Miami Herald: I’m done trying to understand Trump supporters. Why don’t they try to understand me?

[Llevron]

6 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Since we are speaking in hypotheticals, I will say if everything was done again and Biden was on the ticket, I would probably vote D.  I might even vote Hillary if I felt there was a real primary and she won honestly instead of just being the heir apparent.  I don't think the Dem's understand how much that turned off a lot of people.  And if the Left really wants to win, people like me are ones they need to convince.  Pull the fence sitters over to your side.

 

For sure our biggest mistake was running with Clinton. I think almsot anyone else could have beaten trump. I was a burnie bro until I couldn't be anymore anyway. And that whole primary process really turned me off. 

 

But given the option to either do it all again or be forced into Clinton again, I would take Clinton. That was entirely my point. Not that she was a good candidate. 

 

That there are better ways to win was never my point in my first 'I think she would win this time' comment. Of course someone decided to take us off the rails cause hes got that Republican side we dont want to admit to ourselves lol

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

Not the ones you throw at me

 

the ones you throw at trump supporters 

 

So you are just making **** up lol. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, Llevron said:

But given the option to either do it all again or be forced into Clinton again, I would take Clinton.

To each there own.  Nothing wrong with choice.  I just don't view it the same as you.

 

If everyone viewed things the same, things would be boring and there would be no need for elections.

[tshile]

11 minutes ago, visionary said:

I am curious who third party folks would vote for among the Democrats in 2020 excluding those posters who have already said they would never ever support a democrat.  (Though maybe there is a better thread for that?)

 

I don’t follow either party enough to know names. I can’t imagine a scenario where I’d vote for a republican. So my vote is the dems to lose. 

[AJ*]

4 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Since we are speaking in hypotheticals, I will say if everything was done again and Biden was on the ticket, I would probably vote D.  I might even vote Hillary if I felt there was a real primary and she won honestly instead of just being the heir apparent.  I don't think the Dem's understand how much that turned off a lot of people.  And if the Left really wants to win, people like me are ones they need to convince.  Pull the fence sitters over to your side.

Do you mean in the past or going forward?  

 

I'm still surprised anyone was "shocked" by that lol. Hillary was ALWAYS the heir apparent the moment she conceded to Obama in '08. She was supposed to be "the one" in '08 and she had the same machine and advantages that she had in '16. She simply got beat by a better candidate. Bernie could have beaten her just like Obama did because she was still the same lackluster candidate 8 years later. I was a Bernie supporter and to this day I don't know what to make of his campaign and it frustrated the hell out of me that he wouldn't take the gloves off, especially in debates. He couldn't ONCE highlight all the times he had been right where everyone else had been wrong. He stuck with that same message for months even when it got old. He never diversified. When it comes to Bernie I see only two reasons he "lost". One, he was never serious about being President and just wanted to have his message heard and push Hillary away from the center and more to the left. Or two, he ran a **** campaign. I see a little bit of both. 

[AsburySkinsFan]

I think he just wanted to push Hillary. His policies didn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell with a Mitch McConnell led GOP Senate and the insufferable Ryan as Speaker. They’d have stalled everything and paughed at him while they did it. But then I think with Hillary they’d have done the exact same. Both would have been pathetic one termers.

[Llevron]

10 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

To each there own.  Nothing wrong with choice.  I just don't view it the same as you.

 

If everyone viewed things the same, things would be boring and there would be no need for elections.

 

I was never expecting you to so it's cool. I understand your POV honestly I would just do things differently. I don't think you are wrong

[twa]

17 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

John Hickenlooper will gather broad support

 

Broad, but how deep?

[88Comrade2000]

1 hour ago, visionary said:

I am curious who third party folks would vote for among the Democrats in 2020 excluding those posters who have already said they would never ever support a democrat.  (Though maybe there is a better thread for that?)

My default as it has been since 2004 has been Libertarian.

