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

[bad_teammate 13566]

I would call that what it is, which is a legion of Republicans invading the Dem primary... and then I wouldn't vote for Bloomberg.

I have no idea what your point is here.

[troph 25241]

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You and I could both slice and dice these things up and come up with rationalizations that suit our desires, yes, but at the end of the day we'd be ignoring the votes because we don't like the results.

I could argue that Pete voters actually should go to Bernie because Pete says he's very progressive (he makes great effort to reiterate this) and he wrote an essay about Bernie and people are hesitant to vote for a woman.

I could argue that Amy voters actually should go to Bernie because they are Senate colleagues and people who voted for Amy want someone with national government experience working at high levels.

And on and on and on and it would only be valid insofar as it fits our desires and preconceived notions.

The only thing that matters is the will of the people. That is democracy.

 

Sanders has less than 30% of the vote, of active Democrats.  50% of the population votes, assume equally among parties.  He has 30% of 25%, or 7.5%.  THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!!!!!

Look, I'm done here for a while.  you're contorting around saying "pete should go to Bernie because Pete says he's a progressive" well whatever.  His positions are moderate among Democrats.  but either way, when you look at a plurality, you can't on the face of it say, that guy, that guy right there, he got enough votes to be the clear choice of the people.  we elect the majority.  no one has it.  time to broker a deal and Bernie is just as capable of striking a deal with Warren and Yang to get to 40% then he needs to make a deal to get the remainder.  That's today's current numbers.  maybe he can convince more to vote for him and close the gap to a majority making the dealing part of the convention easier for him, but as of right now, he's gonna have to be a player.  play the game.  play the freaking game.  politics is about building consensus, he'll have to do it as POTUS, so he might as well start at the convention.  show us what you have Bernie.  prove to us you can govern not just campaign.

[bad_teammate 13566]

If you have 9 candidates then no one is getting to 50+%, that's just statistics.

If you want to argue that we should have ranked-choice voting so that the little guys get eliminated, I support your proposal.

Quote

Look, I'm done here for a while.  you're contorting around saying "pete should go to Bernie because Pete says he's a progressive" well whatever.  His positions are moderate among Democrats.  but either way, when you look at a plurality, you can't on the face of it say, that guy, that guy right there, he got enough votes to be the clear choice of the people.  we elect the majority.  no one has it. 

Who is "we"?

Because in America, pluralities are what wins. If there is a 5-way mayoral race and the top guy gets 32%, he's the mayor now. If the highest vote-getter in a state during a presidential election gets 28%, that guy gets the electors.

Now obviously that's not true of the Democratic nomination process, but I don't respect that process because it's got anti-democratic elements in it.

[B00M 6735]

35 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

OK, how do  you feel about this scenario?  We know Trump has the R nomination locked up.  (Heh.  "Locked up.")

What if legions of R voters cross to the D primaries and vote for Bloomberg, feeling (and rightly so) that at least he's not anything like Bernie, so they'd rather hedge their bets for the general election?  Would you just call that "the will of the Democrats"?

Isn't it far more likely that the never trump R legion will vote for Pete or Amy since they appear more viable, and probably more moderate, than Bloomberg? 

Trumpers aren't going to vote en mass in the D primary. They're obviously too busy winning and not giving a shit. 

 

Edited February 13, 2020 by B00M

[troph 25241]

I'm not the one arguing a plurality is a clear choice of the people you are.  and in many jurisdictions, and it might be more than not, a plurality leads to a run off, to determine a majority.  and trutfully, for all the bs we give Iowa and Nevada (preemptively speaking), that's the point of the caucus, to force a higher concentration of votes, and if the caucus were to only take the two highest, then you've got a run off.  the convention process, a run off process and a caucus process is designed to do exactly what you claim already exists - these processes exist to bring clarity where there isn't enough.  like it or not, thems the rules.

[jimmyjazz 47261]

4 minutes ago, B00M said:

Isn't it far more likely that the never trump R legion will vote for Pete or Amy since they appear more viable, and probably more moderate, than Bloomberg? 

How large is the "never Trump" Republican demographic?  6 voters?  7?

[jimmyjazz 47261]

36 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I would call that what it is, which is a legion of Republicans invading the Dem primary... and then I wouldn't vote for Bloomberg.

I have no idea what your point is here.

