Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › Clinton's concession speech.
- This topic has 110 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 5 months ago by
InvaderRam.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 9, 2016 at 12:21 pm #57258
Billy_TParticipantMy guess is few people here will go out of their way to see it, but I think you should. Just watched it and it surprised me.
For most of this campaign, when I tuned in to see her, I found her to be rather wooden, with her shields up, mostly incapable of connecting on a human level with her audience. Too wonky, etc. Not really all that comfortable in her own skin, etc.
But this speech, which may be her last in public? She did connect. The crowd seemed to be really moved. Her tone was just right, IMO, and her words were gracious and, at least relative to her political peers, “classy.” If Clinton had been like this from the start, I think we might have had a different election result.
-
This topic was modified 7 years, 5 months ago by Billy_T.
November 9, 2016 at 12:53 pm #57261
waterfieldParticipantCouldn’t agree with you more Billy. I doubt it would have really made a difference. But I do think it is a speech that young adolescents should watch. I hope my 12 yr old grandson can see it. Your right-the connection was there. What I’m most afraid of is that this could lead toward people becoming more and more isolated and hopeless and not wanting to participate in our process of governance-much like the post Kennedy assassination. Our young people are really are only hope to overcome the power of the uneducated white rural vote-who simply want to shatter the system and return to the 50s.
November 9, 2016 at 12:56 pm #57262
bnwBlockedI watched it. It was her best speech and of that I am sincere. She showed emotion and poise which will serve her well on her upcoming perp walk.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
November 9, 2016 at 1:38 pm #57279Billy_TParticipantCouldn’t agree with you more Billy. I doubt it would have really made a difference. But I do think it is a speech that young adolescents should watch. I hope my 12 yr old grandson can see it. Your right-the connection was there. What I’m most afraid of is that this could lead toward people becoming more and more isolated and hopeless and not wanting to participate in our process of governance-much like the post Kennedy assassination. Our young people are really are only hope to overcome the power of the uneducated white rural vote-who simply want to shatter the system and return to the 50s.
One very dangerous aspect of this country, W, was made all the more apparent by Trump:
Too many Americans want to be led by the nose. Too many Americans are okay with baby fascists like Trump, if that person has the requisite elements for a cult of personality. It’s more than obvious that nothing he said went beyond sloganeering. He never put forth HOW he would do anything. Apparently, his audience just didn’t care. He just kept repeating his slogan-mantras and his bot crowds ate it up.
I don’t want the left to ever sink that low. But it’s going to have to find a way to appeal personally, visually, on a gut level, along with great policies to a majority of voters. It’s going to have to find a way to inspire the young and old, and include everyone in an even bigger multiracial coalition. Centrist, wonky, technocratic politics don’t work. Their day is long gone. The GOP has shown that throwing out red meat to its hungry hordes works. The left needs to find a similar answer, but on a much higher, far more hopeful ground.
November 9, 2016 at 2:01 pm #57283waterfieldParticipantI’ve always thought that whatever it is that has made the uneducated white males so unhappy and full of what I see as hate is a complicated set of issues -not the least of which is the darkening face of America and a rapid change in our cultural and sociological values. But because it takes work to look at what the causes and answers might be most uneducated whites look for the most simple of answers and also look to others to blame besides themselves. And of course the biggest and easiest target is the government itself. Hence the overturn and throw em all out philosophy no matter what kind of creep carries the sword.
November 9, 2016 at 2:21 pm #57286
wvParticipantI’ve always thought that whatever it is that has made the uneducated white males so unhappy and full of what I see as hate is a complicated set of issues -not the least of which is the darkening face of America and a rapid change in our cultural and sociological values. But because it takes work to look at what the causes and answers might be most uneducated whites look for the most simple of answers and also look to others to blame besides themselves. And of course the biggest and easiest target is the government itself. Hence the overturn and throw em all out philosophy no matter what kind of creep carries the sword.
————
This is an excerpt from the election diary article i posted. what do
You think?“……Hillary Clinton has completely rejected even the pretense of class-oriented politics, in favor of targeting discrete demographics of voters, sending coded messages through the color and cut of her pantsuits to suburban women in Philly suburbs and insurance brokers in Tallahassee. This is the politics of identity, where your working conditions are less important than where you shop and what you buy. There is no unifying message to her campaign. Instead there are thousands of messages, each individually tailored and targeted like those stalker ads on Google and Amazons. It’s politics by algorithm.
