bearnation93 said:

---

No, I'm laughing out loud at all you Far Left nuts!!!! Hahahaha!

---

I didn't realize it was "nuts" to say that a guy who lost the popular vote didn't win in a landslide. Silly me.

The balls swinging from the bull is a nice touch. We're definitely in an idiocracy, I'm convinced

But wait...there's more! From 2014. I assume Judge sued and won...but once again, can't make this up.

CMT to Unveil New Ow My Balls Reality Show

offshorebear said:

---

The balls swinging from the bull is a nice touch. We're definitely in an idiocracy, I'm convinced

---

Like everything you believe, the popular vote means nothing. Only losers grasp at that. Thank God for our Framers!!!!

Jane Fonda: The only way to take our country back is one person at a time

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jane-fonda-the-only-way-to-take-our-country-back-is-one-person-at-a-time/2019/08/30/50cf9dd2-ca96-11e9-be05-f76ac4ec618c_story.html

Official tRump and RNC response to her insights:

bearister said:

---

---

Big Brother isn't watching you...nope, you're watching Big Brother aka the internet.

BearsWiin said:

---

At least Jane went to Vietnam

---

bearister said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

... Then she ignored the Midwestern states to try to run up the score elsewhere when a simple click on FiveThirtyEight would have told her campaign what states were likely tipping point states. Worst campaigner ever.....

---

Do you really think if HRC had been a smarter campaigner in the flyovers that the discerning citizenry there would have voted for a woman for POTUS?

If Elizabeth Warren gets the nomination she is going to lose in the flyovers regardless of how much she grovels there......unless tRump has hit them over the head with a 2 x 4 with his policies so many times that by Election Day they are so concussed that they vote for a woman.

BTW, although I am a moderate Democrat, I refuse to be forced into the arms of another moron by tRump so I intend to vote for EW in the Primary and, hopefully in the General Election and just hope she has to move a little more towards the center if she becomes POTUS.

---

The discerning citizenry there vote for Obama twice and normally votes democrat. She obviously thought they would vote for her because she took them for granted.

Absolutely her moronic campaign lost it there. Any election expert will tell you the same thing. 1. she barely lost there. she probably didn't even need to win over voters that traditionally distrusted her. She just needed to get angry Bernie voters and lackadaisical liberal voters to the polling place. She lost by 0.23% in Michigan. By 0.72% in Pennsylvania. By 0.77% in Wisconsin. That is turnout. Any positive for her would have changed those results. Her campaigns have been uniquely incompetent over the years. 2. She was uniquely hated in the Midwest. Polls indicate that just about any other democrat would have won easily. We can attribute that to sexism and there certainly was some of that. But it ignores the fact that as First Lady she publicly demonstrated disdain for women staying at home and basically made statements crapping over their way of life. She never adequately showed remorse or made up to them. 3. I think Bill was a good president. I think Hillary would have made a good president. But their arrogance is off the charts. She knew the day she dropped out of the race in 2008 that she was running in 2016. As someone who was prepping to run for president, the email server thing was moronic. The whole set up of the Clinton foundation and the donations they got was incredible and if the republicans hadn't seized on emails they would have seized on that. They send a clear message - we can do whatever the eff we want and you will vote for us anyway. As an Obama supporter in 2008, I resented how she and her campaign looked down their nose at him and his supporters the whole way and she, her supporters, and her campaign acted as if he and his supporters had no right to take the nomination away from her. There was even a "things are so bad for women they'll even vote for the black guy" complaint flying not so under the radar. I voted for Hillary in the primary, relatively enthusiastically, but every time I'd be close to getting gung ho about her campaign, she'd do something that would remind me what arrogant jackasses they are. If at any point in their lives the Clinton's stopped acting like they could get away with any damn thing they pleased, she would have won.

In 2000, I swore up and down that there was no way Ralph Nader would cost Gore the election. When I saw the results in Florida, I had to eat my words. Not that it was Nader's responsibility, but yes, when the numbers are that small, any little thing costs a candidate an election. Barely campaigning in those states while letting Trump to run with his message without opposition lost her the election.

