Jump to content

2020 Democratic Nominee

used2b

By used2b
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Incredulity

Incredulity 11875

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Why? Does imagining a molestation video from one that doesn’t exist somehow turn you on? What kind of sick fuck mind are you? 

You are the one referring to it as a “molestation video”.  If it’s totally innocuous then have at it.  My bet is you either end up in cuffs or with your teeth knocked down your throat.  Win, win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 23.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • bad_teammate

    3638

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    2212

  • Hank Kingsley

    1252

  • Js1

    1230

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Huckleberry
Huckleberry

No it doesn't, this is absurd selfishness on a grand scale. Nobody is getting punished. My wife and I paid off our student loans, and you know what I think about younger people or even those in our ge

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

i’ve really enjoyed the 900 posts from bt explaining how bernie people aren’t aggressive, obsessive, and very-online.  truly a learning experience. 

Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton

3rd or 4th thread but whos counting.  Name recognition and ability to collect money is most important to the Democratic Party. They aren't trying to win 2020, they are trying to rebuild and colle

Posted Images

JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

You are the one referring to it as a “molestation video”.  If it’s totally innocuous then have at it.  My bet is you either end up in cuffs or with your teeth knocked down your throat.  Win, win.

Like I said. You are one bad internet tough guy. Maybe the toughest I’ve seen.

And stop having yours sock neg me. It’s lame. Just do it yourself you pussy troll. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11875

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Like I said. You are one bad internet tough guy. Maybe the toughest I’ve seen.

And stop having yours sock neg me. It’s lame. Just do it yourself you pussy troll. 

Only thing I have neg’d of yours was the retarded mouth breathing you laid down in the tax reform thread.  No socks here so look for someone else.

I have made no threats, nor have I challenged anyone so really don’t know what the fuck you are babbling about in that regard.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16695

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

Excellent post and spot on. To me the closest states for 2020 are going to be Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Arizona, and North Carolina. Trump can win all of those and if he wins five but loses New Hampshire, then we have a tie and the house decides it. In other words, trump inspired chaos. 

If the dems lose Michigan and Pennsylvania again, which I don’t think will happen but who really knows, we’re fucked. 

An EC tie is obviously a minuscule probability with so many moving parts, but I agree it is at least in the realm of plausible. It would mean the Ds took MI and PA back, and either flipped the Maine 2nd District or the Omaha House district in Nebraska. That'd be under-performing for the Ds, but that is kind of their calling card. I almost hope it happens just to see it. Almost. It'd still be a Democratic President thanks to the House. Is one of these two really that crazy?

6bbbd.png O888B.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28928

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Js1 said:

Yeah, don't assume that.

There was just an article last month that he's going to be very selective in endorsing. Aka, the race will be pretty close to decided. And it would probably be a decision between Joe and Kamala.  He's not going to forget she was one his earliest supporters and was there when he announced, despite Hillary being the favorite.

He's also not going to forget that Biden was his VP, a loyal partner, a friend, and a valuable mentor to a President without a lot of political experience. Given Obama's careful and cautious nature, I have a hard time seeing him rush to endorse anyone over Biden as long as Joe is still in the running. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NowThis

NowThis 931

Posted
Posted

If neither candidate gets a majority of the 538 electoral votes, the election for President is decided in the House of Representatives, with each state delegation having one vote. A majority of states (26) is needed to win. Senators would elect the Vice-President, with each Senator having a vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Celery Man

Celery Man 21094

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, NowThis said:

If neither candidate gets a majority of the 538 electoral votes, the election for President is decided in the House of Representatives, with each state delegation having one vote. A majority of states (26) is needed to win. Senators would elect the Vice-President, with each Senator having a vote.

can we do buttigieg and pence

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 30320

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

No front runner?

Are they joking?

I dunno. It seems pretty wide open to me at this point. Here's one poll (that I'm completely unfamiliar with but was cited by Politico in a story) showing none of them are above 15%. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dCo2pRN0-jn12kX-fFnhdm-JkyZCvX9Y/view?ths=true

Here's a blurb about the poll from the article:

Quote

 

Most polls of the 2020 Democratic contest work like this: A telephone interviewer reads a lengthy list of declared and undeclared candidates, or online poll-takers see the whole list on their device. Respondents select from the choices — though some go a different route and volunteer another candidate or say they are undecided.

