LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Democratic Primary Fucktussle!

JackLuis said:
Or Clintonian, 4th Dim Chess?:D:D
but more realisticly Rethuglican fuckery!:D:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I think the Clintons are just hunkering down and trying to stay out of the crosshairs. Bringing them up constantly is, I think, a Russian dividing scheme that the Trumpettes serve.
 
Here are 3 winners and 3 losers from the 2020 Democratic presidential primary debate

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg joined the other leading Democratic presidential primary candidates Wednesday night in the fieriest evening of the race so far.

His presence on the stage drew fire from the other candidates, but it also seemed to change the overall tone of the debate, with more attacks, counter-attacks, and passion than was generally seen earlier in the campaign.
Click to expand...

No bomb shells tonight?:rolleyes:
 
The ‘Titanic met an iceberg named Elizabeth Warren’: Michael Bloomberg’s first debate performance widely panned

Former NYC mayor Mike Bloomberg’s first presidential debate performance is being widely panned by pundits.

The Root’s Dr. Jason Johnson told MSNBC viewers just how bad he thought Bloomberg did at the Democratic debate in Las Vegas: “The most expensive night in Vegas I’ve ever seen. He lost everything.”
"#DemDebate takeaway: Elizabeth Warren hit Michael Bloomberg in the face with a sledgehammer for an hour and then people debated stuff for another hour."
Click to expand...


MSNBC’s Morning Joe shreds Bloomberg for flunking ‘politics 101’ in first debate


Sanders hits Bloomberg with ‘grotesque’ statistic: Billionaire owns more wealth than bottom 125 million Americans combined


Trump lobs late-night attacks at Bloomberg after debate flop: ‘Worst in the history of debates!’

"Thanks for the Trump Thumping, but now go home," said the Democrats!:D:D:D
 
I am leaning away from Sanders now. He is still one of the very few politicians I like, but his progressive beliefs are decades too late as we begin the post-industrial era. Voting for him just to see his VP pick then probably voting for Trump would be unfair to Democrats who want someone else and are determined to go down with the ship. I can still vote for Gabbard, but with zero expectation she gets the nom.
 

Michael Bloomberg woos delegates in effort to block a Bernie Sanders nomination: report

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has an entire operation “quietly” working to block the nomination of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., at the Democratic National Convention if the surging frontrunner fails to win a majority of delegates, a new report reveals.

Bloomberg has quietly moved to shore up support for a potential second ballot by trying to “poach” supporters of former Vice President Joe Biden and other moderate candidates, Politico reports. Those efforts come as election forecaster Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight model projects the most likely outcome of the crowded Democratic primary is that no candidate clinches a majority of delegates, and rivals worry that Sanders will build an “insurmountable” lead before the convention.

“The answer to one Republican New York billionaire is surely not going to be a slightly richer Republican New York billionaire,” a Biden ally told The Atlantic. “It’s laughable we even have to say that out loud.”
Click to expand...

I have to say that I'd take Mike vs Trump, but I'd vote for a rabid wolverine rather than Trumpski!:eek:
 
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=890339&page=4

Jimmy Chitwood said:
I don't agree about this business of the "moderate," though, which is where my question was coming from. Of course, you've got whatever percentage of blue no matter who votes, and you've got whatever percentage of MAGA votes. That leaves all the people who might actually do different things, depending on who the Democrats nominate. Your point is, well, if you map all those people left-to-right in terms of their politics, you want a candidate who is palatable to all the people in the middle, because then you get the middle and you presumably get most of the left, and then Trump doesn't get those middle votes. And that's a reasonable point. It's Warren's "we want a candidate who excites all parts of the party" and Buttigieg's "we don't want a candidate who wants to burn everything down," except applied to the whole country instead of the party.

But I don't think that group of undecideds really does map to a left/right spectrum the way (I think) you're assuming they will. I don't think they're moderates in that sense. I think any true moderates are already effectively Democrats by now anyway, because moderation is and has been what the Democratic party is selling. I think the undecideds are a weird sloppy mess of lots of different motivations, and cross-over appeal is more of a matter of convergence of particular interests than it is a game theory decision of capturing 51% of the available space. They're already polarized, but they're polarized along like ten different axes, not just left/right. And not everybody is polarized the same on all those axes. I think that group of people maps very differently depending on what the candidate talks about, not just where their politics are in a left/right sense. You can be super leftist and talk about the environment and healthcare and worker rights, and you can also be super leftist and talk about guns and abortion and racism, and you can also be super leftist and talk about drone strikes and immigration and international cooperation.

Depending on which one of those you do -- in my unified theory of politics, obviously -- you can attract and repel different people from all over the red/blue map. Somebody can't extra not vote for you, they can either vote for you or not. You can have crazy things happen like voters whose first choice is a socialist and their second choice is an oligarch or a whatever-Trump-is. Or even people who voted Obama and then voted Trump, despite the traditional analysis precluding anything but literal insanity justifying that combination. I think the 2016 Democratic primary voting showed that there's something Sanders is selling that speaks to voters the Democrats otherwise can't or won't or don't speak to. I think 2020 will too. It's not just right/left, it's whose interests you're talking about and how. I really think that the modern Democratic approach of out-centering the hypothetical center and following polling wherever it leads really misses this, and misses out on a lot of voters, because when you do things that way you aren't even trying to sell anybody on anything.
Click to expand...
 
markspa901 said:
Yeah they're going to put up their best communist/socialist. And get crushed.
Click to expand...

Not according to the polls that show Sanders leading Trump by eight or nine points.

Also, it is literally impossible to be a "communist/socialist". They are two fundamentally different groups, and among other things they hate each other.
 
Is corporate media creating a misleading impression of voter sentiment? 91 percent of Nevada Dem voters said ‘no’

Nevada has almost 611,000 registered Democrats. Final results will show about 40,000 votes for Sanders. That means for every vote Sanders won there were 15 Democrats who choose someone else—or no one at all.

The low turnout is surprising since the party made voting easy. Ballots could be cast in person for four days or at the Saturday caucuses. Yet 91% out of Nevada Democrats didn’t vote or caucus.

Ask yourself what it means that in the Nevada Democratic primary the real vote was 9% care and 91% couldn’t be bothered.

I don’t know the answer. What I do know is that we should be actively discussing this. And we should do so not from wishes or fears, but from thoughtful concern about the future, we will soon choose for our nation.
Click to expand...

Or it could mean that cacuses are a stupid idea?:)
 
A candidate achieving a majority of delegates on some later date such as March 10 or 17 would make that day a Superior Tuesday, unless that name is reserved for the general.
 
An Open Letter to the Democrats Defending Their Party Against Bernie Sanders

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Print
Dear Mike, Joe, Pete, and Amy (and perhaps Elizabeth),

Please forgive the informality. But we have no time to stand on ceremony. So let me cut to the chase.

The good news: Only three small states have voted and fewer than 3 percent of the delegates have been selected in the Democratic nomination contest.

The bad news: A week from now a third of the delegates—a month from now, more than 60 percent of the delegates—will have been selected. Time is short.
Click to expand...

The Republican party allowed Donald Trump to capture it in 2016. This has been, I trust you agree, very bad for our country. As for the party, I’m not sure we’ll ever get it back on path to a decent and healthy American conservatism. It would be bad if Democrats went down a parallel path. America deserves better than a choice between an authoritarian populist of the right and a socialist populist of the left.

How terrible it would be if, having resisted European-style illiberalism in the 20th century, we succumbed to it in the 21st.
Click to expand...

Will Dems take advice form Bill Kristol?:confused:
 
Mike Bloomberg roasted online after tape of his Goldman Sachs comments went viral

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was ridiculed online on Monday after yet another tape of his comments resurfaced.

“Former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg said at a private event in 2016 that his presidential campaign platform would have been to “defend the banks” and also labeled the progressive movement and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, now a rival for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, as ‘scary,'” CNN reported Monday.
Click to expand...

Oooo! Mike is scared of the little lady who knows how to legislation passed! How does he feel about Bernie?

I just filled in my early ballot for Liz!:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Holy_Seduction
The Ratchet and the Pawl: an ICFI-Grounded, Analytical Model of the US Two-Party System
Replies
19
Views
350
Holy_Seduction
Holy_Seduction
RobDownSouth
AIPAC shoots itself in the foot, helps to ensure election of anti-Israel Democrat (!!!)
2
Replies
25
Views
738
Lazaran
L
Rightguide
Trump Labels NYC’s Mamdani A ‘100% Communist Lunatic’
12 13 14
Replies
330
Views
10K
Wilson23
W
O
Fat Lunatic
Replies
4
Views
165
Bray123
B
Rightguide
The Party Of Darkness
Replies
13
Views
596
stxjimmy
S
Back
Top