|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 21 2016 08:32 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 08:23 Dan HH wrote:On September 21 2016 08:13 biology]major wrote:
Trump has played everyone to the highest extent, perhaps unintentionally because of the extreme circumstances, but the end result is the same. In the debates all he has to do is not be a complete buffoon and he will get an A+, meanwhile HRC will have to impress with some new and effective policies we haven't heard before to get the same effect. The expectations are drastically different, yet the polls are even which means trump is heavily favored before the debates even begin.
Just for good measure, he will discredit the moderators/mainstream media to cover in case he appears poorly in any of the debates. I don't see him being negatively impacted unless he really screws it up.
Case in point: Trump goes to mexico, stands there and smiles, poll numbers go up. Poll numbers did not go up after the Mexico visit I was under the impression that they did, but either way I would argue that he looked good doing it, meaning the expectations for trump from the population are extremely low. However these expectations don't line up with the polls, basically showing a even race so HRC is gonna have to bring her absolute best, while trump can just keep his cool.
The Mexico visit was misattributed by some Trump supporters with a rise in the polls that started weeks before the visit and pretty much ended by the time polls from after the visit+Arizona speech were coming in. It only picked up steam again after the deplorables+feinting combo. I checked the difference several days after when someone else brought this up but I'm too lazy to search for that post with the findings now.
On September 21 2016 08:41 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 08:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Hillary Clinton is having a harder time beating Donald Trump than she bargained for. According to a recent poll, a staggering 44% of millennials say they’ll be voting for either Green party candidate Jill Stein or Libertarian Gary Johnson. The chief reason for Clinton’s dip in these polls is not – as Barack Obama claimed on Sunday – that she’s a woman (though sexism does have a lot to answer for). It’s because Clinton has assumed a third of the electorate – millennials – would vote for her out of fear of her opponent.
Simply put, we want more.
Millennials are the generation that has occupied Wall Street, shut down bridges for black lives and chained ourselves to the White House fence to stop the Keystone XL pipeline. Disillusioned by Obama’s embrace of war and austerity alike – especially after knocking on doors to get him elected – we know better than to put blind faith in any candidate for the Oval Office.
What Clinton can do now is prove that she’s listening. Doing so could bear fruit in the polls, but only if she shows she’s willing to part ways with her billionaire friends and push for policies that are in line with what millennials really want.
Since the Democratic national convention, Clinton and Trump have peddled their own politics of fear. Hers: of an ascendant far-right. His: of immigrants and the prospect of a truly multi-racial democracy. If Bernie Sanders’ primary campaign showed anything, though, it’s that young Americans are eager to vote for something – not against it.
Laying out plans for single-payer healthcare and a $15 minimum wage, Sanders beat Clinton among millennials in each one of the 27 states where they faced off in the primaries. And he might still be the most popular politician in the US today.
At a time when Americans across the political spectrum are turning against the status quo, Clinton seems to be embracing it. She spent weeks in August wooing millionaire donors in Silicon Valley and Martha’s Vineyard, and has chased endorsements from Bush-era official and war criminals like Henry Kissinger. It’s out of frustration that millennials will register protest votes, not ignorance.
Make no mistake: a vote for either Jill Stein or Gary Johnson in a swing state is a vote for Trump, and could land the US in a situation more dangerous and unstable than any it has known yet. Clinton is this country’s best hope right now. Especially if we want to avoid a future defined by hostility towards immigrants and people of color, the near certainty of catastrophic global warming and a disastrous economic plan ripped straight from the Tea Party’s playbook.
But making sure that painful, hate-filled future never comes to pass is up to the Clinton campaign now, and its ability to make an earnest and heartfelt appeal to the future of the Democratic party.
So what is it that millennials actually want? Around 70% favor wealth redistribution, one Gallup poll found, and many are eager to avoid six-figure debt for things like education and routine visits to the doctor’s office. The Movement for Black Lives released a detailed policy agenda this summer with plenty of ideas for senior Clinton staffers, and round-the-clock protests against the Dakota Access pipeline should give them a sense for where young Americans stand on new fossil fuel infrastructure and violations of indigenous rights. Source + Show Spoiler [short rant] +The more I read these self-righteous, I'm-so-idealistic posts the less faith I have in my generation. Do these people not know that Clinton has pushed for most of the things they want in some for another her entire career? And maybe that some of the things they want are actually pretty stupid or unimplementable, and there's a reason a politician who is by most reasonable standards somewhere between very and pretty liberal doesn't support some particular initiatives like banning fracking or Medicare for all? Do they not understand how the incredibly flawed world we live in works?
A lot of them refuse to vote for Clinton out of principle, so the fact that out of the 4 candidates she's probably closest to their views is excluded from the equation. While I can understand that, I do have a feeling that if Trump wins they'll be the ones whining the loudest about what it entails.
|
On September 21 2016 09:01 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 08:32 biology]major wrote:On September 21 2016 08:23 Dan HH wrote:On September 21 2016 08:13 biology]major wrote:
Trump has played everyone to the highest extent, perhaps unintentionally because of the extreme circumstances, but the end result is the same. In the debates all he has to do is not be a complete buffoon and he will get an A+, meanwhile HRC will have to impress with some new and effective policies we haven't heard before to get the same effect. The expectations are drastically different, yet the polls are even which means trump is heavily favored before the debates even begin.
Just for good measure, he will discredit the moderators/mainstream media to cover in case he appears poorly in any of the debates. I don't see him being negatively impacted unless he really screws it up.
Case in point: Trump goes to mexico, stands there and smiles, poll numbers go up. Poll numbers did not go up after the Mexico visit I was under the impression that they did, but either way I would argue that he looked good doing it, meaning the expectations for trump from the population are extremely low. However these expectations don't line up with the polls, basically showing a even race so HRC is gonna have to bring her absolute best, while trump can just keep his cool. The Mexico visit was misattributed by some Trump supporters with a rise in the polls that started weeks before the visit and pretty much ended by the time polls from after the visit+Arizona speech were coming in. It only picked up steam again after the deplorables+feinting combo. I checked the difference several days after when someone else brought this up but I'm too lazy to search for that post with the findings now. Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 08:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 21 2016 08:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Hillary Clinton is having a harder time beating Donald Trump than she bargained for. According to a recent poll, a staggering 44% of millennials say they’ll be voting for either Green party candidate Jill Stein or Libertarian Gary Johnson. The chief reason for Clinton’s dip in these polls is not – as Barack Obama claimed on Sunday – that she’s a woman (though sexism does have a lot to answer for). It’s because Clinton has assumed a third of the electorate – millennials – would vote for her out of fear of her opponent.
