I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate. Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRR
This is garbage poltical analysis.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
Oh my God.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
They are gonna do it too.
They still don't fucking get it. It's insane.
Hillary losing and trump winning had fucking zero to do with her platform or policies.
Sort of. It had to do w/ policies in that Hillary ran a campaign on policies that ranged from marginally important to retarded.
She thought she could get elected with the Berkeley vote. And she almost did, until yet another bit of info "leaked" questioning her integrity. That was one thing Obama didn't have to carry ... nobody really believes the birthers - even Bannon calls that crowd "fringe".
What the hell are you talking about? Hillary spent the entire campaign slobbering over her ballzak.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate. Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRR
This is garbage poltical analysis.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
Bullshit. That was garbage political anal isis.
You are saying that Obama and Hillary weren't liberal enuff. Kriminy.
Wrong.
They were too fucking liberal. Obama forced the issue with healthcare, which was bound to be controversial and alienating and full of problems.
And the left was too focused on bathrooms, gay rights and other fringy social issues that don't speak to the mind of the working class Democrat, and not enuff time on jobs, evil corporatations not paying their faire share of taxes and moving jobs oversees, the military, God and American interests in general. Watch the Campaign sometime. There are some good lessons in that movie. You literally have to say "Support Our Troops" every five minutes to court the average American dipshit vote. Hillary chose instead to insult them with "deplorables" and talk over their heads. Plus, she's just not fucking relatable ... at. all.
You make it sound like not enough people in SoHo came out to cast their Dem vote. Bullshit. The problem was that the blue collar guy in the Ohio River Valley who comes from a long line of Democratic populists came out and voted, but switched parties because of the monumentally bad campaign the Dems ran. It's that simple.
You had better hope that they drop the guns bit before the next election. Guns will be the next bathroom issue to bury the Dems.
When will the lesson be learned? There are legions of fucking life-long democrats who didn't attend elite colleges, who don't come from money and who don't live in Manhattan or San Francisco. THOSE are the people the D party need to get back on board.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate. Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRR
This is garbage poltical analysis.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
Oh my God.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
They are gonna do it too.
They still don't fucking get it. It's insane.
Hillary losing and trump winning had fucking zero to do with her platform or policies.
Sort of. It had to do w/ policies in that Hillary ran a campaign on policies that ranged from marginally important to retarded.
She thought she could get elected with the Berkeley vote. And she almost did, until yet another bit of info "leaked" questioning her integrity. That was one thing Obama didn't have to carry ... nobody really believes the birthers - even Bannon calls that crowd "fringe".
What the hell are you talking about? Hillary spent the entire campaign trying to reach out to moderate Republicans instead of making concessions the progressive base.
Ok man. I guess the rest of us missed it. Remember, it's not just the candidate ... it's what the candidate's party is doing.
If you don't remember bathrooms, deplorables, e-mail servers, gay marriage! and Obamacare, then I just can't help you.
Oh, I'm well aware that Hillary isn't nearly as liberal in real life as she pretends to be, but her public face is all about that other shit. Yeah, she was centrist relative to Bernie, who actually lets people call him a socialist w/o fighting back. Compared to him, I see your point.
You have a lot of work to do before you convince me that she lost because not enuff bleeding hearts turned out to vote. We all know that was reported, and likely played a part, but I'm pretty suspect about placing too much emphasis on precise statistics concerning things that "didn't happen." Know what I mean?
The Hillary and the entire party blew it. Just admit it and move on.
If you can’t put together how our political shift (in both parties) towards unfettered capitalism is and has been failing the majority of working class people since the 1980’s and the resulting failure of neoliberalism in the Democratic party then you don’t truly understand why Hillary lost.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate. Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRR
I don't think Romney will switch parties.
They'll roll out Pocahontas and Inslee.
Dumb and dumber.
Romney was running for Senate in Utah.
HTH
Sure.gif.
That's not his end game.
Point being (aside from the one on the top of your head) - Romney's a moderate that would roll as a Democrat. But the Dems are too hung up strutting their intellectual elitism to actually run someone with a chance to win.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate. Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRR
This is garbage poltical analysis.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
Oh my God.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
They are gonna do it too.
They still don't fucking get it. It's insane.
Hillary losing and trump winning had fucking zero to do with her platform or policies.