Meanwhile, Trump’s blue-collar voters are condemned by the liberal elites as neo-Nazis and Klan-like automatons. Over the last few weeks, MSDNC has devoted much attention to the imbecilic David Duke’s attempt to ride Trump’s coat-tails. Duke is polling at less than 5 percent among Republicans in his vainglorious run for the Senate in Louisiana. What about the Trump voters who reject Duke’s racist bilge? How do the Democrats explain them? They don’t even try. The American underclass, both black and white, those marginalized by globalization and a government that works only to further enrich the rich, are viewed by the Democrats’ leader as a collection of “deplorables” and “super-predators.”
The Democrats have totally surrendered to the logic of neoliberalism and the impoverished and pulverized victims of their policies must be blamed for their own pitiful condition. The poor will be fined for being poor. Where’s the long-term dividend in that cynical brand of politics?
————–November 9, 2016 at 3:15 pm #57300bnwBlocked————
This is an excerpt from the election diary article i posted. what do
You think?“……Hillary Clinton has completely rejected even the pretense of class-oriented politics, in favor of targeting discrete demographics of voters, sending coded messages through the color and cut of her pantsuits to suburban women in Philly suburbs and insurance brokers in Tallahassee. This is the politics of identity, where your working conditions are less important than where you shop and what you buy. There is no unifying message to her campaign. Instead there are thousands of messages, each individually tailored and targeted like those stalker ads on Google and Amazons. It’s politics by algorithm.
Meanwhile, Trump’s blue-collar voters are condemned by the liberal elites as neo-Nazis and Klan-like automatons. Over the last few weeks, MSDNC has devoted much attention to the imbecilic David Duke’s attempt to ride Trump’s coat-tails. Duke is polling at less than 5 percent among Republicans in his vainglorious run for the Senate in Louisiana. What about the Trump voters who reject Duke’s racist bilge? How do the Democrats explain them? They don’t even try. The American underclass, both black and white, those marginalized by globalization and a government that works only to further enrich the rich, are viewed by the Democrats’ leader as a collection of “deplorables” and “super-predators.”
The Democrats have totally surrendered to the logic of neoliberalism and the impoverished and pulverized victims of their policies must be blamed for their own pitiful condition. The poor will be fined for being poor. Where’s the long-term dividend in that cynical brand of politics?
————–I think there is a lot of undeniable truth to that. Keep up with the “uneducated” and “racist” insults because it doesn’t work. PC is dead.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
November 9, 2016 at 3:16 pm #57301waterfieldParticipantI don’t mind if its politics by algorithm as long as its used by a candidate I think is better suited than the other guys. Campaign machinery and demographic targeting has always been part of a general election. But I’m in no mood to begin any type of argument over this election. Been doing that for a couple of years and I’m tired. I will say that I agree with parts and don’t agree with other stuff in the article. I do think we need to revisit the electoral college issue given the reason for it being part of our Constitution simply no longer exist. Would I feel that way if my chosen candidate lost the popular vote and won the electoral “college” vote? Probably not.
November 9, 2016 at 3:26 pm #57304wvParticipantI don’t mind if its politics by algorithm as long as its used by a candidate I think is better suited than the other guys. Campaign machinery and demographic targeting has always been part of a general election. But I’m in no mood to begin any type of argument over this election. Been doing that for a couple of years and I’m tired. I will say that I agree with parts and don’t agree with other stuff in the article. I do think we need to revisit the electoral college issue given the reason for it being part of our Constitution simply no longer exist. Would I feel that way if my chosen candidate lost the popular vote and won the electoral “college” vote? Probably not.
————
The pollsters are usually right. They were almost all wrong this time. Why do u think that is?Do you think Bernie would have won?
w
vNovember 9, 2016 at 3:37 pm #57305
joemadParticipant“”””My guess is few people here will go out of their way to see it, but I think you should. Just watched it and it surprised me.
For most of this campaign, when I tuned in to see her, I found her to be rather wooden, with her shields up, mostly incapable of connecting on a human level with her audience. Too wonky, etc. Not really all that comfortable in her own skin, etc.
But this speech, which may be her last in public? She did connect. The crowd seemed to be really moved. Her tone was just right, IMO, and her words were gracious and, at least relative to her political peers, “classy.” If Clinton had been like this from the start, I think we might have had a different election result.”””
Many thought the same thing on Gore’s concession speech in 2000.
November 9, 2016 at 4:09 pm #57307wvParticipant“”””My guess is few people here will go out of their way to see it, but I think you should. Just watched it and it surprised me.
For most of this campaign, when I tuned in to see her, I found her to be rather wooden, with her shields up, mostly incapable of connecting on a human level with her audience. Too wonky, etc. Not really all that comfortable in her own skin, etc.
But this speech, which may be her last in public? She did connect. The crowd seemed to be really moved. Her tone was just right, IMO, and her words were gracious and, at least relative to her political peers, “classy.” If Clinton had been like this from the start, I think we might have had a different election result.”””
Many thought the same thing on Gore’s concession speech in 2000.
————–
I have a personal pet-peeve. I keep hearing over and over that Hillary Clinton is a “policy WONK”. Shes virtually ALWAYS painted as a real intellectual wonk.I dont see her that way at all. I see her as someone cultivating that particular image, and then more subtly cultivating an image of a “policy wonk who is trying hard to be more than that”.
I dont consider her an intellectual. I consider her a privileged, ambitious, politician who has access to a gazillion think-tanks full of pollsters, number-crunchers, propagandists, media experts, fashion consultants, and campaign co-ordinators.
I think she’s more of a ‘figurehead’ than a ‘Bill Walsh type’ in other words.
Just my opinion.
w
vNovember 9, 2016 at 4:21 pm #57309
— X —ParticipantMy guess is few people here will go out of their way to see it, but I think you should. Just watched it and it surprised me.
For most of this campaign, when I tuned in to see her, I found her to be rather wooden, with her shields up, mostly incapable of connecting on a human level with her audience. Too wonky, etc. Not really all that comfortable in her own skin, etc.
But this speech, which may be her last in public? She did connect. The crowd seemed to be really moved. Her tone was just right, IMO, and her words were gracious and, at least relative to her political peers, “classy.” If Clinton had been like this from the start, I think we might have had a different election result.
I heard it on the radio, and that was ultimately my medium of choice. I don’t even like to look at her, because she oozes condescension and elitism in her facial expressions. I imagine it was different this time if she has truly been humbled. It sounded good though. It sounded inspirational. But it also sounded very scripted, and it seems to me that’s the very reason she didn’t address her supporters last night. Nothing to say from her heart, so someone whipped up a speech for her to use the next day in order to manufacture some feelings. I don’t think she cares one iota about the people she claims to “love”.
Just being honest. I trust that’s what you were looking for.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr SeussNovember 9, 2016 at 4:22 pm #57310Billy_TParticipant“”””My guess is few people here will go out of their way to see it, but I think you should. Just watched it and it surprised me.
For most of this campaign, when I tuned in to see her, I found her to be rather wooden, with her shields up, mostly incapable of connecting on a human level with her audience. Too wonky, etc. Not really all that comfortable in her own skin, etc.
But this speech, which may be her last in public? She did connect. The crowd seemed to be really moved. Her tone was just right, IMO, and her words were gracious and, at least relative to her political peers, “classy.” If Clinton had been like this from the start, I think we might have had a different election result.”””
Many thought the same thing on Gore’s concession speech in 2000.
————–
I have a personal pet-peeve. I keep hearing over and over that Hillary Clinton is a “policy WONK”. Shes virtually ALWAYS painted as a real intellectual wonk.I dont see her that way at all. I see her as someone cultivating that particular image, and then more subtly cultivating an image of a “policy wonk who is trying hard to be more than that”.
I dont consider her an intellectual. I consider her a privileged, ambitious, politician who has access to a gazillion think-tanks full of pollsters, number-crunchers, propagandists, media experts, fashion consultants, and campaign co-ordinators.
I think she’s more of a ‘figurehead’ than a ‘Bill Walsh type’ in other words.
Just my opinion.
w
vWV,
I don’t consider her an intellectual, either. Generally speaking, I don’t think “wonky” equates to that. A person who knows a ton about plastic model cars, for instance, and can spout tons of stats about make, model, year, etc. etc. can sound really “wonky,” but wouldn’t really rate as an “intellectual.” Of course, they might be that too. But the ability to relay stats, even esoterica, about this or that, isn’t a sign, IMO.
So I separate surface expertise from being an actual intellectual. That goes much, much deeper. That said, behind the scenes, away from the public, she very well might be too. I really have no idea. But I’ve never associated policy wonkery with that.
Just sayin’.
November 9, 2016 at 4:31 pm #57314Billy_TParticipantMy guess is few people here will go out of their way to see it, but I think you should. Just watched it and it surprised me.
For most of this campaign, when I tuned in to see her, I found her to be rather wooden, with her shields up, mostly incapable of connecting on a human level with her audience. Too wonky, etc. Not really all that comfortable in her own skin, etc.
But this speech, which may be her last in public? She did connect. The crowd seemed to be really moved. Her tone was just right, IMO, and her words were gracious and, at least relative to her political peers, “classy.” If Clinton had been like this from the start, I think we might have had a different election result.
I heard it on the radio, and that was ultimately my medium of choice. I don’t even like to look at her, because she oozes condescension and elitism in her facial expressions. I imagine it was different this time if she has truly been humbled. It sounded good though. It sounded inspirational. But it also sounded very scripted, and it seems to me that’s the very reason she didn’t address her supporters last night. Nothing to say from her heart, so someone whipped up a speech for her to use the next day in order to manufacture some feelings. I don’t think she cares one iota about the people she claims to “love”.
Just being honest. I trust that’s what you were looking for.
X,
Thanks. Of course, honesty, definitely. I think if you watched her, and saw the crowd, you’d think she was finally letting down her guard and speaking from the gut — at least as much as she’s capable of doing this.
As for caring or not caring about people. That’s obviously going to be in the eyes of the beholder. I think public policies matter a hell of a lot more than that, and her public policy ideas are better than Trump’s or the GOP’s. No where near good enough. Not by light years. But better.
Do you think Trump really gives a damn about anyone but himself? I don’t. I’ve never seen a single indication that he does. He has no history of demonstrating any “love” for others, and a ton of evidence shows he’s only in this for himself and no one else.
So it boils down to a choice between two con-artists in a sense, neither of whom likely gives a shit about us. But who has the better public policy ideas? Trump gave us silly, kindergarten-level slogans, not actual policy, so it’s hard to say. But we know where the GOP stands on the issues, and their policies are pure D poison for us and the planet. The Dems are no great shakes either, as mentioned. They fall waaaaay short. But the GOP is aggressively against workers, consumers and citizens in general, and especially the environment.
It’s a choice between a broken arm and an amputation, in my view.
November 9, 2016 at 4:33 pm #57315— X —ParticipantOur young people are really are only hope to overcome the power of the uneducated white rural vote-who simply want to shatter the system and return to the 50s.
I’ve always thought that whatever it is that has made the uneducated white males so unhappy and full of what I see as hate is a complicated set of issues -not the least of which is the darkening face of America and a rapid change in our cultural and sociological values. But because it takes work to look at what the causes and answers might be most uneducated whites look for the most simple of answers and also look to others to blame besides themselves. And of course the biggest and easiest target is the government itself. Hence the overturn and throw em all out philosophy no matter what kind of creep carries the sword.
How do you qualify “uneducated” in this context?
What does uneducated mean to you?You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr SeussNovember 9, 2016 at 4:36 pm #57316bnwBlockedMy guess is few people here will go out of their way to see it, but I think you should. Just watched it and it surprised me.
For most of this campaign, when I tuned in to see her, I found her to be rather wooden, with her shields up, mostly incapable of connecting on a human level with her audience. Too wonky, etc. Not really all that comfortable in her own skin, etc.
But this speech, which may be her last in public? She did connect. The crowd seemed to be really moved. Her tone was just right, IMO, and her words were gracious and, at least relative to her political peers, “classy.” If Clinton had been like this from the start, I think we might have had a different election result.
I heard it on the radio, and that was ultimately my medium of choice. I don’t even like to look at her, because she oozes condescension and elitism in her facial expressions. I imagine it was different this time if she has truly been humbled. It sounded good though. It sounded inspirational. But it also sounded very scripted, and it seems to me that’s the very reason she didn’t address her supporters last night. Nothing to say from her heart, so someone whipped up a speech for her to use the next day in order to manufacture some feelings. I don’t think she cares one iota about the people she claims to “love”.
Just being honest. I trust that’s what you were looking for.
I think both candidates had acceptance and concession speeches already prepared before the election was called. She was probably too emotional early this morning to do anything but make the phone call to trump.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
November 9, 2016 at 4:41 pm #57318— X —ParticipantI think both candidates had acceptance and concession speeches already prepared before the election was called. She was probably too emotional early this morning to do anything but make the phone call to trump.
Could be. I just really didn’t buy it while I was hearing it.
But then again, maybe I’m just too biased.You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr SeussNovember 9, 2016 at 4:46 pm #57320bnwBlockedI think both candidates had acceptance and concession speeches already prepared before the election was called. She was probably too emotional early this morning to do anything but make the phone call to trump.
Could be. I just really didn’t buy it while I was hearing it.
But then again, maybe I’m just too biased.I did watch her speech and noticed that Bill didn’t look as if he was hit by a post election fling of an ash tray and Huma was Weinerless.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
November 9, 2016 at 4:46 pm #57321Billy_TParticipantI think both candidates had acceptance and concession speeches already prepared before the election was called. She was probably too emotional early this morning to do anything but make the phone call to trump.
Could be. I just really didn’t buy it while I was hearing it.
But then again, maybe I’m just too biased.X,
She at least gave one.
Trump threw hissy fits BEFORE the election was even decided, telling us he was going to take his football and go home if he didn’t win. The whiny little baby said he wouldn’t accept any result unless he won.
(The guy has the emotional age of a pre-schooler.)
So, if things had turned out a bit differently, would he have had enough class to make that speech? I kinda doubt it.
November 9, 2016 at 4:58 pm #57323— X —ParticipantX,
She at least gave one.
Trump threw hissy fits BEFORE the election was even decided, telling us he was going to take his football and go home if he didn’t win. The whiny little baby said he wouldn’t accept any result unless he won.
(The guy has the emotional age of a pre-schooler.)
So, if things had turned out a bit differently, would he have had enough class to make that speech? I kinda doubt it.
Perhaps, but I also understood what he was talking about when he said those things about the peaceful transfer of power. It was demanded of him to accept any outcome, regardless of how it came to be. Who does that? He was under no obligation to blindly accept the results if it came to pass that there was some shenanigans going on.
I do agree about his emotional development. That, and his lack of tact are the things I don’t like about him. But he started to show some restraint and maturity as the campaign went on. It wasn’t perfect, but it was improving. Gotta remember he’s not a politician. But even that (being a politician) doesn’t mean you’re somehow infused with class and tact. Remember Rubio making fun of Donald’s hands, and implying it had a correlation to his dick? Or how Hillary pandered to her elitist celebrity friends by calling half of Donald’s base (some 25+ million people) deplorables and irredeemable?
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr SeussNovember 9, 2016 at 4:58 pm #57324wvParticipantI think both candidates had acceptance and concession speeches already prepared before the election was called. She was probably too emotional early this morning to do anything but make the phone call to trump.
Could be. I just really didn’t buy it while I was hearing it.
But then again, maybe I’m just too biased.I did watch her speech and noticed that Bill didn’t look as if he was hit by a post election fling of an ash tray and Huma was Weinerless.
———–
I say he wasn’t born in the United States.
He was probly born in Floorida or somewhere foreign like that.
w
vNovember 9, 2016 at 5:03 pm #57325— X —ParticipantHe was probly born in Floorida or somewhere foreign like that.
Florida is almost a foreign place. Before I left there to move to NC, it became increasingly necessary to understand and speak Spanish. I do speak some (as a result of my wife’s tutelage), but not enough to be able to accept contracts in parts of Miami. Some 80-90% of the labor force in construction trades down there don’t speak a lick of English.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr SeussNovember 9, 2016 at 5:15 pm #57329Billy_TParticipantX,
She at least gave one.
Trump threw hissy fits BEFORE the election was even decided, telling us he was going to take his football and go home if he didn’t win. The whiny little baby said he wouldn’t accept any result unless he won.
(The guy has the emotional age of a pre-schooler.)
So, if things had turned out a bit differently, would he have had enough class to make that speech? I kinda doubt it.
Perhaps, but I also understood what he was talking about when he said those things about the peaceful transfer of power. It was demanded of him to accept any outcome, regardless of how it came to be. Who does that? He was under no obligation to blindly accept the results if it came to pass that there was some shenanigans going on.
I do agree about his emotional development. That, and his lack of tact are the things I don’t like about him. But he started to show some restraint and maturity as the campaign went on. It wasn’t perfect, but it was improving. Gotta remember he’s not a politician. But even that (being a politician) doesn’t mean you’re somehow infused with class and tact. Remember Rubio making fun of Donald’s hands, and implying it had a correlation to his dick? Or how Hillary pandered to her elitist celebrity friends by calling half of Donald’s base (some 25+ million people) deplorables and irredeemable?
X,
I never saw anyone demand that he blindly accept the election results. I saw them asking him a simple question about a normal election result of him losing. I then saw his campaign handlers spin that into all of those caveats. Initially, it was just a very basic question about accepting the results of your standard issue election. He said no, not unless he won — which followed endless lies about the election being “rigged.”
As for Hillary’s comment. Judging from surveys taken of GOP viewpoints on a range of subjects, including whether or not slavery should have been abolished, I think her comment was spot on as far as percentages go. She just shouldn’t have said it. It wasn’t smart, and I said that to Democratic Party diehards I know, which pissed off more than a few. It’s not smart to punch down. She should have focused solely on Bannon, Breitbart, Alex Jones and the rest of the alt-right power structure/lunatic fringe — if she was going to talk about them at all. Focus on the far-right power structure in general. Punch up, not down. It may be that that particular comment helped rally Trump’s white-backlash troops even more. But, who knows?
November 9, 2016 at 5:20 pm #57331— X —ParticipantAs for Hillary’s comment. Judging from surveys taken of GOP viewpoints on a range of subjects, including whether or not slavery should have been abolished, I think her comment was spot on as far as percentages go.
25 million people think that way?
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr SeussNovember 9, 2016 at 5:39 pm #57333Billy_TParticipantAs for Hillary’s comment. Judging from surveys taken of GOP viewpoints on a range of subjects, including whether or not slavery should have been abolished, I think her comment was spot on as far as percentages go.
25 million people think that way?
It depends on the topic, but, yeah. Research tells us this. At least half have truly odious views on a host of things. Hell, twenty percent said Lincoln should never have freed the slaves. A quarter said Obama was the anti-Christ.
Not saying the Dems don’t have issues with certain percentages. They do. They’re just lower. And Trump’s followers were easily the most racist among the rest of the Republican field:
Measuring Donald Trump’s Supporters for Intolerance
There are hundreds of articles on the subject if you google it:Excerpt:
Exit poll data from the South Carolina primary revealed that nearly half the Republicans who turned out on Saturday wanted undocumented immigrants to be deported immediately. Donald Trump won 47 percent of those voters.
Voters were asked if they favored temporarily barring Muslims who are not citizens from entering the United States, something Mr. Trump advocates, and 74 percent said they did. He won 41 percent of that group.
. . . .
Possibly more surprising are the attitudes of Mr. Trump’s supporters on things that he has not talked very much about on the campaign trail. He has said nothing about a ban on gays in the United States, the outcome of the Civil War or white supremacy. Yet on all of these topics, Mr. Trump’s supporters appear to stand out from the rest of Republican primary voters.
. . .
According to P.P.P., 70 percent of Mr. Trump’s voters in South Carolina wish the Confederate battle flag were still flying on their statehouse grounds. (It was removed last summer less than a month after a mass shooting at a black church in Charleston.) The polling firm says that 38 percent of them wish the South had won the Civil War. Only a quarter of Mr. Rubio’s supporters share that wish, and even fewer of Mr. Kasich’s and Mr. Carson’s do.
Nationally, further analyses of the YouGov data show a similar trend: Nearly 20 percent of Mr. Trump’s voters disagreed with Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which freed slaves in the Southern states during the Civil War. Only 5 percent of Mr. Rubio’s voters share this view.
The article has links to the studies. Best viewed on the website itself.
November 9, 2016 at 5:43 pm #57334Billy_TParticipantNovember 9, 2016 at 5:49 pm #57335— X —ParticipantThe article has links to the studies. Best viewed on the website itself.
NY Times?
Yeah, no thanks.
I don’t disagree that there are *some* intolerant and extremist supporters out there, but I don’t subscribe to the theory that 25 million people are misogynists, or xenophobes, or islamophobes, or racists, or whatever other label HRC chose to heap upon America in an act of complete hypocrisy. Isn’t she the same person who called an aid a “fucking jew bastard?” lol. Let’s just maybe agree that there are all kinds of bad people in the Country, and they aren’t exclusive members of one party. If the allegations are true that the DNC hired thugs to go out and start fist-fights at Trump rallies, then they don’t have the moral high ground. Like, at all.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr SeussNovember 9, 2016 at 6:03 pm #57336— X —ParticipantSome other links:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-race-idUSKCN0ZE2SW
These charts show exactly how racist and radical the alt-right has gotten this year
Thanks, Billy, but I don’t wanna do a whole bunch of homework right now. I’m out there in the real world and I speak to a lot of people on a daily basis. In North and South Carolina. I speak to liberals and conservatives, independents and libertarians, and even some people who couldn’t give a shit about politics at all. I’m not getting a lot of racial overtones out of people I speak to. And usually racists don’t care about offending anyone. They’re kind of proud of it. I’m gonna say that a great many of Trump’s supporters are just tired of being duped. I will say that many people I speak do are in agreement with his immigration policies, though. They want undocumented immigrants to leave, but they’re not opposed to them coming back legally so that they can be vetted (unrealistic) and contribute to the economy (in the form of being tax payers). Would that make them racist? Because that’s the DNC’s very stance on people who take that position.
You have to be odd, to be number one.
-- Dr SeussNovember 9, 2016 at 6:03 pm #57337
lyserParticipantI agree that her speech today was the best of her entire campaign.
Say what you want about Trump’s “slogans” – they obviously hit very fucking hard, especially in the “rust belt”. I don’t really get the “shocked” reaction to the election result. Why would you NOT court the “angry white” vote? You know, if you wanted to win and all. Seems like simple math to me.
November 9, 2016 at 6:12 pm #57338
MackeyserModeratorI don’t mind if its politics by algorithm as long as its used by a candidate I think is better suited than the other guys. Campaign machinery and demographic targeting has always been part of a general election. But I’m in no mood to begin any type of argument over this election. Been doing that for a couple of years and I’m tired. I will say that I agree with parts and don’t agree with other stuff in the article. I do think we need to revisit the electoral college issue given the reason for it being part of our Constitution simply no longer exist. Would I feel that way if my chosen candidate lost the popular vote and won the electoral “college” vote? Probably not.
————
The pollsters are usually right. They were almost all wrong this time. Why do u think that is?Do you think Bernie would have won?
w
vYES!!! Bernie would have won. The OVERWHELMING issue among the ex-urban voters who repudiated politics as usual in the rust belt was the embrace of bad trade deals like NAFTA, CAFTA and the up coming TPP that have decimated the working middle class of all races and genders.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/presidential-election-donald-trump-would-have-lost-if-bernie-sanders-had-been-the-candidate-a7406346.html
And as Trump proved…RALLIES MATTER!!!Bernie had a real message.
And here’s a real point on that.
The Republicans actually put their money where their mouth was in believing in democracy…so much so that they were willing to let their party burn down. NO ONE rigged any process or did anything to impede any candidate. They…LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. Contrast that with Debbie Wasserman Schultz who essentially acted like a Campaign Chair for Clinton while DNC Chair. She allowed the campaigning for super delegates prior to Clinton announcing. She restricted the debates to 4, initially, and then had them on the weekends when fewer would watch. She worked with media insiders to plant stories against the candidate and essentially rig the nomination process. Donna Brazille lost her job at CNN because she showed questions for the debate to the Clinton campaign prior to the debate. Guess she never stopped working for the Clintons or the DNC.
Had the Dems had as much faith in democracy as the Republicans… We’d be talking about President-Elect Bernie Sanders right now.
And I’m gonna pound on THAT every single fucking time some pseudo-liberal wants to cry about Hillary losing. Fuck that. She never should have been on the ticket.
And now we have a totally unified Republican Congress, White House and old Supreme Court.
Fuck the DLC/corporate DNC and Clintonistas for abandoning democracy when we needed to fight for it most.
But hey. At least now, hopefully, that corporatist Clintonista bullshit is dead and we can go back to work on the progressive agenda. Hopefully.
Tulsi Gabbert 2020.
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 5 months ago by
Mackeyser.
Sports is the crucible of human virtue. The distillate remains are human vice.
-
This topic was modified 7 years, 5 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