Simply put, we want more.
Millennials are the generation that has occupied Wall Street, shut down bridges for black lives and chained ourselves to the White House fence to stop the Keystone XL pipeline. Disillusioned by Obama’s embrace of war and austerity alike – especially after knocking on doors to get him elected – we know better than to put blind faith in any candidate for the Oval Office.
What Clinton can do now is prove that she’s listening. Doing so could bear fruit in the polls, but only if she shows she’s willing to part ways with her billionaire friends and push for policies that are in line with what millennials really want.
Since the Democratic national convention, Clinton and Trump have peddled their own politics of fear. Hers: of an ascendant far-right. His: of immigrants and the prospect of a truly multi-racial democracy. If Bernie Sanders’ primary campaign showed anything, though, it’s that young Americans are eager to vote for something – not against it.
Laying out plans for single-payer healthcare and a $15 minimum wage, Sanders beat Clinton among millennials in each one of the 27 states where they faced off in the primaries. And he might still be the most popular politician in the US today.
At a time when Americans across the political spectrum are turning against the status quo, Clinton seems to be embracing it. She spent weeks in August wooing millionaire donors in Silicon Valley and Martha’s Vineyard, and has chased endorsements from Bush-era official and war criminals like Henry Kissinger. It’s out of frustration that millennials will register protest votes, not ignorance.
Make no mistake: a vote for either Jill Stein or Gary Johnson in a swing state is a vote for Trump, and could land the US in a situation more dangerous and unstable than any it has known yet. Clinton is this country’s best hope right now. Especially if we want to avoid a future defined by hostility towards immigrants and people of color, the near certainty of catastrophic global warming and a disastrous economic plan ripped straight from the Tea Party’s playbook.
But making sure that painful, hate-filled future never comes to pass is up to the Clinton campaign now, and its ability to make an earnest and heartfelt appeal to the future of the Democratic party.
So what is it that millennials actually want? Around 70% favor wealth redistribution, one Gallup poll found, and many are eager to avoid six-figure debt for things like education and routine visits to the doctor’s office. The Movement for Black Lives released a detailed policy agenda this summer with plenty of ideas for senior Clinton staffers, and round-the-clock protests against the Dakota Access pipeline should give them a sense for where young Americans stand on new fossil fuel infrastructure and violations of indigenous rights. Source + Show Spoiler [short rant] +The more I read these self-righteous, I'm-so-idealistic posts the less faith I have in my generation. Do these people not know that Clinton has pushed for most of the things they want in some for another her entire career? And maybe that some of the things they want are actually pretty stupid or unimplementable, and there's a reason a politician who is by most reasonable standards somewhere between very and pretty liberal doesn't support some particular initiatives like banning fracking or Medicare for all? Do they not understand how the incredibly flawed world we live in works?
A lot of them refuse to vote for Clinton out of principle, so the fact that out of the 4 candidates she's probably closest to their views is excluded from the equation. While I can understand that, I do have a feeling that if Trump wins they'll be the ones whining the loudest about what it entails.
What exactly are the specific principles that are at play? It is a rather unspecific reason to cite.
|
barrin -> i'll take that to mean you agree with me; as it's not like what they were doing was introducing a healthy distrust of the media.
|
On September 21 2016 09:06 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 09:01 Dan HH wrote:On September 21 2016 08:32 biology]major wrote:On September 21 2016 08:23 Dan HH wrote:On September 21 2016 08:13 biology]major wrote:
Trump has played everyone to the highest extent, perhaps unintentionally because of the extreme circumstances, but the end result is the same. In the debates all he has to do is not be a complete buffoon and he will get an A+, meanwhile HRC will have to impress with some new and effective policies we haven't heard before to get the same effect. The expectations are drastically different, yet the polls are even which means trump is heavily favored before the debates even begin.
Just for good measure, he will discredit the moderators/mainstream media to cover in case he appears poorly in any of the debates. I don't see him being negatively impacted unless he really screws it up.
Case in point: Trump goes to mexico, stands there and smiles, poll numbers go up. Poll numbers did not go up after the Mexico visit I was under the impression that they did, but either way I would argue that he looked good doing it, meaning the expectations for trump from the population are extremely low. However these expectations don't line up with the polls, basically showing a even race so HRC is gonna have to bring her absolute best, while trump can just keep his cool. The Mexico visit was misattributed by some Trump supporters with a rise in the polls that started weeks before the visit and pretty much ended by the time polls from after the visit+Arizona speech were coming in. It only picked up steam again after the deplorables+feinting combo. I checked the difference several days after when someone else brought this up but I'm too lazy to search for that post with the findings now. On September 21 2016 08:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 21 2016 08:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Hillary Clinton is having a harder time beating Donald Trump than she bargained for. According to a recent poll, a staggering 44% of millennials say they’ll be voting for either Green party candidate Jill Stein or Libertarian Gary Johnson. The chief reason for Clinton’s dip in these polls is not – as Barack Obama claimed on Sunday – that she’s a woman (though sexism does have a lot to answer for). It’s because Clinton has assumed a third of the electorate – millennials – would vote for her out of fear of her opponent.
Simply put, we want more.
Millennials are the generation that has occupied Wall Street, shut down bridges for black lives and chained ourselves to the White House fence to stop the Keystone XL pipeline. Disillusioned by Obama’s embrace of war and austerity alike – especially after knocking on doors to get him elected – we know better than to put blind faith in any candidate for the Oval Office.
What Clinton can do now is prove that she’s listening. Doing so could bear fruit in the polls, but only if she shows she’s willing to part ways with her billionaire friends and push for policies that are in line with what millennials really want.
Since the Democratic national convention, Clinton and Trump have peddled their own politics of fear. Hers: of an ascendant far-right. His: of immigrants and the prospect of a truly multi-racial democracy. If Bernie Sanders’ primary campaign showed anything, though, it’s that young Americans are eager to vote for something – not against it.
Laying out plans for single-payer healthcare and a $15 minimum wage, Sanders beat Clinton among millennials in each one of the 27 states where they faced off in the primaries. And he might still be the most popular politician in the US today.
At a time when Americans across the political spectrum are turning against the status quo, Clinton seems to be embracing it. She spent weeks in August wooing millionaire donors in Silicon Valley and Martha’s Vineyard, and has chased endorsements from Bush-era official and war criminals like Henry Kissinger. It’s out of frustration that millennials will register protest votes, not ignorance.
