4 ms·

Is it so hard to accept that the Democrats have been nominating some weak-ass candidates that don't have the broad appeal they think they do?

MrZongle2 6y ago
Certainly it can't be that. It has to be external forces at work!
throwawaytrump2 6y ago
Voting in the US has never been fully democratized. Apologies, dang. You're right of course. No good excuse–it's been hot.
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't use HN for partisan flamewar. It's predictable, therefore tedious, therefore off topic here. Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - rat9988 6y ago
    From the same guidelines: >Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. This is not the first time I see you needlessly accusing a point of view you disagree with of flamewar.
    - dang 6y ago
      I'm always happy to get advice about how to better follow the guidelines, but I'm not seeing what I can improve there, except perhaps s/exceedingly predictable/predictable/, which I'll do. Btw, the GP comment was edited after I replied to it. Not sure if that affects things.
jamroom 6y ago
Donald Trump lost the popular vote, so as a candidate was “weaker” than Hillary Clinton.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  The vote will be further depressed this year, so we can stipulate that both candidates are weaker than Clinton. Vast majorities of citizens in every state would prefer neither genital-grabbing loudmouth confused old man from the urban Northeast. Only, we don't actually have representative government. That would cost the military-industrial complex some money, and they haven't tolerated that since the Truman administration.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Is it so hard to accept that the Democrats have been nominating some weak-ass candidates that don't have the broad appeal they think they do? I think the party running weak-ass candidates without broad support is the one that lost the popular vote in every election in the last 30 years except 2004.
- TallGuyShort 6y ago
  Oh don't get me wrong - I think Trump is a weak and terrible candidate too. Which is why I'm so disappointed in the lack of ability to field a candidate who can actually debate him or follow a stronger trend than Hillary. It should be relatively easy to beat Trump, but we choose a guy who already dropped out of the same race decades ago, and struggles to finish the phrase "all men are created ..." during a speech?
- refurb 6y ago
  For the hundredth time, "popular vote" doesn't matter in the US system. And that's a feature, not a bug.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    "The popular vote" is another tactic in the PR competition between Democrats and Republicans to declare every election that the other party won illegitimate. Has a predictable effect on the general public's confidence in US democracy. It also encourages decisions like overcampaigning in California as a result of last minute polling in Wisconsin and Michigan looking like a coin toss. A loss is bad, but a loss that can't be marketed as illegitimate afterwards is far worse.
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    I am always amazed that the US will get into the decimal points of invalid mail voting when the whole one-person-some-weighting-of-vote electoral college is staring them in the face. I guess the elephant in the room must be too large? (To be fair, yes, getting the slave states on board a few centuries back required it. Legacy code probably wouldn't be there if it hadn't done something at one point.)

MrZongle2 6y ago

Certainly it can't be that. It has to be external forces at work!

throwawaytrump2 6y ago

Voting in the US has never been fully democratized. Apologies, dang. You're right of course. No good excuse–it's been hot.

dang 6y ago
Please don't use HN for partisan flamewar. It's predictable, therefore tedious, therefore off topic here. Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- rat9988 6y ago
  From the same guidelines: >Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. This is not the first time I see you needlessly accusing a point of view you disagree with of flamewar.
  - dang 6y ago
    I'm always happy to get advice about how to better follow the guidelines, but I'm not seeing what I can improve there, except perhaps s/exceedingly predictable/predictable/, which I'll do. Btw, the GP comment was edited after I replied to it. Not sure if that affects things.

jamroom 6y ago

Donald Trump lost the popular vote, so as a candidate was “weaker” than Hillary Clinton.

jessaustin 6y ago
The vote will be further depressed this year, so we can stipulate that both candidates are weaker than Clinton. Vast majorities of citizens in every state would prefer neither genital-grabbing loudmouth confused old man from the urban Northeast. Only, we don't actually have representative government. That would cost the military-industrial complex some money, and they haven't tolerated that since the Truman administration.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Is it so hard to accept that the Democrats have been nominating some weak-ass candidates that don't have the broad appeal they think they do? I think the party running weak-ass candidates without broad support is the one that lost the popular vote in every election in the last 30 years except 2004.

TallGuyShort 6y ago
Oh don't get me wrong - I think Trump is a weak and terrible candidate too. Which is why I'm so disappointed in the lack of ability to field a candidate who can actually debate him or follow a stronger trend than Hillary. It should be relatively easy to beat Trump, but we choose a guy who already dropped out of the same race decades ago, and struggles to finish the phrase "all men are created ..." during a speech?
refurb 6y ago
For the hundredth time, "popular vote" doesn't matter in the US system. And that's a feature, not a bug.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  "The popular vote" is another tactic in the PR competition between Democrats and Republicans to declare every election that the other party won illegitimate. Has a predictable effect on the general public's confidence in US democracy. It also encourages decisions like overcampaigning in California as a result of last minute polling in Wisconsin and Michigan looking like a coin toss. A loss is bad, but a loss that can't be marketed as illegitimate afterwards is far worse.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  I am always amazed that the US will get into the decimal points of invalid mail voting when the whole one-person-some-weighting-of-vote electoral college is staring them in the face. I guess the elephant in the room must be too large? (To be fair, yes, getting the slave states on board a few centuries back required it. Legacy code probably wouldn't be there if it hadn't done something at one point.)