Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
timschochet

The Democrats need to wake up! Update: And near the last second, THEY HAVE

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

Irrelevant? I wake up each day thankful for being alive. I don’t let politics consume my life like you do. And by the way, before you predict the demise of the Republican party, you may want to reflect on the train wreck going on with your party. You even started a thread about it. 

How many times are Trump supporters going to repeat this line of “You guys are obsessed with politics, go out and enjoy the day!” So tiresome. Unless you live in Southern Cal like I do my friend, you’re not in paradise. 

The Democratic Party is currently divided. It’s not a train wreck because the winner of the divide will control the nation’s future for years to come. 

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:
45 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Fair enough....this is the rub you will continually run into.  I can't speak specifically to anyone other than Bernie though, but he's defined the term outside your stricter definitions.  I'm good with your definition, but you're going to have huge issues in communication here if you don't also push back on him identifying himself as such if the distinction isn't consistent.  I tend to agree with you over all these issues.  His proposals around M4A, food stamps, expanding public education etc AREN'T socialist.  It's probably best to make that clear in each post as well.  My :2cents: 

Damage control and talking out of both sides of his mouth. 

It isnt like Bernie is so unique that he needs his own newly defined label. I am waiting for people to start branding him as a democratic social independent. Well except on tuesdays when he is just a democrat. 

He picked democratic socialist for a reason. He tweets support for pretty much every labor union dispute that is active. I actually stopped following him on twitter because i got sick of seeing the we stand with joe bob's custodial workers and wont poop in any toilets they service until ownership agrees to give them a fair share of the profits! tweets

Not saying that labor union support makes somebody a socialist, but his super passionate pleas about pretty much every union ever and his loathing of the uber wealthy to me show his true colors and make his choice of labeling ring true not the post criticism redefining i am seeing. 

Perhaps....if I'm being honest, I don't know why he chose the term.  I don't see how it's damage control though.  Any mention of "socialist" seems to be a bad idea.  Just look at this thread as an example.  Even things that aren't socialist are labeled as such and attacked.  Seems much smarter for him to push back on it all together given none of his major policy initiatives fit the definition of socialist or democratic socialist.  But he's leaned into the term for whatever reason.  If I were labeling him, I'd be going with "populist".  His battle is for the individual who's functioning in a system where money talks and not everyone has equal access to the money primarily because of the way laws are written.

Edited by The Commish
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

How many times are Trump supporters going to repeat this line of “You guys are obsessed with politics, go out and enjoy the day!” So tiresome. Unless you live in Southern Cal like I do my friend, you’re not in paradise. 

The Democratic Party is currently divided. It’s not a train wreck because the winner of the divide will control the nation’s future for years to come. 

Paradise is where I’m at each and every day. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, timschochet said:

The Democratic Party is currently divided. It’s not a train wreck because the winner of the divide will control the nation’s future for years to come. 

I'm going to need a link for this one.  I know you don't believe that at all.  I'll give you credit for one thing, you sure can sling it up against the wall.  Lots of it.

Edited by JohnnyU
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I love getting up in the morning.  I clap my hands and say THIS is going to be a Great Day to vote the traitors of the GOP out of office."  Ghost of Dicky Fox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, siffoin said:

"I love getting up in the morning.  I clap my hands and say THIS is going to be a Great Day to vote the traitors of the GOP out of office."  Ghost of Dicky Fox.

The real traitors are the Democratic party and I think you guys deep down know it.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2020 at 7:45 AM, JohnnyU said:

The real traitors are the Democratic party and I think you guys deep down know it.

If you say so...:coffee:

Edited by squistion
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, parasaurolophus said:

Damage control and talking out of both sides of his mouth. 

It isnt like Bernie is so unique that he needs his own newly defined label. I am waiting for people to start branding him as a democratic social independent. Well except on tuesdays when he is just a democrat. 

