2020 Democratic Nominee

[gmr548 16580]

It's not real btw

Honestly if it was I'd tip the cap to the Bloomberg campaign. It'd be kinda funny.

[berlinerbaer 678]

57 minutes ago, Zavala said:

It's not real btw

Nothing you ever post is

[Zavala 1384]

[Zavala 1384]

2 hours ago, berlinerbaer said:

Nothing you ever post is

Cute grill

[Brew 3049]

9 hours ago, mchookem said:

HOW CAN THAT EVEN BE POSSIBLE??

how ANYONE can be that 'non-engaged' right now is just...i mean.... WHAT!

As a lifelong fairly steady R voter who did not vote for Trump, it’s going to seriously, seriously pain me to cast a vote for Bernie Sanders. I don’t support his ideas, I don’t support an almost 80 year old candidate, I don’t support the fact he can’t explain how he is going to pay for anything, he’s too far an over correction, etc. I’m still going to vote for him if that’s what it comes down to, but the moderates out there feel the same way. Now he may drag out enough devout liberals to make up for some of that loss of middle ground voters, but I’m less excited about this election vote than I was in 2016 and that’s saying a lot. It f-ing sucks that after 4 years of a shitshow, the moderate D’s can’t support one person and spread the votes out, so we likely end up with both extremes on the ballot in the fall.

[Ghost of LL 15531]

As a lifelong fairly steady R voter who did not vote for Trump, it’s going to seriously, seriously pain me to cast a vote for Bernie Sanders. I don’t support his ideas, I don’t support an almost 80 year old candidate, I don’t support the fact he can’t explain how he is going to pay for anything, he’s too far an over correction, etc. I’m still going to vote for him if that’s what it comes down to, but the moderates out there feel the same way. Now he may drag out enough devout liberals to make up for some of that loss of middle ground voters, but I’m less excited about this election vote than I was in 2016 and that’s saying a lot. It f-ing sucks that after 4 years of a shitshow, the moderate D’s can’t support one person and spread the votes out, so we likely end up with both extremes on the ballot in the fall.

I’m going to call my shot here—you’re going to be surprised by how fast the moderate lane coalesces around Biden over the next couple weeks.

I’m not thrilled with it, but I just see it coming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[burntorangebongos 10714]

Could be faulty memory?

 

[elfenix 34251]

Could be faulty memory?
 

And how could he have, Mandela died in prison

[Zonahorn 8079]

8 hours ago, Zavala said:

Branco seems like a fucking idiot.

[bad_teammate 13196]

I don't know how got is better than bought, honestly.

[Dropout 355]

But Bernie is basically offering the people money in the form of healthcare and a higher education for votes! Can you believe it?

[bad_teammate 13196]

He's been giving presidential speeches into a mirror since he was 6.

And his final pitch, the final debate before a make-or-break run of states, is that he will protect the sanctity of private health insurers.

That's his moral vision. That's the key to understanding what he offers the nation, the solvency of Aetna and UHC.

A calm tone of voice and hundreds of billions going from your pocket to the pockets of private capital.

lol what a fucking idiot

[Brothahorn 10087]

I’m going to call my shot here—you’re going to be surprised by how fast the moderate lane coalesces around Biden over the next couple weeks.

I’m not thrilled with it, but I just see it coming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For his Senate run or his Presidential run?

[heso 2801]

I’ve been convinced that Trump is going to run away with PA. When I was rolling up to the light this morning I assumed this was a Trump sticker, but seeing it gave me a little hope that PA is still in play.

[Thrawn 538]

2 minutes ago, heso said:

I’ve been convinced that Trump is going to run away with PA. When I was rolling up to the light this morning I assumed this was a Trump sticker, but seeing it gave me a little hope that PA is still in play.

I have seen a handful of those here in Florida recently. If I actually put shitty stickers on my car, that is the one I would go for.

[heso 2801]

1 minute ago, Thrawn said:

I have seen a handful of those here in Florida recently. If I actually put shitty stickers on my car, that is the one I would go for.

In western PA the only candidate promotion I’ve seen in the last year is Trump stuff except for 1 Pete yard sign and my Yang “Math. Money. Marijuana.” shirt. 

[Bookman 4639]

28 minutes ago, Brothahorn said:

 

For his Senate run or his Presidential run?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's nobody better than Biden running. At least nobody with a shot to win.

I'm probably wrong, but I just don't see Bernie Sanders becoming President of the United States.