Really?  You don't think a push by Republicans to get Bloomberg the plurality and thus your dream nomination (plurality wins) would be inconsistent with "the will of the Democrats"?
 

Old question:  which do you lack, intellect or integrity?

[B00M 6735]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

How large is the "never Trump" Republican demographic?  6 voters?  7?

I'm a unicorn? 

[workswithseed 2204]

1 minute ago, B00M said:

I'm a unicorn? 

Don't care had sex.

[bad_teammate 13566]

7 minutes ago, troph said:

 like it or not, thems the rules.

 

Yes. I'm not arguing with you about the rules of the Democratic nomination. I know what they are.

I don't like them and I am not bound (legally or ethically) to abide them. I am not alone in this, and those of us who feel this way are very open and free about saying it so that those with the power to influence the process know our terms.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

You and others are trying to make an argument that we are ethically obligated to abide the result of anti-democratic processes. I disagree.

 

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Really?  You don't think a push by Republicans to get Bloomberg the plurality and thus your dream nomination (plurality wins) would be inconsistent with "the will of the Democrats"?

"the will of the Democrats" is a phrase you made up, so I don't know what it means and I don't care what it means.

[jimmyjazz 47261]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

"the will of the Democrats" is a phrase you made up, so I don't know what it means and I don't care what it means.

Translation:  I'm cornered and too dishonest to admit it.  You know your position -- plurality wins.  You just can't stand the implications of the (very realistic) hypothetical.

You're a Bernie Bro, and you're a perfect example of why Democrats hate your kind.

[bad_teammate 13566]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Translation:  I'm cornered and too dishonest to admit it.

To admit what?

I am not going to vote for Mike Bloomberg. I have been saying that since the first page of this thread.

Detective Jimmyjazz

[jimmyjazz 47261]

33 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Now obviously that's not true of the Democratic nomination process, but I don't respect that process because it's got anti-democratic elements in it.

Well then maybe you should tell your hero Bernie Sanders to run in some other party he's not a fucking member of.

[bad_teammate 13566]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Well then maybe you should tell your hero Bernie Sanders to run in some other party he's not a fucking member of.

[jimmyjazz 47261]

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You and others are trying to make an argument that we are ethically obligated to abide the result of anti-democratic processes. I disagree.

More lies.  Who is saying that?

I would say that in this particular case, you're a fool if you don't support the D nominee, whoever that is, but it's not an obligation and I never said it was.

Why do you struggle so much with the truth?

[workswithseed 2204]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well then maybe you should tell your hero Bernie Sanders to run in some other party he's not a fucking member of.

It didn't work out for the pubs when they didn't want Trump.

[jimmyjazz 47261]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

To admit what?

To admit that you're cornered.  You're the one saying the D plurality should get the nomination.  I'm quite seriously asking you to consider why you might say that when the leading vote-getter could be your hated Bloomberg BECAUSE OF voters crossing party lines.

I fucking dare you to address this.  Do it. 

[North Austin 10]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

It didn't work out for the pubs when they didn't want Trump.

Yes. See what failing to be principled gets you? 

Same reason I wont vote for Sanders and I'm glad he has zero chance of getting the nomination.

[bad_teammate 13566]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You're the one saying the D plurality should get the nomination.  I'm quite seriously asking you to consider why you might say that when the leading vote-getter could be your hated Bloomberg BECAUSE OF voters crossing party lines.

If Mike Bloomberg walks into the convention with the most pledged delegates from the primary process he should get the nomination.

Why didn't you just ask me that in the first place?

 

[troph 25241]

"the will of the Democrats" is a phrase you made up, so I don't know what it means and I don't care what it means.

Didn’t say you were bound by them and your morals will guide you, but you’ll be a conditional progressive by most everyone’s account except for those that agree with you. Given Bernie is commanding approximately 7.5% of the population right now that means you’ll be in an extreme minority and will be acting in ways that actively harm people you go out of your way to say you unconditionally support.

Do as you please but I’m calling you on that all the way to Election Day not to convince you but to hopefully prevent you from adversely influencing other true believers.

And stop with the Bloomberg red herrings those aren’t the examples being discussed.

[jimmyjazz 47261]

50 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If Mike Bloomberg walks into the convention with the most pledged delegates from the primary process he should get the nomination.

I would argue that both parties have the right to ensure that opposition voting doesn't force their hand, and certainly in the case of a plurality.  You're so concerned that the will of the voters be recognized that you completely reject any concern that one party could control both nominations.

[troph 25241]

b_t is a run off election among the top two vote getters where no one gets a majority anti-democratic? That’s just a variation on the brokered convention concerns. Same with a caucus, is that undemocratic? What about the electoral college and it’s disproportionate weight on closely contested states?

[bad_teammate 13566]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I would argue that both parties have the right to ensure that opposition voting doesn't force their hand, and certainly in the case of a plurality.

 

Parties absolutely have that right, which is why they have open, closed, and semi-open primaries/caucuses. It's also why they have the right to strip states of delegates at the convention itself.

I don't know what they would do in response to Republicans flooding the Texas open primary, and I don't really care.

Statistically, the number of delegates available at open primaries is not determinative. Texas is the only truly big state that does open primary.

Quote

  You're so concerned that the will of the voters be recognized that you completely reject any concern that one party could control both nominations.

When did I reject that concern? Be concerned, have fun.

I think we should have semi-open primaries only with ranked-choice ballots for all states and territories.

2 minutes ago, troph said:

b_t is a run off election among the top two vote getters where no one gets a majority anti-democratic?

If it's the actual voters? No.
If it's the delegates in a back room? Yes.

Quote

Same with a caucus, is that undemocratic?

No, because the voters get to choose at the first selection and second selection.

Quote

What about the electoral college and it’s disproportionate weight on closely contested states?

Yes, but not dramatically so. It's a bad system, for sure, that needs to go.

[sidis 10019]

i'm normally surprised by the vitriol that is generated withing party primaries to the extent that it genuinely damages the later efforts if there is any personal principle, etc... but i can genuinely understand the driving force behind the emotion in this one...particularly from the bernie supporters.  regardless of my personal predilections and views on elect-ability of each of the candidates, i am curious who each of the fairly entrenched preference folks here view as the ideal running mate that could eventually best help their preference prevail in the general.  this thread seems to have revealed a lot of deeply ingrained preference amongst posters so it is as good a place as any to ask...

if you are a hardcore bernie supporter, who do you want as a running mate.  normally, i would think that warren would fit the bill but the two of them seem to have crossed that line of acrimony (though i could be wrong).  who do you want?

if you are all in on pete, who best helps you appeal to the enthusiasm you're gonna need to mobilize the votes you need who just view you another milquetoast centrist?  kamala jumps out at me as the ideal candidate.  the gay white male is going to have a hard time with black voters no matter what given they hold the most hostile views towards homosexuals...but does kamala and anti-trump sentiment bring enough of them out in virginia, michigan, and pennsylvania to make a difference?  who do you want?

warren?  i would try to get yang if i was her.  who would you want?

bloomberg?  i would go hard after kamala if i was him.  he has a real race problem in addition to his billionaire status problem.  who would you want bloomberg folks?

i'm assuming biden and klobuchar are effectively done at this point.

[troph 25241]

Yes, but not dramatically so. It's a bad system, for sure, that needs to go.

You’re answers were fair enough but in my view the distinction between delegates and the electoral college are minor, same with caucuses, run offs and the rest of the analysis. Representative democracy inherently requires we give up some democratic control.

[Js1 87223]

10 minutes ago, sidis said:

i'm normally surprised by the vitriol that is generated withing party primaries to the extent that it genuinely damages the later efforts if there is any personal principle, etc... but i can genuinely understand the driving force behind the emotion in this one...particularly from the bernie supporters.  regardless of my personal predilections and views on elect-ability of each of the candidates, i am curious who each of the fairly entrenched preference folks here view as the ideal running mate that could eventually best help their preference prevail in the general.  this thread seems to have revealed a lot of deeply ingrained preference amongst posters so it is as good a place as any to ask...

if you are a hardcore bernie supporter, who do you want as a running mate.  normally, i would think that warren would fit the bill but the two of them seem to have crossed that line of acrimony (though i could be wrong).  who do you want?

if you are all in on pete, who best helps you appeal to the enthusiasm you're gonna need to mobilize the votes you need who just view you another milquetoast centrist?  kamala jumps out at me as the ideal candidate.  the gay white male is going to have a hard time with black voters no matter what given they hold the most hostile views towards homosexuals...but does kamala and anti-trump sentiment bring enough of them out in virginia, michigan, and pennsylvania to make a difference?  who do you want?

warren?  i would try to get yang if i was her.  who would you want?

bloomberg?  i would go hard after kamala if i was him.  he has a real race problem in addition to his billionaire status problem.  who would you want bloomberg folks?

i'm assuming biden and klobuchar are effectively done at this point.

IF I had to quantify this...

Bernie-Duckworth

Bernie-Klobuchar

Pete-Harris

Pete-Cortez Masto

Warren-Castro

Bloomberg-Harris

Bloomberg-Cortez Masto

Biden-Harris

Klobuchar-Booker

[Brisketexan 106980]

It didn't work out for the pubs when they didn't want Trump.

Pssst....dirty little secret for you....that’s absolutely who the pubs wanted. Took them a few minutes to realize he was their id, but they quickly went all-in.

[jimmyjazz 47261]

1 hour ago, sidis said:

i'm assuming biden and klobuchar are effectively done at this point.

Huh?  It's a little early for that.  Klobuchar finished a strong 3rd in New Hampshire.  She's at 7 delegates, apparently 1 behind Warren.

[sidis 10019]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Huh?  It's a little early for that.  Klobuchar finished a strong 3rd in New Hampshire.  She's at 7 delegates, apparently 1 behind Warren.

disagreed.  she has hit her ceiling.  in my opinion, nevada and south carolina will be ugly for her and she'll be gone after super tuesday.

[jimmyjazz 47261]

Just now, sidis said:

disagreed.  she has hit her ceiling.  in my opinion, nevada and south carolina will be ugly for her and she'll be gone after super tuesday.

Could be.  I thought her surge was impressive over the past two weeks.  We'll see.

[sidis 10019]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Could be.  I thought her surge was impressive over the past two weeks.  We'll see.

iowa and new hampshire are her happy place.  midwestern and new england white goobers.  next to minnesota itself and wisconsin, those are two fairly ideal states for her to start with.  nevada and sc will put her back to the bus.

that said, i agree with you.  she and pete have both surprised me in the extent of their surges and capitalizing on biden's implosion.

[troph 25241]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Could be.  I thought her surge was impressive over the past two weeks.  We'll see.

she wants to make room for anti-abortion folks.  that's gonna tank her among a whole lot of dems.  and it's where pandering to Republican anyone but Trump voters gets serious.  but that's not a path to the nomination.

Edited February 13, 2020 by troph

[Js1 87223]

4 minutes ago, sidis said:

iowa and new hampshire are her happy place.  midwestern and new england white goobers.  next to minnesota itself and wisconsin, those are two fairly ideal states for her to start with.  nevada and sc will put her back to the bus.

Ah, so Pete is also effectively done at this point? 

[sidis 10019]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

Ah, so Pete is also effectively done at this point? 

touche, a fair point.  but he has greater spectrum-wide sex appeal...and not to just your predilection.  justified or not, it seems the brand has more value. but south carolina in particular will not be pretty for pete.  however, i think he stands a better chance of bouncing back on super tuesday as bernie's establishment challenger.

could be totally wrong but to quote one of the greatest posts in hornfans history, "as my doppleganger dr. j. wong says, 'you tend not to be wrong about these things.'"

[Js1 87223]

1 minute ago, sidis said:

touche, a fair point.  but he has greater spectrum-wide sex appeal...and not to just your predilection.  justified or not, it seems the brand has more value. but south carolina in particular will not be pretty for pete.  however, i think he stands a better chance of bouncing back on super tuesday as bernie's establishment challenger.

could be totally wrong but to quote one of the greatest posts in hornfans history, "as my doppleganger dr. j. wong says, 'you tend not to be wrong about these things.'"

Just making sure we, as a website, understand NV really only benefits Biden and Sanders (at the moment) -as the RCP average has everyone else under the 15% viability threshold (at this moment) and SC looks good for Biden, Steyer and Bernie.  Everyone else is dragging ass.

We have only had 1-2 Super Tuesday state poll that are relevant, date wise:

Texas (end of January) - Biden 34, Bernie 18, Warren 17, Bloomberg 16, Pete 4, Klobs 3
NC (early February) - Biden 25, Bernie 16, Bloomberg 14, Warren 12, Pete 9, Klobs 5

Everything else is 4 weeks to 4 months old. 

