I blame Debbie Wasserman Schultz

She essentially made it impossible for Bernie to win the nomination.  Had it been a fair fight, Bernie probably wins the nomination and beats the fuck out of trump.  People like me would have gladly voted for him, but I was never going to vote for Hillary.  I was never going to vote for goddamn Trump, either.  So instead I voted for a pot head that didn't know where Aleppo was and didn't know who Un was.  Still felt he was the best candidate given those 2 options, especially with Weld on the ticket.  (secretly wish Weld was the top of the ticket, but i digress).

She's the reason we ended up with the worst fucking president in history.

Not sure Bernie would have won, but further left people who stayed home might have voted. Hard to say but I agree, fuck her.

DWags wrote:Not sure Bernie would have won, but further left people who stayed home might have voted. Hard to say but I agree, fuck her.

:)

We had a long talk about this a couple of weeks ago frank, which I think is interesting to me at least. But the straight assumption that Bernie would have won is quite a leap. While it's an impossible question to actually say yes or no, I just wouldn't be so quick to say "oh Bernie would have beaten the fuck out of trump." I have a tendency to think it would have worked out the same. He'd have been closer in the electoral college, but not necessarily to bring him over the top. But again, there is no such thing as knowing that for sure.

Not just her because the DNC had to agree with her front loaded primary schedule and the super delegate formula that pretty much ensured Hillary Clinton's nomination.

Based on a poll I saw today (Friday morning) I think the Democrats biggest mistake in the minds of a majority of Trump voters was electing Barack Obama twice.

Almost 70% of GOP voters agree with Trump on his alt left /both sides rant.

To me that shows a lot of resentment towards Obama ignoring where the economy was and where it ended. But the same group wants to give Trump all the credit for his first 7 months.

Travis will not like these facts.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Travis will not like these facts.

Nah it's not that. I'm not defending her or anything. I'm just saying that just auto assuming that Bernie would have won is dangerous and very possibly incorrect.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

DWags wrote:Not sure Bernie would have won, but further left people who stayed home might have voted. Hard to say but I agree, fuck her.

:)

We had a long talk about this a couple of weeks ago frank, which I think is interesting to me at least. But the straight assumption that Bernie would have won is quite a leap. While it's an impossible question to actually say yes or no, I just wouldn't be so quick to say "oh Bernie would have beaten the fuck out of trump." I have a tendency to think it would have worked out the same. He'd have been closer in the electoral college, but not necessarily to bring him over the top. But again, there is no such thing as knowing that for sure.

Yeah, it's impossible to know for sure, but I know everyone in my family (12 voting adults - me, the wife, our 4 kids and their spouses) ALL would have voted for Bernie over trump. Interestingly, 8 voted Libertarian, 2 voted for trump (and regret it- it's now a running joke), and 2 voted for Hillary ( and then voted 80% Republican down the ticket).

I know it's too far too small a sample size, but had Bernie won, he'd would have had all 12 of us. We discuss politics as a family, it's never led to anything that heated of a debate, and I don't tell my spouse or kids how to vote.

I have to think there's a lot of people that thought like us that given the choice of Bernie vs. trump, it would not be a difficult choice. My family had been basically Republican over the years and if people like us would have changed our votes to unanimously to Bernie, a lot of other people would have thought the same thing.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Travis will not like these facts.

Nah it's not that. I'm not defending her or anything. I'm just saying that just auto assuming that Bernie would have won is dangerous and very possibly incorrect.

Fair enough, but Debbie hung her whole political life on Hillary. I wished I lived in her district so I could vote her out in the primaries, but I live about a mile outside of it. Whether or not Bernie would have won shouldn't be the discussion, but instead how the Democrats didn't even really allow their base to have any/many options, outside of Hillary. In the end she may have been the most qualified and best option, but how was anyone able to see that without that many debates.

Frank Ricard wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

:)

We had a long talk about this a couple of weeks ago frank, which I think is interesting to me at least. But the straight assumption that Bernie would have won is quite a leap. While it's an impossible question to actually say yes or no, I just wouldn't be so quick to say "oh Bernie would have beaten the fuck out of trump." I have a tendency to think it would have worked out the same. He'd have been closer in the electoral college, but not necessarily to bring him over the top. But again, there is no such thing as knowing that for sure.

