If your preferred Dem candidate does not get the nomination, what do you do?

[bad_teammate 13132]

21 minutes ago, troph said:

what will they do when bernie has a plurality but can't get to the 1900+ delegates but say Pete does?  they sit out and Trump wins?

Are you wondering what the Bernie support base is actually thinking/saying or what would feel cathartic and self-righteous to imagine they think/feel?

And I mean that seriously, because I would be happy to answer the question sincerely.

[Js1 85110]

There are 12 people on this board with significant brain damage and/or just fucking liars.  

[wildcat09 29256]

7 minutes ago, Js1 said:

There are 12 people on this board with significant brain damage and/or just fucking liars.  

Well none of them are Democrats.

[elfenix 34171]

you can click on the little person icon and see that eurohorn, turkleton, and immortal13 chose the republican option.  but we already knew that.

[Js1 85110]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

you can click on the little person icon and see that eurohorn, turkleton, and immortal13 chose the republican option.  but we already knew that.

I said significant brain damage, i thought it was implied for those 3. 

[troph 24562]

16 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Are you wondering what the Bernie support base is actually thinking/saying or what would feel cathartic and self-righteous to imagine they think/feel?

And I mean that seriously, because I would be happy to answer the question sincerely.

that's the exact scenario you said would lead you to sit out.  Bernie goes into the nomination fight in the lead but doesn't come out with the nomination.

please, for the love of every trans person in the US, please tell me I mis-characterized your position.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

it doesn't matter who the democratic nominee is, we all need to unite and vote for that person.
jesus christ, this is not hard, but this is why democrats keep losing. factionalism will only lead to failure.
get the fucking criminal cabal out of the white house - that's the goal - at all costs, even if it means you vote for fucking bloomberg.
and i say that as an actual gary johnson voter in 2016. complete regret now.

I'm completely in 100% agreement with you.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

For what it's worth, I'm seeing an overwhelming # of Democrats and independents on the street (personal interaction, social media, news clips) say they will vote blue no matter what.  It's only on surly where I've seen anyone I "know" state they will not vote Bloomberg but will support anyone else.  (I still remain unclear if our surly anti-Mikes will actually vote for Trump or just sit it out.)

The dissenting opinion, outside of this odd little cabal, seems to be the "Bernie or bust" types.  They're out there.  Again, it's not clear if they'll vote Trump, vote a 3rd party candidate, or just not vote, but they're out there, regardless.  

[hayden_horn 11360]

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

For what it's worth, I'm seeing an overwhelming # of Democrats and independents on the street (personal interaction, social media, news clips) say they will vote blue no matter what.  It's only on surly where I've seen anyone I "know" state they will not vote Bloomberg but will support anyone else.  (I still remain unclear if our surly anti-Mikes will actually vote for Trump or just sit it out.)

The dissenting opinion, outside of this odd little cabal, seems to be the "Bernie or bust" types.  They're out there.  Again, it's not clear if they'll vote Trump, vote a 3rd party candidate, or just not vote, but they're out there, regardless.  

i imagine they will write in bernie, and then go straight democrat for the down-ballot candidates. and they'll feel super righteous about it.

[washparkhorn 9935]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

For what it's worth, I'm seeing an overwhelming # of Democrats and independents on the street (personal interaction, social media, news clips) say they will vote blue no matter what.  It's only on surly where I've seen anyone I "know" state they will not vote Bloomberg but will support anyone else. 

FWIW - this board is a little more tuned into the Bloomberg plan than average American voters at this time because Sanders has been out in front of it.

No doubt the Bloomberg run has been out there for some time, but it will not fully hit the American street until SuperTuesday, where he is concentrating. The candidates who have been in the race from the beginning understand what he is doing and some of them are actively out in front of the story. 

Is Bloomberg a lock for the nomination? No. Is his wave coming - yes. Are Sanders' supporters out in front of it? Yes. 

[SydneyCarton 47884]

What a beating this board is. honestly I'm not sure how you regulars manage it. It's like there's a handful of cdt23s or echeeses that are perpetually riled up on speed/cocaine, failing to grasp common sense and logic, but just spraying their bullshit all over everyone with complete impunity because they're too oblivious and stupid to see anything outside their narrow worldview of personal vindication.

