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
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Those who say "Americans will never vote for a Socialist Jew" are revealing their own prejudice [View all]Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)22. let me see if I can put your logic, here, together.
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.
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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
45 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

Those who say "Americans will never vote for a Socialist Jew" are revealing their own prejudice [View all]
YoungDemCA
Dec 2016
OP
Those who say "Americans will never vote for a woman" are revealing their own misogyny.
baldguy
Dec 2016
#5
You might want to actually give some thought to the O.P. It's a matter of insensitivity.
JudyM
Dec 2016
#17
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
His religion has nothing to do with it...he's just far to left in his policies for swing voters
NoGoodNamesLeft
Dec 2016
#18
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