Yeah, it's impossible to know for sure, but I know everyone in my family (12 voting adults - me, the wife, our 4 kids and their spouses) ALL would have voted for Bernie over trump. Interestingly, 8 voted Libertarian, 2 voted for trump (and regret it- it's now a running joke), and 2 voted for Hillary ( and then voted 80% Republican down the ticket).

I know it's too far too small a sample size, but had Bernie won, he'd would have had all 12 of us. We discuss politics as a family, it's never led to anything that heated of a debate, and I don't tell my spouse or kids how to vote.

I have to think there's a lot of people that thought like us that given the choice of Bernie vs. trump, it would not be a difficult choice. My family had been basically Republican over the years and if people like us would have changed our votes to unanimously to Bernie, a lot of other people would have thought the same thing.

The problem is that, assuming you're in Michigan, it wouldn't have mattered. The assumption that Bernie would have won boils down to PA since WI and MI still would have resulted in a loss. Since we're talking specifically about PA, the question becomes Philadelphia since not many rural folk in that state would have been swayed. Would he have won over enough people in that one city to win? There is no knowing that.

It's also unknowable due to the whole fake news thing would have targeted their sights on him at that point instead of Hillary. But now we're getting into the part where we say "how would things have changed if we went down this road instead of that one 6 months prior to the election?" Which... who the hell knows.

I agree with Travis.

Its probable Trump would have pivoted from "Crooked Hillary" to "Socialist Bernie" and the same amalgam of Evangelicals, anti-union and disenfranchied would have bought that message too.

They hated Hillary Clinton for many things, among them because she supported healthcare reform in the '90s and supported the ACA.

Bernie would have been dragged over the coals with his single payer ideas.

GRR Spartan wrote:Not just her because the DNC had to agree with her front loaded primary schedule and the  super delegate formula that pretty much ensured Hillary Clinton's nomination.

Based on a poll I saw today (Friday morning)  I think the Democrats biggest mistake in the minds of a majority of Trump voters was electing Barack Obama twice.  

Almost 70% of GOP voters agree with Trump on his alt left /both sides rant.  

To me that shows a lot of resentment towards Obama ignoring where the economy was and where it ended.  But the same group wants to give Trump all the credit for his first 7 months.

Those 70%'ers are the reason I quit the Republic Party and became independent many years ago.  Their hatred of Obama was/is so irrational it defies words.  Look, the guy wasn't perfect, and I don't agree with how he handled Syria, but I have nothing but respect for the man and his presidency.  Even if I disagreed with him, I understood the reasons for  doing what he did.

If the base of Republican party keeps this clown in office, they don't deserve to win a single election.  I'll  consider voting for any Republican ONLY if they totally turn their back on trump.  If they hedge their bets ( and I'm looking at you Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, et al.), then you will not get my vote.

He's not a Republican, he's not a conservative and he's a racist narcissist not qualified to hold the office.

sigh..

with what the mainstream media did to Hillary, there is no way they would've let a socialist win..

the sexual predator was their choice - he was good for ratings. Still is - unless you're a curious person, you're gonna believe what the mainstream media tells you - which is why our country is where it is.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Frank Ricard wrote:

Yeah, it's impossible to know for sure, but I know everyone in my family (12 voting adults - me, the wife, our 4 kids and their spouses) ALL would have voted for Bernie over trump. Interestingly, 8 voted Libertarian, 2 voted for trump (and regret it- it's now a running joke), and 2 voted for Hillary ( and then voted 80% Republican down the ticket).

I know it's too far too small a sample size, but had Bernie won, he'd would have had all 12 of us. We discuss politics as a family, it's never led to anything that heated of a debate, and I don't tell my spouse or kids how to vote.

I have to think there's a lot of people that thought like us that given the choice of Bernie vs. trump, it would not be a difficult choice. My family had been basically Republican over the years and if people like us would have changed our votes to unanimously to Bernie, a lot of other people would have thought the same thing.

The problem is that, assuming you're in Michigan, it wouldn't have mattered. The assumption that Bernie would have won boils down to PA since WI and MI still would have resulted in a loss. Since we're talking specifically about PA, the question becomes Philadelphia since not many rural folk in that state would have been swayed. Would he have won over enough people in that one city to win? There is no knowing that.

It's also unknowable due to the whole fake news thing would have targeted their sights on him at that point instead of Hillary. But now we're getting into the part where we say "how would things have changed if we went down this road instead of that one 6 months prior to the election?" Which... who the hell knows.

Yeah, you're probably right. But I like having my scapegoat in Debbie and I'm not giving that up.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:sigh..

with what the mainstream media did to Hillary, there is no way they would've let a socialist win..

the sexual predator was their choice - he was good for ratings. Still is - unless you're a curious person, you're gonna believe what the mainstream media tells you - which is why our country is where it is.

Sorry Bob, not buying it. You give the 'media' too much credit. It's always the 'medias' fault.

The conservatives I know ( and I know a lot of them because I used to be one of them), sound exactly like you - only they blame the liberal mainstream media for making trump look bad. As if that asshole needs help to look like an ass.

Frank Ricard wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:sigh..

with what the mainstream media did to Hillary, there is no way they would've let a socialist win..

the sexual predator was their choice - he was good for ratings. Still is - unless you're a curious person, you're gonna believe what the mainstream media tells you - which is why our country is where it is.

Sorry Bob, not buying it. You give the 'media' too much credit. It's always the 'medias' fault.

The conservatives I know ( and I know a lot of them because I used to be one of them), sound exactly like you - only they blame the liberal mainstream media for making trump look bad. As if that asshole needs help to look like an ass.

just my opinion.

I was watching Bill Maher and he nailed it. He made an analogy to the Titanic sinking and it took six chambers in the ship to fill to take the ship down.

I forget the reasons he listed but you had Comey, Bill meeting with Lynch, Bernie bros being liberal purists, Hillary being a crummy candidate, Russian hacking/interference, the press with non stop email stories....

Long story short there's enough blame to go around.

steveschneider wrote:I was watching Bill Maher and he nailed it. He made an analogy to the Titanic sinking and it took six chambers in the ship to fill to take the ship down.

I forget the reasons he listed but you had Comey, Bill meeting with Lynch, Bernie bros being liberal purists, Hillary being a crummy candidate, Russian hacking/interference, the press with non stop email stories....

Long story short there's enough blame to go around.  

yep - and you add in the mainstream media's non-stop attacks on Hillary with the way they normalized the sexual predator, it was a recipe disaster.

and, of course, then the morally depraved "christians' that support an admitted sexual predator with a history of racist, bigoted and misogynistic conduct, it doesn't matter who the Democrats ran - they weren't gonna win.

seems like people are afraid to say that America is a very stupid country.

I'm not afraid to say it Bob.

You better stand for the National Anthem tho.

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:I'm not afraid to say it Bob.

You better stand for the National Anthem tho.

I tend not to go to places/events that play the national anthem.

Maybe East Lansing games - I think they do. I usually stand - not because I think America is a great country or anything (clearly it's not) - more just to get the blood flowing.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

steveschneider wrote:I was watching Bill Maher and he nailed it. He made an analogy to the Titanic sinking and it took six chambers in the ship to fill to take the ship down.

I forget the reasons he listed but you had Comey, Bill meeting with Lynch, Bernie bros being liberal purists, Hillary being a crummy candidate, Russian hacking/interference, the press with non stop email stories....

Long story short there's enough blame to go around.  

yep - and you add in the mainstream media's non-stop attacks on Hillary with the way they normalized the sexual predator, it was a recipe disaster.

and, of course, then the morally depraved "christians' that support an admitted sexual predator with a history of racist, bigoted and misogynistic conduct, it doesn't matter who the Democrats ran - they weren't gonna win.

seems like people are afraid to say that America is a very stupid country.

Needed to get those tax cuts and save the guns.

msugolfguy wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
yep - and you add in the mainstream media's non-stop attacks on Hillary with the way they normalized the sexual predator, it was a recipe disaster.

and, of course, then the morally depraved "christians' that support an admitted sexual predator with a history of racist, bigoted and misogynistic conduct, it doesn't matter who the Democrats ran - they weren't gonna win.

seems like people are afraid to say that America is a very stupid country.

Needed to get those tax cuts and save the guns.

The Repubs would get those things and even more if Pence were in charge. At this point, I don't even care - we just need to get this racist fucker as far away from the nuclear football as possible.

