I was refering to the last election though. It's obvious 2008 Obama was a different beast to anyone. That was a huge movement, than not even Sanders came close to reaching.

pretty relevant to this thread

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-nominee-compares-lgbt-behavior-pedophilia-n796261

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Lol, Hillary was a terrible candidate. Can Hillary supporters still not see that? Neither Bernie nor Biden would've lost the Mid West or Penn. Even a 3rd term Obama would've won. I think she would have been a competent president but she was, and has always been, a horrible candidate.

The DNC ran a coronation and this is what they got in return, a significant amount of democrats not being able to stomach voting for Hillary and not showing up to vote.

Would they have stomached Sanders? A guy who wasn't, and isnt, a democrat at all in the general election?

People would have just stayed home, especially in the heartland when the GOP would have classed Bernie as a kook who was a "communist".

Betty La Fea wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Lol, Hillary was a terrible candidate. Can Hillary supporters still not see that? Neither Bernie nor Biden would've lost the Mid West or Penn. Even a 3rd term Obama would've won. I think she would have been a competent president but she was, and has always been, a horrible candidate.

The DNC ran a coronation and this is what they got in return, a significant amount of democrats not being able to stomach voting for Hillary and not showing up to vote.

Would they have stomached Sanders? A guy who wasn't, and isnt, a democrat at all in the general election?

People would have just stayed home, especially in the heartland when the GOP would have classed Bernie as a kook who was a "communist".

But that's just the point. I don't know how old you guys are, but I've followed presidential elections and the preceding primaries more or less closely since 2000.
I've never encountered a democratic primary that was so depopulated.
Basically, noone was running against Hillary because after the big Obama vs Hillary showdown in 2008 (aka first black vs first woman), the general feeling transported by the party was that Hillary was automatic. It was now 'her turn'.
As BC says, a coronation.

Usually, there are about half a dozen relatively 'serious' (i.e. establishment-acceptable) candidates in a primary.
This time there was NONE.
A couple of guys who's name I don't even remember, and Bernie who is as you rightly point out, a 'fringe' candidate - independent, even self-described 'socialist'- that's the role someone like Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich had in earlier primaries. Weirdo clowns for the mainstream media in the primary circus, politically merely adding a few policy points to the TV debates before dropping out.

The fact that Bernie's campaign was such a surprising success is quite simply down to the fact that not just for the center-left to left wing of the party (which has grown considerably with the financial crisis and the youth outreach of the Obama years), but then also for the blue collar Hillary haters, Bernie was the ONLY guy running.

Btw this is not meant to dismiss the validity of his political arguments and positions, but as a candidate in the 2-year-24-hours-a-day reality circus show that is the US presidential election, Bernie's role only grew this large because THERE WAS NO ONE ELSE. If someone like Elisabeth Warren, or I don't know, Russ Feingold, had run, would Bernie have been the guy to emerge as the main left wing representative? I don't think so.

Yeah except Russ couldn't even win in WI. Fair play to him, WI turned red this election but it still doesn't instill any confidence that he would be able to get any traction on the national stage if he couldn't get traction here.

On the other hand, on the Dem side, people here LOVED Bernie. Hillary was not very popular. Bernie ended up winning Michigan against Hillary as well.

Hillary did win Penn and Ohio, however, the notion that Bernie would have ceded the Midwest because of his "socialist" connotations...I don't think so. I think it's a valid argument to argue he would have been more competitive in WI, MI and Penn. Whether it would have worked out that way in reality, I know not

People in the Midwest are simple but they aren't fools and what they like more than anything is an authentic candidate. Bernie was that authentic candidate. People could tell how fake Hillary was, and it didn't sit right with them. Why did Trump do so well? This is part of it.

Hillary is not only someone who was senator of NY, an East coast state, but was first lady and came from the north side of Chicago iirc. People like her...a lot of Midwesterners can tell when someone is coming in to screw them over, and Hillary was the kind of candidate people who seemed like that.

pic.twitter.com/IeV5w3YzQR

— Sarah Silverman (@SarahKSilverman) 8 września 2017

Yes Sarah. The fires weren't started by teenagers with fireworks, not at all. It's all Trump's fault.

Vote for a goverment that doesnt start fires and cause hurricanes. Beautiful message.

You're kidding right?

You really can't read that tweet properly?


Trump wants to slash funding for preventive measures for natural disasters despite it being scientifically proven that it happens more frequently ever and will continue in that direction. Not only that, he doesn't want to limit CO2 emissions which will result in natural disasters continually getting worse.

Forest fires and the escalation of their severity is also a result of climate change and the lack of rain in these areas resulting in long droughts, which increase the chance of lightnings or any little mistake with fire to set everything ablaze.


To deny there's a need for a political stance and initiative to prevent these natural disasters is just comical.

I think you're the one who is kidding. Cutting CO2 emissions will do absolutely nothing if a bunch of kids decides to play with fireworks near a forest. It's a pathetic reason to fuel your political agenda.

Either way, what preventive measures can you introduce to stop wildfires? The fires are mostly caused by human error/activity, so if someone decides to make a fire under stars in the middle of a forest, no preventive measure can stop a tragedy from happening. Same goes for when a lighting strikers, no matter how much you cut CO2 emission, you can't stop it.

Same goes for hurricanes. You can get prepared for when it occures, but you cannot prevent it from happening.

Blaming everything of this on Trump is just blind hatred. He is an awful president but this is going too far. Celebrities living in a bubble like Sarah should just stop talking shit like this.

And shit like this.

Your questions have already been answered in the post you were replying to, ironically. What you can do to prevent fires is not slash funding for preventive measures. And sure, idiots will always start forest fires, but you can keep those from spreading so quickly, and so far.

And yes, hurricanes happen with or without climate change (not even climate scientists dare speculate all too much about how climate change interacts with the storm seasons), but cutting funds for FIMA and the EPA, as well as appointing people who hate those organizations to run them, isn't helping.

Just look back at what happened to New Orleans, many people nowadays agree that it could've gone much better if FIMA hadn't been run by some old drinking buddy of Dubbya, when even his dad, H.W. Bush, and Obama, and Clinton all managed to restrain their idiocy and appoint a technocrat to a non-political position in a government bureau, as you well should.
Partisan hacks are for your cabinet, the heads of departments and actual institutions should be career technocrats with decades of experience in their chosen field.

Trump stands against competence at it's very core.

Do you believe climate change is real Myesats? Regardless of Trump, Left wing Right wing, Refugees, Immigrants etc

VivaStPauli wrote:Your questions have already been answered in the post you were replying to, ironically. What you can do to prevent fires is not slash funding for preventive measures. And sure, idiots will always start forest fires, but you can keep those from spreading so quickly, and so far.

And yes, hurricanes happen with or without climate change (not even climate scientists dare speculate all too much about how climate change interacts with the storm seasons), but cutting funds for FIMA and the EPA, as well as appointing people who hate those organizations to run them, isn't helping.

Just look back at what happened to New Orleans, many people nowadays agree that it could've gone much better if FIMA hadn't been run by some old drinking buddy of Dubbya, when even his dad, H.W. Bush, and Obama, and Clinton all managed to restrain their idiocy and appoint a technocrat to a non-political position in a government bureau, as you well should.
Partisan hacks are for your cabinet, the heads of departments and actual institutions should be career technocrats with decades of experience in their chosen field.

Trump stands against competence at it's very core.

To be honest I'm not aware of the ins and outs & I don't follow US' politics that much right now as it doesnt affect me. I just thought Sarah's tweet was a stretch because it does seem like it at first glance &  it's kind of misleading. Obviously Trump is not fit for his position, that can not be denied, but I doubt his opponent would be either. And we don't need to make up stories so it seems like Trump is a bad person because he's doing enough himself to support that claim.

Nishankly wrote:Do you believe climate change is real Myesats? Regardless of Trump, Left wing Right wing, Refugees, Immigrants etc

Yes, of course.

Hillary is a joke lmao. Her book is basically her blaming 334234 people on why she lost.

I don't get it, too, she's got a great track record as a senator, and some really impressive successes under her belt. To go all sour and petty over losing a presidential election, when she really shouldn't even have been the nominee... Meh.
TBH this book is exactly what her opponents would've predicted.

This book is exactly why people didn't like her

Honestly who didn't see Clinton using her massive failure and popularity post election as an opportunity to make some cash? And who didn't see her blaming everyone except herself on losing to a reality TV star?

Everything about her screams plastic opportunism. Presidential campaigns in the modern age (in the US) are less about policy and more about personality and appeal as a person. I'm not saying policy isn't important, it certainly is and those more educated voters care about it. Educated voters aren't the majority though. Look at Obama. On the surface level (which is what most people see and care about) he is one of the most presidential, yet also likeable and cool presidents of all time, and people loved it. Throw in a catchy campaign slogan that isn't about him ("Change" etc as opposed to "I'm with HER" which again people will interpret as Clinton throwing the fact that she has a vagina in your face for the 500th time) and you see why he had such a mass appeal.

