This is a bad read, IMO. But it does show one of the symptoms the GOP is experiencing: electable candidates can't survive their primary. Only about 15% of eligible voters for each party actually voted on the primaries. That's 30% of total eligible voters. It was an excellent turnout (not a new record, but close), but it goes to show the it's the bases picking largely without consideration of independents, which are the ones that eventually do swing the election. So the fact that Kasich, who many in the GOP base viewed as not being conservative enough, could not survive the GOP primary doesn't necessarily mean he couldn't have had a good race against Shillary if he did win the nomination. The fact of the matter is that a large percentage of those primary voters will eventually align with the candidate for their party (Trump might be one of the few exceptions), then it's all about convincing independents to get the path to victory. And that's where the GOP has gone wrong time and again. Shillary bull ted her way with free college to attract the young, played the women's card, took the warhawk approach in foreign policy, all the little things to draw up from certain centrist groups, whereas both Romney (47% of moochers) and Trump (too many to list), doubled down on a message that only matters to the base, whose votes they already have.
That's why among the topics of the GOP 2012 election post-mortem was a lot of this stuff: catering to minorities, jumping into the immigration reform bandwagon, being more inclusive with women. They just didn't heed their own advice, and are basically paying the price again. Until they figure it out, they're going to continue to sink in irrelevancy in federal elections like these. You can't shape the country without power, and you can't get real power without winning these elections. It's time to be pragmatic about this. Dubya is certainly a poster child of RINO for the modern conservatives, but he was practical at this game: For example, his platform offered temporary work permits to illegals, and that earned him almost 50% of the latino vote. That's how these battles are won, looking at the forest, not the tree.
"major parties with no better alternative to vote for"
the candidates represent America and Americans, and the politicians they re-elect repeatedly.
What progressive, "decent" person would want to run as a Dem to get witch hunted, slandered, trashed in the way the Repugs. the VRWC, the 1% have done to Bill, Barack, Hillary?
As far as the OP, I can't consciously cast a vote for her. So I won't. I understand but don't support the 'lesser of two evils' principle. It's morally broken no matter how you look at it, IMO.
FWIW, The NY Times did a good infographic about the primaries and what it looks like in the overall:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...d-clinton.html
Ma niga. Ill b doing the same tbqh. Im writing in El Chapo for president
Democrat people wanted Bernie establishment for them wanted clinton
looks like ducks is drunk again.
this is the high octane response i was looking for.
So because I won't use gender as a qualification, like you did, that makes me anti-female? lol
"Trail of bodies" is a figure of speech, though in her case it could be used both ways.
On par with Sanders? You mean the guy she colluded with the DNC against to force out of the Democratic race? Her audacity isn't why she's unlikable. She's a transparent political pros ute who clung to Bill like a le burr while he was ass ing interns with a Monte Cristo in the Oral office. She parlayed her "loyalty" into a cabinet position where she got 4 people killed and lied about it the very same night it happened, as she scrambled to do political damage control for the election just 56 days away. She's a ing sleazeball, and you think all this is because she's an outspoken female? lolCB, she sells so much snake oil that she ended up with a progressive voting record in the senate on par with Sanders. She's unlikable like many women who have the audacity to be ambitious are. The question on whether or not she's qualified and whether she'll do a good job advancing the agenda I want in the WH are both an easy yes. Isn't that the bottom line?
If her husband wasn't the former POTUS, she couldn't land a spot on the city council of Bald Knob Arkansas.
I'm with El Nono. I cannot vote for either of these people. A vote is a mark of approval and I'd vomit in my mouth a little with either of them, and the 3rd party people are a ruse so I'll abstain.
No, you're misogyny comes like by saying she failed at being a wife because of her husbands actions. Textbook.
For the record, people here tried to spin me saying being black was a good thing as me saying being black was a qualification. Its not, but its a plus. Same thing with being a woman. But of course, posters here turn that into LOL YOU"RE VOTING FOR HER BECAUSE SHE HAS A VAGINA. Never change, Spurstalk. Never change.
I get why people have issues with her. Some of it is very legit. But a lot of it isn't. They hold her to a different standard and don't view in the context of decades of GOP witchhunting against her. And thats fine, but after the Bengazi bull , you'll have to excuse me if I cut her a bit of slack for some of the things she's done. I think she'll be an effective governor and a of a better negotiator than Obama. I'm fairly happy with the Obama presidency, but I think she'll actually improve on it.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...f-2008-record/
Trump energized a whole bunch of people into the GOP which is why they did have a record turnout. You think those same people are going to be turning out in force for Kaisich? The way they turned out for Romney? How'd that work out? As you point out, they need a different coalition. So who on the GOP was going to do that, while getting better white turnout than Romney? Because the deck is stacked against them more each year.
And well, after this show, good luck getting Bush numbers with Latinos again for decades. Its 1964 all over again.
Also I love the idea that she cheated in the primaries.
Such a load of bull . Even the Sanders camp acknowledges that's bull . Swear to god all these hacked emails are the "climategate" out of context bull all over again.
