POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Hillary's trade record didn't play well. The Dems need to offer more than just "re-training" programs to those that have lost their jobs due to plants closing. Until they fix this, they'll struggle.

Eventually the only answer is more redistribution. Those factory jobs aren't ever coming back.

[CrescentMoonie]

I haven't seen this posted here yet, so apologies if it was:

Dear Democrats, Read This If You Do Not Understand Why Trump Won

I don't agree with him saying Hillary stole the nomination, but just having the discussion comes across poorly. Here's something that a lot of people are missing out on.

"I took it upon myself to understand Trump, and his supporters. What I found was millions of great Americans who had been disenfranchised, normal people like you and I, who did not recover from the Great Recession. They’re pissed off about Obama Care, endless wars, trade deals that have killed jobs, higher taxes, a rigged economy–and, they are not wrong."

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The issue is that there really isn't anything other than re-training programs and raising the minimum wage to deal with jobs lost due to plants closing. Those jobs aren't coming back. Manufacturing is actually UP in the US, but it's all automated. Those employees need to get different type of jobs than they were used to in the past... and reversing NAFTA or not passing the TPP won't change that.

I actually agree with you to an extent, though we can do better on our trade deals. It's a tough situation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by tarcone

And please dont forget who told you guys for the entire thread not to underestimate Trump.

Well thanks.

That's mighty kind of you & all but, honestly, I'm okay. I've gotten a reasonable amount of credit on occasion.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I actually agree with you to an extent, though we can do better on our trade deals. It's a tough situation.

I'm a big free trade proponent (have been ever since Al Gore debated, and took apart, Ross Perot and then cemented by college), so I'd rather not see those get attacked .

[larrymcg421]

I've been pretty open about my faith on this board before. I even once started a thread about Roe v. Wade to explain my pro-life position at the time. Here is a post I wrote on FB to explain how that faith has wavered and what this election meant for it....

I have been struggling with my faith for a long time. It has been so hard for me to reconcile what I believe with the hateful words and demeaning actions of so many Christians, when I always thought the cornerstone of that faith was to help people who are suffering and lift them up.

And now we have a man who, based on everything I thought I knew about my faith, should be opposed at every turn and held up as an example of who not to be. I can't imagine when I was going to Sunday School as a kid that someone would say, one day you should support a man who thinks grabbing women by the pussy is okay, who thinks fat shaming women is okay, who thinks Hispanics can't be unbiased, who has repeatedly insulted and belittled others, and I could go on.

And yet, people of my faith overwhelmingly put this man in charge. In their bid for secular power, they selected an immoral, hateful person for the highest office in the land. Congratulations. You got the man you wanted, but you've probably lost me for good.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Well thanks.

That's mighty kind of you & all but, honestly, I'm okay. I've gotten a reasonable amount of credit on occasion.

I was just patting my back. I figured that was nicer than "I told you so" or, what I really wanted to do, which is HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[JonInMiddleGA]

Anecdotal but ...

a friend of mine outwest -- late 40s female -- just had a bad encounter with some {cough} ruffians from a nearby HS. A dozen or so roaming her residential neighborhood shouting profanities relating to the election, she asked that they curb the f-bombs becuase of the small children playing on the street at the time.

She got C-bombed and f-bitch bombed as a response.

The irony? She's a left-leaning Catholic guilt mixed (at best) voter that's all about social progressivism.

Yeah, Ds ... you have your own set of faction issues to deal with.

[tarcone]

But, but but Dems arent racist or misogynists. Thats just you bad non-dems.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I've been pretty open about my faith on this board before. I even once started a thread about Roe v. Wade to explain my pro-life position at the time. Here is a post I wrote on FB to explain how that faith has wavered and what this election meant for it....

I have been struggling with my faith for a long time. It has been so hard for me to reconcile what I believe with the hateful words and demeaning actions of so many Christians, when I always thought the cornerstone of that faith was to help people who are suffering and lift them up.

And now we have a man who, based on everything I thought I knew about my faith, should be opposed at every turn and held up as an example of who not to be. I can't imagine when I was going to Sunday School as a kid that someone would say, one day you should support a man who thinks grabbing women by the pussy is okay, who thinks fat shaming women is okay, who thinks Hispanics can't be unbiased, who has repeatedly insulted and belittled others, and I could go on.

