Hillary proposed policy: debt free college

**101A** · 09-06-2016

Sure, be happy to admit that the scales were thumbed a bit. That is honest. I have readily acceded to that.

I missed the confession. You are, or were, on the payroll of the DNC? To post on here and other places? Or did you have other jobs.

**baseline bum** · 09-06-2016

Originally Posted by 101A

Because he had excitement and enthusiasm behind him, as well as negatives below 50%, along with millennials turning out in great numbers almost exclusively for him. Many times a small, enthusiastic, group TRUMPS a larger, less enthusiastic one (see what I did there?)

After all, exactly what parts of the traditional Republican platform does Trump represent? It's a weird year, weird things happen.

Also, doesn't matter what I think. There is proof that the DNC was in the tank for Hillary. We'll never know what would have happened had they not been, or what other candidates never got in because they saw the writing on the wall.

Young people don't ever vote in good numbers, so it wouldn't make sense for them to nominate someone who excites only them and who isn't even a member of the party. And of course the DNC was in the tank for Hillary, they're oligarchs just like she is. Having a social democrat running the nation is one of the last things they'd ever want to see. People want to act like the Democrats are still the party of Roosevelt but they have swung way over to the right to become a more centrist party since Clinton's nomination in 92. I can't imagine how bad Bernie's funding would have been in the general, though he would have actually had a chance since Trump is such an awful candidate (pretty much the only reason Clinton can win too).

**101A** · 09-06-2016

Originally Posted by baseline bum

Young people don't ever vote in good numbers, so it wouldn't make sense for them to nominate someone who excites only them and who isn't even a member of the party. And of course the DNC was in the tank for Hillary, they're oligarchs just like she is. Having a social democrat running the nation is one of the last things they'd ever want to see. People want to act like the Democrats are still the party of Roosevelt but they have swung way over to the right to become a more centrist party since Clinton's nomination in 92. I can't imagine how bad Bernie's funding would have been in the general, though he would have actually had a chance since Trump is such an awful candidate (pretty much the only reason Clinton can win too).

So we agree on everything?

**SnakeBoy** · 09-06-2016

Originally Posted by baseline bum

Young people don't ever vote in good numbers, so it wouldn't make sense for them to nominate someone who excites only them and who isn't even a member of the party. And of course the DNC was in the tank for Hillary, they're oligarchs just like she is. Having a social democrat running the nation is one of the last things they'd ever want to see. People want to act like the Democrats are still the party of Roosevelt but they have swung way over to the right to become a more centrist party since Clinton's nomination in 92. I can't imagine how bad Bernie's funding would have been in the general, though he would have actually had a chance since Trump is such an awful candidate (pretty much the only reason Clinton can win too).

Bernie vs Trump would have been a win win. I wanted Trump to win the primaries as a message to the GOP to get their together or this is what we'll give you. I think Bernie's popularity was more about sending the same message to the Democrats, rather than all about "free ". Now the choice is either slap both parties in the face by sending them Trump for 4 years or tell them we want business as usual. I'm pretty sure it will be business as usual in November and I have my doubts as to whether the GOP will learn anything from this. It doesn't sound like it listening to the usual GOP "establishment" types.