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

Democrats 2020

blastula said:
Copernicus said:
Jolly_Penguin said:
Warren strikes me as a good legislator and a weak campaigner. I do think she should be in whoever the winner's cabinet is. I don't think she should be the nominee.
Click to expand...

She is actually one of the better campaigners in the running. She knows how to inspire people and appeal to moderate conservatives, but you have to actually listen to her rather than the commentary on her speeches. She has made some blunders, e.g. her stupid blood test challenge and her more recent evasiveness about raising taxes to support her health plan. On balance, however, she does really well in her interactions with audiences.

I believe that Toni's article from the Atlantic made a good point about what sank her in the polls--her efforts to align too closely with Sanders. Sanders was much better in defending his program by simply admitting that it would raise taxes and then explaining why that wasn't a bad thing. Warren wasn't prepared to admit that in Iowa, although she had been more straightforward about it in past months. If she doesn't turn her sinking image around soon, it will be too late for her to recover.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Warren was my favorite for a while but she has shown she has terrible political instincts, with the DNA debacle and then the rube goldberg healthcare plan. She deserves to lose now.
Click to expand...

I don't think she has terrible political instincts at all.

I do think that misogyny runs even deeper than racism or anti-gay sentiment, tho.
 
blastula said:
Copernicus said:
Jolly_Penguin said:
Warren strikes me as a good legislator and a weak campaigner. I do think she should be in whoever the winner's cabinet is. I don't think she should be the nominee.
Click to expand...

She is actually one of the better campaigners in the running. She knows how to inspire people and appeal to moderate conservatives, but you have to actually listen to her rather than the commentary on her speeches. She has made some blunders, e.g. her stupid blood test challenge and her more recent evasiveness about raising taxes to support her health plan. On balance, however, she does really well in her interactions with audiences.

I believe that Toni's article from the Atlantic made a good point about what sank her in the polls--her efforts to align too closely with Sanders. Sanders was much better in defending his program by simply admitting that it would raise taxes and then explaining why that wasn't a bad thing. Warren wasn't prepared to admit that in Iowa, although she had been more straightforward about it in past months. If she doesn't turn her sinking image around soon, it will be too late for her to recover.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Warren was my favorite for a while but she has shown she has terrible political instincts, with the DNA debacle and then the rube goldberg healthcare plan. She deserves to lose now.
Click to expand...

Yes. She's pretty good at policy and is a sharp mind, but she's clueless when it comes to politics. She has proved this repeatedly. She shouldn't be a politician. She should work in a university (oh wait she did).

Toni said:
I don't think she has terrible political instincts at all.

I do think that misogyny runs even deeper than racism or anti-gay sentiment, tho.
Click to expand...

No, sorry. Gender is no excuse for Warren's poor political calculations. If a male candidate made the same errors he would be just as criticized. He just wouldn't have a skirt for you to hide that behind. Consider if we responded to any of your criticism of Tulsi Gabbard by implying you are sexist against women. Of course that's not why you don't like her, but its such an easy go to isn't it?
 
Meanwhile, here's something to spoil the Dem love fest of this thread........................................ https://news.gallup.com/poll/284156...vz0EuWoQS7fGzsbC0b2MtF0JuefAz31DV5U4Py68vDke0

TRUMP JOB APPROVAL AT PERSONAL BEST 49%
by Jeffrey M. Jones, Gallup Poll, February 5, 2020:
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Approval among Republicans hits 94%
Poll shows highest party polarization on record
Half of registered voters say Trump deserves to be re-elected
WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Donald Trump’s job approval rating has risen to 49%, his highest in Gallup polling since he took office in 2017.
 
angelo said:
Meanwhile, here's something to spoil the Dem love fest of this thread........................................ https://news.gallup.com/poll/284156...vz0EuWoQS7fGzsbC0b2MtF0JuefAz31DV5U4Py68vDke0

TRUMP JOB APPROVAL AT PERSONAL BEST 49%
by Jeffrey M. Jones, Gallup Poll, February 5, 2020:
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Approval among Republicans hits 94%
Poll shows highest party polarization on record
Half of registered voters say Trump deserves to be re-elected
WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Donald Trump’s job approval rating has risen to 49%, his highest in Gallup polling since he took office in 2017.
Click to expand...

