary did. Along with a lot of independent voters, and voters who didn't like neither Trump nor Hillary.

But. Who knows. Perhaps Trump was always the stronger candidate. Perhaps it was rigged. Perhaps it's a fluke. Perhaps it's all a charade.

What I know is.

If democrats want to move forward they have to figure out how to reclaim middle America.

#270 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-08-14 09:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Bernie would have gotten the same Democratic votes Hillary did. Along with a lot of independent voters, and voters who didn't like neither Trump nor Hillary.

#270 | Posted by ClownShack

Yup. He would have gotten almost all of hillary's votes, PLUS some trump votes, PLUS all the jill stein votes, PLUS some gary johnson votes, PLUS some people who refused to vote.

And chances are we'd have president sanders fighting for the average citizen against the plutocrats, turning this country around.

But noooooo. It's just not "realistic" to nominate someone who isn't on the billionaires' payroll.

#271 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-14 09:41 PM | Reply

"Jesus you buy into the HRC propaganda."

Um, no. I witnessed it myself. I realize now that some of the worst of the Bernie voters were trolls and bots.

"Then stop acting like you are and be objective in criticizing your party's mistakes.
It is sad to see two people on the left recalling the election with as much delusion as the average trump supporter..."

I'm not acting like I'm in a cult. I'm not buying into propaganda. I'm not delusional. Any other insults you'd like to hurl my way?

#272 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 09:45 PM | Reply

"Bernie would have gotten the same Democratic votes Hillary did."

Serious question: why? I'm not sure my mother or sister would have voted for him. My sister liked Hillary but not Bernie. They wouldn't have voted for Trump or voted 3rd party, but I think they might have stayed home.

#273 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 09:49 PM | Reply

Screw you, too, Laura. People who voted for Hillary aren't in a cult. If anything, Bernie's following is more cult like than hers was.

Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 09:12 PM | Reply

Truth hurts Gal and yes Hillary supporters act like they are in a fricking cult. You can't even get them to admit they backed the wrong candidate. You being prime example Gal Tuesday.

#274 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-14 09:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Gal:

Serious question: why?

Well. This is my opinion. So. Take from it what you will.

The states Hillary won in the general election (www.realclearpolitics.com) are what we can consider democratic states. Any nominee running as a democrat would have won them. [This is my opinion.]

But if you look at the Primary map. (www.freerepublic.com) Sanders won the north east and mid west states Hillary lost during the general election. Matter of fact. Looking at the primary map. You can thank the south for nominating Hillary. And again thank them for handing the win to Trump. [Again. Opinion]

#275 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-08-14 10:04 PM | Reply

Thanks, CS. I'll check out your links.

Sorry, Laura, your opinion of me is just that: your opinion. It's not the truth.

#276 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-14 10:09 PM | Reply

A non corporate puppet would have beaten trump.

You can say that 1,000 times and still know absolutely nothing about whether it is true.

Bernie Sanders didn't have a single dollar spent against him on a negative campaign ad. We don't know how well he would have fared. He had a 40-year record of positions further to the left than any Democratic presidential candidate in our lifetimes. That made him a target-rich environment.

#277 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-14 10:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#277 "He had a 40-year record of positions further to the left than any Democratic presidential candidate in our lifetimes."

And that's what made him perfect. If the next democrat candidate is a corporate/banker whore, I swear to God I'll vote Republican again.

#278 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-14 10:16 PM | Reply

Have you guys thought about Scaramucci in 2020? Seriously? He's got the hair, attitude, he's a snappy dresser and he ain't no puppet of the banks...he is the banks. Watch him on Colbert tonight and see the magic for yourselves.

#279 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2017-08-14 10:40 PM | Reply

We'll I guess we can count out Heliumrat ever going for the "Mooch."

#280 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2017-08-14 10:42 PM | Reply

In the Dem primaries where independents voter were aloud to vote for Dem candidates Bernie won.

Bernie Sanders in a recent poll was the most respected candidate in politics today.

as for Bernie not being a Democrat he caucuses with the Dems and he has raised a hell of a lot of money for the Dems.

The hillary people do not want a united Dem party they want to dismiss the progressives as trash and not worth paying attention to then expect them to vote for who they anoint as a candidate

#281 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-08-14 11:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I'm not acting like I'm in a cult. I'm not buying into propaganda. I'm not delusional."

