Klobuchar surge in New Hampshire could reshuffle Democratic White House race

[heybruce]

We'll let the electorate decide who will be president

31 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

Bruce, voters decide the election and the number of electoral votes. 

 

Your crooked candidate lost. She deserved to. 

 

The college is not stacked, unless you want to count the illegals in California 

You posted " We'll let the electorate decide who will be president...".  I thought it reasonable to point out that this wasn't true in 2016 and won't be true in 2020.  If it were true, Clinton would be President.

 

Hillary Clinton has been repeatedly investigated without obstruction.  No charges have been filed.  Trump has repeatedly obstructed investigations.  Charges will come eventually.

 

Once again alluding to the phantom illegal voters.  If any existed they would have been found by now.  Try living with reality.

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

Here we are again with the ridiculous virtue signaling based on an opinion. 

You know what's really ridiculous not to mention tragic? "Vice signaling" from the 45 cult of personality followers. 

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

The drama in the existential comment is ridiculous, but this is the face of the irrational emotional outrage machine on the left. 

Yeah, the 45 cult of personality agenda runs on logic, not emotion. That's the ticket!

[Cryingdick]

18 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yeah, the 45 cult of personality agenda runs on logic, not emotion. That's the ticket!

 

Sometimes it seems that it could be said that emotions are running high on both sides. 

[Jingthing]

The ball is in Amy's court now. Will she be able to raise enough money to really play?

 

Quote

 

What’s Behind Amy Klobuchar’s Surge — And Can It Go National?

 

It’s not often that a third-place finish grabs more headlines than first place, but there’s nothing the media loves more than an underdog, and they got one in spades with Sen. Amy Klobuchar on Tuesday night.

 

While there was evidence that Klobuchar was on the uptick going into election night (she gained a little more than 2 points in our polling average after the debate on Friday), she still handily outperformed her polls in New Hampshire. Klobuchar had been at about 10 percent, but she doubled her support on Tuesday, finishing third with 20 percent of the vote — just 6 points behind Sen. Bernie Sanders (the winner) and 4 points behind former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who came in second.

 

 

[samran]

30 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The ball is in Amy's court now. Will she be able to raise enough money to really play?

 

 

Good question!

[sirineou]

They LOVE Klobuchar!!! in Iowa she was consistently behind Yang , though she was included in the Debate and Yang was not, If you watched the political talking head shows she was always invited, not a word from Yang!!

In the next debate they were forced by the numbers to include Yang, I did not watched because I was busy. afterwards I went on Google news to read what all the different news outlets had to say. Not a mention of Yand, not even that he was in the debate ot that he existed, But Klobuchar plastered in every article. 

It seems to me that they are trying to soon feed as another Hillary.  trump must be delighted. 

Sanders is the only viable option for me now, I just wish he was Yanger (pun intended) . We don't need a woman or a gay at any cost. Can you imagine the salivation at the DNC is there was a gay woman running? make her also black or hispanic,  and their Pavlovian Response would had being over the top, 

    

Edited February 16, 2020 by metisdead
Over-sized emoji removed.

[Jingthing]

On 2/13/2020 at 8:26 PM, sirineou said:

They LOVE Klobuchar!!! in Iowa she was consistently behind Yang , though she was included in the Debate and Yang was not, If you watched the political talking head shows she was always invited, not a word from Yang!!

In the next debate they were forced by the numbers to include Yang, I did not watched because I was busy. afterwards I went on Google news to read what all the different news outlets had to say. Not a mention of Yand, not even that he was in the debate ot that he existed, But Klobuchar plastered in every article. 

It seems to me that they are trying to soon feed as another Hillary.  trump must be delighted. 

Sanders is the only viable option for me now, I just wish he was Yanger (pun intended) . We don't need a woman or a gay at any cost. Can you imagine the salivation at the DNC is there was a gay woman running? make her also black or hispanic,  and their Pavlovian Response would had being over the top, 

  

You're pushing a totally absurd conspiracy theory. As you know Yang is out of the race because his support was so minimal. That has happened to a number of good people such as Booker. 

