No argument from me on that one. Lots of people felt like the Access Hollywood tape would have killed Trump's campaign. In any other election, it probably would have. Internal polling from the Trump campaign on election day said he had no path to 270. Internal polling from the Clinton campaign showed Comey's letter hurt her momentum right at the end of the campaign. Those October surprises work. That's why campaigns use them. Moving forward, I think we're going to see the Democratic party fighting voter suppression from the media touting polling numbers to states purging voter rolls…. that is, if they are smart. Who knows what they will actually do though?
Imo "depress the vote via false polling. " concept was largely a false meme Certainly team clinton tried to depress the trump vote by vilifying him in various ways But the idea that it was possible to conspire to achieve false polling and use that to depress the vote is silly. First it is not feasible to manipulate so many different polls ....especially when all of these orgd have a large commercial interest in getting the right result The reality is that even trump internal polls were surprised by the results Next, even if you could uniformly manipulate all the polls for clinton....that would also depress clinton voters who felt their vote was not required The reason to spread this false meme about poll manipulation was simply to pre emtively validate the idea that the election was fixed Of course the media wants a horse race, and they want riveting television And they tend towards tabloid coverage in order to bring in viewers But in the end they did convince themselves they had it won And started focusing on winning the congress, and winning a landslide And, more importantly, team clinton had a flawed strategy First, depending on attacking trump Second, the stronger together theme was basically attempting a coalition of minorities But in doing so she seemed to be serving lots of special interests at the expense of the nation at large She alienated more voters than she won though this appoach There are not enough transsexual voters, or Muslim voters... etc Otoh trump voiced a full throated appeal to the large mass of normal voters whose interests have been largely ignored up to this point
They're a troubled party, no question. But I believe Bernie could have won, because he was anti-establishment in the same way Trump is. He also spoke directly to all those disaffected leftists in the Rust Belt - unlike Hillary. Instead of defecting to the right, they'd have remained Dems.
Bernie was the best shot. However, those rural voters that turned out in droves combined with less Republican defections then sprinkled with minority apathy,I believe Trump would have still won. Trump was a household name and with the apprentice, Donald cultivated a nonsense boss character that would fire anyone not living up to their expectations. His appeal was far greater than Bernie's with this modern TV obsessed electorate.
So you are stating that working class whites AND minorities only vote on skin color? Interesting. I disagree, unless you are stating that hispanics will only back a candidate if he's hispanic. I don't agree with that. You may be right. Kasich and Rubio dared to speak negative of the orange messiah, and now the Trump brigade that hijacked the GOP may never let them live it down. Then again, if Trump's as bad as I expect him to be, many in the party who once backed Trump could be running to guys like Kasich and Rubio to bail the party out.
Democrats will never win the white male vote, so they shouldn't bother. They don't even need to win the white male vote to win elections. The white female vote is a different story, and with the right candidate, could potentially be a Democrat voting bloc like they used to be years ago. Don't overlook Booker. If he runs, he has potential to destroy Trump.
I don't think any Dem was going to be Trump. But I would have preferred Bernie to Hillary. I actually like some of his ideas.
You draw some odd conclusions. But no, working class whites and minorities don't only vote on skin color. I think the counties that went for Obama and then went for Trump are proof enough of that. But in the Democratic Party, your entire coalition is based on identity politics. Your biggest issue is how you identify, not any particular policy (other than "more"). You guys made that bed so you're going to have to figure out how to deal with it. After all, you brought up Julian Castro. You can't possibly think he is in any way qualified to be President based on his curriculum vitae. There is only one reason he would be brought up: identity politics.
I don't think Bernie could have. He had an enthusiastic following but not enough of them. Her pick for V.P. didn't help her at all. She would have had a better chance picking Herman instead of Tim.