Sort of. It had to do w/ policies in that Hillary ran a campaign on policies that ranged from marginally important to retarded.
She thought she could get elected with the Berkeley vote. And she almost did, until yet another bit of info "leaked" questioning her integrity. That was one thing Obama didn't have to carry ... nobody really believes the birthers - even Bannon calls that crowd "fringe".
What the hell are you talking about? Hillary spent the entire campaign trying to reach out to moderate Republicans instead of making concessions the progressive base.
Ok man. I guess the rest of us missed it. Remember, it's not just the candidate ... it's what the candidate's party is doing.
If you don't remember bathrooms, deplorables, e-mail servers, gay marriage! and Obamacare, then I just can't help you.
Oh, I'm well aware that Hillary isn't nearly as liberal in real life as she pretends to be, but her public face is all about that other shit. Yeah, she was centrist relative to Bernie, who actually lets people call him a socialist w/o fighting back. Compared to him, I see your point.
You have a lot of work to do before you convince me that she lost because not enuff bleeding hearts turned out to vote. We all know that was reported, and likely played a part, but I'm pretty suspect about placing too much emphasis on precise statistics concerning things that "didn't happen." Know what I mean?
The Hillary and the entire party blew it. Just admit it and move on.
Of course she and the party blew it. They sill believed in the failed “third way” centrism and they projected elitism. That’s what I’ve been saying. That is the reason the democratic party is loathed from the left and why they didn’t turn out in 2016.
You have the right premise that the establishment Dems and the party machine are discredited failures. Your problem is that you can’t see that that was the argument of the progressive base who wanted to move the party away from neoliberalism and back towards working class populism. That’s the liberalism I’m talking about. Material concerns. Not the stupid bathroom shit.
That I can follow. Populism and whatever flavor of socialism share a kindred desire to take other people's shit. Democrats blew and are blowing the chance to co-opt that voting bloc.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate. Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRR
This is garbage poltical analysis.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
Oh my God.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
They are gonna do it too.
They still don't fucking get it. It's insane.
Hillary losing and trump winning had fucking zero to do with her platform or policies.
Sort of. It had to do w/ policies in that Hillary ran a campaign on policies that ranged from marginally important to retarded.
She thought she could get elected with the Berkeley vote. And she almost did, until yet another bit of info "leaked" questioning her integrity. That was one thing Obama didn't have to carry ... nobody really believes the birthers - even Bannon calls that crowd "fringe".
What the hell are you talking about? Hillary spent the entire campaign trying to reach out to moderate Republicans instead of making concessions the progressive base.
Ok man. I guess the rest of us missed it. Remember, it's not just the candidate ... it's what the candidate's party is doing.
If you don't remember bathrooms, deplorables, e-mail servers, gay marriage! and Obamacare, then I just can't help you.
Oh, I'm well aware that Hillary isn't nearly as liberal in real life as she pretends to be, but her public face is all about that other shit. Yeah, she was centrist relative to Bernie, who actually lets people call him a socialist w/o fighting back. Compared to him, I see your point.
You have a lot of work to do before you convince me that she lost because not enuff bleeding hearts turned out to vote. We all know that was reported, and likely played a part, but I'm pretty suspect about placing too much emphasis on precise statistics concerning things that "didn't happen." Know what I mean?
The Hillary and the entire party blew it. Just admit it and move on.
If you can’t put together how our political shift (in both parties) towards unfettered capitalism is and has been failing the majority of working class people since the 1980’s and the resulting failure of neoliberalism in the Democratic party then you don’t truly understand why Hillary lost.
I truly curious your view of increasingly unfettered capitalism.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate. Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRR
I don't think Romney will switch parties.
They'll roll out Pocahontas and Inslee.
Dumb and dumber.
Romney was running for Senate in Utah.
HTH
Sure.gif.
That's not his end game.
Point being (aside from the one on the top of your head) - Romney's a moderate that would roll as a Democrat. But the Dems are too hung up strutting their intellectual elitism to actually run someone with a chance to win.
I don't know if he would roll as a Democrat but he isn't conservative enough for Utah.
As a side point. I always wonder why a dude like Romney, who never has to work again and has access to many corporate boards to keep him engaged, wants to be a senator.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate. Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRR
I don't think Romney will switch parties.
