[REMOVE ADS]




Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 84
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352

    Speaking of dreaming...

    I woke up in a positive frame of mind this morning. I must be honest and say, every morning I open my eyes I do tend to be quite positive....after that it's often down hill from there but....looking to the future, is there anyone out there you guys think could be a contender if we survive the next four?

    No one truly stands out for me but I do have my eyes on Kamila Harris. I haven't done a lot of research on her. I also doubt she would be ready in four years but I'm interested in seeing how she performs in the senate. Is it possible a VP pick could be in her future?

    Now I can think of a lot of reasons people would say it's not possible and I probably would agree with the more thought out reasons but let's dream a little before the wrath of Trump/Pence is fully upon us.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    10,473
    Rep Power
    311
    Ms.m you have good knowlegde of political things and i trust your opinion,so let me ask you..how about joseph kennedy iii,the kennedy's are well respected and i'm just wondering if drafted would he be interested and would he be a good candidate?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    28,614
    Rep Power
    642
    Make no mistake, one of the main reasons Hillary Clinton is not president today is because a significant part of the voting public will not elect a woman. This includes a lot of women, by the way. I think that Julian Castro has positioned himself well to be considered and so far, has no obvious public warts. If he runs with a progressive VP, I can easily see him defeating President Dipshit. I'd love to see Elizabeth Warren considered.

    We're going to survive the next four years but the damage will have been done. There are already plans to put a climate change denier at the head of the EPA. Say goodbye to President Obama's commitment to delaying global warming and clean air and water laws. Rudy Giuliani as head of Justice means that local police will not be reviewed for patterns of discrimination with anything other than a token gesture following the most egregious examples of abuse. Newt Gingrich as secretary of state means that we will burn damned nearly every bridge imaginable with all but our best allies. I even heard that he's considering Sarah Palin[[!) as secretary of the Interior Department, meaning that significant portions of the national parks will be leased for oil drilling.

    We will survive. Make no doubt about it, but if we don't do better as a nation in the next election, then we will deserve all that we get thereafter.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Quote Originally Posted by arr&bee View Post
    Ms.m you have good knowlegde of political things and i trust your opinion,so let me ask you..how about joseph kennedy iii,the kennedy's are well respected and i'm just wondering if drafted would he be interested and would he be a good candidate?
    To be honest I know very little about J.K III so I really can't say much about him at this point. I will make it a point to do some research on him.
    Last edited by ms_m; 11-11-2016 at 03:41 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Oz View Post
    Make no mistake, one of the main reasons Hillary Clinton is not president today is because a significant part of the voting public will not elect a woman. This includes a lot of women, by the way. I think that Julian Castro has positioned himself well to be considered and so far, has no obvious public warts. If he runs with a progressive VP, I can easily see him defeating President Dipshit. I'd love to see Elizabeth Warren considered.

    We're going to survive the next four years but the damage will have been done. There are already plans to put a climate change denier at the head of the EPA. Say goodbye to President Obama's commitment to delaying global warming and clean air and water laws. Rudy Giuliani as head of Justice means that local police will not be reviewed for patterns of discrimination with anything other than a token gesture following the most egregious examples of abuse. Newt Gingrich as secretary of state means that we will burn damned nearly every bridge imaginable with all but our best allies. I even heard that he's considering Sarah Palin[[!) as secretary of the Interior Department, meaning that significant portions of the national parks will be leased for oil drilling.

    We will survive. Make no doubt about it, but if we don't do better as a nation in the next election, then we will deserve all that we get thereafter.
    I can understand why Castro would be on your list but wasn't their some rumblings about his past when his name came up for potential VP? I may be wrong but I do remember hearing something that seemed to turn people off.

    I thought of Warren and I really like her fire but in my mind, I'm thinking someone younger. Don't want to come off sounding like an ageist and although progressives like her and they went for Sanders, I personally think we should look towards a younger group of candidates. Her past could also be a problem as well. I wouldn't have an issue but I can see how it could be fodder for the crazies.

    As far as the woman thing, I use to think a Black man would never appeal to voters so I think it's possible to get a woman in....just has to be the right woman.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Oz View Post
    Make no mistake, one of the main reasons Hillary Clinton is not president today is because a significant part of the voting public will not elect a woman. This includes a lot of women, by the way.
    Not to change the subject, but, now that you've brought it up: Why do you think that is? One outfield explanation I came up with is that there are a lot of women, for whatever reason, have not made it far in life as far as accomplishments. So, if a woman even did become president, it would not only set the bar higher, but it would eliminate the excuse that it's men's fault for their failure. I'm sure it scared a few Black people when Obama was elected because his victory also set the bar higher.

    Don't bash me for that, but it is plausible.

    As for the topic question? I think it is a bit too early to tell. There is currently a ground swell of protest and resistance. The pain is turning into the anger stage mighty quick, and the "establishment" will come down hard.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Oz View Post
    Make no mistake, one of the main reasons Hillary Clinton is not president today is because a significant part of the voting public will not elect a woman. This includes a lot of women, by the way. I think that Julian Castro has positioned himself well to be considered and so far, has no obvious public warts. If he runs with a progressive VP, I can easily see him defeating President Dipshit. I'd love to see Elizabeth Warren considered.

    We're going to survive the next four years but the damage will have been done. There are already plans to put a climate change denier at the head of the EPA. Say goodbye to President Obama's commitment to delaying global warming and clean air and water laws. Rudy Giuliani as head of Justice means that local police will not be reviewed for patterns of discrimination with anything other than a token gesture following the most egregious examples of abuse. Newt Gingrich as secretary of state means that we will burn damned nearly every bridge imaginable with all but our best allies. I even heard that he's considering Sarah Palin[[!) as secretary of the Interior Department, meaning that significant portions of the national parks will be leased for oil drilling.

    We will survive. Make no doubt about it, but if we don't do better as a nation in the next election, then we will deserve all that we get thereafter.
    Another thing I want to say about being a female candidate. There isn't ANY DOUBT in my mind that many men are threatened by a strong woman but let me give you a female perspective. Back in the day, HRC had a tendency to open her mouth before engaging her brain and as a result, she came off rather condescending towards women. Especially those that chose family over career. It left a bad taste.

    Remember when she was campaigning against Barack Obama and she sat down with a group of women and started crying, for many of us we saw nothing but phony crocodile tears. Yeah she won some over with her theatrics but I wasn't impressed and I bet there were other women that weren't impressed either. Now there are some of us that chose to look pass that this time around but trust, likability [[imo) was her biggest negative, not being a woman.
    Last edited by ms_m; 11-11-2016 at 04:58 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    10,473
    Rep Power
    311
    It's water under the bridge now,but from things that i've read,hillary can be very nasty towards employees,she should remember that they vote too.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Quote Originally Posted by arr&bee View Post
    It's water under the bridge now,but from things that i've read,hillary can be very nasty towards employees,she should remember that they vote too.
    I remember those rumors. Can't say they are true or false but if they are true it fits right in there with an issue of likability.

    There are many, many, many reasons for why this all played out the way it did and I'm sure it will be analyzed and rehashed for years to come. But I do feel that the DNC needs to get their butts in gear and now is the time.
    Last edited by ms_m; 11-11-2016 at 06:42 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Looks like I'm not the only one keeping any eye on Ms. Harris.

    Meet Kamala Harris, Who Could Become The First Woman President
    California’s popular attorney general is headed to Capitol Hill. The White House might be next.


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0aac62489433d

    I'm far from ready to jump on her bandwagon but I'll definitely keep her in my sights.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    10,473
    Rep Power
    311
    Wow,ok ms m i too will be watching the congresswoman,i would say that after the way they disrespected obama another black wouldn't be too welcome but after this nutcase.........?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    3,945
    Rep Power
    387
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Oz View Post
    Make no mistake, one of the main reasons Hillary Clinton is not president today is because a significant part of the voting public will not elect a woman. This includes a lot of women, by the way. I think that Julian Castro has positioned himself well to be considered and so far, has no obvious public warts. If he runs with a progressive VP, I can easily see him defeating President Dipshit. I'd love to see Elizabeth Warren considered.