I suppose it's an important lesson in humanity. As much as it is easy to point a finger at one political party for working towards undermining our very way of life, the same disturbing stupidity, craven selfishness and complete lack of perspective for anyone other than themselves knows no political party, and it's a sad commentary on the human condition in the United States. I'm perpetually disgusted by the things I've seen online in the name of Trump, and now that I start paying close attention to the candidates, I see similar behavior by some of the people infighting for what is supposed to be the party of compassion, the party of reason as I was told all of my conservative life. Without an ability to compromise, nothing will get done in this country period, even if the democratic party wins the election. It's hard to not see Bernie Bros and see people acting just like the acolytes of Donald Trump. /rant

[Hefeweizen 5307]

My choice wasn't there.  I'll vote for any Dem other than Tulsi who is a Russian asset, and Bernie, who is a socialist and will lose the general in a landslide.  If Bernie is the nominee I'll leave the ballot blank for pres.  And I am not a Trump fan.

[Hefeweizen 5307]

44 minutes ago, Js1 said:

There are 12 people on this board with significant brain damage and/or just fucking liars.  

13, thanks.  I won't vote for Bernie - go get a rope to hang me.

[bad_teammate 13132]

12 minutes ago, troph said:

that's the exact scenario you said would lead you to sit out.  Bernie goes into the nomination fight in the lead but doesn't come out with the nomination.

You're mischaracterizing it by trying to make me sound Bernie or Bust when I'm not.

My support will be with the candidate chosen by the majority of Democratic primary voters through democratic processes. If that person is denied the nomination through the undemocratic machinations of the party machine, I will either write that person's name in (Pete, Liz, Bernie, Joe, whatever) or just leave the top line blank and vote Straight D downballot.

Except Bloomberg, who I will not vote for.

What if the Ghost of Elections came to my chamber door on Election Eve and said, "WooooOooOoOOOoo bad_teammate, tomorrow's election will literally be decided by your vote, Donald Trump wins if you don't vote for Mike woooOOoooOOoooo", would I vote for Bloomberg then? Yes. But that's not going to happen.

The odds that we hit the trifecta of (1) Mike wins the plurality of delegates, (2) Mike gets within a hair of Trump in Texas polling, and (3) Texas looks like the deciding state is roughly equal to the odds of of Salma Hayek knocking on my door tonight.

So how about this: If the RCP average in Texas is within 1 point on Election Eve and Bloomberg went into the convention with more pledged delegates than anyone else, I'll vote for Mike Bloomberg if we institute a rule that anyone who whines about Bernie Bros gets a 2-day probation from posting. (Or you arrange for Salma to pay me a nighttime visit.)

Sound good?

Quote

please, for the love of every trans person in the US, please tell me I mis-characterized your position.

I personally know multiple trans people who are straight-up Bernie or Bust (well, one is an NB and I don't think they technically identify as trans?), even if some other candidate wins an outright majority of delegates in Round 1. One of them, in fact, is only Bernie or Bust because I worked very hard to convince him that electoralism had potential at all. (He's pretty awesome. He's traveled to Portland and Charlottesville for reasons to do things. I also think he's lying to me about voting for Bernie... I don't think he'll vote.)

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

i imagine they will write in bernie, and then go straight democrat for the down-ballot candidates. and they'll feel super righteous about it.

Which will be equally as useless as voting for Mike Bloomberg in his 10-point Texas defeat. All a bunch of posturing.

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'm perpetually disgusted by the things I've seen online in the name of Trump, and now that I start paying close attention to the candidates, I see similar behavior by some of the people infighting for what is supposed to be the party of compassion, the party of reason as I was told all of my conservative life.

So your problem with Trump and the MAGA crew isn't that they are hateful bigots, it's that they don't compromise?

Trumpkins are pricks because they want to imprison Mexican babies, fill the prisons with black people, and make abortion illegal.

Bernie Bros are pricks because they want everyone to have healthcare, zero medical debt, zero college debt, and a guaranteed living wage job.

lol Jesus Christ, man, you're telling on yourself and don't even realize it

*looks at Nazi*

*looks at ANTIFA fighting a Nazi*

"I CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE!!!!"

