The Democratic Candidates

curmudgeoness

OnWis97 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

CM189191 said:

my2hands said:

what dreams said:

Why is it that Bernie Sanders won't accept responsibility for losing the nomination in 2016? All he ever does is blame everyone else. I've never heard him publicly say it was his fault. He lost because he was an awful candidate who couldn't get people excited enough to vote for him. He should just go away. If he loses this time, who will he blame?

Hmmm . . .   where have I heard this before???? 

If he was an awful candidate, then what was the candidate that LOST to Donald Trump?

Yeah, she fucking sucked

3 million + sucked

Sanders would've gotten CRUSHED had he been the nominee. 

Eh...I dunno. At least he had people passionate about him. There were people that enthusiastically voted for him in the primary, and probably would have in the general had he won. It didn't appear that many were  passionate or enthusiastic about Hillary. Even I voted for her just under the premise of "Well, I guess I have to." 

For as passionate as those people were, the less likeable candidate still got 4 million more votes (55%-43%) than him in the primaries. 

That seems a little arbitrary. Trump had more viable candidates in Kasich, Cruz, Rubio, and even Carson against him to take away votes while Hillary just had Bernie to contend with. And even if I'm wrong about that making a difference...has it really come to this, Juggler? Cherry-picking numbers like the percentage of the vote Hillary and Trump got in their respective primaries? That's like a fan of the 18-0 Patriots arguing "Yeah? Well the Pats BEAT the Giants in week 17 that year!"

Dude...huh? Are you drunk? I’m comparing Hillary’s to Bernie’s numbers. If he got smoked by her in the primary and she couldn’t beat Trump in the general, why on earth would you think he would’ve done better than her?

speaking as a canadian who doesn't vote more than once per election cycle, what are the turnout numbers in the primaries vs the general? is it not possible that a lot of people don't vote in the primaries and just wait for the general?

Yes the turnout is much lower.  But it's hard to have sympathy for people who choose not to participate and then complain about the outcome. 

my question was more geared towards juggler's comment that it is simple math that if hillary won the primary, and lost to trump, that obviously that means bernie loses to trump. but if what you say is true, and is what I suspected, it's not a case of simple math. if she was the most disliked candidate in history, how is it a slam dunk that bernie would have lost to trump?

it's not. 

You're correct.  Any assumptions on the other side are just as tenuous. 

My gut, which is all I have but is the best gut, says that the word "socialist" would have been difficult for Bernie to overcome. But maybe that would not have hurt him as much as 25 years of Hillary being the most hated woman in America.  So who knows...

it's interesting.....before the election, I had no idea she was the "most hated woman in america". is this just revisionist history?

When Bill hit the scene in about 1991, people hated her immediately.  Most hated woman in America?  Maybe not, but she was hated from day 1.  I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I really believe much of it was because she was the kind of woman that could succeed with or without her husband; not necessarily what we wanted (then or now) out of our first ladies.

My husband said, thirty years of negative press is hard to overcome. Surely I'm not the only person who remembers the outcry over Hillary's "baking cookies" comment? My husband also said (I'm quoting him, since he's offering a man's perspective, which I don't have) that the misogyny that remains deeply entrenched in our culture was a big obstacle to her winning. I know many women are chagrined that Mayor Pete, et al are getting attention that they think ought to be going to female candidates. It was so exciting to be able to cast my vote for a woman, it really was. And if Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren is the Dem nominee, I will be thrilled to vote for them. But my top priority is having a candidate who can beat Agent Orange and, while I think Harris would be a dynamite option, my gut tells me there are people who would be comfortable voting for a gay white man who would balk at voting for a woman. It would be nice if my gut were wrong about this.

  @OnWis97 I agree, she didn't fit expectations from the beginning, and some people hated that.

