UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
not really, they managed to get 46% of the vote. dukakis territory.
the 2020 democratic candidate (and VP)
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Obama didn't get enough done when he had the chance according to the consensus.. I supported him. I thought he didn't do enough. Did you think he did enough? Not prosecuting those responsible for the crash? Prosecuting whistleblowers instead? Manning, Snowden, NSA surveillance, torture, etc.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I've said over and over I'd prefer that he had gotten more done. If you listen (ahem, listen) to him he says the same. You listed what you wanted done. Didn't happen. Doesn't mean he didn't make progress. I repeat: the voters of most states in this country installed radical right congressmen that ran against everything Obama tried to accomplish. How does that square with your idea that the radical right were put in power because Obama didn't do enough?
Anyway, here's a vid you might be interested in:
and a link to an interesting article:
http://occupywallst.org/tag/The End of Protest/
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Look at it simply. The account was created a couple months before the election when Buck was betting his account on the election results. The account name is Just in Case (he lost).
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Yes let's do continue this trend. I believe it was @Fogdog that says Libertarians are just former Bernie supporters or something of the like?
Ahem, too funny that.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
All the popular votes you champion came from LA county. Remove LA's popular votes and the state still went to Shillary........ Why do you consider one county as The People? Are you attempting to eliminate state boundaries unknowingly? You are.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
ya see that big ass block in the upper left? the biggest one on the diagram? that's los angeles county in terms of GDP.
ya wanna know the real reason why the small states shouldn't get to tell LA and NYC what to do?
appomattox.
Justin-case
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Nice shot, pretty good for a trailer hermit. Not even close though. Look it up if you like. Libertarians are servants of the radical right..
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
ya see that big ass block in the upper left? the biggest one on the diagram? that's los angeles county in terms of GDP.
ya wanna know the real reason why the small states shouldn't get to tell LA and NYC what to do?
appomattox.
Unless that's per capita then your point is moot as usual.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Not true, but since you brought it up, notice the economic output of red counties vs blue ones.
I guess there's a lot of 'lazy' Republicans, who need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. You know, those who weren't born with a trust fund and haven't done an honest day's work in their whole lives.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
That's what I was looking at, per capita GSP. This makes some interesting anomalies. Lot's of lazy Republicans? Sure, I agree with that.
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
Then why middle class people vote for ultra rich 1% Trump in 3 key states?
I support the most liberal candidate who has an actual chance to win. There's a fine line between your idea of an 'actual progressive' and an 'establishment Democrat'.
Virtually any Democrat will work harder for the middle class and the poor. Until you can accept that, you're helping the other side. You can't tell me that Clinton wouldn't have helped the progressive cause more than Trump. You simply can't have everything you want. Count the house and senate seats. Review the sitting SCOTUS. If you really want to move in a progressive direction, you sometimes have to compromise.
And that's from someone who has been studying elections since 1964, and has 5-7 lifetime record voting in presidential elections. 7 times out of 12 the less progressive candidate (Republican) won. And there's also the very strong shift to the right since 1980 to deal with, and the current severe political polarization.
You can cherry pick your best selection for a progressive candidate. After that, they have to win. After that, they have to pass their agenda through the house and senate.
Tell the truth, if Bernie had just won the presidential election, how much of his agenda would get through congress in your opinion? I supported Sanders in the primary on fundamental liberal principle. But I knew he would get nothing but obstruction if he won.
Realistically speaking, some of your ideas are likely 20 years into the future, and then only if they are informed voters in the future who don't buy into fake news. I certainly wish you luck, but the right is pretty fucking sneaky. Expect a lifelong struggle with political set backs. That's what I've experienced. A 5-7 presidential voting record sucks. (It was 7-5 in direct popular vote which sucks even more.)
ArcticGranite
Well-Known Member
Go with Warren/Ellison. Put it out there loud and proud. Just see how far left and how fast this nation wants to progress.
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
And that will be largely determined by how much Trump is hated over the next 4 years. Any Democrat could win in 2020 if Trump doesn't respect the office.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
The democratic party has been particularly bad in local and state elections, which tells me they're even more out of touch with the desires of the electorate than they think they are.
The Chump will polarize this country and I firmly believe he'll represent the end of the pendulum swing to the right that we've been witness to since 1980.
It remains to be seen how long it will take for the democratic party to realize who its constituents are, effectively make a case to gain their votes and take back state legislatures, mayorships, governor's offices and local and county commissioners.
My bet is that as long as they're seen to be just as corrupt in taking bribes from corporatism and the rich, they'll have a very tough time. After all, Mr Sanders proved they can do it without such blandishments from the economic elite.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Republicans are worse. Clinton balanced the budget. Actually ran a surplus for a year or two. Bush II balooned the debt and Obama reduced the deficit his last years in office. Trump's plans to cut taxes and raise spending is going to make Bush II look like a spendthrift.
Where do you get your information? Limbaugh?
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
Lol, when it's at 29 trillion after Trump's first term you'll be saying how important it was to increase the debt ceiling because you're a dumb fucking Republi-cuck.
Let's face it, Obama wasn't allowed spend money to fix the economy (after Bush) because he's black, when it's a white guy who wants to go mad (for the sake of it) with the credit card it's a-OK.