Two threads now and I can't stop laughing. You guys are crackin' me up today. Take good care of each other, ok?
@kat I feel like we could really come together as a group if we all sat next to each other at the Apollo Show. Anyway to hook us up with some tickets? Much love, 10C member 139682
I'm willing to give it a go
I can drive the bus..... after I get the passenger endorsement..... simple knowledge test.
My resume includes 1 million safe miles driven.
That is very impressive. Keep it up and stay safe...and have a fantastic time at the show. Ready to dance?
Falling down,...not staying down
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,938
Full disclosure, the following are the observations and opinions of a Buttigeg supporter.
A win is a win, for sure. But I would have expected Bernie to win NH by more than 1.6%. I believe he won NH by 22% in 2016...but I very well could be wrong.
I personally believe we are down to a final 5 at most, and likely a final 3 now.
I find it hard to believe that Warren or Biden have a legitimate shot at this point as they seem to be trending in the opposite direction. Though it does seem Biden is poised to do well in SC.
I kind of get the feeling that Sanders has peaked. At this point most people likely know if they are a Bernie Sanders voter or not.
That leaves us with Pete and Amy. She seems to be the candidate that is gaining the most ground of late and I think she seems to be doing very well. Unfortunately, I cannot help but to wonder if is going to be too little too late. As stated, I think most voting for Sanders have already made up their minds. I think the same applies to Biden as well. My belief is that the majority of undecideds remaining are chosing between Warren, Amy and Pete. People like the "hot hand" and if Pete has a couple more good showings in the very near future, I think he winds up being the nominee.
Pete/Amy 2020!
Pete being the nominee would be quite the story. I'm a supporter as well, but not passionately at this point. But I could/would feel fine about voting for him. Don't discount Bloomberg. He has purchased (through ads) his way to 14% nationally. I think the chances of a brokered convention are real. While the political junkie in me would love to watch such a thing, the likelihood of Bernie winning there is probably lower, thereby creating a division in the party that won't be fixed by November. Brokered is a bonus for Trump.
As an aside, technically Pete is winning the delegate count right now, since he and Sanders earned the same number last night. So even with the win, it wasn't quite a win for Sanders in the tally that matters.
I didn't know what is meant by brokered convention so I looked it up:
Once the first ballot, or vote, has occurred, and no candidate
has a majority of the delegates' votes, the convention is then
considered brokered; thereafter, the nomination is decided through a process of alternating political horse trading—(super) delegate vote trading—and additional re-votes. In this circumstance, all regular delegates (who may have been pledged to a particular candidate according to rules which vary from state to state)
are "released" and are able to switch their allegiance to a different
candidate before the next round of balloting. It is hoped that this
extra privilege extended to the delegates will result in a re-vote
yielding a clear majority of delegates for one candidate."
The term "brokered" implies a strong role for political bosses, more common in the past and associated with deals made in proverbial "smoke-filled rooms", while the term "contested" is a more modern term for a convention where no candidate holds a majority but the role of party leaders is weaker in determining the eventual outcome."
That all sounds very fishy to me- "horse trading" (what decade is this?), "smoke filled rooms" (don't bogart that joint?) "political bosses", (who gets to call the shots? Who really decides?). Egads!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Full disclosure, the following are the observations and opinions of a Buttigeg supporter.
A win is a win, for sure. But I would have expected Bernie to win NH by more than 1.6%. I believe he won NH by 22% in 2016...but I very well could be wrong.
I personally believe we are down to a final 5 at most, and likely a final 3 now.
I find it hard to believe that Warren or Biden have a legitimate shot at this point as they seem to be trending in the opposite direction. Though it does seem Biden is poised to do well in SC.
I kind of get the feeling that Sanders has peaked. At this point most people likely know if they are a Bernie Sanders voter or not.
That leaves us with Pete and Amy. She seems to be the candidate that is gaining the most ground of late and I think she seems to be doing very well. Unfortunately, I cannot help but to wonder if is going to be too little too late. As stated, I think most voting for Sanders have already made up their minds. I think the same applies to Biden as well. My belief is that the majority of undecideds remaining are chosing between Warren, Amy and Pete. People like the "hot hand" and if Pete has a couple more good showings in the very near future, I think he winds up being the nominee.