Of course they show up. Even if they have to hold their noses, they're the base, they're always there to carry the flag. It's a numbers game, as that graph shows. Just like blue-team doesn't have enough of their own. Both red and blue bases are basically 1/3 of eligible voters. There's another 1/3 that shows up and votes too, which are the fabled "independents", but really, there's an ample gamut there, from socially liberal and fiscal conservative to the far left or far right, pacifists, war hawks, etc. And after that there's another 1/3 of eligible voters that mostly never votes, but they're also ripe to convince to buy into what you're selling.
Any smart campaign knows those other 2/3 that are not the base should be your aim past the primaries. But to appeal to that, you have to move away from the base a little. Shillary knew she couldn't win without the Bernie bros, so first thing she did after winning the nomination is pivot towards Bernie voters. Then when it was clear Trump was a clown appealing to the uneducated folk guys, she pivoted to convince the neocons warhawks to vote for her. If you think with any clarity, you can't really reconcile the Bernie Bros and the neocons, but when you wanna win, you do what you need to do. It's only probably one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful position in the world at stake.
It's like if Bernie wins the primary, and, say, Rubio or Christie win... will Bernie pivot to the neocon? no way. Fiscal conservatives won't touch him with a 10 foot pole. So it's a completely different scenario, but, again, the bases hold their noses and vote, you have to convince the other 2/3 of the electorate, that's the goal. The GOP has this stupid notion of purity test bull at the base, from hollow guys like Cruz, that's just shooting themselves in the foot.
Last edited by ElNono; 10-25-2016 at 04:26 AM. Reason: typo
"electable candidates" ?
The GOP was wrong about "need to go even more right" after Bishop Gekko's defeat, and will go even more right, more extremist, after Trash's trashy extreme right supporters lose in 2016.
My guess is that the establishment Repugs will go even more right (and more defeatable) and lose seniors by trying kill Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.
This guy makes a few good points about why to vote for Clinton:
No, she failed at being a wife because of her reaction to her husband's repeated actions.. nothing. If a woman stays with a man who physically abuses her because the guy has money, do you consider that to be a good woman? So then adultery in the home in which they live, that's ok? They don't give a rats ass for each other, they are business associates.
Imagine instead she's ing around on him. Imagine the story comes out and she's in court for sucking someone's in the oval office, for having a cigar shoved up her snatch. Then her husband acts like it never happened and the next thing you know he's the Secretary of State and loses an embassy because he does nothing about the warnings he received and people die. You'd paint him as a cuck and passive participant, and that's dangerous for someone who's in power. Make that POTUS level power and the danger increases exponentially. "I was in the room when..." referring to OBL killing.. but she did nothing herself, nothing. She just watched with her hand over her mouth. So no, she's not a good leader. She's not even a leader. She's just in charge.
You're the one who used her gender as a reason to vote for her. If you used Obama's skin color as a reason to vote for him, then sure... you did use black as a qualification, at least a qualification for your vote.For the record, people here tried to spin me saying being black was a good thing as me saying being black was a qualification. Its not, but its a plus. Same thing with being a woman. But of course, posters here turn that into LOL YOU"RE VOTING FOR HER BECAUSE SHE HAS A VAGINA. Never change, Spurstalk. Never change.
You mean the same Benghazi that was never bought up during the debates? That one? The truth is that you're the one holding HRC to a lower standard as if she's your grandmother. Secretary of State who loses a ing embassy and lies about the reasoning as a political life preserver isn't someone who has been tortured. You might look to the actual embassy for that one.I get why people have issues with her. Some of it is very legit. But a lot of it isn't. They hold her to a different standard and don't view in the context of decades of GOP witchhunting against her. And thats fine, but after the Bengazi bull , you'll have to excuse me if I cut her a bit of slack for some of the things she's done. I think she'll be an effective governor and a of a better negotiator than Obama. I'm fairly happy with the Obama presidency, but I think she'll actually improve on it.
if we all sold our vote, which one of them would be the highest bidder?
Same. Even a third party vote is a no-go for me as those candidates are absolute as well. I will still vote down ballot, but I'm likely going to leave the POTUS page blank.
Moralizing is a waste of time and delusional. There is no objective basis and it boils down to emotion. To me that is a terrible approach.
A cost benefit analysis is possible to make an intelligent choice. If you come out with little to no difference then fine but as Orwell said moral equivalency always "ends up with half a loaf equalling no bread."
thats ing hilarious!!!!!!
no offense
I completely agree it's a personal choice, and, as such, varies from people to people. I'm not going to berate whoever does/think different on the subject. If you feel comfortable casting that vote, that's fine by me.
small minds discuss people
That certainly was a petty dig if apt. You going cavalier for him is a lovely thing.
What is your take on my ideas about moralizing as a method of choosing a candidate to vote for? Or you just going to fixate on me?
FWIW, it doesn't always has to be moral. I actually mentioned that my opinion is that the "lesser of two evils" principle is morally corrupt. That doesn't automatically mean not voting always has to be based on a moral construct.
I grew up in a country where voting is mandatory, and I actually cherish the new "none of the above" option if I don't like what the candidates have to offer.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