He picked democratic socialist for a reason. He tweets support for pretty much every labor union dispute that is active. I actually stopped following him on twitter because i got sick of seeing the we stand with joe bob's custodial workers and wont poop in any toilets they service until ownership agrees to give them a fair share of the profits! tweets

Not saying that labor union support makes somebody a socialist, but his super passionate pleas about pretty much every union ever and his loathing of the uber wealthy to me show his true colors and make his choice of labeling ring true not the post criticism redefining i am seeing. 

 

One reason actual socialists (including Democratic Socialists) criticize Social Democrats and proponents of the Nordic model is because they say social democracy only works in countries with powerful labor movements.   

So it should come as no surprise that Bernie is a strong supporter of the labor movement. That’s a hallmark of the systems in all the countries he strives to emulate. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

The party is still shrinking. Sorry about that but it’s your fault. You chose Trump. Now you’ll have to live with being irrelevant for decades. 

No worries there Blutarsky, its just like marriage.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

No worries there Blutarsky, its just like marriage.

That's why I'm not married ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

The real traitors are the Democratic party and I think you guys deep down know it.

Interesting take considering recent events, lol.

Which country do you think Dictator Donnie will sell us out for this week?

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Is that why?

By choice, man!

(To be clear, that wasn't meant as any sort of personal dig at JB. I've just always loved that scene.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Is that why?

Not at all. It's like Joe Pesci's quote from Goodfellas.... "I settle down with a nice girl every night, then I'm free the next morning.”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just keep on thinking of that Spider-man meme where they are just pointing at each other..........that's what politics feels like these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats should have “woken up” when they were deciding to move forward with the Russia investigations and impeachment that nearly this entire forum supported.

 

Now yall are confused about low Dem voter turnout and high Trump approval ratings.

 

Man in the Mirror time.

Edited by TripItUp
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I missing some numbers somewhere?  :oldunsure:

I don't have a vote in my state primaries.  I'm registered independent, but I will absolutely be voting in Nov.  My vote won't show up in any primary numbers.  That's true for many people across the country.  I am also hearing, frequently, a somewhat disconcerting message of "I'm not voting in the primary because it doesn't matter, I am voting against Trump regardless".  I don't know how pervasive that attitude is, but I hear it around me a lot.  

In terms of approval, his highest rankings have been in the 47-48% range at the beginning of his presidency.  Been consistently in the low 40s since.  It continues to be in the low 40s...maybe "mid 40s" now at 43.X% ??  Is this viewed as a significant achievement to some?  :oldunsure: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is all the dems need to talk about ...

 

Two days ago: "We will not be touching your Social Security or Medicare in Fiscal Year 2021 Budget.” -Trump Today: #TrumpBudget proposes $800 billion in cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Pass it on.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I'm not completely convinced.  Hillary's 4 day infomercial was slickly produced, professional quality, had some engaging speakers, and nobody cared.  I think people would actually watch a contested convention.  I don't know for sure that eyeballs = votes, but I'm not entirely convinced that having a genuinely interesting convention with an outcome in doubt would doom the party.

OK first of all, Hillary got 65 million votes and won the popular vote. Not saying she didn't screw up a lot of things, but maybe we don't need to go all in on the Costanza "Opposite" strategy just yet. I mean, Hillary also showed up to the debate fully clothed and yet still lost; should this year's Dem nominee walk around pantsless?

More seriously, even if it didn't affect swing voters, it would absolutely heighten divisions within the party, and whoever lost out would go into the general election really ticked off at the winner. And it's not like Trump would just sit back and let the Dems sort their issues out. He would be picking at that scab every day until Nov. 3.

Look, maybe you're right and I'm wrong. But considering the stakes of this election, I'm really not looking forward to running that experiment to find out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Am I missing some numbers somewhere?  :oldunsure:

I don't have a vote in my state primaries.  I'm registered independent, but I will absolutely be voting in Nov.  My vote won't show up in any primary numbers.  That's true for many people across the country.  I am also hearing, frequently, a somewhat disconcerting message of "I'm not voting in the primary because it doesn't matter, I am voting against Trump regardless".  I don't know how pervasive that attitude is, but I hear it around me a lot.  

