yovargas wrote:I mean, Hillary came so close to winning, I honestly think just not having the damm email scandal would have put her over the finish line. Remember it's very possible that the reason she is not currently president is because of Comeys email announcement mere days before the election.
This is important. It's easy to write big and sweeping narratives after an event which make the improbable look like the inevitable ("unstoppable" Trump vs "unelectable" Hillary). We don't know for certain if Clinton would have won the election if not for Comey, but it was close enough it really could have gone either way - it came down to 1% of the vote in a handful of states.
Which isn't to say I don't think Clinton was a weak candidate, or that a woman might face barriers a man wouldn't. But extrapolating too much from the result is a risk.
I think you are both right. I think but for the fact that she is a woman, Clinton would have won. But there are also other reasons why she did not. And I still expect that our next president is going to be a woman.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Unless the next president is a reality-television mogul, billionaire real estate grifter and sleazy beauty-pageant impresario, and the dystopia rolls on.
Sent from a tiny phone keyboard via Tapatalk - typos inevitable.
Mornings wouldn't suck so badly if they came later in the day.
yovargas wrote:I mean, Hillary came so close to winning, I honestly think just not having the damm email scandal would have put her over the finish line. Remember it's very possible that the reason she is not currently president is because of Comeys email announcement mere days before the election.
I lay the blame at Hillary's feet. How many times did she campaign in Michigan and Wisconsin? If you would rather sing with Paul McCartney, then please don't Effing run.
Yes, I'm bitter.
'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude
WaPo: Advisers to former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz are looking at him running as an independent for president in 2020 https://t.co/BAUMvcLxsP
Word of the day is "bemused", which means "slightly confused; not knowing what to do or how to understand something" but also sounds so much like "amused" that it picks up a share of that connotation, which makes it perfect for my reaction to news these days.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
I can’t help thinking that it’s every independent’s patriotic duty not to run this time, considering that the usual result is to elect the Republican, and the Republican this time is the most destructive US president in history.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
I'd say it depends more on the nature of the independent. I've seen it argued that HW Bush lost because Perot peeled off enough GOP votes for Clinton to win. A guy like flake or Kasich or Flake, for example, would be unlikely to attract those already inclined to vote for a Democrat, but might grab votes from people who would otherwise hold their noses/close their eyes/make warding signs while voting for Trump.
Considering that Democrats would just take any victory as a mandate, moderates be damned, I'd be fine with a good independent candidate running. I am completely fed up with partisanship. I was merrily pulling an oar for the "support Democrats, that's better than Trump" boat until I had the rude awakening that the Democratic base hold their noses at moderates or centrists - they'd be happy to get the votes but then they'll just ram through their non-moderate agenda with those votes - same as the Republican right wing is doing now as the majority of the country hates it - and whoops, the pendulum will swing again, back to the right.
No thank you.
Time for some strong leadership from the middle, where by definition most of the people's vote is.
Kamala Harris, the junior Senator from California, has made it official; she is running. I think she will be a formidable candidate.
Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
She certainly is qualified to be Attorney General, and I wouldn't be shocked, if one of the other of the legions of candidates ends up winning, that she eventually gets nominated for that position (nor would I be surprised if she ends up as the vice presidential nominee if someone like Biden wins the nomination). But I do think she is a formidable candidate who would not be easily bullied by Mr. Trump, and whose views I am largely in accord with. And she is very intelligent.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
* Electability: the extent to which the candidate is able to pander to the racist, misogynistic minority disproportionately favored by the electoral college system.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
