I'm-not-voting-for-either-candidate

[vendic]

Gingrich is an asshole.

There were many times when the US was more or less united. I'm only looking at the last United peak and that was 911. So close to 15 years of being a divided country now and little that anyone at the top is doing to reverse that. Other than Obama and he was blocked over and over by the Republicans.

wrt the media, I don't know how long it's been like this here as it happened before my time, but, what is here are basically opinion pieces sprinkled with a bit of news. They get one news event and drag it out so long it's insane. There's enough news around the world to just report the events 24/7 but they pick and choose and make a market for discussing a single stupid topic endlessly and people tune back into it to see how it will come out. It's reality TV news. It sure isn't reporting.

The worst part is that they get idiots who love the sound of their own voice but have little or nothing of value to contribute. The classic example is this moron: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOA_7i-kkUM

[Rommie]

I've noticed a big part of it is also the mentality that if someone does not come to the same conclusions as you did from the same facts, then it must mean that they "just don't understand" at best. Literally just had a FB friend post an editorial from Fox News that millions of women who marched don't understand that Trump is actually going to be good for women, and when I pointed out that it was patronizing to say so because women have many valid reasons to not like the president from his word and actions alone I was told to "think for myself" because Democrats blah blah blah. So, the definition of patronizing.

Granted, I will point out that I hear a lot of effort from my liberal leaning friends to understand those they know who voted for Trump, but never really ever hear much in the opposite direction.

[vendic]

You've probably been exposed to the more hard line Republicans. i've had some great debates with them over healthcare, socialism etc in real life. many even agree that things here have to change but they can't see the US doing it.

Of course, I have also seen the ugly ones and that's on both sides.
One who is so radical that he thinks every Republican is a traitor and should be treated as such.

[SciFiFisher]

You've probably been exposed to the more hard line Republicans. i've had some great debates with them over healthcare, socialism etc in real life. many even agree that things here have to change but they can't see the US doing it.

Of course, I have also seen the ugly ones and that's on both sides.
One who is so radical that he thinks every Republican is a traitor and should be treated as such.

Given the way the Republican party and it's members have acted the last ten years I sort of understand that attitude. The fact that they seem to have sold their collective souls to the devil re-enforces the idea that they all need to be treated as if they are traitors. And I am for all intents and purposes a life long Republican.

[Tarragon]

I think you might be reading more into what Bannon said than was intended.

"The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for awhile.

"The media here is the opposition party. They don't understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States."

I've seen headlines such as this:

Bannon Declares War On The Media: "You Are The Opposition; Keep Your Mouth Shut"

Telling any group they need to listen instead of talk to save embarrassment is not declaring war. The above is a perfect example. Report the news, don't make the news. That subtle difference that seems to have been lost in this country.

I've heard a lot of people complain about the media, Democrats, Republicans etc. The media is in it for money and sensationalism. There are few good US media outlets left. They all seems to want to be able to act as tabloids but want respect for being the truth tellers. Calling them out on this is way overdue imho.
I do draw the line at telling them (by order) what they can and cannot do, but they are perfectly open to criticism and should be subject to it far more than they are.

The other thing that's driving me nuts here in the USA is that having a different opinion seems to make you the enemy. Democrats think Republicans are the Enemy. Republicans think that Democrats are the enemy. The media loves to play this off for ratings and make money out of it. It is counter to what should be happening. You are all people of the UNITED States. That word is there for a reason. It's high time you all started acting like it instead of this hatred for your fellow citizens. That imho is what is hurting the US and it needs to change and change fast.

*this isn't a attack on anyone here. Just an observation after living here for over 5 years and something I've been saying for a long time now. I trace it all the way back to 911, because shortly after that the United States was United. Then you went down the "You're with us or against us" path and split the nation. It has not recovered since but seems to be getting worse.

To be fair, Trump doesn't understand why he is the President of the United States either. Yes, he tapped into the pain many people were feeling and motivated them, while demotivating opposition voters. That's not what got him elected, an arcane institution allowed a minority to overrule the majority. Bannon may feel the media should be embarrassed because they didn't predict a technical victory, but they did correctly see that his message did not resonate with the majority. It's not just that Bannon speak in a commanding tone, but that he tried to shame them for telling the truth, a truth that happens to disagree with his narrative.

Partisan enemy-making is not new. It led to both the Revolution and Civil War. Americans fought on both sides of both. The partisanship isn't due to the media, unless you include to pamphlets and personal letters, sewing circles and town meetings at tree stumps. Partisans have been spreading misinformation and demonizing the other for generations. The modern mass media conglomerates do amp it up, but often they don't need to as partisan rhetoric frequently starts at divisive. That's not due to the Media masters being an information oligarchy, it's just Americans being Americans.

It's the states that are united, not the people. The American people have always had deep divisions. The reason it works is because there are so many different divisions, that most everyone belongs to multiple social, economic, business, and geographic factions that pull them in different directions. However, there is a trend of conglomerating and disappearing factions that reduces the cross-cutting cleavages and multi-faction identity, resulting in polarizing schisms.

[Tarragon]

Can't argue with that assessment too much, but I'd put the beginning of the split during the Clinton administration, when the Republicans tried to have Clinton removed and Speaker Gingrich instituted the Contract With America.

A lot of people put it at the Bork nomination 9 years earlier.

[squ1d]

With the as-expected appointment of a Conservative supreme court judge by Trump, we see yet another example of the stupidity of the babies that couldn't get over Bernie failing to get the Democratic nomination. Gorsuch is 49. Its quite possible several more judges will kark it during Trump's tenure, setting up another 30 years of a Conservative supreme court, anti-abortion, anti gay marriage, anti anything that isn't an old white man. Way to rock the system Bernie babies. Go and do some more protesting!

>.<

[geonuc]

I saw a poll recently that asked Bernie voters who they'd vote for. About 45% said Stein, 20% Clinton, 15% write in Bernie, and 15% Trump. Johnson was in the small 'other' category.

That's a problem. But there's also the problem of Libertarians. I know the conventional wisdom is that Libertarians are just Republicans without religion but I don't think so. Many (most) hold values in line with the Democratic party but seem to think fewer regulations and government programs will serve people better. If they had lost a bit of their naïveté when faced with a possible Trump administration, Clinton would have picked up a lot of votes that went to Johnson.

In the end, Clinton narrowly lost Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania by margins smaller than the votes that Gary Johnson received. If you also account for the votes from Sanders supporters that went elsewhere - particularly the ones who voted for Trump! - you see where the election failed. Those three states, which Obama won easily, were enough to hand the electoral college to Trump.

Third party voting has been a problem in the US for a while. In principle, I think most Americans would prefer that the two-party system we have now not be so dominant. But trying to break that system risks considerable pain to the country. Real pain, as in the George W Bush/Dick Cheney kind of pain where wars get started, Patriot Acts get enacted, Guantanamo Bay prisons happen, financial markets crash causing many people to lose their homes, etc. All that was because a significant chunk of the population thought Ralph Nader would be a better president than Al Gore.

The 1992 election also had a strong third party candidate in Ross Perot. Clinton ended up being elected with a mere plurality rather than majority of the popular vote (he obviously won the majority of the electoral college). That election didn't carry the risk that was there in 2000 and 2016. President Bush was not a bad president and Clinton ended up being a pretty great one. Perot, of course, would have been a disaster but Perot was never going to win.

Prior to that, I think the dynamics of American elections gets too far removed from the present for comparison.

I like to believe that the people who preferred Jill Stein, Gary Johnson and Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton also thought Clinton would easily beat Trump in the general election, so this was a 'safe' time to vote for their candidate, or write in Bernie as a protest vote. They were wrong, of course. And here we are with the Mango Mussolini and his pet Nazi.

ETA: And before someone jumps on me for failing to recognize the other big problem, yes, I know that many people didn't vote at all, and it was particularly low with Democrats. I think I read somewhere that Trump got about as many votes as Romney did in key states, but Clinton much fewer than Obama. That's a big problem. But I still contend that actually showing up to the polls and voting for someone who is demonstrably inferior to another candidate is worse than not voting at all. The former shows ignorance and naïveté, the latter merely apathy. There is no way Stein or Johnson could ever be a better president than Clinton. And voting for Trump after being a Bernie supporter? I have harsher words for that.

[vendic]

With the as-expected appointment of a Conservative supreme court judge by Trump, we see yet another example of the stupidity of the babies that couldn't get over Bernie failing to get the Democratic nomination. Gorsuch is 49. Its quite possible several more judges will kark it during Trump's tenure, setting up another 30 years of a Conservative supreme court, anti-abortion, anti gay marriage, anti anything that isn't an old white man. Way to rock the system Bernie babies. Go and do some more protesting!

>.<

The Democrats knew that many of Sanders supporters were independents and even Republicans who hated Trump. They knew that independent voters aren't Democrats and won't vote the Democratic line, they vote either way or third party. The only reason they got together in such large numbers was that Sanders brought them together. You know, doing the job that a candidate should, to bring in voters. What did the Democrats do with that? They distanced themselves from it and even actively rigged the system against Sanders then when they won the primaries they even pushed the independents away. Because that will surely help sway independent voters to vote Democrat...

No, the problem here is that the Democrats had access to a huge base that they chose to ignore and even reject (I can show you proof if you want it) because they just knew it in their arrogant little hearts that they would win against Trump regardless of the independents support. Sanders brought a huge group together, the Democrats shit on it and then complain that it was the Bernie bots. Don't fall for that reasoning.

When you go to war against a big enemy (Trump was very big in the Republican Primaries winning against everyone fast), you want to get as much support as possible. They had the choice to go united with a group they have never been united with, to gain more Democrats as a consequence and to win against Trump together. They chose to do it on their own because they thought they could. That is the very definition off arrogance. To top it off, as I stated before, they even worked against getting support from that base.