 

It's way to early to know how 2020 will play out.   The Dems can win big, if they nominate the right candidate.  I will definitely be paying attention to the Democratic field.  There could be up to 50 people running. Obviously, some will be running just to get their name out there.   I don't think I can support a Sanderseque type candidate because while what they are proposing sounds nice; how are they going to pay for it?  You can't just tax the Donald Trumps of the world; you will have to tax the regular folks to pay for all that.  

 

Also, could there be a legit third party candidate?   There's room for it.  Whether they could actually win the presidency, seems unlikely.  A strong third party Ross Perot type run; could tip the election one way or another.

 

If John Kasich runs as an independent, I will support him.

 

The Dems could nominate someone who can't win a national election.    I'm not familiar with most of the Democratic field; so I couldn't say if there's a Dem I will support other than maybe Uncle Joe.  If it's Biden vs Trump, I would vote for Biden. Already know, what I'd get from him; though he's too old. If it was Biden vs Kasich vs Trump, I would vote Kasich.

Edited May 6, 2018 by Rdskns2000

[TheGreatBuzz]

^^^^I would say that describes my current position also.  Except I don't identify as Libertarian, though I have been to a few of their meetings and I like them.  At least at the local level, they weren't party first.  They were "what I think is best" first.  There were a few times where I would see a candidate say something in conflict with what the national party said.  But their views were discussed reasonably and respectfully.  And there was no "if you don't support 100% party line, we will disown you".

 

EDIT:  I will also say I think in 2016 Libertarians would have done better (though still not won) if they had flipped the ticket with Weld on top and Johnson as VP.

Edited May 6, 2018 by TheGreatBuzz

[NoCalMike]

Most of the voting population will vote for the same party for their entire lives.  It's just a fact that regardless of how much we might hate the 2 party system on one level, on the other level they still align 75-90% with one set of ideas over the other.  The Parties have survived bad candidates, overwhelming defeats, etc etc etc......maybe if money is removed from the equation that will change, but until then it isn't.

 

So if you go by who votes, it seems to usually be 40% Dems 40% Repubs and the entire campaign season is to sway as many as the leftover 20% as possible, because the other 80% were voting for their party the entire time.

 

The Dems ran into a problem with Hillary as the candidate for tons of reasons already mentioned.  She was likely the only candidate with enough built in mistrust and baggage (warranted or otherwise) that could  make Trump seem appealing to the swing voter and even then, with all of that, Trump effectively won the election by roughly 80k votes spread over 3 battleground states.  

Edited May 6, 2018 by NoCalMike

[PeterMP]

Bernie wouldn't have won.  The African American community was not going to show up for Bernie, who is still having issues figuring out how to connect with the African American community.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/us/politics/bernie-sanders-obama-mississippi.html

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/yes-bernie-sanders-wanted-obama-primaried-in-2012-heres-why/

 

Bernie would have been labeled as a far left socialist that wants to take everybody's money (and he's Jewish and given the racial component of the election would have fed right into Trump's rhetoric).  (In fact, from the right's perspective Bernie is the worse kind of Jew.  He's an anti-Israel Jew.).  While simultaneously not winning the urban areas that Hillary did win to the degree that she did.

Edited May 7, 2018 by PeterMP

[TheGreatBuzz]

I don't think anyone was saying Bernie would have won.

[twa]

This seems to fit here

 

Jonathan Haidt‏Verified account @JonHaidt 1h1 hour ago

More

Summary of new research: A college education seems to make people more tolerant of demographic diversity, but LESS tolerant of political diversity. Relevant to the debate over whether there is a speech problem on campus: https://heterodoxacademy.org/research-summary-education-ideological-prejudice/ …

 

[Riggo-toni]

Maybe because anyone with a brain realizes Trump doesn't have one...

[Bang]

I think if more education is being shown to lead people away from a particular ideology, then those who follow the ideology need to look at that.

Unfortunately, all too often when they do, this does not lead to any sort of introspection or self examination. It leads to the same thing lesser intellects and self centered people always resort to, pointing fingers and blaming everything else, and never entertaining the possibility that the flaw may lie in their ideology..

