And that would be who?
Now you see the issue.
So I take it that this "it was rigged" thing is something you have now given up since you failed to adress that part?
Not a single thing in your post has anything to do with anything I've written or anything you've written that I responded to.
If you want to have a discussion where you reply to what I've written, let me know.
Until then, cheers.
On second thought, I agree with you about her not being a victim of the stigma of losing. I also disagree that her post-election behavior has damaged her approvals. Her approval were low 40's during the campaign. This one poll has her at 39, which is all within the margin of error. She's probably about the same as she was on election day.
Also, the articles conclusion that she is less popular than Trump is ridiculous. If we're going to base everything off cherry picked polls, then let's compare this to Trump's 36% approval in the recent ABC poll.
I think the less visible Hillary is, the better Democrat prospects are.
Who are you guys gonna put up to bat in 2020?
By proceeding with confidence that the fall of trickle down economics will be a game changing moment in history. The end of the Reagan Era. In that moment we need clear and inspirational leaders to take charge and show people a way forward. This is about leading... by sucking up all the air in the room so "bridging the divide" becomes a non issue. The opposition just needs to duck while we stampede.
It works in the same way Republicans failed to immediately and outright repeal the ACA. Some of them are afraid to pull right and harm people. That same, basic, principle will apply to future decisions they have to make. We just need to be able to focus on economics and frame the discussion. The weight of reality comes catching up, eventually. Trump's pending implosion is a boon to the idea that they cannot help people. So who is going to help the people? We are. It's time to step up.
I think the less visible Hillary is, the better Democrat prospects are.
Who are you guys gonna put up to bat in 2020?
Ds are competent at governing, but are unskilled at winning elections.
Rs are masters at winning elections and taking power, but are unbridled failures at governing, in part due to the fantasies they spin to win elections.
I agree Ds need to figure out how to appeal to a broader electorate without sacrificing principals.
Their policies as-is are better for all these areas, but need the people to believe that and be convincing that their priorities are aligned.
"Fuck you". Yeah, that's a message you can sell to voters.
What the hell are you even doing in this topic, or in this forum? Your hateful rhetoric shows disregard, maybe even contempt for the political process, and we know what remains when that is abandoned. To top it all off, this is your direct reply to a progressive calling for a New Deal to push "hard left". There is more than one poster here who ignorantly flails around attacking friend and foe alike. Is this hot mess the sort of thing you let Trump make of you?
If you look at actual empirical analysis of Clinton's economic record you will she she was one of the more liberal senators during her time. The idea that she's middle to middle right is simply false by every objective measure I am aware of. If you're interested to see how she stacks up I would look up her DW-NOMINATE score as compared to the median Democrat. You'll probably be amazed at just how liberal she really was. It's a common myth that she was somehow a centrist or even conservative figure.
I think the average voter doesn't know enough about any given politician to make a solid judgement. Most people treat politics as a team sport (and thus vote against their own interests time and time again) but are upset when by doing the same thing over and over again they expect different outcomes.
"Fuck you". Yeah, that's a message you can sell to voters.
Yeah, that's why she lost. Even her own voters don't like her.
Have you not been paying attention for the last year?
"Fuck You" is exactly the message Donny was sending and he was elected.
Huh? I don't understand what you're referring to and am not even sure you're using proper english.Voting against their own interests is a liberal canard to make themselves feel smarter despite being duped by degens over and over again.
Huh? I don't understand what you're referring to and am not even sure you're using proper english.
I'm not being partisan here. I'm just stating the facts. Let's not even talk economics or social policy or any of those hot-button issues. Look at it this way. Incumbents in national politics win 96% of the time, yet congressional approval is 20% on a good day. If these facts are true, without argument clearly an overwhelming majority of people are directly voting against their own interests.
The median Democrat is a centrist and it's not a coincidence. That's what the clintons made the party into to compete with the capitalist-racist alliance, a tent for basically everyone else.
The democrats had 6 candidates, I rather liked Jim Webb as a rational option, but moderates on either side have basically no chance of winning in our current primary process (with occasional exception of moderates willing to lie and pretend to be extremists).All the 2016 D candidates sucked. I appreciate some of the issues Bernie raised, but I was not all in on his far left socialism and saw enough weird stories and statements in his past to have grave doubts that he could withstand GE scrutiny.
How different 2016 would have looked if the Ds had 17 candidates to choose from.
You mean the 65 million? The 3 million more than Donald got?
Do his 62 million voters not like him? Actually, thats possible. Its possible most of them really didnt like the guy but they were dead set against voting for a female democrat so they had to make an unpleasant choice.
I didnt vote for Hillary you dumb ignorant conservative.Were you not paying attention? Pretty much every vote cast was a vote against one candidate, not for the other candidate.
And please grow up, change your wet diapers, put on some Desitin and get over the butt hurt. You lost the election, padding the ballot box in a couple of huge cities is not the metric for winning. Hilary lost because Democrats hated her and didn't come out to vote for her. EVERYBODY HATES HILARY. Except maybe you.
The democrats had 6 candidates, I rather liked Jim Webb as a rational option, but moderates on either side have basically no chance of winning in our current primary process (with occasional exception of moderates willing to lie and pretend to be extremists).
IIRC, you're in NY - if you want to change party, it occurs after the next election, not after 4 years. Maybe you should have opted to join a part when you registered to vote in the first place. It's clearly spelled out on the voter registration form that primaries in the state are closed.Only because it was rigged.
I was an independent and couldn't vote in the primary for my candidate due to stupid rules.. that if you want to change your affiliation, it won't take effect for 4 years.