The Democratic Presidential Debates

mickeyrat said:

cincybearcat said:

mcgruff10 said:

Kat said:

Two threads now and I can't stop laughing. You guys are crackin' me up today. Take good care of each other, ok?

@kat I feel like we could really come together as a group if we all sat next to each other at the Apollo Show.  Anyway to hook us up with some tickets? 
Much love,
10C member 139682  

I'm willing to give it a go

I can drive the bus..... after I get the passenger endorsement..... simple knowledge test.

My resume includes 1 million safe miles driven.

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

darwinstheory said:

Full disclosure, the following are the observations and opinions of a Buttigeg supporter.

A win is a win, for sure. But I would have expected Bernie to win NH by more than 1.6%. I believe he won NH by 22% in 2016...but I very well could be wrong.

I personally believe we are down to a final 5 at most, and likely a final 3 now.

I find it hard to believe that Warren or Biden have a legitimate shot at this point as they seem to be trending in the opposite direction. Though it does seem Biden is poised to do well in SC.

I kind of get the feeling that Sanders has peaked. At this point most people likely know if they are a Bernie Sanders voter or not.

That leaves us with Pete and Amy. She seems to be the candidate that is gaining the most ground of late and I think she seems to be doing very well. Unfortunately, I cannot help but to wonder if is going to be too little too late. As stated, I think most voting for Sanders have already made up their minds. I think the same applies to Biden as well. My belief is that the majority of undecideds remaining are chosing between Warren, Amy and Pete. People like the "hot hand" and if Pete has a couple more good showings in the very near future, I think he winds up being the nominee.

Pete/Amy 2020!

Pete being the nominee would be quite the story.  I'm a supporter as well, but not passionately at this point.  But I could/would feel fine about voting for him.  Don't discount Bloomberg.  He has purchased (through ads) his way to 14% nationally.  I think the chances of a brokered convention are real.  While the political junkie in me would love to watch such a thing, the likelihood of Bernie winning there is probably lower, thereby creating a division in the party that won't be fixed by November.  Brokered is a bonus for Trump. 

As an aside, technically Pete is winning the delegate count right now, since he and Sanders earned the same number last night.  So even with the win, it wasn't quite a win for Sanders in the tally that matters.  

I didn't know what is meant by brokered convention so I looked it up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokered_convention

"In United States politics, a brokered convention (sometimes referred to as an open convention and closely related to a contested convention) can occur during a presidential election when a political party fails to choose a nominee on the first round of delegate voting at the party's nominating convention.

Once the first ballot, or vote, has occurred, and no candidate has a majority of the delegates' votes, the convention is then considered brokered; thereafter, the nomination is decided through a process of alternating political horse trading—(super) delegate vote trading—and additional re-votes. In this circumstance, all regular delegates (who may have been pledged to a particular candidate according to rules which vary from state to state) are "released" and are able to switch their allegiance to a different candidate before the next round of balloting. It is hoped that this extra privilege extended to the delegates will result in a re-vote yielding a clear majority of delegates for one candidate."

The term "brokered" implies a strong role for political bosses, more common in the past and associated with deals made in proverbial "smoke-filled rooms", while the term "contested" is a more modern term for a convention where no candidate holds a majority but the role of party leaders is weaker in determining the eventual outcome."

That all sounds very fishy to me- "horse trading" (what decade is this?),  "smoke filled rooms" (don't bogart that joint?) "political bosses", (who gets to call the shots?  Who really decides?).   Egads! 

ecdanc said:

F Me In The Brain said:

Some descriptions/comments I've seen recently

An interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types.

The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it. 

ecdanc said:

F Me In The Brain said:

ecdanc said:

F Me In The Brain said:

Some descriptions/comments I've seen recently

An interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types.

The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it. 

My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose your views.  The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in idiotic statements like this -

 "I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".

Am I allowed to have an opinion?

It's a discussion board: the goal of most posts is to elicit responses.

And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).

All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right.