What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Bernie Haters for Bernie (2 Viewers)

joffer said:
is your vote driven purely by self-interest?
Click to expand...
"I accidentally said the quiet part loud!"

It's a glimpse into the reality of unfettered Boomerism. They don’t like it to ever be questioned why more importance / quality of life is sectioned off to this one generation to the point that every single average Joe boomer has some version of ''fixing up the classic bike in the garage'' while millennials can't afford healthcare and are forced into life as peasants renting rooms under the rule of landlords well into their adulthood. There's a generational disparity.

It boggles my mind that everyday boomers have 'mancaves' where they pour their unearned wealth into things like Pac Man arcade machines and rock and roll memorabilia. Just because they were a regular person growing up in the 60s and 70s.

 
zftcg said:
Following up on this point, Bernie is now doubling down on the Castro comments. Maybe his instincts are right here, and in the Trump era you're always worse off apologizing. But I still think he could have done more to emphasize his overall opposition to Castro rather than dig in on Cuba's successful literacy initiative (which apparently isn't even true)
Click to expand...
Dude. You're supposed to be helping us to feel better about this. I came in here to cheer up after hearing about the orgasm breast cancer thing this morning. ☹️

 
zftcg said:
Following up on this point, Bernie is now doubling down on the Castro comments. Maybe his instincts are right here, and in the Trump era you're always worse off apologizing. But I still think he could have done more to emphasize his overall opposition to Castro rather than dig in on Cuba's successful literacy initiative (which apparently isn't even true)
Click to expand...
There's also the minor point that the drive for literacy was so that the masses were able to read state sponsored propaganda....

 
TheMagus said:
Dude. You're supposed to be helping us to feel better about this. I came in here to cheer up after hearing about the orgasm breast cancer thing this morning. ☹️
Click to expand...
Sorry, you're right. I do try to keep my Bernie comments here positive, or at least constructive, but sometimes I forget which thread I'm in.

 
Chicago Hooligan said:
"I accidentally said the quiet part loud!"

It's a glimpse into the reality of unfettered Boomerism. They don’t like it to ever be questioned why more importance / quality of life is sectioned off to this one generation to the point that every single average Joe boomer has some version of ''fixing up the classic bike in the garage'' while millennials can't afford healthcare and are forced into life as peasants renting rooms under the rule of landlords well into their adulthood. There's a generational disparity.

It boggles my mind that everyday boomers have 'mancaves' where they pour their unearned wealth into things like Pac Man arcade machines and rock and roll memorabilia. Just because they were a regular person growing up in the 60s and 70s.
Click to expand...
Their parents charge them rent? 

 
Chicago Hooligan said:
"I accidentally said the quiet part loud!"

It's a glimpse into the reality of unfettered Boomerism. They don’t like it to ever be questioned why more importance / quality of life is sectioned off to this one generation to the point that every single average Joe boomer has some version of ''fixing up the classic bike in the garage'' while millennials can't afford healthcare and are forced into life as peasants renting rooms under the rule of landlords well into their adulthood. There's a generational disparity.

It boggles my mind that everyday boomers have 'mancaves' where they pour their unearned wealth into things like Pac Man arcade machines and rock and roll memorabilia. Just because they were a regular person growing up in the 60s and 70s.
Click to expand...
Kinda off topic, but ive been thinking about something lately.

No one really talks about GenX.  Everyone always talk about Boomers, Millennials, and Zoomers.  What I have been thinking about is that my gut tells me GenXers (like myself) have a lot of qualities of the Boomers which make folks resilient, but also have a lot of the wisdom and experience that the Millennials are missing.  In conclusion my money is on GenX fixing all of this.  We can do this through letting Boomers know that "sometimes, people need to be on your lawn" and the Millennials "the things your parents gave you actually cost money that you need to work for".

GenX is going to save the world!!1!11!!

 
JAA said:
Have you been to Vermont?  Do you believe it is a destroyed state?  What about MA?  Romney started Obamacare here and it worked. 
Click to expand...
Vermont seems fine.  Then again it is small and has a very homogeneous ethnic population, which are both required for the success of Bernie's socialist proposals.  On a national scale they would be a disaster.

The current population of the Green Mountain State is estimated at 628,061 in 2020, which is up very slightly from the confirmed 2010 population of 625,741. Vermont's population has seen a slight decline over the past few years, currently shrinking at .12% per year.

