Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
22. let me see if I can put your logic, here, together.
Mon Dec 26, 2016, 06:52 AM
Dec 2016
Not being a normal year isn't what would keep Sanders from winning.

Well, we don't know what would have happened in the general. Again, it's all speculation. What we do know, statistically speaking, is that Hillary's performance in the crucial rust belt states of WI, MI and PA were directly related to her losing the Electoral College. Going "but she won" doesn't really help her get into the oval office, now, does it? People want to swear up and down that what happened to Hillary was NOT! FAIR! NOT FAIIIIR! fine, I agree. But you win the game based upon the shit that happens, and that's the shit that happened. And it wouldn't have mattered if she just would have carried those 3 states, like she was supposed to.

Like her campaign assumed she would.

And Sanders beat Hillary in two of those states, in the Primaries, did he not?

If, as you contend, Sanders was just a flawed sexist and bum like trump, and they didn't mind trump being crude, why would they vote for Sanders?

There's so much weirdness in this sentence, I just want to stop for a moment and marvel at it. Wow. Just simply amazing. Really, a work of art. Okay, let's go. "Sanders was just a flawed sexist and bum like Trump"- no, I didn't say that. I said that the essay Bernie Sanders is known to have written back in 1974 which was clearly a piece of social commentary, that some half-wits here were trying to spin up as "rape porn", clearly wasn't. What it was -obviously- was era specific critique of then-contemporary societal gender roles, much like the overwrought hyperbolic nonsense Andrea Dworkin enjoyed writing, stuff about the dystopic terminally toxic relationship between the sexes and how no one can relate to anyone because the system, maaaaan. Popular shit back in the days of turquoise roach clips and corduroy leisure suits.

That's not saying he's "just like Trump", it's saying that the two paragraphs in the alterna-weekly from forty years ago weren't going to torpedo his candidacy against captain pussygrabber, much less anyone else.

And none of this was about "being crude". It's 2016. No one -really, I'm being honest, now- gives a flying Philadelphia fuck about being crude anymore. But the rust belt didn't vote for Trump because they wanted someone "crude", they voted for him because he promised- in the face of all logic, mind you- to bring their jobs back. He spoke to their concerns, while Hillary courted celebrity endorsements and - according to numerous sources - her campaign wrote off and took their states for granted.

But your logic here is hard to follow, speaking of being all over the place ... you seem to be basically saying "Bob has gum on his shoe. But you're saying Fred has gum on his shoe, too. Why are you saying Fred and Bob are exactly the same?" I'm not. I'm saying that none of this shit would have been a dealbreaker. And here we get back to conventional wisdom, again, because the same conventional wisdom that says "Sanders would have gotten buried by all this spooky unseen opposition research" also told us that Hillary was fucking scandal-proof because she'd already had all this crap thrown at her for decades. Except that wasn't, really, the case. The reality is, she came into the election with high negatives and a lot of people already having made up their minds about her. And she never really transcended that, with a lot of voters.

That same damn conventional wisdom said the exact same shit about Hillary in 2008, even as it told us we would be INSANE to nominate that "inexperienced African American man with the funny name"

Obviously Comey knew what he was doing, and having "CLINTON EMAIL FBI INVESTIGATION REOPENED LAPTOP WEINER TEEN SEXTING SCANDAL WARRANT" plastered all over the cable news scrawls a week before the election was clearly put out to maximum effect. Would they have been able to throw something similar at Bernie? I don't know. I do know that -Fair or not- Hillary walked into this thing dragging a shit-ton of baggage.

And yeah, "she won the damn election". But she didn't win it by enough, or else she would be taking the oath of office on Jan. 20.




Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Do you really think Bernie Sanders will run again? underthematrix Dec 2016 #1
I don't have a crystal ball YoungDemCA Dec 2016 #2
I doubt that he will. potone Dec 2016 #3
You are conveniently leaving things out of the mix. NanceGreggs Dec 2016 #4
There's an irony to your post vs your avatar. Exilednight Dec 2016 #8
Further... Me. Dec 2016 #27
Socialist is confusing HoneyBadger Dec 2016 #37
Those who say "Americans will never vote for a woman" are revealing their own misogyny. baldguy Dec 2016 #5
Nice hijack. JudyM Dec 2016 #15
Nice drive-by. baldguy Dec 2016 #16
You might want to actually give some thought to the O.P. It's a matter of insensitivity. JudyM Dec 2016 #17
Perhaps if you actually read my post #5 and put some thought in refuting it. baldguy Dec 2016 #23
It is a hijack that you won't own as such. You're not fooling anyone. JudyM Dec 2016 #25
So, you've got false accusations, empty bluster & absolutly nothing to back it up. baldguy Dec 2016 #32
One thing you'll notice about conventional wisdom, no matter how often it is proven wrong Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #6
Poor Jeb! Everyone thought he was the smart one lol now look at him NWCorona Dec 2016 #7
You mean like people ducking guilt Jakes Progress Dec 2016 #9
No, that has nothing to do with what I was saying. Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #11
Or you could. Jakes Progress Dec 2016 #13
That he was Jakes Progress Dec 2016 #10
What was the problem, then? Unkempt eyebrows? Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #12
Your post does not address mine. Jakes Progress Dec 2016 #14
This was not a conventional wisdom year, that was my original point. Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #19
Again. Jakes Progress Dec 2016 #21
let me see if I can put your logic, here, together. Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #22
Funny Jakes Progress Dec 2016 #36
Labels can be useful but they can also become blinders. Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #39
That's a tough clip to watch... Yurovsky Dec 2016 #43
Yep. Sanders was simply not a serious contender. duffyduff Dec 2016 #34
""Not with all of the massive baggage he had." YoungDemCA Dec 2016 #35
Her "baggage" was false. Jakes Progress Dec 2016 #38
Honest? Seriously? Yurovsky Dec 2016 #44
Tell me a lie she told. Jakes Progress Dec 2016 #45
His religion has nothing to do with it...he's just far to left in his policies for swing voters NoGoodNamesLeft Dec 2016 #18
Well stupid people think a democratic socialist is someone that hates capitalism. Rex Dec 2016 #20
And the really dumb ones mythology Dec 2016 #41
True! And when they 'throw' it in your face you have to look at them like Rex Dec 2016 #42
The ruling class likes the peons hating one another while they enjoy their tax breaks. jalan48 Dec 2016 #24
2016: "Americans will never vote for a narcissistic orange p*ssy-grabbing The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2016 #26
There is a long list of Sanders objections. gordianot Dec 2016 #28
Oh, it's not ME! HassleCat Dec 2016 #29
getting away from the specific people involved, the logic of the o.p. is simply not compelling. unblock Dec 2016 #30
The constitution says MFM008 Dec 2016 #31
Election is over hollowdweller Dec 2016 #33
I'm Jewish and I would never vote for Bernie Sanders Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2016 #40
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Those who say "Americans ...»Reply #22