Last night I listened on C-Span to Trump at a rally bragging about his greatest presidency in human history.
I woke up to Sanders at a rally bragging about his campaign being the greatest campaign in human history.
The cheering crowd sounded the same.
As Sanders bragged about how much money he's raised, I couldn't help but wonder how all these cash strapped young people can send him a check every month but can't pay their loan payment.
You sound bitter. I don't think you understand the student loan situation for millennials.
I'm mildly sympathetic. I do know that those high loan balances (over 50K) are disproportionately concentrated in grad level students. I have a daughter who is graduating college in May, and a son heading off this fall. We talk a lot about smart choices. My daughter could have gone to any school in the country, but I said no to private and out of state. She went to William and Mary instead. She graduated in 3 years because she took ap classes in hs and maxed out in undergrad. It was the same cost to do 12 to 18 credits. That saves her 28k right there. For my son, his grades aren't as good as my daughter's, so I may have him go to juco for two years and then transfer. This will save tens of thousands. Last, my daughter entertained going to get her MBA but we said nope. Go get a job, work for a few years, and get with a company that offers tuition reimbursement. She just landed her first job last week with a company in DC that does just that after 2 years. So like I said, I'm mildly sympathetic, but I've watched lots of people make really bad judgments on their education decisions. I'm not inclined to bail them out.
But why not fight for more decent conditions for the actual loans (not that I know of how good or bad they are in the US) rather than starting to forgive loans taken? Never understood that position from Warren/Sanders.
People take student loans here in Sweden from the state. Never heard anyone mentioning forgiveness, no matter how left you are. Also never heard about anyone being to burden by them to pay them back. Only talk ever here is about being able to loan more, and having higher "student grants" (to keep up with inflation).
That thing, and the whole "we will remove private insurance all together" comes off as bad politically to me. No nordic country that I know ban private insurances (whether one should is another discussion, but Sanders being so unreasonable on that front in the land of private insurances is to me weird).
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
This "No One" seems like a pretty strong candidate based on that projection. Maybe Bloomberg should throw his billions behind No One.
Watch Bernie change his stance, once again, on the candidate having the most delegates being the nominee, regardless of him having the actual number required.
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
Last night I listened on C-Span to Trump at a rally bragging about his greatest presidency in human history.
I woke up to Sanders at a rally bragging about his campaign being the greatest campaign in human history.
The cheering crowd sounded the same.
As Sanders bragged about how much money he's raised, I couldn't help but wonder how all these cash strapped young people can send him a check every month but can't pay their loan payment.
You sound bitter. I don't think you understand the student loan situation for millennials.
I'm mildly sympathetic. I do know that those high loan balances (over 50K) are disproportionately concentrated in grad level students. I have a daughter who is graduating college in May, and a son heading off this fall. We talk a lot about smart choices. My daughter could have gone to any school in the country, but I said no to private and out of state. She went to William and Mary instead. She graduated in 3 years because she took ap classes in hs and maxed out in undergrad. It was the same cost to do 12 to 18 credits. That saves her 28k right there. For my son, his grades aren't as good as my daughter's, so I may have him go to juco for two years and then transfer. This will save tens of thousands. Last, my daughter entertained going to get her MBA but we said nope. Go get a job, work for a few years, and get with a company that offers tuition reimbursement. She just landed her first job last week with a company in DC that does just that after 2 years. So like I said, I'm mildly sympathetic, but I've watched lots of people make really bad judgments on their education decisions. I'm not inclined to bail them out.
But why not fight for more decent conditions for the actual loans (not that I know of how good or bad they are in the US) rather than starting to forgive loans taken? Never understood that position from Warren/Sanders.
People take student loans here in Sweden from the state. Never heard anyone mentioning forgiveness, no matter how left you are. Also never heard about anyone being to burden by them to pay them back. Only talk ever here is about being able to loan more, and having higher "student grants" (to keep up with inflation).
That thing, and the whole "we will remove private insurance all together" comes off as bad politically to me. No nordic country that I know ban private insurances (whether one should is another discussion, but Sanders being so unreasonable on that front is to me weird).
I don't know what you mean by 'decent conditions'. There are two major loan programs in the US. There are the FFEL and direct loans (gov't backed/subsidized) and private loans (non gov't banks). Of course the terms on the private are higher because they aren't subsidized, but they do have deferment periods and other benefits that traditional loans don't have. Generally speaking, the terms for those loans are far more favorable than a person with teh same credit could get for credit card, auto, home, etc. The problem is not the loan terms, it's the astronomical cost of tuition that has outpaced inflation. There are probably 8 different reasons for that, and that's a source of much study. But at the end of the day, yes there should be a more concerted effort to change the cost curve of tuition. Although that doesn't really help the people out of school, with the loans today.
Last night I listened on C-Span to Trump at a rally bragging about his greatest presidency in human history.
I woke up to Sanders at a rally bragging about his campaign being the greatest campaign in human history.
The cheering crowd sounded the same.
As Sanders bragged about how much money he's raised, I couldn't help but wonder how all these cash strapped young people can send him a check every month but can't pay their loan payment.
You sound bitter. I don't think you understand the student loan situation for millennials.
I'm mildly sympathetic. I do know that those high loan balances (over 50K) are disproportionately concentrated in grad level students. I have a daughter who is graduating college in May, and a son heading off this fall. We talk a lot about smart choices. My daughter could have gone to any school in the country, but I said no to private and out of state. She went to William and Mary instead. She graduated in 3 years because she took ap classes in hs and maxed out in undergrad. It was the same cost to do 12 to 18 credits. That saves her 28k right there. For my son, his grades aren't as good as my daughter's, so I may have him go to juco for two years and then transfer. This will save tens of thousands. Last, my daughter entertained going to get her MBA but we said nope. Go get a job, work for a few years, and get with a company that offers tuition reimbursement. She just landed her first job last week with a company in DC that does just that after 2 years. So like I said, I'm mildly sympathetic, but I've watched lots of people make really bad judgments on their education decisions. I'm not inclined to bail them out.
But why not fight for more decent conditions for the actual loans (not that I know of how good or bad they are in the US) rather than starting to forgive loans taken? Never understood that position from Warren/Sanders.
People take student loans here in Sweden from the state. Never heard anyone mentioning forgiveness, no matter how left you are. Also never heard about anyone being to burden by them to pay them back. Only talk ever here is about being able to loan more, and having higher "student grants" (to keep up with inflation).
That thing, and the whole "we will remove private insurance all together" comes off as bad politically to me. No nordic country that I know ban private insurances (whether one should is another discussion, but Sanders being so unreasonable on that front is to me weird).
I don't know what you mean by 'decent conditions'. There are two major loan programs in the US. There are the FFEL and direct loans (gov't backed/subsidized) and private loans (non gov't banks). Of course the terms on the private are higher because they aren't subsidized, but they do have deferment periods and other benefits that traditional loans don't have. Generally speaking, the terms for those loans are far more favorable than a person with teh same credit could get for credit card, auto, home, etc. The problem is not the loan terms, it's the astronomical cost of tuition that has outpaced inflation. There are probably 8 different reasons for that, and that's a source of much study. But at the end of the day, yes there should be a more concerted effort to change the cost curve of tuition. Although that doesn't really help the people out of school, with the loans today.
isnt it true that the gov backed loans do not see relief through either refinancing or bankruptcy?
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 bolded states will not help the Democrats at all in November, but tonight will help the party machine secure the nominee it wants. If you really want to know where the base is, pay attention to the rest. Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Maine Massachusetts Minnesota North Carolina Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia
Last night I listened on C-Span to Trump at a rally bragging about his greatest presidency in human history.
I woke up to Sanders at a rally bragging about his campaign being the greatest campaign in human history.
The cheering crowd sounded the same.
As Sanders bragged about how much money he's raised, I couldn't help but wonder how all these cash strapped young people can send him a check every month but can't pay their loan payment.
You sound bitter. I don't think you understand the student loan situation for millennials.
I'm mildly sympathetic. I do know that those high loan balances (over 50K) are disproportionately concentrated in grad level students. I have a daughter who is graduating college in May, and a son heading off this fall. We talk a lot about smart choices. My daughter could have gone to any school in the country, but I said no to private and out of state. She went to William and Mary instead. She graduated in 3 years because she took ap classes in hs and maxed out in undergrad. It was the same cost to do 12 to 18 credits. That saves her 28k right there. For my son, his grades aren't as good as my daughter's, so I may have him go to juco for two years and then transfer. This will save tens of thousands. Last, my daughter entertained going to get her MBA but we said nope. Go get a job, work for a few years, and get with a company that offers tuition reimbursement. She just landed her first job last week with a company in DC that does just that after 2 years. So like I said, I'm mildly sympathetic, but I've watched lots of people make really bad judgments on their education decisions. I'm not inclined to bail them out.
But why not fight for more decent conditions for the actual loans (not that I know of how good or bad they are in the US) rather than starting to forgive loans taken? Never understood that position from Warren/Sanders.
People take student loans here in Sweden from the state. Never heard anyone mentioning forgiveness, no matter how left you are. Also never heard about anyone being to burden by them to pay them back. Only talk ever here is about being able to loan more, and having higher "student grants" (to keep up with inflation).
That thing, and the whole "we will remove private insurance all together" comes off as bad politically to me. No nordic country that I know ban private insurances (whether one should is another discussion, but Sanders being so unreasonable on that front is to me weird).
I don't know what you mean by 'decent conditions'. There are two major loan programs in the US. There are the FFEL and direct loans (gov't backed/subsidized) and private loans (non gov't banks). Of course the terms on the private are higher because they aren't subsidized, but they do have deferment periods and other benefits that traditional loans don't have. Generally speaking, the terms for those loans are far more favorable than a person with teh same credit could get for credit card, auto, home, etc. The problem is not the loan terms, it's the astronomical cost of tuition that has outpaced inflation. There are probably 8 different reasons for that, and that's a source of much study. But at the end of the day, yes there should be a more concerted effort to change the cost curve of tuition. Although that doesn't really help the people out of school, with the loans today.
isnt it true that the gov backed loans do not see relief through either refinancing or bankruptcy?
Generally speaking, student loans cannot be discharged. But frankly, as someone who has worked in credit my whole career, I agree with that. If you could file bankruptcy when you exit school and discharge 100k, why wouldn't you? So you have bad credit for 7 years, big deal. That's much better than paying 100k. So if you could do that, then the cost of credit (interest rates) would increase 2 or 3x to account for all of the bad loans. Or worse case, everyone exits that business.
The bolded states will not help the Democrats at all in November, but tonight will help the party machine secure the nominee it wants. If you really want to know where the base is, pay attention to the rest. Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Maine Massachusetts Minnesota North Carolina Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia
There's only four states on that list that matter. The rest are locked in D or R, regardless of the candidates. I would also argue that NC has the potential of being a swing.
The bolded states will not help the Democrats at all in November, but tonight will help the party machine secure the nominee it wants. If you really want to know where the base is, pay attention to the rest. Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Maine Massachusetts Minnesota North Carolina Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia
There's only four states on that list that matter. The rest are locked in D or R, regardless of the candidates. I would also argue that NC has the potential of being a swing.
Wouldn't you have said Michigan and Wisconsin didn't matter at this same point in 2016? Assuming you can use the south to nominate whatever candidate makes the machine most comfortable is dangerous. The idea that blue states will vote for whoever we tell them to, and that blue states will be blue states forever, is reckless.
Blue states matter. Purple states matter. Red states don't. (Except in this primary where they are given huge importance.)
The bolded states will not help the Democrats at all in November, but tonight will help the party machine secure the nominee it wants. If you really want to know where the base is, pay attention to the rest. Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Maine Massachusetts Minnesota North Carolina Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia
There's only four states on that list that matter. The rest are locked in D or R, regardless of the candidates. I would also argue that NC has the potential of being a swing.
Wouldn't you have said Michigan and Wisconsin didn't matter at this same point in 2016? Assuming you can use the south to nominate whatever candidate makes the machine most comfortable is dangerous. The idea that blue states will vote for whoever we tell them to, and that blue states will be blue states forever, is reckless.
Blue states matter. Purple states matter. Red states don't. (Except in this primary where they are given huge importance.)
That's completely illogical thinking. Virginia was a red state. Colorado was a red state. New Mexico was red. Arizona was deep red. Sorry, you can't have it both ways logically. You're saying blue states will turn but red states never can, so fuck them.
The bolded states will not help the Democrats at all in November, but tonight will help the party machine secure the nominee it wants. If you really want to know where the base is, pay attention to the rest. Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Maine Massachusetts Minnesota North Carolina Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia
There's only four states on that list that matter. The rest are locked in D or R, regardless of the candidates. I would also argue that NC has the potential of being a swing.
Wouldn't you have said Michigan and Wisconsin didn't matter at this same point in 2016? Assuming you can use the south to nominate whatever candidate makes the machine most comfortable is dangerous. The idea that blue states will vote for whoever we tell them to, and that blue states will be blue states forever, is reckless.
Blue states matter. Purple states matter. Red states don't. (Except in this primary where they are given huge importance.)
That's completely illogical thinking. Virginia was a red state. Colorado was a red state. New Mexico was red. Arizona was deep red. Sorry, you can't have it both ways logically. You're saying blue states will turn but red states never can, so fuck them.
No, I'm saying let them turn and then I'll worry about them disproportionately in the primary. And so that is a yes on WI and MI?
The bolded states will not help the Democrats at all in November, but tonight will help the party machine secure the nominee it wants. If you really want to know where the base is, pay attention to the rest. Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Maine Massachusetts Minnesota North Carolina Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia
There's only four states on that list that matter. The rest are locked in D or R, regardless of the candidates. I would also argue that NC has the potential of being a swing.
Wouldn't you have said Michigan and Wisconsin didn't matter at this same point in 2016? Assuming you can use the south to nominate whatever candidate makes the machine most comfortable is dangerous. The idea that blue states will vote for whoever we tell them to, and that blue states will be blue states forever, is reckless.
Blue states matter. Purple states matter. Red states don't. (Except in this primary where they are given huge importance.)
That's completely illogical thinking. Virginia was a red state. Colorado was a red state. New Mexico was red. Arizona was deep red. Sorry, you can't have it both ways logically. You're saying blue states will turn but red states never can, so fuck them.
No, I'm saying let them turn and then I'll worry about them disproportionately in the primary. And so that is a yes on WI and MI?
No, not at all. Everyone knew those states were in play, although they leaned blue. And I don't subscribe to your theory about the red states don't matter for the nomination, as I pointed out the other day. Doing what you suggest would be a self fulfilling prophesy. If candidates never campaigned there, if the national party never invested in down ballot races, if the Democrats were told in those states that their opinion doesn't matter, the states would be less likely to ever flip. As a person who lives in a red state that turned blue (Virginia), I think that's a terrible idea. If you want to see what happens when a national party doesn't invest in a state, just look at the state races from 2008 to 2018.
The bolded states will not help the Democrats at all in November, but tonight will help the party machine secure the nominee it wants. If you really want to know where the base is, pay attention to the rest. Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Maine Massachusetts Minnesota North Carolina Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia
There's only four states on that list that matter. The rest are locked in D or R, regardless of the candidates. I would also argue that NC has the potential of being a swing.
Wouldn't you have said Michigan and Wisconsin didn't matter at this same point in 2016? Assuming you can use the south to nominate whatever candidate makes the machine most comfortable is dangerous. The idea that blue states will vote for whoever we tell them to, and that blue states will be blue states forever, is reckless.
Blue states matter. Purple states matter. Red states don't. (Except in this primary where they are given huge importance.)
That's completely illogical thinking. Virginia was a red state. Colorado was a red state. New Mexico was red. Arizona was deep red. Sorry, you can't have it both ways logically. You're saying blue states will turn but red states never can, so fuck them.
No, I'm saying let them turn and then I'll worry about them disproportionately in the primary. And so that is a yes on WI and MI?
No, not at all. Everyone knew those states were in play, although they leaned blue. And I don't subscribe to your theory about the red states don't matter for the nomination, as I pointed out the other day. Doing what you suggest would be a self fulfilling prophesy. If candidates never campaigned there, if the national party never invested in down ballot races, if the Democrats were told in those states that their opinion doesn't matter, the states would be less likely to ever flip. As a person who lives in a red state that turned blue (Virginia), I think that's a terrible idea. If you want to see what happens when a national party doesn't invest in a state, just look at the state races from 2008 to 2018.
We're talking about huge padding to first Clinton's and now Biden's delegate counts. Using states that won't help you win get the nominee you want is risky and helped burn us four years ago. Plenty of attention can be paid to down ballot races without sacrificing enthusiasm in the states you actually need to win.
The bolded states will not help the Democrats at all in November, but tonight will help the party machine secure the nominee it wants. If you really want to know where the base is, pay attention to the rest. Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Maine Massachusetts Minnesota North Carolina Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia
There's only four states on that list that matter. The rest are locked in D or R, regardless of the candidates. I would also argue that NC has the potential of being a swing.
Wouldn't you have said Michigan and Wisconsin didn't matter at this same point in 2016? Assuming you can use the south to nominate whatever candidate makes the machine most comfortable is dangerous. The idea that blue states will vote for whoever we tell them to, and that blue states will be blue states forever, is reckless.
Blue states matter. Purple states matter. Red states don't. (Except in this primary where they are given huge importance.)
That's completely illogical thinking. Virginia was a red state. Colorado was a red state. New Mexico was red. Arizona was deep red. Sorry, you can't have it both ways logically. You're saying blue states will turn but red states never can, so fuck them.
No, I'm saying let them turn and then I'll worry about them disproportionately in the primary. And so that is a yes on WI and MI?
No, not at all. Everyone knew those states were in play, although they leaned blue. And I don't subscribe to your theory about the red states don't matter for the nomination, as I pointed out the other day. Doing what you suggest would be a self fulfilling prophesy. If candidates never campaigned there, if the national party never invested in down ballot races, if the Democrats were told in those states that their opinion doesn't matter, the states would be less likely to ever flip. As a person who lives in a red state that turned blue (Virginia), I think that's a terrible idea. If you want to see what happens when a national party doesn't invest in a state, just look at the state races from 2008 to 2018.
We're talking about huge padding to first Clinton's and now Biden's delegate counts. Using states that won't help you win get the nominee you want is risky and helped burn us four years ago. Plenty of attention can be paid to down ballot races without sacrificing enthusiasm in the states you actually need to win.
Again, if that's your argument, you must be saying that if Biden wins, then he could lose NY and CA as an example, in the general. But that's simply not the reality. It doesn't matter how enthusiastic someone in California casts their vote, it's going to the D. Using the Clinton example that you did only affirms that point. Had she lost, or even almost lost those states, then you might have a case. But that didn't happen. So the only way your argument makes sense is if you only primary the swing states. That's it. Otherwise it's an inconsistent argument.
Further... Clinton won the primaries in PA, OH, FL, VA, AZ, NM, NV. So she won at least half of the swing states.
Bernie and Biden both around the same chance to get majority, while odds no one gets majority rises to 70%.
check out the trajectory down of Bernie and up of nobody.
The model is based on priors, and if those priors aren't environmentally valid anymore, then neither are the models they're derived from. I expect these erratic swings to continue at the very least until there are only three lanes (moderates, liberals, and those stuck in the middle who may like Warren if she could earn herself some momentum) based on an impulsive voting base that (outside of Sanders' small but highly sticky core base) have not shown themselves to be deeply committed one way or another.
538 explained on their podcast what caused this erratic shift: the model in numerous simulations didn't predict Buttigieg or Klobuchar dropping out, and thus in most simulations didn't produce a Biden surge in SC, which can be a catalyst for sustained momentum moving forward, but Sanders has had sustained momentum without a widening of his base. Without a singular voice which could monopolize the moderate lane, the liberal cohort was larger than the plurality of moderate cohorts, but now that there's only one, and because of the lateness to the game, Sanders and Biden are necks-in-necks, each others' presence detracts from either of their likelihood of a win. My gut feeling says that this degree of uncertainty even at the voting booths and even amongst Democrats only, is another not-so-good indicator of coin-toss voting within the Democratic side. If people have to choose between electability and progressiveness, unless there's a seriously capable groupthink circulating that makes all decide one is more important than the other, I don't think there's a general election voting cohort large enough to prevent another Trump presidency.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
The bolded states will not help the Democrats at all in November, but tonight will help the party machine secure the nominee it wants. If you really want to know where the base is, pay attention to the rest. Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Maine Massachusetts Minnesota North Carolina Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia
There's only four states on that list that matter. The rest are locked in D or R, regardless of the candidates. I would also argue that NC has the potential of being a swing.
Wouldn't you have said Michigan and Wisconsin didn't matter at this same point in 2016? Assuming you can use the south to nominate whatever candidate makes the machine most comfortable is dangerous. The idea that blue states will vote for whoever we tell them to, and that blue states will be blue states forever, is reckless.
Blue states matter. Purple states matter. Red states don't. (Except in this primary where they are given huge importance.)
That's completely illogical thinking. Virginia was a red state. Colorado was a red state. New Mexico was red. Arizona was deep red. Sorry, you can't have it both ways logically. You're saying blue states will turn but red states never can, so fuck them.
No, I'm saying let them turn and then I'll worry about them disproportionately in the primary. And so that is a yes on WI and MI?
No, not at all. Everyone knew those states were in play, although they leaned blue. And I don't subscribe to your theory about the red states don't matter for the nomination, as I pointed out the other day. Doing what you suggest would be a self fulfilling prophesy. If candidates never campaigned there, if the national party never invested in down ballot races, if the Democrats were told in those states that their opinion doesn't matter, the states would be less likely to ever flip. As a person who lives in a red state that turned blue (Virginia), I think that's a terrible idea. If you want to see what happens when a national party doesn't invest in a state, just look at the state races from 2008 to 2018.
We're talking about huge padding to first Clinton's and now Biden's delegate counts. Using states that won't help you win get the nominee you want is risky and helped burn us four years ago. Plenty of attention can be paid to down ballot races without sacrificing enthusiasm in the states you actually need to win.
Again, if that's your argument, you must be saying that if Biden wins, then he could lose NY and CA as an example, in the general. But that's simply not the reality. It doesn't matter how enthusiastic someone in California casts their vote, it's going to the D. Using the Clinton example that you did only affirms that point. Had she lost, or even almost lost those states, then you might have a case. But that didn't happen. So the only way your argument makes sense is if you only primary the swing states. That's it. Otherwise it's an inconsistent argument.
Further... Clinton won the primaries in PA, OH, FL, VA, AZ, NM, NV. So she won at least half of the swing states.
No, I'm saying that when Clinton won no one seriously believed she was going to lose Michigan and Wisconsin, because those states had been blue for a generation and her supporters had been arguing for years that she was the most electable candidate in history. It is revisionist history to pretend losing those states was not shocking. I'm saying that her delegate total included huge numbers from states that voted for Trump then and will again. I'm saying that relying on those states again is political malpractice.
The bolded states will not help the Democrats at all in November, but tonight will help the party machine secure the nominee it wants. If you really want to know where the base is, pay attention to the rest. Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Maine Massachusetts Minnesota North Carolina Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia
There's only four states on that list that matter. The rest are locked in D or R, regardless of the candidates. I would also argue that NC has the potential of being a swing.
Wouldn't you have said Michigan and Wisconsin didn't matter at this same point in 2016? Assuming you can use the south to nominate whatever candidate makes the machine most comfortable is dangerous. The idea that blue states will vote for whoever we tell them to, and that blue states will be blue states forever, is reckless.
Blue states matter. Purple states matter. Red states don't. (Except in this primary where they are given huge importance.)
That's completely illogical thinking. Virginia was a red state. Colorado was a red state. New Mexico was red. Arizona was deep red. Sorry, you can't have it both ways logically. You're saying blue states will turn but red states never can, so fuck them.
No, I'm saying let them turn and then I'll worry about them disproportionately in the primary. And so that is a yes on WI and MI?
No, not at all. Everyone knew those states were in play, although they leaned blue. And I don't subscribe to your theory about the red states don't matter for the nomination, as I pointed out the other day. Doing what you suggest would be a self fulfilling prophesy. If candidates never campaigned there, if the national party never invested in down ballot races, if the Democrats were told in those states that their opinion doesn't matter, the states would be less likely to ever flip. As a person who lives in a red state that turned blue (Virginia), I think that's a terrible idea. If you want to see what happens when a national party doesn't invest in a state, just look at the state races from 2008 to 2018.
We're talking about huge padding to first Clinton's and now Biden's delegate counts. Using states that won't help you win get the nominee you want is risky and helped burn us four years ago. Plenty of attention can be paid to down ballot races without sacrificing enthusiasm in the states you actually need to win.
Again, if that's your argument, you must be saying that if Biden wins, then he could lose NY and CA as an example, in the general. But that's simply not the reality. It doesn't matter how enthusiastic someone in California casts their vote, it's going to the D. Using the Clinton example that you did only affirms that point. Had she lost, or even almost lost those states, then you might have a case. But that didn't happen. So the only way your argument makes sense is if you only primary the swing states. That's it. Otherwise it's an inconsistent argument.
Further... Clinton won the primaries in PA, OH, FL, VA, AZ, NM, NV. So she won at least half of the swing states.
No, I'm saying that when Clinton won no one seriously believed she was going to lose Michigan and Wisconsin, because those states had been blue for a generation and her supporters had been arguing for years that she was the most electable candidate in history. It is revisionist history to pretend losing those states was not shocking. I'm saying that her delegate total included huge numbers from states that voted for Trump then and will again. I'm saying that relying on those states again is political malpractice.
12 of the 20 states that voted for Sanders in the primary went to Trump. I just don't understand how your argument works here. By quick math, 15 of the 31 Clinton states went to Trump.
The bolded states will not help the Democrats at all in November, but tonight will help the party machine secure the nominee it wants. If you really want to know where the base is, pay attention to the rest. Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Maine Massachusetts Minnesota North Carolina Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia
There's only four states on that list that matter. The rest are locked in D or R, regardless of the candidates. I would also argue that NC has the potential of being a swing.
Wouldn't you have said Michigan and Wisconsin didn't matter at this same point in 2016? Assuming you can use the south to nominate whatever candidate makes the machine most comfortable is dangerous. The idea that blue states will vote for whoever we tell them to, and that blue states will be blue states forever, is reckless.
Blue states matter. Purple states matter. Red states don't. (Except in this primary where they are given huge importance.)
That's completely illogical thinking. Virginia was a red state. Colorado was a red state. New Mexico was red. Arizona was deep red. Sorry, you can't have it both ways logically. You're saying blue states will turn but red states never can, so fuck them.
No, I'm saying let them turn and then I'll worry about them disproportionately in the primary. And so that is a yes on WI and MI?
No, not at all. Everyone knew those states were in play, although they leaned blue. And I don't subscribe to your theory about the red states don't matter for the nomination, as I pointed out the other day. Doing what you suggest would be a self fulfilling prophesy. If candidates never campaigned there, if the national party never invested in down ballot races, if the Democrats were told in those states that their opinion doesn't matter, the states would be less likely to ever flip. As a person who lives in a red state that turned blue (Virginia), I think that's a terrible idea. If you want to see what happens when a national party doesn't invest in a state, just look at the state races from 2008 to 2018.
We're talking about huge padding to first Clinton's and now Biden's delegate counts. Using states that won't help you win get the nominee you want is risky and helped burn us four years ago. Plenty of attention can be paid to down ballot races without sacrificing enthusiasm in the states you actually need to win.
Again, if that's your argument, you must be saying that if Biden wins, then he could lose NY and CA as an example, in the general. But that's simply not the reality. It doesn't matter how enthusiastic someone in California casts their vote, it's going to the D. Using the Clinton example that you did only affirms that point. Had she lost, or even almost lost those states, then you might have a case. But that didn't happen. So the only way your argument makes sense is if you only primary the swing states. That's it. Otherwise it's an inconsistent argument.
Further... Clinton won the primaries in PA, OH, FL, VA, AZ, NM, NV. So she won at least half of the swing states.
No, I'm saying that when Clinton won no one seriously believed she was going to lose Michigan and Wisconsin, because those states had been blue for a generation and her supporters had been arguing for years that she was the most electable candidate in history. It is revisionist history to pretend losing those states was not shocking. I'm saying that her delegate total included huge numbers from states that voted for Trump then and will again. I'm saying that relying on those states again is political malpractice.
12 of the 20 states that voted for Sanders in the primary went to Trump. I just don't understand how your argument works here. By quick math, 15 of the 31 Clinton states went to Trump. Sanders is green.
The bolded states will not help the Democrats at all in November, but tonight will help the party machine secure the nominee it wants. If you really want to know where the base is, pay attention to the rest. Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Maine Massachusetts Minnesota North Carolina Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia
There's only four states on that list that matter. The rest are locked in D or R, regardless of the candidates. I would also argue that NC has the potential of being a swing.
Wouldn't you have said Michigan and Wisconsin didn't matter at this same point in 2016? Assuming you can use the south to nominate whatever candidate makes the machine most comfortable is dangerous. The idea that blue states will vote for whoever we tell them to, and that blue states will be blue states forever, is reckless.
Blue states matter. Purple states matter. Red states don't. (Except in this primary where they are given huge importance.)
That's completely illogical thinking. Virginia was a red state. Colorado was a red state. New Mexico was red. Arizona was deep red. Sorry, you can't have it both ways logically. You're saying blue states will turn but red states never can, so fuck them.
No, I'm saying let them turn and then I'll worry about them disproportionately in the primary. And so that is a yes on WI and MI?
No, not at all. Everyone knew those states were in play, although they leaned blue. And I don't subscribe to your theory about the red states don't matter for the nomination, as I pointed out the other day. Doing what you suggest would be a self fulfilling prophesy. If candidates never campaigned there, if the national party never invested in down ballot races, if the Democrats were told in those states that their opinion doesn't matter, the states would be less likely to ever flip. As a person who lives in a red state that turned blue (Virginia), I think that's a terrible idea. If you want to see what happens when a national party doesn't invest in a state, just look at the state races from 2008 to 2018.
We're talking about huge padding to first Clinton's and now Biden's delegate counts. Using states that won't help you win get the nominee you want is risky and helped burn us four years ago. Plenty of attention can be paid to down ballot races without sacrificing enthusiasm in the states you actually need to win.
Again, if that's your argument, you must be saying that if Biden wins, then he could lose NY and CA as an example, in the general. But that's simply not the reality. It doesn't matter how enthusiastic someone in California casts their vote, it's going to the D. Using the Clinton example that you did only affirms that point. Had she lost, or even almost lost those states, then you might have a case. But that didn't happen. So the only way your argument makes sense is if you only primary the swing states. That's it. Otherwise it's an inconsistent argument.
Further... Clinton won the primaries in PA, OH, FL, VA, AZ, NM, NV. So she won at least half of the swing states.
No, I'm saying that when Clinton won no one seriously believed she was going to lose Michigan and Wisconsin, because those states had been blue for a generation and her supporters had been arguing for years that she was the most electable candidate in history. It is revisionist history to pretend losing those states was not shocking. I'm saying that her delegate total included huge numbers from states that voted for Trump then and will again. I'm saying that relying on those states again is political malpractice.
12 of the 20 states that voted for Sanders in the primary went to Trump. I just don't understand how your argument works here. By quick math, 15 of the 31 Clinton states went to Trump.
I don't know where the confusion is. Biden is suddenly the favored choice of the party based on the strength of a single primary win...in South Carolina. So let's put a pin in it. We'll see after tonight who the frontrunner is, what the narrative is, and where the bulk of their delegates have come from.
Amy and Pete both dropped out just before Super Tuesday. I have a theory about this. I think the party bosses for the DNC don't want Bernie to win the primaries and put the pressure on Pete and Amy to drop out so that Biden would capture more of their moderate votes. If that is true, it would bother me not because I am or am not for Bernie, but because it would bother me that this is more about manipulating of the system. I'm also unhappy because I voted by mail in ballot and Amy dropped out two days after I mailed in my ballot so it was a wasted vote. What a drag!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Oh yeah, soul-eater's crew pushing hard for Bernie. Be careful what you read out there...it's not all as it seems. I try to only listen to the candidate and will definitely believe my own eyes and ears when I see and hear them. Happy Super Tuesday.
So will most of you vote for who ever comes out of the Democrats or just not vote or vote for the Baffoon?
I wish that were the case Jose.
Unfortunately I'm concerned there are a bunch of idiots out there who don't understand we have a two-party system.
They'll get distracted by shiny objects like Tulsi or Bernie or Stein, and piss their vote away because they don't understand the fundamentals of how our government works.
So will most of you vote for who ever comes out of the Democrats or just not vote or vote for the Baffoon?
I wish that were the case Jose.
Unfortunately I'm concerned there are a bunch of idiots out there who don't understand we have a two-party system.
They'll get distracted by shiny objects like Tulsi or Bernie or Stein, and piss their vote away because they don't understand the fundamentals of how our government works.
Get yourself some more parties.
Biden will win by people not wanting Trump. But he will not get one punch in on Trump the whole race.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I will wager that whoever I vote for today, will not end up being the nominee. Oddly enough, the only yard signs I've seen in MN for the most part have either been Bernie or Bloomberg. Neither of whom I'm voting for. Warren most likely gets my vote today. Biden has been a disappointment. I'm not sure any of them beat Trump unless people can unite under the understanding that any other candidate is better than a reality TV personality as president. No matter how extreme the dem nominee is, they aren't going to get any of those platform topics to go anywhere, just look at Trump's extreme policies. Meanwhile he has began dismantling anything he can that is tied to Obama, protects the environment or supports climate change and done nothing worthwhile about immigration besides talk about a stupid wall and then ruin relations with our allies while being played by those looking to take advantage of our diminished functionality as a world leader in everything besides amount of Twitter rants.
