The Democratic Presidential Debates

Options
1274275277279280345

Comments

  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,597
    So will most of you vote for who ever comes out of the Democrats or just not vote or vote for the Baffoon? 
    Any Dem 2020
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    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. 
    What evidence is there that it was the "party bosses" that are making it happen, rather than a realization that 1. they don't have the money to compete 2. There's no path to the nomination and 3. They believe Biden is the better choice, based on the clear alignment of policies. 

    And they dropped out Sunday and Monday respectively.  Is that really not fast enough to be considered a decision on the factors I outlined?

    And who's our Boss Tweed?
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    JimmyV said:
    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. 
    Biden has always been the favored choice of the party, mostly because he's a member of the party.  This isn't news.  
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,454
    edited March 2020
    mrussel1 said:
    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. 
    What evidence is there that it was the "party bosses" that are making it happen, rather than a realization that 1. they don't have the money to compete 2. There's no path to the nomination and 3. They believe Biden is the better choice, based on the clear alignment of policies. 

    And they dropped out Sunday and Monday respectively.  Is that really not fast enough to be considered a decision on the factors I outlined?

    And who's our Boss Tweed?
    Obama at least called up Pete and said "this is as must leverage as you are gonna have". 
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,454
    CM189191 said:
    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.  

    What am I not grasping?
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,597
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    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. 
    Biden has always been the favored choice of the party, mostly because he's a member of the party.  This isn't news.  
    OK, cool. Let's see who is winning where tonight. 
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    mrussel1 said:
    rgambs said:
    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.  
    Nmost kids don't have parents like you though, and it's some damn big decisions to be making so young.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    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. 
    Biden has always been the favored choice of the party, mostly because he's a member of the party.  This isn't news.  
    OK, cool. Let's see who is winning where tonight. 
    The polling that SC posted earlier today was fascinating.  The numbers have really shifted since Biden won on Saturday.
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,597
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    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. 
    Biden has always been the favored choice of the party, mostly because he's a member of the party.  This isn't news.  
    OK, cool. Let's see who is winning where tonight. 
    The polling that SC posted earlier today was fascinating.  The numbers have really shifted since Biden won on Saturday.
    As South Carolina goes, so goes the Democratic Party? Good luck to us. 
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • Ledbetterman10
    Ledbetterman10 Posts: 16,991
    mrussel1 said:
    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. 
    What evidence is there that it was the "party bosses" that are making it happen, rather than a realization that 1. they don't have the money to compete 2. There's no path to the nomination and 3. They believe Biden is the better choice, based on the clear alignment of policies. 

    And they dropped out Sunday and Monday respectively.  Is that really not fast enough to be considered a decision on the factors I outlined?

    And who's our Boss Tweed?
    It’s all seems pretty coordinated for them to drop out, and fly to Biden immediately to endorse him. Not that it matters to me. I’m not a Democrat. Their plan is their plan. 
    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
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    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. 
    Biden has always been the favored choice of the party, mostly because he's a member of the party.  This isn't news.  
    OK, cool. Let's see who is winning where tonight. 
    The polling that SC posted earlier today was fascinating.  The numbers have really shifted since Biden won on Saturday.
    As South Carolina goes, so goes the Democratic Party? Good luck to us. 
    Defend that same statement with Iowa and NH.  Makes as little sense comparatively.  
  • CM189191
    CM189191 Posts: 6,927
    CM189191 said:
    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.  

    What am I not grasping?
    "Get yourself some more parties."
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,454
    CM189191 said:
    CM189191 said:
    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.  

    What am I not grasping?
    "Get yourself some more parties."
    Sounds like a highly democratic thing to do. 

    Two parties is awfully close to one party.
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    rgambs said:
    mrussel1 said:
    rgambs said:
    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.  
    Nmost kids don't have parents like you though, and it's some damn big decisions to be making so young.
    They are big decisions.  I agree with that. It seems to me that the high school counselors should be educating the students on lower cost options, and how one better have a really good reason to go private or out of state.  Kids do take classes in personal finance now, and that's a great start.  But understanding the debt load they will carry should they choose certain paths is important information that I don't think is shared.  
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,597
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    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. 
    Biden has always been the favored choice of the party, mostly because he's a member of the party.  This isn't news.  
    OK, cool. Let's see who is winning where tonight. 
    The polling that SC posted earlier today was fascinating.  The numbers have really shifted since Biden won on Saturday.
    As South Carolina goes, so goes the Democratic Party? Good luck to us. 
    Defend that same statement with Iowa and NH.  Makes as little sense comparatively.  
    NH has voted for the Democrat in every election since 2004. Iowa voted for the Democrat as recently as 2012. South Carolina last voted for the Democrat in 1976. You pretend these three states are the same. They are not. 
    ___________________________________________

    "...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:
    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. 
    Biden has always been the favored choice of the party, mostly because he's a member of the party.  This isn't news.  
    OK, cool. Let's see who is winning where tonight. 
    The polling that SC posted earlier today was fascinating.  The numbers have really shifted since Biden won on Saturday.
    As South Carolina goes, so goes the Democratic Party? Good luck to us. 
    Defend that same statement with Iowa and NH.  Makes as little sense comparatively.  
    NH has voted for the Democrat in every election since 2004. Iowa voted for the Democrat as recently as 2012. South Carolina last voted for the Democrat in 1976. You pretend these three states are the same. They are not. 
    the states are red until they aren't.  Would NH have voted Democrat in 2004 if they weren't allowed a voice in the primary?  Your argument is yes, they would.  You have no evidence that it's true. 
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,597
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    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. 
    Biden has always been the favored choice of the party, mostly because he's a member of the party.  This isn't news.  
    OK, cool. Let's see who is winning where tonight. 
    The polling that SC posted earlier today was fascinating.  The numbers have really shifted since Biden won on Saturday.
    As South Carolina goes, so goes the Democratic Party? Good luck to us. 
    Defend that same statement with Iowa and NH.  Makes as little sense comparatively.  
    NH has voted for the Democrat in every election since 2004. Iowa voted for the Democrat as recently as 2012. South Carolina last voted for the Democrat in 1976. You pretend these three states are the same. They are not. 
    the states are red until they aren't.  Would NH have voted Democrat in 2004 if they weren't allowed a voice in the primary?  Your argument is yes, they would.  You have no evidence that it's true. 
    South Carolina has had the same voice since 1980 when its primary began, yet it has been a red state going on 45 years. You let me know when that changes.
    ___________________________________________

    "...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:
    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. 
    Biden has always been the favored choice of the party, mostly because he's a member of the party.  This isn't news.  
    OK, cool. Let's see who is winning where tonight. 
    The polling that SC posted earlier today was fascinating.  The numbers have really shifted since Biden won on Saturday.
    As South Carolina goes, so goes the Democratic Party? Good luck to us. 
    Defend that same statement with Iowa and NH.  Makes as little sense comparatively.  
    NH has voted for the Democrat in every election since 2004. Iowa voted for the Democrat as recently as 2012. South Carolina last voted for the Democrat in 1976. You pretend these three states are the same. They are not. 
    the states are red until they aren't.  Would NH have voted Democrat in 2004 if they weren't allowed a voice in the primary?  Your argument is yes, they would.  You have no evidence that it's true. 
    South Carolina has had the same voice since 1980 when its primary began, yet it has been a red state going on 45 years. You let me know when that changes.
    You're on one state.  What about AZ, VA, CO, NV, NM, all of which had flipped.  Sorry, I think most of us in teh party want to hear the voices of all of our members, not just the ones that you believe are important.  
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,454
    mrussel1 said:
    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. 
    What evidence is there that it was the "party bosses" that are making it happen, rather than a realization that 1. they don't have the money to compete 2. There's no path to the nomination and 3. They believe Biden is the better choice, based on the clear alignment of policies. 

    And they dropped out Sunday and Monday respectively.  Is that really not fast enough to be considered a decision on the factors I outlined?

    And who's our Boss Tweed?
    It’s all seems pretty coordinated for them to drop out, and fly to Biden immediately to endorse him. Not that it matters to me. I’m not a Democrat. Their plan is their plan. 
    It's pretty obvious there was coordination between the campaigns -- who doubts that?

    I mean they all showed up at the same campaign rally. Fit for fight.




    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    mrussel1 said:
    rgambs said:
    mrussel1 said:
    rgambs said:
    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.  
    Nmost kids don't have parents like you though, and it's some damn big decisions to be making so young.
    They are big decisions.  I agree with that. It seems to me that the high school counselors should be educating the students on lower cost options, and how one better have a really good reason to go private or out of state.  Kids do take classes in personal finance now, and that's a great start.  But understanding the debt load they will carry should they choose certain paths is important information that I don't think is shared.  
    It's tough, they offered a financial advice seminar in the 1st year of Optometry school, in which the advisor told them all to take as much as they could extra in loans just in case they need it, because it's such a good deal.
    😲🤦‍♂️
    So they all did, because they trusted the "experts" and were all saddled with an extra 15-20k to pay off at 6.5% interest. The money was spent up in elective expenditures that didn't feel very elective and, while 15k is not a monumental loan on it's own, it really delays the payment on the principal and just increases those interest payments.

    We can't have our future professionals paying 500k on 100k loans, income inflation is way too far behind to support that sort of debt.

    Kudos to you for advising your kids to be smarter about it, society tells a kid, "go to college, have fun, get a degree, worry about the rest later" their whole life and a ton of really smart kids go right along without questioning.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
This discussion has been closed.