OFFICIAL 2020 Democratic presidential nominee thread
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:52 am
Only 1000ish days to go.
Oprah is a lock in.
/thread
Oprah is a lock in.
/thread
The definitive rugby union forum. Talk to fans from around the world about your favourite team
https://forum.planetrugby.com/
True. Hilariously a few people on here were convinced Hillary had a better chance than Bernie. Deep down they know they were spectacularly wrong.the POTUS would probably be Bernie right now cause a majority of Democrats voted for Trump because they got pissed by what the DNC did with Bernie
Hindsight is such a wonderful thing, isn't it?Bowens wrote:True. Hilariously a few people on here were convinced Hillary had a better chance than Bernie. Deep down they know they were spectacularly wrong.the POTUS would probably be Bernie right now cause a majority of Democrats voted for Trump because they got pissed by what the DNC did with Bernie
You knew at the time that Hilary would lose and that bernie would have won?Bowens wrote:
I said it at the time.
"Knew"? No. But after the Michigan primary it didn't seem far-fetched at all. People of a certain generation in the Rust Belt hate the Clintons (mostly because of NAFTA). I'm pretty sure fonzee, who is from St Louis so would know similar demographics, was saying the same things at the time.Kiwias wrote:You knew at the time that Hilary would lose and that bernie would have won?Bowens wrote:
I said it at the time.
Sanders vs Trump would have almost certainly meant a real 3rd party run by a Bloomberg or Cuban type. Not only is there no real evidence Sanders would have beaten Trump straight up, he would have had to deal with that 3rd party centrist, too.Bowens wrote:True. Hilariously a few people on here were convinced Hillary had a better chance than Bernie. Deep down they know they were spectacularly wrong.the POTUS would probably be Bernie right now cause a majority of Democrats voted for Trump because they got pissed by what the DNC did with Bernie
The idea that a self-confessed socialist would have walked it to the White House is hilariously misguided.goeagles wrote:Sanders vs Trump would have almost certainly meant a real 3rd party run by a Bloomberg or Cuban type. Not only is there no real evidence Sanders would have beaten Trump straight up, he would have had to deal with that 3rd party centrist, too.Bowens wrote:True. Hilariously a few people on here were convinced Hillary had a better chance than Bernie. Deep down they know they were spectacularly wrong.the POTUS would probably be Bernie right now cause a majority of Democrats voted for Trump because they got pissed by what the DNC did with Bernie
By an intellectual titan in Seneca no less. He's a twat, and so are you if you try to pull the same trick.Bowens wrote:Jeff you have been spoken to about your contributions on US political threads before.
Really? You think Sanders was electable as POTUS?Bowens wrote:True. Hilariously a few people on here were convinced Hillary had a better chance than Bernie. Deep down they know they were spectacularly wrong.the POTUS would probably be Bernie right now cause a majority of Democrats voted for Trump because they got pissed by what the DNC did with Bernie
Tbf, one of my go-to points of reference to working out whether I'm in the right or wrong is that of Seneca believes it, or anyone else is agreeing with him, then it must be wrong...so that's you fucked.Bowens wrote:You are bad at it. Sorry. Recognize it and either sharpen up or move along.
A Bloomberg or Cuban type, i.e. someone in the middle who would pull never Trumpers, centrists and Dems who didn't want socialism.Bowens wrote:Bloomberg would have pulled no support. Cuban just likes to talk about running, I don't think he really wants to get into politics.
And the media/online machinery that went to work on Clinton, with the pizza parlour nonsense etc., would have just slid off him like he was made of Teflon?Bowens wrote:He wins Michigan and WI (as he did in the primary) and PA. Possibly Ohio.
That was easy.
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. At the very least, I doubt it would have been anything other than close. Trump seemed to energise a fair portion of the population...I'm sure a fair proportion of them wouldn't have swung all the way to the other side of the political spectrum had Bernie been there.Bowens wrote:I think you underestimate the antipathy toward the status quo in the industrial Midwest. Obviously it's anecdotal but I know quite a few older Obama voters, lifetime democrat types, who didn't vote or voted for Trump. The Access Hollywood tape would have been the KO with no "emails!" to counter it.
DSA memberships are shooting up. Going to be interesting to see if they can keep their momentum going. Had some interesting wins in November, Lee Carter beating Jackson Miller in Virginia for one.Jeff the Bear wrote:And the media/online machinery that went to work on Clinton, with the pizza parlour nonsense etc., would have just slid off him like he was made of Teflon?Bowens wrote:He wins Michigan and WI (as he did in the primary) and PA. Possibly Ohio.
That was easy.
Give over, he would have come in for an almighty barrage of shit equal to, if not greater, than Clinton. I may not be a yank, but due to American Cultural hegemony, I've read and watched a shit tonne of articles , TV shows, movies from America...and the one thing that seems to come through strongest than anything, is the (unusually in my opinion) extreme antipathy towards socialism.
This guy gets it.shanky wrote:There is no doubt in my mind that Clinton paid the cost in the rust belt. Zero, zilch, nada.
They hate the Clintons there.
Bowens wrote:True. Hilariously a few people on here were convinced Hillary had a better chance than Bernie. Deep down they know they were spectacularly wrong.the POTUS would probably be Bernie right now cause a majority of Democrats voted for Trump because they got pissed by what the DNC did with Bernie
Dems voted for Hillary 89-9 over Trump according to exit polls.rett wrote:Bowens wrote:True. Hilariously a few people on here were convinced Hillary had a better chance than Bernie. Deep down they know they were spectacularly wrong.the POTUS would probably be Bernie right now cause a majority of Democrats voted for Trump because they got pissed by what the DNC did with Bernie
“True”? How did “a majority of Dems vote for Trump” when he lost the popular vote?
Bowens wrote:I'm sure you want a gotcha here pal, but in that context "a majority of dems voted for Trump because..." can also mean a majority of Dems who voted for Trump did so because of the DNC.
A lot of people have always pointed to Hilary's flaws. A lot of people called her un-electable, dangerous, cupboard stock full of skeletons and her appeal, no matter how much spin she is given is an election loser. Lots at the time reported Bernie's ability to reach more people. None of this in hindsight, It's just the big powers in the Democratic party and a mainstream media convinced themselves and nobody else that none of this mattered.Kiwias wrote:Hindsight is such a wonderful thing, isn't it?Bowens wrote:True. Hilariously a few people on here were convinced Hillary had a better chance than Bernie. Deep down they know they were spectacularly wrong.the POTUS would probably be Bernie right now cause a majority of Democrats voted for Trump because they got pissed by what the DNC did with Bernie
Up against Trump easily. he would have negated Trumps rust belt pull which is ultimately what won it for Trump. Dem's aren't going to vote republican. Sanders appealed well beyond what Hilary did. There was loads of evidence form the primaries that Hilary just wasn't appealing to ordinary voters and she knew it as she had to buy the nomination more or less.Jeff the Bear wrote:The idea that a self-confessed socialist would have walked it to the White House is hilariously misguided.goeagles wrote:Sanders vs Trump would have almost certainly meant a real 3rd party run by a Bloomberg or Cuban type. Not only is there no real evidence Sanders would have beaten Trump straight up, he would have had to deal with that 3rd party centrist, too.Bowens wrote:True. Hilariously a few people on here were convinced Hillary had a better chance than Bernie. Deep down they know they were spectacularly wrong.the POTUS would probably be Bernie right now cause a majority of Democrats voted for Trump because they got pissed by what the DNC did with Bernie
Bindi wrote:So which candidate out of the ones likely running will win back the voters who need winning back? Biden presumably.