Yet now it seems, they want to blame the very base they never had access to as the cause of their defeat. No. The cause was their choice. A willing calculated choice based on the assumption that they could get in without having to draw in the "undesirables". You know, the people that want minimum wage to be over $7 per hour and less corruption in politics. Their calculations were wrong and now they want to blame everyone else for it. Fuck the Democrats. Fuck their bullshit and arrogance. They made this mess and want to blame everyone else for it. I have as much respect for them at this point as I do a steaming turd on the sidewalk. What they don't get is that there are plenty others they have distanced themselves for a long time (possibly indefinitely). They split what could have been a very united front. They did that. Not Sanders or Sanders supporters. Put the blame on the right shoulders. They never had that base and they never wanted it. So they can't blame a base they themselves rejected as a reason for their failure. Fuck them and the arrogant little donkey they rode in on.

TL;DR
Democrats: We're up against the most unpopular candidate in history. We can join forces with this other group and kick some real ass...or we can put up the second most unpopular candidate in history and distance ourselves from the other group and claim total victory for ourselves!!!
Lets do it on our own, and let's make sure we really distance ourselves from that other group as much as we can. Oh, lets rig things to ensure that he doesn't by some chance be the one elected. Keep me informed by using our secure email facility.


Republicans:
They just did what? Haha. Morons.

[squ1d]

That's just bullshit. If you start with the values espoused by Bernie and then pick the closest major party with a chance of victory, you end up with the Democratic party. Pick the candidate with the exact opposite values and you have Trump. This is a simple case of a childish temper tantrum. All the evil big machinations of the big bad political party are irrelevant in the face of the personal responsibility that people have to vote in an effective way in alignment with their values. Democracy. But apparently some people do not deserve this right. "Well if I can't have it my way, then fuck everyone let's burn it all down".

Apparently everyone else will have to listen to their complaints when they did everything except the single thing they could have done to have prevented this situation.

[SciFi Chick]

That's just bullshit. If you start with the values espoused by Bernie and then pick the closest major party with a chance of victory, you end up with the Democratic party. Pick the candidate with the exact opposite values and you have Trump. This is a simple case of a childish temper tantrum. All the evil big machinations of the big bad political party are irrelevant in the face of the personal responsibility that people have to vote in an effective way in alignment with their values. Democracy. But apparently some people do not deserve this right. "Well if I can't have it my way, then fuck everyone let's burn it all down".

Apparently everyone else will have to listen to their complaints when they did everything except the single thing they could have done to have prevented this situation.

vendic may or may not be correct, but your assessment is overly simplistic. If you look at the state of things in this country (prior to Trump) and you look at how Clinton is perceived, people finally getting to the place where they've had enough is understandable. If you combine that with the belief that many had, that there was no way Trump could win, it turns into a clusterfuck, but calling everyone who thought they were genuinely making a principled choice "childish" and every other insult you've leveled at them, it does nothing to further the dialog. This kind of hyperbole is one of the biggest, imho, problems with the state of things today.

Incidentally, vendic has researched and really thought out his position over a period of months. I get that a lot of people don't agree with him, but just calling it bullshit, like he's talking out of his ass, is unfair - again, imho.

If those of us, who tend to agree on the larger issues, can't have a civil dialog, what hope is there?

[vendic]

That's just bullshit. If you start with the values espoused by Bernie and then pick the closest major party with a chance of victory, you end up with the Democratic party. Pick the candidate with the exact opposite values and you have Trump. This is a simple case of a childish temper tantrum. All the evil big machinations of the big bad political party are irrelevant in the face of the personal responsibility that people have to vote in an effective way in alignment with their values. Democracy. But apparently some people do not deserve this right. "Well if I can't have it my way, then fuck everyone let's burn it all down".

Apparently everyone else will have to listen to their complaints when they did everything except the single thing they could have done to have prevented this situation.

You take a small minority of people and extrapolate it to the whole. The majority just went back to the way they would have voted to begin with, pre Sanders. IOW, the democrats simply lost a base they were never entitled to have to begin with and that was on them.

If you want to get independents to vote for you, you have to earn it. Shitting on them is not the way to do it. There were people that failed to turn up. Why, because they feel like it's pointless. Sure you can blame them if you want to. Just know you are blaming people that can barely afford to live in an apparently first world country after 8 years of Democratic rule and then tell them if only they voted for Hillary who offers them more of the same it would all be better somehow. That's the reality. People here are struggling. Many people. The Democratic party fucked up and their complete and utter insistence that they didn't will only serve to get two terms for Trump (if my prediction is wrong).

Rachel Maddow to Hillary, "Sanders has said that he thinks they will support you if basically you adapt some of his platforms on the issues"

I've got 10.4 million votes. I have 2.7 million more folks, real people, showing up to cast their vote, to express their opinion than Senator Sanders. I have a bigger lead in pledged delegates than Senator Obama when I ran against him in 2008 ever had over me. I am winning. And I'm winning because of what I stand for and what I've done (APPLAUSE) and what I stand for.

That was early on in the primaries. She failed. The DNC failed. They instead worked actively against getting the independent vote for months. That was on them. No one else.

