Re: Wednesday 9th November 2016
Posted: Wed 09 Nov, 2016 8:28 am
I really shouldn't but someone did ask on the earlier thread. How can this year get anymore hellish?
Nigel Farage MP.
Nigel Farage MP.
Is Corbyn like Trump ? Is he offering the same deal to voters ? Farage is boasting this morning that he's handed his mantle to Trump.Temulkar wrote:Trump, Brexit, Corbyn - Dont let anyone tell you they know who is or isnt electable - amyone who does knows nothing. Anyone remember my prediction last year? Anyone going to say Corbyn is unelectable?
I remember Hugo telling you that Clinton would win easilyTemulkar wrote:Trump, Brexit, Corbyn - Dont let anyone tell you they know who is or isnt electable - amyone who does knows nothing. Anyone remember my prediction last year? Anyone going to say Corbyn is unelectable?
Yes.Temulkar wrote:Trump, Brexit, Corbyn - Dont let anyone tell you they know who is or isnt electable - amyone who does knows nothing. Anyone remember my prediction last year? Anyone going to say Corbyn is unelectable?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... n-liberals" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Start at the top. Why, oh why, did it have to be Hillary Clinton? Yes, she has an impressive resume; yes, she worked hard on the campaign trail. But she was exactly the wrong candidate for this angry, populist moment. An insider when the country was screaming for an outsider. A technocrat who offered fine-tuning when the country wanted to take a sledgehammer to the machine.
She was the Democratic candidate because it was her turn and because a Clinton victory would have moved every Democrat in Washington up a notch. Whether or not she would win was always a secondary matter, something that was taken for granted. Had winning been the party’s number one concern, several more suitable candidates were ready to go. There was Joe Biden, with his powerful plainspoken style, and there was Bernie Sanders, an inspiring and largely scandal-free figure. Each of them would probably have beaten Trump, but neither of them would really have served the interests of the party insiders.
The Democrats lost because they went for the elder miliband instead of the old fuddy duddy - it really is as simple as that, the PLP is just as despised as Clinton clique, they use the same tactics, they have the same failed ideas - the right isnt on the march, anti establishmentism is on the march. Labour have someone who can harness that, but if the PLP continue to undermine him, they wont.AngryAsWell wrote:Yes.Temulkar wrote:Trump, Brexit, Corbyn - Dont let anyone tell you they know who is or isnt electable - amyone who does knows nothing. Anyone remember my prediction last year? Anyone going to say Corbyn is unelectable?
Corbyn is unelectable.
The right is on the march across the world, not the left.
The only answers Corbyn has are to questions no one is asking and no one wants to hear anyway.
Hell, handcart.
I stayed in bed until 7am so missed it. Am a fan of Wolf and the rest of the team.HindleA wrote:That was what I watched throughout,FWIW.
Sanders was way ahead of trump compared to clinton in the polls - Hilary is the most despised candidate in american history, of course Bernie would have done better. Some people on here - if they really care about the future - are going to have to suck up the fact they have been consistently wrong in the last 18 months and stop villifying, insulting, demeaning those of us who have called it all along.AngryAsWell wrote:Evan DavisVerified account
@EvanHD
I wonder if Bernie Sanders could have beaten him.
Chris will.i.ams @LabourJelly 3m3 minutes ago
Chris will.i.ams Retweeted Evan Davis
Yep, these people who have voted for a rabidly right-wing fascist secretly wanted a more leftie candidate.
She was the second most despised candidate. I don't think those of us outside the US fully grasped that.Temulkar wrote:Sanders was way ahead of trump compared to clinton in the polls - Hilary is the most despised candidate in american history, of course Bernie would have done better. Some people on here - if they really care about the future - are going to have to suck up the fact they have been consistently wrong in the last 18 months and stop villifying, insulting, demeaning those of us who have called it all along.AngryAsWell wrote:Evan DavisVerified account
@EvanHD
I wonder if Bernie Sanders could have beaten him.
