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.
Biden's biggest backers appear to be black people and older people. I'm not so sure either of those groups is particularly drawn to Sanders or Warren (admittedly Sanders has done a pretty decent job improving his support in the black community). I think if Biden collapsed at least one of the four candidates you mention would likely grab enough of his voters to get into the conversation as a plausible alternative to Bernia and Warren.
Absolutely that's possible. But if his support spreads over multiple candidates from that tier then would continue to be Warren vs. Sanders for all intents and purposes.
Yeah it’s all very speculative. I’m still expecting it to be a contested convention which will be pretty wild.
There's no age limit. They really weren't campaigning to win. That was their big mistake- it gave the DNC/pundit class an out to exclude them from the debates in the event they qualified.
I agree but not with 10 candidates in each debate. It's just too much. If there had been 4-5 I'd be with you.
Yes, those overhead bins are full, why have the bin doors not been closed and secured?
I have never been to New Hampshire, but I assumed it would be fairly receptive to the message that she is selling. Why would New Hampshire be specifically against Warren? The only thing I can think of is that they want Sanders more, and she is has the most overlap with his voters, but I don't think that is why.
So you're saying some bussing shenanigans are afoot trying to supress Warren? We need HT on this ASAP.
Because she made Republican beefcake Scott Brown (who subsequently ran for senate then in NH in a bit of small-scale carpetbagging) actually look good in her first Senatorial campaign (woulda lost anywhere but MA) in 2012, the worst major-office campaign i've ever seen. Like Vermonters, Granite Staters also know Bernie is 10 pounds of #### in a 5 pound bag. There's a slight eastern bias in NH but, mostly, they vote for the best campaigners. They consider that their birthright and obligation.
Are you sure you're not conflating Marta Coakley (who Brown beat in the special election) with Warren (who beat Brown in the regular election)? I don't think Warren can be the worst campaign if she actually won.
My mother told me to stop conflating or i'd go blind...
Bookmarking this post for later in the event she gets the nomination and then the establishment acts shocked that progressives are unenthusiastic about her campaign.
She has a long record of being to the left in her actions. A campaign promise wouldn't void that all for me. What happens when she gets elected? THe only reason to believe she'll govern from the center is a GOP majority in the Senate.
One wrinkle that I hadn't heard discussed before this morning is that because of early voting in California, a big chunk of California voters will end up voting without knowing the results from places like South Carolina or Nevada. I think that will hamper the natural winnowing process that usually happens when lots of candidates drop out after Iowa or New Hampshire.
California Democratic politics are very hard to read. There are progressives all over the state, and centrists all over the state. The conventions (usually in San Francisco) tend to be dominated by progressives, and angry ones at that, but it doesn’t tell you too much about the voters. Where I live in OC, Democrats shoved out the Republicans in Congress like Dana Rohrabacher and helped swing the House, but these are mostly centrist Dems, not progressives.
Sure, but none of this addresses the point that I'm making. My point was really about the importance of the early states in establishing who the real contenders are. I'm not sure that will happen this time around.
That's exactly the problem with early states....the "well known" always have an advantage and their only job is to maintain that advantage throughout the later primaries. This is what happened in the 2016 primary between Bernie and Hillary. His battle was one of name recognition, not policy.
Sure it's an advantage but it isn't insurmountable. Hillary was much better known than Obama in 2008, for example. He ended up winning Iowa and ultimately won the nomination.
Sure...didn't mean to suggest it was insurmountable. All I'm saying is "the best known candidate will always win" isn't really all that compelling to me. If anything, the current format seems more conducive for "the best known" candidates. Of course there are exceptions like Hillary where it might have been better for to be the lesser known.
Well, the standard argument is that a lesser-known candidate has a chance to make waves in places like Iowa and New Hampshire because they're relatively small and the candidate can get a lot more face-to-face time with actual voters instead of relying on the media and expensive advertising. That sort of retail politicking would be impossible if all the primaries were in one day.Sure...didn't mean to suggest it was insurmountable. All I'm saying is "the best known candidate will always win" isn't really all that compelling to me. If anything, the current format seems more conducive for "the best known" candidates. Of course there are exceptions like Hillary where it might have been better for to be the lesser known.
I think it’s still valid, still makes a difference. I like the current system of starting with one state at a time; I think it for the most part gives the lesser candidates a shot, whereas if you do all the primaries on one day they will have no shot.
I think giving lesser candidates a #### is a good idea. Giving Iowa and NH the say in that is the bad idea.
Given that I've yet to see her lead a poll in her own home state I'm going to guess no Kamala will not be the beneficiary
See Tim this doesn't surprise me this is how I expect the poles will end up I don't think Biden has any staying power I think Warren is revealing herself to be another Obama I'm going to talk a big Progressive game and then when the time comes I'm going to sell out and I just think Bernie is going to win it I really do
Interesting take on Warren, not sure you're right about that.
She took big donor money to seed her campaign, then she claimed she wouldn't take anymore. Until the general that is and then she will take all the monies. When people show you who they are believe them.
From the article itself:
And so? If a donor came to him, said you have to fire Boykin and he did, it doesn't matter if he knew who put them up to it.
The documents say that, in February 2011, two white police officers were heard discussing a campaign to get rid of Boykins, with Buttigieg donors acting as go-betweens. In April, the officers say they believe Buttigieg is unaware of the plan, and that they expect the “little ####### squirt,” as one calls him, to win the mayoral nomination. After he does win, a third officer in June reports hearing directly from Buttigieg that “Boykins is done.”
Thanks, I hadn't seen that before, just googled it and you are correct. I'm not sure what my thoughts are about it.
Lol of course you know you're talking to the wrong guy about this right? Because I don't mind this at all. In fact it would probably make me like her more.
Yeah big laugh another corrupted politician that won't give a crap what you want because you aren't a bundler. Bribery is something I do mind.
Me too. I guess I'm naive enough to think that bribery and donations are not the same thing.