[bad_teammate 13196]

There's nobody better than Biden running. At least nobody with a shot to win.
I'm probably wrong, but I just don't see Bernie Sanders becoming President of the United States.

In February of 2016 did you see Trump becoming president?

[Bookman 4639]

46 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

58 minutes ago, Bookman said:

There's nobody better than Biden running. At least nobody with a shot to win.
I'm probably wrong, but I just don't see Bernie Sanders becoming President of the United States.

In February of 2016 did you see Trump becoming president?

Yes. Absolutely.

[heso 2801]

1 week change in 538’s projected delegate totals:

2/19:


Today:


Of note is that they are now projecting Bernie to pull 226 delegates out of California alone.

[Fozzz 152]

Does any Warren supporter on this board actually believe that Warren is running to win on the first ballot and not only to try to steal the nomination at the convention from someone with far more initial pledged support than her own?  

[Ghost of LL 15531]

9 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Does any Warren supporter on this board actually believe that Warren is running to win on the first ballot and not only to try to steal the nomination at the convention from someone with far more initial pledged support than her own?  

To "steal" something means that it otherwise belongs to someone else.  And if nobody has a majority on the first ballot, then that's not the case.  So I reject the premise of your question.

[Fozzz 152]

Just now, Ghost of LL said:

To "steal" something means that it otherwise belongs to someone else.  And if nobody has a majority on the first ballot, then that's not the case.  So I reject the premise of your question.

If you believe that the nomination should be based on the will of democratic primary voters, then handing the nomination to a candidate that drastically trails the leading candidate in votes would be theft.  I could see how an authoritarian like yourself could disagree with that premise though.

[Dropout 355]

3 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

If you believe that the nomination should be based on the will of democratic primary voters, then handing the nomination to a candidate that drastically trails the leading candidate in votes would be theft.  I could see how an authoritarian like yourself could disagree with that premise though.

There’s only one person even fighting for your vote. It’s not complicated.

[thrillhammer 683]

36 minutes ago, Bookman said:

Yes. Absolutely.

well you are quite the miracle prognosticator then, because cruz, rubio, bush, carson, paul, kasich, huckabee, fiorina, christie, and santorum had no clue and would have bet the bank they were going to beat trump.

[Ghost of LL 15531]

5 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

If you believe that the nomination should be based on the will of democratic primary voters, then handing the nomination to a candidate that drastically trails the leading candidate in votes would be theft.  I could see how an authoritarian like yourself could disagree with that premise though.

I'm an authoritarian?  Ok.

I could see plenty of circumstances by which a candidate with a plurality of the vote should, by all rights, get the nomination.  I can also foresee plenty of circumstances in which s/he wouldn't or shouldn't.  

But I can't help but observe that Bernie and his supporters didn't pipe up two months ago with their plurality-must-win position.  Back then it looked like Biden or even Warren had the clearest path to a plurality.  And back then, I didn't hear Bernie trumpeting his support for a revision of the convention's rules.

And that goes to the underlying truism that all procedure arguments are disingenuous.  

It'll be real fun to watch Bernie and his supporters reverse their position if Biden gets into a position where he is likely to have a plurality of the delegates on the first ballot.

[Huckleberry 32862]

7 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

If you believe that the nomination should be based on the will of democratic primary voters, then handing the nomination to a candidate that drastically trails the leading candidate in votes would be theft.  I could see how an authoritarian like yourself could disagree with that premise though.

This is some of the worst logic I've seen coming from you, and that's saying a lot.

As GoLL said, your premise is wrong.

If there were an election and there were 5 candidates, and they received votes as follows:

A - 32%
B - 17%
C - 17%
D - 17%
E - 17%

then you would say anyone other than A ending up with the victory after runoffs, additional voting rounds, etc. would be theft.  But what about the situation where A is the 5th choice of the 68% of people who didn't vote for them? When a field has more than two candidates you can't just say anyone other than whoever had the plurality on the first round winning is theft. That's absurd. The "will of the primary voters" in this example is that Candidate A not be the nominee. 68% of voters absolutely don't want them nominated.

Ranked voting and required primaries in each State are a much better solution than what either major party uses right now for specifically this reason.

[Dropout 355]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm an authoritarian?  Ok.

I could see plenty of circumstances by which a candidate with a plurality of the vote should, by all rights, get the nomination.  I can also foresee plenty of circumstances in which s/he wouldn't or shouldn't.  

But I can't help but observe that Bernie and his supporters didn't pipe up two months ago with their plurality-must-win position.  Back then it looked like Biden or even Warren had the clearest path to a plurality.  And back then, I didn't hear Bernie trumpeting his support for a revision of the convention's rules.

And that goes to the underlying truism that all procedure arguments are disingenuous.  

It'll be real fun to watch Bernie and his supporters reverse their position if Biden gets into a position where he is likely to have a plurality of the delegates on the first ballot.

Pipe up? I started the thread years ago. You think I thought we would lose?

I didn’t know it had to be stated the will of the people should stand. This is obvious in America is it not? It only became apparent when every candidate except Bernie said so on a debate stage.

Still holding out hope for Biden? I mean wasting my time here if you can’t see the writing on the wall.

[Bateshorn 9927]

7 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm an authoritarian?  Ok.

I could see plenty of circumstances by which a candidate with a plurality of the vote should, by all rights, get the nomination.  I can also foresee plenty of circumstances in which s/he wouldn't or shouldn't.  

But I can't help but observe that Bernie and his supporters didn't pipe up two months ago with their plurality-must-win position.  Back then it looked like Biden or even Warren had the clearest path to a plurality.  And back then, I didn't hear Bernie trumpeting his support for a revision of the convention's rules.

And that goes to the underlying truism that all procedure arguments are disingenuous.  

It'll be real fun to watch Bernie and his supporters reverse their position if Biden gets into a position where he is likely to have a plurality of the delegates on the first ballot.

This.  That's the fucking convention rules.  Bernie isn't even a member of the party.  You don't get to run for a nomination in a different party from your own, then when it looks like things aren't going to go your way, start loudly bitching about the rules.  You agreed to play the game.  Shut the fuck up and win.  Or not.  But you can't complain about the existence of the infield fly rule halfway through the 4th inning.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Bateshorn

[Bookman 4639]

Anyone who didn’t think there was a reasonable chance in February 2016 that Trump would become President had his or her head in the sand. The Republicans had multiple debates by then and Trump did well in all the primaries.

[Dropout 355]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

This is some of the worst logic I've seen coming from you, and that's saying a lot.

As GoLL said, your premise is wrong.

If there were an election and there were 5 candidates, and they received votes as follows:

A - 32%
B - 17%
C - 17%
D - 17%
E - 17%

then you would say anyone other than A ending up with the victory after runoffs, additional voting rounds, etc. would be theft.  But what about the situation where A is the 5th choice of the 68% of people who didn't vote for them? When a field has more than two candidates you can't just say anyone other than whoever had the plurality on the first round winning is theft. That's absurd. The "will of the primary voters" in this example is that Candidate A not be the nominee. 68% of voters absolutely don't want them nominated.

Ranked voting and required primaries in each State are a much better solution than what either major party uses right now for specifically this reason.

It wouldn’t be a runoff. Runoffs involve another vote from the people in America right? Any poll head to head shows Bernie winning. In most cases handily.

Superdelegates chosen by the DNC would intervene and very likely not represent the people of their states. The majority of which Bernie Sanders will have surely won. It would be unprecedented for the leader in delegates and votes to not be the nominee. Never happened.

[Bateshorn 9927]

Huck is right, moreover, the system was redesigned after 2016 to fix some of Bernie's complaints about the nomination process.  Fixed for somebody who isn't a member of the party.  Now that the new system is creating the possibility of a brokered convention, Sander's supporters are complaining. Sander's wanted it this way when he thought Biden was going to steamroll the field and wanted to be able to fight it out at the convention.  Now that he's the leader and the new rules are hurting him, his followers are crying like babies.

[Dropout 355]

1 minute ago, Bateshorn said:

Huck is right, moreover, the system was redesigned after 2016 to fix some of Bernie's complaints about the nomination process.  Fixed for somebody who isn't a member of the party.  Now that the new system is creating the possibility of a brokered convention, Sander's supporters are complaining. Sander's wanted it this way when he thought Biden was going to steamroll the field and wanted to be able to fight it out at the convention.  Now that he's the leader and the new rules are hurting him, his followers are crying like babies.

Bernie is your party. Get used to it. The rules aren’t hurting him. We are rolling. We will win. 

Yes complaining votes should be upheld in America. The horror.

[Bateshorn 9927]

Again, capture 50% of the delegates on the first vote and you can put your nuts on the table. That's the rules.  How fucking hard is that? 

[Dropout 355]

Just now, Bateshorn said:

Again, capture 50% of the delegates on the first vote and you can put your nuts on the table. That's the rules.  How fucking hard is that? 

We will see how hard it is.

Admit you don’t give a shit if elections across every state in this country are wiped out so some corporate democrat can swoop in. Those are the rules right? Hint not every rule is a good rule. God forbid we push to change an obvious bullshit one.

[Bateshorn 9927]

6 minutes ago, Dropout said:

We will see how hard it is.

Admit you don’t give a shit if elections across every state in this country are wiped out so some corporate democrat can swoop in. Those are the rules right? Hint not every rule is a good rule. God forbid we push to change an obvious bullshit one.

We've lived in a majority win elections since the Articles of Confederation.  Other than an odd municipal election here and there, it's how we elect our politicians, local, state, and national. In both Red and Blue states. Every Democratic nominee since 1972 has managed to win a majority of the delegates.  Bernie is the first who is facing a realistic prospect of not doing it. And there have been some insanely nasty Democratic primaries in the past.  1992, 2004, and 2008, just to name 3.

Are you arguing we should move to a plurality based electoral system?

Edited February 26, 2020 by Bateshorn

[Dropout 355]

Y’all keep trying to make this a runoff. It’s not. It’s superdelegates chosen by the DNC. The same ones who gave HRC a 500 600 delegate lead before a vote had even been cast.

[Fozzz 152]

 

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

This is some of the worst logic I've seen coming from you, and that's saying a lot.

As GoLL said, your premise is wrong.

If there were an election and there were 5 candidates, and they received votes as follows:

A - 32%
B - 17%
C - 17%
D - 17%
E - 17%

then you would say anyone other than A ending up with the victory after runoffs, additional voting rounds, etc. would be theft.  But what about the situation where A is the 5th choice of the 68% of people who didn't vote for them? When a field has more than two candidates you can't just say anyone other than whoever had the plurality on the first round winning is theft. That's absurd. The "will of the primary voters" in this example is that Candidate A not be the nominee. 68% of voters absolutely don't want them nominated.

Ranked voting and required primaries in each State are a much better solution than what either major party uses right now for specifically this reason.

In your scenario, it would be exceedingly unlikely that candidate A would not have greater overall support in a ranked choice voting system relative to any of candidates B-E.  Dumbshit pundits like to place candidates in specific lanes and thus assume that say Biden would draw far greater support from Bloomberg voters than Bernie would when that simply isn't true.

More importantly, in the scenario currently under discussion, the outcomes (assuming Bernie doesn't get a majority of pledged delegates on the first ballot) would be either to give the candidate with the marked lead in pledged delegates (Bernie) or to a candidate with a fraction of the support as a result of the impact of party functionary superdelegates and backroom dealing that has nothing to do with respecting the will of democratic primary voters.  What better reflects the will of primary voters - giving the nomination to the candidate with a clear lead in votes or giving it to the candidate who is best at buying delegates at the convention as Bloomberg plans to do?  

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Dropout 355]

9 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Every Democratic nominee since 1972 has managed to win a majority of the delegates.  Bernie is the first who is facing a realistic prospect of not doing it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

In 2016 Hilary did not hit the benchmark for a majority without superdelegates.

In 2008 Neither candidate received enough delegates from the state primaries and caucuses to achieve a majority without superdelegate votes.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Dropout

[Bateshorn 9927]

Except the Super's played no role in the actual nomination:  Clinton won a majority of the pledged delegates AND votes on June 7.  

From what I can tell, you want the Supers to do exactly what Sanders was mad about in 2016: Publicly pledge to support the plurality leader, thus making many of Sander's challengers campaigns effectively moot.

[Dropout 355]

1 minute ago, Bateshorn said:

Except the Super's played no role in the actual nomination:  Clinton won a majority of the pledged delegates AND votes on June 7.  

From what I can tell, you want the Supers to do exactly what Sanders was mad about in 2016: Publicly pledge to support the plurality leader, thus making many of Sander's challengers campaigns effectively moot.

The supers spoke before the vote in 16. On the first ballot. Bernie pushed them to the second ballot.

Incorrect as far as what I want. I want superdelegates to uphold the will of the people. I’d rather they be extinct.

[Bateshorn 9927]

Again, that's exactly what you want:  You want the super's to pledge to support the plurality leader, the way the have done since 1972.  You want what Bernie bitched about in 2016. I get it, he's the leader.  If the Supers announce, it'll effectively end the campaign and allow him to consolidate the party as leader.

