Chat Forum
It is currently Thu Jul 09, 2020 12:32 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5613 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 ... 141  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9845
Location: Indiana
Don't really get the whole "Election Day should be a holiday" thing. First, government has to be open because the election board has to be. Second, it's not like holidays mean no one works. Third, you can vote up to a month before the election most places. Fourth, if your argument is we can maximize turnout and lessen voter "pain" by having the election on a day where more people are not working, why don't we move Election Day to a Saturday?

As far as Columbus Day not being a holiday, I presently work on that one as does everyone not working in government, a bank, or a school, and I work as well on MLK and President's Day. Those 3 could cease being federal holidays and the majority of Americans wouldn't give a shit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6132
Deadtigers wrote:
Ohio leading the way. Call me shocked.
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/08/69277154 ... lumbus-day



Good stuff. It boggles the mind that election day in the US isn't a holiday.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9845
Location: Indiana
flaggETERNAL wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
Ohio leading the way. Call me shocked.
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/08/69277154 ... lumbus-day


Good stuff. It boggles the mind that election day in the US isn't a holiday.


Quote:
Don't really get the whole "Election Day should be a holiday" thing. First, government has to be open because the election board has to be. Second, it's not like holidays mean no one works. Third, you can vote up to a month before the election most places. Fourth, if your argument is we can maximize turnout and lessen voter "pain" by having the election on a day where more people are not working, why don't we move Election Day to a Saturday?

As far as Columbus Day not being a holiday, I presently work on that one as does everyone not working in government, a bank, or a school, and I work as well on MLK and President's Day. Those 3 could cease being federal holidays and the majority of Americans wouldn't give a shit.


They could make Election Day a holiday. I would still be working that day as would most everyone without a government, bank, or school job.

I've always worked on President's Day. I've always worked on Veterans Day. I've always worked on Columbus Day. When I worked in North Carolina, I had MLK off because if counties and businesses didn't, the blacks would call them racist. But I work on it now. (Which it's a stupid time for a holiday anyway. You get a long vacation 2 weeks before over Christmas time as everyone uses up their leave, get a random mid-January Monday off, and since most places don't give a day off for Good Friday, you go 4+ months until you reach Memorial Day.)


Last edited by Flyin Ryan on Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:54 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10246
Location: Texas
I suspect that if you make it a holiday voting would actually drop, unless you could tailgate also.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 11028
Mr Mike wrote:
I suspect that if you make it a holiday voting would actually drop, unless you could tailgate also.


:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 10:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10237
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
I like the idea of allowing people to bet on it. Would make people more knowledgeable about policies and such.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 10:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8590
I don't see a need to make election day a holiday for any reason other than grandstanding/virtue signalling. In Colorado, everyone automatically gets mailed a ballot and you can either mail it back or drop it off any time up to about 15 days in advance. If you didn't get a ballot in the mail (you moved, never received it, can't receive mail, whatever), you can show up to a polling place up to 15 days in advance and vote in person. That is a much better system than making election day a holiday, including for the reasons Ryan mentions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 12:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:33 pm
Posts: 2533
Deadtigers wrote:
paddyor wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:
Bowens wrote:
They would rather lose to Trump again and be #TheResistance for four more years than risk Bernie winning. That’s what it comes down to.


That's how party politics works sometimes. No one is ever going to say we'd rather be the opposition than hold the presidency, but it's much easier to be the opposition running against the president instead of backing presidential policies that you're not for. Bill Clinton 1992 is a perfect example. Everyone thought Bush was winning a 2nd term, so all the bigshots stayed out waiting for '96. A guy from the right side of the party was nominated and he unexpectedly wins. Clinton's win pushed the Democratic Party nationally to the right for more than a decade. I think he was losing anyway, but I am absolutely convinced some Republicans torpedoed McCain in 2008 on purpose by foisting Palin on him because there were a ton of Republicans that hated McCain, and Palin became the story of the campaign that year.

If your loyalty is "to a cause" instead of "to a party" - which party loyalty is near zero at the moment in this country, liberals hate the Democratic Party and conservatives hate the Republican Party - it's better to have the opposing party win the election than to have a person against your cause be your party's nominee AND win the election. Donald Trump winning the nomination and election in 2016 completely killed the power of certain wings of the Republican Party. Either you stood principled and lost all relevance, or you ignored everything you said and back him publicly (and there are a LOT of those people).

Do you mean liberals hate the left wing of the dem party or that the left wing hates the democratic party because this is getting confusing. My impression is that the insurgent left hates the liberals who for the most part still control the party.


The left fringe or progressives hate the moderates and those further to the right or more conservative than them yet still liberal. Like those of use that believe in a two or three tiered minimum wage increase are liberal elitist or some such. It really is not that far from the one true scotsman argument. Apparently if The Dems were just a more aggressive and just sold the socialist policies better and didn't compromise, the masses would awake to the message.

The funny thing is you will find loads of Dems that are moderate not because they don't believe in these kind if policies but because they believe in a pragmatic continuous progress approach.

I don't know. I feel like I'm Center-left and on some issues, even conservative but all the politicians in those areas of the spectrum are huge corporate shills which leaves me no choice other than progressives. I feel like People voting for Bernie are not just progressives but Anti-corporate/oligarchy crowd.


BTW here's a funny story. My father lived in NY for 15 years. In later years he developed a health problem. first, he had to go to the ER for a few days, and after that, he needed a continued treatment for a while. A week later the bill arrived and when he saw the amount he'd have to pay he said fudge this shit and went back home the following week. So after working his ass off for 15 years he still didn't have enough money to get a lifesaving treatment while not going completely broke. If that isn't a broken ass corporate healthcare system idk what is.


relevant video https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/stat ... d-out-cost


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 12:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6796
When will Liz Warren go full on attack on Biden's student loans?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3121
In fairness to Kamala she pulled the pin once it was obvious she was finished.
There’s a whole bunch of others who should consider not stinking up the place after Christmas.

Ultimately it’ll come down to Biden vs The Bern.
Medicare for all and free college vs Corn Pop and hairy legs.

Warren and Buttigieg can stick around for a bit. They have poll numbers and $$$.
So should Tulsi and Yang, as they both have a point.

The rest should join Kamala.

Bloomberg could make things interesting.
Loads of cash to go the distance but the young ones and the POC won’t vote for him.
Good article in the Hill today about his strategy.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/thehill.com ... work%3famp


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28251
Ewinkum wrote:
In fairness to Kamala she pulled the pin once it was obvious she was finished.
There’s a whole bunch of others who should consider not stinking up the place after Christmas.

Ultimately it’ll come down to Biden vs The Bern.
Medicare for all and free college vs Corn Pop and hairy legs.

Warren and Buttigieg can stick around for a bit. They have poll numbers and $$$.
So should Tulsi and Yang, as they both have a point.

The rest should join Kamala.

Bloomberg could make things interesting.
Loads of cash to go the distance but the young ones and the POC won’t vote for him.
Good article in the Hill today about his strategy.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/thehill.com ... work%3famp


I much agree here. Much of the ones who aren't the 6 you said should stay just appear to smack of privilege and desperation. Hopefully Bloomberg's campaign is a total waste of his money. Screw him. Also The Hill is starting to become my favourite US media outlet, it seems by far the most balanced, with journalists of both a left/liberal and right/conservative slant who are criticial of their own parties and show actual concern for the masses in the US.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3121
eldanielfire wrote:
Ewinkum wrote:
In fairness to Kamala she pulled the pin once it was obvious she was finished.
There’s a whole bunch of others who should consider not stinking up the place after Christmas.

Ultimately it’ll come down to Biden vs The Bern.
Medicare for all and free college vs Corn Pop and hairy legs.

Warren and Buttigieg can stick around for a bit. They have poll numbers and $$$.
So should Tulsi and Yang, as they both have a point.

The rest should join Kamala.

Bloomberg could make things interesting.
Loads of cash to go the distance but the young ones and the POC won’t vote for him.
Good article in the Hill today about his strategy.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/thehill.com ... work%3famp


I much agree here. Much of the ones who aren't the 6 you said should stay just appear to smack of privilege and desperation. Hopefully Bloomberg's campaign is a total waste of his money. Screw him. Also The Hill is starting to become my favourite US media outlet, it seems by far the most balanced, with journalists of both a left/liberal and right/conservative slant who are criticial of their own parties and show actual concern for the masses in the US.