OnWis97

curmudgeoness said:

OnWis97 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

CM189191 said:

my2hands said:

what dreams said:

Why is it that Bernie Sanders won't accept responsibility for losing the nomination in 2016? All he ever does is blame everyone else. I've never heard him publicly say it was his fault. He lost because he was an awful candidate who couldn't get people excited enough to vote for him. He should just go away. If he loses this time, who will he blame?

Hmmm . . .   where have I heard this before???? 

If he was an awful candidate, then what was the candidate that LOST to Donald Trump?

Yeah, she fucking sucked

3 million + sucked

Sanders would've gotten CRUSHED had he been the nominee. 

Eh...I dunno. At least he had people passionate about him. There were people that enthusiastically voted for him in the primary, and probably would have in the general had he won. It didn't appear that many were  passionate or enthusiastic about Hillary. Even I voted for her just under the premise of "Well, I guess I have to." 

For as passionate as those people were, the less likeable candidate still got 4 million more votes (55%-43%) than him in the primaries. 

That seems a little arbitrary. Trump had more viable candidates in Kasich, Cruz, Rubio, and even Carson against him to take away votes while Hillary just had Bernie to contend with. And even if I'm wrong about that making a difference...has it really come to this, Juggler? Cherry-picking numbers like the percentage of the vote Hillary and Trump got in their respective primaries? That's like a fan of the 18-0 Patriots arguing "Yeah? Well the Pats BEAT the Giants in week 17 that year!"

Dude...huh? Are you drunk? I’m comparing Hillary’s to Bernie’s numbers. If he got smoked by her in the primary and she couldn’t beat Trump in the general, why on earth would you think he would’ve done better than her?

speaking as a canadian who doesn't vote more than once per election cycle, what are the turnout numbers in the primaries vs the general? is it not possible that a lot of people don't vote in the primaries and just wait for the general?

Yes the turnout is much lower.  But it's hard to have sympathy for people who choose not to participate and then complain about the outcome. 

my question was more geared towards juggler's comment that it is simple math that if hillary won the primary, and lost to trump, that obviously that means bernie loses to trump. but if what you say is true, and is what I suspected, it's not a case of simple math. if she was the most disliked candidate in history, how is it a slam dunk that bernie would have lost to trump?

it's not. 

You're correct.  Any assumptions on the other side are just as tenuous. 

My gut, which is all I have but is the best gut, says that the word "socialist" would have been difficult for Bernie to overcome. But maybe that would not have hurt him as much as 25 years of Hillary being the most hated woman in America.  So who knows...

it's interesting.....before the election, I had no idea she was the "most hated woman in america". is this just revisionist history?

When Bill hit the scene in about 1991, people hated her immediately.  Most hated woman in America?  Maybe not, but she was hated from day 1.  I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I really believe much of it was because she was the kind of woman that could succeed with or without her husband; not necessarily what we wanted (then or now) out of our first ladies.

My husband said, thirty years of negative press is hard to overcome. Surely I'm not the only person who remembers the outcry over Hillary's "baking cookies" comment? My husband also said (I'm quoting him, since he's offering a man's perspective, which I don't have) that the misogyny that remains deeply entrenched in our culture was a big obstacle to her winning. I know many women are chagrined that Mayor Pete, et al are getting attention that they think ought to be going to female candidates. It was so exciting to be able to cast my vote for a woman, it really was. And if Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren is the Dem nominee, I will be thrilled to vote for them. But my top priority is having a candidate who can beat Agent Orange and, while I think Harris would be a dynamite option, my gut tells me there are people who would be comfortable voting for a gay white man who would balk at voting for a woman. It would be nice if my gut were wrong about this.

  @OnWis97 I agree, she didn't fit expectations from the beginning, and some people hated that.

Great...your second-hand report of what your husband said delivered the point better than I could.  

curmudgeoness

Why the rudeness?

OnWis97

curmudgeoness said:

Why the rudeness?

Not intended.  The intent was self-deprecation.  

