Bernie Sanders for 2020.

[Vash The Stampede]

You all have a few years to figure out what to do about this disaster of a democratic party. Until then, the bird is the word.

[Zyster]

Too old, but if he did the Democrats missed their opportunity with him. Trump will have done so many fixes to the garbage Obama did in office that I'm pretty sure no matter the situation Republicans will win again. Sadly, I wish Bernie was in office this term. Pretty sure by 2020 no one would ever want a Democrat in office again.

[Fugus]

Too old, but if he did the Democrats missed their opportunity with him. Trump will have done so many fixes to the garbage Obama did in office that I'm pretty sure no matter the situation Republicans will win again. Sadly, I wish Bernie was in office this term. Pretty sure by 2020 no one would ever want a Democrat in office again.

Just out of curiosity, what garbage did Obama do? I ask this because I hear people blaming him all the time but when I end up asking then what, very rarely do they ever actually bring up stuff he actually did or made worse and typically end up blaming him for not cleaning up Bushes mess fast enough or stuff he had no part in or even made better. Very few actually blame him for the stuff he actually did.

So, what exactly are you blaming him for?

As far as the Republicans fixing stuff, It would be a treat to have things fixed but all the things they have proposed so far, the vast majority of it goes the other way and makes things worse instead.

[Sargerasraider]

But to sum up I was right. There's exceedingly little change over time for any of the generations in terms of party alignment. If you are liberal you stay liberal. If you are conservative you stay conservative. The republican party is *fucked*.

OK, fine, I know you probably need something to help you sleep at night after your side got shellacked. So here goes:

Woe is us. We are screwed. We should have bowed to your wisdom long ago. We're sorry.

[Fugus]

OK, fine, I know you probably need something to help you sleep at night after your side got shellacked. So here goes:

Woe is us. We are screwed. We should have bowed to your wisdom long ago. We're sorry.

I know you are making fun of him and all, but he is the one that is correct here. The main thing suppressing Democratic votes has greatly to do with lack of enthusiasm about the base because the party never gives them anything worth voting for and it is 100 times easier to go out and vote FOR someone you want than it is to go out to vote against someone you dislike.

As I said before though, the Republicans will have to move eventually or get eaten by another party that rises to replace them as the demographics are changing but so long as the Democrats keep trying to cater to donors than voters, the Republicans won't feel that need because they people collectively stay home instead.

[Sargerasraider]

I know you are making fun of him and all, but he is the one that is correct here. The main thing suppressing Democratic votes has greatly to do with lack of enthusiasm about the base because the party never gives them anything worth voting for and it is 100 times easier to go out and vote FOR someone you want than it is to go out to vote against someone you dislike.

As I said before though, the Republicans will have to move eventually or get eaten by another party that rises to replace them as the demographics are changing but so long as the Democrats keep trying to cater to donors than voters, the Republicans won't feel that need because they people collectively stay home instead.

I've lurked on this board for about 5 years. While I know that it is not a very long time, it has been plagued by people on the left professing to help the right with helpful suggestions that they move left and stop so called obstructionism. These same people state over and over again that "this time, voters will make them pay." On the other hand in the real world, this never seems to happen. On the contrary, Republicans have more power now than any time in recent memory. Forgive me if I am hesitant to believe you.

Maybe at some point you're right. Maybe in 20 years or so, the Republicans need to move left. However, that is not today. Moving left at this point would have just caused either a third party split, or those on the right to not go vote. Either way, the election is lost.

[Spectral]

As I said before though, the Republicans will have to move eventually or get eaten by another party that rises to replace them as the demographics are changing but so long as the Democrats keep trying to cater to donors than voters, the Republicans won't feel that need because they people collectively stay home instead.

This won't necessarily look the way that people would like it to. This election might have been the emergence of whites voting more as a bloc than they have in the past; if whites are a diminished proportion of the electorate, but are increasingly Republican going forward, I don't think this would be good for anyone. There's more than one path to success and I don't think Democrats repeatedly telling whites that they'll soon be outnumbered is a winning strategy if the goal is to tamp down racial tribalism.