Vermont Demographics

According to the most recent ACS, the racial composition of Vermont was:

White: 94.33%

Two or more races: 1.93%

Asian: 1.69%

Black or African American: 1.29%

Other race: 0.39%

Native American: 0.34%

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander: 0.03%
Click to expand...
http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/vermont-population/

 
JAA said:
Riiiiiiight - what are you basing this off of?
Click to expand...
Fair question.  I'll stick with M4A as that was more my intention with the homogeneous statement (things like free/forgiven college at the federal level are wrong for numerous other reasons which aren't relevant to the discussion).  

That being said, my statement was an opinion because no country with the combination of size and diversity like the US has ever attempted something like M4A.  China has more people of course and subisidizes HC but is fairly homogeneous; still, would you trade our health care for China's?  

 
JerryG said:
Fair question.  I'll stick with M4A as that was more my intention with the homogeneous statement (things like free/forgiven college at the federal level are wrong for numerous other reasons which aren't relevant to the discussion).  

That being said, my statement was an opinion because no country with the combination of size and diversity like the US has ever attempted something like M4A.  China has more people of course and subisidizes HC but is fairly homogeneous; still, would you trade our health care for China's?  
Click to expand...
What about MA and Romneycare?  How did that work out?

And, just to be clear - your original statement (that I Riiiight'd off of) is based off of your opinion/observation of things and not any empirical data?

 
JAA said:
What about MA and Romneycare?  How did that work out?

And, just to be clear - your original statement (that I Riiiight'd off of) is based off of your opinion/observation of things and not any empirical data?
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with the population or ethnic diversity of MA so I can't comment on the efficacy of RomneyCare.

My original statement, as I later clarified, was based on opinion since as I clarified it has never been done in a place like America.  I'm an engineer and to me, the complexities of ethnic diversities (diets, health pluses/minuses, etc.) seems like a significant hurdle from a systems approach to M4A.  But again, it is my opinion.  It is also my opinion that to say that it worked in a state so it can work in the country is somewhat lacking in relevant data as well.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: JAA
JerryG said:
I'm not familiar with the population or ethnic diversity of MA so I can't comment on the efficacy of RomneyCare.

My original statement, as I later clarified, was based on opinion since as I clarified it has never been done in a place like America.  I'm an engineer and to me, the complexities of ethnic diversities (diets, health pluses/minuses, etc.) seems like a significant hurdle from a systems approach to M4A.  But again, it is my opinion.  It is also my opinion that to say that it worked in a state so it can work in the country is somewhat lacking in relevant data as well.
Click to expand...
As a fellow Engineer, im sure you are on board with continuous innovation (ie progressiveness).  I dont like how it is now, nor the trend of our healthcare system.  I think its critical for the well being of our country to try something different.

 
JAA said:
As a fellow Engineer, im sure you are on board with continuous innovation (ie progressiveness).  I dont like how it is now, nor the trend of our healthcare system.  I think its critical for the well being of our country to try something different.
Click to expand...
Of course I am on board with continuous innovation.  That being said, as an engineer, I firmly believe that the perfect is the enemy of the good (which is a personal defect of mine, as I tend to be a perfectionist, but that is a different discussion).  Anyway... want to discuss how drugs can be cheaper from Canada vs. getting them here?  That seems like a solvable problem.  End of life care?  I'm not advocating "death panels," but the reality is that there is some room for improvement in the way we approach it.

M4A?  That is using a jackhammer to bang in a nail to hang a picture.  IMO that is nothing close to "continuous innovation."  Again, my opinion.

 
Also, let me introduce myself.  I primarily post at FFT under the handle "jerryskids."  I came up with that handle a long time ago at the dawning of the interwebs because it was the name of my deep keeper team; a double entendre between my name and the fact that I inherited a shiotty team.  I tried to explain that to Joe a lifetime ago but he wouldn't let me use that handle.

I'm still involved in FF and compete annually in the IBL for a now-extinct site called FFLW (long story) against your best and brightest FF minds.  I came in 2nd out of 96 owners last year; if D Watson hadn't shiot the bed in week 16... woulda shoulda coulda words...

Anyway, I'm a super awesome poster but tend to be conservative.  If you are OK with an alternative viewpoint in what seems like a generally liberal echo chamber here, please don't report/ban me.  If not, I understand. 