But critics say that setup forces voters to make a choice they’ve barely considered this early. That makes Biden — and, to a lesser extent, Sanders — an appealing option: Democrats know and almost universally like Biden, even if they haven’t thought a lot about whom they want to take on Trump 21 months from now.

“In a race like this, the methodology stuff really does matter because it’s such an open question,” said Kirby, whose firm recently conducted a national poll of the 2020 Democratic presidential race. Bold Blue’s poll gave respondents an explicit option to say they were undecided — and nearly half, 48 percent, took it.

Biden still led the field, but with only 12 percent support. Sanders was third, with 9 percent, behind Sen. Kamala Harris of California at 11 percent.

Kirby thinks that is a more accurate reflection of the “hard-core” Biden and Sanders support than the 30 or 20 percent, respectively, the two men draw in other polls.

 

1

Seems like a pretty fair assessment to me right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 30320

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

These polls mean almost nothing. But we're in an information vacuum, so...

Yeah, I guess that's kind of the point of my post. It's way too soon and there really is no clear front runner right now. Even if there were, there's a ridiculous amount of time before the primaries begin.

I think it's fair to discuss policies so that we can make informed decisions, but the "horse race" discussion about front-runners polling isn't something that we should be discussing a year out imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 30320

Posted
Posted (edited)

And for Pete's sake let's, please, remain mindful of this shit (reason I stepped into this thread to begin with):

‘Sustained and ongoing’ disinformation assault targets Dem presidential candidates

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/20/2020-candidates-social-media-attack-1176018

Quote

 

A wide-ranging disinformation campaign aimed at Democratic 2020 candidates is already underway on social media, with signs that foreign state actors are driving at least some of the activity.

The main targets appear to be Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas), four of the most prominent announced or prospective candidates for president.

A POLITICO review of recent data extracted from Twitter and from other platforms, as well as interviews with data scientists and digital campaign strategists, suggests that the goal of the coordinated barrage appears to be undermining the nascent candidacies through the dissemination of memes, hashtags, misinformation and distortions of their positions. But the divisive nature of many of the posts also hints at a broader effort to sow discord and chaos within the Democratic presidential primary.

The cyber propaganda — which frequently picks at the rawest, most sensitive issues in public discourse — is being pushed across a variety of platforms and with a more insidious approach than in the 2016 presidential election, when online attacks designed to polarize and mislead voters first surfaced on a massive scale.

Recent posts that have received widespread dissemination include racially inflammatory memes and messaging involving Harris, O’Rourke and Warren. In Warren’s case, a false narrative surfaced alleging that a blackface doll appeared on a kitchen cabinet in the background of the senator’s New Year’s Eve Instagram livestream.

 

Quote

 

“It looks like the 2020 presidential primary is going to be the next battleground to divide and confuse Americans,” said Brett Horvath, one of the founders of Guardians.ai, a tech company that works with a consortium of data scientists, academics and technologists to disrupt cyberattacks and protect pro-democracy groups from information warfare. “As it relates to information warfare in the 2020 cycle, we’re not on the verge of it — we’re already in the third inning.”

An analysis conducted for POLITICO by Guardians.ai found evidence that a relatively small cluster of accounts — and a broader group of accounts that amplify them — drove a disproportionate amount of the Twitter conversation about the four candidates over a recent 30-day period.

 

Quote

 

Since the beginning of the year, those accounts began specifically directing their output at Harris, O’Rourke, Sanders and Warren, and were amplified by an even wider grouping of accounts. Over a recent 30-day period, between 2 percent and 15 percent of all Twitter mentions of the four candidates emanated in some way from within that cluster of accounts, according to the Guardians.ai findings. In that time frame, all four candidates collectively had 6.8 million mentions on Twitter.

“We can conclusively state that a large group of suspicious accounts that were active in one of the largest influence operations of the 2018 cycle is now engaged in sustained and ongoing activity for the 2020 cycle,” Horvath said.

 

Quote

 

A recent analysis from the social media intelligence firm Storyful detected spikes in misinformation activity over social media platforms and online comment boards in the days after each of the 2020 candidates launched their presidential bids, beginning with Warren’s announcement on Dec. 31.

