Jump to content

2020 Democratic Nominee

used2b

By used2b
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 23.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • bad_teammate

    3638

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    2212

  • Hank Kingsley

    1252

  • Js1

    1230

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Huckleberry
Huckleberry

No it doesn't, this is absurd selfishness on a grand scale. Nobody is getting punished. My wife and I paid off our student loans, and you know what I think about younger people or even those in our ge

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

i’ve really enjoyed the 900 posts from bt explaining how bernie people aren’t aggressive, obsessive, and very-online.  truly a learning experience. 

Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton

3rd or 4th thread but whos counting.  Name recognition and ability to collect money is most important to the Democratic Party. They aren't trying to win 2020, they are trying to rebuild and colle

Posted Images

Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted
6-12% of Bernie voters went Trump.
23-25% of Hillary voters went McCain.


I’ve seen you post this a lot, so I googled it to see where you were getting the numbers from.

You leave out the most interesting parts.

Perhaps the most important feature of Sanders-Trump voters is this: They weren’t really Democrats to begin with.

Schaffner found that what distinguished Sanders-Trump voters from Sanders-Clinton voters wasn’t their attitudes about trade, but their attitudes about race. When asked whether whites are advantaged, Sanders-Trump voters were much more likely to disagree than were Sanders-Clinton voters.

The same thing is true in the VOTER survey — and, again, this was evident well before 2016. When originally interviewed in December 2011, Sanders-Trump voters were actually more likely to favor increasing trade (59 percent said so) than Sanders-Clinton voters (48 percent said so).

And, again, the bigger cleavage involved race. For example, in December 2011, 75 percent of Sanders-Trump voters agreed with this statement: “If blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites.” Only 16 percent of Sanders-Clinton voters agreed.

Similarly, when how they felt about whites and blacks on a 0-100 scale, Sanders-Trump voters rated blacks 9 points lower than Sanders-Clinton voters. But Sanders-Trump voters rated whites 8 points higher.

The same thing was true for other minority groups. Compared with Sanders-Clinton voters, Sanders-Trump voters rated Latinos 11 points less favorably, Muslims 20 points less favorably, and gays and lesbians 31 points less favorably.

In short, it may be hard to know exactly how many Sanders-Trump voters there were, or whether they really cost Clinton the election. But it doesn’t appear that many of them were predisposed to support Clinton in the first place.


I wish they would have included how those voters felt about women and would have given a breakdown of their demographics.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13224

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

I’ve seen you post this a lot, so I googled it to see where you were getting the numbers from.

You leave out the most interesting parts.

I wish they would have included how those voters felt about women and would have given a breakdown of their demographics.

That's seriously more interesting to you than the established fact that Hillary voters are more disloyal to the Democratic Party (twice over) than Bernie voters? It's amazing how you guys, many of you completely new to left/liberal politics, don't realize what that's actually about or how any of these power structures work.

Yes, Bernie brought in non-liberals and non-Democrats. That's a good thing. Using a message of economic populism he did (and will, in the future) actually win and bring people into the party. For people who want liberal policies to actually happen, that's a good thing.

But the Iron Law of Institutions won, so instead of winning and changing America for the better, the Democratic power establishment decided to cater to people that look like them (suburban moderate Republicans) and completely ignore both working class whites in the Rust Belt (ewwww, so gross and un-woke!) and Southern blacks (sorry, but the numbers reveal that Hillary had no appeal to them because Hillary didn't reach out to them).

The Iron Law of Institutions:
“the people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution ‘fail’ while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to “succeed” if that requires them to lose power within the institution.”

What we will see in 2020 is the DNC establishment anointing a candidate who will pay vague lip service to genuine popular policy but who, in reality, ensures the existing power structure (rich, primarily-white, people from the "right" places).

So you're upset that Bernie attracted some un-woke, gross Rust Belt whites, right? That's the problem with him?

OK, please answer this question: What appeals did Bernie make to them to make them like him?

- Did he say sexist/racist things?
- Did he advocate sexist/racist policies?
- Did he blow sexist/racist dog whistles?

Edited by bad_teammate
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13224

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Kamala Harris had an affair with Willie Brown, who in turn appointed her to two state commissions and helped her with her first race for district attorney. He was in his 60s.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/former-san-francisco-mayor-addresses-past-relationship-with-sen-kamala-harris

I have zero problem with this. If that's what we make women do to get ahead in a patriarchy, how the hell can we get mad at them for doing it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13224

Posted
Posted

Sorry to triple-post, but seeing Clinton family loyalists come in like the Clintons are the woke defenders of gay, women's, and black civil rights is so baffling to me because it shows an alarming historical ignorance as to how Democratic politics have worked for 30 years now.

CsgyIErVMAAfwDD.jpg

Do any of you Woke Queen Hilldawg people know who these people are? Where this is held? What message this was intended to send?

