Schmidt Wrote: I am not off topic. If Dems want a winning platform that independents can get behind, then they should look at hers. If Bernie plans to run again in 2020 to be a spoiler again, then Democrats will lose. The Our Revolution platform is not a winning platform.
The vast majority of self identified Democrats, myself included, whole heatedly agree with you. That's why Secretary Clinton won the popular vote by over three million votes.
It's just depressing how so many people have convinced themselves that they will be able to get everything they ever dreamed of by voting for one person who promises them the world without ever taking the time to understand American civics.
"Whatever, she had the right platform...very well thought out. Candidates should look at HillaryClinton.com to come up with centrist ideas that will have appeal to the majority of voters"
I want jaredsxtn to examine the numbers. What was Hillary supposed to win by. Then subtract the spoiler numbers and you'll see she still should have won. The spoiler was Trump and his promise of lots of good paying jobs and make America Great again. If I thought Hillary could have won I would have supported her. I know this country votes against itself. I didn't want Trump to be President and I know Hillary couldn't have won no matter who she ran against. She is burying any chance of winning again by campaigning like the election was stolen from her instead of being concillatory going after the votes and people she lost.
Chet Ruminski Wrote: I want jaredsxtn to examine the numbers. What was Hillary supposed to win by.
SHE WON BY THREE MILLION VOTES. Thirty-one states don't have a population of three million people.
Hillary lost because our backwards voting system gives white people in a handful of predominately white states the ability to pick and choose who our President will be. I know you will never accept that, but that's just a fact. And the great thing about facts is that they are irrefutable.
That is unless you are Kellyanne Conway. Are you Kellyanne Conway's twin?
jaredsxtn Wrote:Chet Ruminski Wrote: I want jaredsxtn to examine the numbers. What was Hillary supposed to win by.SHE WON BY THREE MILLION VOTES. Thirty-one states don't have a population of three million people.Hillary lost because our backwards voting system gives white people in a handful of predominately white states the ability to pick and choose who our President will be. I know you will never accept that, but that's just a fact. And the great thing about facts is that they are irrefutable.That is unless you are Kellyanne Conway. Are you Kellyanne Conway's twin?
You are expressing you opinion and calling it factual. She lost the election. According to what you just said there is no way she could have won. Nothing has changed or is going to change in the electoral system so she will lose again. According to what you just said she will lose again. Nothing has changed.
Then she can't win according to the facts you present.
As I said all of this is an self inflicted wound; the Clinton's were not "clean" especially Bill. To rerun someone who has already been in the White House with an questionable "history" does not work. As I said in the past a "woman" running as President is an difficult task here because of an lot of States still live mentally in 1800 as well "religion" stands in the way as well. Only a few governors are women. Also the mentality in the DNC is still as it was; consisting of the Washington "insiders" of an select group; the Wasserman woman was pushing the "elitaire" arrogant part of the party and should have been tossed out right from the beginning. Like Chet says; the party did forget the people who would vote in the rust belt, coal belt, dumb belt as well the bible belt; that is why they lost.
Let's get an "clean" non arrogant candidate for a change, who understands "socialism" in an "capitalistic" country and is not handicapped by "religious fanatic" voters. As long as "churches" interfere by preaching for the candidate who does let them stay "free" from taxes and allow church property grabbing, therefore enriching themselves; then an "socialistic" candidate has no chance in hell. The religious "right" is an huge block, which is getting richer by the day, ask DeVos and Pence.
Chet Ruminski Wrote: So, TJ, a steady level thoughtful member apparently does not support Hillary. Schmidt and jaredsxtn, what do you say to TJ to convince TJ that Hillary should be the candidate?
I won't speak for Jared or TJ Chet, but who else did the DNC have to vet besides Mrs. Clinton? Bernie vetted himself, we know that. If the DNC puts her out for a 2020 run, who would be her democrat contender? Will the DNC back a contender/s?
Did you watch meet the press Sunday? Did you see Todd's graphs? People who were right went further right, and people who were left moved further left, there's hardly any moderates anymore, this happened over the course of about 30 years or so. The country is divided politically.