The Democratic Presidential Debates
Comments
-
Brokered doesn't help Sanders especially since the SDs play after the first round. But if Sanders has a commanding pledged lead coming into the convention, it well be hard for the states and the SD to go a different way. One would think he would have a strong advantage.Ledbetterman10 said:
Oh yeah that’d be bad no matter the candidate. Like if Pete has a plurality but they have the nomination to Bloomberg. But I think most likely brokered-convention scenario see Sanders showing up with the most delegates. A lot depends on if anyone drops out before Super Tuesday, and who drops out afterward as far as forecasting this thing.dignin said:I agree, brokered convention isn't ideal. It would be worse if they don't nominate the candidate with the most delegates, especially if it's Bernie. The Bro's would go ballistic and hello Trump for 4 more years.0 -
I have not said you do or would?hedonist said:
Actually, his further response validated my question.ecdanc said:
You’re willfully misreading SC’s posts even after he clarified. Or you are struggling with reading again. .mrussel1 said:
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.ecdanc said:
Just stopmrussel1 said:
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.hedonist said:
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.Spiritual_Chaos said:
When did I say that?hedonist said:
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.Lerxst1992 said: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.
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.
Why would I vote for anyone based solely (or even mostly) on what lies between their legs?
Or have said what you claim I have.
Re-read.Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
Shocking!!Spiritual_Chaos said:
When did I say that?mrussel1 said:
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.hedonist said:
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.Spiritual_Chaos said:
When did I say that?hedonist said:
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.Lerxst1992 said: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.
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.
Sounds like you are the one being sexist now tbh(?)0 -
Ledbetterman10 said:
The end of the Democratic Party maybe?brianlux said:Someone here (gimme?) mentioned "brokered convention" a while back. If this goes to a brokered convention, what do you all think the outcome would be?Ok...that might be hyperbole. But if Sanders goes in there with the most delegates but not enough to secure the nomination, and the superdelegates give the nomination to Biden or Bloomberg, forget about beating Trump in 2020, start worrying about Don Jr. in 2024. Even if the DNC was against Sanders in 2016, Hillary did have more delegates and deserved to win. It’s not like anyone should really cry foul. But if the party elites just tell the voters they’re wrong and put up Bloomberg, even if that is how the (lame) primary rules work, not many of the Bernie supporters are going to vote for him. And I’m not just talking “Bernie Bros” or whatever. He has millions of supporters. I can envision more protest votes from Bernie supporters for Trump than I could votes for Bloomberg in this scenario.And how many people might just be out on the Democratic Party if that happens? Not just Bernie supporters, but people that are just ashamed that their party keeps getting bested by stupid Trump? And Democrats have always been lazier in mid-terms than Republicans. Is the once-enthusiast-about-politics Bernie Sanders supporter going to show up to vote Blue in 2022? Will they care that Trump now has the Senate and the House and he’s just appointed two new conservatives to the Supreme Court? No, and why should they? Oh so their vision of America with Bernie was so dumb that you wouldn’t even entertain it, but now you want them to come back and vote for Buttigieg or Booker or whoever so they can beat Don Jr? Good luck.For the DNC to avoid disaster, they need all these people to drop out soon and leave it to one candidate versus Sanders. I think that’s the only way to avoid a brokered convention. Either pin your hopes on Mini-Mike, roll with Sleepy Joe, go for a long-shot with Alfred E. Neuman, whatever they want. But now is the time to manipulate the race and set up an avenue for beating Sanders at the ballot box, rather than trying to beat him with superdelegates at the convention.dignin said:I agree, brokered convention isn't ideal. It would be worse if they don't nominate the candidate with the most delegates, especially if it's Bernie. The Bro's would go ballistic and hello Trump for 4 more years.Good points, both.There hasn't been a brokered convention since 1952 and they were routinely brokered before that and the country and politics have changes a lot since then. So today, if this happens, all bets are off. This will be an interesting year."It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
RIFecdanc said:
Keep strugglingmrussel1 said:
You're struggling with social skills as usual. But I don't see any clarification that cleans it up. Hedo thanking me shows me the same.ecdanc said:
You’re willfully misreading SC’s posts even after he clarified. Or you are struggling with reading again. .mrussel1 said:
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.ecdanc said:
Just stopmrussel1 said:
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.hedonist said:
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.Spiritual_Chaos said:
When did I say that?hedonist said:
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.Lerxst1992 said: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.