 
JerryG said:
Of course I am on board with continuous innovation.  That being said, as an engineer, I firmly believe that the perfect is the enemy of the good (which is a personal defect of mine, as I tend to be a perfectionist, but that is a different discussion).  Anyway... want to discuss how drugs can be cheaper from Canada vs. getting them here?  That seems like a solvable problem.  End of life care?  I'm not advocating "death panels," but the reality is that there is some room for improvement in the way we approach it.

M4A?  That is using a jackhammer to bang in a nail to hang a picture.  IMO that is nothing close to "continuous innovation."  Again, my opinion.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you are willing to come to the negotiation table.  Im in, lets sit down and solve this.

 
Not a Bernie guy. Was all in for HRC from 08-16.

 Value pragmatism over pie in the sky.

 But I reconcile it by the fact that none of it would ever happen if he wins. He simply doesn’t have the votes to get M4A. Same thing applies to the vast majority of his proposals. 
 

At the end of the day, I’m pulling the lever for anyone but Trump. 
 

That said, I won’t be nearly as invested. I’ll go cast my vote and then watch a movie that night in November. The irreparable long term damage would be immense (especially in the courts) if Trump wins again but the Rs would lose the Senate in 22 and the WH in 24. So all pain is temporary. 

 
JAA said:
It sounds like you are willing to come to the negotiation table.  Im in, lets sit down and solve this.
Click to expand...
Same.  This reminds me of an encounter I had about a decade ago in a pub in London, beers were pouring and I got to talking to a guy who was a high-level consultant to BP on renewable energy.  I got into my typical "devil's advocate" mode and started talking about solar flares etc., eventually he shook his head and said something like "if people like you and me actually sat down on this, we could probably solve a lot of these issues."

Anyway, I feel like I'm peeing in the cornflakes of the purpose of this thread, so I'll back out unless responded to.  If I haven't made it clear, I would never vote for Bernie.  I've seen the phrase "existential threat" multiple times about Trump on this site; he isn't an existential threat, but Bernie is.  Carry on.  🍻

 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JAA
Well looky here, it's an honest-to-God Republican BH4B:

I hate to break it to you, but if you’re really never-Trump, then you know there’s no except-if-he’s-a-socialist footnote. There’s no but-she’s-way-too-professor-ish clause. Nothing in the fine print says the only acceptable Democratic alternative is another arrogant billionaire. I thought this was understood.

In 2016, sadly, I supported Trump. I freely admit that I’m a second-wave never-Trumper. But once I got here, it was always my plan to stay. Because, for me, the ways in which Trump threatens this country go beyond left-right ideology. He lies constantly. He grants pardons to toadies. He conflates America’s financial interests with his own. He uses his bully pulpit to air a never-ending, year-round list of Festivus grievances.

He surrounds himself with lackeys and purges staff who won’t do his bidding. He’s an authoritarian who once said, with a straight face, “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want.” That’s a bigger threat to America than free college, a $15-per-hour minimum wage and Glass-Steagall part deux. Yes, I’m a fiscal conservative who still worries about the national debt. But not as much as I worry about Trump wrecking my country.
Click to expand...

 
  • Love
Reactions: JAA
timschochet said:
You, my friend, are not ignorant about Communism. It truly is a great evil, the greatest evil mankind has probably ever produced other than Nazism. 

But both you and the person you replied to ARE ignorant about Bernie Sanders when you conflate his beliefs with communism. That’s plain wrong, lazy and simplistic thinking. Bernie has a lot of ideas which I don’t approve of but he’s not close to a Communist. 
Click to expand...
But at almost 40 years old, he was a member of the Socialist Workers Party, which was communist, and that party called for abolishing the defense budget and standing in solidarity with the "revolutionary regimes" in Iran, Nicaragua, Grenada, and Cuba.  This was also right in the middle of the Iranian Hostage Crisis.  At around the same time, he called for nationalization of most major industries.  So he either was a communist or was practically indistinguishable from them.  He acts like he doesn't hold those positions now, but I've never heard him address why he changed on them.  I would guess in his heart of hearts, if he thought he could be elected while professing those positions, he would still hold them.

 
Soonerman said:
But at almost 40 years old, he was a member of the Socialist Workers Party, which was communist, and that party called for abolishing the defense budget and standing in solidarity with the "revolutionary regimes" in Iran, Nicaragua, Grenada, and Cuba.  This was also right in the middle of the Iranian Hostage Crisis.  At around the same time, he called for nationalization of most major industries.  So he either was a communist or was practically indistinguishable from them.  He acts like he doesn't hold those positions now, but I've never heard him address why he changed on them.  I would guess in his heart of hearts, if he thought he could be elected while professing those positions, he would still hold them.
Click to expand...
Check your facts.

 
Challenge Everything said:
Check your facts.
Click to expand...
I don't know where your link really contradicts anything I said, other than maybe whether Sanders was a member of the SWP.  However, he endorsed their candidates in 1980 and 1984, and served as an elector for the party.  Either way, that is a pretty close relationship with a very radical group.  As an adult approaching middle age, he should have known better.

 
Soonerman said:
I don't know where your link really contradicts anything I said, other than maybe whether Sanders was a member of the SWP.  However, he endorsed their candidates in 1980 and 1984, and served as an elector for the party.  Either way, that is a pretty close relationship with a very radical group.  As an adult approaching middle age, he should have known better.
Click to expand...
Seems the debate here is Sanders word that he was never a member of their party vs. the historical facts that he was an elector, spoke at campaign rallies, endorsed the candidates, and also said "I fully support the SWP's continued defense of the Cuban revolution."

 
parasaurolophus said:
Seems the debate here is Sanders word that he was never a member of their party vs. the historical facts that he was an elector, spoke at campaign rallies, endorsed the candidates, and also said "I fully support the SWP's continued defense of the Cuban revolution."
Click to expand...
Wait until you guys hear about Bloomberg and Warren.  They used to be Republicans!  That’s way worse.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
parasaurolophus said:
Seems the debate here is Sanders word that he was never a member of their party vs. the historical facts that he was an elector, spoke at campaign rallies, endorsed the candidates, and also said "I fully support the SWP's continued defense of the Cuban revolution."
Click to expand...
Wait until you guys hear about Bloomberg and Warren.  They used to be Republicans!  That’s way worse.
Click to expand...
You know who was a democrat until just 5 years ago?

It

May

Shock

You!!!!

DONALD J. TRUMP
 
:lmao:  Jesus Christ. You guys just can't help yourselves.This forum is like the political version of "Every commercial is a tide commercial."

I've avoided this thread even though the titles sort of describes me.

Every thread is a Trump bashing thread.  :suds:

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
I've avoided this thread even though the titles sort of describes me.
Click to expand...
Didn’t you start an entire thread about being a Trump supporter?  :confused:

Anyway, given my expectations when I started the thread, I’ve been pleasantly surprised by our collective ability to mostly stay on topic. The few digressions have mostly petered out. 

I mean, it is to be expected that “Bernie Haters for Bernie” would naturally be highly anti-Trump, since why else would we be getting behind Bernie? But my subjective opinion is that the Trump stuff hasn’t dominated the conversation. YMMV

 
zftcg said:
Didn’t you start an entire thread about being a Trump supporter?  :confused:

Anyway, given my expectations when I started the thread, I’ve been pleasantly surprised by our collective ability to mostly stay on topic. The few digressions have mostly petered out. 

I mean, it is to be expected that “Bernie Haters for Bernie” would naturally be highly anti-Trump, since why else would we be getting behind Bernie? But my subjective opinion is that the Trump stuff hasn’t dominated the conversation. YMMV
Click to expand...
Yes I'm a Trump supporter. Which is why I'm both a "Bernie hater" and "for Bernie". 

I want to see Bernie get the nomination and I think him getting screwed in a brokered convention would be a crime. Bernie vs Trump would be the ideal showdown.

 
Soonerman said:
But at almost 40 years old, he was a member of the Socialist Workers Party, which was communist, and that party called for abolishing the defense budget and standing in solidarity with the "revolutionary regimes" in Iran, Nicaragua, Grenada, and Cuba.  This was also right in the middle of the Iranian Hostage Crisis.  At around the same time, he called for nationalization of most major industries.  So he either was a communist or was practically indistinguishable from them.  He acts like he doesn't hold those positions now, but I've never heard him address why he changed on them.  I would guess in his heart of hearts, if he thought he could be elected while professing those positions, he would still hold them.
Click to expand...
Here’s the thing: one can have a bunch of communist views, even including nationalization of all private industry, and still not be a communist. What is the missing element that separates even a radical American socialist like Tom Hayden or Herbert Marcuse (or, possibly, Bernie Sanders) from the Soviet style of Communist that caused so much evil throughout the world in the 20th Century? It’s the belief in authoritarianism. Bernie Sanders, like most socialists, believes firmly in democracy. He would never support a dictatorship even if it offered to pursue all of his goals for a society. That is the significant distinction. 

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
Yes I'm a Trump supporter. Which is why I'm both a "Bernie hater" and "for Bernie". 

I want to see Bernie get the nomination and I think him getting screwed in a brokered convention would be a crime. Bernie vs Trump would be the ideal showdown
Click to expand...
Is that because there are elements of both candidates’ platforms that you support, or because you think Bernie would be the easiest for Trump to beat?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zftcg said:
Is that because there are elements of both candidates’ platforms that you support, or because you think Bernie would be the easiest for Trump to beat?
Click to expand...
Neither. I think it may be more difficult for Trump to beat Bernie but I also think Bernie draws the clearest ideological differences. If Biden gets the nomination in a brokered convention I believe a lot of Dems stay home and turnout overall will be low. If Bernie gets the nomination, both sides are fired up imo. As it should be.

 
timschochet said:
Here’s the thing: one can have a bunch of communist views, even including nationalization of all private industry, and still not be a communist. What is the missing element that separates even a radical American socialist like Tom Hayden or Herbert Marcuse (or, possibly, Bernie Sanders) from the Soviet style of Communist that caused so much evil throughout the world in the 20th Century? It’s the belief in authoritarianism. Bernie Sanders, like most socialists, believes firmly in democracy. He would never support a dictatorship even if it offered to pursue all of his goals for a society. That is the significant distinction. 
Click to expand...
Two things.  One, nationalizing industry is authoritarianism.  You are taking property away from the owner based on nothing but raw power.  Two, he has verbally supported many a dictator in his time.  That says more to me than him saying he doesn't support that for America.  For what it's worth, Castro denied being a communist throughout his revolution, but clearly was lying as we saw once he took power.

America would not become communist if Sanders is elected.  But morally, in my opinion, he is unfit for that office.  And I believe we should marginalize socialism as much as possible, not reward it.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
Neither. I think it may be more difficult for Trump to beat Bernie but I also think Bernie draws the clearest ideological differences. If Biden gets the nomination in a brokered convention I believe a lot of Dems stay home and turnout overall will be low. If Bernie gets the nomination, both sides are fired up imo. As it should be.
Click to expand...
First of all, posts like this are why I appreciate having you in this forum. You're a thoughtful, interesting guy, but your perspective is totally different from mine (and not just in terms of left vs right). As someone who hates Trump and is unenthusiastic about Bernie, it wouldn't have occurred to me to think of a match-up between them as an ideal scenario.

I do agree with you about how stealing the nomination from Bernie would be a disaster. The calculation at the heart of this thread is that, even if I think Bernie's chances in a one-on-one match-up with Trump aren't great, they are still better than a scenario where he is denied the nomination in a way that splits the party. That's one of the main points of disagreements between me and the friend I mentioned in my OP. He is so convinced that Bernie will be a disaster that he basically thinks there's nothing the Democrats can do that will hurt their chances more than him being the nominee. 

Especially after tonight, I think there is a possibility that Biden could actually consolidate the anti-Bernie vote and beat him straight up (though I would still put my money on Bernie winning CA/TX on Tuesday and building a strong delegate lead). But I think that's the only scenario where Bernie can lose without splitting the party.

 
zftcg said:
First of all, posts like this are why I appreciate having you in this forum. You're a thoughtful, interesting guy, but your perspective is totally different from mine (and not just in terms of left vs right). As someone who hates Trump and is unenthusiastic about Bernie, it wouldn't have occurred to me to think of a match-up between them as an ideal scenario.

I do agree with you about how stealing the nomination from Bernie would be a disaster. The calculation at the heart of this thread is that, even if I think Bernie's chances in a one-on-one match-up with Trump aren't great, they are still better than a scenario where he is denied the nomination in a way that splits the party. That's one of the main points of disagreements between me and the friend I mentioned in my OP. He is so convinced that Bernie will be a disaster that he basically thinks there's nothing the Democrats can do that will hurt their chances more than him being the nominee. 