And yet, people of my faith overwhelmingly put this man in charge. In their bid for secular power, they selected an immoral, hateful person for the highest office in the land. Congratulations. You got the man you wanted, but you've probably lost me for good.

I understand the impulse and the feeling, but as Bucc told me, remember that your faith is in Christ. And while we are Christ's Church, His hands and feet on this planet, we are far from perfect. And when some of us speak hate and anger as if it is from God, they are not speaking for the God that you know and love. Anyways, all that is to say, you may need some time in the wilderness and to search for other communities and people who you find are living out God's mission in a better way.

I wish you the best and pray for your journey.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Butter

Obama should have named three members to the Supreme Court, but the party of the mature leaders stopped him.

Yep. If I lived in a state with any of the Senate GOP leadership, I'd donate to their opposition every chance I got when they came up for re-election. I don't understand how anyone with a high-school education isn't an originalist; it's as fundamental a building block of western civilization as there is. The Republicans used to stand for such things, but they haven't for quite some time. 'Advise and consent' is not the same thing as 'stonewall until there is a more favorable political environment'. A continuation of the pattern of Congress not functioning as intended, and while I certainly think Trump's nominees will be better than Clinton's would have been, this sort of scorched-earth stuff is never helpful in the long run. The very legitimacy of the idea of the rule of law is undermined when said law is disregarded because you don't like the outcome.

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

The issue is that there really isn't anything other than re-training programs and raising the minimum wage to deal with jobs lost due to plants closing. Those jobs aren't coming back. Manufacturing is actually UP in the US, but it's all automated. Those employees need to get different type of jobs than they were used to in the past... and reversing NAFTA or not passing the TPP won't change that.

I don't think I've ever agreed with you more completely. Any candidate who honestly said it how it is economically in a third-wave society would get annihilated.

Originally Posted by larrymcg41

And now we have a man who, based on everything I thought I knew about my faith, should be opposed at every turn and held up as an example of who not to be. I can't imagine when I was going to Sunday School as a kid that someone would say, one day you should support a man who thinks grabbing women by the pussy is okay, who thinks fat shaming women is okay, who thinks Hispanics can't be unbiased, who has repeatedly insulted and belittled others, and I could go on.

And yet, people of my faith overwhelmingly put this man in charge. In their bid for secular power, they selected an immoral, hateful person for the highest office in the land. Congratulations. You got the man you wanted, but you've probably lost me for good.

This makes me sad as well. It's already been discussed some pages back which you may or may not have seen, but I think there's a distinction here with people falling into the lesser of two evils trap. A lot of those who voted for Trump don't see him as a good or honorable man, a role model, etc. -- many were voting against Clinton and what she and the Democratic party stand for, rather than for Trump. That's not nearly good enough for me, but I do think it is important to recognize that a vote for Trump was not at all necessarily a vote for misogyny, racism, sexism, xenophobia, hatred, etc.

As a good example of those who resisted the trap is one of the leaders I respect most, Al Moehler. Here's an appearance he made on CNN a few weeks ago: Mohler discusses Trump and evangelicals on CNN Tonight — October 11, 2016 - YouTube

The only other thing I can say that might potentially be useful is that I hope you find a place where you are able to separate, painful as it often is, faith in God from faith in those claiming his Name and often not displaying many fruits of it. I hope you are able, ultimately at some point, to not allow them to define your spirituality.

[miami_fan]

Not related anything really but as I am reading this thread, the mental image that I have is something from an old gang movie where moderates are trying their best to discuss things in as peaceful a manner as possible. The extremes shouting from a bit further back shouting profanities. Then, the moderates rolling their eyes with a thought bubble above their head stating "This is not helping."

No judgement on the positions being taken. Just sharing the image. Carry on with the serious discussion.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I don't understand how anyone with a high-school education isn't an originalist; it's as fundamental a building block of western civilization as there is.

This sounds a little like hyperbole, but the Common Law (from our legal system arises) always had kind of a law building upon itself type of legal analysis. Originalism (as in the originalist textual analysis favored by Scalia) is actually somewhat new a judicial philosophy to be honest.

I don't think I've ever agreed with you more completely. Any candidate who honestly said it how it is economically in a third-wave society would get annihilated.

