Recommend
6 
 Thumb up
 Hide
109 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Clinton and Sour Grapes rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/05/politics/hillary-clinton-berni...

Clinton comes off here as nothing but sour grapes, as if it were her right to be uncontested for the Democratic nomination. And she seems to be ignoring the genuine, full-throated support that Americans did have for the Burn. Rule #1, never discount the opinions of the public, and a large part of it wanted him. She'd be better off searching within, about why that was the case. Casting dispersions on Bernie now is the wrong move, I think, both for her, and the Democratic party in general. And I suspect that, if he decides to run in 2020, although he might not win, he would still likely have a fairly sizable backing.
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Dems didn't learn with Nader, blaming others never works. Take personal responsibility and own your mistakes.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Nader was a Democrat? I thought he was from the raving loon party.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
"This is a really weird game, and you’ll find that most people will not want to play this."
Avatar
mb
She's not wrong when it comes to Bernie's many promises:

Quote:
She noted that Jake Sullivan, her top policy aide, told her that Sanders' campaign strategy reminded him of a scene from the movie "There's Something About Mary," where a hitchhiker says he has a plan to roll out seven-minute abs to top the famous eight-minute abs.

"Why, why not six-minutes abs?" Ben Stiller's character asks.

Clinton wrote: "That's what it was like in policy debates with Bernie. We would promise a bold infrastructure investment plan or an ambitious new apprenticeship program for young people, and then Bernie would announce basically the same thing, but bigger. On issue after issue, it was like he kept promising four-minute abs, or even no-minutes abs. Magic abs!"

Bernie promised the moon & stars to everyone, then acted like the money was always going to be there to implement it. When HRC called him on it, the details were rarely there, other than generalizations about "we have the money, we just have to put it to work the right way."

Think about Trump's forthcoming tax plan: It won't be paid for by the rich, it will be bankrolled by the middle class giving up what few deductions the plutocracy permits them to retain. But Bernie wanted to believe he could get a trillion $$$ for single-payer from that same rich-guy crowd? It's a silly non-starter.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
Nader was a Democrat? I thought he was from the raving loon party.
No he wasn't, but most Democrats with access to the Media blamed Gore's loss on him (save for Gore himself). He drained "liberal" voters.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fightcitymayor wrote:
She's not wrong when it comes to Bernie's many promises:

Quote:
She noted that Jake Sullivan, her top policy aide, told her that Sanders' campaign strategy reminded him of a scene from the movie "There's Something About Mary," where a hitchhiker says he has a plan to roll out seven-minute abs to top the famous eight-minute abs.

"Why, why not six-minutes abs?" Ben Stiller's character asks.

Clinton wrote: "That's what it was like in policy debates with Bernie. We would promise a bold infrastructure investment plan or an ambitious new apprenticeship program for young people, and then Bernie would announce basically the same thing, but bigger. On issue after issue, it was like he kept promising four-minute abs, or even no-minutes abs. Magic abs!"

Bernie promised the moon & stars to everyone, then acted like the money was always going to be there to implement it. When HRC called him on it, the details were rarely there, other than generalizations about "we have the money, we just have to put it to work the right way."

Think about Trump's forthcoming tax plan: It won't be paid for by the rich, it will be bankrolled by the middle class giving up what few deductions the plutocracy permits them to retain. But Bernie wanted to believe he could get a trillion $$$ for single-payer from that same rich-guy crowd? It's a silly non-starter.


Laughs, if there is one thing the Trump campaign taught us, it was that blind promises, backed up with little or no details, can sell. Not that I condone that course of action in a campaign, but Hillary can't seem to come to grips with the fact that many Dems favored Bernie, for whatever reason. It might behoove her more at this point to examine why, as opposed to laying blame at his doorstep. If it were not for the favoritism of the DNC, which clearly had it bad for Hillary, Bernie may have actually been the one to get the nod. The DNC was premature in playing up Hillary. In my opinion, if she wants to be a force down the line, and I don't agree she should be, she has to stop blaming others, and admit that, for whatever reasons, many Democrats did not want to vote for her, and did so reluctantly, if at all, to avoid the worse alternative (Trump).
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Khalid Shabazz
United States
NYC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
fightcitymayor wrote:
She's not wrong when it comes to Bernie's many promises:

Quote:
She noted that Jake Sullivan, her top policy aide, told her that Sanders' campaign strategy reminded him of a scene from the movie "There's Something About Mary," where a hitchhiker says he has a plan to roll out seven-minute abs to top the famous eight-minute abs.