Especially after tonight, I think there is a possibility that Biden could actually consolidate the anti-Bernie vote and beat him straight up (though I would still put my money on Bernie winning CA/TX on Tuesday and building a strong delegate lead). But I think that's the only scenario where Bernie can lose without splitting the party.
Click to expand...
Agree with this too. As much as I don’t want Bernie and would prefer Joe, Joe HAS to win fairly before the convention. If Bernie is ahead going into the convention I would want him to win the nomination. I don’t want a brokered convention. 

 
timschochet said:
Agree with this too. As much as I don’t want Bernie and would prefer Joe, Joe HAS to win fairly before the convention. If Bernie is ahead going into the convention I would want him to win the nomination. I don’t want a brokered convention. 
Click to expand...
Coincidentally, I flipped on CNN tonight to watch coverage of SC and instead got sucked into a show about the 1980 election. I was only 7 at the time, so while I knew the basic outlines of Teddy Kennedy's primary challenge, I hadn't realized just how bitter the fight between them was. If a losing candidate this year acted the way Kennedy did, they would be absolutely crucified for splitting the party (best line from the show: when Kennedy showed up on stage with Carter at the close of the convention, he looked like "a guy showing up at his chaffeur's wedding.")

Anyway, it all drove home how this year of all years, with the threat Trump represents and his clear desire to sow disunity among Democrats, we absolutely must consolidate around a nominee well in advance of the convention. A brokered convention would be an unmitigated disaster.

 
timschochet said:
Agree with this too. As much as I don’t want Bernie and would prefer Joe, Joe HAS to win fairly before the convention. If Bernie is ahead going into the convention I would want him to win the nomination. I don’t want a brokered convention. 
Click to expand...
It would be comforting for the DNC to come out and say the most delegates will be the nominee now, to get stragglers like Bloomberg or Warren out who are counting on a contested convention somehow making them the nominee. If Biden or Sanders has the most delegates, make them the nominee and I will vote for them. Worst case scenario they lose and we can try again in 2024. If the contested convention goes against the delegates, I don't think they will be competitive for decades.

 
huthut said:
It would be comforting for the DNC to come out and say the most delegates will be the nominee now, to get stragglers like Bloomberg or Warren out who are counting on a contested convention somehow making them the nominee. If Biden or Sanders has the most delegates, make them the nominee and I will vote for them. Worst case scenario they lose and we can try again in 2024. If the contested convention goes against the delegates, I don't think they will be competitive for decades.
Click to expand...
You're assigning too much power to the DNC. If Tom Perez came out and announced that tomorrow, no one would bother listening to him because he can't enforce that decision.

But ultimately, I'm not that worried that a brokered convention will happen. I suppose if we finish the primaries and it's super close, like Bernie has 45.1% of pledged delegates and Biden has 44.9%, it could get messy, but if Bernie or anyone else has a clear plurality I think the pressure on all the other candidates to drop out and endorse him will be huge.

I also suspect that, unless there are major surprises on Tuesday, the other candidates will drop out and we'll be down to a two-man race after Super Tuesday.

 
zftcg said:
You're assigning too much power to the DNC. If Tom Perez came out and announced that tomorrow, no one would bother listening to him because he can't enforce that decision.

But ultimately, I'm not that worried that a brokered convention will happen. I suppose if we finish the primaries and it's super close, like Bernie has 45.1% of pledged delegates and Biden has 44.9%, it could get messy, but if Bernie or anyone else has a clear plurality I think the pressure on all the other candidates to drop out and endorse him will be huge.

I also suspect that, unless there are major surprises on Tuesday, the other candidates will drop out and we'll be down to a two-man race after Super Tuesday.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I was using DNC in place of whoever decides a brokered convention. I would be ok going with the lower of the pledged delegates if they are only 0.2% apart, but only if they poll better in swing states (vs Trump, not other primary candidates). 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, this thread suddenly seems a lot less relevant ...

Ironically enough, starting this thread may have done its job a little too well. Now that Biden seems likely to be the nominee, I find myself wondering, 'Would we be better off with Bernie?"

But the reality is that we're pretty much back where we started a few months ago. All of the candidates have their strengths but also huge flaws. I think Biden is the least risky, but that doesn't mean he's not still a big gamble. As for Bernie, his inability to consolidate the party behind him says something about his political skills, or maybe just the limits of his approach to politics.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jm192
Bernie Sanders calls for Refunds for delayed flights
Replies
46
Views
600
waiver wire
W
timschochet
Another MAGA victory- this time in West Virginia
2 3
Replies
113
Views
2K
(HULK)
(HULK)
Joe Mammy
Where's the Bernie Love?
Replies
27
Views
800
NorvilleBarnes
NorvilleBarnes

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top