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 March 19 2020 23:15 JimmiC wrote: Politicians who promoted policy that people who vote didn't care about wouldn't get elected. Which is why change is not occurring, people don't want it. They want the safety of what they know.
It sucks that Americans who vote don't want what progressives are offering. But that is the reality of what the cotes are saying.
I'd be very concerned about people who suggest they know better what the people want than them, it is unlikely that you are taking the time to understand their position and are going to come off terribly and more likely turn them off to your ideas than get them on board.
Given that in the vast majority of states if you aren't registered with a party you aren't allowed to vote in their primary, it's fair to say that what the voting base at large wants is entirely obfuscated.
For the record, 24/50 states have an open Democratic primary (though not a completely open one; in some you might need to be declared unaffiliated to cross lines). Quite a few opened this season that weren't in 2016, I think. It's far from the vast majority that have closed primaries.
And, honestly, I have never been able to come to a good conclusion on whether a primary should be open or closed. In the purest sense, it isn't to determine who Americans think should be the Democratic nominee-it's to determine who Democrats think should be the Democratic nominee. If we had more than two parties, I think you could make a good argument for closed primaries. That argument just falls apart in our era of voter disillusionment, plummeting party identification, people with no time or desire to update their affiliation, and near-schism in both parties.
On March 20 2020 00:20 ticklishmusic wrote: Well, Tulsi dropped out and endorsed Biden.
Alright, now I'm firmly convinced that in 2016 I fell through some wormhole into some weird alternative timeline.
I'm sure her seven supporters will really influence the remaining Biden vs. Sanders primaries. It's quite hilarious that "Tulsi Gabbard was one of the final three Democratic primary candidates" is a semantically accurate sentence. Devoid of all context, of course, but technically correct.
On March 19 2020 23:15 JimmiC wrote: Politicians who promoted policy that people who vote didn't care about wouldn't get elected. Which is why change is not occurring, people don't want it. They want the safety of what they know.
It sucks that Americans who vote don't want what progressives are offering. But that is the reality of what the cotes are saying.
I'd be very concerned about people who suggest they know better what the people want than them, it is unlikely that you are taking the time to understand their position and are going to come off terribly and more likely turn them off to your ideas than get them on board.
Given that in the vast majority of states if you aren't registered with a party you aren't allowed to vote in their primary, it's fair to say that what the voting base at large wants is entirely obfuscated.
For the record, 24/50 states have an open Democratic primary (though not a completely open one; in some you might need to be declared unaffiliated to cross lines). Quite a few opened this season that weren't in 2016, I think. It's far from the vast majority that have closed primaries.
And, honestly, I have never been able to come to a good conclusion on whether a primary should be open or closed. In the purest sense, it isn't to determine who Americans think should be the Democratic nominee-it's to determine who Democrats think should be the Democratic nominee. If we had more than two parties, I think you could make a good argument for closed primaries. That argument just falls apart in our era of voter disillusionment, plummeting party identification, people with no time or desire to update their affiliation, and near-schism in both parties.
I'm a little surprised Gabbard endorsed Biden. Wasn't she angry at the party for changing rules to prevent her from participating in the debates? And yet now she endorses the party's preferred candidate. I don't get it.
On March 20 2020 00:38 Sent. wrote: I'm a little surprised Gabbard endorsed Biden. Wasn't she angry at the party for changing rules to prevent her from participating in the debates? And yet now she endorses the party's preferred candidate. I don't get it.
The Carrot and/or the Stick.
The DNC has a lot of power, they can use that power against any of these former hopefuls. What are you going to do when Obama calls you and does something like threaten to end your career or promises you something that gives you a much better opportunity than you'd get any other way, most people cave clearly.
Gabbard seemed like she was pretty clearly in this for the attention. Given that she got quite a bit from some places, such as the Fox News interview cycles, she did get that. But now that the music has stopped, maybe she got a nice handout for falling in line with the party's wishes.
There's probably also some level of "I don't want to keep being a joke" for Gabbard. Because right now half (or more) of the attention she's receiving is people laughing at her for finishing behind three-four people who dropped out of the race in some of these contests.
On March 20 2020 00:38 Sent. wrote: I'm a little surprised Gabbard endorsed Biden. Wasn't she angry at the party for changing rules to prevent her from participating in the debates? And yet now she endorses the party's preferred candidate. I don't get it.
Her primary position is anti-interventionism, which there isn't much of a distinction between the two afaik. She's still dealing with a bunch of nonsense from the DNC for snubbing Clinton in 2016 and probably doesn't see it worth repeating for Biden, especially with the state of the primary.
On March 20 2020 01:54 TheTenthDoc wrote: There's probably also some level of "I don't want to keep being a joke" for Gabbard. Because right now half (or more) of the attention she's receiving is people laughing at her for finishing behind three-four people who dropped out of the race in some of these contests.
To be frank, I don't think she and/or the people she surrounded herself with really have any idea what the hell they're doing. Hanlon's Razor type situation.
On March 20 2020 03:12 Mohdoo wrote: It seems even Reddit has completely moved past the democratic primary. Pretty insane. It is as if it isn't even happening.
Not surprising considering the majority of redditors that are political and not republican are Sander supporters.
I totally dismissed a possible Biden revival after his support dropped 20% over a period of 2 weeks in Iowa and bombed the first three primaries. Who’s gonna flip over to him when Buttigieg and Klobuchar have more energy in the center lane?
Turns out, black moderates in SC and an improbable duo-dropout prior to Super Tuesday of his biggest spoilers (with Warren sticking in to deny Bernie at least two states he may have won).
Bernie’s last chance was on the 17th, Arizona-Florida-Illinois, and he couldn’t even win a single County in Florida. And this against a guy whose Illinois “online rally” felt like aides needed to remind him it was a live rally (and FFS cut the feed when your guy forgets why he’s in front of a camera).
I say his de facto rallying cry is 4 years of not-Trump.
Do you guys know if Biden, should he win, would be able to freely select his cabinet? Or would it be more likely that he had to "trade" some positions away for support.
How is this done gererally? Is this known? Or is it more like: "Great you won. You do what you want...hope you remember me."
On March 21 2020 01:54 Garbels wrote: Do you guys know if Biden, should he win, would be able to freely select his cabinet? Or would it be more likely that he had to "trade" some positions away for support.
How is this done gererally? Is this known? Or is it more like: "Great you won. You do what you want...hope you remember me."
I think it's standard to expect dealing of some sort, in the case of other moderates endorsing/dropping earlier than they wanted, or in the case of Warren the lack of an endorsement. In the end, we'll never really know unless they confirm it publicly.
In the end, if there's a quid pro quo, Biden has the leverage so he's making that choice anyway.
Jesus Christ what a fuggat. I pretty much lost all respect for him when he endorsed Biden. Did anyone find out who Elizabeth Warren endorsed in the end?
On March 20 2020 05:32 Danglars wrote: I totally dismissed a possible Biden revival after his support dropped 20% over a period of 2 weeks in Iowa and bombed the first three primaries. Who’s gonna flip over to him when Buttigieg and Klobuchar have more energy in the center lane?
Turns out, black moderates in SC and an improbable duo-dropout prior to Super Tuesday of his biggest spoilers (with Warren sticking in to deny Bernie at least two states he may have won).
Bernie’s last chance was on the 17th, Arizona-Florida-Illinois, and he couldn’t even win a single County in Florida. And this against a guy whose Illinois “online rally” felt like aides needed to remind him it was a live rally (and FFS cut the feed when your guy forgets why he’s in front of a camera).
I say his de facto rallying cry is 4 years of not-Trump.
This kind of video appeals to the elderly voters, they vote for those who are like them.
Old people and black people, seriously, are what fucked this up. People say blame the Democratic establishment - NO. Blame the blacks in South Carolina. Seriously, without black people, we'd probably have a much more competent candidate right now. But people are too politically correct to say it. So they'll say oh it's because young people didn't vote. NO, it's the fact that black people are too uneducated to follow politics other than oh this guy's the guy Obama likes so let's vote for him. If Trump gets another four years, the blame lies on those black people. I guess Biden is better than Bloomberg though, God imagine if that China licking loser became president:
Jesus Christ what a fuggat. I pretty much lost all respect for him when he endorsed Biden. Did anyone find out who Elizabeth Warren endorsed in the end?
User was temp banned for this post.
Why are you surprised that a moderate candidate endorsed a fellow moderate candidate? (Warren hasn't officially endorsed either Biden or Sanders yet.)
Jesus Christ what a fuggat. I pretty much lost all respect for him when he endorsed Biden. Did anyone find out who Elizabeth Warren endorsed in the end?
User was temp banned for this post.
Why are you surprised that a moderate candidate endorsed a fellow moderate candidate? (Warren hasn't officially endorsed either Biden or Sanders yet.)
That is an endorsement in itself, albeit a half-assed one imo.
On March 20 2020 05:32 Danglars wrote: I totally dismissed a possible Biden revival after his support dropped 20% over a period of 2 weeks in Iowa and bombed the first three primaries. Who’s gonna flip over to him when Buttigieg and Klobuchar have more energy in the center lane?
Turns out, black moderates in SC and an improbable duo-dropout prior to Super Tuesday of his biggest spoilers (with Warren sticking in to deny Bernie at least two states he may have won).
Bernie’s last chance was on the 17th, Arizona-Florida-Illinois, and he couldn’t even win a single County in Florida. And this against a guy whose Illinois “online rally” felt like aides needed to remind him it was a live rally (and FFS cut the feed when your guy forgets why he’s in front of a camera).
I say his de facto rallying cry is 4 years of not-Trump.
This kind of video appeals to the elderly voters, they vote for those who are like them.
Old people and black people, seriously, are what fucked this up. People say blame the Democratic establishment - NO. Blame the blacks in South Carolina. Seriously, without black people, we'd probably have a much more competent candidate right now. But people are too politically correct to say it. So they'll say oh it's because young people didn't vote. NO, it's the fact that black people are too uneducated to follow politics other than oh this guy's the guy Obama likes so let's vote for him. If Trump gets another four years, the blame lies on those black people. I guess Biden is better than Bloomberg though, God imagine if that China licking loser became president:
EPT