- - - Updated - - -

I've lurked on this board for about 5 years. While I know that it is not a very long time, it has been plagued by people on the left professing to help the right with helpful suggestions that they move left and stop so called obstructionism. These same people state over and over again that "this time, voters will make them pay." On the other hand in the real world, this never seems to happen. On the contrary, Republicans have more power now than any time in recent memory. Forgive me if I am hesitant to believe you.

Yeah, the cries of "obstructionism" are pretty laughable. Every proposed compromise trends towards being something that moves a policy to the left, but not quite as far left as Democrats would like. For example, gun control advocates offer the "compromise" of only increasing background checks and restricting certain types of arms; OK, that's well and good, but there's nothing on offer to balance it.

This isn't compromise, it's just taking less than desired. It's no surprise that the reply is, "no".

[Mormolyce]

I know you are making fun of him and all, but he is the one that is correct here. The main thing suppressing Democratic votes has greatly to do with lack of enthusiasm about the base because the party never gives them anything worth voting for and it is 100 times easier to go out and vote FOR someone you want than it is to go out to vote against someone you dislike.

And yet...

Hillary Clinton Apparently Got More Popular Votes Than Any American President Besides Barack Obama

Over the past several days, more and more votes have been counted, and Hillary Clinton's margin on Donald Trump has gotten even wider. As the New York Times notes, "By the time all the ballots are counted, she seems likely to be ahead by more than 2 million votes and more than 1.5 percentage points... She will have won by a wider percentage margin than not only Al Gore in 2000 but also Richard Nixon in 1968 and John F. Kennedy in 1960." She is also apparently on track to win more popular votes than any American President besides Barack Obama.

http://www.teenvogue.com/story/clint...-popular-votes

[Fugus]

I've lurked on this board for about 5 years. While I know that it is not a very long time, it has been plagued by people on the left professing to help the right with helpful suggestions that they move left and stop so called obstructionism. These same people state over and over again that "this time, voters will make them pay." On the other hand in the real world, this never seems to happen. On the contrary, Republicans have more power now than any time in recent memory. Forgive me if I am hesitant to believe you.

Maybe at some point you're right. Maybe in 20 years or so, the Republicans need to move left. However, that is not today. Moving left at this point would have just caused either a third party split, or those on the right to not go vote. Either way, the election is lost.

I have seen those who say that too, lots of people are over zealous here. I agree with that at times on both sides. Even the left side has their Orlongs.

Never meant anything as alarmist as that. Was saying that political views typically do not change when you are older and agreeing with him on that regard.

As for the Republicans having to change. While yes, they are already outnumbered, the fact is they vote much more reliably than Democrats partially due to the Democrats refusing to listen to them so for the time being it isn't too huge of a deal to the Republicans so long as the Democratic party keep sleeping at the tree rather than trying to win the race.

But the average age of the republican voter is 50 years old and as time rolls on, they will be slowly dying out and the younger generations are not really Democrat either, they are actually to the left of them on many issues as well which puts them most aligned with the Democrats over the Republicans. And as that trend continues, the Republicans will lose out more and more regardless of how motivated their voters are due to lack of them unless they adapt to that.

Some estimate that tipping point to be 2 years, some estimate it to be about 15 though, so that is entirely speculation. But overall, unless something happens where they all become the highlander and live forever, that change will be happening in the next 20 years or so as they die off and the younger republicans are much fewer to replace them with.

[Sargerasraider]

And yet...


http://www.teenvogue.com/story/clint...-popular-votes

It's an interesting coincidence that when the population grows, vote counts go up.

[Mormolyce]

It's an interesting coincidence that when the population grows, vote counts go up.

You don't say.

[Fugus]

This won't necessarily look the way that people would like it to. This election might have been the emergence of whites voting more as a bloc than they have in the past; if whites are a diminished proportion of the electorate, but are increasingly Republican going forward, I don't think this would be good for anyone. There's more than one path to success and I don't think Democrats repeatedly telling whites that they'll soon be outnumbered is a winning strategy if the goal is to tamp down racial tribalism.