Ledbetterman10

OnWis97 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

CM189191 said:

my2hands said:

what dreams said:

Why is it that Bernie Sanders won't accept responsibility for losing the nomination in 2016? All he ever does is blame everyone else. I've never heard him publicly say it was his fault. He lost because he was an awful candidate who couldn't get people excited enough to vote for him. He should just go away. If he loses this time, who will he blame?

Hmmm . . .   where have I heard this before???? 

If he was an awful candidate, then what was the candidate that LOST to Donald Trump?

Yeah, she fucking sucked

3 million + sucked

Sanders would've gotten CRUSHED had he been the nominee. 

Eh...I dunno. At least he had people passionate about him. There were people that enthusiastically voted for him in the primary, and probably would have in the general had he won. It didn't appear that many were  passionate or enthusiastic about Hillary. Even I voted for her just under the premise of "Well, I guess I have to." 

For as passionate as those people were, the less likeable candidate still got 4 million more votes (55%-43%) than him in the primaries. 

That seems a little arbitrary. Trump had more viable candidates in Kasich, Cruz, Rubio, and even Carson against him to take away votes while Hillary just had Bernie to contend with. And even if I'm wrong about that making a difference...has it really come to this, Juggler? Cherry-picking numbers like the percentage of the vote Hillary and Trump got in their respective primaries? That's like a fan of the 18-0 Patriots arguing "Yeah? Well the Pats BEAT the Giants in week 17 that year!"

Dude...huh? Are you drunk? I’m comparing Hillary’s to Bernie’s numbers. If he got smoked by her in the primary and she couldn’t beat Trump in the general, why on earth would you think he would’ve done better than her?

speaking as a canadian who doesn't vote more than once per election cycle, what are the turnout numbers in the primaries vs the general? is it not possible that a lot of people don't vote in the primaries and just wait for the general?

Yes the turnout is much lower.  But it's hard to have sympathy for people who choose not to participate and then complain about the outcome. 

my question was more geared towards juggler's comment that it is simple math that if hillary won the primary, and lost to trump, that obviously that means bernie loses to trump. but if what you say is true, and is what I suspected, it's not a case of simple math. if she was the most disliked candidate in history, how is it a slam dunk that bernie would have lost to trump?

it's not. 

You're correct.  Any assumptions on the other side are just as tenuous. 

My gut, which is all I have but is the best gut, says that the word "socialist" would have been difficult for Bernie to overcome. But maybe that would not have hurt him as much as 25 years of Hillary being the most hated woman in America.  So who knows...

it's interesting.....before the election, I had no idea she was the "most hated woman in america". is this just revisionist history?

When Bill hit the scene in about 1991, people hated her immediately.  Most hated woman in America?  Maybe not, but she was hated from day 1.  I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I really believe much of it was because she was the kind of woman that could succeed with or without her husband; not necessarily what we wanted (then or now) out of our first ladies.

Well she sure proved that notion wrong as stood beside Bill despite him fucking other women because it was in her best political interest to be Bill Clinton's wife. More of a political partnership than a marriage. And judging by their net worth...a successful one. But I'd have way more respect for her if she kicked him to the curb and went about the rest of her political career on her own. 

HughFreakingDillon

Ledbetterman10 said:

OnWis97 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

CM189191 said:

my2hands said:

what dreams said:

Why is it that Bernie Sanders won't accept responsibility for losing the nomination in 2016? All he ever does is blame everyone else. I've never heard him publicly say it was his fault. He lost because he was an awful candidate who couldn't get people excited enough to vote for him. He should just go away. If he loses this time, who will he blame?

Hmmm . . .   where have I heard this before???? 

If he was an awful candidate, then what was the candidate that LOST to Donald Trump?

Yeah, she fucking sucked

3 million + sucked

Sanders would've gotten CRUSHED had he been the nominee. 

Eh...I dunno. At least he had people passionate about him. There were people that enthusiastically voted for him in the primary, and probably would have in the general had he won. It didn't appear that many were  passionate or enthusiastic about Hillary. Even I voted for her just under the premise of "Well, I guess I have to." 

