Page 635 of 1172 FirstFirst ... 1355355856256316326336346356366376386396456857351135 ... LastLast
Results 9,511 to 9,525 of 17573
  1. #9511
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    24,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    Dominance politics. It's only going to get a lot uglier from his 'energetic fans', unfortunately, especially if Bernie continues to run full steam ahead with his wins, spearheaded by those who ardently believe in it like the so-called 'Dirtbag left', and further amplified fault lines by conservative elements and Russian troll factories. Rat$#$ing is what they'll both do, after all, playing up on this. It's what they've already BEEN doing. It's not enough to win, the 'other side' has to know it's been crushed. The art of leaving a way out to come over to your side is lost on many, as we see right here in this thread.

    For what it's worth, I think it's a mistake to say Sanders can't win, but I think the road is going to be a *lot* tougher than a lot of his biggest boosters think, and the outlook for downballot races worrisome. It's putting a lot of the seats won from the GOP by moderate Dems into some serious peril.
    While I'm not going to say that I can't see someone having that point of view...

    - We've already seen Democrats lose a bunch of Congressional seats when a moderate at the top of the ticket was running against Trump. To just assume that can't repeat itself is something that feels like it's ill-advised, to me.

    - Trump will be a President running for a second term. While it's obviously possible that this could be a break in how that pattern normally works, ruling out the idea that it will just because you put a moderate on the top of the ticket again feels sort of ill-advised.

    - If it's Bloomberg, does the "Moderate Still Has A Better Shot..." equation even work?

  2. #9512
    Ultimate Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    14,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    While I'm not going to say that I can't see someone having that point of view...

    - We've already seen Democrats lose a bunch of Congressional seats when a moderate at the top of the ticket was running against Trump. To just assume that can't repeat itself is something that feels like it's ill-advised, to me.
    There's no reason to make it anymore difficult for them, or to put them in the situation of having to run away from their own presidential candidate. That might help Sanders, but it's going to hurt them if their districts aren't up for electing the self-described socialist.

    - Trump will be a President running for a second term. While it's obviously possible that this could be a break in how that pattern normally works, ruling out the idea that it will just because you put a moderate on the top of the ticket again feels sort of ill-advised.
    It's like running a justice Dem, except for the entire country. It's an INCREDIBLY risky move when other candidates have polled more strongly and they don't exactly, as has been pointed out to no response several times in this thread, have the best track record at winning their seats.

    - If it's Bloomberg, does the "Moderate Still Has A Better Shot..." equation even work?
    Bloomberg is uniquely repulsive. A lot of conservative, racist dems won't mind his racism, but he'll be repulsive to everyone else. His billions make it hard to guess what a campaign between him and Trump would look like. That said, the RNC is running around with about a billion on hand compared to the Dem's paltry fundraising that has been split amongst the various candidates, and he's building an organization that he'll use to pummel Trump in the general.

  3. #9513
    Extraordinary Member PaulBullion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    8,388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    While I'm not going to say that I can't see someone having that point of view...

    - We've already seen Democrats lose a bunch of Congressional seats when a moderate at the top of the ticket was running against Trump. To just assume that can't repeat itself is something that feels like it's ill-advised, to me.
    Huh?
    Democrats gained seats in both the Senate and the House in the 2016 elections running with Hillary Clinton. Just not enough to undo the damage of the Tea Party, anti-Obamacare elections before.
    "How does the Green Goblin have anything to do with Herpes?" - The Dying Detective

    Hillary was right!

  4. #9514
    Ultimate Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    14,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulBullion View Post
    Huh?
    Democrats gained seats in both the Senate and the House in the 2016 elections running with Hillary Clinton. Just not enough to undo the damage of the Tea Party, anti-Obamacare elections before.
    I was looking into the numbers 'coz I could've sworn this was true. Didn't they pick up some in the House while losing a couple in the Senate, or was that a wash?

  5. #9515
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    24,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulBullion View Post
    Huh?
    Democrats gained seats in both the Senate and the House in the 2016 elections running with Hillary Clinton. Just not enough to undo the damage of the Tea Party, anti-Obamacare elections before.
    Yeah, I guess that putting it the way I did was not exactly the case while that they did not win the Senate Or The House back was.

    Knowing that's the case, the idea that a moderate will tip Senate and hold the House when it didn't happen with a moderate at the top of the ticket last time out.

    Edit:

    Besides that question mark, anyone with the nomination is going to have black sheep instances like Doug Jones that they probably will have trouble saving.
    Last edited by numberthirty; 02-23-2020 at 05:28 AM.

  6. #9516
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    24,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    I was looking into the numbers 'coz I could've sworn this was true. Didn't they pick up some in the House while losing a couple in the Senate, or was that a wash?
    While I'm obviously to be double-checked here, feels like it was one or two seat gain.

  7. #9517
    Ultimate Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    14,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    While I'm obviously to be double-checked here, feels like it was one or two seat gain.
    There was a net two seat gain for the Democrats. Trump is, after all, uniquely repulsive. So, yeah. Your argument doesn't hold when moderates lead the gains in 2016, and in 2018 to boot. XD

    Please don't mistake this for a love of American moderates. It's not.