No, it isn't any emergence. Trump actually got about as many (I think less) votes of Romney. It was just that Clinton ran off all her voters pretending she didn't need them and the DNC screwing them as well killed them down ballot as well as they either stayed home or voted 3rd party.

The Democrats aren't telling whites they will be outnumbered either unless they are whack jobs. They are mentioning the republicans are getting increasingly marginalized due to the changing views of the younger generations both black and white children alike as well as other minorities.

As it stands both Democrats and Republicans are already outnumbered by Independents whom are incredibly disenfranchised in the primaries when they have no way of voting till the general in many states where they at that point only get to pick from whats left after the others have been weeded out with at times the ones being weeded out were the ones they would have voted for if given the chance and might have carried them into the general instead of the other guy.

- - - Updated - - -

And yet...


http://www.teenvogue.com/story/clint...-popular-votes

Actually, George Bush and Obama both beat her in the popular vote. Whom where the only presidents to actually get over 60,000,000 popular votes period. Before 2004 no president got more than 54 million votes in any election.

Part of that had to do with the fact that we had less people over the decades and part of that had to deal with people in general starting to get more politically active in recent years with the younger generation actually starting to get more involved last I checked.

If it wasn't for Clinton, you could have expected at least an additional 9 million votes during that election for the Democrats I would suspect just in the presidential alone. But that part is all speculation on my part and I have no proof on this last part.

[nyc81991]

If the democrats want to lose again, sure.

Trump won because he picked up the working class vote in the rust belt, which have voted mostly democrat since Bill Clinton. Do you think Bernie Sanders or Liz Warren can reclaim that or steal a demographic from Trump? I doubt it.

Yes, he would have easily won the working class.

[Mormolyce]

Actually, George Bush and Obama both beat her in the popular vote. Whom where the only presidents to actually get over 60,000,000 popular votes period. Before 2004 no president got more than 54 million votes in any election.

Part of that had to do with the fact that we had less people over the decades and part of that had to deal with people in general starting to get more politically active in recent years with the younger generation actually starting to get more involved last I checked.

If it wasn't for Clinton, you could have expected at least an additional 9 million votes during that election for the Democrats I would suspect just in the presidential alone. But that part is all speculation on my part and I have no proof on this last part.

Actually that link was a little out of date, they're still counting but currently Hillary appears to be just over the 61m mark at this point, with some 4 million votes yet to be counted, mostly in safe Democrat areas. Margin of about 670k over Trump and likely to grow.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/201...keeps-growing/
http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/president

She'll probably pass Bush 2.

And this is despite overall voter turnout at its lowest in 20 years.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/11/po...-turnout-2016/

[Fugus]

Actually that link was a little out of date, they're still counting but currently Hillary appears to be just over the 61m mark at this point, with some 4 million votes yet to be counted, mostly in safe Democrat areas. Margin of about 670k over Trump and likely to grow.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/201...keeps-growing/
http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/president

She'll probably pass Bush 2.

And this is despite overall voter turnout at its lowest in 20 years.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/11/po...-turnout-2016/

I know, the last check I checked had her winning by a little over 700,000 popular votes.

Either way it goes, they lost because of her running off her own voters cheating them and acting like she didn't need them repeatedly.

I expect the number of voters to gradually increase over the years too though as the younger generation is getting older and more politically active than my generation thank god. Will be interesting to see.

Edit: If they ever fixed the voting system we used and votes counted more and more fairly, you would probably see voting explode even more so.

That is one thing Trump could do as a president as a giant FU to the politicians of both sides that all voters of all sides would love. Doubt he would but that right there would clinch him as being seen as a positive for president fixing a massively broken system.

[Macaquerie]

I know, the last check I checked had her winning by a little over 700,000 popular votes.

Either way it goes, they lost because of her running off her own voters cheating them and acting like she didn't need them repeatedly.

I expect the number of voters to gradually increase over the years too though as the younger generation is getting older and more politically active than my generation thank god. Will be interesting to see.