I agree the supers should be eliminated completely.  The Democrats should go to a  primary election with ranked choice voting over a series of weekends in March.  I would do Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina on the first weekend as a nod to Tradition, while adding Maryland given it's diversity.  Then parcel out the rest of the states over the next few weeks.

Winner take all.

[Ghost of LL 15531]

37 minutes ago, Dropout said:

Pipe up? I started the thread years ago. You think I thought we would lose?

I didn’t know it had to be stated the will of the people should stand. This is obvious in America is it not? It only became apparent when every candidate except Bernie said so on a debate stage.

Still holding out hope for Biden? I mean wasting my time here if you can’t see the writing on the wall.

It's not "the will of the people" if a significant majority of the people want someone else.

[Dbeasy 15052]

He's been giving presidential speeches into a mirror since he was 6.

And his final pitch, the final debate before a make-or-break run of states, is that he will protect the sanctity of private health insurers.

That's his moral vision. That's the key to understanding what he offers the nation, the solvency of Aetna and UHC.

A calm tone of voice and hundreds of billions going from your pocket to the pockets of private capital.

lol what a fucking idiot

You may not agree with his view, but it isn’t an idiotic view. He’s correct in that many industrialized nations still use health insurance coverage.

[Dbeasy 15052]

If you believe that the nomination should be based on the will of democratic primary voters, then handing the nomination to a candidate that drastically trails the leading candidate in votes would be theft.  I could see how an authoritarian like yourself could disagree with that premise though.

I’m surprised it isn’t setup like a typical run-off with the top two vote getters under 50% going head to head for the nomination in a delegate re-vote. That would be the fairest approach to selecting the nominee.

[Dropout 355]

6 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Again, that's exactly what you want:  You want the super's to pledge to support the plurality leader, the way the have done since 1972.  You want what Bernie bitched about in 2016. I get it, he's the leader.  If the Supers announce, it'll effectively end the campaign and allow him to consolidate the party as leader.

Bates how can supers support the plurality leader if they spoke before the vote in 16? A plurality leader should first demonstrate they are such. It is not the same. Agree to disagree.

[bad_teammate 13196]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

It's not "the will of the people" if a significant majority of the people want someone else.

6 people are running for dogcatcher in Saskatoon.

A gets 3 votes
B gets 4 votes
C gets 10 votes
D gets 9 votes
E gets 5 votes
F gets 12 votes

- There was no ranked-choice ballot for the voters.
- The voters do not get to decide in a runoff election.

Who is the new dogcatcher of Saskatoon?

 

Just now, Dbeasy said:

You may not agree with his view, but it isn’t an idiotic view. He’s correct in that many industrialized nations still use health insurance coverage.

That's true. I'm just laughing at the idea that this was his big swing he's been building up to his whole life. he's about to get murdered in SC and embarrassed in every state with a white population lower than 85%, and his final bite at the apple is, "the revolutionary politics of the 60s were bad, we can't actually spend money to make things better, and we must protect private insurer profits."

Just pathetic all around.

If you had asked 22-year-old Pete Buttigieg if his most pivotal debate performance would feature him sniping impotently from the right of his main opponent, he would've thought it impossible.

And that's funny to me, as a jerk.

[Dropout 355]

9 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

It's not "the will of the people" if a significant majority of the people want someone else.

Need some stat classes in here. It’s the will of the people in that he won the elections in almost every state.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Dropout

[Rougarou 594]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

6 people are running for dogcatcher in Saskatoon.

A gets 3 votes
B gets 4 votes
C gets 10 votes
D gets 9 votes
E gets 5 votes
F gets 12 votes

- There was no ranked-choice ballot for the voters.
- The voters do not get to decide in a runoff election.

Who is the new dogcatcher of Saskatoon?

 

That's true. I'm just laughing at the idea that this was his big swing he's been building up to his whole life. he's about to get murdered in SC and embarrassed in every state with a white population lower than 85%, and his final bite at the apple is, "the revolutionary politics of the 60s were bad, we can't actually spend money to make things better, and we must protect private insurer profits."

Just pathetic all around.

If you had asked 22-year-old Pete Buttigieg if his most pivotal debate performance would feature him sniping impotently from the right of his main opponent, he would've thought it impossible.

And that's funny to me, as a jerk.

Trick question; Saskatoon is not in America and is filled with commie "others" white walkers from beyond the wall in the lame white north! MERICA!