• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Ginger said:
It matters when the constant drumbeat from the other side claims Clinton was the most hated woman in the country. That is false on multiple levels.

If people quit repeating the brainwashed position Clinton was unpopular, the rest of us would quit providing evidence that is false.

One argument is she lost the election.
One argument is she was an unpopular candidate.

Those are not equal. She was popular and she lost. Trump cheated. Apparently those on the right prefer to believe their side fairly won and represents the will of the people. The truth is they represent the minority.
Click to expand...

Okay. I'm not saying that. I'm saying she was popular but unelectable, which is a thing that can happen when we have disproportionate like the Electoral College.

I voted for Hillary. I'm not on the right.

Do you have a response for me or can you only talk to hypothetical people on the Right who hate Hillary?
 
Last edited:
Dems are screwed if all they can talk about is how Hillary should have won. This is both sad and boring.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I imagine from the POV of Clinton haters it seems people agree with them. The truth is, the majority of people in this country don't agree with them.

Claiming Trump was such a bad candidate, how do you explain him winning the GOP primary?
Click to expand...
A very large Republican field. Excess media attention on Trump due to his existing fame. Too long of a delay on behalf of the Republicans to unite against him. As well as a few other reasons.

The most germaine to this particular thread, however, might be what I started with:
The Republicans did not feel the need to consider the electability of their candidate early on, because they knew it was their election to lose.

Much like many Dems are doing now. The field of candidates is crowded because the POTUS is very, very, beatable (much like HRC was in 2016).
Unfortunately, the feeling that the election is "ours to lose" is leading many to push policies that have little (or negative) appeal to moderates (like Trump in 2016).
I worry (like Maher) that that strategy will lead us to a situation where we once again run "the only person alive who could lose to Donald Trump"
 
At a certain point what do concepts like "She was a great candidate but didn't get elected" and "He was a horrible candidate but still got elected" even mean?
 
Distracted1 said:
A very large Republican field. Excess media attention on Trump due to his existing fame. Too long of a delay on behalf of the Republicans to unite against him. As well as a few other reasons.

The most germaine to this particular thread, however, might be what I started with:
The Republicans did not feel the need to consider the electability of their candidate early on, because they knew it was their election to lose.

Much like many Dems are doing now. The field of candidates is crowded because the POTUS is very, very, beatable (much like HRC was in 2016).
Unfortunately, the feeling that the election is "ours to lose" is leading many to push policies that have little (or negative) appeal to moderates (like Trump in 2016).
I worry (like Maher) that that strategy will lead us to a situation where we once again run "the only person alive who could lose to Donald Trump"
Click to expand...

Somehow, when I look at Biden I think “That’s John Kerry part II!”
 
Belz... said:
I've been watching his show for years and I have no idea what you're talking about.

I think you're reading way too much into it.
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised a woman would pick up on this while it would go right over a man's head.

That and/or you didn't see that particular program.
 
But again we're getting pulled into the weeds away from the point. I'm not gonna have a meta-debate about Maher being a douchebag a lot of the time or the fact that Trump and the Republicans are a bunch of dirty cheats. Those are established facts that don't change my point.

Which Democratic policies are more or less popular with voters WHO ARE NOT ALREADY FIRMLY IN THE BAG FOR YOU is not a totally unknown factor ("*Whine* But we can't know for suuuuuuurre *whine*" lamb bleating aside) and focusing on things which are more likely to get you people who weren't already going to vote for you is a good thing. IT'S LITERALLY WHAT POLITICS IS.

Making someone who is already going to vote for you like you more in a way that costs you votes of people who might have voted for you is STUPID.

That's all. That's all I've said. That's all I've ever said. And it's all I will get baited into discussing.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Okay. I'm not saying that. I'm saying she was popular but unelectable, which is a thing that can happen when we have disproportionate like the Electoral College.

I voted for Hillary. I'm not on the right.

Do you have a response for me or can you only talk to hypothetical people on the Right who hate Hillary?
Click to expand...

Not getting elected does not mean she was unelectable.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Not getting elected does not mean she was unelectable.
Click to expand...

It sort of does in literally every way that actually matters.

Again Democrats... I'm done being impressed by all your wins where you didn't actually win anything.

Do Democrats understand that Rocky and Rocky II didn't have the same ending?

I'm seriously halfway to the point that I don't think Democrats remember what a winner narrative is, all they have are "Moral victory" narratives.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Dems are screwed if all they can talk about is how Hillary should have won. This is both sad and boring.
Click to expand...

So getting back to the thread and tying that in, I'll say it again, if the candidate we choose doesn't recognize how Trump won and how to come back against those social media and mainstream media propaganda tactics, Trump (if he's not impeached) could win again.
 
Venom said:
They should have run Bernie Sanders.

3 years later....lesson still not learned.
Click to expand...

It terrifies me that people somehow think that.

Hillary lost because she lost the rust belt / Blue wall states. How was Sanders going to win them?
 
You should run Gabbard. Or Williamson. Or Buttigieg. Or Romney.

Hmm... Why not Romney? You'll get enough of the "D" vote to carry those states. You'll get enough of the non-Trumpist conservative vote to win those states. Apparently Obamacare is just Romneycare anyway, so there should be plenty of policy overlap to mollify both sides.

With a little bit of careful marketing, running a right-of-center candidate is probably the Democrats' best shot at getting rid of Trump in 2020.
 
Distracted1 said:
Notice my Join date.
If you happen to know how to get access to old threads, I would be more than happy to support that claim.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean you weren't calling her unelectable, I meant of course you were because you've been a Clinton hater from the start.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I didn't mean you weren't calling her unelectable, I meant of course you were because you've been a Clinton hater from the start.
Click to expand...

*Raises my hand* I voted for her. I would again if I had to make the choice over. Hell if Hillary by some miracle gets the nom in 2020 I'll vote for her again.

Again do you have a response to anyone who you can't dismiss as a "Clinton hater?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom