The problem is four candidates are similar to Amy and two similar to Bernie. Even if far fewer vote “socialist” Bernie wants to change the rules so he wins based on that simple math.
From what I've seen, many vote based on personality, the candidate and other factors. So the whole "the moderate block" is bigger isn't completely failsafe.
E.g. Saw somewhere that Warrens lost voters went to Buttagieg more than Bernie. And many Biden voters having Bernie as their second choice etc.
I would also guess many Amy voters and many Liz voters would go to eachother, based on them being women.
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?
When did I say that?
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.
Just stop
You're so woke that you get sexism more than Hedo... who's actually a woman. You probably understand racism better than MLK did too, that's how impressive you are.
You’re willfully misreading SC’s posts even after he clarified. Or you are struggling with reading again. .
Actually, his further response validated my question.
Why would I vote for anyone based solely (or even mostly) on what lies between their legs?
Why are you assuming that only women would vote for someone because they’re a woman?
Jesus, I feel like I'm in a bizarro world around here at times.
How you extrapolated that from what I said, I have no idea.
Get used to it, it’s the new norm around here.
Only if we let it....
Jesus Christ, people. She misread the post. It’s not a big deal, but do you really have to pretend it didn’t happen just because you dislike SC?
I don’t believe I misread. And no, I am not calling SC a sexist. The comment could be taken that way though.
This is hilarious.
You misread. You thought he was referring to women voters, when he was referring to women candidates. I saw the misreading as it occurred. It’s not a big deal! So why does everyone have to pretend it didn’t happen?
The problem is four candidates are similar to Amy and two similar to Bernie. Even if far fewer vote “socialist” Bernie wants to change the rules so he wins based on that simple math.
From what I've seen, many vote based on personality, the candidate and other factors. So the whole "the moderate block" is bigger isn't completely failsafe.
E.g. Saw somewhere that Warrens lost voters went to Buttagieg more than Bernie. And many Biden voters having Bernie as their second choice etc.
I would also guess many Amy voters and many Liz voters would go to eachother, based on them being women.
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?
When did I say that?
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.
Just stop
You're so woke that you get sexism more than Hedo... who's actually a woman. You probably understand racism better than MLK did too, that's how impressive you are.
You’re willfully misreading SC’s posts even after he clarified. Or you are struggling with reading again. .
Actually, his further response validated my question.
Why would I vote for anyone based solely (or even mostly) on what lies between their legs?
Why are you assuming that only women would vote for someone because they’re a woman?
Jesus, I feel like I'm in a bizarro world around here at times.
How you extrapolated that from what I said, I have no idea.
Get used to it, it’s the new norm around here.
Only if we let it....
Jesus Christ, people. She misread the post. It’s not a big deal, but do you really have to pretend it didn’t happen just because you dislike SC?
I don’t believe I misread. And no, I am not calling SC a sexist. The comment could be taken that way though.
This is hilarious.
With you drawing bizarre conclusions from my post - I must ask, what did you read then? And what in my clarification went straight over your head?
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
The problem is four candidates are similar to Amy and two similar to Bernie. Even if far fewer vote “socialist” Bernie wants to change the rules so he wins based on that simple math.
From what I've seen, many vote based on personality, the candidate and other factors. So the whole "the moderate block" is bigger isn't completely failsafe.
E.g. Saw somewhere that Warrens lost voters went to Buttagieg more than Bernie. And many Biden voters having Bernie as their second choice etc.
I would also guess many Amy voters and many Liz voters would go to eachother, based on them being women.
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?
When did I say that?
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.
Just stop
You're so woke that you get sexism more than Hedo... who's actually a woman. You probably understand racism better than MLK did too, that's how impressive you are.
You’re willfully misreading SC’s posts even after he clarified. Or you are struggling with reading again. .
Actually, his further response validated my question.
Why would I vote for anyone based solely (or even mostly) on what lies between their legs?
Why are you assuming that only women would vote for someone because they’re a woman?
Jesus, I feel like I'm in a bizarro world around here at times.
How you extrapolated that from what I said, I have no idea.
Get used to it, it’s the new norm around here.
Only if we let it....
Jesus Christ, people. She misread the post. It’s not a big deal, but do you really have to pretend it didn’t happen just because you dislike SC?
