|
bengy81 posted:Isn't Joe still 10 delegates behind Bernie? Sanders still has the inside track to the nomination imo, but Biden crushing South Carolina is definitely cause for concern. African-American voters are one of the most important demographics in the Democratic Party, and as SC demonstrated most of them are still backing Biden. At this point, it really comes down to Super Tuesday, and whether Sanders gets enough votes to put up a solid delegate lead. California and Texas are, by far, going to be the biggest states to watch.
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2020 16:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 01:56 |
|
|
Klobuchar outlasting the Butt is probably the funniest thing to come out of this election.Stultus Maximus posted:Dangit we need more moderates staying around to split the Biden vote. Yeah, Bernie needs Biden and Bloomberg to stay under the 15% viability threshold in as many states as possible to maximize his delegate count. As backwards as it sounds, Butt dropping out really hurts him more than it helps. (And a part of me wonders if that's part of the reason why Butt decided to drop).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2020 00:37
|
|
|
I don't normally truck in conspiratorial thinking but if you told me Biden or Bloomberg promised Butt a cabinet seat or some other high-profile position in return for dropping out early, I'd probably believe you. No way Butt would be satisfied with a mere cable news job, dude has some pretty naked ambition.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2020 00:44
|
|
|
Bored As gently caress posted:Ah poo poo, didn't think of that. Never read the book. I vaguely remember it was good, but I also read it in high school so
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2020 02:29
|
|
|
Don Dongington posted:Further proof that the Butte campaign management and the DNC Venn diagram is basically a circle. I'm waiting on seeing how Super Tuesday plays out, and may even end up swinging by a Warren rally on Tuesday, but ultimately I think I'm gonna be a +1 for Bernie in Michigan—I'm perfectly happy with Sanders as the nominee even if I still have a slight preference for Warren, and a contested convention has to be avoided at all costs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2020 03:11
|
|
|
My parents are going on a cruise next week and I'd say it's probably about a 50% chance at this point they'll get it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2020 05:35
|
|
|
Don Dongington posted:Seems like there's a pretty simple solution to that problem if you ask me. I mean unfortunately it's a themed cruise, so they can't reschedule it, and it's something they've been waiting all year for. All I can really do is cross my fingers and hope they manage to dodge this particular bullet.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2020 06:07
|
|
|
Hyrax Attack! posted:I’m trying to think of another presidential equivalent, maybe Buchanan refusing to take any action to mitigate the Civil War? Or Hoover and the depression, but at least he knew it was a problem but just refused to assist. Hoover was a smart guy and understood it was a problem, and tried to address the worsening Depression in some ways, but was ideologically opposed to direct government intervention into the economy. An excellent manager for specific tasks (Such as organizing relief for Belgium during and after World War I, for which he was famous), but absolutely the wrong leader for the country at that time. Trump, meanwhile, is just a loving idiot.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2020 19:27
|
|
|
Jesus  https://twitter.com/AP/status/1234804892356792320?s=19
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2020 12:50
|
|
|
Comrade Blyatlov posted:every day is Infrastructure Week
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2020 21:59
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Biden winning MN by the margins that are being talked about makes zero sense to me, to the point that I'm almost willing to indulge in conspiracy theories. What, did a bunch of centrist/conservative Dems just vote against Clinton in 2016? Minnesota had a caucus in 2016, which heavily benefited Sanders since caucuses are biased towards people with more dedicated supporters.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2020 04:43
|
|
|
Handsome Ralph posted:Also not skipping Wisconsin or Michigan as campaign stops would be a plus. I know the actual complaint is that she didn't devote *enough* time to Michigan, which is true, but it always does kind of bug me when people post like she never visited once. I was there! I saw her with my own eyes! I'm not insane, I swear!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2020 05:49
|
|
|
Anyway what I think it comes down to is that the biggest priority to most Dems isn't to rock the boat, but to beat Trump, and in spite of everything Biden is still broadly seen as the most electable choice. And the sad thing is, I kinda get it. Anecdotal, obviously, but I know for a fact my dad and grandparents would never go for Sanders and would likely stay home if he's the nominee... but my grandparents like Biden, and my Republican-leaning dad could probably be convinced. And even my mom, who voted for Bernie in the 2016 primary, is going for Biden instead of Bernie this time around (And that's after I had to convince her not to vote for Bloomberg). Sanders is a good man with good ideas, but far, far too many people are incensed with giving people anything "for free." And while Sanders' argument is he can turn out people who wouldn't otherwise vote... if it's not happening in the primary to the level necessary to defeat loving Joe Biden, then I have serious doubts it would happen in the general. Sanders still has a good chance to win, and by this point I'll definitely be voting for him in the Michigan primary next week, but it is immensely disappointing how fervently this country resists even modest progress.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2020 06:23
|
|
|
Comrade Blyatlov posted:Why is your election system so loving Byzantine that's federalism baybeeeee
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2020 06:25
|
|
|
US Berder Patrol posted:get a hold of yourself I mean he's outright told me this, so
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2020 13:24
|
|
|
Arven posted:Even if she doesn't, Bernie has a chance again. I'm not so sure about that. They've got similar policies, but I suspect a lot of her supporters will end up moving to Biden - either due to electability concerns with Sanders, or over personal dislike of him and his supporters. There's a reason a lot of them weren't supporting Sanders in the first place. It sucks though. I liked Warren and liked her policies, and imo she probably would have made for a better administrator than Sanders in the Oval, even if Sanders was willing to go farther on certain policies. It's just a shame to see it come to an end like this.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2020 17:11
|
|
|
good lord people The Obama administration wasn't great, and quite lovely in a lot of ways, but there are orders of magnitude of difference between Trump's administration and Obama's, as well as their legislative and executive priorities. I mean for gently caress's sake, right now we are living through a pandemic crisis where a lot of people are going to be infected and die because Trump shut down the pandemic response team started up by Obama. And let's not forget Trump using the Antiquities Act to try and reduce the size of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase to open them up to drilling, monuments Obama himself expanded. And there's pardons, which Trump used to help war criminals, politicians, and bankers, as opposed to Obama pardoning a huge number of people with drug offenses. Healthcare I shouldn't even need to get into—because as lacking as Obamacare is, it's still helped a huge number of people and is something Biden wants to expand, whereas Trump has flat-out tried to get rid of it. LGBT rights, which the Obama administration expanded and protected, and Trump has tried to shred and reduce (Like the ban on trans servicepeople) And even if their efforts were far, far less than what was needed, the Obama administration at least tried to address climate change, which the Trump Administration has not only ignored but outright accelerated. And this isn't even getting into the hordes of judges and political appointees who have spent their entire time in government trying to tear down the system from the inside. Biden isn't great, and I'd rather vote for Sanders. On climate change especially, he's woefully short. But Biden is better, far better, than the motherfucker who's in office right now who's trying to tear down every advancement this country has made since 1916. Let's not loving forget that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
brains posted:you're right, of course. the big problem is that if radical changes aren't made soon, after 8 more years of barely vibrating the arrow towards the progressive side, the rage that people have from the massive inequality built into the current system will explode and elect trump 2.0, the competent fascist, and that will be the end of it. yes, of course biden would be better than trump; that's such a low bar to pass. but it's not going to be enough to simply pass a minor tax cut and barely expand ACA to keep the next republican POTUS from being a true nightmare because people are so loving angry with the status quo they'll vote in literally anyone who follows the trump playbook. I am definitely in agreement here. If huge reforms aren't made, soon, we're hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2020 21:06
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/FarrellGabriell/status/1235662308753502208?s=19
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2020 22:24
|
|
|
facialimpediment posted:Tom Cotton or Josh Hawley. Alright look feel free to quote this when we're all enslaved in the Facebook Posting Mines in 2027 but there's no goddamn way Tom "Dumbest Motherfucker in the Senate" Cotton is winning a national nomination, let alone the Presidency.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2020 23:51
|
|
|
Ardlen posted:How do you test nearly 17 people? Wouldn't that just be 16? Acebuckeye13 posted:Well I believe Pence is a Constitutional originalist, and as we all know...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2020 03:49
|
|
|
Or, you know, she thinks there's a good chance that Sanders might lose, doesn't think her endorsement would boost him far enough to definitively win, and doesn't want to jeopardize any influence or input she might have in a potential Biden administration.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2020 05:27
