Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I've been seeing some pretty interesting analysis on this (of course, the analysis is always easier AFTER the fact).
1. If you had asked the average person, say, 5 or 10 years ago, which party would be closer to being populist and which was closer to being for The Big Guy, I think it's pretty clear that most would have said the Dems were closer to being populist. But somehow the GOP beat the Dems to the punch, and the Dems made it easier by running Hillary. Stunning. And reading Dems sites, they're sure as hell stunned, too.
2. And here's another thing: Chris Matthews (yes, I know) made an interesting point yesterday: You know those concerts with the music superstars for Hillary, like Beyonce and the rest? He wondered if those things drove home the point above, by having them all onstage together in "The Winner's Club" -- all these rich, successful people hugging each other. Maybe stuff like that was a net negative.
3. Finally, now that the dust has settled a bit, I think overall half of us just didn't understand the rage that it took to vote for Trump. Enough rage to ignore his myriad faults and weaknesses and behaviors and words and everything else. THAT is a LOT of rage right there. Obama was not able to deliver on the promises he made overall, and a lot of faith was placed in him. Let's see how Trump responds.
My two cents, worth every penny.
.
The Sanders campaign ran on 99% emotion and 1% substance. There was no way, in Heaven or on Earth, that a fraction of his nutty notions could have ever been achieved.Well, I don't claim to understand politics, but I'm curious.
I do wonder if this result will give Sanders' supporters the upper hand going forward.
.
Shhhh he wont understand that. You aint hacking it upI've been seeing some pretty interesting analysis on this (of course, the analysis is always easier AFTER the fact).
1. If you had asked the average person, say, 5 or 10 years ago, which party would be closer to being populist and which was closer to being for The Big Guy, I think it's pretty clear that most would have said the Dems were closer to being populist. But somehow the GOP beat the Dems to the punch, and the Dems made it easier by running Hillary. Stunning. And reading Dems sites, they're sure as hell stunned, too.
2. And here's another thing: Chris Matthews (yes, I know) made an interesting point yesterday: You know those concerts with the music superstars for Hillary, like Beyonce and the rest? He wondered if those things drove home the point above, by having them all onstage together in "The Winner's Club" -- all these rich, successful people hugging each other. Maybe stuff like that was a net negative.
3. Finally, now that the dust has settled a bit, I think overall half of us just didn't understand the rage that it took to vote for Trump. Enough rage to ignore his myriad faults and weaknesses and behaviors and words and everything else. THAT is a LOT of rage right there. Obama was not able to deliver on the promises he made overall, and a lot of faith was placed in him. Let's see how Trump responds.
My two cents, worth every penny.
.
Your 3rd point is the line of demarcation between the liberal sheep and the people who elected the president. Those of us who voted for Trump couldn't understand how anybody could accept the elitist corruption of the Clintons any longer. It was so obvious to Trump voters, and completely obscured to the losing side.
I think there's a fairly clear list of reasons.I've been seeing some pretty interesting analysis on this (of course, the analysis is always easier AFTER the fact).
1. If you had asked the average person, say, 5 or 10 years ago, which party would be closer to being populist and which was closer to being for The Big Guy, I think it's pretty clear that most would have said the Dems were closer to being populist. But somehow the GOP beat the Dems to the punch, and the Dems made it easier by running Hillary. Stunning. And reading Dems sites, they're sure as hell stunned, too.
2. And here's another thing: Chris Matthews (yes, I know) made an interesting point yesterday: You know those concerts with the music superstars for Hillary, like Beyonce and the rest? He wondered if those things drove home the point above, by having them all onstage together in "The Winner's Club" -- all these rich, successful people hugging each other. Maybe stuff like that was a net negative.
3. Finally, now that the dust has settled a bit, I think overall half of us just didn't understand the rage that it took to vote for Trump. Enough rage to ignore his myriad faults and weaknesses and behaviors and words and everything else. THAT is a LOT of rage right there. Obama was not able to deliver on the promises he made overall, and a lot of faith was placed in him. Let's see how Trump responds.