Yes, the debate in New Hampshire was a turning point for Klobuchar. She has had a number of good debate performances in the past but this time in NH it was remarkably good and she was the obvious clear winner to most everyone that watched it. In the wake of people losing their enthusiasm for Biden (if they ever had any) the Amy stars aligned  for a few shorts days before the NH vote creating a truly newsworthy surge for Klobuchar. Candidates have been included in the debates or not based on somewhat arcane DNC rules about donors and polls. There is a controversy now that they changed the rules in order to get Bloomberg into the debates. It kind of looks like they did but on the other hand at this point Bloomberg is placing third in national polls so I think it's in the public interest to see him in a debate setting, if nothing else, to imagine how he would do against 45.

Spoon feed another Hillary? Klobuchar? HUH?!? Because she's a woman? Seriously? Klobuchar has no relation to Hillary.

 

Of course it's totally OK for you or anyone to favor Bernie but I find your reasons to oppose everyone else (seemingly because they might be women or minorities except Asians or Jews) kind of strange. Many people including me are clear on why we oppose Bernie. More than anything else it's because Bernie is who 45 wants to run against because he intends to red bait him to a pulp. I happen to think the Bernie vs. 45 would mean a landslide for 45 and his party retaking the house. In other words a disaster. Totally not worth the risk. 

 

Also to add at this point in time Bernie has a much more likely path to the nomination than anyone else and Amy remains a long shot. So don't fret -- you may get your Bernie nominee. One surprising performance by Amy does not a nomination make. But we shall see how this develops. 

[Sujo]

On 2/12/2020 at 11:57 AM, JHolmesJr said:

I dont know what you're getting so excited....she's getting trounced in NH.

Guess no one likes a nasty woman who's only pitch is orange man bad.

 

Guess the Dem voters like radical free stuff Bernie more.

who would have thought? ????

Guess you dont know what the op says.

 

Klobuchar surges.

[JHolmesJr]

12 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Yeah, the 45 cult of personality agenda runs on logic, not emotion. That's the ticket!

 

James Carville, legendary Dem strategist refers to Bernoe followers as a cult.

He got that right....Trump supporters are only a cult because CNN / Morning Joe says so.

[Jingthing]

3 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

James Carville, legendary Dem strategist refers to Bernoe followers as a cult.

He got that right....Trump supporters are only a cult because CNN / Morning Joe says so.

I largely agree with Carville on why Bernie shouldn't be nominated. Arguably the Bernie movement is indeed a cult of personality political movement although in his case he does have a coherent and consistent political ideology. In contrast to 45 who is all over the place and the fact that the 45 movement is indeed a cult of personality has been very well documented in numerous external sources and here, and because of that I will not be sucked into a hijack on here on such an established reality. 

[heybruce]

On 2/13/2020 at 8:26 PM, sirineou said:

They LOVE Klobuchar!!! in Iowa she was consistently behind Yang , though she was included in the Debate and Yang was not, If you watched the political talking head shows she was always invited, not a word from Yang!!

In the next debate they were forced by the numbers to include Yang, I did not watched because I was busy. afterwards I went on Google news to read what all the different news outlets had to say. Not a mention of Yand, not even that he was in the debate ot that he existed, But Klobuchar plastered in every article. 

It seems to me that they are trying to soon feed as another Hillary.  trump must be delighted. 

Sanders is the only viable option for me now, I just wish he was Yanger (pun intended) . We don't need a woman or a gay at any cost. Can you imagine the salivation at the DNC is there was a gay woman running? make her also black or hispanic,  and their Pavlovian Response would had being over the top, 

    

Why is Sanders your only viable option?  As Jingthing posted, Trump would love to run against Sanders.  And as I posted earlier, Sanders is a career politician with no history of significant legislative accomplishments. 

 

I don't want a President who is all talk and no results.  I want someone who has a history of getting things done.

[sirineou]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Why is Sanders your only viable option?  As Jingthing posted, Trump would love to run against Sanders.  And as I posted earlier, Sanders is a career politician with no history of significant legislative accomplishments. 

 

I don't want a President who is all talk and no results.  I want someone who has a history of getting things done.

If you would read again what I said you will see that I never said Sanders was the only viable option,I said "Sanders was the only viable option for me" 

For a variety of reasons  all the others are not an option for me right now, but I could change my mind, and would enthusiastically support any of them  if they win the nomination. 

-

 

 

[sirineou]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Wow, there is so much to digest in that, with all those twists and turns.

 

Against my better judgement I will respond.

 

-- Yang was one of many candidates. I don't see any relation to Yang's fall and Klobuchar's rise in New Hampshire. He did poorly in Iowa and NH. He likely didn't want to spend any more money on a definitely lost candidacy cause. End of! I don't see any relation to Yang being in debates and Klobuchar being in debates. They were both as were ALL the candidates subject to exactly the same formulas on polls and donors! 

 

As I did say since then the rules have been changed seemingly to let Bloomberg in the debates. That's questionable.  

 

I like many wonder if this year's debate rules were very good. It does seem weird that in general the racial minority candidates got eliminated under that system also considering the first two primary states are overwhelmingly white. I hope they make adjustments next cycle, that is if there is a next cycle.

 

Klobuchar got more time on the networks after she did surprisingly well in NH. Again putting her directly against Yang in a field of so many candidates seems very bizarre. You make these media assertions as well and victimization claims towards Yang and I seriously doubt you can back them up. I'm hearing that you're sad that Yang is out. Sorry about that. Personally and clearly like the majority of democrats I didn't take his candidacy very seriously. He seemed to be in it for comic relief (which was very welcome) and also to promote an issue of a basic income which is a worthy issue but ahead of it's time in the U.S. 

 

Can of worms stuff -- you are the one that started with the identity politics stuff accusing the DNC of pushing as you said --

 

Can you imagine the salivation at the DNC is there was a gay woman running? make her also black or hispanic,  and their Pavlovian Response would had being over the top, 

 

I humbly suggest that you either own toxic and reactionary rhetoric such as that or not. Claiming family in such groups does not cut it.  I don't wish to engage with you about this further and go down a rathole of spin. The democratic party is indeed a much more inclusive party for women and minorities and I would suggest any democrat that has a problem with that might be identifying with a party that doesn't fit them.

 

As far as polls, yes, I see such polls and don't give much credence to them at this time. Why? Again, because 45 clearly prefers to run against Bernie because he can red bait him and he can also red bait the entire democratic down party ticket. The result of several months of that can't possibly be showing up in polls such as that at this time. 

 

 

 

I would read what you said, but it would also be against my better judgment also. 

One does not start a conversation with me with that sentence and expects me even listen what they have  to say.   

I think next time you should listen to your :better judgment and not waste your time. 

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I would read what you said, but it would also be against my better judgment also. 

One does not start a conversation with me with that sentence and expects me even listen what they have  to say.   

I think next time you should listen to your :better judgment and not waste your time. 

It's fine with me if you don't wish to engage further. In fact very fine.

 

But posts aren't read only by you so again, no worries.

 

It now occursto me that Amy did get some good coverage after Iowa and before the New Hampshire debate, and that can easily be explained by these points instead of resorting to conspiracy theory sounding rhetoric that somehow the invisible powers that be were doing a hit job or Yang and were propping up Amy.

 

-- Amy did much better in the Iowa caucuses than Yang. Poorer performing candidates generally get less media attention.

 

Amy got about 13 percent of the popular vote and only one delegate.

 

Yang got about 5 percent of the popular vote and no delegates.

 

-- Amy used her political skills realizing that the results weren't coming in on time in Iowa to hold the FIRST candidate speaking event after the election. It was very upbeat. It wasn't silly to say she had won as she knew she hadn't, but it allowed her to spin Iowa in a positive way for her. Surely we want a democratic nominee that has such good political skills and instincts! Being

first to do that, she got good attention from the media. No dark conspiracy to screw Yang.