For as passionate as those people were, the less likeable candidate still got 4 million more votes (55%-43%) than him in the primaries. 

That seems a little arbitrary. Trump had more viable candidates in Kasich, Cruz, Rubio, and even Carson against him to take away votes while Hillary just had Bernie to contend with. And even if I'm wrong about that making a difference...has it really come to this, Juggler? Cherry-picking numbers like the percentage of the vote Hillary and Trump got in their respective primaries? That's like a fan of the 18-0 Patriots arguing "Yeah? Well the Pats BEAT the Giants in week 17 that year!"

Dude...huh? Are you drunk? I’m comparing Hillary’s to Bernie’s numbers. If he got smoked by her in the primary and she couldn’t beat Trump in the general, why on earth would you think he would’ve done better than her?

speaking as a canadian who doesn't vote more than once per election cycle, what are the turnout numbers in the primaries vs the general? is it not possible that a lot of people don't vote in the primaries and just wait for the general?

Yes the turnout is much lower.  But it's hard to have sympathy for people who choose not to participate and then complain about the outcome. 

my question was more geared towards juggler's comment that it is simple math that if hillary won the primary, and lost to trump, that obviously that means bernie loses to trump. but if what you say is true, and is what I suspected, it's not a case of simple math. if she was the most disliked candidate in history, how is it a slam dunk that bernie would have lost to trump?

it's not. 

You're correct.  Any assumptions on the other side are just as tenuous. 

My gut, which is all I have but is the best gut, says that the word "socialist" would have been difficult for Bernie to overcome. But maybe that would not have hurt him as much as 25 years of Hillary being the most hated woman in America.  So who knows...

it's interesting.....before the election, I had no idea she was the "most hated woman in america". is this just revisionist history?

When Bill hit the scene in about 1991, people hated her immediately.  Most hated woman in America?  Maybe not, but she was hated from day 1.  I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I really believe much of it was because she was the kind of woman that could succeed with or without her husband; not necessarily what we wanted (then or now) out of our first ladies.

Well she sure proved that notion wrong as stood beside Bill despite him fucking other women because it was in her best political interest to be Bill Clinton's wife. More of a political partnership than a marriage. And judging by their net worth...a successful one. But I'd have way more respect for her if she kicked him to the curb and went about the rest of her political career on her own. 

I don't think anyone can say definitively one way or the other that the sole reason she stayed with him was for her career/political aspirations. if so, they are damn good at faking it in public. 

many marriages survive infidelity. do they survive infidelity that humiliating on a global scale? I don't know. But I think it does her a disservice, and women in general, by assuming she stayed with him because it would help her career. You could argue she would have been better off politically had she severed ties with him. 

OnWis97

Ledbetterman10 said:

OnWis97 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

CM189191 said:

my2hands said:

what dreams said:

Why is it that Bernie Sanders won't accept responsibility for losing the nomination in 2016? All he ever does is blame everyone else. I've never heard him publicly say it was his fault. He lost because he was an awful candidate who couldn't get people excited enough to vote for him. He should just go away. If he loses this time, who will he blame?

Hmmm . . .   where have I heard this before???? 

If he was an awful candidate, then what was the candidate that LOST to Donald Trump?

Yeah, she fucking sucked

3 million + sucked

Sanders would've gotten CRUSHED had he been the nominee. 

Eh...I dunno. At least he had people passionate about him. There were people that enthusiastically voted for him in the primary, and probably would have in the general had he won. It didn't appear that many were  passionate or enthusiastic about Hillary. Even I voted for her just under the premise of "Well, I guess I have to." 

For as passionate as those people were, the less likeable candidate still got 4 million more votes (55%-43%) than him in the primaries. 