It's nothing new though. Many times in history people refused to unite with another group to fight an enemy and the result being a loss. The only difference it seems is that now we blame them for not joining when we did nothing to make them want to join and everything to stop them.

So again I say. Fuck the Democratic party. This is their mess. It is their job to get people to vote for them and not their job to dissuade them.

Best plan ever, put up the 2nd most unpopular candidate, reject popular positions and support from non loyal's, and then go up against the most unpopular candidate.
But they apparently never made any mistakes. Hillary won the popular vote. Just ask them. It's all the Bernie bots...and the Russians, and Comely, and...
But never anything with themselves. Nope. They played a perfect game and are happy to tell anyone that will listen.

[squ1d]

If you look at the state of things in this country (prior to Trump) and you look at how Clinton is perceived, people finally getting to the place where they've had enough is understandable.

Enough of what? Enough of having someone that isn't Trump president? Enough of democracy? Democracy everywhere is flawed. There are lots of problems in the western world, but history would suggest that as a system this is good as it gets. And history says when we subvert it or turn away from it, bad things happen. Its easy to point out that it's not perfect. But it's childish to think that some protests and then voting for a 3rd party or not at all would achieve anything good, or prevent the worst.

If you combine that with the belief that many had, that there was no way Trump could win, it turns into a clusterfuck, but calling everyone who thought they were genuinely making a principled choice "childish" and every other insult you've leveled at them, it does nothing to further the dialog.

The fact many people believed there was no way Trump could win and therefore they could vote whichever way they wanted shows an extremely naive attitude towards the whole situation, and a reckless one at that. And a principled choice to do what exactly? Not engage in democracy in an effective manner? Protest afterwards? After all the wailing and gnashing of teeth someone was going to be President, and if it was going to be Trump, then it could have grave consequences for the USA, liberty and the rest of the world. Surely an adult reaction to this situation, assuming one was against Trump, would be to take the most effective democratic course of action to prevent him being President, and vote for Hilary Clinton.

Then maybe if attention spans hadn't waned, work on an alternative plan while a COMPLETE FUCKING PSYCHOPATH wasn't the President. Maybe look at 2020.

As for me calling vendic's statement bullshit, oh come on guys I don't have to start walking on eggshells everywhere do I? Mr Zee knows I respect him, but also that I use colourful language when I strenuously disagree with him. If he starts his next post to me "Mr Douchebag" I promise not to get upset.

As for furthering the dialog, it's too late for that! Trump is already president! I'm just pointing out something that REALLY pisses me off.

[SciFiFisher]

If you want to get independents to vote for you, you have to earn it. Shitting on them is not the way to do it. There were people that failed to turn up. Why, because they feel like it's pointless. Sure you can blame them if you want to. Just know you are blaming people that can barely afford to live in an apparently first world country after 8 years of Democratic rule and then tell them if only they voted for Hillary who offers them more of the same it would all be better somehow. That's the reality. People here are struggling. Many people. The Democratic party fucked up and their complete and utter insistence that they didn't will only serve to get two terms for Trump (if my prediction is wrong).

I think you are ignoring the fact that the Democratic rule you are referring to was barely the norm for less than 2 full years of President Obama's 8 years in office. For most of the 8 years he was in office we had so called Blue Dog democrats, Independents, and Republicans who controlled both houses of congress. And did everything they could to make sure that President Obama failed. Even if it meant that they had to shut down the government to do it. Which they did. The Mad Hatter Tea Party ran on a "take no prisoners, make no compromises" platform and pretty much shut down any real compromise. Bohner himself tried to cut a deal with Obama and was shot down.

The reason people are worse off is because of the conservatives and independents who refused to compromise their "principles" for the last 8 years. And then lied about it and blamed Obama and the Democrats. The people who voted for Trump or didn't vote for Clinton because they believed those lies helped cause the current mess. Yes, the democrats made some miscalculations. But, to say they lost because they made things worse for people for the last 8 years is wrong. The people who bought this whole steaming pile of crap and elected Trump are the most to blame. But, anyone who voted for "anybody but Clinton" shares some of the blame. All the facts were there. People who get paid to know this shit predicted what a Trump presidency would look like. But, everyone insisted that they needed "real proof". We had proof that the man and his campaign were committing treason and working with Russians. But, it was rejected because it came from those dirty nasty intelligence agencies who can't be trusted because they keep secrets.

Frankly, if it wasn't so fucking tragic I would settle for a "told you so" and a "bwahahahahaha! You all will get what you fucking deserve".

I wish I could be less passionate about this. But, as a life long conservative even I couldn't stomach voting for a fascist pig like Donald Trump. And with my limited resources even I could see the corruption, the lies, and the BS coming from the right. And every time we discuss this someone presents an argument that seems to suggest that the Democrats are just as evil and vile as the Republicans are currently. OMFG!

[Rommie]

So I hate to say it, but I think one big thing Bernie supporters also forget is he certainly didn't win the majority of the vote in the primaries, and there's a seriously good chance he wouldn't have even if the party sang his praises. There were flaws in that campaign too, such as not really reaching out to black voters- something you can get away with if Republican, but fact of the matter is the South voted overwhelmingly for Clinton for demographic reasons.

