The Clintons Killed The Democratic Party

[zinfamous]

I heard that if you take California out of the mix, then Trump and HRC actually came very close in the popular vote. I haven't actually looked at the numbers, because I don't give a shit, but it's an interesting thought.

EDIT: Looked it up.

California
D H. Clinton 61.6% 7,362,490
R D. Trump 32.8% 3,916,209

Difference = 3,446,281

2016 General
Clinton received 65,844,610 votes, or 48.2% of the total vote.
Trump received 62,979,636 votes, or 46.1% of the total vote.

Difference = 2,864,974

Without Ca, Trump actually wins the popular vote.

Yeah, CA just shouldn't be allowed to vote, right?

How does Trump do without Texas? You know, just because.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Is California not a state populated by American citizens?

Running up the score in a safe blue state is not how you win national elections

 

[Thebobo]

I posted this on reddit about 5 hours ago.

Reddit called they want you back.

 

[K1052]

Running up the score in a safe blue state is not how you win national elections

Yes but the exercise was to show that Trump would have won the popular vote if CA didn't exist, which it does...

 

[IronWing]

Without Ca, Trump actually wins the popular vote.

With a dick, surely my aunt would be my uncle.

 

[hal2kilo]

While I do think that the Clintons moved the democratic party away from the blue collar and working class, left wing/liberal brand of populism that had been the party's bread and butter, I certainly don't think they wrecked the party. I do think believing that they are the devils to which all ire should be directed is a view that reflects tortured acquiescence to decades or rightwing neocon agitprop. To ignore the severe and unapologetic damage that the GOP under the Reagan/Bush and now ultra rightwing fasicm of Trumpism as somehow normal is the greatest trick played on the american public, because Clintons!

I believe that where the Democratic party failed with bowing to the Clinton doctrine of politics is the same sort of thing as the GOP's disastrous marriage to supply-side economics: the big data-driven theoretical solutions don't always work when it comes to real-world applications. The problem solving through upwards-mobility (better education and more incentives for such, affordable housing, high tech economy) designed to "fix" the oncoming rural blight more or less ignored the reality on the ground that the rural parts of this country really didn't want that fix. Much like the GOP with their trickledown nonsense, the proper response to this failure wasn't to just do more of it, but to think of a different solution. Obama was supposed to be that revolution, and he was voted in exactly to be that, but after the election he more or less started leaning towards those same interests because he fundamentally needed the Clinton Network to keep his administration in power.

I don't think any of this gets fixed until we fundamentally remove corporate influence ($$$$$) over federal and state elections.

Yep, public funding only for elections.

 

[shortylickens]

Well, fucking Debbie Wasserman didnt have the guts to do whats right, and she was running the DNC when it all fell apart. I blame her.

The only good news is: after all this bullshit we sure as hell wont have to worry about the Clinton Dynasty trying to take charge anymore. Of course, I'm sure the Republicans will continue to blame Hillary for everything in the world at least two years after she's dead.

 

[fskimospy]

I heard that if you take California out of the mix, then Trump and HRC actually came very close in the popular vote. I haven't actually looked at the numbers, because I don't give a shit, but it's an interesting thought.

EDIT: Looked it up.

California
D H. Clinton 61.6% 7,362,490
R D. Trump 32.8% 3,916,209

Difference = 3,446,281

2016 General
Clinton received 65,844,610 votes, or 48.2% of the total vote.
Trump received 62,979,636 votes, or 46.1% of the total vote.

Difference = 2,864,974

Without Ca, Trump actually wins the popular vote.

Hey guys, once you take out the places that voted for Clinton, Trump wins the popular vote! The logic is undeniable, hahaha. I have no idea why people want to engage in this transparently ridiculous thought experiments. You don't get to discount the votes of American citizens just because they voted differently than you would like.

The rest of your OP was an impressively insane rant though. I sincerely hope you copied and pasted it from somewhere else because if you genuinely believe that stuff you've seriously lost it.

 

[SlowSpyder]

except that Trump is demonstrably, objectively, unpopular. I know data isn't your thing, but he remains the most hated president ever.

Ever.

I disagree, that makes it a subjective issue. These are the same things being said before he was elected. You guys get too wrapped up in the polls but ignore things like yard signs and social media following. You're using 19th century tools for a 20th century job, this skews your view.

 

[fskimospy]

Running up the score in a safe blue state is not how you win national elections

Why is that relevant? It does show why the electoral college is a pretty bad idea though.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Not my fault that you didn't do any research into the man. There were documentaries out there concerning the man. And he in no way has changed since he took office.