Amy and Pete both dropped out just before Super Tuesday. I have a theory about this. I think the party bosses for the DNC don't want Bernie to win the primaries and put the pressure on Pete and Amy to drop out so that Biden would capture more of their moderate votes. If that is true, it would bother me not because I am or am not for Bernie, but because it would bother me that this is more about manipulating of the system. I'm also unhappy because I voted by mail in ballot and Amy dropped out two days after I mailed in my ballot so it was a wasted vote. What a drag!
This isn’t a theory. It’s exactly what happened. If Amy or Pete were dropping out because of their showing in South Carolina, they would’ve done it either that night or early the next day.
Amy and Pete both dropped out just before Super Tuesday. I have a theory about this. I think the party bosses for the DNC don't want Bernie to win the primaries and put the pressure on Pete and Amy to drop out so that Biden would capture more of their moderate votes. If that is true, it would bother me not because I am or am not for Bernie, but because it would bother me that this is more about manipulating of the system. I'm also unhappy because I voted by mail in ballot and Amy dropped out two days after I mailed in my ballot so it was a wasted vote. What a drag!
This isn’t a theory. It’s exactly what happened. If Amy or Pete were dropping out because of their showing in South Carolina, they would’ve done it either that night or early the next day.
Right, but how many people will still vote for them today? They'll still be on the ballot even though they dropped out. Hell, there will be people who vote for them both knowing and not knowing they aren't in the race anymore.
So will most of you vote for who ever comes out of the Democrats or just not vote or vote for the Baffoon?
I wish that were the case Jose.
Unfortunately I'm concerned there are a bunch of idiots out there who don't understand we have a two-party system.
They'll get distracted by shiny objects like Tulsi or Bernie or Stein, and piss their vote away because they don't understand the fundamentals of how our government works.
Get yourself some more parties.
Biden will win by people not wanting Trump. But he will not get one punch in on Trump the whole race.
See what I mean @josevolution ? The complete inability to grasp basic American political concepts.
For the hundredth time, our checks and balances are within the 3 branches of government. People who didn't understand this during the last election cost us 2 SCJ & numerous Federal Court appointments, that will take a whole fucking generation to fix.
We are not a multi-party system. We are not set up that way. We never were.
Comments
People take student loans here in Sweden from the state. Never heard anyone mentioning forgiveness, no matter how left you are. Also never heard about anyone being to burden by them to pay them back. Only talk ever here is about being able to loan more, and having higher "student grants" (to keep up with inflation).
That thing, and the whole "we will remove private insurance all together" comes off as bad politically to me. No nordic country that I know ban private insurances (whether one should is another discussion, but Sanders being so unreasonable on that front in the land of private insurances is to me weird).
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
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
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Further... Clinton won the primaries in PA, OH, FL, VA, AZ, NM, NV. So she won at least half of the swing states.
538 explained on their podcast what caused this erratic shift: the model in numerous simulations didn't predict Buttigieg or Klobuchar dropping out, and thus in most simulations didn't produce a Biden surge in SC, which can be a catalyst for sustained momentum moving forward, but Sanders has had sustained momentum without a widening of his base. Without a singular voice which could monopolize the moderate lane, the liberal cohort was larger than the plurality of moderate cohorts, but now that there's only one, and because of the lateness to the game, Sanders and Biden are necks-in-necks, each others' presence detracts from either of their likelihood of a win. My gut feeling says that this degree of uncertainty even at the voting booths and even amongst Democrats only, is another not-so-good indicator of coin-toss voting within the Democratic side. If people have to choose between electability and progressiveness, unless there's a seriously capable groupthink circulating that makes all decide one is more important than the other, I don't think there's a general election voting cohort large enough to prevent another Trump presidency.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
12 of the 20 states that voted for Sanders in the primary went to Trump. I just don't understand how your argument works here. By quick math, 15 of the 31 Clinton states went to Trump.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
https://www.thebeaverton.com/2020/03/man-who-took-30-years-to-win-one-state-considered-electable/
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I wish that were the case Jose.
Unfortunately I'm concerned there are a bunch of idiots out there who don't understand we have a two-party system.
They'll get distracted by shiny objects like Tulsi or Bernie or Stein, and piss their vote away because they don't understand the fundamentals of how our government works.
Get yourself some more parties.
Biden will win by people not wanting Trump. But he will not get one punch in on Trump the whole race.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
See what I mean @josevolution ? The complete inability to grasp basic American political concepts.
For the hundredth time, our checks and balances are within the 3 branches of government. People who didn't understand this during the last election cost us 2 SCJ & numerous Federal Court appointments, that will take a whole fucking generation to fix.
We are not a multi-party system. We are not set up that way. We never were.