I was just thinking the same re: The Hill.
Bloomberg is in the race about a month already and there’s hardly anyone writing anything worthwhile about him.
“Journalists” must be terrified of pissing him off.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3121
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status ... 2727224321

Presidential good grace from Tulsi on Harris’ dropping out.
Or an elegant ‘fudge you’ if you prefer.

Some great bile and venom in the comments.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9845
Location: Indiana
Josh Putnam of Frontloading HQ (Poli Sci Ph.D. who has taken an active interest in party rules, delegates, how the primaries work, etc.)

Quote:
Gotta say, if you'd have told me in, say, February that Harris was going to be a ran *for* 2020 but didn't run *in* 2020 candidate, I would have expressed some surprise.

She is not the first (perceived) upper tier candidate to leave "early" and won't be the last. #winnowing


Quote:
Quote:
Harry Enten: Harris had a slew of endorsements from CA... Also, she was the only candidate besides Biden to pick up a number of CBC endorsements. Be interesting to see where those go.


This is a fantastic point. Superdelegate endorsers of Harris are now free to shop around anew. Where if anywhere they go -- especially if in tandem -- may provide us and voters with a pretty clear signal.


Quote:
In any event, the battle is on between the other campaigns to add staff and endorsers now freed by the Harris exit. That's true in NV, but also true for particular constituencies of support lined up behind Harris across the country. #InvisiblePrimary


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11307
Bowens wrote:
Harris gone and Tulsi a poll away from making the December debate. Who was that guy who said she would be gone by the third debate again?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/us/p ... s-out.html


:D

Very sad about Harris. It really shows that you can only win an election if you're rich and powerful. It is a denial of democracy. I think that there should be a cap on election spending to give a fair chance to different candidates. And there should be guaranteed free equal TV prime time for each of the primary candidate so that people can hear their message. Same later in the actual election campaign between the official candidates.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 4:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3127
TheFrog wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Harris gone and Tulsi a poll away from making the December debate. Who was that guy who said she would be gone by the third debate again?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/us/p ... s-out.html


:D

Very sad about Harris. It really shows that you can only win an election if you're rich and powerful. It is a denial of democracy. I think that there should be a cap on election spending to give a fair chance to different candidates. And there should be guaranteed free equal TV prime time for each of the primary candidate so that people can hear their message. Same later in the actual election campaign between the official candidates.

Was Obama rich?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 4:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11307
Fangle wrote:
TheFrog wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Harris gone and Tulsi a poll away from making the December debate. Who was that guy who said she would be gone by the third debate again?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/us/p ... s-out.html


:D

Very sad about Harris. It really shows that you can only win an election if you're rich and powerful. It is a denial of democracy. I think that there should be a cap on election spending to give a fair chance to different candidates. And there should be guaranteed free equal TV prime time for each of the primary candidate so that people can hear their message. Same later in the actual election campaign between the official candidates.

Was Obama rich?


Personally not at the time of his election (though a net worth of 1.3m$ is a healthy standard) but I guess he had the right set of financial supporters behind him to get him going. This gives lobbyist a huge power, really.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 4:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9845
Location: Indiana
Fangle wrote:
TheFrog wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Harris gone and Tulsi a poll away from making the December debate. Who was that guy who said she would be gone by the third debate again?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/us/p ... s-out.html


:D

Very sad about Harris. It really shows that you can only win an election if you're rich and powerful. It is a denial of democracy. I think that there should be a cap on election spending to give a fair chance to different candidates. And there should be guaranteed free equal TV prime time for each of the primary candidate so that people can hear their message. Same later in the actual election campaign between the official candidates.

Was Obama rich?