 

Screaming the education is flawed is exactly the sort of idiocy that would cause smart people to leave, and attracts the morons.

 

~Bang

Edited May 7, 2018 by Bang

[Riggo-toni]

[Fresh8686]

14 minutes ago, Bang said:

I think if more education is being shown to lead people away from a particular ideology, then those who follow the ideology need to look at that.

Unfortunately, all too often when they do, this does not lead to any sort of introspection or self examination. It leads to the same thing lesser intellects and self centered people always resort to, pointing fingers and blaming everything else, and never entertaining the possibility that the flaw may lie in their ideology..

 

Screaming the education is flawed is exactly the sort of idiocy that would cause smart people to leave, and attracts the morons.

 

~Bang

Yup, introspection and self-awareness are often painful and a lot of people are too weak to handle the pain/stress of owning up to their mistakes so they project that stuff onto others.

To change takes effort and discomfort and those people don't want to take that on for a better understanding. That's why there will always be people willing to be conned. They want to believe the lie, it's more comfortable and easier for them, even if it's ultimately hopeless. 
 

[tshile]

1 hour ago, twa said:

This seems to fit here

 

 

Summary of new research: A college education seems to make people more tolerant of demographic diversity, but LESS tolerant of political diversity. Relevant to the debate over whether there is a speech problem on campus: https://heterodoxacademy.org/research-summary-education-ideological-prejudice/ …

 

 

 

Yeah, well that makes perfect sense.

 

When you become more educated on how the world is working and what research supports what, you stop becoming accepting of some of the bad ideas other people have. 

 

The conservatives have been loudly wrong about climate change and economics. They tend to equate Muslim with Terrorist, and use language like "good old days" that pretty much refers to "when white people had all the jobs."

 

Conservative ideas that are based on research and well thought out and constructed ideas are tolerated. It just so happens that's not the majority of conservative ideas right now. 

 

(In fact, I'd point out that a lot of what the GOP masquerades as "conservative ideals" aren't... the GOP doesn't seem to appeal to many true conservatives anymore, and hasn't for a while... you see plenty of us on here saying we appeal to conservative government policies, but can't support whatever the hell the republicans are right now... we're not an anomaly...)

Edited May 7, 2018 by tshile

[Bang]

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Yeah, well that makes perfect sense.

you see plenty of us on here saying we appeal to conservative government policies, but can't support whatever the hell the republicans are right now... we're not an anomaly...)

+1, quoted for HUGE TRUTH.

 

Lots of us alienated by the insanity.

 

~Bang

[Busch1724]

Count me in on the insanity...

[Dan T.]

Objectively speaking, in terms of resume and experience, has there ever been a candidate for President more qualified than Hilary Clinton?

[88Comrade2000]

On 5/6/2018 at 11:01 AM, AsburySkinsFan said:

I think he just wanted to push Hillary. His policies didn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell with a Mitch McConnell led GOP Senate and the insufferable Ryan as Speaker. They’d have stalled everything and paughed at him while they did it. But then I think with Hillary they’d have done the exact same. Both would have been pathetic one termers.

Bernie would never been elected. Hillary would've been impeached and removed before this year's midterms.

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

Objectively speaking, in terms of resume and experience, has there ever been a candidate for President more qualified than Hilary Clinton?

 

In terms of titles on a piece of paper? Wasn't HW Bush pretty qualified? Military, up through CIA, and VP? Seems pretty qualified. That's about as far back as I can go. I'm sure there were others.

 

In terms of analyzing actual performance in duties of said titles on resume.... well... we're not only in disagreement, I don't think either is willing to change their mind. So probably best to leave it at that.

[88Comrade2000]

5 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

Objectively speaking, in terms of resume and experience, has there ever been a candidate for President more qualified than Hilary Clinton?

Papa Bush.

[Dan T.]

George HW Bush definitely.