They'll roll out Pocahontas and Inslee.
Dumb and dumber.
Romney was running for Senate in Utah.
HTH
Sure.gif.
That's not his end game.
Point being (aside from the one on the top of your head) - Romney's a moderate that would roll as a Democrat. But the Dems are too hung up strutting their intellectual elitism to actually run someone with a chance to win.
I don't know if he would roll as a Democrat but he isn't conservative enough for Utah.
As a side point. I always wonder why a dude like Romney, who never has to work again and has access to many corporate boards to keep him engaged, wants to be a senator.
I think Romney has that old-school patrician called-to-serve thing. Or daddy issues. Don't twist.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate. Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRR
This is garbage poltical analysis.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
Oh my God.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
They are gonna do it too.
They still don't fucking get it. It's insane.
Hillary losing and trump winning had fucking zero to do with her platform or policies.
Sort of. It had to do w/ policies in that Hillary ran a campaign on policies that ranged from marginally important to retarded.
She thought she could get elected with the Berkeley vote. And she almost did, until yet another bit of info "leaked" questioning her integrity. That was one thing Obama didn't have to carry ... nobody really believes the birthers - even Bannon calls that crowd "fringe".
What the hell are you talking about? Hillary spent the entire campaign trying to reach out to moderate Republicans instead of making concessions the progressive base.
Ok man. I guess the rest of us missed it. Remember, it's not just the candidate ... it's what the candidate's party is doing.
If you don't remember bathrooms, deplorables, e-mail servers, gay marriage! and Obamacare, then I just can't help you.
Oh, I'm well aware that Hillary isn't nearly as liberal in real life as she pretends to be, but her public face is all about that other shit. Yeah, she was centrist relative to Bernie, who actually lets people call him a socialist w/o fighting back. Compared to him, I see your point.
You have a lot of work to do before you convince me that she lost because not enuff bleeding hearts turned out to vote. We all know that was reported, and likely played a part, but I'm pretty suspect about placing too much emphasis on precise statistics concerning things that "didn't happen." Know what I mean?
The Hillary and the entire party blew it. Just admit it and move on.
If you can’t put together how our political shift (in both parties) towards unfettered capitalism is and has been failing the majority of working class people since the 1980’s and the resulting failure of neoliberalism in the Democratic party then you don’t truly understand why Hillary lost.
I truly curious your view of increasingly unfettered capitalism.
Everyone knows unfettered goes best with nacho cheese.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate. Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRR
This is garbage poltical analysis.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
Oh my God.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
They are gonna do it too.
They still don't fucking get it. It's insane.
Hillary losing and trump winning had fucking zero to do with her platform or policies.
Sort of. It had to do w/ policies in that Hillary ran a campaign on policies that ranged from marginally important to retarded.
She thought she could get elected with the Berkeley vote. And she almost did, until yet another bit of info "leaked" questioning her integrity. That was one thing Obama didn't have to carry ... nobody really believes the birthers - even Bannon calls that crowd "fringe".
What the hell are you talking about? Hillary spent the entire campaign trying to reach out to moderate Republicans instead of making concessions the progressive base.
Ok man. I guess the rest of us missed it. Remember, it's not just the candidate ... it's what the candidate's party is doing.
If you don't remember bathrooms, deplorables, e-mail servers, gay marriage! and Obamacare, then I just can't help you.
Oh, I'm well aware that Hillary isn't nearly as liberal in real life as she pretends to be, but her public face is all about that other shit. Yeah, she was centrist relative to Bernie, who actually lets people call him a socialist w/o fighting back. Compared to him, I see your point.
You have a lot of work to do before you convince me that she lost because not enuff bleeding hearts turned out to vote. We all know that was reported, and likely played a part, but I'm pretty suspect about placing too much emphasis on precise statistics concerning things that "didn't happen." Know what I mean?
The Hillary and the entire party blew it. Just admit it and move on.
If you can’t put together how our political shift (in both parties) towards unfettered capitalism is and has been failing the majority of working class people since the 1980’s and the resulting failure of neoliberalism in the Democratic party then you don’t truly understand why Hillary lost.
I truly curious your view of increasingly unfettered capitalism.
