They won't be that off. Biden has barely been in California and has like one office there. He's been struggling for money for awhile.
RCP has Bernie at 34%, 17.3%, and Biden at 13%. If he won California it would probably go down as one of the greatest primary upsets in history.
You still need people to vote for them. Bloomberg is a classic example of how money doesn't ALWAYS talk. And it's assuming people only give money for nefarious reasons, rather than actually believing in the candidate. I really don't see how $50 million is "fairer" than $25 million. I just don't. Ultimately the advantage is with who has THE MOST money, not who got the largest lump sum in one go.
In the nicest possible way America elected Trump, so I'm not too sad if I'm not aligning with their views on how politics should be done (I mean in my life time TWO presidents have gotten in without winning the public vote, what's that about???)
We also agree on abortion. I'd be surprised to find any candidate I couldn't find one policy with which I don't agree. Doesn't make us simpatico. I will also add... while Sanders continues to spend more money than the others, to me, it feels like "one rule for him, one for the others". If he believed in fairness he'd stop spending till the others catch-up.
I think there should be a cap, a LOW cap. And once you hit it... pffff. You can't spend anymore (or accept any donations of any kind, including posters, flyers, transport, nothing). Would make a much fairer race, more about issues than money.
Last edited by Kieran_Frost; 03-01-2020 at 03:08 PM.
"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."
All the Democratic presidential candidates, except for Bernie Sanders, are in Selma today for 55th anniversary of Bloody Sunday. Rally outside Brown Chapel AME Church. https://t.co/tsOk0twLSA
Has Bernie given up on black voters after they rejected him in South Carolina?
However if Biden were to do a little better, it would matter a lot in terms of the 415 delegates in play in California.
Biden at 13% gets delegates in a handful of districts, as Sanders gets a lot closer to the 1,991 needed to get a majority of delegates.
Biden at 20% gets delegates all over the state, and keeps Sanders from running away with it.
There are other questions in the delegate math, as Warren and Bloomberg have support that's pretty close to what Biden has.
It's also going to take a long time to determine how many delegates were won, as California allows for voting by mail, as long as it's in the mail by election day.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
And bribery under the table once they're in office, and political strong-arming from other politicians who are funded by x, y and z, and yadda yadda. It comes from all angles, and there are a great many ways politicians can make 'deals' and 'agreements' in the run-up that aren't necessarily monetary in support. I'm sorry, I don't see the problem (or to phrase it a different way I don't see why THIS specific problem trumps all other problems of corruption that cynically you could say is an inevitable consequence for nearly all politicians across the board). One could argue ANY promise of "a better life" for the voters is a bribe. So if the voters are giving donations on these promises, they are expecting this 'deal' to be made in a kind of contract. I certainly felt Corbyn promising to erase all student debt was a giant BRIBE to students during the election in 2017 (one he admitted the week after the election they wouldn't have been able to do). You vote for me, I erase your debt, etc, etc.
I don't see how $50 million in spending is "fairer" than $25 million. And the fact everyone keeps avoiding that question and dancing round it... tells me all I need to know.
Who's the 17.3%?
What?
"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."
Yeah, sorry. I'm writing on my phone, so I have to shorten when I'm riding in the car. But yes, numberthirty is who I was referring to.
Long answer, what do you think?Short answer: nope.
Cant recall the name but it was on Al Jazeer's 101 East series. They were covering aspects of certain factories, and one guy was saying that they did try to do a union, but the government was cracking down on that.Ohhhh, do you happen to remember what is was called (and more importantly, can I watch it on Netflix ).
Thank you! Typed it wrong.
****, dude should be out there, but I guess that he's betting on Cali.
Last edited by Darkspellmaster; 03-01-2020 at 03:41 PM.
As for the whole "Promise Of A Better Life..." bribe that John/Jane Public are supposed to be paying some kind of a bribe for?
- Look at the cost of Insulin in The United States for the last twenty years.
The idea is just kind of laughable if you try to stack it up against what corporations have got for their political spending.