I've outlined my earlier comments on why I don't find it productive to wonder what would have been, as there are a lot of factors most wistful thinkers aren't considering. But I will agree with squ1d here: I've had many of my preferred candidates fail in the primaries over the years. That doesn't mean I get butthurt and say the other guy who literally is against my policy preferences more (plus is clearly not mentally with it) should win just because he's also populist. What do they say again about how politics is a circle, and fascism and strict communism are not all that different?

re: Libertarian, I did attend some of those meetings in college, and back then our campus group was just college kids who were probably Republican but didn't like the religious message. There were, however, the Libertarians proper... and frankly those guys were basically what the Tea Party and ultimately Trump is today, in hindsight. A lot of conspiracy talk offhand about stuff like the Illuminati, and a belief that you need small government because people should be turning to the Church for those things instead of the government, etc. Granted that was over a decade ago, but my memory of them does not make me think they were particularly liberal.

[SciFi Chick]

As for me calling vendic's statement bullshit, oh come on guys I don't have to start walking on eggshells everywhere do I? Mr Zee knows I respect him, but also that I use colourful language when I strenuously disagree with him. If he starts his next post to me "Mr Douchebag" I promise not to get upset.

- No, you do not. My bad. Y'all can talk to each other any way you want. I thought you were being dismissive, as opposed to absorbing what he said and disagreeing vigorously. Thanks for clarifying.

As to your other points, let's talk about the elephant in the room. Most of the people (if not all) here on FWIS, have higher than average IQs. This makes it very easy to have no sympathy, whatsoever, for people with lower IQs. And it's not always an issue of IQ. Age, ability to navigate social media, ability to process information, and be able to tell propaganda from truth - that's a thing. And the U.S. has been working at dumbing down America for decades. That's not a conspiracy. Some of it comes from changing times. Just yesterday, I was in a hospital room doing a surgical consent with my mom, and neither the intern or the med student could spell without help. I'm going to say that's a result of relying on spellcheck. Up until now, I wouldn't have thought that to be a big deal, but when you're trying to get a job done, and other people rely on you communicating accurately, without taking twenty minutes to spellcheck all the medical terms, it becomes a big deal.

My point is that there is a lot of hate for Hillary Clinton. vendic and I have both researched it, and no matter what source we come up with, no one wants to hear about it. Fair enough. To this day, I think she is a sociopath who has done a lot of bad things. The difference between vendic and I, on this issue, is that I think she would have made a FAR better President than Trump. Which is why I voted for her. But I spent a GREAT DEAL OF TIME reflecting on this and researching it, and getting lots of different points of view. Most people are working two and three jobs to put food on the table. They don't have time to do this research. And the news is utter shit. What is obvious to you, is not obvious to everyone.

I just think there aren't that many spoiled brats that decided to burn the system down because they didn't get their way. You may disagree. That said - if you want to rant, go to BMR not Politics.

[SciFi Chick]

re: Libertarian, I did attend some of those meetings in college, and back then our campus group was just college kids who were probably Republican but didn't like the religious message. There were, however, the Libertarians proper... and frankly those guys were basically what the Tea Party and ultimately Trump is today, in hindsight. A lot of conspiracy talk offhand about stuff like the Illuminati, and a belief that you need small government because people should be turning to the Church for those things instead of the government, etc. Granted that was over a decade ago, but my memory of them does not make me think they were particularly liberal.

That was my experience with Libertarians as well. I used to run into them at the Post Office, and they were about as cultish as any religion.

[grapes]

That's just bullshit. If you start with the values espoused by Bernie and then pick the closest major party with a chance of victory, you end up with the Democratic party. Pick the candidate with the exact opposite values and you have Trump. This is a simple case of a childish temper tantrum.

Agreed with that!

All the evil big machinations of the big bad political party are irrelevant in the face of the personal responsibility that people have to vote in an effective way in alignment with their values. Democracy. But apparently some people do not deserve this right. "Well if I can't have it my way, then fuck everyone let's burn it all down".

Apparently everyone else will have to listen to their complaints when they did everything except the single thing they could have done to have prevented this situation.

[vendic]

As for me calling vendic's statement bullshit, oh come on guys I don't have to start walking on eggshells everywhere do I? Mr Zee knows I respect him, but also that I use colourful language when I strenuously disagree with him. If he starts his next post to me "Mr Douchebag" I promise not to get upset.

As for furthering the dialog, it's too late for that! Trump is already president! I'm just pointing out something that REALLY pisses me off.

Ok Mr Douchebag... You know I just had to do that.

Walking on eggshells with me. Fuck no. I would be upset if you think you had to tone things down to avoid upsetting my one little feeling. I personally believe that friends can and should challenge each other on issues they disagree with. Sure it can get heated but if it's worth discussing then so be it. I know I'm a minority among my friends on this issue. That doesn't mean I don't have a valid assessment or that I'm wrong. It doesn't even mean they are wrong. In a democracy determining the will of the people or their preferences is not possible as there is never a single issue that all the people will agree on. All we can do is read it the best we can and present it because quite simply, there are always people that will agree with any presented view.

I'm never going to get upset when people disagree with me. I personally think we are seeing two different things in possible alternate Universes. You believe people should have voted for Hillary regardless because of Trump. That's one position to take. If everyone did that we would have President Clinton and I can't disagree with that view. Where I disagree is the probability of that happening.

I believe that the Democratic party failed to do due diligence and thus the inevitable consequence. I base that on the idea that independents were overwhelmingly united under Sanders. What I think most people fail to understand/accept is that Sanders supporters were not united only under Sanders platform. That's simplistic. Many wanted a non establishment candidate and they felt Sanders is a better non establishment candidate than Trump. This was quite clear in many polls and comments by people. What was important is that he came across as non establishment and honest. Something that has plagued Clinton. So if they really wanted someone non establishment they would vote trump. Some did but most didn't.

I understand many don't want to accept it. That's fine. The data is there whether it's accepted or not. The only thing we can legitimately disagree on is the numbers of people that agreed with my assessment in their decision of who to vote for or if to vote. For me, it's the job of the candidate to inspire people to vote for them. This country has voluntary voting and some parts of the country even try to stop people voting. The Democratic party failed to inspire people to vote for them. Blaming apathy is legitimate. Who created that apathy however is the core of the problem in the USA. Both parties here are beholden to not to the citizens, but to the people that give them kickbacks, campaign contributions etc and the citizens are rightly pissed off. For the first time in history two non establishment people came serious contenders to the party hardliners. One made President. Yet even so, many are refusing to accept that there is a huge anti establishment movement and blaming the citizens for not supporting the establishment, even when the establishment shits on one of those two.

You're right though, it makes no difference now since it is president Trump.
What is of importance is if the Democratic party accepts their part in this mess and prevents another Republican term. So far, all I see is that they reuse to. So unless something changes, expect more of the same next term with or without Trump because it was a winning strategy for the Republicans and they will pander to that base milking it for all it's worth. The Democrats will sit idly by with their heads in the sand pretending they had nothing do do with it turning more and more people against them as a consequence. They know better.

Even when they have been defeated by the most unpopular candidate in the history of the USA, they still refuse to accept that they did anything wrong. Wow. Just wow.

Oh, if I didn't respect your views squid, I so wouldn't be debating with you.

TL;DR

Yes, I agree with you squid. Had every person that supported Sanders also supported Hillary, we would have President Clinton now. To me that's like saying, if only the Republicans voted for Hillary, she would have won. Sure it's factually correct. It is however highly unlikely and blaming the Republicans for not voting for Hillary makes no sense. They were never going to vote that way to begin with.

[squ1d]

HOW DARE YOU? Use my middle name too please.

Now we've established we're not going to upset each other with a bit of robust word slingin'....

Yes, I agree with you squid. Had every person that supported Sanders also supported Hillary, we would have President Clinton now. To me that's like saying, if only the Republicans voted for Hillary, she would have won. Sure it's factually correct. It is however highly unlikely and blaming the Republicans for not voting for Hillary makes no sense.

Bernie Sanders is on the left of the political spectrum, as are the Democratic Party. There is a large shared set of values between them. The Republican party is on the right. They do not have a large shared set of values with either Bernie or the Democratic party. People on the right voting for people on the left is unlikely and makes no sense in this regard. People voting for another person on the left after their candidate failed makes A LOT of sense. That's why Bernie backed Clinton after he lost. (Some of) his supporters might have turned out to be babies, but he is not one.

Whatever the parties did or didn't do, each person has the right, and I would say responsibility to vote. This should be done in an effective way in line with your values.

It is the people who didn't vote for Clinton who I blame for Trump. Of those, the idiots who support him at least worked out how to use a ballot correctly. Anyone that was going to vote for Bernie, then voted for Trump instead is simply put, a moron. They flip flopped between candidates with opposite values that will do opposite things while in power. Unless of course, they just wanted "revolution". This is the reckless, naive and immature attitude that underpins my accusations of childishness.

The Bernie babies have no right to complain about anything that happens under the Trump administration.

[vendic]

Reading up on other posts, it seems people still believe Sanders supporters had similar positions to Hillary. Sure some did. Not all. There is a huge anti-establishment movement here that seems to have been glossed over.
That's how Trump got in and why Hillary did not completely wipe the floor against the most unfavorable candidate ever.

