| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
Say what you want about her, Tusli is very liberal.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
On Recounts:
In Wisconsin if the gap is .5 or less the state pays for it, if it is larger then the party must pay for it. Today's the deadline.
I think DNC would qualify for a recount in MI.
Pennsylvania is the trickiest. DNC doesn't have a gap small enough to constitute one statewide recount yet, but it can be done on a county by county basis if 3 residents from a county ask for one.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 1,311
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lord Blackout
So, basically, Biden won ONE poll? Way to prove me wrong.
Biden did not win that debate.
|
What on earth, are you on about?
'A CBS poll of uncommitted voters found that 50% of those viewers thought Biden did better, 31% thought Ryan did better, and 19% thought they tied.[39] A Reuters poll indicated Biden the superior candidate, 42% to 35% with 23% undecided or believing they tied.[40] A CNN poll of debate watchers found that 48% of viewers believed Ryan had done better, 44% believed Biden had done better, and 8% believed they tied or had no opinion; CNN noted that the debate audience polled was about eight percentage points more Republican than the general population.[41] Nate Silver's analysis of polling after the debate led to his concluding that, though both debaters performed adequately, Biden's performance helped to slow the momentum of the Romney campaign following the first presidential debate.[42]'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ul-ryan-debate
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2012/...dential-debate
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/12/po...hings-learned/
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...laugh-20121012
Shall I continue with the receipts or?
There was actually a lot riding on that debate after Obama's performance against Romney. The story of that night was Biden settled things for the campaign and got things back on track.
As for Biden as the nominee: he wouldn't be perfect, and in 2020 will be too old. The Dems need someone fresh. But he would have beaten Trump. Sure, modern-progressives would have hammered home on his record in certain areas. But a lot of progressives are in places that will go blue anyway. Biden in my opinion, would have appealed a lot more to MI, PA, and WI. He would have beaten Trump.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 28,773
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ramcoro
How can both lose at the same time?
|
If it was Hillary vs Trump, Bernie vs Trump, not all 3 competing at once 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ramcoro
How can both lose at the same time?
|
Hypothetical. If Bernie won the nomination but still lost the presidency.
Would we be seeing "Ugh we should've picked Hillary" posts? The only way we'll know how both scenarios would work out is if Bernie runs in 2020.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
Betty's coming for the ladies too:
The DeVos-Prince clan are vicious homophobes who have spent vast sums of money to stop gay marriage and abortion.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/8/2014
Posts: 6,940
|
Quote:
Originally posted by LuLuDrops
Her comments on civil unions in 2004 will sink ha. If Hillary was crucified for man-woman marriage made a decade earlier then Tulsi will be scorched for her past "homosexual extremists" flub.
|
Tulsi 2013:
"I strongly disagree with a two-tiered, discriminatory government policy of ‘marriage’ and ‘civil unions.’ Government officials, judges, and bureaucrats should not have the power to declare one relationship ‘morally’ superior to another.
"However, as long as government is involved in the marriage business, it must recognize and treat all Americans as equal. I fully support equal rights, benefits, and privileges for everyone regardless of their sexual orientation. Those in same-sex relationships should not be denied by the government the right to marry and enjoy the same benefits, rights, and responsibilities as heterosexual married couples."
Feel the aloha. Who cares about the past, Democrats need to focus on the future.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 28,773
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Jacketh
What on earth, are you on about?
'A CBS poll of uncommitted voters found that 50% of those viewers thought Biden did better, 31% thought Ryan did better, and 19% thought they tied.[39] A Reuters poll indicated Biden the superior candidate, 42% to 35% with 23% undecided or believing they tied.[40] A CNN poll of debate watchers found that 48% of viewers believed Ryan had done better, 44% believed Biden had done better, and 8% believed they tied or had no opinion; CNN noted that the debate audience polled was about eight percentage points more Republican than the general population.[41] Nate Silver's analysis of polling after the debate led to his concluding that, though both debaters performed adequately, Biden's performance helped to slow the momentum of the Romney campaign following the first presidential debate.[42]'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ul-ryan-debate
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2012/...dential-debate
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/12/po...hings-learned/
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...laugh-20121012
Shall I continue with the receipts or?
There was actually a lot riding on that debate after Obama's performance against Romney. The story of that night was Biden settled things for the campaign and got things back on track.
As for Biden as the nominee: he wouldn't be perfect, and in 2020 will be too old. The Dems need someone fresh. But he would have beaten Trump. Sure, modern-progressives would have hammered home on his record in certain areas. But a lot of progressives are in places that will go blue anyway. Biden in my opinion, would have appealed a lot more to MI, PA, and WI. He would have beaten Trump. |
Continue with what? Opinion pieces from liberal sources? Paul won way more polls. That's the only objective metric here.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MonsterPaw
Tulsi 2013:
"I strongly disagree with a two-tiered, discriminatory government policy of ‘marriage’ and ‘civil unions.’ Government officials, judges, and bureaucrats should not have the power to declare one relationship ‘morally’ superior to another.
"However, as long as government is involved in the marriage business, it must recognize and treat all Americans as equal. I fully support equal rights, benefits, and privileges for everyone regardless of their sexual orientation. Those in same-sex relationships should not be denied by the government the right to marry and enjoy the same benefits, rights, and responsibilities as heterosexual married couples."
Feel the aloha. Who cares about the past, Democrats need to focus on the future.
|
I agree and I would vote for her, but I'm saying the bar for Democrats has been set so high that anything in their past will be used against them, even things that had nothing to do with them as we witnessed when Bill's infidelities took center stage as if Hillary was the one who cheated 
It used to be the Republicans who feared flubs, but now they have a teflon candidate who might be re-elected so the Democrats will have to be squeaky clean from the beginning of their careers.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
I'm looking at 2012 polls. The race was always 1-3+ margins in both favors the entire election.
Polls taken shortly after the Romney v Obama debate (October 3) saw a shift of Obama up 1-3 points to a 1-3 lead for Romney. After the VP debate (October 11), polls taken right after went from Romney up 1-3 points to Obama up 1-3 points.
As Nate Silver said, Biden helped recover for Obama's poor performance even if he didn't win the debate.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...171.html#polls
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 25,228
|
Quote:
Originally posted by King Maxx
Imo it's about who can best bring the Democrats together to win not only the presidency, but down ballots.
Bernie could win in 2020 and pick someone younger as his VP who could run in his place in 2024 if he chooses not to seek reelection. It could work. He could have a big impact as a one term president (LBJ style)
But who knows how he'll feel in 3 years. I just don't see who else would work. Kamala and the others will have only been in the Senate for a short time. They are better for 2024/2028.
|
Harris would make an excellent VP choice for whoever wins the nomination in 2020. Set her up for the future.
I don't think she should run in 2020 though.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 1,311
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike91
I don't think she should run in 2020 though.
|
Why not?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
Nation's Largest Labor Union Denounces "Failed" Education Policies Of Trump Nominee
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
I'm trying to think of what the GOP could hit liberal darlings on in the future.
Did Liz really exaggerate on ha heritage or is that some Breitbart bs? 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 28,773
|
Quote:
Originally posted by LuLuDrops
I'm trying to think of what the GOP could hit liberal darlings on in the future.
Did Liz really exaggerate on ha heritage or is that some Breitbart bs? |
Unproven on both sides
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 25,228
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Jacketh
Why not?
|
She's too inexperienced and we need someone who can fight Trump's populism. Of course that's assuming he's not impeached.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 14,905
|
Quote:
|
We need to raise over $2 million by this Friday, 4pm central.
|
JILL YOU ARE OFF YOUR ****ING ROCKER SIS. $2.5 MILLION IN 2 DAYS??
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/29/2010
Posts: 29,249
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lord Blackout
|
The Clinton camp should just donate the money. Clinton gets to save face if there were no significant irregularities.
Here for the mess.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 25,228
|
I've never understood the Elizabeth Warren Native American criticism.
1. She never used it to get ahead. Harvard themselves confirmed that.
2. It's not uncommon for people to believe they are of certain heritages, etc when they're told that at a young age and it end up not being true.
Not to mention, it's not even confirmed that she isn't Native American, is it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
