The Democratic primary is a whole new race tonight

  • 81 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

12998

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 12998 Posts

Wow, tonight may have changed the race, both the debate and the Squad (minus Pressely) endorsement of Sanders.

1. Warren is far better at taking fire than Biden is, and actually had a good debate, wiping the floor in the second half, wiping out Harris (she may very well be out of the race) and more importantly, Biden. She must address this stupid rhetorical game the center likes to play though on middle class taxes for Medicare For All. She must do more than just not take the bait. Still the frontrunner and pundits tend to underestimate how well her debate performances are received.

2. Buttigieg may now be the centrist to beat, not Biden, though Buttigieg is to the left of him. Buttigieg had his best debate, but his rise could ensure a Warren victory by leeching from Biden. Biden simply put, is a terrible debater and a terrible candidate. He was terrible handling the question about his son, and at the end, decided not only is it a good idea to take on BOTH Sanders and Warren at once, but to be completely rude to Warren in which Warren laid him out.

3. Sanders is not out of the race, not only because of a good debate performance, but because...

4. AOC (and Omar and Tlaib) endorsed Bernie. This may actually be the first real mistake I think she has made. I can see no benefit to her in this (unless of course he steals the nomination). At worst, she can cause Sanders to surge but not enough, splitting progressives between Sanders and Warren, and allowing Biden to win (If Buttigieg doesn't leech his support). Other than Barack Obama, she is the only endorsement that can have a real impact. She needs to understand her power and it would have been better if she waited until the primaries, because her power can impact the race. Had her endorsement come month's earlier, it could have knocked Warren out of the race. However, its also possible that her endorsements only stop Sanders from losing more voters to Warren, as most of her supporters already support Sanders, but would not prevent a warren victory. A bright spot is that she is friends with Warren, so her clout will not be harmed if Warren wins, and would be an asset to Warren as well. This endorsement will consequences we can't foresee, but its not a good move on AOC's (or Omar and Tlaib's) part.

Avatar image for Master_Live
Master_Live

19888

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#2  Edited By Master_Live
Member since 2004 • 19888 Posts

Warren can't address the "middle class taxes" because if she wasn't going to raise taxes on the middle class she would simply answer: No.

And how perilous is for her to say she would raise taxes on the middle class? Perilous enough to not say it. It is poison.

The AOC & Co. thing is just social credit thing for posterity. Bernie is "pure" and she can say for the rest of her life that she stood and supported "the real deal".

Bernie is done, there is no surge coming (or rather, highly unlikely). This is for her brand.

You are ridiculous, "Other than Barack Obama, she is the only endorsement that can have a real impact".

"Had her endorsement come month's earlier, it could have knocked Warren out of the race".

Remind me not to take you seriously in the future.

Avatar image for jeezers
jeezers

3689

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By jeezers
Member since 2007 • 3689 Posts

@texasgoldrush: we get it, you have a shrine of AOC in your closet

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

12998

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#4 texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 12998 Posts

@Master_Live: But if costs go down overall, any raise in middle class taxes is negligible. Its a stupid centrist rhetorical exercise. Also Warren may not have finalized I plan and it will take running cost estimates to determine if taxes need to go up. Also, Warren's outline of her Medicare For All plan is less extensive than Sanders.

No, AOC's endorsements mean boots on the ground and a groundswell of excitement. Her endorsements have helped other candidates win or come close to winning. No one else but Barack Obama has this power in the Democratic party right now.

Bernie is not the likely nominee, but he is not "done". Candidates behind have come back before.

And the truth is that Warren is indeed taking support from those who supported Sanders in 2016. It shows in the polls right now, and I have done so myself. Many progressives view her as the better candidate. This cannot be denied. And it cannot be denied that Warren surged. She seemed dead in the water in April, but surged in the summer. Had AOC endorsed Sanders earlier, Warren's surge may not have happened as Sanders supporters would have been less likely to defect to Warren.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

12998

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#5 texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 12998 Posts

@jeezers said:

@texasgoldrush: we get it, you have a shrine of AOC in your closet

And yet I criticized her here. So stop acting like I agree with everything she does.