Warren does not have on her record looking down on "baking cookies" and "standing by her man". I have no illusion that there aren't a lot of people in those states who may never vote for a woman or who may never vote for a woman like Warren, but I think there is about 95% overlap between those people and those who would never have voted for a democrat.

I think democrats will make a huge mistake if they do not make Joe Biden earn this nomination. We may forgive the gaffes, the lack of ground game, the lack of a message other than smiling and saying Obama, but it won't be forgiven in the general election. He may be the best candidate, but he better earn that. Warren (who is not my first choice at the moment) is energetic, passionate, and has a message. Right now Biden reminds me of the lines When Harry Met Sally where Sally says "I think I just miss the idea of Joe." and Harry says "Maybe I just miss the idea of Helen. No. I'm pretty sure I miss the whole Helen." I think democrats like the idea of Biden. I don't know that they like the whole Biden.

If Biden keeps being as pathetic as he has been at times, I think we might see a Harris resurgence. Most of her problem is that much of the African American vote that has her as their number one choice are going for Biden because they think he has a better chance of winning. Neither Sanders or Warren are popular in the African American community (though they are not hated). That is a huge voting block that is largely keeping Biden ahead. A lot of democrats are not thrilled with Sanders and Warren as the candidate and if Biden plummets, as I think is possible (not saying probable, but possible) they will be looking for another candidate.

To sum up, I think ANY of the candidates on the debate stage with the exception of Buttigieg (I think he would be a disaster running against Trump) would have won those states in 2016 so can win in 2020.

OaktownBear said:

---

I think democrats will make a huge mistake if they do not make Joe Biden earn this nomination. We may forgive the gaffes, the lack of ground game, the lack of a message other than smiling and saying Obama, but it won't be forgiven in the general election. He may be the best candidate, but he better earn that.

---

Agreed. This is why I don't get the hand-wringing over Democrats "blowing it" if they don't let Biden win. If Joe Biden is actually the best candidate, then he should be able to beat the other Democratic contenders. If he can't, then he's not the best.

We tried letting Hillary cruise to the nomination and it resulted in her losing to Trump, because she was too complacent (or at least that is part of the reason).

OaktownBear said:

---

She just needed to get angry Bernie voters

---

The myth that "angry Bernie voters" cost her the election just won't die.

Look at how soft Bernie's support is this year compared to the last primary and it becomes clear that a lot of his voters were never Bernie supporters at all. They were just "anybody but Hillary" voters and he was the only other viable option.

"Anybody but Hillary" voters aren't going to vote for Hillary just because she won the democratic primary, they're going to keep doing what they do, which is vote for anyone but Hillary. There was no way to court those people. The actual Bernie supporters voted for Hillary.

BearNakedLadies said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

She just needed to get angry Bernie voters

---

The myth that "angry Bernie voters" cost her the election just won't die.

Look at how soft Bernie's support is this year compared to the last primary and it becomes clear that a lot of his voters were never Bernie supporters at all. They were just "anybody but Hillary" voters and he was the only other viable option.

"Anybody but Hillary" voters aren't going to vote for Hillary just because she won the democratic primary, they're going to keep doing what they do, which is vote for anyone but Hillary. There was no way to court those people. The actual Bernie supporters voted for Hillary.

---

I'm sorry, I don't think you meant to misrepresent what I said, but if you were going to cut my statement mid sentence, why didn't you just stop after angry and claim I said she lost because she didn't get mad. I didn't say that angry Bernie voters cost her the election. I said that if she had just gotten some more angry Bernie voters and complacent liberals to the polling place she would have won. That is an and. I never said Bernie voters would have on their own put her over the top.

I disagree with your second paragraph. The polling from 2016 showed Bernie's voters to be very enthusiastically pro-Bernie. Of course there were some, as in any election, who were voting against Hillary. But that was not the bulk of his support.