Pete/Amy 2020!
Pete being the nominee would be quite the story. I'm a supporter as well, but not passionately at this point. But I could/would feel fine about voting for him. Don't discount Bloomberg. He has purchased (through ads) his way to 14% nationally. I think the chances of a brokered convention are real. While the political junkie in me would love to watch such a thing, the likelihood of Bernie winning there is probably lower, thereby creating a division in the party that won't be fixed by November. Brokered is a bonus for Trump.
As an aside, technically Pete is winning the delegate count right now, since he and Sanders earned the same number last night. So even with the win, it wasn't quite a win for Sanders in the tally that matters.
I didn't know what is meant by brokered convention so I looked it up:
Once the first ballot, or vote, has occurred, and no candidate
has a majority of the delegates' votes, the convention is then
considered brokered; thereafter, the nomination is decided through a process of alternating political horse trading—(super) delegate vote trading—and additional re-votes. In this circumstance, all regular delegates (who may have been pledged to a particular candidate according to rules which vary from state to state)
are "released" and are able to switch their allegiance to a different
candidate before the next round of balloting. It is hoped that this
extra privilege extended to the delegates will result in a re-vote
yielding a clear majority of delegates for one candidate."
The term "brokered" implies a strong role for political bosses, more common in the past and associated with deals made in proverbial "smoke-filled rooms", while the term "contested" is a more modern term for a convention where no candidate holds a majority but the role of party leaders is weaker in determining the eventual outcome."
That all sounds very fishy to me- "horse trading" (what decade is this?), "smoke filled rooms" (don't bogart that joint?) "political bosses", (who gets to call the shots? Who really decides?). Egads!
By party rule, you have to have a majority of the delegates (pledged and super) in order to secure the nomination. So for example, since Sanders did not win a majority of delegates in NH last night, he won't be the official recommendation by the NH representatives of the party. This doesn't happen to often, frankly because of the money needed to campaign in every state. So you tend to get down to 2 candidates and then one before the primary season is over. But because of the money Bloomberg and even Warren have, they could continue to stop any other from getting the majority in a particular state. While this may not sound fair, it was actually quite common for a brokered convention on both sides of the aisle until the mid 20th century. When you think about it, what else are you going to do when no one comes to the convention with a majority?
Some descriptions/comments I've seen recently (from people smarter than me):
"Klobuchar is Kamala Harris without any of the good parts."
"Klobuchar reminds me of every middle school teacher who asked a bullied kid if they had done anything to provoke the bully."
"I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him."
"Buttigieg is like the guy in the early 90s who says, 'I don't mind gay people as long as they don't try to to bring it into everything.' He's that fucking guy!"
Things I've read on my faceturd feed from my friends. Better? "cis gays," yet another division of a marginalized group to pit one against the other. Berniebrosises ain't coming out if their boy ain't the nominee. Bernie be threatened, yo!
Things I've read on my faceturd feed from my friends. Better? "cis gays," yet another division of a marginalized group to pit one against the other. Berniebrosises ain't coming out if their boy ain't the nominee. Bernie be threatened, yo!
Do you type "faceturd" every time? Of do you have a hotkey?
0
Options
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 30,802
An interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types.
The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it.
My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit
responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose
your views. The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in
idiotic statements like this -
"I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".
Am I allowed to have an opinion?
The love he receives is the love that is saved
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,458
The Dems only hope. Is he on the ballot in South Carolina or is he not on any ballots till Super Tuesday?
Not sure. He is on the next debate stage though. I legit think he has a shot. If Biden does not do as well as expected in SC, my wet dream is that he would drop out and endorse Bloomberg.
Pete and Amy would fare well against Trump too though. Anyone but Bernie and Liz please.
An interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types.
The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it.
My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit
responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose
your views. The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in
idiotic statements like this -
"I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".
Am I allowed to have an opinion?
It's a discussion board: the goal of most posts is to elicit responses.
And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).
All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right.
The Dems only hope. Is he on the ballot in South Carolina or is he not on any ballots till Super Tuesday?
Not sure. He is on the next debate stage though. I legit think he has a shot. If Biden does not do as well as expected in SC, my wet dream is that he would drop out and endorse Bloomberg.
Pete and Amy would fare well against Trump too though. Anyone but Bernie and Liz please.
Your wet dream involves Biden and Bloomberg? If we weren't talking about the election, I would totally support you.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,458
An interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types.
The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it.
My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit
responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose
your views. The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in
idiotic statements like this -
"I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".
Am I allowed to have an opinion?
It's a discussion board: the goal of most posts is to elicit responses.
And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).
All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right.
You're quoting a few of your friends here and, I guess, somehow extrapolating those few opinions towards millions of voters.
When you have the chance, could you get back to us with your Aunt's neighbor's son's opinion on Joe Biden please? Thank you.
Things I've read on my faceturd feed from my friends. Better? "cis gays," yet another division of a marginalized group to pit one against the other. Berniebrosises ain't coming out if their boy ain't the nominee. Bernie be threatened, yo!
Do you type "faceturd" every time? Of do you have a hotkey?
What’s it to you? Actually, my trained house cat types my forum responses. With voice recognition software.
An interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types.
The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it.
My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit
responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose
your views. The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in
idiotic statements like this -
"I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".
Am I allowed to have an opinion?
It's a discussion board: the goal of most posts is to elicit responses.
And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).
All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right.
You're quoting a few of your friends here and, I guess, somehow extrapolating those few opinions towards millions of voters.
When you have the chance, could you get back to us with your Aunt's neighbor's son's opinion on Joe Biden please? Thank you.
I'm not extrapolating anything. I'm challenging the notion that courting the middle is desirable.
An interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types.
The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it.
My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit
responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose
your views. The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in
idiotic statements like this -
"I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".
Am I allowed to have an opinion?
It's a discussion board: the goal of most posts is to elicit responses.
And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).
All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right.
You're quoting a few of your friends here and, I guess, somehow extrapolating those few opinions towards millions of voters.
When you have the chance, could you get back to us with your Aunt's neighbor's son's opinion on Joe Biden please? Thank you.
I should add: it would not have taken millions of voters to swing the 2016 election.
0
Options
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 30,802
An interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types.
The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it.
My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit
responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose
your views. The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in
idiotic statements like this -
"I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".
Am I allowed to have an opinion?
It's a discussion board: the goal of most posts is to elicit responses.
And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).
All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right.
So, if they all plan to vote in the general election and seem to be people close enough to you that you can transcribe a bunch of crap from them and digest/relay what it means relative to the opinions you feel most in this thread have, with whom will they cast their vote in a Trump vs. Democratic Nominee election if the DN is:
Mayor Pete?
Klobuchar?
Are they going to stay home?
Vote for a 3rd party option? (I did that last time, firm in the belief that my vote would not matter...in NJ, it turned out I was correct, but this time I will take no chances and vote Dem for the first time ever in a Presidential Election.)
Vote Dem?
Vote for GW Donnie Don?
The love he receives is the love that is saved
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,458
An interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types.
The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it.
My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit
responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose
your views. The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in
idiotic statements like this -
"I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".
Am I allowed to have an opinion?
It's a discussion board: the goal of most posts is to elicit responses.
And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).
All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right.
You're quoting a few of your friends here and, I guess, somehow extrapolating those few opinions towards millions of voters.
When you have the chance, could you get back to us with your Aunt's neighbor's son's opinion on Joe Biden please? Thank you.
I'm not extrapolating anything. I'm challenging the notion that courting the middle is desirable.
By telling us what a few people, who may or may not exist, supposedly think about Amy Kobuchar and Pete Buttigieg.
Ignore the middle and enjoy another four years of this nonsense.
The Dems only hope. Is he on the ballot in South Carolina or is he not on any ballots till Super Tuesday?
Not sure. He is on the next debate stage though. I legit think he has a shot. If Biden does not do as well as expected in SC, my wet dream is that he would drop out and endorse Bloomberg.
Pete and Amy would fare well against Trump too though. Anyone but Bernie and Liz please.
