|
How are some people still so deluded as to believe that Bernie can still win the nomination? Biden could take a giant poo poo during the debate and still win. Bernie even lost in Seattle. -edit- also no is going to watch the debate when they already know Biden has the nomination Apogee15 fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Mar 12, 2020 |
#
¿
Mar 12, 2020 05:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 21:14 |
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:were about to test the pants making GBS threads hypothesis, just hang on a couple more days and you can go have your sundowning loser contest Like what, you think Biden is going to lose at the debate so badly that it swings florida like 40 points, and every other state 20?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2020 05:47
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:you’re right let’s just hand Alzheimer’s joe the nomination and commit to losing November right now I'm not advocating for him, I'm saying he's already been handed the nom. It's over.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2020 05:59
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:then it’s over Tuesday night, either way let me enjoy the delusion that’s alleviated my anxiety That's a silly thing to let your mental health rest on. Just pretend none of it matters like the rest of us.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2020 06:13
|
|
|
MJeff posted:Then what's the difference? If it's already over no matter what, what's the difference between ending it now and ending it later? What do you mean? I never said the process should end or that Bernie should drop out or that the debate shouldn't happen. Not sure where any of you got the impression that i'm somehow a Biden supporter. I'm just a realist. Bernie absolutely should still do the debate and stay in the race, he can take part in the narrative that way. I just think it's dumb for people to act like he still has a shot at winning.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2020 06:39
|
|
|
Son of Thunderbeast posted:If I recall correctly he was behind by about 300 pledged delegates at this point. Obama took the lead on super tuesday, and held it to the end: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Tuesday,_2008 Number of contests won Number of delegates won[30] Barack Obama 13 847 Hillary Clinton 10 834 Also, on this last super Tuesday, someone edited wikipedia to make it look like Hillary was ahead on Super Tuesday. It was changed back pretty quickly. Apogee15 fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Mar 13, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2020 17:36
|
|
|
Majorian posted:California was part of Super Tuesday in '08. You are right that Obama got more delegates, though; I misremembered. huh, you're right. Not sure why I thought it wasn't.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2020 17:46
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:With what? The 1.5 trillion Trump just injected into the markets? I mean the 1.5 trillion is basically fake money though, and is not being injected into the "market" really. It's basically a short 1-3 month loan to help banks purchase repos from each other. It wont actually cost any taxpayer money and it will have no impact on inflation. It's not at all comparable to the government coming up with 1.5 trillion to spend on student loans or healthcare. https://theweek.com/articles/901853/feds-15-trillion-intervention-explained
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2020 23:17
|
|
|
xrunner posted:I think Biden offers, more than anything else, the implicit promise that he’ll be really boring and there won’t be much attention so everyone can ignore politics. Biden voters don’t want anything fixed. They want to stop thinking about what’s broken and pretend everything is fine. Yeah, I think this is definitely it. Also I don't really think Biden has many actual supporters, more like the majority of DNC voters want a return to boring normalcy and that's pretty much exactly what Biden represents. He'll basically do nothing but act like Obama-lite. They don't care what he'll do, because they think he'll do very little except undo whatever Trump did(which has actually also been very little). Sanders represents a lot of change, and change is scary. Also the portion of the party that is "progressive" is still a minority(like 40% of the party's voters considers themselves progressives), so that's still like 60% of the party which are not progressives. Also it's self-reported and I feel like a lot of people like to think of themselves as progressives, but really aren't. But that number has been going up for decades, so eventually they might become the majority of the party.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
Gatts posted:There was a Biden collapse. He outright lied about his record on Social Security. Lied multiple times. Biden's been lying about things on national TV since he ran for president in 1987. I wouldn't call that a collapse, i'd call that standard Biden. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmuAB5MqP0Y if you are curious, it's basically what caused him to drop out less than a month later) Apogee15 fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Mar 16, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2020 03:43
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:The DNC is a full 5 weeks before the RNC, theres plenty of time to reschedule it and not kill a million people Where's the fun in that? They could make it a party and play a handshaking game called "Allergies, Cold or Covid?" It'll be exciting!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2020 20:38
