• 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

MHBDemon said:
Here’s Bloomberg saying some awful shit in 2016:

Click to expand...

Why are Bernie people lashing out at the gay candidate instead of the anti-trans billionaire?
 
DistrictDeacon said:
"Corporate media" = one incorrectly read chart, one Slate headline, and a tweet from a CNN reporter?
Click to expand...

"Pete Won" is not an actual media narrative down here on Planet Reality.
Click to expand...

The NYT needle is now a thing because it was an actual media narrative. There were numerous other examples if you were paying attention. You're either being disingenuous or haven't been paying attention.

What, according to you, was the media narrative regarding Pete the last few days?
 
Have their been any “Buttigieg Wins Iowa” headlines?
 
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...

I was the same with Warren. But I still wouldn't count her out. I also wouldn't give Sanders a 75% chance of winning - winning being defined as getting to 1990. A lot of this depends how long it takes to kill off Biden. If he is done before ST, then the question is do moderate Dems rally behind Bloomberg or Buttigieg. And I don't see Warren leaving the race anytime soon. This race could take a few different turns over the next 3 months, and I still think there is a good chance no candidate reaches 1990, which is why Warren should stick this thing out. The quicker Biden exits stage left, the better.

Somewhere in Washington, Cory Booker is trying to get a grasp on how the remaining 2 mainstream Dems remaining are former mayors of South Bend and NYC.
 
MHBDemon said:
Here’s Bloomberg saying some awful shit in 2016:

Click to expand...

I mean Michael Bloomberg is objectively a piece of shit. Talk to anybody who lived under his time as mayor and they'll agree. I would take anybody in this field including Marianne, Tulsi, and Bennet over that clown.
 
Section2mankini said:
The NYT needle is now a thing because it was an actual media narrative. There were numerous other examples if you were paying attention. You're either being disingenuous or haven't been paying attention.

What, according to you, was the media narrative regarding Pete the last few days?
Click to expand...

Numerous other examples that you can't point to.

The actual media narrative, for those of us who don't get all their news from unhinged basement Twitter, is that Bernie and Pete are virtually tied for the lead, which means that Pete outperformed expectations. And that they will ultimately be separated by 0-1 delegates.
 
Strickland33 said:
Why exactly, Sig?
Click to expand...

Because he is old as fuck, to start. And he doesn't have an exactly illustrious history of accomplishing anymore than jack or shit.

I'm not opposed to Sanders on policy grounds. Its why I wish he would have fucked off and let Warren run. But something tells me the section2s and mhbs of the world would not have been as vociferous in their support of Warren, for reasons no one can explain.

I will do whatever I can to help a 78 year old guy get elected if he is running against President Trump. But outside of that, I can't imagine a situation where I would want a 78 year old in charge of anything. Its 50/50 whether he can even wipe his own ass in 2 years.
 
So how has Sanders pulled even with Buttigieg? By doing extremely well at satellite caucuses, or the alternative caucus sites for people who couldn’t make a regular caucus (e.g., people who live out of state, or locals who simply couldn’t go on Monday evening).

A savvy campaign might have realized the potential to run up its state-delegate-equivalent score by encouraging its supporters to attend satellite caucuses, and that seems to be what the Sanders campaign did; according to The Intercept, it devoted a lot of effort to getting out the vote at satellite sites, while no other campaign paid the satellites much heed. Apparently, it paid off: So far, Sanders has gotten 21.855 state delegate equivalents out of the satellite caucus sites, and Buttigieg has gotten 1.196.
Click to expand...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/satellite-caucuses-give-a-surprise-boost-to-sanders-in-iowa/

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