[troph 24562]

There is a real possibility that Bernie has the plurality lead but not the majority and he doesn’t get the nomination. Let’s assume Pete, Biden, or Klobachar get the nomination.

 

What do you do?

 

And you literally know serval trans people. Congratulations. Welcome to the new America.

 

[Hefeweizen 5307]

Just now, troph said:

There is a real possibility that Bernie has the plurality lead but doesn’t get the nomination. Let’s assume Pete, Biden, or Klobachar get the nomination.

What do you do?

Vote for the Dem nominee.  Easy.

[washparkhorn 9935]

3 minutes ago, Hefeweizen said:

My choice wasn't there.  I'll vote for any Dem other than . . .  Bernie, who is a socialist and will lose the general in a landslide.  If Bernie is the nominee I'll leave the ballot blank for pres.

I respect our differences in opinion. 

Tell me more - here or in a PM if you prefer  - and at your leisure? We are a long way from November, so there is time to sort this out.

[troph 24562]

Vote for the Dem nominee.  Easy.

I know. b_t keeps evading the question though.

 

And you should vote for Bernie. Trump is that bad. Though I don’t have the socialist worry some have.

[Js1 85110]

2 minutes ago, troph said:

There is a real possibility that Bernie has the plurality lead but not the majority and he doesn’t get the nomination. Let’s assume Pete, Biden, or Klobachar get the nomination.

 

What do you do?

 

And you literally know serval trans people. Congratulations. Welcome to the new America.

 

If the delegate leader (plurality, not majority) doesn't get the nomination because they didn't do proper outreach and coalition building with #3-whatever, and #3 and #4 goes with #2, WE HAVE TO BLAME THE DNC!!!!!!!!!

*eye roll* 

Edited February 12, 2020 by Js1

[washparkhorn 9935]

What is the "socialist" worry?

Trump and his corporate/oligarch socialism gets nary a peep from anyone. 

Remember President Obama and Newsweek in 2008?

[wildcat09 29256]

11 minutes ago, Hefeweizen said:

My choice wasn't there.  I'll vote for any Dem other than Tulsi who is a Russian asset, and Bernie, who is a socialist and will lose the general in a landslide.  If Bernie is the nominee I'll leave the ballot blank for pres.  And I am not a Trump fan.

This is stupid. The only way a landslide happens in this election is if the economy falls off a cliff and Trump gets crushed. Otherwise, you're looking at a hugely polarized electorate and it's going to be close in every possible swing state.  The socialist label might scare some rednecks in Arkansas and Alabama, but no Dem is competing in those states. In the swing states polls (most of which are close to a month old right now), Bernie's head to head ratings against Trump are virtually the same as Biden's, and stand a better shot of holding up through November than Biden's do.  Biden's poll numbers have consistently been inflated by name recognition and the plague of pundit brain, he has no real enthusiastic support to speak of. 

[SydneyCarton 47884]

5 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

What is the "socialist" worry?

Trump and his corporate/oligarch socialism gets nary a peep from anyone. 

Remember President Obama and Newsweek in 2008?

I can't speak for Hefeweizen, but personally, I don't as much have a worry about the actual Socialism as I do the brand. If we balanced our fucking budget correctly and cut out bloat, we'd have more than enough money to fucking give away healthcare and free education and re-fund social security. But that won't happen. 

My personal concern is the term Socialist being used as a blunt instrument by the right to beat Sanders to death with and scare the fuck out people who don't know any better, or people who have an instinctive rejection of the idea of anything other than true capitalism, or those that have an association with communism, etc. I don't care WHAT the reason is, but why give another tool to the idiots working so hard to keep the status quo? 

Edited February 12, 2020 by SydneyCarton

[washparkhorn 9935]

3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I can't speak for Hefeweizen, but personally, I don't as much have a worry about the actual Socialism as I do the brand. If we balanced our fucking budget correctly and cut out bloat, we'd have more than enough money to fucking give away healthcare and free education and re-fund social security. But that won't happen. 