"Why, why not six-minutes abs?" Ben Stiller's character asks.

Clinton wrote: "That's what it was like in policy debates with Bernie. We would promise a bold infrastructure investment plan or an ambitious new apprenticeship program for young people, and then Bernie would announce basically the same thing, but bigger. On issue after issue, it was like he kept promising four-minute abs, or even no-minutes abs. Magic abs!"

Bernie promised the moon & stars to everyone, then acted like the money was always going to be there to implement it. When HRC called him on it, the details were rarely there, other than generalizations about "we have the money, we just have to put it to work the right way."

Think about Trump's forthcoming tax plan: It won't be paid for by the rich, it will be bankrolled by the middle class giving up what few deductions the plutocracy permits them to retain. But Bernie wanted to believe he could get a trillion $$$ for single-payer from that same rich-guy crowd? It's a silly non-starter.

That is correct. Aside from the financing issues, Sanders would have had a very tough time getting any of his ideas implemented given the current composition of Congress.

BUT -- and that is a capital-letters but -- for winning popular elections it is essential to have a program that motivates people to vote for you, and you hammer the points on that program home until everybody knows by heart what you stand for, with authenticity.

All the blame Clinton puts on others despite her flawed campaign makes it seem like she didn't think she had to win this election by actually getting votes, that she apparently felt instead the support of the leadership of her party and of the corporations who donated to her campaign was enough. Her political machine certainly performed a very professional job and that made it close, but it was flawed by too many bad strategic decisions from the top.
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Hoffman
United States
Cortlandt Manor
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I sometimes wonder if Bernie Sanders has a tough time getting to sleep at night, given his role in getting Trump elected.

He's definitely not the only party culpable in this mess -- there's Clinton herself, the DNC, the GOP, the media as a whole, content to play chicken with candidate Trump in exchange for ratings -- but it's really hard to ignore the effect Sanders and his pie-in-the-sky campaign had on the final results.

(Also, I really, really, really don't believe an old Jewish Socialist was going to beat Trump in the general election. It's a nice fantasy, but I think the GOP and Trump's lie machine would have eaten him alive.)
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mortego
United States
New Kensington
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I left the Democratic Party because I no longer had a shared vision that HRC/DNC has and was astonished to find out how Bernie was eliminated & essentially discraded by the DNC elites.

Don't get me wrong, I am a Liberal, just not a DNC liberal anymore and never will be a member of the RNC.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xander Fulton
United States
Astoria
Oregon
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
crescent_gamer wrote:
fightcitymayor wrote:
She's not wrong when it comes to Bernie's many promises:

Quote:
She noted that Jake Sullivan, her top policy aide, told her that Sanders' campaign strategy reminded him of a scene from the movie "There's Something About Mary," where a hitchhiker says he has a plan to roll out seven-minute abs to top the famous eight-minute abs.

"Why, why not six-minutes abs?" Ben Stiller's character asks.

Clinton wrote: "That's what it was like in policy debates with Bernie. We would promise a bold infrastructure investment plan or an ambitious new apprenticeship program for young people, and then Bernie would announce basically the same thing, but bigger. On issue after issue, it was like he kept promising four-minute abs, or even no-minutes abs. Magic abs!"

Bernie promised the moon & stars to everyone, then acted like the money was always going to be there to implement it. When HRC called him on it, the details were rarely there, other than generalizations about "we have the money, we just have to put it to work the right way."

Think about Trump's forthcoming tax plan: It won't be paid for by the rich, it will be bankrolled by the middle class giving up what few deductions the plutocracy permits them to retain. But Bernie wanted to believe he could get a trillion $$$ for single-payer from that same rich-guy crowd? It's a silly non-starter.

That is correct. Aside from the financing issues, Sanders would have had a very tough time getting any of his ideas implemented given the current composition of Congress.

BUT -- and that is a capital-letters but -- for winning popular elections it is essential to have a program that motivates people to vote for you, and you hammer the points on that program home until everybody knows by heart what you stand for, with authenticity.

All the blame Clinton puts on others despite her flawed campaign makes it seem like she didn't think she had to win this election by actually getting votes, that she apparently felt instead the support of the leadership of her party and of the corporations who donated to her campaign was enough. Her political machine certainly performed a very professional job and that made it close, but it was flawed by too many bad strategic decisions from the top.


(Emphasis mine)

I'm not sure that's the way to read that at all.

