General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMs. Sarandon, self-righteous liberals, Hillary Haters, all the rest, SEE what's happening TODAY?
DO YOU SEE IT????????
This is YOUR fault.
This is on YOU.
On you, but it will cause pain for a generation for all of us.
Was it worth it?
Are you okay with coat hanger abortions AGAIN? Are you okay with charging women more because being a woman is a preexisting condition? Are you okay with America's poor being once again without access to medical care? That's just the tip of the iceberg that is Amy Coney Trump McConnell Barrett. Imagine that Antonin Scalia defines the center. THAT is where we're headed with this woman.
Are you okay with that?
ARE YOU?
Was it worth it?
WAS IT?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Blue Owl
(58,108 posts)n/t
FreddyWhite
(88 posts)I get anger, I really get it. BUT, We should be directing our anger at Patriarchy and Religious Fundamentalism and misogyny.
Criticizing Susan Sarandon? give me a break. She's left of center.
We must channel the anger and rage and get smart and act. Not help out Putin and Russian Trolls by engaging in divisive language at our allies. This is the time for Maturity! A fierce focus on
We must persuade and influence people to vote! Not name call and make fun of our allies.
thucythucy
(9,037 posts)She did after all tell us a Trump victory would be a good thing for "the revolution."
As for channeling our anger, I have quite enough to go around.
Demsrule86
(71,465 posts)Republican...we have a 6-3 court in large part because of her and others like her. Fuck them all...we could lose Brown for God's sake, all civil rights, LGBTQ could face jail again and have their marriages outlawed, health care of any sort, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Chip ET AL...
we can do it
(12,979 posts)
CaptYossarian
(6,448 posts)Stein was sitting at Putin's EFFING table!
With Komrade Michael Flynn!
Treason much?
we can do it
(12,979 posts)
Statistical
(19,264 posts)brain dead dead end uneducated right wingers (I would expect nothing less) but the colossal stupidity of so called progressives.
I don't give a flying fuck someone's motivations if you didn't vote for Clinton in 2016 you aren't a progressive. You can call yourself that but you aren't. Not any more than a Klansman is a civil rights advocate.
Clinton could have named three justices to the Supreme Court. One of which being Garland which I think she would have had the decency to insist on Obama's hijacked choice and then two others of her own.
That word is "Nazi." Nobody cares about their motives anymore.
ProfessorGAC
(75,670 posts)Well said, stat!
WinstonSmith4740
(3,411 posts)
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)I hate thinking about what could have been...it’s just too painful. 
FreddyWhite
(88 posts)How will this persuade liberals to vote? This infighting has to stop. You guys are playing into Putin's hand.
Remember Clinton's campaign in 2008? I'm a feminist and I didn't vote for Hillary during that Primary. Her supporters criticized me because how could a woman NOT vote for Hillary. Uhh, no, I just happen to be extremely progressive and forward thinking. I'm a woman of color who studied anti-racism in grad school 10 years ago. Now, woman of color is part of everyday language, along with White Privilege.
I researched Chicana Feminist Theory. I KNOW the problems in our society and the democratic party has been way too slow in catching up and creating real change. I worked with single moms getting kicked off of government assistance during Welfare Reform of the 90s. That was Mr. Bill Clinton's legacy. That and NAFTA.
This last primary I voted for Warren, the one before that Bernie because I'm tired of centrist Democrats selling out and not addressing social justice issues.
Time to get smart and act and persuade. Vent your anger out on republicans or Putin or the orange turd. Ask people liberals why they didn't vote for Hillary Clinton. Listen, really listen, and then persuade.
Statistical
(19,264 posts)The primary is the place for robust competition among different left leaning ideologies. However when the primaries were over only Trump or Clinton was going to be President. That was an absolute certainty. Anyone who didn't vote Clinton isn't a progressive. They enabled a fascist extremist right wing government. There is nothing progressive about that. There is no status quo in politics. The country moves to the left or it moves to the right. Sometimes it moves a lot sometimes it moves a little. If you voted for Clinton you voted to move the country to the left. If you didn't then you said I don't give a shit if the country lurches to the right.
calimary
(88,833 posts)What you said, Statistical. What you said.
bottomofthehill
(9,330 posts)VivaResitance
(109 posts)1000%
LizBeth
(11,222 posts)that discussion. No concern. No interest.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)
JonLP24
(29,808 posts)I voted for Hillary Clinton. I just marked my ballot for Joe Biden FFS.
After McCain's defeat in the general election, some commentators accused PUMA of essentially misrepresenting their influence or numbers, as some exit polls showed that Obama won over 90% of the Democratic vote. Later studies, however, found that between 24% and 25% of voters who supported Clinton in the primary voted for McCain in the general election.[48]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_United_Means_Action
yardwork
(68,882 posts)Some of the people who supported Hillary in the 2008 primaries and then voted for McCain were right-wing racists who crossed party lines in the primaries to vote against the black guy.
The only PUMA I met in real life was a right wing Christian evangelical Republican. What were they doing messing in the Democratic primaries? Whatever it was, it didn't work.
Unfortunately, Jill Stein's strategy in 2016 worked.
PTWB
(4,131 posts)When 77,000 votes spread across three states elected Trump, any tiny influence could have been the proverbial straw.
30 years of RW smears against HRC? ✔️
Failing to campaign enough on our side of the “blue wall” states? ✔️
Comey’s letter? ✔️
Etc etc etc.
The simple fact is that we had the senate and the presidency in 2014. Many of us were calling on RBG to retire and be replaced by President Obama - not because she was no longer capable, of course she was! But because we didn’t want to run the risk of her legacy being dismantled if things went badly.
Lo and behold political expediency would have prevented this problem from even occurring in the first place.
Our recourse NOW is to elect Joe Biden, take the senate and PACK THE COURT. Increase the size of the Supreme Court to 29 justices. Add several states to the union. Implement the Wyoming rule.
THAT IS HOW DEMOCRACY LIVES.
Stinky The Clown
(68,912 posts)ace3csusm
(969 posts)We allowed this to happen just look at what Republican did with Kavanaugh...
