18 months later and Hillary won't go away.

We can't forget her and let her approval rating rise in nostalgic retrospect if she won't just go away.

I'd like to hear from some of the adults pundits about what other losing presidential candidates ever hung around like a bad smell like Hillary has.

She's probably still serving on a few corporate boards, for companies which you could presumably boycott, but she's not in government. What exactly do you want?

I voted for Trump, because Hillary, like Angela Merkel, would have flung open the borders to Middle Eastern and African Muslim horndogs who can't control themselves around women dressed in anything less than a tent.

And I have no doubt, when we point out that the refugees are inflicting their brand of horror upon the nation, with the massive jump in the number of rapes and terrorist attacks, Hillary would have simply shown her trademarked, plastered-on, false-toothy, fake smile, and -- just like Merkel -- given us a nice Marie Antoinette "Let them eat cake!" response and let even more in.

(Yes, I know Marie Antoinette never said, "Let them eat cake!" so you smug, pedantic history buffs can just shut your gaping semen receptacles.)

I loathe Donald Trump. Besides being a repulsive pig, he's never met a conspiracy theory he doesn't love (and even goes so far as to invent his own, such as Ted Cruz's father's alleged involvement in the Kennedy assassination). But he's simply safer for the American people than the alternative.

It's not that I object to the risks we face as the world's most powerful nation, but this risk is so completely unnecessary. Just don't let them in. It's that simple.

I really want the Democratic party to follow this guys advice. In short, the candidate wasn’t *left enough* and thats why they lost. Hillary is a prisoner of “corporate interests” (yea, foreign corporate interests)

Sheesh, double down my friends, double down.

It looks like they are doubling down Isab. I keep hearing about the 'new' democrat party. And when they talk policy it is all more of the same. More welfare and benefits, raise taxes. And that is it. So more of the same.

It looks like they are doubling down Isab. I keep hearing about the 'new' democrat party. And when they talk policy it is all more of the same. More welfare and benefits, raise taxes. And that is it. So more of the same. ~ Ben at April 1, 2018 6:20 AM

The biggest problem the Democrats have right now is they're not doing an honest post-mortem of the 2016 election.

Clinton is touring the country (and the world) blaming ignorant voters, the patriarchy, sexism, homophobia, and racism for her loss. She even wrote a book. Way to swing those deplorables to your side, Hill.

In defiance of Hillary's claims, hyper-liberals are blaming the party and its top-down super delegate selection system for not choosing Sanders, an ultra-leftist. That Hillary was too cozy with banks and Wall Street is why she lost, they say.

The reality is that neither Sanders nor Clinton would have beaten Trump in that election. The issues on the voters' minds were jobs, the cost of health insurance, illegal immigration, terrorism, etc. None of which the Democrats addressed directly.

Trump talked about jobs, they talked about banks. Trump talked about illegal immigration, they talked about open borders. Trump talked about trade deficits, they talked about free trade pacts. Trump talked about terrorism, they talked about Islamophobia. Trump talked about repealing and replacing expensive ObamaCare, they talked about expanding it. Trump talked about freedom, they talked about gun control and hate speech. Trump's slogan was about America ("Make America Great Again"), theirs was about the candidate ("I'm with her."). Trump called the voters Americans, they called them "deplorables."

Trump flipped the working class from union-bound Democrat voters to Republican voters. A non-union job beats sitting at the union hall not working, especially when your idiot in-laws are making decent money working a line in right-to-work states like Tennessee or Alabama or South Carolina.

The next Democrat candidate may win on all those issues as Millennials with their preference for safe spaces and trigger warnings begin to vote in large numbers. And if the next Democrat candidate does win, the Democrats will still not have done an honest post-mortem on their issues with working class voters and rural America.

Won't matter, though. Once they win, "a racist and sexist America afraid of a woman president" will become enshrined in history books as fact.

The country needs a strong second party whose message resonates with voters. This iteration of the Democratic Party is not it. This Democratic Party is an angry fringe movement, like the secessionists in South Carolina in 1861, the Communists in St. Petersburg in 1917, and the Nazis in Weimar Germany in 1932. The party's voices of reason are being shouted down and the lunatics are being put in charge.

Crid, were you asking me?

I want her to shut up, go away, and keep her fingers out of the DNC.

Let the Clinton era go away too and take the Bush Dynasty along with her.

When you lose the Presidential election your role is to shut up and go away for at least a year for the good of the country to give the new President some breathing room and to enable your party to reflect on the loss on their own and make changes.

Clinton's behavior strengthen's Trump bullshit while enabling the media to continue theirs, keeps the DNC ossified and keeps the country at each other's throats.

