Bernie wins New Hampshire!

[LV426]

Let me add though, that in some cases and in some races, what you claim may very well be true. But I seriously doubt that across the board and in dozens of Congressional districts across the nation, it was simply a matter of what you claim.

We both remember that in 2010, Democrats ran against Obama and Obamacare. The result was losing the House.

We both remember that in 2014, Democrats ran on "bipartisanship" and the Sequester and deficit reduction. The result was losing the Senate.

We both remember that in 2016, Democrats ran a moderate technocrat who opposed Medicare for All and a $15/hr minimum wage. The result was losing the White House.

We both remember all of this because it wasn't that long ago.

So what I don't understand is why you think "moderation" will work this time, when it didn't before?

 

[LV426]

AAMOF, I could just as easily claim that some of the seats lost by Dems in those election years were lost because the Dem candidates who ran were TOO liberal.

You think Michelle Nunn was too liberal? How so?

You think Alison Grimes was too liberal? How so?

You think it's "liberal" to run against Obamacare?

You think it's "liberal" to run on "bipartisanship"?

You don't seem to be giving a lot of thought to this.

 

[Nomad]

So when I asked you why you thought the Democrats lost in 2010, 2014, and 2016, you word saladed your way through a response that said absolutely nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

You tried to excuse it as "politics are local", except the 2016 election was very NOT "local", and Clinton lost.

The reason they lost was because of low turnout. And why was turnout so low? What was the reason you think turnout was low enough for the GOP to steal it? Could it have to do with the fact that "moderation", by definition isn't enthusiasm or excitement? Because I sure as hell do.

Clinton got over 3 million more votes than Trump.

If a bunch of spoiled Bernie-babies still butthurt about ol' BS had voted for her and blacks who weren't energized because she's white had voted for her, Trump would be back hosting a shitty TV show with has-been celebrities where he belongs.

It's too bad that like most millennial progs, you're too immature to understand anything that's too complex for your under developed little brain to handle.

 

[LV426]

that's a good one, this is where you link us to an example, right?

Sure thing, shithead.

Here's Rand Paul doing it: Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is going to Canada for surgery

You can apologize any time you want.

 

[LV426]

Clinton got over 3 million more votes than Trump.

So? That doesn't matter, as we've seen twice in the last twenty years.

Turnout in 2016 was 55%

Turnout in 2008 was 58%

 

[LV426]

If a bunch of spoiled Bernie-babies still butthurt about ol' BS had voted for her and blacks who weren't energized because she's white had voted for her, Trump would be back hosting a shitty TV show with has-been celebrities where he belongs.

The only people who deserve any blame for Trump are the people who voted for him.

Full stop.

 

[LV426]

It's too bad that like most millennial progs, you're too immature to understand anything that's too complex for your under developed little brain to handle.

Well, the bad news for you is that I was born in the 70's, so I'm not a Millennial.

The other bad news for you is that you had your chance with Clinton 4 years ago and you blew it.

So since you couldn't get it right four years ago, what makes you think you will get it right this time?

 

[Nomad]

You think Michelle Nunn was too liberal? How so?

You think Alison Grimes was too liberal? How so?

You think it's "liberal" to run against Obamacare?

You think it's "liberal" to run on "bipartisanship"?

You don't seem to be giving a lot of thought to this.

So you've come up with one name.

Great.

Now please explain the political dynamics of her home district where she ran.

Then when you're done, make a list of all the other Dem candidates who lost and do the same thing.

I'll wait...

 

[LV426]

Still can't back up your claims with facts, can you?

I've already explained to you why Clinton lost, but you continue to ignore it, so I'm not going to waste anymore time on it.

Get back to me when you've got something worth discussing.

But you didn't explain why.

You tried to blame Bernie voters even though they're not to blame.

The people to blame are the people who voted for Trump.

Then, if you still want to blame people, you blame the 95 million who didn't vote. But doing that has to force you to ask the question; why did 95 million people not vote in 2016? The predominant reason would seem to be enthusiasm and excitement. Turnout in 2016 was 3% below turnout in 2008; why do you think that is?

 

[Nomad]

Well, the bad news for you is that I was born in the 70's, so I'm not a Millennial.

The other bad news for you is that you had your chance with Clinton 4 years ago and you blew it.

So since you couldn't get it right four years ago, what makes you think you will get it right this time?

And you still can't back up your specious, overly simplistic claim with facts.

Yet you're still running your yap.

Big surprise.

 

[LV426]

So you've come up with one name.

Two, actually, but I'm happy to go on...Begich, Hagan, Pryor, Landreiu...these weren't "lefty" Democrats by any stretch...all lost their elections in 2014.

Now please explain the political dynamics of her home district where she ran.

Well, moron, Nunn and Grimes both ran for SENATE in 2014.

See, we can't have a conversation about this because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Do your homework and then we can chat.

 

[LV426]

And you still can't back up your specious, overly simplistic claim with facts.

The only fact I need is that Clinton lost in 2016.

You have been blaming everyone for that, but the fact of the matter is that turnout was 3% lower in 2016 vs. 2008.

Why do you think that is?

