The Democratic Presidential Debates

Options
1273274276278279345

Comments

  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    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.  
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,597
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    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. 
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    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.  
  • benjs
    benjs Toronto, ON Posts: 9,359





    Odds updated after Amy suspended campaign.

    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
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,597
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    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.   
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    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.  
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    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.  

  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,597
    edited March 2020
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    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. 
    Post edited by JimmyV on
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,660
    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!

    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • Kat
    Kat Posts: 4,956
    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. :)

    Falling down,...not staying down
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,597
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • josevolution
    josevolution Posts: 31,553
    So will most of you vote for who ever comes out of the Democrats or just not vote or vote for the Baffoon? 
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • CM189191
    CM189191 Posts: 6,927
    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.
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,454
    benjs said:

     GIFs referencing 20-year-old video games on political topics,
    Relevant. And cute:


    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,454
    edited March 2020
    CM189191 said:
    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"
  • tbergs
    tbergs Posts: 10,400
    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.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • Ledbetterman10
    Ledbetterman10 Posts: 16,991
    brianlux said:
    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. 
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • tbergs
    tbergs Posts: 10,400
    brianlux said:
    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.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • CM189191
    CM189191 Posts: 6,927
    CM189191 said:
    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.  

This discussion has been closed.