Chris will.i.ams @LabourJelly 3m3 minutes ago
Chris will.i.ams Retweeted Evan Davis
Yep, these people who have voted for a rabidly right-wing fascist secretly wanted a more leftie candidate.
Who did that yahyah? I personally thought the DNC moved heaven and earth to make her the candidate and the president.yahyah wrote:Maybe Clinton would have done better if she hadn't been demonised by some on the left.
Yeah that's right, all of her scandals, emails, financial irregularities, benghazi, was demonising. She was the wrong candidate, chosen by the liberal centre because they are too arrogant to admit they could be wrong. Sound familiar? They had a candidate that was enthusing huge swathes of the electorate and chose the most unpopular candidate in history instead, because they decided they knew better than their own party's grass roots.Sound familiar? They lost, Saving Labour lost, remain lost. Its frankly delusional to cling to the idea that a/corbyn is unelectable, and b/ someone better will come along. It's corbyn or bust for labour, and the PLP and their saving labour drones need to learn the lesson of their consistent failures since 2010.yahyah wrote:Maybe Clinton would have done better if she hadn't been demonised by some on the left.
I think given that she lost to Trump, describing her as the most unpopular candidate in history is now accurate.StephenDolan wrote:She was the second most despised candidate. I don't think those of us outside the US fully grasped that.Temulkar wrote:Sanders was way ahead of trump compared to clinton in the polls - Hilary is the most despised candidate in american history, of course Bernie would have done better. Some people on here - if they really care about the future - are going to have to suck up the fact they have been consistently wrong in the last 18 months and stop villifying, insulting, demeaning those of us who have called it all along.AngryAsWell wrote:Evan DavisVerified account
@EvanHD
I wonder if Bernie Sanders could have beaten him.
Chris will.i.ams @LabourJelly 3m3 minutes ago
Chris will.i.ams Retweeted Evan Davis
Yep, these people who have voted for a rabidly right-wing fascist secretly wanted a more leftie candidate.
As for what Evan Davis said, the response doesn't understand that a main driver of support for Trump was that he was the Change option. You're not happy with your lot and feel that you've been screwed by the man? It's not the politics of how you address that concern. Sanders and Trump are diametrically opposed.
The DNC as a whole need to take a long hard look at themselves.Temulkar wrote:I think given that she lost to Trump, describing her as the most unpopular candidate in history is now accurate.StephenDolan wrote:She was the second most despised candidate. I don't think those of us outside the US fully grasped that.Temulkar wrote: Sanders was way ahead of trump compared to clinton in the polls - Hilary is the most despised candidate in american history, of course Bernie would have done better. Some people on here - if they really care about the future - are going to have to suck up the fact they have been consistently wrong in the last 18 months and stop villifying, insulting, demeaning those of us who have called it all along.
As for what Evan Davis said, the response doesn't understand that a main driver of support for Trump was that he was the Change option. You're not happy with your lot and feel that you've been screwed by the man? It's not the politics of how you address that concern. Sanders and Trump are diametrically opposed.
Saving Labour/labour first are the ones trying to do to Corbyn what the DNC did to Sanders, in fact the DNC and Saving Labour are so closely intertwined that both have shared tactics, resources and personnel. The DNC destroyed the democrats, Saving Labour are doing the same to Labour. It's not difficult unless you are clinging to still being right in the face of all the evidence of the last 6 years.yahyah wrote:Frankly delusional ? What happened to 'not demeaning' ?
''Saving Labour drones'', why the obsession with them ? It's British voters who are the ones to worry about.
The Sanders supporters not getting behind Clinton was overblown imho. Clinton supporters said the same about Obama in roughly the same percentages.yahyah wrote:Did I imagine the interviews on Radio 4 and elsewhere, one I heard only two days ago, of American voters expressing left wing credentials and who in some cases supporters of Sanders or Stein, who said Clinton was worse than Trump. Or that they would rather not vote than vote for Clinton ? Some said they would vote Trump or Stein rather than her.