I disagree on the bolded part. Out of Pete, Bernie, and Amy, I think Bernie would have the best chance against Trump. If for nothing else, he at least has people excited for him. Not sure exactly why. But Bernie whips his supporters up into a frenzy. Similar to Obama and Trump. All three of them couldn't be more different, but for some reason they connect with people.
I know Amy's third place finish in NH is being celebrated, but I don't think that momentum will sustain. If by some chance it did and she won the nomination, I think her general election fate will be similar to John Kerry's. Qualified enough, going against a ready-to-be-defeated Republican, but boring as all hell and unable to connect with undecided voters. The opposite of Trump, Obama, and Sanders in that regard.
If I could snap my finger and just pick the president myself, I'd actually go with Pete. I just like him. Seems like a reasonable-enough guy. Don't think he'd beat Trump in a 2020 general. But either way, he's made a heck of splash in the national scene. "Mayor Pete" might not be all that electable. But years from now when he returns to the Democratic primary as "Governor Pete," "Senator Pete," or "Secretary of something Pete," he could have a hell of a chance. If I was a democrat, he'd have my vote in this primary.
An interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types.
The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it.
My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit
responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose
your views. The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in
idiotic statements like this -
"I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".
Am I allowed to have an opinion?
It's a discussion board: the goal of most posts is to elicit responses.
And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).
All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right.
So, if they all plan to vote in the general election and seem to be people close enough to you that you can transcribe a bunch of crap from them and digest/relay what it means relative to the opinions you feel most in this thread have, with whom will they cast their vote in a Trump vs. Democratic Nominee election if the DN is:
Mayor Pete?
Klobuchar?
Are they going to stay home?
Vote for a 3rd party option? (I did that last time, firm in the belief that my vote would not matter...in NJ, it turned out I was correct, but this time I will take no chances and vote Dem for the first time ever in a Presidential Election.)
Vote Dem?
Vote for GW Donnie Don?
I believe, but cannot say with 100% confidence, that some of these people would vote for a Democrat no matter the case, and that others would refuse to vote for Mayo Pete, Biden, or Klobuchar (they might support a third-party candidate--not entirely sure). Is the notion of "energizing" people passe now? Or are we just assuming that a milquetoast centrist will win despite low voter turnout?
An interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types.
The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it.
My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit
responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose
your views. The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in
idiotic statements like this -
"I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".
Am I allowed to have an opinion?
It's a discussion board: the goal of most posts is to elicit responses.
And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).
All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right.
You're quoting a few of your friends here and, I guess, somehow extrapolating those few opinions towards millions of voters.
When you have the chance, could you get back to us with your Aunt's neighbor's son's opinion on Joe Biden please? Thank you.
I'm not extrapolating anything. I'm challenging the notion that courting the middle is desirable.
By telling us what a few people, who may or may not exist, supposedly think about Amy Kobuchar and Pete Buttigieg.
Ignore the middle and enjoy another four years of this nonsense.
Do you go around calling most people liars? Or is that special for me?
As for your last sentence, I just wish we had a recent US presidential election (like one in the last four years or so) that I could point to as a moment when appealing to the centrists failed. Give me some time, I might be able to come up with one.
0
Options
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 30,802
An interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types.
The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it.
My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit
responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose
your views. The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in
idiotic statements like this -
"I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".
Am I allowed to have an opinion?
It's a discussion board: the goal of most posts is to elicit responses.
And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).
All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right.
So, if they all plan to vote in the general election and seem to be people close enough to you that you can transcribe a bunch of crap from them and digest/relay what it means relative to the opinions you feel most in this thread have, with whom will they cast their vote in a Trump vs. Democratic Nominee election if the DN is:
Mayor Pete?
Klobuchar?
Are they going to stay home?
Vote for a 3rd party option? (I did that last time, firm in the belief that my vote would not matter...in NJ, it turned out I was correct, but this time I will take no chances and vote Dem for the first time ever in a Presidential Election.)
Vote Dem?
Vote for GW Donnie Don?
I believe, but cannot say with 100% confidence, that some of these people would vote for a Democrat no matter the case, and that others would refuse to vote for Mayo Pete, Biden, or Klobuchar (they might support a third-party candidate--not entirely sure). Is the notion of "energizing" people passe now? Or are we just assuming that a milquetoast centrist will win despite low voter turnout?
As a Never-Trumper who has the voting history I shared above, I do not pretend to know what everyone in this (mostly Dem inhabited) thread thinks...but I think that Trump is going to win, no matter who goes against him.
I think about 50% of our country is made up of a blend of people who are idiots, people who vote with their wallets, people who are blinded by hate, and people who are blinded by some fictional being residing "above". (This last category may/may not be made up of members of the other groups.)
This is my opinion, jaded by how much of a bad leader the current POTUS is. These people are not all Trump voters -- many are not. It does, in my belief, slant very heavily in that way.
My hope would be that the person put forward who many of us will hope can beat Trump would be a person who is not almost dead and a person who has the support of the most people in their party.
An interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types.
The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it.
My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit
responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose
your views. The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in
idiotic statements like this -
"I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".
Am I allowed to have an opinion?
It's a discussion board: the goal of most posts is to elicit responses.
And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).
All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right.
So, if they all plan to vote in the general election and seem to be people close enough to you that you can transcribe a bunch of crap from them and digest/relay what it means relative to the opinions you feel most in this thread have, with whom will they cast their vote in a Trump vs. Democratic Nominee election if the DN is:
Mayor Pete?
Klobuchar?
Are they going to stay home?
Vote for a 3rd party option? (I did that last time, firm in the belief that my vote would not matter...in NJ, it turned out I was correct, but this time I will take no chances and vote Dem for the first time ever in a Presidential Election.)
Vote Dem?
Vote for GW Donnie Don?
I believe, but cannot say with 100% confidence, that some of these people would vote for a Democrat no matter the case, and that others would refuse to vote for Mayo Pete, Biden, or Klobuchar (they might support a third-party candidate--not entirely sure). Is the notion of "energizing" people passe now? Or are we just assuming that a milquetoast centrist will win despite low voter turnout?
As a Never-Trumper who has the voting history I shared above, I do not pretend to know what everyone in this (mostly Dem inhabited) thread thinks...but I think that Trump is going to win, no matter who goes against him.
I think about 50% of our country is made up of a blend of people who are idiots, people who vote with their wallets, people who are blinded by hate, and people who are blinded by some fictional being residing "above". (This last category may/may not be made up of members of the other groups.)
This is my opinion, jaded by how much of a bad leader the current POTUS is. These people are not all Trump voters -- many are not. It does, in my belief, slant very heavily in that way.
My hope would be that the person put forward who many of us will hope can beat Trump would be a person who is not almost dead and a person who has the support of the most people in their party.
And what differentiates past you (given your voting history) from these people?
Full disclosure, the following are the observations and opinions of a Buttigeg supporter.
A win is a win, for sure. But I would have expected Bernie to win NH by more than 1.6%. I believe he won NH by 22% in 2016...but I very well could be wrong.
I personally believe we are down to a final 5 at most, and likely a final 3 now.
I find it hard to believe that Warren or Biden have a legitimate shot at this point as they seem to be trending in the opposite direction. Though it does seem Biden is poised to do well in SC.
I kind of get the feeling that Sanders has peaked. At this point most people likely know if they are a Bernie Sanders voter or not.
That leaves us with Pete and Amy. She seems to be the candidate that is gaining the most ground of late and I think she seems to be doing very well. Unfortunately, I cannot help but to wonder if is going to be too little too late. As stated, I think most voting for Sanders have already made up their minds. I think the same applies to Biden as well. My belief is that the majority of undecideds remaining are chosing between Warren, Amy and Pete. People like the "hot hand" and if Pete has a couple more good showings in the very near future, I think he winds up being the nominee.
Pete/Amy 2020!
Pete being the nominee would be quite the story. I'm a supporter as well, but not passionately at this point. But I could/would feel fine about voting for him. Don't discount Bloomberg. He has purchased (through ads) his way to 14% nationally. I think the chances of a brokered convention are real. While the political junkie in me would love to watch such a thing, the likelihood of Bernie winning there is probably lower, thereby creating a division in the party that won't be fixed by November. Brokered is a bonus for Trump.
As an aside, technically Pete is winning the delegate count right now, since he and Sanders earned the same number last night. So even with the win, it wasn't quite a win for Sanders in the tally that matters.
I didn't know what is meant by brokered convention so I looked it up:
Once the first ballot, or vote, has occurred, and no candidate
has a majority of the delegates' votes, the convention is then
considered brokered; thereafter, the nomination is decided through a process of alternating political horse trading—(super) delegate vote trading—and additional re-votes. In this circumstance, all regular delegates (who may have been pledged to a particular candidate according to rules which vary from state to state)
are "released" and are able to switch their allegiance to a different
candidate before the next round of balloting. It is hoped that this
extra privilege extended to the delegates will result in a re-vote
yielding a clear majority of delegates for one candidate."
The term "brokered" implies a strong role for political bosses, more common in the past and associated with deals made in proverbial "smoke-filled rooms", while the term "contested" is a more modern term for a convention where no candidate holds a majority but the role of party leaders is weaker in determining the eventual outcome."
That all sounds very fishy to me- "horse trading" (what decade is this?), "smoke filled rooms" (don't bogart that joint?) "political bosses", (who gets to call the shots? Who really decides?). Egads!
By party rule, you have to have a majority of the delegates (pledged and super) in order to secure the nomination. So for example, since Sanders did not win a majority of delegates in NH last night, he won't be the official recommendation by the NH representatives of the party. This doesn't happen to often, frankly because of the money needed to campaign in every state. So you tend to get down to 2 candidates and then one before the primary season is over. But because of the money Bloomberg and even Warren have, they could continue to stop any other from getting the majority in a particular state. While this may not sound fair, it was actually quite common for a brokered convention on both sides of the aisle until the mid 20th century. When you think about it, what else are you going to do when no one comes to the convention with a majority?
To add to Brian's commentary- The dems created the superdelegates after the 1968 elections as a result of perceived favoritism of Hubert Humphrey. This eliminated brokered conventions over the last 50 years since the party could pile on delegates over vote totals like they did for Hilary last time.
Ironically superdelegates no longer participate on the first ballot (the accumulated votes for all primaries) as a result of sanders complaining about them in 2016.
Since superdelegates are now ineligible to vote on the first ballot, this requires candidates to get a majority based only on actual voting. Since there might be 4 or more candidates running thru Super Tuesday, this increases the likelihood of a second ballot at the convention ("brokered ") since it might be a challenge for any to receive 50% +1 bc dems allocate delegates based on voting
The Rs have a much different way to award delegates (closer to winner take all). But that way led to trump.
0
Options
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 30,802
An interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types.
The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it.
My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit
responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose
your views. The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in
idiotic statements like this -
"I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".
Am I allowed to have an opinion?
It's a discussion board: the goal of most posts is to elicit responses.
And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).
All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right.
So, if they all plan to vote in the general election and seem to be people close enough to you that you can transcribe a bunch of crap from them and digest/relay what it means relative to the opinions you feel most in this thread have, with whom will they cast their vote in a Trump vs. Democratic Nominee election if the DN is:
Mayor Pete?
Klobuchar?
Are they going to stay home?
Vote for a 3rd party option? (I did that last time, firm in the belief that my vote would not matter...in NJ, it turned out I was correct, but this time I will take no chances and vote Dem for the first time ever in a Presidential Election.)
Vote Dem?
Vote for GW Donnie Don?
I believe, but cannot say with 100% confidence, that some of these people would vote for a Democrat no matter the case, and that others would refuse to vote for Mayo Pete, Biden, or Klobuchar (they might support a third-party candidate--not entirely sure). Is the notion of "energizing" people passe now? Or are we just assuming that a milquetoast centrist will win despite low voter turnout?
As a Never-Trumper who has the voting history I shared above, I do not pretend to know what everyone in this (mostly Dem inhabited) thread thinks...but I think that Trump is going to win, no matter who goes against him.
I think about 50% of our country is made up of a blend of people who are idiots, people who vote with their wallets, people who are blinded by hate, and people who are blinded by some fictional being residing "above". (This last category may/may not be made up of members of the other groups.)
This is my opinion, jaded by how much of a bad leader the current POTUS is. These people are not all Trump voters -- many are not. It does, in my belief, slant very heavily in that way.
My hope would be that the person put forward who many of us will hope can beat Trump would be a person who is not almost dead and a person who has the support of the most people in their party.
And what differentiates past you (given your voting history) from these people?
A much larger conversation but first I admit....I could have been (and could still be) an idiot, and I could have voted with my wallet.
Today I believe, as I did once Trump secured the nomination, that standing in opposition to him is more important than my wallet and the other beliefs I share(d) with traditional conservative voters.
I never was for the platform of hate nor god stuff.
Comments
Once the first ballot, or vote, has occurred, and no candidate has a majority of the delegates' votes, the convention is then considered brokered; thereafter, the nomination is decided through a process of alternating political horse trading—(super) delegate vote trading—and additional re-votes. In this circumstance, all regular delegates (who may have been pledged to a particular candidate according to rules which vary from state to state) are "released" and are able to switch their allegiance to a different candidate before the next round of balloting. It is hoped that this extra privilege extended to the delegates will result in a re-vote yielding a clear majority of delegates for one candidate."
The term "brokered" implies a strong role for political bosses, more common in the past and associated with deals made in proverbial "smoke-filled rooms", while the term "contested" is a more modern term for a convention where no candidate holds a majority but the role of party leaders is weaker in determining the eventual outcome."
That all sounds very fishy to me- "horse trading" (what decade is this?), "smoke filled rooms" (don't bogart that joint?) "political bosses", (who gets to call the shots? Who really decides?). Egads!
"Klobuchar is Kamala Harris without any of the good parts."
"Klobuchar reminds me of every middle school teacher who asked a bullied kid if they had done anything to provoke the bully."
"I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him."
"Buttigieg is like the guy in the early 90s who says, 'I don't mind gay people as long as they don't try to to bring it into everything.' He's that fucking guy!"
Я пришел за вашей демократией
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Pete and Amy would fare well against Trump too though. Anyone but Bernie and Liz please.
And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).
All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right.
When you have the chance, could you get back to us with your Aunt's neighbor's son's opinion on Joe Biden please? Thank you.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Ignore the middle and enjoy another four years of this nonsense.
I know Amy's third place finish in NH is being celebrated, but I don't think that momentum will sustain. If by some chance it did and she won the nomination, I think her general election fate will be similar to John Kerry's. Qualified enough, going against a ready-to-be-defeated Republican, but boring as all hell and unable to connect with undecided voters. The opposite of Trump, Obama, and Sanders in that regard.
If I could snap my finger and just pick the president myself, I'd actually go with Pete. I just like him. Seems like a reasonable-enough guy. Don't think he'd beat Trump in a 2020 general. But either way, he's made a heck of splash in the national scene. "Mayor Pete" might not be all that electable. But years from now when he returns to the Democratic primary as "Governor Pete," "Senator Pete," or "Secretary of something Pete," he could have a hell of a chance. If I was a democrat, he'd have my vote in this primary.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
As for your last sentence, I just wish we had a recent US presidential election (like one in the last four years or so) that I could point to as a moment when appealing to the centrists failed. Give me some time, I might be able to come up with one.
To add to Brian's commentary- The dems created the superdelegates after the 1968 elections as a result of perceived favoritism of Hubert Humphrey. This eliminated brokered conventions over the last 50 years since the party could pile on delegates over vote totals like they did for Hilary last time.
Ironically superdelegates no longer participate on the first ballot (the accumulated votes for all primaries) as a result of sanders complaining about them in 2016.
Since superdelegates are now ineligible to vote on the first ballot, this requires candidates to get a majority based only on actual voting. Since there might be 4 or more candidates running thru Super Tuesday, this increases the likelihood of a second ballot at the convention ("brokered ") since it might be a challenge for any to receive 50% +1 bc dems allocate delegates based on voting
The Rs have a much different way to award delegates (closer to winner take all). But that way led to trump.
For crying out loud he won by 1% in his own backyard and they're acting like he is invincible