His backers in Manhattan were.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3127
Flyin Ryan wrote:
Fangle wrote:
TheFrog wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Harris gone and Tulsi a poll away from making the December debate. Who was that guy who said she would be gone by the third debate again?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/us/p ... s-out.html


:D

Very sad about Harris. It really shows that you can only win an election if you're rich and powerful. It is a denial of democracy. I think that there should be a cap on election spending to give a fair chance to different candidates. And there should be guaranteed free equal TV prime time for each of the primary candidate so that people can hear their message. Same later in the actual election campaign between the official candidates.

Was Obama rich?


His backers in Manhattan were.

So no need to be personally wealthy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11307
Fangle wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:
Fangle wrote:
TheFrog wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Harris gone and Tulsi a poll away from making the December debate. Who was that guy who said she would be gone by the third debate again?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/us/p ... s-out.html


:D

Very sad about Harris. It really shows that you can only win an election if you're rich and powerful. It is a denial of democracy. I think that there should be a cap on election spending to give a fair chance to different candidates. And there should be guaranteed free equal TV prime time for each of the primary candidate so that people can hear their message. Same later in the actual election campaign between the official candidates.

Was Obama rich?


His backers in Manhattan were.

So no need to be personally wealthy.


Yes. I rephrase. You can't win unless you're rich and powerful, or if the rich and powerful are behind you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28251
TheFrog wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Harris gone and Tulsi a poll away from making the December debate. Who was that guy who said she would be gone by the third debate again?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/us/p ... s-out.html


:D

Very sad about Harris. It really shows that you can only win an election if you're rich and powerful. It is a denial of democracy. I think that there should be a cap on election spending to give a fair chance to different candidates. And there should be guaranteed free equal TV prime time for each of the primary candidate so that people can hear their message. Same later in the actual election campaign between the official candidates.


Obama wasn't rich or powerful prior to his win. Neither is Bernie until he recently gained off his political fame and that certainly isn't the money that sustains his campaign. The likes of Tulsi is still an active in the army so she certainly isn't rich.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10237
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
FullbackAce wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
paddyor wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:
Bowens wrote:
They would rather lose to Trump again and be #TheResistance for four more years than risk Bernie winning. That’s what it comes down to.


That's how party politics works sometimes. No one is ever going to say we'd rather be the opposition than hold the presidency, but it's much easier to be the opposition running against the president instead of backing presidential policies that you're not for. Bill Clinton 1992 is a perfect example. Everyone thought Bush was winning a 2nd term, so all the bigshots stayed out waiting for '96. A guy from the right side of the party was nominated and he unexpectedly wins. Clinton's win pushed the Democratic Party nationally to the right for more than a decade. I think he was losing anyway, but I am absolutely convinced some Republicans torpedoed McCain in 2008 on purpose by foisting Palin on him because there were a ton of Republicans that hated McCain, and Palin became the story of the campaign that year.

If your loyalty is "to a cause" instead of "to a party" - which party loyalty is near zero at the moment in this country, liberals hate the Democratic Party and conservatives hate the Republican Party - it's better to have the opposing party win the election than to have a person against your cause be your party's nominee AND win the election. Donald Trump winning the nomination and election in 2016 completely killed the power of certain wings of the Republican Party. Either you stood principled and lost all relevance, or you ignored everything you said and back him publicly (and there are a LOT of those people).

Do you mean liberals hate the left wing of the dem party or that the left wing hates the democratic party because this is getting confusing. My impression is that the insurgent left hates the liberals who for the most part still control the party.


The left fringe or progressives hate the moderates and those further to the right or more conservative than them yet still liberal. Like those of use that believe in a two or three tiered minimum wage increase are liberal elitist or some such. It really is not that far from the one true scotsman argument. Apparently if The Dems were just a more aggressive and just sold the socialist policies better and didn't compromise, the masses would awake to the message.

The funny thing is you will find loads of Dems that are moderate not because they don't believe in these kind if policies but because they believe in a pragmatic continuous progress approach.

I don't know. I feel like I'm Center-left and on some issues, even conservative but all the politicians in those areas of the spectrum are huge corporate shills which leaves me no choice other than progressives. I feel like People voting for Bernie are not just progressives but Anti-corporate/oligarchy crowd.