As for his polling, 1. It is not 2016. The Feel the Bern moment has somewhat passed. 2. There is a large field of candidates. 3. Warren is philosophically very close to Bernie and has been viewed so as far back as 2016. She has taken a lot of his support. If you add the two, they are at about Bernie's numbers in 2016. She is not an old white dude. She is as passionate as he is, but she actually has practical explanations for how she is going to do things while Bernie continues to yada yada the best part. And she's actually a democrat. There are good reasons for people who love Bernie to move to Warren.

This is about numbers. Hillary lost by 23K votes in Wisconsin. I stand by my statement that she could make up that difference by getting out some angry Bernie voters and complacent liberals. She barely campaigned in the state. A lot of her campaign was to basically belittle Trump's chances which only served to depress her vote. I would say the easiest group where she lost low hanging fruit votes that would have turned those states were Democrats who hated her, thought she was a sure thing, so they stayed home to get the benefit of her winning without soiling themselves by casting a vote for her.

Yes there were other groups that weren't going to vote for her that played a bigger part in the overall election, but she lost because she blew it in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Obama won all three states handily. Democrats won Michigan and Pennsylvania 6 straight times and Wisconsin 7. There has been little change in the demographics (some favoring democrats). She blew it. Fact is, her campaign didn't even conceive of a loss overall or in those states. Trump got them to take their eye off the ball by challenging the legitimacy of the election before it took place and got them to try to run up the score in traditionally red states, none of which flipped.

OaktownBear said:

---

BearNakedLadies said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

She just needed to get angry Bernie voters

---

The myth that "angry Bernie voters" cost her the election just won't die.

Look at how soft Bernie's support is this year compared to the last primary and it becomes clear that a lot of his voters were never Bernie supporters at all. They were just "anybody but Hillary" voters and he was the only other viable option.

"Anybody but Hillary" voters aren't going to vote for Hillary just because she won the democratic primary, they're going to keep doing what they do, which is vote for anyone but Hillary. There was no way to court those people. The actual Bernie supporters voted for Hillary.

---

I'm sorry, I don't think you meant to misrepresent what I said, but if you were going to cut my statement mid sentence, why didn't you just stop after angry and claim I said she lost because she didn't get mad. I didn't say that angry Bernie voters cost her the election. I said that if she had just gotten some more angry Bernie voters and complacent liberals to the polling place she would have won. That is an and. I never said Bernie voters would have on their own put her over the top.

---

Fair enough. I've read so much "it was the Bernie bros" fault stuff that I thought we were heading down that road again.

Quote:

---

Warren is philosophically very close to Bernie and has been viewed so as far back as 2016. She has taken a lot of his support. If you add the two, they are at about Bernie's numbers in 2016. She is not an old white dude.

---

She's 70 years old. She's not exactly young.

Quote:

---

She is as passionate as he is, but she actually has practical explanations for how she is going to do things while Bernie continues to yada yada the best part. And she's actually a democrat. There are good reasons for people who love Bernie to move to Warren.

---

Actually a democrat is probably the least of the reasons to like her, especially now that she's courting all the "business as usual" powerful Democrats for support in anticipation of catching and passing Biden. I want to see if she actually believes her own rhetoric or if she's just another Harvard liberal who says the right things, but comes from a university that has placed most of our Supreme Court justices (including the conservatives), is actively taking money from oil companies right now to produce questionable climate science, and places lots of people in the investment banking sector. Bernie, for whatever his faults may be, actually stands for what he believes in and doesn't waver. And presidents can very easily move the direction of the country without a clear idea of how to make it happen legislatively. Look at all the destruction Trump has wrought. He doesn't have a clue how to realistically make anything happen politically.

Ralph Nader -- now there's a person the Dems should embrace (or rather should have).

GBear4Life said:

---

Ralph Nader -- now there's a person the Dems should embrace (or rather should have).

---

He lost a couple of elections for Dems but he is a very bright man and a truth speaker.

What and Who Gave Us Trump?
By Ralph Nader

https://nader.org/2019/05/22/what-and-who-gave-us-trump/

From Trump Tower to Dictatorial Trump Power Over Law

https://nader.org/2019/08/30/from-trump-tower-to-dictatorial-trump-power-over-law/

BearNakedLadies said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

BearNakedLadies said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

She just needed to get angry Bernie voters

---

The myth that "angry Bernie voters" cost her the election just won't die.

