We are DOOMED.

[Monster]

So...what if, democrats learn the opposite lesson from this loss and next election we get their version of Trump?

Who would it be?

I saw someone talking about Jon Stewart.

Kanye/Jay-Z ticket

 

[Thumb]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTtfVOyVsf0

#neverforget

 

[tigermud]

Moore's post was good too. I hope the DNC cleans house and brings in some people who will listen, and heed these words of wisdom. and hopefully also walk the walk when they get elected

Now we just have to survive four years, or at least until the midterms, if we can take back the house and senate.

The country will survive, trump will drain the swamp and put America first again, I welcome it!

The Billy bob joe blows have spoken..yes indeed, we are mad as hell and we've said enough is enough, Time to flip it all over.. anyone still like to mock the new narrative? Please do, it only makes it grow

http://www.infowars.com

 

[biggunsbob]

And yet Trump is surrounding himself with all insiders and a climate change denier. Mother Earth is fucked.. so I guess we get same old same old from the Jesus loving republicans each on their 3rd wives like Newt, and Trump. Lol

 

[Mitchrapp]

And yet Trump is surrounding himself with all insiders and a climate change denier. Mother Earth is fucked.. so I guess we get same old same old from the Jesus loving republicans each on their 3rd wives like Newt, and Trump. Lol

The way I see it is he should accidentally be a better POTUS than Obama.

 

[Michchamp]

I like that 1st article, but man, that 2nd one is dark.

I know someone I might forward that 1st article to.

I thought so too, but find it makes a lot of sense and is comforting now.

The thing is, a good candidate can still find a way to appeal to the "mean-spirited, spiteful" demographic. Clinton could not. Sanders could have... he could've (& WOULD HAVE) gone to voters in the midwest, and across the country and said "I know you're upset, and you should be, and I have a plan for you that I've been fighting for my whole career, but this fake-ass, billionaire wannabe, reality TV star flying around in his gilded jet with his fucking name on it is not the guy who is telling it to you straight." Obviously she of the $250,000 Goldman Sachs speech and Billion dollar foundation could not do that.

Sanders would've demolished him in the "debates" as well. the old man had it in a way neither Trump nor Clinton did. That's my takeaway from the article. The democrats don't need their own Trump.

So...what if, democrats learn the opposite lesson from this loss and next election we get their version of Trump?

Who would it be?

I saw someone talking about Jon Stewart.

Hmmm... a Democrat with a history of shady business practices, who is openly racist, sexist, and xenophobic?

That's not really John Stewart, dude. Maybe they can find some old Dixiecrat from backwoods Georgia or Appalachia who remained a Democrat when the rest of them went Republican in the 80's/90's, but good luck. They'd be older than Strom Thurmond in '20. 2020, not 1920.

 

[tomdalton22]

Bernie would have lost to Trump too. The same people that voted for Trump would have been just as outraged at Bernie's socialistic ideals.

 

[Michchamp]

Bernie would have lost to Trump too. The same people that voted for Trump would have been just as outraged at Bernie's socialistic ideals.

the polls don't support that rationale, Dilbert.

 

[Gulo Blue]

the polls don't support that rationale, Dilbert.

I suspect Bernie would have won. The number of republican votes didn't change much, but there was a drop from the support Obama had. I think what we have is the baseline support for any boring republican candidate. Few people, outside of people that will always get up and go vote republican, voted for Trump or Romney or McCain/Palin (I think there might have been a little McCain enthusiasm before he picked a running mate.)

Obama brought out additional voters above the democrat baseline. People were excited to vote for him. Clinton didn't have that. Bernie would have picked up every vote Clinton had, plus some additional votes from people that were actually excited about him. And as Nate Silver pointed out, a 1% swing in the votes across the board would have flipped enough states to flip the election.

 

[tomdalton22]

the polls don't support that rationale, Dilbert.

what polls are you talking about?

 

[Gulo Blue]

 

[Spartanmack]

the polls don't support that rationale, Dilbert.

the polls didn't support Tuesday's outcome, dumbass.

 

[Spartanmack]

I suspect Bernie would have won. The number of republican votes didn't change much, but there was a drop from the support Obama had. I think what we have is the baseline support for any boring republican candidate. Few people, outside of people that will always get up and go vote republican, voted for Trump or Romney or McCain/Palin (I think there might have been a little McCain enthusiasm before he picked a running mate.)

Obama brought out additional voters above the democrat baseline. People were excited to vote for him. Clinton didn't have that. Bernie would have picked up every vote Clinton had, plus some additional votes from people that were actually excited about him. And as Nate Silver pointed out, a 1% swing in the votes across the board would have flipped enough states to flip the election.

Didn't Trump to better among minorities, at least black and hispanics than Romney?

 

[Gulo Blue]

the polls didn't support Tuesday's outcome, dumbass.

I think this is wrong. People read the polls wrong. Media echo chamber refused to believe what they said.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Didn't Trump to better among minorities, at least black and hispanics than Romney?

Don't know.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Don't know.

If you trust the word of the lying liberals in the lame stream media he did...

 

[Michchamp]

If you trust the word of the lying liberals in the lame stream media he did...

yeah, a couple of percentage points better. not enough of a difference to overcome the 10%+ projected polling edge or whatever it was Sanders had on him, but enough to refute the DNC hacks arguing that Hillary lost only because racism, and was otherwise a perfectly fine candidate.

 

[Spartanmack]

I think this is wrong. People read the polls wrong. Media echo chamber refused to believe what they said.

Is it? My understanding was the trend was favoring Trump but that Clinton still had a lead beyond the margin of error.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Is it? My understanding was the trend was favoring Trump but that Clinton still had a lead beyond the margin of error.

The day before the election, Nate Silver said 28% chance of Trump. That's far from impossible. That's a prediction that should be wrong 1 out of 4 times.

I know other stations were projecting stronger predictions, but I'm suspicious they're numbers guys play 2nd fiddle to the feelings of their producers.

 

[Mitchrapp]

what polls are you talking about?

The ones that had Hillary winning.