Old Thread About Election Consequences
Yes four more years is a pretty dismal prospect. Which is why Dems need to unite now and pick a winner.
annielou said:
Yes four more years is a pretty dismal prospect. Which is why Dems need to unite now and pick a winner.
If the recent past has shown us anything, it is that consecrating "winners" a full two years before the first primary is a recipe for disaster.
Here's the only viable opponent right now because he's already out of the gate stabbing Trump in the eye while all the others stare at each other waiting to see what they'll do.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/us/politics/michael-avenatti-michelle-obama-trump.html
The Democrats will lose if they again focus on Russia and the bad and scary Trump. They need to focus on economic issues like Medicare for All, free college, a living wage, prison reform, getting rid of endless war and things like that. Those are the things they can run against Trump on and win. Those are the things that get people excited enough to get off the couch and vote. That's why they voted for Trump. That's why they voted for Obama. That's why they did not vote for Clinton.
nan said:
The Democrats will lose if they again focus on Russia and the bad and scary Trump. They need to focus on economic issues like Medicare for All, free college, a living wage, prison reform, getting rid of endless war and things like that. Those are the things they can run against Trump on and win. Those are the things that get people excited enough to get off the couch and vote. That's why they voted for Trump. That's why they voted for Obama. That's why they did not vote for Clinton.
I'm with you on the issues but I suspect this election will be much about voting against Trump, just like the last one was largely about voting against HRC.
dave said:
Here's the only viable opponent right now because he's already out of the gate stabbing Trump in the eye while all the others stare at each other waiting to see what they'll do.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/us/politics/michael-avenatti-michelle-obama-trump.html
Read the Frank Bruni column in today's New York Times. I think he's right, Avenatti is very "Trump-y" in how he self-promotes. I don't think we need a Democratic version.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:No, it's a serious question.
paulsurovell said:I assume that's not a serious question on your part.
South_Mountaineer said:But that's not what they "were told" by Hillary. Why didn't they believe her?
Not surprising that when people are told "There's no difference between the two", voters will stay home.
The reason I questioned that is because you know why people didn't believe her. She was getting attacked from "her own side", right up to the election. An example is the emails, which even people claiming to be liberals (look in the mirror) kept addressing more than the differences between potential Democratic and Republican administrations.
But that topic has been more than covered, that's just my summary of things you can read elsewhere.
Self promotion is part of getting your name out there as an unknown candidate. Many know of Avenatti as an attorney. Getting to know him as a potential candidate is quite different.
Trump has opened the door for lessors to believe they have a shot at the presidency. I don't know anything about his political affiliations or platform but for now, Avenatti is a lessor. Let's face it, he was no AG and has no political background. Let the running of The Lessor's begin.
paulsurovell said:
LOST said:Funny how you choose to invoke this when Sbenois and nohero are on the ropes. Did you ask for "listening" when they repeatedly smeared and slimed Nan for voicing her opinions?
If the goal of this discussion was to reach a consensus on how to go forward it would be useful. However it seems that folks do not want to listen to each other but would rather keep shouting out their own opinions.
How about a truce? Stop litigating the last election.
On the ropes? I do not post strategically. I post when I have time and think I have something to say.
I do not recall what I may or may not have posted with regard to the arguments between Nan and others. I think I tried to avoid getting involved.
In any event you seem to think a discussion on MOL is a contest with winners and losers.
We can have "discussions" which are just arguments with people repeating the same positions or we can have meaningful conversations where we try to learn something from each other.
LOST said:
paulsurovell said:On the ropes? I do not post strategically. I post when I have time and think I have something to say.
LOST said:Funny how you choose to invoke this when Sbenois and nohero are on the ropes. Did you ask for "listening" when they repeatedly smeared and slimed Nan for voicing her opinions?
If the goal of this discussion was to reach a consensus on how to go forward it would be useful. However it seems that folks do not want to listen to each other but would rather keep shouting out their own opinions.
How about a truce? Stop litigating the last election.
