Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

Because...?

[Phmcw]

Because...?

Because he'd have the same percentage of votes Jean Marie Le pen had. And even his score was high because of the French establishment's corruption.
Peoples like Trumps don't get votes because of their program, but because the obvious flaws in their opponents.


Peoples on the pro trump internet are discussion Clinton's flaw a lot but have very little in common. Same for the FN in France, or the Brexit campain.

[mainiac]

Because...?

Because he'd have the same percentage of votes Jean Marie Le pen had. And even his score was high because of the French establishment's corruption.
Peoples like Trumps don't get votes because of their program, but because the obvious flaws in their opponents.

Ah yes, that totally explain how he won the republican primaries.

[Sheb]

Bernie is apparently fundraising for other progressive Democrats, including 300,000$ for Deborah Ross (NC).

[UXLZ]

Because...?

Because he'd have the same percentage of votes Jean Marie Le pen had. And even his score was high because of the French establishment's corruption.
Peoples like Trumps don't get votes because of their program, but because the obvious flaws in their opponents.

Ah yes, that totally explain how he won the republican primaries.

Say what you want, but do you honestly think Trump would have a chance if his opponent was Sanders or (almost) anyone other than Hillary?

Then again, he'd probably beat O'Malley. A lot of people are utterly sick of everything Hillary represents. (And before someone says something positive about her, I mean the status quo, not "supporting the children" or whatever.)

[UXLZ]

...in the Republican Primary?

General Election. Most people would be able to beat him because they'd get a bunch of independents and line-crossing Republicans. The problem is that a lot of people find Clinton as repulsive as Trump so it's a lot more even than it would usually be.

And let's be honest... His GOP competition wasn't that strong. At least, it didn't seem like it to me. His campaign also received a huge advantage in terms of all the free media coverage.

[Phmcw]

Ah yes, that totally explain how he won the republican primaries.

Because the republican's candidate weren't better in any meaningful way and somehow even less persuasive?


The issue that rep has is that American followed right-wing crony corporatism to the end and have nowhere to go from there.
Republicans had to invent something and well, they didn't have anything.


In a sense that remind me of post-war Germany, that followed militarism to its end and ended up accusing Jews and pacifists for their failure.

Weimar’s republic was headed by von Hindenburg who was no less militaristic than Hitler and had the same kind of idea about ethnic cleansing in Poland.
They had one logic, and Hitler's was just more internally consistent : if the jews were guilty, why tolerate them? If we're the best, why bother with diplomacy? If war is great, why not wage war?
Of course all three assumptions were false, but no one was saying that in Germany's governement.


Likewise, Trump can be convincing because  if you believe the false assumption of American republicans, he's more internally consistent.

[mainiac]

Say what you want, but do you honestly think Trump would have a chance if his opponent was Sanders or (almost) anyone other than Hillary?

I think that if Sanders were the nominee then you would be saying:
Say what you want, but do you honestly think Trump would be running seven points behind Clinton right now?

That is assuming that Sanders was winning by seven and not more like four points.  Cuz Sanders wouldn't have as much crossover support from college educated republicans, especially republican women.  He could pick up a few more points among lefty registered voters 26 and under but those are a hell of a lot less common then college educated republican women.

[Frumple]

Actually fairly sure trump would have kicked bernie's ass. The problem is they're both demagogues, but the group sanders targets with it is notably less susceptible to it. Add on sanders not being nearly as competent a speaker or campaigner as clinton and the flat fact he'd be less popular with undecideds or repulsed republicans (clinton may have a lot of bad media, but sanders flies the socialist flag and doesn't have the sense to even attempt to make peace with folks too ideologically separate from him), and you've got a recipe for a lost campaign.

Oddly enough, if it wasn't for the baggage of that goddamn media assault making mountains out of mole farts, clinton would have easily been one of the best candidates the dems could have fielded. Like it or not she's without doubt one of the most experienced and capable politicians qua politicking in the current american political realm, and against a demagogue as shameless and undisciplined as trump that's a hell of a benefit.

[Wolock]

I found an interesting sentence in the wiki article about Plato's Republic.

The populism of the Democratic government leads to mob rule, fueled by fear of oligarchy, which a clever demagogue can exploit to take power and establish Tyranny.

With a lot of people who consider that the US is nearly, if not outright, an oligarchy ruled by a political class in the pocket of Big Money with Clinton as a member of that class and Trump boasting that he has no experience in politics, that he will clean the corruption in D.C. and that the election will be rig against him while having a good chunk of the votes, that sentence seems to represent well the election.

[mainiac]

Actually fairly sure trump would have kicked bernie's ass.

I think Sanders would beat Trump, too many skeletons in Trumps closet.  But Sanders would be the perfect foil to Trump.  Calling himself a socialist would allow Trump to make the race a normal partisan race as much as possible.  Decades of sexual assault coming to light will cost a politician a normal partisan race but they can lose by a normal margin like we are seeing right now.

[Frumple]

Unlike?

Though I guess. I'd just be worried about sanders actually being able to capitalize on those skeletons, mostly. Half figure he'd just let them flounder and stump only/primarily on his ideological grounds, and m'doubtful he'd be able to win on that.

[mainiac]

Unlike?

If the never Trump movement had been successful, republicans had denounced Trump and he lost in a 25 point landslide.

Because the republican's candidate weren't better in any meaningful way and somehow even less persuasive?

Ah so you agree that it's the fault of the republican party then.  Thanks for clearing that up.

[LoSboccacc]

well you'd think if Sander was good at dialectic or hitting people with their skeletons would have bested Clinton - so well claiming it would do better against Trump on these points is kinda misguided that said he might have given asylum to many discontent republicans on the issues alone.


"those damn emails" moment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOOfwN0iYxM

[Frumple]

Any republicans that went to sanders almost certainly wouldn't have been doing it on the issues, though. Policy wise there wasn't much difference between him and clinton, and most of where there was wasn't exactly stuff more likely to draw in discontent light red folks.