My personal concern is the term Socialist being used as a blunt instrument by the right to beat Sanders to death with and scare the fuck out people who don't know any better, or people who have an instinctive rejection of the idea of anything other than true capitalism, or those that have an association with communism, etc. I don't care WHAT the reason is, but why give another tool to the idiots working so hard to keep the status quo? 

I hear you. A couple of points. 

Younger voters reject conflating socialism with the USSR and China. Most of them did not grow up during the Cold War and they equate socialism with the social democracies of the Western World. 

Balancing the budget - two easy solutions there. Rebalance by clawing back some of the wealth created by corporate socialism or take a fresh look at the debt using modern economics theory. Pete Peterson lied to generations of Americans to protect his vast wealth. We need to come to grips with that fact.

And yes - we could just cut the bloat for different priorities, but "pork for the few" remains a sticky problem in American politics. 

As for using "socialism" as a cudgel against Sanders - do you really think he will get away with that given Sanders' supporters and Trump's own socialism for the very wealthy?

Trump did not run as an austerity candidates and has not ruled as an austerity candidate. He cannot hope to win on this point, so he wants to avoid Sanders especially with this rhetoric if it comes down to those two.

Also, I have no doubt he threw his supporters under the bus and that  will  be  pointed  out  to  them  over and over again after the nomination is in place. When his supporters learn Trump has been all about welfare for the ultra wealthy and austerity for the rest of us, he will sink. 

We have good candidates who will ram that message home. We don't need a Republican usurper.

We will lose with Bloomberg. And even if we somehow win, we have another Republican Oligarch pushing Republican policies. One is worse than the other and must be defeated no matter what, but we don't want to go out of the fat and into the frying pan. There were many communities hard hit by Trump and we need someone who will help rebuild and restore those communities. That is not Bloomberg.

Let's not nominate Bloomberg - m'kay?

[Brisketexan 104624]

I hear you. A couple of points. 
Younger voters reject conflating socialism with the USSR and China. Most of them did not grow up during the Cold War and they equate socialism with the social democracies of the Western World. 
Balancing the budget - two easy solutions there. Rebalance by clawing back some of the wealth created by corporate socialism or take a fresh look at the debt using modern economics theory. Pete Peterson lied to generations of Americans to protect his vast wealth. We need to come to grips with that fact.
And yes - we could just cut the bloat for different priorities, but "pork for the few" remains a sticky problem in American politics. 
As for using "socialism" as a cudgel against Sanders - do you really think he will get away with that given Sanders' supporters and Trump's own socialism for the very wealthy?
Trump did not run as an austerity candidates and has not ruled as an austerity candidate. He cannot hope to win on this point, so he wants to avoid Sanders especially with this rhetoric if it comes down to those two.
Also, I have no doubt he threw his supporters under the bus and that  will  be  pointed  out  to  them  over and over again after the nomination is in place. When his supporters learn Trump has been all about welfare for the ultra wealthy and austerity for the rest of us, he will sink. 
We have good candidates who will ram that message home. We don't need a Republican usurper.
We will lose with Bloomberg. And even if we somehow win, we have another Republican Oligarch pushing Republican policies. One is worse than the other and must be defeated no matter what, but we don't want to go out of the fat and into the frying pan. There were many communities hard hit by Trump and we need someone who will help rebuild and restore those communities. That is not Bloomberg.
Let's not nominate Bloomberg - m'kay?

Groovy. I don’t want to nominate him.

This thread is asking the most distasteful question: if the race is Bloomberg-Trump, will you vote for Bloomberg, or will you help Trump, either by voting for him or by denying his opponent your vote?

I say nope, I’ll support whoever wins the nomination. But you won’t. You’ll have your precious principles to keep you warm at night, while the most vulnerable in this society are utterly destroyed by a second Trump term.

[henrygandorf 29177]

yep, pete and bernie, totally the same.

[washparkhorn 9935]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

I say nope, I’ll support whoever wins the nomination. But you won’t. You’ll have your precious principles to keep you warm at night, while the most vulnerable in this society are utterly destroyed by a second Trump term.

Nope - I am not giving in to any coercion to go with a Republican with horrible policies to defeat an even worse Republican with even worse policies. 

