14th November 2016, 5:53 PM
Weltall Wrote:I remember each one of these but the last from the primary.I don't, I hadn't heard of maybe any of the things in that second paragraph there. And beyond that, Hillary herself, her advertising campaign, and such never mentioned any of them. Republicans, on the other hand, would have had ads on for months hammering him for those things, like they did with Hillary. Relatively few people knew about any of those things during the primaries, but everyone would have known of whichever ones the Republicans focused on in the general. Very different situation there.
Quote:What I do know is that socialism and atheism are neither as deeply unpopular as Hillary Clinton (50% find socialism unfavorable, 55% for Clinton according to the final RCP average).That number for socialism would be higher after half a year of Republican attack ads aimed at Bernie, I think.
Quote: Furthermore, neither of these things is unpopular among young voters (another demographic Clinton simply assumed would flock to her; she got 55%).Uh, you think younger voters find nothing in that list objectionable? None are horrible, sure, but the "ship nuclear waste to Texas" thing might, and voting against the Amber Alert system and such too. But unfortunately, younger voters rarely vote so while the slightly lower younger voter vote percent hurt, it wasn't a kille, since you can't rely on younger voters anyway. If younger voters actually voted we would be in a very different situation in this country today, because most are liberal.
Quote:The MSM spent months calling Trump a fascist and a racist and accused him of actually raping people rather than writing a fictional story about it 44 years ago, and I'm quite certain all those things are far less favorable than being 'socialist', but none of that stopped him.Sure, but it would be a race between two candidates damaged by attacks, and Bernie's big negative (socialism) is a bigger one than any one of Trump's. That most certainly should not be the case, but it is. Overall though, it's not like a Trump-Bernie race would have been positive and issues-focused, no way that happens with Trump on the ballot. It would have been a very negative campaign either way and Bernie had some big negatives and lines of attack too that most people do not know of unless they closely followed the primaries, and even then I still hadn't heard all of that.
Quote:In fact, you really have to give Trump credit. He singlehandedly destroyed both major party establishments in just one year.Yeah, I agree that we definitely need to try to come up with a strategy to win over Trump voters who are not committed Republican voters, yeah. For sure. What I'm not sure about is if Keith Ellison is the person to lead that effort or not. It looks like he's the likely one to do it, though... but beyond how liberal he is, will he be DNC head part-time, or quit Congress to run the DNC? Having someone splitting time between congress and the DNC does not always work well, as we have seen. This is a concern I've seen around today, and it does seem like a good one, since both of our last two DNC chairs have been sitting elected officials, splitting time between the DNC and their main job, and we haven't done great through most of that time, 2012 excepted of course.
18 experienced politicians decided that the best way to beat Trump was to wait and hope for his fans to turn on him. Considering how that turned out for all 18 of them, perhaps Dems need to figure out how to make a proactive play for those independents who went his way and make for them an actual, convincing case that we will do a better job, rather than hoping they figure it out on their own. Doing that means we need a credible voice who speaks for Democrats.