Now that Bloomberg is done (Elizabeth Warren DESTROYED him last night), who will win Dem primary?

When you have an incumbent president running, another aspect of the primary process that is worth noting, is the number of Republicans switching party affiliation for purposes of derailing the primary process. In small states such as Iowa and NH it doesn’t take that many to swing their state and ultimately the entire nomination due to the boost from early state voting , towards a less desirable candidate. Trump wants to run against Bernie, that is clear. Perhaps his popularity early in has been boosted a little to a lot by republicans subverting the will of the democrats.

That's horseshyt and you know it. No links anywhere.

kjhg wrote:

The Democrats advocate vivisecting 6- and 7-lb. human fetuses, even the infanticide of babies born with birth defects or born surviving botched abortions. Human vivisection.. infanticide... think for a moment or three. Yet it is Trump that you liken to a dictator. Shaking my head.

Oh?

Here's an except from the link immediately above:

Sliding Scale wrote:

But I will second running art, in that as much as I dislike Bernie Sanders (the only thing I think I agree with him on is climate policy), there is nothing the Republican party could do short of removing Trump from their ticket to get me not to vote Democrat in the coming election. It will be my first time voting Democrat for the executive.

"As president, Bernie will:

Transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to 100 percent energy efficiency and sustainable energy by 2030 at the latest."

You agree with this nonsense? Sucks to be you I guess.

rojo wrote:

8949842 wrote:

As a Native American, I will never vote for someone like Warren, who used my identity to advance her career.

A native-american posting from Belgium?

With anonymity you can be anyone and with Tor you can be posting from anywhere.

kjhg wrote:

oregrunner123 wrote:

That's horseshyt and you know it. No links anywhere.

Oh?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/02/05/ralph-northam-advocating-abortion-infanticide-worse-than-blackface-column/2776498002/https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/all-3-senate-dems-including-2020-hopefuls-vote-block-antihttps://www.nationalreview.com/corner/virginia-governor-defends-letting-infants-die/

Here's an except from the link immediately above:

The issue of late-term abortion is certainly not a made-up issue. There are more late-term abortions than gun homicides committed annually in the United States. And according to a 2013 study, conducted by professors at the University of California, San Francisco, “data suggest most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.” Just last month, BuzzFeed News profiled a healthy woman who aborted her healthy baby at 21 weeks, mere days before the child was old enough to survive outside the womb.

A 21 week old is not "mere days" away from being able to survive outside of the womb. It is weeks away from having a slim chance of survival with likely permanent organ damage after months of intensive medical care in the NICU.

kjhg wrote:

The Democrats advocate vivisecting 6- and 7-lb. human fetuses, even the infanticide of babies born with birth defects or born surviving botched abortions. Human vivisection.. infanticide... think for a moment or three. Yet it is Trump that you liken to a dictator. Shaking my head.

Or they could be advocating for the government to not be involved in patient-doctor decisions.

The easiest path to the presidency for most of these senators would be to become the vice-president of a crazy old man prone to heart trouble.

We'll see after Super Tuesday and probably know for sure after March 10th. Sanders has a huge lead in California and a decent lead in Texas. If he can maintain his position for another 3 weeks it might be enough to guarantee the nomination. My guess is Warren and Klobuchar will drop out after Super Tuesday. Warren will endorse Sanders. Biden, Buttigeg, and Bloomberg will stay in until the end.

DNC=DNF wrote:

As a Democrat, I was embarrassed last night to see that those buffoons are the best our party can muster. Really, that’s it?

They need a young attractive person like Barack Obama!

I'm still of the mindset that had the powers to be at the DNC done the right thing in 2016, Bernie Sanders would have been elected president. Instead, they gave their backing to Hillary because she would bring out the woman and minority vote and they were determined that alone would give her more electability.

I'm not a Republican. I'm not a Democrat. I look at it pretty objectively.

Original Bernie Bro wrote:

No DNC candidate may earn a delegate unless one is at least 15% in caucus or primary. In 1 1/2 weeks, Super Tuesday. Senator Sanders is over 28% in polls in CA. The nearest competitor in CA, Bloomberg is at 16% this morning. Wait for a week or so of California polls. Senator Sanders may win ALL 415 DELEGATES IN CALIFORNIA. If Senator Sanders win 100% of CA delegates, Senator Sanders will win Democrat nomination straight up. No need for a delegate fight in Milwaukee.

Would be pretty ironic if a kink in the the Democratic party system gave Sanders the nomination by accident.

Sounds like a very poorly designed system. So say somebody get 20%. Everyone else gets 14%, 14%, 14%, 14%, 14, 10%. and the 20% gets the nomination because they get 100% of Califonia's delegates?

Ripley wrote:

I'm tired of Bernie scapegoating the large corporations and billionaires. Yes, those companies have too much power but at the same time we are all happily talking on iphones and shopping with Amazon, etc. and a good portion of the country is employed by large companies.

Bernie acts like all these companies are the source of all our problems the way Trump thinks its Muslims, Mexicans and China. We can create better equity and still reward companies that provide lots of jobs and good products.

Great points. While I agree with Bernie that the cost of health care and education are out of control and think the little guy does need help, I don't hate capitalism. I'm a big fan of capitalism but also the little guy. If NFL stars need a union, I don't know why unions get ripped on all the time for the little guy.

But if you take away the profit motive, people aren't going to work very hard. I mean that's common sense.

MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:

swing state wrote:

I doubt it matters. None will beat Trump. Biden and Bloomberg have the best chances.

If the economy is strong, this is exactly right. No one beats Trump.

The Dems are as fractured as the Republicans (which is how a guy like Trump actually ran and won)

trump won because democrat voter turn out was lower than 2012 and 2008. only 56% of eligible voters cared enough to cast their vote in 2016.

trump also won because of the flawed electoral college system. its the only contest where you can still win an election and do not have the most votes.

hey when bernie starts advocating for nationalizing private enterprise let me know. he's nowhere near that.

Bernie is for a nordic style economy - capitalist to its core, but with higher taxes and a better safety net.

Don't let the bigmouths guide you on this.

And I'm not a fan of bernie - I think he is a near certain loser vs trump. but be fair to him

Bernie will win the primary. Whether or not he can beat Trump will depend on who he chooses for vice president, and a strong economy does not automatically mean things are great for lower/middle class Americans. The mid-terms showed us most of those Rust Belt states that Trump won in 2016 that put him in the White House are now very much back in play for Democrats again. I hate identity politics but in order for Bernie to win, he will need to appease those types of voters with his choice of running mate.

Questionable1 wrote:

trump also won because of the flawed electoral college system. its the only contest where you can still win an election and do not have the most votes.

Besides the Democratic Primary that Hillary won.

Direct abortion (as opposed to indirect abortion which occurs when, for example, a Fallopian tube is removed during an ectopic pregnancy to save one life, the mother's, when two would likely otherwise die) is the opposite of medicine and health care. It heals or cures no medical issue, yet destroys, willfully, an innocent human being. Further, I am reminded of the words of one Founding Father, who, even though he failed to abide with his own beliefs, highlighted the role of government:

and

It's funny how the babies/people are no longer innocent as soon as they are born into an impoverished household.

How can someone's worldview be:

-Abortion is murder of an innocent being

-That innocent being doesn't deserve health care as a birthright

-That innocent being doesn't deserve a fair education system as a birthright

-If that innocent being's life goes south (which is a statistical likelihood), we'll throw them in prison for petty crimes, and the cycle very well may restart again as we deny them contraception and/or continue to stop abortion

-The person that gave birth to the innocent being should have no agency over any of this.

It's funny that the people most adamant about abortion are often the ones who couldn't care less about helping others who are alive.