|
|
|
Son of Thunderbeast posted:Yeah, exactly. It's all about her. Her... ability to push policies and appointments to her preference, i.e. in a more aggressively progressive direction? for a bunch of people who obsess over politics I swear not a lot of people on these forums know how it actually works
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2020 05:49
|
|
|
Eej posted:I don't see how this has worked prior Trading endorsements or even non-endorsements for political favors is literally as old as electoral politics itself. And in despite of some of the opinions on the past page, Warren isn't an idiot - she's a canny campaigner who's managed to become a powerful and influential Senator. She ran for President because she strongly believes in reforming the American government and breaking the power of corporations and the rich, and thought, for I'm sure a variety of reasons, that she was the best person for the job and had a reasonable chance of winning. Now, Sanders is down but not out. I know that, you know that, and she knows that. But he's got a rough road ahead after a disappointing Super Tuesday, and depending how he performs in the next two rounds of primaries (including crucial elections in Michigan and Florida), Biden may very well open up an insurmountable lead - and even if Bernie wins enough delegates down the road to deny Biden an outright majority, he can't go the distance and force a contested convention without looking like a giant hypocrite and making every Democrat that isn't devoted to him (and even a few who are) pissed as all hell at him and his movement for hurting the party at a time they desperately need to consolidate to focus on winning the general. So Warren has a choice, and I'm sure she's talked to both Bernie and Biden. Her likely goal now is to have as much influence on the party platform as possible to further her anti-corruption and reform-minded agenda, and to do that means having the ear of the nominee. And at this point, endorsing (or declining to endorse) is the best and easiest way of doing that. So she's hedging. If Sanders comes out of next week (or the week after) with strong victories and a serious path to the nomination, she may endorse to help push him over the top. But if Sanders' campaign suffers debilitating losses, then she may not endorse at all, or even endorse Biden - because then, Biden will owe her a favor, one she can use to further her agenda. Politics is at its core glad-handing, horse trading, and hedging bets to get what you want. So if Warren fails to endorse Sanders, it's not because she's an idiot who doesn't know what he's trying to accomplish. It's because she wants to make sure that if he can't get past the finish line, at least some part of her agenda ends up on the party platform.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2020 07:30
|
|
|
Defenestrategy posted:She tried to take the mantel of progressive torch bearer 180d on that in her policies and campaign policy once it became politically expedient to do so, and still wants credit? She can gently caress right off. hmm yes she definitely backtracked on universal childcare, the wealth tax, breaking the filibuster, breaking up tech monopolies, free public college, student debt relief, ending private prisons... no wait, she said she'd do the most challenging and radical of her proposed massive reforms in her third year, which obviously means she was going to give up on it entirely (despite still arguing for it fervently and being attacked for her support on the debate stage and in speeches) what a loving monster
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2020 14:17
|
|
|
Hot Karl Marx posted:If she believes in that stuff why doesn't she endorse Bernie now then? because if she endorses Bernie now and he gets blown out next week then she has zero leverage against Biden to give her concessions later on, I said this already
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2020 14:22
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Her student debt relief program wasn't going to help everyone. Her M4A plan didn't include mental health care among other problems. Announcing that you're putting something off two elections from now is conceding that you do not think you can do it. I don't care to go on, but there are a lot of reasons why her numbers plummeted, and it wasn't due to general misogyny. The accusation is that she was backtracking, not that she had the most progressive and radical agenda. Once she put down her plans, M4A is the only thing anyone can argue she "backtracked" on, and even then it was merely a promise to do it later (after, hopefully, the Democrats could reverse their 2016 losses in the Senate, and build up enough support to get the whole thing done). Yeah, she lost, that's inarguable, but I don't think it's because she "pulled back." She peaked too early and the other campaigns pounced on taking her down, and she responded way too slowly to the question of how she was going to pay for M4A. She wasn't able to attract minority support which killed her in more diverse states, and Sanders and Butt squeezed out support from both sides. There's a lot that went into it, and imo very little had to do with actual policy (because frankly it rarely does)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2020 14:30
|
|
|