I'm not saying anything enlightening here so I'll stop, but if Dems want to win an election and continue to put out centrist politicians, they need look no further than Cory Booker: educated black man who played football in college and has run into burning buildings to save people before, combined with a likeable personality and a highly involved use of twitter

RealGunner wrote:Hillary is a joke lmao. Her book is basically her blaming 334234 people on why she lost.

The lack of any accountability and self awareness is really shocking. You would think she would have a little more perspective about why she lost rather than just "yeah I could've done a bit better to connect with people". She's taking away all the wrong lessons.

CBarca wrote:If Dems want to win an election and continue to put out centrist politicians, they need look no further than Cory Booker: educated black man who played football in college and has run into burning buildings to save people before, combined with a likeable personality and a highly involved use of twitter

Yep, centrist candidate with credibility like Booker (love that guy btw) and a social justice warrior running mate to rake in the blue collar vote, like maybe Lizzy Warren, and it's done and dusted.

Let's not forget that Clintons running mate was bland as hell as well.

The more important part for dems, independently of who gets the nomination, is to have a real exchange of ideas through the primary system, not an overwhelming favorite + 2 nobodies.

Anyways I think that Donald will be an 8 year president.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:The more important part for dems, independently of who gets the nomination, is to have a real exchange of ideas through the primary system, not an overwhelming favorite + 2 nobodies.

Anyways I think that Donald will be an 8 year president.

Out of curiosity, why do you think this?

I don't personally have the same optimism the guys at Reddit do (literally every new Monday: "wow, I can tell something CRAZY is about to drop this week, bet Trump doesn't last much longer), but there is an ongoing investigation which, from the outside looking in...hasn't exactly looked great for Trump. His approval rating is historically low, his term has been marred by mishaps, scandals and leaks so far and he still hasn't managed to pass any major legislation. He openly fights with congressional Republicans who don't seem to respect him at all and it's hard for him to work with Dems because...why would they?

Most importantly of all but for some reason not being talked about in much detail, not only is Trump's approval rating sub-40 already in general, it's sub 40 in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. 538 has written about how support for him is slipping among his base (turning into reluctant voters) and it's apparent among his most important states.

Now put him up against any candidate who isn't Clinton.

Incumbents have an advantage but assuming the Donald can make it to 4 years...I think he loses honestly. Mind, there is a lot of time between now and then.

I honestly don't think Donald Trump will be alive in 8 years. No one with such an unhealthy life style survives at that age.

He also won't be reelected. Too many voters have already regretted their votes to vote for him again.

I just don't see a change in people's opinion of him. Those that voted for him still would.

Of course there could be more indeps/apolitical people that would normally be adverse to voting that might come out to vote against him, which would alter the electoral math, but for all his scandals you would think you would see at least some people being like "yeah, I might have made a mistake on that one"

BarrileteCosmico wrote:I just don't see a change in people's opinion of him. Those that voted for him still would.

Of course there could be more indeps/apolitical people that would normally be adverse to voting that might come out to vote against him, which would alter the electoral math, but for all his scandals you would think you would see at least some people being like "yeah, I might have made a mistake on that one"

I don't think the ones who voted for him still would tbh. A lot of them would. But there has been so many who regretted their votes. I don't think that's the case for people who voted against Trump.

Freeza wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:I just don't see a change in people's opinion of him. Those that voted for him still would.

Of course there could be more indeps/apolitical people that would normally be adverse to voting that might come out to vote against him, which would alter the electoral math, but for all his scandals you would think you would see at least some people being like "yeah, I might have made a mistake on that one"

I don't think the ones who voted for him still would tbh. A lot of them would. But there has been so many who regretted their votes. I don't think that's the case for people who voted against Trump.

This is my take. In fact I think people who didn't vote will be fired up to vote against him in 2020. They saw what happened in 2016 and didn't find it conceivable, I think they'll come out for a Dem who isn't Hillary.

But more than that, I think he's losing voters. This is why I specifically outlined his approval in MI, WI and Penn. These are the voters he NEEDS to do well with. These are the people who said " *bleep* it let's get some change in here". And these are the people who have been most disappointed. Trump is not doing well in purple states and sure those in Arkansas, Mississippi etc are going to vote for him anyway, but there are A LOT of voters in WI, MI etc who voted for him, judging him on how he does and potentially not voting or going the other way next election. I can see my father, for example, doing this if the Dem is sufficiently centrist like Cory Booker.

So this just happened a few mins ago live on CNN. pic.twitter.com/hmTdhBd59X

— Dylan (@DylansFreshTake) September 15, 2017