OhioTim
(372 posts)RBG said later that Hillary was going to win when posed the same question. The Republicans would pressure an older, ill justice to retire for the sake of the country.
calimary
(88,833 posts)These folks pay taxes and they have basically little if any say. This would add four Senators (two each) and, I think two Congresspeople (one each, depending on population size). And they'd VERY likely be Democrats. THAT would give us the Senate RIGHT THERE, regardless how many states we do or don't flip next month. And if it looks like Arizona and Colorado are "lost" to the GOP, as I heard one talking head on either CNN or MSNBC this morning, then that's SIX more Democrats in the Senate. Without having to hang our hopes on the hapless and thoroughly untrustable Susan Collins of Maine.
And with a majority of that size, we could get TONS accomplished in short order. That's aside from any other GOP Senators losing reelection next month also, including some favorable results that weren't expected. (My vote would be for Joni Ernst! 
)
Statistical
(19,264 posts)
kcr
(15,522 posts)Condor1
(3 posts)Susan or the Bernie Bro nonsense had nothing
to do with the Orange Tub of Goo being elected. Voter suppression and cross checking eliminated millions.....millions of votes. Happening again.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)
bronxiteforever
(11,054 posts)
druidity33
(6,860 posts)votes allowed Bush to win. Nader got 24,000+ votes in FL in 2000. The "margin of victory" was what 587 votes? So obviously all those "vanity voters" pooched the election in favor of Bush and the Republicans.
Except when you consider that over 300,000 registered DEMOCRATS voted for Bush.
Rationalize away...
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)Low turn-out, even some skullduggery in election management, are normal and expected. They occur in every election, and are 'priced into the market', as the saying goes. A high profile third party candidate is an unusual factor, not something that occurs often. If there is an unusual result, and an unusual factor present, the likelihood is they are connected.
Two additional items worth mentioning.
Southern states like Florida have a good portion of 'legacy Democrats' --- persons who maintain registry as Democrats, but have not voted for a Democrat as President since Reagan. Facile statements about Democratic turn-out in such states seldom allows for this. A good number of those 'Democrats' who did not vote might well have voted for Bush.
Polling data was compiled on Nader voters, and while about half said they would not have voted were he not on the ballot, the other half broke decisively for Gore against Bush.
There is no reason whatever to believe that Mr. Gore would have lost Florida were Nader not on the ballot.
druidity33
(6,860 posts)because expecting there not to be a 3rd party candidate siphoning votes from one side or another is the way it's been since, i don't know, forever... despite your disagreement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third-party_performances_in_United_States_presidential_elections#1992_presidential_election
As for your "legacy Dems" comment, yes i accounted for them... but your suggestion that all 300,000+ registered Democrats who voted for Bush were "legacy Dems" i think demands a link in order for me to believe it.
"Polling data was compiled on Nader voters, and while about half said they would not have voted were he not on the ballot, the other half broke decisively for Gore against Bush." So? Did this polling data (how many people were polled, what was the margin of error?) tell us whether these voters were NPAs or Democrats or Republicans or Constitution Party, etc affiliation? Why would you have EXPECTED the Nader voters to vote for Gore? Why are you blaming Nader voters when you could be blaming the nearly 40% of registered voters who DIDN'T VOTE in FL in the 2000 election (around 4 million voters btw)? Did you know there were 7 other candidates on the ballot that year? The total of those votes (which btw did not go to Gore either) was roughly 39,000. Why not blame those voters? You could even single out the Socialist candidate who got 622 votes. Would Gore have lost Florida if David McReynolds wasn't on the ballot? The whole premise is bullshit. It's a What-If novel.
I'll call out the 'Nader voters screwed us' argument whenever i see it. And it galls me that you tacitly accept "skullduggery" by
election managers as "normal and expected".
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)People who do not are not worth engagement.
druidity33
(6,860 posts)you leave no links or facts in your posts? Just vague assertions. 
I know you are a well respected member here at DU. Most often i tend to agree with you. But in this instance i think you are wrong. And being haughtily stubborn about the fact that you might be. Fine. Feel free to put me on ignore since i am "not worth engagement".
certainot
(9,090 posts)the last 3 decades without factoring talk radio is the real tragedy
at $1000/hr 1200 stations doing 15 hrs/day attacking democrats are worth $90M/WEEK FREE for these motherfucking republicans and that goes back 30 years - from clarence thomas to kavenaugh - limbaugh allowed to trash anita hill and blasey ford alike for weeks with NO one getting their backs, - not to mention hillary for 30 years
that is fucked up
and unlike fox those stations are coordinated at the local/state level and it's all going to be very valuable to them in any close election - especially with the cons contesting every election within 5% and screaming about mail in votes
druidity33
(6,860 posts)but i'd still like to point out that 30-40% of the voting age population tends NOT TO VOTE. I say make all elections publicly funded, institute ranked choice voting nationally, declare Election Day a National Holiday, and give citizens a $100 tax credit if they vote.
certainot
(9,090 posts)distort every one of those, not to mention keep winning elections for cons who know they can only win if people don't vote.
they used rw radio to use the immigration issue to sell all that voter suppression legislation- dems were getting 'illegal aliens' to vote for them - we need to ID them etc - that's been going strong and ramping up to "milllions" for 20 years +
the exact opposite of making voting easier - i don't think it's not going to happen until dems stop ignoring the pile of elephant shit under the living room rug
AirmensMom
(15,051 posts)I was quite a bit younger and had excellent eyesight back then. I voted in Palm Beach County and can tell you that I almost voted for Pat Buchanan. He got close to 4,000 votes, well past the "margin of victory" in a county where the demographics didn't match those votes. The problem was the way the punch card ballot fit into the machine. If you didn't wiggle it just right, you would vote for Buchanan instead of Gore. I noticed before I punched, but apparently many people did not. Considering the age of the population there, I would expect that many people made the mistake. And honestly, I can't tell you if I had a hanging chad on my ballot. Didn't even occur to me. So maybe my vote didn't count.
Jeb promised to deliver FL to his brother and did just that.
rwsanders
(3,167 posts)The purpose here was to bash progressives into submission.
AirmensMom
(15,051 posts)Sometimes I forget the rules.
sheshe2
(95,530 posts)
oasis
(53,293 posts)It's an unavoidable FACT.
Response to Condor1 (Reply #22)
Post removed
More people voted for Stein or wrote in Bernie in the 3 states than the difference in votes between Clinton and IMPOTUS.
FreddyWhite
(88 posts)We need to focus on voter suppression and election integrity, education, and advocacy. Not pointing fingers (be they middle fingers or others) at allies and anyone left of center.