That seems a little arbitrary. Trump had more viable candidates in Kasich, Cruz, Rubio, and even Carson against him to take away votes while Hillary just had Bernie to contend with. And even if I'm wrong about that making a difference...has it really come to this, Juggler? Cherry-picking numbers like the percentage of the vote Hillary and Trump got in their respective primaries? That's like a fan of the 18-0 Patriots arguing "Yeah? Well the Pats BEAT the Giants in week 17 that year!"

Dude...huh? Are you drunk? I’m comparing Hillary’s to Bernie’s numbers. If he got smoked by her in the primary and she couldn’t beat Trump in the general, why on earth would you think he would’ve done better than her?

speaking as a canadian who doesn't vote more than once per election cycle, what are the turnout numbers in the primaries vs the general? is it not possible that a lot of people don't vote in the primaries and just wait for the general?

Yes the turnout is much lower.  But it's hard to have sympathy for people who choose not to participate and then complain about the outcome. 

my question was more geared towards juggler's comment that it is simple math that if hillary won the primary, and lost to trump, that obviously that means bernie loses to trump. but if what you say is true, and is what I suspected, it's not a case of simple math. if she was the most disliked candidate in history, how is it a slam dunk that bernie would have lost to trump?

it's not. 

You're correct.  Any assumptions on the other side are just as tenuous. 

My gut, which is all I have but is the best gut, says that the word "socialist" would have been difficult for Bernie to overcome. But maybe that would not have hurt him as much as 25 years of Hillary being the most hated woman in America.  So who knows...

it's interesting.....before the election, I had no idea she was the "most hated woman in america". is this just revisionist history?

When Bill hit the scene in about 1991, people hated her immediately.  Most hated woman in America?  Maybe not, but she was hated from day 1.  I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I really believe much of it was because she was the kind of woman that could succeed with or without her husband; not necessarily what we wanted (then or now) out of our first ladies.

Well she sure proved that notion wrong as stood beside Bill despite him fucking other women because it was in her best political interest to be Bill Clinton's wife. More of a political partnership than a marriage. And judging by their net worth...a successful one. But I'd have way more respect for her if she kicked him to the curb and went about the rest of her political career on her own. 

Well in 1991, she was seen as educated and intelligent.  The first lady was supposed to be June Cleaver.

Ledbetterman10

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

OnWis97 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

CM189191 said:

my2hands said:

what dreams said:

Why is it that Bernie Sanders won't accept responsibility for losing the nomination in 2016? All he ever does is blame everyone else. I've never heard him publicly say it was his fault. He lost because he was an awful candidate who couldn't get people excited enough to vote for him. He should just go away. If he loses this time, who will he blame?

Hmmm . . .   where have I heard this before???? 

If he was an awful candidate, then what was the candidate that LOST to Donald Trump?

Yeah, she fucking sucked

3 million + sucked

Sanders would've gotten CRUSHED had he been the nominee. 

Eh...I dunno. At least he had people passionate about him. There were people that enthusiastically voted for him in the primary, and probably would have in the general had he won. It didn't appear that many were  passionate or enthusiastic about Hillary. Even I voted for her just under the premise of "Well, I guess I have to." 

For as passionate as those people were, the less likeable candidate still got 4 million more votes (55%-43%) than him in the primaries. 

That seems a little arbitrary. Trump had more viable candidates in Kasich, Cruz, Rubio, and even Carson against him to take away votes while Hillary just had Bernie to contend with. And even if I'm wrong about that making a difference...has it really come to this, Juggler? Cherry-picking numbers like the percentage of the vote Hillary and Trump got in their respective primaries? That's like a fan of the 18-0 Patriots arguing "Yeah? Well the Pats BEAT the Giants in week 17 that year!"

Dude...huh? Are you drunk? I’m comparing Hillary’s to Bernie’s numbers. If he got smoked by her in the primary and she couldn’t beat Trump in the general, why on earth would you think he would’ve done better than her?

speaking as a canadian who doesn't vote more than once per election cycle, what are the turnout numbers in the primaries vs the general? is it not possible that a lot of people don't vote in the primaries and just wait for the general?

Yes the turnout is much lower.  But it's hard to have sympathy for people who choose not to participate and then complain about the outcome. 

my question was more geared towards juggler's comment that it is simple math that if hillary won the primary, and lost to trump, that obviously that means bernie loses to trump. but if what you say is true, and is what I suspected, it's not a case of simple math. if she was the most disliked candidate in history, how is it a slam dunk that bernie would have lost to trump?

it's not. 

You're correct.  Any assumptions on the other side are just as tenuous. 

My gut, which is all I have but is the best gut, says that the word "socialist" would have been difficult for Bernie to overcome. But maybe that would not have hurt him as much as 25 years of Hillary being the most hated woman in America.  So who knows...

it's interesting.....before the election, I had no idea she was the "most hated woman in america". is this just revisionist history?

When Bill hit the scene in about 1991, people hated her immediately.  Most hated woman in America?  Maybe not, but she was hated from day 1.  I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I really believe much of it was because she was the kind of woman that could succeed with or without her husband; not necessarily what we wanted (then or now) out of our first ladies.

Well she sure proved that notion wrong as stood beside Bill despite him fucking other women because it was in her best political interest to be Bill Clinton's wife. More of a political partnership than a marriage. And judging by their net worth...a successful one. But I'd have way more respect for her if she kicked him to the curb and went about the rest of her political career on her own. 

I don't think anyone can say definitively one way or the other that the sole reason she stayed with him was for her career/political aspirations. if so, they are damn good at faking it in public. 

many marriages survive infidelity. do they survive infidelity that humiliating on a global scale? I don't know. But I think it does her a disservice, and women in general, by assuming she stayed with him because it would help her career. You could argue she would have been better off politically had she severed ties with him. 

I could go either way on this. Part of me feels that, because Bill is so beloved by democrats, Hillary might have been "blackballed" so to speak. But on the other hand, I feel that her staying with Bill may have turned off some female voters in 2016. She lost white women to Trump, and her excuse was that she felt that fathers and husbands MADE the women in their lives vote for Trump. Yeah...right. Or maybe those women felt that Hillary can't be much of a leader when she's joined at the hip by someone like Bill. Or maybe not. Who knows what anybody was thinking during the 2016 election. 

Spiritual_Chaos

With the news about the Pete being part of meetings with the democratic party on how to handle "the Bernie problem" I'm feeling the bern again, but still - here's some more Pete:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCejczbSMVE

Spiritual_Chaos

Ledbetterman10 said:

OnWis97 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

CM189191 said:

my2hands said:

what dreams said:

Why is it that Bernie Sanders won't accept responsibility for losing the nomination in 2016? All he ever does is blame everyone else. I've never heard him publicly say it was his fault. He lost because he was an awful candidate who couldn't get people excited enough to vote for him. He should just go away. If he loses this time, who will he blame?

Hmmm . . .   where have I heard this before???? 

If he was an awful candidate, then what was the candidate that LOST to Donald Trump?

Yeah, she fucking sucked

3 million + sucked

Sanders would've gotten CRUSHED had he been the nominee. 

Eh...I dunno. At least he had people passionate about him. There were people that enthusiastically voted for him in the primary, and probably would have in the general had he won. It didn't appear that many were  passionate or enthusiastic about Hillary. Even I voted for her just under the premise of "Well, I guess I have to." 

For as passionate as those people were, the less likeable candidate still got 4 million more votes (55%-43%) than him in the primaries. 

That seems a little arbitrary. Trump had more viable candidates in Kasich, Cruz, Rubio, and even Carson against him to take away votes while Hillary just had Bernie to contend with. And even if I'm wrong about that making a difference...has it really come to this, Juggler? Cherry-picking numbers like the percentage of the vote Hillary and Trump got in their respective primaries? That's like a fan of the 18-0 Patriots arguing "Yeah? Well the Pats BEAT the Giants in week 17 that year!"