Yup. And so folks promise the moon unfortunately.

I do think it is important to recognize that a vote for Trump was not at all necessarily a vote for misogyny, racism, sexism, xenophobia, hatred, etc.

Perhaps not, but there were plenty of faith leaders who didn't act in the 'nose holding' but were very, very pro Trump. And plenty poo-poohed all the things in the list you said. And that's distressing for a lot of people of faith who weren't, say, white evangelicals (who came out in overwhelming support for Trump).

As a good example of those who resisted the trap is one of the leaders I respect most, Al Moehler. Here's an appearance he made on CNN a few weeks ago: Mohler discusses Trump and evangelicals on CNN Tonight — October 11, 2016 - YouTube

Another Southern Baptist who was excellent on this was Russell Moore.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Arles

I've begun the same process I did in 2008 with a different set of friends: I'm trying to calm the losing side of a presidential election by saying the sky isn't falling. I can't imagine living with all the irrational fears both sides have about the other. I would have a massive ulcer and be completely miserable.

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by tarcone

The problem is that the Dems label everyone racist or Misogynist who doesnt agree with them.

And it pissed off the Midwest and Rust Belt. And they spoke very loudly.

And the Republicans label everyone a socialist. The point was it wouldn't have mattered if they attacked Bernie for being a socialist because he was offering something different and that's what people wanted in this election.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm a big free trade proponent (have been ever since Al Gore debated, and took apart, Ross Perot and then cemented by college), so I'd rather not see those get attacked .

I am too, and think Trump's idea of tax imports at 35% to be the dumbest economic idea ever. However, one has to look as to when Carrier in Indiana moved their work to a factory in Mexico and understand why people are worried, along with the auto manufacturing plants opening up in places like China (Volvo and Cadillac are going to import some models from China, with Honda and Ford importing, or will be, some models from Mexico) and we need to figure out how make our manufacturing industry more competitive.

I tend to fall in the Milton Friedman camp of thinking when it comes to government and economics. Let me ask you this, and this tends to be more of philosophical approach, does free trade mean fair trade? Are they mutually exclusive? How does one deal with currency manipulation, which China does?

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Issidiqui

Originalism (as in the originalist textual analysis favored by Scalia) is actually somewhat new a judicial philosophy to be honest.

I wasn't being hyperbolic at all actually . We're definitely going to disagree here. There are only two issues that I've never understood or held a view contrary to what I currently believe. This is one of them. It's quite prevalent in many of the writings we have from the colonial era, both those who wrote the Constitution and early interpreters such as Joseph Story, the first chief justice.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

And the Republicans label everyone a socialist. The point was it wouldn't have mattered if they attacked Bernie for being a socialist because he was offering something different and that's what people wanted in this election.

Bernie got screwed by the party he was representing.

I think it would have been a closer election with Sanders winning.

I have no clue how many voted. But if Sanders ran, every under 25 would have voted.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

And the Republicans label everyone a socialist. The point was it wouldn't have mattered if they attacked Bernie for being a socialist because he was offering something different and that's what people wanted in this election.

Well not Democrats apparently . Or at least not in the early half of the year.

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I am too, and think Trump's idea of tax imports at 35% to be the dumbest economic idea ever. However, one has to look as to when Carrier in Indiana moved their work to a factory in Mexico and understand why people are worried, along with the auto manufacturing plants opening up in places like China (Volvo and Cadillac are going to import some models from China, with Honda and Ford importing, or will be, some models from Mexico) and we need to figure out how make our manufacturing industry more competitive.

Well, our manufacturing industry is competitive, just not necessarily in labor intensive jobs. And the factories first moved from the Rust Belt to the South (when NAFTA passed it had already been named the Rust Belt after all).

There are, in fact, a number of auto plants opening up down South. Mercedes Benz just opened a brand new one in the Atlanta Metro region. And BMW has a relatively new plant in South Carolina. I think someone is opening one in Alabama soon as well.

I tend to fall in the Milton Friedman camp of thinking when it comes to government and economics. Let me ask you this, and this tends to be more of philosophical approach, does free trade mean fair trade? Are they mutually exclusive? How does one deal with currency manipulation, which China does?