In short summary since the 80’s: union busting, tax cuts for wealthy, increasing financialization of the economy where almost all profit is in the financial sector, massive corporate consolidation combined with increased political power, deindustrialization.
The culmination of this is that since the financial crisis in ‘08 over 95% of income growth has gone to 1% of the population. Whether you believe that constitutes a healthy society or not is up to you.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate. Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRR
This is garbage poltical analysis.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
Oh my God.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
They are gonna do it too.
They still don't fucking get it. It's insane.
Hillary losing and trump winning had fucking zero to do with her platform or policies.
Sort of. It had to do w/ policies in that Hillary ran a campaign on policies that ranged from marginally important to retarded.
She thought she could get elected with the Berkeley vote. And she almost did, until yet another bit of info "leaked" questioning her integrity. That was one thing Obama didn't have to carry ... nobody really believes the birthers - even Bannon calls that crowd "fringe".
What the hell are you talking about? Hillary spent the entire campaign trying to reach out to moderate Republicans instead of making concessions the progressive base.
Ok man. I guess the rest of us missed it. Remember, it's not just the candidate ... it's what the candidate's party is doing.
If you don't remember bathrooms, deplorables, e-mail servers, gay marriage! and Obamacare, then I just can't help you.
Oh, I'm well aware that Hillary isn't nearly as liberal in real life as she pretends to be, but her public face is all about that other shit. Yeah, she was centrist relative to Bernie, who actually lets people call him a socialist w/o fighting back. Compared to him, I see your point.
You have a lot of work to do before you convince me that she lost because not enuff bleeding hearts turned out to vote. We all know that was reported, and likely played a part, but I'm pretty suspect about placing too much emphasis on precise statistics concerning things that "didn't happen." Know what I mean?
The Hillary and the entire party blew it. Just admit it and move on.
If you can’t put together how our political shift (in both parties) towards unfettered capitalism is and has been failing the majority of working class people since the 1980’s and the resulting failure of neoliberalism in the Democratic party then you don’t truly understand why Hillary lost.
Dude. You. Are. Presuming. Too. Much.
Do you REALLY think that moderate democrats are contemplating the implications of "unfettered capitalism" and musing about "neoliberalism"? Axe Sledog if he knows what those words mean, and you'll get an idea of who fs this is.
I suppose you think that Joe Lunchbox reads Das Kapital and Wealth of Nations on his smoke breaks.
And we haven't moved towards unfettered capitalism. Read a Dickens novel if you want to know what that really looks like.
Trump's policies most closely mirror classic Democratic populism ... the kind of shit that is popular with unions and blue collar, lower middle-class working stiffs. You know, protectionism, tarriffs, "America first" and all that shit. There is nothing unfettered about it, unless you're choosing to just focus on the tax cut.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate. Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRR
This is garbage poltical analysis.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
Oh my God.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
They are gonna do it too.
They still don't fucking get it. It's insane.
Hillary losing and trump winning had fucking zero to do with her platform or policies.
Sort of. It had to do w/ policies in that Hillary ran a campaign on policies that ranged from marginally important to retarded.
She thought she could get elected with the Berkeley vote. And she almost did, until yet another bit of info "leaked" questioning her integrity. That was one thing Obama didn't have to carry ... nobody really believes the birthers - even Bannon calls that crowd "fringe".
What the hell are you talking about? Hillary spent the entire campaign trying to reach out to moderate Republicans instead of making concessions the progressive base.
Ok man. I guess the rest of us missed it. Remember, it's not just the candidate ... it's what the candidate's party is doing.
If you don't remember bathrooms, deplorables, e-mail servers, gay marriage! and Obamacare, then I just can't help you.
Oh, I'm well aware that Hillary isn't nearly as liberal in real life as she pretends to be, but her public face is all about that other shit. Yeah, she was centrist relative to Bernie, who actually lets people call him a socialist w/o fighting back. Compared to him, I see your point.
You have a lot of work to do before you convince me that she lost because not enuff bleeding hearts turned out to vote. We all know that was reported, and likely played a part, but I'm pretty suspect about placing too much emphasis on precise statistics concerning things that "didn't happen." Know what I mean?
The Hillary and the entire party blew it. Just admit it and move on.
