EPTYou can’t rely on my vote though alas, pesky lack of citizenship.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2074
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23849 Posts
You can’t rely on my vote though alas, pesky lack of citizenship. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On February 03 2020 21:01 Broetchenholer wrote: Plenty of good people on both sides. I don't know who this David Duke guy is and I will not say that it's bad he endorsed me. Some people's ability to repeatedly forget about all of that is quite something. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22722 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43797 Posts
On February 04 2020 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote: Looking forward to Biden losing tonight. Just wonder if it'll be bad enough for him to end up losing SC. Current polling has Sanders beating Biden by a few points in Iowa today, but within the margin of error. Even if Biden does lose Iowa (and even after he almost certainly loses New Hampshire), I think South Carolina is still a lock for him. In 2016, Hillary swept the entire southern United States, and those conservative states seem to (unsurprisingly) prefer more moderate, centrist candidates than true progressives. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15398 Posts
For Buttigieg, his whole "look at me I'm Christian, gay, young and I identify as Barrack Obama - vote for me" thing was hard to stomach. Painted himself as anti-establishment, took in dirty cash. Repeated inaccurate attacks on medicare for all and other progressive ideas. For Warren, she basically piggy-backed on Sanders' ideas, then painted a "but isn't it great that I'm a woman AND progressive? XD" image that wasn't comfortable for me. It was too blatant, too shameless and never felt genuine. I always had faith she'd at least somewhat follow through on her promises, but it wasn't until she did the whole "Bernie said a woman can't win" thing that it was lights out. After that, I realized everything people said about her was true. A true hack, trying to seize on a movement created by Bernie. And now, Bernie is about to take a fucking katana to both their campaigns. Trying to decide what food I will buy to celebrate tonight. Cheers from Oregon, Iowa! | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10600 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15398 Posts
On February 04 2020 01:42 Velr wrote: Didn't Sanders do better than the polls expected him to do the last time around? Did the polling improve or are we in for another (nice) surprise? Yes, and with the way caucuses hugely favor enthusiastic voters, Warren and Buttigieg tanking so much recently, the stars are totally aligned for the 14%/14% dream. Bernie could be the only one with Iowa delegates. The big problem for Pete and Warren is that they have no "market" right now. Why vote for Warren over Bernie? Bernie leading, even nationally with the whole "eLeCtAbLe??" thing shot in the head. Pete? Just a less honest Biden. Pete still going nowhere nationally. Supposedly "pragmatic" "centrists" don't see a reason to back a candidate who isn't actively winning. So why back Pete? Meanwhile Bernie has the entire left on lockdown. I firmly believe we are about to see Warren and Buttigieg become completely irrelevant in the next week. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11928 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15398 Posts
On February 04 2020 02:16 IgnE wrote: Didn’t Bernie win Iowa last year vs Hillary only to eventually lose? How important is Iowa, really? Iowa is important because CNN won't be able to say "other" won. They'll have to at least abbreviate Bernie's name somehow. And lots of indicators are showing Pete and Warren are both approaching a fizzle. Lots of people are too cautious to support a Bernie underdog but will eat the rich when he's winning. Pete and Warren are both pretending to be relevant in a way that is quickly approaching Klobuchar'esque. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On February 04 2020 01:35 Mohdoo wrote: For Warren, she basically piggy-backed on Sanders' ideas, then painted a "but isn't it great that I'm a woman AND progressive? XD" image that wasn't comfortable for me. It was too blatant, too shameless and never felt genuine. I always had faith she'd at least somewhat follow through on her promises, but it wasn't until she did the whole "Bernie said a woman can't win" thing that it was lights out. After that, I realized everything people said about her was true. A true hack, trying to seize on a movement created by Bernie. You can hate her response to the issue, but at its heart it is manufactured outrage from CNN and it sold extremely well so I'd expect more of it in the future. People need to be more aware of when stuff was said in relation to when it was reported in this country and how that impacts what they think of it. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On February 03 2020 19:45 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Legitimating Nazis? How, what, why? Anyway my opinion of the situation has changed drastically over this month, due to the coronavirus.Iron Ore was down $10 this weekend, we here in Australia and several countries have completely blocked incoming travel for Chinese nationals.This is huge for our tourism, education and property sectors. We're headed for a recession now for sure and the world is as well.Not doomongering here but big economic turmoil is on the way if this virus does not die down soon.Good for Bernie, bad for Trump. Like, "good people on both sides", or accepting endorsements and donations from neo-nazi group leaders, feigning ignorance when asked about it ? Nothing big. As long as money is involved, he would even kiss Stalin. User was warned for this post | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On February 04 2020 02:16 IgnE wrote: Didn’t Bernie win Iowa last year vs Hillary only to eventually lose? How important is Iowa, really? A big difference between last year is that last year they could spin the story that Hillary had +200 delegates on Bernie even right after Iowa (which is only ~50 delegates) because of the super delegates. With the super delegates (mostly) gone this time around, the person actually winning the primaries will be ahead rather than the narrative being shaped by a large group of declared super delegates. So for all of Feb (after NH) even though Sander's insurgent campaign had secured more pledged delegates than Clinton, Clinton was stated as ahead in a commanding position and backing Bernie was backing a massive underdog. Which is not wrong given super delegates, but hypothetically if the narrative was more balanced (no superdelegates) then later primaries may have played out differently. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On February 04 2020 02:01 Mohdoo wrote: Yes, and with the way caucuses hugely favor enthusiastic voters, Warren and Buttigieg tanking so much recently, the stars are totally aligned for the 14%/14% dream. Bernie could be the only one with Iowa delegates. The big problem for Pete and Warren is that they have no "market" right now. Why vote for Warren over Bernie? Bernie leading, even nationally with the whole "eLeCtAbLe??" thing shot in the head. Pete? Just a less honest Biden. Pete still going nowhere nationally. Supposedly "pragmatic" "centrists" don't see a reason to back a candidate who isn't actively winning. So why back Pete? Meanwhile Bernie has the entire left on lockdown. I firmly believe we are about to see Warren and Buttigieg become completely irrelevant in the next week. Pete hasn't fallen below 15% in any polls, has been blitzing Iowa and is a big beneficiary of 2nd choices along with Warren, I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up with the most delegates at the end of the night due to Sanders piling up votes in the cities but doesn't have the same enthusiasm elsewhere. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1849 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15398 Posts
On February 04 2020 04:08 Broetchenholer wrote: You guys are too purist. From an outside perspective, Warren is in no way the moderate bitch this thread is decrying her to be. I get that sanders is better in your eyes and I hope he can achieve what you want and him to achieve, but it's kinda harsh how you treat one of your more genuine, diligent and effective allies. Good luck with your election. Going after Bernie as a supposed sexist told us everything we need to know about her values and integrity. Once those are gone, her supposed policy positions are meaningless. I'll still vote for her over Trump but I have no reason to pretend she is acceptable at this stage. | ||
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
| ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1849 Posts
 I definitely hope you guys finally move socially to the left and get more quality of life for your poorer population. And I would especially love to see grumpy grandpa on the international stage yelling at Putin! | ||
|
Kreuger
Sweden628 Posts
On February 04 2020 04:28 BigFan wrote: Can someone explain how Iowa is important? If it's too much to explain, maybe an article that explains which states are important and how they lead to deciding who the best candidate is. Dont have a article explaining in detail, but since 1996 every candidate that has won in Iowa has been the presidential candidate later on. So I guess its a mix of momentum and some superstition :p article: https://people.howstuffworks.com/iowa-caucus.htm | ||
| ||