Make no mistake: a vote for either Jill Stein or Gary Johnson in a swing state is a vote for Trump, and could land the US in a situation more dangerous and unstable than any it has known yet. Clinton is this country’s best hope right now. Especially if we want to avoid a future defined by hostility towards immigrants and people of color, the near certainty of catastrophic global warming and a disastrous economic plan ripped straight from the Tea Party’s playbook.
But making sure that painful, hate-filled future never comes to pass is up to the Clinton campaign now, and its ability to make an earnest and heartfelt appeal to the future of the Democratic party.
So what is it that millennials actually want? Around 70% favor wealth redistribution, one Gallup poll found, and many are eager to avoid six-figure debt for things like education and routine visits to the doctor’s office. The Movement for Black Lives released a detailed policy agenda this summer with plenty of ideas for senior Clinton staffers, and round-the-clock protests against the Dakota Access pipeline should give them a sense for where young Americans stand on new fossil fuel infrastructure and violations of indigenous rights. Source + Show Spoiler [short rant] +The more I read these self-righteous, I'm-so-idealistic posts the less faith I have in my generation. Do these people not know that Clinton has pushed for most of the things they want in some for another her entire career? And maybe that some of the things they want are actually pretty stupid or unimplementable, and there's a reason a politician who is by most reasonable standards somewhere between very and pretty liberal doesn't support some particular initiatives like banning fracking or Medicare for all? Do they not understand how the incredibly flawed world we live in works?
A lot of them refuse to vote for Clinton out of principle, so the fact that out of the 4 candidates she's probably closest to their views is excluded from the equation. While I can understand that, I do have a feeling that if Trump wins they'll be the ones whining the loudest about what it entails. What exactly are the specific principles that are at play? It is a rather unspecific reason to cite.
is that a serious question?
|
On September 21 2016 08:41 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 08:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Hillary Clinton is having a harder time beating Donald Trump than she bargained for. According to a recent poll, a staggering 44% of millennials say they’ll be voting for either Green party candidate Jill Stein or Libertarian Gary Johnson. The chief reason for Clinton’s dip in these polls is not – as Barack Obama claimed on Sunday – that she’s a woman (though sexism does have a lot to answer for). It’s because Clinton has assumed a third of the electorate – millennials – would vote for her out of fear of her opponent.
Simply put, we want more.
Millennials are the generation that has occupied Wall Street, shut down bridges for black lives and chained ourselves to the White House fence to stop the Keystone XL pipeline. Disillusioned by Obama’s embrace of war and austerity alike – especially after knocking on doors to get him elected – we know better than to put blind faith in any candidate for the Oval Office.
What Clinton can do now is prove that she’s listening. Doing so could bear fruit in the polls, but only if she shows she’s willing to part ways with her billionaire friends and push for policies that are in line with what millennials really want.
Since the Democratic national convention, Clinton and Trump have peddled their own politics of fear. Hers: of an ascendant far-right. His: of immigrants and the prospect of a truly multi-racial democracy. If Bernie Sanders’ primary campaign showed anything, though, it’s that young Americans are eager to vote for something – not against it.
Laying out plans for single-payer healthcare and a $15 minimum wage, Sanders beat Clinton among millennials in each one of the 27 states where they faced off in the primaries. And he might still be the most popular politician in the US today.
At a time when Americans across the political spectrum are turning against the status quo, Clinton seems to be embracing it. She spent weeks in August wooing millionaire donors in Silicon Valley and Martha’s Vineyard, and has chased endorsements from Bush-era official and war criminals like Henry Kissinger. It’s out of frustration that millennials will register protest votes, not ignorance.
Make no mistake: a vote for either Jill Stein or Gary Johnson in a swing state is a vote for Trump, and could land the US in a situation more dangerous and unstable than any it has known yet. Clinton is this country’s best hope right now. Especially if we want to avoid a future defined by hostility towards immigrants and people of color, the near certainty of catastrophic global warming and a disastrous economic plan ripped straight from the Tea Party’s playbook.
But making sure that painful, hate-filled future never comes to pass is up to the Clinton campaign now, and its ability to make an earnest and heartfelt appeal to the future of the Democratic party.
So what is it that millennials actually want? Around 70% favor wealth redistribution, one Gallup poll found, and many are eager to avoid six-figure debt for things like education and routine visits to the doctor’s office. The Movement for Black Lives released a detailed policy agenda this summer with plenty of ideas for senior Clinton staffers, and round-the-clock protests against the Dakota Access pipeline should give them a sense for where young Americans stand on new fossil fuel infrastructure and violations of indigenous rights. Source + Show Spoiler [short rant] +The more I read these self-righteous, I'm-so-idealistic posts the less faith I have in my generation. Do these people not know that Clinton has pushed for most of the things they want in some for another her entire career? And maybe that some of the things they want are actually pretty stupid or unimplementable, and there's a reason a politician who is by most reasonable standards somewhere between very and pretty liberal doesn't support some particular initiatives like banning fracking or Medicare for all? Do they not understand how the incredibly flawed world we live in works?
I don't think they are aware of that at all, or clearly don't care. Heck, even Bernie has said this- that his supporters should get behind Hillary because of similar philosophies and policies- and way too many of them just don't give a shit. Anecdotally speaking, every Trump supporter I know is voting for him because he's "not Hillary", and every Stein or Johnson supporter I know is voting for them because Hillary "stole" the election from Bernie, who they had originally wanted to vote for. They'd rather screw over the country with their temper tantrum, and cut off their nose (and cut out their brain?) just to spite their face.
|
On September 21 2016 09:07 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 09:06 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 21 2016 09:01 Dan HH wrote:On September 21 2016 08:32 biology]major wrote:On September 21 2016 08:23 Dan HH wrote:On September 21 2016 08:13 biology]major wrote:
Trump has played everyone to the highest extent, perhaps unintentionally because of the extreme circumstances, but the end result is the same. In the debates all he has to do is not be a complete buffoon and he will get an A+, meanwhile HRC will have to impress with some new and effective policies we haven't heard before to get the same effect. The expectations are drastically different, yet the polls are even which means trump is heavily favored before the debates even begin.
Just for good measure, he will discredit the moderators/mainstream media to cover in case he appears poorly in any of the debates. I don't see him being negatively impacted unless he really screws it up.