Besides, Birdies love Bernie! and I'm all about the birds!
mercuryblues
(16,144 posts)A/
the sarandon/berniebro effect, which was mostly Russian troll farm/bot driven. They managed to influence enough voters in key states to vote 3rd party or not vote.
B/
Voter suppression
C/
Comey interference.
Take away any one of those 3 things and Clinton would have won. As it is, she still got millions more votes than Orange Julius.
Just because B is true, does not make A or C false
George II
(67,782 posts)PTWB
(4,131 posts)HRC barely won Minnesota and barely lost Michigan and Wisconsin.
After receiving the nomination, HRC spent 0 days in Wisconsin, 1 day in Minnesota and 4 days in Michigan.
Trump spent 1 day in Minnesota, 5 days in Wisconsin and 7 days in Michigan.
You may not remember it but Trump made big waves in his campaign about HRC “ignoring” the rust belt and the working class in those states.
They both campaigned pretty hard in Pennsylvania but the contests were so close that even the appearance of taking those traditionally blue collar, union voters for granted would have been enough to tip the scales. We are talking about mere tenths of one percent.
George II
(67,782 posts)0 days in Wisconsin (4* days total) vs. 5 days in Wisconsin and 7 days in Michigan, a total difference of 8* (7) days? After about four months of campaigning and almost a billion dollars between the two campaigns and a mere few days lost the election?
I notice that you didn't mention the times Tim Kaine spent in any of those three states, or the times Michelle Obama or Bill Clinton or BARACK OBAMA spent in those states?
But the one state you dismiss is Pennsylvania where Hillary Clinton and everyone else spent FAR more time than trump, and unfortunately she also lost there. Pennsylvania is a "blue wall" state, too.
I guess you have different excuses for different states for whatever reason. Sorry, I don't buy it.
*Clinton actually spent 5 days in Michigan.
PTWB
(4,131 posts)I have never said Clinton lost because XYZ. I have, however, pointed out that the margin in those three states was so incredibly close that any tiny deficiency could take the blame for the loss.
We have people blaming Susan Sarandon and Bernie Bros. There are folks blaming registered Democrats who voted for Obama in ‘08 and ‘12 but Trump in ‘16. Folks are blaming the Comey letter. They’re blaming Bill Clinton for campaigning too much or too little. They’re blaming 30 years of RW smears directed toward HRC.
Folks tend to latch onto whatever pet issue sticks in their craw and they point to that specific issue and claim it is to blame for her loss.
The reality though is that it is some combination of every single deficiency in the candidate and the campaign and the voters that caused the loss. There is no singular issue that can shoulder the blame and there never was.
George II
(67,782 posts)....to the point that Sanders' co-chair referred to Biden as half a bowl of shit back in July. This is an exact quote from co-chair Nina Turner in The Atlantic:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/07/how-trump-could-win-reelection/612205/
If Biden somehow loses I’m sure some folks will blame Nina Turner. She’s an idiot with essentially zero influence. But some folks need to justify their own preconceived notions. There is no limit to the mental gymnastics they’ll do to reach that conclusion.
George II
(67,782 posts)...about "the movement".
PTWB
(4,131 posts)I wish you well.
George II
(67,782 posts)....the campaign for which she worked. And when her team was defeated she called the candidate who won a half a bowl of shit.
But you are correct when you say "some folks don't have the capacity to see anything but what they want to see."
PTWB
(4,131 posts)Some folks think the crackpot who worked on the campaign somehow has influence over the candidate for whom she worked. The same candidate who has wholeheartedly endorsed Joe Biden.
Isn't it amazing that that some folks have convinced themselves that words of a staffer on a campaign outweigh the words of the candidate that staffer worked for?
I'm really glad Joe is running well ahead of where HRC was at this time in 2016. I don't have the patience for another 4 years of delusional blame placed upon pet issues. Some folks are simply incapable introspective and thoughtful reflection.
George II
(67,782 posts)....about a quarter million dollars (plus expenses) for her "work on the campaign".
Further, she wasn't merely "a staffer" - she was a major spokesperson for the candidate, as was David Sirota, the campaign's speechwriter, and Brianna Gray, the campaign's National Press Secretary (i.e., the equivalent of Kayleigh McEnany)
Say what you will, but those three are STILL bashing Biden and the Democratic Party.
PTWB
(4,131 posts)Or have you forgotten that Bernie Sanders endorsed Joe Biden?
sheshe2
(95,530 posts)He’s been campaigning for Biden. This was two days ago:
Targeting Arizona's left, Sen. Bernie Sanders joins video town hall for Biden
betsuni
(28,637 posts)particularly in midwestern states like Michigan and Wisconsin that she ended up losing. This criticism was ironic, too: before the election, her 'extensive field organization' was thought to have given her a 'big advantage' over Trump, since his campaign lacked such an organization and had to depend on the Republican Party for this as well. ... But after the election, the prevailing view ... quickly changed.
"Could Clinton's smaller field organization have cost her the election? In fact, this is not at all clear. For one, the percentage of Democrats who said that they had been contacted by a campaign was almost the same as in 2012 (the percentage of Republican who reported being contacted, however, dropped sharply). For another, the apparent impact of Clinton's field organization was not large enough that a bigger organization would necessarily have won her the election.
"Candidate appearances in towns or counties often have small and temporary effects on poll numbers -- and thus an uncertain impact on vote share. ... Setting aside time on Hillary Clinton's itinerary for speeches or glad-handing in Macomb County was arguably unlikely to make much difference. ... Multiple experiments show that face-to-face contact has little persuasive effect in presidential general elections. ... Indeed, attempts at face-to-face persuasion can even backfire. One study of the 2008 Obama campaign -- which was routinely praised for the efficacy of its field organization -- found that a face-to-face persuasion experiment in Wisconsin may have reduced support for Obama. For these reasons, Clinton may have won more votes by focusing on mobilizing core Democratic votes ... than on persuading white voters in Macomb County."
From Sides, Tesler, Vavreck's "Identity Crisis"
FreddyWhite
(88 posts)I was thinking about that while grieving her death. Sigh...