I heard the same thing expressed during the primaries and latter on CNN reports. From the mouths of real people, not unattributed reports. Some of it sounded like the sort of half crazy 'political elite' 'establishment' stuff that trips off the tongues of left, right, libertarian and other assorted populists and tea party fans at the moment.
I'm not accusing Sanders of not getting behind her but it is beyond dispute that some of his supporters went on the record that they would not support her.
I heard last night that one of the states that had given high % of support for Sanders in the primaries did not come up with the vote for Clinton. Can't remember which state it was as I was sleepy.
If they don't support her why should she expect their votes?yahyah wrote:Did I imagine the interviews on Radio 4 and elsewhere, one I heard only two days ago, of American voters expressing left wing credentials and who in some cases supporters of Sanders or Stein, who said Clinton was worse than Trump. Or that they would rather not vote than vote for Clinton ? Some said they would vote Trump or Stein rather than her.
I heard the same thing expressed during the primaries and latter on CNN reports. From the mouths of real people, not unattributed reports. Some of it sounded like the sort of half crazy 'political elite' 'establishment' stuff that trips off the tongues of left, right, libertarian and other assorted populists and tea party fans at the moment.
I'm not accusing Sanders of not getting behind her but it is beyond dispute that some of his supporters went on the record that they would not support her.
I heard last night that one of the states that had given high % of support for Sanders in the primaries did not come up with the vote for Clinton. Can't remember which state it was as I was sleepy.
Womble44 wrote:If they don't support her why should she expect their votes?yahyah wrote:Did I imagine the interviews on Radio 4 and elsewhere, one I heard only two days ago, of American voters expressing left wing credentials and who in some cases supporters of Sanders or Stein, who said Clinton was worse than Trump. Or that they would rather not vote than vote for Clinton ? Some said they would vote Trump or Stein rather than her.
I heard the same thing expressed during the primaries and latter on CNN reports. From the mouths of real people, not unattributed reports. Some of it sounded like the sort of half crazy 'political elite' 'establishment' stuff that trips off the tongues of left, right, libertarian and other assorted populists and tea party fans at the moment.
I'm not accusing Sanders of not getting behind her but it is beyond dispute that some of his supporters went on the record that they would not support her.
I heard last night that one of the states that had given high % of support for Sanders in the primaries did not come up with the vote for Clinton. Can't remember which state it was as I was sleepy.
Have you seen "Michael Moore in Trumpland"? He literally had women in the audience in tears over Hillary's unfair treatment by the US media over the decades as they realised how they had been manipulated to despise her - and for what? For trying to improve medical standards in childbirth when she was First Lady? The media managed to turn even that into a negative. Moore isn't a Hillary fan particularly, but he was very powerful in laying out just how skewed perceptions of the two candidates had become. This US election result and the Brexit vote are a reflection of the power of the media. The groundwork for both results goes back over decades of drip, drip formation of the views and prejudices that led to these votes.yahyah wrote:Maybe Clinton would have done better if she hadn't been demonised by some on the left.
DFDM Fox must be loving this.JonnyT1234 wrote:Idle comment on the 'special relationship'. If anyone in Britain thinks Trump winning is going to make it better for us, I refer them to the way he treats and has treated his current and former wives.
May already sucking up to him, btw.
No I haven't seen it but will check it out.Willow904 wrote:Have you seen "Michael Moore in Trumpland"? He literally had women in the audience in tears over Hillary's unfair treatment by the US media over the decades as they realised how they had been manipulated to despise her - and for what? For trying to improve medical standards in childbirth when she was First Lady? The media managed to turn even that into a negative. Moore isn't a Hillary fan particularly, but he was very powerful in laying out just how skewed perceptions of the two candidates had become. This US election result and the Brexit vote are a reflection of the power of the media. The groundwork for both results goes back over decades of drip, drip formation of the views and prejudices that led to these votes.yahyah wrote:Maybe Clinton would have done better if she hadn't been demonised by some on the left.