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:That's nice but the Democratic party as a viable political insitution is going to be on life support soon. Wishful thinking. Voters have a short memory. If they lose this election, Trump will finish his term, and 8 years of a republican president is almost always a free win for the next democratic candidate.(just like 8 years of a D president almost always results in an R president). So if they lose, they wait 4 more years and take their free win with whoever they want as the candidate. Apogee15 fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Mar 18, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2020 03:42
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:Lol at free elections after four more years of Republican dominance and court supermajorities Yeah but who cares about congress? lol
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2020 05:10
|
|
|
Could always go back to Jill Stein lol
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2020 06:08
|
|
|
El Destructo posted:And every out-of-state student must jump through several time- and money-intensive hoops just to be eligible for the chance to wait for hours in that one line to that one polling place. Yep, those kids are just so disinterested and lazy! It's pretty lovely for the places that engaged in voter supression, but doesn't really explain places like Washington. Apogee15 fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Mar 20, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2020 04:30
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:tulsi's brother weighs in lol, I just now read this. "We supported bernie, but he didn't want to fight the establishment hard enough like we are! That's why we endorsed the establishment candidate."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2020 05:45
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:Do you guys remember the Mike Gravel Campaign? Does anyone else find it worrying that now two campaigns in the 2020 Democratic primary have faced suspicion that their candidate is either dead or not lucid enough to be aware that they're running for president? I never really heard that about Mike Gravel, also he made it clear from the beginning that he was just trying to make it to the first debate and was then going to donate all his campaign funds to whoever matched his positions best. Really wish he had made it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2020 23:03
|
|
|
fondue posted:I thought the DNC could just appoint anyone they wanted and that the primaries were bread and circuses for the voters? Weren't they sued in Florida over this and the court determined it was lovely but legal? The DNC is a private corporation which governs the Democratic Party and can choose it's political nominee any way it wants. They have rules governing the nomination process, but they could and have in the past changed those rules.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2020 03:40
|
|
|
https://nypost.com/2020/03/28/democrats-need-to-recruit-obama-to-bench-biden-find-another-candidate-goodwin/
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2020 19:31
|
|
|
Pingui posted:So regarding the youth turnout I ran the numbers, by comparing exit polling of 2016 to 2020 and the turnout of primaries in 2016 and 2020. Not all states have both exit polling and/or primaries for both years, but I compared all that do: The youth vote is typically considered to be 18-29, and 5% up is definitely not "massively up" especially considering literally every other age group was up 25%+ and population growth in the US was 2.5%.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2020 16:05
|
|
|
Pingui posted:If you believe this election to be typical, I've got some news for you. The way the discourse is going it was "only the youth" that voted for Bernie. Seeing as Bernie won age categories under 50, anything under 50 is in this election being defined as "the youth vote" by MSNBC/CNN. lol, no one is considering anything under 50 to be the youth vote.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2020 16:11
|
|
|
Pingui posted:The cutoff for millennials is around 40. And I am not actually saying they are young, I am saying that the discourse dictates that only young people vote for Bernie, but as Bernie wins the under 50 cohort, the people stating only young people vote for Bernie are the ones implicitly stating it. There's a difference between saying the youth vote didn't turn out like we'd hoped, and saying that younger people voted for Bernie while older people voted more for Biden. quote:
Find one single article that talked about "the youth vote" being anything above 28. joepinetree posted:This is a dumb and pedantic point. There's no technical definition of "youth vote" and it wouldn't matter if it did. Bernie won the under 50 vote. Whether that is called the "youth vote" or "apogee15's incoming 3 page derail over definitions" vote doesn't matter. When you are arguing over what something is, the definition of that thing kinda does matter. You can't say someone is wrong about something and then redefine a term to prove them wrong. Then be like "oh definitions don't matter" as a retort. Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_vote_in_the_United_States
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2020 16:25
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:That video is three years old I think people missed this. The video happened in 2017.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2020 16:54
|
|
|
Voting in Wisconsin.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2020 19:27
|
|
|
REMEMBER SPONGE MONKEYS posted:As a (state) delegate, aren’t you beholden to voting as you’re told though? I guess you get more power in the national, assuming it makes round 2, but otherwise? The idea is that maybe no one gets a majority which means it makes it to the 2nd vote. Still wont matter though, because of the super delegates.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2020 00:59
