-
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)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
Currently listening to the debate, i think sanders could have done a better job against the "bernie bros" accusation and many other things!
Doesnt help that he doesnt insist enough to get time to talk when the other attacks him
I want him to win but he seriously needs to step up his game... All he does is repeat the same talking points (and yeah they should be hammered, but maybe right in the middle of a debate isn't the best moment i dunno)!
Hopefully he's already ready for trump with other talking point and ready to deflect his accusations if he wins the nomination
At least he's great in rallies and that's what made him win so many votes, but i'm affraid it won't be enough in the long run, we'll see!
Doesnt help that he doesnt insist enough to get time to talk when the other attacks him
I want him to win but he seriously needs to step up his game... All he does is repeat the same talking points (and yeah they should be hammered, but maybe right in the middle of a debate isn't the best moment i dunno)!
Hopefully he's already ready for trump with other talking point and ready to deflect his accusations if he wins the nomination
At least he's great in rallies and that's what made him win so many votes, but i'm affraid it won't be enough in the long run, we'll see!
Just donated to Liz. She's still the only politician I've ever donated to. She deserves it for taking Bloomberg down some notches. She did exactly as she needed to, demanding time and making great points. She's still the one I want to face Trump.
Sanders also probably did what he needed. He didn't light a fire but he didn't have major stumbles and he was covered from a lot of fire despite being front runner. I'm fine with him being the nominee should that happen.
Honestly I can kinda see why some uninformed would want Pete. He made a decent case. I don't like the guy much, but I can see why someone would want him over the old people here and the ones at the extreme ends of the political spectrum.
Kobuchar lost. She didn't make great points, sounded a bit angry at times and stumbled with some things.
Biden is a shell of his former self. He rambles and loses the point way too fucking much for comfort now. He had to try and inject himself a bunch and sounded kinda pathetic doing so at times. But he wasn't all bad.
Bloomberg got fucked and I'm so glad.
Sanders also probably did what he needed. He didn't light a fire but he didn't have major stumbles and he was covered from a lot of fire despite being front runner. I'm fine with him being the nominee should that happen.
Honestly I can kinda see why some uninformed would want Pete. He made a decent case. I don't like the guy much, but I can see why someone would want him over the old people here and the ones at the extreme ends of the political spectrum.
Kobuchar lost. She didn't make great points, sounded a bit angry at times and stumbled with some things.
Biden is a shell of his former self. He rambles and loses the point way too fucking much for comfort now. He had to try and inject himself a bunch and sounded kinda pathetic doing so at times. But he wasn't all bad.
Bloomberg got fucked and I'm so glad.
So for anyone who watched the Post Debate Coverage, were the pundits all I agreement that Bloomberg totally flopped? Because it seemed like that to me.
I think you're kind of forcing a 2020 perspective of Super Tuesday onto 1992 there.
March 3rd, 1992 was not Super Tuesday. It was the first date where multiple states voted, but it was still only 7 states. Clinton's victory in Georgia was indeed only a single state, but it was also the most important victory of the day - Georgia was the second-biggest state, he racked up 57% there, and the winner of the biggest state was Harkin, who wasn't a front-runner and who withdrew less than a week later. Clinton also picked up pretty strong second-place finishes in Colorado and Maryland.
He went on and added two more victories and two more second place finishes in the four contests that took place on March 7th and 8th, so overall, that was a pretty great week for Clinton.
The next Tuesday, March 10th, was the day that was referred to as Super Tuesday in 1992, with 10 states voting and Clinton winning seven of them (and in several states, winning with totals well above sixty percent). You can see that contemporary news articles refer to March 10th as Super Tuesday, not March 3rd.
Clinton's performance on the day you're talking about doesn't look like it's possible for Warren to match in 2020. March 3rd of this year has 15 states voting, not 7. On March 3rd, 1992, those seven states were split between four separate people. The 2020 equivalent would be if Warren won two (of the bigger states) and finished second in another four or five, with the other states being split between Sanders, Biden and Bloomberg.
