Can you Democrats please stop panicking?

[DS0816]

If you seriously thought this was a possibility, you were being quite delusional. There was never a realistic scenario where the dems would get all the power: House Majority, 60 Senate Seats, Presidency

Huh? I never said any of that. You just defined 'destroyed' the way you wanted then called me delusional based on your own incorrect assumption. Good job?

By 'destroy' I meant a large win in the presidential popular vote that would reverberate downticket and help us take back competitive state legislature chambers that we've lost, which is entirely possible even without a landslide. For the Senate, my perfect (and realistic), best-win scenario for Democrats is probably a max of +8 seats, which is still very unlikely right now. For the House, a majority is a huge long shot and we'll be lucky to pick up 20+ seats based on current polling.

So no, 'destroy' meant almost none of what you said.

You can thank, in advance, President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, ex-majority leader Harry Reid, and Chuck Schumer for endorsing/pushing for corporatist Democrats Patrick Murphy (Florida), Ted Strickland (Ohio), and Katie McGinty (Pennsylvania). None of them will win. And this may be the case for Reid’s would-be successor in Nevada.

[Mr. Smith]

If you seriously thought this was a possibility, you were being quite delusional. There was never a realistic scenario where the dems would get all the power: House Majority, 60 Senate Seats, Presidency

Huh? I never said any of that. You just defined 'destroyed' the way you wanted then called me delusional based on your own incorrect assumption. Good job?

By 'destroy' I meant a large win in the presidential popular vote that would reverberate downticket and help us take back competitive state legislature chambers that we've lost, which is entirely possible even without a landslide. For the Senate, my perfect (and realistic), best-win scenario for Democrats is probably a max of +8 seats, which is still very unlikely right now. For the House, a majority is a huge long shot and we'll be lucky to pick up 20+ seats based on current polling.

So no, 'destroy' meant almost none of what you said.

You can thank, in advance, President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, ex-majority leader Harry Reid, and Chuck Schumer for endorsing/pushing for corporatist Democrats Patrick Murphy (Florida), Ted Strickland (Ohio), and Katie McGinty (Pennsylvania). None of them will win. And this may be the case for Reid’s would-be successor in Nevada.

McGinty will win IMO.

Unlikely...why they didn't endorse Sestak, who barely lost 2010 when it was a purge is a mystery.

[Panda Express]

If you seriously thought this was a possibility, you were being quite delusional. There was never a realistic scenario where the dems would get all the power: House Majority, 60 Senate Seats, Presidency

Huh? I never said any of that. You just defined 'destroyed' the way you wanted then called me delusional based on your own incorrect assumption. Good job?

By 'destroy' I meant a large win in the presidential popular vote that would reverberate downticket and help us take back competitive state legislature chambers that we've lost, which is entirely possible even without a landslide. For the Senate, my perfect (and realistic), best-win scenario for Democrats is probably a max of +8 seats, which is still very unlikely right now. For the House, a majority is a huge long shot and we'll be lucky to pick up 20+ seats based on current polling.

So no, 'destroy' meant almost none of what you said.

You can thank, in advance, President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, ex-majority leader Harry Reid, and Chuck Schumer for endorsing/pushing for corporatist Democrats Patrick Murphy (Florida), Ted Strickland (Ohio), and Katie McGinty (Pennsylvania). None of them will win. And this may be the case for Reid’s would-be successor in Nevada.

Guess who else endorsed/pushed McGinty, Strickland, Cortez-Mastro etc? Bernie Sanders.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/sanders-hassan-mcginty-strickland-cortez-masto-227518

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, as a Republican, I was relieved while Hillary was winning. I've always felt that she just lacked the charisma, the common touch that Bill has and Bernie has. Lots of people liked Bernie for Bernie. Everyone pretty much is a reluctant Hillary supporter.

[Adam Griffin]

#JustSaying

[Adam Griffin]

Once again relevant.

[Confused Democrat]

Once again relevant.

Let the bedwetting commence!

[SWE]

lol the past

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm panicking because Hillary needs to win by a lot.

If she wins by less than 5, we will be entering a very dark age in US politics.

[Hammy]

The problem is most Dems here are in blissful denial thinking Clinton will win in a landslide no matter what happens.

[afleitch]

I'm panicking because Hillary needs to win by a lot.

If she wins by less than 5, we will be entering a very dark age in US politics.

You do realise that's happening regardless. If Republicans can see past Trump and still vote for him, then they can reasonably nominate anyone for local or national office.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm panicking because Hillary needs to win by a lot.

If she wins by less than 5, we will be entering a very dark age in US politics.

You do realise that's happening regardless. If Republicans can see past Trump and still vote for him, then they can reasonably nominate anyone for local or national office.

If he loses in a landslide, they will understand that nominating people like him is not a viable strategy.

If he loses narrowly, they'll rationalize it away and try again in 2020. And maybe win.

[afleitch]

I'm panicking because Hillary needs to win by a lot.

If she wins by less than 5, we will be entering a very dark age in US politics.

You do realise that's happening regardless. If Republicans can see past Trump and still vote for him, then they can reasonably nominate anyone for local or national office.

If he loses in a landslide, they will understand that nominating people like him is not a viable strategy.

If he loses narrowly, they'll rationalize it away and try again in 2020. And maybe win.

