Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
I kinda think them doing this dumb shit early might backfire and make people on the fence commit to voting Sanders. Who knows.
Holy fuck, Pelosi would be such a fucking terrible nominee
It's all pretty bad but it's just the ramblings of scared superdelegates. We can beat them anyway.
This really makes future primaries worthless too. It encourages nonviable campaigns to stick around longer than they have any reason to. It encourages more elites like Bloomberg to enter and attempt to buy off voters. I'm sure it doesn't really give the public a sense of any of this being all that fair or that going out to vote in a primary is worth their time.
Edit: it's also probably an attempt to make Bernie seem toxic and combine votes against him... because Biden is a better bet? Lol
Post by Whereispassionpit on Feb 27, 2020 14:40:53 GMT -5
LOL. Love trusting two dudes writing for The Washington Post's The Monkey Cage more than the Organization of American States because it fits my ideology.
LOL. Love trusting two dudes writing for The Washington Post's The Monkey Cage more than the Organization of American States because it fits my ideology.
It's telling when even a news source owned by the richest person on the world denounces this nonsense. Anyone who took a look at the OAS report back then should've instantly realized it was dogshit.
The Warren supporters are rabid as the Sanders supporters. They just have a totally different angle, that seemingly most of this thread disagrees with. If we are talking about candidacy politics -- Warren is trying to edge herself to a 2nd place or somehow win on Super Tuesday. Everyone agrees Bloomberg is the devil. We will see huge drop outs after Super Tuesday but no one is willing to give up a thing until the blood is actually spilled. Buttegieg and Bloomberg will probably not leave immediately either, even if they do poorly. Warren on a political level is doing the correct thing.
How have these "moderates" not been fazed by the Trump tenure?? What will it take to convince them that its time to pick a side? It must be nice to reside in their socioeconomic bubble.
How have these "moderates" not been fazed by the Trump tenure?? What will it take to convince them that its time to pick a side? It must be nice to reside in their socioeconomic bubble.
(Caveat - I don't have an account with the NYT, so I can only speak to the other articles I've read and people I've heard speak). They are fazed by it, and they hate him. Screw the Democratic party, but it's not wrong of anyone to fret over whatever they think might or might not hinder his removal via the 2020 election. I don't have an opinion one way or another, because it's too early to know. But just as many progressive posters on here have said that a moderate would certainly lose to Trump, there are plenty of them that feel like a progressive would do much worse. I'm not making a call one way or another, because nobody knows right now. But if you put yourself in their shoes for a second, there are plenty of reasons for them to be concerned just as there are plenty of reasons for many of us to be concerned. Some of their concerns:
Many of the 2018 voting gains took place in formerly Republican-leaning suburban districts where a revolutionary candidate they feel might be too extreme to win in those places
Mixed signals so far as to whether or not Bernie can energize enough people to make a difference in the outcome
Historical under-performance of younger voters at the polls (core Sanders constituency)
Those are a couple of reasons. The Center for Politics at the University of Virginia put out an early potential electoral map for a Sanders vs. Trump general election. They have only Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in the toss-up category. Both states would get Sanders the election, one or the other gives it to Trump. There are other states in play, though UVA has them in "lean" now. I don't necessarily agree with Ohio being a swing state with Trump running, probably not Iowa either. Arizona - maybe.
What they say speficially, "In our view, we think a Sanders nomination would tilt the election more toward Trump, to the point where the ratings would reflect him as something of a favorite. However, we would not put Trump over 270 electoral votes in our ratings, at least not initially and based on the information we have now." <-- Kyle Kondik & J. Miles Coleman (Center for Politics).
The comparison with Trump vs. an "unknown" Democrat produces 248 electoral votes for each side, with 42 in the pure-toss up category. The changes from that generic map to the Sanders map is that Arizona, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas and Virginia (as well as Nebraska's 2nd District) all move toward the Republicans. (clearly that's not to say that they think VA would support Trump. But if it goes from leans D to Toss-up, it's notable.
-----------------------------------------------
Don't attack me. I'm just responding with hopefully a sense of the consternation from other side of the party.
How have these "moderates" not been fazed by the Trump tenure?? What will it take to convince them that its time to pick a side? It must be nice to reside in their socioeconomic bubble.
This "super delegate" that hates Bernie has donated to McConnell in the past. Purge these fuckers out
I'm not really convinced by someone taking a projection map and adding a "Sanders effect" that makes everything worse for him
The argument that moderate dems won in suburban districts is worthless because the DNC/DCCC targeted these districts ahead of time and then recruited their own candidates for them. Progressives could have won R+5 districts in a D+9 wave too, probably by more.