He started to get on my nerves with his shit talking about Hillary. Today I wouldn’t waste my time listening to him.

It is a wonder to these imps that Hillary won the popular vote. Bernie wouldn’t have been able to beat trump because he only had one stump speech and he still uses it to this day. He can’t change with the place we are in.

We need to all vote to take back Congress and Bernie is still sayings bad shit about the Democratic Party. Get over that shit if you want to not let trump control your lives for the next six years.

And that's all I'm going to say about this.

So you should delete it. I won't alert as long as you dispose of the problem on your own.

to post and what isn't? If somebody posts an article referring to Trump bashing democrats, likely in an absolutely absurd and laughable way, can it be posted in a way that is appropriate on this board so that we can talk about that absurdity, or is the very fact that there is something negative about a democrat in the article reason enough to have it removed?

In grey areas like this, and even in cases of obviously blatant bad spiritedness, I think its generally better to let the post stand and to unravel it with the stronger argument, because it probably needs correcting.

I'm very sympathetic to the content of the OP, I think we need to stay focused on 2018 and 2020.

Giuliani, a New Yorker like Trump, says Trump did win.

Roy Moore, a nut case from Alabama, said God told him to run for the U.S. Senate.

I give about equal credence (and relevance) to all three statements.

He energized a very respectable sized base, but did it in a way that repelled many of those he’d have needed to win the general.

Heck right there in the article you linked that line “an authentic progressive versus a phony progressive”... yeah, that right there is what energized many of his potential (and needed) support against him.

Well said

The claim that she didn't is pure fiction.

She made 15 appearances in PA and spent a lot of money there.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trumps-campaigns-numbers/story?id=43356783

She made 4 stops in Michigan and spent more money there than Obama did in 2012.

It is true that she did not make campaign stops in Wisconsin. But she did advertise there and had a large ground operation. Also, Trump canceled an event in Wisconsin in the final days of the race. The reason she didn't schedule campaign stops there is because she was way ahead in the polls. Bernie also might not have scheduled appearances there if he was way up. Besides, she would have won Wisconsin had it not been for voter suppression.

oh fuck it, never mind.

But she did advertise there...

The advertising decisions that helped doom Hillary Clinton

By Jim Tankersley November 12, 2016

In the closing weeks of the presidential race, Hillary Clinton's campaign — and the outside groups that supported it — aired more television advertisements in Omaha than in the states of Michigan and Wisconsin combined. The Omaha ads were in pursuit of a single electoral vote in a Nebraska congressional district, which Clinton did not ultimately win, and also bled into households in Iowa, which also she did not win. Michigan and Wisconsin add up to 26 electoral votes; she appears not to have won them, either.

Strategic decisions can make all the difference in a close race. Clinton lost the White House (despite winning the popular vote) to Republican Donald Trump on the strength of about 100,000 votes in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. That is the definition of a close race.

But a review of Democrats' advertising decisions at the end of the race suggests Clinton and her allies weren't playing to win a close one. They were playing for a blowout. And it cost them.

Clinton and the groups backing her aired three times as many ads as Trump and his supporters over the course of the general election, according to data from the Wesleyan Media Project. Despite that advantage, the Democrats left several key states essentially unprotected on the airwaves as the race came to a close.

FULL story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/12/the-advertising-decisions-that-helped-doom-hillary-clinton/?utm_term=.3f3ac1eeb76b

Second, you are basically just re-stating that ads were not run, for the most part, in Michigan and Wisconsin. You could pick any place you want, other than Omaha, and make that same point.

Third, Pennsylvania is not on the list, so the point is moot in that regards. She ran a lot of ads there. And if she had won MI and WI, but not PA, she would have still lost the race. On the other hand, if the national circumstances had allowed her to win in PA, she would also have won in MI and WI, as well as Florida for that matter, even in a really close race.

Fourth, this article talks about the final 24 days, or 3 1/2 weeks, of the race. Saying she should have run late ads there is hardly the same thing as saying she didn't spend a significant amount of money there.

Fifth, she also didn't run ads in Virginia or Minnesota towards the end, and she won those states. Same for Colorado, a state where her advertising budget was cut in half.

Sixth, she ran some national ads during the World Series. I believe those aired everywhere.

Seventh, she also lost support in states where she was leading, or tied, that she did keep running ads in: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, North Carolina, Florida, Arizona. All the states moved together as the nation race shifted due to the Comey intervention and the Putin hacking.

Eighth, she continued to have a ground operation in MI and WI.

Ninth, and most importantly, this article doesn't talk about what Donald Trump was and was not spending in these states, either all election long, or at the end.