I like SC quite a bit. He's grown on me... other than the video spamming
See here, how you don't care to respond to the actual point and content of ecdancs post but ignores it because it highlights you being wrong?
Do you often have problems admitting when you are wrong?
I mean, when @cincybearcat jumps in (who I would bet have not even read the string of posts related to the specific discussion but just want to oppose ecdanc) and is being completely wrong, you (and/or @hedonist) could have stepped in and said "chill out cincy, we were actually totally wrong and misread Mr Chaos post a while back", whether this wrong stems from nonchalance, problems with reading comprehension or sexism. I mean, I did clarify and asked you people to re-read the post instead of accusing me of sexism (ironically enough).
Instead it seems in an almost Trumpian way being wrong doesn't matter to you - and won't be acknowledged as long as you have people cheering you on when being wrong.
(The same with that "how to use quote marks" BS you tried to pull a few days ago, which @mcgruff10 jumped on - and that you (or mcgruff) never owned up to)
Just curious.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
The problem is four candidates are similar to Amy and two similar to Bernie. Even if far fewer vote “socialist” Bernie wants to change the rules so he wins based on that simple math.
From what I've seen, many vote based on personality, the candidate and other factors. So the whole "the moderate block" is bigger isn't completely failsafe.
E.g. Saw somewhere that Warrens lost voters went to Buttagieg more than Bernie. And many Biden voters having Bernie as their second choice etc.
I would also guess many Amy voters and many Liz voters would go to eachother, based on them being women.
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?
When did I say that?
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.
Just stop
You're so woke that you get sexism more than Hedo... who's actually a woman. You probably understand racism better than MLK did too, that's how impressive you are.
You’re willfully misreading SC’s posts even after he clarified. Or you are struggling with reading again. .
Actually, his further response validated my question.
Why would I vote for anyone based solely (or even mostly) on what lies between their legs?
Why are you assuming that only women would vote for someone because they’re a woman?
Jesus, I feel like I'm in a bizarro world around here at times.
How you extrapolated that from what I said, I have no idea.
Get used to it, it’s the new norm around here.
Only if we let it....
Jesus Christ, people. She misread the post. It’s not a big deal, but do you really have to pretend it didn’t happen just because you dislike SC?
I like SC quite a bit. He's grown on me... other than the video spamming
See here, how you don't care to respond to the actual point and content of ecdancs post but ignores it because it highlights you being wrong?
Do you often have problems admitting when you are wrong?
I mean, when @cincybearcat jumps in (who I would bet have not even read the string of posts related to the specific discussion but just want to oppose ecdanc) and is being completely wrong, you (and/or @hedonist) could have stepped in and said "chill out cincy, we were actually totally wrong and misread Mr Chaos post a while back", whether this wrong stems from nonchalance, problems with reading comprehension or sexism. I mean, I did clarify and asked you people to re-read the post instead of accusing me of sexism (ironically enough).
Instead it seems in an almost Trumpian way being wrong doesn't matter to you - and won't be acknowledged as long as you have people cheering you on when being wrong.
(The same with that "how to use quote marks" BS you tried to pull a few days ago, which @mcgruff10 jumped on - and that you (or mcgruff) never owned up to)
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?
And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
The problem is four candidates are similar to Amy and two similar to Bernie. Even if far fewer vote “socialist” Bernie wants to change the rules so he wins based on that simple math.
From what I've seen, many vote based on personality, the candidate and other factors. So the whole "the moderate block" is bigger isn't completely failsafe.
E.g. Saw somewhere that Warrens lost voters went to Buttagieg more than Bernie. And many Biden voters having Bernie as their second choice etc.
I would also guess many Amy voters and many Liz voters would go to eachother, based on them being women.
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?
When did I say that?
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.
Just stop
You're so woke that you get sexism more than Hedo... who's actually a woman. You probably understand racism better than MLK did too, that's how impressive you are.
You’re willfully misreading SC’s posts even after he clarified. Or you are struggling with reading again. .
Actually, his further response validated my question.
Why would I vote for anyone based solely (or even mostly) on what lies between their legs?
Why are you assuming that only women would vote for someone because they’re a woman?
Jesus, I feel like I'm in a bizarro world around here at times.
How you extrapolated that from what I said, I have no idea.
Get used to it, it’s the new norm around here.
Only if we let it....
Jesus Christ, people. She misread the post. It’s not a big deal, but do you really have to pretend it didn’t happen just because you dislike SC?
I like SC quite a bit. He's grown on me... other than the video spamming
See here, how you don't care to respond to the actual point and content of ecdancs post but ignores it because it highlights you being wrong?
Do you often have problems admitting when you are wrong?
I mean, when @cincybearcat jumps in (who I would bet have not even read the string of posts related to the specific discussion but just want to oppose ecdanc) and is being completely wrong, you (and/or @hedonist) could have stepped in and said "chill out cincy, we were actually totally wrong and misread Mr Chaos post a while back", whether this wrong stems from nonchalance, problems with reading comprehension or sexism. I mean, I did clarify and asked you people to re-read the post instead of accusing me of sexism (ironically enough).
Instead it seems in an almost Trumpian way being wrong doesn't matter to you - and won't be acknowledged as long as you have people cheering you on when being wrong.
(The same with that "how to use quote marks" BS you tried to pull a few days ago, which @mcgruff10 jumped on - and that you (or mcgruff) never owned up to)
Just curious.
It's because everyone is past it.
You have a tendency to move past things at the precise moment your mistakes/ignorance are exposed...
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?
And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?
And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
I can see that as being a valid statement. I think we’ve seen it before as well. Still wondering if it is his opinion or something he read he was passing on
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?
And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?
And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.
That is true, but do you not think there are people out there that just want a woman to win? I mean, as long as the woman meets whatever they believe is qualified?
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?
And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.
That is true, but do you not think there are people out there that just want a woman to win? I mean, as long as the woman meets whatever they believe is qualified?
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?
And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.
That is true, but do you not think there are people out there that just want a woman to win? I mean, as long as the woman meets whatever they believe is qualified?
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?
And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.
I sometimes imagine you at your computer saying to yourself "ha! I've got him now!!" A good portion of the time, though, you might as well just type the word "potato" instead of your actual responses--it would be equally sensical.
But....since you're going to complain I'm avoiding things, I'll go ahead and explain the nature of your, ahem, inaccuracy in this case: the conversation surrounding SC's comment(s) was not "you're factually incorrect," but "what you're saying is somehow offensive/sexist." The latter is false on its face, because he was making a comment about voters without defining their gender. I can see myself falling into the group he described (in slightly different circumstances), so reading his comment as about women voters says more about the reader than about his post. So, we can address whether he's factually inaccurate. Are there voters for whom electing a woman is as important or more important than minor policy differences? I believe so. I, for one, don't see Warren's and Klobuchar's platforms and particularly different, so if I were amongst that group, I could imagine myself switching allegiance from one to the other.
Comments
Does someone want to insist this is an apple?
Sanders looks to have won Nevada pretty big. I guess maybe they should have focused on him vs Bloomberg in the debates, who would have thought
Do you often have problems admitting when you are wrong?
I mean, when @cincybearcat jumps in (who I would bet have not even read the string of posts related to the specific discussion but just want to oppose ecdanc) and is being completely wrong, you (and/or @hedonist) could have stepped in and said "chill out cincy, we were actually totally wrong and misread Mr Chaos post a while back", whether this wrong stems from nonchalance, problems with reading comprehension or sexism. I mean, I did clarify and asked you people to re-read the post instead of accusing me of sexism (ironically enough).
Instead it seems in an almost Trumpian way being wrong doesn't matter to you - and won't be acknowledged as long as you have people cheering you on when being wrong.
(The same with that "how to use quote marks" BS you tried to pull a few days ago, which @mcgruff10 jumped on - and that you (or mcgruff) never owned up to)
Just curious.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
i believe those people exist.
But....since you're going to complain I'm avoiding things, I'll go ahead and explain the nature of your, ahem, inaccuracy in this case: the conversation surrounding SC's comment(s) was not "you're factually incorrect," but "what you're saying is somehow offensive/sexist." The latter is false on its face, because he was making a comment about voters without defining their gender. I can see myself falling into the group he described (in slightly different circumstances), so reading his comment as about women voters says more about the reader than about his post. So, we can address whether he's factually inaccurate. Are there voters for whom electing a woman is as important or more important than minor policy differences? I believe so. I, for one, don't see Warren's and Klobuchar's platforms and particularly different, so if I were amongst that group, I could imagine myself switching allegiance from one to the other.