Just about any GOP candidate would have won due to the tide coming in from Obama. When a guy gets two terms the other party gets it next no matter how good of a job is done. This is maxim.

oh okay lmao

Nah. GHWBush got elected directly after Reagan, and Gore would have been elected directly after Bill Clinton if he hadnt completely blewn it AND gotten very unlucky all at once.
Hillary's campaign was not great, but it wasnt horrible either. Certainly far better than the campaign Gore ran in 2000.

Hillary didnt lose because she made blatant mistakes or was a blatantly unsuitable candidate. She lost because she didnt see and cover her subtle strategical weaknesses - weaknesses that Trump was uniquely positioned to exploit.

Any other realistic GOP candidate would have done better in sun belt suburbs and worse in the rust belt, yielding a better popular vote share and a worse result in the electoral college.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 23 2019 09:02am

just curious, what benchmarks are you using to compare Gore2000 and HRC2016?

i honestly hadn't thought about the two in comparison with each other before.

Gore was made to look like a total fool, a wannabe tough guy. And during the debates, he came across as very smug and condescending, often times trying to show off his superior knowledge in an in-your-face way. He came across as a jerk and a smartass who's full of himself. His campaign also was much less well-organized than hers.

When Hillary was debating Trump, she was clearly drawing on the lessons of these Bush vs Gore debates: "even if you are much smarter than the other guy, it just wont work to try to stress this point, to try to hammer home how dumb the other guy is - this will just make you look bad." She instead focused on the qualified vs unqualified angle, and only jumped on Trump's lack of knowledge when he gave her something tangible to work with.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 23 2019 09:12am

some good points for sure, but Gore still only lost based on Florida. whereas Clinton lost by like 3-5 states. both of them felt like an "its their time" situation, and both propped up by Bill Clinton. lots of parallels for sure.

Gore would just have needed to win New Hampshire or his home state of Tennessee to win the election, even without Florida.

Also note the fundamentals: the Cinton years saw an unprecedented economic boom and very little foreign conflict - Gore ran as a continuation of those times.
The Obama years, on the other hand, saw a huge recession followed by years of sluggish recovery; and the wars in Iraq and Syria going nowhere, coupled with the rise of ISIS and high-profile terrorist attacks all across the Western world. Hillary ran as a continuation of all of that.

Therefore, a plausible case can be made for her campaign to have been better than Gore's despite ending with a worse electoral result.

what an utterly simplistic take. you are considered a simpleton - simply because you ARE a simpleton. how's that for an 'argument'?

yeah right, let's just ignore the massive political and economic effort behind the classification, let's ignore that the UN does NOT consider them a terrorist organisation, let's ignore the fact that they were formed AFTER turkey undertook several efforts to violently oppress the kurds, leading to massive casualties and injustices, let's just ignore the fact that all their 'terrorism' is aimed at achieving basic human and political rights for millions of people, and that they do not commit random acts for the sole purpose of spreading fear...

it's like they say: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

you claim to sympathise with the kurdish cause, but happily lump the pkk together with groups like isis or al-quaeda and perpetuate simplistic justifications like 'they are not peaceful innocent lambs' - so much for 'propaganda crap'. nuance exists, you know?
if your peaceful attempts at political freedom and basic rights had resulted in your people being slaughtered, disenfranchised, and driven off their land for decades, it'd be understandable if you resorted to other means to make your oppressors and the world listen...

let me ask you something, would you have called the french resistance in WWII 'terrorists' too? because technically...

Resistance against what was it oh right the desires of bloody conquest by your reich ancestors. who only started two out of two world wars within 25 years (lost them both in a landslide too)

This post was edited by excellence on Oct 23 2019 11:29am

I used this simplistic non-argument because I didnt want to to go into too much detail. The tldr is that the PKK has committed various bombings against the Turkish state, has engaged in political killings and followed a militant doctrine for the longest time. (Not sure about their current stance on the use of violence for political purpose.)




I never did that. Of course "terrorist organization" is a wide category, and differentiation within this category is possible and recommendable. I consider the PKK one of the less "evil" terrorist organizations, certainly well below ISIS or Al-Quaeda. Their goals, methods and ideology still clearly fit the definition of a terrorist organization.



No, since their guerrilla warfare was targetting invasors from a homicidal, fascist dictatorship which was waging wars of aggression. The Kurdish territory within Turkey, on the other hand, has never been autonomous, so the Turkish state representatives in there are definitely not invasors. Turkey is far from a perfect democracy, but not really a fascist dictatorship either. And while Turkey has committed genocides before (e.g. against the Armenians), their genocidal tendencies are far lower than those of Nazi Germany.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 23 2019 11:45am