I REALLY did not think that I would come back to this thread and have to leave it again. It only took one person.

What I posted on Facebook today:

 

 

 

In order to see the Cubs win the World Series in 2016:
Trump won election
The world lost David Bowie, Harper Lee, Nancy Reagan, Merle Haggard, Prince, Muhammad Ali, Gordie Howe, Pat Summitt, Gene Wilder, Jose Fernandez, Arnold Palmer, Janet Reno, and, most recently, Leonard Cohen, among others.
I may want to rescind that Cubs World Series win...

 

I REALLY did not think that I would come back to this thread and have to leave it again. It only took one person.

#minnesotanice

I see the point....they are going to be very unhappy they didn't actually make the point they thought they were making, imo.

 

It appears much of Trump's team is already filled with insiders....so, so far, the symbolism isn't working out in execution.

I agree, it won't work.

 

WON'T that only make the emotion even stronger? The motives are key to preventing a repeat. Like any protest, the why matters most.

 

I agree the Democratic Party needs to change, but Bernie Sanders and socialism is not the change it needs... embracing socialism will only ensure that the GOP holds congress and the White House for the next 8+ years minimum. If you want socialism go move to a country that embraces it, and enjoy the 50% tax on your income and all the issues that come along with it.

You're seriously misreading the results of this election.  It wasn't Trumps tax-plan, or his pro-capitalism stance that got him elected.  The election was about anti-establishment, not about endorsing conservative issues or rejecting liberal ones.  

 

I'm not sure if Socialism is viable, but Trump demonstrates that Sanders probably would have been more viable than you could have predicted.   

 

I really hope that other liberals here don't take what Dave has to take to heart.  We should not become a more centered, pro-capitalist party.  That's exactly what led to the demise here. Moderate, near-Republican Democrats (like Clinton, etc.) are losers from here on out. 

 

 

Edited November 11, 201610 yr by PseudoSABR

Hillary would have made a great GOPer from MN in the 70s and 80s. Agreed.

 

I don't think Bernie is a socialist either. Social democrat, or somesuch European, yes? Actually saying capitalism should be abolished? No.

Edited November 11, 201610 yr by Mike Sixel

Plus if the GOP screws things up, then the Dems take back the house and senate in 2 years, and the white house in 4.

The house, perhaps, as it's always up for grabs. But take a look at the roster of Senate seats up for election in 2018, near the bottom of the following web page, and think again about what combination of events would have to take place for Democrats to take control before 2020, defending 25 seats (including the two that caucus with them) and having only 8 to go after:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classes_of_United_States_Senators

 

Things would have to have turned so sour for the nation that I don't think I really want to go through the experience.

Bernie Sanders would have won. Enthusiasm, appeal to rural whites, etc. You are grossly mischaracterizing his views here. Grossly.

It's not the posters here who would have grossly mischaracterized Bernie's views. Trump would have done the honors.

 

He had this knack for summarizing his opponents for President with a few choice words. Low Energy Jeb, Lyin' Ted , Little Marco. Replace "Crooked Hillary Clinton" with "Socialist Bernie Sanders" at the beginning of every sentence of his stump speech, and you quickly would have had an electorate who could not, when alone in that voting booth with their conscience and their childhood upbringing, bring themselves to pick the Socialist among two anti-establishment candidates.

 

It would have been a McGovern-style landslide.

 

And since I see several parallels between this year's election and 1968, I will not be surprised to see exactly such a 1972 outcome in 2020.

Trumps' anti-establishment rant would lose authenticity next to Sanders.  Sanders could paint him as the elitist billionaire that he is, that Clinton could not do. 

 

In the alternative, for those who think that Sanders would have lost by more, what exactly would you propose for defeating a candidate like Trump? Lurching further to the right?  Isn't that exactly what Democrats have been doing over the past several decades?

Edited November 11, 201610 yr by PseudoSABR

Trumps' anti-establishment rant would lose authenticity next to Sanders. Sanders could paint him as the elitist billionaire that he is, that Clinton could not do.

Still wouldn't have mattered. You can't run on a platform of raising taxes.especially Not during a time when we are just getting out of a recession.

IMO this election was about:

 

5% the economy

10% SCOTUS

15% race/women/social issues

70% sticking it to your goddang son/neighbor/aunts on FB

 

The house, perhaps, as it's always up for grabs. But take a look at the roster of Senate seats up for election in 2018, near the bottom of the following web page, and think again about what combination of events would have to take place for Democrats to take control before 2020, defending 25 seats (including the two that caucus with them) and having only 8 to go after:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classes_of_United_States_Senators

 

Things would have to have turned so sour for the nation that I don't think I really want to go through the experience.

 

The house is completely gerrymandered because the GOP controls state houses and supreme courts. It will require a miracle for that to change.

 

And, yes, the counts in the Senate means Trump and the GOP would have to be historically bad historically quickly for the Dems to take it over.

 

Still wouldn't have mattered. You can't run on a platform of raising taxes.especially Not during a time when we are just getting out of a recession.

Trump didn't have any kind of platform.  You don't know how Bernie's message would play out on the National stage.  Your thinking discounted Bernie's chances in the primaries (he did far better than anyone had expected), and your thinking is what led to Clinton's nomination, pardon me if I reject your thinking on this issue.  

 

Taxes? That's what you're focusing on after this election.  They didn't elect Regan; they elected a bully who doesn't play by the old rules.  

