So what's the deal with Hillary now?

[LordKiran]

Indeed. Should have given it to Elizabeth Warren. Might have brought more Bernie Socialists to the table who'd be willing to take the concession.

Warren didn't want it and said so, repeatedly.

Too bad. We would have probably been better off for it. Is it fair to blame her for the loss then? I guess only as much as it is to blame people who chose not to vote.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I'm not sold on what Warren added to the ticket.

A better chance or being elected. And maybe a progressive voice in Hillary's ear.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Warren didn't want it and said so, repeatedly.

Too bad. We would have probably been better off for it. Is it fair to blame her for the loss then? I guess only as much as it is to blame people who chose not to vote.

Hillary didn't offer it to her, so no. And she also could have offered it to Bernie or another progressive. She instead went to the right. It was one of the bigger reasons she lost.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm not sold on what Warren added to the ticket.

A better chance or being elected. And maybe a progressive voice in Hillary's ear.

The ticket didn't need "progressive". Sanders got most of his platform into the Party's platform. Her ticket needed outreach.

 

[laughing dog]

Too bad. We would have probably been better off for it. Is it fair to blame her for the loss then? I guess only as much as it is to blame people who chose not to vote.

Hillary didn't offer it to her, so no. And she also could have offered it to Bernie or another progressive. She instead went to the right. It was one of the bigger reasons she lost.

WHat is your evidence that HRC lost Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennslyvannia because she did not have a "progressivie" as her VP candidate?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hillary didn't offer it to her, so no. And she also could have offered it to Bernie or another progressive. She instead went to the right. It was one of the bigger reasons she lost.

WHat is your evidence that HRC lost Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennslyvannia because she did not have a "progressivie" as her VP candidate?

Evidence suggests Voter ID laws was the reason for black turnout being down and her losing Wisconsin.

 

[J842P]

A better chance or being elected. And maybe a progressive voice in Hillary's ear.

The ticket didn't need "progressive". Sanders got most of his platform into the Party's platform. Her ticket needed outreach.

No one give's two fuck's about a party's platform. It's not like it's binding, and it's not like everyone doesn't know where Hillary stood on the issues, see the TPP. But really, no one outside of Democratic or Republican hardcores, who were never not going to vote for their respective party, are even as much as aware of the official platform.

What matters, politically, is who the face on the TV screen is, and what that face is saying. And most importantly, *what they identify as the problems*. This is critical. People are much more drawn to politicians who identify the problems as they see it, rather than any specific solution.

Trumps message was the banks, the Democrats, the Establishment Republicans, and the immigrants are screwing you over.
Hillary's was "there is no problem". No problem that me any my fellow technocrats can't fix!


You would almost have to be the sort to believe that Donald Trump cares about out-of-work machinists in the Midwest, to believe that Hillary Clinton aligned with the progressive wing of the Democratic party.

She spent her entire political career as a member of the group whose stated purpose was to defeat and drive out the progressive wing from the democratic party, and push Free trade, welfare-reform, deregulation, and of course, Wars to Spread American Values.

 

[Elixir]

This is critical. People are much more drawn to politicians who identify the problems as they see it, rather than any specific solution.

Then "I'm not Trump" should be a winning mantra next time. Last time, he wasn't "the problem".

 

[laughing dog]

This is critical. People are much more drawn to politicians who identify the problems as they see it, rather than any specific solution.

Then "I'm not Trump" should be a winning mantra next time. Last time, he wasn't "the problem".

I disagree. Trump has the knack of conning people. If the Democrats think "I'm not Trump" gets them the White House in 2020, I think they are in for a very rude shock.

Obama and Trump won, in part, because they articulate hope and change to a large enough constituency.

 

[Elixir]

Then "I'm not Trump" should be a winning mantra next time. Last time, he wasn't "the problem".

I disagree. Trump has the knack of conning people. If the Democrats think "I'm not Trump" gets them the White House in 2020, I think they are in for a very rude shock.

Obama and Trump won, in part, because they articulate hope and change to a large enough constituency.

I disagree too. It's not "Obamacare is failing" that got Cheato elected, it was more "I will fix it on day one, and it will be SO easy!"
"They're sending us rapists" didn't elect him, "I'm going to send them all home and build a wall" elected him.
Of course it takes a heaping helping of teh stoopid to believe a lifelong documented conman when he says shit like that, but we seem to have no shortage of teh stoopid. If the next Dem candidate can say "Not only am I not Trump, but I can and will provide fabulous healthcare for all at no cost, remove the criminal illegals and create more jobs than Cheato ever dreamed of" they might have a chance.

 

[J842P]

Then "I'm not Trump" should be a winning mantra next time. Last time, he wasn't "the problem".

I disagree. Trump has the knack of conning people. If the Democrats think "I'm not Trump" gets them the White House in 2020, I think they are in for a very rude shock.

Obama and Trump won, in part, because they articulate hope and change to a large enough constituency.

Bingo.

And yes, if the Democrats were in any way adept at politics, they would try to position Trump and the Republicans as the abject failures they are, hammering home how much of an outright corporate and Wall Street shills that they are. Of course, the Democrats at large would never do this, lest they upset their donors. And the Wall Street bankers didn't give a shit when Trump used them as a bogeymen, because they weren't stupid enough to believe it was anything except political posturing.

Since the Democratic base might *actually demand* serious regulations on these entities, they of course, are never allowed to make the same noise.

Instead, it seems, Trump is busy making the Democrats look like the Anti-Flag and Anti-National Anthem party. And the Democrats are happy to indulge him.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I disagree. Trump has the knack of conning people. If the Democrats think "I'm not Trump" gets them the White House in 2020, I think they are in for a very rude shock.

Obama and Trump won, in part, because they articulate hope and change to a large enough constituency.

Bingo.

And yes, if the Democrats were in any way adept at politics, they would try to position Trump and the Republicans as the abject failures they are, hammering home how much of an outright corporate and Wall Street shills that they are. Of course, the Democrats at large would never do this, lest they upset their donors. And the Wall Street bankers didn't give a shit when Trump used them as a bogeymen, because they weren't stupid enough to believe it was anything except political posturing.

Since the Democratic base might *actually demand* serious regulations on these entities, they of course, are never allowed to make the same noise.

Instead, it seems, Trump is busy making the Democrats look like the Anti-Flag and Anti-National Anthem party. And the Democrats are happy to indulge him.

You honestly think that Bubba in Cleveland is going to care one bit about regulations on wall street??? Dodd Frank type regulations aren't going to get the middle class white voters back into the democratic party!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Bingo.

And yes, if the Democrats were in any way adept at politics, they would try to position Trump and the Republicans as the abject failures they are, hammering home how much of an outright corporate and Wall Street shills that they are. Of course, the Democrats at large would never do this, lest they upset their donors. And the Wall Street bankers didn't give a shit when Trump used them as a bogeymen, because they weren't stupid enough to believe it was anything except political posturing.

Since the Democratic base might *actually demand* serious regulations on these entities, they of course, are never allowed to make the same noise.

Instead, it seems, Trump is busy making the Democrats look like the Anti-Flag and Anti-National Anthem party. And the Democrats are happy to indulge him.

You honestly think that Bubba in Cleveland is going to care one bit about regulations on wall street??? Dodd Frank type regulations aren't going to get the middle class white voters back into the democratic party!

Obama cut the taxes of the white people that voted for Trump en masse, and they thought he raised them.

 

[Elixir]

You honestly think that Bubba in Cleveland is going to care one bit about regulations on wall street??? Dodd Frank type regulations aren't going to get the middle class white voters back into the democratic party!

Obama cut the taxes of the white people that voted for Trump en masse, and they thought he raised them.

Dey don' want no nigga money!