So again, if I look at you and tell you that you were a fool for electing a guy who is exactly what everyone else told you he was... well call me an asshole, but it still makes you the fool.

But Clinton wasn't clearly better than him, she is hardly squeaky clean herself. So those were our two options. Funny, you ask a conservative and Obama was the worst ever, ask a leftist and Trump is the worst (but GW was the worst before him). Everyone is so melodramatic today.

And again, calling people fools that voted for Trump... you are an example of exactly why the Dems are struggling today.

 

[fskimospy]

I disagree, that makes it a subjective issue. These are the same things being said before he was elected. You guys get too wrapped up in the polls but ignore things like yard signs and social media following. You're using 19th century tools for a 20th century job, this skews your view.

I've got a great idea, you predict the 2018 congressional elections based on social media following and yard signs and I'll use scientific polling. Let's see who gets closer, haha.

Also, you realize we're in the 21st century, right? This is particularly amusing as robust scientific polling as a tool for predicting electoral outcomes has only really come into its own in the 21st century. You're using 20th century tools (FEELINGS!) for a 21st century job and this skews your view. lol.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Great for who?

Good question. He gets credited for shit that he should clearly not be credited with, and the criticisms get swept under the rug.

The mind of a partisan hack is quite extraordinary.

 

[soundforbjt]

This is my house...

Bernie Bro?

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Bernie Bro?

That is a sexist slur.

I was Bernie or Bust though.

 

[pauldun170]

California is an "outlier" state.
1. It's a donor state so it helps finance all the leachy welfare states
2. It's the most populous state.
3. It's the 3rd largest state.

There is absolutely no reasons why California should have more say than Mississippi, Tennessee or Kentucky (welfare states with a fraction of the population).


Summary: Populous states who help fund the US should shut up and read the provided pamphlet. Maybe buy the 3 wolves howling at the moon in t-shirt from the catalog.

 

[Thebobo]

Well, fucking Debbie Wasserman didnt have the guts to do whats right, and she was running the DNC when it all fell apart. I blame her.

The only good news is: after all this bullshit we sure as hell wont have to worry about the Clinton Dynasty trying to take charge anymore. Of course, I'm sure the Republicans will continue to blame Hillary for everything in the world at least two years after she's dead.

Well there is Chelsea.

 

[Jhhnn]

But Clinton wasn't clearly better than him, she is hardly squeaky clean herself. So those were our two options. Funny, you ask a conservative and Obama was the worst ever, ask a leftist and Trump is the worst (but GW was the worst before him). Everyone is so melodramatic today.

And again, calling people fools that voted for Trump... you are an example of exactly why the Dems are struggling today.

Proclaim loudly that you're not fooling yourself & make it obvious that you are. The notion that Trump is fit to lead this great nation is, was, & always will be completely absurd. He proves it every day.

 

[shortylickens]

Well there is Chelsea.

She's not running for anything and has already said she never will. And if she changes her mind, she wont kind all the blind adulation her parents did.

 

[Jhhnn]

That is a sexist slur.

I was Bernie or Bust though.

You mean a chump for Russian propaganda...

 

[SlowSpyder]

I've got a great idea, you predict the 2018 congressional elections based on social media following and yard signs and I'll use scientific polling. Let's see who gets closer, haha.

Also, you realize we're in the 21st century, right? This is particularly amusing as robust scientific polling as a tool for predicting electoral outcomes has only really come into its own in the 21st century. You're using 20th century tools (FEELINGS!) for a 21st century job and this skews your view. lol.

Maybe in three years we can test it out. Congressional elections are a different animal, but I too think polling is starting to lose value in predicting those elections.

And you got me, I used the wrong numbers. Here's your cookie.

 

[ElFenix]

With a dick, surely my aunt would be my uncle.

is this your aunt?

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Well there is Chelsea.

People didn't react very well when HRC tried to throw her out into the public spotlight after she lost.

Of course the timing was absolutely horrible... HRC really is an incompetent buffoon.

You mean a chump for Russian propaganda...

I haven't seen any Russian propaganda, aside from the Russiagate conspiracy bullshit on the mainstream "news" outlets.

 

[fskimospy]

Maybe in three years we can test it out. Congressional elections are a different animal, but I too think polling is starting to lose value in predicting those elections.

And you got me, I used the wrong numbers. Here's your cookie.

So yard signs are only predictive for presidential elections? Why is that?

Also I'm interested, what's the method for measuring yard signs? How do you quantify this?

 

[soundforbjt]

That is a sexist slur.

I was Bernie or Bust though.

Then you’re just as much to blame as a Trump voter if you didn’t vote. Thanks for your concern.