Case in point: Trump goes to mexico, stands there and smiles, poll numbers go up. Poll numbers did not go up after the Mexico visit I was under the impression that they did, but either way I would argue that he looked good doing it, meaning the expectations for trump from the population are extremely low. However these expectations don't line up with the polls, basically showing a even race so HRC is gonna have to bring her absolute best, while trump can just keep his cool. The Mexico visit was misattributed by some Trump supporters with a rise in the polls that started weeks before the visit and pretty much ended by the time polls from after the visit+Arizona speech were coming in. It only picked up steam again after the deplorables+feinting combo. I checked the difference several days after when someone else brought this up but I'm too lazy to search for that post with the findings now. On September 21 2016 08:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 21 2016 08:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Hillary Clinton is having a harder time beating Donald Trump than she bargained for. According to a recent poll, a staggering 44% of millennials say they’ll be voting for either Green party candidate Jill Stein or Libertarian Gary Johnson. The chief reason for Clinton’s dip in these polls is not – as Barack Obama claimed on Sunday – that she’s a woman (though sexism does have a lot to answer for). It’s because Clinton has assumed a third of the electorate – millennials – would vote for her out of fear of her opponent.
Simply put, we want more.
Millennials are the generation that has occupied Wall Street, shut down bridges for black lives and chained ourselves to the White House fence to stop the Keystone XL pipeline. Disillusioned by Obama’s embrace of war and austerity alike – especially after knocking on doors to get him elected – we know better than to put blind faith in any candidate for the Oval Office.
What Clinton can do now is prove that she’s listening. Doing so could bear fruit in the polls, but only if she shows she’s willing to part ways with her billionaire friends and push for policies that are in line with what millennials really want.
Since the Democratic national convention, Clinton and Trump have peddled their own politics of fear. Hers: of an ascendant far-right. His: of immigrants and the prospect of a truly multi-racial democracy. If Bernie Sanders’ primary campaign showed anything, though, it’s that young Americans are eager to vote for something – not against it.
Laying out plans for single-payer healthcare and a $15 minimum wage, Sanders beat Clinton among millennials in each one of the 27 states where they faced off in the primaries. And he might still be the most popular politician in the US today.
At a time when Americans across the political spectrum are turning against the status quo, Clinton seems to be embracing it. She spent weeks in August wooing millionaire donors in Silicon Valley and Martha’s Vineyard, and has chased endorsements from Bush-era official and war criminals like Henry Kissinger. It’s out of frustration that millennials will register protest votes, not ignorance.
Make no mistake: a vote for either Jill Stein or Gary Johnson in a swing state is a vote for Trump, and could land the US in a situation more dangerous and unstable than any it has known yet. Clinton is this country’s best hope right now. Especially if we want to avoid a future defined by hostility towards immigrants and people of color, the near certainty of catastrophic global warming and a disastrous economic plan ripped straight from the Tea Party’s playbook.
But making sure that painful, hate-filled future never comes to pass is up to the Clinton campaign now, and its ability to make an earnest and heartfelt appeal to the future of the Democratic party.
So what is it that millennials actually want? Around 70% favor wealth redistribution, one Gallup poll found, and many are eager to avoid six-figure debt for things like education and routine visits to the doctor’s office. The Movement for Black Lives released a detailed policy agenda this summer with plenty of ideas for senior Clinton staffers, and round-the-clock protests against the Dakota Access pipeline should give them a sense for where young Americans stand on new fossil fuel infrastructure and violations of indigenous rights. Source + Show Spoiler [short rant] +The more I read these self-righteous, I'm-so-idealistic posts the less faith I have in my generation. Do these people not know that Clinton has pushed for most of the things they want in some for another her entire career? And maybe that some of the things they want are actually pretty stupid or unimplementable, and there's a reason a politician who is by most reasonable standards somewhere between very and pretty liberal doesn't support some particular initiatives like banning fracking or Medicare for all? Do they not understand how the incredibly flawed world we live in works?
A lot of them refuse to vote for Clinton out of principle, so the fact that out of the 4 candidates she's probably closest to their views is excluded from the equation. While I can understand that, I do have a feeling that if Trump wins they'll be the ones whining the loudest about what it entails. What exactly are the specific principles that are at play? It is a rather unspecific reason to cite. is that a serious question?
Citing principles is the same as saying "cuz reasons". In some sense it's claiming the moral high ground, but how exactly so? Oftentimes I hear "I won't vote for a corrupt [citation needed] candidate". But about the principle of standing up against bigotry? Standing up for science? Standing up in favor of actual progress? Are those not principles as well?
|
|
|
On September 21 2016 09:01 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 08:32 biology]major wrote:On September 21 2016 08:23 Dan HH wrote:On September 21 2016 08:13 biology]major wrote:
Trump has played everyone to the highest extent, perhaps unintentionally because of the extreme circumstances, but the end result is the same. In the debates all he has to do is not be a complete buffoon and he will get an A+, meanwhile HRC will have to impress with some new and effective policies we haven't heard before to get the same effect. The expectations are drastically different, yet the polls are even which means trump is heavily favored before the debates even begin.
Just for good measure, he will discredit the moderators/mainstream media to cover in case he appears poorly in any of the debates. I don't see him being negatively impacted unless he really screws it up.
Case in point: Trump goes to mexico, stands there and smiles, poll numbers go up. Poll numbers did not go up after the Mexico visit I was under the impression that they did, but either way I would argue that he looked good doing it, meaning the expectations for trump from the population are extremely low. However these expectations don't line up with the polls, basically showing a even race so HRC is gonna have to bring her absolute best, while trump can just keep his cool. The Mexico visit was misattributed by some Trump supporters with a rise in the polls that started weeks before the visit and pretty much ended by the time polls from after the visit+Arizona speech were coming in. It only picked up steam again after the deplorables+feinting combo. I checked the difference several days after when someone else brought this up but I'm too lazy to search for that post with the findings now. Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 08:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 21 2016 08:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Hillary Clinton is having a harder time beating Donald Trump than she bargained for. According to a recent poll, a staggering 44% of millennials say they’ll be voting for either Green party candidate Jill Stein or Libertarian Gary Johnson. The chief reason for Clinton’s dip in these polls is not – as Barack Obama claimed on Sunday – that she’s a woman (though sexism does have a lot to answer for). It’s because Clinton has assumed a third of the electorate – millennials – would vote for her out of fear of her opponent.
Simply put, we want more.
Millennials are the generation that has occupied Wall Street, shut down bridges for black lives and chained ourselves to the White House fence to stop the Keystone XL pipeline. Disillusioned by Obama’s embrace of war and austerity alike – especially after knocking on doors to get him elected – we know better than to put blind faith in any candidate for the Oval Office.