'They' are GOP primary voters. And a 20 point loss wouldn't put them off because they are disconnected from the mainstream.

[Blackacre]

The answer to OP's question is no. And that's a good thing. It's better to overreact than to deny the thing is even happening. Better to be stuck in the 4th stage of grief than the 1st.

[ursulahx]

I'm panicking because Hillary needs to win by a lot.

If she wins by less than 5, we will be entering a very dark age in US politics.

You do realise that's happening regardless. If Republicans can see past Trump and still vote for him, then they can reasonably nominate anyone for local or national office.

If he loses in a landslide, they will understand that nominating people like him is not a viable strategy.

If he loses narrowly, they'll rationalize it away and try again in 2020. And maybe win.

'They' are GOP primary voters. And a 20 point loss wouldn't put them off because they are disconnected from the mainstream.

Lot of truth in this. Remember most of the people who elected Trump nominee will still be around to vote for him or his equivalent in 2020.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

We lost with a Romney and went with a Trump, don't underestimate our craziness

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

panic is better than complacency

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm panicking because Hillary needs to win by a lot.

If she wins by less than 5, we will be entering a very dark age in US politics.

You do realise that's happening regardless. If Republicans can see past Trump and still vote for him, then they can reasonably nominate anyone for local or national office.

If he loses in a landslide, they will understand that nominating people like him is not a viable strategy.

If he loses narrowly, they'll rationalize it away and try again in 2020. And maybe win.

'They' are GOP primary voters. And a 20 point loss wouldn't put them off because they are disconnected from the mainstream.

I'm talking about the GOP establishment. They could have easily stopped the madness if they really wanted to, but instead they went along with it.

[Person Man]

The answer to OP's question is no. And that's a good thing. It's better to overreact than to deny the thing is even happening. Better to be stuck in the 4th stage of grief than the 1st.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I'm panicking because Hillary needs to win by a lot.

If she wins by less than 5, we will be entering a very dark age in US politics.

You do realise that's happening regardless. If Republicans can see past Trump and still vote for him, then they can reasonably nominate anyone for local or national office.

If he loses in a landslide, they will understand that nominating people like him is not a viable strategy.

If he loses narrowly, they'll rationalize it away and try again in 2020. And maybe win.

'They' are GOP primary voters. And a 20 point loss wouldn't put them off because they are disconnected from the mainstream.

Lot of truth in this. Remember most of the people who elected Trump nominee will still be around to vote for him or his equivalent in 2020.

"We lost because we didn't pick a True Conservative."

"We lost because we didn't pick the right kind of True Conservative."

"We lost because our True Conservative wasn't outsidery enough."

"We lost because our outsider said words like 'pussy' and the media hated him because they hate outsiders and they hate America."

2020: Some amalgamation of Rick Santorum, Donald Trump, and Howard Stern.

[IceSpear]

I'm panicking because Hillary needs to win by a lot.

If she wins by less than 5, we will be entering a very dark age in US politics.

It really doesn't matter if she wins by 5 or 0.5 or 10. It's already become apparent that 90% of Republicans and a large chunk of fake independents will vote for Satan (R) over Jesus (D).

[Blackacre]

I'm panicking because Hillary needs to win by a lot.

If she wins by less than 5, we will be entering a very dark age in US politics.

You do realise that's happening regardless. If Republicans can see past Trump and still vote for him, then they can reasonably nominate anyone for local or national office.

If he loses in a landslide, they will understand that nominating people like him is not a viable strategy.

If he loses narrowly, they'll rationalize it away and try again in 2020. And maybe win.

'They' are GOP primary voters. And a 20 point loss wouldn't put them off because they are disconnected from the mainstream.

I'm talking about the GOP establishment. They could have easily stopped the madness if they really wanted to, but instead they went along with it.

I disagree. The GOP establishment didnt do anything because too many candidates were seeking their attention. If only one of Bush/Rubio/Christie/Walker/Graham/Pataki/Kasich declared, the establishment would have rallied behind the one and Trump wouldn't have been the nominee

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm panicking because Hillary needs to win by a lot.

If she wins by less than 5, we will be entering a very dark age in US politics.

You do realise that's happening regardless. If Republicans can see past Trump and still vote for him, then they can reasonably nominate anyone for local or national office.

If he loses in a landslide, they will understand that nominating people like him is not a viable strategy.

If he loses narrowly, they'll rationalize it away and try again in 2020. And maybe win.

'They' are GOP primary voters. And a 20 point loss wouldn't put them off because they are disconnected from the mainstream.

I'm talking about the GOP establishment. They could have easily stopped the madness if they really wanted to, but instead they went along with it.

I disagree. The GOP establishment didnt do anything because too many candidates were seeking their attention. If only one of Bush/Rubio/Christie/Walker/Graham/Pataki/Kasich declared, the establishment would have rallied behind the one and Trump wouldn't have been the nominee

The establishment could have forced them to coalesce. Instead they let them kill each other.

[pikachu]

I'm panicking because Hillary needs to win by a lot.

If she wins by less than 5, we will be entering a very dark age in US politics.

I agree with afleitch and IceSpear, we're already well past that point. Even if Trump loses by 10, there's no reason to think that a primary electorate which gave ~70% of its vote to unelectable nutjobs is going to significantly change in the near-future. We really are one recession or scandal from something bad happening.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

#JustSaying