Midwestern Democrat
(1,029 posts)in 2014 that the Democratic Party was going to win a third straight presidential term in 2016 - every president from Eisenhower forward has been constitutionally limited to serving two terms only - in that entire time (1952 forward), the same party has won three presidential elections in a row only once (Reagan/Bush - 1980, 1984, 1988). Ginsberg also had no way of knowing in 2014 that the GOP would nominate someone like Trump - a nominee that led many to believe Hillary would simply win by default.
This is why I can't get really worked up about the Amy Barrett Supreme Court nomination - I'm not happy about it, but it was totally preventable.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Don't you understand? this unethical behavior is going to enrage the masses and lead to the glorious socialist revolution!
ProfessorGAC
(75,670 posts)..."Well, we're waiting!"
If 4 years of this didn't accelerate their revolution, I don't know what would.
That revolution of theirs is all talk, no action.
Miigwech
(3,741 posts)Hillary haters.
CloudWatcher
(2,127 posts)Don't forget the "MSM" that gave Trump unearned credibility in a reckless race for ratings.
Or the complete idiots that actually voted for him.
There's lots of blame to spread around, it's not all the left-wing fringe's fault.
Golfnbrew
(76 posts)Agree.
Also the complacency.
"Hilary's a shoo-in - no need to vote."
Democrats who don't show up at the polls...elect Republicans.
Over 100 MILLION eligible voters didn't vote last (2016) election.
Hopefully, this won't be one of our problems this time.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,565 posts)As Sanders supporters did with Hillary. So there's that.
But one stubbornly progressive woman tipped the scales.
sure thing.
yardwork
(68,882 posts)
Roy Rolling
(7,388 posts)Those people were angry, push their anger button and they will vote against anybody. In 2016, they voted against Hillary in a display of phony self-righteousness. Bit really it was run-of-the-mill anger.
We must not let our anger button guide our decisions. Mohammed Ali used to say “if you want to defeat a man in the ring, make him angry first. He will defeat himself”.(paraphrased)
So don’t encourage candidates to push your anger button as the only way to earn your vote. They just may do it.
NameAlreadyTaken
(2,208 posts)Statistical
(19,264 posts)Third party support in 2020 is low again. There are very few undecideds. Democratic turnout in 2018 was strong and looks to be strong in 2020.
Still the damage has already been done. I think Biden will win but barring an expansion of the court he might be the first President in 40 years to have no supreme court nominations. It also isn't clear that once Dumpy is out of the picture that this solidarity will remain.
Response to NameAlreadyTaken (Reply #19)
Post removed
yardwork
(68,882 posts)Your post is offensive on several levels.
TheDemsshouldhireme
(224 posts)her oldest daughter Eva, born 1985 should live to see when Barrett is replaced, say when Eva is 75 years old.
I'm also one not to forget Michael Moore and Ralph Nader's vanity run in 2000, cost us Florida and got us Alito and Roberts.
Its tough enough to win these elections in the first place, even when you win the popular vote, it takes everyone on the team pulling together. There isn't a president I have agreed with everything they did, but I sure as heck know there's a grand canyon worth of difference between RBG and Samuel Alito and Kavanaugh.
Statistical
(19,264 posts)It either moves to the left or it moves to the right. It might not move as far left as you want but it sure as hell can move further to the right than you like.
In 2016 it was Clinton or Trump. One would move the country to left one would move the country to the right. It really is that simple. If you want to move the country to the left you pick the left leaning candidate each and every time. Sure sometimes it might be barely to the left but barely to the left beats having giant leaps to the right. A bunch of small moves to the left would make the country more progressive over time.
If Clinton had done nothing else other than appoint 3 left leaning justices that would have pushed the country to the left for decades to come. Now she WOULD have done more than that but even if only that thing she did the country would be in better shape right now.
TheDemsshouldhireme
(224 posts)2000 and 2016 and the razor thin losses they were and flip them to wins. The supreme Court would have a liberal majority for decades to come. Good for worker rights, the environment, healthcare and on and on. Conservatives have dominated the court for 50 years now and will so for a least another 20 years.
You wonder why Moscow Mitch cares so much about the courts? Its like playing sports and the refs are on your side. Its 3 branches of government, not 1 or 2. Dems need to understand that. Its how you got Bush V Gore.
calimary
(88,833 posts)Unlesssssssssssss...
We change the rules for SCOTUS so justices no longer enjoy lifetime appointments.
If you can't stop something from happening, then you HAVE TO figure out how to contain the damage. HAVE TO.
HAVE TO-HAVE TO-HAVE TO!!!-!!!-!!!
aidbo
(2,328 posts)BannonsLiver
(20,192 posts)aidbo
(2,328 posts)BannonsLiver
(20,192 posts)Suzie and purity dead enders did their part.
Also John Podesta was a terrible tactician.
Jopin Klobe
(779 posts)... Hillary won the popular vote ...
... she did not win the electoral vote ...
... Ms. Sarandon does not vote in the electoral college ...
... Hillary had to campaign in states that she did not ...
Statistical
(19,264 posts)It wasn't solely one person but to pretend Jill Stein and enablers weren't at least part of the problem is lying to yourself. Now why are you lying to yourself?
LiberalLovinLug
(14,565 posts)And Republicans lost three times as many votes to the Libertarian party. Your argument is moot
Statistical
(19,264 posts)Really. Strange that they are overwhelmingly backing Biden after realizing the fuck up they did in 2016.
Still any "green" party candidate who wouldn't back Clinton isn't a progressive. Never was never will be. The can claim it all they want but there isn't a progressive bone in their body.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,565 posts)lol. So Sarandon singly handedly made third party voters stick with their third party instead of switching to Hillary?
And M4A, free tuition, $15 min. wage. holding Wall Street to account, among other proposals they wanted advanced ISN'T what a progressive supports?
riiiiiiiight
Statistical
(19,264 posts)As for the "green" platform I notice you excluded close buddies for Putin the reality is Jill Stein was never going to be President.
Two people and two people only were going to become President on Jan 20th 2017.
Trump or Clinton. Period. Zero exceptions to that.
One would move the country to the left. One would move the country to the right. Anyone who stayed home or voted third party or took a chance of Trump said I don't give a shit about moving the country to the left.
Let me give you a shorter version: FUCK THE GREEN PARTY AND FUCK GREEN PARTY VOTERS!
