The Democratic Presidential Debates
Comments
-
For the hundredth time, our checks and balances are within the 3 branches of government.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Sounds like a highly democratic thing to do.CM189191 said:
"Get yourself some more parties."Spiritual_Chaos said:
What am I not grasping?CM189191 said:Spiritual_Chaos said:CM189191 said:josevolution 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.
Two parties is awfully close to one party.
We are not a multi-party system. We are not set up that way.
Again, this is grade school level civics class
The US is not a direct or pure democracy
It is a constitutional republic0 -
JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.JimmyV said:mrussel1 said:
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.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
VirginiaWouldn'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.)
Further... Clinton won the primaries in PA, OH, FL, VA, AZ, NM, NV. So she won at least half of the swing states.
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.
Democrats win when the base is energized. Whether they live in a state they have a chance to win like NC, or one where the odds are low like SC. That's why turnout is such an important indicator and was at record levels in SC and that's why the party went to bat for Biden. He got better turnout than obama.
I know we disagreed on this before SC, but to me it seems fairly logical. In the 3 states bernie did well, turnout was nothing special, which is ample evidence the millenials are not about to set records for a new revolution (maybe that changes tonight ). In the state Biden did well, turnout was excellent.
0 -
None of those occupy the slot SC does. You keep trying to deflect away from that. South Carolina is among the deepest red states there are, yet two election cycles in a row now it has greatly impacted the direction of the Democratic race. I get that you have liked the result both times but that does not rebut my point.mrussel1 said:
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.JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Defend that same statement with Iowa and NH. Makes as little sense comparatively.JimmyV said:
As South Carolina goes, so goes the Democratic Party? Good luck to us.mrussel1 said:
The polling that SC posted earlier today was fascinating. The numbers have really shifted since Biden won on Saturday.JimmyV said:
OK, cool. Let's see who is winning where tonight.mrussel1 said:
Biden has always been the favored choice of the party, mostly because he's a member of the party. This isn't news.JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.JimmyV said:mrussel1 said:
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.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
VirginiaWouldn'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.)
Further... Clinton won the primaries in PA, OH, FL, VA, AZ, NM, NV. So she won at least half of the swing states.
12 of the 20 states that voted for Sanders in the primary went to Trump. I just don't understand how your argument works here. By quick math, 15 of the 31 Clinton states went to Trump.___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
I'm not a Bernie guy. I'm a beat Trump guy. We'll see who wins where tonight. IMO, a frontrunner with a delegate lead padded by red states won't help us much in the fall.Lerxst1992 said:JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.JimmyV said:mrussel1 said:
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.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
VirginiaWouldn'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.)
Further... Clinton won the primaries in PA, OH, FL, VA, AZ, NM, NV. So she won at least half of the swing states.
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.
Democrats win when the base is energized. Whether they live in a state they have a chance to win like NC, or one where the odds are low like SC. That's why turnout is such an important indicator and was at record levels in SC and that's why the party went to bat for Biden. He got better turnout than obama.
I know we disagreed on this before SC, but to me it seems fairly logical. In the 3 states bernie did well, turnout was nothing special, which is ample evidence the millenials are not about to set records for a new revolution (maybe that changes tonight ). In the state Biden did well, turnout was excellent.___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
biden's camp may be to "blame" for this, not the DNC. maybe they knew they wouldn't be in it for the long haul, and his campaign is promising them positions if he wins,as I believe someone else mentioned a bit ago.Ledbetterman10 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Ledbetterman10 said:
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.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!
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?By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
I will not vote for Bernie if he is the nominee, and I will sit out. Most people in my circle feel the same way.CM189191 said:josevolution 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.
I'm tired of being insulted and attacked as an "establishment" party voter in conspiracy with corporate billionaires to permanently oppress my fellow citizens just because I disagree with his pie in the sky plans. I'm tired of him tearing down journalists and the media the same way Buffoon does just to sow doubt and distrust of people who don't agree with him. I'm tired of him deciding the rules need to change every time the rules don't work in his favor.
I absolutely will not vote for another authoritarian-inclined leader of a "movement" to turn this country upside down. Can't do it.Post edited by what dreams on0 -
100%... and here's the other sociological thing that I see happening. Millenials are marrying later (or not at all) and that is also retarding their financial independence. I know for me, I had roommates until I got married. I would have never been able to afford a house on my own at 28, which is when I bought one. All the data points to a couple has much more financial success than a single person. That scale of two incomes is so important, but people are moving away from it.rgambs said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.rgambs said:
Nmost kids don't have parents like you though, and it's some damn big decisions to be making so young.mrussel1 said:
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.rgambs said:
You sound bitter. I don't think you understand the student loan situation for millennials.what dreams 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.
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.