We can go round and round on this forever so I'll just put in a few facts:
1) Sanders and Trump ran on anti-establishment policy
2) There is a large independent base that has no ties with either party. Expecting loyalty from them one way or the other is absurd.
3) Being caught tampering with the electoral process is not the fault of the person that releases the information. It is the fault of those doing the tampering.
4) Rejecting instead of appealing to a huge base of support you never had before is not going to help you win the election. Nor is distancing yourself from them.
5) The Democrats LOST to the MOST unpopular candidate in history. Can't stress this enough.
6) Voting to burn the house down is childish. As is the notion that the majority of independents or Sanders supporters did so.
7) Most Democrats vote Democrat. Most Republicans vote Republican.
8) Primaries and the General Election are decided by different demographics. Claiming a win in the primaries doesn't mean you'd do better in the General than your opposition would have. It can go either way.
9) The Democrats didn't get the female vote as they expected.
10) The Democrats didn't get the black vote as they expected.
11) The Democrats didn't get the Hispanic vote as expected.

Feel free to add your own but I think those above are pretty accurate.
To think that the loss was due to "just" a small group of Bernie bots wanting to burn the system down makes no sense.

[vendic]

HOW DARE YOU? Use my middle name too please.

Now we've established we're not going to upset each other with a bit of robust word slingin'....

I think we've know each other far too long for that.

Bernie Sanders is on the left of the political spectrum, as are the Democratic Party. There is a large shared set of values between them. The Republican party is on the right. They do not have a large shared set of values with either Bernie or the Democratic party. People on the right voting for people on the left is unlikely and makes no sense in this regard. People voting for another person on the left after their candidate failed makes A LOT of sense. That's why Bernie backed Clinton after he lost. (Some of) his supporters might have turned out to be babies, but he is not one.

Sanders is left/centralist. The Democratic party is by most of the world Right. It's only considered Left here by some because they have all skewed right so much. Feel free to double check it. It has been said many times that the Clinton's are great Republicans.

I know you feel that it's all the Bernie bots fault, at least that's how it seems. The issue is however far more complex than that.
Hillary failed to capture much of her base support in the general election. Black numbers were down, largely because of the Clinton's leading role in the incarceration of millions of black people for petty crimes or poverty.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/11/why-hill ... ntary.html

You simply don't want to vote for someone that put your friends in jail for trivial offences. The blame there is directed at Hillary herself. It had nothing to do with Sanders or Trump.

She didn't capture anywhere near the number of women's votes she was counting on.
Again, nothing to do with Sanders or Trump.

She got less Hispanic votes than Obama even given that trump was going on about illegals, building a wall and deporting Mexicans, making a platform with racism. Far less than they expected voted for her given this.

While a drovers dog could have won this election for the Democrats, they lost it to the most unpopular candidate in history. They did so because they had the second most unpopular candidate in history and she failed to inspire people to come and vote for her because all she offered was more of the same. In a time when people are screaming for non establishment and blaming the establishment for the ills of the country (with good reason), they put up the second most unpopular person who is hard core establishment.
A great career move it was not. But hey, she won the popular vote, even though it was slim, and against the most unpopular candidate of all time. That's good. Right? That's what I hear.

[SciFiFisher]

Reading up on other posts, it seems people still believe Sanders supporters had similar positions to Hillary. Sure some did. Not all. There is a huge anti-establishment movement here that seems to have been glossed over.
That's how Trump got in and why Hillary did not completely wipe the floor against the most unfavorable candidate ever.


7) Most Democrats vote Democrat. Most Republicans vote Republican.

To think that the loss was due to "just" a small group of Bernie bots wanting to burn the system down makes no sense.

It would be disingenuous to claim that the loss was solely due to a small group of Bernie Bots. There were a lot of factors in play. But, ONE of those factors is the small number of people who voted "anybody but Hilary". That small number of people who voted for Stein, Johnson, Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, or Trump instead of Hilary could have changed history. But, they didn't.

Bernie was not a Democrat. He is a Democratic Socialist who runs as an independent in his district. He declared himself a Democrat and ran in a democratic primary. And lost because of your point #7. They didn't vote for Bernie because they knew he wasn't really a Democrat. I am not sure why Republicans were not as smart or loyal?

Here is the key point. Everyone of those people who wanted Bernie to be the Democratic nominee had the opportunity to declare themselves as Democrats. And would have been eligible to vote in the Democratic primaries. And might possibly have been able to make sure the guy they wanted was on the ticket. When I suggested that to a self declared Independent the other day he was outraged that I would suggest that he forsake his integrity as an independent voter. WTF?

Maybe it's because not enough people thought it was allowed. Or maybe too many of them felt it was hypocrisy. But, I really have a hard time understanding how anyone who supported Bernie but didn't think to register as a Democrat can say the system was rigged. They didn't even bother to try to help their candidate win the Democratic nomination by being able to vote for him in the primaries. If the system was rigged why didn't they do something to unrig it by being able to vote for their candidate? To proud to be affiliated with the establishment? Too eager to see the whole thing go down in flames? I don't know. But, I don't understand how they can say "I didn't do anything to be able to vote for Bernie in primaries. And I am pissed that the Democrats didn't vote for him because he was an Independent and a Democratic Socialist". Hello! People! He wasn't a Democrat! If you wanted him to win the Democratic Nomination you needed to make sure he got enough votes in the primaries.