My two cents, worth every penny.
.
Your 3rd point is the line of demarcation between the liberal sheep and the people who elected the president. Those of us who voted for Trump couldn't understand how anybody could accept the elitist corruption of the Clintons any longer. It was so obvious to Trump voters, and completely obscured to the losing side.
Actually, when I was typing that, I was thinking of Warren too.The Sanders campaign ran on 99% emotion and 1% substance. There was no way, in Heaven or on Earth, that a fraction of his nutty notions could have ever been achieved.Well, I don't claim to understand politics, but I'm curious.
I do wonder if this result will give Sanders' supporters the upper hand going forward.
.
Who, besides Lizzy Warren, is going to take up that level of complete economic illiteracy?
It was trade.
I said a long time ago and many times that when Bill Clinton supported NAFTA, he was acting like a Republican. In fact he had more Republican votes than Democrats for the treaty.
Ross Perot got an amazing 19% of the vote running almost wholly against NAFTA and secondarily against the Washington establishment of both parties.
Most Democratic opposition to so called free trade was/is from the liberal wing of the party and from labor.
Trump took that issue away from the Democrats, mainly because Hillary Clinton was tagged with being pro free trade,
IOW, she was acting like a Republican on trade, just like her husband.
Trump took one of the GOP's weakest positions, free trade, tossed it out of the party's agenda, and replaced it with the very liberal, very pro-union protectionist position.
IOW, Trump shifted the entire GOP platform to the LEFT, which of course, ironically, is what most conservatives insist has been the GOP's worst fault, i.e., being too moderate or liberal.
But the key to what Trump did was that in the process, he didn't try to move anything else to the left in the GOP's platform, in fact, he was happy to go as rightwing as can be to keep those factions of the party on board.
The other problem there is that such economic illiteracy doesn't play with many people outside the far left. Also, you need a messenger who actually believes al the unicorns and pixie dust nonsense that they're peddling, Like Warren and Sanders do, otherwise you lose the sincerity factor.Actually, when I was typing that, I was thinking of Warren too.
I don't know. Think of people like Reid, Pelosi, Schumer - holy shit, they can't change their spots. Warren and Sanders are too old.
Could take some time.
.
That math only makes sense if you assign all the Perot vote to Bush. Nobody can say for certain what those voters would have done without Perot around.you did make one valid point in your rant. Perot got 19%, and the Perot voters elected Clinton. If Perot was not in that election, Bush 41 would have gotten a second term and the Clintons would have gone back to being nobodies in Arkansas----and the USA would be much better off today without Bubba's oval office perversions and Hillary's lying and incompetence as SecState. So if you want to thank someone for the Clinton crime cartel, thank Perot.
I'm just thinking about the standard thought processes of ideologues, who tend to kneejerk as a first response.The other problem there is that such economic illiteracy doesn't play with many people outside the far left. Also, you need a messenger who actually believes al the unicorns and pixie dust nonsense that they're peddling, Like Warren and Sanders do, otherwise you lose the sincerity factor.Actually, when I was typing that, I was thinking of Warren too.
I don't know. Think of people like Reid, Pelosi, Schumer - holy shit, they can't change their spots. Warren and Sanders are too old.
Could take some time.
.
At this point, the democrats are so short on people who can at least sound reasonable (Jim Webb & Harold Ford come to mind), for them to think that a radical socialist like Warren could ever gain any traction at all.
It was trade.
I said a long time ago and many times that when Bill Clinton supported NAFTA, he was acting like a Republican. In fact he had more Republican votes than Democrats for the treaty.
Ross Perot got an amazing 19% of the vote running almost wholly against NAFTA and secondarily against the Washington establishment of both parties.
Most Democratic opposition to so called free trade was/is from the liberal wing of the party and from labor.
