Topic: 2020 Democrats - page 38. (Read 12658 times)

Steyer dropped out too, not that anyone actually cares.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/29/steyer-drops-out-of-2020-race-118370


I think this almost guarantees that Biden will get >15% in California.

Honorable move imo.  Nice run Pete.

I wonder if Biden offered him anything.

Pete Buttigieg suspends his campaign - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-drops-out.html

Let's get some context. 2008, Obama gets the nomination after he gets 48.1% of the delegates. Hillary Clinton got 48%

Obama clearly won.


In a race with many candidates and where Bernie has been cheated and will probably get cheated even more, I'd say a plurality of candidates is a victory. The only reason why there is a "debate" is the same reason why there is a debate in other issues where the establishment stands to lose.


So, you won't take the bet because Bernie is winning by my definition, which I believe to be the reasonable definition. The winner of an election being the one who got the most votes. On a technicality. A plurality of delegates in this case indicates that he would probably get the majority of the people in a 1 VS 1 election for the nomination.

So are you implicitly siding with the insiders? The people who are willing to discredit the United States democratic system and disenfranchise millions of young people?

I'm very biased on this issue, and believe that if he wins, they will steal it. However, for me to bet with you would truly be a gamble. I have no clue if he will get a very large or very small number of delegates.

Having said that, here is the interesting question (again, I am very biased). But this question is all that matters.

After the convention, Bernie will/will not be the Democratic presidential candidate.

Post SC forecasts show a 60% chance of a brokered convention.

Did you mean, after Bernie wins, will they try to steal the nomination from him?


I'm willing to bet 0.01 BTC that Bernie beats the competition if you're game. But Bernie getting over 50% of delegates I don't imagine is possible. Then again. I don't know enough about elections to forecast them.

I just know that a real movement like Bernie's trumps all these other pretenders.

Biden is a proven liar and ridiculously creepy, Elizabeth Warren is a snake.

Pete is already corrupt and he's barely a big player and I think enough people can see it.

There is no viable competition to Bernie. And as for Mike Bloomberg. I'd vote for Mike Hawk before I'd vote for that spoiled rich brat. (Mike Hawk is a joke, get it?) No matter how much money he throws out there, even if it's 100 Billion, he won't resonate with the people. Bernie has a million volunteers.

Edit: changed "be" to "he"

After Sanders loses, will he go away?

I didn't do my own math either but the NYT tracker says:


Currently the forecast for SC is 38 for Biden and 15 for Sanders, so Biden is about 7 delegates short of taking the lead.

NYTimes forecast shows Biden likely ending up delegate leader after tonight....I think?





Pre-SC counts:

Bernie Sanders 51

Joe Biden 40

Pete Buttigieg 26

Elizabeth Warren 8



If Forecast is right:

Joe Biden 78

Bernie Sanders 66

Pete Buttigieg 26

Elizabeth Warren 8


Might be time for Trump to cycle the Ukraine/Biden conspiracy theory back into his rants.

Will be interesting to see if Steyer drops before Tuesday.  He focused on SC more than any other candidate, spent over $150m,  and it's looking like he'll get 0 delegates for his effort.


Edit: my numbers above are a little off.  The pre-SC count includes a few early delegates that were awarded in SC.  suchmoon you're probably right, don't feel like doing any more delegate math at the moment.

In South Carolina Biden seems to be running well ahead of Sanders (~50% vs ~20%). Only 20% of the votes have been counted so far so it could change.

But even if the end result is similar, Biden would still be trailing in total delegate count.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/state/south-carolina

Next up is Super Tuesday.

Sure they can, by withdrawing support and allowing them to slip into irrelevance if they don't. This process is already well under way, and is the primary driver of the extremist left turn of The Democrat party. They realize they need change, but they are still making the wrong changes. Who said anything about sharing ideals? Does not the very concept of reform necessitate a change in ideals?

Trump is a good example of reform. Most of his platform would have been considered moderate or even liberal 20 years ago. The Republicans just got the first mover advantage on reform and The Democrats are desperately still trying to push The Overton window further left, making moderates and classic liberals appear right leaning in comparison.

What do you mean being forced to reform? Who can force them to reform? No one, no one at all can force them to reform.

How in gods name did I prove your point by saying that Andrew Yang ran as a Democrat? Just because you run on the party line doesn't mean you're a member of the party or share the ideals of the party.

I would say that Donald Trump, as a candidate, was a moderate on a good deal of issue and only ran on the Republican ticket because that's the only way you're able to win.

Andrew Yang did the same thing. You're not able to gain as much relevance if you run as a third party candidate. Like right now if I began to run on South Carolina as a democrat and picked up one delegate, I'd be able to be on the debate stage -- that's the reason people run. They get a platform. Even if they don't agree with the party they're running with.

I wouldn't describe someone like Bloomberg as a Democrat in the least, but he runs on their ticket as that's the only way to be able to win.

Who said anything about them wanting to reform? They are currently being forced to reform like it or not. The Democrat party's actions have become so unpopular, in order to continue existing as an effective party, they are being forced to change, or be abandoned. Andrew Yang ran as a Democrat, not a third party, so you are kind of proving my point.

I think Bloom has a personality disorder in a different direction than Trump, but not altogether dissimilar.

But why did you miss out on the most important thing happening?

The opportunity for voters to vote for TOTAL BS!

I agree that Bloomberg had a better night than the previous debate.  He even tried a little self-deprecating humor, which made him seem more human, less robotic.  I don't know if he's just deadpan all the time, or if he's thinks he's being professional by minimizing his facial expressions.  Regardless of his demeanor, and despite his wealth he struck me as the most "down-to-earth" and rational person on the stage last night. 

I have to disagree with about Joe's performance.  Every time he speaks it's a guessing game of whether he's going to say something coherent, or go off on some loopy senile tangent.  It's getting to be that the former is more surprising than the latter.  Even when he is coherent, he's obviously searching for and stumbling over words.  The stuttering isn't helping him either.

Bernie was being Bernie, and last night might be the beginning of the end for him.  Maybe Bloomberg paid off the audience to boo Bernie, or maybe the Democratic party is finally waking up from it's WOKENESS and seeing his socialist policies for what they are; un-American.  The rest of the candidates seemed fake and orchestrated.  Warren always seems fake.  Klobuchar seems like she's still stumbling through the process, even surprising herself that she's still in the race.  Tom Steyer (I thought he dropped out already!) looks like a water-logged bobble-head doll, and sounds like a broken record stuck on Trump Derangement.

DireWolfM14's award for the most highly-polished empty suit goes to Pete Buttigieg.  Every thing that comes out his mouth sounds like scripted, oxygen wasting empty noise.

If I were to base my predictions on last night's debate alone, I would say that Bloomberg is only on that stage that has half a prayer to beat Trump in November.

Not sure of that, what reason would the parties want to be reformed and how would they be reformed? A party is like a private company, they cant be forced by the government to change things just cause they want to. The parties (from within) are the only chance to change things, which I think limits the ability for this change to happen without some sort of 3rd party challenge.

That's how a good deal of change (politically) has happened in America. A 3rd party has grown, or brings some sort of idea to the forefront of politics, and one of the 2 big parties uses that ideas and runs with it.

That's why someone like Andrew Yang ran for office. He knew he wasn't going to win, but he wanted to bring the information relate to UBI to the people.

We have a better chance reforming the existing parties. Both have gone through lots of change. IMO the Republicans have made some improvements while the Democrats are in full reverse.

Yep, even in countries with large numbers of parties -- at the end of the day these parties typically end up in a coalition with two large groups. One being the people in power, and the others being apart of the opposition.

It's just a more complex way of going to two parties again.

Though I think in the US when we talk about having a third party, we think and talk about this party taking the place of one of the other two. At least that's what I think.

Bloomberg had an infinitely better night than he did in his first debate but his answers don't have the same charismatic delivery as other candidates. He kinda abruptly cuts off his answers and it's clear he isn't a good debater even when he's more prepared. Aside from that, this crowd was extremely pro-Bloomberg who were erupting in cheers even for his stupid awkwardly ending answers. Wonder if he bought out the audience with tickets. Any time Warren would attack Bloomberg about his NDA's and the whole "kill it" regarding a women being pregnant at his company, the audience boo'd at Warren. The crowd was also anti-Bernie who boo'd at him when he attacked Bloomberg. I think the candidates are finally coming around to attacking Sanders seeing as he's the clear front-runner. Both Pete and Klobuchar attacked Bernie whenever they got the opportunity. We're getting to the point in the debates now that each candidate is saying the same thing over in different words. Nothing new is being added here.

I liked Joe Biden's performance tonight but the tough guy persona he's trying to portray by yelling is answers out in a firm tone is getting obnoxious at this point. You watch Biden's debate performances early on in the election cycle and he was soft spoken so it's clear his pollsters told him to shout his answers aggressively as if that will do something. Completely bizarre.


On an unrelated note - go back to 2016 where this race was a two person race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Now, you have a solid 5 candidates for voters to choose from which is eerily similar to the 2016 Republican primary where an unpopular and, at the time, non-electable candidate Trump won the nomination because too many candidates crowded the field to the point where Trump was able to come in and take a plurality of the delegates. That's exactly what Sanders is going to do this year which he couldn't accomplish last election. If it was Bernie vs. a moderate head to head in a two person race, I think Bernie loses. The best thing that happen to Sanders is entering a crowded field which is how Trump was able to win the Republican primary in 2016.