 

 

[sirineou]

11 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

It's fine with me if you don't wish to engage further. In fact very fine.

 

But posts aren't read only by you so again, no worries.

 

It now occursto me that Amy did get some good coverage after Iowa and before the New Hampshire debate, and that can easily be explained by these points instead of resorting to conspiracy theory sounding rhetoric that somehow the invisible powers that be were doing a hit job or Yang and were propping up Amy.

 

-- Amy did much better in the Iowa caucuses than Yang. Poorer performing candidates generally get less media attention.

 

Amy got about 13 percent of the popular vote and only one delegate.

 

Yang got about 5 percent of the popular vote and no delegates.

 

-- Amy used her political skills realizing that the results weren't coming in on time in Iowa to hold the FIRST candidate speaking event after the election. It was very upbeat. It wasn't silly to say she had won as she knew she hadn't, but it allowed her to spin Iowa in a positive way for her. Surely we want a democratic nominee that has such good political skills and instincts! Being

first to do that, she got good attention from the media. No dark conspiracy to screw Yang.

 

 

I don't respond very well to insults. Saying that you will talk to me against your better judgment is an insult. It that is the case better you save your breath.  

 

Edited February 13, 2020 by sirineou

[sucit]

On 2/12/2020 at 10:01 AM, Jingthing said:

A Sanders Klobuchar ticket doesn't make any sense. Amy stood alone recently saying she is not comfortable with the democratic party being identified with socialism. 

 

Of course I'm also in the camp that thinks nominating Sanders is political suicide. The interesting take from New Hampshire is that Warren looks bumped out in the more leftist lane but when you add up all the support for the more center left lane (Bloomberg, Klobuchar, Buttigeig, and fading Biden) that blows away Sander's support. But if the center left lane people continue to split the opposition to far left Bernie, then yes, Bernie gets nominated.

 

I wonder if Bloomberg reconsiders his run if Klobuchar emerges as a strong choice in that lane because if not, he may be helping Sanders.

 

Note I refuse to use the word moderate about these democrats to degrade them as credible democrats. That's a game from Sanders. They are center left, not moderate.

Both parties are already "identified with socialism". In fact, they crave the attention it bring, using social security as an example. Support for it us favorable. Don't support it and numbers drop. 

 

Get over this sentiment that "socialism is bad" please. We are not 12 years old any longer. 

 

Let's just assume for argument's sake for a second that Bernie's health care plan gets implemented. 

 

Can you please tell me who on earth is going to be complaining, besides the health insurance and drug companies? What segment of the population is going to go to the hospital in an emergency, receive absolutely no bill, and come out of it all saying "<deleted> socialism". 

 

You are using buzz words but you are not actually explaining why Klobuchar's policies are better. How is the average person going to the hospital going to be better off under Klobuchar's establishment health care plan going to benefit people? 

[Jingthing]

25 minutes ago, sucit said:

Both parties are already "identified with socialism". In fact, they crave the attention it bring, using social security as an example. Support for it us favorable. Don't support it and numbers drop. 

 

Get over this sentiment that "socialism is bad" please. We are not 12 years old any longer. 

 

Let's just assume for argument's sake for a second that Bernie's health care plan gets implemented. 

 

Can you please tell me who on earth is going to be complaining, besides the health insurance and drug companies? What segment of the population is going to go to the hospital in an emergency, receive absolutely no bill, and come out of it all saying "<deleted> socialism". 

 

You are using buzz words but you are not actually explaining why Klobuchar's policies are better. How is the average person going to the hospital going to be better off under Klobuchar's establishment health care plan going to benefit people? 

I've already addressed all of your points before so I won't be responding to the very same material again. I particularly don't enjoy your repeated and obviously totally false insults attributing red baiting to me when I've told you numerous times the concern is about how the 45 campaign would definitely exploit the label that Sanders gave himself. It worked for Sanders as a senator from very blue "almost Canada" Vermont but as far as running for president, it's a deal breaker own goal.

 

If you want to approach this in a different way than you have as in the repetitive post above, be my guest. Otherwise, please don't bother me with the same false attacks that I've already answered.

 

Cheers.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Jingthing

[sucit]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

I've already addressed all of your points before so I won't be responding to the very same material again. I particularly don't enjoy your repeated and obviously totally false insults attributing red baiting to me when I've told you numerous times the concern is about how the 45 campaign would definitely exploit the label that Sanders gave himself. It worked for Sanders as a senator from very blue "almost Canada" Vermont but as far as running for president, it's a deal breaker own goal.

 

If you want to approach this in a different way than you have as in the repetitive post above, be my guest. Otherwise, please don't bother me with the same false attacks that I've already answered.

 

Cheers.

How would Trump exploit that, if Bernie just states about health care what I did in the post above? And, don't you think Bernie, being a veteran in these debates, will be able to answer 100 times as eloquently as me? 

 

If I was Bernie, I would not be able to wait to address Trump when he says "socialism". Every time he does it, that gives you a chance to say...

 

"Healthcare without bills, you get to see the best doctors in the world, and not pay a dime". 

 

"Higher education for all Americans, not just the well off". 

 

"A livable working wage". 

 

It gives Bernie a springboard to speak about topics that are extremely popular with the public.

 

I never saw you address why you think Klobuchar can win when Hilary... a more well funded, establishment centrist lost. I also never saw you show me polls where Klobuchar significantly outscores Bernie against Trump in a general election.

 

What you do consistently is just make up, out of thin air... "Bernie can't win". Show me something. You do not get to just say this stuff, you need to actually show why you believe that to be taken seriously. 

 

Your posts come off as almost 100% disingenuous. You seem more concerned with labels than you do with actual policies. If it is your position to support "winning labels", that is fine, but just come out and say that: that is, "I support candidates I think can win, I do not even care about their policies". 

Edited February 14, 2020 by sucit

[sucit]

11 hours ago, Jingthing said:

You make these media assertions as well and victimization claims towards Yang and I seriously doubt you can back them up.

It is not that difficult to figure this stuff out. Unless you only watch CNN and Rachel Maddow of course. 

 

Yang was omitted from so many graphics it is impossible to track the number. His speaking time in debates vs polling numbers were so glaringly obvious, even your obviously beloved establishment media reported on it a few times. 

 

This is all fact. Verifiable facts. When graphics get omitted or are in error on a network once or twice for example, we can of course chalk that up to a mistake.

 

When graphics are in error and a candidate is omitted over a dozen times, you can't arrive at that same conclusion, especially when the news organizations have an obvious history of biased coverage against non-establishment candidates. Klobuchar is establishment by the way. 

 

I honestly do not even expect "normal" people like you to pick up on things like the obvious media biases against candidates like Yang. You watch the news, and it never dawns on you what is happening. Most people are like this, and that is the problem. That does not make it untrue though. Just look through the errors, omissions and lack of speaking time yourself. I know you wont do it because you don't care, and that is part of the point. I suppose just feel lucky that you have been duped into an establishment candidate, because she wont get any sort of media blackout, but she also wont make any real changes if she did in fact happen to win. That is how it works, establishment candidates keep the status quo. 

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, sucit said:

It is not that difficult to figure this stuff out. Unless you only watch CNN and Rachel Maddow of course. 

 

Yang was omitted from so many graphics it is impossible to track the number. His speaking time in debates vs polling numbers were so glaringly obvious, even your obviously beloved establishment media reported on it a few times. 

 

This is all fact. Verifiable facts. When graphics get omitted or are in error on a network once or twice for example, we can of course chalk that up to a mistake.

 

When graphics are in error and a candidate is omitted over a dozen times, you can't arrive at that same conclusion, especially when the news organizations have an obvious history of biased coverage against non-establishment candidates. Klobuchar is establishment by the way. 