Dude...huh? Are you drunk? I’m comparing Hillary’s to Bernie’s numbers. If he got smoked by her in the primary and she couldn’t beat Trump in the general, why on earth would you think he would’ve done better than her?

speaking as a canadian who doesn't vote more than once per election cycle, what are the turnout numbers in the primaries vs the general? is it not possible that a lot of people don't vote in the primaries and just wait for the general?

Yes the turnout is much lower.  But it's hard to have sympathy for people who choose not to participate and then complain about the outcome. 

my question was more geared towards juggler's comment that it is simple math that if hillary won the primary, and lost to trump, that obviously that means bernie loses to trump. but if what you say is true, and is what I suspected, it's not a case of simple math. if she was the most disliked candidate in history, how is it a slam dunk that bernie would have lost to trump?

it's not. 

You're correct.  Any assumptions on the other side are just as tenuous. 

My gut, which is all I have but is the best gut, says that the word "socialist" would have been difficult for Bernie to overcome. But maybe that would not have hurt him as much as 25 years of Hillary being the most hated woman in America.  So who knows...

it's interesting.....before the election, I had no idea she was the "most hated woman in america". is this just revisionist history?

When Bill hit the scene in about 1991, people hated her immediately.  Most hated woman in America?  Maybe not, but she was hated from day 1.  I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I really believe much of it was because she was the kind of woman that could succeed with or without her husband; not necessarily what we wanted (then or now) out of our first ladies.

Well she sure proved that notion wrong as stood beside Bill despite him fucking other women because it was in her best political interest to be Bill Clinton's wife. 

Receipts on that please?

Your partner having sex with someone else during the relationship =/= leaving or staying because of political interest.

But obviously a narrative that's been established about Hillary and, as seen by you, so easy to keep feeding.

Hi!

I’m back with Bernie for now. I like a Bernie/Warren ticket. They have been hitting the ground hard and offering substantial policy ideas. I actually watched the full Fox town hall with Bernie last night and thought it was really good and interesting. It was really fascinating watching Bernie being able to express his ideas freely on the Fox propaganda channel. I think it is actually more effective form of getting your message/ ideas across than a debate would have been. I can actually imagine a long time Fox News consumer who would typically be right of center be taken in by how Bernie talks about poor/middle class issues.

CM189191

Hi! said:

I’m back with Bernie for now. I like a Bernie/Warren ticket. They have been hitting the ground hard and offering substantial policy ideas. I actually watched the full Fox town hall with Bernie last night and thought it was really good and interesting. It was really fascinating watching Bernie being able to express his ideas freely on the Fox propaganda channel. I think it is actually more effective form of getting your message/ ideas across than a debate would have been. I can actually imagine a long time Fox News consumer who would typically be right of center be taken in by how Bernie talks about poor/middle class issues.

yes...it was 'fascinating' to watch fox news push the candidate that helped trump win

you almost have to wonder what their motive is

Lenin — 'The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.'

Hi!

CM189191 said:

Hi! said:

I’m back with Bernie for now. I like a Bernie/Warren ticket. They have been hitting the ground hard and offering substantial policy ideas. I actually watched the full Fox town hall with Bernie last night and thought it was really good and interesting. It was really fascinating watching Bernie being able to express his ideas freely on the Fox propaganda channel. I think it is actually more effective form of getting your message/ ideas across than a debate would have been. I can actually imagine a long time Fox News consumer who would typically be right of center be taken in by how Bernie talks about poor/middle class issues.

yes...it was 'fascinating' to watch fox news push the candidate that helped trump win

you almost have to wonder what their motive is

Lenin — 'The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.'

Lol

Hi!

Klobuchar will be doing the next Fox townhall and Mayor Pete’s camp in discussions for one. 

cincybearcat

Hi! said:

Klobuchar will be doing the next Fox townhall and Mayor Pete’s camp in discussions for one. 