Avatar image for Vaasman
Vaasman

14082

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By Vaasman
Member since 2008 • 14082 Posts

Warren is my pick, but I think she should really get ahead of the narrative on medicare and other taxes. I get that it's an endless, needling shit grab to get a headline for dummies to cling to. However, if she keeps dodging the yes/no on taxes, that also looks bad.

What she should do is open up to it, and then attack the notion that taxation is inherently bad. Sure, at the surface level it sucks to pay money, but without them our society falls apart and is falling apart. You absolutely cannot rely on the private sector to have the best interests of infrastructure, education, or emergency care at heart. It has been endlessly demonstrated their interests lie in the bottom dollar, not in the clients. And like it or not our nation is in major, crippling debt, and the only way we're even touching it is with a shitload of taxes.

As for the debate in whole, I'd say everything was about as expected tonight. No major zingers or game-changers, the field was once again too populated to have any breakouts or meaningful discussions.

Avatar image for watercrack445
watercrack445

2116

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#7 watercrack445
Member since 2017 • 2116 Posts

Okay, that was the 5th democrat debate. 7 more demo debates to go.

Avatar image for joebones5000
joebones5000

2911

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 joebones5000
Member since 2016 • 2911 Posts

Bernie is done. Republicans have twisted the term socialism to mean free everything with a side of poverty and outrageous taxes.

Warren is good, but she's not as favorable as Biden. She has a shot though.

Biden is going to be the next president. The DNC wants him and so does a majority of the country.

Everyone else is just wasting time, though I wish Tulsi would win because she is spectacularly hot.

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
nintendoboy16

36796

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 35

User Lists: 14

#9  Edited By nintendoboy16
Member since 2007 • 36796 Posts

@joebones5000 said:

Bernie is done. Republicans have twisted the term socialism to mean free everything with a side of poverty and outrageous taxes.

Warren is good, but she's not as favorable as Biden. She has a shot though.

Biden is going to be the next president. The DNC wants him and so does a majority of the country.

Everyone else is just wasting time, though I wish Tulsi would win because she is spectacularly hot.

Loading Video...

...Really?

Avatar image for joebones5000
joebones5000

2911

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 joebones5000
Member since 2016 • 2911 Posts

@nintendoboy16: yup, Tulsi is pretty damned hot. 😁

Avatar image for Nuck81
Nuck81

7918

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#11 Nuck81
Member since 2005 • 7918 Posts

@joebones5000: agreed. So is AOC.

But attractiveness doesn't influence my vote.

Agism does. I'll never vote for another Boomer in any election. Local or national.

Avatar image for jeezers
jeezers

3689

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#12 jeezers
Member since 2007 • 3689 Posts

@joebones5000: DONT BE LOOKIN AT MY JANET!!!

It all seriousness tho I actually really like her policies, especially with gtfo of regime change wars ezpecially in the middle east, something the USA just hasnt seem to resist the last 25 years with our previous administrations. People keep clowning me on saying she would beat trump, if she got the nomination id bet she would win, what is he going to attack her on.

She still has progressive ideals

She currently serves

Shes a woman

She believes in reaching across the aisle

Shes against censorship

Shes young

Her record is clean

And yeah she's hot

i actually want to vote for her, i will not vote warren or Biden.

Tulsi/Yang 2020 is my dream ticket for the left. Really dont get why many want the old guard biden/warren

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

12998

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#13 texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 12998 Posts

@joebones5000 said:

Bernie is done. Republicans have twisted the term socialism to mean free everything with a side of poverty and outrageous taxes.

Warren is good, but she's not as favorable as Biden. She has a shot though.

Biden is going to be the next president. The DNC wants him and so does a majority of the country.

Everyone else is just wasting time, though I wish Tulsi would win because she is spectacularly hot.

No, Bernie is not done, while not likely, he can still come back, especially if Warren stumbles badly.

Warrens favorable ratings are better than Biden's in multiple polls. And Buttigieg is now getting better bottom line numbers than Biden.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

19322

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#14 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 19322 Posts
@texasgoldrush said:
@joebones5000 said:

Bernie is done. Republicans have twisted the term socialism to mean free everything with a side of poverty and outrageous taxes.

Warren is good, but she's not as favorable as Biden. She has a shot though.

Biden is going to be the next president. The DNC wants him and so does a majority of the country.