|
|
|
Some recent polling in Michigan and Wisconsin regarding the VP slot: https://www.axios.com/vice-presiden...osam&stream=top Looks promising for Warren. Also have to wonder if she got anything for her endorsement.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2020 17:24
|
|
|
Tweet is pretty misleading. Biden donated his senate records to the University of Delaware in 2011 under the stipulation that they remain sealed until 2 years after he leaves public office. At some point prior to April 2019 that was changed to say 2 years after he "retires from public life". It's unlikely that anything will force those documents to be unsealed anytime soon. So when the tweet says "those papers exist" they are not saying that documents that Tara Reade filed exists, they are saying that Biden's senate records exist. We still don't know what's in those senate records. Presumably if she filed something, they'd be there, but we don't know for certain. The only way we see what Tara Reade filed in time for the election is if someone already has it from another source and is just waiting for a good time to release it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2020 18:57
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:Something I would bet there's a reasonable chance of, or possibly other accusers. I wouldn't be shocked if there were, though I would wonder why they didn't come out when he was running as VP. For_Great_Justice posted:Also misleading: Claiming Biden is not a sexual predator. Who made that claim?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
For_Great_Justice posted:The Biden campaign for one. Ah, so you weren't actually responding to anyone here, just randomly throwing it out there. OK.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
A few months ago I was listening to an NPR piece on political theory specifically in regards to presidential elections. It was a professor talking about how commonly it's thought that winning is largely due to a candidate being able to turn out a large amount of people. He was arguing that there is growing evidence that it's more about a candidate turning out people *against* them. People came out to vote *against* Hillary more so than voting for Trump. Not really sure he's right on it, but it's an interesting idea. I would imagine it definitely has some sort of impact, and a candidate turning out people against them is not really often considered. Republicans *hated* Hillary on a very deep level(and honestly a lot of Democrats hated her too, plus the whole "political dynasty" aspect and her acting as if she was entitled to the presidency). Democrats were complacent about Trump, they hardly even considered him a threat. Republicans aren't a fan of Biden, but they hardly have the same level of hate towards him as they did Hillary. But democrat voters are incredibly hateful of Trump right now.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2020 06:13
|
|
|
Taffer posted:In order to run AGAINST someone you have to do the barest minimum of "hey, this guy is loving up, here's how, and here's what I'll do better". Biden isn't doing any of that, at all. He has no plans, no response, no speeches full of hope and inspiration. Even people who despise Trump have no reason to vote for him, not even bad reasons. This is simply not true at all. I mean it's kinda dumb because Biden doesn't currently have a position in the government, and this will all essentially be over by the time Biden takes office if he wins, so not like he even *could* do anything. But regardless, you only think he has literally no plans or policies because you stick your head in the sand. Literally just go type in google "biden covid plan" and read it yourself, because i'm not going to spoon feed it to you. Also google "Biden's policies" as well, because he definitely has those too. In fact, the public option plan polled better than Bernie's medicare for all did. Some of you guys are riding this "biden evil" train so hard that you can't even imagine that anything good could come from him. I'm no fan of Biden, there are MANY MANY people I would have preferred over him including Bernie. But the world is hardly as black and white as some of you make it out to be, and I 100% believe a Biden presidency would be less harmful than a Trump presidency, and he could fix some of what has broken(like the Biodefense council that Trump dismantled). I doubt he'll win though.I don't think it's a slam dunk for Trump like some of you, but still I give Trump the edge.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2020 00:39
|
|
|
ManBoyChef posted:just look at Biden's record. When you do, ask yourself why maybe people don't really think he is a step in the right direction. I've seen his records. It's not great. It's better than the alternative.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2020 11:29
|
|
|
Not sure why some posters keep mentioning AOC 2024. There isn't a chance in hell that happens. Like Bernie had decades to build a name and a mini-cult following. He was the most popular senator in the country for a long time. He had everything going for him(except establishment support). AOC though? She's still mostly unknown in the country, and the very little polling on her that has been done does not look good. She's wont even be old enough to be president until 1 month before the election. The "Young and Inexperienced" ads write themselves. You think the olds came out for Biden against Bernie? Watch when happens if a junior congressperson just barely over 35 runs. Apogee15 fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Apr 21, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2020 00:01
|
|
|
https://nypost.com/2020/04/23/aoc-announces-on-instagram-that-she-will-vote-for-joe-biden/
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2020 20:10
|
|
|