I do not recall what I may or may not have posted with regard to the arguments between Nan and others. I think I tried to avoid getting involved.
In any event you seem to think a discussion on MOL is a contest with winners and losers.
We can have "discussions" which are just arguments with people repeating the same positions or we can have meaningful conversations where we try to learn something from each other.
An interesting observation and one I’ve brought up to BCC plenty of times, too.
nan said:
The Democrats will lose if they again focus on Russia and the bad and scary Trump. They need to focus on economic issues like Medicare for All, free college, a living wage, prison reform, getting rid of endless war and things like that. Those are the things they can run against Trump on and win. Those are the things that get people excited enough to get off the couch and vote. That's why they voted for Trump. That's why they voted for Obama. That's why they did not vote for Clinton.
Yet again I will ask you for a list of all of those Dems who are focusing their campaigns on Russia and scary Trump.
And yet again, I will predict that you have no examples.
And yet again, I guarantee that you will repeat this trope in the near future.
Round and round we go.
ridski said:
An interesting observation and one I’ve brought up to BCC plenty of times, too.
It did appear that Paul was channeling BCC
drummerboy said:
nan said:Yet again I will ask you for a list of all of those Dems who are focusing their campaigns on Russia and scary Trump.
The Democrats will lose if they again focus on Russia and the bad and scary Trump. They need to focus on economic issues like Medicare for All, free college, a living wage, prison reform, getting rid of endless war and things like that. Those are the things they can run against Trump on and win. Those are the things that get people excited enough to get off the couch and vote. That's why they voted for Trump. That's why they voted for Obama. That's why they did not vote for Clinton.
And yet again, I will predict that you have no examples.
And yet again, I guarantee that you will repeat this trope in the near future.
Round and round we go.
To run against an incumbent President you must focus on him to a large measure. People ought to be afraid of Trump and many are and can be motivated to vote by raising that fear. Others will be motivated by issues such as Nan raises. Of course you can't put it passed Trump to come out in favor of "free college" , "living wage", etc.
drummerboy said:
nan said:Yet again I will ask you for a list of all of those Dems who are focusing their campaigns on Russia and scary Trump.
The Democrats will lose if they again focus on Russia and the bad and scary Trump. They need to focus on economic issues like Medicare for All, free college, a living wage, prison reform, getting rid of endless war and things like that. Those are the things they can run against Trump on and win. Those are the things that get people excited enough to get off the couch and vote. That's why they voted for Trump. That's why they voted for Obama. That's why they did not vote for Clinton.
And yet again, I will predict that you have no examples.
And yet again, I guarantee that you will repeat this trope in the near future.
Round and round we go.
well, here people are talking about that lawyer because he's against Trump. Not heard anything else about him. And once again I ask you--what do Democrats stand for?
South_Mountaineer said:
dave said:Read the Frank Bruni column in today's New York Times. I think he's right, Avenatti is very "Trump-y" in how he self-promotes. I don't think we need a Democratic version.
Here's the only viable opponent right now because he's already out of the gate stabbing Trump in the eye while all the others stare at each other waiting to see what they'll do.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/us/politics/michael-avenatti-michelle-obama-trump.html
I wrote "right now". Time will tell if the PT Barnum effect has legs or some elder statesman approach will have more appeal.
nan said:
drummerboy said:well, here people are talking about that lawyer because he's against Trump. Not heard anything else about him. And once again I ask you--what do Democrats stand for?
nan said:Yet again I will ask you for a list of all of those Dems who are focusing their campaigns on Russia and scary Trump.
The Democrats will lose if they again focus on Russia and the bad and scary Trump. They need to focus on economic issues like Medicare for All, free college, a living wage, prison reform, getting rid of endless war and things like that. Those are the things they can run against Trump on and win. Those are the things that get people excited enough to get off the couch and vote. That's why they voted for Trump. That's why they voted for Obama. That's why they did not vote for Clinton.
And yet again, I will predict that you have no examples.
And yet again, I guarantee that you will repeat this trope in the near future.
Round and round we go.
You've got this backwards.