 

The issues (esp. the old framing of the big issues) fell to the wayside in this election, and liberals may have missed their chance to push forward their own anti-establishment candidate. 

Edited November 11, 201610 yr by PseudoSABR

I'll be pushing up daisies by then

Not to worry. We'll nail your feet to the perch.

 

 

Still wouldn't have mattered. You can't run on a platform of raising taxes.especially Not during a time when we are just getting out of a recession.

Running a platform of raising taxes on high income earners and cutting them on middle earners can work for some.

 

IMO this election was about:

 

5% the economy

10% SCOTUS

15% race/women/social issues

70% sticking it to your goddang son/neighbor/aunts on FB

That's sad.

Running a platform of raising taxes on high income earners and cutting them on middle earners can work for some.

And miniature American flags for others? (SImpsons)

 

I don't know what would have happened in Trump v Sanders, but I suspect Bernie total lack of minority support in the primaries might have been his undoing nationally as well.

It's hard to see how a Jewish "socialist" can win a national election right now....

So  I hear Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin, and Ben Carson are up as possible cabinet appointments.

 

This just keeps getting more (fill in your adjective of choice) by the moment.

 

So  I hear Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin, and Ben Carson are up as possible cabinet appointments.

 

This just keeps getting more (fill in your adjective of choice) by the moment.

Good to see the plan for change is being made.

Btw, if it isn't clear, violent protests, and hurting people, are not the bleeping answer.....violence is wrong, except in the face of violence. 

 

Still wouldn't have mattered. You can't run on a platform of raising taxes.especially Not during a time when we are just getting out of a recession.

 

You can if your platform is only raising taxes on the 1%. It worked for Obama. Twice.

 

I was one of those that thought Sanders couldn't win. I have no clue now though because I thought Trump couldn't win either. I thought too many base and moral Republicans wouldn't turn out as they'd be too embarrassed to be associated with him.

Btw, if it isn't clear, violent protests, and hurting people, are not the bleeping answer.....violence is wrong, except in the face of violence.

 

Has the coverage angle changed yet? THe..."aww...look at those invested young people...awww" shtick was getting a bit old.

 

If this was Trump supporters the outrage would be enormous.

Not sure if this was posted yet but it seems like Bill Clinton had a better understanding of the situation than the campaign - "in general, Bill Clinton’s viewpoint of fighting for the working class white voters was often dismissed with a hand wave by senior members of the team as a personal vendetta to win back the voters who elected him, from a talented but aging politician who simply refused to accept the new Democratic map."

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-aides-loss-blame-231215

 

If Politico is correct, then HRC's campaign team was incredibly stupid.

Edited November 11, 201610 yr by gunnarthor

 

Not sure if this was posted yet but it seems like Bill Clinton had a better understanding of the situation than the campaign - "in general, Bill Clinton’s viewpoint of fighting for the working class white voters was often dismissed with a hand wave by senior members of the team as a personal vendetta to win back the voters who elected him, from a talented but aging politician who simply refused to accept the new Democratic map."

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-aides-loss-blame-231215

 

If Politico is correct, then HRC's campaign team was incredibly stupid.

 

why listen to the best president in decades (when it came to deal making and understanding the people)?

 

Has the coverage angle changed yet? THe..."aww...look at those invested young people...awww" shtick was getting a bit old.

If this was Trump supporters the outrage would be enormous.

 

No idea, I don't watch the news much these days....other than to know if I can get into and out of downtown Portland during the day (have PT and other stuff there most days).

 

why listen to the best president in decades (when it came to deal making and understanding the people)?

I wonder if there was a sense to muzzle him b/c of the sexual assault allegations over the years and they didn't want him out there.  And I know he fought with advocates over his crime bill.  But he seemed under used in this campaign.  He is the best politician (as a politician) of my lifetime, hands down.  His speech for Obama in 2012 was an amazing reminder of his ability.

That story seems perfectly plausible. Havent most of us been less than impressed with Hillary campaign for months?

 

That story seems perfectly plausible. Havent most of us been less than impressed with Hillary campaign for months?

 

yes, yes we have.

 

she won the primary because the party wanted a candidate like her, not another Obama.

 

It's not the posters here who would have grossly mischaracterized Bernie's views. Trump would have done the honors.

 

He had this knack for summarizing his opponents for President with a few choice words. Low Energy Jeb, Lyin' Ted , Little Marco. Replace "Crooked Hillary Clinton" with "Socialist Bernie Sanders" at the beginning of every sentence of his stump speech, and you quickly would have had an electorate who could not, when alone in that voting booth with their conscience and their childhood upbringing, bring themselves to pick the Socialist among two anti-establishment candidates.

 

It would have been a McGovern-style landslide.

 

And since I see several parallels between this year's election and 1968, I will not be surprised to see exactly such a 1972 outcome in 2020.

It's plausible but we really don't know. Of course that would be the issue for some, just as Obama's status as a Muslim was an issue for some. Like others, I personally think Sanders economic message and status as an outsider would have depressed turnout of many voters who eventually came out for Trump. 

 

Now let's flip it around. Sanders is somehow the nominee, and loses a very close election to Trump. Huge majority of posters here (including me) would be convinced that Hillary would have routed Trump. Only a lone voice or two would have meekly had the courage to say, "not necessarily"