What Clinton can do now is prove that she’s listening. Doing so could bear fruit in the polls, but only if she shows she’s willing to part ways with her billionaire friends and push for policies that are in line with what millennials really want.
Since the Democratic national convention, Clinton and Trump have peddled their own politics of fear. Hers: of an ascendant far-right. His: of immigrants and the prospect of a truly multi-racial democracy. If Bernie Sanders’ primary campaign showed anything, though, it’s that young Americans are eager to vote for something – not against it.
Laying out plans for single-payer healthcare and a $15 minimum wage, Sanders beat Clinton among millennials in each one of the 27 states where they faced off in the primaries. And he might still be the most popular politician in the US today.
At a time when Americans across the political spectrum are turning against the status quo, Clinton seems to be embracing it. She spent weeks in August wooing millionaire donors in Silicon Valley and Martha’s Vineyard, and has chased endorsements from Bush-era official and war criminals like Henry Kissinger. It’s out of frustration that millennials will register protest votes, not ignorance.
Make no mistake: a vote for either Jill Stein or Gary Johnson in a swing state is a vote for Trump, and could land the US in a situation more dangerous and unstable than any it has known yet. Clinton is this country’s best hope right now. Especially if we want to avoid a future defined by hostility towards immigrants and people of color, the near certainty of catastrophic global warming and a disastrous economic plan ripped straight from the Tea Party’s playbook.
But making sure that painful, hate-filled future never comes to pass is up to the Clinton campaign now, and its ability to make an earnest and heartfelt appeal to the future of the Democratic party.
So what is it that millennials actually want? Around 70% favor wealth redistribution, one Gallup poll found, and many are eager to avoid six-figure debt for things like education and routine visits to the doctor’s office. The Movement for Black Lives released a detailed policy agenda this summer with plenty of ideas for senior Clinton staffers, and round-the-clock protests against the Dakota Access pipeline should give them a sense for where young Americans stand on new fossil fuel infrastructure and violations of indigenous rights. Source + Show Spoiler [short rant] +The more I read these self-righteous, I'm-so-idealistic posts the less faith I have in my generation. Do these people not know that Clinton has pushed for most of the things they want in some for another her entire career? And maybe that some of the things they want are actually pretty stupid or unimplementable, and there's a reason a politician who is by most reasonable standards somewhere between very and pretty liberal doesn't support some particular initiatives like banning fracking or Medicare for all? Do they not understand how the incredibly flawed world we live in works?
A lot of them refuse to vote for Clinton out of principle, so the fact that out of the 4 candidates she's probably closest to their views is excluded from the equation. While I can understand that, I do have a feeling that if Trump wins they'll be the ones whining the loudest about what it entails.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now
not actually poll numbers but chances to win according to them and I found articles about the mexican president disputing trump from the 1st, so mexico trip was either the aug-31st or sep-1st if my memory of that happening a day later is correct. Anyways depending on how you look at it you can probably argue a lot.
It doesn't really look any different than his trend before imo but does dip down quite some about a week later, in fact, pretty much the only time he didn't go up. And polls probably don't happen 24/7 in every state so idk at what time you'd see the influence of that in there...
@whoever took Trump to win at 1/3 odds. Like I said, those odds were massive and I would have instantly taken them as well. It basicly came down to a coinflip in the last couple weeks. With nothing on the horizon that makes it look like Clinton catching up again either.
|
|
|
The smug, condescending, "we don't need your vote anyways" attitude that Hillary's supporters took after the primary was near the end really didn't help.
|
On September 21 2016 09:10 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 09:07 biology]major wrote:On September 21 2016 09:06 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 21 2016 09:01 Dan HH wrote:On September 21 2016 08:32 biology]major wrote:On September 21 2016 08:23 Dan HH wrote:On September 21 2016 08:13 biology]major wrote:
Trump has played everyone to the highest extent, perhaps unintentionally because of the extreme circumstances, but the end result is the same. In the debates all he has to do is not be a complete buffoon and he will get an A+, meanwhile HRC will have to impress with some new and effective policies we haven't heard before to get the same effect. The expectations are drastically different, yet the polls are even which means trump is heavily favored before the debates even begin.
Just for good measure, he will discredit the moderators/mainstream media to cover in case he appears poorly in any of the debates. I don't see him being negatively impacted unless he really screws it up.
Case in point: Trump goes to mexico, stands there and smiles, poll numbers go up. Poll numbers did not go up after the Mexico visit I was under the impression that they did, but either way I would argue that he looked good doing it, meaning the expectations for trump from the population are extremely low. However these expectations don't line up with the polls, basically showing a even race so HRC is gonna have to bring her absolute best, while trump can just keep his cool. The Mexico visit was misattributed by some Trump supporters with a rise in the polls that started weeks before the visit and pretty much ended by the time polls from after the visit+Arizona speech were coming in. It only picked up steam again after the deplorables+feinting combo. I checked the difference several days after when someone else brought this up but I'm too lazy to search for that post with the findings now. On September 21 2016 08:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 21 2016 08:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Hillary Clinton is having a harder time beating Donald Trump than she bargained for. According to a recent poll, a staggering 44% of millennials say they’ll be voting for either Green party candidate Jill Stein or Libertarian Gary Johnson. The chief reason for Clinton’s dip in these polls is not – as Barack Obama claimed on Sunday – that she’s a woman (though sexism does have a lot to answer for). It’s because Clinton has assumed a third of the electorate – millennials – would vote for her out of fear of her opponent.
Simply put, we want more.
Millennials are the generation that has occupied Wall Street, shut down bridges for black lives and chained ourselves to the White House fence to stop the Keystone XL pipeline. Disillusioned by Obama’s embrace of war and austerity alike – especially after knocking on doors to get him elected – we know better than to put blind faith in any candidate for the Oval Office.
What Clinton can do now is prove that she’s listening. Doing so could bear fruit in the polls, but only if she shows she’s willing to part ways with her billionaire friends and push for policies that are in line with what millennials really want.
Since the Democratic national convention, Clinton and Trump have peddled their own politics of fear. Hers: of an ascendant far-right. His: of immigrants and the prospect of a truly multi-racial democracy. If Bernie Sanders’ primary campaign showed anything, though, it’s that young Americans are eager to vote for something – not against it.
Laying out plans for single-payer healthcare and a $15 minimum wage, Sanders beat Clinton among millennials in each one of the 27 states where they faced off in the primaries. And he might still be the most popular politician in the US today.
At a time when Americans across the political spectrum are turning against the status quo, Clinton seems to be embracing it. She spent weeks in August wooing millionaire donors in Silicon Valley and Martha’s Vineyard, and has chased endorsements from Bush-era official and war criminals like Henry Kissinger. It’s out of frustration that millennials will register protest votes, not ignorance.
Make no mistake: a vote for either Jill Stein or Gary Johnson in a swing state is a vote for Trump, and could land the US in a situation more dangerous and unstable than any it has known yet. Clinton is this country’s best hope right now. Especially if we want to avoid a future defined by hostility towards immigrants and people of color, the near certainty of catastrophic global warming and a disastrous economic plan ripped straight from the Tea Party’s playbook.
But making sure that painful, hate-filled future never comes to pass is up to the Clinton campaign now, and its ability to make an earnest and heartfelt appeal to the future of the Democratic party.
So what is it that millennials actually want? Around 70% favor wealth redistribution, one Gallup poll found, and many are eager to avoid six-figure debt for things like education and routine visits to the doctor’s office. The Movement for Black Lives released a detailed policy agenda this summer with plenty of ideas for senior Clinton staffers, and round-the-clock protests against the Dakota Access pipeline should give them a sense for where young Americans stand on new fossil fuel infrastructure and violations of indigenous rights. Source + Show Spoiler [short rant] +The more I read these self-righteous, I'm-so-idealistic posts the less faith I have in my generation. Do these people not know that Clinton has pushed for most of the things they want in some for another her entire career? And maybe that some of the things they want are actually pretty stupid or unimplementable, and there's a reason a politician who is by most reasonable standards somewhere between very and pretty liberal doesn't support some particular initiatives like banning fracking or Medicare for all? Do they not understand how the incredibly flawed world we live in works?
A lot of them refuse to vote for Clinton out of principle, so the fact that out of the 4 candidates she's probably closest to their views is excluded from the equation. While I can understand that, I do have a feeling that if Trump wins they'll be the ones whining the loudest about what it entails. What exactly are the specific principles that are at play? It is a rather unspecific reason to cite. is that a serious question? Citing principles is the same as saying "cuz reasons". In some sense it's claiming the moral high ground, but how exactly so? Oftentimes I hear "I won't vote for a corrupt [citation needed] candidate". But about the principle of standing up against bigotry? Standing up for science? Standing up in favor of actual progress? Are those not principles as well?
fairness is one of the core principles that almost everyone can agree with. Your "principles" are more or less your opinions.
|
On September 21 2016 09:17 Nevuk wrote:
The smug, condescending, "we don't need your vote anyways" attitude that Hillary's supporters took after the primary was near the end really didn't help.
The smugness was all around. The hissy fit the CA sanders supporters threw to get kicked out of the convention really did nothing to endear them to anyone.
|
On September 21 2016 09:17 Nevuk wrote:
The smug, condescending, "we don't need your vote anyways" attitude that Hillary's supporters took after the primary was near the end really didn't help.
My position as a Clinton supporter has always been "we think there's a lot you here could be comfortable getting behind and would appreciate your vote and support, but if you're going to refuse to meet us halfway or listen then I'm not gonna bother."
|
On September 21 2016 09:17 Nevuk wrote:
The smug, condescending, "we don't need your vote anyways" attitude that Hillary's supporters took after the primary was near the end really didn't help.
Well I mean, Im not sure who said that, but realistically speaking there are no more cases to be made at this point to Sanders supporters who somehow got inside their heads the idea that Bernie Sanders being president would have affected or even half of the things they wanted. The poor guy kept reiterating that him being President would be worth jack all if they couldnt win the house and senate and that probably wont happen for sure now. It wouldnt have happened with him being president either.
Thats where compromise is foundational aspect not just in politics but in life in general, but hey respect your principals and eat your non gmo food from your back yard herb garden. Thats the really important role you are playing in society. Contributing to the future of your country is to hard because "fuck these people". I have principals. Frankly to me that just means most people just never cared for any of their progress in the first place. Because when faced with of of something rather when they dreamed of the unlikelihood of everything, they would rather get nothing. Infact they would rather shit gets worse.
|
On September 21 2016 09:30 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 09:17 Nevuk wrote:
The smug, condescending, "we don't need your vote anyways" attitude that Hillary's supporters took after the primary was near the end really didn't help. My position as a Clinton supporter has always been "we think there's a lot you here could be comfortable getting behind and would appreciate your vote and support, but if you're going to refuse to meet us halfway or listen then I'm not gonna bother."
Being unwilling to meet anyone half way is the core tenant of the progressive wing of the democratic party.
|
On September 21 2016 09:06 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 09:01 Dan HH wrote:On September 21 2016 08:32 biology]major wrote:On September 21 2016 08:23 Dan HH wrote:On September 21 2016 08:13 biology]major wrote:
Trump has played everyone to the highest extent, perhaps unintentionally because of the extreme circumstances, but the end result is the same. In the debates all he has to do is not be a complete buffoon and he will get an A+, meanwhile HRC will have to impress with some new and effective policies we haven't heard before to get the same effect. The expectations are drastically different, yet the polls are even which means trump is heavily favored before the debates even begin.
Just for good measure, he will discredit the moderators/mainstream media to cover in case he appears poorly in any of the debates. I don't see him being negatively impacted unless he really screws it up.
Case in point: Trump goes to mexico, stands there and smiles, poll numbers go up. Poll numbers did not go up after the Mexico visit I was under the impression that they did, but either way I would argue that he looked good doing it, meaning the expectations for trump from the population are extremely low. However these expectations don't line up with the polls, basically showing a even race so HRC is gonna have to bring her absolute best, while trump can just keep his cool. The Mexico visit was misattributed by some Trump supporters with a rise in the polls that started weeks before the visit and pretty much ended by the time polls from after the visit+Arizona speech were coming in. It only picked up steam again after the deplorables+feinting combo. I checked the difference several days after when someone else brought this up but I'm too lazy to search for that post with the findings now. On September 21 2016 08:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 21 2016 08:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Hillary Clinton is having a harder time beating Donald Trump than she bargained for. According to a recent poll, a staggering 44% of millennials say they’ll be voting for either Green party candidate Jill Stein or Libertarian Gary Johnson. The chief reason for Clinton’s dip in these polls is not – as Barack Obama claimed on Sunday – that she’s a woman (though sexism does have a lot to answer for). It’s because Clinton has assumed a third of the electorate – millennials – would vote for her out of fear of her opponent.
Simply put, we want more.