 

I honestly do not even expect "normal" people like you to pick up on things like the obvious media biases against candidates like Yang. You watch the news, and it never dawns on you what is happening. Most people are like this, and that is the problem. That does not make it untrue though. Just look through the errors, omissions and lack of speaking time yourself. I know you wont do it because you don't care, and that is part of the point. I suppose just feel lucky that you have been duped into an establishment candidate, because she wont get any sort of media blackout, but she also wont make any real changes if she did in fact happen to win. That is how it works, establishment candidates keep the status quo. 

You forgot to mention sheeple. 

 

Bye. 

[Berkshire]

2 hours ago, sucit said:

Both parties are already "identified with socialism". In fact, they crave the attention it bring, using social security as an example. Support for it us favorable. Don't support it and numbers drop. 

 

Get over this sentiment that "socialism is bad" please. We are not 12 years old any longer. 

 

Let's just assume for argument's sake for a second that Bernie's health care plan gets implemented. 

 

Can you please tell me who on earth is going to be complaining, besides the health insurance and drug companies? What segment of the population is going to go to the hospital in an emergency, receive absolutely no bill, and come out of it all saying "<deleted> socialism". 

 

You are using buzz words but you are not actually explaining why Klobuchar's policies are better. How is the average person going to the hospital going to be better off under Klobuchar's establishment health care plan going to benefit people? 

I like Bernie, always have.  He's an honest, decent man and would be infinitely a better President than Trump.  But the socialism thing, you seriously underestimate the GOP machine's ability to spin that, as well as the average intelligence of the voting public.  Bernie may be saying socialism in the sense of Norway or Sweden, but the GOP will tie it to Venezuela and every shthole banana republic out there.  And people will believe it. 

 

If Bernie becomes the Democratic candidate, of course I'll support him.  But it's risky.

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

I like Bernie, always have.  He's an honest, decent man and would be infinitely a better President than Trump.  But the socialism thing, you seriously underestimate the GOP machine's ability to spin that, as well as the average intelligence of the voting public.  Bernie may be saying socialism in the sense of Norway or Sweden, but the GOP will tie it to Venezuela and every shthole banana republic out there.  And people will believe it. 

 

If Bernie becomes the Democratic candidate, of course I'll support him.  But it's risky.

Exactly. Beating 45 is job one. Currently I think Bloomberg would be best for that but I don't like the precedent of what will look like a bought presidency. 

 

I do see a troubling trend here. Assuming Bernie is not nominated expect 45 to continue to push the idea that it will be rigged against him. Like last time too many Bernie bros stayed home or even God forbid voted for 45.

 

I think the vast majority of democrats will support any democrat that is nominated. But sadly Bernie fans less so. 

 

Bernie or bust they say. 

 

Better to say beat 45 with any democrat or say goodbye to American democracy. 

 

[Jingthing]

Reminder.

 

It wasn't far left democrats that provided the blue wave takeover victory in the house in 18.

 

It was more centrist ones. 

 

Also looking at the primaries so far when you add the votes of Bernie and Warren and compare to the more centrist remainder the more centrist composite is way ahead. 

 

Bernie may indeed be nominated because the opposition is spread too thin but that would not really be representative of what most democrats want. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-witnessing-the-reemergence-of-the-moderate-democrat/2020/02/13/ffdab50e-4e9f-11ea-9b5c-eac5b16dafaa_story.html

 

Quote

 

We’re witnessing the reemergence of the moderate Democrat

 

For all the thunder on the Bernie Sanders left, the most interesting trend in the Democratic campaign this year may be the reemergence of the moderate wing of the party, led by charismatic new voices: former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar.

 

In our barbell view of politics, where all the weight seems to be at the two ends, this reality may be obscured: Far more Americans (42 percent) described themselves as independents than as Democrats (27 percent) or Republicans (30 percent) in the most recent Gallup survey of party affiliation. The percentage of people who see themselves in this broad middle has rarely been higher.