Strategically, it makes some sense to push away potential supporters because every vote you secure represents a promise of favors down the line, and if you are already confident of winning then it makes sense to win by as narrow a margin as you can manage. Clinton's error was more in overestimating her own popularity, and thus believing she had more leeway to push away certain demographics than she really had.

[Fugus]

Strategically, it makes some sense to push away potential supporters because every vote you secure represents a promise of favors down the line, and if you are already confident of winning then it makes sense to win by as narrow a margin as you can manage. Clinton's error was more in overestimating her own popularity, and thus believing she had more leeway to push away certain demographics than she really had.

Don't really see much point in that, don't push them away, just don't promise that demographic away to begin with unless they are just toxic to have like racist or terrorist groups or such.

Securing their vote doesn't mean you owe them something unless you promised something to them to get the vote outright.

On the bright side though, it did show us she wasn't worth voting for. Sucks it ended with Trump but maybe that will be the kick in the butt the Democrats need to actually get off their butts and start listening to their voters. This election felt like they were trying to out republican the republicans chasing donors and kicking their voters away to get them.

[Mormolyce]

I know, the last check I checked had her winning by a little over 700,000 popular votes.

Either way it goes, they lost because of her running off her own voters cheating them and acting like she didn't need them repeatedly.

I expect the number of voters to gradually increase over the years too though as the younger generation is getting older and more politically active than my generation thank god. Will be interesting to see.

Edit: If they ever fixed the voting system we used and votes counted more and more fairly, you would probably see voting explode even more so.

That is one thing Trump could do as a president as a giant FU to the politicians of both sides that all voters of all sides would love. Doubt he would but that right there would clinch him as being seen as a positive for president fixing a massively broken system.

Honestly, considering the US hasn't had more than two consecutive terms of a single party since Reagan, and hasn't had more than three since Roosevelt, a Republican victory was highly likely this election regardless of what Hillary did. In fact I expect almost any other Republican candidate would've slid into an easy victory. The massive cloud of shit kicked up by Trump and the Republican hit job on Hillary caused disaffected voters on both sides to stay home.

What were the Senate and House changes? Like two incumbents went out in the Senate (out of 30-something up for election) and 6 in the House (out of 435?). So really overall fuck all changed. Other than the President :P

[Caolela]

Capitalism was so cruel and brutal 100 years ago that people came up with an even worse solution, communism. Rather than make compromises that would take the wind out of communism’s sails, the 1 percent of the day decided to back fascism. This caused a war so catastrophic that the 1 percent understood they had no choice but to accept reforms that would make life bearable for regular people.

Then communism collapsed, taking the daily threat of nuclear war with it. Today’s 1 percent should be thanking God they got out of the 20th century alive and vowing never to make those mistakes again. Instead they’ve decided to make every mistake again and turn capitalism back into something that human beings cannot live with.

Any successful progressive movement needs to have a plan to stop them or they can't call themselves an opposition.

[Fugus]

Honestly, considering the US hasn't had more than two consecutive terms of a single party since Reagan, and hasn't had more than three since Roosevelt, a Republican victory was highly likely this election regardless of what Hillary did. In fact I expect almost any other Republican candidate would've slid into an easy victory. The massive cloud of shit kicked up by Trump and the Republican hit job on Hillary caused disaffected voters on both sides to stay home.

What were the Senate and House changes? Like two incumbents went out in the Senate (out of 30-something up for election) and 6 in the House (out of 435?). So really overall fuck all changed. Other than the President :P

I have noticed the pattern to as have most others. One major exception to that this time was the Democrats actually had a ringer who would have cleared the board against anyone they were against. Sanders who was projected to win against just about anyone and who was getting massive support among their own voters against those actually exposed to him and what his views were and had a history to match the policies.

The Democrats just thought they had a sure thing with all the connections they had and going against Trump whom they personally helped hype to ensure that.

Against Clinton though, yeah, about anyone could have won against her which is why they tried to rig the GOP primary to get the most damaged person to run against in the general.

From what I could see, Sanders actually have views that could be seen as a FDR New deal democrat which was insanely popular back then and from all that was seen was just as popular now.