Millennials are the generation that has occupied Wall Street, shut down bridges for black lives and chained ourselves to the White House fence to stop the Keystone XL pipeline. Disillusioned by Obama’s embrace of war and austerity alike – especially after knocking on doors to get him elected – we know better than to put blind faith in any candidate for the Oval Office.
What Clinton can do now is prove that she’s listening. Doing so could bear fruit in the polls, but only if she shows she’s willing to part ways with her billionaire friends and push for policies that are in line with what millennials really want.
Since the Democratic national convention, Clinton and Trump have peddled their own politics of fear. Hers: of an ascendant far-right. His: of immigrants and the prospect of a truly multi-racial democracy. If Bernie Sanders’ primary campaign showed anything, though, it’s that young Americans are eager to vote for something – not against it.
Laying out plans for single-payer healthcare and a $15 minimum wage, Sanders beat Clinton among millennials in each one of the 27 states where they faced off in the primaries. And he might still be the most popular politician in the US today.
At a time when Americans across the political spectrum are turning against the status quo, Clinton seems to be embracing it. She spent weeks in August wooing millionaire donors in Silicon Valley and Martha’s Vineyard, and has chased endorsements from Bush-era official and war criminals like Henry Kissinger. It’s out of frustration that millennials will register protest votes, not ignorance.
Make no mistake: a vote for either Jill Stein or Gary Johnson in a swing state is a vote for Trump, and could land the US in a situation more dangerous and unstable than any it has known yet. Clinton is this country’s best hope right now. Especially if we want to avoid a future defined by hostility towards immigrants and people of color, the near certainty of catastrophic global warming and a disastrous economic plan ripped straight from the Tea Party’s playbook.
But making sure that painful, hate-filled future never comes to pass is up to the Clinton campaign now, and its ability to make an earnest and heartfelt appeal to the future of the Democratic party.
So what is it that millennials actually want? Around 70% favor wealth redistribution, one Gallup poll found, and many are eager to avoid six-figure debt for things like education and routine visits to the doctor’s office. The Movement for Black Lives released a detailed policy agenda this summer with plenty of ideas for senior Clinton staffers, and round-the-clock protests against the Dakota Access pipeline should give them a sense for where young Americans stand on new fossil fuel infrastructure and violations of indigenous rights. Source + Show Spoiler [short rant] +The more I read these self-righteous, I'm-so-idealistic posts the less faith I have in my generation. Do these people not know that Clinton has pushed for most of the things they want in some for another her entire career? And maybe that some of the things they want are actually pretty stupid or unimplementable, and there's a reason a politician who is by most reasonable standards somewhere between very and pretty liberal doesn't support some particular initiatives like banning fracking or Medicare for all? Do they not understand how the incredibly flawed world we live in works?
A lot of them refuse to vote for Clinton out of principle, so the fact that out of the 4 candidates she's probably closest to their views is excluded from the equation. While I can understand that, I do have a feeling that if Trump wins they'll be the ones whining the loudest about what it entails. What exactly are the specific principles that are at play? It is a rather unspecific reason to cite.
They're evidently upset about the primary. From the comments I've seen from the Bernie or bust crowd it seems they see a vote for Hillary as condoning cheating and the establishment that sabotaged Bernie
On September 21 2016 09:11 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 09:01 Dan HH wrote:On September 21 2016 08:32 biology]major wrote:On September 21 2016 08:23 Dan HH wrote:On September 21 2016 08:13 biology]major wrote:
Trump has played everyone to the highest extent, perhaps unintentionally because of the extreme circumstances, but the end result is the same. In the debates all he has to do is not be a complete buffoon and he will get an A+, meanwhile HRC will have to impress with some new and effective policies we haven't heard before to get the same effect. The expectations are drastically different, yet the polls are even which means trump is heavily favored before the debates even begin.
Just for good measure, he will discredit the moderators/mainstream media to cover in case he appears poorly in any of the debates. I don't see him being negatively impacted unless he really screws it up.
Case in point: Trump goes to mexico, stands there and smiles, poll numbers go up. Poll numbers did not go up after the Mexico visit I was under the impression that they did, but either way I would argue that he looked good doing it, meaning the expectations for trump from the population are extremely low. However these expectations don't line up with the polls, basically showing a even race so HRC is gonna have to bring her absolute best, while trump can just keep his cool. The Mexico visit was misattributed by some Trump supporters with a rise in the polls that started weeks before the visit and pretty much ended by the time polls from after the visit+Arizona speech were coming in. It only picked up steam again after the deplorables+feinting combo. I checked the difference several days after when someone else brought this up but I'm too lazy to search for that post with the findings now. On September 21 2016 08:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 21 2016 08:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Hillary Clinton is having a harder time beating Donald Trump than she bargained for. According to a recent poll, a staggering 44% of millennials say they’ll be voting for either Green party candidate Jill Stein or Libertarian Gary Johnson. The chief reason for Clinton’s dip in these polls is not – as Barack Obama claimed on Sunday – that she’s a woman (though sexism does have a lot to answer for). It’s because Clinton has assumed a third of the electorate – millennials – would vote for her out of fear of her opponent.
Simply put, we want more.
Millennials are the generation that has occupied Wall Street, shut down bridges for black lives and chained ourselves to the White House fence to stop the Keystone XL pipeline. Disillusioned by Obama’s embrace of war and austerity alike – especially after knocking on doors to get him elected – we know better than to put blind faith in any candidate for the Oval Office.
What Clinton can do now is prove that she’s listening. Doing so could bear fruit in the polls, but only if she shows she’s willing to part ways with her billionaire friends and push for policies that are in line with what millennials really want.
Since the Democratic national convention, Clinton and Trump have peddled their own politics of fear. Hers: of an ascendant far-right. His: of immigrants and the prospect of a truly multi-racial democracy. If Bernie Sanders’ primary campaign showed anything, though, it’s that young Americans are eager to vote for something – not against it.
Laying out plans for single-payer healthcare and a $15 minimum wage, Sanders beat Clinton among millennials in each one of the 27 states where they faced off in the primaries. And he might still be the most popular politician in the US today.
At a time when Americans across the political spectrum are turning against the status quo, Clinton seems to be embracing it. She spent weeks in August wooing millionaire donors in Silicon Valley and Martha’s Vineyard, and has chased endorsements from Bush-era official and war criminals like Henry Kissinger. It’s out of frustration that millennials will register protest votes, not ignorance.