 

[Nomad]

But you didn't explain why.

You tried to blame Bernie voters even though they're not to blame.

The people to blame are the people who voted for Trump.

Then, if you still want to blame people, you blame the 95 million who didn't vote. But doing that has to force you to ask the question; why did 95 million people not vote in 2016? The predominant reason would seem to be enthusiasm and excitement. Turnout in 2016 was 3% below turnout in 2008; why do you think that is?

I have explained that.

Butthurt Bernie-bots pouting over his primary loss threw a tantrum and stayed home.

Blacks who didn't vote because the candidate was a white woman.

 

[Nomad]

Two, actually, but I'm happy to go on...Begich, Hagan, Pryor, Landreiu...these weren't "lefty" Democrats by any stretch...all lost their elections in 2014.




Well, moron, Nunn and Grimes both ran for SENATE in 2014.

See, we can't have a conversation about this because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Do your homework and then we can chat.

You know what I meant.

And you still can't back up your silly shit.

You've long ago become tiresome and monotonous.

 

[LV426]

Then when you're done, make a list of all the other Dem candidates who lost and do the same thing.

I'll give you a really good example from my state of Georgia.

In 2014, Governor Nathan Deal was up for re-election to a second term. His challenger was Jason Carter, grandson of Jimmy Carter, and Jason Carter ran a "moderate centrist" campaign aimed at winning upper-class white voters in areas like Marietta, Cobb County, and Buckhead. His campaign was focused on accommodating those people while ignoring the growing progressive base and diverse coalition of voters. Jason Carter lost 53-44.

Fast forward 4 years, to 2018. Two Democrats led the primary field for governor, Stacey Abrams and Stacy Evans. Stacy Evans was the "centrist" candidate...she was also the white one. She received the backing of all the establishment folks. Stacey Abrams ran as the progressive, got endorsed by Bernie Sanders, and -had it not been for GOP cheating by purging voters and suppressing the vote- lost the governor race to Kemp by about 50,000 votes and less than a percentage point.

So what does that tell you?

 

[TTQ64]

So when I asked you why you thought the Democrats lost in 2010, 2014, and 2016, you word saladed your way through a response that said absolutely nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

You tried to excuse it as "politics are local", except the 2016 election was very NOT "local", and Clinton lost.

The reason they lost was because of low turnout. And why was turnout so low? What was the reason you think turnout was low enough for the GOP to steal it?

Could it have to do with the fact that "moderation", by definition isn't enthusiasm or excitement? Because I sure as hell do.

So when you screech you want "moderation" what you're really saying is you want to suppress the vote so that your vote means more, and therefore people must accommodate you.

If turnout was 70%, let's say, your voice would be less important and not one people would accommodate because the electorate is larger. I think that is what drives you the most crazy. The fact that your status is solidified by dampened enthusiasm and excitement, and it is diminished by increased enthusiasm and excitement.

"Moderation" is another way to suppress voting.

The republicans say because Blacks didn't come out to vote like they did for President Obama.

So it's our fault dump won.

 

[Nomad]

I'll give you a really good example from my state of Georgia.

In 2014, Governor Nathan Deal was up for re-election to a second term. His challenger was Jason Carter, grandson of Jimmy Carter, and Jason Carter ran a "moderate centrist" campaign aimed at winning upper-class white voters in areas like Marietta, Cobb County, and Buckhead. His campaign was focused on accommodating those people while ignoring the growing progressive base and diverse coalition of voters. Jason Carter lost 53-44.

Fast forward 4 years, to 2018. Two Democrats led the primary field for governor, Stacey Abrams and Stacy Evans. Stacy Evans was the "centrist" candidate...she was also the white one. She received the backing of all the establishment folks. Stacey Abrams ran as the progressive, got endorsed by Bernie Sanders, and -had it not been for GOP cheating by purging voters and suppressing the vote- lost the governor race to Kemp by about 50,000 votes and less than a percentage point.

So what does that tell you?

The progressive Bernie candidate LOST.

That's all I need to know.

I ignore your explanation.

Sound familiar?

 

[TTQ64]

You think Michelle Nunn was too liberal? How so?

You think Alison Grimes was too liberal? How so?

You think it's "liberal" to run against Obamacare?

You think it's "liberal" to run on "bipartisanship"?

You don't seem to be giving a lot of thought to this.

Told you he's a planted republican in the dem party

 

[Sammy Jankis]

see lv. better trade deals is all we can get. your own dems are blocking using government for true populist implementation. stand in the place where you live.

 

[TTQ64]

Clinton got over 3 million more votes than Trump.

If a bunch of spoiled Bernie-babies still butthurt about ol' BS had voted for her and blacks who weren't energized because she's white had voted for her, Trump would be back hosting a shitty TV show with has-been celebrities where he belongs.

It's too bad that like most millennial progs, you're too immature to understand anything that's too complex for your under developed little brain to handle.

Blacks had been voting for white men since they were able to vote.

this is the racist republican excuse to deter white americans from noticing republican cheating.

a few thousand Blacks DID NOT HAVE AN EFFECT ON DUMP WINNING ...........fucking liars.