Everyone else is just wasting time, though I wish Tulsi would win because she is spectacularly hot.

No, Bernie is not done, while not likely, he can still come back, especially if Warren stumbles badly.

Warrens favorable ratings are better than Biden's in multiple polls. And Buttigieg is now getting better bottom line numbers than Biden.

If Warren "stumbles" it will benefit Biden, not Sanders.

Sanders is the "but he got cheated" squad´s hero but he is done and while he is the best of the rest, there is especially after last nights debate only 2 candidates Biden and Warren.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

12998

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#15  Edited By texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 12998 Posts

@Jacanuk: Wrong

Buttigieg can get in striking distance in Iowa and is well liked there. Once again, he can pick up voters if Biden tanks.

Nevermind Biden is burning money and is very weak on campaign cash, alarmingly so. Buttigieg has more money than he does.

And it would be Sanders, not Biden, who would be the beneficiary if Warren somehow and unlikely tanks, as both are in the progressive camp.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

19322

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#16  Edited By Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 19322 Posts
@texasgoldrush said:

@Jacanuk: Wrong

Buttigieg can get in striking distance in Iowa and is well liked there. Once again, he can pick up voters if Biden tanks.

Nevermind Biden is burning money and is very weak on campaign cash, alarmingly so. Buttigieg has more money than he does.

And it would be Sanders, not Biden, who would be the beneficiary if Warren somehow and unlikely tanks, as both are in the progressive camp.

Well, a striking distance for Buttigieg is an over-exaggeration he in an Emerson poll somehow managed to go from a few % to within 5-6 points from Biden who is still ahead and Warren.

Worth noting is that the poll is an outliner compared to every single previous poll where he has not gone above 8%.

As to Biden and money well, he is Biden so he will find them especially considering he is still the front runner.

Sanders would not benefit from Warren tanking, again it will be Biden because Sanders is not presidential material he can not convince the independent middle-class nor can he get the minority vote.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

45066

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#17  Edited By mrbojangles25
Member since 2005 • 45066 Posts

Yeah for me it's all about Warren now; not so much because I favor her, but Biden is pretty much not well suited (and frankly I think he was pushed to run), and Sanders is just too damn old and hippie.

My ideal ticket at this point is Warren for POTUS and, ideally, Buttigieg for VP. If I thought Pete Buttigieg has a chance at actually winning, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. Young, veteran, left-leaning moderate.

@Nuck81 said:

@joebones5000: agreed. So is AOC.

But attractiveness doesn't influence my vote.

Agism does. I'll never vote for another Boomer in any election. Local or national.

Same.

If they were old enough for the Cold War, they don't get my vote. That goes double--no, triple!--if they were around for Vietnam.

Unfortunately we might not have a choice this time around.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

12998

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#18 texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 12998 Posts

@Master_Live said:

Warren can't address the "middle class taxes" because if she wasn't going to raise taxes on the middle class she would simply answer: No.

And how perilous is for her to say she would raise taxes on the middle class? Perilous enough to not say it. It is poison.

The AOC & Co. thing is just social credit thing for posterity. Bernie is "pure" and she can say for the rest of her life that she stood and supported "the real deal".

Bernie is done, there is no surge coming (or rather, highly unlikely). This is for her brand.

You are ridiculous, "Other than Barack Obama, she is the only endorsement that can have a real impact".

"Had her endorsement come month's earlier, it could have knocked Warren out of the race".

Remind me not to take you seriously in the future.

I am not the only one saying the only endorsement that has an impact other than hers is Obama

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/16/two-ways-which-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-endorsement-could-keep-sanders-hunt/

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

12998

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#19 texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 12998 Posts
@Jacanuk said:
@texasgoldrush said:

@Jacanuk: Wrong

Buttigieg can get in striking distance in Iowa and is well liked there. Once again, he can pick up voters if Biden tanks.

Nevermind Biden is burning money and is very weak on campaign cash, alarmingly so. Buttigieg has more money than he does.

And it would be Sanders, not Biden, who would be the beneficiary if Warren somehow and unlikely tanks, as both are in the progressive camp.

Well, a striking distance for Buttigieg is an over-exaggeration he in an Emerson poll somehow managed to go from a few % to within 5-6 points from Biden who is still ahead and Warren.