Rather, that Clinton had a lot of experience in actual 'getting things done' politics, knows how the sausage is made, and took the approach that you could be pragmatic with voters. IE., "I know you want X, but that's not realistic, so let's aim for Y instead - which is pretty close and a good compromise that we can get done" vs Bernie's "YOU WANT X? I'LL GIVE YOU X TIMES INFINITY!"

Voters don't like pragmatic politicians who suggest, out-the-gate, compromise plans (which have the advantage of being likely achievable), and that's all she ever offered.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ohbalto wrote:
I sometimes wonder if Bernie Sanders has a tough time getting to sleep at night, given his role in getting Trump elected.

He's definitely not the only party culpable in this mess -- there's Clinton herself, the DNC, the GOP, the media as a whole, content to play chicken with candidate Trump in exchange for ratings -- but it's really hard to ignore the effect Sanders and his pie-in-the-sky campaign had on the final results.

(Also, I really, really, really don't believe an old Jewish Socialist was going to beat Trump in the general election. It's a nice fantasy, but I think the GOP and Trump's lie machine would have eaten him alive.)


I don't think the guy has regrets, nor should he. He ran the type of campaign that could get one elected (or nominated). No one individual has the right to expect a clear, effortless path to the nomination, it should be hard earned, frankly. And he ran his campaign out until it was no longer mathematically feasible to win. He used his clout, that his voters gave him, to help shape the program for the Dems going forward.

I do not buy the arguments that he split the vote and allowed Trump to win. He got knocked out in the end, and the decision was clear, Hillary or Trump. Hillary had too many negatives, and lost in three key states that she had no business losing in. She should also chew on that, and ask herself why that happened, that had absolutely nothing to do with Bernie.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
"This is a really weird game, and you’ll find that most people will not want to play this."
Avatar
mb
crescent_gamer wrote:
BUT -- and that is a capital-letters but -- for winning popular elections it is essential to have a program that motivates people to vote for you, and you hammer the points on that program home until everybody knows by heart what you stand for, with authenticity.
And that seems to be the million-dollar question for the Democratic party: Is it safe to be a Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren/Kamala Harris type progressive in the current political climate? Is it okay to run on a platform that basically broadcasts "Obama was too moderate!!!"

HRC bet that it was not, and ran a campaign that reinforced small incremental changes, guaranteed not to ruffle the feathers of Wall Street, K Street, Main Street, or any other street.

At some point the DNC has to decide: Is it time to break from the Clinton centrist-Democrat mold and opt for "bold colors, not pale pastels?" Hey, it worked (in the opposite political direction) for Reagan.

p.s.
I will say that HRC ultimately blaming anyone but herself is pretty bad. She was cocooned and protected 100% of the way by multiple establishments and still lost.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
crescent_gamer wrote:
BUT -- and that is a capital-letters but -- for winning popular elections it is essential to have a program that motivates people to vote for you, and you hammer the points on that program home until everybody knows by heart what you stand for, with authenticity.


Yeah, the Clinton campaign was way too laid back and lacked enough specifics to really sway people's opinions. It's hard enough to get a third term for a party in the Presidency, and you really need to have a strong case to make it happen. Coming out of Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush could do a lot of coat-tail riding and the Dukakis campaign is only exceeded by the Gore campaign for being inept.

If the Sanders campaign was a problem, it was because it showed how poorly the Clinton campaign and Democratic party were actually connecting with key voting demographics. Sadly, they didn't pay attention to that. I don't think that Sanders stood a chance in the general, but his campaign should at least have been more of an inspiration for key policy changes to try to make his supporters feel at home (and probably talk to some of the cross-overs at the same time).
4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
XanderF wrote:
I'm not sure that's the way to read that at all.


I do. What "big policies" was the campaign pushing for? How much of the campaign was based on "We'll keep doing what President Obama did?" A whole lot. There weren't many big rocks she suggested moving. And when she toyed with them, she lacked the passion/conviction people wanted to see.

I wouldn't say she was as wooden as Gore was (that'd probably take a ventriloquist's dummy). But she really didn't connect with people. That can be OK if you're at least putting out policy that people find interesting and exciting, but she wasn't doing that, either.
3 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ohbalto wrote:
I sometimes wonder if Bernie Sanders has a tough time getting to sleep at night, given his role in getting Trump elected.


Why should he? It's not his fault the Clinton camp ran a terrible campaign.

Seriously - Bernie has nothing to be ashamed of. Clinton and her campaign management really didn't do anything to tap into the excitement he brought to the campaign trail. Well, nothing effective, anyway.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fightcitymayor wrote:
And that seems to be the million-dollar question for the Democratic party: Is it safe to be a Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren/Kamala Harris type progressive in the current political climate? Is it okay to run on a platform that basically broadcasts "Obama was too moderate!!!"


