Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
His voice gets on my nerves. Just like Hillary's pathetic screech. They should marry each other.
I can see greedy Jill Stein using the money she duped her donators out of... to pay for her campaign. Stein is much hated for being a nobody ....who bilked believers out of money. Nobody is going to forget that about financial scam of pathetic Stein.... If she gets any weak-minded brain-washed followers, it will be their own detriment.
I think the 2020 election will be based on how well Trump does, who the Democrats candidate is will be second most important. If Trump can deliver half of his promises and we see good job growth in the US, I don't see any Democrat beating Trump. If we don't see much economic change or job growth, then a Democrat will have a much better chance. Whoever they choose need to focus on the economy and health care. Health care and the economy are the 2 biggest issues. They need someone with experience leading and/or governing. They don't need a social activist or a progressive right now. They need someone who can win the heartland and help turn the new purple states blue again. They need someone from a purple or red state who can help swing them back into play.
This is just an example, but someone like Jay Nixon would be nice. He would put Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Maine back into play. On top of being experienced and a good good governor of Missouri, he doesn't seem sold out to corporate America and seems like a fairly honest guy for a politician.
It isn't but like a broken clock that poster is correct.
The democratic primaries have become bitter fights involving claims or racism and misogyny. The Clintons were attacked as racists, Bernie got torn apart for being a white male.
I mean, it's really not up for debate, they're going to go over every joke, comment, skit Franken ever made and use whatever they can find to attack him as being racist or anti-woman and that will make it hard for him to get through the primaries.
The RNC has their own garbage, just pointing out the strategies that were used heavily in 2008 and then again this year in 2016.
Bernie was attacked for being a white male?
Anyway, that poster made not a lick of sense imo. The Democrats can EASILY nominate a straight white male. In fact, that's exactly what we'll be doing in 2020.
It isn't but like a broken clock that poster is correct.
The democratic primaries have become bitter fights involving claims or racism and misogyny. The Clintons were attacked as racists, Bernie got torn apart for being a white male.
I mean, it's really not up for debate, they're going to go over every joke, comment, skit Franken ever made and use whatever they can find to attack him as being racist or anti-woman and that will make it hard for him to get through the primaries.
The RNC has their own garbage, just pointing out the strategies that were used heavily in 2008 and then again this year in 2016.
Eh, I never really saw that regarding Bernie, other than the BLM incident which actually worked against them afterwards. The Clintons were attacked over policy as much as anything, since Bill pushed for some pretty devastating anti-crime legislation, which along with Hillary's support at the time and "super-predator" comments, earned them some well-deserved criticism over policy effects on the black community.
I don't think Democrats (other than the usual speech police) would care about Franken's past jokes as much as his actions and what legislation he has or has not supported.
I do agree, overall, primaries are too ideology-driven (for both parties); hopefully Dems will have learned their lesson by 2020, if not next year.
Hillary proved campaigning as the "anti-Trump" alone is a failure. The Democrats need a populist push-back, with someone who will go to small-town America and listen to them, rather than telling them what is best for them. Obama did it, Bernie did it, Trump did it. Not sure who that person will be (especially if Bernie doesn't run again), but they need to have those qualities.
Donald Trump is probably the most hated President in over a century. This is the Democrats' time to start regrouping to take back Congress in 2018 and make Trump a one-term President in 2020. Democrats need to get over the 2016 election, get over Hillary Clinton, and start looking ahead. Democrats also know what works and what doesn't work. Obama and Sanders excited their base. Hillary Clinton was a big yawn and didn't have a lot of enthusiastic support. Democrats need to groom somebody of the Obama mold, who can unite the center and the left and get the vote out, to kick Donald Trump out in 2020. Barring some sort of miraculous and unlikely turnaround for Trump's Presidency, the 2020 election will b the Democrats' election to lose.
Democrats also have the opportunity here to nominate somebody who can win over some Republican voters who might be open to voting Democrats "just one time" to get rid of Trump. This largely depends on if Trump has serious primary competition in 2020 which is very possible. However, it's for this reason the Democrats shouldn't nominate somebody too far left. They need to nominate somebody center-left who can possibly also appeal to the center right, and do it in a charismatic energizing way.
Nominating Hillary again or somebody like her is a sure way to an 8-year Trump presidency.
They might want to start by nominating someone who shouldn't be in jail.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 26 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,573 posts, read 16,556,695 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
You mean like... Hillary Clinton? LOL, you guys just did exactly what you're suggesting. The Dems plotted against Bernie, with the rationale that he was "too far left" and "couldn't appeal to moderate voters", and gave the nomination to a more traditional Democrat. The idea being that Trump was just horrible enough, and Hillary just moderate enough, that the Left, Center, and moderate Right would all vote for her, creating a winning coalition that would propel the Dems to victory.
...They got hammered.
Your post isnt logical.
You are arguing that Democrats "got Hammared" but the truth is 80,000 votes flip in 3 states, and Clinton is president, Trump.
There were over 2 million people who voted down ballot, but didnt vote for a Presidential candidate, and 8 million who voted for a 3rd party candidate.
Gary Johnson ran as a populist Libertarian , aka " im a moderate", not as an actual libertarian. So yes, winning the middle can indeed win Democrats the white house.
Quote:
One thing that absolutely will cost you another election in 4 years, is if you fail to not only learn from the mistakes of 2016, but repeat them.
Your logic was that Bernie was cheated( which is not true, but its perception), so by your own logic, a fair primary keeps the Bernie people on board and Clinton wins, and hypothetically so does a future Dem.
So in fact the failed strategy you are talking about isnt nominating a Centrist, its cheating in a Primary.
Also, lets not be coy, you arent a Democrat, or a leftist, you want Dems to nominate someone who would get destroyed in the general , and you believe that person to be from the Bernie wing of the Party.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 26 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,573 posts, read 16,556,695 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618
2016 was the Democrats' election to lose and they did it by running one of the most corrupt, unlikable candidates in history. Virtually anybody other than Hillary would have creamed Trump. A lot of people knew it from the beginning. I knew during the primary season that the only way to prevent a Trump Presidency was to nominate Bernie Sanders.
Had Republicans had nominated a serious, likable candidate vs Hillary, they could have easily picked up Minnesota, New Hampshire, Colorado, and maybe Virginia.
Hillary was a death sentence for the Dems from Day One. It's time to move on.
The problem with this argument is that a Republican candidate wouldnt have run on the same issues as Trump.
Trump did well in Minnesota because of the economic anti free trade issue, something he was alone on when this campaign started. Any other Republican would have lost on that issue vs a Democrat. people seem to forget that Senator Warren, Bernie Sanders, and even Tim Kaine all said as far back as 2014 that they didnt like TPP.
Colorado isnt so far gone that it is no longer a swing state, but Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton both pulled out way back in late august early September. She didnt even attempt to run up the score there, when she could have, same with Nevada.
Virginia is turning more and more blue, Hillary Clinton got more votes there than Barack Obama ever did. Her margin was actually larger than his in 2012 as well.
This could be because Tim Kaine was on the ticket, but looking at the 2013 Governors election, it could be that the state just has turned more Democratic.
New Hampshire is the only state you have a point with, but then again, New Hampshire has always been the swingy-est of swing states. Its the one that doesnt have a specific issue where you can pin down how people will vote.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
