Serious Question for Democrats in General & Clinton Supporters in Particular

If the results of the election had been exactly the same except the Republican national ticket was Rubio/Pence, Bush/Pence, or Cruz/Pence....

....

would you be so upset that Hillary Clinton lost?

 

Why Pence as the VP? Pence was not Trump's 1st choice.

But to answer your hypothetical, anything would have been better than Trump. He's unqualified, narcissistic, and has no clue how to GOVERN, which is completely different than being a CEO.

 

I wanted minimal changes. and you still did not answer the question.

 

I did answer the question (the "general" part), but if the answer does not conform to your liking, that is your problem.

 

In case anyone may have missed it, the DNC, the mainstream media, the pollsters, and the Hollywood crowd were all overwhelmingly supportive of Hillary Clinton. The idea that these people would somehow be happy with anyone besides Hillary Clinton requires a bit of a stretch...

 

Actually, half of the "Hollywood crowd" was for Bernie.

Here's a small sampling.

 

Yeah, but they fell in line quite quickly, as there can be only one anointed.

 

Uh...that's a given on both sides.

Did you forget about Paul Ryan's contortions over Trump? Now that is some serious downward dog!

 

Yes, I would have been disappointed, but Trump was clearly the most objectionable of the field of Republican choices. I've had to deal with voting for the losing candidate before--several times--but this one was more difficult to deal with for two reasons. First, it was the second time in four Presidential elections that the losing candidate won the White House. Second, the magnitude of the voter discrepancy--3 million votes--was staggering, and made me realize that our Constitutional system really isn't democratic. In any democracy in the world other than us, that three million vote plurality would have resulted in a different outcome. Only in America does democracy mean the candidate with fewer votes wins. There's something deeply disturbing about that. It explains why so many Americans have lost interest in voting, and why they feel their vote doesn't really count. Hillary received 3 million more votes than Trump. That's living proof that three million Americans took the time and made the effort to vote and their vote didn't really count. It reinforces the idea that American democracy in its current form is an illusion.

 

So you believe that having New York City and Los Angeles dictate to 95% of the country who becomes president would be a better form or democracy?

 

Nope. Not as upset. But still upset.

What's your point?

 

Trying to gauge how much of the outrage is because Clinton lost or because it was Trump who beat her.

 

No. But the current system puts voters in urban areas under a HEAVY disadvantage.

 

What would you suggest then?

 

That's not even close to being true.

 

Tell that to the voters in upstate New York or downstate Illinois.

Trump campaigned in upstate New York just to prove his point to the blue collar voters in the Rust Belt that Clinton never gave a rat's rear about upstate New York even when she was a New York Senator.

 

Add California to that list as well.

 

Who cares? You're retired. You should be out enjoying the sunlight and spending time with your grandkids, not spending an ounce of your golden years figuring out why people you don't like are upset. I promise you that whatever you learn here will be completely pointless and won't enhance your life in any way.

 

I'm retired? I'm not quite 50 yet and I assume I'll be working for about another 18 years until my teachers pension is maxed out and fully vested.

 

Huh, so that must be your dad or something in your avatar.

Well my question remains. You clearly have it in for Democrats. Why do you care what they're angry about? Why not just leave it alone and try to enjoy your life instead?

 

Well, right now a handful of rural voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin are doing exactly that to the nation as a whole. Is THAT fair? Having elections decided based upon gerrymandered voting districts rather than one person-one vote is NOT a viable form of democracy. Are you advocating that where a voter lives is more important than the issues that motivate him or her to vote in the first place?

 

Yes. And gerrymandering has nothing whatsoever to do with Presidential (or Senate) elections

 

Whoever beat Hillary Clinton would have been "the most objectionable." Had it been Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush, they would be saying "even Trump would be better than what we got!" They are liars with -0- need to be consistent or ethical, just piles of feelzy goo with atrophied sludge between the ears.

 

I'm not going to address what normal, American Democrats might say, as all individuals have unique beliefs and reasons for these beliefs. As much as Democratic Party leaders wish to use identity politics to put their voters into boxes, every individual is different.

What I will address are those Democratic Party operatives posing as journalists. You know, the typical New York Times or Washington Post reporter.

And...

They would be having the same tizzy fit they're having with Trump that they had with Reagan:

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...ey-said-then-how-liberal-media-savaged-reagan

They also broke out their liberal/progressive/socialist playbook with Bush I and Bush II, and would be reciting the same lines they're currently using against Trump if it happened to be Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, JEB! or Huckaby.

This is what they do; these "journalists" only become curious about Washington DC nonsense when their enemies are in power. As I've always said, if Democratic Party minions had broken into a room used by the Republican National Committee at the Watergate Hotel, Bernstein and Woodward and Benjamin Bradlee would have simply shrugged.

 

That about says it all