5 ms·

You aren't wrong, or not all wrong. However, you must consider a) that Nader made a very large difference in 2000, and b) that Trump got to run against Hillary

by cafard 10y ago

You aren't wrong, or not all wrong. However, you must consider a) that Nader made a very large difference in 2000, and b) that Trump got to run against Hillary Clinton. She is intelligent and able, but she has been a handy target for conservative media for twenty years now, and a good deal of that stuck with voters. "Both of them went to school with the Smug"; well, yes, and some would find it curious that our populists come from Yale and Penn.

jessaustin 10y ago
Johnson seems to have gotten more votes than Nader; Johnson and Stein together definitely did so. In many of the "battleground" states, Trump's margin is totally swamped by third-party numbers. The observations you've made about Clinton aren't news to anyone. The fact she was nominated anyway, with her only primary opposition coming from outside the party, after the DNC had let it be known to all potential opponents that the fix was well and truly in, is symptomatic of the Smug. The insiders couldn't imagine the average voter rejecting the candidate chosen by the insiders. Maybe they still can't imagine it, only now it has happened. They're stuck in a loop, and for the next iteration the Republicans will know just what to do. Hint: it won't be another Romney.
- cafard 10y ago
  I upvoted you. However, I think that Clinton was seen as the safe candidate: she had name recognition, she didn't scare Wall Street. That is not wholly the same as being the candidate of Smug. I trust that the Democratic Party will understand that it has run out of ideas. Will the Republicans know what to do? It strikes me as quite possible that Trump's qualities could be those of a one-term president.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    Was that "didn't scare Wall Street" or was it "had accepted tens of millions of dollars from Wall Street"? If Wall Street gets final vet, the Democrat party has changed from the days of FDR. (OT: will they or any of the other Clinton Family Foundation donors ask for refunds?) The inability to see how conflicts of interest look from outside is a Smugness that has afflicted Democrats and Republicans both. Trump could definitely be a one-termer. I could see him getting bored and letting Pence take over, or deciding to campaign for someone else in his cabinet, or even figuring out something so terrible that it will finally make evangelicals vote against him. Or, he could be like Reagan and W, just let his people handle everything, and sail on to a second term.
    - cafard 10y ago
      Indeed the Democratic Party has changed since the days of FDR. It is amusing to consider that FDR thought that a realignment of the parties might be beneficial, with the Republicans picking up the conservative (often southern) Democrats and the Democrats picking up the more liberal (often northeastern) Republicans. How'd that work out? And of course you are completely correct on the inability to perceive conflicts of interest--where they are or where they just might be.
    - bobwaycott 10y ago
      Pedantic nit: it's the Democratic Party. Its members are Democrats.
  - LanceH 10y ago
    I would say her selection was a political payoff from insiders first. Second it was to put a woman out there for the smug base to go crazy voting for her.

by cafard 10y ago

jessaustin 10y ago

Johnson seems to have gotten more votes than Nader; Johnson and Stein together definitely did so. In many of the "battleground" states, Trump's margin is totally swamped by third-party numbers. The observations you've made about Clinton aren't news to anyone. The fact she was nominated anyway, with her only primary opposition coming from outside the party, after the DNC had let it be known to all potential opponents that the fix was well and truly in, is symptomatic of the Smug. The insiders couldn't imagine the average voter rejecting the candidate chosen by the insiders. Maybe they still can't imagine it, only now it has happened. They're stuck in a loop, and for the next iteration the Republicans will know just what to do. Hint: it won't be another Romney.

cafard 10y ago
I upvoted you. However, I think that Clinton was seen as the safe candidate: she had name recognition, she didn't scare Wall Street. That is not wholly the same as being the candidate of Smug. I trust that the Democratic Party will understand that it has run out of ideas. Will the Republicans know what to do? It strikes me as quite possible that Trump's qualities could be those of a one-term president.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Was that "didn't scare Wall Street" or was it "had accepted tens of millions of dollars from Wall Street"? If Wall Street gets final vet, the Democrat party has changed from the days of FDR. (OT: will they or any of the other Clinton Family Foundation donors ask for refunds?) The inability to see how conflicts of interest look from outside is a Smugness that has afflicted Democrats and Republicans both. Trump could definitely be a one-termer. I could see him getting bored and letting Pence take over, or deciding to campaign for someone else in his cabinet, or even figuring out something so terrible that it will finally make evangelicals vote against him. Or, he could be like Reagan and W, just let his people handle everything, and sail on to a second term.
  - cafard 10y ago
    Indeed the Democratic Party has changed since the days of FDR. It is amusing to consider that FDR thought that a realignment of the parties might be beneficial, with the Republicans picking up the conservative (often southern) Democrats and the Democrats picking up the more liberal (often northeastern) Republicans. How'd that work out? And of course you are completely correct on the inability to perceive conflicts of interest--where they are or where they just might be.
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    Pedantic nit: it's the Democratic Party. Its members are Democrats.
- LanceH 10y ago
  I would say her selection was a political payoff from insiders first. Second it was to put a woman out there for the smug base to go crazy voting for her.