LiberalLovinLug
(14,565 posts)an invitation and was involuntarily seated at the same table, at a news media's international invitational conference, with other party leaders and dignitaries of countries from around the world, where there were no interpreters, with no verbal exchange between them, kind of de-legitimizes anything else you say. Convenient conspiracy theories from one side are just as ridiculous as made up conspiracy theories from the other. And sadly devalues any further arguments.
I can separate a leader and party's competing progressive platform from the practical and prudent need to vote Democratic over Green. Sarandon was pig-headed and wrong to vote Green, even if out of frustration with her perceived belief that the Democrats choice was not willing to move fast enough on progressive policy.
But the implication that a democracy should be defined as only having two parties running, simply based on what's always been, is the antithesis of what democracy means IMO. If one believes, say, in freedom of speech, another standard of a democracy, for everyone no matter their viewpoint, then the same principle should hold for those wanting to run for office IMO
As someone else said on here, you get more using honey rather than vinegar. The answer is not to curtail democracy, and demonize progressive leaders from other parties that are exercising their democratic right to run, but to woo the more radical progressive voters back into the Democratic tent with more progressive ideas, that makes the other progressive party moot.
Statistical
(19,264 posts)They were willing to let Trump, the single most fascist bigoted piece of garbage to ever step foot in the white house, win on principle.
That isn't a progressive. That is someone with white privilege that doesn't give two shits about anyone but their own coincidence. So fuck them all. No doubt in 2024 or 2028 they will pull the same bullshit for fuck the green party and the idiots who keep voting for it.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,565 posts)The Rethugs would probably garner a few more votes too.
Its called Democracy.
MrsCoffee
(5,825 posts)Omfg the shit people have to tell themselves to sleep at night.....
LiberalLovinLug
(14,565 posts)With her international chutzpah, she obviously demanded that Putin sit at HER table!!!
Or worse! Putin demanded it!
Actually it was an invitational conference hosted by RT, called "Frenemies". A conference discussing foreign policies with the premise of not naming one the good guy and one the bad guy and exploring consensus on issues. Dignitaries and journalists from all over the world. Including Rocky Anderson, former mayor of Salt Lake City. Putin came in late with his entourage. Sat down there briefly, got up, gave a speech and left. No introductions. Those that promote made up CT on our side devalue our reputation to speak truth. We can win without the wide-eyed rants of the tin foil hat community.
But please...I'm dying to hear your "shit-free" version.....
betsuni
(28,637 posts)to account, debt-free college, green energy, and many other proposals. The problem was that people were told she wasn't progressive and many young people new to politics believed it without bothering to check. Even people who should've known better got swept up in it. They believed propaganda. Sarandon was the worst, scaring people with the ridiculous idea that Hillary would immediately start wars -- just as these "progressives" did with Obama, yelling about how he used drone warfare. Do they say anything about Trump using more drones in a year than Obama did in eight? Nope. Ignoring Republicans to demonize Democrats with false information: fake progressives.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,565 posts)mostly
One of the reasons she moved up from her initial $12 min. wage was in part pressure from the progressive wing of the party, and Sanders supporters.
And I'd just contend that Democratic delegates were powerless to do anything about Republican drone attack policy. They could only influence and speak up on their own party's position on it, which was their right and important to those that did.
Otherwise I agree, Sarandon was definitely wrong to advocate for a third party vote in 2016.
Skittles
(169,206 posts)that is what *I* understand
kairos12
(13,456 posts)Statistical
(19,264 posts)She is so crimson red she makes Roberts look like a moderate. That is why Mitch will make this happen even if they have to roll a senator on a ventilator into the senate. It doesn't matter if it costs them the election it doesn't matter if it costs them the majority for a decade to come. This is a win for the GOP which will shift the country redder for decades long long after Mitch has retired from office.
kairos12
(13,456 posts)if a Democratic Congress passes progressive legislation. The Reich Wing Court will strike it all down.
The Rethugs have played the long game on this. They knew the day would come when their voters would be in the distinct minority. Their last card to play was to stop all progressive measures with a court controlled by reactionary, young judges.
Unfortunately, they have played this way better than the Dems.
We will suffer as a result.
Add 5 Justices to the court.
Grokenstein
(6,239 posts)"Whither Wisconsin?"
"It doesn't matter that I actively campaigned against her 24/7 up until Election Day; I, uh, I held my nose and voted for her anyway! ...Yeah, that's the ticket! You buy that, don't you?"
"My vote didn't matter...just like I keep telling everyone about theirs!"
"Other factors were involved! See, it isn't just my fault, therefore I am not at fault at all!"
"We were ultimately given a choice between Hillary and Trump! Both sides bad! Both sides bad! Rawwwk! So I wrote in a cartoon character's name! Because all that really mattered was I could tell everyone about the purity of my conscience!"
"Nothing we did influenced the outcome...but if we don't get our way next time, we'll fucking do it again!!"
liskddksil
(2,753 posts)for the last 3 justices, Pat Toomey. Right?
Pepsidog
(6,353 posts)ruined a once great nation.
Response to Stinky The Clown (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Hamer555
(75 posts)
Wednesdays
(21,534 posts)Quote by Sheldon Cooper.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,565 posts)Damn Hollywood liberal elites!!!!
oasis
(53,293 posts)of votes.
But please proceed.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,565 posts)Too bad Hillary didn't have some kind of .....platform to compete with this supernatural power, in order to influence the few thousand more voters in three States she needed to win over.
AlexSFCA
(6,319 posts)that is the root cause of why Merick Garland and countless other federal judges that weren’t confirmed by gop senate. The president is only one part of the equation, the senate in many instances is even more important. Where were dem voters theouggout all those years? I hear many times that gop focuses on judiciary much more than dems, and for a good reason - it’s a more long lasting strategy. Dems can spend enormous amount of time on passing policies just to be overturned by courts later.
Just to be clear, the goal for gop judges and justices not to simply overturn roe v wade but to outlaw abortion in all 50 states. Dem congress can codify roe v wade but it will likely be blocked by SC before taking effect. That’s power.
TheDemsshouldhireme
(224 posts)Dems need to turn out every election not just presidential years. We briefly had 60 votes in the Senate and 2 years later were in the minority. Again, its 3 branches of government, not 1 or 2.
AlexSFCA
(6,319 posts)perhaps rightly so. I can just imagine if Obama would be a president right now with dem senate and decided to not nominate the justice and ‘wait’ until after election. I would be extremely furious. To us trump’s nominee is evil but to gop voters, she is the savior.
