• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

PhDeac said:
ITT the Bernie supporter says women and the gays are not electable
Click to expand...

Dude I’m not sure what you’re even arguing. I used a Pete quote about counting votes to say that’s a good way to decide elections, to which you said, the system is fine, we should elect a candidate who can win, to which I showed the current leading candidate, to which you say ah so you’re a sexist homophobe.
 
 
Toxic Bernie Bros pictured there indeed, I look forward to learning how getting out the vote and involving millions of first time voters in the democratic process is bad in the coming days and weeks.

Seems like the remaining votes and satellite caucuses may swing this final count back in Sanders’s favor anyway.
 
centerdeac said:
No, you have insulted Chris a lot and claimed your own candidate illegally had people fake move to Iowa to caucus. You've displayed a stunning lack of knowledge about who is in charge. In short, you have no credibility to make conspiracy claims.
Click to expand...

Are you Christopher's mommy? I'll edit my previous statement to say people temporarily moved to volunteer (not caucus) in Iowa. Happy? Stunning lack of knowledge about who is in charge? How so?

ETA: What a disingenuous/weaselly way of phrasing what I said: "claimed your own candidate illegally had people fake move to Iowa to caucus," as if I was suggesting Bernie would illegally encourage people to break the law.

Here is what I said. Replace the word "caucus" with "volunteer" (that was my mistake). I made no mention of Bernie encouraging anyone to do anything.

You hope Pete holds on because it amuses you that volunteers who spent hours, who in some cases temporarily moved to Iowa to caucus for someone who they believed actually wanted to improve peoples' lives might be upset that votes have been straight up manipulated?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
TownieDeac said:
Toxic Bernie Bros pictured there indeed, I look forward to learning how getting out the vote and involving millions of first time voters in the democratic process is bad in the coming days and weeks.

Seems like the remaining votes and satellite caucuses may swing this final count back in Sanders’s favor anyway.
Click to expand...

Townie, I love you and I usually agree with you. But those people are not the people that many are concerned about. It is the numerous examples of Bernie extremists that are Bernie or nothing that are concerning. And if it means Bernie has to be nominated so that they don't stay home or vote Trump, so be it. I don't care, I'd be happy with President Bernie. But denying the existence of Bernie Bros because there is legitimate reachout to multiple constituents and tentative signs of coalition building just just isn't possible. Both scenarios can exist simultaneously.
 
Robert M. Pirsig said:

That’s pretty condescending unless she absolutely knows those are new voters.

Otherwise it looks like she’s just making assumptions about working class minorities.
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
Townie, I love you and I usually agree with you. But those people are not the people that many are concerned about. It is the numerous examples of Bernie extremists that are Bernie or nothing that are concerning. And if it means Bernie has to be nominated so that they don't stay home or vote Trump, so be it. I don't care, I'd be happy with President Bernie. But denying the existence of Bernie Bros because there is legitimate reachout to multiple constituents and tentative signs of coalition building just just isn't possible. Both scenarios can exist simultaneously.
Click to expand...

If you don't mind me chiming in. Isn't it typically considered a strength if a candidate invokes passion amongst his/her supporters? Or are you arguing it's a bad thing that a candidate has passionate supporters, kinda like Trump, whose rallies draw huge crowds, similar to how Bernie draws huge crowds? Compare and contrast the size of Biden rallies with Bernie rallies before the Iowa caucuses and you'll see it's no surprise the passionate Bernie supporters showed up while Biden's did not, despite what the polls said. If the argument is electability, shouldn't the candidate most capable of getting the vote out be the nominee?

And why has this become such a big issue when it comes to Bernie, who by the way did 40 campaign rallies for Hillary after conceding (Hillary did less than 10 for Obama). I'm not sure if you remember what happened in 2008, when some Hillary supporters called themselves PUMAs (Party Unity My Ass). Obama still won the election.

https://www.salon.com/2008/06/23/pumas/
 
Robert M. Pirsig said:
She probably had a conversation with them. It's a caucus.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but she's the National Organizing Director for Bernie posting about pictures from four different tweets from at least two different caucus sites.


[h=1]How Pete Won[/h] [h=2]His success in Iowa is a template for victory in November.[/h]
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/pete-buttigieg-iowa-win.html

Several candidates, including Biden and Klobuchar, have promised to beat Trump by building a coalition that reaches beyond the left. But in Iowa, Buttigieg proved that he can put together that kind of coalition. He won decisively among caucusgoers who called themselves “somewhat liberal”—a segment that represented more than 40 percent of attendees—and he tied Biden for the lead among moderates. Among independents, he trailed Sanders but outpolled Biden. As of Wednesday morning, Buttigieg was winning 60 of Iowa’s 99 counties. Sanders had 18 counties. Biden had seven.

