-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Democratic Presidential Primaries & Caucuses |March OT| Last Tuesday was 1000 years ago, old news no one cares about (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
Biden will help this race, and Kelly will help Biden. Biden has a shot at winning Arizona, but even if he doesn't, Kelly will run ahead of him and get a boost from a moderate candidate. Loser McSally will lose both Senate seats of Arizona for the GOP in just two years, incredible.In Arizona news:
He didn't. He ran a really bad one.
But he still won. If that's not an indictment of Bernie's electability I don't know what is.
I must be in the alternate reality where Bernie is known for coddling conservatives instead of his frank authenticity.
Sarcasm aside, the lengths you have gone to make excuses for some of the stupid things Bernie has said and done this election make me not believe you. Touting a racist meathead's "endorsement" didn't go against what Bernie stood for when he has fought against racism his whole career, but calling a gun nut "full of shit" would be a betrayal of his when Bernie practically had to hold himself back from saying the same to the hacks at the New York Times? I don't buy it for a second.
That outburst doesn't fit the pattern, which normally goes like this: someone has honest criticism of Joe, Joe can't handle it, Joe gets personal and/or petty without actually addressing what the person was saying. In this case, it went like this: someone blatantly lied about Joe the same way other Republicans always lie about anyone who wants gun control, Joe called him out on it without getting personal or petty, and then Joe addressed the lie with facts. Shushing aside, the way Joe handled the situation was fine.
I do not like Joe Biden as a person or a politician. Before Bloomberg came in the race, Biden was one of the last candidates I wanted to get anywhere. But I'll be damned if I get bent out of shape over any Democrat - including Bernie - swearing at a conservative liar.
Last edited:
A lot of assumptions here:
A) That Biden will not be properly prepped for a debate with Trump
B) Biden can't handle Trump, who is a terrible debater.
C) That debates even matter anymore... See: 2016.
Don't see the point of trying to drag Biden through the mud right now. Particularly because now Bernie has nothing to lose.
His point is to cast doubt on US election results. He's not being subtle.
The Dem's non-college white vote dropping from 55% in 1960/64 to 35% in 1968/72 is not "party propaganda", it's what actually happened the moment Dems passed civil rights despite them passing Medicaid as well. The Democratic candidate for President has never received a majority of white voters since then. The GOP became the dominant party in the country almost overnight because the consequence of passing civil rights ended up being the collapse of the New Deal coalition due to the Dixiecrats leaving and the Southern Strategy coming online for the GOP almost immediately.
The reason people get upset with the "Dems sold us out" line is that it actively provides cover for the people who left the Democratic coalition in the 70s/80s and sent the party into the wilderness while refusing to reckon with what that means to electoral politics when the only time economics has overcome racism in this electoral college in the past few decades at the Presidential level is when we had a full on recession leading into the election.
Oh ok
I would like to see less concern over how Sanders ran his campaign in the future then :)
Because he didn't.
The moderates threw their hat in with him at the last moment before Super Tuesday, and people are scared of another 4 years of trump and perceive Biden as the "safe" choice due to his past as VP and sOcIaLiSm. He objectivetly did not run as good of a campaign as Bernie. And that's unfortunately just the way it goes.
I don't think you'll find many arguing that. He won without much of a ground game, relied on long held relationships with state level leaders, and presented himself as the electable candidate in a way that resonated more with people than say, Pete when he tried the same tactics.
Because just by being a contender means that his ideas are front and center in a way they wouldn't have been. That will carry on despite him losing the primary and that's more important than the primary.
In Arizona news:
You ain't gonna beat an astronaut. I think it's the most unassailable profession for public office. It would even beat out military vet if it was possible to measure such things since it's like a combo of everything positive about being a vet while also being an engineer science person who's also been to space.
??? What you're quoting isn't what you're suggesting I'm saying. I'm saying that others staying in the race -- Butti, Klob, etc. -- aren't accused of sowing division, only that they're splitting the vote, not that nobody else has ever been accused of sowing division in the history of the Democratic primary. IT's like when people talk about Bernie yelling -- Biden yells all the bloody time! He yelled about M4A in who knows how many debates, and I find it to be, at a minimum, a subconscious double standard.
I think Biden needs to go tow-to-tow with Bernie because Bernie is nothing if not consistent. His performances are typically at least good, whereas Biden's been inconsistent. He went after Bernie's M4A hard, and having Joe's record scrutinized should happen as well. I think, considering 2008's Democratic primary and 2016's Republican one, especially since this primary is pretty issues-based, that Biden can survive another couple of weeks.
So I disagree, but you're pretty level-headed even when I disagree, so I know you're coming from a reasoned place.
He ran the campaign he needed to run to win. Bernie didn't.
I'll give him one thing to his credit. From the very beginning he said SC was his firewall and he took advantage of it. And there was a good stretch when absolutely no one here believed that was possible. And even Bernie's campaign themselves, they should have spent more resources contesting it. It was a fatal error on their part.
I agree with all of this. Even the edit (though Biden could easily change my intentions).
Yep.
Bernie had a glaring weakness in 2016 and it did not improve in 2020. That's on no one but Bernie.
When a candidate loses, there will always be post mortum takes on why. It shouldn't surprise anyone.
Him having one now could easily clear up points 1 and 2 for a lot of people. So that's the point of having one now. I'm mean we're already at the stage admitting Biden had a bad campaign now even if he beat Sanders.
