Born To Slay 10,996 Posted October 12, 2016 Author Share Posted October 12, 2016 1 minute ago, En_Sabah_Nur said: History has shown that when a party is divided, the other party does comes to power!  🙌  But every situation where a president was primaried was one where they were weak and would've lost anyway, Carter would've lost regardless of whether he had to fight a primary or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whispering 18,865 Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 Just now, Born To Slay said: Why would a primary have weakened Obamas support? If the primary opponent lost, there supporters would've gone to Obama. Just like most Clinton supporters went to Obama in 2008. I don't think Obama being a sitting president would've changed that. I don't think its extremely likely but I wouldn't rule it out. I could see someone pulling a Ted Kennedy if Hillary doesn't fight for the democrat platform.  Because the other candidate spends time pointing out what is "wrong" with the President, and that makes Independents look to the other party moreso than if there was only one choice. It ends up dividing the party, not strethening it.  Yeah, they could...and the same thing could happen, that happened in 1980. The Republican won the Presidency. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
En_Sabah_Nur 9,366 Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 4 minutes ago, Born To Slay said: But every situation where a president was primaried was one where they were weak and would've lost anyway, Carter would've lost regardless of whether he had to fight a primary or not. ...And you really wanna take that chance?! Â With deplorables running around all over the place nowadays, just itching to take us all back to the 1950's!??? Â Â Egypt. W Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born To Slay 10,996 Posted October 12, 2016 Author Share Posted October 12, 2016 13 hours ago, Whispering said: Because the other candidate spends time pointing out what is "wrong" with the President, and that makes Independents look to the other party moreso than if there was only one choice. It ends up dividing the party, not strethening it.  Yeah, they could...and the same thing could happen, that happened in 1980. The Republican won the Presidency. People said a primary would hurt Hillary and it didn't. And the other party would have a primary, so they wouldn't be that unified either. Jimmy Carter lost because of the Iran crisis not because of Ted Kennedy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born To Slay 10,996 Posted October 12, 2016 Author Share Posted October 12, 2016 13 hours ago, En_Sabah_Nur said: ...And you really wanna take that chance?! Â With deplorables running around all over the place nowadays, just itching to take us all back to the 1950's!??? Â Â Clinton better keep her liberal promises then Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whispering 18,865 Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 8 minutes ago, Born To Slay said: People said a primary would hurt Hillary and it didn't. And the other party would have a primary, so they wouldn't be that unified either. Jimmy Carter lost because of the Iran crisis not because of Ted Kennedy. Hillary wasn't the sitting President. The other party wouldn't have a current President in office. Do you not get the difference here? That and the crippling inflation, and the fact that the term "Reagan Democrats" happened due to all the Democrats voting Republican. Ted Kennedy running so hard at Carter didn't help. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born To Slay 10,996 Posted October 12, 2016 Author Share Posted October 12, 2016 Just now, Whispering said: Hillary wasn't the sitting President. The other party wouldn't have a current President in office. Do you not get the difference here? That and the crippling inflation, and the fact that the term "Reagan Democrats" happened due to all the Democrats voting Republican. Ted Kennedy running so hard at Carter didn't help. Both parties having primaries wouldn't hurt the democrats, there's no reason to believe it would. The party would unify after the convention like normal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whispering 18,865 Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 15 minutes ago, Born To Slay said: Clinton better keep her liberal promises then Oh, very young... A President will never keep their promises in the current political climate. At best, she gets one or two big ticket items pushed through and appoints a couple of SC Justices that are moderate to liberal. That's the best you can hope for and should expect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born To Slay 10,996 Posted October 12, 2016 Author Share Posted October 12, 2016 Just now, Whispering said: Oh, very young... A President will never keep their promises in the current political climate. At best, she gets one or two big ticket items pushed through and appoints a couple of SC Justices that are moderate to liberal. That's the best you can hope for and should expect. Don't pull that "very young" ****. if the democrTs take both houses there's no excuse for not pushing most of her suit thru. If not, I still expect her to try her best, if she tries her best does the left wing proud and then she doesn't need to get primaried but if she's quick to sell progressives down the river then her ass can go.  Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whispering 18,865 Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 1 minute ago, Born To Slay said: Both parties having primaries wouldn't hurt the democrats, there's no reason to believe it would. The party would unify after the convention like normal. Both parties will not have a sitting President who is running again. This isn't hard to understand. One day you will have experience watching elections and knowledge based on that experience. Now, you have a political crush that you are having trouble getting over. You are holding out hope that that crush comes back to you. You will learn...there will be others!  Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born To Slay 10,996 Posted October 12, 2016 Author Share Posted October 12, 2016 Just now, Whispering said: Both parties will not have a sitting President who is running again. This isn't hard to understand. One day you will have experience watching elections and knowledge based on that experience. Now, you have a political crush that you are having trouble getting over. You are holding out hope that that crush comes back to you. You will learn...there will be others!  It changes nothing, the party would unify like normal after the convention. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
En_Sabah_Nur 9,366 Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 30 minutes ago, Born To Slay said: People said a primary would hurt Hillary and it didn't. And the other party would have a primary, so they wouldn't be that unified either. Jimmy Carter lost because of the Iran crisis not because of Ted Kennedy. How do you know it wasn't both?!  🤔   Egypt. W Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whispering 18,865 Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 Just now, Born To Slay said: Don't pull that "very young" ****. if the democrTs take both houses there's no excuse for not pushing most of her suit thru. If not, I still expect her to try her best, if she tries her best does the left wing proud and then she doesn't need to get primaried but if she's quick to sell progressives down the river then her ass can go.  Like with Obama the first two years? It doesn't work the way you think it works. You are only setting yourself up for disappointment. Your guy would have been in the exact same situation, with or without a majority in the senate and house. Nowadays, the red tape is so consuming, it takes ten times longer to get the most basic legislation passed. It's so much more complicated than you could even imagine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whispering 18,865 Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 5 minutes ago, Born To Slay said: It changes nothing, the party would unify like normal after the convention. You are wrong. The situations are different. That's why Bernie's suggestion back in 2012 was dangerous and ignorant. We could have very easily ended up with Romney, especially if there wasn't a unified Democratic support for the sitting President. There are multiple reasons for all this, but I'm not going into it all. I know you need to hold onto Bernie running in 2020 and your dreams coming true, but it just won't  happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born To Slay 10,996 Posted October 12, 2016 Author Share Posted October 12, 2016 12 minutes ago, Whispering said: Like with Obama the first two years? It doesn't work the way you think it works. You are only setting yourself up for disappointment. Your guy would have been in the exact same situation, with or without a majority in the senate and house. Nowadays, the red tape is so consuming, it takes ten times longer to get the most basic legislation passed. It's so much more complicated than you could even imagine. Obama was too friendly with the republicans, they could've done at more during his first term. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.