It's petty, obnoxious, narcissistic, egotistical, hysterical, backstabbing whining that does nothing to debunk any stereotypes about women leaders.

Her behavior right now vindicates every vote against her.

Jonathan Turley's post today:

https://jonathanturley.org/2018/04/01/clinton-people-calling-for-me-to-go-away-are-sexist/

Conan:

In defiance of Hillary's claims, hyper-liberals are blaming the party and its top-down super delegate selection system for not choosing Sanders, an ultra-leftist. That Hillary was too cozy with banks and Wall Street is why she lost, they say.

I don't think the typical Democratic voter even knows enough about Wall Street to care whether she's cozy with them.

I blame two things Clinton did for her loss. One, as I mentioned above, was her cavalier attitude toward her subjects' apprehension toward allowing Middle Eastern refugees into the U.S.

But like all elitists, including Hollywood liberals, they couldn't care less. They themselves will not have to deal with the immigrants, because the government support given to them would not allow the immigrants to move into the same neighborhoods as the elitists. So, you deal with them, peasants!

Angelina Jolie, for instance, insists that Islam is a beauuuuutiful religion. I wonder how many Muslims from the Middle East she would have let move into her home. I'm sure they would love to venture their opinions on some of the outfits she allows herself to be seen in while in public.

The other reason is Black Lives Matter, which did a fantastic job of sabotaging both Sanders and Clinton. They took over a Sanders speech, insisting that they were going to speak first. Rather than assert himself and call for security to eject the activists, Bernie weakly ceded the floor to them. And having other pressing engagements, he left his own rally.

His supporters who came to hear him speak didn't get to. Instead, they saw him run like a coward from bullies.

One of them also sabotaged a Clinton rally, claiming that she called black people "super-predators." Rather than point out that she was talking about gang members, and that it's only the protesters' own bigotry that assumes that only black people can be gang members or that all black people are gang members or supporters of gang culture, she decided to piously listen to their grievances and adjusted her campaign accordingly. With predictably disastrous results.

She sanctimoniously scolded an audience of predominantly poor working-class whites, about how they need to listen when black people talk about their oppression. And how ashamed of themselves they needed to be for being so privileged.

She'll make more money in a year than they will working for the entire rest of their lives. She could retire now to an opulent lifestyle and never have to earn another penny. And this self-righteous harridan is haranguing poor, working-class people about how privileged they are.

/golfclap

Yes, of course, there are other things she did that cost her votes. But I really believe if it hadn't been for these two things, she would have won handily.

Yes, of course, there are other things she did that cost her votes. But I really believe if it hadn't been for these two things, she would have won handily.

Patrick at April 1, 2018 10:28 AM

Well there was also gun control. The dems still think that is a winning issue, even when most of their working class base and a lot of ethnic minorities are gun owners.
They lost people like my dad, and his entire family in 1968 although that odious piece of shit LBJ did a lot to undermine his own party with working Americans before that.

Hillary got pushed left by Bernie Sanders, and her winning personality did the rest.

Patrick,

"Wall Street" in this case does not refer specifically to investment banks. Its a metaphor for corporate America. Hillary is seen by younger leftists as too corporate, entwined with and beholden to corporate interests.

"So how did we arrive at a place today where, to some on the left, she is “the candidate of the war machine” with a “deeply pro-corporate ideology” who is “building on the legacy of Ronald Reagan.” How does one go from a symbol of women’s equality and battler of corporate interests to being perceived as the personification of the corrupt intersection of corporations and government?"

AND

"Of course, there’s a difference between those mentioned and Clinton: They’ve had the opportunity to prove that they were not defined by past votes and individual ties. Obama built up early reservoirs of good will on the left for gutting out the Recovery Act and Obamacare, and maintained it in the second term with a steady stream of liberal executive actions. Biden has been depicted as a dovish voice within the Obama administration. Warren and Sanders have taken so many bold positions that they drown out the occasional discordant note. Clinton, on the other hand, didn’t have an unequivocally “liberal” accomplishment as secretary of state and rather prominently took the hawkish side of many internal White House debates. And serving as Democratic senator during the George W. Bush administration didn’t provide many openings for big legislative wins."

The article makes the point that Hillary didn't spend a lot of effort in letting voters get to know the real her. Her almost paranoid need to present a slick and polished image to voters meant they never saw her a progressive fighter in the trenches, her biggest fights having taken place before many younger voters were born. Trump stood before the voters, warts and all.

Conan:

"Wall Street" in this case does not refer specifically to investment banks. Its a metaphor for corporate America. Hillary is seen by younger leftists as too corporate, entwined with and beholden to corporate interests.

It's an interesting if somewhat biased article. I don't quite see Hillary as the plaster-saint the author is sculpting.

But regarding the idea that Hillary is "too corporate," I can ask rhetorically, "Too corporate? Compared to Donald Trump?"

But regarding the idea that Hillary is "too corporate," I can ask rhetorically, "Too corporate? Compared to Donald Trump?" ~ Patrick at April 1, 2018 11:20 AM

I can answer non-rhetorically. Progressives were never going to vote for Trump, so his level of "corporate-ness" was never an issue.

Hillary, on the other hand, needed to appeal to progressive voters, so being "too corporate" was an issue for her.

.

Conan: I can answer non-rhetorically. Progressives were never going to vote for Trump, so his level of "corporate-ness" was never an issue.

Not to be confrontational, Conan, but you've obliquely accused me of being a liberal many times, despite my own protests of being an independent.

I wanted to vote for Hillary, but for the reasons I already mentioned, I voted for Trump.

So, apparently, some of us progressives were prepared to cross the line.

Isab: I really want the Democratic party to follow this guys advice. In short, the candidate wasn’t *left enough* and thats why they lost.

* * *

The guy doing this video is firmly in the If-Bernie-Had-Run-Against-Trump-Of-Course-He-Would-Have-Won camp.

I'm not. I think it's possible Sanders would've beaten Trump, but not likely.

I believe that a "more left" candidate could win the presidency, but it would have to be someone who has charisma and can really sell their beliefs.

Not to be confrontational, Conan, but you've obliquely accused me of being a liberal many times, despite my own protests of being an independent. ~ Patrick at April 1, 2018 11:42 AM

Obliquely? I've come right out and said that you have leftist leanings. You've advocated collectivism a few times more than a true "independent" would. And, no, I cannot provide cites at this point. It's more a feeling than a quantifiable certainty.

I've met many leftists in my life who insist they're moderates and independents, but vote the straight Democrat Party ticket.

Conservatives, too, who insist they're moderate, but vote straight Republican - which, given the party's lean toward collectivism and crony capitalism makes voting Republican less of a bellwether of having a conservative political outlook.

I subscribe to a political spectrum that has collectivism to the left and individualism to the right. Anarchists occupy the far right and totalitarians (including fascists and Communists) the far left. Republicans fall in the middle, toward the right and Democrats fall in the middle, toward the left. Republicans do not fall as far to the right as Democrats do to the left, meaning voting straight Republican in defense of individual liberty is not a sound strategy, but voting straight Democrat in defense of a statist society is.

I wanted to vote for Hillary.... ~ Patrick at April 1, 2018 11:42 AM

Why? What appealed to you about her? What made you think she would make a good president - in the abstract, not just when compared to Trump?

Patrick, you committed a mortal sin when you refused to embrace diversity thru open borders and allowing refugees from all over to come and suck on the teat of big government. The Church of Progress has excommunicated you, if you were unaware.

Voting for Trump and admitting it? Double-plus ungood.

But, there is hope. You simply need to renounce your white privilege, and commit seppuku upon the altar of open borders and all will be forgiven.

I kid. Even then, you won't be forgiven for your traitorous ways. Apologies are not accepted in that church.

It's an interesting if somewhat biased article. ~ Patrick at April 1, 2018 11:20 AM

It is, falling just short of being a hagiography. But I found it interesting in that it took her side, portraying her as a flawed person instead of a political caricature. Most of the Hillary-as-a-bad-candidate stuff I've read is on the side of her being evil incarnate - either because she's too liberal or too corporate.

I suspect the author has a point, however, that if she'd been more genuine and less scripted, she might have won over some of those voters who found her to be an opportunist and little more than a political weather vane, blowing whichever way the votes were.

I doubt it Conan. Hillary is inherently an abrasive person. Bill has charisma that leaks from his pores. Hillary doesn't. Which is why she insists on being so scripted. She knows that whenever she goes off script she ends up ticking off people all over the place.

Conan: I subscribe to a political spectrum that has collectivism to the left and individualism to the right. Anarchists occupy the far right and totalitarians (including fascists and Communists) the far left. Republicans fall in the middle, toward the right and Democrats fall in the middle, toward the left.

Republicans are all for individualism when it comes to being able to maintain an arsenal of deadly weapons at your home and getting shit-faced on cheap cans of PBR. But not individualism when it comes to marrying who you love or smoking weed.

Guns don't kill people. Pot-smoking homos kill people.

Republicans are all for individualism when it comes to being able to maintain an arsenal of deadly weapons at your home and getting shit-faced on cheap cans of PBR. But not individualism when it comes to marrying who you love or smoking weed. ~ JD at April 1, 2018 2:26 PM

Thank you, JD, for that insightful and in-depth analysis of the Republican Party. You add so much to these discussions.

Next time, try it without the sneering condescension toward working class people who opt for lower-price beer and hold more traditional views than you do, views that are changing, by the way.

And the right to self-defense is one I happen to support. As for arsenals of deadly weapons, chances are that you already have an arsenal of deadly weapons in your house.

Why? What appealed to you about her? What made you think she would make a good president - in the abstract, not just when compared to Trump?

I should say, I wanted Hillary to be more like her husband. I wanted Hillary to be something she wasn't. Bill Clinton did what Hillary should have when confronted by her comments by Black Lives Matter protesters.

But instead of defending herself when she was clearly wrongly accused of things she never said, she nodded her head grimly, and accepted the injustice being done to her.

A slight diversion. This may run long, but there is a point. Among my fellow Christians, I've noticed, there is a propensity to view men the head of the household (precisely because the Apostle Paul said they are). When questioning why women can't be preachers (although some churches allow this, and my church was founded by a woman), I've even heard women say, "Women are too emotional."

Too emotional for what?

Whether women are "too emotional," whatever that means, there are clearly exceptions, even in the Bible, that recognize that the gender-assigned roles are not always absolute. Judges 4, for instance, tells us the story of Deborah, a woman who was Judge over Israel. There are only three people in the Bible who have ever held the three offices of judge, prophet and military leader simultaneously: Moses, Samuel and Deborah.

Judges has been called the ugliest book in the Bible. And with that gruesome story in Judges 19, I understand why. Moreover, the judges tended to be terrible people. Ehud was a trecherous assassin, Gideon (though he was a military leader and not a judge) was an idolator, Samson was a gullible, hot-headed womanizer.

Deborah, by contrast, kept her hands clean, proving herself to be braver than even Barak, her reluctant field marshal.

And there are, of course, other notable women in the Bible who have demonstrated they are capable of more than just being someone's wife. Miriam, Esther, Huldah, and others.

But Hillary and Merkel are more stereotype than exception. I don't know what is governing Merkel's madness -- seeing her people being abused by immigrants and responding by insisting that they have to let even more in -- but it's clear it's not logic. I don't know if she's "too emotional" to be a leader, but I know she shouldn't be. And Hillary is clearly cut from the same cloth. She fancies herself a leader. She deludes herself.

And the stereotype seems to be that men are logical, women are emotional, but again, I never viewed these rules as absolute. And people, regardless of gender, should be allowed to rise to whatever office they can, regardless of the traditional gender that holds it.

And if men find themselves more suited to a role that traditionally goes to women, let them have at it. Let the individual go to the role their own personality dictates they should go. No shame in following the traditional role, and no shame in bucking it, either.

I doubt it Conan. Hillary is inherently an abrasive person. Bill has charisma that leaks from his pores. Hillary doesn't. Which is why she insists on being so scripted. She knows that whenever she goes off script she ends up ticking off people all over the place. ~ Ben at April 1, 2018 2:12 PM

She can be abrasive, but she was never actually human to the voters. Part of that was that she never opened up to people. She doesn't genuinely like people, whereas Bill did.

She needed to give a Checkers speech, but she never did; she never even acknowledged the need to give one.

Hillary never gave the impression of someone capable of having fun. Her laugh, when we saw it at all, was a cackle. She rarely smiled. She was defensive about everything, never once using self-deprecating humor. Even Al Gore learned to relax and make fun of himself once in a while.

And her performance in the 1993 Healthcare fiasco, as the article points out, was horrid - driven by her desire to control every aspect of the process and shut out people with whom she disagreed.

Had she learned anything from that experience, we'd have seen a different Hillary in the Senate, in the State Department, and on the campaign trail. But Hillary is not a learning animal; she is not honest with herself, nor with others.

"She needed to give a Checkers speech, but she never did; she never even acknowledged the need to give one."

Because she can't. That isn't Hillary. And she isn't a skilled enough liar or actor to portray one either. I'll grant that Hillary isn't a 'learning animal'. How many politicians actually are? She is old. Is it any surprise she is set in her ways? So I can't hold that against her.

At the end of the day what Hillary needed to be in order to win the presidency was something Hillary can't do. Being completely scripted and robotic was the closest she could do.

"I don't know what is governing Merkel's madness ..."

Guilt. It's a German thing. Talk to some for a while and everything Merkel is doing makes perfect sense. Stupid sense. But predictable and very German. Due to her cultural guilt over the Holocaust she is doing her best to setup the next one. Not intentionally. But good intentions don't mean shit. The road to hell and all that jazz.

Conan Says:

"The reality is that neither Sanders nor Clinton would have beaten Trump in that election."

Only half of this statement is valid.

You know how the election turned out for Clinton.

However, your statement about Sanders is pure speculation on your part that you are dressing up as fact.

The reality is that at the time Bernie was knocked out of the DNC primary he had a very substantial lead in the polls over Trump... a larger margin than Hillary had.

As a result you have no basis upon which to declare that he surely would have lost to Trump when Trumps margin of victory over Clinton was slim at best.

A slim margin of victory for Trump over Clinton could have translated to a victory for Sanders given the information we have available.

That being said we are discussing counterfactual histories here, so none of us know for certain how things would have played out.

My only point is that things were too close between Clinton and Trump to declare by fiat that Sanders would have lost when he had a larger advantage over Trump than Clinton when they were all in contention.

“M y only point is that things were too close between Clinton and Trump to declare by fiat that Sanders would have lost when he had a larger advantage over Trump than Clinton when they were all in contention.

Artemis at April 1, 2018 7:07 PM

Hillary had both the nomination, the DNC money, and most of the rest of the campaign money locked up. So all this speculation about Bernie and what his poll numbers might have looked like in the only poll that matters, is just so much hot air.

If Bernie had lucked into the nomination, for example if Hillary had been indicted or broken her neck in one of those accidental falls, I suspect that the election would have looked much like 72 when the democratic party hung George McGovern out to dry. Bernie wasn't their boy, and wasn't ever gonna be.

Isab Says:

"So all this speculation about Bernie and what his poll numbers might have looked like in the only poll that matters, is just so much hot air."

So why are you and Conan speculating that he would lose?

On the one hand you both are stating with great confidence what would have happened... after acknowledging that the information we have available isn't sufficient to make an accurate prediction.

You cannot have it both ways.

If it is all hot air then you have to admit that you have no idea what would happen.

“On the one hand you both are stating with great confidence what would have happened... after acknowledging that the information we have available isn't sufficient to make an accurate prediction.”

Yea, I can, because my speculation hasn't been pulled out of La La Land. It acknowledges that the Dems have effectively closed their primaries to the populists and dark horses, through the Super delegates. They very strictly control the nomination process through their state organizations and they control the funding. Barring some cataclysym, Bernie wasn't going to be the nominee. He knew it, before he even entered the race.

The media liked to pretend that he had a chance. It was all a sham designed to placate the rubes into thinking they had a choice, and then to settle for Clinton who was the inevitable nominee before the dog and pony show even started.

You Bernie fan boys crack me up.

Yes, Artie, it is speculation, but well-informed speculation.

Your "Bernie would have won" speculation is driven by pure fantasy, just like Bernie's "this time, we'll do socialism right."

I don't think she was, I think the establishment actively choose and groomed her. The didn't settle for her, they wanted her

Interesting you say that Patrick. I keep telling people here that Merkel is responsible for Trump but they don't all believe me, however I have seen so many comments like yours.

HIllary or other democrats would have taken in more Syrian refugees, it is true. And personally, given how the US fucked up the Middle East, I feel it is the correct thing to do

BUT

Hillary was talking tens of thousands. Not millions. Not an open door policy. Even the much lauded Trudeau didn't take in a huge number, and his were vetted.

I'm also for taking a limited number of vetted refugees. And no one is gonna walk or swim to the US from the Middle East.

Merkel fucked it up big time. She squandered the goodwill of a LOT of countries that would have taken some.

I keep telling people here that goodwill is limited, and when you waste it on a bunch of able-bodied men who don't really need it, then it's your elderly, women, kids, and other vulnerable populations that are gonna end up being the ones cut off.

And most European countries around me have taken in more than they can absorb. It'd be ok, probably, if they would slow down now and focus on integrating the ones they have but they don't. They pile more on.

Conan Says:

"Yes, Artie, it is speculation, but well-informed speculation.

Your "Bernie would have won" speculation is driven by pure fantasy, just like Bernie's "this time, we'll do socialism right.""

I didn't speculate anything Conan.

My only comment has been that your speculation is in direct opposition to the only limited piece of data that we have available.

You call your speculation "well-informed"... but it runs contrary to the only data we have.

That isn't a "well-informed" opinion... that is made up nonsense that you are trying to masquerade as fact.

All we can know for certain is that prior to Bernie being out of contention, he had a larger lead over Trump in the polls than Clinton did.

I have no idea what would have transpired after that point.

Your claim that he would have lost is unfounded and without merit on the basis of the information we have.

That doesn't make me a "fan boy"... it makes me someone who can properly assimilate data and draw conclusions from it.

I had similar conversations with Clinton supporters who were absolutely certain she was going to win... I told them the data didn't suggest it was a slam dunk. They also thought they were "well-informed".

Isab Says:

"Yea, I can, because my speculation hasn't been pulled out of La La Land."

I know it isn't coming from la la land because it is instead coming straight from your rectum.

Since you are adamant that your speculation is based on "fact"... can you please point me to the factual information that would indicate that Bernie would have almost certainly lost to Trump in the general election?

Here are the facts I am going with to assert that it isn't possible to rationally draw that conclusion:

1 - As of June 5th 2016 Sanders had a 10.4% lead over Trump in the polls

2 - As of June 5th 2016 Clinton had a 2.0% lead over Trump in the polls

3 - As of November 7th 2016 Clinton had a 3.2% lead over Trump in the polls

What one needs to believe is that an 8.4% differential in polling numbers in June was meaningless in distinguishing Sanders from Clinton in a hypothetical general election run.

That is preposterous though. 8.4% is a HUGE number.

The DNC was arrogant and stupid. They erroneously believed that a 2-3% margin was going to make Clinton a shoe in.

By the same token it is arrogant and stupid of you to assume that an 8.4% differential in June would end up being meaningless come November.

We simply do not know what would have happened in the intervening months, but that kind of a difference is too large to ignore and just declare that Bernie would have lost because "reasons".

Isab,

One further comment to clarify why your position doesn't make any sense.

Conan claimed that even if Sanders had made it to the general election he would have lost to Trump.

I contended that the data available doesn't justify such a conclusion.

You then popped in to content that the conclusion is justified because the DNC would never have permitted Sanders to win the primary.

Do you understand why your statement is completely illogical given the conversation that was taking place?

Conan's claim was predicated upon Sanders somehow becoming the general election candidate.

My comment was in response to that.

You can't declare I am wrong by invalidating the point I was responding to.

You should instead be telling Conan that his counterfactual world is ridiculous and having an argument with him.

Instead you are putting me in the position of having to defend Conan's axiomatic assertion.

In his counterfactual world Bernie got the nomination and lost anyway.

This wasn't a conversation about how realistically Bernie could have gotten the DNC nomination, in Conan's counterfactual world that is taken as a given that we need to accept in order to properly analyze what happens afterward in the general election.

NicoleK:

Hillary was talking tens of thousands. Not millions. Not an open door policy. Even the much lauded Trudeau didn't take in a huge number, and his were vetted.

And the few that Trudeau did take in have fucked it up massively. Yes, when you take in refugees, you do expect elevated crime levels; however, middle eastern men are simply not suited to western culture. In time, that may change, but for now, they're not.

In the west, if a man rapes a woman, he is held responsible and prosecuted. (Despite the feminists attempt at argumentum ad nauseam, asserting that the west is a rape culture.) In the Middle East, if a woman is raped, the presumption is that she did something to provoke it and she has to prove that she didn't.

Consequently, Middle Eastern men tend to think it is their right to place hands (or something else) on (or in) a woman who is not dressed in conformity with their idea of modesty, i.e., covered from head to toe in a shapeless bodysack.

And perhaps this is unfair, but I simply don't believe Hillary had any intention of stopping with a mere tens of thousands of refugees from Syria. That was the tamer position she openly advocated to avoid harming her chances of getting elected.

That doesn't make me a "fan boy"... it makes me someone who can properly assimilate data and draw conclusions from it. ~ Artemis at April 1, 2018 11:57 PM

Artie, what makes you a "fan boy" is that you've adoringly defended Sanders at every turn. Whenever anyone on this forum dares to criticize Sanders, you leap to his defense with the fervor of an Elvis fan insisting The King is alive.

What you Sanderistas ignore is that Bernie was a hard-left candidate who openly advocated socialism. This country, especially the working class which propelled Trump to victory has always regarded socialism as some sort of communist plot.

And Artie, you've never been someone who can "properly assimilate data and draw conclusions from it." I used to make a pretty good living assimilating data, drawing conclusions from it, and presenting those conclusions to people who had to make decisions based on them, decisions worth millions of dollars. I've amassed a pretty good track record in that department.

You, on the other hand, don't draw conclusions from data. You stake out your position and use the data to validate it, dismissing anything that does not fit your conclusion.

Yes, polling data had Bernie ahead by a wider margin than Clinton. However, that polling data suffered from several issues, including a non-response bias, and did not accurately count the working-class voters who propelled Trump to victory.

Other issues with the 2016 polling data include the Bradley Effect, in which respondents tell pollsters what they think they want to hear (shy about admitting they would be voting for Trump). The way the pollsters identified likely voters also comes under some suspicion - remember Nixon's "Silent Majority?"

The candidates and the news networks relied on the nationwide polling numbers, which did predict the popular vote, but not the state-by-state voting which drives the Electoral College.

But go ahead and tell us how Bernie "might have won." We all love a good bedtime story.

Patrick, of course it is a problem. The problem with liberals is they don't like to admit that any problems might arise, and therefor do not prepare for them. You bring in a bunch of refugees, you better be ready to teach them local laws and customs, and social cues and nuances particularly around sex and dating. If you are unable to provide basic education about the society, then don't bring them in.

Maybe she was lowballing the estimate, but again, Hillary was not going to bring in a million people. Millions of people coming in will be from Canada or Mexico, not the Middle East. I do think the US can absorb a decent chunk, I felt like 60k was about right, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the general population and not enough to cause a huge cultural shift.

UNLIKE MERKEL.

I cannot say enough negative things about her open door policy.

And you know, if they were hardasses about the crime that followed, it would be one thing, but they aren't. They just handwring and cry about those poor, lost refugees and it isn't their fault or whatever. BS!

“I felt like 60k was about right, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the general population and not enough to cause a huge cultural shift.”

I might agree if the refugees consisted of families with young children, and they were spread out evenly across the US, but they never are. They are mostly military age young men, with no money, no skills and anti western cultural values.

The democratic party is in the business of creating ethic ghetto voting blocks in strategic electoral college states.

And that, Isabelle, is the problem and why we tend to have this all-or-nothing debate. The left could probably save a lot of destitute people if they were a little more common sense about it.

You could take a few families and put them in areas where they are losing young people. You could rescue some gays and put them in San Francisco. You could rescue some old people and put them in Florida.

And the problem is most people on the left are against specific efforts like saving Syrian Christians (I think there may be legal barriers as well), which is too bad, because if we saved 60k Syrian Christians that would already take a bit of pressure off some of the camps and other rescue efforts.

The biggest problem the Democrats have right now is they're not doing an honest post-mortem of the 2016 election.

Trump won for the same reason Obama did, they were 'outsiders' promising change and shake ups to the status quo.

The media did a great job carrying Obama, not one major pundit - even on the right - ever asked how a jr one term senator had the largest warchest in history

The media inadvertently carried Trump as well, Im sure they assumed Clinton would beat him more easily than any other republican, but their campaign to show him as a buffoon and incapable of governance is, I think, why he got so many voters.

Sure some believed his campaign promises, but I'm sure a majority if his supporters were hoping for exactly what has occurred. Gridlock

I assumed voting for Trump was the equivalent of throwing a box of wrenches into the machine works

A lot of how Obama won was by being the first black presidential nominee. And he became that nominee by being unknown enough that Hillary didn't keep him out of the race. Once the dems had an option that seemed in any way shape or form as credible and not Hillary they dove for it with both hands. Also don't downplay just how bad of a candidate John McCain was. His only claim was that he was 'electable'. Honestly how many people would vote for McCain when a true democrat was available?

For the second term Obama couldn't claim to be an outsider. But Romney was another terrible candidate who ran a terrible campaign. Also another 'electable' candidate.

As for Sanders vs. Trump, I think Sanders would have done better than Hillary. I recognize his huge negatives. But Hillary has even more, at least in my opinion. Would he have beaten Trump? Hard for me to say. Will he beat Trump in two years? Not a chance.

Conan Says:

"Artie, what makes you a "fan boy" is that you've adoringly defended Sanders at every turn. Whenever anyone on this forum dares to criticize Sanders, you leap to his defense with the fervor of an Elvis fan insisting The King is alive."

You have things all wrong line usual Conan.

I defend anyone from specious logical arguments.

The problem isn't that I defend Sanders when you make unsubstantiated claims.

The problem is that your claims are unsubstantiated.

That you assume I am a "fan boy" because I reject your nonsense claims that arte unsupported by fact or evidence is itself an unsupported claim.

Let me quote myself once again for you so you can see how ridiculous your criticism is:

"My only point is that things were too close between Clinton and Trump to declare by fiat that Sanders would have lost when he had a larger advantage over Trump than Clinton when they were all in contention."

That doesn't exactly sound like a "fan boy"... unless your standards for making those declarations are extremely lax.

I am simply rejecting your ridiculous contention that Trump would have easily beaten Sanders when we have no idea what would have happened and the only data we do have is that Sanders had an advantage over Trump compared to Clinton.

My point is exactly the same one Ben just made here:

"As for Sanders vs. Trump, I think Sanders would have done better than Hillary. I recognize his huge negatives. But Hillary has even more, at least in my opinion. Would he have beaten Trump? Hard for me to say."

I guess he is a Bernie "fan boy" too.

I think your standards for accusing people of being "fan boys" are specious at best.

All I am doing is calling out a point you made that isn't justified by the evidence we have available.

That you assume I am a "fan boy" because I reject your nonsense claims that arte unsupported by fact or evidence is itself an unsupported claim.

When I called Sanders a hypocrite after his purchase of a third house, a vacation house on a lake, you leapt to his defense, insisting that a man who criticizes the wealthy for not paying their fair share, rails against the wealth gap, yet buys a third house, one on a lake, for $600,000 is not the least bit hypocritical. Hmmm. Does that give me a basis on which to call you a fan boy? Yeah, I'm gonna say that it does.

My only point is that things were too close between Clinton and Trump to declare by fiat that Sanders would have lost when he had a larger advantage over Trump than Clinton when they were all in contention.

Your point is a faulty one. That supposed advantage Sanders had was based on faulty data gathering and polling. Read the Pew article I linked. And, yes, I am only speculating here, but that speculation has some pretty solid reasoning behind it.

The basis of your insistence that Sanders could have won is his higher poll numbers vs. Trump. But the poll numbers were faulty, so we don't know for sure that he really had that level of voter support. You're relying on a polling process that failed, badly.

And, those polls were based on answers to questions of intent to act. I've spent more than 10 years in consumer behavior and market research and the first rule of polling is that you cannot rely on the results of polls surveying the respondents' intent to act.

Then, you have the Bradley effect, in which respondents, embarrassed to admit they intended to vote for Trump and not wanting to give a positive Hillary answer, told the pollsters they would vote for Sanders. Pew Research identified that as an issue with the 2016 polling data.

I am simply rejecting your ridiculous contention that Trump would have easily beaten Sanders....

I never said "easily." Sanders may well have been more competitive against Trump than Clinton was. But I stand by my conclusion that he still would have lost the Electoral College to Trump.

It is very funny clip. Always some truth in comedy.

"Jonathan Pie is a fictitious British news reporter, created and played by British actor and comedian Tom Walker. Pie appears in a series of video clips where he rants about the state of politics in the United Kingdom, presented as if he is a real reporter speaking his personal opinions to camera before or after filming a regular news segment."

Just for the record Conan, I agree Sanders is a hypocrite. I also think he is a fool. But he doesn't share Hillary's greatest flaw. You can actually believe what he says. With Hillary she lies so regularly there is just no reason to even listen to anything she says. Her words have no value. In a mythical 2016 Trump v. Sanders Trump would have run a completely different campaign, so guessing how things would have turned out is difficult. Especially with the polling issues.

As for a Trump v. Sanders in the next election cycle, it is an easy Trump win.

But he doesn't share Hillary's greatest flaw. You can actually believe what he says ~ Ben at April 3, 2018 6:43 AM

I've always given Bernie credit for being upfront about being a socialist in a political environment in which that can be handicap. And I think he actually believes that he is a socialist and that he truly believes in his version of socialism. It's his understanding of what socialism actually is and the evils inherent therein that is flawed.

Bernie was, at one point, mayor of Burlington, Vermont and was, by all accounts I've read, a decent mayor, decent enough to be reelected three times.

As for a Trump v. Sanders in the next election cycle, it is an easy Trump win. ~ Ben at April 3, 2018 6:43 AM

That one may not be as cut and dried. In 2016, Trump was the unknown quantity, the "not-Hillary." In the 2020 election, Bernie would be the "not-Trump."

Once you're president, your flaws and shortcomings are magnified. And Trump has quite a few flaws. By the 2020 election cycle, Trump is the known quantity and Bernie the unknown, if the Dems nominate him over Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren. Bernie, or any Dem for that matter, could pick up quite a few votes simply for not being Trump.

If the economy is doing well and the world is relatively peaceful in 2020, Trump will likely win. If not, he may face an uphill challenge against even a socialist like Bernie. Likewise if the voters believe the next candidate cannot screw things up and are tired of the chaos that seems to be Trump's normal operating milieu.

Being not the last guy hasn't been enough so far. I don't think that will change. Romney was not Obama. Gore was not Bush. While that didn't hurt it just isn't enough.

And I disagree that Bernie is an unknown. As you say he is a very honest and upfront socialist and has a history as a politician. At his age there is very little that is not known about Bernie.

I will agree that if Trump sets off trade wars and causes economic collapse he will lose. He might even lose in the primary. But barring things going to hell in a hand basket he will have an easy win.