We are not at that decision point and, if we are, we may truly lose our representative democracy. The question is not ripe should not be contemplated at this moment when we have great candidates to pick from. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

52 minutes ago, troph said:

There is a real possibility that Bernie has the plurality lead but not the majority and he doesn’t get the nomination. Let’s assume Pete, Biden, or Klobachar get the nomination.

What do you do?

I've answered this like 5 times already. I couldn't be LESS evasive about this.

I will write in the person who goes into the convention with the most pledged delegates or leave the top line blank.

If Pete goes in with the most delegates in Round 1 and then loses Round 2 to Amy because of backroom dealings, I will either write Pete in or leave the top line blank. Replace those two names with any other candidate names you like and there's your answer.

(Except Bloomberg)

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This thread is asking the most distasteful question: if the race is Bloomberg-Trump, will you vote for Bloomberg, or will you help Trump, either by voting for him or by denying his opponent your vote?

I say nope, I’ll support whoever wins the nomination. But you won’t. You’ll have your precious principles to keep you warm at night, while the most vulnerable in this society are utterly destroyed by a second Trump term.

Your vote for a Dem in Texas will neither help nor hurt either candidate, because Texas will go red. Your principled Bloomberg vote is just as symbolic as his non-vote.

[SydneyCarton 47884]

24 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

I hear you. A couple of points. 

Younger voters reject conflating socialism with the USSR and China. Most of them did not grow up during the Cold War and they equate socialism with the social democracies of the Western World. 

Balancing the budget - two easy solutions there. Rebalance by clawing back some of the wealth created by corporate socialism or take a fresh look at the debt using modern economics theory. Pete Peterson lied to generations of Americans to protect his vast wealth. We need to come to grips with that fact.

And yes - we could just cut the bloat for different priorities, but "pork for the few" remains a sticky problem in American politics. 

As for using "socialism" as a cudgel against Sanders - do you really think he will get away with that given Sanders' supporters and Trump's own socialism for the very wealthy?

Trump did not run as an austerity candidates and has not ruled as an austerity candidate. He cannot hope to win on this point, so he wants to avoid Sanders especially with this rhetoric if it comes down to those two.

Also, I have no doubt he threw his supporters under the bus and that  will  be  pointed  out  to  them  over and over again after the nomination is in place. When his supporters learn Trump has been all about welfare for the ultra wealthy and austerity for the rest of us, he will sink. 

We have good candidates who will ram that message home. We don't need a Republican usurper.

We will lose with Bloomberg. And even if we somehow win, we have another Republican Oligarch pushing Republican policies. One is worse than the other and must be defeated no matter what, but we don't want to go out of the fat and into the frying pan. There were many communities hard hit by Trump and we need someone who will help rebuild and restore those communities. That is not Bloomberg.

Let's not nominate Bloomberg - m'kay?

1.) I'm not worried about what younger voters conflate. I also think younger voters will vote blue regardless. I'm worried about getting ALL of the voters possible, because I think it's going to take every damn one, so appealing to younger voters that are already a given at the risk of voters that might go either way seems foolhardy. 

2.) I don't care about balancing the budget, because that's never going to happen until you get Trump OUT of office. There's no point concerning yourself about anything after that, otherwise you're counting your chickens and your planning for what you're going to do after your funeral. 

3.) Yes, I think given the nature of his voting base and the hangups people have with the term socialism, yes, he will get away that. Look at what Trump already effectively has gotten away with! There's nothing Sanders can do in this equation, he's powerless because the appeal is being made directly to the American people. Sanders can't fucking listen to and interpret the message FOR them, and if you haven't notice, Americans in general dont seem very interested in outside persuasion these days. The better tact is to remove that weapon from the quiver of your opponent.

4.) It's been shown over and over again that even the Trump followers that recognize how he fucked them over are perfectly happy to vote against their own self interest for a variety of reasons, from the fact that they misguidedly think they're helping "drain the swamp" to "I don't give a fuck because I'm tried of being called a racist for acting racist." It doesn't matter.

5.) You give too much credit on an uneducated or aging and indifferent group of voters to think they know or give a shit about Austerity presidential rule. They give a shit about being "right."