I don't necessarily think free trade means fair trade. However, I do think that free trade tends to produce far more benefits for the country that engages in it (I think of the Corn Laws in the UK in the 1800s for instance) regardless of the laws in other countries. Currency manipulation is going to happen regardless - heck, countries pin their currency to the dollar all the time. The way to deal with China was... well, the TPP. Economically isolate them a bit and then use that against them... you know, like making a good deal .

[digamma]

Has anyone seen a state by state voting comparison in hard vote numbers from 2012 to 2016?

As I write this, Clinton is just over 60 million votes nationwide. Trump is just under 60 million. In 2012, Obama had about 62.5 million votes nationwide, and Romney had just under 60 million.

So what I'm curious about is where Trump actually gained votes. I've seen Florida where they both beat the 2012 vote totals. I'm sure Trump performed better than Romney on a hard vote basis in Pennsylvania, but I'm not sure about Michigan and Wisconsin where it could just be less votes for Clinton.

The point is I'm not sure it's one thing about being an outsider and a great uprising. Nationwide, Trump was about the same as Romney. Clinton didn't turn her traditional supporters out. To give JiMGA credit, it was about turn out, but more that Clinton didn't get it and Trump and the RNC held serve.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Bernie got screwed by the party he was representing.

I think it would have been a closer election with Sanders winning.

I have no clue how many voted. But if Sanders ran, every under 25 would have voted.

I think Bernie would have drove out the voters that didn't vote, who tended to be younger, and quite frankly, the Bernie supporters that are pretty pissed off at the DNC and hate Hillary.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

It's quite prevalent in many of the writings we have from the colonial era, both those who wrote the Constitution and early interpreters such as Joseph Story, the first chief justice.

But then completely different track was undertaken Chief Justice John Marshall. The writers of the Constitution were all over the map on it, FWIW. Plenty were happy with Marshall's ruling in Marbury v. Madison and said that's what they intended and plenty were not.

As for Story, he'd be using textualism... as originalism wouldn't have made that much sense as a philosophy at that time .

The hyperbole is not understanding how civil society can function without it (does any other legal system in the world use it?) or that intelligent people would consider it not useful for jurisprudence.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The issue is that there really isn't anything other than re-training programs and raising the minimum wage to deal with jobs lost due to plants closing. Those jobs aren't coming back. Manufacturing is actually UP in the US, but it's all automated. Those employees need to get different type of jobs than they were used to in the past... and reversing NAFTA or not passing the TPP won't change that.

That's exactly right and almost as unpopular as speaking the truth about social security's solvency over the next 20 years. Neither truth will ever see the light of day in a presidential campaign, though.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by digamma

what I'm curious about is where Trump actually gained votes. I've seen Florida where they both beat the 2012 vote totals. I'm sure Trump performed better than Romney on a hard vote basis in Pennsylvania, but I'm not sure about Michigan and Wisconsin where it could just be less votes for Clinton.

Some states were up, others down. I know in Wisconsin specifically it was poor dem turnout that turned the tide, Trump actually got about the same or slightly fewer than Romney. In other states such as Florida turnout was higher everywhere.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Some states were up, others down. I know in Wisconsin specifically it was poor dem turnout that turned the tide, Trump actually got about the same or slightly fewer than Romney. In other states such as Florida turnout was higher everywhere.

Yes, I know it was up some places and down others. I'm looking for a side by side comparison if anyone has seen something like that.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I think it would have been a closer election with Sanders winning. I have no clue how many voted. But if Sanders ran, every under 25 would have voted.

And every single rational thinking adult in the country would have turned out to stop that batshit crazy son of a bitch.

The win for Trump would have been larger, but with a different final electoral map.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well not Democrats apparently . Or at least not in the early half of the year.



Well, our manufacturing industry is competitive, just not necessarily in labor intensive jobs. And the factories first moved from the Rust Belt to the South (when NAFTA passed it had already been named the Rust Belt after all).

There are, in fact, a number of auto plants opening up down South. Mercedes Benz just opened a brand new one in the Atlanta Metro region. And BMW has a relatively new plant in South Carolina. I think someone is opening one in Alabama soon as well.



I don't necessarily think free trade means fair trade. However, I do think that free trade tends to produce far more benefits for the country that engages in it (I think of the Corn Laws in the UK in the 1800s for instance) regardless of the laws in other countries. Currency manipulation is going to happen regardless - heck, countries pin their currency to the dollar all the time. The way to deal with China was... well, the TPP. Economically isolate them a bit and then use that against them... you know, like making a good deal .