Worth noting is that the poll is an outliner compared to every single previous poll where he has not gone above 8%.

As to Biden and money well, he is Biden so he will find them especially considering he is still the front runner.

Sanders would not benefit from Warren tanking, again it will be Biden because Sanders is not presidential material he can not convince the independent middle-class nor can he get the minority vote.

Its definitely striking distance, and Buttigieg's organization is better than Biden in Iowa (but not as good as Warren). Organization matters in Iowa. Its how Kerry beat Dean in 2004. I can easily see him placing second in Iowa.

No, others show Buttigieg better than national average in Iowa.

Not if all the wells dry out. Bernie and Warren's fundrasing is proving Biden's style obsolete. He is so down in cash, he can run out during the primary. Nevermind he is taking million dollar private jet rides.

But he would, as many Sanders supporters switched to Warren. And really Buttigieg would gain more from Warren tanking than Biden, not just Sanders.

Avatar image for mighty-lu-bu
Mighty-Lu-Bu

3074

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#20 Mighty-Lu-Bu
Member since 2007 • 3074 Posts

Glad to see that the fraud Elizabeth Warren is ahead in the polls... should be an easy win for Trump.

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
Stevo_the_gamer

45451

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 47

User Lists: 1

#21 Stevo_the_gamer  Moderator
Member since 2004 • 45451 Posts

The only thing surprising to come out of the debate was that over 8 million people tuned in to watch it.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

12998

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#22 texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 12998 Posts

@mighty-lu-bu said:

Glad to see that the fraud Elizabeth Warren is ahead in the polls... should be an easy win for Trump.

Historical trends say otherwise.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
Sevenizz

4145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#23 Sevenizz
Member since 2010 • 4145 Posts

None of them can beat Trump so it’s a waste of time. Democrats need a new slate, platform, and leaders. There’s no way the majority of Americans are going as far Left as the current batch. No way. It’s stupid to argue the contrary.

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
nintendoboy16

36796

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 35

User Lists: 14

#24 nintendoboy16
Member since 2007 • 36796 Posts
@Sevenizz said:

None of them can beat Trump so it’s a waste of time. Democrats need a new slate, platform, and leaders. There’s no way the majority of Americans are going as far Left as the current batch. No way. It’s stupid to argue the contrary.

Again, the Democratic Party isn't that left.

Avatar image for jcrame10
jcrame10

5434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#25 jcrame10
Member since 2014 • 5434 Posts

The 12 Minutes Andrew Yang got and the 6 minutes Tulsi Gabbard got were the only moments worthwhile. Everyone else was just going in circles attacking Trump and each other’s tax plans.

Only chance we have of beating Trump is a Yang/Tulsi ticket.

Avatar image for mighty-lu-bu
Mighty-Lu-Bu

3074

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#26 Mighty-Lu-Bu
Member since 2007 • 3074 Posts

@nintendoboy16: The Democrats have gone so far left that socialism is now cool.

Avatar image for Vaasman
Vaasman

14082

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#27  Edited By Vaasman
Member since 2008 • 14082 Posts

@mighty-lu-bu said:

@nintendoboy16: The Democrats have gone so far left that socialism is now cool.

Of 12 people on the debate stage exactly 1 is identifying as a socialist. The reality is that the Overton window has swung so far to the right in America that centrist democrats are basically conservatives of any other democratic nation, and genuine progressive ideals, even reigned in, are the outliers, but one that's become far more desirable as right-wing ideology abandons a wider range of perspectives.

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
nintendoboy16

36796

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 35

User Lists: 14

#28 nintendoboy16
Member since 2007 • 36796 Posts
@mighty-lu-bu said:

@nintendoboy16: The Democrats have gone so far left that socialism is now cool.

No, the only Democrats embracing socialism is The Squad (Tlaib, Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley, Omar) and they ain't running for presidency. We already have a "Democrat" from your side of the aisle running for presidency though.

Avatar image for mighty-lu-bu
Mighty-Lu-Bu

3074

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#29 Mighty-Lu-Bu
Member since 2007 • 3074 Posts
@nintendoboy16 said:
@mighty-lu-bu said:

@nintendoboy16: The Democrats have gone so far left that socialism is now cool.

No, the only Democrats embracing socialism is The Squad (Tlaib, Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley, Omar) and they ain't running for presidency. We already have a "Democrat" from your side of the aisle running for presidency though.

Everyone Democratic candidate is for greatly expanded the roll of government and they are advocating for a $20 minimum wage, free college and free healthcare. Their plans would greatly add to the deficient.

Also, what side of the aisle am I on?

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
nintendoboy16

36796

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 35

User Lists: 14

#30 nintendoboy16
Member since 2007 • 36796 Posts

@mighty-lu-bu: You tell me after several years of what you post here, including this lie.

Avatar image for mighty-lu-bu
Mighty-Lu-Bu

3074

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#31  Edited By Mighty-Lu-Bu
Member since 2007 • 3074 Posts

@nintendoboy16: What are you even talking about?

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

11039

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 11039 Posts

@mighty-lu-bu said:
@nintendoboy16 said:

No, the only Democrats embracing socialism is The Squad (Tlaib, Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley, Omar) and they ain't running for presidency. We already have a "Democrat" from your side of the aisle running for presidency though.

Everyone Democratic candidate is for greatly expanded the roll of government and they are advocating for a $20 minimum wage, free college and free healthcare. Their plans would greatly add to the deficient.

Also, what side of the aisle am I on?

Everyone hold your horses, Trump nut huggers care about the deficit again. Talk about whiplash!

Avatar image for redviperofdorne
redviperofdorne

286

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 91

User Lists: 0

#33 redviperofdorne
Member since 2016 • 286 Posts

Warren - Her wealth tax is proven ineffective. She may be surging now but honestly, She is Hillary 2.0. Trump simply has to hit her with Pocohantas a few times and it's an easy win.

Biden - I have no objection to Biden but honestly, I feel he is only running because he knows he can beat Trump if he secures the nomination. He can succeed where Hillary failed. And the DNC is really pushing for him.

Sanders - Warren surging cost Sanders big time. He is losing progressive support and that is why AOC offered her endorsement of him. I can imagine the results being the same should Warren had decided to run last time. Sanders should consider dropping out, becoming Warren's VP and helping her secure the nomination.

Harris - Her time in the spotlight is over. Her numbers have plummeted following the first debate and this one hasn't helped her at all.

Buttigieg - He's your typical centrist politician. He's bland. He offers nothing unique, Seems to be "borrowing" a lot from Andrew Yang too.

O'Rourke - Hasn't qualified for the next debate and I don't expect him too. Pete ruined him in this debate. Beto should drop out and try to win over Texas again.

Yang - I love his ideas. I think he's very unique and stands out as a candidate. He helped make UBI and automation a topic of discussion of this debate, which wouldn't have happened without him. Don't sleep on him because he easily had one of the best performances of the night.

Booker - He's over and done with and he knows it. He'll make this next debate but after that, He will drop out.

Everyone else isn't even worth mentioning. Steyer bought his way onto the stage and he knows it. No one else is gonna make the next debate so expect a lot of them to drop out soon.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

12998

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#34  Edited By texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 12998 Posts

@redviperofdorne: Ask Scott Brown how hitting Warren on the her Native American scandal went.....and unlike Trump, he actually was pretty popular incumbent during his race with her.

And Biden has more in common with the types of candidates that lose presidential elections, not win them. And you think he has handled the Ukraine scandal well? I think not. His donors are actually nervous. Nevermind million dollar jet rides and $3800 ice cream giveaways.

Avatar image for redviperofdorne
redviperofdorne

286

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 91

User Lists: 0

#35 redviperofdorne
Member since 2016 • 286 Posts

@texasgoldrush: How did that crooked Hillary nonsense work for her in the election?

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

167995

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36  Edited By LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 167995 Posts

@redviperofdorne said:

@texasgoldrush: How did that crooked Hillary nonsense work for her in the election?

You know the Russians wanted her discredited...…….right?

Though I'm not sure what point you think you're making she won the popular vote.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
texasgoldrush

12998

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#37  Edited By texasgoldrush
Member since 2003 • 12998 Posts

Remind me never to underestimate AOC's political skill again.

I like how she softened the blow of her endorsement of Sanders to Warren, and even praised her candidacy right next to Sanders, even saying they are all on the same team. And instead of backing Sanders and calling the rest of the field "sellouts" or whatever, she praised them as being the "best field in history". That is maturity right there, knowing when not to be a firebrand. She is willing to back even Biden if he is the nominee.

This means it would be easy for the other candidates to recruit AOC if they become the nominee, especially Warren. And AOC is a MUST have to expand the electorate, which Dems have to do.

And Warren has praised her despite and after she endorsed Sanders.

However, the danger that her endorsement can split progressives between Warren and Sanders still is very much alive, although Biden and Buttigieg can split the votes in the center as well.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

10476

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 10476 Posts

@redviperofdorne said:

Warren - Her wealth tax is proven ineffective. She may be surging now but honestly, She is Hillary 2.0. Trump simply has to hit her with Pocohantas a few times and it's an easy win.

Are you suggesting the American public is so stupid that hitting her with a meme/insult a few times is enough when Trump has 100x the scandals/issues?

Avatar image for redviperofdorne
redviperofdorne

286

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 91

User Lists: 0

#39 redviperofdorne
Member since 2016 • 286 Posts

@zaryia: The same American public that elected Trump?....Yes. Especially when a lot of early polls show Trump beating Warren in early states.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

17672

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40 mattbbpl  Online
Member since 2006 • 17672 Posts

@zaryia said:
@redviperofdorne said:

Warren - Her wealth tax is proven ineffective. She may be surging now but honestly, She is Hillary 2.0. Trump simply has to hit her with Pocohantas a few times and it's an easy win.

Are you suggesting the American public is so stupid that hitting her with a meme/insult a few times is enough when Trump has 100x the scandals/issues?

This says a lot about the current state of the Republican party.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

167995

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 167995 Posts

@redviperofdorne said:

@zaryia: The same American public that elected Trump?....Yes. Especially when a lot of early polls show Trump beating Warren in early states.

EC. We don't use popular vote or trump would have lost.

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

10476

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#42  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 10476 Posts

@redviperofdorne said:

@zaryia: The same American public that elected Trump?....Yes. Especially when a lot of early polls show Trump beating Warren in early states.

The American Public voted for Hillary in 2016 and Dems in 2018. Early polls show Warren Beating him on a national scale, but yeah specific State issues and EC could cause trouble.

Anyway, I do not think they are dumb enough to let a silly little nickname sway them especially when compared to Trump's insane scandal count.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

19322

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#43  Edited By Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 19322 Posts
@LJS9502_basic said:
@redviperofdorne said:

@zaryia: The same American public that elected Trump?....Yes. Especially when a lot of early polls show Trump beating Warren in early states.

EC. We don't use popular vote or trump would have lost.

Nice twisting the truth there.

Unless you want to remove state rights, someone in California should not decide for people in Ohio or reverse.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

36032

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#44  Edited By comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 36032 Posts
@Jacanuk said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@redviperofdorne said:

@zaryia: The same American public that elected Trump?....Yes. Especially when a lot of early polls show Trump beating Warren in early states.

EC. We don't use popular vote or trump would have lost.

Nice twisting the truth there.

Unless you want to remove state rights, someone in California should not decide for people in Ohio or reverse.

yet the states rights argument falls to bits when asked why a person in wyoming should have 3x the voting power of a person in texas

because... reasons?

Avatar image for Vaasman
Vaasman

14082

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#45  Edited By Vaasman
Member since 2008 • 14082 Posts

@Jacanuk said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

EC. We don't use popular vote or trump would have lost.

Nice twisting the truth there.

Unless you want to remove state rights, someone in California should not decide for people in Ohio or reverse.

That's exactly what happens though in EC. California is royal blue, and because of that it doesn't matter one bit, while Ohio is an extremely important state that gets far more funding and attention because it varies from election to election. In essence, Ohio decides the president for California.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

19322

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#46 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 19322 Posts
@Vaasman said:
@Jacanuk said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

EC. We don't use popular vote or trump would have lost.

Nice twisting the truth there.

Unless you want to remove state rights, someone in California should not decide for people in Ohio or reverse.