And it's not even like this is some gotcha photo (it's Stone Mountain, look up its history), this is literally how the Clintons sold themselves and their "New Democrats" as a winning coalition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted

Can we ever let the fucking Clintons go? 

Let me give my candid perspective on the Clintons one last time since this shit won’t die already.

First, Bill and Hillary are a package deal. They’re both political powerhouses in their own right but they come together.

I believe the Clintons were politicians first but I also believe they were in it for ultimately benevolent reasons.  I base this on the few moments they showed political courage and fought for things like health care, that ultimately backfired.

They weren’t money grubbing grifters but they would take advantage of corporate money to put themselves in power to make change.   

They flip flopped a lot on issues because they wanted to shift their positions with the way the country was moving, politics first, always with the Clintons.  This was probably the most valid turnoff, their lack of convictions on topics made them appear disingenuous which they probably were in many areas.

Neither Bill or Hillary are great leaders but they were adequate administrators when in position of power because they respected popular opinion and always tried to govern towards that instead of away from it.

They’re both gone and not coming back. 

Time to let them go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18944

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Can we ever let the fucking Clintons go? 

Let me give my candid perspective on the Clintons one last time since this shit won’t die already.

First, Bill and Hillary are a package deal. They’re both political powerhouses in their own right but they come together.

I believe the Clintons were politicians first but I also believe they were in it for ultimately benevolent reasons.  I base this on the few moments they showed political courage and fought for things like health care, that ultimately backfired.

They weren’t money grubbing grifters but they would take advantage of corporate money to put themselves in power to make change.   

They flip flopped a lot on issues because they wanted to shift their positions with the way the country was moving, politics first, always with the Clintons.  This was probably the most valid turnoff, their lack of convictions on topics made them appear disingenuous which they probably were in many areas.

Neither Bill or Hillary are great leaders but they were adequate administrators when in position of power because they respected popular opinion and always tried to govern towards that instead of away from it.

They’re both gone and not coming back. 

Time to let them go.

It would be nice if they would never put themselves in front of a camera ever again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105251

Posted
Posted
Kamala Harris had an affair with Willie Brown, who in turn appointed her to two state commissions and helped her with her first race for district attorney. He was in his 60s.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/former-san-francisco-mayor-addresses-past-relationship-with-sen-kamala-harris

He’d show up at parties with his wife on one arm and his girlfriend on the other.
Is this article supposed to accomplish something other than making me wanna fistbump Willie Brown’s pimp hand?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13224

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Can we ever let the fucking Clintons go? 

Of course not. First, they themselves will never shut up and go away. Second, history exists and there's no reason to pretend it doesn't. Why not learn from it?

And it's hilarious for you to whine about people talking negatively about the Clintons when you take every opportunity to can to attack Bernie. It is pathetic to watch you guys howl "HEY! SAME SIDE!" when Hillary is called out, but any chance to sneak a knife into Bernie is A-OK with you.

If Hillary says things that are absolute, demonstrable lies as soon as news comes out that Bernie might run, there is no need for you to come charging in on your white stallion to defend her.

Hillary Clinton: "I convinced my supporters to vote for him. I didn't get the same respect from my primary opponent."

Two completely dishonest statements. Huge fucking lies. Massive fucking lies. Her supporters were, like her as a leader and human, historically vindictive and they (Hugo, BamaChick, etc...) still are, partially because they are actually just woke-Republicans and partially because they are ignorant.

Bernie endorsed her in July of 2016 and was on the stump for her across the country all the way up to the election.

"Hillary is a national treasure," Go fuck yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zonahorn

Zonahorn 8079

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Hot Chick said:

STFU Bernie bots. YOU GAVE US TRUMP.

Go away, I will never vote for Bernie ever. His sour frowning pro gun Russian-bought selfish socialist face is gonna get #metoo'd.

All his polls were Russian fakes. He can't win a single state.

Girl power!

Hey look, its ADHD/Purgatory again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28813

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Until Beto’s announcement 

The Fox News chyrons for Harris rally are hilarious.

“Harris will welcome refugees”

”Harris will protect reproductive rights in every state”

Other than enthusiasm, what does Beto bring to the table as a candidate? His experience as a representative from El Paso doesn't really make for a good Presidential candidate.

While Harris has only been a Senator for a month, I think being A.G. for the state of California gives her a pretty big edge, regarding experience, over Beto.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
Just now, F250 said:

Other than enthusiasm, what does Beto bring to the table as a candidate? His experience as a representative from El Paso doesn't really make for a good Presidential candidate.

While Harris has only been a Senator for a month, I think being A.G. for the state of California gives her a pretty big edge, regarding experience, over Beto.

Beto is dreamy, has passion, and purpose.

Sometimes that’s enough. 

Trump’s background was a life of crime and failure so the bar isn’t that high. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...