And yet:

"his supporters were so vicious and dismissive"

"I realize now that some of the worst of the Bernie voters were trolls and bots."

So Gal, which is it? Are Bernie supporters all vicious trolls or do you not buy into HRC propaganda? Because it can't be both.

#282 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-14 11:44 PM | Reply

#282 I left a word out of my original post:

"I realize now that some of the worst of the Bernie voters were Russian trolls and bots."

That's not HRC propaganda but something Clint Watt, the ex-FBI guy, has talked about. I wasn't saying that the real Bernie voters were trolls. There were a few, as you yourself point out.

#283 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-15 12:20 AM | Reply

#277 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-

Every article or news report during the Dem primaries started out Socialist Bernie Sanders and yet his poll numbers kept going up, the independent voters liked him more then hillary or trump.

Their really wasnt a lot more to smear him with that the news media already tried to smear Bernie with but didn't stick.

#284 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-08-15 12:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

283: Gal, that's fair.

I'm just trying to make the case that Democrats need us in the party and that means moving left a bit. People, especially young people, no longer have bad associations with far left and socialist ideas. We've seen socialist systems work elsewhere and understand they can be implemented in accordance with democratic values. We believe government should be a catalyst for social and economic progress. The right has completely lost touch with reality and rationality and by definition will succumb to progress eventually. So that's why we make the case the the DNC try something different and bring independent liberals in.

#285 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-15 12:34 AM | Reply

#284; The Right is already trying their best to smear Bernie. Best they have is a baseless fraud case against his wife and the (horrific) notion that Bernie Sanders bought a resplendent and magnanimous mansion in Vermont as a superfluous third home.

In reality he is a septuagenarian on a US Senator's salary that bought a $710,000 house to share with his kids and grandkids. Sorry if I'm being sympathetic to the poorest net positive worth senator but if you can't afford that as a mid-seventies US Senator you are a complete moron.

#286 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-15 12:41 AM | Reply

"It's Not the Economy, Stupid."

This is the single most pithy phrase to sum up the Hillary Clinton campaign, and why she lost, that I've seen. It's almost as if her campaign looked at everything her husband did right tactically during his campaign, and decided to do the exact opposite.

#287 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-08-15 02:19 AM | Reply

For the love of God do NOT shift Left. We need LESS reason to vote another guy in like Trump, not more.

#288 | Posted by humtake at 2017-08-15 11:44 AM | Reply

A non corporate puppet would have beaten trump.

You can say that 1,000 times and still know absolutely nothing about whether it is true.

Bernie Sanders didn't have a single dollar spent against him on a negative campaign ad. We don't know how well he would have fared. He had a 40-year record of positions further to the left than any Democratic presidential candidate in our lifetimes. That made him a target-rich environment.

#277 | POSTED BY RCADE

Repeatable.

And I notice that the radical BBros never responded to the moderate swing voter Pinky, who said that Hillary was the far left and that he'd not vote for Dems if they went farther left next time.

#289 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-15 11:45 AM | Reply

#289 One answered Corky, but thanks for pointing out to them that going further left of HRC is not the answer.

#255 |The gen election voters you keep crowing about were in irrelevant red states. You spent all your time trying to please voters who don't matter in the general. Congrats. YOu win second place in the general election.

That's what I said back

#260 *pokes head in and yells to speaks* I'M FROM A RED STATE. I'm from Omaha so you could have turned it blue even though the rest was red.
*walks away again*

|

#290 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-15 12:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Um, no. I witnessed it myself. I realize now that some of the worst of the Bernie voters were trolls and bots.

#272 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

Literally trolls and bots, paid for by Putin.

Hillary voters fell for russian propaganda just like trump voters did.

#291 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-15 03:29 PM | Reply

And I notice that the radical BBros never responded to the moderate swing voter Pinky, who said that Hillary was the far left and that he'd not vote for Dems if they went farther left next time.

#289 | Posted by Corky a

Well then we should toss aside the millions of swing voters who wanted an outsider in order to please pinky. That's your LOSING (AGAIN) election strategy.

Please everyone gather around and listen to the loser tell us all how to best lose again.

