|
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value.
Rules:
- Don't post meaningless one-liners.
- Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate.
- Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand.
- Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm.
This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. |
On February 11 2020 11:04 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2020 23:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2020 22:41 LegalLord wrote:
I think I’d actually vote for Trump in that scenario. After 2016, I’m not really willing to humor a “lesser of two evils” false dichotomy anymore. Why is it a false dichotomy? I suppose you could vote for a third-party candidate or not vote at all, but in the sense of deciding on who actually has a chance of becoming president, there are exactly two options: Donald Trump or the Democratic candidate. One of them will necessarily become president next year. It's a false dichotomy in the sense that it's saying "your options are to vote for Trump, or for someone who you don't like but is better than Trump." The latter isn't true, because if said candidate is not really different on substance than Trump, you're really just propagating the message that it's ok to be terrible as long as you're marginally more favorable than the opposition. Not buying it. And I want to draw attention to this very poignant GH post: Show nested quote +On February 11 2020 08:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
Probably long term Trump is fucking over everyone. But short term, people are seeing improvements or little to no difference in their daily lives despite Democrats warnings that Trump would be the end of the world.
If you're someone relatively unaffected or even benefiting from Trump's reign, the idea that an absolutely corrupt democrat is still better than Trump is laughable. He's right. Purely selfishly, Trump's handouts to the well-to-do are a moderate boon for me, since I'm reasonably well-positioned to benefit economically from it. It's true that it's only a short-term benefit, and that in the long term we're all going to suffer from his reckless and self-serving policy. I'd rather him be ousted, because I know this relatively positive situation is just the calm before the storm. But since it is generally positive, I'm not really desperate to see him removed. If the candidate being sold is truly only marginally better, what's really being sold is the same old shtick in a marginally more palatable package. No thanks. On top of that, I would dispute that Buttman or Bloomberg in particular even qualify as "marginally better." If anything, they're worse.
Bloomberg seems like your kind of candidate. Why so down on him?
|
On February 11 2020 16:23 LegalLord wrote:
Yang, though he has an impressive base of virulent supporters, is ultimately a pretty shallow candidate. Besides “implement basic income” I haven’t seen any real substance to what he is selling. He is about where he belongs in the polls.
I think both can be true though, the early media coverage and debates were very unfair to him. The first debate especially was incredibly dismissive/disingenuous with the only question they asked him and then didn't let him speak after that.
|
On February 11 2020 23:51 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2020 16:23 LegalLord wrote:
Yang, though he has an impressive base of virulent supporters, is ultimately a pretty shallow candidate. Besides “implement basic income” I haven’t seen any real substance to what he is selling. He is about where he belongs in the polls. I think both can be true though, the early media coverage and debates were very unfair to him. The first debate especially was incredibly dismissive/disingenuous with the only question they asked him and then didn't let him speak after that.
Not an unreasonable complaint. A lot of campaigns get buried purely because the media never gives them the time of day and they lose due to lack of name recognition. And though I doubt Yang has anything more than a niche appeal, at least he did manage to cultivate a reasonable fanbase despite the obvious lack of opportunity for more.
|
|
|
Seemed like the answer was "not yet" regarding endorsements.
Bennet also dropped out just now.
|
On February 12 2020 10:37 LegalLord wrote:Seemed like the answer was "not yet" regarding endorsements. Bennet also dropped out just now.
Yet somehow Deval Patrick is still running lol. Big one will be whether Warren continues to drag out her run or hops out before super Nevada so she can endorse the "leading" candidate before Super Tuesday.
|
Canada8991 Posts
On February 12 2020 10:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 10:37 LegalLord wrote:Seemed like the answer was "not yet" regarding endorsements. Bennet also dropped out just now. Yet somehow Deval Patrick is still running lol. Big one will be whether Warren continues to drag out her run or hops out before super Nevada so she can endorse the "leading" candidate before Super Tuesday.
From her speech she's in it for the long run, at least until Nevada.
Gabbart and Tom Steyer could drop out, they have quite a few % point between them.
|
I'm sure she will keep trying until the money from donors just stops coming in. I don't see a path to victory for her, but no one really seems to drop out when they still have a solid ~10% of the votes at this early stage.
|
On February 12 2020 10:42 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 10:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 12 2020 10:37 LegalLord wrote:Seemed like the answer was "not yet" regarding endorsements. Bennet also dropped out just now. Yet somehow Deval Patrick is still running lol. Big one will be whether Warren continues to drag out her run or hops out before super Nevada so she can endorse the "leading" candidate before Super Tuesday. From her speech she's in it for the long run, at least until Nevada. Gabbart and Tom Steyer could drop out, they have quite a few % point between them.
Lol meant to say after Nevada but before Super Tuesday. This is going to be a tough week for Warren in the media so we'll see.
|
Canada8991 Posts
On February 12 2020 10:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 10:42 Nakajin wrote:On February 12 2020 10:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 12 2020 10:37 LegalLord wrote:Seemed like the answer was "not yet" regarding endorsements. Bennet also dropped out just now. Yet somehow Deval Patrick is still running lol. Big one will be whether Warren continues to drag out her run or hops out before super Nevada so she can endorse the "leading" candidate before Super Tuesday. From her speech she's in it for the long run, at least until Nevada. Gabbart and Tom Steyer could drop out, they have quite a few % point between them. Lol meant to say after Nevada but before Super Tuesday. This is going to be a tough week for Warren in the media so we'll see.
Ah then yes maybe. It's gonna be interesting to see if Klobuchar can pull out something in Nevada, having to organize so quickly.
|
On February 12 2020 10:58 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 10:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 12 2020 10:42 Nakajin wrote:On February 12 2020 10:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 12 2020 10:37 LegalLord wrote:Seemed like the answer was "not yet" regarding endorsements. Bennet also dropped out just now. Yet somehow Deval Patrick is still running lol. Big one will be whether Warren continues to drag out her run or hops out before super Nevada so she can endorse the "leading" candidate before Super Tuesday. From her speech she's in it for the long run, at least until Nevada. Gabbart and Tom Steyer could drop out, they have quite a few % point between them. Lol meant to say after Nevada but before Super Tuesday. This is going to be a tough week for Warren in the media so we'll see. Ah then yes maybe. It's gonna be interesting to see if Klobuchar can pull out something in Nevada, having to organize so quickly.
You have to have the unions in Nevada to make that happen and these are Vegas unions, so pretty much 0 chance she gets them. She's somewhat known for treating her workers poorly.
|
Canada8991 Posts
On February 12 2020 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 10:58 Nakajin wrote:On February 12 2020 10:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 12 2020 10:42 Nakajin wrote:On February 12 2020 10:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 12 2020 10:37 LegalLord wrote:Seemed like the answer was "not yet" regarding endorsements. Bennet also dropped out just now. Yet somehow Deval Patrick is still running lol. Big one will be whether Warren continues to drag out her run or hops out before super Nevada so she can endorse the "leading" candidate before Super Tuesday. From her speech she's in it for the long run, at least until Nevada. Gabbart and Tom Steyer could drop out, they have quite a few % point between them. Lol meant to say after Nevada but before Super Tuesday. This is going to be a tough week for Warren in the media so we'll see. Ah then yes maybe. It's gonna be interesting to see if Klobuchar can pull out something in Nevada, having to organize so quickly. You have to have the unions in Nevada to make that happen and these are Vegas unions, so pretty much 0 chance she gets them. She's somewhat known for treating her workers poorly.
Maybe if Bidden support crumbles during the week, the voter will have to turn to either her or Buttigieg, although they aren't especially strong among non-white as far as I know. I can't say I know the Nevada caucus reality tho.
|
I think you underestimate what winning for klob is. I don't think getting third again in nevada is that bad for her. That and if shes taking a significant amount of votes from pete it just means more for Bernie on super Tuesday.
|
On February 12 2020 11:26 Sermokala wrote:
I think you underestimate what winning for klob is. I don't think getting third again in nevada is that bad for her. That and if shes taking a significant amount of votes from pete it just means more for Bernie on super Tuesday.
Doesn't matter. Finishing a distant 2nd in delegates going into a contested convention is still going to result in complete chaos not nominating Bernie.
|
On February 12 2020 11:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 11:26 Sermokala wrote:
I think you underestimate what winning for klob is. I don't think getting third again in nevada is that bad for her. That and if shes taking a significant amount of votes from pete it just means more for Bernie on super Tuesday. Doesn't matter. Finishing a distant 2nd in delegates going into a contested convention is still going to result in complete chaos not nominating Bernie.
I think you're mad if the DNC is gona seriously entertain not going with bernie if he has the most amount of delegates. They may be in the tank against him but you don't do inter party shenanigans like that in the open and expect to have a better chance against trump then just living with what sanders does.
Not to mention Klob is going to have her exit strategy in the back of her mind and her senate seat will be in play if she screws bernie. There is nothing better in politics then a senate seat you bearly have to show up for to win.
|
Canada8991 Posts
On February 12 2020 11:26 Sermokala wrote:
I think you underestimate what winning for klob is. I don't think getting third again in nevada is that bad for her. That and if shes taking a significant amount of votes from pete it just means more for Bernie on super Tuesday.
Let's not rule out Biden in Nevada/South Carolina just yet, none of the other seems to have manage to garner any real none white support, it's still up the air what's gonna happen with there.
But obviously the bigger the field, the better it is for Bernie right now, if Biden can climb up a bit until ST and Klobuchar/Buttigieg stay relatively even he should have a very good ST especially with mister "Let me non-apologetically buy an election" nudging another points of % to his right.
|
On February 12 2020 11:42 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2020 11:26 Sermokala wrote:
I think you underestimate what winning for klob is. I don't think getting third again in nevada is that bad for her. That and if shes taking a significant amount of votes from pete it just means more for Bernie on super Tuesday. Let's not rule out Biden in Nevada/South Carolina just yet, none of the other seems to have manage to garner any real none white support, it's still up the air what's gonna happen with there. But obviously the bigger the field, the better it is for Bernie right now, if Biden can climb up a bit until ST and Klobuchar/Buttigieg stay relatively even he should have a very good ST especially with mister "Let me non-apologetically buy an election" nudging another points of % to his right.
It's amazing that with some luck Bloomberg, who you can't even vote for yet, will will buy his way for top contender vs Sanders for the nomination of the DNC.
|
Interesting evening. Cnn had a great show,its a horrible channel but the democratic primarys are always very well presented and a pleasure to watch. Maybe because its all about the democrats instead of bashing trump.
They had interesting pitch about the top 3. Bernie the progressive vs the moderates pete and kob. Combined the moderates have more support then sanders and if one of them drops out those votes will then probably go to the other moderate,making it still quiet difficult for bernie to become the candidate. I guess this mechanic could come into play near the end of the race.
Biden disapointing,i dont see how he can become candidate anymore but the first 2 states where not his traditional stronghold anyway so maybe he can still make a comeback with his "firewall" states,though it does seem unlikely to me.
Maybe warren can also be seen as a progressive to some extend,then 1 and 4 have about same amount as votes as the moderates at 2 and 3. Warren i found the most disapointing outcome and it seems unlikely she can win anymore.
Cnn also had a few exit polls of their own,one was quiet interesting. Asking people what they wanted from their candidate the most.
66% a candidate that can beat trump
33% a candidate that shares my vieuws
(give or take).
Next month most delegates are going to be divided,maybe then there will be a top 3. Buttigieg,sanders and kob?
Bloomberg as well,difficult to gauge because he hasnt competed yet. I do think bloomberg would be the strongest candidate against trump but why he waits so long?
|
Canada8991 Posts
On February 12 2020 12:04 pmh wrote:
Interesting evening. Cnn had a great show,its a horrible channel but the democratic primarys are always very well presented and a pleasure to watch. Maybe because its all about the democrats instead of bashing trump.
They had interesting pitch about the top 3. Bernie the progressive vs the moderates pete and kob. Combined the moderates have more support then sanders and if one of them drops out those votes will then probably go to the other moderate,making it still quiet difficult for bernie to become the candidate. I guess this mechanic could come into play near the end of the race.
Biden disapointing,i dont see how he can become candidate anymore but the first 2 states where not his traditional stronghold anyway so maybe he can still make a comeback with his "firewall" states,though it does seem unlikely to me.
Maybe warren can also be seen as a progressive to some extend,then 1 and 4 have about same amount as votes as the moderates at 2 and 3. Warren i found the most disapointing outcome and it seems unlikely she can win anymore.
Cnn also had a few exit polls of their own,one was quiet interesting. Asking people what they wanted from their candidate the most.
66% a candidate that can beat trump
33% a candidate that shares my vieuws
(give or take).
Next month most delegates are going to be divided,maybe then there will be a top 3. Buttigieg,sanders and kob?
Bloomberg as well,difficult to gauge because he hasnt competed yet. I do think bloomberg would be the strongest candidate against trump but why he waits so long?
Bloomberg didn't compete before super Tuesday because the early states weren't looking good for him and he didn't want to have any bad momentum, the first vote are in smaller state where candidates can do a lot of on the ground work, so a grassroots support is more important, and probably more importantly the states demographics aren't favorable to him compare to other democrats. It also gave him more time to spend his hundreds of millions of dollars in tv adds.
Most candidates want the most publicity possible by going to debates and get good results in the first states to garner momentum and national attention and make sure they keep the money from donor coming in. Most off them also have at least some respect for actual political debate. Bloomberg is one of the richest man in the world so he can just fund all the TV adds and paid staff in the world and try to keep interaction with the other candidates as low as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