Statistical
(19,264 posts)Gerrymander has depending on the model cost Democrats somewhere between 20 to 30 seats in the House. The Senate naturally leans to the right. Still your right Republicans do better at winning the down ticket races and that translates into power.
The only good news is that demographics are leaning the other way and in more and more states the Republicans are losing their gerrymandered hold. If the Democratic leadership was willing to take bold steps to expand the court, open DC & PR to statehood, and implement the Wyoming rule it could radically hinder GOP having majority power with minority support for decades to come.
It probably won't happen though. Despite FauxNews screaming about the Democrats being extreme activists they really aren't often lookin for middle of the road solutions.
AlexSFCA
(6,319 posts)Dems won the house back in 2018 despite gerrymandering so all those are excuses. Dems win when we turn out so we maybe we have a turnout problem, then we are rightfully paying the price for it. You lose democracy if you don’t participate in it each and every time and that is what happening now. Yes, I get that fox news is rw outlet but we have the entire mainstream media market focusing on facts - abc, nbc, msnbc, cnn, etc. to counter that. fox news is merely a cable channel. I can see how conservative states have disproportionate senate representation per population but even that argument can be easily destroyed when we look at someone like GOP sen. Gardner from CO where is no voting suppression, in fact vote by mail for all, why isn’t a dem holding this seat? Certainly not gerrymandering.
yardwork
(68,882 posts)mcar
(45,596 posts)would say that the Supreme Court didn't matter while the voted their "conscience" because Hillary was a war-monger or some other idiocy.
They have caused this catastrophe.
Statistical
(19,264 posts)"sorry guys I was blinded by hate and made a horribly bad choice which will make the country more conservative for decades to come. I regret it and will work to undo the damage I caused."
mcar
(45,596 posts)I don't think they will ever acknowledge the harm they've done. Perhaps they don't think they did any harm.
FakeNoose
(39,957 posts)Sarandon was only one vote, and even though she yakked a lot on TV I don't think she influenced many people to vote against Hillary.
But the Bernie Bros - we're talking hundreds of thousands, and they were in important swings states too. Bernie Sanders never came out and asked his supporters to vote for Hillary. If he ever did, it was way too late, but I never heard him.
I live in Pittsburgh which is a BLUE city, and I was disappointed that the black voters didn't turnout for Hillary the way they did for Obama. I still haven't heard a good/believable reason why they didn't.
Response to FakeNoose (Reply #61)
Name removed Message auto-removed
FakeNoose
(39,957 posts)... when he clearly isn't, and never was.
Response to FakeNoose (Reply #72)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Autumn
(48,715 posts)
Celerity
(53,524 posts)
oasis
(53,293 posts)is partially responsible for the erosion of the black vote.
Celerity
(53,524 posts)https://www.democraticunderground.com/128736610#post18
FakeNoose
(39,957 posts)
progressoid
(52,489 posts)DENVERPOPS
(13,003 posts)and the kicker was Comey and his totally false email claim at the last minute, purely with the intention of damaging Hillary to Putin's delight........
AND of course, who can forget the performance by Colin Powell in the Bush election???????????
I'm still waiting for the normal "October Surprise" by the Republicans. Maybe a totally fictitious investigation of Hunter Biden released?
Who can guess ??????????????????
Get Ready Folks, less than a month away................
Autumn
(48,715 posts)There are plenty more speeches where he urged his supporters to vote for Hillary.
Paladin
(32,199 posts)
yuiyoshida
(44,901 posts)over turn the election, if Trump loses he will go to ( his) Supreme court. And if he wins, despite the election's real results, there will be riots like he has never seen before. Perhaps even the civil war the other side has been craving since the last one.
iluvtennis
(21,445 posts)
ecstatic
(35,003 posts)I BEGGED them to vote, if not for my mental wellbeing then at least for the caged kids.
If trump is allowed another 4 years due to their apathy, I'm completely done. I will never want to talk to them again.
Frankly, I might be done with them even if trump is defeated.
dhol82
(9,624 posts)Just curious.
Alice Garoute
(16 posts)Susan Sarandon , and others who hated Hillary in 2016 , and to those who stay home during Congressional, Governor , Locals, State Elections , well there you have it Neil Gorsuch , Brett Kavanaugh and now Amy Coney Barrett . Republicans are the ones packing the courts for years to come , and not Democrats , We pay the price when we don't show up to Vote
Duncan Grant
(8,850 posts)I’m a Stinky fan - but holy shit - it’s 2020. Can you kick up this same kind of dust in an effort to bring people together?
P.S. The OP is an oversimplification of events in 2016.
Autumn
(48,715 posts)3 million votes but yeah Susan Sarandon is the problem the Democratic party had then and has now. They really give that actress a lot of credit for not voting their party line.
StevieM
(10,577 posts)Hillary was the nominee because black voters overwhelmingly chose her over Sanders and O'Malley. It is silly to claim that she was the wrong candidate to appeal to black voters. It is something that is done to bring happiness to her mostly white critics.
I blame James Comey for our loss, not Susan Sarandon. We would have won easily had it not been for him.
I think the real issue here is that there were stupid people who acted like there was no great difference between Hillary and Trump. And now we are seeing just how big the difference was. Hillary's policies would have been pretty much the same as Obama's, and there was never a good reason to believe otherwise. My problem with the left was that they acted like she was the second coming of Joe Lieberman, and there was nothing in her history that gave them a good reason to do that.
Autumn
(48,715 posts)Last edited Mon Oct 12, 2020, 06:52 PM - Edit history (1)
the Black vote was down. IMO I agree and I also blame that damn Comey. He had a hell of a lot more influence with his bullshit than Sarandon could have ever had. As for your problem with the left there is always a gap between what the Left wants and what the center wants. The Democratic left voted for Hillary.
betsuni
(28,637 posts)Nothing to do with Hillary.
Autumn
(48,715 posts)vote when Obama wasn't? Sound like it had a lot to do with the candidate.
betsuni
(28,637 posts)era. But with Obama on the ticket, blacks developed not only a stronger Democratic identity but also turned out to vote in record numbers. .... When Obama ran in 2008 and 2012, black turnout was over 5 percentage points higher than it had been in any election on record. Obama's two campaigns confirmed research showing that African American's in-group identity -- their identification with blacks as a group -- impacts how they think and act in politics. Indeed, Barack Obama's extraordinary black support was concentrated among African Americans who expressed the most solidarity with other blacks. It was arguably unrealistic to expect similarly high levels of black turnout for a white Democratic candidate in 2016. That doesn't mean that Clinton was unpopular among African Americans. They were crucial to her victory in the Democratic primary, and throughout 2016, an average of 73 percent rated her favorably in both Gallup and YouGov polls."