#292 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-15 03:31 PM | Reply

#292

Says the guy who's candidate lost the primary by a landslide while Clinton lost by a statistical fluke.

You really aren't very good at this.

- in order to please pinky.

Who represents millions of swing voters who as moderates considered Hillary the far lefty and Bernie off of the charts.

You should really print out Rcade's post and put it under your pillow. Osmosis is underrated.

#293 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-15 03:41 PM | Reply

Trump would have painted Bernie as a political insider:

Bernie Sanders is an American politician who has been the junior United States Senator from Vermont since 2007.

Previous offices: Representative, VT At-large District (1991–2007), Mayor of Burlington (1981–1989)

From the early 1980's until today Bernie has been a politician dependent on the government's payroll while Trump was the bigshot, billionaire businessman out there creating jobs and making amazing deals (as Trump would have framed the contest between the two).

#294 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-15 03:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#294;

What is your point? Speaks has said many times that you aren't going to convince the rabid trump supporters, the only ones that would fall for that junk.

And do you really think "Bernie is a political insider" is a good argument for Clinton?

#295 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-15 03:51 PM | Reply

"Literally trolls and bots, paid for by Putin.
Hillary voters fell for russian propaganda just like trump voters did."

Yes, trolls and bots and fake news, paid for by Putin, and fell for by voters of all stripes, including some Bernie voters who fell for some of the fake news stories about Hillary.

#296 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-15 04:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Says the guy who's candidate lost the primary by a landslide while Clinton lost by a statistical fluke.

You really aren't very good at this.

- in order to please pinky.

Who represents millions of swing voters who as moderates considered Hillary the far lefty and Bernie off of the charts.

You should really print out Rcade's post and put it under your pillow. Osmosis is underrated.

#293 | Posted by Corky

Says the guy whose candidate would have beaten trump while clinton couldnt even beat a guy who bragged about sexual assault on video tape.

YOU WERE WRONG. You don't understand swing voters. You dismiss all trump voters as racist morons instead of admitting the blatant truth that many of them only voted for trump because clinton was worse in their eyes. A reality you have to continue to pretend doesnt exist so you can blame the loss on other people instead of your own idiotic strategy of sucking up to billionaires for cash.

Go join the repub party with clinton's donors and help ruin their next election instead of ours.

#297 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-15 04:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

www.youtube.com

This is what this thread looks like..... Sigh

#298 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-15 04:16 PM | Reply

"What is your point? Speaks has said many times that you aren't going to convince the rabid trump supporters, the only ones that would fall for that junk."

If only rabid Trump supporters fell for that junk, Trump wouldn't be president.

#299 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-15 04:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

= YOU WERE WRONG.

Yes, you were. But Bernie and most of the Bros got over it. I know it doesn't seem like it now, but someday so will you! * No Warranty or Guarantees Available

- whose candidate would have beaten trump

Only in your pea brain is that a sure thing.

"You can say that 1,000 times and still know absolutely nothing about whether it is true.

Bernie Sanders didn't have a single dollar spent against him on a negative campaign ad. We don't know how well he would have fared. He had a 40-year record of positions further to the left than any Democratic presidential candidate in our lifetimes. That made him a target-rich environment."

And he would have been the first person in our history to have lost his primary and won the Presidency. Odds are against that.

By the way, if you ever address the last sentence... or even the next one, hell might actually freeze over.

"And I notice that the radical BBros never responded to the moderate swing voter Pinky, who said that Hillary was the far left and that he'd not vote for Dems if they went farther left next time."

You can't see the trees of the actual swing voter electorate out there for the forest of your far left perspective.

#300 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-15 04:23 PM | Reply

Speaks has said many times that you aren't going to convince the rabid trump supporters, the only ones that would fall for that junk."
If only rabid Trump supporters fell for that junk, Trump wouldn't be president.

#299 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY|

Did you stroke out while typing that? How would trump supporters believing in propaganda against Bernie Sanders have helped trump lose? You seriously are delusional.

"- whose candidate would have beaten trump "
Only in your pea brain is that a sure thing.
"You can say that 1,000 times and still know absolutely nothing about whether it is true.
Bernie Sanders didn't have a single dollar spent against him on a negative campaign ad. We don't know how well he would have fared. He had a 40-year record of positions further to the left than any Democratic presidential candidate in our lifetimes. That made him a target-rich environment."