Trump took that issue away from the Democrats, mainly because Hillary Clinton was tagged with being pro free trade,
IOW, she was acting like a Republican on trade, just like her husband.
Trump took one of the GOP's weakest positions, free trade, tossed it out of the party's agenda, and replaced it with the very liberal, very pro-union protectionist position.
IOW, Trump shifted the entire GOP platform to the LEFT, which of course, ironically, is what most conservatives insist has been the GOP's worst fault, i.e., being too moderate or liberal.
But the key to what Trump did was that in the process, he didn't try to move anything else to the left in the GOP's platform, in fact, he was happy to go as rightwing as can be to keep those factions of the party on board.
you did make one valid point in your rant. Perot got 19%, and the Perot voters elected Clinton. If Perot was not in that election, Bush 41 would have gotten a second term and the Clintons would have gone back to being nobodies in Arkansas----and the USA would be much better off today without Bubba's oval office perversions and Hillary's lying and incompetence as SecState. So if you want to thank someone for the Clinton crime cartel, thank Perot.
That math only makes sense if you assign all the Perot vote to Bush. Nobody can say for certain what those voters would have done without Perot around.you did make one valid point in your rant. Perot got 19%, and the Perot voters elected Clinton. If Perot was not in that election, Bush 41 would have gotten a second term and the Clintons would have gone back to being nobodies in Arkansas----and the USA would be much better off today without Bubba's oval office perversions and Hillary's lying and incompetence as SecState. So if you want to thank someone for the Clinton crime cartel, thank Perot.
It was trade.
I said a long time ago and many times that when Bill Clinton supported NAFTA, he was acting like a Republican. In fact he had more Republican votes than Democrats for the treaty.
Ross Perot got an amazing 19% of the vote running almost wholly against NAFTA and secondarily against the Washington establishment of both parties.
Most Democratic opposition to so called free trade was/is from the liberal wing of the party and from labor.
Trump took that issue away from the Democrats, mainly because Hillary Clinton was tagged with being pro free trade,
IOW, she was acting like a Republican on trade, just like her husband.
Trump took one of the GOP's weakest positions, free trade, tossed it out of the party's agenda, and replaced it with the very liberal, very pro-union protectionist position.
IOW, Trump shifted the entire GOP platform to the LEFT, which of course, ironically, is what most conservatives insist has been the GOP's worst fault, i.e., being too moderate or liberal.
But the key to what Trump did was that in the process, he didn't try to move anything else to the left in the GOP's platform, in fact, he was happy to go as rightwing as can be to keep those factions of the party on board.
you did make one valid point in your rant. Perot got 19%, and the Perot voters elected Clinton. If Perot was not in that election, Bush 41 would have gotten a second term and the Clintons would have gone back to being nobodies in Arkansas----and the USA would be much better off today without Bubba's oval office perversions and Hillary's lying and incompetence as SecState. So if you want to thank someone for the Clinton crime cartel, thank Perot.
No, the Perot voters did not elect Clinton. Perot took union vote away from Clinton. Since both Bush and Clinton were pro-NAFTA,
Perot's anti vote took from both of them.
Here's how the NAFTA vote went eventually:
H.R. 3450 (103rd): North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act -- House Vote #575 -- Nov 17, 1993
That math only makes sense if you assign all the Perot vote to Bush. Nobody can say for certain what those voters would have done without Perot around.you did make one valid point in your rant. Perot got 19%, and the Perot voters elected Clinton. If Perot was not in that election, Bush 41 would have gotten a second term and the Clintons would have gone back to being nobodies in Arkansas----and the USA would be much better off today without Bubba's oval office perversions and Hillary's lying and incompetence as SecState. So if you want to thank someone for the Clinton crime cartel, thank Perot.
We know that Perot took most votes from Clinton because, as many people have forgotten, Perot temporarily got out of the race for a couple months (remember that?)
