• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Democratic Presidential Primary |February OT| It Can't be Worse than Iowa, Right? (Discussion Guidelines in OP)

Who's Going to Win South Carolina?

  • Joe Biden

    Votes: 585 39.2%

  • Bernie Sanders

    Votes: 853 57.2%

  • Elizabeth Warren

    Votes: 24 1.6%

  • Pete Buttigieg

    Votes: 7 0.5%

  • THE KLOBBERER

    Votes: 16 1.1%

  • Tom Steyer

    Votes: 6 0.4%
  • Total voters
    1,491
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode
Tukarrs

Tukarrs

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,822
There's 8.5 left.

Andrew Yang
Michael Bennet
Tom Steyer
Deval Patrick
Tulsi Gabbard
Elizabeth Warren
Joe BIden
Amy Klobuchar
Pete Buttigieg
Michael Bloomberg
Bernie Sanders

How will Steyer folks vote in SC?

Schrodinger's Steyer.

 
PMS341

PMS341

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt-account
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
6,634
thoughthaver said:
on the upside, vermin supreme has pledged his bannermen to the sanders cause.
ZhCsgVml.jpg

our victory is undeniable. you cannot stop us.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

With open arms.
 

Ashane

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
343
Florida
Lead down to 3% and change. CNN is lagging way behind compared to other outlets.

Come on Bernie :XXX

/Edit/ Just jumped up again for Bernie.
 

Deleted member 31817

Nov 7, 2017
30,876
Steyer you dope you were supposed to eat Biden's votes in SC
 
julian

julian

Member
Oct 27, 2017
16,786
Poodlestrike said:
Hm. I seem to have touched a nerve here. Sorry 'bout that, y'all. That part of the post was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but clearly it rubbed some folks the wrong way.

Yeah, the thing about very online people is fair. I see a lot of 'em, so it colors my thinking, but I do get that there's not that many of 'em. I was just trying to comment on the fact that somehow, in their efforts to proselytize, they had the opposite effect. For me, at least.

And I'd agree about systematic changes, though we'd probably disagree on what exactly that means. That seems to be a real friction point, honestly. People want to solve the problems, but what exactly the solution is remains more contentious.

So, my thing with the major news outlets is that I'm sort of going in with the assumption they're going to suck? Like, I don't need to see what CNN is saying about Bernie to know that it's probably going to be dumb because almost everything CNN says about Democrats is going to be dumb. That's just their default mode of operation. out here talking heads like it's Wrestlemania. I don't even really watch them any more, so all I can really comment on is the stuff I am seeing, which is mostly coming from other people online.

-

And on that note... I've seen a lot of "surely the 'vote blue no matter who' people will vote for Bernie, right? clutches pearls for comic effect" type posts lately, and y'all get that the answer to that is mostly yes, right? Or it is here, anyway. The statement does apply to Bernie. Like, I can't speak for one hundred percent of other people who've encouraged people to vote for the nominee no matter who it is, and I can only respond to posts that I see, and I haven't seen much in the way of "if it's Bernie I'm out" type posts from privileged people, but I'd cheerfully yell at them just as hard as I yell at privileged Bernie or Busters. Not going around singling the Bernie folks out or applying an uneven standard here. He's not my first pick but I'll cheerfully call for him, knock on doors for him, and vote for him come November. Easy call.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You may not watch CNN or MSNBC, but millions of people do, especially older people who vote. Random people on the internet shouldn't typically be viewed as having more weight than people who get paid to spout their opinions 24/7. If people didn't listen to them, they wouldn't be getting paid.
And you may not have met these "never Bernie" types, but I absolutely have. And not on forums or on twitter, but in real life and I've had to have real conversations with them about how they could possibly prefer Trump over Bernie when they call themselves a Democrat. On the other hand, I've never met a Bernie or buster in real life. The beauty of anecdotes, as well as the beauty of social media.
This is why I get so frustrated with posters pushing this narrative. I'm witnessing people around me saying more and more how radical and crazy Bernie will be and he's going to bankrupt the country, but then I come on here and have people insisting it's only "Bernie or bust" types out there and to stop believing my eyes and ears.
 
jph139

jph139

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,379
Any source on Steyer dropping? Tweet was deleted and it'd be a pretty baffling choice - his campaign is more alive now than it ever has been.
 

Deleted member 862

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,646
dots said:
Yes, but losing literally half our voters isn't a good thing. Even if you add all of Warren's voters to his he is still far behind where he was. Some loss can be expected but this is big and meaningful and shouldn't be brushed aside. It is really pointing towards a contested convention rather than a winner.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Every other candidate got less than half of Clinton's votes. That's a bad night for them I guess.
 
eyeball_kid

eyeball_kid

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,236
Kthulhu said:
I disagree. If the fallacious idea of electability is your metric then Pete and Bloomberg are perfect candidates.

In my opinion Warren sealed her fate with the DNA test. If she was the nominee Trump would only have to get up at the White House press conference and say "Pocahontas" and the media wouldn't stop talking about it. Repeat every morning and Warren becomes Hillary 2.0 in November, winning the popular vote while losing the electoral college.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Nah, that's a tired argument. "Socialist" resonates a lot more as something scary for conservative voters.

And Pete? I don't know about electability but Pete would get absolutely destroyed by Trump. He couldn't even answer the one tough question he got in the last debate without stammering. And Bloomberg? I think he has zero electability, money or not.
 
Chaosblade

Chaosblade

Resettlement Advisor
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,596
Kind of baffling from Steyer. I mean he was never going to win but now seems like a really weird time since he was positioning himself in SC but didn't even wait for that state.
 
samoyed

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
As the campaigns drop out one by one the moderate vote will coalesce around the ones who remain and this is Bernie"s real test.
 
Fall Damage

Fall Damage

Member
Oct 31, 2017
2,059
I'm sorry to see Yang go so soon but given the results it's the right time. He did better than anyone expected for a no-name non politician (that isn't a billionaire self funding). He really struck me as a genuine person that was trying to improve our system. I have little doubt he will endorse Bernie who he voted for in 2016 and has been signaling towards even before the Iowa caucuses. He did things the right way.
 
Feep

Feep

Lead Designer, Iridium Studios
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
4,603
People in here seem to be pretty optimistic, but Bernie seems to be having a slightly worse showing than expected?
 
Josh5890

Josh5890

I'm Your Favorite Poster's Favorite Poster
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
23,229
Guys, I wouldn't worry about Pete "closing the gap". Look at the vote total. Sanders continues to slowly increase the gap. It is now ~6K a few moments ago it was ~5K. Bernie has had at least 3-4K of a vote lead on Pete for the last hour
 
Reader mode
Status
Not open for further replies.