DAS Super! posted:Yes...the third year....you know after midterms. Knock on wood, but 2022 could actually be a pretty good Midterm year for Democrats. Republicans will be defending Senate seats in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Missouri, and Iowa that could all be potential pickups (Plus Indiana, which I'll bet  Butt definitely has his eyes on), and it's the first year that'll be effected by the 2020 census—so if the Dems manage to pick up even a few state legislatures or governors, they'll be able to reverse at least some of the Republican gerrymandering that has allowed them to dominate so thoroughly this past decade. I certainly wouldn't count on it, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that the Dems make at least a couple pickups in the Senate and manage to hold the House. Finally, this will be the last thing I say on Warren: There were, and still are, legitimate reasons to be skeptical of Sanders as a candidate for President. And this has nothing to do with policy (Where obviously he's superb except for nuclear but so's warren in that regard, welp) or dumbass "electability" arguments. Instead, it has to do with how well he would work with Congress in implementing his ambitious policy platform. A lot of the times I see Sanders, I see another Jimmy Carter—a stubborn man with a loathing for traditional politicking who may let personal slights and grievances get in the way of passing his policy agenda. So there's plenty of room for Warren, and people who like Warren, to believe that even if his policies are good, he might not be the best person inside the Oval to actually accomplish those policies. Which is why she ran so hard and so long, and why her few attacks on Sanders focused on his judgement and record of accomplishments rather than his actual ideas. I like Bernie. I like his policies. I'll be voting for him on Tuesday. But there was a reason I liked Warren, and there's a reason I'm still hesitant of Sanders: Because for all his great policies, I just don't know if he'd actually be able to get them done, even if he does win.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2020 15:28
|
|
|
EBB posted:I just wanted to talk about how Anton Troianovski has a mass of pubic hair growing from his skull. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I mean, at least he has hair sob
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2020 16:03
|
|
|
Going away from the primary fight, some unqualified good news: https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean/status/1235968061435449345?s=20 fuckin' eat poo poo, bibi
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2020 17:46
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:Also lol at the guy who's acting like Bernie, Nina Turner, Danny Glover, and Cornel West didn't appear at 100+ events all over SC for throughout the last year While it's definitely not true that Sanders and his campaign flat-out ignored African-American voters or the South, I do think there may be something to the idea that their approach was fundamentally flawed. Remember, the message of Sanders and his campaign is that the establishment is corrupt, and that it needs to either be subverted or swept aside entirely. But the problem for African-American voters is that their most prominent and powerful political leaders are the establishment—and there's a fear among many of those leaders that Sanders and his movement sweeping aside the establishment they've spent the last 50+ years working within and building up could result in a drastic loss of power and influence for African American voters and districts (And themselves). (This was basically outright stated back in 2017 during the debate over the influence of Superdelegates on the primary process). So as a result, when Sanders disparages "the establishment", he's disparaging many of the people who are key to winning the African-American vote—and because he despises a lot of the inter-personal politics of flattering people, buttering them up, trading favors, and/or kissing rings, it's not as though he can (or will) soften those blows by personally appealing to those same people to tell them "No, don't worry, you'll still have a place in my administration, and if you endorse me, or don't endorse Biden, that'll help make sure of it." It's telling, for instance, that the only person in the Congressional Black Caucus to endorse him was Ilhan Omar—and it's even more telling that after Jim Clyburn endorsed Biden (which may have singlehandedly saved Biden's campaign!) it came out that Sanders hadn't even bothered to reach out to the Number 3 Democrat in the House (i.e. perhaps the single most powerful actively serving African-American elected official in the country). That is the kind of thing that many older African-American voters are going to notice, and make them question how much representation they might actually have in a future Sanders administration, no matter how many promises towards diversity he makes. Of course, I'm not going to say it would have been easy or even possible for Sanders to get more of these voters on board—Elizabeth Warren tried hard, and failed, as did Kamela Harris and Corey Booker. Meanwhile, even if he's had bad views and bad votes in the past, Joe Biden has the advantage of having worked closely with African-American congressional leaders for decades—someone like Jim Clyburn knows he has a place in a future Biden administration, and that counts a lot for both him and his constituents. Sanders isn't down and out yet, we all know that, and there's still time for Biden to implode or for more African-American voters (And voters of every other stripe) to come around to Sanders' vision. But Sanders' failure to appeal not just to black voters but to black leaders has been crippling to his campaign, and any attempts to rectify it (Such as his recently released Obama ad) is going to be too-little, too-late in the eyes of many. Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Mar 7, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2020 18:53