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.
0 -
mrussel1 said:
RIFecdanc said:
Keep strugglingmrussel1 said:
You're struggling with social skills as usual. But I don't see any clarification that cleans it up. Hedo thanking me shows me the same.ecdanc said:
You’re willfully misreading SC’s posts even after he clarified. Or you are struggling with reading again. .mrussel1 said:
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.ecdanc said:
Just stopmrussel1 said:
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.hedonist said:
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.Spiritual_Chaos said:
When did I say that?hedonist said:
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.Lerxst1992 said: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.
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.
0 -
Lerxst1992 said:what dreams said:
I don't. I saw her first advertisement in Virginia this morning. She has raised 12 million since NH. I sent her $25.00 this week myself. I plan to vote for her in the VA primary.cincybearcat said:
I think it is. She had a poor debate and with her $ and lack of national recognition, she needed to perform amazingly. Her margin for error was the smallest of the bunchSpiritual_Chaos said:So what do you guys think of Amy? Is the surge over?
I really think all the nay-saying about the field needs to stop. Candidates can run or drop out at their own discretion and should not be pressured just so Sanders or Biden can be our nominee. It's BS. Let the voters decide.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.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0
-
Just start reading things twice, instead of reading things completely wrong and throwing out "sexist" against posters like they are some kind of Bloombergs.mrussel1 said:
Honestly I don't think you're sexist at all, even if you're not perfect.Spiritual_Chaos said:
When did I say that?mrussel1 said:
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.hedonist said:
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.Spiritual_Chaos said:
When did I say that?hedonist said:
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.Lerxst1992 said: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.
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.
Sounds like you are the one being sexist now tbh(?)
Post edited by Kat on"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
I'm clearly not the only person who read it that way. One of the few females that frequent the site read it the same. So maybe you should read twice before you hit "post comment".Spiritual_Chaos said:
Just start reading things twice, instead of reading things completely wrong and throwing out "sexist" like I'm some kind of Bloomberg.mrussel1 said:
Honestly I don't think you're sexist at all, even if you're not perfect.Spiritual_Chaos said:
When did I say that?mrussel1 said:
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.hedonist said:
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.Spiritual_Chaos said:
When did I say that?hedonist said:
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.Lerxst1992 said: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.
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.
Sounds like you are the one being sexist now tbh(?)Post edited by Kat on0 -
Chris Matthews with his personal agenda and his weird red-scare fears. How can they allow these people sit there spewing BS from a veneer of authority.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
Jesus, I feel like I'm in a bizarro world around here at times.ecdanc said:
Why are you assuming that only women would vote for someone because they’re a woman?hedonist said:
Actually, his further response validated my question.ecdanc said:
You’re willfully misreading SC’s posts even after he clarified. Or you are struggling with reading again. .mrussel1 said:
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.ecdanc said:
Just stopmrussel1 said:
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.hedonist said:
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.Spiritual_Chaos said:
When did I say that?hedonist said:
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.Lerxst1992 said: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.
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.
Why would I vote for anyone based solely (or even mostly) on what lies between their legs?
How you extrapolated that from what I said, I have no idea.0 -
Well, the good news about a Sanders presidency, regardless of winning the nomination in the primaries or at a brokered convention -- Democrats will NEVER win the Senate and COULD lose the House with him as our nominee. So, in effect, even if he squeaks out a victory against Trump, he will not get Medicare For All passed. Or anything else. And then maybe in four years . . . sigh . . .0
-
While I'm with you that I don't see us winning the Senate with him at the top (maybe no one), I don't see losing the House and him winning the POTUS. I don't think that's possible.what dreams said:Well, the good news about a Sanders presidency, regardless of winning the nomination in the primaries or at a brokered convention -- Democrats will NEVER win the Senate and COULD lose the House with him as our nominee. So, in effect, even if he squeaks out a victory against Trump, he will not get Medicare For All passed. Or anything else. And then maybe in four years . . . sigh . . .0 -
“I think it matters a lot what direction we take as a party,” Biden said. “I think the most important thing people are looking for is authenticity: to be able to do what you say you’re going to do, make sure what you say you’re going to do is possible to get done and know how to get it done.”
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
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 '140 -
It just blows my mind that people don't understand how this works. They will throw away an opportunity to make some progress for a pipe dream that has no chance in hell happening. Dumb. Just dumb.mrussel1 said:
While I'm with you that I don't see us winning the Senate with him at the top (maybe no one), I don't see losing the House and him winning the POTUS. I don't think that's possible.what dreams said:Well, the good news about a Sanders presidency, regardless of winning the nomination in the primaries or at a brokered convention -- Democrats will NEVER win the Senate and COULD lose the House with him as our nominee. So, in effect, even if he squeaks out a victory against Trump, he will not get Medicare For All passed. Or anything else. And then maybe in four years . . . sigh . . .0 -
Chris Matthews, is that you?what dreams said:
It just blows my mind that people don't understand how this works. They will throw away an opportunity to make some progress for a pipe dream that has no chance in hell happening. Dumb. Just dumb.mrussel1 said:
While I'm with you that I don't see us winning the Senate with him at the top (maybe no one), I don't see losing the House and him winning the POTUS. I don't think that's possible.what dreams said:Well, the good news about a Sanders presidency, regardless of winning the nomination in the primaries or at a brokered convention -- Democrats will NEVER win the Senate and COULD lose the House with him as our nominee. So, in effect, even if he squeaks out a victory against Trump, he will not get Medicare For All passed. Or anything else. And then maybe in four years . . . sigh . . ."Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
At work I always counsel.. don't let perfect be the enemy of good.what dreams said:
It just blows my mind that people don't understand how this works. They will throw away an opportunity to make some progress for a pipe dream that has no chance in hell happening. Dumb. Just dumb.mrussel1 said:
While I'm with you that I don't see us winning the Senate with him at the top (maybe no one), I don't see losing the House and him winning the POTUS. I don't think that's possible.what dreams said:Well, the good news about a Sanders presidency, regardless of winning the nomination in the primaries or at a brokered convention -- Democrats will NEVER win the Senate and COULD lose the House with him as our nominee. So, in effect, even if he squeaks out a victory against Trump, he will not get Medicare For All passed. Or anything else. And then maybe in four years . . . sigh . . .0 -
MSNBC IS BRINGING OUT ALL THE LOONS.
PANIC AT THE STATUS QUO DISCO
Lol, yeah this guy doesn't want Bernie to win... ofc...
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
I’m explaining your misreading of SC.hedonist said:
Jesus, I feel like I'm in a bizarro world around here at times.ecdanc said:
Why are you assuming that only women would vote for someone because they’re a woman?hedonist said:
Actually, his further response validated my question.ecdanc said:
You’re willfully misreading SC’s posts even after he clarified. Or you are struggling with reading again. .mrussel1 said:
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.ecdanc said:
Just stopmrussel1 said:
That's kind of sexist, to believe that women vote primarily on gender.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Based on the candidates (Amy and Warren) being women.hedonist said:
Above, bolded. I don't think I misread your comment, but apologies if I did.Spiritual_Chaos said:
When did I say that?hedonist said:
What? Because women wouldn’t be capable of choosing their candidate regardless of gender?Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.Lerxst1992 said: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.
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.
Why would I vote for anyone based solely (or even mostly) on what lies between their legs?
How you extrapolated that from what I said, I have no idea.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help