That's exactly what happens though in EC. California is royal blue, and because of that it doesn't matter one bit, while Ohio is an extremely important state that gets far more funding and attention because it varies from election to election. In essence, Ohio decides the president for California.

No, that is not what happened.

You, know why California is less important than a swing state? - hint here is the name

And every state uses the popular vote - and in the popular vote, it does not matter if you win by 50.1% or win with 99% of the votes.

So unless you want to remove state rights, EC currently is the best system to combat not just the high population growth in states like California and NY which are primarily liberal.

Look at any election map of America and see how few blue areas compared to red. which even goes again in each state. Texas has huge metropolitan liberal areas while the rest of the state is deep red.

Avatar image for Vaasman
Vaasman

14082

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#47 Vaasman
Member since 2008 • 14082 Posts

@Jacanuk said:
@Vaasman said:

That's exactly what happens though in EC. California is royal blue, and because of that it doesn't matter one bit, while Ohio is an extremely important state that gets far more funding and attention because it varies from election to election. In essence, Ohio decides the president for California.

No, that is not what happened.

Don't gaslight, that's 100% what happens. States that vote 1 way with huge majority in one party are irrelevant and don't actually elect presidents, compared to 5-10 states that actually vote for president. Their "rights" don't matter, and their voter's rights don't matter. If you actually cared about states rights you wouldn't favor EC to vote for a federal office, because it robs deep red and blue states of their agency.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

19322

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#48 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 19322 Posts
@Vaasman said:
@Jacanuk said:
@Vaasman said:

That's exactly what happens though in EC. California is royal blue, and because of that it doesn't matter one bit, while Ohio is an extremely important state that gets far more funding and attention because it varies from election to election. In essence, Ohio decides the president for California.

No, that is not what happened.

Don't gaslight, that's 100% what happens. States that vote 1 way with huge majority in one party are irrelevant and don't actually elect presidents, compared to 5-10 states that actually vote for president. Their "rights" don't matter, and their voter's rights don't matter. If you actually cared about states rights you wouldn't favor EC to vote for a federal office, because it robs deep red and blue states of their agency.

No, that is not what happened AGAIN, stop with the red herrings there.

You can argue that a fairer way of each state gets EC´s is needed, but you cannot argue against the EC system as long as there is not a singular America. We are the United States of America

A state's right are the key component of the USA and the constitution protects those

Avatar image for zaryia
Zaryia

10476

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#49  Edited By Zaryia
Member since 2016 • 10476 Posts

@Jacanuk said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@redviperofdorne said:

@zaryia: The same American public that elected Trump?....Yes. Especially when a lot of early polls show Trump beating Warren in early states.

EC. We don't use popular vote or trump would have lost.

Nice twisting the truth there.

Unless you want to remove state rights, someone in California should not decide for people in Ohio or reverse.

There is 0 twisting. This conservation was about the American Public. The American public voted for Hillary in 2016 and DNC in 2018.

No one talked about the EC.

Avatar image for Vaasman
Vaasman

14082

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#50  Edited By Vaasman
Member since 2008 • 14082 Posts

@Jacanuk said:
@Vaasman said:

Don't gaslight, that's 100% what happens. States that vote 1 way with huge majority in one party are irrelevant and don't actually elect presidents, compared to 5-10 states that actually vote for president. Their "rights" don't matter, and their voter's rights don't matter. If you actually cared about states rights you wouldn't favor EC to vote for a federal office, because it robs deep red and blue states of their agency.

No, that is not what happened AGAIN, stop with the red herrings there.

You can argue that a fairer way of each state gets EC´s is needed, but you cannot argue against the EC system as long as there is not a singular America. We are the United States of America

A state's right are the key component of the USA and the constitution protects those

There is no "fairer way" to do EC to make sure solid states have agency, the system by it's very nature means there is no relevance to campaigns and swing votes for federal positions unless your state has a fairly even population for parties. Federal positions are voted in by specific states only, and it would be that way no matter if the states had a split of 100 electorals or 1000. For all your talk about "states rights," you sure don't seem to care that they are in fact losing their autonomy through the system. It doesn't matter what rules and regulations a state has for how they want the vote to go, when 75% of the population will always go one way, and 25% of the state's populations are irrelevant compared to other states.