My Last Rant on the 2016 Presidential Election (until my next one)

[Shadowy Man]

I don't blame the candidates so much as the American people who find these to be acceptable candidates. As for the loss of the Democrats, I blame that on people who weren't willing to hold their nose for political expediency's sake and vote for Clinton over Trump. It was pretty clear that Trump was not representing Democratic values, and therefore, no matter how bad a candidate Clinton was, they should have favored her over Trump. If the Republicans could hold their nose and put forward the worst candidate of all time on the belief that voting for him might gain them their long-term political goals, why couldn't the Democrats do the same? I don't care if you weren't inspired or she didn't hold a rally in your state that you probably wouldn't have attended anyway, or your dream is a socialist utopia that Bernie hasn't been able to deliver in his quarter century in Washington. Just look at the two candidates, peruse their websites, read their statements, assess their qualifications for the Presidency, ignore empty promises based on delivering policy changes that have to be enacted by the legislature and not the executive, and then vote for who you think would be the best candidate. And if you can't decide on a "best" candidate, then choose the "least worst" candidate.

The election wasn't rigged, it was just victim to an electorate that would rather watch reality tv shows than NPR news specials.

 

[Elixir]

I don't blame the candidates so much as the American people who find these to be acceptable candidates. As for the loss of the Democrats, I blame that on people who weren't willing to hold their nose for political expediency's sake and vote for Clinton over Trump. It was pretty clear that Trump was not representing Democratic values, and therefore, no matter how bad a candidate Clinton was, they should have favored her over Trump. If the Republicans could hold their nose and put forward the worst candidate of all time on the belief that voting for him might gain them their long-term political goals, why couldn't the Democrats do the same? I don't care if you weren't inspired or she didn't hold a rally in your state that you probably wouldn't have attended anyway, or your dream is a socialist utopia that Bernie hasn't been able to deliver in his quarter century in Washington. Just look at the two candidates, peruse their websites, read their statements, assess their qualifications for the Presidency, ignore empty promises based on delivering policy changes that have to be enacted by the legislature and not the executive, and then vote for who you think would be the best candidate. And if you can't decide on a "best" candidate, then choose the "least worst" candidate.

The election wasn't rigged, it was just victim to an electorate that would rather watch reality tv shows than NPR news specials.

Dems' best chance in '20 will be to find and promote a conservative counterpart to Stein or Johnson, who can bleed off some of those voters who though disenchanted with Trump, won't vote for a Dem under any circumstances. Then nominate someone on whom the RNC doesn't have a dossier of thirty years of dirt, and isn't on Putin's enemies list. Throw in a tiny bit of charisma, and victory will be at hand.

 

[Trausti]

Clinton's loss shows that we've been spared a potential disaster. She should have won. The media had anointed her American Moses; all the talk shows bashed Trump and celebrated our coming first presidential vagina; she had butt loads more money than Trump; she had, what, 4x more staff; her opponent made cringe-worthy remarks. But she lost by less than 100K votes over three states (states that everyone prediced she'd get). She fucked up a sure thing. That's not someone we should have a president.

 

[Shadowy Man]

She fucked up a sure thing. That's not someone we should have a president.

Don't blame the coach when the players make an audible at the goal line and end up losing the game. There's only so much she could do, given the fickle nature of the American electorate. She went up against a reality TV star in a popularity contest.

The school nerd lost the school president because she assumed the stoners would simply vote for her when her opponent was a sexist, racist jock promising to end homework and put vending machines in every classroom.

 

[Trausti]

She fucked up a sure thing. That's not someone we should have a president.

Don't blame the coach when the players make an audible at the goal line and end up losing the game. There's only so much she could do, given the fickle nature of the American electorate. She went up against a reality TV star in a popularity contest.

The school nerd lost the school president because she assumed the stoners would simply vote for her when her opponent was a sexist, racist jock promising to end homework and put vending machines in every classroom.

That makes sense. Like the reason New Coke failed is because customers were unable to appreciate how great it was; customers being so fickle. It is folly to presume that if people decline to buy a product that the product is bad. No. No. Better to just blame the customers for not knowing any better. Anyway, who wants to buy my Pontiac Aztek?