I'm willing to bet that they'll be interested in experimenting with that for the next election. They need to reconnect with Democratic voters on economic issues or they'll be irrelevant again. One thing that the Republicans have seen success with is painting the Democrats as the party of a few select minorities and not much for other people. It's what got Trump elected.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Khalid Shabazz
United States
NYC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
XanderF wrote:
crescent_gamer wrote:
[...]

All the blame Clinton puts on others despite her flawed campaign makes it seem like she didn't think she had to win this election by actually getting votes, that she apparently felt instead the support of the leadership of her party and of the corporations who donated to her campaign was enough. Her political machine certainly performed a very professional job and that made it close, but it was flawed by too many bad strategic decisions from the top.


(Emphasis mine)

I'm not sure that's the way to read that at all.

Rather, that Clinton had a lot of experience in actual 'getting things done' politics, knows how the sausage is made, and took the approach that you could be pragmatic with voters. IE., "I know you want X, but that's not realistic, so let's aim for Y instead - which is pretty close and a good compromise that we can get done" vs Bernie's "YOU WANT X? I'LL GIVE YOU X TIMES INFINITY!"

Voters don't like pragmatic politicians who suggest, out-the-gate, compromise plans (which have the advantage of being likely achievable), and that's all she ever offered.

That raises two questions:

1) If Hillary Clinton is so pragmatic when it comes to her policies, why is she not pragmatic when it comes to winning the election?

2) When she was observing Bernie Sanders' success in exciting a part of the Democratic base with his policy proposals, what conclusions did she draw?

You're exaggerating Bernie's program there a little bit. He basically promised people to turn the USA into a Western European country with higher education, health care, etc. that common people can afford. That isn't some wild imagination; these systems exist and work (still, although some are crumbling). The problem is actually implementing that here, because of large political differences to Europe, both in the form of the elected representatives as well as personal politics*.

Anyway, the popularity of the Sanders campaign should have clearly indicated to Clinton what the common sentiment of this election was: change. So to go out and promise politics as usual, essentially, as a respresentative of the system people want change, and think that presents a winning image, is either very stupid or very supercilious.

(* For example, the idea of having two parties, one of which is neo-liberal on political and economic but conservative on social issues, while the other is neo-conservative on political and economic but liberal on social issues, would be wild to Europeans.)

fightcitymayor wrote:
And that seems to be the million-dollar question for the Democratic party: Is it safe to be a Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren/Kamala Harris type progressive in the current political climate? Is it okay to run on a platform that basically broadcasts "Obama was too moderate!!!"

HRC bet that it was not, and ran a campaign that reinforced small incremental changes, guaranteed not to ruffle the feathers of Wall Street, K Street, Main Street, or any other street.

At some point the DNC has to decide: Is it time to break from the Clinton centrist-Democrat mold and opt for "bold colors, not pale pastels?" Hey, it worked (in the opposite political direction) for Reagan.

At the end of the day, I think it's symptomatic of a two-party system, that factions in each party are so static. If Sanders-type progressives could switch to another party and be successful enough to force the old Democratic party into a coalition, that would be quite different. Same with the GOP for example splitting into libertarians, the religious right and Rockefeller Republicans. Maybe then the latter and the Democrats would have the majority in Congress. It would be a better reflection of "the will of the people" IMO.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
crescent_gamer wrote:
That is correct. Aside from the financing issues, Sanders would have had a very tough time getting any of his ideas implemented given the current composition of Congress.

While I can certainly agree that the things that Bernie was pushing for would never have made it through Congress, anyone who argues that most of what he talks about are financially impossible are ignoring the facts. Socialized medicine, free college, etc are policies which have been implemented in other large countries and proven quite successful.

The money for universal healthcare is already there. The US spends 50% more of our GDP on healthcare than any other country. Going to single payer and reforming the way that we pay doctors, hospitals, drug companies, etc can absolutely reduce the cost of healthcare. It is a policy which would result in larger after tax incomes for 90% or more of the population.

Improving access to post high school education also improves economic growth. There are a lot of people who would like to go to college who just cannot afford to do so. Very often those people made bad choices, such as getting married and/or having children too young and are then trapped in a situation that is very hard to escape from. Those who arguing against spending money to try to make at least some of those people economically productive are basically arguing that people who make bad choices early in life should be punished for them for their entire life. Once someone has dropped out of school, gotten a criminal record for selling drugs, or made any number of other mistakes, we should be helping them to improve their lot in life rather than discarding them into the trash heap.

