I disagree, Goat. Bernie is on the far end of what is being rejected tonight.
Goat's POLS nerd thread
- Thread starter TheOriginalHappyGoat
- Start date
I disagree, Goat. Bernie is on the far end of what is being rejected tonight.
We discussed how Trump would destroy the GOP. Well, did Clinton destroy the Democratic Party? The Dems have very few state legislatures. They have very few governors. They are pretty small in the House. They are a minority in the Senate. Is it time to kill the Democratic Party? There is nothing they control anywhere in government.
Trump just won the presidency and you are saying Bernie wouldn't be viable? Think that statement over and get back to me.
I think you are wrong. Liberalism isn't being rejected tonight. Globalism is. Bernie might be far left, but he's a populist on the issues that matter to the people abandoning Hillary. Those issues were his bread and butter.
I didn't even agree with him on a lot of those issues, but I have no doubt he could have motivated Trump Democrats to stay in the fold.
Exactly right. Bernie won Michigan by winning working class whites and the young. Blue collar workers blame trade for their failures. One of the networks said a blue collar worker in Detroit said everyone he knew on the floor was voting Trump. That's over trade. Bernie would have held some of them. Others may have set out the election.
I'd say Obama did that, not Clinton.
Most of that damage occurred in 2010 and 2014. Obamacare is still a lead weight around the Dems' ankles...regardless how popular he himself is.
And whose bright idea was it to have the next year's premiums established right before Election Day? Did Rubio slip that into the bill, too?
Yep. Bernie's policies would have been considered too radical for the rural America electorate. Not a snowball's chance in Georgia that he'd have been elected.
The problem is we are now in a situation where Hillary has no margin of error. She's got to sweep from Minnesota down to Pennsylvania. A single loss probably ends it.
There are urban whites. People who work in factories. I think CNN just said that exit polls showed Trump won 50% of union vote. Those are the whites Bernie could have peeled off.
I think there's a better argument that the Clintons, not Hillary alone, have done much to destroy the Democratic Party. Frankly, I think that's why Hillary was nominated . . . her "inevitability" was borne of the Clintons sucking up all of the oxygen in the party. Further, you could read the result of this election as folks long-suffering from Clinton fatigue.
The good news, if there is any, is that Democrats now have a wide open field to run and experiment with policy solutions that might both work and appeal to voters.
Well, let's just hope it goes her way. As much as I despise Hillary and as amusing as I'd find her defeat to be, I can't in good conscious feel good about The Donald.
Maybe . . . but I doubt college educated folks would have supported him in the same numbers they've supported Hillary. The cost of his programs didn't add up to being doable.
I'm with you. I don't like Hillary but Jesus...Trump in the White House? Disaster, embarrassing, unthinkable.
If Trump wins, it could touch off a left-wing version of the Tea Party. Not just a movement running lefty candidates in primaries -- but being willing to cost the Democrats elections in doing so.
Iowa & WI to Trump. He holds rest of Romney States and it's 269 to 269 without MI. House decides it.
Even 10% of Johnson voters going for Hillary would give her the lead right now. I sure hope those protest votes help them sleep
Math is starting to get really simple, now. If Hillary can somehow save the rust belt and win ONE of NV, ME or NH, she wins. If she wins MN, MI and PA, along with all three of NV, ME and NH... we will have a tie.
Not so fast.
One Hillary elector from Washington said he will not vote for her. So it would be 269-268-?
Well, that's a partial lie.
I do enjoy watching the pundits try to speak while their brains melt.
The Deplorables have wrenched the works.
Which would still go to the House, sooo... I guess the question is, who gets that one vote? Because he'd be in the mix.
Surely you aren't equating Trump with the Tea Party?
There's plenty of crossover, I'm sure -- particularly in having a revolutionary approach to the Republican establishment.
Ideologically, though, they aren't equivalents.
The Tea Party was largely responsible for rehabilitating Republican prospects in the House, Senate, and state governments. And that mostly happened before Trump.
Trump's constituency may have some overlap with the TP. But it's also quite different. The TP is/was a small government movement. Trump's has little to do with small government, alas.
A tiny ray of hope:
AZ and WI are both "too close" now. If Trump steals WI, but Hillary steals AZ, she still has a path to 270. Exactly 270.
AZ and WI are both "too close" now. If Trump steals WI, but Hillary steals AZ, she still has a path to 270. Exactly 270.
No, Trump would be equivalent to Obama.
You said a tea party comparable would come about on the left. And I'm saying they may become successful.
That would fit with the demographics of this race. The West really doesn't care for Trump
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
What the hell are schools supposed to do to stop the war in Gaza- Latest: TheOriginalHappyGoat
-
-
-