I like Warren, but there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that her position in 2020 is at all comparable to Clinton's position in 1992. If you disagree, then where do you think those Warren wins and second places are going to come from?
Last edited:
OP
OP
Warren still has time to recover - though I'd agree that before last night it looked unlikely. Hell, it still looks unlikely, but the race can turn on a dime. What she'd rely on here is Pete and Amy collapsing and their support going to her. That probably means doing at least a strong third in NV (probably too late for anything better than that) and then moving to SC and outperforming expectations there in some way. After that, a lot of ST states start looking... maybe not up for grabs but at least possible for close second place finishes. She'd need to be getting second in states won by different lanes of the party, though.
Still for Bernie but see Warren's performance there as a win for potentially taking votes from Bloomberg, Biden, Klobuchar and Buttigieg.
From the sound of it last night was really rough for Doomberg so now I need to see how it affects polls before ST. Feels like there was a lot of realignment going in to NH after that debate so hoping to see that again.
Haha. Yeah, I don't want him to get the nomination, but it'd be funny to see him just flex on Trump. He could just recite this P. Diddy verse:
"I can live your life and my life at the same damn time." 😭
It's insane that some people are so rich that they can make other billionaires/millionaires look like poor. Like he could buy everything Trump owns and shut it down just out of spite lol. Dude is spending some folks entire net worth on a campaign that will fail.
It's still possible that warren can thread the needle and still lose to Sanders in delegates but go on to be given the nom at a contested convention, thus causing me for not vote for her both in the primary and in the general
Yeah. I would be happy to see her rise. If it was a battle between Sanders and Warren then I would rest easier at night for sure.
In the debate Buttigieg comes off as such a weasel. I know he's saying what moderates like to hear and it's hard for me to take him seriously.
You already weren't going to vote for her so whats the loss for her exactly?
You won't vote for a solid candidate out of spite?
(That said, there won't be a contested convention. People talk about it every election but it never happens in the modern era. )
So agree with this. Would be much better than the childish bickering these debates are so full of. This isn't just an American thing either, it's so difficult to get politicians to actually talk about the things that matter let alone have them articulate their position.
It's a good idea, we do this in the UK.
The last election there was a special on climate change and the two parties that didn't turn up were replaced with a block of ice that slowly melted.
Heyyyyy, back from my ban! Fuck Bloomberg!
And if you're still among the - checks thread poll - 39 people who're voting for Bloomberg after this, you're a chump. I mean, you already were before the debate, but now you really have no excuse except "I'm a closet Republican" and/or "I hate minorities".
Glad to hear Warren leveraged her skill in corporate-ethering. While I was always a Sanders supporter first, and Warren's campaign lately has had me give her the side-eye more and more, she's still unmatched when it comes to destroying corporate America and banks.
[EDIT] That said, if I understand correctly, everyone but Bernie is going for the "popular vote don't count" angle, and preparing for a contested convention, it seems. Bunch of children. They'll lead their party and this election to ruin.
And if you're still among the - checks thread poll - 39 people who're voting for Bloomberg after this, you're a chump. I mean, you already were before the debate, but now you really have no excuse except "I'm a closet Republican" and/or "I hate minorities".
Glad to hear Warren leveraged her skill in corporate-ethering. While I was always a Sanders supporter first, and Warren's campaign lately has had me give her the side-eye more and more, she's still unmatched when it comes to destroying corporate America and banks.
[EDIT] That said, if I understand correctly, everyone but Bernie is going for the "popular vote don't count" angle, and preparing for a contested convention, it seems. Bunch of children. They'll lead their party and this election to ruin.
Last edited:
Welcome back! Just a few more days until we know by how much Sanders will win Nevada.
In the outrageously impossible scenario that she got a pledged delegate plurality while running a good, issue-focused campaign, yes! I would have delighted in voting for her in the general.