Look at how soft Bernie's support is this year compared to the last primary and it becomes clear that a lot of his voters were never Bernie supporters at all. They were just "anybody but Hillary" voters and he was the only other viable option.

"Anybody but Hillary" voters aren't going to vote for Hillary just because she won the democratic primary, they're going to keep doing what they do, which is vote for anyone but Hillary. There was no way to court those people. The actual Bernie supporters voted for Hillary.

---

I'm sorry, I don't think you meant to misrepresent what I said, but if you were going to cut my statement mid sentence, why didn't you just stop after angry and claim I said she lost because she didn't get mad. I didn't say that angry Bernie voters cost her the election. I said that if she had just gotten some more angry Bernie voters and complacent liberals to the polling place she would have won. That is an and. I never said Bernie voters would have on their own put her over the top.

---

Fair enough. I've read so much "it was the Bernie bros" fault stuff that I thought we were heading down that road again.

Quote:

---

Warren is philosophically very close to Bernie and has been viewed so as far back as 2016. She has taken a lot of his support. If you add the two, they are at about Bernie's numbers in 2016. She is not an old white dude.

---

She's 70 years old. She's not exactly young.

Quote:

---

She is as passionate as he is, but she actually has practical explanations for how she is going to do things while Bernie continues to yada yada the best part. And she's actually a democrat. There are good reasons for people who love Bernie to move to Warren.

---

Actually a democrat is probably the least of the reasons to like her, especially now that she's courting all the "business as usual" powerful Democrats for support in anticipation of catching and passing Biden. I want to see if she actually believes her own rhetoric or if she's just another Harvard liberal who says the right things, but comes from a university that has placed most of our Supreme Court justices (including the conservatives), is actively taking money from oil companies right now to produce questionable climate science, and places lots of people in the investment banking sector. Bernie, for whatever his faults may be, actually stands for what he believes in and doesn't waver. And presidents can very easily move the direction of the country without a clear idea of how to make it happen legislatively. Look at all the destruction Trump has wrought. He doesn't have a clue how to realistically make anything happen politically.

---

1. Being an old white lady isn't a branding problem in the Democratic party right now.

2. On the last point, I get that is your opinion, but it isn't mine. I'm actually a democrat too. Let me start by saying I love SENATOR Sanders. When he announced he was running in 2016, I told my wife pundits were underestimating the crazy, socialist, independent from tiny Vermont. Bernie had been the darling of liberal radio and television for years. Liberals already loved him. I knew he would get votes.

I love how Bernie fights for the little guy. I love how he fights against big money running our government. It is a fight we need to have. And I love him being in the Senate arguing for those positions. And I ended up voting for Clinton because the President is a practical position that requires a leader who actually know how to do things. I don't think Bernie does. He is great at identifying problems. He is great at pie in the sky solutions. But yes, he yada yadas the best part pretty much all of the time. I love that he is there arguing for a free education. I don't see that he has any plan that remotely makes that work.

As "actually a Democrat", I very much cheer on those that try to fight the powers that be on the economy. Money and lobbyist rule government policy way too much. At the end of the day, however, I am with the center left Democrats on the economy which I will shorthand as putting in place policies that largely attempt to benefit and grow the middle class. I am not anti-corporation. I am anti corporate influence. If you actually work with people in the corporate world, what you will find is that there are plenty of liberals in that world. There are plenty of corporate leaders who are against policies that give undue benefit to corporations. They will take it because they have to in order to be competitive, but they will argue and lobby against it. That said, they also know something about how the economy works. IMO, just like most of the ideas from the far right are not economically sound, many of the ideas on the economy from the far left are not either.

I do not want to see a candidate that is universally loved by corporate America. However, I do not want to see one that is universally hated by them either. I know too many people in corporate America that believe in economic justice. If you can't get anyone from that group on your side, I question the soundness of your economic policies. So, for me, Warren's previous failure to get any support whatsoever from any corporate sources is not a plus. It is a minus. For that reason I have been in the Harris camp early. Warren gaining some traction with SOME corporate sources is a positive to me.