[vendic]

Most people claiming that the elections are rigged aren't saying that it was because some states only allowed registered voters.
They are claiming it because they registered, their registrations were lost, or someone else voted under their name already, or were told that they were not registered, that they would have to mail in their vote etc. There are plenty of examples across the US where this was happening. It was not one isolated case.

Since the Democrats have been caught on hidden video admitting to these things, I'm not sure why you think it's because people just couldn't be bothered registering. Sure there are some idiots that will never be happy and did complain about that aspect. That does not mean that there was no rigging the primaries. Their was. Whole areas in NY for example (in Bernie's district) just happened to have been completely lost. Plenty of evidence that people weren't allowed to vote even though they have proof of their registration. The DNC had all their files and knew who was newly registered. It knew their ages and sexes. It's pretty easy to fix the system when you are running it. Then of course is them on tape admitting to it and the emails supporting Clinton over Sanders.

This is so not about non registered democrats being unable to vote and simplifying it to just that is to give it a serious injustice.

r.e Sanders is not a Democrat.
The answer is simple. Don't let him join the party then. But if you allow them to join the party then treat them the same. That's the whole core of the issue yet again. He's not really one of us. That's right. He wasn't part of the establishment, and when he got screwed over a lot of the support the DNC had was lost too. That was because when you claim one thing and do another and get caught out, you lose the trust of those you lied to.

Oh, any claim that Hillary won by a huge majority given that they had to resort to such actions says right there that they were worried enough to actively make him lose. That's a hollow victory by anyone's standard and I for one wouldn't be hailing it as support for her candidacy. Given that she lost to the most unpopular candidate in history, I'm sure plenty of people will agree with me. Maybe if they didn't rig the system we wouldn't have President Trump. They however removed that timeline by their own hands. That is on them.
Here is an example of about 125,000 voters lost from the records in NY. That is voter fraud and rigging an election. It's not people complaining that they couldn't vote because they didn't register Democrat.


r.e. point (7)
Most Democrats would have voted for anyone representing the Democratic party in the General. If you believe they wouldn't then they are worse than the Bernie bots people are complaining about because they would have abandoned their registered party. Most of the Bernie bots were independents. The primaries and the general are run with different demographics and when you cheat and rig the system in the primaries, you lose the right to claim your candidate won overwhelmingly as well. That's a play out of the communist handbook.

[Tarragon]

I agree with Vendic for the most part.

The Bernie-bot model is overly-simplistic. Even for low information voters, there are at least two lines of concern: economics and personal liberty. A popular way to look at it is the "Political Compass", but other models can work depending on need. A voter might agree with Bernie on one axis, but Trump on another. If you remove Bernie from consideration, then the remaining issues and preferences may lean him more toward Trump than Clinton, or toward another party or disgust with the whole election. Those graphs also show how libertarians and populists are different from liberals and conservatives.

Many voters, possible a majority of voters, are not principled. They rely on emotion (but that doesn't mean irrational). Sometimes that means they pick someone who demonstrates more empathy for them. Other times that means they pick someone who looks more regal. Or it could be as simple as they pick the candidate that showed up. It could also be a policy issue, where they are swayed by emotive rhetoric instead of dry, academic discussion. It can vary depending on the issues being discussed. Even principled voters can resort to emotional voting if their principled policy concerns are agreeable or disagreeable to both candidates or ignored.

Some may call that childish, but it's human nature. That's why it's strange to refer to Bernie supporters as Bernie-Bots as the emotionless calculus some people desired or expected of them is the definition of robotic. Voters are people, not Roombas.

A lot of people also have faith in US Institutions. They think (or thought) that Trump was bloviating and that the courts and civil servants wouldn't allow Trump to do anything too bad or blatantly illegal even if he tried. Time will tell. Some of what's happening is borderline, with them using the letter of the law to violate the spirit of the law. And some things won't be settled until SCOTUS rules. Or maybe everyone will quit in protest, or be fired - and maybe that's how they plan to make government smaller.

They may discover that their trust in these institutions was misplaced. If they already felt they couldn't trust institutions, then they they'd already be in the camp of that minority that actually does want to burn the whole thing down. A lot of people are receptive to that message. Some are idealistic optimists and want to rewrite the Constitution to create America 2.0. Others just want to burn it down as an act of wanton destruction or a belief that it can't be salvaged. With half of Americans believing in some sort of messianic end times just around the corner, and the other half believing in an unavoidable climate catastrophe, "burning it down" is a foregone conclusion.

The people who don't believe in either are caught in the middle, hearing it from both sides. They just keep their heads down and try to ignore it. I remember a guy who was like that, who believed the volcano he lived on wouldn't erupt and if it did then it was his time to go anyway. They never found his body but estimate he was buried under hundreds of feet of debris.

There are others who think that if the institutions fail, then that's why they have the 2nd Amendment. If they want to rely on that, they'll have to do it before Trump takes their guns.

BTW, I don't think democracy in the US is "as good as it gets". We can do it better. Even the founders admitted this. It's why they kicked the can down the road 20 years about slavery. Come to think of it, this is the Constitution 2.0, the Articles of Confederation was 1.0. We can do better with 3.0.