BTW here's a funny story. My father lived in NY for 15 years. In later years he developed a health problem. first, he had to go to the ER for a few days, and after that, he needed a continued treatment for a while. A week later the bill arrived and when he saw the amount he'd have to pay he said fudge this shit and went back home the following week. So after working his ass off for 15 years he still didn't have enough money to get a lifesaving treatment while not going completely broke. If that isn't a broken ass corporate healthcare system idk what is.


relevant video https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/stat ... d-out-cost


You, like many Americans are stuck picking blue or red. This country needs 6 real parties, I dont count libertarians or Green as a real party.

The US healthcare system is so f**ked. Since I was in HS I wondered why we didn't have what Canada had. As I have grown older, the German model appeals to me more. I really believe that we wouldn't have the discussion for M4A if not for the ACA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9845
Location: Indiana
An article that will make some people mad.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... gates.html

Latest poll cited in article has Biden running at 44% support among South Carolina African-Americans. His nearest opposition is Sanders, who has 14%.

(Buttigieg registers zero.)

The only place where anyone in polling is challenging Biden for minority support is Warren in California, although Harris dropping out there will shift numbers.

The delegate math is a good point that most everyone ignores.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6132
Flyin Ryan wrote:
An article that will make some people mad.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... gates.html

Latest poll cited in article has Biden running at 44% support among South Carolina African-Americans. His nearest opposition is Sanders, who has 14%.

(Buttigieg registers zero.)

The only place where anyone in polling is challenging Biden for minority support is Warren in California, although Harris dropping out there will shift numbers.

The delegate math is a good point that most everyone ignores.


FR, what are your personal feelings towards Biden? Even after all this time, I still can't see his appeal. Why exactly does he have so much support among older African Americans? Is it because of Obama? Reckon he can still beat Trump BUT he doesn't offer anything new, just back to business as usual. Is that his appeal?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9845
Location: Indiana
flaggETERNAL wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:
An article that will make some people mad.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... gates.html

Latest poll cited in article has Biden running at 44% support among South Carolina African-Americans. His nearest opposition is Sanders, who has 14%.

(Buttigieg registers zero.)

The only place where anyone in polling is challenging Biden for minority support is Warren in California, although Harris dropping out there will shift numbers.

The delegate math is a good point that most everyone ignores.


FR, what are your personal feelings towards Biden? Even after all this time, I still can't see his appeal. Why exactly does he have so much support among older African Americans? Is it because of Obama? Reckon he can still beat Trump BUT he doesn't offer anything new, just back to business as usual. Is that his appeal?


Blacks in general are hardly liberal of the Sanders/Warren variety. And there is zero support for Buttigieg there. They on average are more socially conservative than whites (ditto Latinos). They're not going to vote for a no-hope candidate unless it's to make a point.

Look at their elected members. There are very rarely contested primaries in majority black districts once someone has become incumbent. It's even this way in local races. The only ones I'm even aware of is Cory Booker's run for Mayor of Newark against Sharpe James, and when liberals were pissed off with entrenched incumbent Albert Wynn of a majority black D.C. suburb district in Maryland, and in 2006 and 2008 they got Donna Edwards to run against him and win in 2008. It's the last political machine left in U.S. politics. And the machine supports the machine's candidate. In 2008, the machine supported Hillary over Obama initially and only switched later when they realized their constituents were full onboard Obama. In 2016, the machine supported Hillary, who defeated a Bernie Sanders that won the white vote in the primary. In 2020, the machine is supporting Biden. If he gets a convincing majority of black votes, the white votes are going to all splinter because whites don't vote as a cohesive unit, and they are nowhere near as large a demographic in the Democratic Party primary electorate as they are to the general population. Biden just has to play for a draw in the white vote, win the blacks, and he'll win the whole South in a romp. That's one heck of an advantage to enjoy before considering anything else.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 5:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10237
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Joe whips out the big guns.

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/120 ... 65024?s=19


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 5:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3468
Location: Nire itsasontzian
^ lol, when the woman in pink ( didn't see who she was) passed him to shake the hand of somebody else, the face he made :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 7:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 11028
Big shifts in California in a new UC Berkeley poll:

Image

Quote:
Sanders 24% (+5 since September)
Warren 22% (-7)
Biden 14% (-6)
Buttigieg 12% (+6)


Strong lead with Latino voters:

Quote:
32% of Latino Democrats favor Sanders, a solid 13-point margin over the next closest candidate, Biden, who has 19%.


With Harris out and her supporters reallocated to their second choice candidate, Bernie still leads:

Quote:
Sanders, 25%; Warren, 24%; Biden, 17%; Buttigieg, 13%


https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/ ... ornia-poll


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6132
Bones did you see the LA Times headline?

Initial headline read "Warren and Biden lose ground..."no mention of Sanders at all. :lol: :lol: After the backlash they grudgingly put him in.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14119
TheFrog wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Harris gone and Tulsi a poll away from making the December debate. Who was that guy who said she would be gone by the third debate again?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/us/p ... s-out.html


:D

Very sad about Harris. It really shows that you can only win an election if you're rich and powerful. It is a denial of democracy. I think that there should be a cap on election spending to give a fair chance to different candidates. And there should be guaranteed free equal TV prime time for each of the primary candidate so that people can hear their message. Same later in the actual election campaign between the official candidates.


From what I understand she was unpopular because she is shit at politics and is a bit of an idiot.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 11028
flaggETERNAL wrote:
Bones did you see the LA Times headline?

Initial headline read "Warren and Biden lose ground..."no mention of Sanders at all. :lol: :lol: After the backlash they grudgingly put him in.


Surprised they didn’t go with “76% of California Democrats don’t back Bernie Sanders.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6132
Bowens wrote:
flaggETERNAL wrote:
Bones did you see the LA Times headline?

Initial headline read "Warren and Biden lose ground..."no mention of Sanders at all. :lol: :lol: After the backlash they grudgingly put him in.


Surprised they didn’t go with “76% of California Democrats don’t back Bernie Sanders.”


Or Sanders plummets to first in California.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28251
flaggETERNAL wrote:
Bones did you see the LA Times headline?

Initial headline read "Warren and Biden lose ground..."no mention of Sanders at all. :lol: :lol: After the backlash they grudgingly put him in.


But some people claim the media don't have a conspiracy against Sanders. It's coincidence they keep attempting to whitewash him out of it...... ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10237
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
eldanielfire wrote:
flaggETERNAL wrote:
Bones did you see the LA Times headline?

Initial headline read "Warren and Biden lose ground..."no mention of Sanders at all. :lol: :lol: After the backlash they grudgingly put him in.


But some people claim the media don't have a conspiracy against Sanders. It's coincidence they keep attempting to whitewash him out of it...... ;)


Maybe just maybe those names generate more clickbait. Lord knows people are eating up anything negative about those tw but yeah, there is never enough coverage of Bernie unless it is 24/7.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28251
Deadtigers wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
flaggETERNAL wrote:
Bones did you see the LA Times headline?

Initial headline read "Warren and Biden lose ground..."no mention of Sanders at all. :lol: :lol: After the backlash they grudgingly put him in.


But some people claim the media don't have a conspiracy against Sanders. It's coincidence they keep attempting to whitewash him out of it...... ;)


Maybe just maybe those names generate more clickbait. Lord knows people are eating up anything negative about those tw but yeah, there is never enough coverage of Bernie unless it is 24/7.


All baseless speculation and hyperbole form you. You really think the person with the most individual sponsors doesn't generate enough clicks that discussing 4th place in prior articles generated more? :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28251
Seneca of the Night wrote:
fatcat wrote:
TheFrog wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Harris gone and Tulsi a poll away from making the December debate. Who was that guy who said she would be gone by the third debate again?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/us/p ... s-out.html


:D

Very sad about Harris. It really shows that you can only win an election if you're rich and powerful. It is a denial of democracy. I think that there should be a cap on election spending to give a fair chance to different candidates. And there should be guaranteed free equal TV prime time for each of the primary candidate so that people can hear their message. Same later in the actual election campaign between the official candidates.


From what I understand she was unpopular because she is shit at politics and is a bit of an idiot.


Not to mention being a complete bitch. It's staggering that someone could get that far through life with those clear character attributes and yet think she was presidential timber. She must be seriously fcked in the head. More so than most of them, which is saying something.


I thought the real killer was how on earth did she think her past history of locking people up, going after black single moms and keeping people in prison beyond their sentences for essentially prison slave Labour was never going to catch-up on her as she (attempted) presented herself as some liberal, easy on the dope, hippy candidate. No wonder the Hilary wing of the party initially backed her, the classic sprout false policies that you don't believe in brand of politics.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 29392
Seneca of the Night wrote:
fatcat wrote:
TheFrog wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Harris gone and Tulsi a poll away from making the December debate. Who was that guy who said she would be gone by the third debate again?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/us/p ... s-out.html


:D

Very sad about Harris. It really shows that you can only win an election if you're rich and powerful. It is a denial of democracy. I think that there should be a cap on election spending to give a fair chance to different candidates. And there should be guaranteed free equal TV prime time for each of the primary candidate so that people can hear their message. Same later in the actual election campaign between the official candidates.


From what I understand she was unpopular because she is shit at politics and is a bit of an idiot.


Not to mention being a complete bitch. It's staggering that someone could get that far through life with those clear character attributes and yet think she was presidential timber. She must be seriously fcked in the head. More so than most of them, which is saying something.


:lol: It really is a miracle how such an unlikeable cünt could think they could be President


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28251
EverReady wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
fatcat wrote:
TheFrog wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Harris gone and Tulsi a poll away from making the December debate. Who was that guy who said she would be gone by the third debate again?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/us/p ... s-out.html


:D

Very sad about Harris. It really shows that you can only win an election if you're rich and powerful. It is a denial of democracy. I think that there should be a cap on election spending to give a fair chance to different candidates. And there should be guaranteed free equal TV prime time for each of the primary candidate so that people can hear their message. Same later in the actual election campaign between the official candidates.


From what I understand she was unpopular because she is shit at politics and is a bit of an idiot.


Not to mention being a complete bitch. It's staggering that someone could get that far through life with those clear character attributes and yet think she was presidential timber. She must be seriously fcked in the head. More so than most of them, which is saying something.


:lol: It really is a miracle how such an unlikeable cünt could think they could be President


:lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9845
Location: Indiana
fatcat wrote:
TheFrog wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Harris gone and Tulsi a poll away from making the December debate. Who was that guy who said she would be gone by the third debate again?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/us/p ... s-out.html


:D

Very sad about Harris. It really shows that you can only win an election if you're rich and powerful. It is a denial of democracy. I think that there should be a cap on election spending to give a fair chance to different candidates. And there should be guaranteed free equal TV prime time for each of the primary candidate so that people can hear their message. Same later in the actual election campaign between the official candidates.


From what I understand she was unpopular because she is shit at politics and is a bit of an idiot.


It's something politicians from one state where a single party is super-dominant tend to struggle with the changed landscape once they reach the national stage. The talking points and what is important are completely different.

California, who was their last relevant politician in a presidential race, Jerry Brown in 1992? It's been one long dry spell post-Reagan...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:10 pm
Posts: 3441
Location: Boston
Flyin Ryan wrote:
fatcat wrote:
TheFrog wrote:
Bowens wrote:
Harris gone and Tulsi a poll away from making the December debate. Who was that guy who said she would be gone by the third debate again?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/us/p ... s-out.html


:D

Very sad about Harris. It really shows that you can only win an election if you're rich and powerful. It is a denial of democracy. I think that there should be a cap on election spending to give a fair chance to different candidates. And there should be guaranteed free equal TV prime time for each of the primary candidate so that people can hear their message. Same later in the actual election campaign between the official candidates.


From what I understand she was unpopular because she is shit at politics and is a bit of an idiot.


It's something politicians from one state where a single party is super-dominant tend to struggle with the changed landscape once they reach the national stage. The talking points and what is important are completely different.

California, who was their last relevant politician in a presidential race, Jerry Brown in 1992? It's been one long dry spell post-Reagan...


California was quite a different place back then as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5613 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 ... 141  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: camroc1, flaggETERNAL, Google Adsense [Bot], jambanja, MungoMan, PornDog, Santa, Ted. and 25 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group