[washparkhorn 9974]

1 hour ago, sidis said:

i am curious who each of the fairly entrenched preference folks here view as the ideal running mate that could eventually best help their preference prevail in the general.  

if you are a hardcore bernie supporter, who do you want as a running mate.  normally, i would think that warren would fit the bill but the two of them seem to have crossed that line of acrimony (though i could be wrong).  who do you want?

Warren. A campaign is a campaign. She represents the incrementalist progressive approach. She has passionate and fierce supporters. She understands the obstacles placed in front of human-oriented reforms in the federal government. 

[Js1 87223]

3 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Warren. A campaign is a campaign. She represents the incrementalist progressive approach. She has passionate and fierce supporters. She understands the obstacles placed in front of human-oriented reforms in the federal government. 

A ticket of two 70-something year olds from New England is going to fail. 

And even if it works, Warren and Bernie are immediately replaced by Scott Brown 2.0 and some other Republican and your agenda is wrecked. 

Edited February 13, 2020 by Js1

[Biff Tannen 46190]

Yep. No warren for VP. Senate is too important 

[washparkhorn 9974]

16 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Yep. No warren for VP. Senate is too important 

Hmmm . . . Buttigieg? He wrote an "award-winning" paper in 2000 when he was in high school about Bernie that is in the JFK Presidential Library.

https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/education/profile-in-courage-essay-contest/past-winning-essays/2000-winning-essay-by-peter-buttigieg

Quote

In this new century, there are a daunting number of important issues which are to be confronted if we are to progress as a nation. Each must be addressed thoroughly and energetically. But in order to accomplish the collective goals of our society, we must first address how we deal with issues. We must re-examine the psychological and political climate of American politics. As it stands, our future is at risk due to a troubling tendency towards cynicism among voters and elected officials. The successful resolution of every issue before us depends on the fundamental question of public integrity.

A new attitude has swept American politics. Candidates have discovered that is easier to be elected by not offending anyone rather than by impressing the voters. Politicians are rushing for the center, careful not to stick their necks out on issues. Most Democrats shy away from the word “liberal” like a horrid accusation. Republican presidential hopeful George W. Bush uses the centrist rhetoric of “compassionate conservatism” while Pat Buchanan, once considered a mainstream Republican, has been driven off the ideological edge of the G.O.P. Just as film producers shoot different endings and let test audiences select the most pleasing, some candidates run “test platforms” through sample groups to see which is most likely to win before they speak out on major issue. This disturbing trend reveals cynicism, a double-sided problem, which is perhaps, the greatest threat to the continued success of the American political system.

Cynical candidates have developed an ability to outgrow their convictions in order to win power. Cynical citizens have given up on the election process, going to the polls at one of the lowest rates in the democratic world. Such an atmosphere inevitably distances our society from its leadership and is thus a fundamental threat to the principles of democracy. It also calls into question what motivates a run for office – in many cases, apparently, only the desire to occupy it. Fortunately for the political process, there remain a number of committed individuals who are steadfast enough in their beliefs to run for office to benefit their fellow Americans. Such people are willing to eschew political and personal comfort and convenience because they believe they can make a difference. One outstanding and inspiring example of such integrity is the country’s only Independent Congressman, Vermont’s Bernie Sanders.

Sanders’ courage is evident in the first word he uses to describe himself: “Socialist”. In a country where Communism is still the dirtiest of ideological dirty words, in a climate where even liberalism is considered radical, and Socialism is immediately and perhaps willfully confused with Communism, a politician dares to call himself a socialist? He does indeed. Here is someone who has “looked into his own soul” and expressed an ideology, the endorsement of which, in today’s political atmosphere, is analogous to a self-inflicted gunshot wound.  Even though he has lived through a time in which an admitted socialist could not act in a film, let alone hold a Congressional seat, Sanders is not afraid to be candid about his political persuasion.  

After numerous political defeats in his traditionally Republican state, Sanders won the office of mayor of Burlington by ten votes. A successful and popular mayor, he went on to win Vermont’s one Congressional seat in 1990. Since then, he has taken many courageous and politically risky stands on issues facing the nation.  He has come under fire from various conservative religious groups because of his support for same-sex marriages.  His stance on gun control led to NRA-organized media campaigns against him. Sanders has also shown creativity in organizing drug-shopping trips to Canada for senior citizens to call attention to inflated drug prices in the United States.

While impressive, Sanders’ candor does not itself represent political courage. The nation is teeming with outspoken radicals in one form or another.  Most are sooner called crazy than courageous. It is the second half of Sanders’ political role that puts the first half into perspective: he is a powerful force for conciliation and bi-partisanship on Capitol Hill. In Profiles in Courage, John F. Kennedy wrote that “we should not be too hasty in condemning all compromise as bad morals. For politics and legislation are not matters for inflexible principles or unattainable ideals.” It may seem strange that someone so steadfast in his principles has a reputation as a peacemaker between divided forces in Washington, but this is what makes Sanders truly remarkable. He represents President Kennedy’s ideal of “compromises of issues, not of principles.”

Sanders has used his unique position as the lone Independent Congressman to help Democrats and Republicans force hearings on the internal structure of the International Monetary Fund, which he sees as excessively powerful and unaccountable. He also succeeded in quietly persuading reluctant Republicans and President Clinton to ban the import of products made by under-age workers. Sanders drew some criticism from the far left when he chose to grudgingly endorse President Clinton’s bids for election and re-election as President. Sanders explained that while he disagreed with many of Clinton’s centrist policies, he felt that he was the best option for America’s working class.

Sanders’ positions on many difficult issues are commendable, but his real impact has been as a reaction to the cynical climate which threatens the effectiveness of the democratic system. His energy, candor, conviction, and ability to bring people together stand against the current of opportunism, moral compromise, and partisanship which runs rampant on the American political scene. He and few others like him have the power to restore principle and leadership in Congress and to win back the faith of a voting public weary and wary of political opportunism. Above all, I commend Bernie Sanders for giving me an answer to those who say American young people see politics as a cesspool of corruption, beyond redemption. I have heard that no sensible young person today would want to give his or her life to public service. I can personally assure you this is untrue.

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

As much as I support Warren, the points regarding her Senate seat are valid and had not ever occurred to me. It may be difficult to impossible to flip the Senate, but the Democratic Party should try and hold as many seats as they can. 

[TwiceHorn 32092]

4 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

Hmmm . . . Buttigieg? He wrote an "award-winning" paper in 2000 when he was in high school about Bernie that is in the JFK Presidential Library.

https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/education/profile-in-courage-essay-contest/past-winning-essays/2000-winning-essay-by-peter-buttigieg

 

Well, he doesn't know how to use that and which.  Scratch him off.

[Chooky 13341]

There's no option for "organize canned food and ammunition and giggle at the debates of two Republican billionaires insulting each other's physical stature."

[Brisketexan 106980]

There's no option for "organize canned food and ammunition and giggle at the debates of two Republican billionaires insulting each other's physical stature."

We’ll be enjoying such entertainment out on the ledge. We gotta big screen and everything.

[Bookman 4766]

I really don't give a fuck who the Democrats nominate. I'm voting for whomever the nominee is, and I have substantial disagreements with all of them.

I'm worried about the Bernie supporters. In 2016 12% of them voted for Trump. If they had only stayed home Trump would not be President .

[bad_teammate 13566]

@Cheeseweasel @David Dennison

You can discuss your disagreement regarding the moral necessity of voting for Michael Bloomberg here.

[Dbeasy 15612]

 

Wow. This is incredible. And so ironic.

[Js1 87223]

 

[bad_teammate 13566]

Crying about the results of the game before the game is played.

#sad

 

[Js1 87223]

Kinda like Bernie Bros crying about things being rigged again before he won 2 contests in a row! 

[bad_teammate 13566]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

Kinda like Bernie Bros crying about things being rigged again before he won 2 contests in a row! 

Cite your sources.

The Iowa caucus was screwed up and corrupt. The NYTimes is running pieces on connections between the Shadow app developer and the Buttigieg campaign and the DNC right now. The head of the Iowa Democratic Party resigned amid internal accusations of corruption. "Rigged"? I don't know. Definitely shady and DEFINITELY stupid.

No one claimed anything about New Hampshire.

We're well past the boy who cried wolf point on the Bernie Bro complaining. It doesn't move any poll numbers. It doesn't matter at all to the electorate; they don't care. All it does is create some kind of bizarre echo chamber where way-too-online anti-Bernies get some kind of poisonous emotional nourishment.

And, if I may be sincere for a moment, it's unnecessarily divisive.

If it was to promote some important policy goal I would get it, but you guys are just mad with no goal in mind.