 

[laughing dog]

She fucked up a sure thing. That's not someone we should have a president.

True. It doesn't follow that we should have someone like Trump as a president. He is the booby prize.

 

[Trausti]

Didn't recall this before, but Clinton also won the 2008 Democratic Primary popular vote but lost to Obama (who got more delegates). Damn. Really sucks to be her.

 

[Ford]

She fucked up a sure thing. That's not someone we should have a president.

True. It doesn't follow that we should have someone like Trump as a president. He is the booby prize.

I think the point Trausti is trying to make is that Trump won, therefore he's not only the better candidate, but will be a great President. Plus he won by such a big margin, he'll be that much better of a President. The best, really.

Oh, and Clinton is bad because she wasn't as popular as Trump. After all, Trump won the popular vote. Right?

 

[Trausti]

True. It doesn't follow that we should have someone like Trump as a president. He is the booby prize.

I think the point Trausti is trying to make is that Trump won, therefore he's not only the better candidate, but will be a great President. Plus he won by such a big margin, he'll be that much better of a President. The best, really.

Oh, and Clinton is bad because she wasn't as popular as Trump. After all, Trump won the popular vote. Right?

Yeah. She won the popular vote; had the media fawning over her; but still managed to steal defeat from the jaws of victory. Why would you want someone like that to be president?

 

[Shadowy Man]

That makes sense. Like the reason New Coke failed is because customers were unable to appreciate how great it was; customers being so fickle. It is folly to presume that if people decline to buy a product that the product is bad. No. No. Better to just blame the customers for not knowing any better. Anyway, who wants to buy my Pontiac Aztek?

But customers *are* fickle. Look at the JC Penny fiasco when they decided rather than have marked-up prices with lots of sales, they simply sold their items at a lower price. The company barely survived! Even though the customers were getting the exact same items at the exact same prices, they wanted to feel like they were getting deals. The American voting electorate doesn't want nuanced discourse of political policies, they want pep rallies and platitudes that can fit on a hat.

I'm not saying that Clinton was a good candidate. She wasn't. I knew that in 2008. But if people couldn't see that Trump is a narcissistic pathological liar who was exceedingly unlikely to ever deliver on his campaign promises (not to mention that most of them aren't even in a President's power) and was saying things (he now openly admits) simply to get a good audience response, then yes, I can put some blame on the "customer".

 

[Ford]

Why would you want someone like that this douchebag to be president?

FTFY

 

[Shadowy Man]

That makes sense. Like the reason New Coke failed is because customers were unable to appreciate how great it was; customers being so fickle.

And furthermore, the correct analogy would be if the customers thought New Coke was better than Coke Classic even though it tasted worse simply because it called itself "new". If only the American electorate were as savvy as cola customers.

 

[Trausti]

Why would you want someone like that this douchebag to be president?

FTFY

The butthurt caused by this election is epic.

 

[Elixir]

FTFY

The butthurt caused by this election is epic.

Try not to gloat too much there, Trausti. You could come to regret it.
Also, you forgot to answer the question - why WOULD you want a douchebag like that for a president?
Inquiring minds want to know! Better than Hillary? Like racism? Misogyny? Something else?

Oh - that's it. I'm sorry the mean lady ate your baby, Trausti, I really am.

 

[Ford]

FTFY

The butthurt caused by this election is epic.

Yeah, nobody on the right was all that terribly upset at the outcome of the 2008 election.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I don't blame the candidates so much as the American people who find these to be acceptable candidates. As for the loss of the Democrats, I blame that on people who weren't willing to hold their nose for political expediency's sake and vote for Clinton over Trump. It was pretty clear that Trump was not representing Democratic values, and therefore, no matter how bad a candidate Clinton was, they should have favored her over Trump. If the Republicans could hold their nose and put forward the worst candidate of all time on the belief that voting for him might gain them their long-term political goals, why couldn't the Democrats do the same? I don't care if you weren't inspired or she didn't hold a rally in your state that you probably wouldn't have attended anyway, or your dream is a socialist utopia that Bernie hasn't been able to deliver in his quarter century in Washington. Just look at the two candidates, peruse their websites, read their statements, assess their qualifications for the Presidency, ignore empty promises based on delivering policy changes that have to be enacted by the legislature and not the executive, and then vote for who you think would be the best candidate. And if you can't decide on a "best" candidate, then choose the "least worst" candidate.

The election wasn't rigged, it was just victim to an electorate that would rather watch reality tv shows than NPR news specials.

Dems' best chance in '20 will be to find and promote a conservative counterpart to Stein or Johnson, who can bleed off some of those voters who though disenchanted with Trump, won't vote for a Dem under any circumstances. Then nominate someone on whom the RNC doesn't have a dossier of thirty years of dirt, and isn't on Putin's enemies list. Throw in a tiny bit of charisma, and victory will be at hand.

Moving the so called left party (in a country flirting with fascism) further to the right is your solution?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't blame the candidates so much as the American people who find these to be acceptable candidates. As for the loss of the Democrats, I blame that on people who weren't willing to hold their nose for political expediency's sake and vote for Clinton over Trump. It was pretty clear that Trump was not representing Democratic values, and therefore, no matter how bad a candidate Clinton was, they should have favored her over Trump. If the Republicans could hold their nose and put forward the worst candidate of all time on the belief that voting for him might gain them their long-term political goals, why couldn't the Democrats do the same? I don't care if you weren't inspired or she didn't hold a rally in your state that you probably wouldn't have attended anyway, or your dream is a socialist utopia that Bernie hasn't been able to deliver in his quarter century in Washington. Just look at the two candidates, peruse their websites, read their statements, assess their qualifications for the Presidency, ignore empty promises based on delivering policy changes that have to be enacted by the legislature and not the executive, and then vote for who you think would be the best candidate. And if you can't decide on a "best" candidate, then choose the "least worst" candidate.

The election wasn't rigged, it was just victim to an electorate that would rather watch reality tv shows than NPR news specials.

If this shit storm is the fault of voters, why should the parties put up better candidates?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Clinton's loss shows that we've been spared a potential disaster. She should have won. The media had anointed her American Moses; all the talk shows bashed Trump and celebrated our coming first presidential vagina; she had butt loads more money than Trump; she had, what, 4x more staff; her opponent made cringe-worthy remarks. But she lost by less than 100K votes over three states (states that everyone prediced she'd get). She fucked up a sure thing. That's not someone we should have a president.

Neither is the Donald. At least Clinton knows that when you are the boss, you have to hire people.

 

[Elixir]

Moving the so called left party (in a country flirting with fascism) further to the right is your solution?

No, move the Repugs WAY further to the right. Make it obvious where they are going with this crap. Let some Hitler Junior bleed off votes from Trump as a third party - pretty much in the same way that the Stein/Johnson gang did to the Dems. Then - and this important - find someone to run who hasn't been pissing off Uncle Vlad and the RNC for years and years...

If this shit storm is the fault of voters, why should the parties put up better candidates?

Exactly.

 

[Trausti]

The butthurt caused by this election is epic.

Yeah, nobody on the right was all that terribly upset at the outcome of the 2008 election.

So true. All those Republicans who took to the streets to protest, attacked Obama voters, sought vote recounts in states Obama won, and orchestrated a campaign to intimidate electoral college electors to chose someone else (after all, John McCain was war vet, POW, and senator for many years - infinitely more qualified than the upstart Obama, right?).

 

[AthenaAwakened]

No, move the Repugs WAY further to the right. Make it obvious where they are going with this crap. Let some Hitler Junior bleed off votes from Trump as a third party - pretty much in the same way that the Stein/Johnson gang did to the Dems.

Ohhhhhh, ok that makes sense. not sure i agree with it though, but I understand the logic. What if the republicans WANT to mover further to the right and what if there are independents who want to move further right too? Then moving right won't drive anyone away, it will just make the GOP that much more inviting, would it not?

Then - and this important - find someone to run who hasn't been pissing off Uncle Vlad and the RNC for years and years...

If this shit storm is the fault of voters, why should the parties put up better candidates?

Exactly.