The Democratic Candidates

pjhawks

F Me In The Brain said:

Lerxst1992 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

Lerxst1992 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

I would think most voters already know what they want.  Trump or NotTrump.
The percentage who do not already know will make the difference.

54% voted not trump last time and that % will probably be similar this time. 

Trump & gop know this and will try to get reelected with the same 2 step strategy as last time:

1. Make sure a moderate is running on the libertarian ticket

2. Destroy the reputation of the Dem nominee so at least 1-2% of dem voters dont vote or vote 3rd party

Does the 54% include any 3rd/4th/write in options from last election?

Yes. Trump got 46% off the vote.  He will probably get about the same this time. 

Hopefully more people find themselves in the NotTrump camp who did not vote last time...and everyone choosing NotTrump realizes that our system is fucked in the bung and that the only way that NotTrump works is to vote for Geriatric Joe or whomever gets the nod from the Dems.  I was fooled once, voting 3rd party in protest, but not again.

#MakeItCount

it's hard to see how he will GAIN votes from last time. I mean who watching this the past 2 years is going to move from independent or Hillary to team Trump? i just can't see how he gains votes.  Although that mostly matters in a few states.

OnWis97

pjhawks said:

F Me In The Brain said:

Lerxst1992 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

Lerxst1992 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

I would think most voters already know what they want.  Trump or NotTrump.
The percentage who do not already know will make the difference.

54% voted not trump last time and that % will probably be similar this time. 

Trump & gop know this and will try to get reelected with the same 2 step strategy as last time:

1. Make sure a moderate is running on the libertarian ticket

2. Destroy the reputation of the Dem nominee so at least 1-2% of dem voters dont vote or vote 3rd party

Does the 54% include any 3rd/4th/write in options from last election?

Yes. Trump got 46% off the vote.  He will probably get about the same this time. 

Hopefully more people find themselves in the NotTrump camp who did not vote last time...and everyone choosing NotTrump realizes that our system is fucked in the bung and that the only way that NotTrump works is to vote for Geriatric Joe or whomever gets the nod from the Dems.  I was fooled once, voting 3rd party in protest, but not again.

#MakeItCount

it's hard to see how he will GAIN votes from last time. I mean who watching this the past 2 years is going to move from independent or Hillary to team Trump? i just can't see how he gains votes.  Although that mostly matters in a few states.

The basic economic numbers are good.  If that holds, he could win a majority of votes.

mrussel1

OnWis97 said:

pjhawks said:

F Me In The Brain said:

Lerxst1992 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

Lerxst1992 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

I would think most voters already know what they want.  Trump or NotTrump.
The percentage who do not already know will make the difference.

54% voted not trump last time and that % will probably be similar this time. 

Trump & gop know this and will try to get reelected with the same 2 step strategy as last time:

1. Make sure a moderate is running on the libertarian ticket

2. Destroy the reputation of the Dem nominee so at least 1-2% of dem voters dont vote or vote 3rd party

Does the 54% include any 3rd/4th/write in options from last election?

Yes. Trump got 46% off the vote.  He will probably get about the same this time. 

Hopefully more people find themselves in the NotTrump camp who did not vote last time...and everyone choosing NotTrump realizes that our system is fucked in the bung and that the only way that NotTrump works is to vote for Geriatric Joe or whomever gets the nod from the Dems.  I was fooled once, voting 3rd party in protest, but not again.

#MakeItCount

it's hard to see how he will GAIN votes from last time. I mean who watching this the past 2 years is going to move from independent or Hillary to team Trump? i just can't see how he gains votes.  Although that mostly matters in a few states.

The basic economic numbers are good.  If that holds, he could win a majority of votes.

Not a chance in the world he wins a majority.  It's hard enough for a popular person to do that.  

Biden surging..

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/442310-joe-biden

mrussel1

Although because Sanders is tanking,  I imagine much of the surge is based on recognition at this point. 

Jason P

I think the fix is in for Biden for the democratic nomination. Must have got the green light promise from the party if he entered the race. He isn’t even worried about going after his immediate opponents. 

Halifax2TheMax

Jason P said:

I think the fix is in for Biden for the democratic nomination. Must have got the green light promise from the party if he entered the race. He isn’t even worried about going after his immediate opponents. 

“The fix?” Because he’s leading in the polls, was VP for 8 years, had a distinguished career as a senator and doesn’t believe everything should be “free?” That fix?

my2hands

Listen folks, these folks are good folks

Meltdown99

Jason P said:

I think the fix is in for Biden for the democratic nomination. Must have got the green light promise from the party if he entered the race. He isn’t even worried about going after his immediate opponents. 

The democrats would never do that, would they...

Lerxst1992

Meltdown99 said:

Jason P said:

I think the fix is in for Biden for the democratic nomination. Must have got the green light promise from the party if he entered the race. He isn’t even worried about going after his immediate opponents. 

The democrats would never do that, would they...

Maybe Donna what's her name, who did it, wrote a book , made millions

mrussel1

Meltdown99 said:

Jason P said:

I think the fix is in for Biden for the democratic nomination. Must have got the green light promise from the party if he entered the race. He isn’t even worried about going after his immediate opponents. 

The democrats would never do that, would they...

Except it doesn't make a bit of logical sense.  Are the DNC mind controlling people who answer phones for polls?  That's some excellent technology.  Or maybe the DNC has secretly purchased all the polling companies for the express purpose of releasing false polls.  That way the sheeple will want to vote for the winners and will go with Joe, even though they really want Yang.  It's so diabolical in its brilliance.  

