The Democratic Candidates
Comments
-
OnWis97 said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
it's interesting.....before the election, I had no idea she was the "most hated woman in america". is this just revisionist history?OnWis97 said:
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...mrussel1 said:
You're correct. Any assumptions on the other side are just as tenuous.HughFreakingDillon said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
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?The Juggler said:
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?Ledbetterman10 said:
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!"The Juggler said:
For as passionate as those people were, the less likeable candidate still got 4 million more votes (55%-43%) than him in the primaries.Ledbetterman10 said:
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."The Juggler said:
Sanders would've gotten CRUSHED had he been the nominee.CM189191 said:
3 million + suckedmy2hands said:
If he was an awful candidate, then what was the candidate that LOST to Donald Trump?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????
Yeah, she fucking sucked
it's not.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.
All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it.0 -
Great...your second-hand report of what your husband said delivered the point better than I could.curmudgeoness said:OnWis97 said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
it's interesting.....before the election, I had no idea she was the "most hated woman in america". is this just revisionist history?OnWis97 said:
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...mrussel1 said:
You're correct. Any assumptions on the other side are just as tenuous.HughFreakingDillon said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
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?The Juggler said:
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?Ledbetterman10 said:
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!"The Juggler said:
For as passionate as those people were, the less likeable candidate still got 4 million more votes (55%-43%) than him in the primaries.Ledbetterman10 said:
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."The Juggler said:
Sanders would've gotten CRUSHED had he been the nominee.CM189191 said:
3 million + suckedmy2hands said:
If he was an awful candidate, then what was the candidate that LOST to Donald Trump?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????
Yeah, she fucking sucked
it's not.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.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley0 -
Why the rudeness?
All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it.0 -
Not intended. The intent was self-deprecation.curmudgeoness said:Why the rudeness?1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley0 -
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.OnWis97 said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
it's interesting.....before the election, I had no idea she was the "most hated woman in america". is this just revisionist history?OnWis97 said:
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...mrussel1 said:
You're correct. Any assumptions on the other side are just as tenuous.HughFreakingDillon said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
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?The Juggler said:
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?Ledbetterman10 said:
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!"The Juggler said:
For as passionate as those people were, the less likeable candidate still got 4 million more votes (55%-43%) than him in the primaries.Ledbetterman10 said:
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."The Juggler said:
Sanders would've gotten CRUSHED had he been the nominee.CM189191 said:
3 million + suckedmy2hands said:
If he was an awful candidate, then what was the candidate that LOST to Donald Trump?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????
Yeah, she fucking sucked
it's not.
2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0 -
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.Ledbetterman10 said:
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.OnWis97 said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
it's interesting.....before the election, I had no idea she was the "most hated woman in america". is this just revisionist history?OnWis97 said:
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...mrussel1 said:
You're correct. Any assumptions on the other side are just as tenuous.HughFreakingDillon said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
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?The Juggler said:
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?Ledbetterman10 said:
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!"The Juggler said:
For as passionate as those people were, the less likeable candidate still got 4 million more votes (55%-43%) than him in the primaries.Ledbetterman10 said:
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."The Juggler said:
Sanders would've gotten CRUSHED had he been the nominee.CM189191 said:
3 million + suckedmy2hands said:
If he was an awful candidate, then what was the candidate that LOST to Donald Trump?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????
Yeah, she fucking sucked
it's not.
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.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Well in 1991, she was seen as educated and intelligent. The first lady was supposed to be June Cleaver.Ledbetterman10 said:
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.OnWis97 said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
it's interesting.....before the election, I had no idea she was the "most hated woman in america". is this just revisionist history?OnWis97 said:
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...mrussel1 said:
You're correct. Any assumptions on the other side are just as tenuous.HughFreakingDillon said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
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?The Juggler said:
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?Ledbetterman10 said:
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!"The Juggler said:
For as passionate as those people were, the less likeable candidate still got 4 million more votes (55%-43%) than him in the primaries.Ledbetterman10 said:
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."The Juggler said:
Sanders would've gotten CRUSHED had he been the nominee.CM189191 said:
3 million + suckedmy2hands said:
If he was an awful candidate, then what was the candidate that LOST to Donald Trump?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????
Yeah, she fucking sucked
it's not.1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley0 -
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
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.Ledbetterman10 said:
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.OnWis97 said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
it's interesting.....before the election, I had no idea she was the "most hated woman in america". is this just revisionist history?OnWis97 said:
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...mrussel1 said:
You're correct. Any assumptions on the other side are just as tenuous.HughFreakingDillon said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
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?The Juggler said:
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?Ledbetterman10 said:
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!"The Juggler said:
For as passionate as those people were, the less likeable candidate still got 4 million more votes (55%-43%) than him in the primaries.Ledbetterman10 said:
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."The Juggler said:
Sanders would've gotten CRUSHED had he been the nominee.CM189191 said:
3 million + suckedmy2hands said:
If he was an awful candidate, then what was the candidate that LOST to Donald Trump?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????
Yeah, she fucking sucked
it's not.
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.
2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0 -
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
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
Receipts on that please?Ledbetterman10 said:
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.OnWis97 said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
it's interesting.....before the election, I had no idea she was the "most hated woman in america". is this just revisionist history?OnWis97 said:
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...mrussel1 said:
You're correct. Any assumptions on the other side are just as tenuous.HughFreakingDillon said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
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?The Juggler said:
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?Ledbetterman10 said:
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!"The Juggler said:
For as passionate as those people were, the less likeable candidate still got 4 million more votes (55%-43%) than him in the primaries.Ledbetterman10 said:
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."The Juggler said:
Sanders would've gotten CRUSHED had he been the nominee.CM189191 said:
3 million + suckedmy2hands said:
If he was an awful candidate, then what was the candidate that LOST to Donald Trump?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????
Yeah, she fucking sucked
it's not.
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."Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
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.
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
0 -
yes...it was 'fascinating' to watch fox news push the candidate that helped trump winHi! 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.
you almost have to wonder what their motive is
Lenin — 'The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.'0 -
LolCM189191 said:
yes...it was 'fascinating' to watch fox news push the candidate that helped trump winHi! 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.
you almost have to wonder what their motive is
Lenin — 'The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.'Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
0 -
Klobuchar will be doing the next Fox townhall and Mayor Pete’s camp in discussions for one.
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
0 -
Perfect.Hi! said:Klobuchar will be doing the next Fox townhall and Mayor Pete’s camp in discussions for one.hippiemom = goodness0 -
Good news!
I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
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.mcgruff10 said:Good news!It's a hopeless situation...0 -
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.Ledbetterman10 said:
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.OnWis97 said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
it's interesting.....before the election, I had no idea she was the "most hated woman in america". is this just revisionist history?OnWis97 said:
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...mrussel1 said:
You're correct. Any assumptions on the other side are just as tenuous.HughFreakingDillon said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
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?The Juggler said:
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?Ledbetterman10 said:
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!"The Juggler said:
For as passionate as those people were, the less likeable candidate still got 4 million more votes (55%-43%) than him in the primaries.Ledbetterman10 said:
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."The Juggler said:
Sanders would've gotten CRUSHED had he been the nominee.CM189191 said:
3 million + suckedmy2hands said:
If he was an awful candidate, then what was the candidate that LOST to Donald Trump?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????
Yeah, she fucking sucked
it's not.www.myspace.com0 -
He has just been biden his time to make this announcement
waka, wakaBe Excellent To Each OtherParty On, Dudes!0 -
I can't wait to see Biden smelling trumps hair during a debate!!!!hippiemom = goodness0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help