Jump to content

lancerman

Members
  • Content count

    1,674
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About lancerman

Recent Profile Visitors

2,125 profile views
  1. lancerman

    US Politics: What goes up, must come down!

    From MA. It's super liberal in the cities and more importantly out in the middle of the state with Amherst/Northampton. Suburbs are somewhat moderate/conservative and the then there are little Kennedy strongholds that still remain. Also people don't vote on total ideology. Obama's still popular and he was a Democrat, that helps Biden there. Things like that.
  2. lancerman

    US Politics: What goes up, must come down!

    You'd be so surprised how many people don't know a thing about politics.
  3. lancerman

    US Politics: What goes up, must come down!

    If you ask Sanders supporters why they choose him over other progressives like Warren, often times you will hear "Bernie's been saying this stuff for 40 years". Yeah to alot of them his conistency matters. Sanders has a machine right now at the grass roots level. He's the only candidate besides Bloomberg who doesn't have a money problem. He doesn't need it. If Bloomberg wants to help he should go all in on the Senate races and spend all his money there
  4. lancerman

    US Politics: What goes up, must come down!

    This debate was a hellhole and it's pretty much being universally critcized. If anything it probably solidified the truth that anybody with a pulse should have saw coming when this race started. It's coming down to Sanders vs Biden. Post debate polls are showing that most people are saying they "won". Bernie got hit but nothing major like Kamala did to Biden or Gabbard to Kamala. Biden looked half decent which means he likely does well in SC and a few of the more Southern states on Super Tuesday to keep him viable. When the dust clears next Tuesday, Bernie should have a lead and Biden whould be the only one with a shot to beat him. Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Warren should drop the hell out. Then in the end it really comes down to Bloomberg's ego. Will be interesting to see. Sanders vs Biden is easily the most even match up they probably have.
  5. lancerman

    US Politics: What goes up, must come down!

    Exactly, you aren't losing a seat. And 99% of Americans aren't paying attention to a governor race in Florida. The perception of losing matters more than losing. It doesn't effect Bernie because enough people think he got screwed. Biden visibly lost a few states the last few weeks and polls shifted. Right or wrong that's the way things work. You don't even need to win Florida with him. You need to make it enough of a race to spend resources there and focus somewhere else and spread them thin.
  6. lancerman

    US Politics: What goes up, must come down!

    I don't think Bernie as a Senator should pull another Senator. I'd say maybe Gillum. Popular in Florida, shores up some African American support, is 40 so you have the youth thing, moderates don't hate him, he's not completely off base ideologically, and he doesn't compromise a current Democratic seat somewhere.
  7. lancerman

    US Politics: What goes up, must come down!

    That wouldn't be good enough I'm afraid. It's not enough to disown those supporters on a debate stage which is literally the most visible platform he has or to fire the guy. He needs to flog himself in penance and take a walk of shame through King's Landing. Listen, it's right to critcize bad behavior. However, at some point once people are fired and he's spoken out multiple times it kinda goes from actual critcism to just political gamesmanship (like how a certain Pete Buttigieg only started talking about it once he started facing the prospects of not doing well in an election)
  8. lancerman

    US Politics: What goes up, must come down!