HughFreakingDillon

it would be mind numblingly stupid to get the "fix" in for any nominee, unless you want to destroy your own party's chances. you let the people decide so you know who has the best chance of winning. 

mrussel1

HughFreakingDillon said:

it would be mind numblingly stupid to get the "fix" in for any nominee, unless you want to destroy your own party's chances. you let the people decide so you know who has the best chance of winning. 

Some people simply can't accept the fact that maybe, somewhere there are people who like someone different than you.  Perish the thought.  

OnWis97

HughFreakingDillon said:

it would be mind numblingly stupid to get the "fix" in for any nominee, unless you want to destroy your own party's chances. you let the people decide so you know who has the best chance of winning. 

Agreed.

Doesn't mean they won't do it.

my2hands

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/2/16599036/donna-brazile-hillary-clinton-sanders

*ahem*

mrussel1

OnWis97 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it would be mind numblingly stupid to get the "fix" in for any nominee, unless you want to destroy your own party's chances. you let the people decide so you know who has the best chance of winning. 

Agreed.

Doesn't mean they won't do it.

Explain 'fixing' please. 

my2hands

OnWis97 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it would be mind numblingly stupid to get the "fix" in for any nominee, unless you want to destroy your own party's chances. you let the people decide so you know who has the best chance of winning. 

Agreed.

Doesn't mean they won't do it.

Um, they did it.

Doesn't mean Bernie would have won, i believe HRC would have likely won no matter what as the more moderate candidate... doesn't mean they didn't tip the scales though

mrussel1

my2hands said:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/2/16599036/donna-brazile-hillary-clinton-sanders

*ahem*

So this is why 55% voted for HRC vs. Bernie?  Is that the argument?  Because they had fundraising agreements rather than Bernie who refused to not only join the party, but refused to broadly support down ballot candidates. 

*ahem* = lack of critical thinking.  

OnWis97

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it would be mind numblingly stupid to get the "fix" in for any nominee, unless you want to destroy your own party's chances. you let the people decide so you know who has the best chance of winning. 

Agreed.

Doesn't mean they won't do it.

Explain 'fixing' please. 

By the strictest of definitions, I suppose "fixed" isn't the word.  But the Brazille story points to the party hedging its bets toward Hillary.  It's kinda like the NBA.  No, they don't script a win for the higher-profile teams and players, but they give them the benefit of the doubt on the calls.  The lesser team has to do better than play even with the more important team. Similarly, I don't think you have to be outrageously cynical to think Bernie needed a better-than-50% +1 performance to beat Hillary and that it's because the party was favoring her from day 1.

I share some of the criticism that Bernie is only a Democrat when it's convenient.  And I understand that the party can run itself how it wants to. But the superdelegates are able water down the vote.

If the party leaders want Biden and the voters come out overwhelmingly for, say, Harris, then Harris will win the nomination.  But if it's close, the party leaders should prevail. Fix?  No. Hedge?  I'd say so.

Halifax2TheMax

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it would be mind numblingly stupid to get the "fix" in for any nominee, unless you want to destroy your own party's chances. you let the people decide so you know who has the best chance of winning. 

Agreed.

Doesn't mean they won't do it.

Explain 'fixing' please. 

By the strictest of definitions, I suppose "fixed" isn't the word.  But the Brazille story points to the party hedging its bets toward Hillary.  It's kinda like the NBA.  No, they don't script a win for the higher-profile teams and players, but they give them the benefit of the doubt on the calls.  The lesser team has to do better than play even with the more important team. Similarly, I don't think you have to be outrageously cynical to think Bernie needed a better-than-50% +1 performance to beat Hillary and that it's because the party was favoring her from day 1.

I share some of the criticism that Bernie is only a Democrat when it's convenient.  And I understand that the party can run itself how it wants to. But the superdelegates are able water down the vote.

If the party leaders want Biden and the voters come out overwhelmingly for, say, Harris, then Harris will win the nomination.  But if it's close, the party leaders should prevail. Fix?  No. Hedge?  I'd say so.

Hedging “bets” is a fact of life and individuals and organizations do it all the time. And party leaders want the “win.”

mrussel1

Halifax2TheMax said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

it would be mind numblingly stupid to get the "fix" in for any nominee, unless you want to destroy your own party's chances. you let the people decide so you know who has the best chance of winning. 

Agreed.

Doesn't mean they won't do it.

Explain 'fixing' please. 

By the strictest of definitions, I suppose "fixed" isn't the word.  But the Brazille story points to the party hedging its bets toward Hillary.  It's kinda like the NBA.  No, they don't script a win for the higher-profile teams and players, but they give them the benefit of the doubt on the calls.  The lesser team has to do better than play even with the more important team. Similarly, I don't think you have to be outrageously cynical to think Bernie needed a better-than-50% +1 performance to beat Hillary and that it's because the party was favoring her from day 1.

I share some of the criticism that Bernie is only a Democrat when it's convenient.  And I understand that the party can run itself how it wants to. But the superdelegates are able water down the vote.

If the party leaders want Biden and the voters come out overwhelmingly for, say, Harris, then Harris will win the nomination.  But if it's close, the party leaders should prevail. Fix?  No. Hedge?  I'd say so.

Hedging “bets” is a fact of life and individuals and organizations do it all the time. And party leaders want the “win.”

The fundraising deal was made in 2015, before Bernie was even a Democrat.  I never saw how this was some indication of fixing, although I appreciate OnWis's softening of the word.  But it's annoying that this talking point persists, while materially untrue.  
And this talking point is likely one of the reason so many Sanders voters defected to Trump (enough to tip the three key states), let alone those that stayed home.  
This talking point is starting again.