EPT2020 Democratic Nominees - Page 57
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32747 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45970 Posts
On March 04 2020 13:50 JimmiC wrote: If bloomberg drops out tommorow and supports Bernie would the world explode? That wouldn't really change much. Bloomberg got basically no votes or support. Even with his money, it did nothing; Warren dropping out and supporting Sanders would have been much more useful, considering people actually vote for her. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
Bernie has done very well with younger voters, even though younger voters haven't come out to vote which is expect in primaries. Younger voters are more likely mailed in their vote. I know california is going to be counting mail in votes for the new couple days and that total even with 100% precincts reporting can be constantly changing. Part of this is because california allows mail in voting on the day of. California overall encourages mail in voting, i'm not sure on all the other states on how they deal with mail in voting. I wonder how much that lead biden has will shrink when mail in votes get counted and the vote get certified. I don't expect Biden to lose any of his projected states but i would expect a lot of his super tuesday night leads to shrink. Bloomberg and Warren are oddities to me, warren's position may be to get delegates to be king maker and negotiate out a cabinet position but bloomberg i just don't know. I assume he'd endorse biden just to be anti sanders. Bloomberg got more than i hoped he would. Bloomberg really is a testament to money in politics because he seem to be getting more traction than Warren who actually ran a campaign instead of payed for a ton of advertisement. | ||
Nakajin
Canada8990 Posts
On March 04 2020 14:00 JimmiC wrote: I think it is actually pretty impressive how well Biden did when he spent no money in states like California. Bernie spent way way more then him and he still did pretty well. For some reason I thought biden would be spending similarly to Bernie or even more, not significantly less 7,000,000 to 4000 in cali. That is bonkers to me. https://apps.npr.org/liveblogs/20200303-super-tuesday/share/sanders-projected-to-win-california-134.html Biden didn't have a lot of money, he's in fact famous for being particularly bad at raising money/unwilling to go seek the support of those big donor (he has been known for this his whole career) what he's good at is getting endorsement and doing face to face politics. National coverage and name recognition helped a lot of course. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
Edit: and Minnesota. Biden would have lost all 3 states if Warren endorsed Bernie. She won't win a single state tonight. | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
Yeah but that's not a large-scale venture, that's just putting a blindfold over your eyes and walking off a cliff. | ||
|
Nakajin
Canada8990 Posts
If Warren doesn't drop out tomorrow she's an absolute ass | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
CorsairHero
Canada9491 Posts
| ||
|
Nakajin
Canada8990 Posts
On March 04 2020 14:42 JimmiC wrote: I did not know that, with all the talk about him being the face of the moderates, and the talk of the billionaire class winning if he won I had assumed he would be rolling in the big donors cash. As much as I loathe to say it, with how important money is in america elections part of the criteria for a VP pick should probably include fundraising. Trump is breaking records Biden will have to spend in the ball park to compete. But I guess this result means maybe he wont? Im still very surprised that he could do this well spending so much less than Bernie. Was he spending this much less in Iowa and Nevada as well? Or did the money dry up with those poor performances? Well I'd assume as he goes forward he naturally gonna have money coming in just by the fact that he's the clear front runner/ eventually the democratic nominee, but when it was still unclear how well he was gonna do compared to other moderate option he was apparently doing fairly bad money side. I can't say I really know about Iowa and Nevada, but obviously it cost way less to have adds in these state than it does in place like California and those huge states. Compare to Clinton who was in a similar situation four years ago he had way less money. (Clinton on the opposite apparently had a well oiled machine to get money) I remember hearing Hilary Clinton was the first presidential candidate who lost the presidential race despite having more money than her opponent. (Ross Perot excepted maybe, IDK) | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23982 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nakajin
Canada8990 Posts
On March 04 2020 14:57 JimmiC wrote: Nyt live estimates have it. Biden 646 Sanders 580 Bloomberg 130 Warren 103 Pete 27 Klob 7 If this holds and warren was to drop out and support bernie bloomberg would become the king maker, where as if bloomberg was to just name biden it would be over right. Fucking hell Bloomberg might get his ROI after all. What if it end up a complete tie and Tulsi Gabbard 1 nominee become the king maker? Bidden-Al Assad 2020 ticket anyone? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4955 Posts
There is certainly no "Revolution" using the youth nor does it appear that an old time Democrat like Biden excites people that have slowly drifted from the Democrat party. Biden did best among that sort, but he's not bringing them back. Think I posted an article in the other thread some months ago about how higher turnout in 2020 might not work to the D's advantage, and I think this is part of that puzzle. Pretty interesting. Neither premise that the two main candidates are running on seem to actually be true, at least so far. | ||
Falling
Canada11524 Posts
On March 04 2020 12:32 Stratos_speAr wrote: Yea Biden has a much more positive public image than Clinton did. People really, really hated Clinton. Biden looks more like an old fool. The sad thing is, even four years ago I though Biden was the best chance to take on Trump in either the Republican or Democrat field. He used to take these pie in the sky promises and say 'that's a bunch of malarky. Here's what you can actually do' and then other candidates would chime in 'Joe's right'. He was a great pragmatist and a 'tell it like it is' sort of guy. And because Trump is a bit of a BS artist, I thought that sort of no nonsense, call a spade a spade was the way to go. But he's looking lost on stage these days, and you need to be sharp or else Trump steamrolls you. Maybe he gets the sympathy vote if, during a debate, Trump mocks him for stuttering or something. | ||
| ||
