EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2154
| 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 | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23535 Posts
On March 01 2020 09:49 LegalLord wrote: Don't think that there was much doubt that Biden wins SC; at this point it's a matter of what the margin is and who's going to drop out after tonight. Expecting little to no clarity in that regard until Tuesday, though. Begs the question for why Warren (who has finished behind Pete and Bernie in every race) is staying in for Super Tuesday other than to try to undermine Bernie? | ||
|
Zooper31
United States5711 Posts
On March 01 2020 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote: Begs the question for why Warren (who has finished behind Pete and Bernie in every race) is staying in for Super Tuesday other than to try to undermine Bernie? Why is anyone not named Pete, Bloomberg or Biden even in the race still other than to do exactly that. They know by staying in the race they can prevent Bernie from getting the required number of delagates to clinch the nomination. Then they can just pick who they want to be the nominee. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
Who can continue depends on funding. Outside of trying to negotiate a seat in someone else's cabinet i don't see much value for candidates. Steyer's campaign never sold me as fully intending to win with it's whole thing about decrying money's influence in politics. Bloomberg is just a flat out wild card who seems content with funding himself. Klobuchar and Tulsi just don't have the funding their operations have to be pretty lean at this point, i would fully expect them to drop out soon. Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg and Biden should all have good amounts of cash on hand so reasons to drop out become thinner. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23535 Posts
On March 01 2020 10:07 Zooper31 wrote: Why is anyone not named Pete, Bloomberg or Biden even in the race still other than to do exactly that. They know by staying in the race they can prevent Bernie from getting the required number of delagates to clinch the nomination. Then they can just pick who they want to be the nominee. I think they knew/hoped this going into the race but I agree it is abundantly clear it is their intention now. Pete, Bloomberg, and Biden make sense since they openly oppose Bernie's policy and vision, Warren and her supporters aren't supposed to be acting in opposition to Bernie's agenda, just arguing that Warren would be better at executing it which hinges on first being able to win (which she hasn't/can't and might even lose her home state). If Warren supporters don't push her to avoid undermining her own agenda by continuing a valiant but losing campaign they are actively obstructing their own purported agenda imo. | ||
|
pmh
1381 Posts
Bloomberg might not even start competing they where speculating. Arguing that all bloomberg wants is to get rid of trump and that supporting biden might actually be his best chance to do so. (according to cnn). If warren drops out now then its sanders the one progressive versus a block of moderate candidates. I find it difficult to see sanders get the final victory in such a scenario though there will come a point when the field has to be thinned. I somehow also think that warren takes more votes from the other candidates then that she takes from sanders. She is the progressive choice for people who are progressive but for who sanders is to much left wing. Just by beeing present she makes the progressive choice seem a bit more reasonable and viable. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23535 Posts
On March 01 2020 10:54 pmh wrote: Cnn wants biden to win,that much is clear to me after seeing tonights show. It was all about how well biden did and how its now a 2 man race between biden and sanders (seems a bit early to call). The last one they want to win is sanders. Bloomberg might not even start competing they where speculating. Arguing that all bloomberg wants is to get rid of trump and that supporting biden might actually be his best chance to do so. (according to cnn). If warren drops out now then its sanders the one progressive versus a block of moderate candidates. I find it difficult to see sanders get the final victory in such a scenario though there will come a point when the field has to be thinned. I somehow also think that warren takes more votes from the other candidates then that she takes from sanders. She is the progressive choice for people who are progressive but for who sanders is to much left wing. Just by beeing present she makes the progressive choice seem a bit more reasonable and viable. The stop-Bernie strategy is dependent on Warren taking delegates Bernie would certainly get without her in the race and especially if she endorsed him. Same reason Biden wants Klobuchar in for a Super Tuesday she literally has no chance to win and may even lose her home state. She'd grant just as much if not more legitimacy to Bernie's idea campaigning for him as she would getting more 5th's | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23535 Posts
The issue I'm raising is which side of that Warren and her supporters are on. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On March 01 2020 10:54 pmh wrote: Cnn wants biden to win,that much is clear to me after seeing tonights show. It was all about how well biden did and how its now a 2 man race between biden and sanders (seems a bit early to call). To be fair, Biden outperformed his polling average in NC by something like 12 percentage points. Calling it anything but a good performance he desperately needed for a chance at a majority of delegates would be malpractice as journalists, I think. After this the chances of anyone getting a majority of pledged delegates but Bernie (more likely) and Biden (less likely) seem pretty small, and Bloomberg has never been aiming for that. We will see come Super Tuesday, though. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23535 Posts
On March 01 2020 11:41 JimmiC wrote: ... Is there some group effort by the "capitalist elite" to team up and stop Bernie, no. ... I know you don't accept class analysis as a viable framing, but your opinion on this will only increasingly conflict with what people see/experience daily, despite the discomfort it causes. I'll leave it at that. Steyer is out after finishing 3rd in SC. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Regarding a coordinated effort to nominate anyone but Bernie, I think it’s as obvious as can be that such a thing exists among the establishment. Do we really need to do what we did in 2016 and wait for direct evidence in writing rather than accept what’s obvious right now? You barely have to read between the lines to see that it’s happening. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
When asked, people don't name 2nd choice candidates that make sense if you only think about policy. Say if Biden dropped out the person to gain the most voters would be Sanders because among likely Biden supporters their most often second choice is Sanders. This time around 2nd choice is really all over the place which is why it's important for people to start to drop out before they get delegates. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23535 Posts
On March 01 2020 12:36 semantics wrote: Also I'd like to repeat this concept but a sizable amount of people don't choose candidates based on policy but on what they like about them, which often has nothing to do with policy. Especially when it comes to priamies. It tends to come down to perceptions. When asked, people don't name 2nd choice candidates that make sense if you only think about policy. Say if Biden dropped out the person to gain the most voters would be Sanders because among likely Biden supporters their most often second choice is Sanders. This time around 2nd choice is really all over the place which is why it's important for people to start to drop out before they get delegates. Agreed, I literally saw an interview of a voter in SC that was deciding between Biden and Sanders. A lot of Biden's support tonight was very specific to conditions in SC that don't apply anywhere else, and many specific to the south more generally. 538's latest projection put everyone but Bernie and Biden at less than 1% chance to win and only Bloomberg is added to the list of candidates with more than 1% chance to even get a plurality. projects.fivethirtyeight.com | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
1. It's significantly smaller than the 2016 one. If it were down to Biden vs Sanders alone by now, would Biden have been able to pull the same 74% vote that Hillary did? I suspect it'd be very hard to see that happening. 2. Feels like to a large extent, Biden campaigned in South Carolina at the expense of the Super Tuesday states. Whether that will have been a gambit that paid off or not, I don't know. But it definitely seems like Biden did the "live in South Carolina" approach in the same way that certain one-off candidates have done a "live in Iowa" approach to trying to bank the entire campaign on a single state. I suppose we won't need to wait all that long to see how it's all going to play out. The big day is only three days away. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4374 Posts
On March 01 2020 13:08 GreenHorizons wrote: Agreed, I literally saw an interview of a voter in SC that was deciding between Biden and Sanders. A lot of Biden's support tonight was very specific to conditions in SC that don't apply anywhere else, and many specific to the south more generally. 538's latest projection put everyone but Bernie and Biden at less than 1% chance to win and only Bloomberg is added to the list of candidates with more than 1% chance to even get a plurality. projects.fivethirtyeight.com 60% chance no-one nominated outright, yeouch! | ||
|
Chezinu
United States7458 Posts
President Donald Trump has shown to be one of the peaceful presidents in terms of war in decades despite many believing that he would start WW3 (1). The 2018 North Korea–United States Singapore Summit supported peace between North and South Korea (2). He even withdrew troops from Syria (3). Recently, the US signed a deal with the Taliban to bring peace to Afghanistan (4). This comes after President Barack Obama won the noble peace prize in 2009 (5). Of course, total peace is not an option for typical American president. Thus war was declared, the 2011 military intervention in Libya (1). Conspiracy Times The timing of the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Is it all just for peace? Or is it to go along with his phrase, "America First"? Does he really care about the Middle East or does he just care about Americans? This came soon after the first coronavirus case in Afghanistan was announced on Feb 23, 2020 (5). What if the plan was to save the American troops from obtaining the virus? Sources: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Treaty_on_Korean_Peninsula 3. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/us/politics/mark-esper-syria-kurds-turkey.html 4. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51692546 5. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2009/press-release/ 6. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/feb/26/coronavirus-in-a-war-zone-afghanistan-braces-for-outbreak-after-first-case This is a troll post. Can one troll in the US Politics Mega-thread and get away with it? Let's see. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12379 Posts
On March 01 2020 11:53 TheTenthDoc wrote: To be fair, Biden outperformed his polling average in NC by something like 12 percentage points. Calling it anything but a good performance he desperately needed for a chance at a majority of delegates would be malpractice as journalists, I think. After this the chances of anyone getting a majority of pledged delegates but Bernie (more likely) and Biden (less likely) seem pretty small, and Bloomberg has never been aiming for that. We will see come Super Tuesday, though. Imo both your response and pmh's point are true It was also likely that Biden would overperform his polls because there's underpolling of older african american voters in SC and that's a core constituency for Biden, but that's not really a caveat. | ||
| ||