And during that time Perot was out of the race in the summer of 1992,
Clinton's poll number went UP.
You can see it right here:
Historical polling for U.S. Presidential elections - Wikipedia
Then you're talking about appeals to emotional response, not to rational thought processes. This leads to mob mentality.I'm just thinking about the standard thought processes of ideologues, who tend to kneejerk as a first response.
Populism only works if you have plausible scapegoats upon which to project all that is wrong with the country. Aside form the illegal immigrants, the bad trade deals, etc., Trump also blamed bad and stupid government. This is something the democrats could never pull off, because they have their fingerprints all over the bad policy. Democrats have no such outsider who could credibly blame failed policy as what ails the nation, because they've been in on it.In this case, the Dems would look at what worked and immediately go full populist, full Warren, full Bernie. But who those younger legislators are, I don't know.
.
That math only makes sense if you assign all the Perot vote to Bush. Nobody can say for certain what those voters would have done without Perot around.you did make one valid point in your rant. Perot got 19%, and the Perot voters elected Clinton. If Perot was not in that election, Bush 41 would have gotten a second term and the Clintons would have gone back to being nobodies in Arkansas----and the USA would be much better off today without Bubba's oval office perversions and Hillary's lying and incompetence as SecState. So if you want to thank someone for the Clinton crime cartel, thank Perot.
I've been seeing some pretty interesting analysis on this (of course, the analysis is always easier AFTER the fact).
1. If you had asked the average person, say, 5 or 10 years ago, which party would be closer to being populist and which was closer to being for The Big Guy, I think it's pretty clear that most would have said the Dems were closer to being populist. But somehow the GOP beat the Dems to the punch, and the Dems made it easier by running Hillary. Stunning. And reading Dems sites, they're sure as hell stunned, too.
2. And here's another thing: Chris Matthews (yes, I know) made an interesting point yesterday: You know those concerts with the music superstars for Hillary, like Beyonce and the rest? He wondered if those things drove home the point above, by having them all onstage together in "The Winner's Club" -- all these rich, successful people hugging each other. Maybe stuff like that was a net negative.
3. Finally, now that the dust has settled a bit, I think overall half of us just didn't understand the rage that it took to vote for Trump. Enough rage to ignore his myriad faults and weaknesses and behaviors and words and everything else. THAT is a LOT of rage right there. Obama was not able to deliver on the promises he made overall, and a lot of faith was placed in him. Let's see how Trump responds.
My two cents, worth every penny.
.
They could have just stayed home, or voted Clinton out of spite. Remember, he was being peddled as the big centrist in the campaign.yes, that's certainly true. What's also true is that the Perot voters were not liberals, so logic says that most of them would have voted Bush if Perot was not in the race. But this is nothing but an interesting debate about history.
If Mao had not been born would China be a capitalist nation? We can debate this stuff all day and never know.
Summary of this thread:
the country rejected Hillary, Obamanomics, and liberalism (social and economic).
the vote was more anti Clinton, than pro Trump.
our liberal friends are having a hard time dealing with that fact.
That math only makes sense if you assign all the Perot vote to Bush. Nobody can say for certain what those voters would have done without Perot around.you did make one valid point in your rant. Perot got 19%, and the Perot voters elected Clinton. If Perot was not in that election, Bush 41 would have gotten a second term and the Clintons would have gone back to being nobodies in Arkansas----and the USA would be much better off today without Bubba's oval office perversions and Hillary's lying and incompetence as SecState. So if you want to thank someone for the Clinton crime cartel, thank Perot.
We know that Perot took most votes from Clinton because, as many people have forgotten, Perot temporarily got out of the race for a couple months (remember that?)
And during that time Perot was out of the race in the summer of 1992,
Clinton's poll number went UP.
You can see it right here:
Historical polling for U.S. Presidential elections - Wikipedia
hold whatever view of history you and wiki like. without Perot there would never have been a president Clinton, and he USA would be a better place because of it
