Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Nova, Nov 7, 2018.
are you a potential Democrat voter?
Then the point stands.
Please go there in the Primaries, and support that lying, communist, opportunistic cunt. I triple-dog dare ya.
Agreed, but the untrue narrative is already out there. She cheated the system and got an unfair advantage because she falsely claimed Native American heritage. Good luck talking the @Federal Farmers of the world out of that one.
^Harvard Law's "first woman of color" agrees!
Senator Harris seems most likely to pass the identitycard intersectionality test to rise to top of the boring sameold sameold crowd, but could easily drop back down faster than a 'Native American white woman' if she repeats her stupid "how do you react when people say ICE is just like KKK" garbage grandstanding.
Though maybe the Dems will have a chance, if they can unearth something unexpected: someone not from the boring sameold sameold crowd.
Warren may have some issues but I can’t think of many people on either side of the aisle that would argue she has more issues than Hillary.
And you won’t find many people on either side of the aisle that prefer Hillary over Warren either.
Despite all that Clinton still won the popular vote. So Warren should logically do just as well or better than Clinton.
As far as the people that really hate her or care about the DNA thing, they probably weren’t gonna vote Democrat anyway so it doesn’t really matter.
She will almost certainly be able to whip up the base better than Clinton although she is not Bernie Sanders. Who else on the Democratic side do the base care about?
I’ve never heard anyone be excited about Booker or Harris. Biden is a possibility but I’m hoping he stays out of it.
The FFs of the world would vote libertarian or stay at home regardless.
There are people excited about Booker and Harris, I haven't heard too many people get excited about Biden. It will be interesting to see if Warren can win over the most loyal Bernie Bros.
So, another out of touch, old white lady. Wake me up when someone interesting comes along.
She's the idiot that got her DNA tested, she brought it back into the spotlight.
If the idiot in the White House didn't keep hammering on it?
If the idiot in the white house were to keep hammering on about one of the books you've written would you feel obliged to respond or would you just ignore him?
I need no encouragement.
Those folks are not winnable anyway.
No one who's not already lost to the redhat right is going to cast their vote based on that "issue"
Whether it's health care or foreign wars or abortion or guns or whatever...no one is going to compromise their interest in that issue, left or right. to cross party lines over that nonsense.
Now, a few primary voters will and they are just like the Bernie Bros, letting an irrational obsession obscure the greater good, but she'll have to prevail without them to get the nomination
Only Sanders has more issues than Clinton (although some of her "issues" were GOP created fiction, they stuck after 20+ years of repetition)
People who have seen the GOP oppo research on Sanders say it is devastating.
All of them will do better than her because, in part, Trump is going to do far worse.
There's a young-people buzz for O'Rourke, the rest just have pockets.
why do you presume she's out of touch?
And can you point me to a politician of whatever stripe who wouldn't fail whatever test you are applying to her?
She basically killed the issue by taking the hit before the campaign season started, then following up by introducing specific legislation to talk about.
The only way it stay alive now is if the (supposedly liberal) mainstream press (i.e. the NYT) tries to get by with a lot of #ButHerDNA clickbait.
The problem for that is that it's not a "sticky" issue like the e-mail bullshit because no one can plausibly frame it as a reflection on how she would govern. In the VERY worst spin you can run with the lie that she used it to defraud some something to get ahead....which is like a laughable charge to use against a candidate running against Trump of all people.
Why would you expect them to say anything else? If Sanders was clean as a whistle, do you think that they'd say, "Yeah, we dug deep, but we couldn't find shit on him."? Until we get some details on it, I wouldn't assume anything. Also, their definition of "devastating" and the definition of a potential swing voter might be entirely different. Plenty of Republican voters would have problems with Bernie's civil rights activism in the '60s, but I don't think that very many Democrats would. Of course, if they've got information which confirms the rumors that Bernie's campaign was as closely tied to the Russians as Stein's campaign, that would be problematic, to say the least.
It is impossible to say what would have happened under a fictional scenario, but Sanders supporters often dangle polls from early summer showing he would have performed better than Clinton against Trump. They ignored the fact that Sanders had not yet faced a real campaign againsthim. Clinton was in the delicate position of dealing with a large portion of voters who treated Sanders more like the Messiah than just another candidate. She was playing the long game—attacking Sanders strongly enough to win, but gently enough to avoid alienating his supporters. Given her overwhelming support from communities of color—for example, about 70 percent of African-American voters cast their ballot for her—Clinton had a firewall that would be difficult for Sanders to breach.
When Sanders promoted free college tuition—a primary part of his platform that attracted young people—that didn’t mean much for almost half of all Democrats, who don’t attend—or even plan to attend—plan to attend a secondary school. In fact, Sanders was basically telling the working poor and middle class who never planned to go beyond high school that college students—the people with even greater opportunities in life—were at the top of his priority list.
So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers.
Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.
Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.
Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”
The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyonereallyattacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.
Could Sanders still have won? Well, Trump won, so anything is possible. But Sanders supporters puffing up their chests as they arrogantly declare Trump would have definitely lost against their candidate deserve to be ignored.
You remember when Rick Santorum blasted Obama for wanting more people to go to college? That didn't seem to help him.
Clinton supporters bandied this about during the primary, but it never gained a lot of traction. I suppose Trump could have pointed out that while rape was something Sanders fantasized about, Trump was actually experienced in it.
Well, I can see how this wouldn't sell well with many Republicans, but a lot of poor people would be able to relate to such an experience.
Championing harsher penalties for criminals back in the '90s didn't stop Hillary from winning the popular vote, even if it did make voting for her unpalatable for many people of color.
So did Obama.
Compare this to Trump's continued calls for the Central Park 5 to be executed after DNA evidence cleared them.
Well, that should have made him appealing to Republicans.
Massachussets was used against Obamacare.
Definitely problematic, but would also be considered ancient history by some.
Reminds me of the videos we heard about where Hillary and Michelle Obama were said to have made highly critical remarks about America that somehow never surfaced.
Wonder how thick the one on Hillary was?
Possibly. We'd need details on what was said and who said it to know for sure. Of course, a lot of people thought Trump's chances were over when he trashed McCain...
Well, polls aren't exactly reliable, but without Sanders having gotten the nomination we can't really say.
And yet, here we are.
Finally, I'd take anything published by Newsweek and the International Business Times with a grain of salt. Seems that they're ran by a religious nutter and many of the experienced journalists with the organization have quit in disgust over the demands the owner has placed on them.
On a related note, it appears that Russian troll bots are starting to warm up their keyboards for the primary season.
So, catch me up. Are we in the midst of a war between Sanders and Warren supporters? Could be worse I suppose. And by worse, I mean Beto O'Rourke. He appears to be another corporate shill. Am I wrong?
well the objective wouldn't be to hurt Bernie with Republicans but to suppress independents in the middle
As for Clinton oppo...we've been seeing it for 25 years and it's pretty much all out in the open by November 2016
No I don't think so. Though one could imagine it happening since she's "in his lane"
As far as we can see the Bernie Bros are kinda obsessed with knocking down Beto right now.
OP ETA - those who have announced including prominently Jay Inslee, Governor of Washington
Well, I have trouble taking him seriously, but if the Bernie Bros are going after Beto with guns blazing, maybe he actually is electable.
He's having an event on 12 January that runs from 10am-12:30pm.
I'm guessing he's not going to take two and a half hours to say that he isn't running.
Some trust in O'Rourke is not misplaced given that he's a Texan too. ; )
Warren should be able to run as part Native American given that Obama, a son of Brits, ran as a black and Hillary ran as a feminist icon. But that's evil me chortling in the wings: Warren shines as phony Hillary, part 2; Bernie out-progressives her; O'Rourke out-Obamas her, and Harris out-intersectionalities her.
At some point you might want to realize you're the only one talking about "intersectionality," and that it's simply not an issue for those of us who will actually be voting in the Democratic primary.
The problem is most of you guys don't even see it, or if you do see it, you ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.
An e.g.: Trump posts meme with photo(shop) of his WWF wrestling smackdown of some guy wearing CNN t-shirt, the left joins together for a collective shit; oh noes, what violent imagery, the man is unfit, dear God please let it end. Trump has endangered the free press and journalists with his nasty rhetoric and persona (don't wonder why on NYE the drunken journalists were publicly, and safely, talking about "steaming out their vaginas" and "drinking champagne from a bong." No real threat of violence to press, just their self-obsession in all that talk).
Meanwhile, yesterday, in the midst of government shutdown, when Pelosi proudly proclaims she won't budge an inch on border security if called 'wall' because that would give Trump a victory which would be inexcusable - so during interview Pelosi's spawn smile a pretty grin at CNN anchors about her mom, the future Speaker: "she'll cut your head off and you won't even know you're bleeding..."
And Pelosi and the anchors all enjoy a good laugh at that, ahahahaha.
I talked with a staunch Republican the other day and he finally had enough. He said he hopes whoever the Democrat is beats Trump in 2020. Imagine if that becomes more pervasive and 1% of Republicans actually stayed home on Election Day. Trump would lose big, similar to Romney.
What does he hate? Low unemployment? Record stock markets (even with the late year decline)? A GDP increase back above 4%? Record low gas prices? A president who looks out for America's interests first? NK wanting to come to the table? Getting NATO members to pay their fair share? Or is it just that Trump is an abrasive asshole? I mean, which is more important?
Separate names with a comma.