Sides, Tesler, Vavreck, "Identity Crisis"
Went up five points for Obama, went back to usual in 2016. Not hard to understand.
Autumn
(48,715 posts)So, it's fine with you that they chose not to vote for the white candidate but the Bernie bros, many who were not Dems to begin with chose to vote for the third party candidate or not vote are at fault for not voting for one they didn't identify with. Just so we're clear.
betsuni
(28,637 posts)commentators, the two candidates were locked in an ideological battle Royale. The Sanders campaign was supposedly a potential 'watershed in the development of progressive politics,' and Sanders supporters were said to 'want the Democrats to be a different kind of party: a more ideological, more left-wing one.' But ideology was not the key divide among Democratic primary voters. Although they perceived Sanders as more liberal than Clinton, and Sanders voters themselves were more likely to identify as liberal, there were small differences between Sanders and Clinton voters on many policy issues. In 2016, it was Republican primary voters, not Democrats, who were more divided on public policy and especially economic issues.
"Instead, the important division had to do with other identities: party, race, and age. Clinton voters were more loyal to the party, more racially and ethnically diverse, and older. Sanders voters were more likely to be independent, white, and younger. ... As a result 'identity' mattered in both the Democratic and Republican primaries but in different ways. The division in the Democratic primary electorate centered on which groups voters belonged to -- Democrats, white, black, and so on. Republican divisions centered on how voters felt about the groups they did not belong to: including blacks, Muslims, and immigrants."
"Identity Crisis"
Autumn
(48,715 posts)Like you said it mattered in different ways. Your hated Bernie supporters voted for what they identified with, just as Clinton voters voted for what they identified with. I find it rather hypocritical of some people to find any fault they can with one group, even to the point of making stuff up, and not the other.
betsuni
(28,637 posts)Autumn
(48,715 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)....in 2004, which was the highest ever at the time.
Remember, 2016 black turnout being "down" is compared to 2008 and 2012, when we elected and re-elected our first black President.
Also, the only two years that black voter turnout RATE exceeded white voter turnout RATE were in the two years that Obama was our candidate.
It's wrong to compare "black voter turnout" in 2016 only to that in the two elections when we had a black candidate.
BainsBane
(57,311 posts)and the results--stripping away of equal rights--will be felt for generations. Elections have consequences. People don't get to ally themselves with fascism and pretend they have nothing to do with the results. Of course, it was never their rights or their lives that were on the line, which is why they argued over and over again that the courts didn't matter. You may think it was just an election, as though it were nothing. But for the lives of the vulnerable, it has struck them down for a generation. For some of the Vichy collaboration, it was deliberate. They chose white male supremacy for a reason.
At the very least, Trump/3rd party voters (because some did directly vote for Trump) chose only to think of themselves. Trump was a narcissist elected by a narcissistic culture that mirrored him, and the refusal of the pseudo-left to vote Democratic was part of that culture. Of course people who repeatedly align themselves with the most RW elements in society--as Sarandon has done for many elections--aren't on the left at all. People can pretend to believe what they want; it's actions that count. People ARE what they DO.
They of course aren't the only reason Hillary lost. Comey and the Russians obviously played a role. But the never Hillary voters were connected to the Russian interference because they eagerly spread Russian propaganda. Putin couldn't have orchestrated Trump's election without them, which is why he specifically targeted them. They lapped it up, and to this day refuse to acknowledge what they did. Of course they deflect blame onto everyone else for the same reasons they voted for Trump or a third party in the first place--callous disregard for the lives of anyone but themselves.
treestar
(82,383 posts)when things are bad enough! Then we will fight, and the result will be a new Constitution, which lets us pass liberal legislation (overlooking the risk the opposite could be the result of the "revolution."
betsuni
(28,637 posts)Well that wasn't worth it.
llashram
(6,269 posts)
lark
(25,841 posts)Drumpf stole the election through rampant Repug voter suppression and russian spending and hacking and Rudy Guiliani's friends at the FBI who pushed Comey to make an unsubstantiated false claim about Clinton days before the election. I still maintain that Russia hacked the FL vote because the Broward & Hialeah's #'s were way too low, didn't make sense to me and those are the Democratic bastions while the rural counties were off the charts, again not sensible. Oh and the FL vote was exactly 1.2% for drumpf, same exact percentage as WI that has the same hackable system as ours and has had a rw repug government - again like ours.
We have to overwhelm their efforts, because they will be doing all they can to steal the election.
The River
(2,615 posts)They made tRump appear credible.
They are still doing it.
Especially NBC and MSNBC. Whenever he called, they let him on their broadcasts, especially Matt Lauer, Savanna Guthrie and Scarborough & Mika.
anamnua
(1,493 posts)The scene is Britain. The time is the winter of 1978 (later to be known as 'the winter of discontent) -- a time of mass industrial unrest. The ringleader behind all this unrest was a trade union firebrand called Moss Evans who persisted with his incendiary activism despite warnings galore from sane political commentators about negative electoral implications for the ruling, centrist Labour Party which then had strong links to the trade union movement. The warnings were more than validated in the subsequent general election, in May 1979, which ushered in 10 years of rule by the right wing Friedmanite, Margaret Thatcher.
A shrewd political observer then uttered the defining quote of the era:
'The political education of Moss Evans has been very expensive indeed.'
By the same token the political education of Sarandon and the Sarandonites; Stein and the Steinites; and various other anti-Hillaryites on the left has been very expensive indeed.
George II
(67,782 posts)....Nina Turner, David Sirota and Brianna Gray.
This is an exact quote from co-chair Nina Turner in The Atlantic just 2-1/2 months ago:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/07/how-trump-could-win-reelection/612205/
Le Drunkard Thomas
(36 posts)Is that even still a thing?
calclar
(55 posts)Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Whatever their excuse, there never was an excuse good enough to directly OR INDIRECTLY vote for tRump.
Un F'ing believable.
mudstump
(351 posts)questionseverything
(11,509 posts)
FreddyWhite
(88 posts)I mean seriously!
betsuni
(28,637 posts)quakerboy
(14,696 posts)It was centrists, independants and moderates that gave us trump. Lets lay this at the feet of who owns it, rather than trying to divide ourselves as we have this vital chance to prevent the further slip into fascism.
progressoid
(52,489 posts)
jimlup
(8,009 posts)the blame lies elsewhere. The blame liies with the women in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan who were dupped into voting for tRump. It is not all Susan Sarandon's fault. It just isn't. We democrats never had Susan Sarandon and it is foolish to pretend that we did. If anything, blaming her is playing right into her game. Stop it!
But stop sowing seeds of division when what we need at this moment is UNITY.
Unity, loaves, and fishes.
chwaliszewski
(1,528 posts)
progressoid
(52,489 posts)In the book, and in news appearances, Clinton has pinned her loss on several different factors, such as how journalists covered the election, former FBI Director James Comey, and the questions asked at debates.
Here are the 16 reasons Hillary says she lost:
1. Herself: In her book, Hillary blames her "damn emails," her remarks about putting coal miners out of business, and calling Trump's supporters "deplorable."
2. Russia: "What Putin wanted to do was...influence our election, and he's not exactly fond of strong women, so you add that together and that's pretty much what it means."
3. The DNC: "I'm now the nominee of the Democratic Party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party. It was bankrupt...I had to inject money into it - the DNC - to keep it going."
4. Sexism and misogyny: "Sexism and misogyny played a role in the 2016 presidential election. Exhibit A is that the flagrantly sexist candidate won."
5. etc
betsuni
(28,637 posts)to Trump. ... Stein wouldn't be worth mentioning, except for the fact that she won thirty-one thousand votes in Wisconsin where Trump's margin was smaller than twenty-three thousand. In Michigan, she won fifty-one thousand votes, while Trump's margin was just over ten thousand. In Pennsylvania, she won nearly fifty thousand votes, and trump's margin was roughly forty-four thousand. So in each state, there were more than enough Stein voters to swing the result, just like Ralph Nader did in Florida and New Hampshire in 2000. Maybe, like actress Susan Sarandon, Stein thinks electing Trump will hasten 'the revolution.' Who knows? By contrast, former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld, a Republican who ran for Vice President on the Libertarian ticket topped by Gary Johnson, told his supporter toward the end that if they lived in swing states they should vote for me. If more third-party voters had listened to Bill Weld, Trump would not be President."
From "What Happened"
Raine
(31,072 posts)BainsBane
(57,311 posts)of people of color, LBGTQ, and women are about to be decimated, and that will last for a generation. That is a direct result of 2016. They argued repeatedly that the court didn't matter, so this is the court they helped bring about. But no sweat for them. Why should they care about the consequences of their own actions? We told them that the people of color, LGBTQ Americans, women and the poor depended on the court, but they said explicitly, that wasn't a reason to vote Democratic. They said it over and over again. They made perfectly clear that they didn't care about those people. They still don't care.
Another thing they never did was familiarize themselves with Hillary's policy positions. They couldn't bother. I lost count of how many people who hated Hillary didn't know the first thing about what she proposed, even after the election. They steadfastly refused to inform themselves. They instead spread Russian propaganda about her and the primary process. They fed right into Putin's hands, which is why he purposefully targeted them, and they eagerly complied.
betsuni
(28,637 posts)There were/are many commandments. Pay no attention to actual history. Cynical disgust that both-sides-corrupt, oligarchs status quo, Supreme Court is corrupt as everything else so who cares. Never, ever, gaze upon the forbidden parchment of the 2016 party platform of what Hillary ran on. Always mindlessly believe conspiracy theories over facts. Watching various news programs today, STILL hearing that the Democratic primaries were rigged. Just now from a Republican on PBS with a new book.
BainsBane
(57,311 posts)circulating. Trump said something in the debate, and then I've run into it on Twitter. The RWers claim Biden barely won the primary. I showed one guy the total votes/delegate count. He then switched to "it was under suspicious circumstances." I said I suppose Republicans who want to see democracy destroyed believe voting might constitute suspicious circumstances, but voting is what determined the outcome.
I don't know if the source is the Russians trying to rekindle their mantra from 2016, or the GOP invented it, but it's so contrived that it doesn't hold water.
BainsBane
(57,311 posts)They chose to collaborate with Trump, and they explicitly argued that SCOTUS didn't matter. They insisted that Hillary was worse that Trump. They got the president they wanted and the court they wanted.
FreddyWhite
(88 posts)People left of center are NOT the cause of this problem.
No child left behind and an educational system that teaches to the test rather than teach critical thinking skills and true history is something to yell about.
Trump has revealed the dirty tricks of the GOP and their interference with the elections.
This is what the Republicans and Putin wants, in-fighting.
Bernie and the Green Party are not the problem, they are the future. Their platform from 20 years ago is what we fight for now.
MrsCoffee
(5,825 posts)Fuck the spoilers and their divisive bullshit.
We fight for The Democratic Party platform.
backroadblast
(76 posts)but in my view, it's a two way street, when RBG got the opportunity to step down and pick out the perfect person to carry on her legacy, she demurred, and isn't it absurd that a country of 350 million people we have a system that relies on one person to determine the rights of half of them?!.
if Hillary were the president right now, mcconell would be pulling a Garland again...
KG
(28,792 posts)
Stryst
(721 posts)I saw children maimed and killed by cluster munitions that she voted to continue using in areas with civilians. Those children are going to continue dying and being maimed for years to come.
That's YOUR fault.
I get that having a self righteous snit feels good, but maybe look at the reasons people had for not supporting her. But you won't, you'll just flag this.
But I'm done. I'll vote biden this time, but I'm done with y'all.
Progressive dog
(7,564 posts)I'm sure it was worth it to her. She took her ball and went home in 2016. Fortunately, most of her team now understands that Trump is a disaster and they're playing to win in 2020.
KPN
(17,116 posts)betsuni
(28,637 posts)Condescending to brush off any mention of her with "she's just an actress" or insinuate that she has one vote and no role in influencing the political discussion.
Just saw someone blame Hillary for the Iraq War again. Sarandon was a John Edwards surrogate when he ran for president but somehow, his vote for the Iraq war resolution didn't count. Hypocrite.