Ciro wrote:
Racket wrote:
This makes absolutely no sense at all and is blatant fear mongering to get people to coerce to the party line. You should at least be honest like that other guy and admit that Bernie, like Trump, won't get 1% of their stupid sh!t policies passed by Congress.
It’s not fear monger in fat all.
No Democratic candidate would have implemented the Muslim travel ban.
No Democratic candidate would have ended DACA.
No Democratic candidate would have had so many associates in prison for corruption.
No Democratic candidate will replace Supreme Court judges with conservatives, tilting the balance for a generation.
Election have consequences and it seems four years wasn’t enough and many liberals will need to learn the lesson the very hard way. Or maybe none of the real issues I’ve mentioned and am genuinely passionate about impact you or your family or friends directly.
Sounds good
Yes I imagine it sounds very good if you’re conservative.
Yes, Ciro, both ways. I am affected by this hateful regime. My mother was an immigrant, growing up with schoolmates who all died when her school was bombed in nazi-occupied austria.
Every day I see the parallels.
agip wrote:
point is that the 2016 primary system produced the nominee supported by a majority of dems and who represented the largest ideologocal block of dems. it was a good match.
dems failed by not realizing how good a campaigner trump was and how much trump could activate hatred of HRC.
Isn't the point of a nominating contest to nominate the strongest general election candidate? If so I think the 2016 primary failed.
If the point is to have the candidate who represented the largest (by plurality? by majority?) block of primary participants, then again, that is the case every single time by definition. A block that is not cohesive is not a block.
single wing wrote:
agip wrote:
point is that the 2016 primary system produced the nominee supported by a majority of dems and who represented the largest ideologocal block of dems. it was a good match.
dems failed by not realizing how good a campaigner trump was and how much trump could activate hatred of HRC.
Isn't the point of a nominating contest to nominate the strongest general election candidate? If so I think the 2016 primary failed.
If the point is to have the candidate who represented the largest (by plurality? by majority?) block of primary participants, then again, that is the case every single time by definition. A block that is not cohesive is not a block.
you reject the concept that Amy, Joe and Pete are splitting the moderate lane, letting bernie win with just 1/4 of the vote? If Pete were the only moderate you don't think he would have won NH and IA?
Extend that out to the convention, with Bernie having the most delegates, but if you add the moderates together they far outnumber his.
You compeletely reject that as a valid complaint about this year's system?
If so, why?
kibitzer wrote:
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds
Amazing how many people either don't read or ignore the data and context that is important in their "Bernie or Bust" story:
A more important caveat, perhaps, is that other statistics suggest that this level of "defection" isn't all that out of the ordinary. Believing that all those Sanders voters somehow should have been expected to not vote for Trump may be to misunderstand how primary voters behave.
For example, Schaffner tells NPR that around 12 percent of Republican primary voters (including 34 percent of Ohio Gov. John Kasich voters and 11 percent of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio voters) ended up voting for Clinton. And according to one 2008 study, around 25 percent of Clinton primary voters in that election ended up voting for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the general. (In addition, the data showed 13 percent of McCain primary voters ended up voting for Obama, and 9 percent of Obama voters ended up voting for McCain — perhaps signaling something that swayed voters between primaries and the general election, or some amount of error in the data, or both.)
agip wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
None of that matters much right now. Iowa and New Hampshire are very white, very old, and not representative of Democrats as a whole.
Everything gets reshuffled on Super Tuesday anyway. I think anyone able to make it that far has a fighting chance.
So after Super Tuesday we will see where the Democratic electorate really is.
it sorta does matter...if you look at polls, SC and super tuesday states are being changed by IA and NH results. Namely, biden is going down the toilet. Or sorry, the outhouse since we are talking about confederate states.
JUST KIDDING Y'ALL! about the outhouses.
but seriously, many voters are trend followers and don't want to waste a vote on a biden if he is going downhill fast.
plus, donors are probably abandoning biden because he seems to be a lost cause. I mean winning in red states is not a great feature I think.
I think you are overstating the effect of IA and NH. 538 still gives Biden a 40% chance of winning South Carolina and a 20% chance of winning Nevada. Both have Bernie leading and Biden in second.
IA and NH do matter. But I still say that if a candidate is viable on Super Tuesday anything can happen. Voters are very fickle and they don't like another state to tell them who they can support.
kibitzer wrote:
Wouldn't it make sense for the Democrats to nominate someone who's *actually a Democrat* (which Bernie Sanders is not)?
???? Trump is not a republican. Wouldn't it make sense to ignore Trump and put an actual republican on the 2020 ballot?
agip wrote:
you reject the concept that Amy, Joe and Pete are splitting the moderate lane, letting bernie win with just 1/4 of the vote? If Pete were the only moderate you don't think he would have won NH and IA?
Extend that out to the convention, with Bernie having the most delegates, but if you add the moderates together they far outnumber his.
You compeletely reject that as a valid complaint about this year's system?
If so, why?
There are a bunch of candidates. The one who is doing the best job of getting the most votes is winning right now. Maybe that will change and somebody else will do a better job of getting the most votes in later contests..
The appeal of counterfactuals is that they can never be disproven. Maybe if there was only one moderate in the race they would run away with it. Maybe they wouldn't. Maybe if there was one really strong moderate they would also be running away with it. Maybe the moderates should have coordinated among themselves.
I think you were pretty sure Biden was going to sweep up the moderate lane and you had no problem with that earlier.
Warren calls on Barr to resign or be impeached.
That’s a platform plank I would agree with.
I'll make a prediction.
Biden will get a second look just like Amy Klobuchar got a second look in New Hampshire. He will surge again and end up with more delegates than Pete Buttigieg.
L L wrote:
This is the voting scheme I think the US should have:
Open primaries. No political parties. Done in rounds.
Entry- Anyone gets on a general ballot with certain qualifications.
Qualifications are: A certain amount of names on a petition. A minimum of 1% national polling on an accepted aggregated poll of polls. Submission of personal taxes and finances for public release.
Feb 2 - All states vote. The top 10 vote getters regardless of party move on.
Apr 2 - All states vote. The top 4 vote getters regardless of party move on.
June 2 - All states vote. The top 2 regardless of party go on the ballot for the November general election.
This pretty much ensures no extreme candidates. It even allows two candidates from the same party in the final or even a third party.
And it guarantees the winner gets at least 50% of the popular vote since only two people make the final.
It still allows for the minority winner to win the majority of the electoral votes.
And this system would mean that the incumbent could be eliminated anywhere in the process and not be on the ballot in the general election.
jesseriley wrote:
Warren calls on Barr to resign or be impeached.
That’s a platform plank I would agree with.
I agree. Warren is my candidate and I love her boldness. (although it is not a platform plank, as platform planks are about policies you will implement as you win, not political appointees from the other party you would not continue to employ).
agip wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Actually, it didn't work at all.
HRC lost and gave us the most dangerous and disgusting president in history.
point is that the 2016 primary system produced the nominee supported by a majority of dems and who represented the largest ideologocal block of dems. it was a good match.
dems failed by not realizing how good a campaigner trump was and how much trump could activate hatred of HRC.
You also need to acknowledge that HRC ran a very weak and passive campaign. She was complacent and in some cases cancelled her rallies in swing states assuming she was going to win. I attribute a lot of the loss to this.
jesseriley wrote:
Warren calls on Barr to resign or be impeached.
That’s a platform plank I would agree with.
Definitely agree. Impeaching Barr crossed my mind just this morning. But it's not going to happen.
What might happen is that the judge in Stone's case might call in witnesses from the DOJ to explain themselves. It would be so cool if she slapped a subpoena on Bob Barr and forced him to appear before the court. I think she totally has the power to do that.
single wing wrote:
jesseriley wrote:
Warren calls on Barr to resign or be impeached.
That’s a platform plank I would agree with.
I agree. Warren is my candidate and I love her boldness. (although it is not a platform plank, as platform planks are about policies you will implement as you win, not political appointees from the other party you would not continue to employ).
I think this explains some of Bernie's success... he's one of the few speaking aggressively about trump and his mob. People want trump out more than anything... any candidate who expects to win needs to start unleashing on trump and WH corruption.
agip wrote:
Extend that out to the convention, with Bernie having the most delegates, but if you add the moderates together they far outnumber his.
If this happens, then they cannot pick a nominee in the first round of voting. In the second round, superdelegates will weigh in, and most of them don't vote for Bernie. If the 2nd and 3rd place finishers are both moderates, they will probably form a coalition to defeat Bernie in the second round. So one of the moderates will get the nomination.
Fat hurts wrote:
I'll make a prediction.
Biden will get a second look just like Amy Klobuchar got a second look in New Hampshire. He will surge again and end up with more delegates than Pete Buttigieg.
In which state? Or do you mean in general? As it stands I think he's going to be a clear winner on super tuesday, but I don't think it's going to be a given he's going to take it all even then.
Trollminator wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I'll make a prediction.
Biden will get a second look just like Amy Klobuchar got a second look in New Hampshire. He will surge again and end up with more delegates than Pete Buttigieg.
In which state? Or do you mean in general? As it stands I think he's going to be a clear winner on super tuesday, but I don't think it's going to be a given he's going to take it all even then.
I mean in general. I believe that Biden will take more delegates to the convention than Buttigieg.