Agreed. Although if I’m being honest, most voters are just as detached from reality as the idiots they support.
The Decline of the DNC IV
- Thread starter CrimsonJazz
- Start date
-
HELLO AGAIN, Guest! We are back, live! We're still doing some troubleshooting and maintenance to fix a few remaining issues but everything looks stable now (except front page which we're working on over next day or two) Thanks for your patience and support! MUCH appreciated! --Brett (BamaNation) if you see any problems - please post them in the Troubleshooting board!
I would be curious if an average US voter could pass a basic civics test.
I highly doubt it. For that matter, most would flunk basic economics, too.
Nope.
Back in 1951, they polled Alben Barkley's home county. Half of the people there had never heard of him - despite the fact the guy was only VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!
OK, I know how it works: "yeah, but that was before TV, and he was from rural Kentucky where they're all stupid....." But this is a common thing. Bill Clinton dismissed Paul Tsongas's victory in the 1992 New Hampshire primary by pointing out he was from a town ten miles from the New Hampshire border (e.g. they were just supporting the local guy). But most folks cannot name their OWN Senator much less one who used to be a Senator in another state and who hasn't run for office in 13 years.
At a gathering in Biloxi, MS in 1998, it was determined that about 11% of the people there who claimed to be in favor of "Bush" for the 2000 election thought they were for FORMER PRESIDENT Bush, as if he was running again. In 1968, a not-so-small number of voters thought that in voting for Minnesota Senator Eugene McCarthy in the Wisconsin primary, they were voting for Red baiting Joe McCarthy, the "been dead for many years" Republican who had once been a Wisconsin Senator.
This is why IN GENERAL - despite what the talking heads would have us believe - IDEOLOGY rarely has anything to do with how people actually vote. (Even the politicians know this, which is part of why they were so baffled by the selection of Dan Quayle in 1988; if you wanted a Midwestern conservative, you had many other safer choices, and he wasn't adding a vote to the ticket anyway).
If ideology affects the vote as much as people think, why did an estimated 12 percent of Bernie voters in 2016 choose Trump? Why were there OOT voters (Obama-Obama-Trump)?
My point about ideology isn't central, but it is related to your point.
The average liberal voter thinks we spend A WHOLE LOT MORE on defense than we do.
The average conservative thinks foreign aid is a colossal portion of the budget (it's negligible).
Don't ever forget what I said months ago: if you want to know why Trump won just remember that you're not voting for the President of the powerful country, you're voting for the most popular kid in the sixth grade - the average reading level of the average American.
I know I had a small subset of Bernie voters in my circle of friends/acquaintances, but I did see a huge amt of bitterness toward HRC for not ceding the nomination to Bernie. They spent more time tearing her down than they did pumping up Bernie. Spreading the usual claims againts the Clintons(clandestine deals, nefarious murders and suicides). The same people during the general election were pretty silent. I doubt they even voted.
And I'd wager that these same people are appalled at Trump and MAGA, when in essence, they helped put him in office.
I always said that the 2016 choice was between a poop sandwich and a 3 day old pizza with anchovies, left out on the counter. I chose the pizza but I didn't really feel good about it. The 50+ of the erectile college had an affection for turd burgers.
(In fairness, there were the allegedly Astroturfed "PUMAs"(Party Unity My Ass) that arose when Obama didn't cede the 2008 nomination to HRC. They weren't very successful, but made a lot of noise at the time.)
These were the kamikaze pilots of the electorate. Now TO BE FAIR - in a number of cases, I think we probably had places where there was crossover vote, especially since the GOP nomination was largely over very early and (because they divide the vote proportionally), the Democratic one was not.
I agree with you btw.
I agree with this. Thing is - only a flip of about 40K votes in three key states and HRC wins. I DO believe that in those cases some blame can be laid at the feet of Bernie's supporters.
Hillary's biggest liability - by far - was HER APPEARANCE of being an "entitled to the office" politician. It doesn't matter if she wasn't REALLY that way, it only matters that she came across that way. I know I've used this before but neither Dan Quayle nor George W. Bush were PROBABLY as dumb as they came across. Mitt Romney was probably not as slick as he came across looking like the caricature of a crooked novel. Bush 41 was NOT A WIMP in any sense of the word. Jimmy Carter was probably not as prissy as he came across, either. And I'm sure Gerald Ford wasn't as clueless as he looked. Al Gore was probably not as wooden as he looked (the night I listened to Gore's concession speech on the radio, my immediate thought was, "Now see, THAT guy I would have voted for - where was HE?").
But in the television era, how you LOOK is what people think you are. And she always gave off that entitled vibe, and I'm hardly the only person to ever say that. That's why the "deplorables" remark hurt her so badly. Barack Obama wouldn't have gotten 1/10 the political damage that Hillary did because it reinforced the stereotype that she was going through the motions and looked down on everyone. Same with Romney - the 47% remark wouldn't have done a damn thing to Ronald Reagan, but it reinforced how smarmy Romney appeared to everyone as a rich white Mormon guy.
Do you think this is why she lost to Obama in the primary? By the time 2008 rolled around, I had already lost my faith in the U.S. electoral system, but even then, I couldn't figure out how one of the most well-known women in the entire world lost to some nobody from Illinois that most people had never heard of until he ran for president. For me, that outcome stank to high-heaven.
Let's be honest: Barack Obama was an outstanding orator and a charismatic guy. And in American politics in the television era that will take you a very long way. And while nobody really wants to talk about it - and while no matter how fair a critique is delivered the Hillary fans will ALWAYS hide behind "but misogyny" as if ANY criticism no matter how small of her is automatically sexist, the brutal reality is that
Hillary Clinton is not a good candidate.
If she is, please tell me what COMPETITIVE race she ever won.
She got a free pass in 2000 when Giuliani's affair with Donna Hanover and his prostate necessitated his withdrawal from the NY Senate race. The replacement was a nobody named Rick Lazio. In 2006, she ran against a throwaway candidate with no relevant experience whatsoever (the maya of YAHNK-uhs).
Then she ran against Barack Obama and got her clock cleaned.
She ran against a raging old guy without any accomplishments whatsoever, just a lot of channeling his inner Walter Matthau, and from what all we know behind the scenes with the DNC, she was going to be the nominee anyway. Whether true or not, it's not like Bernie Sanders was really anything other than a brooding old man blaming rich people (of which he is one) for problems.
And then she ran against a guy who was far more of an actual New Yorker than she is, and while I'm sure it makes her boosters feel better consoling themselves with "but she won the popular vote," well, that's not how you win elections and Trump executed the better strategy. (The popular vote is irrelevant because if that's how the winner was determined then Trump's smart campaign plan would have been totally different. His strategy - to keep circling the area with rallies between Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Carolina - was fantastic and worked).
When the grabber tape hit the air, I thought to myself, "This woman has Ronald Reagan luck. She got a free pass into the Senate, a free pass to reelection, earned political street cred after a tough loss, and now she has a moron for an opponent."
I'm not arguing her qualifications, I'm just telling you she lost to Obama because SHE HAS NEVER been a good candidate. What's funny is I can say the same thing about almost any other politician in either party and people will agree. Say it about her and out come the labels.
I was on the fence with Bush/Gore until the debates and Gore's contrived "Alpha Male" persona that he tried to project. Lurking over Bush's shoulder as if to intimidate him. It just looked so orchestrated, fake. I voted for Bush simply because Gore seemed so insincere. Well, that and my mistaken impression that 43 would govern like his Daddy. Buyer's remorse ensued quickly.
I wasn't on the fence, but it mostly had to do with the fact Gore had transfigured before us from the guy who was - and I only use this as a prominent example - a raging pro-lifer (supporting life from conception in 1984) to someone who was suddenly going to be in favor of federal funding of abortion just eight years later. In the 1988 primaries, he pretended to be this incredible tough on defense typical Tennessee Southern politician who was conservative on most issues - and the moment Clinton invited him to join the ticket, he turned into Michael Dukakis politically. And then over the next eight years, there was literally no CORE to Gore. And he got caught being a hypocrite more than once - like when he kept taking money from Big Tobacco even after his own sister's death from smoking related cancer.
I wasn't all that high on Bush, either, but his stubbornness seemed an asset when he wasn't willing to flip-flop on so many of his "core values."
Bush lost me when he began banging the drum for war in Iraq when we still hadn't caught Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Whether I agreed or disagreed with him, I found him tolerable up to that point.
Me as well. I never believed he would pull the trigger, even after building up the military presence. My thoughts were, "He doesn't really mean what he says."
And when I heard the reports of the invasion, I was out of the GOP tent for good. I haven't voted for a Republican since.
That being said, if I could return the country back to when Bush was in office, I would vote Republican in 2028. I would take the crap sandwich any day, and I take back all those things I said about him here on Tidefans. Because I never thought we'd have a circus like we have now.
I've told this one before but several years ago there my Texas Teamster friend, who's a middle-of-the-road Democrat (he would have voted for Rubio over HRC but certainly not Mr USFL) and I were talking and I know this guy LOATHES Dubya, going back to him beating Ann Richards for governor. But I told him, "Who would have thought we'd have a President that could make me miss Obama?" And he followed with, "Or me Dubya." We just looked at each other astonished.
They're REALLY gonna do this aren't they?
Despite being a current frontrunner to lead the Democrats in the next presidential election, California Governor Gavin Newsom is not the current favorite to win the New Hampshire primary – the first that will take place in 2028.
Newsom occupies second place with 15 percent of voters choosing him as their preferred presidential candidate, losing out to former Transport Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who has 19 percent, according to a new poll.
