Question about dropping out (as it's been a long time, and I wasn't paying too much attention last two times), when do people drop out? Usually? I know a few have already, but does it change election to election based on where they are putting all their eggs in the basket? Or is Super Tuesday where the herd will whittle down to four?
So based on South Carolina, why wouldn't the candidates who've never broken into the top 3 in any of the four states not drop out by now? Or are they holding on to get the VP spot? I know it's a complex question, but would you say the over-ridding reason is a) ego, b) misguided hope things turn around, c) using the opportunity to increase their profile, d) angling for VP
Looking at the 2016 race, obviously it increased Sanders profile. But looking at the others... one of the biggest ones was Martin O'Malley, who I haven't heard of before or since. Same for Lincoln Chaffee. The name Jim Webb is ringing a bell. And looking at it, Hilary picked Tim Kaine as her VP??? So I guess that shoots my fourth option out the window...
YEY! Come though, Carmela Caligula!
Genuine question, why is the New York Times bad? One of the few newspapers I've heard of.
"We are Shakespeare. We are Michelangelo. We are Tchaikovsky. We are Turing. We are Mercury. We are Wilde. We are Lincoln, Lorca, Leonardo da Vinci. We are Alexander the Great. We are Fredrick the Great. We are Rustin. We are Addams. We are Marsha! Marsha Marsha Marsha! We so generous, we DeGeneres. We are Ziggy Stardust hooked to the silver screen. Controversially we are Malcolm X. We are Plato. We are Aristotle. We are RuPaul, god dammit! And yes, we are Woolf."
I have a hypothical, unlikely as it may be.
If Sanders, for whatever reason (maybe health, who knows), suspends his campaign (drops out) before Super Tuesday, which of the remaining candidates would benefit from it the most? Biden? Warren? Buttegeig? Klobachar? Bloomberg?
Original join date: 11/23/2004
Eclectic Connoisseur of all things written, drawn, or imaginatively created.
A bat! That's it! It's an omen.. I'll shall become a bat!
Pre-CBR Reboot Join Date: 10-17-2010
Pre-CBR Reboot Posts: 4,362
THE CBR COMMUNITY STANDARDS & RULES ~ So... what's your excuse now?
I'm always reminded of the quote by one of the greatest tennis player of all time, proud lesbian and multifaceted activist Martina Navratilova "Whenever people go into politics and they try to say that Communism was a good thing, I say, 'Go ahead and live in a Communist country then, if you think it's so great.' " She defected to America to escape communism.!
Good to know. Interesting. I did not know you were a Warren supporter. Good to know.
Honestly, yes. Well I suppose "idiots" would be the third, people too stupid to realise how their hate and vile online behaviour is alienating possible support. But other than that, I just don't see what is achieved by being so hostile and nasty on Twitter? Those are literally the only two options I can think of a) secret Trump bot, b) hateful, nasty person who enjoys spreading bile regardless of consequence.
I know there's that myth of "no press is bad press" but it's patently not true, in specific circumstances (#MeToo proved that). So I can't image it's "getting their name out there regardless of how" (purely by reminding people how horrible Sanders supporters are, ergo Sanders gets his name out there). But hey... would love to hear the illusive fourth option...
"We are Shakespeare. We are Michelangelo. We are Tchaikovsky. We are Turing. We are Mercury. We are Wilde. We are Lincoln, Lorca, Leonardo da Vinci. We are Alexander the Great. We are Fredrick the Great. We are Rustin. We are Addams. We are Marsha! Marsha Marsha Marsha! We so generous, we DeGeneres. We are Ziggy Stardust hooked to the silver screen. Controversially we are Malcolm X. We are Plato. We are Aristotle. We are RuPaul, god dammit! And yes, we are Woolf."
First, I guess "Some Variation Of 'Idiot'..." could be something of a third option. While I don't exactly get being a tune up artist, I guess it's not completely outside of the realm of possibility.
As for the "Actual..." third option -
There's really not a group that could stand to gain something from doing this when you look at it? Really?
Original join date: 11/23/2004
Eclectic Connoisseur of all things written, drawn, or imaginatively created.
"We are Shakespeare. We are Michelangelo. We are Tchaikovsky. We are Turing. We are Mercury. We are Wilde. We are Lincoln, Lorca, Leonardo da Vinci. We are Alexander the Great. We are Fredrick the Great. We are Rustin. We are Addams. We are Marsha! Marsha Marsha Marsha! We so generous, we DeGeneres. We are Ziggy Stardust hooked to the silver screen. Controversially we are Malcolm X. We are Plato. We are Aristotle. We are RuPaul, god dammit! And yes, we are Woolf."
I was just making a joke by calling them what Trump calls them. The (failing) NYT is mostly fine, they tend to be one of the few credible and objective news sources though just given where they are based and who writes for them, they tend to have a bit of an elitist streak and, while not as bad as the Washington Post in this regard, tend to portray pro-establishment opinions that often go against the wishes of the public at large. For example, despite their supposed liberal bias, both papers tend to run a steady stream of articles pushing an aggressive and expansionist approach to international relations, because this goes along with the so-called "bipartisan foreign policy consensus" that has been in effect for about as long as anyone can remember. In this particular case, despite the fact that they had earlier and quite comically endorsed BOTH Warren and Klobuchar for president, you could definitely tell that they were in the tank for Biden and were keen to present this as an overwhelming victory for him even without any votes being counted. Sure you could say they had exit polling data to go off of or whatever, but can you imagine them calling any race for Bernie before a single vote was counted, whatever the exit polls said?