    We're going to survive the next four years but the damage will have been done. There are already plans to put a climate change denier at the head of the EPA. Say goodbye to President Obama's commitment to delaying global warming and clean air and water laws. Rudy Giuliani as head of Justice means that local police will not be reviewed for patterns of discrimination with anything other than a token gesture following the most egregious examples of abuse. Newt Gingrich as secretary of state means that we will burn damned nearly every bridge imaginable with all but our best allies. I even heard that he's considering Sarah Palin[[!) as secretary of the Interior Department, meaning that significant portions of the national parks will be leased for oil drilling.

    We will survive. Make no doubt about it, but if we don't do better as a nation in the next election, then we will deserve all that we get thereafter.
    Sarah Palin as the Secretary of the Shit House would be too much.....let alone Secretary of the Interior Department. Dear God what a circus this is....and a horrifying one at that!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Quote Originally Posted by arr&bee View Post
    Wow,ok ms m i too will be watching the congresswoman,i would say that after the way they disrespected obama another black wouldn't be too welcome but after this nutcase.........?
    She is Senator Elect but I think she's worth watching arr&bee.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    10,473
    Rep Power
    311
    Ok,got it.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    13,337
    Rep Power
    100
    Lakeside...Palin as Secretary of Shithouse??? I'm laughing my ass off here. But the shoe almost fits...

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    3,945
    Rep Power
    387
    Quote Originally Posted by ralpht View Post
    Lakeside...Palin as Secretary of Shithouse??? I'm laughing my ass off here. But the shoe almost fits...
    The only thing Sarah Palin would be 'fit to be Secretary of........even if that.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    28,614
    Rep Power
    642
    Quote Originally Posted by arr&bee View Post
    It's water under the bridge now,but from things that i've read,hillary can be very nasty towards employees,she should remember that they vote too.
    Her nastiness toward employees is a crock because she lost to DONALD TRUMP. Nasty to employees. Nasty to contractors. Nasty to women. Nasty to Black folks. Nasty to President Obama. Nasty nasty nasty nasty nasty.

    To put it mildly, I don't think her nastiness toward employees is the reason, bruh. And if they hold it against her, but not against him, that backs up my point that it's a problem with women. Remember when they were calling her out for "shouting" in her victory speeches after primaries? Trump used to shout in debates and not once was he considered loud or unprofessional in his speech.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    28,614
    Rep Power
    642
    Quote Originally Posted by ms_m View Post
    Another thing I want to say about being a female candidate. There isn't ANY DOUBT in my mind that many men are threatened by a strong woman but let me give you a female perspective. Back in the day, HRC had a tendency to open her mouth before engaging her brain and as a result, she came off rather condescending towards women. Especially those that chose family over career. It left a bad taste.
    I'm trying to think who else that describes... Oh, yeah! The guy who beat her. Times one thousand. So, people didn't like her personal style and condescending nature, so they were willing to lose health care and reproductive health rights and clean air and water, put global warming at risk, permit voter suppression, forsake immigrant families, insult the Islamic faith and community, and threaten the general welfare of the entire planet?

    Nope. It's an excuse for the fact that nobody wants to admit that it's because she's a woman.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    28,614
    Rep Power
    642
    Quote Originally Posted by soulster View Post
    Not to change the subject, but, now that you've brought it up: Why do you think that is? One outfield explanation I came up with is that there are a lot of women, for whatever reason, have not made it far in life as far as accomplishments. So, if a woman even did become president, it would not only set the bar higher, but it would eliminate the excuse that it's men's fault for their failure. I'm sure it scared a few Black people when Obama was elected because his victory also set the bar higher.
    Jealousy is the reason some women won't vote for another woman. Some men won't because it means that their importance in the world is nullified when a woman is capable of wearing the pants of the leader. Same thing that some White men feel about Black men.

    Ask yourself why it makes sense that White men are less than 35% of the population, yet they hold over 80% of all authority roles in the US? Judges, mayors, governors, police officers, business managers, etc. The list goes on and we accept that a minority demographic rules everybody else. I wanted a female president. I don't give two poops if she's nice or nasty, so long as she is not the unholy love child of Archie Bunker and Satan like the orange disaster we have "leading us" in two months.

    I swear, if I didn't have my Mom and Dad still around, I'd be booking one-way flights to Greenland right now.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    14,979
    Rep Power
    402
    Quote Originally Posted by ms_m View Post
    Another thing I want to say about being a female candidate. There isn't ANY DOUBT in my mind that many men are threatened by a strong woman but let me give you a female perspective. Back in the day, HRC had a tendency to open her mouth before engaging her brain and as a result, she came off rather condescending towards women. Especially those that chose family over career. It left a bad taste.

    Remember when she was campaigning against Barack Obama and she sat down with a group of women and started crying, for many of us we saw nothing but phony crocodile tears. Yeah she won some over with her theatrics but I wasn't impressed and I bet there were other women that weren't impressed either. Now there are some of us that chose to look pass that this time around but trust, likability [[imo) was her biggest negative, not being a woman.
    Name:  av-5.jpg
Views: 239
Size:  21.1 KB
    It was time for a woman to run for The U.S. Presidency, The Democrats ran the wrong woman. A woman with a squeaky-clean background, who is not so intertwined with the large big-money interests, would have been better, as significant change is wanted by the frustrated voters. A Bernie Sanders-type female candidate would have been better.

    Millions of would-be Democratic voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and probably Florida, who had voted for Obama, stayed away from the polls as a protest. Had they voted Democratic, just to keep The Republicans from controlling BOTH houses of the legislature AND The Executive Branch, Hillary would have won. Had there been a qualified female candidate with a lot less ties to big money and the corporations and The main-stream Democratic Machine, she likely would have seemed a better candidate for change, and would have won [[as Sanders probably would have).

    The Democrats made a bad mistake, because they thought that Sanders would try to help "The People" too much, and not line the pockets of their own "benefactors" enough, to whom they are beholden.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    28,614
    Rep Power
    642
    The people who stayed away are progressives who believe that the Democrats made it impossible for Sanders to win. They talked about not voting for months before the election. They expressed their intention to bring Clinton down and it nothing to do with her politics. It was because their chosen pol was brought down and the DNC refused to address a long laundry list of grievances.

    BTW: I haven't seen anything on the news about e-mails all week. It dominated the news cycle for the last two years, so it must be important, right? The mainstream media absolutely did its best to make her problems seem worse than they were to keep the race tight until the end. Good job. Of Trump's victory, CBS' CEO Leslie Moonves said "It may not be good for America but it's damn good for CBS." That says it all.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    I agree with Robb K in that, it was time for a woman, it just wasn't the right woman.

    On a personal tip and as a woman, it's rather annoying hearing a MAN try to speak for women, especially when they pull out that tired tripe about how we are jealous of other women. Now obviously I'm speaking from my personal perspective but I've known more than my share of women during my more than 6 decades on this earth and I assure you, many of them can be bitchy, catty and downright mean but jealousy has been relegated to only a few.

    HRC lost to uneducated White women, true in states where she should have won but again, UNEDUCATED, women who stay at home, women without careers. To say all these women are jealous, is just as condescending as some of the things I've heard HRC say and that doesn't go over well with me. If a woman dislikes a man, you never hear jealousy as the reason but flip the script and damn, we are soooooooooooo jealous [[read insecure). Come on Jerry Oz, MANY of us deserve more credit than that.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    28,614
    Rep Power
    642
    I stand corrected, ms_m. I certainly meant no offense. But with that said, check again and you will find that it was not only non-college educated women who went the other way. A large percentage of educated White women went for him as well.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Oz View Post
    The people who stayed away are progressives who believe that the Democrats made it impossible for Sanders to win. They talked about not voting for months before the election. They expressed their intention to bring Clinton down and it nothing to do with her politics. It was because their chosen pol was brought down and the DNC refused to address a long laundry list of grievances.

    BTW: I haven't seen anything on the news about e-mails all week. It dominated the news cycle for the last two years, so it must be important, right? The mainstream media absolutely did its best to make her problems seem worse than they were to keep the race tight until the end. Good job. Of Trump's victory, CBS' CEO Leslie Moonves said "It may not be good for America but it's damn good for CBS." That says it all.
    Yep, the media's greed played more than it share in this mess. It was like all these perfect storms formed, then they came together like a force of nature this country has never never seen and wiped out common sense and decency.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Oz View Post
    I stand corrected, ms_m. I certainly meant no offense. But with that said, check again and you will find that it was not only non-college educated women who went the other way. A large percentage of educated White women went for him as well.
    I regurgitated facts from 538/Nate Silver but I'll go back and check other sources.
    Apology accepted.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Quote Originally Posted by ms_m View Post
    I regurgitated facts from 538/Nate Silver but I'll go back and check other sources.
    Apology accepted.
    I'll keep checking but so far....

    http://qz.com/833003/election-2016-a...he-white-ones/

    Could it be we are both forgetting that women can be racist too?

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Quote Originally Posted by robb_k View Post
    Name:  av-5.jpg
Views: 239
Size:  21.1 KB
    It was time for a woman to run for The U.S. Presidency, The Democrats ran the wrong woman. A woman with a squeaky-clean background, who is not so intertwined with the large big-money interests, would have been better, as significant change is wanted by the frustrated voters. A Bernie Sanders-type female candidate would have been better.

    Millions of would-be Democratic voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and probably Florida, who had voted for Obama, stayed away from the polls as a protest. Had they voted Democratic, just to keep The Republicans from controlling BOTH houses of the legislature AND The Executive Branch, Hillary would have won. Had there been a qualified female candidate with a lot less ties to big money and the corporations and The main-stream Democratic Machine, she likely would have seemed a better candidate for change, and would have won [[as Sanders probably would have).

    The Democrats made a bad mistake, because they thought that Sanders would try to help "The People" too much, and not line the pockets of their own "benefactors" enough, to whom they are beholden.
    I agree with just about everything you say but I have yet to be convinced Sanders would have won.

    The pollsters [[well most) screwed up BIGLY on this and from what I've seen many people are citing a win for Sanders based on polls that were taken months ago.

    How does a man that lost in the primaries to HRC by more than 3 million votes suddenly seem like a winner in the general?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    28,614
    Rep Power
    642
    A surprising number of Black people, mostly men voted for him. The number I heard was approximately one million, including my brother-in-law. The most painful part is not that I will call his voters racist but that they don't care that he is or about who it will affect. So it makes no difference if they are not, the result is the same.

    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    28,614
    Rep Power
    642
    Quote Originally Posted by ms_m View Post
    I agree with just about everything you say but I have yet to be convinced Sanders would have won.

    The pollsters [[well most) screwed up BIGLY on this and from what I've seen many people are citing a win for Sanders based on polls that were taken months ago.

    How does a man that lost in the primaries to HRC by more than 3 million votes suddenly seem like a winner in the general?
    Because her voters would have voted for him. The opposite proved not to be true.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Oz View Post
    Because her voters would have voted for him. The opposite proved not to be true.
    Maybe, maybe not [[that he would have pulled in her voters) but I think he would have had the same problem with the uneducated White women vote she had.

    Not too mention, socialism doesn't go over well with the people who voted for "elect" and although I have issues with Sanders, purportedly "outstanding" activist Civil Rights record, that meme would have worked against him with the other side.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Oz View Post
    A surprising number of Black people, mostly men voted for him. The number I heard was approximately one million, including my brother-in-law. The most painful part is not that I will call his voters racist but that they don't care that he is or about who it will affect. So it makes no difference if they are not, the result is the same.

    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
    I hear you but the point I was making is, maybe these WOMEN were simply racist, not jealous or what have you, just straight up racist. [[think in terms of the phrase N-lover)

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    ...but you're right about one thing, at the end of the day it really doesn't matter. It is, what it is.

    I have an early day so I need to get a few hours of sleep . GN

    Always a pleasure.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Before I go...lol...I just realized there was one thing that hasn't been discussed in all of these threads.

    "Elect" energized a hella lot of people that normally wouldn't or hadn't participated in an election. Let's face it, folks came out from the shadows and now the crazies have taken over the asylum. Whatever their reason for making this happen [[and I'm talking from the top to the bottom) they feel large and in charge. A more serious question [[imo)isn't why but what...as in what can we do about it? Aside from waiting for the the crap to hit the fan. I don't have an answer. Does anyone?

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Oz View Post
    Jealousy is the reason some women won't vote for another woman. Some men won't because it means that their importance in the world is nullified when a woman is capable of wearing the pants of the leader. Same thing that some White men feel about Black men. .
    Yup! That's all very true too! This, and what I wrote, are things no one will tell the pollsters or media.

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    6,823
    Rep Power
    256
    Why were the polls so wrong?

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Quote Originally Posted by TomatoTom123 View Post
    Why were the polls so wrong?
    My first thought was the old saying, garbage in, garbage out.

    I'm not a mathematician by any stretch of the imagination so my gut answer is, don't know. But from what I can gather, it was based on the way empirical data was analyzed, entered and tabulated. shrugs

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    28,614
    Rep Power
    642
    Quote Originally Posted by TomatoTom123 View Post
    Why were the polls so wrong?
    I think there were three reasons that the polls were wrong. First, they could not accurately represent the voter ratio between urban and rural voters. The one demographic I didn't see in any poll was whether the population sample included and noted where the participants resided. Without this information, the polls couldn't predict how many bumpkins would vote in relation to slickers or which way those votes would go. And Jethro kicked Leroy's ass this time.

    Second, there was a presumption based upon participation in the primaries that X number of people would vote Democrat, but several million Sandernistas stayed home. It was a small enough number that it probably couldn't be caught in random ~750 person surveys and there was a presumption that almost all eligible voters would participate in "the most important election of our time". They didn't consider abstinence to be participation but in a way, it was.

    A third reason would be the huge number of undecided voters noted in most polls. A remarkable number of which said they decided in the week after Comey showed us his Weiner. There's no proof, but it is believed that the FBI letter, which basically said nothing substantive, was [[on top of the non-voters) the straw that broke her back.

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    4,677
    Rep Power
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by TomatoTom123 View Post
    Why were the polls so wrong?
    People lied......

    "You voting for Trump?"

    Looks left....looks right.

    "errrrrr......no....why would I?"

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    28,614
    Rep Power
    642
    Quote Originally Posted by destruction View Post
    People lied......

    "You voting for Trump?"

    Looks left....looks right.

    "errrrrr......no....why would I?"
    ^^ This. As good answer as I can imagine.

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    LAWD LOVE A DUCK!

    Dear White People, Your Safety Pins Are Embarrassing
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b02b1f5257a36a

    Name:  face-palm-and-carry-on-15.jpg
Views: 193
Size:  42.8 KB

  41. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    28,614
    Rep Power
    642
    Thanks for posting the that. Too bad it needed to be written and too bad that the people who need to read it won't. I can imagine a lot of Jill Stein supporters reading it and thinking "is he talking about me?!"

  42. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    14,979
    Rep Power
    402
    Quote Originally Posted by ms_m View Post
    I agree with just about everything you say but I have yet to be convinced Sanders would have won.

    How does a man that lost in the primaries to HRC by more than 3 million votes suddenly seem like a winner in the general?
    Name:  av-5.jpg
Views: 207
Size:  21.1 KB
    I think that idea is based on the belief that a significant amount of "protestors", who wanted change in big government, who either stayed home or switched to Trump [[because they thought ANY kind of change would be better than more of the same), would have voted for Sanders, as he, like Trump, represented change, and his brand of change would have been a lot more attractive to Democrats than Trump's. This also assumes that those "turncoats" that went over to Trump, and those disillusioned voters, who stayed home, would have given the "swing states" of Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio [[and, perhaps, also Missouri), would have given Sanders and The Democrats the victory. I think that might have been possible, as Sanders has a "squeaky clean background", and would have satisfied their need for change more than the unpredictable Trump, who had some ridiculous campaign promises, and behaved like a severely imbalanced egotistical child.

    Unfortunately for all those "protestors" who stayed home, or voted for Trump, to get their "change", they are likely to end up sorry that they wanted THAT particular form of change. It remains to be seen. But I am not optimistic about what will happen to funding for public schools and privatisation of public school systems, Social Security, Medicare, medical insurance coverage, minimum wage, replacement of Federal Supreme Court judges, funding for environmental programmes and environmental policy, Abortion and choice, funding for State universities and community colleges, etc. ad infinitum.

    All in all, it looks like a disaster to me. I have to hope that The Republicans, as a group, won't cooperate with Trump, and, of course, The Democrats won't, and that Trump's administration can get nothing done, and THAT helps The Democrats, at LEAST, take over The US Senate in 2 years, and they get close to a 50-50 split in The House of Representatives. And, further hope that Sanders will win The Presidency in 4 years, and that he won't be murdered by people who want so much money in their own pockets that the people have to continue to suffer more and more as their real income continues to be lost to inflation, so more and more money can be diverted from them into the pockets of the super rich.

    Somewhere along the line, The US general population will stop being satisfied with "toys" [[big, fast cars, electronics and the like) and rise up. I expect a bloody race/class war and revolution. I'm glad I won't be there for that. In the meantime, I have 2 more years of living there part time, and hope that will be the last of it. I hope my sister and her family will move back to Denmark, sooner, rather than later [[where I stay 2-3 months, anyway, and would then stay there a bit longer).

    I don't expect President Trump to build a wall along The Mexican border [[which wouldn't in any case, be paid for by Mexico). I don't expect Trump to spend more than Clinton would have on military actions versus "claimed" terrorists in foreign nations. I DO expect that Trump will spend more on The US Military, as a whole, than Clinton would have. I don't expect Trump to use nuclear weapons against supposed terrorists or so-called "rogue nations".

    All in all, all of us around The Globe will keep an interested eye on what Trump's administration does.

  43. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    [[and, perhaps, also Missouri), would have given Sanders and The Democrats the victory.
    Missouri? Really?

    Robb K there are some people who are questioning if he could have taken Virginia.

    Here are 10 shocking 2016 election facts: Old political assumptions are out the window now
    http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/here...he-window-now/

    It doesn't simply look like a disaster to me, IT IS! However, I suddenly had this thought that maybe this is the Universe slapping people up side the head to get them to WAKE UP!

    One can dream.

  44. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Quote Originally Posted by jerry oz View Post
    thanks for posting the that. Too bad it needed to be written and too bad that the people who need to read it won't. I can imagine a lot of jill stein supporters reading it and thinking "is he talking about me?!"
    you're welcome! ....and not just Jill Stein supporters.
    Last edited by ms_m; 11-13-2016 at 12:01 AM.

  45. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    16,025
    Rep Power
    352
    Quote Originally Posted by robb_k View Post
    Name:  av-5.jpg
Views: 207
Size:  21.1 KB
    I think that idea is based on the belief that a significant amount of "protestors", who wanted change in big government, who either stayed home or switched to Trump [[because they thought ANY kind of change would be better than more of the same), would have voted for Sanders, as he, like Trump, represented change, and his brand of change would have been a lot more attractive to Democrats than Trump's. This also assumes that those "turncoats" that went over to Trump, and those disillusioned voters, who stayed home, would have given the "swing states" of Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio [[and, perhaps, also Missouri), would have given Sanders and The Democrats the victory. I think that might have been possible, as Sanders has a "squeaky clean background", and would have satisfied their need for change more than the unpredictable Trump, who had some ridiculous campaign promises, and behaved like a severely imbalanced egotistical child.

    Unfortunately for all those "protestors" who stayed home, or voted for Trump, to get their "change", they are likely to end up sorry that they wanted THAT particular form of change. It remains to be seen. But I am not optimistic about what will happen to funding for public schools and privatisation of public school systems, Social Security, Medicare, medical insurance coverage, minimum wage, replacement of Federal Supreme Court judges, funding for environmental programmes and environmental policy, Abortion and choice, funding for State universities and community colleges, etc. ad infinitum.

    All in all, it looks like a disaster to me. I have to hope that The Republicans, as a group, won't cooperate with Trump, and, of course, The Democrats won't, and that Trump's administration can get nothing done, and THAT helps The Democrats, at LEAST, take over The US Senate in 2 years, and they get close to a 50-50 split in The House of Representatives. And, further hope that Sanders will win The Presidency in 4 years, and that he won't be murdered by people who want so much money in their own pockets that the people have to continue to suffer more and more as their real income continues to be lost to inflation, so more and more money can be diverted from them into the pockets of the super rich.

    Somewhere along the line, The US general population will stop being satisfied with "toys" [[big, fast cars, electronics and the like) and rise up. I expect a bloody race/class war and revolution. I'm glad I won't be there for that. In the meantime, I have 2 more years of living there part time, and hope that will be the last of it. I hope my sister and her family will move back to Denmark, sooner, rather than later [[where I stay 2-3 months, anyway, and would then stay there a bit longer).

    I don't expect President Trump to build a wall along The Mexican border [[which wouldn't in any case, be paid for by Mexico). I don't expect Trump to spend more than Clinton would have on military actions versus "claimed" terrorists in foreign nations. I DO expect that Trump will spend more on The US Military, as a whole, than Clinton would have. I don't expect Trump to use nuclear weapons against supposed terrorists or so-called "rogue nations".

    All in all, all of us around The Globe will keep an interested eye on what Trump's administration does.
    BTW....Many people didn't expect him to win. Many people were wrong.
    I'm sure there will be those in his inner circle that will have to figuratively and possibly literally wrestle him to the ground to keep him from taking things too far BUT....I DO NOT put anything pass Mr. P%$^^Y Grabber Elect...except the building the wall thing but other than that , nothing!

  46. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    10,798
    Rep Power
    350
    It seems when all the popular vote has been counted, Hillary Clinton will be at least a million votes ahead of Donald Trump. If you have a system of of "one person, one vote", how can it be right or fair that not everyone's vote counts equally?

  47. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,552
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by 144man View Post
    It seems when all the popular vote has been counted, Hillary Clinton will be at least a million votes ahead of Donald Trump. If you have a system of of "one person, one vote", how can it be right or fair that not everyone's vote counts equally?
    The idea behind the electoral college was to have under-populated/underrepresented areas to have an equal say. It's still an imperfect system, too.

  48. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    10,798
    Rep Power
    350
    You can't argue with the math. Hillary got more votes; Hillary won the election; the system stinks.

  49. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    6,823
    Rep Power
    256
    Quote Originally Posted by 144man View Post
    You can't argue with the math. Hillary got more votes; Hillary won the election; the system stinks.
    Yea, it's 'cause it's all done on states, and each state has a different number of electoral college votes [[depending on its population I believe) - so votes in total don't count. Does seem a bit weird and unfair!

  50. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    10,798
    Rep Power
    350
    Yes. Why should the swing states have all the power when votes for Hillary are piling up uselessly in California?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

[REMOVE ADS]

Ralph Terrana
MODERATOR

Welcome to Soulful Detroit! Kindly Consider Turning Off Your Ad BlockingX
Soulful Detroit is a free service that relies on revenue from ad display [regrettably] and donations. We notice that you are using an ad-blocking program that prevents us from earning revenue during your visit.
Ads are REMOVED for Members who donate to Soulful Detroit. [You must be logged in for ads to disappear]
DONATE HERE »
And have Ads removed.