I'm against conservative economic policies because I think they are largely very bad policies. The historical stock market performance bears this out (and "bears" would be the key word when it comes to Republicans running things). I also think they their policies are socially unjust. But if trickle down actually worked rather than being a laughable fantasy, hey, I might go for it in a rising tide lifts all boats kind of way. But in my opinion, policies that benefit the middle class leads to more education, more home purchases, and more investment in nice stable kinds of things that grow our economy rather than providing sugar highs.

Another Texas Republican Bill Flores has decided to not run for reelection bring the total to 5. This maybe the one that makes the most sense as Clinton won his district and with the Idiot in Chief laying waste to democratic norms, it was going to be a heavy lift for Flores.

sycasey said:

---

bearnation93 said:

---

No, I'm laughing out loud at all you Far Left nuts!!!! Hahahaha!

---

I didn't realize it was "nuts" to say that a guy who lost the popular vote didn't win in a landslide. Silly me.

---

No no, you don't get it Sycasey.

Trump won the election with the 46th (out of 58) highest electoral college percentage in the entire history of US elections. To his supporters, that means landslide.

And any talk of losing the popular vote by multiple percentage points hinting that it might not have been a landslide is commie SJW treason, buddy.

That's how New Yorkers have coronaries. Keep it up Donnie.

Not as splashy a talker, but I can trust her, she wouldn't cause backlash in the wacko right, and she's moderate enough to cause some political stability in this country.

Other candidates I can think of would be too left or too non-wasp (unfortunate) to be that.

She's very descent. How are "they" gonna attack her? I'm so sick of the wacko right - wanna make them shut up, or migrate toward the norm. She just made the case for that on Meet The Press.

Klobuchar is the one candidate that is closest to Hilary Clinton in temperament and personality, not a very likeable person. That's a big part of the reason she failed to get any traction. In comparison, Warren is feisty, but she doesn't feel like someone who will throw large objects at her staff in a fit of rage.

I think Warren is it. She has the policy stuff down. She's likable enough and not offensive...the opposite of Trump, but not an old guy like Biden with a bloody eyeball. Trump can't compete with Warren on policy and knowledge, she'll run circles around him.

Most of all however is the Pocahontas reference didn't stick and now if he uses it, he'll be branded a racist. Two press reports is his campaign is worried about that. Trump recoiled fast and furiously from the race bating after the polls showed American really hate that shtt, going after the squad and civil rights icon John Lewis. He played that hand early and gave it away.

Shouldn't all the state primary elections be on the same day just like the general election? Otherwise the early states basically set the tone on who which candidates are in play

GBear4Life said:

---

Shouldn't all the state primary elections be on the same day just like the general election? Otherwise the early states basically set the tone on who which candidates are in play

---

That would be a terrible idea, it would further exacerbate the premium on advertising and money, which already are too big a factor as it is.

The current system, starting with small states like Iowa and NH, helps candidates distinguish themselves, showcasing their political skills and platforms by canvassing smaller venues, which evens out a little bit the financial factor.

I think there is an argument for mixing up which states go first, but yes, I agree that having a series of primaries over a period of time allows candidates to distinguish themselves and gain or lose ground on the strength of their campaigns. If everything is decided on one day, then money and name recognition become too important.

Many of them drop out due to initial results from early states. The back half of the states may not have the final 2 as their top 2 choices. They've been campaigning for a year. They've got plenty of time to make their mark.

Nice lawless death threat from this Texas rep.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Nice lawless death threat from this Texas rep.

---

Hmm, maybe I should vote for Beto.

Julian Castro's attack on Biden's comments regarding the health care plan for those who can't afford health care insurance was mistaken and more importantly was flat out wrong. When the transcript was read back to him by Chris Matthews instead of owning the mistake Castro tried to trump it and ended up ****ting the bed. It wasn't a good look.

I hope I'm one of the 10 families Yang gives $12,000 to.