In terms of approval, his highest rankings have been in the 47-48% range at the beginning of his presidency.  Been consistently in the low 40s since.  It continues to be in the low 40s...maybe "mid 40s" now at 43.X% ??  Is this viewed as a significant achievement to some?  :oldunsure: 

One Gallup poll had him up to 49 or 50 recently. It appears to be an outlier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, zftcg said:

OK first of all, Hillary got 65 million votes and won the popular vote. Not saying she didn't screw up a lot of things, but maybe we don't need to go all in on the Costanza "Opposite" strategy just yet. I mean, Hillary also showed up to the debate fully clothed and yet still lost; should this year's Dem nominee walk around pantsless?

Might not be a terrible idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

this is all the dems need to talk about ...

 

Two days ago: "We will not be touching your Social Security or Medicare in Fiscal Year 2021 Budget.” -Trump Today: #TrumpBudget proposes $800 billion in cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Pass it on.

Doesnt matter...pivot to stock market and unemployment...forget about cuts to social programs and exploding deficits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

this is all the dems need to talk about ...

 

Two days ago: "We will not be touching your Social Security or Medicare in Fiscal Year 2021 Budget.” -Trump Today: #TrumpBudget proposes $800 billion in cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Pass it on.

The cuts are almost entirely in Medicaid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
1 hour ago, The Commish said:

Am I missing some numbers somewhere?  :oldunsure:

I don't have a vote in my state primaries.  I'm registered independent, but I will absolutely be voting in Nov.  My vote won't show up in any primary numbers.  That's true for many people across the country.  I am also hearing, frequently, a somewhat disconcerting message of "I'm not voting in the primary because it doesn't matter, I am voting against Trump regardless".  I don't know how pervasive that attitude is, but I hear it around me a lot.  

In terms of approval, his highest rankings have been in the 47-48% range at the beginning of his presidency.  Been consistently in the low 40s since.  It continues to be in the low 40s...maybe "mid 40s" now at 43.X% ??  Is this viewed as a significant achievement to some?  :oldunsure: 

One Gallup poll had him up to 49 or 50 recently. It appears to be an outlier. 

oh...yeah, i was going by averages.  It was Gallup?  That's odd....that's something I'd expect from Rasmussen.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Commish said:

Perhaps....if I'm being honest, I don't know why he chose the term.  I don't see how it's damage control though.  Any mention of "socialist" seems to be a bad idea.  Just look at this thread as an example.  Even things that aren't socialist are labeled as such and attacked.  Seems much smarter for him to push back on it all together given none of his major policy initiatives fit the definition of socialist or democratic socialist.  But he's leaned into the term for whatever reason.  If I were labeling him, I'd be going with "populist".  His battle is for the individual who's functioning in a system where money talks and not everyone has equal access to the money primarily because of the way laws are written.

I always wondered if he didn't originally, at least somewhat, employ that term for it's shock value -  just to get people's attention so he could then explain whatever he was actually talking about. And maybe that worked better 30 years ago in Burlington or VT, but by 2016 he had already used it so much and for so long that dropping it from his shtick would have also cost him his air of authenticity...that "same as he ever was" factor. Of course, that's just my own musings and based on zero actual knowledge.

IMO, the term doesn't seem to fit his policy proposals and his usage of it seems politically unwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2020 at 3:15 PM, VandyMan said:

IMO, the term doesn't seem to fit his policy proposals and his usage of it seems politically unwise.

Well, killing Jews wasn't part of Hitler's original public policy proposals either.

Not saying Sanders is going to kill people but what I'm saying is that he's telling you what you want to hear and only if he gets elected will you then see how extreme this guy really is. 

He's been saying he's a socialist forever, not sure how you guys are missing that.  You think the term Democratic Socialism just popped up in his lexicon the last few years for a reason because he had a change of heart?  No, it came about to fool the rubes.

Socialism as an ideology hasn't been known for its kindness in practice.  However, in talk it sounds great.

Edited by BladeRunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim’s getting his wish, more Never Trump people who haven’t been right about anything in years are going after Bernie. It’s definitely not going over like he thought in the comments. 

Max Boot@MaxBoot

Please, Democrats, do the smart thing and coalesce quickly around one of the three moderates—Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, or Michael Bloomberg—who are still standing after the first two contests. The future of our democracy may depend on it.

https://twitter.com/maxboot/status/1227673455883149312?s=21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Widbil83 said:

Tim’s getting his wish, more Never Trump people who haven’t been right about anything in years are going after Bernie. It’s definitely not going over like he thought in the comments. 

Max Boot@MaxBoot

Please, Democrats, do the smart thing and coalesce quickly around one of the three moderates—Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, or Michael Bloomberg—who are still standing after the first two contests. The future of our democracy may depend on it.

https://twitter.com/maxboot/status/1227673455883149312?s=21

Max Boot just wants someone who will stir up more wars.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

Well, killing Jews wasn't part of Hitler's original public policy proposals either.

Not saying Sanders is going to kill people but what I'm saying is that he's telling you what you want to hear and only if he gets elected will you then see how extreme this guy really is. 

He's been saying he's a socialist forever, not sure how you guys are missing that.  You think the term Democratic Socialism just popped up in his lexicon the last few years for a reason because he had a change of heart?  No, it came about to fool the rubes.

Socialism as an ideology hasn't been known for its kindness in practice.  However, in talk it sounds great.

Real socialism, the kind you're talking about, doesn't make it 10 feet in the US. Too many checks and balances for it to get that far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ShamrockPride said:

Real socialism, the kind you're talking about, doesn't make it 10 feet in the US. Too many checks and balances for it to get that far.

This doesn't fit the narrative...please stop immediately!

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2020 at 8:59 AM, The Commish said:

Perhaps....if I'm being honest, I don't know why he chose the term.  I don't see how it's damage control though.  Any mention of "socialist" seems to be a bad idea.  Just look at this thread as an example.  Even things that aren't socialist are labeled as such and attacked.  Seems much smarter for him to push back on it all together given none of his major policy initiatives fit the definition of socialist or democratic socialist.  But he's leaned into the term for whatever reason.  If I were labeling him, I'd be going with "populist".  His battle is for the individual who's functioning in a system where money talks and not everyone has equal access to the money primarily because of the way laws are written.

I didnt mean him using the word socialist was damage control. I meant him giving a convoluted definition of it was.

Obviously neither of us knows for sure, but my opinion is that the man is a socialist. Not a communist, not an authoritarian, but if he could start from scratch i think he would favor communal ownership of businesses and profits would never funnel. 

If you feel like searching through posts from the 2016 election, you will see I am not some bernie hater. I actually like him, just not as much as i used to. I am actually blocked by jonathan capehart on twitter because i stuck up for Bernie for the baloney capehart tried with the civil rights sit in photos regarding Bernie. 

I also support medicare for all.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I didnt mean him using the word socialist was damage control. I meant him giving a convoluted definition of it was.

Obviously neither of us knows for sure, but my opinion is that the man is a socialist. Not a communist, not an authoritarian, but if he could start from scratch i think he would favor communal ownership of businesses and profits would never funnel. 

If you feel like searching through posts from the 2016 election, you will see I am not some bernie hater. I actually like him, just not as much as i used to. I am actually blocked by jonathan capehart on twitter because i stuck up for Bernie for the baloney capehart tried with the civil rights sit in photos regarding Bernie. 

I also support medicare for all.   

Gotcha...thanks for the clarification.  I definitely think he's a populist.  It seems he believes that things work best if they bubble up rather than trickle down.  It really is only for him to answer, but I don't get the sense that he feels like there isn't a place for privately owned business.  He talks about helping small businesses often.  He talks about the importance of unions etc.  I'd think if he were an actual socialist he'd be pushing for things different than he is today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Gotcha...thanks for the clarification.  I definitely think he's a populist.  It seems he believes that things work best if they bubble up rather than trickle down.  It really is only for him to answer, but I don't get the sense that he feels like there isn't a place for privately owned business.  He talks about helping small businesses often.  He talks about the importance of unions etc.  I'd think if he were an actual socialist he'd be pushing for things different than he is today.

Well I think we can both agree he doesn't support full scale revolution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Real socialism would never happen in the U.S., even under President Sanders” reminds me of “real dictatorship would never happen in the U.S., even under President Trump.”

I don’t think we can be 100% confident about either of those things.

The difference is that it’s possible to make the case that in our mix of capitalism and socialism, we don’t have as much socialism as is optimal, so moving a little in that direction is worthwhile. It’s harder to make make the case that we’re not as much of a dictatorship as we should be, although Bill Barr does make that argument.

  • Like 8
  • Laughing 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started this thread on February 5. Time is ticking away. Very soon Bernie Sanders will be an unstoppable train.

And Bernie Sanders will not beat Donald Trump.  The theory that he will bring in new voters was disproved already in Iowa and New Hampshire. He will not bring in new voters, and the Democrats will get thrashed in November. Not only will Trump get re-elected, the Democrats will likely lose the House as well, because most the moderate swing candidates that won in 2018 will be at serious risk since they can't defend Medicare for All (which will be the Democratic platform.)

We're talking about 4 more years of a Trump Presidency with an overwhelming mandate. That will be the price for this foolishness.

And what is happening tonight? Will the other candidates go after Bernie? Will they point out how his socialism and Medicare for All plan are losers in the states that count? Will they demand to know how he will get his legislation passed with a hostile Senate? Will they bring up the fact that a 78 year old man with a very recent heart attack is now refusing to release any medical records? The answer, apparently is no. Instead they're going to attack Michael Bloomberg, basically for being a billionaire.

All of this strikes me as absolute madness.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

I started this thread on February 5. Time is ticking away. Very soon Bernie Sanders will be an unstoppable train.

And Bernie Sanders will not beat Donald Trump.  The theory that he will bring in new voters was disproved already in Iowa and New Hampshire. He will not bring in new voters, and the Democrats will get thrashed in November. Not only will Trump get re-elected, the Democrats will likely lose the House as well, because most the moderate swing candidates that won in 2018 will be at serious risk since they can't defend Medicare for All (which will be the Democratic platform.)

We're talking about 4 more years of a Trump Presidency with an overwhelming mandate. That will be the price for this foolishness.

And what is happening tonight? Will the other candidates go after Bernie? Will they point out how his socialism and Medicare for All plan are losers in the states that count? Will they demand to know how he will get his legislation passed with a hostile Senate? Will they bring up the fact that a 78 year old man with a very recent heart attack is now refusing to release any medical records? The answer, apparently is no. Instead they're going to attack Michael Bloomberg, basically for being a billionaire.

All of this strikes me as absolute madness.

I'm up for all of that. A good night for attacking everybody and letting everybody see where the Democratic nominees really stand on the issues. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

The theory that he will bring in new voters was disproved already in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Walk me through this part please.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

I started this thread on February 5. Time is ticking away. Very soon Bernie Sanders will be an unstoppable train.

And Bernie Sanders will not beat Donald Trump.  The theory that he will bring in new voters was disproved already in Iowa and New Hampshire. He will not bring in new voters, and the Democrats will get thrashed in November. Not only will Trump get re-elected, the Democrats will likely lose the House as well, because most the moderate swing candidates that won in 2018 will be at serious risk since they can't defend Medicare for All (which will be the Democratic platform.)

We're talking about 4 more years of a Trump Presidency with an overwhelming mandate. That will be the price for this foolishness.

And what is happening tonight? Will the other candidates go after Bernie? Will they point out how his socialism and Medicare for All plan are losers in the states that count? Will they demand to know how he will get his legislation passed with a hostile Senate? Will they bring up the fact that a 78 year old man with a very recent heart attack is now refusing to release any medical records? The answer, apparently is no. Instead they're going to attack Michael Bloomberg, basically for being a billionaire.

All of this strikes me as absolute madness.

I don't like Bernie and worry about his chances in November, but am not nearly as much of a Cassandra as you are regarding a total wipeout. But as I posted in another thread, I think people are way underestimating the chances that he builds an insurmountable lead on Super Tuesday and then holds off a divided field to at least earn a plurality of delegates, which would almost certainly result in him winning the nomination. You could blame that on a divided "moderate lane", but that's really just another way of saying all those candidates are splitting the vote because they're all flawed and none is strong enough to emerge from the pack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Commish said:

Walk me through this part please.....

Sure.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/12/21134487/new-hampshire-primary-winner-loser-bernie-sanders-turnout-buttigieg

Of course, there are a lot more candidates in the primary this time around than there were in 2016, but some pundits and pollsters have questioned the Vermont senator’s ability to expand his base and have suggested he should have done better than he did.

Voter turnout on Tuesday was around 2008 levels and above that of 2016, but in those strong numbers, there may be concerning signs for Sanders, too. Early exit polls also showed a drop in young voters, who are his strongest source of support. His campaign’s theory of the case is that they can turn out new and young voters in droves to win both the primary and the general election, and thus far, with two states having voted, that really hasn’t come to fruition. Turnout for the Iowa caucuses was pretty anemic.

Ahead of the Iowa caucuses, the self-described democratic socialist acknowledged that turnout was a big deal for him at a campaign stop. “We will know early on if we are going to win. If voter turnout is high we are going to win ... if it is low, quite frankly, we will not,” he said.

It’s important to remember that Sanders did, in fact, win the New Hampshire primary. But the issue of turnout is a valid one. And it’s not just something of concern to Sanders — it’s something important to the Democratic Party as a whole, which will need voters far and wide to show up to vote in the general election come November.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, zftcg said:

I don't like Bernie and worry about his chances in November, but am not nearly as much of a Cassandra as you are regarding a total wipeout. But as I posted in another thread, I think people are way underestimating the chances that he builds an insurmountable lead on Super Tuesday and then holds off a divided field to at least earn a plurality of delegates, which would almost certainly result in him winning the nomination. You could blame that on a divided "moderate lane", but that's really just another way of saying all those candidates are splitting the vote because they're all flawed and none is strong enough to emerge from the pack.

If Bernie wins I will not vote for POTUS this year.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Sure.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/12/21134487/new-hampshire-primary-winner-loser-bernie-sanders-turnout-buttigieg

Of course, there are a lot more candidates in the primary this time around than there were in 2016, but some pundits and pollsters have questioned the Vermont senator’s ability to expand his base and have suggested he should have done better than he did.

Voter turnout on Tuesday was around 2008 levels and above that of 2016, but in those strong numbers, there may be concerning signs for Sanders, too. Early exit polls also showed a drop in young voters, who are his strongest source of support. His campaign’s theory of the case is that they can turn out new and young voters in droves to win both the primary and the general election, and thus far, with two states having voted, that really hasn’t come to fruition. Turnout for the Iowa caucuses was pretty anemic.

Ahead of the Iowa caucuses, the self-described democratic socialist acknowledged that turnout was a big deal for him at a campaign stop. “We will know early on if we are going to win. If voter turnout is high we are going to win ... if it is low, quite frankly, we will not,” he said.

It’s important to remember that Sanders did, in fact, win the New Hampshire primary. But the issue of turnout is a valid one. And it’s not just something of concern to Sanders — it’s something important to the Democratic Party as a whole, which will need voters far and wide to show up to vote in the general election come November.

So, in your view, this one demographic is what you're basing the entire theory on?  You're ignoring all the other demographics that have changed?  Just want to be clear here.  I get the talking point in 2016 was that it was just young people that were energized by him, and that was mostly true.  He wasn't known to older voters or minorities.  Both those have changed since 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Commish said:

So, in your view, this one demographic is what you're basing the entire theory on?  You're ignoring all the other demographics that have changed?  Just want to be clear here.  I get the talking point in 2016 was that it was just young people that were energized by him, and that was mostly true.  He wasn't known to older voters or minorities.  Both those have changed since 2016.

My view is that he cannot attract enough voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania to put those states back in the blue column. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Sure.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/12/21134487/new-hampshire-primary-winner-loser-bernie-sanders-turnout-buttigieg

Of course, there are a lot more candidates in the primary this time around than there were in 2016, but some pundits and pollsters have questioned the Vermont senator’s ability to expand his base and have suggested he should have done better than he did.

Voter turnout on Tuesday was around 2008 levels and above that of 2016, but in those strong numbers, there may be concerning signs for Sanders, too. Early exit polls also showed a drop in young voters, who are his strongest source of support. His campaign’s theory of the case is that they can turn out new and young voters in droves to win both the primary and the general election, and thus far, with two states having voted, that really hasn’t come to fruition. Turnout for the Iowa caucuses was pretty anemic.

Ahead of the Iowa caucuses, the self-described democratic socialist acknowledged that turnout was a big deal for him at a campaign stop. “We will know early on if we are going to win. If voter turnout is high we are going to win ... if it is low, quite frankly, we will not,” he said.

It’s important to remember that Sanders did, in fact, win the New Hampshire primary. But the issue of turnout is a valid one. And it’s not just something of concern to Sanders — it’s something important to the Democratic Party as a whole, which will need voters far and wide to show up to vote in the general election come November.

If you are still willing to bet on politics, I'll put $100 on Bernie head-to-head vs. Trump.  Even money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

If you are still willing to bet on politics, I'll put $100 on Bernie head-to-head vs. Trump.  Even money.

I’m not. It’s too important. Besides why would I root for Trump? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

I’m not. It’s too important. Besides why would I root for Trump? 

A hedge?  "It really sucks that Trump won, but, hey, I'm $100 richer!"  Or..."I just lost $100 but, hey, at least Trump is out of office!"

No worries, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

If you are still willing to bet on politics, I'll put $100 on Bernie head-to-head vs. Trump.  Even money.

Nobody loves action more than me, but political bets haven't ended too well on this board.

Edited by Shula-holic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a while, I had a hard time understanding why the betting markets were so bullish on Trump's reelection chances.

I saw a tweet today that explained it pretty simply, and I think it's correct.

There are only two possibilities:

1. Sanders will ultimately lose in the primary, many of his followers will cry foul and stay home in November, and Trump will therefore be a significant favorite in the general.

2. Sanders will win the Democratic nomination, and Trump will therefore be a significant favorite in the general.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

For a while, I had a hard time understanding why the betting markets were so bullish on Trump's reelection chances.

I saw a tweet today that explained it pretty simply, and I think it's correct.

There are only two possibilities:

1. Sanders will ultimately lose in the primary, many of his followers will cry foul and stay home in November, and Trump will therefore be a significant favorite in the general.

2. Sanders will win the Democratic nomination, and Trump will therefore be a significant favorite in the general.

Serious question, wasn't HC also a favorite to win the general?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see Bernie doing better than Hillary in 2016 vs. Trump (percentage of votes and/or turnout) in the following demographic categories:

1. People under 35 years old

2. Minorities

3. White, rural voters (although a demographic Trump will still win, Bernie will perform better than Hillary due to being more of outsider, a populist, and being perceived to be more trustworthy than Hillary)

I really don't see a Demographic where Bernie will do worse than Hillary in a sizable way.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.