I guess I never understood why so many people are so intensely opposed to Hillary.  I understand that people aren't huge fans, I'm not, but she's a run of the mill average every day politician like pretty much everyone in Washington.  Hell, Trump was a fan 5 years ago.  She's actually right of Obama on the political spectrum.  She's not far fringe on any issues.  It just seems weird that such a milquetoast politician is so reviled by so many people.

StylesGShmooth wrote:I guess I never understood why so many people are so intensely opposed to Hillary.  I understand that people aren't huge fans, I'm not, but she's a run of the mill average every day politician like pretty much everyone in Washington.  Hell, Trump was a fan 5 years ago.  She's actually right of Obama on the political spectrum.  She's not far fringe on any issues.  It just seems weird that such a milquetoast politician is so reviled by so many people.

She was an attack target of the GOP for 8 years knowing that she would be the nominee that entire time. Some of it fair criticism some of it made up "fake news" bullshit. After such a long time of dragging someone through mud, even people who aren't Fox News types are going to get a negative impression of her rubbed off on them.

Plus she isn't exactly charismatic. So, people that come in with a generally negative feeling (after hearing bad things about her for 8+ years) aren't going to be swayed suddenly by her personality.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

StylesGShmooth wrote:I guess I never understood why so many people are so intensely opposed to Hillary.  I understand that people aren't huge fans, I'm not, but she's a run of the mill average every day politician like pretty much everyone in Washington.  Hell, Trump was a fan 5 years ago.  She's actually right of Obama on the political spectrum.  She's not far fringe on any issues.  It just seems weird that such a milquetoast politician is so reviled by so many people.

She was an attack target of the GOP for 8 years knowing that she would be the nominee that entire time. Some of it fair criticism some of it made up "fake news" bullshit. After such a long time of dragging someone through mud, even people who aren't Fox News types are going to get a negative impression of her rubbed off on them.

Plus she isn't exactly charismatic. So, people that come in with a generally negative feeling (after hearing bad things about her for 8+ years) aren't going to be swayed suddenly by her personality.

This, plus the 8 years the Right had to hate her when WJC was in office. She got off on the wrong foot with them with the "not staying home to bake cookies" comment and that seemed to set the tone. They hated that she stood up and was vocal for women's rights. Then they hated her because hubby put her in charge of healthcare reform, the argument being she wasn't the president nor an elected official (ironic now, given Trump's family working in the West Wing). Then they hated her for sticking by Bill after his cheating ways were exposed.

StylesGShmooth wrote:I guess I never understood why so many people are so intensely opposed to Hillary.  I understand that people aren't huge fans, I'm not, but she's a run of the mill average every day politician like pretty much everyone in Washington.  Hell, Trump was a fan 5 years ago.  She's actually right of Obama on the political spectrum.  She's not far fringe on any issues.  It just seems weird that such a milquetoast politician is so reviled by so many people.

Milquetoast is a great word to describe her. She seemed to be right of Obama until Bernie gained traction, then all of a sudden she veered left. Some of the debates it seemed like Hillary was saying 'see, I can be like Bernie too'. Took hundred of thousands of $ from bankers in speaking fees, only then to rail against them only after Bernie did. Maybe that's not what she really thought, but it's what it appeared to many people, including me.

She was not authentic. Bernie was. Also, there was the perception that she was entitled to win and it was 'her turn'. Again, that might not be true, but it's what people thought of her.

IMO, I think you're spot on Smooth - she was your run of the mill average candidate that never really seemed to stand for something. If the wind blew another direction, she'd change. Always had her finger in the air. Maybe that's not the absolute truth, but that's the way I looked at her. Just another milquetoast average politician - a policy wonk that just didn't connect.

What I NEVER understood was the fascination with those on the left with Trump. Jesus f'n christ that guy was/is so full of shit, it made her look like an honest broker in comparison.

In the end, I wanted to vote for someone that had more experience on the Executive level and that had to work with the other party in order to get things done. Bill Weld, imo, would really have been a great candidate, but played second chair to Johnson, who seemed literally stoned in his interviews and clearly was not fully aware of some the issues that would have confronted him in a public debate. I still wish that Weld would have been a 3rd candidate and invited to the debates to counter Clinton and Trump.