|
|
|
maffew buildings posted:If the system is leaders of demographics are doing things because they know they'll be taken care of, and in turn their constituents believe they will be taken care of, versus electing people who want to improve the situation for everyone, that's pretty hosed. And a lot of people are down for not fighting against the notion that this is how it has to be but we'll see how it turns out long run. I mean, what you have is a historically disenfranchised minority who had to fight and bleed for every drop of power not wanting to give up that power. And one of the quotes in that twitter thread was telling—it's not that people might not believe Sanders when he says he's for racial justice, or don't appreciate his civil rights record, it's that when the mat is down, and he has to make a choice: Will he choose Medicare for All, or African-American interests? Will he fight for their agenda as hard as he fights for his agenda? And even if a rising tide lifts all boats, will that address the leaks their boats already have? You can say "of course he'll fight for everybody," and poo poo, I believe that too. But you can't blame people who lived through segregation and race riots for being skeptical, and what Sanders needed was to get people within those African American power structures to rise up and say he'll fight for them. But for whatever reason, he couldn't or didn't get the support of those people, and now his campaign is suffering for it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2020 19:09
|
|
|
Old Boot posted:I haven't seen a single person in this thread argue that Biden would have a better chance. Hell, let's play devil's advocate, why not. Every politician is going to have competing interests and priorities based on their districts, constituents, parties, donors, people they owe favors to, mistresses, mistresses' husbands, etc. The hard, and I mean hard, part of legislating is organizing all of those interests into a semi-coherent body of general policies and proposals. This is why parties were originally founded, but it can be seen within parties as well in the form of caucuses, state parties, advocacy groups, etc. The problem is that parties are not and are never going to be unified wholes. What the constituents of, say, John Jackson (J-Wherever) demand could be the polar opposite of Jack Johnson's constituents want, even if they're both in the same party—so an easy vote for Jackson could mean a primary challenge or general election loss for Johnson. This was very apparent when the Obama Administration was trying to pass the ACA, and a ton of representatives and senators took that vote knowing it would mean they were going to lose. As it turns out, doing the right thing is very rarely rewarded in Washington. So what Presidents and legislative leaders have to do is find out how to get all of their members to rally around their agendas—even if those members don't like the agenda and/or fear electoral backlash because of it. Lyndon Johnson was, of course, the master of this: he even had a particular a technique he called "The Treatment," where he'd get in close, I mean real close, back you into a corner while towering over you with his 6'4" frame, and then just let you have it—cursing you, cursing your family, promising hellfire and damnation if you crossed him, promising power and favors if you didn't... I'll quote from Wikipedia here: quote:The Treatment could last ten minutes or four hours. It came, enveloping its target, at the Johnson Ranch swimming pool, in one of Johnson's offices, in the Senate cloakroom, on the floor of the Senate itself—wherever Johnson might find a fellow Senator within his reach. Its tone could be supplication, accusation, cajolery, exuberance, scorn, tears, complaint and the hint of threat. It was all of these together. It ran the gamut of human emotions. Its velocity was breathtaking and it was all in one direction. Interjections from the target were rare. Johnson anticipated them before they could be spoken. He moved in close, his face a scant millimeter from his target, his eyes widening and narrowing, his eyebrows rising and falling. From his pockets poured clippings, memos, statistics. Mimicry, humor, and the genius of analogy made The Treatment an almost hypnotic experience and rendered the target stunned and helpless.  