None of which means that I am anti capitalism or believe that the government can run the economy better than free markets can. There must be a balance between the free market and socialism and I believe that the US currently has gone too far towards a pure free market system rather than relying on a more balanced approach.
14 
 Thumb up
0.20
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edgar the Woebringer
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
mb
While it's correct that Democrats can't blame Nader for their mistakes--the practical result of Nader running was GWB. The practical results of GWB included a horrible, misguided (or guided, if you go by the idea of GWB's PNAC handlers wanting an outpost in the middle east) war that killed hundreds of thousands. Nader and people that voted for him deserve scorn.

Clinton just needs to shut up and go away. She was a terrible candidate with tons of baggage (fair or not) that lost the most slam dunk election there ever was, or could be. There almost physically can't be a more terrible candidate than Trump, which says a lot about we the people.
2 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
edgarthewoebringer wrote:
While it's correct that Democrats can't blame Nader for their mistakes--the practical result of Nader running was GWB.


No, it wasn't. The practical result of Al Gore running the single worst presidential campaign in modern history was George W Bush. Hey, Al - you've go the most popular President at the end of his term in US history in the White House. Maybe you should take advantage of that as much as you can? Hey, Al - the public likes the issue profile of the outgoing administration a lot. Why don't you stand behind it while picking some things you can fix or improve to trumpet? Hey, Al - it can be really important not to appear to be a soulless robot on the campaign trail. Why don't you find a way for you or your wife or other prominent members of your campaign to connect to people?

Al Gore had every reason to win that election. He did such a horrible job that he couldn't carry his home state (which went for Clinton twice).

Quote:
Clinton just needs to shut up and go away. She was a terrible candidate with tons of baggage (fair or not) that lost almost the most slam dunk election there ever was, or could be.


I really don't understand how you can say this, but blame Nader for Gore's election. Clinton's election was nowhere close to the slam dunk 2000 should have been, even if you only look at the political climate during each election.

If Nader was responsible for Gore, the Bernie is 10x more responsible for Trump because his campaign was so good at pointing out how vacuous the Clinton campaign was on lots of issues.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
whac3 wrote:
Nader was a Democrat? I thought he was from the raving loon party.
No he wasn't, but most Democrats with access to the Media blamed Gore's loss on him (save for Gore himself). He drained "liberal" voters.


If you lose a game due to three factors. Each of the factors is responsible for your loss.

I don't get why people are so resistant to accepting 3rd party candidates votes are greater than the margin of loss being co responsible for the exact opposite of everything they stand for winning. Guilt?

Nader played a significant part in bush's victory and so the iraq war, growth of the hard right, etc.

Did other factors also contribute to Gores loss? Sure. And so did Nader.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
I dont get why people are so resistant to accepting 3rd party candidates votes are greater than the margin of loss being co responsible for the exact opposite of everything they stand for winning. Guilt?


Because it's simply a way to insulate the principals from their own actions. The people who voted for Nader weren't going to vote for Gore - they would have stayed home, instead. Or cast no vote for President. Or voted for another third party.

Candidates win and lose elections. If Al Gore couldn't sell his message well enough to win, then that's on him. It's not on anyone else who ran, particularly someone that received such a small percentage of the vote.

Al Gore ran a bad campaign. Hillary Clinton ran a bad campaign. Michael Dukakis ran a bad campaign. So did a lot of Republican candidates (John McCain arguably has the best "excuse" - the recession). Blaming other people that ran lets them off the hook.

The only third-party where you can even reasonably say he changed the outcome is Ross Perot. He took enough of the vote to be a major factor and may very well have cost Bush the election.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree that some would have stayed home. But some would have voted for Gore. Enough? Don't know. Many (most?) bernie voters responded to his call to vote for clinton.

And yup- Gore didn't run a good enough campaign. Nader also took some votes away from him. Both things can be true at the same time.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Neon Joe, Werewolf He-yump
United States
Lincoln
NE
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
crescent_gamer wrote:
[stuff]


Not related to anything in this thread, I just wanted to say that your cartoon Brother Mouzone avatar is my new favorite thing ever.

5 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
endofturn
United States
San Antonio
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
She was a terrible, terrible candidate from the party of "it's someone else's fault". Of course it is everyone but her fault.

She ran against a man who spent the better part of a year locked in a feud with Rosie O'Donnald. She couldn't win that.

She'll blame everyone but herself, and so will all the #strongertogether and #imwithher folks. They'll never learn from their mistakes and there will be 4 more years of Trump.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.