#300 | POSTED BY CORKY

But we do know Hillary lost, so why you think continuing a definitive losing strategy is a better than trying a new one (that worked for the Right, mind you) is lunacy. Especially considering how much the party was warned that she'd be a terrible candidate. At this point I could show you that a road is closed and the two of you still wouldn't believe it if you touched the "road closed" sign...

#301 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-15 04:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- a definitive losing strategy

Because rational people don't Panic! at a statistical fluke of a loss. Tweaking policy and presentation are called for, thinking that all the swing voters out there like Pinky are panting after a far left agenda that also aides the multi-cultural demographic they fear is not.

You weren't as self-destructive as Speaks to not vote for Clinton, try not to be as blind to what policies might actually win the election and came within a fraction of doing so last time.

Bernie would have been damn lucky to get that close last time, and would have more likely been George McGovern Part Deux.

#302 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-15 04:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Bottom line, IMO, the reason Hillary lost is that Bernie didn't do as good a job convincing his voters to vote for her as she did convincing her voters to vote for Obama in 2008. What really strikes me in these discussions is how much for granted Bernie supporters take Hillary supporters. They always assume Clinton voters would have voted for him. Period. No questions asked.

I find this odd for 2 reasons: 1) Bernie voters who voted for Stein didn't stay loyal to the Democratic party, but they assume they are the only D voters who wouldn't have not fallen into line if their candidate wasn't the nominee; and 2) Hillary voters were not shoo-ins to vote for Obama in '08. As an Obama voter, I remember it well. Many Hillary voters, including some of my good friends, were mighty pissed at Obama and his supporters. It wasn't until Hillary gave a very convincing and moving speech, throwing her support behind Obama and asking her supporters to do so as well, that many of them began to calm down and consider voting for him. It was at that time that a number of those black women voters Speak likes to trash said that Hillary had won them over and why they stayed loyal to her in this election (according to some interviews with them I've seen).

If Bernie had as gracefully and convincingly endorsed Clinton as Clinton endorsed Obama, she would likely have picked up those 45,000 she needed in 3 states. He didn't; she didn't. And now some Bernie voters, who act like Clinton lost by 3 million votes, want Hillary voters to reject their former vote(s), keep their mouths shut and show up for Bernie in 2020. If they could get rid of Hillary voters, who they're still pissed at, they would, but they can't, because they need their future votes for Bernie.

And some of us will willingly do just that. I will. RCade has said he will. I still hold a grudge against Bernie for his half-heart Clinton endorsement but that won't stop me from voting for him if he is the D nominee, because I want what's best for the country and won't sabotage the Democratic nominee, no matter who s/he is. I can't, however, speak for other people.

#303 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-15 04:54 PM | Reply

"- a definitive losing strategy
Because rational people don't Panic!"

You aren't rational if you are unwilling to acknowledge deficits in your plan. Sanders proposed an adapted plan that resonates with middle-class America. You, Gal, HRC, and the DNC all choose to ignore it.

Warren is proposing an adapted plan; the basis of this entire thread. You, Gal, HRC, and the DNC all choose to ignore it.

The country's majority is moving left, so the DNC's plan is to move further right? Lunacy.

#304 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-15 04:55 PM | Reply

You said: "Speaks has said many times that you aren't going to convince the rabid trump supporters, the only ones that would fall for that junk."

I said: Some non-rabid Trump voters could also fall for it, and those folks could have helped Trump beat Bernie.

I can tell you love calling me delusion. Whatever floats your boat.

#305 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-15 05:02 PM | Reply

#303;

Obama bent over backwards to keep Hillary and her supporters close. Hillary did everything she could to demonize Bernie and his supporters. If she wasn't a corporate sellout, she would've extended the VP spot to Bernie.

The notion that Bernie is at fault for Hillary's unwillingness to attract independents is more willful ignorance on your part.

"Would Hillary's voters even vote for Sanders?"

Against trump? I believe they keep claiming to be pragmatic, so yes. They would have.

You are too blinded by your love of the idea of president Hillary to critically analyze the election. I pray we can still take control of the house in 2018 despite the voter alienation efforts democrats like you and Corky push.

#306 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-15 05:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Obama bent over backwards to keep Hillary and her supporters close. Hillary did everything she could to demonize Bernie and his supporters. If she wasn't a corporate sellout, she would've extended the VP spot to Bernie."

They didn't think so. I wish she had picked Bernie.

"The notion that Bernie is at fault for Hillary's unwillingness to attract independents is more willful ignorance on your part."

I didn't say Independents, I said Democrats.

"Against trump? I believe they keep claiming to be pragmatic, so yes. They would have."

I said that, but that's not how all Hillary voters felt.

"You are too blinded by your love of the idea of president Hillary to critically analyze the election."

I wasn't in love with Hillary or a Hillary presidency. If Warren or Biden had been in the race, I would have voted for one of them.

"I pray we can still take control of the house in 2018 despite the voter alienation efforts democrats like you and Corky push."

I pray so too, and I've been trying to point out how some of you are alienating Hillary voters, but you are too blind to see that.

#307 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-15 05:12 PM | Reply

Because rational people don't Panic! at a statistical fluke of a loss.

#302 | Posted by Corky

10 years of dem losses and repub gains isn't a statistical fluke stupid.

It's democrats losing support because they're too busy worried about donors and being the PC police than fighting against plutocracy.

#308 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-15 05:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"I wasn't in love with Hillary or a Hillary presidency. If Warren or Biden had been in the race, I would have voted for one of them."

Read that Corky. Then reread it a thousand times.

Give swing voters a candidate who will credibly fight for them and they'll vote dem.

Give them a corrupt puppet and they'll not vote, or vote for trump.

#309 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-15 06:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I pray so too, and I've been trying to point out how some of you are alienating Hillary voters, but you are too blind to see.

It's amazing they fail to see that, considering how long they complained about it being done to them. But it's easier to tear down than to build up. The Berniecrats have yet to show they can be a winning coalition.

#310 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-15 06:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The Berniecrats have yet to show they can be a winning coalition.

#310 | Posted by rcade

While hillary and her coalition of bankers and pharmas have PROVEN they're a losing coalition.

#311 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-15 06:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

You had a chance to convince us that Bernie can build a winning coalition.

Instead, you attacked Hillary, and by extension those of us who voted for her.

I guess you don't think Bernie is up to the task.

#312 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-15 06:35 PM | Reply

You had a chance to convince us that Bernie can build a winning coalition.

Instead, you attacked Hillary, and by extension those of us who voted for her.

I guess you don't think Bernie is up to the task.

#312 | Posted by rcade

We'll never find out will we?
Dem nominees must present realistic totally balanced budgets and accept bribes from billionaires to be considered "realistic".
Repubs can promise the moon and get nominated then elected.

While you fools argue AGAINST your inspirational candidates, the repubs nominate theirs and win.

#313 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-15 06:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You had a chance to convince us that Bernie can build a winning coalition.
#312 | POSTED BY RCADE"

True; we had a slim and short chance because the HRC political machine was in full force to shut us up and make sure the word did not spread.

All we asked for was a fair chance.

#314 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-15 06:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We'll never find out will we?

Bernie acts like he wants to run in 2020. He's the most prominent leader on the Democratic side. Maybe it's time you started acting like someone who wants Bernie or a hand-picked Bernie candidate to be the next president.

#315 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-15 07:03 PM | Reply

All we asked for was a fair chance.

Bernie had a fair shot. He lost pledged delegates because he didn't appeal to enough Democratic voters. This excuse-making mentality isn't going to turn him into a winner in 2020.

Looking backwards and attacking Democrats isn't going to help either.

Your side needs to start acting like the majority of the party, because you probably are.

#316 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-15 07:04 PM | Reply

"Maybe it's time you started acting like someone who wants Bernie or a hand-picked Bernie candidate to be the next president."
#315 | POSTED BY RCADE

"Maybe it's time you started acting like someone who wants [a democrat] or a hand-picked [strong] candidate to be the next president."

If only the HRC diehards would heed their own advice...

#317 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-15 07:06 PM | Reply

Bernie had a fair chance and Dem primary voters decided against him... by a landslide 4 million votes... which landslide should preclude all the whiny conspiracy theories AND the complete nonsense that he would have unquestionably won the general election.

No one has ever done that before, and Bernie, as Rcade pointed out, never faced from Clinton the kind of tarring he would have gotten from Trump.

It appears that what some few radical butt-hurt BBros want next time is for the DNC to go behind closed doors and pick the leftier candidate who didn't win that primary either.

#318 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-15 07:08 PM | Reply

If only the HRC diehards would heed their own advice...

This makes no sense. Hillary is old news. She's not going to be the nominee in 2020. She's not the one with the strong connection to today's DNC leaders. Bernie is.

#319 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-15 07:08 PM | Reply

This makes no sense. Hillary is old news. She's not going to be the nominee in 2020. She's not the one with the strong connection to today's DNC leaders. Bernie is.

Posted by rcade at 2017-08-15 07:08 PM | Reply

Are You sure she's old news??? Word is she's planning on running AGAIN ughhhhhhh in 2020.

#320 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-15 07:10 PM | Reply

"If only the HRC diehards would have heeded that advice..."

There RCADE, I fixed it for you.

HRC and DWS made it very clear they were more concerned with the historical hail-mary of making Clinton the first female president than they were winning the election in 2016.

I hope the first female president comes incident to her elect-ability. Perhaps Warren or Duckworth.

#321 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-15 07:31 PM | Reply

- more concerned with the historical hail-mary of making Clinton the first female president than they were winning the election in 2016.

The fading whiny cry of the butt-hurt red crested BroJay.

#322 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-15 07:37 PM | Reply

HRC and DWS made it very clear they were more concerned with the historical hail-mary of making Clinton the first female president than they were winning the election in 2016.

This is stupid. Hillary carried out a strategy to win the election. Just because it failed doesn't mean she wasn't trying to win.

You Berniecrats aren't giving me much hope that a candidate from the left (instead of the center-left) can build a winning coalition in 2020. It's a crying shame. Bernie doesn't bash Hillary all the time. He doesn't make excuses. He's trying to build momentum and grow the movement.

#323 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-15 07:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Are we thinking Bernie should be anointed the nominee in 2020 and that no other potential candidates need apply? Or are we open to other possibilities?

#324 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-15 07:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Just because it failed doesn't mean she wasn't trying to win.
- Well duh, but when her followers on this site are adamant that that strategy was a winning strategy, we run into a problem. DO they want to win an election or do they want to repeat 2016?

You Berniecrats aren't giving me much hope that a candidate from the left (instead of the center-left) can build a winning coalition in 2020.
- Can you elaborate why? You've repeated that statement and I too fear it is true. As myself and Speak have been illustrating, the center HRC people are unwilling to form a coalition. Instead of expanding the party to win, the want to retain control and lose.

Are we thinking Bernie should be anointed the nominee in 2020 and that no other potential candidates need apply? Or are we open to other possibilities?
- I don't think it should be that way, but (as evident by your previous comments on this thread) that is clearly the way you wish parties choose their nominees.

#325 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-15 07:59 PM | Reply

I thought Warren was part Native American not Cossack.

#326 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-08-15 08:02 PM | Reply

#325

Do you see anyone else using Bold here, newby?

- I thought

Stopped reading there after I saw the poster name. Knew it wasn't true.

#327 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-15 08:05 PM | Reply

#327, nice appeal to seniority attempt. Not my fault you're too stupid to know basic HTML.

How about you contribute to the conversation with something other than "4 million votes"?

#328 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-15 08:50 PM | Reply

Bernie acts like he wants to run in 2020. He's the most prominent leader on the Democratic side. Maybe it's time you started acting like someone who wants Bernie or a hand-picked Bernie candidate to be the next president.

#315 | Posted by rcade

Hows that going to happen when the DNC consensus is to continue their losing strategy of picking corporate puppets?

Bernie was borderline too old in 2016, he's definitely too old for 2020. But I'd take a senile bernie over a sane clinton. He's been proven right on every issue she got embarrassingly wrong.

#329 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-15 10:03 PM | Reply

This is stupid. Hillary carried out a strategy to win the election. Just because it failed doesn't mean she wasn't trying to win.

You Berniecrats aren't giving me much hope that a candidate from the left (instead of the center-left) can build a winning coalition in 2020. It's a crying shame. Bernie doesn't bash Hillary all the time. He doesn't make excuses. He's trying to build momentum and grow the movement.

#323 | Posted by rcade

The bashing can stop when moronic dems stop acting like they did nothing wrong in 2016.

If she were running again, against a real liberal, bernie would resume his bashing. He only stopped pointing out what a corporate sellout she is once the choice was between her and trump. He was saying to pick the lesser evil. He wasn't saying being a corporate sellout is now just fine. It's simply better than being trump.

#330 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-08-15 10:06 PM | Reply

Hows that going to happen when the DNC consensus is to continue their losing strategy of picking corporate puppets?

This question is based on a false premise. The DNC chair and deputy chair are strong Bernie allies. Bernie has appeared together on TV with them many times since they were elected.

Your side took over and you still can't stop bashing the DNC. At this point you're bashing yourself.

#331 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-16 08:50 AM | Reply

www.google.com

I know this is an old article

Corky was the only one that tried to answer the question. Or saw that it was a problem.

Who here really thinks that all the independents want a further left candidate?

Its the biggest growing block of voters. Because both political parties are going to far to the edge of what the base wants.

#332 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-16 09:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Who here really thinks that all the independents want a further left candidate?

Most independents are not really independents. They're people who almost always vote for one party but are not happy with it.

Polls have shown they aren't all centrists who want center-left over left and center-right over right.

If the Democrats put a left candidate up who offered a strong alternative to Trump and a believable vision for change, that person could win.

Centrists are tied to the status quo. This isn't an electorate eager for the status quo.

#333 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-16 09:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Trump is the result of the political pendulum swinging violently to the far right. Since history always repeats itself, the pendulum has a lot of momentum to swing to the far left. The only thing that would prevent this is Trump moderating his speech and actions(which I do not think is even possible). As always, the 80% in the middle get cut to ribbons when the pendulum swings from one radical wing to the other.

#334 | Posted by Daniel at 2017-08-16 10:16 AM | Reply

I'll give you that. The status quo is stale, and doesn't listen.

But they did break away from the parties for a reason. IMO It's mainly because they are tired of the same C@#p candidates being offered. Both R's & D's should be worried they are losing people. Now like with me and many I know, it's the extremes Polls that the R's & D's have gone off in.

#335 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-16 10:36 AM | Reply

Centrists are tied to the status quo. This isn't an electorate eager for the status quo.

#333 | POSTED BY RCADE

That's what I've been trying to say for months.

#336 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-08-16 11:10 AM | Reply

The bashing can stop when moronic dems stop acting like they did nothing wrong in 2016.

Bears repeating.

#337 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-08-16 11:33 AM | Reply

- too stupid to know basic HTML.

No, dumbass. Bold type is against the policies here.

#338 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-16 11:50 AM | Reply

- Most independents are not really independents.

This is true, however, swing voters that actually will vote D or R depending on the candidate and the policies, no matter how they are registered, have given us a nearly all GOP government.

Which, unfortunately, doesn't bode well for a far left candidate.

#339 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-16 12:15 PM | Reply

--Bold type is against the policies here.

Guess your little buddy, HTML Hans, didn't get the memo.

#340 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-08-16 12:19 PM | Reply

#340 |

Ah, Trump's Poodle speaks.

Hans made a point using your own words, which you then declared wasn't really a point... after having whined about him using your own words.

Why you would want to bring up Hans is kinda weird.

#341 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-16 12:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I thought..." - #326 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-08-15 08:02 PM

There is absolutely no evidence to support that claim.

#342 | Posted by Hans at 2017-08-16 01:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

No, dumbass. Bold type is against the policies here.
#338 | POSTED BY CORKY

"The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote."

Are you really this stupid, Corky?

#343 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-16 01:44 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

That must be a change, as Bold was prohibited previously.

At any rate, only Drama Qu....er, Majors use it.

#344 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-16 01:46 PM | Reply

#344

Bold has been allowed here as long as I can remember. And I've been here as long as you have.

#345 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-08-16 02:33 PM | Reply

Bold has been allowed here as long as I can remember. And I've been here as long as you have.

Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-08-16 02:33 PM | Reply

Yes Sir.

#346 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-08-16 02:35 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort