LogFAQs > #885254978

mooreandrew58 posted...

really didn't help what happened to bernie. they screwed him over and that left a bad taste in the mouth of many. they where too insistent they must have a female run for office imo. I didn't really care for the guy but I think he could have beat trump. and I say I don't care for him cause I didn't see how some of his plans would actually work, but I actually got a "I really want to help" vibe from the dude I don't get from any other politician

They didn't "screw" him over and the objections were less about gender than it was about him selfishly running as a Democrat at the last minute when he had snubbed the party all along. Hillary had been a loyal Democrat for nearly her entire very-long life and had raised considerable sums for the party. Bernie contributed nothing. In addition, Bernie Sanders's batshit plans would have less success than Trump's wall.

Keep in mind that the leaks broadly pertained to things *after* Bernie was mathematically eliminated but refused to drop out (the Kasich strategy) where he hopped to take it to a contested convention.

mooreandrew58 posted...

and as i've told other people i'd rather have a honest idiot in office than a intelligent but slimy person.

Jimmy Carter was an awful president. I'd rather take a Nixon.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Candidates like that tend to energize younger, Internet-savvy voters, but ultimately alienate a much larger portion of the mainstream voter-base. And as much as we can say Hillary lost the votes of disillusioned Sanders supporters, Sanders likely would have lost a fair number of disillusioned Hillary supporters as well. Because, keep in mind, more people DID vote for her in the primaries than voted for him (and she had her own fervid supporters who absolutely would have seen his success as a betrayal). He didn't have the divine mandate of the masses that she somehow usurped, no matter how much some people would like to paint it that way - and while he didn't have the same taint of past negative history on him that Hillary did, he still had enough issues that would have been easy for his opponents to exploit.

Also this. Sanders was as polarizing as Trump.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The real problem this time around wasn't that the Democrats ran Hillary, it's that pretty much ALL of their options were terrible. There really weren't any stand out candidates in the pack who had a chance in hell of winning the main election, which is why the primaries became such a mess and Hillary more or less claimed the mandate by force of will.

Here's the thing: Hillary isn't even a bad candidate. Sure, she's been dogged by corruption and she dropped the ball on some key issues, but she was far more qualified than Obama ever was, she knew how to play the game, she had deep in-roads on both sides (well, less now with the Tea Party taking up a lot of real estate), etc. And, no matter how good the president is, you have completely insane factions with both parties who will torpedo whatever they try to do (albeit the Freedom Caucus is far more toxic, which is why it's easier for a Democrat to get things done than a Republican).

However, she wasn't exciting because she was a runner-up the last time the Dems fielded a president and, had Obama not run in 2008, she most likely would have claimed both the nomination and the election.

At any rate, given that the Republican field was a mess, it seemed like the inexorable result was Hillary over Jeb for the presidency. Then along came a Trump.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash