Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
38. I don't know who thinks political dynasties are a good idea.
Sun Dec 4, 2016, 01:48 AM
Dec 2016

They seem more suited for monarchies.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I would say it was a big factor... vi5 Dec 2016 #1
Are you equating the Democrats and Republicans? ismnotwasm Dec 2016 #2
It's about names and personalities, not the parties as such. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #4
Parties as such? ismnotwasm Dec 2016 #8
In other words, it doesn't equate the parties. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #12
Hmm ismnotwasm Dec 2016 #21
Im talking about the public perception of what at one point in time was a likely choice of finalists NRQ891 Dec 2016 #5
Yeah you keep saying that ismnotwasm Dec 2016 #10
because perhaps it's ummmm......TRUE? NRQ891 Dec 2016 #11
Yeah, you keep saying that ismnotwasm Dec 2016 #20
Interesting, but as I recall, Clinton actually won the popular vote. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #3
Plus 1000000000000 ....... Hekate Dec 2016 #7
Thanks. I cannot count that high, but I did just post the following separately: guillaumeb Dec 2016 #13
Thank you.. you'd think she was beat by that many votes they way they talk here nini Dec 2016 #22
Do we decide who wins the World Series or Super Bowl by how many fans they have? Exilednight Dec 2016 #41
By accepting the meme that Clinton "lost", this does two negative things. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #43
They don't. sfwriter Dec 2016 #33
no they are underestimating bigotry JI7 Dec 2016 #6
Clinton got more votes, so no. JI7 Dec 2016 #9
got more votes, but still lost to the most unpopular president-elect in history NRQ891 Dec 2016 #15
It amazes me that people who hated him voted for him. sfwriter Dec 2016 #34
Thanks for the false equivelence Buzz cook Dec 2016 #14
there was nothing false about reality of the perception NRQ891 Dec 2016 #16
No you didn't make it Buzz cook Dec 2016 #17
It was a factor, TheCowsCameHome Dec 2016 #18
Please clap. AngryAmish Dec 2016 #19
It was a big factor but a lot of people just don't like to admit it mtnsnake Dec 2016 #23
Certainly didn't help but part of the general geek tragedy Dec 2016 #24
Absolutely not, because it's a bullshit narrative anyway. BobbyDrake Dec 2016 #25
Are you underestimating Russia's interference with this election by overestimating other factors? blm Dec 2016 #26
ok, you've outed me - I'm KGB NRQ891 Dec 2016 #27
... SMC22307 Dec 2016 #31
He seems to be bringing up a single facet... sfwriter Dec 2016 #35
well he seems stupid because based on their record Obama is much more pro free trade JI7 Dec 2016 #37
It IS a real one, and pales in comparison to swing state vote suppression, blm Dec 2016 #39
Bill Clinton had a very high approval rating when he left office, which was nearly 16 years ago. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #28
I always felt this argument was a bit of a setup for Hillary Clinton EffieBlack Dec 2016 #29
I think that sentiment hurt her EXACTLY where she lost the EC. sfwriter Dec 2016 #30
PEOPLE WERE DEMANDING HILLARY CLINTON AS OUR NOMINEE! THAT'S WHY SHE WAS VIRTUALLY THE ONLY CHOICE Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #32
Whatever.. now you have fucking trump.. hope they're smug about that Cha Dec 2016 #36
I don't know who thinks political dynasties are a good idea. Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #38
I believe this is true because TrishaJ Dec 2016 #40
I think it's where Trump saw his opportunity NRQ891 Dec 2016 #42
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Are people underestimatin...»Reply #38