If you can’t put together how our political shift (in both parties) towards unfettered capitalism is and has been failing the majority of working class people since the 1980’s and the resulting failure of neoliberalism in the Democratic party then you don’t truly understand why Hillary lost.
Dude. You. Are. Presuming. Too. Much.
Do you REALLY think that moderate democrats are contemplating the implications of "unfettered capitalism" and musing about "neoliberalism"? Axe Sledog if he knows what those words mean, and you'll get an idea of who fs this is.
I suppose you think that Joe Lunchbox reads Das Kapital and Wealth of Nations on his smoke breaks.
And we haven't moved towards unfettered capitalism. Read a Dickens novel if you want to know what that really looks like.
Trump's policies most closely mirror classic Democratic populism ... the kind of shit that is popular with unions and blue collar, lower middle-class working stiffs. You know, protectionism, tarriffs, "America first" and all that shit. There is nothing unfettered about it, unless you're choosing to just focus on the tax cut.
Of course I don’t think Joe Lunchbox has a nuanced understanding of the labor theory of value but he’s not stupid enough to see that his material interests have been damaged by both political parties for the last 30+ years.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate. Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRR
This is garbage poltical analysis.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
Oh my God.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
They are gonna do it too.
They still don't fucking get it. It's insane.
Hillary losing and trump winning had fucking zero to do with her platform or policies.
Sort of. It had to do w/ policies in that Hillary ran a campaign on policies that ranged from marginally important to retarded.
She thought she could get elected with the Berkeley vote. And she almost did, until yet another bit of info "leaked" questioning her integrity. That was one thing Obama didn't have to carry ... nobody really believes the birthers - even Bannon calls that crowd "fringe".
What the hell are you talking about? Hillary spent the entire campaign trying to reach out to moderate Republicans instead of making concessions the progressive base.
Ok man. I guess the rest of us missed it. Remember, it's not just the candidate ... it's what the candidate's party is doing.
If you don't remember bathrooms, deplorables, e-mail servers, gay marriage! and Obamacare, then I just can't help you.
Oh, I'm well aware that Hillary isn't nearly as liberal in real life as she pretends to be, but her public face is all about that other shit. Yeah, she was centrist relative to Bernie, who actually lets people call him a socialist w/o fighting back. Compared to him, I see your point.
You have a lot of work to do before you convince me that she lost because not enuff bleeding hearts turned out to vote. We all know that was reported, and likely played a part, but I'm pretty suspect about placing too much emphasis on precise statistics concerning things that "didn't happen." Know what I mean?
The Hillary and the entire party blew it. Just admit it and move on.
Of course she and the party blew it. They sill believed in the failed “third way” centrism and they projected elitism. That’s what I’ve been saying. That is the reason the democratic party is loathed from the left and why they didn’t turn out in 2016.
You have the right premise that the establishment Dems and the party machine are discredited failures. Your problem is that you can’t see that that was the argument of the progressive base who wanted to move the party away from neoliberalism and back towards working class populism. That’s the liberalism I’m talking about. Material concerns. Not the stupid bathroom shit.
Ok, I understand your point now.
Yes, I agree. Any strategic move away from blue collar populism was a disaster. And Trump moved right in and grabbed it away from them.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate. Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRR
This is garbage poltical analysis.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
Oh my God.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
They are gonna do it too.
They still don't fucking get it. It's insane.
Hillary losing and trump winning had fucking zero to do with her platform or policies.
Sort of. It had to do w/ policies in that Hillary ran a campaign on policies that ranged from marginally important to retarded.
She thought she could get elected with the Berkeley vote. And she almost did, until yet another bit of info "leaked" questioning her integrity. That was one thing Obama didn't have to carry ... nobody really believes the birthers - even Bannon calls that crowd "fringe".
What the hell are you talking about? Hillary spent the entire campaign trying to reach out to moderate Republicans instead of making concessions the progressive base.
Ok man. I guess the rest of us missed it. Remember, it's not just the candidate ... it's what the candidate's party is doing.
If you don't remember bathrooms, deplorables, e-mail servers, gay marriage! and Obamacare, then I just can't help you.
Oh, I'm well aware that Hillary isn't nearly as liberal in real life as she pretends to be, but her public face is all about that other shit. Yeah, she was centrist relative to Bernie, who actually lets people call him a socialist w/o fighting back. Compared to him, I see your point.