Uncle Wemus posted:This wont stop them from trying to primary her. Obviously not, the point is that you have multiple progressive figureheads saying that voting for Biden is better than the alternative of having Trump be president for 4 more years.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
Somfin posted:To the folks saying that we have to vote for Biden: how much worse of a candidate would he have to be for you to not vote for him? You're clearly comfortable voting for Blue Trump but would you be in here arguing that the loving Jews need to stop complaining, ignore that book he wrote and the speeches he's given, and vote for Blue Hitler? He'd have to be worse than Trump. Voting for president has always been about picking the least bad option for me. I don't think Biden is even close to being as bad as Trump. Like spout nonsense hyperbole all you want, but there are a metric shitton of ways that Biden is better than Trump. We wouldn't be wasting money on a stupid ineffective borderwall with Biden. We wouldn't have a dozen scandals a year that result in firing whistleblowers directly as a result of said whistleblowing. We wouldn't have our biodefense councils disbanded under Biden, and would likely have a much more proactive response to a pandemic. We wouldn't have our postal service starved for money. We wouldn't have our president buddying up to brutal dictators. We might repair our relationship with countries like Canada and Germany. Fewer giant tax cuts for the rich, and more budget oversight. We wouldn't have a president encouraging a foreign country to interfere in our elections. We wouldn't have a president who refers to mexicans as "rapists" or refers to Nazis as "fine people". We wouldn't have a president who committed literal fraud with things like Trump University. Did everyone forget about Hurricane Maria and how terrible our response to that disaster was? How we basically said "gently caress you" to Puerto Rico? How about the way Trump involved almost his entire family in the White House? I think literally every one of those things would have been handled better by almost anyone else. No, I don't think Biden is great, or even very good. I absolutely think he's many times preferable to another 4 years of Trump. Another 4 years in which he doesn't have to worry about getting reelected at the end of. Oh, and don't forget that it's possible for the Republicans to take back the house and keep the senate. In fact, it's unlikely that Democrats can take the senate even if everything goes well for them. Or how about this: AOC's green new deal bill has 99 sponsors in congress. Guess how many are Democrats and how many are Republicans? It wont be hard to guess. The democrats are not great, but there is absolutely a huge difference between the parties and this nonsense of "they're the same" is just straight up dishonest. There's a reason progressives like AOC and Bernie Sanders are saying they are going to vote for Biden despite him supporting very few of their ideas. If he's not a step forward, at least he's a much smaller step back. Apogee15 fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Apr 23, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2020 21:08
|
|
|
Doctor Jeep posted:of course not, one lost election won't destroy the neolibs, the party is full of them top to bottom and they're holding the reins lol Hillary losing didn't do jack poo poo to the party. If it had been anyone but Trump on the other end losing would have been 100% expected. How often does a dem win after 8 years of a dem presidency? Pretty much never. Biden losing will do nothing either, because in 2024 it will have been 8 years of republican leadership and it'll be the dem's turn again. They'll be able to run pretty much anyone and win.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2020 22:15
|
|
|
I think some leftists make the mistake of thinking that most democrat voters are on their side. They aren't. Most democrats do not want to abolish ICE. Most democrats actually approved of Obama's actions in Libya. Most democrats think the ACA was good legislation(like 94%). Most democrats would prefer a public option(though it's close) to M4A. Obama has like an 86% approval rating among democrats, so that includes many self-proclaimed progressives in the party. So with that said, I guess I'd say it doesn't really make sense for leftists to vote for Biden. They really don't have a party at all. They tried to get some control in the DNC and failed. Not voting is really the only thing that makes sense for them. The democrats thought their only alternative was to vote for the democratic candidate anyways, and the only way to prove that wrong is to not vote. I still want Trump to lose, but yeah it really doesn't make sense for leftists to vote for Biden.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2020 16:54
|
|
|
Ague Proof posted:What? He asked for a "vaccine" for drug use that would stop drugs from feeling good, and wanted to administer it to communities during the crack epidemic. Pretty much just nonsense. From that people extrapolated that the only way to do that would be to kill people's dopamine receptors and that would affect a lot more than just drug use.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2020 17:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 21:14 |
|
|
FRINGE posted:And, I have discovered time and time again, most democrats have no loving idea what Obama actually did. What makes you think they don't know, as opposed to knowing and just not having a problem with it? I'm not typically one to argue that the general public is not incredibly ignorant and misinformed, but it definitely seems to me that a lot of people assume that because they have a problem with something means everyone else would too if only they knew. I think that's not necessarily a good assumption.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2020 17:47
|
|