I'm following this pretty closely and understand it pretty well, yo. This isn't my first primary, and I work in news lol.
Biden has even less to worry about if he ends up getting the vast majority of the rest of the California vote. Candidates have won in more grueling and longer primaries than this. If Biden is a good candidate, he'll sleepwalk into some huge wins this month and it'll be an actual insurmountable delegate lead.
He should answer every debate question "I am an astronaut"
No art experience, can not paint as well as George W. Bush
0/10, try again next time.
Knowing his path to victory, playing into it, and avoiding bad and controversial policy plans to make him more palatable to a wider range of constituencies is a pretty good campaign, IMO.
Too many of the other candidates tried to pull support from Bernie, but those votes weren't budging.
Well thank you, you as well.
As for the bold, calling for people to drop at the start of the race isn't really the same as calling for it to happen at the midpoint, when one candidate is a million votes ahead of his rival. The situations are just different, and since calls to drop always happen at this point in the race, I don't think it makes sense to think this situation points to any perticular bias towards Bernie, even if you think others do.
To drop something in here, Bernie is a terrible debater too. Not in the way Trump is, but he sucks at it in his own way.
But he doesn't need to have one publicly to be prepared for Trump in September. I don't see the reason.
Assuming Trump even debates him... Further, assuming that anyone even gives a shit about debates.
It's an insurmountable lead now. Are you familiar with the next states to hold primaries? Do you see the polling? The demographics that are left and with which Biden does best? There is absolutely no realistic chance of this ending any other way and that's very, very clear from the data.
TheRockClapping.gif
Fuckin' bravo, every word of it.
McSally's sole claim to fame was "I flew fighter jets", which is why she's bombed outside of her House district (which, incidentally, flipped Democrat after she left it to unsuccessfully for Senate). Pretty weak compared to "I went to space".
I guess by the fact that he won, he also ran a great campaign. At the end of the day, it's the only metric that matters.
AZ is the one red state where trump might be a liability. I forgot about Utah, that is Mittens land
that website is using early unadjusted exits, because "this first published exit poll was subsequently adjusted towards conformity with the final computerized vote count". So it is intentionally inaccurate, because I guess adjusting exit polls is a conspiracy of some sort
btw, that USAID document he links to trashes the idea of using exit polls to verify election results
btw, that USAID document he links to trashes the idea of using exit polls to verify election results
The thing with that is that Trump himself can't use that attack. Every single budget his administration proposed had dramatic cuts to entitlements, administration Biden was in only expanded them.
I think he's a liability in Texas too. Not that it's going to flip, but he won it by far smaller margins than is normal for Republicans in 2016 (in fact he won Ohio by more), I see him damaging the downballot when up against Biden.
Yeah, this ended up just nuking so many campaigns. Pete's obnoxious aboutface in the middle of his campaign in approach/policy was based on the recognition that you had to go around Bernie to win.
I'm literally in one of those states and want my vote cast and voice heard. ;)
It's really not insurmountable. After this month, it could very well be. But this isn't a historic lead, far as I can tell.
And it may behoove us to see if Biden has weaknesses that are not yet realized. In Michigan, he did very well in all demographics I could see. There are some important states coming up, and if there's anything like Hillary 2016 Michigan -- i.e. some demographic that Biden does poorly in that wasn't clear prior to the vote -- we should know. If there's not, at the very least, I'll feel much better that he's consolidating that kind of support going into the general and winning hand over fist.
I know the situations are different, sure. But I don't see how staying in sows division when the delegate lead isn't enormous. It's 50 - 60 more than Obama had around this point, and about the size when he eventually one after all the states had voted. By the end of Tuesday, or by Georgia, we could see him ahead several hundred. And in that case, I 100% don't see a reason for Bernie to stay in.
But I do think -- and I copied you in this one so you can see more of my reasoning to the other user -- that probing for weaknesses and testing him on a 1:1 debate is a good thing.
Now you're just talking right over me when I'm telling you why I think there should be one. I'm not asking for you to agree with me.
Holy shit thank you for this post. It puts words to a lot of the feelings I've had as I've mostly avoided this thread since the Biden turnaround.
I'm confused. Are you somehow suggesting the media will be kind to Sanders? Lol
Nor did I say you had to...
Hey- Are you aware that this is a public forum? Where ideas and opinions are discussed?
Which is why it's a valid vector to come at Biden from. The only reason Sanders should still be in the race is to push policy. That's pushing policy while also not giving Trump any ammo. And it's a question that may well be on the minds of voters who can be persuaded not to sit out.
As a big Bernie fan, (Warren too, of course!) even I get this. Crazy that people aren't seeing this. I think it'll sink in, however - as a few posters have pointed out nicely.
That's the thing: we have ample data to cover most or all demographics at this point. Biden is so strong across so many there isn't any room for a weakness to be exposed or exploited. The remaining states aren't that different from the ones that have already voted.
Essentially, at this point the voters in the remaining states would have to be collectively, massively different than the voters who have gone before. And...well, they aren't.
Like I said, it's not that the deleget lead is ridiculously huge (though it is very meaningful), it's that there is no reason to think the voters in the next states will behave massively different than the voters in states that have already gone. They will behave similarly, and even if there is a variation, that variation would have to be gigantic.
If you follow the thread the OP was stating that Biden surged because of his spectacular SC debate performance.
- Status