😲🤦♂️
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.0 -
I get arguing for fighting for every state, but SC has selected Newt Gingrich and Trump as their primary winners for the Republican side the previous 2 elections. Hillary took 73% of the primary vote there and still got trounced in the general, as did every democrat before her by more than 200,000 votes. In perspective, Biden got 10,000 less votes than Hillary and one could argue those votes went to Bernie this time because he was up 10,000. Biden may fare better than her, but he's not going to win that state in this upcoming presidential election. There simply aren't enough votes for the democrats in that state.mrussel1 said:
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 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Defend that same statement with Iowa and NH. Makes as little sense comparatively.JimmyV said:
As South Carolina goes, so goes the Democratic Party? Good luck to us.mrussel1 said:
The polling that SC posted earlier today was fascinating. The numbers have really shifted since Biden won on Saturday.JimmyV said:
OK, cool. Let's see who is winning where tonight.mrussel1 said:
Biden has always been the favored choice of the party, mostly because he's a member of the party. This isn't news.JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.JimmyV said:mrussel1 said:
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.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
VirginiaWouldn'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.)
Further... Clinton won the primaries in PA, OH, FL, VA, AZ, NM, NV. So she won at least half of the swing states.
12 of the 20 states that voted for Sanders in the primary went to Trump. I just don't understand how your argument works here. By quick math, 15 of the 31 Clinton states went to Trump.
The numbers for the primary turnout were high, but still lower than the total amount of votes that have been cast for D presidential election candidates. Those numbers aggregated are still nothing compared to the 1 million who typically vote R. Until the numbers get to within several thousands and not hundreds of thousands, no democrat is going to win in SC unless they act like more of a Republican and oppose a weak republican candidate who doesn't follow the party platform.It's a hopeless situation...0 -
It's smart politics if you believe Bernie can't win in the fall. (Or, more accurately, that you don't want him to.) Had the Republicans done something similar four years ago they may have stopped Trump.___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
Okay so now you have some new criteria as to whether they get to have a primary. Now it's not voting red, it's how deep the red is. And how many elections in a row does that have to happen? What if they have a Democratic Senator or governor? Doesn't that mean they could flip (spoiler, KY has a Democratic governor, WV, MT have D sens). So I feel like you're just making up rules as you go. It's like watching the Sanders campaign in action.JimmyV said:
None of those occupy the slot SC does. You keep trying to deflect away from that. South Carolina is among the deepest red states there are, yet two election cycles in a row now it has greatly impacted the direction of the Democratic race. I get that you have liked the result both times but that does not rebut my point.mrussel1 said:
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.JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Defend that same statement with Iowa and NH. Makes as little sense comparatively.JimmyV said:
As South Carolina goes, so goes the Democratic Party? Good luck to us.mrussel1 said:
The polling that SC posted earlier today was fascinating. The numbers have really shifted since Biden won on Saturday.JimmyV said:
OK, cool. Let's see who is winning where tonight.mrussel1 said:
Biden has always been the favored choice of the party, mostly because he's a member of the party. This isn't news.JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.JimmyV said:mrussel1 said:
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.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
VirginiaWouldn'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.)
Further... Clinton won the primaries in PA, OH, FL, VA, AZ, NM, NV. So she won at least half of the swing states.
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.0 -
Maybe.. or maybe this is precisely how campaigns go. You drop out when you're not tenable and then you throw the support to someone you believe in. Maybe you feel like you owe that to your supporters, to your party, and to your country. Maybe there's nothing actually nefarious about it.HughFreakingDillon said:
biden's camp may be to "blame" for this, not the DNC. maybe they knew they wouldn't be in it for the long haul, and his campaign is promising them positions if he wins,as I believe someone else mentioned a bit ago.Ledbetterman10 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Ledbetterman10 said:
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.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!
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?0 -
Who said Biden did better than Obama in SC? Obama had 30,000 more votes in his primary win in 2008 and the total democratic primary is on par with numbers from this year for that state.Lerxst1992 said:JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.JimmyV said:mrussel1 said:
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.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
VirginiaWouldn'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.)
Further... Clinton won the primaries in PA, OH, FL, VA, AZ, NM, NV. So she won at least half of the swing states.
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.
Democrats win when the base is energized. Whether they live in a state they have a chance to win like NC, or one where the odds are low like SC. That's why turnout is such an important indicator and was at record levels in SC and that's why the party went to bat for Biden. He got better turnout than obama.
I know we disagreed on this before SC, but to me it seems fairly logical. In the 3 states bernie did well, turnout was nothing special, which is ample evidence the millenials are not about to set records for a new revolution (maybe that changes tonight ). In the state Biden did well, turnout was excellent.It's a hopeless situation...0 -
absolutely.mrussel1 said:
Maybe.. or maybe this is precisely how campaigns go. You drop out when you're not tenable and then you throw the support to someone you believe in. Maybe you feel like you owe that to your supporters, to your party, and to your country. Maybe there's nothing actually nefarious about it.HughFreakingDillon said:
biden's camp may be to "blame" for this, not the DNC. maybe they knew they wouldn't be in it for the long haul, and his campaign is promising them positions if he wins,as I believe someone else mentioned a bit ago.Ledbetterman10 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Ledbetterman10 said:
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.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!
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?By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
mrussel1 said:
Okay so now you have some new criteria as to whether they get to have a primary. Now it's not voting red, it's how deep the red is. And how many elections in a row does that have to happen? What if they have a Democratic Senator or governor? Doesn't that mean they could flip (spoiler, KY has a Democratic governor, WV, MT have D sens). So I feel like you're just making up rules as you go. It's like watching the Sanders campaign in action.JimmyV said:
None of those occupy the slot SC does. You keep trying to deflect away from that. South Carolina is among the deepest red states there are, yet two election cycles in a row now it has greatly impacted the direction of the Democratic race. I get that you have liked the result both times but that does not rebut my point.mrussel1 said:
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.JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Defend that same statement with Iowa and NH. Makes as little sense comparatively.JimmyV said:
As South Carolina goes, so goes the Democratic Party? Good luck to us.mrussel1 said:
The polling that SC posted earlier today was fascinating. The numbers have really shifted since Biden won on Saturday.JimmyV said:
OK, cool. Let's see who is winning where tonight.mrussel1 said:
Biden has always been the favored choice of the party, mostly because he's a member of the party. This isn't news.JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.JimmyV said:mrussel1 said:
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.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
VirginiaWouldn'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.)
Further... Clinton won the primaries in PA, OH, FL, VA, AZ, NM, NV. So she won at least half of the swing states.
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.And I can't help notice you continue to point to other states that are not South Carolina, rather than offer any evidence of blue hope in South Carolina.44 years, man.___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
CM189191 said:
For the hundredth time, our checks and balances are within the 3 branches of government.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Sounds like a highly democratic thing to do.CM189191 said:
"Get yourself some more parties."Spiritual_Chaos said:
What am I not grasping?CM189191 said:Spiritual_Chaos said:CM189191 said:josevolution 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.
Two parties is awfully close to one party.
We are not a multi-party system. We are not set up that way.
Again, this is grade school level civics class
The US is not a direct or pure democracy
It is a constitutional republic
So, what in your constitutional republic with your three branches of government stops Monica, who has 3 apples, from, in theory, starting a party, getting a lot of traction and, a strong organization and trying to run for Senator, or congressperson or President for her newly started party?
What makes it illegal to do so - if you are not part of the republican party or the democratic party?
I missed that in my grade school level civics class. So sorry about that.
And if it is somehow ilmpossible then my point stands -- Get yourself some more parties.Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
Okay, so everyone gets a primary but SC. Got it. Makes perfect sense. Maybe we can put all the white states first, and then let the blacks vote at the end too, since the most AA heavy states are in the South, which are red.JimmyV said:mrussel1 said:
Okay so now you have some new criteria as to whether they get to have a primary. Now it's not voting red, it's how deep the red is. And how many elections in a row does that have to happen? What if they have a Democratic Senator or governor? Doesn't that mean they could flip (spoiler, KY has a Democratic governor, WV, MT have D sens). So I feel like you're just making up rules as you go. It's like watching the Sanders campaign in action.JimmyV said:
None of those occupy the slot SC does. You keep trying to deflect away from that. South Carolina is among the deepest red states there are, yet two election cycles in a row now it has greatly impacted the direction of the Democratic race. I get that you have liked the result both times but that does not rebut my point.mrussel1 said:
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.JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Defend that same statement with Iowa and NH. Makes as little sense comparatively.JimmyV said:
As South Carolina goes, so goes the Democratic Party? Good luck to us.mrussel1 said:
The polling that SC posted earlier today was fascinating. The numbers have really shifted since Biden won on Saturday.JimmyV said:
OK, cool. Let's see who is winning where tonight.mrussel1 said:
Biden has always been the favored choice of the party, mostly because he's a member of the party. This isn't news.JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.JimmyV said:mrussel1 said:
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.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
VirginiaWouldn'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.)
Further... Clinton won the primaries in PA, OH, FL, VA, AZ, NM, NV. So she won at least half of the swing states.
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.And I can't help notice you continue to point to other states that are not South Carolina, rather than offer any evidence of blue hope in South Carolina.44 years, man.0 -
Exactly. Maybe we just had two candidates who have said publicly and unequivocally multiple times to the nation that they really just don't want Sanders to be our president. They know by now they will not be president, and they did the right thing.mrussel1 said:
Maybe.. or maybe this is precisely how campaigns go. You drop out when you're not tenable and then you throw the support to someone you believe in. Maybe you feel like you owe that to your supporters, to your party, and to your country. Maybe there's nothing actually nefarious about it.HughFreakingDillon said:
biden's camp may be to "blame" for this, not the DNC. maybe they knew they wouldn't be in it for the long haul, and his campaign is promising them positions if he wins,as I believe someone else mentioned a bit ago.Ledbetterman10 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.Ledbetterman10 said:
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.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!
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?
I don't understand the current problem. Haven't people on here for weeks asking the untenable moderates to drop out of the middle lane? Now they've done it, and people are questioning it?
So sorry for folks who do mail in or early voting. It's why I prefer the voting booth. People who vote in primaries know who is left. Average schmoe who doesn't follow the race doesn't vote in a primary.0 -
Seriously? This is what you are falling back on? C'mon, man. You are better than this.mrussel1 said:
Okay, so everyone gets a primary but SC. Got it. Makes perfect sense. Maybe we can put all the white states first, and then let the blacks vote at the end too, since the most AA heavy states are in the South, which are red.JimmyV said:mrussel1 said:
Okay so now you have some new criteria as to whether they get to have a primary. Now it's not voting red, it's how deep the red is. And how many elections in a row does that have to happen? What if they have a Democratic Senator or governor? Doesn't that mean they could flip (spoiler, KY has a Democratic governor, WV, MT have D sens). So I feel like you're just making up rules as you go. It's like watching the Sanders campaign in action.JimmyV said:
None of those occupy the slot SC does. You keep trying to deflect away from that. South Carolina is among the deepest red states there are, yet two election cycles in a row now it has greatly impacted the direction of the Democratic race. I get that you have liked the result both times but that does not rebut my point.mrussel1 said:
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.JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Defend that same statement with Iowa and NH. Makes as little sense comparatively.JimmyV said:
As South Carolina goes, so goes the Democratic Party? Good luck to us.mrussel1 said:
The polling that SC posted earlier today was fascinating. The numbers have really shifted since Biden won on Saturday.JimmyV said:
OK, cool. Let's see who is winning where tonight.mrussel1 said:
Biden has always been the favored choice of the party, mostly because he's a member of the party. This isn't news.JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.JimmyV said:mrussel1 said:
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.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
VirginiaWouldn'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.)
Further... Clinton won the primaries in PA, OH, FL, VA, AZ, NM, NV. So she won at least half of the swing states.
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.And I can't help notice you continue to point to other states that are not South Carolina, rather than offer any evidence of blue hope in South Carolina.44 years, man.
My point remains. Having SC vote third and treating it as some sort of bellwether for the Democratic base are both mistakes.___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
That wasn't your point. Your point was that red states shouldn't get a vote, not that SC is too early in the process. That's a different argument. I'm all about a restructuring of the calendar. I'd also like to end all caucuses which I think are bad for lower socioeconomic voters. But that's all very different than telling certain states that they dont' get a voice at all.JimmyV said:
Seriously? This is what you are falling back on? C'mon, man. You are better than this.mrussel1 said:
Okay, so everyone gets a primary but SC. Got it. Makes perfect sense. Maybe we can put all the white states first, and then let the blacks vote at the end too, since the most AA heavy states are in the South, which are red.JimmyV said:mrussel1 said:
Okay so now you have some new criteria as to whether they get to have a primary. Now it's not voting red, it's how deep the red is. And how many elections in a row does that have to happen? What if they have a Democratic Senator or governor? Doesn't that mean they could flip (spoiler, KY has a Democratic governor, WV, MT have D sens). So I feel like you're just making up rules as you go. It's like watching the Sanders campaign in action.JimmyV said:
None of those occupy the slot SC does. You keep trying to deflect away from that. South Carolina is among the deepest red states there are, yet two election cycles in a row now it has greatly impacted the direction of the Democratic race. I get that you have liked the result both times but that does not rebut my point.mrussel1 said:
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.JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
Defend that same statement with Iowa and NH. Makes as little sense comparatively.JimmyV said:
As South Carolina goes, so goes the Democratic Party? Good luck to us.mrussel1 said:
The polling that SC posted earlier today was fascinating. The numbers have really shifted since Biden won on Saturday.JimmyV said:
OK, cool. Let's see who is winning where tonight.mrussel1 said:
Biden has always been the favored choice of the party, mostly because he's a member of the party. This isn't news.JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.JimmyV said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.JimmyV said:mrussel1 said:
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.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
VirginiaWouldn'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.)
Further... Clinton won the primaries in PA, OH, FL, VA, AZ, NM, NV. So she won at least half of the swing states.
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.And I can't help notice you continue to point to other states that are not South Carolina, rather than offer any evidence of blue hope in South Carolina.44 years, man.
My point remains. Having SC vote third and treating it as some sort of bellwether for the Democratic base are both mistakes.0 -
Running mate?
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, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help