 

 

 

Edited February 14, 2020 by Jingthing

[sucit]

2 hours ago, Berkshire said:

I like Bernie, always have.  He's an honest, decent man and would be infinitely a better President than Trump.  But the socialism thing, you seriously underestimate the GOP machine's ability to spin that, as well as the average intelligence of the voting public.  Bernie may be saying socialism in the sense of Norway or Sweden, but the GOP will tie it to Venezuela and every shthole banana republic out there.  And people will believe it. 

 

If Bernie becomes the Democratic candidate, of course I'll support him.  But it's risky.

How old are you though? I would bet money you are over 50. 

 

You guys are just saying stuff, as i mentioned, and not backing it up. Why isn't it you who us "underestimating" Tump's ability to beat a woman, centrist, establishment democrat? It just happened! You see the difference between your assertions and mine? There is an actual recent comparison to support the fact that a candidate like this may not fare very well. Actual hard facts. Where is the "Bernie will fail in a general with Trump" data? From all accounts, it looks very good according to polling.

 

Point, you do not get to just say stuff. Especially when the facts indicate otherwise. 

 

So, I think it is you who are underestimating. I bet if I would have asked you 10 years ago if a "democratic socialist" could be the favorite dem candidate, you would call me crazy. But that is what is happening, because it is not as easy to pull wool over voter eyes any longer because there are more sources for news than just the mainstream media. 

 

Again, I can even see hardcore conservative types listening to some of this stuff in the debate, and saying, "man, i can take my kids to the hospital, and they will be able to get an education too" while they polish their gun racks. 

 

The list goes on and on with that kind of thing, because his policies are better AND more popular, and he isn't bought. 

 

All this stuff is going to come up in the debates. Idk why people think Trump is some kind of world class debater. He may be good at rallying from twitter, but he was never very convincing in my opinion, UNLESS he was talking about positions which put him in office such as bringing a stop to the wars, which a candidate like Bernie will actually do. 

 

So yeah, I do sorta hear what you are saying, but people do not have only one choice for news any longer. They get it from the internet, much of it is very good, and they actually know what is going on. 

 

I can put the same question to you as i asked earlier? Name me a person on earth who thinks about going to the hospital and not getting a bill, who is not in favor of it. The only argument they have is "how can we pay for it" lol. That is how you know they are gonna lose in the debates, it is all they cling to, yet meanwhile they fund unnecessary wars and inject money to prop up wall street on a daily basis.

Edited February 14, 2020 by sucit

[sucit]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

You forgot to mention sheeple. 

 

Bye. 

Honestly, I do not even need to remember anything because it is so obvious you are clinging to this candidate for the sole reason that she will have the best chance to beat Trump.

 

But, you fail to realize a woman, establishment dem just lost to Trump, and you are not admitting that this spells disaster, all at your own peril. You also fail to realize many young voters didn't grow up sucking their thumbs watching the Cuban missile crisis. That BS propaganda just is not as effective any longer. Yet further, you fail to acknowledge the key is voter turnout, and who has the most energy and enthusiasm behind their campaign currently. Who is most able to get young voter to come out? If you think that is Klobuchar you are seriously out of touch. 

[sucit]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Reminder.

 

It wasn't far left democrats that provided the blue wave takeover victory in the house in 18.

 

It was more centrist ones. 

 

Also looking at the primaries so far when you add the votes of Bernie and Warren and compare to the more centrist remainder the more centrist composite is way ahead. 

 

Bernie may indeed be nominated because the opposition is spread too thin but that would not really be representative of what most democrats want. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-witnessing-the-reemergence-of-the-moderate-democrat/2020/02/13/ffdab50e-4e9f-11ea-9b5c-eac5b16dafaa_story.html

 

 

 

lol Winning somehow turns into a very unimportant metric, but only when the establishment dems are behind lol

 

It is difficult not to laugh. So, the argument is "Yeah, you're right, Bernie is winning, but the most people don't actually like him" lol

 

That is actually what you are saying. Just had to repeat that. I suppose for Sanders to get your support he needs to drop down in the polls and get a few candidates like him in there to add up to more than 50%, then you would support him lol. You see how ridiculous that is, don't you?