6.) The outside world right now doesn't really see a stable of qualified candidates. They see a stable of wildly, wildly flawed individuals. The socialist who's going to steal their toilet paper. The gay kid who's been a mayor for 5 minutes and has no experience. The old guy who says Obama a lot and no one really seems to like that much as a candidate. The liberal woman who's about to drop out. Amy who? 

7.) You may be right, although I personally think there is a shitload of hyperbole and histrionics about Bloomberg. But I think you answered your own question: He must be defeated at all costs. And I'd rather have communities that still need to be rebuilt in 4 or 8 years than having smoking craters that used to be downtrodden communities 4 years from now.

8.) Lets not let Trump win, m'kay?

 

You're idealistic. That seems wonderful. I'm worried that you are terribly, terribly naive. 

Edited February 12, 2020 by SydneyCarton

[bad_teammate 13132]

3 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

yep, pete and bernie, totally the same.

Bernie no: 16%
Pete no: 14%

Huge difference in "depends", but that's not "no".

[RDCanecutter 26276]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

There are 12 people on this board with significant brain damage and/or just fucking liars.  

Last time I checked the "Online Users" stat, there were almost 700 of us.

[SydneyCarton 47884]

2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Nope - I am not giving in to any coercion to go with a Republican with horrible policies to defeat an even worse Republican with even worse policies. 

We are not at that decision point and, if we are, we may truly lose our representative democracy. The question is not ripe should not be contemplated at this moment when we have great candidates to pick from. 

This isn't coercion, this is a conversation. Real coercion might be what happen when "good people" do nothing and let Trump get elected if their favorite candidate doesn't get the nomination. 

So you can't chew gum and walk at the same time? 

[washparkhorn 9935]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

 

8.) Lets not let Trump or Bloomberg win, m'kay?

 

You're idealistic. That seems wonderful. I'm worried that you are terribly, terribly naive. 

Thank you. I think I will be okay, but I appreciate your concern. 

[washparkhorn 9935]

Just now, SydneyCarton said:

This isn't coercion, this is a conversation. Real coercion might be what happen when "good people" do nothing and let Trump get elected if their favorite candidate doesn't get the nomination. 

So you can't chew gum and walk at the same time? 

The question should be "will you vote for Trump or Bloomberg if they are your only two choices."

We are not there. And hopefully we will never be there. The question is not ripe and is irrelevant at this point in time. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The question should be "will you vote for Trump or Bloomberg if they are your only two choices."

We are not there. And hopefully we will never be there. The question is not ripe and is irrelevant at this point in time. 

This is a good point...

Why are we even asking this question right now? What's the point?

[hobbes2702 12845]

1 hour ago, troph said:

I know. b_t keeps evading the question though.

 

And you should vote for Bernie. Trump is that bad. Though I don’t have the socialist worry some have.

Anyone who has a “socialist worry” is massively uninformed 

[Brisketexan 104624]

11 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Nope - I am not giving in to any coercion to go with a Republican with horrible policies to defeat an even worse Republican with even worse policies. 

We are not at that decision point and, if we are, we may truly lose our representative democracy. The question is not ripe should not be contemplated at this moment when we have great candidates to pick from. 

 

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I've answered this like 5 times already. I couldn't be LESS evasive about this.

I will write in the person who goes into the convention with the most pledged delegates or leave the top line blank.

If Pete goes in with the most delegates in Round 1 and then loses Round 2 to Amy because of backroom dealings, I will either write Pete in or leave the top line blank. Replace those two names with any other candidate names you like and there's your answer.

(Except Bloomberg)

Your vote for a Dem in Texas will neither help nor hurt either candidate, because Texas will go red. Your principled Bloomberg vote is just as symbolic as his non-vote.

Cool.  So, Gary Johnson it is.

If one was to craft a strategy to try to get as many people as possible to dislike Bernie because of his asshole supporters, it would look a whole lot like y'all's smug bullshit.  Bloomberg is no prize, but Bernie and his supporters are going to be the death of us.

All it takes is a few thousand assholes like you in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, [nice try at deflecting with the "well, we're in Texas, so our votes don't really count anyway" gambit], and Trump wins this again.