Trumps' approval rating is at an all time high of 49%. To quote Jeremy Clarkson, "That's like saying I have syphilis - the best of the sexually transmitted diseases".
 
Patooka said:
angelo said:
Meanwhile, here's something to spoil the Dem love fest of this thread........................................ https://news.gallup.com/poll/284156...vz0EuWoQS7fGzsbC0b2MtF0JuefAz31DV5U4Py68vDke0

TRUMP JOB APPROVAL AT PERSONAL BEST 49%
by Jeffrey M. Jones, Gallup Poll, February 5, 2020:
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Approval among Republicans hits 94%
Poll shows highest party polarization on record
Half of registered voters say Trump deserves to be re-elected
WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Donald Trump’s job approval rating has risen to 49%, his highest in Gallup polling since he took office in 2017.
Click to expand...

Trumps' approval rating is at an all time high of 49%. To quote Jeremy Clarkson, "That's like saying I have syphilis - the best of the sexually transmitted diseases".
Click to expand...


A Gallup poll released Tuesday found Trump received the highest approval rating for any president in the last two decades.
The results showed 63% of the public backs Trump's handling of the economy, a six-point increase from the last poll taken in November.
A Washington Post-ABC News poll released last week also found Trump received strong support on his economic record so far.
Confidence in the economy remains high among many Americans as it continues adding jobs and steadily expands, serving as a critical part of the president's re-election bid.
Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.
A Gallup poll released on Tuesday found that Trump had received the highest economic approval rating of any president in the last 20 years.
The survey showed Trump receiving a 63% approval rating among respondents for his handling of the American economy, a six-point boost from the last poll released in November.
It's the highest economic approval figure since the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when George W. Bush was president. It peaked at 72% in October 2001.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/...0-2-1028873604
 
At this point, I am convinced that we are looking at a second term for Trump. Unless the Democrats get their shit together and unite on a candidate who has wide spread appeal, we are fucked. The problem is that none of the current are able to unite the party. If you don't see that, I think you need to do more research and come to terms with the fact that the only reason that the Democrats took back the House was thanks to moderates who won in Trump heavy districts.

I will always vote for the lesser of two evils or the one who I see as better, however you want to put it. But, I know plenty of people who will sit the election out if they don't like the candidate that runs for president. We are fucked.

What happened in Iowa doesn't help. It makes the Democratic Party look incompetent and disorganized. Iowa should never have been the first state. Iowa should have gotten rid of the archaic caucus. It disenfranchises way too many people. People who work late or 12. hour shifts, single moms who don't have a baby sitter, homebound and disabled people, older adults who don't drive at night, etc etc. This insane way of voting must come to and end.
 
southernhybrid said:
At this point, I am convinced that we are looking at a second term for Trump. Unless the Democrats get their shit together and unite on a candidate who has wide spread appeal, we are fucked. The problem is that none of the current are able to unite the party. If you don't see that, I think you need to do more research and come to terms with the fact that the only reason that the Democrats took back the House was thanks to moderates who won in Trump heavy districts.

I will always vote for the lesser of two evils or the one who I see as better, however you want to put it. But, I know plenty of people who will sit the election out if they don't like the candidate that runs for president. We are fucked.

What happened in Iowa doesn't help. It makes the Democratic Party look incompetent and disorganized. Iowa should never have been the first state. Iowa should have gotten rid of the archaic caucus. It disenfranchises way too many people. People who work late or 12. hour shifts, single moms who don't have a baby sitter, homebound and disabled people, older adults who don't drive at night, etc etc. This insane way of voting must come to and end.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been to a caucus?

Here is a description of the Iowa caucuses: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/4/21122359/iowa-democratic-caucuses-results-turnout

It's generally a low turn out event. And it's a system that heavily favors those who have a very vocal base who is willing to flood the caucuses to win their points. Sound like a Sanders backer to you?

It's a primary. The significance of Iowa's primary is only what we award it. That said, I've been reading for a while that the likely nominee would be white and male and I am guessing that's correct. In the cases of Bernie and Pete, I think either candidate would be a disaster as POTUS. Both had better qualified female candidates who campaigned fiercely in Iowa.

I'm guessing that it's still a man's world out there and a mighty white one at that.
 
MOTHERFUCKER! I just lost a huge post! Last time I quote a post with a fucking link in it.

Long story short, Iowa primary seems to be more about the media than the candidates, as the media was whining more about not being able to crown a winner.

Primary system is ridiculous, lasts too long. Need shorter regional primary system that doesn't require rock star charisma candidates to maintain the funding needed to run a 18 month campaign!

Iowa shouldn't be the know all primary. Nor should New Hampshire. This isn't sour grapes, this is just reality. "The Bounce" is bullshit. All Iowa should be doing is weeding the field of the completely unwanted, Yang, Gabbard, Yang, Bennett, Yang, Steyer, Yang, Gabbard. This is the beginning, not the end.
 
You really should shorten your election campaigns. Its such a stark contrast to Canada's. Our people rarely rarely realize an election has been called that they will be voting until a month or two ahead of time. Then its done and everybody moves on and rarely thinks of the prime minister. Many of our citizens can't even remember who the current premier of their province is. It just doesn't get blasted 24/7 at people like it does in the US.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
MOTHERFUCKER! I just lost a huge post! Last time I quote a post with a fucking link in it.

Long story short, Iowa primary seems to be more about the media than the candidates, as the media was whining more about not being able to crown a winner.

Primary system is ridiculous, lasts too long. Need shorter regional primary system that doesn't require rock star charisma candidates to maintain the funding needed to run a 18 month campaign!

Iowa shouldn't be the know all primary. Nor should New Hampshire. This isn't sour grapes, this is just reality. "The Bounce" is bullshit. All Iowa should be doing is weeding the field of the completely unwanted, Yang, Gabbard, Yang, Bennett, Yang, Steyer, Yang, Gabbard. This is the beginning, not the end.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Yang needs to do the math.
 
Worldtraveller said:
So Jimmy.

How do you feel about Yang? :p

Also, Bloomberg should follow Yang out the door.
Click to expand...

Bloomers needs to simply write a ten billion dollar check to the DNC and go back to doing whatever made him the ten billion dollars.
 
Bloomberg Surrogates Have Seats on DNC Rules Committees

Michael Nutter, the former Mayor of Philadelphia who is a member of the Standing Rules and Bylaws Committee, was selected by Bloomberg in December 2019 to serve as his campaign’s national political chair.

“Nutter will advise the campaign on policy development and strategy, and serve as a national surrogate on behalf of the campaign, recruiting key voices to join the campaign and traveling to field offices and events, speaking to constituents and press about why Mike Bloomberg is uniquely qualified to unite and rebuild the country at a time when it is more divided than ever,” the Bloomberg campaign said in a December statement.

Nutter was nominated by former DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) in 2013 and he has served on the rules committee since 2017.

Nutter co-hosted a kick-off fundraiser for former vice president Joe Biden in April 2019 after Bloomberg announced a month earlier that he would not run for president, but he quickly switched to Bloomberg’s camp after the former New York mayor reversed course and entered the race.
Click to expand...

All the usual suspects back at it again, it seems.

Alexandra Rooker, a rules committee member and superdelegate from California, was hired as a senior adviser to the Bloomberg campaign last month. Rooker, who was previously a lobbyist for the Communications Workers of America, is a vice chair of the California Democratic Party. DNC Chairman Tom Perez nominated Rooker to serve as vice-chair of the 2020 Democratic National Convention Rules Committee at a DNC Executive Committee meeting last weekend.

Last week, the DNC eliminated the individual-donor threshold for candidates to qualify for future debates, paving the way for Bloomberg to appear at the next debate, which will be held on Feb. 19 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The change came directly from Perez and the Rules and Bylaws Committee members did not give any input or hold a vote, according to multiple people close to the matter. decision came with no review process from DNC committees and without a roll call vote of the around 430 DNC national members, most of whom learned about the change for the first time in the media.
Click to expand...
 
So Sanders likely wins New Hampshire. Question will be if Biden finishes second, Warren continues to fall, how Buttigieg and Klobuchar performs. Can Yang break 1%? Warren is in trouble with a deep finish in a neighboring state.

Nevada was tightening between Sanders and Biden. South Carolina had Biden with a strong lead, but will be influenced by the three previous outcomes. Can Biden win South Carolina as his first primary? Do old white voters switch to other old white moderate guy?

I think we'll see the top five stick around to California (and a bunch of other states that day), then that'll be that and the top two or three remain... and Bloomberg.
 
Republicans urging GOP voters to vote for Sanders in South Carolina primary: report

State Republican leaders in South Carolina are urging GOP voters to vote for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the state's Feb. 29 Democratic primary.

The plan — orchestrated by Greenville GOP chairman Nate Leupp and several other prominent Republican Party leaders — revolves around GOP leadership's belief that Sanders poses the least amount of challenge to President Trump in November's general election and its goal of getting the Palmetto State's Democratic lawmakers to agree to close the state's primaries.

“Bernie Sanders is the most socialistic, liberal candidate running in the Democratic presidential preference primary,” Leupp told The Post and Courier. “So we feel we can make a strong point that our Democratic state legislators need to help work to close our primaries so it protects them as well as the Republican brand.”

South Carolina has open primaries, meaning voters don't have to be associated with a political party to cast a ballot.
Click to expand...
 
PyramidHead said:
Bloomberg Surrogates Have Seats on DNC Rules Committees

Michael Nutter, the former Mayor of Philadelphia who is a member of the Standing Rules and Bylaws Committee, was selected by Bloomberg in December 2019 to serve as his campaign’s national political chair.

“Nutter will advise the campaign on policy development and strategy, and serve as a national surrogate on behalf of the campaign, recruiting key voices to join the campaign and traveling to field offices and events, speaking to constituents and press about why Mike Bloomberg is uniquely qualified to unite and rebuild the country at a time when it is more divided than ever,” the Bloomberg campaign said in a December statement.

Nutter was nominated by former DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) in 2013 and he has served on the rules committee since 2017.

Nutter co-hosted a kick-off fundraiser for former vice president Joe Biden in April 2019 after Bloomberg announced a month earlier that he would not run for president, but he quickly switched to Bloomberg’s camp after the former New York mayor reversed course and entered the race.
Click to expand...

All the usual suspects back at it again, it seems.

Alexandra Rooker, a rules committee member and superdelegate from California, was hired as a senior adviser to the Bloomberg campaign last month. Rooker, who was previously a lobbyist for the Communications Workers of America, is a vice chair of the California Democratic Party. DNC Chairman Tom Perez nominated Rooker to serve as vice-chair of the 2020 Democratic National Convention Rules Committee at a DNC Executive Committee meeting last weekend.

Last week, the DNC eliminated the individual-donor threshold for candidates to qualify for future debates, paving the way for Bloomberg to appear at the next debate, which will be held on Feb. 19 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The change came directly from Perez and the Rules and Bylaws Committee members did not give any input or hold a vote, according to multiple people close to the matter. decision came with no review process from DNC committees and without a roll call vote of the around 430 DNC national members, most of whom learned about the change for the first time in the media.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yeah? Good!
Bernie raises $27 per person - Mikey can raise $27 billion if he wants to, without taking a dime from anyone. Trump can and will get a few billion dollars in rebates for the trillion-plus tax giveaway to his donors, and probably hundreds of millions more in foreign sponsored social media and ground operations. If Dems decide to try to play the poverty card for high road claims and sympathy votes, they will deserve the drubbing that will come. They should be courting Mikey for all he's worth - literally. Maybe a couple billion will fall off his plate for them, and give them a chance to be competitive. The worst that can happen is he gets the nomination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom