NationStates

Luminesa wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
It's practically just Trump, there are like two other candidates but they're too low-profile to make a dent.

Eh, still slightly curious.

Luminesa wrote:

Gormwood wrote:
And you wonder why you got the boot.

And uh, you know, things like calling me a “sanctimonious ‘c***’” Soooo yeah. Ouch?

Who even is running from the Republican Party, beside Trump? I very clearly missed any additions to the race. Then again, I have been trying my best to ignore all the news I get from the NYT, because it’s about nothing but impeachment. I’m also too lazy to unsubscribe to the NYT.

Nakena wrote:

Luminesa wrote:Eh, still slightly curious.

Bill Weld is running. The VP Candidate of Johnson's Aleppo libertarian bid of 2016.

Loben The 2nd wrote:

Luminesa wrote:And uh, you know, things like calling me a “sanctimonious ‘c***’” and essentially hoping I get raped. Soooo yeah. Ouch?

Who even is running from the Republican Party, beside Trump? I very clearly missed any additions to the race. Then again, I have been trying my best to ignore all the news I get from the NYT, because it’s about nothing but impeachment. I’m also too lazy to unsubscribe to the NYT.

what the shit?

The East Marches II wrote:

Nakena wrote:
Bill Weld is running. The VP Candidate of Johnson's Aleppo libertarian bid of 2016.

He was really weak for a libertarian. He had no memetic power and he hasn't any now.

Napkizemlja wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
The punchline is, of course, that y'all like to say Gormwood has some weird fetish

Not that this, or Gauth in general, has anything to do with the thread but tbf it is accurate given the offsite posts I bore witness to where rage posts against NSGers had an unhealthy level of sexual imagery.

Bear Stearns wrote:

Napkizemlja wrote:Not that this, or Gauth in general, has anything to do with the thread but tbf it is accurate given the offsite posts I bore witness to where rage posts against NSGers had an unhealthy level of sexual imagery.

My old nation had wild accusations about me generally being a rapist and a woman-hater because I opened up about my relationship with my parents.

Bear Stearns wrote:

Aureumterra wrote:Does anyone actually take the “squad” seriously?

They are concerning because they are a preview of what most politicians will be like in 20 years.

Blargoblarg wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:

They are concerning because they are a preview of what most politicians will be like in 20 years.

So, politicians who actually care about the people they represent instead of the rich and the big corporations? Sounds great to me.

Blargoblarg wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:

They are concerning because they are a preview of what most politicians will be like in 20 years.

So, politicians who actually care about the people they represent instead of the rich and the big corporations? Sounds great to me.

Munkcestrian Republic wrote:I think that, if he gets the Democratic nomination, Bernie will win West Virginia.

Telconi wrote:

Blargoblarg wrote:So, politicians who actually care about the people they represent instead of the rich and the big corporations? Sounds great to me.

But what about the people they don't represent?

Telconi wrote:

Munkcestrian Republic wrote:I think that, if he gets the Democratic nomination, Bernie will win West Virginia.

Highly unlikely, anything positive Bernie brings to the table is outweighed by the negatives. West Virginia will almost certainly go to Trump, and by similar margins as in 2016.

Munkcestrian Republic wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Highly unlikely, anything positive Bernie brings to the table is outweighed by the negatives. West Virginia will almost certainly go to Trump, and by similar margins as in 2016.

Check the polls.

Cannot think of a name wrote:

Munkcestrian Republic wrote:Check the polls.

Well, it's December with no Democratic candidate and I can't find any polls on West Virginia specifically.

True Refuge wrote:

Telconi wrote:
But what about the people they don't represent?

Should they be representing people from outside their district who they don’t represent?

Pasong Tirad wrote:

Blargoblarg wrote:So, politicians who actually care about the people they represent instead of the rich and the big corporations? Sounds great to me.

"All the Dems will be like the Squad someday!"

"Stop threatening me with a good time."

Munkcestrian Republic wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote:Well, it's December with no Democratic candidate and I can't find any polls on West Virginia specifically.

https://tulchinresearch.com/wp-content/ ... -Final.pdf

Telconi wrote:

True Refuge wrote:
Should they be representing people from outside their district who they don’t represent?

Or the ones inside their district.

True Refuge wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Or the ones inside their district.

Are they not doing that?

One-line open-ended questions aren’t good openers. They’re difficult to engage with because there’s no detail to them. I don’t know what your opinion is or what you’re basing your original question on.

Telconi wrote:

True Refuge wrote:
Are they not doing that?

One-line open-ended questions aren’t good openers. They’re difficult to engage with because there’s no detail to them. I don’t know what your opinion is or what you’re basing your original question on.

Doing what? Representing the people they don't represent? I think the answer to that is self evident.

True Refuge wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Doing what? Representing the people they don't represent? I think the answer to that is self evident.

?

“Or the ones inside their district” suggests you’re talking about people within the districts. That’s what the question was about.

In full form, the question was “are not they not representing the people in their district?”.

Idzequitch wrote:Well. With Sestak and Bullock gone, we're "down" to 16 "major" Democratic candidates.

I would argue that Williamson, Bennet, Delaney, and even Castro shouldn't be viewed as major candidates at this point, and frankly, there's no reason why any of them should stay in the race. I would argue that Booker and Gabbard should also drop out as it seems their messages aren't resonating with Democratic voters. Also Bloomberg and Patrick should never have joined and the sooner they're forced to drop back out, the better.

So yes there are 16 major candidates, but if you want to narrow that down to those who have even the slightest of slight chances of getting nominated, there's probably six. Maybe eight if you want to be extra generous and include Yang and Klobuchar.