LogFAQs > #905452047

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, Database 3 ( 02.21.2018-07.23.2018 ), DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Who should be the Democrat candidate in 2020?
Zeus 07/20/18 11:56:38 PM #74:	Mead posted... Trump says a batshit crazy/offensive thing: He doesnt really mean that, I support him still Bernie says he wants things to be better for people: Youd have to be a fucking psycho to support such a crazy man! We aren't even getting into the crazy shit Bernie says, like wanting to remove blacks from street corners, suggesting that all women fantasize about being raped, etc. This is JUST his policy and public stances. And, while both Trump and Bernie want things to be better for people, Bernie's ideas are far more damaging to the long-term prospects of the nation. streamofthesky posted... BlackScythe0 posted... Zeus posted... While I lol'd, Hillary wasn't really the problem. Even if Bernie had gotten the nomination (which he never would have; many of the shenanigans complaints were overblown and, in other cases, didn't directly tie to the DNC -- such as Donna Brazile feeding the Hillary camp debate questions then, humorously enough, afterward claiming that the DNC had tried to sway the primary in Hillary's favor), he likely would have lost as well. Full and complete disagreement. Yeah, it's amusing how Zeus and the other "center-leftists" keep just claiming Bernie would've lost, or done even worse than Hillary. The solid Blue and solid Red states would've gone the same no matter who was on the ticket. Bernie would've performed a lot better w/ white working class voters and the Midwest in general, the area which cost Hillary the election due to narrow losses in several states. Bernie could've flipped Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and possibly a few others compared to Hillary's narrow losses. He'd do worse than her in Virginia and Florida, but she lost Florida anyway. Not to mention general voter turnout. Less Democrats came out to vote for her than they came out to vote for Obama in 2012, by millions. No one was excited to vote for Hillary Clinton. He clearly would've done better than her. It's amusing that Stream and the other far-leftists think that their far-left candidate who speaks to them yet couldn't even get support in his "own" party (ignoring for a second that Bernie's party isn't the Democrats, who he didn't even bother to affiliate with until just before the election and ditched again immediately afterward) would have a better time swinging the nation. It's probably because these far-leftists ignore that Bernie would up losing by a large margin. streamofthesky posted... Not to mention general voter turnout. Less Democrats came out to vote for her than they came out to vote for Obama in 2012, by millions. No one was excited to vote for Hillary Clinton. 1) "Fewer." 2) Had Bernie won, other Democrats wouldn't have bothered coming out. Considering that Hillary polled far stronger among blacks and Latinos -- two of the groups most likely to sit out elections (and both of whom heavily favored Hillary in the primaries) -- it's fully possible that the final tally would be significantly lower, not higher. But sure, keep clinging to your fantasy that Bernie stood a chance. He almost certainly would have done worse. The ONLY thing going for him is that he wasn't an establishment candidate, which wasn't even enough to get him through his primaries. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:905452047] in Who should... [t:76823398]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mead posted...</cite> <quote>Trump says a batshit crazy/offensive thing: He doesnt really mean that, I support him still Bernie says he wants things to be better for people: Youd have to be a fucking psycho to support such a crazy man!</quote> We aren't even getting into the crazy shit Bernie says, like wanting to remove blacks from street corners, suggesting that all women fantasize about being raped, etc. This is JUST his policy and public stances. And, while both Trump and Bernie want things to be better for people, Bernie's ideas are far more damaging to the long-term prospects of the nation. <cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>While I lol'd, Hillary wasn't really the problem. Even if Bernie had gotten the nomination (which he never would have; many of the shenanigans complaints were overblown and, in other cases, didn't directly tie to the DNC -- such as Donna Brazile feeding the Hillary camp debate questions then, humorously enough, afterward claiming that the DNC had tried to sway the primary in Hillary's favor), he likely would have lost as well. </quote> Full and complete disagreement.</quote> Yeah, it's amusing how Zeus and the other "center-leftists" keep just claiming Bernie would've lost, or done even worse than Hillary. The solid Blue and solid Red states would've gone the same no matter who was on the ticket. Bernie would've performed a lot better w/ white working class voters and the Midwest in general, the area which cost Hillary the election due to narrow losses in several states. Bernie could've flipped Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and possibly a few others compared to Hillary's narrow losses. He'd do worse than her in Virginia and Florida, but she lost Florida anyway. Not to mention general voter turnout. Less Democrats came out to vote for her than they came out to vote for Obama in 2012, by millions. No one was excited to vote for Hillary Clinton. He clearly would've done better than her.</quote> It's amusing that Stream and the other far-leftists think that their far-left candidate who speaks to them yet couldn't even get support in his "own" party (ignoring for a second that Bernie's party isn't the Democrats, who he didn't even bother to affiliate with until just before the election and ditched again immediately afterward) would have a better time swinging the nation. It's probably because these far-leftists ignore that Bernie would up losing by a large margin. <cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote>Not to mention general voter turnout. Less Democrats came out to vote for her than they came out to vote for Obama in 2012, by millions. No one was excited to vote for Hillary Clinton.</quote> 1) "Fewer." 2) Had Bernie won, other Democrats wouldn't have bothered coming out. Considering that Hillary polled far stronger among blacks and Latinos -- two of the groups most likely to sit out elections (and both of whom heavily favored Hillary in the primaries) -- it's fully possible that the final tally would be significantly lower, not higher. But sure, keep clinging to your fantasy that Bernie stood a chance. He almost certainly would have done worse. The ONLY thing going for him is that he wasn't an establishment candidate, which wasn't even enough to get him through his primaries. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1