(June 23, 2017 at 8:01 pm)Industrial Lad Wrote:

(June 23, 2017 at 7:06 pm)A Theist Wrote: You Dems need a message. They don't have one. As you said, it's not enough for them to "not be Trump". Trash the progressive platform crap. It cost the Dems the presidential election and it cost the Dems the special elections. All over the country the democrats are losing state and local elections as well. The Dems lost the white male blue collar working class in the rust belt and coal states. These were voters who hadn't voted for a Republican President in thirty plus years. Those voters blamed the Dems for their factories and mines shutting down to please the environmentalists, for imposing more federal regulations, and watching their jobs move to other countries. Trump came along and promised to bring those jobs back. He okayed the Keystone pipeline and eased epa restrictions, to name a few. If the Dems want to win future elections they better figure out a good message to win back their once largest and loyal base, the white male blue collar working class.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...gulations/

A majority of U.S. adults (59%) say stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost, compared with roughly a third (34%) who say such regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy, according to the survey, conducted Nov. 30 to Dec. 5.

Given the last general election and the most recent special elections I've pretty much given up on trusting polls. Despite the polls showing Hillary way ahead of Trump, Hillary lost. Despite the polls giving Trump a low job approval rating, and the Dems thinking they could capitalize on that, still lost the recent special elections. Forget the polls. They haven't been doing the Dems any good. Either the Dems figure out a message to win back the white male blue collar working class in the rust belt and coal states or they can figure on losing more elections.

---

(June 23, 2017 at 8:07 pm)Mermaid Wrote:

(June 23, 2017 at 7:45 pm)A Theist Wrote: She already lost two bids for the presidency. One to Obama in the democratic primaries before the 2008 general election, and the second, she lost to now President Trump. Besides, she has too much political baggage, she's too establishment, and too much controversy.

She won the popular vote. I would not call her unelectable.

Only because of two states, California and New York. Without one of those two she wouldn't have had the popular vote. But, sorry. You need the majority of electoral votes for the win.

(June 23, 2017 at 8:32 pm)A Theist Wrote:

(June 23, 2017 at 8:01 pm)Industrial Lad Wrote: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...gulations/

A majority of U.S. adults (59%) say stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost, compared with roughly a third (34%) who say such regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy, according to the survey, conducted Nov. 30 to Dec. 5.

Given the last general election and the most recent special elections I've pretty much given up on trusting polls. Despite the polls showing Hillary way ahead of Trump, Hillary lost. Despite the polls giving Trump a low job approval rating, and the Dems thinking they could capitalize on that, still lost the recent special elections. Forget the polls. They haven't been doing the Dems any good. Either the Dems figure out a message to win back the white male blue collar working class in the rust belt and coal states or they can figure on losing more elections.

In a way the polls that said Hillary would win were right. She won the popular vote. It was %40 taking her base for granted and not campaigning in certain places and %60 gerrymandering.
I'm going to trust polls over Republican talking points any day. Right wing media (and Trump) just keep repeating the same thing until it becomes rote memory, wether it's true or untrue, and it's usually untrue.

She has a bad track record in winning elections though.  She's a very wooden campaigner and does not do well on television.  We must admit the fact that television is the ultimate destroyer of our democracy.  Presidents prior to Kennedy did not have to worry about it.  They could fixate on policy.  Since then, the look seems to matter more than the ideas.  Certainly, the WLB has no ideas worth discussing but there he is, stinking up the oval office.

Beginning with Jimmy Carter, as the democrats moved to the primary system, there have been far more examples of out of left field candidates somehow sweeping to victory on a wave of popular enthusiasm.  Lots of people forget that Gary Hart gave Walter Mondale a scare in 1984 and actually won six more primaries than Mondale.  In 1988, Mike Dukakis emerged after Gary Hart self-destructed but Dukakis then easily beat Jesse Jackson and won 30 primaries.  In 1992 again, a dark horse candidate emerged out of nowhere when Bill Clinton won 35 contests and crushed whatever opposition he faced.  In 2000, Al Gore swept all 57 contests against Bill Bradley and went on to have the election stolen by republicunt crooks.  The considered nominee since 1997, Gore is the one person who was crowned with a nomination that he was expected to get.   In 2008, the race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama pitted the exciting newcomer against the old pro again and while the race was close in terms of actual votes (Clinton actually won the popular vote count) but Obama won 10 more races and the delegates that went with them.  And in 2016 Hillary held off a surprisingly strong run by Sanders, who was not even a Democrat, beating Sanders 34-23 in statewide races. 