Lyndon Johnson was many things, but he was one of the very, very few who could make the Senate work for him. Medicare and Medicaid, the space program, the Civil Rights Act of '64 and the Voting Rights Act of '65... without Johnson, it's doubtful we would have been able to achieve all of those things. (Of course without Johnson, do we have Vietnam? uuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhh) So when it comes to Sanders versus Biden, the question is this: Sanders obviously has a better agenda, but can he pass it? He's made lots of amendments to bills, but doesn't have a huge amount of legislation with his name on it, and is relatively lacking in Congressional endorsements. Biden meanwhile was a long-standing member of the Senate and has a ton of inter-personal relationships with Senators, Representatives, major donors, and other key figures across the Democratic Party. If you're a Senator and needed a favor from Sanders, he might be able to offer his vote and his alone—if you needed a vote from Biden, he could offer five. That kind of dealmaking prowess is extremely important in Washington, and it's why Obama chose Biden to be his Vice-President in the first place. Which brings me to... Mr. Nice! posted:What the gently caress is this dumb poo poo? M4A and black interests are not mutually exclusive. When it comes to hard votes, they could be. Every President has to prioritize what they're going to spend their political capital on, when to fight Congress for what they want, and when to let things go. Jimmy Carter, man of immense personal integrity and courage that he was, blew pretty much all of his goodwill with Congress in his first month after getting into a massive fight over pork-barrel water projects. This meant that a plethora of other legislation that could have gotten through congress like universal healthcare, federal job guarantees, universal daycare, etc, were all put on the wayside for what ultimately became Carter and Ted Kennedy's dickwaving competition—one they would ultimately lose to Ronald loving Reagan. So if you're an African-American Congressman, you could very well imagine seeing political capital, media exposure, and Presidential attention being spent on an all-encompassing Medicare for All fight while a new VRA or other legislation assisting African-Americans (Or even just your constituents) is left to languish. (Again, I am not saying a President Sanders would do this: merely that it's clear he hasn't been able to convince the people he needs to convince that he wouldn't.) So ultimately, the case for a President Biden comes down to a simple fact: Even if he doesn't believe in the same kind of radical reform Sanders does, his relatively mild agenda has a much greater chance of passing because Biden knows who to call, who to gladhand, and who needs their palms greased in order to pass it. And it's not just legislation, either—appointments are also a huge deal, and Biden would likely be able to get more Democrats on board with his nominees than Sanders would, which would be very important if the Democrats only have a narrow majority (Or no majority at all) in the Senate. And not just Democrats either—though I am under no delusions that any Republican is going to vote for any major Democratic legislation, Biden could, maybe, be able to make enough calls or slap in enough pork to allow key bills or appointments to go through committee. Sanders? Probably not even that. Now, having power and knowing how to wield power is ultimately less important than how that power is wielded, which is why I'm obviously going to be voting for Sanders. But there's more, much more, to passing legislation than merely having good ideas, and as old and withered as Biden is, I think he'd still have a better chance of navigating his policies through Congress than Bernie would.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2020 21:35
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Literally every state that Biden has won so far is going to vote for Trump in the general, except like maybe Virginia. Ah yes, the long-standing Republican strongholds of Maine, Massachusetts, and Minnesota.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2020 21:40
|
|
|
bird cooch posted:This is a real good post. Thanks a ton. Thanks, at least someone appreciates the four years I spent on that political science major 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2020 21:42
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:Serious question. Would you all vote for a Biden warren ticket? They could put Warren's dog on the ticket and I'd vote for it. ...Actually if anything that'd make me even more likely to vote.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2020 22:15
|
|
|
mlmp08 I'm gonna be honest I am very confused about what you're trying to argue
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2020 22:37
|
|
|
There's been a lot of arguments today, so let's join together with this former Warren staffer on something we can all enjoy: Dunking on Buttigieg (click for thread) https://twitter.com/maxberger/status/1236304018512764933?s=19
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2020 00:14
|
|
|
It's also worth noting re: Florida that there's a huge number of former felons that are going to be allowed to register and vote in the next election, which could be huge in countering its Republican swing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2020 01:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 01:56 |
|
|
That Works posted:Don't they have to pay a bunch of money etc before they can? All fines and court costs, which is a huge hurdle for many, but it's still being battled in the courts and was most recently ruled unconstitutional by a federal appeals court.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2020 01:46
|
|