==========================
Democrats are going to do something I did not think was humanly possible: lose the black vote, not in the sense that 80% will go for the Republican, but they'll stay home.
I don't even think Newsom is all that great. I've always thought he looked like the worst caricature of a slick politician, sort of a Mitt Romney of the Democratic Party.
If AOC could quit the Valley Girl head bob thing and stop the "I know you are but what am I" tone, I actually think she could be a solid candidate 8-12 years up the line.
Despite being a current frontrunner to lead the Democrats in the next presidential election, California Governor Gavin Newsom is not the current favorite to win the New Hampshire primary – the first that will take place in 2028.
Newsom occupies second place with 15 percent of voters choosing him as their preferred presidential candidate, losing out to former Transport Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who has 19 percent, according to a new poll.
==========================
Democrats are going to do something I did not think was humanly possible: lose the black vote, not in the sense that 80% will go for the Republican, but they'll stay home.
I don't even think Newsom is all that great. I've always thought he looked like the worst caricature of a slick politician, sort of a Mitt Romney of the Democratic Party.
If AOC could quit the Valley Girl head bob thing and stop the "I know you are but what am I" tone, I actually think she could be a solid candidate 8-12 years up the line.
Candidates will really be announced in the Summer of 2027. Then there will be debates.
I would not read anything about the potential frontrunner until the debates.
Dem party has failed big time in the last cycle by skipping this process.
Look at how many idiots you grew up with who will tell you "Trump is a conservative."
What planet are these people living on?
Why do they think this? Why would ANYONE?
Because he's gonna haul out all the illegals? He wanted exceptions for uh hotel workers.
Because he's not gonna be for gun control? He thinks like a New Yorker, not a Wyoming cowboy.
Because he's gonna balance the budget? Oh come on, who are we kidding?
Because he's gonna end them abortions? He's probably paid for more than all our other Presidents combined, and he's all in favor of the pill that causes it.
Because he's a Republican? He appointed Democrats to head up HHS and DNI, nearly all of his non-Rudi donations are to Democrats, and he's endorsed Democrats almost exclusively prior to 2016.
Because he's hostile to Russia? Again, who the hell are we kidding?
Because he's a smart businessman? So were Herb Kohl, Mark Dayton, Jon Corzine, Maria Cantwell, and a number of other officeholders who are quite liberal Democrats. And by no stretch of the imagination can Mr. Six Bankruptcies be counted "a successful businessman." All he's ever advanced is his name, attaching it to success with the same media who told me that OJ Simpson's lawyers (who had lost about 80% of their cases that went to court) were a "Dream Team!"
What exactly would ever make this guy conservative?
(Saying, "but he's more conservative than Kamala Harris" hardly qualifies as evidence, folks).
University of Colorado TPUSA Student Leader Attacked After Antifa Posted “Hit List”
As Democratic leaders like Rep. Dan Goldman (D, N.Y.) insist that Antifa does not exist as a group, two Antifa groups — Front Range Antifa and Colorado Springs Antifa — put out a hit li…
jonathanturley.org
University of Colorado TPUSA Student Leader Attacked After Antifa Posted “Hit List”
As Democratic leaders like Rep. Dan Goldman (D, N.Y.) insist that Antifa does not exist as a group, two Antifa groups — Front Range Antifa and Colorado Springs Antifa — put out a hit li…
Was your post sponsored by:
That is the whole problem with Antifa. Anyone can add a logo to their posts, since we don’t have any proof that it is an org with centralized leadership or membership
Turley made the analogy of how Hoover refused to acknowledge organized crime despite all evidence to the contrary. Felt pretty "spot on" to me. If there is a "real" investigation into this org, I'm guessing we will know more for sure than we seem to now.
I think people should dispose of the "there is no centralized leadership. membership list, etc.," argument. We know that. It still does not mean "they" do not exist. I mean, it's kind of the point. They have their little "shadow" organization that functions like a flash mob. They have encrypted internet chats where information is shared about what protests are going on where so people know where to show up. They also share money and protest gear. They think they are "bussin" because they're trolling the right with their little "There is no such thing as Antifa. If so, where's the membership list, who are the leaders?" Yep, they're slaying it.
And when they recruit clowns like Jimmy Kimmel to push that bizarre narrative, it's only hurting them rather than helping. The left would be better off not saying anything at all, but of course, they just can't help themselves. I do hope the DOJ is making a good-faith effort here and not just talking out of their asses (as the DOJ is wont to do.)
Trending content
Latest threads
-
ESPN: With Rhule, Cignetti off the list, who are the top candidates for Penn State- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Arch improving, but QB's status still uncertain
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
-
PICK'EM: [ Week 10 ] 2025 TideFans Pickem Pool [DEADLINE: 11am CT 11/01/25]- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 0