You have a lot of work to do before you convince me that she lost because not enuff bleeding hearts turned out to vote. We all know that was reported, and likely played a part, but I'm pretty suspect about placing too much emphasis on precise statistics concerning things that "didn't happen." Know what I mean?
The Hillary and the entire party blew it. Just admit it and move on.
If you can’t put together how our political shift (in both parties) towards unfettered capitalism is and has been failing the majority of working class people since the 1980’s and the resulting failure of neoliberalism in the Democratic party then you don’t truly understand why Hillary lost.
I truly curious your view of increasingly unfettered capitalism.
In short summary since the 80’s: union busting, tax cuts for wealthy, increasing financialization of the economy where almost all profit is in the financial sector, massive corporate consolidation combined with increased political power, deindustrialization.
The culmination of this is that since the financial crisis in ‘08 over 95% of income growth has gone to 1% of the population. Whether you believe that constitutes a healthy society or not is up to you.
Yeah, I'm not smart enough to figure any of that out. I'm always in favor of tax cuts, or in order words, taking less money from the people who earn it. One can always send a larger check to the Treasury if one feels one's tax bill is too low.
During that same time period, the Federal Register has run between 65,000 and 80,000 pages annually. Eh, I was going to write someone about artificially created chincentives, but I lost interest.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate. Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRR
This is garbage poltical analysis.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
Oh my God.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
They are gonna do it too.
They still don't fucking get it. It's insane.
Hillary losing and trump winning had fucking zero to do with her platform or policies.
Sort of. It had to do w/ policies in that Hillary ran a campaign on policies that ranged from marginally important to retarded.
She thought she could get elected with the Berkeley vote. And she almost did, until yet another bit of info "leaked" questioning her integrity. That was one thing Obama didn't have to carry ... nobody really believes the birthers - even Bannon calls that crowd "fringe".
What the hell are you talking about? Hillary spent the entire campaign trying to reach out to moderate Republicans instead of making concessions the progressive base.
Ok man. I guess the rest of us missed it. Remember, it's not just the candidate ... it's what the candidate's party is doing.
If you don't remember bathrooms, deplorables, e-mail servers, gay marriage! and Obamacare, then I just can't help you.
Oh, I'm well aware that Hillary isn't nearly as liberal in real life as she pretends to be, but her public face is all about that other shit. Yeah, she was centrist relative to Bernie, who actually lets people call him a socialist w/o fighting back. Compared to him, I see your point.
You have a lot of work to do before you convince me that she lost because not enuff bleeding hearts turned out to vote. We all know that was reported, and likely played a part, but I'm pretty suspect about placing too much emphasis on precise statistics concerning things that "didn't happen." Know what I mean?
The Hillary and the entire party blew it. Just admit it and move on.
If you can’t put together how our political shift (in both parties) towards unfettered capitalism is and has been failing the majority of working class people since the 1980’s and the resulting failure of neoliberalism in the Democratic party then you don’t truly understand why Hillary lost.
Dude. You. Are. Presuming. Too. Much.
Do you REALLY think that moderate democrats are contemplating the implications of "unfettered capitalism" and musing about "neoliberalism"? Axe Sledog if he knows what those words mean, and you'll get an idea of who fs this is.
I suppose you think that Joe Lunchbox reads Das Kapital and Wealth of Nations on his smoke breaks.
And we haven't moved towards unfettered capitalism. Read a Dickens novel if you want to know what that really looks like.
Trump's policies most closely mirror classic Democratic populism ... the kind of shit that is popular with unions and blue collar, lower middle-class working stiffs. You know, protectionism, tarriffs, "America first" and all that shit. There is nothing unfettered about it, unless you're choosing to just focus on the tax cut.
Of course I don’t think Joe Lunchbox has a nuanced understanding of the labor theory of value but he’s not stupid enough to see that his material interests have been damaged by both political parties for the last 30+ years.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate. Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRR
This is garbage poltical analysis.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
Oh my God.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
They are gonna do it too.
They still don't fucking get it. It's insane.
Hillary losing and trump winning had fucking zero to do with her platform or policies.
Sort of. It had to do w/ policies in that Hillary ran a campaign on policies that ranged from marginally important to retarded.
