HE BURNED $47.5 MILLION OF HIS OWN MONEY TO GET IN THE DEBATES
-
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.
US PoliEra 2019 |OT8| WHITE HOUSE ADMITS TO QUID PRO QUO WITH UKRAINE
- Thread starter TheHunter
- Start date
- Status
HE BURNED $47.5 MILLION OF HIS OWN MONEY TO GET IN THE DEBATES
She really needs to get a better answer.
we all know what she means, but do reg voters ?
I care far too much about winning the General Election and subsequently making the needed reforms to be able to more effectively recover from the Trump era to ever want to see this scenario happen.
I don't understand the idea that Warren has anything to worry about from Buttigieg. To me, that's yet another "PoC voters. They exist???" take.
For all the shit I give Warren and her strategy to win Black voters, she has an infintely better chance than Buttigieg does. For all of Buttigieg's meager gains, he's still dead man walking to black voters. Until that changes, Warren is not threatened by him. At all.
This is offensive at this point.
For all the shit I give Warren and her strategy to win Black voters, she has an infintely better chance than Buttigieg does. For all of Buttigieg's meager gains, he's still dead man walking to black voters. Until that changes, Warren is not threatened by him. At all.
This is offensive at this point.
I'm seeing people say this and I don't get it.
Warren was obviously trying to get AOC's endorsement and has put herself side-by-side with AOC repeatedly. AOC will obviously endorse her if she's the nominee.
I really don't think the fact AOC endorsed Bernie in the primary will do anything to magically negate this talking point on the people it would impact in the first place.
The man is so privileged he doesn't understand how disgusting that is to regular voters.
Honestly? I don't think it does anything whatsoever. The only person's politics I considered when I thought about AOC (not) endorsing was AOC's.
She's playing a more inside game than the rest of the squad, she's from Mass, she's not a member of the DSA like Rashida or AOC are, she might want Warren's Senate seat should she become president.
I know people here and in the official thread dumped on Harris for her Twitter side quest.
I do think she dug in a little too much toward the end trying to get a commitment from Warren, but I agree overall with what Harris was saying. Previously, the only other time a President could speak directly to the American people without taking questions was during a national TV address where they had to request time from the major networks. Otherwise a President would have to take questions either in an interview or press conference, so there was some accountability and it restricted a President's ability to spread propaganda and taunts unfiltered. Allowing Trump to regularly violate Twitter's rules isn't "newsworthy". It's facilitating unchecked power and propaganda. It's not a trivial issue even though people are dismissing Harris as snipping over a non-issue.
I think it's just one of those things that sound better when they come from a frontrunner's mouth. When you're a second tier candidate, you'll get accused as being a try-hard even though it's a valid issue.
She's from Mass and would prob like Warrens vacant seat if she ends up winning is my guess
AOC is the special guest at the "I'm back bitches!" rally? I had 50 bucks on his cardiologist.
What? No we aren't saying Pete is an actual threat to actually win. That's the point
But he could win Iowa because Iowa is weird and he's demographically suited to that state more than elsewhere
The argument is that Warren not winning Iowa and then possibly New Hampshire; or only winning by a slim margin, significantly hurts her ability to go into South Carolina and win, or even eat into Biden's lead at all.
Warren does have far more ability to sway black voters in the south than Pete does; but Pete taking away enough of Warrens white voters in early states hurts her argument going south
Isn't it proportional? So if Warren comes in second in Iowa, she's still fine for NH amd NV?
And Buttigieg isn't going to somehow make inroads in the south, so isn't it still Warren's to lose?
No, to regular voters it looks like she's being dishonest or she has something to hide.
Exactly.
Any other day we're bemoaning Trump's ability to air hate, lies and threats on Twitter unchecked. We've had actual murderers cite Trump's tweets as inspiration.
Keep that same energy when Kamala calls it out.
I think you might be misunderstanding the talk of "Buttigieg wins Iowa" scenario here? At the very least, the way I interpreted that talk isn't at all the scenario you seem to be talking about here. In talking about the scenario where Buttigieg wins Iowa, we're not suggesting that Buttigieg somehow wins the candidacy altogether. I think most folks here are well aware that he has no shot of pulling that off, especially due to how toxic he has decided to be with POC voters.
The concern here, as I understand it, is that by Buttigieg winning Iowa, the subsequent series of Dem primaries will be thrown into chaos by the sudden curveball. Suddenly Warren doesn't have that decisive early win and Biden could still easily take South Carolina and the remainder of the primary sends the various bases of voters into a more divided stance and potentially give Trump a better shot at winning re-election in the general.
The Warren healthcare thing has always struck me as she is abundantly aware it''s a fox news video clip waiting to happen. "YES, YOUR TAXES WILL GO UP", the end. dooooooooooooooooom
It just comes off to the rest of us as obvious. There has to be a better way to answer that.
It just comes off to the rest of us as obvious. There has to be a better way to answer that.
Yea, I really don't understand the speculation/fear about Pete winning Iowa. Pretty much every poll has showed him in 4th or 3rd there and rarely being above or near 15%
Hmmm, maybe.
I still see him being too far behind the pack to make that much of a dent, though. Nate's argument only makes sense to me if Buttigieg suddenly surges.
A lot can change in 4 months. 15%-ish or so puts you in position for a late game surge. It may never happen but its plausible for someone like Pete.
True facts: Warren, Biden, Harris, Pete (hell, Beto, Booker, whoever).
Any one of them would be a better president than Trump.
It's still Biden's and Warren's to lose, but this abject fear that our favorite candidate isn't going to win decisively in every state is a bit much. If Pete does better than anticipated? So be it. At least we can work with that.
I know I'll be resting easy next November if Trump loses. To whom is totally secondary (some are better, some are worse, but all at least get us started in the right direction).
Any one of them would be a better president than Trump.
It's still Biden's and Warren's to lose, but this abject fear that our favorite candidate isn't going to win decisively in every state is a bit much. If Pete does better than anticipated? So be it. At least we can work with that.
I know I'll be resting easy next November if Trump loses. To whom is totally secondary (some are better, some are worse, but all at least get us started in the right direction).
Honestly, just lie. lol Just say no. M4A isn't happening anyway, so it's not like it matters. (That's not a "we can't do good things" but you literally have multiple senators who ran for president who are opposed to it, so ....) Just lie and say you won't raise taxes on the middle class. And then don't specify what middle class is. And then just circle back to your "costs will go down."
I mean I still think she's great and is the future of the party. This is a misfire but I'm not mad at it. Although it's funny how obsessed you seem to be though. It's cute.
Or just give up the ghost and pivot to sensible reforms that improve the wellbeing and financial security of millions that can actually pass Congress and become law.
So much effort spent chasing the M4A unicorn this campaign. All this energy to advance a losing message.
OP
OP
He's a threat in the white states; and can throw off the math a bit.
Unlike Warren, he doesn't do anything to outreach with the AA community so you are right there.
Damn, the twitterverse seems to believe Klobber and Booty won the night. I'll have what their having. I guess Klobber getting 3rd most time, plus her appearance on Maher, plus post debate time really is a last minute push. Hope it isn't enough for her to qualify for the next debate.
I have it on very good authority that Marianne Williamson and Tulsi Gabbard won the second debates. Social media told me.
Speaking of Gabbard, she might have done better to have boycotted this debate. No way she gets any support after tonight's performance right?
Also twitterverse thinks Warren handled the attacks poorly and no way she can stand up to Trump.
Let's see what the polls say before we decisively say that Amy Klobuchar won anything lol
I feel like her winning gets brought up every single time we have a debate and then nothing happens lol but we'll see I guess
I feel like her winning gets brought up every single time we have a debate and then nothing happens lol but we'll see I guess
Also, its bad politics for a House member to go against there State's Senator. Stuff like that tends to blowback and could very easily cost her her seat
Ya, but we can't do that cause it don't give folks the tingles. It's maddening when it's pretty clear that M4A isn't happening. It's just not. The other options have a far better chance, but let's keep chasing that Green Dream or Whatever.
Also, I think Klob was playing a VERY specific game--that was to get her numbers up in Iowa to qualify. That was her beginning middle and end. (I also think she'd take Veep from Biden, but lolololol.) So, in a sense, she gave herself some moments. The folks she has the potential to woo are not the left. It's rooted squarely at folks who are undecided or leaning Biden.
- Status