@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Interesting posts by Nimh and Debra above.
I don't accept Debra's notion that the Democrat Party wanted to lose the election. It's clear the party establishement didn't want Bernie Sanders (and worked to prevent his success), for several probably good reasons, one being the unlikely prospect of him winning the election.
Quite the opposite: Bernie Sanders had a far greater prospect of winning the election than Hillary Clinton had.
The people didn't want Hillary in 2008. They didn't want her in 2016. But the DNC undermined Bernie and stacked the deck in Hillary's direction and did so knowing the people didn't want her. A reasonable inference is that the Democratic Party wanted to lose this election and did so by design.
Quote:It's also clear that the extended period of concerns about e mails & security , influenced peddling for the Clinton foundation, and an extended string of prevarications by Hillary about all these matters and her tenure as Sec State eroded her support within the party and among her opponents.
You're just stating more well-known reasons why the people didn't want her. If she was the party's nominee, she was destined to lose. A reasonable inference is that the Democratic Party wanted to lose this election and did so by design.
Quote:Underlying all this was the fact that mainline Democrats had no alternative to Hillary: between her status as annointed successor and a strange sclerosis within the party during the Obama years, no viable alternatives had emerged during eight years, itself an unusual and remarkable occurrence.
Very unusual and remarkable that no one from the ranks of the party establishment stepped forward. A reasonable inference is that the Democratic Party wanted to lose this election and did so by design.
Quote:Finally Clinton ran a campaign without a a theme or purpose, other than the "war on women" and unbelieveble (coming from her) complaints about income inequity.
A reasonable inference is that the Democratic Party wanted to lose this election and did so by design.
Quote:Trump struck some chords with an increasing segment of the public early in his campaign that few of us detected ( i certainly missed them).
Given the crowded car of clowns on the Republican side who cannibalized each other, it was easy for Trump to float to the end on his gaseous cloud of attention seeking narcissism and the media fascination with the stench.
Quote:I believe this was indicative of some deep seated resentments that arose during the Obama years.
You're feeding yourself a lot of BS. Progressives wouldn't support Hillary and refused to vote for her. Did you miss that discussion thread on this forum? The universal dislike of Hillary had nothing to do with Obama. The progressives didn't want her in 2008 and they didn't want her in 2016. By putting her forward as the only party candidate (while simultaneously sabotaging Sanders), a reasonable inference is that the Democratic Party wanted to lose this election and did so by design.
Quote:Trump is riding a clearly populist wave . . .
I don't think so. Maybe that's the story you're trying to sell, but there's no populist wave. He merely won against the only person he possibly could win against. A reasonable inference is that the Democratic Party wanted to lose this election and did so by design.
Quote:Trump's blunt and direct rhetoric and his clear criticism of the whole existing extablishment of government has given him both leverage in making change and the obligation to do it quickly . . . .
I know you like to tell your story. Maybe you have convinced yourself, but almost everyone else can see the swamp is becoming swampier. Americans are not idiots. A huge swamp is beneficial to both Republican and Democrat politicians who owe their allegiance to the people who are filling their pockets rather the ones who are paying their salaries.