Mercedes Benz just moved their North American headquarters to the Metro Atlanta area from New Jersey. They're opening a plant in Alabama. Volvo is also opening a factory just outside of Charleston in South Carolina for one of their models. I do think regulations and taxes on US businesses doesn't help, but that's a liberal vs. conservative debate that won't end in anything good.

I agree with TPP as being a beachhead into the Asia-Pacific region and being a counter to China, especially since TPP may be the most comprehensive trade agreements being proposed. I agree as well on Free Trade outweighing the benefits.

My views on Mexico are a bit different than what Trump thinks. For me, it's starts with the existing philosophy on War on Drugs. Figuring out to help Mexico, and to an extent, the rest of Latin America, and the change the existing control of a lot of Mexico that is held by the cartels would go a long way to making Mexico and Latin America a stronger and freer economic and political region.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Issidiqui

As for Story, he'd be using textualism... as originalism wouldn't have made that much sense as a philosophy at that time

I was lumping them together for sake of making a simpler statement. Scalia was a textualist not an originalist as well, but that's a rabbit hole probably not worth going down ...

Originally Posted by Issidiqui

The hyperbole is not understanding how civil society can function without it

Because it's part and parcel of the very concept of the rule of law. The entire process of law-making inherently includes the assumption that a law's meaning is reliable and stable until revoked or superceded. Without it, the division of powers means nothing, and the law is wholly dependent on the whims of judges and justices, thus making it not law in any meaningful sense at all, since it may very well not mean tomorrow anything like what it means today.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by digamma

Yes, I know it was up some places and down others. I'm looking for a side by side comparison if anyone has seen something like that.

I found an article that did a few states, but not all 50.
fwiw
UPDATED: Obama 2012 Would've Beaten Trump 2016 | National Review

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well, our manufacturing industry is competitive, just not necessarily in labor intensive jobs. And the factories first moved from the Rust Belt to the South (when NAFTA passed it had already been named the Rust Belt after all).

There are, in fact, a number of auto plants opening up down South. Mercedes Benz just opened a brand new one in the Atlanta Metro region. And BMW has a relatively new plant in South Carolina. I think someone is opening one in Alabama soon as well.

To this point:
BMW has been in operation 20 years now in SC. Every BMW SUV in the world is made in Spartanburg, SC...including those shipped to Germany.

Mercedes Benz is finishing a huge facility in Charleston, SC currently.

Volvo Automotive is currently building a manufacturing plant in Ridgeville, SC.

Kia now builds upwards of 90% of their North American cars in Alabama.

All Nissan trucks and SUVs (and several of their cars)are built in TN.

Etc. The narrative that US manufacturing is dead is pre-mature at best. Globaly the US has some of the highest regarded manufacturing of quality goods in most industries.

Small consumer electronics are dominated by Asian manufacturing, but that has as much to do with the allowable lead usages (in solder and bonding) and their associated health risks as it does pure economics.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

To this point:
BMW has been in operation 20 years now in SC. Every BMW SUV in the world is made in Spartanburg, SC...including those shipped to Germany.

Mercedes Benz is finishing a huge facility in Charleston, SC currently.

Volvo Automotive is currently building a manufacturing plant in Ridgeville, SC.

Kia now builds upwards of 90% of their North American cars in Alabama.

All Nissan trucks and SUVs (and several of their cars)are built in TN.

Etc. The narrative that US manufacturing is dead is pre-mature at best. Globaly the US has some of the highest regarded manufacturing of quality goods in most industries.

Small consumer electronics are dominated by Asian manufacturing, but that has as much to do with the allowable lead usages (in solder and bonding) and their associated health risks as it does pure economics.

I'm guessing its the lack of unions, lower taxes and fees, and reduced regulations down south compared to the Rust Belt/Northern region that is driving this.

[thesloppy]

There's still a shit-ton of American factory workers in food manufacturing that everybody tends to ignore for whatever reasons.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I found an article that did a few states, but not all 50.
fwiw
UPDATED: Obama 2012 Would've Beaten Trump 2016 | National Review

Thanks. Using this and piecing some stuff together from other sites, you can quickly put together a story.

