Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

This is a long reply that is completely non-responsive to my assertion.

My assertion was quite clearly targeted at 3-4 years ago, tops, considering it is based on the election of Donald Trump and the Democratic response since then. 2018 was a surge for progressive behavior but now that we are at the next Presidential nomination, Joe Biden is the nominee. Nothing about Joe Biden's nomination indicates any leftward movement from 2016 in response to Trump's election.

My opening was a brief explanation of progressives' fears, it was not intended as a summary of the last five decades of Democratic policy positions. I do see how it could have been interpreted like that.

Well, I regret that I spent time typing out a nonresponsive reply.

But I think the point still stands.  Joe Biden's nomination expresses a desire to beat Donald Trump.  I don't think you can read anything more into it than that.

But if you look down the ballot at races right across the country, I think you'll see significant leftward movement, both among candidates and among the electorate.

Again--Joe Biden will be the nominee.  But Joe Biden is having to answer for a lot of his past positions in a way that he wouldn't have to have answered for them in 2016.

  • Like 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

In theory, "Never Trumpers" are Centrist Republicans.  It's not weird at all that Centrist Democrats would relate more to Centrist Republicans.

spacer.png

Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

#10at10 had North Carolina and Minnesota going to Sanders. I guess it is the Bernie Bro poll to keep folks in line since I can't find the source from a site. Just tweets.

Edited by DanTheHorn
  • Like 2
Posted
58 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

With respect to 'claim the progressive title,' she is not a progressive, really. She is a centrist in a party that is leaning too far to the right, IMO. Bernie was a true progressive with his platform of how labor should be compensated, etc. Having a wealth tax such as Warren's (again IMO) is putting the tax burden back where it used to be--on everyone who labors or profits from it. Biden et al are Democrats, but I wouldn't call them centrists when their platforms are viewed in light of just how far to the right the GOP is.

Apologies if this doesn't make sense, very incoherent today.

You can't call the one guy in a field of ~20 a centrist, when everybody else is to the right of him. Okay, I don't know if Marrianne was to the right of him, but you get the drift. 

Posted
Just now, Huckleberry said:

How would an "exit poll" include absentee voters?

I’m operating under the assumption Nate Silver wouldn’t be pointing it out if it wasn’t significant. His job is to interpret and value polling 

Posted

I'm operating under the English language, where an exit poll is a poll of people exiting the polling location. I get what he's saying in that the polls currently being posted everywhere don't include absentee voters, but if you include absentee voters then it's not merely an exit poll.

Doesn't change his point, of course, but words have meanings dammit. I will not allow the alternative facts and alternative definitions madness to infect the world!

  • Like 3
Posted
6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

How would an "exit poll" include absentee voters?

Based on tweeter verse they call those who voted absentee and get an "exit poll". I have no idea if this is true.

 

Posted (edited)

I figured it might be something like that, but I would assume that calling people who voted and asking who they voted for is even less reliable than an exit poll right after they voted.

I mean I would personally lie either way but I'm just an internet asshole.

Edited by Huckleberry
Posted

I had to re read that tweet to figure out what you were on about cause his point was clear.... but yeah you're right, that's not how those words work and it's a bad sentence. 

 

Should have just said something like "Exit polling is useless for predicting results as absentee voting is way up this year (as much as 50% of the total vote) and impossible to predict."

Posted (edited)

Right, pointless sidebar aside, the idea that the polls currently being published are overselling Sanders is probably 100% accurate. Other than the #10at10 one that apparently overstates him by 20% all around the country I would imagine that absentee would favor Biden for many reasons. If Sanders were actually winning in-person Election Day voters by 2% it would be a major upset, but I don't think even that's the case.

Edited by Huckleberry
Posted
I agree with Warren and would be happy with Harris, but is Harris really be a progressive choice? She strikes me as fairly establishment.

She has the second most progressive voting record in the Senate - higher than Bernie.

e125f97313285d743e4817e852f4c9ac.jpg
  • Like 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Is this bad?

lol fuck

If you believed Bernie supporters all the old folks would stay home due to coronavirus. Thing is those folks grew in a time when wearing a seat belt or a helmet was seen as being a wimp.

P.S. I made my kids wear a seat belt and a helmet. I grew up jumping around in the back of the pickup truck going down the highway.

Posted
10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Add another state to the list that's ready for single-payer! :)

 

 

Fantastic that they're in favor.  Not so much that their vote is basically ensuring the 1 candidate (out of 3) who will fight for it will essentially be finished after tonight.

Posted
58 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The DNC should change the format of the upcoming debate from the townhall style thing with a big audience to an audience-free thing with professional moderators asking questions.

official - no audience for az debate.

Posted

So.... what happens is the virus takes out Biden and Sanders. Do we just go to the convention and let existing delegates and super delegates decide who to support out of candidates that re-enter the race?

Posted
4 minutes ago, Pasken said:

So.... what happens is the virus takes out Biden and Sanders. Do we just go to the convention and let existing delegates and super delegates decide who to support out of candidates that re-enter the race?

Pete!Pete!Pete!

  • Like 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, Pasken said:

So.... what happens is the virus takes out Biden and Sanders. Do we just go to the convention and let existing delegates and super delegates decide who to support out of candidates that re-enter the race?

spacer.png

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Posted

A guy runs for the nomination of a party he refuses to be a part of and his campaign based on getting younger voters to show up...and it didn’t work?

 

tenor.gif

  • Like 4
Posted
2 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Goddamnit - Biden would have smoked Trump in 2016

And we would have avoided the darkest timeline.

Posted

That's not the lesson. Joe didn't spend a career courting black Southerners.

The lesson from Joe's success in the primary is this: Be the VP of an insanely popular and beloved black president.

  • Like 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

That's not the lesson. Joe didn't spend a career courting black Southerners.

The lesson from Joe's success in the primary is this: Be the VP of an insanely popular and beloved black president.

And that's precisely why he has an excellent chance in November.

Posted
28 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Biden should announce his VP pick later this week (Harris?) and get to work nationally. 

Here we go. 

 

25 minutes ago, Mach 1 said:

I'll be shocked if he doesn't pick Harris.

Harris doesn't gain him anything, he's already going to win California in November. Klobuchar gets him the Midwest, which Hillary lost last time.

  • Like 1
Posted

Question: For those wanting the advancement of progressive ideas into legislative change.....

Would Warren have more impact as VP or in the Senate with a push to majority speaker? 

I am not educated on roles, impacts, etc for VP, and even less so on how senate majority leader or whatever it's called works.

 

I feel like a VP role has more exposure and camera time, but the senate roll more impact? honest question from a knownothing.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

 

Harris doesn't gain him anything, he's already going to win California in November. Klobuchar gets him the Midwest, which Hillary lost last time.

Energizes African American vote which is an absolute must, low AA turnout could be a killer. 

Posted
1 hour ago, cam4mav said:

Question: For those wanting the advancement of progressive ideas into legislative change.....

Would Warren have more impact as VP or in the Senate with a push to majority speaker? 

I am not educated on roles, impacts, etc for VP, and even less so on how senate majority leader or whatever it's called works.

 

I feel like a VP role has more exposure and camera time, but the senate roll more impact? honest question from a knownothing.

Yes.  Senate.  IMO.

  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Ted Lange said:

Energizes African American vote which is an absolute must, low AA turnout could be a killer. 

The primaries have already showed that African Americans support Biden. Obama will enter the campaign once it's official and rally them behind Joe. If Amy can turn Wisconsin, Missouri, Iowa, and other Midwest states blue that's huge. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

Energizes African American vote which is an absolute must, low AA turnout could be a killer. 

BINGO.  Also, lets dem gov. appoint replacement I believe, unlike Warren and Klob.

Posted
8 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

 

Harris doesn't gain him anything, he's already going to win California in November. Klobuchar gets him the Midwest, which Hillary lost last time.

 

He doesn't need a VP to win the Midwest.  This primary is pretty much telling us the Midwest was just anti-Hillary.  

With that said, his VP fa sho needs to be a woman.  Make it a Black woman, and hot damn.

Who do you want to see debate Mike Pence?  Kamala Harris or Klo?

Harris vs. Pence would be must see tv. 

  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...