Hey now. She was very successful at patient dumping those with shit or no insurance away from the U of Chicago Medical Center.89Hen wrote: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:That would be fun to watch. Conks heads exploding...
Exactly.kalm wrote:Baldy wrote: 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.
Yep. Heard that same millennial stat on TYT. And in 2008 their numbers were above 50%. Had Bernie been the nominee it would have affected down ballot races too.SDHornet wrote:Millennial turnout was a lot lower than expected for hilldog, it certainly would have been higher for Bernie.Skjellyfetti wrote:
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.
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).
What? You're saying that if the Dems would go hardcore progressive - centralize or dictate everything from healthcare to taxes to education and so on, go full bore on whatever environmental steps are needed to fully reverse climate change, that they would win up and down the ticket? I think you're drawing too much from this election - as I said before, Presidential contests are almost never about they party or even policies, Presidential elections are popularity contests between the two people running. Trump won because, in the end, the people who voted disliked him less than they disliked Clinton. And because enough people didn't like either of them and didn't vote. If Bernie runs he probably wins because people disliked Bernie much less than they disliked Trump.kalm wrote: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.GannonFan wrote:
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.
There's a place somewhere in between full blown socialism and the kind of socialism that has historically provided Americans with clean air and water, Medicare, modest banking regulations and stability, etc.GannonFan wrote:What? You're saying that if the Dems would go hardcore progressive - centralize or dictate everything from healthcare to taxes to education and so on, go full bore on whatever environmental steps are needed to fully reverse climate change, that they would win up and down the ticket? I think you're drawing too much from this election - as I said before, Presidential contests are almost never about they party or even policies, Presidential elections are popularity contests between the two people running. Trump won because, in the end, the people who voted disliked him less than they disliked Clinton. And because enough people didn't like either of them and didn't vote. If Bernie runs he probably wins because people disliked Bernie much less than they disliked Trump.kalm wrote:
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.
But I don't see any evidence, other than maybe a Senate seat here or there, that would've changed further down the government slate of offices and legislatures to suggest a progressive revolution in the offing. Even Bernie said it would have to be a revolution from the top (i.e. the Presidency) and it would take multiple election cycles - the reason he said that is because it would be widely unpopular in vast swaths of the country, especially when it gets saddled with the safe space and other odd movements that are latched onto that agenda currently.
Awesome, nothing like hiding behind insults when the topic gets difficult. Still not sure I'm a conk, let alone with my hair on fire, just because you say I am, but you do tend to be short on details, regardless of the topic.kalm wrote:There's a place somewhere in between full blown socialism and the kind of socialism that has historically provided Americans with clean air and water, Medicare, modest banking regulations and stability, etc.GannonFan wrote:
What? You're saying that if the Dems would go hardcore progressive - centralize or dictate everything from healthcare to taxes to education and so on, go full bore on whatever environmental steps are needed to fully reverse climate change, that they would win up and down the ticket? I think you're drawing too much from this election - as I said before, Presidential contests are almost never about they party or even policies, Presidential elections are popularity contests between the two people running. Trump won because, in the end, the people who voted disliked him less than they disliked Clinton. And because enough people didn't like either of them and didn't vote. If Bernie runs he probably wins because people disliked Bernie much less than they disliked Trump.
But I don't see any evidence, other than maybe a Senate seat here or there, that would've changed further down the government slate of offices and legislatures to suggest a progressive revolution in the offing. Even Bernie said it would have to be a revolution from the top (i.e. the Presidency) and it would take multiple election cycles - the reason he said that is because it would be widely unpopular in vast swaths of the country, especially when it gets saddled with the safe space and other odd movements that are latched onto that agenda currently.
Your hair on fire conk hyperbole notwithstanding...
Theirs a reason it's called populism...regardless of the crappy lack of choices provided by the duopoly.
Definite 3 holer........know nothing about her politics but don't careSkjellyfetti wrote:I also don't think Sanders actually runs in 2020.
I'm for Tulsi.
The reason the mainstream parties so closely resemble each other in terms of the way they govern is because they have for many years kept the pitchfork and torch crowd in the darkkalm wrote: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.
Good post.CID1990 wrote:The reason the mainstream parties so closely resemble each other in terms of the way they govern is because they have for many years kept the pitchfork and torch crowd in the darkkalm wrote:So he's blaming it on the left and the identity politics of BLM and being soft on islamofascism?
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.
when someone like Trump or potentially a Sanders gets traction in a national election it partially IS because the hoi polloi have gotten fed up with it
but the reality nobody really gets is that if a hard right or hard left candidate actually blows up the election and wins, the hoi polloi will be the ones who suffer the most - because at the end of the day, the status quo of the two monied parties gives everybody a little something, instead of leaving a large swath of the country out in the cold like a hard left or hard right outsider would
all that said, i dont think Trump is hard right. i dont even think he is conservative. at the end of yhe day i think we are going to learn that he is as much of a powerful central government statist as Clinton or Obama. I expect no major achievements by Trump, except in one very important venue- foreign policy. i think we are going to disengage from a lot of places where our participation is taken for granted. And as terrible as the establishment left and right will make that sound, we do need to get back to a 1920s level of engagement in the world when it comes to security
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think Trump is a loyalist, which agrees with your foreign policy assertion. I also think that Trump does not care much for social issues. I think he cares for freedom but would rather not fight for any one particular group (LGBT, evangelicals, +/- abortion, etc.). I don't think any of that drives him. He's shown little interest in any of those things up to this point. So I think his Presidency will be mostly about money (jobs, trade, government spending, regulation related to business, etc.).CID1990 wrote: all that said, i dont think Trump is hard right. i dont even think he is conservative. at the end of yhe day i think we are going to learn that he is as much of a powerful central government statist as Clinton or Obama. I expect no major achievements by Trump, except in one very important venue- foreign policy. i think we are going to disengage from a lot of places where our participation is taken for granted. And as terrible as the establishment left and right will make that sound, we do need to get back to a 1920s level of engagement in the world when it comes to security
I see the immigration thing possibly being in focus. They've already talked back a full physical wall, but it would be good to put to bed what border security is, how to deal with people already here, and how to deal with anyone else coming here in the future, both legal and illegal. Everything is lined up to deal with that now.CAA Flagship wrote:I think Trump is a loyalist, which agrees with your foreign policy assertion. I also think that Trump does not care much for social issues. I think he cares for freedom but would rather not fight for any one particular group (LGBT, evangelicals, +/- abortion, etc.). I don't think any of that drives him. He's shown little interest in any of those things up to this point. So I think his Presidency will be mostly about money (jobs, trade, government spending, regulation related to business, etc.).CID1990 wrote: all that said, i dont think Trump is hard right. i dont even think he is conservative. at the end of yhe day i think we are going to learn that he is as much of a powerful central government statist as Clinton or Obama. I expect no major achievements by Trump, except in one very important venue- foreign policy. i think we are going to disengage from a lot of places where our participation is taken for granted. And as terrible as the establishment left and right will make that sound, we do need to get back to a 1920s level of engagement in the world when it comes to security