    I don't think there is a single narrative that didn't have Biden as a clear winner in SC. That was his money state in the opening. If he can't win it, he really needs to get the hell out of the race. Even the biggest Sanders supporters or Biden hater have to think that's in the cards. Especially since by all accounts Clyburn is going to endorse him Wednesday. I think the really situation now is the map. South Carolina is Saturday. That means for most of the country you have two days to shape narratives and change momentum before Super Tuesday resets the stage. That's probably the biggest thing Sanders has going for him as many pundits pointed out. This is a tough schedule for someone to stop him. Personally I think the debate tomorrow will be more impactful than SC. If Biden wins, it's kind of a "yeah you were supposed to win that one" and still might not mean much with all the Super Tuesday early voting going on and then the short turn around. But a particularly bad debate performance... now that's something that will get play all week long going into Super Tuesday. If I was all the other candidates, I get dirty and hit Bernie Sanders with everything I got right now because you don't want to let him continue to roll. If he's up big at the end of that day, it's going to be near impossible to turn it around. If I'm Sanders campaign, I am planning for the debate of the election tomorrow. I'm forming some alliance with Warren so she can dilute the attacks by going after Pete and Bloomberg again. I'm thinking of how many ways to call Bloomberg a racist who shouldn't be taken seriously and calling Buttigieg out on everything I can get him (who is the flailing candidate that is turning into an attack dog right now). I'm thinking of all my best hits on Biden. It's going to be all on him that day and it's the big one for his campaign. He comes out in any way perceived as not a loser of that debate and it's a tough road. It still might be. But if you want to stop him, that's the night
  9. That’s because your argument is just a non factual made up stance with no basis in reality. This discussion is a waste of time
  10. I’ve responded to your. There’s no current data that suggests that it made any sense for Bernie to bow out for Warren. You certainly have yet to provide any. The few points you made to try to support it, I’ve addressed and you shifted to calling them irrelevant. This is the second time that you decided to only quote part of my post. This also isn’t the first time your discussion devolved into deflection. Your primary argument was nothing more than a superficial assumption that you have consistently failed to back up with any data or intelligence. You can keep trying to argue you like you have some authority on it, but it’s really not working for you. It’s tired
  11. Then you should know that elections and support aren't inherently run on an ideological basis and it's one of the primary flaws the general public and media have when it comes to their analysis of such matters. Warren right now has much more support amongst the same people that supported Clinton in 2016 than she does with Bernie. She plays well with Bernie, but she isn't driving that vote out. Nor is she playing as well with key parts of his coalition like Hispanics and the working class. The idea that they are all just going to fall to her with him out historically isn't how these things work. You also have to answer for if age is a factor why the last election came down two people who were on the cusp of 70 and why in this primary has the only 4 candidates polling above 10 percent nationally Sanders (78), Biden (77), Bloomberg (78), Warren (70). And the youngest of that quarted is the one who is polling the worst. So is it a factor? Possibly. It's however definitley not an overriding factor. In fact aside from Buttigieg who is in 5th and under 10% nationally, most of the younger canidates were among the first to struggle and drop out. O'Rourke, Harris, Booker. Buttigieg is the only candidate still with reasonable polling (and that's with the understanding that he would be a massive underdog) I have an BA in Political Science and an MA in American Politics and Public Policy. I worked on Warren's Senate campaign, I worked on several other Senatorial and local rep campaigns as well in my homestate. Probably would have been on her current campaign if work didn't get in the way this cycle. So I'll grant you that your forthcoming PhD gives you the schooling edge but I have pratical experience both in elections and with the subject in question. However, the fact that you are making so many amatuerish assumptions about the election that don't even hold up to the known make up of each coalition is pretty concerning in it's own right when you claim to have been educated that extensively. Not that it's an exact science. However, there is virtually no evidence that the absence of Sanders would transfer enough of his coalition to help Warren win. In fact we already established that Biden with his lead would still get a sizeable portion of Sanders supporters. We already have data that backs up the minority and working class segments of Sanders coalition are less likely to back Warren compared to any other candidate. At the end of the day your argument is a paper thin assumption that two progressives overlap in support and that one not being there would create a single bloc around the remaining party. Beyond that, Warren has shown no capability to be able to gain the support and momentum that Sanders has regardless. The mobilization, the donations, etc. Who is on the ticket actually matters and there's people that are supporting Sanders that are only going to come out and campaign this heavily for him. It's the same silly argument that people make on the opposite side that if all the moderates drop out except one, that it passes Sanders. That's not how elections function. It was wrong when people said it with Trump in 2016, it's wrong now, and we can break down the data to prove it. At best your argument is a vague assumption that seems to have very little but surface level thought behind it and the fact that you are resorting to being quite frankly abrasive in nearly all your posts and trying to find little outs (like whining about losing your patience) is pretty revealing.
  12. 1. Biden didn’t run because his son died. But that requires remembering the timeline. 2. okay then you understand that if 29% of Bernie supporters go to Warren and 24% go to Biden, then Biden who already had a double digit lead on Warren most of the race would have been pushed into the high 30’s to mid 40’s most of the race and would have been completely insurmountable? I guess you don’t understand that.. Also considering that I’m pretty sure between the two of us I’m the only one has experience actually working on campaigns (of one of the people involved at that) and I would bet between the two of us I’m the only one with any actual credentials studying elections, I wouldn’t go around trying to dismiss people as “random internet posters”. But if you want to me smug we definitely can get the measuring tape out on credentials. I can pretty much promise you that you’ll be the under qualified one though. But regardless, even during her surge she was in second. Without Bernie, it’s just getting Biden closer to a 50% mark where he’s going to take sizeable amounts of delegates in each race and be virtually unbeatable. Not that it’s easy to predict regardless. But by every indication she’d at best be a distant second even if she would be solidly in second. Then if you get into who drops out it’s people like Buttigieg and Klobuchar who are harboring the most support after that. Really the biggest effect it may have had is Bloomberg entering the race. It might not have been worth it with Biden so high up there 3. Yeah Bernie’s heart attack will be brought up. But age wise no, someone who is 70 (71 around the time the primary ends) going after a 78 year old on age isn’t going to mean much. Especially when they will be facing an overweight 74 year old in the election. Honestly we already know where all the polls say voters are at. It’s just not that much kg a factor. If it was Beto would still be in this and Buttigieg wouldn't be 5th nationally. Also the inverse is true as well. Just because you say a fresh face matters, doesn’t make it so. 4. Glad you gave up on this point.
  13. 1. Bernie was more fringe fringe than her and he made a good show of it. So this idea she was certain to lose. 2. This is your key point and it is based on an assumption that rarely holds true in politics. You know Bernie supporters second choice tends not to be Warren statistically, right? And likely Warren voters tend to say their next choice is Biden. So when she got attacked by moderates, it hurt her because she was vulnerable there. Also most polls indicate that Pete Buttigieg benefitted most from her collapse. So no, there’s no guarantee Sanders sitting out positively effects her. And there is no reason to do it unless you think you are less viable for whatever reason. 3. A 78 and 77 year old are leading the a Democratic pack. It’s not mattering you voters and will be a non factor vs Trump. Being a fresh face isn’t meaning much. 4. Funnily enough I just left a Warren rally a few minutes ago. One her own supporters asked her how she was going to educate voters on the benefits of socialism. She had to push back. This is her own supporters. Yeah she’s going to have that label whether she likes it or not
  14. If you honestly think he is authoritarian or in any way close to it, that’s kind of a non starter for him sorry. We are too far apart to agree.
  15. You do realize he polls better in the Midwest than Hillary did right? Like that was his strength in 2016
×