 

The rationalizations and repeating of (ridiculous) establishment talking points honestly just pushing it past even ridiculous. 

Edited February 14, 2020 by sucit

[sucit]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Also looking at the primaries so far when you add the votes of Bernie and Warren and compare to the more centrist remainder the more centrist composite is way ahead. 

I am sorry but I just cannot stop laughing at this lol

 

"If we somehow fuse two or three of our candidate's votes together, we maybe would have a chance to beat Bernie" lol lol

 

Do you even see how horrendously biased that is? It is such a reach. 

 

Get this through your head: Sanders won because he is the most popular. People who are the most popular will always be the winner, because that is how the elections work. Bernie beat NINE other candidates. You do not get to pick and choose candidates and add their votes together to beat other candidates lol. 

 

This comment seriously is making me want to change my signature. I am just lazy but I think you have got mongodave beaten by a long shot. 

 

Do yourself a favor, stop reading corporate news. Elections do not work by adding votes from multiple candidates to find "composites". If they did, candidates would campaign much differently. Use your brain! 

Edited February 14, 2020 by sucit

[Berkshire]

1 hour ago, sucit said:

How old are you though? I would bet money you are over 50. 

 

You guys are just saying stuff, as i mentioned, and not backing it up. Why isn't it you who us "underestimating" Tump's ability to beat a woman, centrist, establishment democrat? It just happened! You see the difference between your assertions and mine? There is an actual recent comparison to support the fact that a candidate like this may not fare very well. Actual hard facts. Where is the "Bernie will fail in a general with Trump" data? From all accounts, it looks very good according to polling.

 

Point, you do not get to just say stuff. Especially when the facts indicate otherwise. 

 

So, I think it is you who are underestimating. I bet if I would have asked you 10 years ago if a "democratic socialist" could be the favorite dem candidate, you would call me crazy. But that is what is happening, because it is not as easy to pull wool over voter eyes any longer because there are more sources for news than just the mainstream media. 

 

Again, I can even see hardcore conservative types listening to some of this stuff in the debate, and saying, "man, i can take my kids to the hospital, and they will be able to get an education too" while they polish their gun racks. 

 

The list goes on and on with that kind of thing, because his policies are better AND more popular, and he isn't bought. 

 

All this stuff is going to come up in the debates. Idk why people think Trump is some kind of world class debater. He may be good at rallying from twitter, but he was never very convincing in my opinion, UNLESS he was talking about positions which put him in office such as bringing a stop to the wars, which a candidate like Bernie will actually do. 

 

So yeah, I do sorta hear what you are saying, but people do not have only one choice for news any longer. They get it from the internet, much of it is very good, and they actually know what is going on. 

 

I can put the same question to you as i asked earlier? Name me a person on earth who thinks about going to the hospital and not getting a bill, who is not in favor of it. The only argument they have is "how can we pay for it" lol. That is how you know they are gonna lose in the debates, it is all they cling to, yet meanwhile they fund unnecessary wars and inject money to prop up wall street on a daily basis.

Geez man, you are naive beyond belief.  So tell me, how do you think Trump got elected in 2016?  Hint: It had nothing to do with his debating skills.  Or facts, policies, ideas,...nothing like that.  Look, we're on the same team...I think.  I want Trump out, I don't care who does it. 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Berkshire said:

Geez man, you are naive beyond belief.  So tell me, how do you think Trump got elected in 2016?  Hint: It had nothing to do with his debating skills.  Or facts, policies, ideas,...nothing like that.  Look, we're on the same team...I think.  I want Trump out, I don't care who does it. 

Exactly. This election certainly will not be about specific policy wonkery. It's about direction. The USA as authoritarian country like Russia/Hungary/Turkey OR working our way back out of the dark abyss that 45 has sunk us into. To obsess about policy details or some fiction of ideological purity now is like someone in a house fire not bothering to evacuate but instead logging onto Amazon to change the cup size of their jock strap order.