You made a claim.
I asked you to justify your claim.
You respond by asking me to justify a claim I did not make.
Do you see how that doesn't really work to propel a discussion? It serves to get the person you're talking to pissed off, more than anything else.
LOST said:
ridski said:It did appear that Paul was channeling BCC
An interesting observation and one I’ve brought up to BCC plenty of times, too.
This is your idea of:
LOST said:
We can have "discussions" which are just arguments with people repeating the same positions or we can have meaningful conversations where we try to learn something from each other.?
The latest in voter shaming: calling people who vote their conscious traitors.
And by the way, it is time for the "Resistance" to learn how to do math:Can They Count?
https://jacobinmag.com/2016/11/election-clinton-trump-stein-johnson-spoiler
sbenois said:
More crap from Jimmy Dore.
Jimmy Dore is brilliant. But, if you don't like that, the article below is from Jacobin.
Unfortunately the article does not account for the many Bernie Bots who stayed home because they hadn't changed their diapers yet.
Glad Jimmy Dore keeps demonstrating why his audience helped to elect Trump!
jamie said:
Glad Jimmy Dore keeps demonstrating why his audience helped to elect Trump!
Except they didn't.
https://jacobinmag.com/2016/11/election-clinton-trump-stein-johnson-spoiler
ugh - clueless. Much doubt was put out there by idiots like Dore and Stein that kept people at home. Is this fact in the numbers?
nan said:
jamie said:Except they didn't.
Glad Jimmy Dore keeps demonstrating why his audience helped to elect Trump!
https://jacobinmag.com/2016/11/election-clinton-trump-stein-johnson-spoiler
jamie said:
ugh - clueless. Much doubt was put out there by idiots like Dore and Stein that kept people at home. Is this fact in the numbers?
Yeah - articles like the jacobinmag article, are really pretty clueless in terms of sophisticated electoral analysis.
The effects of 3rd party candidacies can't simply be analyzed in vote totals. These candidacies serve to weaken support for one of the candidates. (can't think of a 3rd party run that affected both major party candidates equally).
They effect the whole media landscape - what messages get through and which don't. Those messages will effect voters in a thousand ways - only one of which is to decide to vote for a 3rd party candidate. Voters can just as likely simply be turned off to vote for anyone at all.
The bottom line is that politicians like Stein and Johnson should have had the maturity and (real) patriotism to realize that the potential election of Trump was something so bad that they should withdraw and throw support to Hillary. Their campaigns clearly would have no effect other than to strengthen Trump's chances - the most basic of morality should have told them to drop out.
sbenois said:
Unfortunately the article does not account for the many Bernie Bots who stayed home because they hadn't changed their diapers yet.
sbenois said:
Unfortunately the article does not account for the many Bernie Bots who stayed home because they hadn't changed their diapers yet.
Now that truly is funny . By all accounts Bernie and an increasing number of people who are hearing his message are out there building Party momentum for upcoming elections. Hillary
continues the longest running pity party in history.........while she isn't drinking the cooking sherry.
jamie said:
ugh - clueless. Much doubt was put out there by idiots like Dore and Stein that kept people at home. Is this fact in the numbers?
Oh, should we censor them? How dare they criticize the establishment? How dare they call out the corruption? That's what you think is clueless?
jamie said:
Glad Jimmy Dore keeps demonstrating why his audience helped to elect Trump!
Except they didn't: https://jacobinmag.com/2016/11/election-clinton-trump-stein-johnson-spoiler
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
True to a point. If you are a person of color, no matter your financial gains, another 4 years of Trump will be detrimental. More shootings in the back by police, more misguided stand your grounds, random whites publicly berating you for no reason at all just because you are black/brown/Asian/LGBTQ. Some people now feel they have the Presidential Seal to be cruel and violent. So yeah, we do well financially but we're brown and mixed and we have sons. No matter what your Morgan Stanley reads, it cannot protect you from injustice. All we can hope and pray for is that no one randomly gets shot and thank the Lord we have enough money for a great attorney.