  8. #9518
    Extraordinary Member PaulBullion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    8,388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    I was looking into the numbers 'coz I could've sworn this was true. Didn't they pick up some in the House while losing a couple in the Senate, or was that a wash?
    As far as I can find, net gains of 2 Senate seats and 6 House seats for Democrats in the 2016 elections.
    "How does the Green Goblin have anything to do with Herpes?" - The Dying Detective

    Hillary was right!

  9. #9519
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    4,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    Let's take a moment to look back at things that actually happened...

    When mainstream Dems lost the lost the lock/stock/barrel in 2016, they went to Sanders to give him a Senate leadership position after they face planted.

    If you are who they are going to try to get to lend them a hand, that help should come with a realistic amount of say in not screwing things up all over again.
    Sanders only got that position after he had "bargained" heavily for Hillary's endorsement, they didn't hand power over to him because he was a nice guy to them. What did Sanders do when they gave him it? He attacked them.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...each/93960822/

    “The Democratic Party has got to make it very clear that it is the party of working people in 50 states in this country, not just in New York and California,” he said then. “We’ve got a lot of work to do.”
    Now it's we, Bernie? It's not like he officially joined the party with this move.

  10. #9520
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    24,858

    Default

    One other thing that I did stumble across last night...

    Good on him. Not sure just what it spells out as far a how long he intends on staying in the running.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...-with-staffers

    Steyer campaign reaches tentative union deal with staffers

  11. #9521
    Invincible Jersey Ninja Tami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    32,107

    Default

    As Bernie Sanders’s momentum builds, down-ballot Democrats move to distance themselves

    Former astronaut Mark Kelly, the Democratic Party’s hope for flipping a U.S. Senate seat in Arizona, tried to do no harm this month when he was asked about Sen. Bernie Sanders. “I will ultimately support who the nominee is of the Democratic Party,” he said.

    That was enough for Kelly’s Republican rival, Sen. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.), who is trailing him in early polls, to go on the attack. The television spot she debuted days later spent nearly as much time talking about plans by the democratic socialist from Vermont to raise taxes and award new benefits to undocumented immigrants as it did about Kelly.

    As Sanders builds what could eventually be an insurmountable delegate lead, many Democratic House and Senate candidates are approaching a dramatic shift in their campaigns, as they recalibrate to include praise of capitalism and distance themselves from the national party. Top campaign strategists from both parties view Sanders’s success as a potentially tectonic event, which could narrow the party’s already slim hopes of retaking the Senate majority and fuel GOP dreams of reclaiming the House, which it lost amid a Democratic romp in 2018.
    Original join date: 11/23/2004
    Eclectic Connoisseur of all things written, drawn, or imaginatively created.

  12. #9522
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    24,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Inquisitor View Post
    Sanders only got that position after he had "bargained" heavily for Hillary's endorsement, they didn't hand power over to him because he was a nice guy to them. What did Sanders do when they gave him it? He attacked them.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...each/93960822/

    “The Democratic Party has got to make it very clear that it is the party of working people in 50 states in this country, not just in New York and California,” he said then. “We’ve got a lot of work to do.”
    Now it's we, Bernie? It's not like he officially joined the party with this move.
    You realize that he just one a caucus in one of those states last night, right?

    If they had made it as clear as he suggested in that piece?

    He may not have done so.

  13. #9523
    Extraordinary Member PaulBullion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    8,388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    You realize that he just one a caucus in one of those states last night, right?

    If they had made it as clear as he suggested in that piece?

    He may not have done so.
    Aren't you the guy who loves quoting posts with typos
    "How does the Green Goblin have anything to do with Herpes?" - The Dying Detective

    Hillary was right!

  14. #9524
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    24,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulBullion View Post
    Aren't you the guy who loves quoting posts with typos
    If that makes you feel better...

    Sure, I guess?

    Win is still a win even if someone "One", though...

    Know what I mean?

  15. #9525
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulBullion View Post
    Do you think Russian interference was enough to give Sanders more votes than the next two candidates combined?

    Quote Originally Posted by SquirrelMan View Post
    Can you imagine how much better the world were if left wingers had not pushed for Nader?
    If half of the Nader voters had backed Gore in New Hampshire, Florida would not have mattered.

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulBullion View Post
    Right now Sanders is a rather distant second place in Minnesota polling, behind Klobuchar, who isn't even viable. Isn't one lesson from 2016 that this means he cannot win?
    Rubio beat Trump in Minnesota.

    Kasich beat Trump in Ohio, but he still won by eight points.

    That said, the current Minnesota polls aren't bad for Sanders, showing him six points behind Klobuchar.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...mary-7035.html

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    I was looking into the numbers 'coz I could've sworn this was true. Didn't they pick up some in the House while losing a couple in the Senate, or was that a wash?
    You might be thinking of 2018, where Republicans lost the House but gained slightly in the Senate.

    A problem in 2016 for Democrats was that they made small gains, but Republicans had done well enough in the previous cycles (The 2010 Senate class was up for reelection as were candidates elected in the 2014 midterms) that it didn't matter.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •