Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I love this guy so much...

Trump is the left - Other political affiliations Democratic (before 1987, 2001–2009) 50 of his 70 years he was a Democrat

He is filling the swamp back up with DC insiders on his transition team, he is already two days after the election backing off the prosecution of Clinton.

He wont do anything he said he would as president but at least it wasn't Hillary.

So he's blaming it on the left and the identity politics of BLM and being soft on islamofascism? Shocker!!!

Bernie was leading Trump by 15 points. Of course the polls were proven wrong when it came to Hillary but Bernie would have taken some populist votes away from Trump, brought out millenials, and his favorables were way better. I think he would have won against Trump.

Leftist weed ballot measures passed in a number of states. South Dakota passed a leftist campaign finance and lobbying measure that was heavily opposed by the Kochs. I'm sure there were others.

Clinton was hardly a dove when it comes to FP

The rust belt handed Trump a tight election. That's economic disenfranchisement and a repudiation of Democratic establishment elitism not core leftist ideology.

Defense hawk Kelly Ayotte lost in New Hampshire.

Clinton was a disingenuous candidate who lacked charisma. The Democratic Party no longer represents the "left". It represents corporatism and the comfortable upper middle class to wealthy who have a social conscience or social guilt.

I'm no fan of BLM or safe spaces either but the "left" isn't single issue or monolithic anymore than the right is. This seems more like Sam getting revenge on his detractors by spiking the ball with his pet issues. I agree with some of it but he didn't "nail it".

PS: Despite what I just wrote in the above paragraph, I will cop to some serious concern regarding movement politics from the left. There are many good progressive ideas but the threat of things like racial appropriation whining, safe spaces, and overbearing government control getting packaged in with it all is a major turn off for me. However I don't think those played that big of a roll here.

I said basically the exact same thing here after the 2014 election. Identity politics is biting the donks in the arse in a similar way that social issues did the GOP ten years ago.

I will disagree with Harris about Bernie Sanders (not in that youtube video but in the full version of this he brings it up). There is no doubt in my mind the election would've been closer with Bernie Sanders running as the young vote turnout would've been stronger. When a Republican is taking a tougher stance on opposing free trade than donks are and you get shellacked in the rust belt you know have fvcked up and the donks have no one but themselves to blame.

Pwns wrote:I said basically the exact same thing here after the 2014 election. Identity politics is biting the donks in the arse in a similar way that social issues did the GOP ten years ago.

I will disagree with Harris about Bernie Sanders (not in that youtube video but in the full version of this he brings it up). There is no doubt in my mind the election would've been closer with Bernie Sanders running as the young vote turnout would've been stronger. When a Republican is taking a tougher stance on opposing free trade than donks are and you get shellacked in the rust belt you know have fvcked up and the donks have no one but themselves to blame.

The fight for the soul of the Democratic Party will be interesting. Who will rise as the titular head? Warren or Sanders maybe?

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz? Donna Brazil?

kalm wrote:

Pwns wrote:I said basically the exact same thing here after the 2014 election. Identity politics is biting the donks in the arse in a similar way that social issues did the GOP ten years ago.

I will disagree with Harris about Bernie Sanders (not in that youtube video but in the full version of this he brings it up). There is no doubt in my mind the election would've been closer with Bernie Sanders running as the young vote turnout would've been stronger. When a Republican is taking a tougher stance on opposing free trade than donks are and you get shellacked in the rust belt you know have fvcked up and the donks have no one but themselves to blame.

The fight for the soul of the Democratic Party will be interesting. Who will rise as the titular head? Warren or Sanders maybe?

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz? Donna Brazil?

Gil Dobie wrote:

kalm wrote:


The fight for the soul of the Democratic Party will be interesting. Who will rise as the titular head? Warren or Sanders maybe?

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz? Donna Brazil?

That would be fun to watch. Conks heads exploding...

Gil Dobie wrote:

Exactly what I said to Mrs89 last night.

kalm wrote:That would be fun to watch. Conks heads exploding...

They would, but rightfully so. She's a lib dream... a black woman (she's actually black, not like her husband) who's accomplished nothing.

kalm wrote: PS: Despite what I just wrote in the above paragraph, I will cop to some serious concern regarding movement politics from the left. There are many good progressive ideas but the threat of things like racial appropriation whining, safe spaces, and overbearing government control getting packaged in with it all is a major turn off for me. However I don't think those played that big of a roll here.

But, it's playing the largest role after the election. We're seeing it being played out now on the news for all the world to see. The protests, violent demonstrations, and even assaults on Trump supporters being committed by the hard core militant progressives.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote: PS: Despite what I just wrote in the above paragraph, I will cop to some serious concern regarding movement politics from the left. There are many good progressive ideas but the threat of things like racial appropriation whining, safe spaces, and overbearing government control getting packaged in with it all is a major turn off for me. However I don't think those played that big of a roll here.

But, it's playing the largest role after the election. We're seeing it being played out now on the news for all the world to see. The protests, violent demonstrations, and even assaults on Trump supporters being committed by the hard core militant progressives.

Obama wins twice, and the Republican response:



Libs don't get their way, and:



Trump didn't create this racial divide although he hasn't exactly tried to put out the flames. Under this administration, we've had
* Beer summit - said the officer "acted stupidly"
* Zimmerman incident - "Trayvon could have been me." Riots ensue.
* Ferguson - sends 3 white house representatives to funeral, has Holder begin an inquiry. The BLM movement began in the aftermath. Riots ensue.
* Baltimore - black mayor, black prosecutor, black chief of police, at least one black defendant. No charges. Riots ensue.

The great unifier instead became the great divider on race, class, and political affiliation.

And the left, the paragon of tolerance, assumes that if you disagree with a black or brown guy's politics you're a racist. If you disagree with a woman's politics, you're a misogynist. If you notice a trend of violence in the name of religion, it makes you intolerant of other religions.

https://www.facebook.com/jeremy.chepes/ ... 4300196304

IMO Harris nailed it on the terrorist views and identity politics. I think he severely underestimated the impact of it being the economy. The Rust Belt doesn't go red if not for the economy. Also glad he pointed out the failed narrative of Trump winning because of racism. Seriously, we elected a black guy as POTUS...twice...how the fuck is the majority of America still racist?!?

SDHornet wrote:IMO Harris nailed it on the terrorist views and identity politics. I think he severely underestimated the impact of it being the economy. The Rust Belt doesn't go red if not for the economy. Also glad he pointed out the failed narrative of Trump winning because of racism. Seriously, we elected a black guy as POTUS...twice...how the fuck is the majority of America still racist?!?

Because we didn't repeal the 22nd amendment.

kalm wrote: Bernie was leading Trump by 15 points. Of course the polls were proven wrong when it came to Hillary but Bernie would have taken some populist votes away from Trump, brought out millenials, and his favorables were way better. I think he would have won against Trump.

Yup.

Hillary ran up the score on Bernie in many of the deep blue states like New York.

Sanders surprised her in states like Michigan and Wisconsin.

Sanders had a competing populist message vs Trump. He also wouldn't have had a weekly scandal to drag down his message and distract from Trump's scandal.

Hard to say he would have absolutely won... but, no doubt in my mind he would have done better than Hillary.

kalm wrote:

Pwns wrote:I said basically the exact same thing here after the 2014 election. Identity politics is biting the donks in the arse in a similar way that social issues did the GOP ten years ago.

I will disagree with Harris about Bernie Sanders (not in that youtube video but in the full version of this he brings it up). There is no doubt in my mind the election would've been closer with Bernie Sanders running as the young vote turnout would've been stronger. When a Republican is taking a tougher stance on opposing free trade than donks are and you get shellacked in the rust belt you know have fvcked up and the donks have no one but themselves to blame.

The fight for the soul of the Democratic Party will be interesting. Who will rise as the titular head? Warren or Sanders maybe?

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz? Donna Brazil?

That's the thing, though - the Dems in 2020 could be banking on an 80 year old Bernie Sanders, who was so committed to his ideas that he sold them right down the river and fully backed Hillary Clinton this time around. How is he the savior when he abandoned these principles at the drop of a hat? The Dems could go all hard core progressive, push for single payer, push for "fair" trade deals, push for maximum environmental regulation (full bore climate change politics), push for free college education for all, push for guaranteed income, hope that all the safe space and micro-aggression stuff doesn't keep hitching along for a ride, but where does that get them? Maybe they win the Presidency with that (and yes, Bernie had a good shot to win this time).

But what's the long game in that? The vast majority of the country, state by state, isn't going to follow along with that outside of a Presidential vote. Even Bernie said it - you could elect him this time, and then 4 years from now start trying to elect a Congress that would allow all of that to pass. And then 4 years after that keep working at it. And then 4 years after that. The country is so tilted, electorally, to the GOP right now at every level of government that it will take a while to change that. People minimize this tilt but it's real. The GOP isn't going to lose the House until at least the next census when all the gerrymandering that just happened can be gerrymandered the other way, and that's even assuming the Dems get control of enough state legislatures to do that. They just lost Kentucky so now there isn't a single legislature in the South that isn't controlled by the GOP. The GOP isn't going to lose the Senate until at least 4 years (the next midterm will see a lot of vulnerable Democratic seats get lost) and that's not even a given. And at the state level it's just worse. Hardcore progressive policies just aren't going to sell in all of those places, and not at the win rate that will be necessary to make them stick.

What do the Dems stand for, other than being the party that swoops in when the GOP invariably screws up (e.g. the W years)? And will what they stand for be something that can appeal to the entirety of the nation, not just in the vote for the President. There's far too much government and governing that happens that isn't impacted by just the Presidency. And right now, the Dems don't seem to be interested enough in those areas to have a real sustained movement. And taking a hard turn to the left and doubling down on Bernie isn't going change much except maybe who sits in the White House every now and then.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:


The fight for the soul of the Democratic Party will be interesting. Who will rise as the titular head? Warren or Sanders maybe?

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz? Donna Brazil?

That's the thing, though - the Dems in 2020 could be banking on an 80 year old Bernie Sanders, who was so committed to his ideas that he sold them right down the river and fully backed Hillary Clinton this time around. How is he the savior when he abandoned these principles at the drop of a hat? The Dems could go all hard core progressive, push for single payer, push for "fair" trade deals, push for maximum environmental regulation (full bore climate change politics), push for free college education for all, push for guaranteed income, hope that all the safe space and micro-aggression stuff doesn't keep hitching along for a ride, but where does that get them? Maybe they win the Presidency with that (and yes, Bernie had a good shot to win this time).

But what's the long game in that? The vast majority of the country, state by state, isn't going to follow along with that outside of a Presidential vote. Even Bernie said it - you could elect him this time, and then 4 years from now start trying to elect a Congress that would allow all of that to pass. And then 4 years after that keep working at it. And then 4 years after that. The country is so tilted, electorally, to the GOP right now at every level of government that it will take a while to change that. People minimize this tilt but it's real. The GOP isn't going to lose the House until at least the next census when all the gerrymandering that just happened can be gerrymandered the other way, and that's even assuming the Dems get control of enough state legislatures to do that. They just lost Kentucky so now there isn't a single legislature in the South that isn't controlled by the GOP. The GOP isn't going to lose the Senate until at least 4 years (the next midterm will see a lot of vulnerable Democratic seats get lost) and that's not even a given. And at the state level it's just worse. Hardcore progressive policies just aren't going to sell in all of those places, and not at the win rate that will be necessary to make them stick.

What do the Dems stand for, other than being the party that swoops in when the GOP invariably screws up (e.g. the W years)? And will what they stand for be something that can appeal to the entirety of the nation, not just in the vote for the President. There's far too much government and governing that happens that isn't impacted by just the Presidency. And right now, the Dems don't seem to be interested enough in those areas to have a real sustained movement. And taking a hard turn to the left and doubling down on Bernie isn't going change much except maybe who sits in the White House every now and then.

Good points but I think you're under-estimating the progressive nature of the country and the establishment fatigue. If Bernie had won we be discussing the opposite.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

kalm wrote: Bernie was leading Trump by 15 points. Of course the polls were proven wrong when it came to Hillary but Bernie would have taken some populist votes away from Trump, brought out millenials, and his favorables were way better. I think he would have won against Trump.

Yup.

Hillary ran up the score on Bernie in many of the deep blue states like New York.

Sanders surprised her in states like Michigan and Wisconsin.

Sanders had a competing populist message vs Trump. He also wouldn't have had a weekly scandal to drag down his message and distract from Trump's scandal.

Hard to say he would have absolutely won... but, no doubt in my mind he would have done better than Hillary.

I think Bernie was a little insane, but in a likeable, "crazy uncle" kind of way. The fact that he wouldn't go after Hillary in the debates when there was so much low hanging fruit says a lot about his character IMO.
Hillary also had some help running up the score on Bernie. Just ask Wasserman-Schultz.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
That's the thing, though - the Dems in 2020 could be banking on an 80 year old Bernie Sanders, who was so committed to his ideas that he sold them right down the river and fully backed Hillary Clinton this time around. How is he the savior when he abandoned these principles at the drop of a hat? The Dems could go all hard core progressive, push for single payer, push for "fair" trade deals, push for maximum environmental regulation (full bore climate change politics), push for free college education for all, push for guaranteed income, hope that all the safe space and micro-aggression stuff doesn't keep hitching along for a ride, but where does that get them? Maybe they win the Presidency with that (and yes, Bernie had a good shot to win this time).

But what's the long game in that? The vast majority of the country, state by state, isn't going to follow along with that outside of a Presidential vote. Even Bernie said it - you could elect him this time, and then 4 years from now start trying to elect a Congress that would allow all of that to pass. And then 4 years after that keep working at it. And then 4 years after that. The country is so tilted, electorally, to the GOP right now at every level of government that it will take a while to change that. People minimize this tilt but it's real. The GOP isn't going to lose the House until at least the next census when all the gerrymandering that just happened can be gerrymandered the other way, and that's even assuming the Dems get control of enough state legislatures to do that. They just lost Kentucky so now there isn't a single legislature in the South that isn't controlled by the GOP. The GOP isn't going to lose the Senate until at least 4 years (the next midterm will see a lot of vulnerable Democratic seats get lost) and that's not even a given. And at the state level it's just worse. Hardcore progressive policies just aren't going to sell in all of those places, and not at the win rate that will be necessary to make them stick.

What do the Dems stand for, other than being the party that swoops in when the GOP invariably screws up (e.g. the W years)? And will what they stand for be something that can appeal to the entirety of the nation, not just in the vote for the President. There's far too much government and governing that happens that isn't impacted by just the Presidency. And right now, the Dems don't seem to be interested enough in those areas to have a real sustained movement. And taking a hard turn to the left and doubling down on Bernie isn't going change much except maybe who sits in the White House every now and then.

Good points but I think you're under-estimating the progressive nature of the country and the establishment fatigue. If Bernie had won we be discussing the opposite.

I fully agree with the establishment fatigue, and I think that alone, with Bernie's generally good naturedness (as opposed to the tough-to-vote for vitriol of Trump) would certainly have won Bernie the election if he was the candidate. I don't think there's any doubt that if the Dems hadn't rigged their own primary to handpick Clinton that the Dems could've won the White House.

But the underlying premise still holds - where else is the progressive nature of the country, outside of the liberal strongholds of the far northeast and the west really shining forth? Where is it winning elections that aren't for the President? The only time the GOP, in the last 16 years, has been losing elections was in '08 after the "W" years and the Great Recession. And by '10 they were winning most of that back. Of course the Presidency is the biggest prize, but the other stuff matters to an extent too.

I also don't think Sanders actually runs in 2020.

I'm for Tulsi.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

kalm wrote: Bernie was leading Trump by 15 points. Of course the polls were proven wrong when it came to Hillary but Bernie would have taken some populist votes away from Trump, brought out millenials, and his favorables were way better. I think he would have won against Trump.

Yup.

Hillary ran up the score on Bernie in many of the deep blue states like New York.

Sanders surprised her in states like Michigan and Wisconsin.

Sanders had a competing populist message vs Trump. He also wouldn't have had a weekly scandal to drag down his message and distract from Trump's scandal.

Hard to say he would have absolutely won... but, no doubt in my mind he would have done better than Hillary.

Millennial turnout was a lot lower than expected for hilldog, it certainly would have been higher for Bernie.

Per this bloomberg article about the Millenial vote, nearly 10% voted 3rd party (89 trigger warning), 37% went Trump, 55% went hilldog...I also saw elsewhere (TYT I think) that only 19% of Millennial voters actually voted.

Trump pulled 29% of the Brown vote (non-Millennial number).

Skjellyfetti wrote:I also don't think Sanders actually runs in 2020.

I'm for Tulsi.

I agree - Trump's going to possibly be too old to run in 2020, and he's half a decade younger than Bernie. But the Dem's success in 2020 will have everything to do with what the GOP does with these next 4 years. If they screw it up of course they'll lose the White House - if things go well for the country it will be hard to vote out the incumbent or the incumbent's hand picked successor.

GannonFan wrote: But the underlying premise still holds - where else is the progressive nature of the country, outside of the liberal strongholds of the far northeast and the west really shining forth? Where is it winning elections that aren't for the President? The only time the GOP, in the last 16 years, has been losing elections was in '08 after the "W" years and the Great Recession. And by '10 they were winning most of that back. Of course the Presidency is the biggest prize, but the other stuff matters to an extent too.

I'm not sure how many Americans there are that are as passionate about campaign finance and free trade as kalm is (probably not a lot), but I'm pretty darn sure if you run on a platform of those things you will gain a heck of a lot more voters than you will lose. It does not take a majority of people to care about this stuff for it to be a winner politically.

GannonFan wrote: That's the thing, though - the Dems in 2020 could be banking on an 80 year old Bernie Sanders, who was so committed to his ideas that he sold them right down the river and fully backed Hillary Clinton this time around. How is he the savior when he abandoned these principles at the drop of a hat?

Bernie is tainted because he sold out. Plus he'll be too old for 2020. The progressives need a new face to rally around.

BTW anyone else seeing the irony of the Bernie now hilldog supporters decrying the "rigged" electoral college because of the popular vote? Where was this outrage against the DNC primary superdelegates when Bernie was ass whooping hilldog in teh popular vote but getting slaughtered by the superdelegate vote?

Leftist logic.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Good points but I think you're under-estimating the progressive nature of the country and the establishment fatigue. If Bernie had won we be discussing the opposite.

I fully agree with the establishment fatigue, and I think that alone, with Bernie's generally good naturedness (as opposed to the tough-to-vote for vitriol of Trump) would certainly have won Bernie the election if he was the candidate. I don't think there's any doubt that if the Dems hadn't rigged their own primary to handpick Clinton that the Dems could've won the White House.

But the underlying premise still holds - where else is the progressive nature of the country, outside of the liberal strongholds of the far northeast and the west really shining forth? Where is it winning elections that aren't for the President? The only time the GOP, in the last 16 years, has been losing elections was in '08 after the "W" years and the Great Recession. And by '10 they were winning most of that back. Of course the Presidency is the biggest prize, but the other stuff matters to an extent too.

As I've pointed out before, Americans consistently poll more aggressive than the candidates from either party as well as legislative outcomes. Trump won because Hillary was a terrible candidate. Democrats lose because their the weaker version of a conservative party.