Make no mistake: a vote for either Jill Stein or Gary Johnson in a swing state is a vote for Trump, and could land the US in a situation more dangerous and unstable than any it has known yet. Clinton is this country’s best hope right now. Especially if we want to avoid a future defined by hostility towards immigrants and people of color, the near certainty of catastrophic global warming and a disastrous economic plan ripped straight from the Tea Party’s playbook.
But making sure that painful, hate-filled future never comes to pass is up to the Clinton campaign now, and its ability to make an earnest and heartfelt appeal to the future of the Democratic party.
So what is it that millennials actually want? Around 70% favor wealth redistribution, one Gallup poll found, and many are eager to avoid six-figure debt for things like education and routine visits to the doctor’s office. The Movement for Black Lives released a detailed policy agenda this summer with plenty of ideas for senior Clinton staffers, and round-the-clock protests against the Dakota Access pipeline should give them a sense for where young Americans stand on new fossil fuel infrastructure and violations of indigenous rights. Source + Show Spoiler [short rant] +The more I read these self-righteous, I'm-so-idealistic posts the less faith I have in my generation. Do these people not know that Clinton has pushed for most of the things they want in some for another her entire career? And maybe that some of the things they want are actually pretty stupid or unimplementable, and there's a reason a politician who is by most reasonable standards somewhere between very and pretty liberal doesn't support some particular initiatives like banning fracking or Medicare for all? Do they not understand how the incredibly flawed world we live in works?
A lot of them refuse to vote for Clinton out of principle, so the fact that out of the 4 candidates she's probably closest to their views is excluded from the equation. While I can understand that, I do have a feeling that if Trump wins they'll be the ones whining the loudest about what it entails. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#nownot actually poll numbers but chances to win according to them and I found articles about the mexican president disputing trump from the 1st, so mexico trip was either the aug-31st or sep-1st if my memory of that happening a day later is correct. Anyways depending on how you look at it you can probably argue a lot. It doesn't really look any different than his trend before imo but does dip down quite some about a week later, in fact, pretty much the only time he didn't go up. And polls probably don't happen 24/7 in every state so idk at what time you'd see the influence of that in there... @whoever took Trump to win at 1/3 odds. Like I said, those odds were massive and I would have instantly taken them as well. It basicly came down to a coinflip in the last couple weeks. With nothing on the horizon that makes it look like Clinton catching up again either.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4919#98363
Found it and it reminded me that the impression was caused in large part because of the CNN poll with insane sampling that was widely publicized, especially in place like the_donald
|
|
|
On September 21 2016 09:37 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 09:30 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 21 2016 09:17 Nevuk wrote:
The smug, condescending, "we don't need your vote anyways" attitude that Hillary's supporters took after the primary was near the end really didn't help. My position as a Clinton supporter has always been "we think there's a lot you here could be comfortable getting behind and would appreciate your vote and support, but if you're going to refuse to meet us halfway or listen then I'm not gonna bother." Personally, for me, it had a lot to do with simply not trusting her to do what she says she will do. Still, it's hardly more than "well, there's nothing better...".
If you liked Sanders and the things he stood for, voting for Clinton and making that know increased the chances of the things Sanders stood for happening. Sanders believes he can work with her. Warren does as well. Most presidents do what they say they are going to do during the election, dating all the way back to Jimmy Carter and before. When they don't they get voted out of office, like Bush Sr.
More importantly, if Trump wins, the Republicans will likely control the Senate and House. Warren's consumer protection agency will likely be dissolved or removed. They will push to deregulate banks(which trump has said he will do), cut taxes for the rich, deport 11 million people and all the other things Trump is pushing for. The GOP will likely control the house again during redistricting and in 2020.
|
On September 21 2016 09:37 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 09:30 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 21 2016 09:17 Nevuk wrote:
The smug, condescending, "we don't need your vote anyways" attitude that Hillary's supporters took after the primary was near the end really didn't help. My position as a Clinton supporter has always been "we think there's a lot you here could be comfortable getting behind and would appreciate your vote and support, but if you're going to refuse to meet us halfway or listen then I'm not gonna bother." Personally, for me, it had a lot to do with simply not trusting her to do what she says she will do. Still it's hardly more than "well, there's nothing better...".
She's got a record of pushing for stuff like healthcare reform, women's rights, LGBT rights, gun control, etc. even if sometimes the methods surrounding them are a little questionable.
I can say right off the bat stuff like $15 min wage and free college isn't going to happen (for a variety of sound reasons), but there will be efforts made towards things like living wage/social safety nets and college affordability.
Because it's football, I'll use this analogy. So much of the stuff on the progressive wishlist are Hail Mary's. I trust Clinton to get us a first down and march us down the field a bit. Maybe we end in the end zone after a drive, maybe we get a field goal.
|
On September 21 2016 09:30 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 09:17 Nevuk wrote:
The smug, condescending, "we don't need your vote anyways" attitude that Hillary's supporters took after the primary was near the end really didn't help. My position as a Clinton supporter has always been "we think there's a lot you here could be comfortable getting behind and would appreciate your vote and support, but if you're going to refuse to meet us halfway or listen then I'm not gonna bother."
It actually wasn't really this thread I was referring to, rather the comments I've seen from Clinton supporters on a wide variety of a sites whenever Bernie did something they didn't agree with. I know some prominent dem politicians said something very close to this effect back in May/June, I'll track it down a bit later.
The closest this thread has come is pretty well epitomized by how a lot of you treated GH as a bit of a joke, which was about the first thing I noticed when I started reading this thread and my comment was something like "This is no way to gain a vote from someone that probably agrees with you." Yes, he's probably overly committed to his candidate, but he has valid grievances. While his groups may not have expressed them in the best possible manner at all times (some of the convention stuff missed the mark, but it may have been more of a success than was apparent, it was an early warning sign to the Clinton camp that they had a problem) it doesn't change the fact that it existed and that he pretty clearly wasn't some lone lunatic crying at the moon in the woods.
Sanders was the closest any mainstream US politician has come to my beliefs, so I was pretty excited about it. I wasn't hugely into it like others were, but I didn't particularly like any of the other 23 candidates running. My being willing to vote for Clinton this year is because she ceded so much of the democratic platform to him - she did listen, but it's not really being widely communicated. Partially that's the press, partially that's her campaign, partially that's Trump being much better at this than she is.
I will say that the only reason she didn't lose my vote from hiring DWS to a position in her campaign immediately after being accused of collusion was that Stein proved to be extremely inept politically (pandered to anti-science crowds that have no interest in accomplishing anything) and Trump was even worse than he had appeared in the past (mainly, he chose Pence for VP).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