Trump was down nearly 2 million votes versus Romney in California (this comes with a huge caveat as California may still have votes left to be counted). To get to the same number of total Romney votes he had big gains in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. A modest gain in Michigan. By contrast, Clinton underperformed versus the 2012 numbers massively in those states.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I'm guessing its the lack of unions, lower taxes and fees, and reduced regulations down south compared to the Rust Belt/Northern region that is driving this.

Lower wages.
Cheaper land.
Less missed work days due to weather. (LOL)

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Lower wages.
Cheaper land.
Less missed work days due to weather. (LOL)

Yep, I assumed it was the cost of living difference. The south is the perfect place for building new factories and business.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And every single rational thinking adult in the country would have turned out to stop that batshit crazy son of a bitch.
.

So yeah, about that assumption.... 😉

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

There's still a shit-ton of American factory workers in food manufacturing that everybody tends to ignore for whatever reasons.

Because a lot of them are immigrants.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Lower wages.
Cheaper land.
Less missed work days due to weather. (LOL)

Yep, and regulations and friendlier business climate. Also, the legacy costs are big difference between US manufactures and the foreign manufactures.

[larrymcg421]

Gee I wonder why people might scared.

[cuervo72]

Heh. Not the first to speculate this, Howard.

Howard Stern Suggests Donald Trump’s Campaign Was For NBC Leverage

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

People should look back at some of the vitrol in some of the Teddy Roosevelt elections. It got nasty.

If this was the type of election anywhere from 1800-1864, one or both would have been killed, and likely the running mates and their families as well.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Radii

So yeah, about that assumption.... 😉

Sanders is the most utterly vile candidate to ever fill out election paperwork. Truly, certifiably batshit crazy. And evil incarnate on top of it.

An adequate mental health system in the country would have had him committed long ago. He's not sane enough to walk the streets.

I'd have gladly died just so I could register to vote for Hilary twice in Illinois against that waste of fucking oxygen. Hell, I'd take Farrahkhan and Sharpton ahead of him.

[wustin]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Gee I wonder why people might scared.

But when the right uses crazy college kids for their narrative, it doesn't mean anything because they're naive knuckleheads and those kids aren't representative of the left.

There are going to be people who take advantage and feel emboldened from the election of Trump. It's important to make the distinction between those idiots and the conservative middle Americans. It's the same thing with the looting and rioting when protesting happens.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I think Bernie would have drove out the voters that didn't vote, who tended to be younger, and quite frankly, the Bernie supporters that are pretty pissed off at the DNC and hate Hillary.

No kidding.

excerpt

Feeding off the Clinton machine, the Democratic Party has become riddled with lobbyists, billionaires, and hustlers who pocket huge sums of money by running either nonprofit "think tanks" or election-cycle networks, and politicians who, indeed, are focused mostly on reelection. Surrounding the party are extremely well-paid non-profit leaders, who end up defending the status quo.

[cuervo72]

It is important that the conservative middle Americans call this shit out, rather than just sitting fat and happy because they "won."

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

My views on Mexico are a bit different than what Trump thinks. For me, it's starts with the existing philosophy on War on Drugs. Figuring out to help Mexico, and to an extent, the rest of Latin America, and the change the existing control of a lot of Mexico that is held by the cartels would go a long way to making Mexico and Latin America a stronger and freer economic and political region.

But first tackle the demand [for drugs in the US] then the supply. But unfortunately, the US seems to be going in the opposite direction.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Bernie got screwed by the party he was representing.

I think it would have been a closer election with Sanders winning.

I have no clue how many voted. But if Sanders ran, every under 25 would have voted.

It seems like turnout matters a lot in these elections. Trump didn't get good turnout. But Clinton was far worse. Decent chance Bernie motivated Democrats to show up.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Gee I wonder why people might scared.

Kids being assholes is not news. They are giant sociopaths until their brain develops.

[Buccaneer]

What is going on with the vote count in Michigan?

[ISiddiqui]

I think that whole, Bernie would motivate more Dems to show up is more hopeful than real. The guy did end up losing the primary by quite a bit and, no, it wasn't because it was 'rigged'. He couldn't motivate Dems to come out to beat Clinton. The youth showed up to rallies, but not the voting booth.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk