While Yang is a long shot, his odds now were the same as Trump in late 2015. I'm sure plenty of people thought it was impossible for Trump to get anywhere near a primary at the time.
Looking like Warren will be the nominee, what do you think?
- Thread starter Banjo
- Start date
While Yang is a long shot, his odds now were the same as Trump in late 2015. I'm sure plenty of people thought it was impossible for Trump to get anywhere near a primary at the time.
If you saw the upside of crypto in 2016, perhaps another fat tail in Yang isn't so bizarre.
Hillary had children running her campaign and she created too much animosity with her behavior over the years leading up to the election, plus she acted as though she was entitled to the job, raher than trying to earn it.
That is why Bernie was popular for so long in the primaries as a challenge even though his plans were borderline batshit crazy. A popular president's party handpicked successor against Trump and all his mistakes couldn't win votes away from a coast.
Her best shot was in 2008 if she won the nomination and would have beaten McCain. By 2016 she burned a lot of bridges and her window closed.
We tried a GOP businessman and worked not so well, maybe try a Dem businessman...let's give this a real shot on both sides and get it out of our system...
Dude's Asian, so my mild racism says he may be good at math so that's an upgrade.
Here is my proof how HRC messed up big time.
She got more popular votes but that is because the states she had locks on are huge voting states.
CA, NY, NJ, MA, IL, WA, CT, MD, VA = 22 million votes.
IN a few battleground states she lost she got 2 million votes.
All HRC had to do was win in some 2 combo FL, PA, MI.
FL = she lost by 120,000 votes
Stein and Johnson got 270,000 votes- independent parties sucked all those votes from peolple who hated them both.
PA = she lost by 70,000 votes
Stein and Johnson got 180,000
MI = she lost by 11,000 votes
Stein and Johnson got 220,000 votes.
Sten and Johnson fucked HRC hard but to be fair they got those margins because did not run away from Trump to her but to 2 fucktards who could never win.
HRC...all she had to do was hit PA and MI hard on trade, economy and health care and she is President or not be so bad that 2 independents threw the election away from 3 states she should have won based on a lot of pre election information.
Soher popular vote total does not sway me, she wrote a textbook on how to fuck up an election a nutless monkey could have won. You need to ask yourself why based on research most Stein and Johnson party voters who tend to lean more liberal rejected HRC enough to cost her the 3 states above.
FL, PA, MI = 65 EC votes. Election would have been 297HRC to 241.Trump.
HRC screwed the pooch.
Whoever the Dems nominate out of that hottub of mediocrity better the lesson I just outlined above:
Make sure you win every state HRC win (should be no problem as they are mostly blue states all the time except maybe Va) AND SHOOT FOR 2 out of the three FL, PA and MI. Don't rely on flipping a Texas or other Red state right now.
As long as the Dem candidate is not a wet noodle with AOC like policies and learns to focus on ISSUE and Trump's lies and ignore the rest.... boom.
She got more popular votes but that is because the states she had locks on are huge voting states.
CA, NY, NJ, MA, IL, WA, CT, MD, VA = 22 million votes.
IN a few battleground states she lost she got 2 million votes.
All HRC had to do was win in some 2 combo FL, PA, MI.
FL = she lost by 120,000 votes
Stein and Johnson got 270,000 votes- independent parties sucked all those votes from peolple who hated them both.
PA = she lost by 70,000 votes
Stein and Johnson got 180,000
MI = she lost by 11,000 votes
Stein and Johnson got 220,000 votes.
Sten and Johnson fucked HRC hard but to be fair they got those margins because did not run away from Trump to her but to 2 fucktards who could never win.
HRC...all she had to do was hit PA and MI hard on trade, economy and health care and she is President or not be so bad that 2 independents threw the election away from 3 states she should have won based on a lot of pre election information.
Soher popular vote total does not sway me, she wrote a textbook on how to fuck up an election a nutless monkey could have won. You need to ask yourself why based on research most Stein and Johnson party voters who tend to lean more liberal rejected HRC enough to cost her the 3 states above.
FL, PA, MI = 65 EC votes. Election would have been 297HRC to 241.Trump.
HRC screwed the pooch.
Whoever the Dems nominate out of that hottub of mediocrity better the lesson I just outlined above:
Make sure you win every state HRC win (should be no problem as they are mostly blue states all the time except maybe Va) AND SHOOT FOR 2 out of the three FL, PA and MI. Don't rely on flipping a Texas or other Red state right now.
As long as the Dem candidate is not a wet noodle with AOC like policies and learns to focus on ISSUE and Trump's lies and ignore the rest.... boom.
As I said to a lefty friend a couple weeks ago, "It is not that different than 2016. Trump is highly vulnerable (the friend smiles) as long as you have a reasonably good dem candidate. Do you have a reasonably good dem candidate?" (he stops smiling).
Last edited:
This election is reminding me of the 1984 election. Reagan was despised by the media and regularly derided as clueless, dumb and incompetent, not to mention an ever present danger. Affable idiot and bumbling were common terms used to describe him, which seems incredible now that he is generally recognized as our greatest president in modern times. The media have not changed much. They were enemies of the country then and they still are, only now they no longer even attempt to hide it.
Reagan ran for reelection against a well-liked career political hack, Walter Mondale, who been Jimmy Carter's VP. He was younger and not as addled as Biden but otherwise, they are clones.
Reagan, in his 70s, defused the age issue by quipping at a debate that he promised not to use his opponents' youth and inexperience against him.
Reagan ran for reelection against a well-liked career political hack, Walter Mondale, who been Jimmy Carter's VP. He was younger and not as addled as Biden but otherwise, they are clones.
Reagan, in his 70s, defused the age issue by quipping at a debate that he promised not to use his opponents' youth and inexperience against him.
Let's extend that comparison yet another step.
Biden, if nominated, will come up with the brilliant idea of putting some highly unlikeable woman on the ticket with him- thinking that she is a woman so what the hey, nevermind that she is not likeable and how lefty she is.
Think Geraldine Ferraro. Yeh, deja vu all over again. Except possibly with the losing woman at the top of the ticket and the Castro Boy in the second slot.