Perfect.

mcgruff10

Good news!

tbergs

mcgruff10 said:

Good news!

This would immediately make every other dem almost a non-factor besides Sanders. Back to the standard old white dudes duking it out for control of the country. I like it and I hate it because the better candidates all have no chance, but I think Biden thumps Trump in a general. Not even close.

The Juggler

Ledbetterman10 said:

OnWis97 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

CM189191 said:

my2hands said:

what dreams said:

Why is it that Bernie Sanders won't accept responsibility for losing the nomination in 2016? All he ever does is blame everyone else. I've never heard him publicly say it was his fault. He lost because he was an awful candidate who couldn't get people excited enough to vote for him. He should just go away. If he loses this time, who will he blame?

Hmmm . . .   where have I heard this before???? 

If he was an awful candidate, then what was the candidate that LOST to Donald Trump?

Yeah, she fucking sucked

3 million + sucked

Sanders would've gotten CRUSHED had he been the nominee. 

Eh...I dunno. At least he had people passionate about him. There were people that enthusiastically voted for him in the primary, and probably would have in the general had he won. It didn't appear that many were  passionate or enthusiastic about Hillary. Even I voted for her just under the premise of "Well, I guess I have to." 

For as passionate as those people were, the less likeable candidate still got 4 million more votes (55%-43%) than him in the primaries. 

That seems a little arbitrary. Trump had more viable candidates in Kasich, Cruz, Rubio, and even Carson against him to take away votes while Hillary just had Bernie to contend with. And even if I'm wrong about that making a difference...has it really come to this, Juggler? Cherry-picking numbers like the percentage of the vote Hillary and Trump got in their respective primaries? That's like a fan of the 18-0 Patriots arguing "Yeah? Well the Pats BEAT the Giants in week 17 that year!"

Dude...huh? Are you drunk? I’m comparing Hillary’s to Bernie’s numbers. If he got smoked by her in the primary and she couldn’t beat Trump in the general, why on earth would you think he would’ve done better than her?

speaking as a canadian who doesn't vote more than once per election cycle, what are the turnout numbers in the primaries vs the general? is it not possible that a lot of people don't vote in the primaries and just wait for the general?

Yes the turnout is much lower.  But it's hard to have sympathy for people who choose not to participate and then complain about the outcome. 

my question was more geared towards juggler's comment that it is simple math that if hillary won the primary, and lost to trump, that obviously that means bernie loses to trump. but if what you say is true, and is what I suspected, it's not a case of simple math. if she was the most disliked candidate in history, how is it a slam dunk that bernie would have lost to trump?

it's not. 

You're correct.  Any assumptions on the other side are just as tenuous. 

My gut, which is all I have but is the best gut, says that the word "socialist" would have been difficult for Bernie to overcome. But maybe that would not have hurt him as much as 25 years of Hillary being the most hated woman in America.  So who knows...

it's interesting.....before the election, I had no idea she was the "most hated woman in america". is this just revisionist history?

When Bill hit the scene in about 1991, people hated her immediately.  Most hated woman in America?  Maybe not, but she was hated from day 1.  I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I really believe much of it was because she was the kind of woman that could succeed with or without her husband; not necessarily what we wanted (then or now) out of our first ladies.

Well she sure proved that notion wrong as stood beside Bill despite him fucking other women because it was in her best political interest to be Bill Clinton's wife. More of a political partnership than a marriage. And judging by their net worth...a successful one. But I'd have way more respect for her if she kicked him to the curb and went about the rest of her political career on her own. 

This certainly fueled my dislike for her back in the day. I've always felt that everything she did from the early 90's, to sticking with Bill, to running for senate etc etc was all politically calculated to eventually get her the presidency. Ironically, I think her net favorable s would've been higher had she left him. And, yeah, I would've had more respect for her as well if she did. 

Jason P

He has just been biden his time to make this announcement 

waka, waka

cincybearcat

I can't wait to see Biden smelling trumps hair during a debate!!!!