Jump to content

Klobuchar surge in New Hampshire could reshuffle Democratic White House race


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

She's been my top choice all along. She performs beautifully in the senate so has credible experience. She has strong African American support in her state. She wins bigly in precincts in her state th

Laughable given what you defend in the current incumbent.

Posted Images

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

So Pelosi is now accused of dragging out the impeachment.  During the Senate trial she was accused of rushing impeachment instead of taking the time to adequately investigate. 

She held the articles of impeachment, delayed sending them to the Senate so Bernie would have to be in the trial instead of campaigning.  Backfired.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

 

They couldn't wait to go to the court to get the issue of exec privilege resolved. At that point they took a vote because although they didn't do that and lost their shot at their key witnesses it was a matter of urgency. A national emergency they claimed and put it to the vote. 

 

After that for whatever reason Nancy thought she had a brilliant tactical move to not send the articles.It was nothing more than game playing. But remember it was the dems that said it needed to be done immediately. You are trying to have it both ways. Quite frankly so was she.

You just confirmed my post.  Kelsall posted " Pelosi's plan to tank Sanders by dragging out the impeachment ..."  and you posted "But remember it was the dems that said it needed to be done immediately."

 

Trump supporters are simultaneously accusing Pelosi of dragging things out and rushing things. 

 

Funny that you accuse me of trying to have it both ways.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

She held the articles of impeachment, delayed sending them to the Senate so Bernie would have to be in the trial instead of campaigning.  Backfired.

Actually it was Moscow Mitch McConnell who determined when the trial would start and how long it would last. 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, heybruce said:

You just confirmed my post.  Kelsall posted " Pelosi's plan to tank Sanders by dragging out the impeachment ..."  and you posted "But remember it was the dems that said it needed to be done immediately."

 

Trump supporters are simultaneously accusing Pelosi of dragging things out and rushing things. 

 

Funny that you accuse me of trying to have it both ways.

 

That's right until Pelosi held onto them. Presumably to keep Bernie and others in the senate. There seems to be no other reason she had done this. The dems rushed, Nancy did the opposite. Later the dems got their case thrown out because they rushed it. This doesn't negate the fact that after they rushed it through and ruined their chances of having it go anywhere, Pelosi sat on it to ensure the timing was such that all senators wouldn't be in Iowa.

 

Did the dems rush it? Yes. Did Nancy slow it down after for whatever reason? Yes.

 

Either way I guess we can agree that it was a big failure in the end.

Edited by Cryingdick
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

 

That's right until Pelosi held onto them. Presumably to keep Bernie and others in the senate. There seems to be no other reason she had done this. The dems rushed, Nancy did the opposite. Later the dems got their case thrown out because they rushed it. This doesn't negate the fact that after they rushed it through and ruined their chances of having it go anywhere, Pelosi sat on it to ensure the timing was such that all senators wouldn't be in Iowa.

 

Did the dems rush it? Yes. Did Nancy slow it down after for whatever reason? Yes.

 

Either way I guess we can agree that it was a big failure in the end.

So you presume you know why Pelosi held up the articles of impeachment?  Did you consider the reason she gave?

 

" “We cannot name managers until we see what the process is on the Senate side,” she said, referring to the House “managers” who present the case for removal to the Senate. “So far we haven’t seen anything that looks fair to us. So hopefully it will be fair. And when we see what that is, we’ll send our managers.” "https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/some-house-democrats-push-pelosi-to-withhold-impeachment-articles-delaying-senate-trial/2019/12/18/6e25814a-21c5-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html

 

If you don't like that news source, there's also this one:

 

" Pelosi spoke to reporters after Democrats passed two articles of impeachment against President Trump in a Wednesday evening vote. She indicated the House would eventually send the articles over to the upper chamber but insisted it is up to the Senate to determine how the process develops going forward. "  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-delay-impeachment-mcconnell

 

Her explanation sounds much more reasonable than paranoid conspiracy theories about interfering in the Iowa caucus.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, heybruce said:

So you presume you know why Pelosi held up the articles of impeachment?  Did you consider the reason she gave?

 

" “We cannot name managers until we see what the process is on the Senate side,” she said, referring to the House “managers” who present the case for removal to the Senate. “So far we haven’t seen anything that looks fair to us. So hopefully it will be fair. And when we see what that is, we’ll send our managers.” "https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/some-house-democrats-push-pelosi-to-withhold-impeachment-articles-delaying-senate-trial/2019/12/18/6e25814a-21c5-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html

 

If you don't like that news source, there's also this one:

 

" Pelosi spoke to reporters after Democrats passed two articles of impeachment against President Trump in a Wednesday evening vote. She indicated the House would eventually send the articles over to the upper chamber but insisted it is up to the Senate to determine how the process develops going forward. "  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-delay-impeachment-mcconnell

 

Her explanation sounds much more reasonable than paranoid conspiracy theories about interfering in the Iowa caucus.

 

In my opinion it was two birds with one stone. She got the disrupting the senators in Iowa part right. However the attempt to influence the senate didn't work out. Let's not forget she can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.

Edited by Cryingdick
  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

That's right until Pelosi held onto them. Presumably to keep Bernie and others in the senate. There seems to be no other reason she had done this. The dems rushed, Nancy did the opposite. Later the dems got their case thrown out because they rushed it. This doesn't negate the fact that after they rushed it through and ruined their chances of having it go anywhere, Pelosi sat on it to ensure the timing was such that all senators wouldn't be in Iowa.

 

Did the dems rush it? Yes. Did Nancy slow it down after for whatever reason? Yes.

 

Either way I guess we can agree that it was a big failure in the end.

Pelosi’s timing was perfect.

 

She was well aware that the GOP Senators would not convict, so she exposed their corruption by waiting until Bolton stated he had evidence and was ready to testify.

 

The GOP Senators, with the exclusion of Romney, did the corrupt thing and the nation saw them do it.

 

Roll on the election.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2020 at 8:47 PM, Jingthing said:

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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

In my opinion it was two birds with one stone. She got the disrupting the senators in Iowa part right. However the attempt to influence the senate didn't work out. Let's not forget she can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.

In your opinion Pelosi held up sending impeachment charges to the Senate in the hope of hurting the campaign of every Senator running for President and with full knowledge that Moscow Mitch would decide when the Senate trial would begin and how it would be conducted, so she wasn't in control.  That doesn't make sense.

 

A more logical conspiracy theory is that Moscow Mitch made a point of ensuring the Senate trial would be in full swing before and during the Iowa caucus, thus disrupting the campaigns of Biden and others.  However I'm sure you have a reason why that can't be true.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikebike said:

 

Those videos are all about a totally different election. 2016. We're now in the 2020 election. The dynamics are very very different. What 45 said about the 2016 election made sense. An HRC - Bernie ticket would have beat 45 because without it she lost a lot of potential Bernie voters to not voting or even voting for 45. Remember how bitter the DNC convention was? Remember the timing of the leaks and how damaging they were? 

 

I don't see any relevance at all to 2020. Then it was a two person  democratic race, HRC and Bernie with a fairly close split.

 

Now Bernie has a ceiling. A much lower ceiling. Now it's very obvious that 45 would most like to run directly against Bernie because of the commie label thing and also don't forget he's an incumbent now. 

 

Totally different dynamics.

 

Most likely Bernie and probably nobody else is going to go into the convention with a first ballot nomination victory.

 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bernie-sanders-is-powered-by-a-loyal-base-but-results-in-iowa-and-new-hampshire-show-the-movement-has-limits/2020/02/14/e10c570a-4296-11ea-b5fc-eefa848cde99_story.html

 


 

Quote

 

Bernie Sanders is powered by a loyal base, but results in Iowa and New Hampshire show the movement has limits

 

CONCORD, N.H. — The first two contests of the Democratic presidential race have demonstrated the power — and the limits — of the movement that Bernie Sanders has built since he began running for the White House nearly five years ago, obscuring the future of his ascendant candidacy.

 

A core base of young, liberal and working-class voters inspired by the Vermont senator's calls for a political revolution powered the self-described democratic socialist to an effective tie atop the Iowa caucuses and an outright win in this week's New Hampshire primary.

 

Yet the early returns show that Sanders's loyal army represents a limited slice of the party, accounting for just over a quarter of the vote in each of the first two states.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Sure policies matter. But their policies are really not all that different in contrast to 45 and they will all need to deal with congress anyway to get anything done at all  (so coattails matter a lot too!). Democrats and correctly so are prioritizing trying to pick a candidate that has the best chance of winning against 45, he who must be beaten. 

You do not get to say policies don't matter, the say they do an hour later. See how that works?

 

Sanders is in the lead in Texas. In Texas! 

 

I am not sure how much more writing on the wall people need. It is not 1950 any more. A democratic socialist is in the lead in Texas.

 

Everything you have said in these threads about Bernie is turning out to be empirically wrong. You have blinders on. Fine, that is your right. 

 

His lead in California is 14 points. 

 

He was down by 20 points or something like this in Texas. To be honest that even blew me away. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Amy Klobuchar is 3% in Texas. But, if you add up all the centrist votes... 

 

Ok ok, I got enough mileage out of that one already. 

 

Bernie 24% and Biden 22% in TEXAS! <deleted> Texas! 

 

If you can't see that Bernie has the best chance beating Trump looking at these numbers... well, not much to say. 

Edited by sucit
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...