So, it is rather pointless to speculate about who will run in 2020 when the party has such a record of the primary system rewarding the unlikely candidate. 

The republicunts seemed until 2016 to use a system whereby the loser in one race got the nod the next time around:

Hence, McCain loses to Bush in 2000.... McCain gets the nomination in 2008.

Romney loses to McCain in 2008... Romney gets to stink out the joint in 2012.

But Rick Santorum, the also ran in 2012 was swept aside early on in the Clown Car rodeo of 2016.  Even that piece of shit would have been a better choice than the WLB.

---

She has a bad track record in winning elections though.  She's a very wooden campaigner and does not do well on television.  We must admit the fact that television is the ultimate destroyer of our democracy.  Presidents prior to Kennedy did not have to worry about it.  They could fixate on policy.  Since then, the look seems to matter more than the ideas.  Certainly, the WLB has no ideas worth discussing but there he is, stinking up the oval office.

Beginning with Jimmy Carter, as the democrats moved to the primary system, there have been far more examples of out of left field candidates somehow sweeping to victory on a wave of popular enthusiasm.  Lots of people forget that Gary Hart gave Walter Mondale a scare in 1984 and actually won six more primaries than Mondale.  In 1988, Mike Dukakis emerged after Gary Hart self-destructed but Dukakis then easily beat Jesse Jackson and won 30 primaries.  In 1992 again, a dark horse candidate emerged out of nowhere when Bill Clinton won 35 contests and crushed whatever opposition he faced.  In 2000, Al Gore swept all 57 contests against Bill Bradley and went on to have the election stolen by republicunt crooks.  The considered nominee since 1997, Gore is the one person who was crowned with a nomination that he was expected to get.   In 2008, the race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama pitted the exciting newcomer against the old pro again and while the race was close in terms of actual votes (Clinton actually won the popular vote count) but Obama won 10 more races and the delegates that went with them.  And in 2016 Hillary held off a surprisingly strong run by Sanders, who was not even a Democrat, beating Sanders 34-23 in statewide races. 

So, it is rather pointless to speculate about who will run in 2020 when the party has such a record of the primary system rewarding the unlikely candidate. 

The republicunts seemed until 2016 to use a system whereby the loser in one race got the nod the next time around:

Hence, McCain loses to Bush in 2000.... McCain gets the nomination in 2008.

Romney loses to McCain in 2008... Romney gets to stink out the joint in 2012.

But Rick Santorum, the also ran in 2012 was swept aside early on in the Clown Car rodeo of 2016.  Even that piece of shit would have been a better choice than the WLB.

(June 23, 2017 at 7:35 pm)Mermaid Wrote:

(June 23, 2017 at 4:27 pm)Whateverist Wrote: All I know is I voted for her in 2016 but never will again.  She isn't horrible, she is merely unelectable.  The consequences for running someone unelectable against whoever they have in the clown car are obviously too serious to screw around with.

Why is she unelectable?

I think it is because of the republican smear campaign.  I was happy to vote for last time but I want someone with less baggage next time.

(June 23, 2017 at 7:06 pm)A Theist Wrote:

(June 23, 2017 at 4:34 pm)Aegon Wrote: The division between Bernie and Hillary supporters is no longer about the specific candidates. It's about the Democratic establishment vs ACTUAL liberals. The current Democratic establishment is incapable of defeating Republicans and Trump because they are no more than spineless, uninspiring neoliberals. It's not enough for them to "not be Trump" like they thought would work in November. They need to lay out a progressive platform and appeal to Trump's base the same way Sanders did. For example, what are Dems doing about healthcare? They need to formulate their own improvements on the ACA and show the American people what could be if they win more seats in 2018. Simply going against the awful Republican bill will do nothing. Bernie has created his own legislation for people to get behind, Medicare For All. What has Schumer, Pelosi, etc done? Jackshit

So no, there can be no unity until Democrats wake up and realize what they need to do. That's what these arguments are about.

You Dems need a message. They don't have one. As you said, it's not enough for them to "not be Trump". Trash the progressive platform crap. It cost the Dems the presidential election and it cost the Dems the special elections. All over the country the democrats are losing state and local elections as well. The Dems lost the white male blue collar working class in the rust belt and coal states. These were voters who hadn't voted for a Republican President in thirty plus years. Those voters blamed the Dems for their factories and mines shutting down to please the environmentalists, for imposing more federal regulations, and watching their jobs move to other countries. Trump came along and promised to bring those jobs back. He okayed the Keystone pipeline and eased epa restrictions, to name a few. If the Dems want to win future elections they better figure out a good message to win back their once largest and loyal base, the white male blue collar working class.

Here's the problem with that though; they're wrong. Those industries are disappearing and it's not because of too many regulations or environmentalism. The world is moving on. Instead of latching on to dying industries like coal we need to look to the future and train them for rising industries. Trump can SAY whatever he wants, but he won't be able to do what he said he would. Nobody can.

As for the "progressive platform", we're talking about different things I think. Hillary's platform was not progressive. I promise you that Bernie Sanders platform would have appealed to the rust belt in the general. He was offering solutions, not just saying he'd bring jobs back. He was what people saw in Trump; an outsider who seemed to genuinely care about the American people's wellbeing. Except he actually had a clue what the fuck he was doing, unlike Trump, who proves how unqualified he was for POTUS almost every single day.

Sanders Finds Common Ground in Trump Country

Quote:a town hall in rural McDowell County, West Virginia, on Sunday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told a crowd filled with supporters of President Donald Trump that "healthcare is a right"—and was met with cheers.

The town hall was broadcast Monday on MSNBC's "All In With Chris Hayes," and featured discussion on a range of topics: jobs, infrastructure, healthcare, and the opioid crisis, among others.

The warm reception to Sanders' views—that climate change is real, that universal healthcare is a right, and that free higher education is necessary, among others—demonstrated that residents of this county that voted 75 percent for Trump support far more progressive policies than those touted by the president.

"We are the only major country on earth that doesn't guarantee healthcare as a right," Sanders told a coal miner who voted for Trump. "Do you think we should join other countries in guaranteeing healthcare as a right?"

"Yes," the Trump supporter said, and the crowd cheered.

Earlier in that exchange, Sanders also appeared to find common ground on a topic widely seen as unpopular in coal country: climate change. Sanders explained that he believed in climate change—unlike the current administration—but he didn't hold individual coal miners responsible for it, recalling that coal heated his "rent-controlled apartment in Brooklyn" when he was a child. "You guys are my heroes," he said.

The senator then called for job creation in infrastructure and renewable energy, to put former coal miners back to work in well-paying jobs that will help mitigate the climate crisis. "We are the richest country in the world," Sanders said. "We can do this." The crowd applauded.
Sanders also advocated for retired miners—many of whom suffer from black lung disease and other ailments from a lifetime of mining coal—to receive the pensions and healthcare benefits currently tied up in Congress. He specifically called out Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who represents voters in coal country, for advocating for coal company executives over their workers.

One audience member—another retired miner—agreed with Sanders' assessment, telling the senator that "I think it's ironic that a senator from the Northeast takes care of my benefits better than someone like Mitch McConnell."

The progressive senator also condemned the Republicans' looming Obamacare replacement as "not healthcare legislation."

Hayes observed during the televised segment, the decline of coal has "decimated" the community, and many were also given a lifeline by the extension of Medicaid under Obamacare. During the presidential campaign, Trump promised the return of those coal jobs and also vowed to improve Americans' healthcare coverage.

And so as the GOP aims to push millions off of healthcare and Trump aggressively deregulates industry, it remains to be seen how the Wall Street-friendly administration will ultimately be received by residents of depressed, rural areas such as McDowell County. Given the overwhelmingly positive reception to Sanders' progressive stances at Sunday's town hall, it looks as though Republicans—as well as West Virginia's conservative Democratic senator Joe Manchin—may have something to worry about.

Id take no message over a fake one based on lies and scapegoating and idiotic jingoism

(June 23, 2017 at 9:15 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(June 23, 2017 at 7:35 pm)Mermaid Wrote: Why is she unelectable?

I think it is because of the republican smear campaign.  I was happy to vote for last time but I want someone with less baggage next time.

I am with you. She was easy to smear because she has a vagina.

(June 24, 2017 at 8:15 am)Mermaid Wrote:

(June 23, 2017 at 9:15 pm)Whateverist Wrote: I think it is because of the republican smear campaign.  I was happy to vote for last time but I want someone with less baggage next time.

I am with you. She was easy to smear because she has a vagina.

No. That wasn't the reason. People need to stop hiding behind that.

what's with all the oblique references to pap exams ?

(June 24, 2017 at 8:57 am)Aegon Wrote:

(June 24, 2017 at 8:15 am)Mermaid Wrote: I am with you. She was easy to smear because she has a vagina.

No. That wasn't the reason. People need to stop hiding behind that.

I don't believe I am hiding behind that. That is my perspective and experience as a woman.

The rampant, extremely ugly sexism over her campaign is not my imagination.