She thought she could get elected with the Berkeley vote. And she almost did, until yet another bit of info "leaked" questioning her integrity. That was one thing Obama didn't have to carry ... nobody really believes the birthers - even Bannon calls that crowd "fringe".
What the hell are you talking about? Hillary spent the entire campaign trying to reach out to moderate Republicans instead of making concessions the progressive base.
Ok man. I guess the rest of us missed it. Remember, it's not just the candidate ... it's what the candidate's party is doing.
If you don't remember bathrooms, deplorables, e-mail servers, gay marriage! and Obamacare, then I just can't help you.
Oh, I'm well aware that Hillary isn't nearly as liberal in real life as she pretends to be, but her public face is all about that other shit. Yeah, she was centrist relative to Bernie, who actually lets people call him a socialist w/o fighting back. Compared to him, I see your point.
You have a lot of work to do before you convince me that she lost because not enuff bleeding hearts turned out to vote. We all know that was reported, and likely played a part, but I'm pretty suspect about placing too much emphasis on precise statistics concerning things that "didn't happen." Know what I mean?
The Hillary and the entire party blew it. Just admit it and move on.
If you can’t put together how our political shift (in both parties) towards unfettered capitalism is and has been failing the majority of working class people since the 1980’s and the resulting failure of neoliberalism in the Democratic party then you don’t truly understand why Hillary lost.
Dude. You. Are. Presuming. Too. Much.
Do you REALLY think that moderate democrats are contemplating the implications of "unfettered capitalism" and musing about "neoliberalism"? Axe Sledog if he knows what those words mean, and you'll get an idea of who fs this is.
I suppose you think that Joe Lunchbox reads Das Kapital and Wealth of Nations on his smoke breaks.
And we haven't moved towards unfettered capitalism. Read a Dickens novel if you want to know what that really looks like.
Trump's policies most closely mirror classic Democratic populism ... the kind of shit that is popular with unions and blue collar, lower middle-class working stiffs. You know, protectionism, tarriffs, "America first" and all that shit. There is nothing unfettered about it, unless you're choosing to just focus on the tax cut.
Of course I don’t think Joe Lunchbox has a nuanced understanding of the labor theory of value but he’s not stupid enough to see that his material interests have been damaged by both political parties for the last 30+ years.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate. Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRR
This is garbage poltical analysis.
Hillary lost because the progressive communist base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican communist health care reform and expanded our forever wars by arming our enemies and creating ISIS in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate communist who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly. socialists.
A democrat communist from the leftcommunist-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
Comments
HTH
If you can’t put together how our political shift (in both parties) towards unfettered capitalism is and has been failing the majority of working class people since the 1980’s and the resulting failure of neoliberalism in the Democratic party then you don’t truly understand why Hillary lost.
That's not his end game.
Point being (aside from the one on the top of your head) - Romney's a moderate that would roll as a Democrat. But the Dems are too hung up strutting their intellectual elitism to actually run someone with a chance to win.
As a side point. I always wonder why a dude like Romney, who never has to work again and has access to many corporate boards to keep him engaged, wants to be a senator.
Everyone knows unfettered goes best with nacho cheese.
The culmination of this is that since the financial crisis in ‘08 over 95% of income growth has gone to 1% of the population. Whether you believe that constitutes a healthy society or not is up to you.
Do you REALLY think that moderate democrats are contemplating the implications of "unfettered capitalism" and musing about "neoliberalism"? Axe Sledog if he knows what those words mean, and you'll get an idea of who fs this is.
I suppose you think that Joe Lunchbox reads Das Kapital and Wealth of Nations on his smoke breaks.
And we haven't moved towards unfettered capitalism. Read a Dickens novel if you want to know what that really looks like.
Trump's policies most closely mirror classic Democratic populism ... the kind of shit that is popular with unions and blue collar, lower middle-class working stiffs. You know, protectionism, tarriffs, "America first" and all that shit. There is nothing unfettered about it, unless you're choosing to just focus on the tax cut.
Yes, I agree. Any strategic move away from blue collar populism was a disaster. And Trump moved right in and grabbed it away from them.
During that same time period, the Federal Register has run between 65,000 and 80,000 pages annually. Eh, I was going to write someone about artificially created chincentives, but I lost interest.
Edit - what Creep said