He is so forgettable and non news worthy that there could have been a chance....
-
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 Primary |February OT| It Can't be Worse than Iowa, Right? (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
He is so forgettable and non news worthy that there could have been a chance....
Yeah. Guy was a complete snooze and I doubt most people would know or care about an endorsement from him.
It is because they want people's stereotype of social programs to apply to Bernie. Basically the goal is to have people feel he is an authoritarian figure.
It is absolutely ridiculous, but on the other hand a great way of getting ready for all the weird attacks Fox et al are gonna put out during the General
It's funny because I honestly can't recall anyone in the Twittersphere calling him "Mister Vice President" in an affectionate way like people do with calling Hillary Clinton "Madame President"
Who?
I don't know how I made it through this whole video. These people at CNN feel no shame. Can't wait until this story dies like all the others they've tried against Bernie.
I like Warren. She has great ideas and would be a good pick if Sanders didn't get the nod. And she seems to care. Outside of the Super PAC thing she hasn't had any major snags either.
that's because Hillary picked Warren
Warren is playing the long game for the Super Delegates to hand it over to her at the convention
There are 775 Super delegates. And from the way things look now she might not get more than a few hundred pledged delegates.
Every bit of this post is nonsense.
1. Hillary hasn't backed any candidate. She has aggressively gone out of her way to endorse any candidate.
2. Warren is just doing what has been done in the past--ensuring she stays in so she can shape the platform.
3. Superdelegates only come into play on the second ballot. If someone is a stones throw after the first ballot, odds are they will win on the second ballot.
4. There's only ~800 Superdelegates, and someone needs ~2350 total delegates to secure a majority on the second ballot. Warren would realistically need ~1500 delegates by the Convention to even be considered by Super's.
This is hindering on some nutty conspiracy theory nonsense.
EDIT: Fixed numbers.
Last edited:
I feel as if on every new page, there should be a reminder that just because a candidate is not polling @15%, does not mean they will not net any delegates in Cali, since Cali awards more of their delegates via state senate maps than the state vote and you can indeed get delegates there regardless of the threshold for state.
I wish the NJ primary wasn't in June so I'd actually be able to see a concert at a rally, by then I don't think anyone will actually care :/
I agree with this if Warren drops out after Super Tuesday. If she stays in, that's a lot of cash to be dropping on a campaign that has no end goal that doesn't involve superdelegates and compromises between the progressive/moderate branches of the party.
1991 is only the total needed to secure a majority in the first ballot (where superdelegates don't get to vote, unless their votes won't make a difference).
If it goes to a second ballot and superdelegates are brought into the process, the total number of delegates needed for a majority will rise to around 2376 (we won't have an exact figure until the convention, because superdelegates can do inconvenient things like dying).
So if a candidate is ~400 delegates short of a majority on the first ballot they're likely to be even shorter on the second.
However, pledged delegates are only pledged on the first ballot. They can swap their support freely on subsequent ballots. That means it is theoretically possible for a candidate to go into the convention with a few hundred delegates and walk out as the nominee anyway. It's not a likely path for anyone, but the rules don't prevent it, and sillier things have happened at conventions (though not recently).
It's entirely possible Warren thinks if she can hang in through ST when we likely see Pete, Amy, Steyer, and maybe Bloomberg drop out, that she can be that unity candidate who gets a solid bump making her competitive. I don't see a situation where she enters the convention with a significant delegate disadvantage and still gets the nomination.
Tribalism and early modern scientific racism are not part of a common cause and i challenge you to find a critical race scholar who thinks so.
The details of how a specific group of people internalize ideology aren't that important on the structure of social power. That's a small part of how the material/ideological structure/superstructure is arranged
given that the three options seem to be build a new viable coalition, pander or lose i think the first option should be the obvious one.
Bloomberg dropping out lmao. Yeah he's throwing hundreds of millions away and then dropping out right before it actually has the chance to pay off.
Liz has no path after ST that doesn't involve being the compromise superdelegate pick between Bloomberg/Biden and Bernie.
Fixed my numbers and expanded my list. The realistic thing, is unless Warren can start running up the score in states she's unlikely to pass Sanders ever. What she can do though, is gather influence to shape the party platform for 2020. I imagine in her mind if she can't win, she can at least set Democrats up to win by having say in what the official platform ends up being.
His support is paper thin, and most likely he's not going to blow the doors off any state on ST. He is polling at best within the MoE of Sanders, and given some polls, would need to win states by 15-20%+ to surpass Sanders, and likely even Biden.
I am more certain now that the Castro comments hurt Bernie with moderates, who were already warming up to him. So frustrating that Bernie didn't back down.
How?
Biden gained +3, Bloomberg gained +3. Biden had a unquestionable great night for him. Bloomberg also had a great night compared to his first debate.
If anything, I'd say that is a normal result considering previously anytime a front runner has been attacked like that they've been squished. Bernie held his own, only down -1.
Bernie got laser focused by multiple candidates and he is still on the high 20s, I dont see this as a defeat
What does it say? It's coming up as unavailable for me.
What Bloomberg is doing is horrifying and exposes how rotten the party is to its core.
ever since the debate where everyone told me bloom was finished I've only become more worried about him
Superdelegates are simply high-ranking Democrats. Almost all of those people outside of elected officials (and some elected officials too) have "actual" jobs separate from their position in the party as, for example, Vice Chair is more of an BoD type role than a 9-5. So these superdelegates work as political advisors as their main way to earn a living, which is normal.
Most campaigns employ several superdelegates in one way or another. Hell, most of the people running are themselves superdelegates.
He's never going to win on votes, and if the party somehow gives him the nomination they're going to reap exactly what they're sowing.
No, assuming that's what's influenced the change it's the idea the Castro comments were bad (which is objectively red scare far right bullshit propaganda) and people buying it when Obama said the same shit and was held to no scrutiny from liberal commentators. It's an example of a blatantly bias liberal media pushing an agenda on the left most candidate that was a resort only the far right media engaged in when Obama said the same shit.
At the same time you have democrats being fucking friends and justifying Kissinger's evil when he had a far more monstrous body Count than Castro and did none of the good. Yet that shit isn't even mentioned.
Castro = pure evil
US foreign policy propaganda = good
Is the exact thought process that had 'liberal progressive' people justifying the coup and massacres in Bolivia. People should really smarten up about this stuff and stop acting like revolutions against fascist authoritarians are worse than anything the US has done because the US always back the fascists. Especially in the specific context of Bernie solely saying something positive about education policy when he's consistently decried the authoritarian elements of Castro's reign as being terrible.
Sanders +21 in CA (everyone except him below 15%) and +9 in Texas according to CNN.
That debate was really fucking good but its only one event. Bloomberg has ads running 24/7.
correct. Bloomberg is still a threat, but only so far as the DNC allows him to be (the leash is currently quite long)
I know some are not happy about Biden winning SC but understand this, he is actually a huge cock block to Bloomberg
Biden staying in the race robs Bloomberg of allot of older voters
this is why Biden is actually good for Bernie
without Biden, Bloomberg could walk away with Florida huge. But Biden sticking around divides the vote him preventing Bloomberg from easily taking Florida
Biden staying in the race robs Bloomberg of allot of older voters
this is why Biden is actually good for Bernie
without Biden, Bloomberg could walk away with Florida huge. But Biden sticking around divides the vote him preventing Bloomberg from easily taking Florida
Edit: sorry I misunderstood the polls I was looking at.
- Status