Trump is absolutely, positively going to win re-election.  And people like you two are absolutely, positively,, why that will happen.  You might as well get fitted for your fucking MAGA hats.

[bad_teammate 13132]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If one was to craft a strategy to try to get as many people as possible to dislike Bernie because of his asshole supporters, it would look a whole lot like y'all's smug bullshit.  Bloomberg is no prize, but Bernie and his supporters are going to be the death of us.

All it takes is a few thousand assholes like you in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, [nice try at deflecting with the "well, we're in Texas, so our votes don't really count anyway" gambit], and Trump wins this again.

Trump is absolutely, positively going to win re-election.  And people like you two are absolutely, positively,, why that will happen.  You might as well get fitted for your fucking MAGA hats.

It's not a deflection, it's a reality. I have literally never in my life cast a consequential presidential vote. Sucks, but it's true.

Regarding Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, the good news is you're not talking to anyone who lives there. What you're doing is taking what washpark and I are saying and then applying those thoughts to human beings you invented inside of your brain.

You're not using historical understanding. You're not using regional understanding. You're not using statistics. You are straight up inventing people to be mad at.

But Brisket, if you really and truly believe that the Bernie Bros are going to hand Trump the election if Bernie doesn't win, and you truly believe that Trump is the worst possible outcome, isn't it incumbent upon you to become a very active Bernie supporter and promoter?

 

"DON'T THREATEN ME, BERNIE BRO!" - pssssst, that's what this entire thread is

 

Edited February 12, 2020 by bad_teammate

[washparkhorn 9935]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

 

Cool.  So, Gary Johnson it is.

If one was to craft a strategy to try to get as many people as possible to dislike Bernie because of his asshole supporters, it would look a whole lot like y'all's smug bullshit.  Bloomberg is no prize, but Bernie and his supporters are going to be the death of us.

All it takes is a few thousand assholes like you in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, [nice try at deflecting with the "well, we're in Texas, so our votes don't really count anyway" gambit], and Trump wins this again.

Trump is absolutely, positively going to win re-election.  And people like you two are absolutely, positively,, why that will happen.  You might as well get fitted for your fucking MAGA hats.

Or Bernie or Elizabeth or Pete or Amy or Joe gets the nomination, and we all rally around the winner of the group that has been in this fight since the beginning of the campaign.  We have the power to skip Trump Light v. Trump choice?

Bloomberg v. Trump is the absolute worst outcome of the Democratic nomination, but thankfully we have viable alternatives to that doomsday scenario. It never has to come to fruition. 

The question is simply not ripe. And it is counter productive in the fight against Trump. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

Bloomberg isn't Trump Light, Bloomberg is Effective Trump. He's an egomaniac billionaire conservative who can actually manage organizations effectively.

He's fucking terrifying.

[Dbeasy 14969]

Bernie won independents in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Bernie consistently leads among independents nationwide.
 

Thank you for confirming exactly what I posted.

[Dbeasy 14969]

democrat is a noun, and could be the subject of your sentence. democratic is an adjective, used to describe or modify your subject/noun. in this case, “posters” is your subject. 
would you call someone from asia a “china person”?
grammar matters. 

Lighten up Francis. Some of us have huge body parts, making it difficult to type on tiny phones. You obviously have no experience with having huge body parts, at least that’s what your girlfriend told us.

[henrygandorf 29177]

26 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Bernie no: 16%
Pete no: 14%

Huge difference in "depends", but that's not "no".

huge difference in “yes” too, but that’s not really the point. we know what bernie is all about, he’s incredibly consistent. because of this, we can make some logical assumptions here. and when i say ‘we’ i’m not talking about the ability to read polls, i’m taking about the ability to read english. 

this poll tells us the amount of bernie supporters who may not vote blue is almost half - 47%. that’s a high fucking number. so let’s look at the “depends” column. it’s at 31%. how many of those are warren?  pete?  joe?  i think most of us can safely say the majority are warren. considering she’s looking like a real longshot right now, you can basically add most of that 31 to the 16, wouldn’t you agree?

i personally don’t think it’ll matter, because i think bernie is going to win, but it’s alarming if he doesn’t. you made the right call by not posting the poll. it’s bad. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

this poll tells us the amount of bernie supporters who may not vote blue is almost half - 47%. that’s a high fucking number. so let’s look at the “depends” column. it’s at 31%. how many of those are warren?  pete?  joe?  i think most of us can safely say the majority are warren. considering she’s looking like a real longshot right now, you can basically add most of that 31 to the 16, wouldn’t you agree?

i personally don’t think it’ll matter, because i think bernie is going to win, but it’s alarming if he doesn’t. you made the right call by not posting the poll. it’s bad. 