Unfortunately her answer today about choosing to ambiguously support the horseshit nominating practices of the DNC's second ballot (followed by further doubling down) indicate that she's mostly interested in getting to the convention in a state that allows her to be anointed the nomination, even in the absence of the popular vote.
So in that case, no I won't be voting for her in a general. The Democratic Party will have chosen to spurn a popular left movement In that scenario, and it can become the absolutely illegitimate institution it deserves to be.
Honestly still reeling over Pete and his shitbird attacks, while offering nothing but platitudes when it's time to explain what the plan is. It doesn't help that I'm seeing a fucking advertisement at the bottom of the page featuring him.
Anyway, I thought Liz came out of this incredibly strong. People are going to use their usual misogynistic attacks to demonize her for standing up to the men on stage, but she was assertive. This is the sort of attitude we should want when it comes to dealing with billionaire and corporate interests. Say what you will about her willingness to compromise some of her plans before they even reach the negotiating table, there's no doubt over where her ire is directed. If I can vote for her or Sanders in the general, I'll be happy.
Also fuck Bloomberg for trying to equate his own wealth hoarding to Bernie's book deal money and his wife using an inherited property to fund a mortgage on his third home. The first two are required for him to have, as a congressman. You don't wind up a billionaire without massively exploiting a lot of people. Bernie wasn't even worth a million until his book, and last time around the opposition tried to say that made him unqualified to discuss what we should do with money. Which is it?
Anyway, I thought Liz came out of this incredibly strong. People are going to use their usual misogynistic attacks to demonize her for standing up to the men on stage, but she was assertive. This is the sort of attitude we should want when it comes to dealing with billionaire and corporate interests. Say what you will about her willingness to compromise some of her plans before they even reach the negotiating table, there's no doubt over where her ire is directed. If I can vote for her or Sanders in the general, I'll be happy.
Also fuck Bloomberg for trying to equate his own wealth hoarding to Bernie's book deal money and his wife using an inherited property to fund a mortgage on his third home. The first two are required for him to have, as a congressman. You don't wind up a billionaire without massively exploiting a lot of people. Bernie wasn't even worth a million until his book, and last time around the opposition tried to say that made him unqualified to discuss what we should do with money. Which is it?
[
It's insane that a leftist poster would Not vote for Warren in the ge because he says she might do what Bernie try to do in 2016.
people need to get out of their my guy or nothing mindset or we're all fucked. How can people be so selfish and small minded.
It's insane that a leftist poster would Not vote for Warren in the ge because he says she might do what Bernie try to do in 2016.
people need to get out of their my guy or nothing mindset or we're all fucked. How can people be so selfish and small minded.
This isn't it, Liz. You know very well that denying the person with a plurality of delegates the nomination would cripple the party for at least two cycles and it'd be as good as handing the election to Trump.
Bernie has the most diverse coalition in this primary race. If that's not reaching out to all Democrats, I don't know what is.
This is very true. Debates still have a strict "no touching" policy.
Sure, but Pete messed up by going way too hard on a woman who's polling in like 5th or 6th.
Exactly. I canvassed for her in Iowa, but I understand the reality of the situation. Right now Bernie has the strongest coalition. Even so, I don't think party officials would deny a candidate with a strong plurality, because they know that would be devastating.
That depends on if you think their first loyalty is to the party or to their class interests - and the absolute unremitting hostility to leftist candidates is suggestive, there.
The whole 'majority doesn't matter' outsider shit started with Bernie and you can't be mad the other candidates are taking that mantle because honestly it was a successful tactic in the long term. It did't get him the nom, but it energized his base and has them believing the game is forever rigged against them.
Can't be mad at people using those same tactics because you're on the other side of them now. Divisiveness and 'the system is out to get me' is the name of the game, look at Trump, can't put that pandora's box back in.
It was always going to be a shitshow at the conventiom.
Can't be mad at people using those same tactics because you're on the other side of them now. Divisiveness and 'the system is out to get me' is the name of the game, look at Trump, can't put that pandora's box back in.
It was always going to be a shitshow at the conventiom.
Yeah, I understand the skepticism. Fingers crossed we don't have to deal with the situation either way.
The candidate with the most delegates will be the nominee. If he or she doesn't have the votes to get over the line they'll negotiate with another pool of delegates to get there. Might mean a VP slot, policy concessions, whatever.
Anything else will cause a loss to Trump and probably tear the party apart and cause a third party to form in the next election cycle that splits the current Democratic vote.
Anything else will cause a loss to Trump and probably tear the party apart and cause a third party to form in the next election cycle that splits the current Democratic vote.
If Bernie fails to meet the threshold even with a plurality:
the solution could be that Bernie accepts the establishment's choice for a Running Mate
If Bernie refuses their choice for a running mate, then it's fair game to contest him
the solution could be that Bernie accepts the establishment's choice for a Running Mate
If Bernie refuses their choice for a running mate, then it's fair game to contest him
Maybe with a contested convention people can get that Sanders/Warren dream ticket they've dreamed about.
Is that even possible, sounds terrible. A running mate will have no effect on his policies.
If we're going into the conventionand no candidate has over 40% of delegates, I don't see how any person can claim to represent the public will.
Like if Bernie or Biden or whoever lands with 48% and gets the rug pulled out, yeah, that's obviously a shitshow. But if you have half a dozen candidates eating up 15-35% each, none of them is the "winner" and we're gonna have to hash it out. That's how it works, and that's how it should work - simple majority is undemocratic.
Like if Bernie or Biden or whoever lands with 48% and gets the rug pulled out, yeah, that's obviously a shitshow. But if you have half a dozen candidates eating up 15-35% each, none of them is the "winner" and we're gonna have to hash it out. That's how it works, and that's how it should work - simple majority is undemocratic.
The real tinfoil-hat view on this is that if he gets elected with a comfortable, centre-right running mate the CIA will bust out the Heart-Attack Gun again.
Not one I actually subscribe to, but in my more paranoid moments...
Centre-Right? who said anything about Centre-Right
If the DNC forces him to pick either Warren or Harris (who are establishment Democrats), that would be absolutely fair.
I'm fine with Warren and Sanders going into the next part of the primary with some tailwinds. I don't really expect Bernie to lose any support because his supporters tend to back him pretty strongly and Warren seems poised to pull votes from Klobuchar and Pete. And the more votes going to the progressive wing of the party, the less the media can try to spin things as "the country preferring centrism" via the most ridiculous attempts to rationalize current events. And I think Warren reminded people she can actually be a really solid candidate when she isn't listening to her staff and is actually trusting her more natural instincts.
I'm a big Bernie supporter obviously, but I wouldn't hate supporting Warren like I would with the rest of the field (and as I've said before, I downright will not support Bloomberg because fuck evil racist Republican billionaires, but I'm hoping he craters after last night). I'm not sure her path to the nomination is there at this point, and I think if she believes in her progressive stances she'd need to negotiate with Bernie for an overall win for the progressive wing (and yes, I don't absolutely hate the idea of them running a split ticket of the leader as President and the one pushing the leader over with delegates going on to be Vice President as much as I know some do if it's Warren).
I'm a big Bernie supporter obviously, but I wouldn't hate supporting Warren like I would with the rest of the field (and as I've said before, I downright will not support Bloomberg because fuck evil racist Republican billionaires, but I'm hoping he craters after last night). I'm not sure her path to the nomination is there at this point, and I think if she believes in her progressive stances she'd need to negotiate with Bernie for an overall win for the progressive wing (and yes, I don't absolutely hate the idea of them running a split ticket of the leader as President and the one pushing the leader over with delegates going on to be Vice President as much as I know some do if it's Warren).
Having a few select people decide the winner is more undemocratic.
at a contested convention, the Dems could give the nom to Bernie but in the condition that they except the running mate of the convention's choice
Remember when people were terrified to have Bloomberg in the debates and swore that it would only help him?
- Status