Well yeah, but Trump is 70. Hillary was no spring chicken either. ... it equals out at the end, they all come out looking about 100. lol
This election is as much a result of the morally bankrupt Democrat party as anything else. It was Hillary's turn, and the DNC made sure, through corruption, that nobody could oppose her. It should have been obvious in 2008 she wasn't a very good candidate, America picked that moron Obama over her, that should have been a giant red flag, well it was to the rest of us anyway...
Trump is the most left leaning Republican put up for election ever. And most people described HRC as very right leaning. Will this be the election where people will say "the parties switched" if Trump is a success? I am sure the left will try to claim Trump if he is successful just as the try to claim Lincoln, Reagan, Ike, and so on when ever they try to skew the lines of ideology.
If he's the most left leaning Republican president why is he considering so many conservative Republicans for cabinet positions? Does that sound like something a lefty would do?
More RINO's for the mix? They are only "right" cause the left is so far left that the center even seems to be "right". Its all relative.
And you'd be wrong in your assertion, but you are entitled to believe what you want. Considering who your president elect is, and how he won, this post is laughably amusing. Don't have to deal with anything. Trump himself will hand the presidency to the next Democrat president, whether it is 2020 or 2024. I brought him up because your post asserting that the Democrats needed a minority candidate to win, which means you believe minorities are only going to vote for other minorities. As for whether Castro is qualified, the reality T.V. star the GOP voters forced down the nation's throats has pretty much cemented the fact that any idiot can get elected as long as they pander to morons with any type of rhetoric. Trump has changed the game, and we can thank his low information bridgade for that. - - - Updated - - - Heh, kind of like Obama has been called a far left wing socialist, even though he's the furthest thing from that. Though if the right tries to force a right wing agenda down the nation's throats, you could end up seeing a president like that in the future.
They win enough of it that they could potentially swing back to the Democrats with the right candidate. White males in general though will always support the GOP no matter what, so trying to win them back is impossible, unless the party went back to it's conservative roots. - - - Updated - - - Biden could have beaten Trump, gaffes and all.
Lincoln was a progressive. Reagan was hardly a conservative in the way he governed, and if he was running today would be considered by Trump's low information voters to be an "Establishment RINO". Ike was very much about big government. Honesty, you guys have never elected a conservative. You had your chance in 2016 with Cruz, but you chose to vote for a reality T.V. star instead. You may get lucky though, because Trump's VP Pence is definitely a conservative, and will undoubtedly have a lot of influence in running Trump's administration, IMO.
Webb, Biden, Warren - heck even Jimmy Carter could have beaten Trump. None of the first three have anywhere near the negatives Hilla does, and even Carter's negatives are lower than hers. People seem to forget that a huge chunk of the reason Obama won the nom in 2008 was because many people - and remember, these were DEMOCRATS - hated Hilla so much they would vote for a neophyte over her. That kind of hate maybe went underground, but it never really went away. And let's face it, she has the charisma of a dead skunk: [video=youtube;xubN6ctNNv8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xubN6ctNNv8[/video]
Well given your previous record: ...I'll give your 2020 presidential prediction all due consideration. Although I do believe that now, Democrats need a minority candidate to win, I didn't say that minorities would only vote for other minorities. I just think that to get the turn out the Democrats need among minorities, they need to add minorities to the ticket. It's an inevitable result of decades of identity politics. Even though you won't admit it, you believe that too or you wouldn't be promoting a nobody like Julian Castro as President. As for Trump, he has had far more executive experience than Obama, Clinton, Biden, and Castro put together. If anyone changed the game it was Obama. He proved that a lackluster part time state legislator job could be parlayed into the US Senate, after which he launched a Presidential bid after less than 90 days in the position. Sorry, you've blown the right to complain about qualifications after that.
Who would that right candidate be? Bill Clinton was the last Democratic candidate to win the White Woman vote. You've just ran a white woman as a candidate and white women didn't go for her.
Webb couldn't have beaten Trump. He wouldn't have raised enough money for one good ad buy. He is way too conservative for the DNC big money donors and he is kind of a special kind of (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
