The Election Autopsy

One more thing for your autopsy. You might want to find the person that convinced/pressured Joe Biden not to run and kick them in the ass. I wonder what old Joe was thinking last night as he went to bed.
I am not convinced that any Democrat other than Sanders could have beaten Trump convincingly. No question, Joe would have probably beaten Trump, but it would have been a nail biter also, imo. Maybe Joe could have squeezed 60,000,000. And who knows, maybe any establishment candidate would have lost to Trump.

Sanders would have gotten 80,000,000 votes. There is almost no question in my mind. Many of the very same Trump supporters would have voted for the Bern in non-trivial numbers, and the young+milllenial 50,000,000 would have come out en-mass. As it is, I think they didn't vote in their enormous numbers for Clinton, maybe 15,000,000 of them. And will not again in 2020 with the same crap the DNC puts up.
 
Last edited:
The DNC is a disaster.

Drain the swamp!
Drain the swamp!
Drain the swamp!
Drain the swamp!
Drain the swamp!
 
QUOTE="nitro, post: 4357169, member: 8288"]I am not convinced that any Democrat other than Sanders could have beaten Trump convincingly. No question, Joe would have probably beaten Trump, but it would have been a nail biter also, imo. Maybe Joe could have squeezed 60,000,000. And who knows, maybe any establishment candidate would have lost to Trump.

Sanders would have gotten 80,000,000 votes. There is almost no question in my mind. Many of the very same Trump supporters would have voted for the Bern in non-trivial numbers, and the young+milllenial 50,000,000 would have come out en-mass. As it is, I think they didn't vote in their enormous numbers for Clinto, maybe 15,000,000 of them. And will not again in 2020 with the same crap the DNC puts up.[/QUOTE]
You're not wrong. I'm on record here saying a Trump v Sanders election would have been a barn burner with massive participation. What was exposed in no uncertain terms in the jaw dropping corruption in the DNC and pretty much the entire democratic establishment. I remember when Trump was the new nominee the pundits were saying the republican party would be wandering in the woods for a generation. Turns out it the democratic party which has lost it's way. Not really news for amyone who was paying attention. We'll see who they put up in 2018. Lots of senate seats up for grabs. Will the same old dinosaurs be back? Edit, there's the glitch again
 
QUOTE="nitro, post: 4357169, member: 8288"]I am not convinced that any Democrat other than Sanders could have beaten Trump convincingly. No question, Joe would have probably beaten Trump, but it would have been a nail biter also, imo. Maybe Joe could have squeezed 60,000,000. And who knows, maybe any establishment candidate would have lost to Trump.

Sanders would have gotten 80,000,000 votes. There is almost no question in my mind. Many of the very same Trump supporters would have voted for the Bern in non-trivial numbers, and the young+milllenial 50,000,000 would have come out en-mass. As it is, I think they didn't vote in their enormous numbers for Clinto, maybe 15,000,000 of them. And will not again in 2020 with the same crap the DNC puts up.
You're not wrong. I'm on record here saying a Trump v Sanders election would have been a barn burner with massive participation. What was exposed in no uncertain terms in the jaw dropping corruption in the DNC and pretty much the entire democratic establishment. I remember when Trump was the new nominee the pundits were saying the republican party would be wandering in the woods for a generation. Turns out it the democratic party which has lost it's way. Not really news for amyone who was paying attention. We'll see who they put up in 2018. Lots of senate seats up for grabs. Will the same old dinosaurs be back? Edit, there's the glitch again[/QUOTE]


What corruption? It's a word bandied about but what does it mean?
The DNC is a disaster.

Drain the swamp!
Drain the swamp!
Drain the swamp!
Drain the swamp!
Drain the swamp!


And the RNC isn't ?
 
You're not wrong. I'm on record here saying a Trump v Sanders election would have been a barn burner with massive participation. What was exposed in no uncertain terms in the jaw dropping corruption in the DNC and pretty much the entire democratic establishment. I remember when Trump was the new nominee the pundits were saying the republican party would be wandering in the woods for a generation. Turns out it the democratic party which has lost it's way. Not really news for amyone who was paying attention. We'll see who they put up in 2018. Lots of senate seats up for grabs. Will the same old dinosaurs be back? Edit, there's the glitch again
Has it ever occurred to you, that the democratic establishment prefers Trump to Bernie Sanders? It isn't what the democratic base wants, it is what the DNC wants the base to want, and the DNC is owned. The democratic base are FDR Democrats. The DNC are corporate Democrats. And now everyone knows it.

Fuck them. They will lose perpetually until they put someone in there that truly represents what we want. From our point of view, the DNC "democrats" and the republicans are indistinguishable. It is almost as if the DNC democrats are wearing republican fatigues to camouflage and obfuscate the base, or something.

They thought that if they gave the base same sex marriage, and transgender/crossgender bathrooms, and lit up the white house in goofy colors, we would all go into a mass giddy confusion and hysteria and be hypnotized into voting for Clinton.

Fuck them 10,000 x
 
Last edited:
Oh my God, to make things worse, they just don't understand how this could have happened!It's like these people have a blind spot for the obvious.

Something on the order of 35,000,000 young people didn't vote, asshole. Why? BECAUSE THE FUCKING DNC DISRESPECTED THEM AT EVERY TURN SPITTING IN THEIR FACE AS IF THEY WERE RAT SHIT.

How many times did Hillary Clinton accept an interview at the Young Turks? FUCKING ZERO. MORON.


:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

Democratic Party Faces Tough Questions in Defeat, With Few Answers
In recent years, the party has been decimated in governor's mansions, statehouses and has lost both chambers of Congress. But demographic trends seemed to give them a presidential edge.

Sahil Kapur
sahilkapur
November 9, 2016 — 4:03 PM CST Updated on November 9, 2016 — 4:21 PM CST
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Election Upset: What Happened in the Rust Belt States?

Election Shock: What Was the Biggest Surprise Last Night?


When Democrats woke up to a President-Elect Donald Trump on Wednesday, another harrowing reality began to sink in.

The most stunning political upset in American history shattered the last seemingly safe vestige of Democratic power: the White House. In recent years, the party has been decimated in governor's mansions and statehouses, and has lost both chambers of Congress. But demographic trends also appeared to give them a presidential edge.

Yet the "rising American electorate" of Latinos, African-Americans, millennials and unmarried women that powered President Barack Obama to two victories has proven to be fickle and unreliable when he is not on the top of the ticket. Their poor turnout for Hillary Clinton dashed her hopes and helped Trump bust up the party's so-called "blue wall." Trump won Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania—three Rust Belt states that haven't voted for a Republican since the 1980s.

In fact, Democrats have won just one election in the 21st century without Obama's name on the ballot — the 2006 midterms, when voters rose up against the bloody occupation of Iraq.

"We’d be foolish not to question every assumption we’ve made about how Democrats win," said Faiz Shakir, a senior adviser to Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid.

Another senior Democratic operative said that party sages remain shell-shocked by the magnitude of Tuesday's disaster, putting postmortems on hold at least for now.

Steve Schale, a Florida-based Democratic strategist, said personalities aside, there were echoes of the 2004 loss this year. "We got absolutely just crushed in exurban and suburban counties."

Schale said the assumptions about Clinton a more diverse electorate and turnout among people of color were right in many cases but more than offset by Clinton getting a lower share of whites than did Obama.

For years, Democrats have thought the best way to appeal to voters is on the basis of identity — their race, color, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

Bill Clinton's coalition in the 1990s seems like a parallel universe in comparison to his party today. Twenty years ago, he carried Pennsylvania by 10 points; Hillary lost it by 1 point. Bill won West Virginia by 15; Hillary lost it by 42. Bill won Louisiana by 12; Hillary lost it by 20.

Clinton's defeat will draw more attention to her opponent Bernie Sanders' competing theory: to reach voters on the basis of their socioeconomic class, which cuts across identities and seeks a broad mandate for progressive change.

The self-described democratic socialist presented himself as the candidate who would upend business-as-usual and jettison the party's neoliberal, corporate-friendly policies to spark a "political revolution" against "billionaires" and "oligarchs."

Yet while political elites were preoccupied with discussing the GOP's problems among minorities, Trump was barnstorming the country scooping up millions of white working-class voters who used to be the life blood of the Democratic Party....

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...es-tough-questions-in-defeat-with-few-answers
 
Don't underestimate the role the economic cycle plays in the political cycle either. I think the founders were very careful and put 'unknowable' measures in place to prevent either party from becoming too powerful. IMO, fat and bloated corruption is nonpartisan. It's the common man's nature.
 
The DNC is a disaster.

Drain the swamp!
Drain the swamp!
Drain the swamp!
Drain the swamp!
Drain the swamp!

What the fuck are you talking about ? They lost the election by the narrowest of margins. Sentiment could change on a dime the next 4 years, Trump could be anything really but I suspect no matter who won that many Americans will be disappointed by their daily lives and the perceived notion that their current government is responsible for all of it ( all evidence points to the fact that a lot of today's economic hardships result directly from elements of Reagan and George W. Bush's policies and their impact over time ).

I'll grab the popcorn as a Canadian and I suspect if anything Trump will be entertaining to watch, trying to shake things up and appease voters who truly believe he'll follow through on his election promises. Do I think he was a wise choice ? No. But he's your choice and you'll have to live with whatever occurs good or bad. For all we know he'll amend all his promises once he sees the damage some of them would do to your country.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top