For the time being. This place moves fast and I'm ridiculously busy at work right now. Well, not right this minute, but you know what I mean.
Well, we know WHY she lost... because she was a dreadful candidate who was the very definition of 'establishment' but that's a different issue to whether it's OK for the russkies to stick their noses into a yank election. I mean, I grant you that means we're in a pot/kettle situation but there we are...
Investors are starting to worry about whether Donald Trump can deliver. But it's not just about him – or healthcare. https://t.co/zM6F2ljxbl— Financial Times (@FT) March 22, 2017 Interesting if the mood of the markets turns
If a screenwriter had someone acting like Nunes in his political thriller, the director would scratch it because the character forces the audience to suspend disbelief. Is this real life? 1. I was talking about the Federalist Papers. 2. You're from Ohio, which has more EVs than most of those coastal states you're bitching about. 3. The idea that dirt should have any political power over people is weird.
For one candidate to have the full force of Russia's Intelligence Service and bot net at its disposal is a pretty huge advantage Kind of gives a lie to trumps lack of ground game Actually he had the biggest and best financed digital operation ever on his team - yet he didn't pay for any of it.
He's be one of those diversionary plot twists - like he's protecting Trump because Putin kidnapped his daughter
She won by 3 points. She would have won by 5 if not for Comey. That's still a poor performance, but if there's one thing we learned in 2016, it's that the swing voter is dead as a factor in presidential politics. Francisco Franco dead.
a pot/kettle situation is spouting establishment talking points (Russia meddling) whilst suggesting that the very problem with team D is that its too establishment. Stuck in a rut.
It's possible he might have done better but it's also true to say he might have done a lot worse... like, a LOT worse because of all the baggage he had. At some point the dems will have to find a candidate who has some of the same policies as him but who isn't towing along a barge of crap he'd said/done before.
people vote on the basis of "what's in it for me". Personality politics isn't as important as you make it out to be. What baggage are you referring to btw.
Well, assuming we're not talking at cross purposes, she also had a decent digital operation and her ground game was obviously vastly superior because that comes down to people 'on the ground', (which is where the name comes from of course), which he didn't have. At the very least she should have been able to match his efforts there apart from the comey and leaks stuff which tilted the balance in the few states he needed. But my point has always been that she should have been ten or more points clear of the clown before that point. As it was it was more in the form of a coronation than an election. Even in the competition with Bernie she, or her backers, cheated which raises the question why did she need to cheat if he was truly that bad. I bet you that cost her as many votes as the other stuff.
Bernie Sanders is John the Baptist to whomever the Dems pick for Jesus in 2020. Yes - I get the irony of this post.
There have been various issues people have raised in these threads over the past year or so. I'm generally a supporter of most of his policies so I'm not the right fella to ask, tbh. Regarding why people vote... it's something of a misnomer that people always vote for their own self-interests. They don't. Their reasons are often quite complex.