Buttigieg did well in nearly every demographic. He was the first choice among women and the second (behind Sanders) among men. He was the first choice among people ages 45 to 64, the second choice among those ages 30 to 44, and—contrary to expectations—the second choice among those ages 17 to 29. He came in first among caucusgoers who had college degrees and second among those who didn’t. He also performed better than expected among nonwhites. Sanders won that constituency easily, but Buttigieg, at 15 percent, led the pack of candidates who trailed behind.
On issue after issue, Buttigieg was either the favorite or second favorite candidate. Among caucusgoers who cared most about health care, he tied for the lead with Sanders. Among those who cared most about foreign policy, he came in second to Biden. Among those who focused on electability, he tied for the lead, drawing 24 percent to Biden’s 23 percent. Sanders got 31 percent of first-time caucusgoers, but Buttigieg was next with 25 percent. In precincts where supporters of marginal candidates had to disband and move to a second choice, the candidate they chose—twice as often as any other candidate—was Buttigieg. He won by being broadly acceptable.

Sanders did well, but he lost nearly half the people who had caucused for him in 2016. He also didn’t generate the extra turnout he had promised. And Biden grossly underperformed his polls, falling below 15 percent in many precincts—the threshold at which a candidate’s supporters have to disband—contrary to his advisers’ predictions. On most issues and among voters younger than 45, Biden came in fifth, behind Warren and Klobuchar.
Click to expand...
 
Ph, that article reminds me of the saying "there's lies, damned lies, and statistics." Iowa is 90% white. Pete's not gonna get it done nationally.

Lately, Buttigieg is doing great in Iowa polls and pretty well in New Hampshire polls, but he’s still behind former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren in many polls of Nevada and South Carolina, and in most national polls. Maybe this will change in the next few weeks, but for now, Buttigieg still isn’t that popular with Democrats, including white Democrats, outside of Iowa and New Hampshire. And Buttigieg, as Politico detailed recently, also has weak support among Latino Democrats, which partly explains his lower numbers in Nevada, where about 20 percent of Democratic caucus voters were Latino in 2016.

In other words, Buttigieg doesn’t have a ton of support overall, and is thus struggling with lots of groups.
“Why are Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire (basically all of whom are white) so enthralled with Pete Buttigieg?” is just as valid a question as “Why are black voters so not enthralled with Pete Buttigieg?”

Of course, this isn’t to say Buttigieg isn’t doing especially badly among black Democrats. He is. In the Quinnipiac survey, Buttigieg is at 23 percent among white Democrats and 4 percent among black Democrats. The Economist/YouGov survey put him at 16 among white Democrats and 2 percent among black Democrats.
Click to expand...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whats-really-behind-pete-buttigiegs-lack-of-support-among-black-voters/
 
It's almost as if he gambled on himself winning the first contest with hopes of carrying the momentum into future contests.

Wouldn't be shocked if he picks up some ground in NV and SC polls, too.

84476629_10110406613939091_3400879100678635520_o.jpg
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
Townie, I love you and I usually agree with you. But those people are not the people that many are concerned about. It is the numerous examples of Bernie extremists that are Bernie or nothing that are concerning. And if it means Bernie has to be nominated so that they don't stay home or vote Trump, so be it. I don't care, I'd be happy with President Bernie. But denying the existence of Bernie Bros because there is legitimate reachout to multiple constituents and tentative signs of coalition building just just isn't possible. Both scenarios can exist simultaneously.
Click to expand...

I just came across this twitter thread. I hadn't considered it from this perspective before and it took me several reads to get it, but it's an interesting take nonetheless.

 
centerdeac said:
Mayor Pete's lead all but gone with 97 percent in, 26.2 to 26.1.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/05/politics/democratic-primary-iowa-still-counting/index.html
Click to expand...

Ok this is basically everything the Bernie “conspiracy” folks were predicting. That the data being released earlier was cherry picked to spin a positive narrative for Pete. You also now have previously released precinct data which is different than the data being released by the Iowa DP. And guess who is missing votes? Bernie.

You Tammany bros have no problem with this? Its not suspicious at all?
 
rigging local elections, especially in big cities, was one of the key elements in the rebuilding of the dem party after the debacle of the Civil War; consequently, rigging elections has become central to the politics of the dems; please note, however, nowadays they don't even seem to be able to do it effectively anymore; what corruption! what incompetence! what dishonesty! but that is what the dems have become these days; nice job
 
sailordeac said:
rigging local elections, especially in big cities, was one of the key elements in the rebuilding of the dem party after the debacle of the Civil War; consequently, rigging elections has become central to the politics of the dems; please note, however, nowadays they don't even seem to be able to do it effectively anymore; what corruption! what incompetence! what dishonesty! but that is what the dems have become these days; nice job
Click to expand...

They should have asked the Ukrainians for help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top