NationStates

Telconi wrote:

Albrenia wrote:I wonder if we'll look back on this time in politics in ten years and think 'thank god things calmed down after that' or 'well it just got worse from there'.

Hope for the former, prepare for the latter.

How can you sit here and tell me you hope for the former when your views unequivocally entail heading towards the latter? Or am I supposed to believe that arresting Democrats would go smoothly and make everything peaches and sunshine overnight?

Oh, Pete, Pete, Pete. He had a clear target on his back in the debate, but he held his ground and defended himself very competently. And then came the racial question about his time as mayor. And he straight botched it. He did so well for the rest of that debate. But that question and his response is basically what defines his candidacy. Even as someone who generally likes Buttigieg, the fact that he can't justify things that happened on his watch in South Bend is worrisome. Answers like that certainly won't help his case once we move out of the whitest parts of the country.

Klobuchar clearly had the best debate in New Hampshire, but we've said that before and it meant nothing in the polls. Sanders was the usual Sanders. Biden and Warren looked weak. Steyer contributed talking points, but honestly, I forget that he's actually trying to earn votes. Yang was a nonfactor.

So net result, I think we'll see Sanders continue to rise at Warren's expense, and Buttigieg and maybe Klobuchar rise at Biden's expense, at least in NH. The real question is, after a poor showing in Iowa, a presumed poor showing in New Hampshire, weak debates and lots of gaffes, is SC still going to turn out for Biden? Or will they jump ship and shift elsewhere?

Idzequitch wrote:Oh, Pete, Pete, Pete. He had a clear target on his back in the debate, but he held his ground and defended himself very competently. And then came the racial question about his time as mayor. And he straight botched it. He did so well for the rest of that debate. But that question and his response is basically what defines his candidacy. Even as someone who generally likes Buttigieg, the fact that he can't justify things that happened on his watch in South Bend is worrisome. Answers like that certainly won't help his case once we move out of the whitest parts of the country.

Klobuchar clearly had the best debate in New Hampshire, but we've said that before and it meant nothing in the polls. Sanders was the usual Sanders. Biden and Warren looked weak. Steyer contributed talking points, but honestly, I forget that he's actually trying to earn votes. Yang was a nonfactor.

So net result, I think we'll see Sanders continue to rise at Warren's expense, and Buttigieg and maybe Klobuchar rise at Biden's expense, at least in NH. The real question is, after a poor showing in Iowa, a presumed poor showing in New Hampshire, weak debates and lots of gaffes, is SC still going to turn out for Biden? Or will they jump ship and shift elsewhere?

Well, it seems Klobuchar has benefited from some gain in these two polls that have been tracking voters choices.

Suffolk:

Sanders 24%
Buttigieg 22%
Warren 13%
Undecided 12% (This number is extremely important).
Biden 10%
Klobuchar 9%
Yang 3%
Steyer and Gabbard 2%

Emerson

Sanders 30%
Buttigieg 20%
Klobuchar 13%
Warren 12%
Biden 11%
Yang 4%
Gabbard 3%
Steyer 2%

From these polls yesterday, Klobuchar gained 3 and 4 points respectfully. If the Debate was a week before the primary, she could reach 15%. However, I don't think she has enough time to get to 15%. If she does, she certainly will battle for the mantle. Warren is certainly screwed in my opinion and honestly think she'll dropout after NH; she did cancel an ad buy in Nevada after all. Biden will continue to tank and that will show after NH. It's really now between Buttigieg and Klobuchar.

Zurkerx wrote:

Idzequitch wrote:Oh, Pete, Pete, Pete. He had a clear target on his back in the debate, but he held his ground and defended himself very competently. And then came the racial question about his time as mayor. And he straight botched it. He did so well for the rest of that debate. But that question and his response is basically what defines his candidacy. Even as someone who generally likes Buttigieg, the fact that he can't justify things that happened on his watch in South Bend is worrisome. Answers like that certainly won't help his case once we move out of the whitest parts of the country.

Klobuchar clearly had the best debate in New Hampshire, but we've said that before and it meant nothing in the polls. Sanders was the usual Sanders. Biden and Warren looked weak. Steyer contributed talking points, but honestly, I forget that he's actually trying to earn votes. Yang was a nonfactor.

So net result, I think we'll see Sanders continue to rise at Warren's expense, and Buttigieg and maybe Klobuchar rise at Biden's expense, at least in NH. The real question is, after a poor showing in Iowa, a presumed poor showing in New Hampshire, weak debates and lots of gaffes, is SC still going to turn out for Biden? Or will they jump ship and shift elsewhere?

Well, it seems Klobuchar has benefited from some gain in these two polls that have been tracking voters choices.

Suffolk:

Sanders 24%
Buttigieg 22%
Warren 13%
Undecided 12% (This number is extremely important).
Biden 10%
Klobuchar 9%
Yang 3%
Steyer and Gabbard 2%

Emerson

Sanders 30%
Buttigieg 20%
Klobuchar 13%
Warren 12%
Biden 11%
Yang 4%
Gabbard 3%
Steyer 2%

From these polls yesterday, Klobuchar gained 3 and 4 points respectfully. If the Debate was a week before the primary, she could reach 15%. However, I don't think she has enough time to get to 15%. If she does, she certainly will battle for the mantle. Warren is certainly screwed in my opinion and honestly think she'll dropout after NH; she did cancel an ad buy in Nevada after all. Biden will continue to tank and that will show after NH. It's really now between Buttigieg and Klobuchar.

I'd be stunned if Warren dropped before Super Tuesday.

Telconi wrote:

Albrenia wrote:
Bush certainly gave me some concerns back in the day, no doubt.

He wasn't nearly as odious or obnoxious as Trump is, but he had some other rather serious problems...

Honestly, I think Bush in many ways posed a greater threat to individual rights than Trump does. Trump talks a lot of shit, but seems ultimately inconsequential on policy.

This 1000000%. You can measure Bush's presidency by how many Americans he got killed. And I fully believe that the PATRIOT Act is leagues beyond even the worst that Trump has done so far.

Cannot think of a name wrote:

Zurkerx wrote:
Well, it seems Klobuchar has benefited from some gain in these two polls that have been tracking voters choices.

Suffolk:

Sanders 24%
Buttigieg 22%
Warren 13%
Undecided 12% (This number is extremely important).
Biden 10%
Klobuchar 9%
Yang 3%
Steyer and Gabbard 2%

Emerson

Sanders 30%
Buttigieg 20%
Klobuchar 13%
Warren 12%
Biden 11%
Yang 4%
Gabbard 3%
Steyer 2%

From these polls yesterday, Klobuchar gained 3 and 4 points respectfully. If the Debate was a week before the primary, she could reach 15%. However, I don't think she has enough time to get to 15%. If she does, she certainly will battle for the mantle. Warren is certainly screwed in my opinion and honestly think she'll dropout after NH; she did cancel an ad buy in Nevada after all. Biden will continue to tank and that will show after NH. It's really now between Buttigieg and Klobuchar.

I'd be stunned if Warren dropped before Super Tuesday.

It's really going to depend how well she does and doing terrible in NH is not ideal for her: she should be polling second at least given she's from a neighbor State. She does bad here, she'll struggle the rest of the way and further make Bernie the Progressive Candidate. We'll have to see how voting goes on Tuesday but expect the unexpected they say.

Zurkerx wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote:I'd be stunned if Warren dropped before Super Tuesday.

It's really going to depend how well she does and doing terrible in NH is not ideal for her: she should be polling second at least given she's from a neighbor State. She does bad here, she'll struggle the rest of the way and further make Bernie the Progressive Candidate. We'll have to see how voting goes on Tuesday but expect the unexpected they say.

As long as she stays above Biden in delegate count she's still viable.

Cisairse wrote:

Zurkerx wrote:
It's really going to depend how well she does and doing terrible in NH is not ideal for her: she should be polling second at least given she's from a neighbor State. She does bad here, she'll struggle the rest of the way and further make Bernie the Progressive Candidate. We'll have to see how voting goes on Tuesday but expect the unexpected they say.

As long as she stays above Biden in delegate count she's still viable.

Warren? Sure, but there is something called momentum, and if she doesn't have that coming out of NH, she's toasted: she needs to do well in the State. Not to mention, she only leads Biden by two delegates (8 to 6), not really a big number.

Zurkerx wrote:

Cisairse wrote:
As long as she stays above Biden in delegate count she's still viable.

Warren? Sure, but there is something called momentum, and if she doesn't have that coming out of NH, she's toasted: she needs to do well in the State. Not to mention, she only leads Biden by two delegates (8 to 6), not really a big number.

Only by two delegates, but she beat him by seven points in the popular vote.

Bienenhalde wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Or they weren't inspired by her empty campaign

She was clearly more qualified than Trump. Even if she was "uninspiring", her clear superiority over Trump in terms of intelligence and experience should have given her an easy victory.

Should of, could of, would of. The reality is that despite her experience she was just utterly unlikable and rand a campaign that was more about her breaking the glass ceiling than anything else. The Democrats treated it like a coronation rather than a presidential campaign, and for some reason that just didnt resonate with voters. I've met few Democrats that were actually excited about Clinton. That's a problem when trying to get elected to the highest office.

Zurkerx wrote:

Cisairse wrote:
As long as she stays above Biden in delegate count she's still viable.

Warren? Sure, but there is something called momentum, and if she doesn't have that coming out of NH, she's toasted: she needs to do well in the State. Not to mention, she only leads Biden by two delegates (8 to 6), not really a big number.

By that logic neither is 4 or 5, the distance from second and first she is.

Zurkerx wrote:

Cisairse wrote:
As long as she stays above Biden in delegate count she's still viable.

Warren? Sure, but there is something called momentum, and if she doesn't have that coming out of NH, she's toasted: she needs to do well in the State. Not to mention, she only leads Biden by two delegates (8 to 6), not really a big number.

It's a bit early for the big mo yet

Cisairse wrote:

Zurkerx wrote:
Warren? Sure, but there is something called momentum, and if she doesn't have that coming out of NH, she's toasted: she needs to do well in the State. Not to mention, she only leads Biden by two delegates (8 to 6), not really a big number.

Only by two delegates, but she beat him by seven points in the popular vote.

Aye, but popular vote doesn't decide the nominee: delegates do, and I suspect neither Warren or Biden will reach the 15% threshold. It's not going to be a good showing for them either way.

Cannot think of a name wrote:

Zurkerx wrote:
Warren? Sure, but there is something called momentum, and if she doesn't have that coming out of NH, she's toasted: she needs to do well in the State. Not to mention, she only leads Biden by two delegates (8 to 6), not really a big number.

By that logic neither is 4 or 5, the distance from second and first she is.

I won't deny that, but she's not in a great position right now. As I mentioned above in this post, I don't see her getting 15%. Even if she does, she'll be a distant third, not what she needs in this crucial time.

Tarsonis wrote:

Zurkerx wrote:
Warren? Sure, but there is something called momentum, and if she doesn't have that coming out of NH, she's toasted: she needs to do well in the State. Not to mention, she only leads Biden by two delegates (8 to 6), not really a big number.

It's a bit early for the big mo yet

Maybe, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens. She has to recognize that staying in longer hurts a porgressive's chances of becoming the nominee.

The people on the bubble really are Yang, Steyer, and Gabbard. Bloomberg put all his chips on Super Tuesday.

Zurkerx wrote:

Cisairse wrote:
Only by two delegates, but she beat him by seven points in the popular vote.

Aye, but popular vote doesn't decide the nominee: delegates do, and I suspect neither Warren or Biden will reach the 15% threshold. It's not going to be a good showing for them either way.

Cannot think of a name wrote:By that logic neither is 4 or 5, the distance from second and first she is.

I won't deny that, but she's not in a great position right now. As I mentioned above in this post, I don't see her getting 15%. Even if she does, she'll be a distant third, not what she needs in this crucial time.

Tarsonis wrote:
It's a bit early for the big mo yet

Maybe, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens. She has to recognize that staying in longer hurts a porgressive's chances of becoming the nominee.

Maybe she's in it to win it? Not just for the progressive candidates

Tarsonis wrote:

Zurkerx wrote:
Aye, but popular vote doesn't decide the nominee: delegates do, and I suspect neither Warren or Biden will reach the 15% threshold. It's not going to be a good showing for them either way.



I won't deny that, but she's not in a great position right now. As I mentioned above in this post, I don't see her getting 15%. Even if she does, she'll be a distant third, not what she needs in this crucial time.



Maybe, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens. She has to recognize that staying in longer hurts a porgressive's chances of becoming the nominee.

Maybe she's in it to win it? Not just for the progressive candidates

They're all in it to win it though at some point, you have to recognize whether one can win realistically or not. I think she's starting to see that, and if she does bad in NH, she'll be out. By bad, I should specify that she gets under 15%, she's screwed.

Zurkerx wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Maybe she's in it to win it? Not just for the progressive candidates

They're all in it to win it though at some point, you have to recognize whether one can win realistically or not. I think she's starting to see that, and if she does bad in NH, she'll be out. By bad, I should specify that she gets under 15%, she's screwed.

Polls have her in third place both in NH and SC. She'll be in until super Tuesday. If for nothing else, than to take Massachusetts. She wins Mass she can run for governor or something.

Cannot think of a name wrote:The people on the bubble really are Yang, Steyer, and Gabbard. Bloomberg put all his chips on Super Tuesday.

None of them have any real chance. At this point, Yang and Gabbard are running to make a name for themselves, set up future career prospects, and spread their ideas - Gabbard with her opposition to regime change wars and Yang with universal basic income.

I would love to see Sanders make Gabbard his running mate or better yet, make her Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense, but I don't expect it. Relentless slander and libel against Gabbard has made her a problematic ally for Sanders. Even though Sanders is a principled man who sees through all the lies about Gabbard, he needs to make pragmatic choices. Warren is a more likely running mate.

Stelter and Bloomberg are going just because they can. Being billionaires, they have inflated egos. I think Steyer knows he's done. Bloomberg might be delusional enough to think he can win but after Super Tuesday he will have to face reality.

Page wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote:The people on the bubble really are Yang, Steyer, and Gabbard. Bloomberg put all his chips on Super Tuesday.

None of them have any real chance. At this point, Yang and Gabbard are running to make a name for themselves, set up future career prospects, and spread their ideas - Gabbard with her opposition to regime change wars and Yang with universal basic income.

I would love to see Sanders make Gabbard his running mate or better yet, make her Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense, but I don't expect it. Relentless slander and libel against Gabbard has made her a problematic ally for Sanders. Even though Sanders is a principled man who sees through all the lies about Gabbard, he needs to make pragmatic choices. Warren is a more likely running mate.

Stelter and Bloomberg are going just because they can. Being billionaires, they have inflated egos. I think Steyer knows he's done. Bloomberg might be delusional enough to think he can win but after Super Tuesday he will have to face reality.

There is no world in which Warren is Sander's running mate.

Cisairse wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Honestly, I think Bush in many ways posed a greater threat to individual rights than Trump does. Trump talks a lot of shit, but seems ultimately inconsequential on policy.

This 1000000%. You can measure Bush's presidency by how many Americans he got killed. And I fully believe that the PATRIOT Act is leagues beyond even the worst that Trump has done so far.

Didn’t Trump renew the Patriot Act?

https://youtu.be/qLz6ydbq3D8

I hope Warren wins just so we get more Kate McKinnon impersonation.

Tarsonis wrote:https://youtu.be/qLz6ydbq3D8

I hope Warren wins just so we get more Kate McKinnon impersonation.

Cool with it.

Kowani wrote:

Cisairse wrote:
This 1000000%. You can measure Bush's presidency by how many Americans he got killed. And I fully believe that the PATRIOT Act is leagues beyond even the worst that Trump has done so far.

Didn’t Trump renew the Patriot Act?

After our noble and brave Democratic defenders in the House reauthorized it, yes. Surely it's a wonderful idea to give the Very Stable Genius that sort of power.

Kowani wrote:

Cisairse wrote:
This 1000000%. You can measure Bush's presidency by how many Americans he got killed. And I fully believe that the PATRIOT Act is leagues beyond even the worst that Trump has done so far.

Didn’t Trump renew the Patriot Act?

So did Obama, and so did the Democrats who voted for its renewal. Honestly trying to pin the patriot act on the President is laughable deflection at how bipartisan the act has been.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Kowani wrote:Didn’t Trump renew the Patriot Act?

After our noble and brave Democratic defenders in the House reauthorized it, yes. Surely it's a wonderful idea to give the Very Stable Genius that sort of power.

I do love the interest of the MIC on our democracy.

Tarsonis wrote:

Kowani wrote:Didn’t Trump renew the Patriot Act?

So did Obama, and so did the Democrats who voted for its renewal. Honestly trying to pin the patriot act on the President is laughable deflection at how bipartisan the act has been.

Oh, I know. I’m just using Cis’ standards.