EPTI really like Yang but... Its pretty pointless at this point.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2103
| 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 | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10806 Posts
I really like Yang but... Its pretty pointless at this point. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On February 11 2020 02:05 Velr wrote: Steier is still there. Yang is still there... Why focus Warren? I really like Yang but... Its pretty pointless at this point. Steyer and Yang dropping doesn't change anything. Warren is "semi-major" at this point, but that's still a clear loss. Getting 3rd place consistently isn't a path to the nomination. If she were to bend the knee and allow herself to be absorbed into Bernie's collective, it would help to wrap this up. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On February 11 2020 02:08 NewSunshine wrote: Her support, to my eye, is still more legitimate and substantial than Pete's. She doesn't have any inappropriate connections to apps/tools/etc. that happened to be used at the same time that they experienced a huge and unexplained boost in support, as far as I know. If legitimacy as a candidate related to legitimacy as a human being, 2016 would have gone differently in a variety of ways. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18838 Posts
 | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On February 11 2020 02:23 Mohdoo wrote: If legitimacy as a candidate related to legitimacy as a human being, 2016 would have gone differently in a variety of ways. That's true. But I would much sooner be upset with Pete's shenanigans in recent days, and the DNC's complicity in boosting him at Sanders's expense, labeling correct math "a matter of personal opinion". As a Sanders supporter, you want to convince them to support Bernie if it comes to that, not drive them away by attacking her, for not falling in line with Bernie sooner, especially when there's a much more obvious reason why he didn't come out the clear winner in Iowa. And it has nothing to do with her. On February 11 2020 02:33 farvacola wrote: The articles on NH polling coming out today seem to suggest that Sanders’ ground game is paying dividends, so here’s to hoping that’s true I sure hope so too. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On February 11 2020 02:07 Mohdoo wrote: Steyer and Yang dropping doesn't change anything. Warren is "semi-major" at this point, but that's still a clear loss. Getting 3rd place consistently isn't a path to the nomination. If she were to bend the knee and allow herself to be absorbed into Bernie's collective, it would help to wrap this up. Wouldn't Obama not have been president in 2008 with this logic though? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On February 11 2020 02:53 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: Wouldn't Obama not have been president in 2008 with this logic though? Obama won Iowa and then came in a close second in NH (got the same delegates as Clinton). | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On February 11 2020 02:55 Mohdoo wrote: Obama won Iowa and then came in a close second in NH (got the same delegates as Clinton). I didn't realize the race was that close from the start. I thought Obama had the miracle come behind victory over Hilary for some reason. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On February 11 2020 03:36 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: I didn't realize the race was that close from the start. I thought Obama had the miracle come behind victory over Hilary for some reason. Hillary won the popular vote in all the contests added up Obama won the delegates. Overall it was close with them trading which states they won. 2008 Democratic primary is not a good example for this primary something like the 2016 republian primary in which a front runner is more fluid between a few people and a more canadites at the start might be more anaglous either way there are still too many canadites | ||
|
Gorgonoth
United States468 Posts
My initial thoughts were he needed decisive victories early to give him enough bounce to weather the South Carolina and Super Tuesday Biden delegate haul and Iowa should of been won by a better margin. Iowa was more about Buttigeg doing well than Biden doing poorly from my perspective. Sanders needs to win New Hampshire with some breathing room. All the political models are factoring in for a big bounce in Nevada and South Carolina but its not backed by polling yet. Would love for some more Nevada polls. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12320 Posts
In terms of the overall race though Iowa was close to a decisive victory for Sanders, as the candidate who tied him wasn't his main opponent and still has trouble with national support after New Hampshire (that could change too, obviously). But yeah I'd like to see more polls as well for sure. Edit: lol I just had to fight with the edition of the newspaper I work at cause they wanted to say that Buttigieg was a favorite against Sanders in New Hampshire in their headline (and then admit in the text that he's the outsider obviously). I'm doing my part against the machine x) | ||
|
GettingIt
1656 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On February 11 2020 06:30 GettingIt wrote: Politics noob question here. Why does Bloomberg keep spending so much money on ads for his presidential campaign? He seems like such a long shot, does he really believe the spending will get people to take him as a serious candidate? Or is there something else going on here.... As far as I can tell, he thinks he can get somewhere. If I wanted to give him more credit, and I don't, I think he's purposely focusing his run on how awful Trump is, as a way of keeping everyone focused against him. But as I said, he probably just thinks he can do whatever for shits and giggles because he has alllll the money. I happen not to mind, because I know he's not going anywhere, but he's pumping out anti-Trump ads in the meantime. Not exactly a fractious strategy. | ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
On February 11 2020 06:30 GettingIt wrote: Politics noob question here. Why does Bloomberg keep spending so much money on ads for his presidential campaign? He seems like such a long shot, does he really believe the spending will get people to take him as a serious candidate? Or is there something else going on here.... Bloomberg has a couple things. A. Doesn't seem to like Trump - A few hundred million to get in Trumps head is probably worth it. He can already buy almost anything he wants in this world. It's a significant chunk of money, but when you start at 10 figures and end at 10 figures with the same leading digit, does the amount spent really matter? B. Would save billions compared to the campaign cost if he was elected compared to someone like Sanders. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On February 11 2020 06:57 Amui wrote: Bloomberg has a couple things. A. Doesn't seem to like Trump - A few hundred million to get in Trumps head is probably worth it. He can already buy almost anything he wants in this world. It's a significant chunk of money, but when you start at 10 figures and end at 10 figures with the same leading digit, does the amount spent really matter? B. Would save billions compared to the campaign cost if he was elected compared to someone like Sanders. It's also really relevant to note he's probably only spending his average daily income on the campaign, if that. He's not risking his dragon horde at all to do any of this, he just simply has *that much* money. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26018 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23459 Posts
On February 11 2020 06:30 GettingIt wrote: Politics noob question here. Why does Bloomberg keep spending so much money on ads for his presidential campaign? He seems like such a long shot, does he really believe the spending will get people to take him as a serious candidate? Or is there something else going on here.... As I explained he has a path to the nomination (probably more realistic than anyone other than Sanders at this point). Even without the nomination he's setting himself up as a top oligarch/power broker with more influence outside of New York. He's not spending it, he's investing it in influence. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
If you want to get really dark you can say he see how Trump outright enriched himself with the presidency and he's looking to do the same.; or maybe he's looking to protect the billionaire class form Sanders. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23459 Posts
On February 11 2020 09:08 semantics wrote: Bloomburg could also be angling to get a position in someone else's cabinet. Given he's avoided making out right enemies of anyone but Trump. That or this really is just fuck you money. If you want to get really dark you can say he see how Trump outright enriched himself with the presidency and he's looking to do the same. Why wouldn't he? The underlying justification for his wealth dictates that should he be in charge of the executive, both he and the country should profit. Black people may lose any remaining semblance of their 4th amendment again though like they did in NYC under his leadership. But hey, gotta stop Trump. Even if it means voting for a Republican oligarch that systemically deprived minorities of their constitutional rights and used his wealth to extend his leadership beyond what the law allowed. | ||
| ||
