You want to blame someone?

Blame Stein and Johnson for not bowing out of the race when the Nader Effect was evident.

Blame the DNC for being utterly corrupt.

Blame James Comey for violating the Hatch Act (and blame Obama for not firing him the next morning.)

Blame infighting in the nation's top law enforcement agencies.

Blame Hillary for being a terrible candidate.  She couldn't beat a rodeo clown.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Blame Hillary for being a terrible candidate.  She couldn't beat a rodeo clown.

The constant harping I hear about how badly the Democrats lost the election drives me nuts. Clinton got about three million more votes. The problem was not the candidate but an archaic, irrational system.

If you waste to place blame, you have about 62,979,636 names to collect.

Part of being a terrible candidate is neglecting the Electoral College. She was outplayed on that one. Badly.

There is a difference between a candidate and a campaign.

Now you're trying to tell me Hillary bears no responsibility for her campaign?

No. What I was trying to say is There is a difference between a candidate and a campaign.

With all due respect... they're related.

But one does not define the other.

The ability to campaign is not a quality by which I judge the worthiness of a candidate.

It shows a capability to govern -- an ability to motivate a team -- a knack for picking smart people -- an eye for the importance of goals --

Clinton = FAIL

By that calculus, Trump is going to be a great president.

Well, he's already passed the first test, hasn't he.

No, not really. I maintain that the election was fixed, but even if you don't accept that, he didn't persuade people to vote for him. By your own argument, people failed to vote for Hillary, they weren't persuaded by Trump. He hasn't presented anything positive. No policies, no appointments, not even any communications that could be positively translated. In his current spat with Meryl Streep, she appears far more presidential than he does.

If someone asked me what I would say to "president Trump": if I wanted to communicate at a 5th grade level, I'd talk to a ten year old.

richard09 wrote:

He hasn't presented anything positive.

Au contrare, mon petit chien!

Trump's campaign was very successful in overcoming a ton of negative press, and he's been very successful in selling himself to voters who stand to be hurt, very badly, by his policies. But "nothing positive"? He's been a godsend to the radical right, the so-called "alt-right" who want to roll back almost all of the progressive gains of the past fifty years. He's signaled his willingness to advance their agenda, and it looks like they'll get everything that Congress can pass in the short-lived honeymoon period (before the proverbial shit hits the proverbial fan. Which it will).

He's been very, very positive for the people we oppose.

They won the election by packaging the wants of the 1% in a message that appealed to the under-educated among the 99%. Now they -- and we -- get to feel the burn of the result. It was a masterful sales job, and he is to be commended for what is turning out to be Trump's Ultimate Con.

You and I have very different ideas of what is commendable.

I can appreciate the brush strokes of a master. When I lose -- and lose badly -- it is comforting to know that I lost to a more accomplished opponent.

We have differing views of what just happened.

I don't really blame anyone or anything. The veneer of political comity and social harmony was wearing a bit thin; it was just a matter of time. Can't help reflecting on the fact that less than 80,000 voters decided the election while 46,000,000 eligible voters couldn't be bothered to cast a vote at all.

That's because "no matter who you vote for, the government always gets in."

kilo wrote:

...while 46,000,000 eligible voters couldn't be bothered to cast a vote at all.

I hear this mentioned often, but I have to wonder how many of those who did not vote did it for reasons other than laziness. How many of them were prevented from voting by the Republicans' voter suppression laws? How many minority voters were just scared away from the polls? I'm sure there are at least some of them who had valid reasons for not voting (maybe a weak stomach).

A good friend of mine voted the full ballot, except for US President.

"I couldn't, in good conscience, vote for either one of them," he said.  I fully understood.  It was a Morton's fork.

NoCoPilot wrote:

"I couldn't, in good conscience, vote for either one of them,"

I think that is bullshit. Fuck his conscience; there are more important considerations than him making himself feel superior to those of us who are willing to gag while we are voting.

_Howard wrote:

kilo wrote:

...while 46,000,000 eligible voters couldn't be bothered to cast a vote at all.

I hear this mentioned often...

You're correct. I was lazy. Voter suppression is real. As is this particular type of contemporary political vanity:

Quote :

"I couldn't, in good conscience, vote for either one of them," he said.

Yeah, damned if I'll have anyone choose the next few Supreme Court justices who doesn't meet up with my personal standards. I couldn't live with myself.

Some of this applies to people other than Bernie.

Shut Up, Bernie Sanders

I agree.

Quote :

Political losses should yield a real examination of what went wrong, but Sanders is someone who, on par with a robot, just repeats what’s already been programmed. The man is not saying anything new or remotely insightful.

He torpedoed his own candidacy by relentlessly hewing to his populist, but frankly unwinning, speech about "income redistribution." You can't win office pissing off everyone with power & influence.

I disagree with most of what is in the article. But I often disagree with Arceneaux. He loves to talk but seldom does anything other than piss and moan, no matter what the subject.