Frank Ricard wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

:)

We had a long talk about this a couple of weeks ago frank, which I think is interesting to me at least. But the straight assumption that Bernie would have won is quite a leap. While it's an impossible question to actually say yes or no, I just wouldn't be so quick to say "oh Bernie would have beaten the fuck out of trump." I have a tendency to think it would have worked out the same. He'd have been closer in the electoral college, but not necessarily to bring him over the top. But again, there is no such thing as knowing that for sure.

Yeah, it's impossible to know for sure, but I know everyone in my family (12 voting adults - me, the wife, our 4 kids and their spouses) ALL would have voted for Bernie over trump. Interestingly, 8 voted Libertarian, 2 voted for trump (and regret it- it's now a running joke), and 2 voted for Hillary ( and then voted 80% Republican down the ticket).

I know it's too far too small a sample size, but had Bernie won, he'd would have had all 12 of us. We discuss politics as a family, it's never led to anything that heated of a debate, and I don't tell my spouse or kids how to vote.

I have to think there's a lot of people that thought like us that given the choice of Bernie vs. trump, it would not be a difficult choice. My family had been basically Republican over the years and if people like us would have changed our votes to unanimously to Bernie, a lot of other people would have thought the same thing.

Frank Ricard wrote:

StylesGShmooth wrote:I guess I never understood why so many people are so intensely opposed to Hillary.  I understand that people aren't huge fans, I'm not, but she's a run of the mill average every day politician like pretty much everyone in Washington.  Hell, Trump was a fan 5 years ago.  She's actually right of Obama on the political spectrum.  She's not far fringe on any issues.  It just seems weird that such a milquetoast politician is so reviled by so many people.

Milquetoast is a great word to describe her. She seemed to be right of Obama until Bernie gained traction, then all of a sudden she veered left. Some of the debates it seemed like Hillary was saying 'see, I can be like Bernie too'. Took hundred of thousands of $ from bankers in speaking fees, only then to rail against them only after Bernie did. Maybe that's not what she really thought, but it's what it appeared to many people, including me.

She was not authentic. Bernie was. Also, there was the perception that she was entitled to win and it was 'her turn'. Again, that might not be true, but it's what people thought of her.

IMO, I think you're spot on Smooth - she was your run of the mill average candidate that never really seemed to stand for something. If the wind blew another direction, she'd change. Always had her finger in the air. Maybe that's not the absolute truth, but that's the way I looked at her. Just another milquetoast average politician - a policy wonk that just didn't connect.

What I NEVER understood was the fascination with those on the left with Trump. Jesus f'n christ that guy was/is so full of shit, it made her look like an honest broker in comparison.

In the end, I wanted to vote for someone that had more experience on the Executive level and that had to work with the other party in order to get things done. Bill Weld, imo, would really have been a great candidate, but played second chair to Johnson, who seemed literally stoned in his interviews and clearly was not fully aware of some the issues that would have confronted him in a public debate. I still wish that Weld would have been a 3rd candidate and invited to the debates to counter Clinton and Trump.

So wait Frank. Due to some of your comments here... I think it's important to know one thing. Were you one of the 8 libertarians, 2 republicans or 2 democrats?

Usually I wouldn't particularly care since I think the best thing people that are on the liberal side of things could do at this point is stop re litigating the 2016 election... but I feel like given your comments in this thread it's worth the question.

StylesGShmooth wrote:I guess I never understood why so many people are so intensely opposed to Hillary.  I understand that people aren't huge fans, I'm not, but she's a run of the mill average every day politician like pretty much everyone in Washington.  Hell, Trump was a fan 5 years ago.  She's actually right of Obama on the political spectrum.  She's not far fringe on any issues.  It just seems weird that such a milquetoast politician is so reviled by so many people.

Familiarity breeds contempt for most politicians with Presidential ambitions and Hillary Clinton has been on the national media radar since 1990 when Bill's political star was rising as a national candidate.

That's why a woman who was active as a First Lady and US Senator from NY from 1992 lost to a relatively unknown Obama and lost again to a political newcomer in Trump 8 years later.  

Don't discount the almost visceral dislike (and fear) some major GOP donors have for the Clintons.  There have been political operatives like Kellyanne Conway and her husband who have made careers of working to defeat Clintons cashing checks for decades.  

It started in 1990-1992 when it was clear Bill Clinton was a political force to be reckoned and never stopped.  They pivoted and worked for NY GOP when Hillary became US Senator, when Obama nominated her for Sec of State are working for the Trump White House or in Conway's husband's case a law firm that takes on cases the GOP wants challenged in court.  

There weren't any anti Reagan job shops in DC  after he left office.  No anti-Bush1 or 2 and no anti Obama but we're closing in on 3 decades, a career of being anti Clinton as a viable in DC.

The DNC groomed her for 14 years to do one thing and one thing only and that's to shatter the glass cieling. Eventually we'll have a female president, probably in the next 3-4 cycles and I don't have a problem with that. I can only hope she's provides this nation with more charisma and inspiration than the wet noodle HRC.

Floyd Robertson wrote:The DNC groomed her for 14 years to do one thing and one thing only and that's to shatter the glass cieling. Eventually we'll have a female president, probably in the next 3-4 cycles and I don't have a problem with that. I can only hope she's provides this nation with more charisma and inspiration than the wet noodle HRC.

While there's a lot of truth to the comments ITT about HRC, she was never nearly as bad as the Right painted her. They were extremely successful in demonizing her, and she had just enough screw ups to make it seem as if the Right was right about her.

Stiil, there were and are competent, qualified women in both major parties. We shouldn't have ever had to make choices involving Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin. On the Left, I'm worried higher-ups are tone deaf to the calls for change that are necessary for any, or at least much, success in '18.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Frank Ricard wrote:

Yeah, it's impossible to know for sure, but I know everyone in my family (12 voting adults - me, the wife, our 4 kids and their spouses) ALL would have voted for Bernie over trump.  Interestingly, 8 voted Libertarian, 2 voted for trump (and regret it- it's now a running joke), and 2 voted for Hillary ( and then voted 80% Republican down the ticket).

I know it's too far too small a sample size, but had Bernie won, he'd would have had all 12 of us.  We discuss politics as a family, it's never led to anything that heated of a debate, and I don't tell my spouse or kids how to vote.

I have to think there's a lot of people that thought like us that given the choice of Bernie vs. trump, it would not be a difficult choice.  My family had been basically Republican over the years and if people like us would have changed our votes to unanimously to Bernie, a lot of other people would have thought the same thing.  

Frank Ricard wrote:

Milquetoast is a great word to describe her.  She seemed to be right of Obama until Bernie gained traction, then all of a sudden she veered left.  Some of the debates it seemed like Hillary was saying 'see, I can be like Bernie too'.  Took hundred of thousands of $ from bankers in speaking fees, only then to rail against them only after Bernie did.  Maybe that's not what she really thought, but it's what it appeared to many people, including me.

She was not authentic.  Bernie was.  Also, there was the perception that she was entitled to win and it was 'her turn'. Again, that might not be true, but it's what people thought of her.

IMO,  I think you're spot on Smooth - she was your run of the mill average candidate that never really seemed to stand for something.  If the wind blew another direction, she'd change.  Always had her finger in the air.  Maybe that's not the absolute truth, but that's the way I looked at her.  Just another milquetoast average politician - a policy wonk that just didn't connect.

What I NEVER understood was the fascination with those on the left with Trump.  Jesus f'n christ that guy was/is so full of shit, it made her look like an honest broker in comparison.

In the end, I wanted to vote for someone that had more experience on the Executive level and that had to work with the other party in order to get things done.  Bill Weld, imo, would really have been a great candidate, but played second chair to Johnson, who seemed literally stoned in his interviews and clearly was not fully aware of some the issues that would have confronted him in a public debate.  I still wish that Weld would have been a 3rd candidate and invited to the debates to counter Clinton and Trump.

So wait Frank. Due to some of your comments here... I think it's important to know one thing. Were you one of the 8 libertarians, 2 republicans or 2 democrats?

Usually I wouldn't particularly care since I think the best thing people that are on the liberal side of things could do at this point is stop re litigating the 2016 election... but I feel like given your comments in this thread it's worth the question.

I voted for Johnson, as I originally stated in the first post.  I really wish Weld would have been on the top of the ticket.  Another person I might have considered was Bloomberg, who was mentioned as running as either an independent or a Dem, although I really don't know what his specific policies might have been.  He at least have some experience as an Executive.

Like I wrote, I would prefer whoever is president that they have at least some experience being in the Executive Branch (hence a Bloomberg) at some level before becoming president.  Obviously that alone doesn't guarantee success, but it's just something I look at.  

Had Bloomberg run as a Dem, I would have voted him over both Clinton and Bernie.  I voted for Kasich in the Republican Primary because of his experience as Governor in a closely divided state.  Kasich was an overwhelming choice for his 2nd term as Governor which at least on some level I took as someone who would govern from the middle and not as an ideologue.

If Bloomberg and Kasich were the 2 final choices, I really don't know who'd I vote for, but that's the kind of choice I would hope for instead of the complete fuck shit we got between turd sandwich and giant douche.

The 2nd best scenario I would have liked is between Kasich and Bernie.  They've done some town hall meetings together after the election and I like both men.  

I guess what I would hope for in a 2 party system is to have nominees for the Repubs be like a Kasich or Weld ( a Repub before turning into a Libertarian) and on the Dems be someone like a  Bloomberg.  I like Bernie because of his passion and authenticity, but not sure I'd go along with his more socialist agenda.  He'd still be light years ahead of trump.

IMO, we got the 2 worst outcomes with trump and Hillary.

StylesGShmooth wrote:I guess I never understood why so many people are so intensely opposed to Hillary.  I understand that people aren't huge fans, I'm not, but she's a run of the mill average every day politician like pretty much everyone in Washington.  Hell, Trump was a fan 5 years ago.  She's actually right of Obama on the political spectrum.  She's not far fringe on any issues.  It just seems weird that such a milquetoast politician is so reviled by so many people.

it was mainly due to 30 years of attacks from the GOP and mainstream media.. the attacks ingrained themselves into the collective minds of people who are easily manipulated to the point that the ridiculous conspiracies they peddled took on a life of their own, despite the actual facts of a specific situation.

and, of course, don't forget that she was a woman.

it's really that simple.

Bump. Donna thinks I was right after all. Elizabeth Warren thinks the primary was rigged. DNC, lead by Wasserman-Schultz fucked up.

Frank Ricard wrote:She essentially made it impossible for Bernie to win the nomination.  Had it been a fair fight, Bernie probably wins the nomination and beats the fuck out of trump.  People like me would have gladly voted for him, but I was never going to vote for Hillary.  I was never going to vote for goddamn Trump, either.  So instead I voted for a pot head that didn't know where Aleppo was and didn't know who Un was.  Still felt he was the best candidate given those 2 options, especially with Weld on the ticket.  (secretly wish Weld was the top of the ticket, but i digress).

She's the reason we ended up with the worst fucking president in history.

DWS was under enormous pressure from the Clintonites.....why not blame them?

LooseGoose wrote:

Frank Ricard wrote:She essentially made it impossible for Bernie to win the nomination.  Had it been a fair fight, Bernie probably wins the nomination and beats the fuck out of trump.  People like me would have gladly voted for him, but I was never going to vote for Hillary.  I was never going to vote for goddamn Trump, either.  So instead I voted for a pot head that didn't know where Aleppo was and didn't know who Un was.  Still felt he was the best candidate given those 2 options, especially with Weld on the ticket.  (secretly wish Weld was the top of the ticket, but i digress).

She's the reason we ended up with the worst fucking president in history.

DWS was under enormous pressure from the Clintonites.....why not blame them?

Fine with me. She's the worst candidate the Dems have had in my lifetime.

The difference between you and me is just because I don't trust Clinton doesn't mean I like, or even tolerate, someone like trump. She's bad, he's worse.

As someone who has been active in local GOP then Democratic Party functions at the county level I will tell you unless there are big check writers on your county who want to share knowledge, the bankrolling of the DNC was treated as a covert operation and I’m guessing less than a dozen people including Hillary Clinton knew about the DNC checks and how the deck was being stacked.

This is Nixonian. Hillary Clinton started working within a year of her 2008 nomination defeat to make sure another candidate couldn’t do to her campaign what Obama’s campaign has done.

Hindsight is 20/20. Between front loading primary wins from solid Red states and the good ole boys y super delegates the only thing that would have stopped her from winning the nomination was an incapacitating stroke or her death.