• 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.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oct 26, 2017
6,881
All of those people should drop out, and if Kamala is doing that terribly $$$-wise, she should too. It's too bad because I think she is a good candidate who just didn't have the overall campaign management needed.

I honestly I think everyone not named Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Buttigieg will be gone after Iowa. The field will naturally clear out by then. And after NH and SC, it'll probably knock out Booty and Sanders and we'll be down to a two person race going into super Tuesday.
 

ValiantChaos

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
1,112
And umm unlike her, he didn't qualify for the next debate and was actually polling 0% in some of the early states.

I always enjoy PoliEra comparing Kamala to the candidate bottom feeders when there are 3-4 other candidates that should quit before her. She's still at 4-6% in a lot of polls. Not saying things look good for her, but comparing her to bottom feeders while not asking people like Castro, Booker, Klob, Bennet, Steyer, Yang, and pre-signal boosted Tulsi to drop out is annoying.

They all need to drop not just Harris.
 

Dahbomb

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,667
Sanders has good numbers in NH and NV so I don't see him dropping out that early.
 
Oct 26, 2017
6,881
They all need to drop not just Harris.

I'm just not a big fan of "everyone but my favorite candidate should drop out".

Yes the debate stages are crowded and Democratic support is spread across a lot of candidates, but these people will naturally run out of money and drop out or become irrelevant. Harris, if she's doomed to fail, staying through Iowa isn't going to hurt Warren if that's what you guys are worried about. Also when candidates drop out due to natural causes then it's easier for the supporters to coalesce around the frontrunner. But constantly saying the candidate needs to pull the plug immediately just antagonizes their supporters and makes unification harder later on.
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
18,220
Beto should take Sinema's seat
Beto is DOA in purple or lean red states/district due to his change in stance on guns. I mean, I respect his position and support it, but nothing brings out pubs against someone more than flatly saying "I'm gonna take your guns". So I get why he was presidency or bust. Still, a shame he's not getting back into politics. He could've gone somewhere eventually.
 

thefro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,996
I honestly I think everyone not named Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Buttigieg will be gone after Iowa. The field will naturally clear out by then. And after NH and SC, it'll probably knock out Booty and Sanders and we'll be down to a two person race going into super Tuesday.

Need a few more people to drop out but there might be room for one other person to break out.
 

cameron

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
23,858


A growing number of Senate Republicans are ready to acknowledge that President Trump used U.S. military aid as leverage to force Ukraine to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his family as the president repeatedly denies a quid pro quo.
In this shift in strategy to defend Trump, these Republicans are insisting that the president's action was not illegal and does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense as the Democratic-led House moves forward with the open phase of its probe.
But the shift among Senate Republicans could complicate the message coming from Trump as he furiously fights the claim that he had withheld U.S. aid from Ukraine to pressure it to dig up dirt on a political rival, even as an increasing number of Republicans wonder how long they can continue to argue that no quid pro quo was at play in the matter.
The pivot was the main topic during a private Senate GOP lunch on Wednesday, according to multiple people familiar with the session who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the meeting. Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) argued that there may have been a quid pro quo but said that the U.S. government often attaches conditions to foreign aid and that nothing was amiss in Trump's doing so in the case of aid to Ukraine, these individuals said.
Inside the lunch, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who ran against Trump in 2016, said a quid pro quo is not illegal unless there is "corrupt intent" and echoed Kennedy's argument that such conditions are a tool of foreign policy.
"To me, this entire issue is gonna come down to, why did the president ask for an investigation," Kennedy, who worked as a lawyer, said in an interview. "To me, it all turns on intent, motive. ... Did the president have a culpable state of mind? … Based on the evidence that I see, that I've been allowed to see, the president does not have a culpable state of mind."
The discussion underscores the dilemma for congressional Republicans as a cadre of current and former Trump administration officials paint a consistent picture of a president wiling to use foreign policy to undercut a potential domestic political adversary. On Thursday, Trump appointee and longtime Republican aide-turned-National Security Council adviser Tim Morrison became the latest official to testify that nearly $400 million of congressionally appropriated military aid for Ukraine was frozen to increase pressure on President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Biden, a 2020 presidential contender.
And with the House Democrats voting Thursday to open the closed-door impeachment investigation, undermining the GOP's complaints about a secretive process, Republicans are frantically seeking a new strategy and talking points to defend the president.
 

Deleted member 2426

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,988
I honestly I think everyone not named Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Buttigieg will be gone after Iowa. The field will naturally clear out by then. And after NH and SC, it'll probably knock out Booty and Sanders and we'll be down to a two person race going into super Tuesday.

Bernie will win NH and Nevada (and California)

nz4Os0w.gif
 

NookSports

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,228


A growing number of Senate Republicans are ready to acknowledge that President Trump used U.S. military aid as leverage to force Ukraine to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his family as the president repeatedly denies a quid pro quo.
In this shift in strategy to defend Trump, these Republicans are insisting that the president's action was not illegal and does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense as the Democratic-led House moves forward with the open phase of its probe.
But the shift among Senate Republicans could complicate the message coming from Trump as he furiously fights the claim that he had withheld U.S. aid from Ukraine to pressure it to dig up dirt on a political rival, even as an increasing number of Republicans wonder how long they can continue to argue that no quid pro quo was at play in the matter.
The pivot was the main topic during a private Senate GOP lunch on Wednesday, according to multiple people familiar with the session who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the meeting. Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) argued that there may have been a quid pro quo but said that the U.S. government often attaches conditions to foreign aid and that nothing was amiss in Trump's doing so in the case of aid to Ukraine, these individuals said.
Inside the lunch, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who ran against Trump in 2016, said a quid pro quo is not illegal unless there is "corrupt intent" and echoed Kennedy's argument that such conditions are a tool of foreign policy.
"To me, this entire issue is gonna come down to, why did the president ask for an investigation," Kennedy, who worked as a lawyer, said in an interview. "To me, it all turns on intent, motive. ... Did the president have a culpable state of mind? … Based on the evidence that I see, that I've been allowed to see, the president does not have a culpable state of mind."
The discussion underscores the dilemma for congressional Republicans as a cadre of current and former Trump administration officials paint a consistent picture of a president wiling to use foreign policy to undercut a potential domestic political adversary. On Thursday, Trump appointee and longtime Republican aide-turned-National Security Council adviser Tim Morrison became the latest official to testify that nearly $400 million of congressionally appropriated military aid for Ukraine was frozen to increase pressure on President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Biden, a 2020 presidential contender.
And with the House Democrats voting Thursday to open the closed-door impeachment investigation, undermining the GOP's complaints about a secretive process, Republicans are frantically seeking a new strategy and talking points to defend the president.

My hot take was to be discouraged, but this is actually just a drip drip. Based on what we know, the position of "he did it, but it's ok" is not sustainable. Wonder if this is just how they abandon ship abs try to save face with the base
 

sangreal

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,890


A growing number of Senate Republicans are ready to acknowledge that President Trump used U.S. military aid as leverage to force Ukraine to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his family as the president repeatedly denies a quid pro quo.
In this shift in strategy to defend Trump, these Republicans are insisting that the president's action was not illegal and does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense as the Democratic-led House moves forward with the open phase of its probe.
But the shift among Senate Republicans could complicate the message coming from Trump as he furiously fights the claim that he had withheld U.S. aid from Ukraine to pressure it to dig up dirt on a political rival, even as an increasing number of Republicans wonder how long they can continue to argue that no quid pro quo was at play in the matter.
The pivot was the main topic during a private Senate GOP lunch on Wednesday, according to multiple people familiar with the session who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the meeting. Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) argued that there may have been a quid pro quo but said that the U.S. government often attaches conditions to foreign aid and that nothing was amiss in Trump's doing so in the case of aid to Ukraine, these individuals said.
Inside the lunch, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who ran against Trump in 2016, said a quid pro quo is not illegal unless there is "corrupt intent" and echoed Kennedy's argument that such conditions are a tool of foreign policy.
"To me, this entire issue is gonna come down to, why did the president ask for an investigation," Kennedy, who worked as a lawyer, said in an interview. "To me, it all turns on intent, motive. ... Did the president have a culpable state of mind? … Based on the evidence that I see, that I've been allowed to see, the president does not have a culpable state of mind."
The discussion underscores the dilemma for congressional Republicans as a cadre of current and former Trump administration officials paint a consistent picture of a president wiling to use foreign policy to undercut a potential domestic political adversary. On Thursday, Trump appointee and longtime Republican aide-turned-National Security Council adviser Tim Morrison became the latest official to testify that nearly $400 million of congressionally appropriated military aid for Ukraine was frozen to increase pressure on President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Biden, a 2020 presidential contender.
And with the House Democrats voting Thursday to open the closed-door impeachment investigation, undermining the GOP's complaints about a secretive process, Republicans are frantically seeking a new strategy and talking points to defend the president.


Accurate but garbage headline. This is just moving the goalposts from "he didn't do it" to "he did it but it doesn't matter (or was a good thing)". The White House basically adopted this stance day 1, when they released the transcript, so Senate Republicans are behind the times

Still, their continued inability to get on the same page (dare I say disarray?) is good for the politics of the investigation
 

Nocturnal

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,321
You think Yang will outlast Biden?

Yang will stay in until the convention since he is not really running to be president, this is a big publicity tour for him and his ideas. Biden is less likely to stay in until the convention like there is a chance he would drop out after Super Tuesday if he end up third to Sanders and Warren. Even bigger chance if he fails to win SC.
 

VectorPrime

Banned
Apr 4, 2018
11,781
Yang will stay in until the convention since he is not really running to be president, this is a big publicity tour for him and his ideas. Biden is less likely to stay in until the convention like there is a chance he would drop out after Super Tuesday if he end up third to Sanders and Warren. Even bigger chance if he fails to win SC.

Biden would have to start campaigning in Black face to lose SC.
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
18,220
Yang will stay in until the convention since he is not really running to be president, this is a big publicity tour for him and his ideas. Biden is less likely to stay in until the convention like there is a chance he would drop out after Super Tuesday if he end up third to Sanders and Warren. Even bigger chance if he fails to win SC.
So, you think Bernie is more likely to ride it out to the convention than Biden? Am I missing a sudden Bernie 10 point surge or something?
 

Nocturnal

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,321
So, you think Bernie is more likely to ride it out to the convention than Biden? Am I missing a sudden Bernie 10 point surge or something?

I though everyone here thinks Sanders has such a big ego he would ride it out regardless, interesting that you have a different take

Biden would have to start campaigning in Black face to lose SC.

There is a more than 0% chance Biden loses SC, in fact its a far greater number than 0
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
18,220
I though everyone here thinks Sanders has such a big ego he would ride it out regardless, interesting that you have a different take
I think the fact that Biden has a pretty decent chance of winning would put him as more likely to ride it out than someone who will probably only pick up a tiny fraction of states. I think it's highly likely that Bernie will ride it out to the end. I think it's more likely Biden does considering the margins.
There is a more than 0% chance Biden loses SC, in fact its a far greater number than 0
He's up by double digits there in every poll. There's not a 0% chance of anything, but really there's a better chance of Bernie not winning a single state.
 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,729
538 has it as one. Which is just ridiculous. But yeah.
Apparently they just took the "median race report" - i.e., the average rating among Cook, Sabato, etc. It's a tossup because the lady who runs Cook's Senate division is goofy and has CO at that rating. (She also had NJ as a tossup last year!) Sabato has it at Lean D, I think.
 

Nocturnal

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,321
I think the fact that Biden has a pretty decent chance of winning would put him as more likely to ride it out than someone who will probably only pick up a tiny fraction of states. I think it's highly likely that Bernie will ride it out to the end. I think it's more likely Biden does considering the margins.

Keep thinking that, you can quote me in a few months if I'm wrong but just look at cash-on-hand, small money donations, campaign staff, volunteer network, union endorsements and actual enthusiasm. As Biden has to spend time with big money donors to keep his campaign respectable, so instead of campaigning in Iowa, NH and NV he will have to go to the coasts.
Really expensive primaries like NY and CA roll around - how exactly is Biden going to compete? Unless everyone abandons Pete who has outraised him by a big amount over the last two quarters he doesn't stand a chance. His campaign needs big money donors to continue if this ends up being contested primary between him, Warren and Sanders.
 

MizerMan

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,196
I was a Republican once, when I was politically unengaged due to my upbringing. I'm now a diehard progressive stanning for Bernie or Warren (I prefer Warren but either would be fine by me). It's a stupid gatekeeping purity test that utterly means nothing. Biden may be a Democrat but he's no progressive and it's the stands you take now that truly matter.
A return to normalcy isn't it, chief.

It's pretty much a lame talking point and people who try to use it as some sort of an attack are equally lame.
 
Oct 26, 2017
6,881
Accurate but garbage headline. This is just moving the goalposts from "he didn't do it" to "he did it but it doesn't matter (or was a good thing)". The White House basically adopted this stance day 1, when they released the transcript, so Senate Republicans are behind the times

Still, their continued inability to get on the same page (dare I say disarray?) is good for the politics of the investigation

Exactly. This is the precise response the WH was looking from Senate Republicans on day 1 when they released the transcript. The typical *shrug* "So what?" Senate Republicans have been doing for two years.

It's going to be the Democrats job to show the severity of Trump's actions and put Republicans on the record that they're okay with future Presidents leveraging military aid/tax payer money to go after political opponents.

If Democrats allow Republicans to normalize this then there really is no hope for us and we're officially a Banana Republic.

EDIT: The upside, we can look forward to President Warren holding up disaster relief for Florida unless they dig up dirt on Rubio. Can't give disaster relief to corrupt/incompetent states. Right?
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
18,220
Keep thinking that, you can quote me in a few months if I'm wrong but just look at cash-on-hand, small money donations, campaign staff, volunteer network, union endorsements and actual enthusiasm. As Biden has to spend time with big money donors to keep his campaign respectable and really expensive primaries like NY and CA roll around - how exactly is Biden going to compete?
I think people highly overestimate the effect cash has on votes for people with near 100% name rec. But we'll see.
 

minato

Member
Oct 27, 2017
347
I though everyone here thinks Sanders has such a big ego he would ride it out regardless, interesting that you have a different take



There is a more than 0% chance Biden loses SC, in fact its a far greater number than 0
Yeah pretty much the only chance Biden had of losing SC in my option was Harris catching fire and that's not happening. Warren and Sanders (but less so for him unless he can do much better with people over 50) don't need to win but just be a close second and it won't matter much. Biden needs a blowout win or the narrative will be bad for him.
 

shiba5

I shed
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
15,865
Kevin McCarthy is one of the dumbest mofos in Congress.



63 million Americans put President Trump in office. Now 231 Washington Democrats are trying to reverse the results of the 2016 election.

It's a picture of that dumbass map of the U.S. that's nearly all red - because in Steveland, it's the land that votes.

Edit: ratio'd!
 

thefit

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,243
My hot take was to be discouraged, but this is actually just a drip drip. Based on what we know, the position of "he did it, but it's ok" is not sustainable. Wonder if this is just how they abandon ship abs try to save face with the base

They'll probably acknowledge that it was wrong but come up with an excuse to not remove him like because it's to close to an election and it would be a defacto concession of the election and we can't have that because the voters should decide. Or some bullshit like that.
 

Teggy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,892


A growing number of Senate Republicans are ready to acknowledge that President Trump used U.S. military aid as leverage to force Ukraine to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his family as the president repeatedly denies a quid pro quo.
In this shift in strategy to defend Trump, these Republicans are insisting that the president's action was not illegal and does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense as the Democratic-led House moves forward with the open phase of its probe.
But the shift among Senate Republicans could complicate the message coming from Trump as he furiously fights the claim that he had withheld U.S. aid from Ukraine to pressure it to dig up dirt on a political rival, even as an increasing number of Republicans wonder how long they can continue to argue that no quid pro quo was at play in the matter.
The pivot was the main topic during a private Senate GOP lunch on Wednesday, according to multiple people familiar with the session who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the meeting. Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) argued that there may have been a quid pro quo but said that the U.S. government often attaches conditions to foreign aid and that nothing was amiss in Trump's doing so in the case of aid to Ukraine, these individuals said.
Inside the lunch, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who ran against Trump in 2016, said a quid pro quo is not illegal unless there is "corrupt intent" and echoed Kennedy's argument that such conditions are a tool of foreign policy.
"To me, this entire issue is gonna come down to, why did the president ask for an investigation," Kennedy, who worked as a lawyer, said in an interview. "To me, it all turns on intent, motive. ... Did the president have a culpable state of mind? … Based on the evidence that I see, that I've been allowed to see, the president does not have a culpable state of mind."
The discussion underscores the dilemma for congressional Republicans as a cadre of current and former Trump administration officials paint a consistent picture of a president wiling to use foreign policy to undercut a potential domestic political adversary. On Thursday, Trump appointee and longtime Republican aide-turned-National Security Council adviser Tim Morrison became the latest official to testify that nearly $400 million of congressionally appropriated military aid for Ukraine was frozen to increase pressure on President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Biden, a 2020 presidential contender.
And with the House Democrats voting Thursday to open the closed-door impeachment investigation, undermining the GOP's complaints about a secretive process, Republicans are frantically seeking a new strategy and talking points to defend the president.


This sounds like "it's not illegal because trump didn't think it was illegal" which is bonkers
 

Ignatz Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,746
I can't believe I didn't think of this


*runs in, sweating* PHONY BETO-MANIA HAS BITTEN THE DUST
 
Status
Not open for further replies.