Fringe news websites and social media platforms, Storyful found, played a significant role in spreading anti-Warren sentiment in the days after she announced her candidacy on Dece. 31. Using a variety of keyword searches for mentions of Warren, the firm reported evidence of “spam or bot-like” activity on Facebook and Twitter from some of the top posters.

Kelly Jones, a researcher with Storyful who tracked suspicious activity in the three days after the campaign announcements of Harris, Warren, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), said she’s seen a concerted push over separate online message boards to build false or derogatory narratives.

 

Edited by bolverk
again, the use of quotes is fucking up my ability to format some text.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 87177

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

These polls mean almost nothing. But we're in an information vacuum, so...

I mean, I definitely can see Biden-Harris-Bernie leading the pack (hovering around 9-12%) with half the voters undecided.  It's way too early, a lot of people haven't made up their minds.  A year from the first votes and 4ish months from the first debate. 

There is no front runner, plain and simple.  You can't call Biden a front-runner because he's not even in the race.  You can call Bernie a "front runner" on name recognition, but the true front runner is "Undecided." 

It's quite clear the Democratic voters: 1) want to look into all their options before deciding and 2) don't want to anoint anyone in February 2019. 

Edited by Js1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 87177

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The front runner right now is Bernie Sanders. He's it. That will change if Biden enters the race.

LMAO, how? On name recognition alone?  Hey, President Jeb! 

If you give voters an undecided option and they go Biden (12), Harris (11), Bernie (9), UNDECIDED (48) - there is no front runner.

Edited by Js1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Sam Beckett

Doc Sam Beckett 5903

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The front runner right now is Bernie Sanders. He's it. That will change if Biden enters the race.

As long as Harris doesn't completely fuck up, there's no way Bernie is beating her for the nomination. Maybe Biden, but I just don't see anyone currently in the field beating her, unless she completely shits the bed 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46163

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

As long as Harris doesn't completely fuck up, there's no way Bernie is beating her for the nomination. Maybe Biden, but I just don't see anyone currently in the field beating her, unless she completely shits the bed 

She's near the bottom of my list right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 21767

Posted
Posted

Everything will polls right now is based on name recognition. The majority of Democrat voters aren't vetting and digging into all of the potential candidates like we are on this thread.

I also think the majority are keeping their options open, and polling will have more substance once we get to the debates. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skipper

Skipper 6411

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The front runner right now is Bernie Sanders. He's it. That will change if Biden enters the race.

Sad if true.  Dems have the perfect opportunity to swing a ton of independent votes, but if they nominate that old nut, they gift Trump another 4 years. And it wouldn't be close.   

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 19529

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Skipper said:

Sad if true.  Dems have the perfect opportunity to swing a ton of independent votes, but if they nominate that old nut, they gift Trump another 4 years. And it wouldn't be close.   

Oh, I'm just talking right now. I don't think there's any way Bernie Sanders gets the nomination. He has a black voter problem that will doom his campaign in a field that already includes two African Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 30320

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I also think the majority are keeping their options open, and polling will have more substance once we get to the debates. 

 

 

If I were forced to make a choice right now, my ticket would be Warren/O'Rourke. But this is really where I'm at and would declare undecided in a poll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ollie Slatt

Ollie Slatt 295

Posted
Posted

Likelihood of winning the general election definitely matters.  I am undecided as of now.   I think Warren would probably be the best president, but I am not sure she is the best candidate.  And even the worst in this field would be worlds better than another 4 years of Trump.  So it matters. It matters big time.   

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I love how we’re already blaming the democrats for half of America voting for Trump.

Party leadership (and even primary voters) definitely deserve some of the blame.  If one of my favorite teams loses, then I am generally more pissed at the coach for having a shitty strategy than at the other team.  And putting up a candidate that half of the country absolutely hates (even if their reasons are stupid or immoral) is a stupid strategy.  

 

BTW, I like Pete a lot too, but the jump from mayor to president is huge.   We need a president that can undo as much trump damage as possible as quickly as possible, and experience in Washington matters for that sort of thing.  Hopefully Pete can build a name for himself and then run for something more substantial. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34747

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Eggo said:

Yeah yeah, throwing blood in the water or whatever. But if the Dems' response to a highly divisive GOP POTUS is to field another seemingly divisive candidate, I think they lose again.

the republicans are going to swear up and down regardless of who the nominee is that said nominee is the most divisive ever.  so it doesn't matter.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...