• 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

Section2mankini said:
I agree with you about what the narrative would've been. Pete's speech likely would've been similar. Bernie's almost certainly not. The last two days of the Pete Won narrative is what propelled him to +8 in the New Hampshire poll. Hard to argue Pete was hurt. Bernie would've most certainly had a surge of his own if the results were handled properly.
Click to expand...

/polls
 
Section2mankini said:
It doesn't really matter if you buy or care about that narrative. Pete got a huge, undeserved media bump over 2 days because he claimed to be victorious and the media gladly ran with it, claiming Pete won. Very different from results being properly released and him finishing second. Now he's +8 in the New Hampshire poll. Damage done.
Click to expand...

I am saying that the media narrative would have been the same no matter how fast or slowly the results came out. All the talk would have been about Pete beating all the expectations and he would have gotten the bump regardless. The effects of the IDP and the DNC fuck here are not really relevant to the NH primary...the big issue is that it gives people, like you, an opening to question the DNCs nominating process and whether the eventual nominee is legitimate. Those folks, like you, would have made the argument regardless but now they have “evidence” to back it up.
 
Section2mankini said:
The last two days of the Pete Won narrative is what propelled him to +8 in the New Hampshire poll. Hard to argue Pete was hurt. Bernie would've most certainly had a surge of his own if the results were handled properly.
Click to expand...

Link for both of these claims please?
 
DeaconSig said:
I was fairly certain Warren would win the nomination back in the fall. Now I would think Bernie has a 75% chance of winning, 15% chance for Bloomberg :)mattryan: ) and 10 percent for the field.
Click to expand...

If Biden falters, Bloomberg's odds (he is 2nd in betting odds right now) will dramatically increase.
 
birdman said:
I am saying that the media narrative would have been the same no matter how fast or slowly the results came out. All the talk would have been about Pete beating all the expectations and he would have gotten the bump regardless. The effects of the IDP and the DNC fuck here are not really relevant to the NH primary...the big issue is that it gives people, like you, an opening to question the DNCs nominating process and whether the eventual nominee is legitimate. Those folks, like you, would have made the argument regardless but now they have “evidence” to back it up.
Click to expand...

It's been Pete Won vs. Bernie Won but Pete Vastly Overperformed Expecations. In what world is that the same?

This is what I said:

I tried to withhold judgment for as long as I could because it brings me no pleasure to criticize our institutions. It hurts whoever the nominee ends up being, and that only hurts our chances to defeat Trump. But defeating Trump is not the end-all, be-all if the institutions for picking our nominee is this incompetent, corrupt, rigged (pick your adjective).
Click to expand...

So I've already said why it pains me to question the nominating process because it indeed brings up questions about the legitimacy of the eventual nominee. So in effect, questioning the process hurts who I believe (and the odds favor) will be the eventual nominee in Sanders.

But does that mean I shouldn't question the process if there is evidence it indeed is corrupt/rigged? Fuck no. Because I'm an American who believes in democracy and a fair process before I'm a Bernie supporter. Even if it ends up hurting my candidate in the end.

I most certainly would not have made the argument if there was no evidence. I don't roll that way. Why was my prediction correct? Because I saw how the process was rigged in 2016 and I understand that the fundamental structures which lead to institutional biases against Anti-Establishment candidates have not changed since then. Then I factored in the suspicious circumstances of the past few days into that base framework of understanding and put 1 and 1 together. To me, that's not conspiracy peddling, it's rational analysis.
 
We still don't even know if Bernie or Pete actually won, right?
 
Perez has to be finished. What an absurd suggestion and to do it as a tweet is ridiculous.

Iowa doesn’t matter now. It’s done. It’s over. Move to a popular vote.
 
Here’s Bloomberg saying some awful shit in 2016:

 
PhDeac said:
Perez has to be finished. What an absurd suggestion and to do it as a tweet is ridiculous.

Iowa doesn’t matter now. It’s done. It’s over. Move to a popular vote.
Click to expand...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top