• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Democratic debates

If he has a plurality, it should depend on what kind of plurality. Do the moderates combined have a majority? Ranked choice voting would solve this.
 
Not even in the military that preaches unit cohesiveness is this a rule.
And we all know that whatever military does is automatically a great idea.

I really do not think military should be
a) hiring people who do not speak English
b) a say Spanish-speaking commanding offer should not talk to Spanish-speaking subordinates in Spanish leaving everybody else out of the loop.

Expecting immigrants to learn English, and have sufficient English skills to understand a ballot and cast a vote by the time they get citizenship should be non-controversial. Ballots should not have to be printed in Hmong for example.
 
If he has a plurality, it should depend on what kind of plurality. Do the moderates combined have a majority? Ranked choice voting would solve this.

Polls like this one shed some light on why "moderates" is not a useful category to pit against a single candidate:

condorcet.png
 
If he has a plurality, it should depend on what kind of plurality. Do the moderates combined have a majority? Ranked choice voting would solve this.

Polls like this one shed some light on why "moderates" is not a useful category to pit against a single candidate:

View attachment 26233
Yeah, go talk to Canada about vote splitting and its affect on the Parliament in Ottawa.
 
You're not wrong. But that knife slices both ways. Bernie never claimed to be the unity candidate

In your own words, Sanders wanted to "fuck over" the real winner last time, and not just the plurality winner.

Sanders didn't deserve to win in 2016. He didn't have the most votes or the movement he has today, and the electorate was not in the place it is now with regard to what he's proposing.
Which is why he is polling well below 50% in the primaries?
 
nonsensical post by someone

Uh, what? No. Actually grabbing women by the nether regions and then bragging about it is not the same as metaphorically saying someone was punched in the genitalia because they lost an argument. Your post looks ludicrous trying to equate the two.
 
Sanders didn't deserve to win in 2016. He didn't have the most votes or the movement he has today, and the electorate was not in the place it is now with regard to what he's proposing.
Which is why he is polling well below 50% in the primaries?

THERE ARE 8 CANDIDATES HOW ARE YOU REALLY LIKE THIS
How am I like this? You said the "electorate was not in the place it is now". This is implying electoral mandate... and getting under 30% in Iowa and NH (a next door primary) isn't a mandate. You keep talking about this huge movement that doesn't exist. Less than 50% polled are supporting candidates with a "M"4A plan.
 
THERE ARE 8 CANDIDATES HOW ARE YOU REALLY LIKE THIS
How am I like this? You said the "electorate was not in the place it is now". This is implying electoral mandate... and getting under 30% in Iowa and NH (a next door primary) isn't a mandate. You keep talking about this huge movement that doesn't exist. Less than 50% polled are supporting candidates with a "M"4A plan. a man made of straw that I will now stab viciously

Hiatus time. See you all when Bernie wins
 
THERE ARE 8 CANDIDATES HOW ARE YOU REALLY LIKE THIS
How am I like this? You said the "electorate was not in the place it is now". This is implying electoral mandate... and getting under 30% in Iowa and NH (a next door primary) isn't a mandate. You keep talking about this huge movement that doesn't exist. Less than 50% polled are supporting candidates with a "M"4A plan. a man made of straw that I will now stab viciously

Hiatus time. See you all when Bernie wins

The nomination or the presidency ?
 
Those were exactly my impressions, as well. I liked Warren's performance a lot. She really exposed the flaw in Bloomberg's strategy of buying his way onto that stage.
I really hated what she did because what we definitely do not need is more political correctness and witch hunts in US politics.

He had no experience in handling the kind of back-and-forth that the rest of the candidates were familiar with.
That is true. He entered the race late and has not been through the baptism of fire that the previous eight debates had been for the rest of the field since the Summer.

It wasn't about her "me too" issue that he had non-disclosure agreements with women he had allegedly abused--an incredible flaw for Democratic candidates--
As far as I understand the issue, there have been no allegations that MRB abused anybody. All she had against him personally is that he back in the day used some mildly off-color language

but "electability".
I think this has hurt his primary electability far more than his general election electability. The sanctimonious feminist vote that Warren channeled in that barrage is far more concentrated in the former. On the other hand, I am sure there are many men who saw his side too, and there are many men voting in the Dem primaries.

More importantly, Warren came to Klobuchar's defense, when she was being unfairly attacked for failing a reporter's "gotcha" test on whether she recalled the name of the president of Mexico.
So Warren will attack the men, but will defend the woman. She has been more and more gender-based since the clash between her and Bernie two debates ago and is in real danger of becoming a "vote for me because I am a woman" candidate.
I do not think it was an unfair attack. Klob has been attacking Pete for the longest about his lack of experience, and he merely pointed out that with her experience on the commerce committee (and trade subcommittee) she should be more familiar with one of our biggest trading partners.

Klobuchar and Warren did quite well in the debate.
I do not think Klob did well at all. She seemed very frazzled in her exchange with Pete. Warren drew blood, but that will help Biden more than anybody else. Warren's own campaign is still on life support I think.

Buttigieg was OK, but he didn't really have anything of much substance to contribute and still didn't know quite how to handle Klobuchar's pointed references to his lack of experience.
I think his point about experience being about more than just a butt in a committee chair for x years was a good one. I liked his zinger about Mondale, but I fear that will hurt him in Minnesota. Btw, had no idea he was still alive. Maybe he could be Veep again - Sanders/Fritz 2020!

Bloomberg did his best impression of the Hindenburg going down in flames.
Except Hindenburg was an accident. This was more like USS Arizona.
WetAdolescentBug-size_restricted.gif
I hope MRB approaches this with a "now more than ever" attitude and resolves to come back swinging in Charleston next week. But he will need good debate prep.
 
Does anybody want to talk about how every candidate except the one who is winning said that the party should fuck over whoever wins at the convention
No one said that. The person who wins at that convention is the one who ends with the nomination via the established process. All but one candidate said 'let the process work".
 
Pete was just rude to Amy and when he wasn't busy being rude to Amy (I mean: adolescent eye rolls and all!) then he sounded like he had a well rehearsed but terribly flawed speech prepared for debate club.
He was no more rude to her than she was to him in previous debates. But I guess it's ok if you are a woman. :rolleyes:

Warren and Klobuchar gave the best, most detailed responses.
No surprise you think that. You would default to praising the women on the stage no matter what.
 
Uh, what? No. Actually grabbing women by the nether regions and then bragging about it is not the same as metaphorically saying someone was punched in the genitalia because they lost an argument. Your post looks ludicrous trying to equate the two.
You do not know that Trump wasn't just using it rhetorically. Besides, feminists are not known to be cool with metaphorical violence toward women at the same time as they employ metaphorical violence toward men.
 
Seriously, can we? It's great when almost all the candidates running for the DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOMINATION unanimously express their willingness to subvert the will of the people and install whoever reminds them of the last person who lost. Do they realize that Milwaukee will be the epicenter of a national protest that will shut down the fucking country if Bernie gets a plurality of delegates but is denied the nomination...?
Plurality < Majority. If the majority of delegates agree to nominate a candidate other than Sanders, then what's wrong with that? Of course, there will be protests if Bernie doesn't get the nomination, but that is beside the point.
 
...
If someone gets the plurality, who other than that person should be the nominee based on the will of the voters? By definition, no one got more votes than the plurality winner, so anyone they pick will satisfy FEWER people than the plurality winner. ...

If the will of the majority of the voters is for a progressive agenda and you have one conservative and two progressive candidates the progressive vote gets split and the conservative might win. Let's be clear. That isn't based on the will of the people but it can be an effective way to sabotage it. The only solution is ranked choice voting, not a brokered election.
 
Pete was just rude to Amy and when he wasn't busy being rude to Amy (I mean: adolescent eye rolls and all!) then he sounded like he had a well rehearsed but terribly flawed speech prepared for debate club.
He was no more rude to her than she was to him in previous debates. But I guess it's ok if you are a woman. :rolleyes:

Warren and Klobuchar gave the best, most detailed responses.
No surprise you think that. You would default to praising the women on the stage no matter what.
Wow, that one breaks every irony meter from the past, the present and in the future.
 
Back
Top Bottom