2008 elections were nothing like 2016, there was actual policies discussed and the candidates did not have their rallies shown from beginning to end like in 2016.
I don't know how much you paid attention in 2008, but Obama ran a pretty great campaign and "anyone but Bush" was a common phrase (even in Kansas).
Number 3 (emails) seems like your attempt to sarcastically downplay a very serious issue and actually a damn strong reason not to vote for Hillary. Your entire list points to outside reasons for her defeat and not the real problem that lies in the Democratic Party.
the fact that people think ben gazhi's emails was a real issue is directly related to the first and biggest problem facing america, the fact that fox news has created legions of brainwashed morons.
Man I'm not even trying to get into some long ass argument with you guys again. I'll admit I have been a little obtuse in some of the past arguments with you guys. I will never back down from the email controversy. It will forever be an automatic disqualifier for the Presidency.
Any concerns so far with how your new boss has been handling sensitive and/or classified material? We can ignore all the election business and just focus on his job performance. If I recall, I think he's in DoD in some kind of civilian technical capacity.
Or maybe I deal with government secret, top secret, and SAP correspondence literally everyday of the week and I understand the importance of security protocols at a macro level, especially in regards to the military and foreign policy.
i'm fine with saying that trump appealed to the worst in people but i'm not really into the idea that if people were smarter they would vote for democrats
Ben ghazi's emails auto disqualifier Discussing military strategy in a country club dining room perfectly fine
Are you referring to Mar-A-Lago and the Chaffetz investigation? If so, its a little light on actual facts so far, but if Trump didn't use one of the SCIFs to review SAP materials or if he had TS materials in view of those without proper clearance, I will be the first to raise hell about it.
there is a strong correlation between educational attainment and party ID with Democrats not saying that plays into "smarter" but its also not insignificant
I can see how Bernie is rubbing people the wrong way, but his central message is spot on and not really being echoed by Democratic leaders. The job of the democratic party should be to go after the tens of millions who sit on their hands every November. There was a graph posted in this or the Trump thread maybe like a week ago showing education levels vs political leanings. While all of the discussion that ensued was about how more educated people lean left the most interesting thing on that graph (to me) was by far the nearly 50% of people with a HS education or lower that didn't lean one way or the other. Also it's nice to have someone call out Democrats - this clip queued up to a question being asked to Perez and Bernie basically rolling his eyes at his answer. Not that I'm in lockstep with Bernie's answer, but come on, Tom.
So no issues with the guy who carries "the football" being posted all over Instagram? I guess nuclear codes < email?
is this blame Bernie day in here again? here's his Ossoff endorsement: "Let me be very clear. It is imperative that Jon Ossoff be elected congressman from Georgia's 6th District and that Democrats take back the U.S. House," Sanders said in the statement released by his political office. "I applaud the energy and grassroots activism in Jon's campaign. His victory would be an important step forward in fighting back against Trump's reactionary agenda." He was asked if he thought Ossoff was a progressive and he basically said idk some democrats are and some aren't. He didn't go out of his way say Ossoff wasn't a progressive, and he obviously doesn't give a shit because he wants Ossoff to win. Ossoff himself would probably shy away from being labeled a "progressive" due to his demographics. His campaign has largely stayed away from economics, healthcare and social policy so we really don't know - all he's really campaigned on is government waste and corruption...which is fine. All of this fine and there's nothing controversial in any of this.
Is the existence of the "football" classified? No Was the person in possession of it qualified to do so? Yes Were nuclear codes ever in actual, real danger of being brought to light? Doesn't seem like it. I'm way more worried about documents that may have been in danger of being leaked than what is inside of a bag that is protected by military and secret service at all times.
Also discussing a tomahawk strike over "the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake" is totally fine, because reasons.
Don't forget Trump's aides using phone lights to read reports on the North Korean missile launches at Maralago
Having a National Security Adviser who was a foreign agent and keeping him on weeks after being told he could be compromised is fine too.
dont forget leaving a classified lock bag with a key in it while doing photo ops in the oval office with civilians and press
Was the identity of the guy that carries the "football" is common knowledge now? It seems like when Joe Biden mentioned that there's someone with the codes with him at all times it was a huge deal, but now it's Trump so Trumptards don't care about it now.
Neither his identity or his job description is classified. Allowing someone to take a picture with the guy is ill-advised and somewhat stupid, but I don't recall it ever being illegal.
It's weird to me how many "why Hillary lost" discussions focus more on mistakes she/her campaign made than on the role sexism played, where often the latter isn't even mentioned. And by weird I mean it's a version of victim blaming, which is ironic because most people doing it would/have criticized the culture of victim blaming in other contexts.
Your issue was that Hillary got away with stuff that if you had done 10% of what she'd done, you'd be out of a job or possibly in prison (Thanks General Mischa for the phrase). Trump gave his son-in-law top security clearances, and Kushner lied (ostensibly committed a felony?) on his disclosure forms. There were plenty of examples of administration personnel using private email addresses or unsecure devices, and continued stories of deleted communications (despite the FBI request for them and the PRA). Your political bias (or personnel hatred of Hillary) is showing a bit.
or glossing over the role the FBI letter, and the 2nd FBI letter played in massive late shift especially in the suburban/exurban districts that likely changed the outcome more fun to argue over the other aspects I guess
the problem is people use this event to try to confirm their biases instead of looking at tangible things that caused shifts in polling or polled biases in voters decision making people use this event to agree with their world view more than anything and it always gets stuck in the weeds
Ofc other roles played a factor in Hillary losing. Who argues that sexism and racism didn't have an effect? Acting like her and the DNC railroading Sanders and her inadequacies on the trail addressing the poor and disenfranchised didn't play a role either is head in the sand af
I think the idea is she had more control over some narratives than others. The FBI had by far the biggest impact, but I'm not sure how that helps moving forward with other candidates
i want to read that book where people who worked for the clinton campaign talk about what a clown show it was
also explain it however you will, but hillary clinton's unpopularity numbers were so high that the only candidate she could have beaten in like the last 60 years was trump. also trump's were so high that the only candidate he could have beaten was hillary clinton.