All it shows is that Bernie's "no" votes are basically identical to Pete's and that a lot of Bernie's voters are highly persuadable.

I like the guy who can bring in persuadables and isn't just milking the existing base.

[henrygandorf 29177]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

All it shows is that Bernie's "no" votes are basically identical to Pete's and that a lot of Bernie's voters are highly persuadable.

I like the guy who can bring in persuadables and isn't just milking the existing base.

please refer to the part of my post about being able to read english. not sure why were even having this discussion, as there are at least a handful of “it depends” on this thread, including you. 

well done. 

[Brisketexan 104624]

15 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

But Brisket, if you really and truly believe that the Bernie Bros are going to hand Trump the election if Bernie doesn't win, and you truly believe that Trump is the worst possible outcome, isn't it incumbent upon you to become a very active Bernie supporter and promoter?

I do love your continuing appeal to negotiate with terrorists.  How fucking asinine. But, it's perfectly on-brand for you, and for the worst of the Bernie crowd, so bravo for sticking with it.

And I already said that if Sanders wins the nomination, I'm all-in.

14 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Bloomberg v. Trump is the absolute worst outcome of the Democratic nomination, but thankfully we have viable alternatives to that doomsday scenario. It never has to come to fruition. 

Yeah....that's kinda the point of asking a question that includes what the reader might call a "worst case scenario."  That's why the questions isn't "will you support your SECOND favorite Dem?"  It's "will you support ANY Dem over Trump?"

And, trust us, y'all make it perfectly clear -- "principled" Dems like you (in the states that matter) are going to absolutely guarantee us a second Trump term.  Excellent.  Good work.  Congratulations.  MAGA and all that.

[henrygandorf 29177]

12 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Lighten up Francis. Some of us have huge body parts, making it difficult to type on tiny phones. You obviously have no experience with having huge body parts, at least that’s what your girlfriend told us.

 

i don’t really care if you’ve spoken to my girlfriend. or my wife. as long as they’re not speaking to each other, we’re good. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I do love your continuing appeal to negotiate with terrorists.  How fucking asinine. But, it's perfectly on-brand for you, and for the worst of the Bernie crowd, so bravo for sticking with it.

And I already said that if Sanders wins the nomination, I'm all-in.

But what if you don't vote for Sanders in the primary and Sanders doesn't get the nomination because of 1 vote in Texas and then the Bernie Bros throw the election to Trump as a result? What then?

Will you be responsible for the presidency of Donald Trump?

[henrygandorf 29177]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

and that a lot of Bernie's voters are highly persuadable.

i missed this nugget. are you saying bernie voters are persuadable?  to me, they seem the most loyal, and least persuadable. and i say that as a compliment. am i reading them wrong?

[bad_teammate 13132]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

i missed this nugget. are you saying bernie voters are persuadable?  to me, they seem the most loyal, and least persuadable. and i say that as a compliment. am i reading them wrong?

Look at the "depends" number. They're ready to listen to any Dem who beats Bernie. Can't ask for much more than that.

[Brisketexan 104624]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

But what if you don't vote for Sanders in the primary and Sanders doesn't get the nomination because of 1 vote in Texas and then the Bernie Bros throw the election to Trump as a result? What then?

Will you be responsible for the presidency of Donald Trump?

Nope.   The Bros will.  And you and yours are doing all you can to be sure of that.  Nobody here -- and frankly, this understanding goes well beyond just this place -- has any misunderstanding.  Every day, you and yours make it abundantly clear: vote for Bernie, or we'll blow the whole place up.

Fuck all of you.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Brisketexan