SpaceChampion Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 Iowa: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 13 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Also also, despite all the talk of dems being motivated and excited we aren't seeing that in turnout. Iowa was barely over 2016, and NH looks to be even lower than 2016. To me that is a generally bad sign and a very bad sign for the notion of getting out the youth vote in support of anyone. NVM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centrist Simon Steele Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 Only in centrist-land does a win = a loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceChampion Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 More... Really not sure what Kal is talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lollygag Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 While I don't think people believe the corruption charges against the Bidens, I do wonder if voters are already tired and just don't want to hear about it anymore, let alone get it accelerated during an election. Republicans are going to lie to get the result they want and will do anything to get it to be the constant center of attention. I'm also wondering if people are factoring in Biden's family tragedies. He didn't run last time largely because of Beau. Does he still have the heart to stay in it and keep on Trump the way he needs to when it's his other son taking most of the punches? Think Biden needs to have a very direct discussion with voters about his limits. Looking low-key certainly didn't help. An old article which still feels relevant. https://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/joe-beau-biden-president-hype-2016-121749 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 15 minutes ago, Mexal said: More... Really not sure what Kal is talking about. I apologize. It was based on 68% of the turnout, and it was projected to be flat. As I drove I heard that with 80% it got a LOT better. So yay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centrist Simon Steele Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 Vox breaks down how much of a racist Bloomberg is. Bloomberg: "Ninety-five percent of your murders — murderers and murder victims — fit one M.O. You can just take the description, Xerox it and pass it out to all the cops. They are male, minorities, 16 to 25. That’s true in New York, that’s true in virtually every city,” Bloomberg said in the video clip. "We put all the cops in minority neighborhoods,” Bloomberg said. “Yes. That’s true. Why do we do it? Because that’s where all the crime is. And the way you get the guns out of the kids’ hands is to throw them up against the walls and frisk them." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 6 minutes ago, Simon Steele said: Vox breaks down how much of a racist Bloomberg is. Bloomberg: "Ninety-five percent of your murders — murderers and murder victims — fit one M.O. You can just take the description, Xerox it and pass it out to all the cops. They are male, minorities, 16 to 25. That’s true in New York, that’s true in virtually every city,” Bloomberg said in the video clip. "We put all the cops in minority neighborhoods,” Bloomberg said. “Yes. That’s true. Why do we do it? Because that’s where all the crime is. And the way you get the guns out of the kids’ hands is to throw them up against the walls and frisk them." Yeah, sounds pretty Republican. We're protecting minorities, by arresting all the young men in their neighborhood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lollygag Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 https://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-jason-johnson-blames-2020-dems-for-bloombergs-candidacy-he-wouldnt-even-be-if-they-were-doing-better-with-black-people/ Quote “I think the idea with Michael Bloomberg is ‘Trump is a racist. Michael Bloomberg is slightly less racist, and if that’s what it takes to get rid of him because he’s got the money, that’s who I will end up supporting.’ Here’s the thing: he hasn’t been vetted yet, we’ll have to see what happens when he’s debates and goes on the ground. But Mike Bloomberg wouldn’t even be in the race if Joe Biden was doing a better job. Mike Bloomberg wouldn’t be second with black voters if Bernie Sanders – who’s had five years of running – had actually locked down the black vote. None of them want to take responsibility for their own failings as candidates. That’s what let this man walk into the race.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gertrude Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 3 hours ago, DMC said: I dunno. That might be a post hoc fallacy. Might just be he's a shitty candidate. He's already failed twice at this. My vote is on shitty candidate. Trump's smear might have swayed a few, but not enough to make him perform this poorly. When you run on "things won't change" and "vote for someone else", the problem might just be Joe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mother of The Others Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 Quote Yeah, sounds pretty Republican. We're protecting minorities, by arresting all the young men in their neighborhood Because then the black people's lives are saved who would otherwise have been victimized by those criminals. Police, saving black lives, racist. Sure. I'm not going to spend a lot of time defending Bloomberg. And this is it. The clock runs out on that right here and now. But we should try harder to remember that black lives matter. Right? Let them be protected. Sure it complicates things when a kid holding a twizzler gets shot 18 times. And Mike may have his problems here. The wording was emphatic, probably because he was in an argument with someone and we aren't hearing how dumb the other person's quotes were that led to this blast. But if Mike has the stats on his side, doesn't that make him a stat-ist more than a racist? I would personally leave some police in chinatown and white ville, but then he might have also and was using exaggeration here. Eh. He's yours to draw and quarter. Obama likes him, just for perspective. He busted out with an obamer endorsement ad i just saw this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 1 minute ago, The Mother of The Others said: racist. Sure. I'm n Someone mentioned your weird ass spacing earlier, and it's probably just cuz I'm high, but I'm really curious about it now too. Like, I naturally take two spaces at the end of a sentence. Is it just you take three? I guess. Why? Is that some secret 88 code we don't know about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mother of The Others Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 Quote Someone mentioned your weird ass spacing earlier, and it's probably just cuz I'm high, but I'm really curious about it now too. Like, I naturally take two spaces at the end of a sentence. Is that some secret 88 code we don't know about? If you're the only one of the two of us who knows what 88 is, that's racist of you to know about racist numbers like that. So bloomberg moves mountains and is dealing with the reality of fighting crime, and he uses some hyperbole, then a few years later someone leaks the tape for black history month and a bunch of ball tripping people on the net decide he's racist because he talked about stuff we're busy ignoring. Okay. Enjoy your voyage, sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 42 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 yup, someone giving to taunting others on online message boards doesn't know that particular piece of numerology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mother of The Others Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 12.5 . Spoiler +4 more years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 24 minutes ago, The Mother of The Others said: the only one of the two of us who knows what 88 is, that's racist of you to know about racist numbers like that. Well, duh. But dude, let's keep that on the DL, the white wizard or whatever might get mad at us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 528491 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterbumps! Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 6 hours ago, SpaceChampion said: Iowa: I can’t access the Nation article. Do you have raw numbers for the surge? I’d been seeing the breakdown for 18-35 in previous reporting, which did not show a surge for him, but rather a modest increase. I don’t doubt that focusing on 18-25 shows a higher gain for him, though I suspect the original numbers were exceedingly low for that demographic. I also think that this range is precisely the demographic who’d have the fewest challenges on average participating in the caucus format, in terms of physical energy, as well as work and family commitments. 7 hours ago, DMC said: My "hot take" from tonight's results: With Klobuchar's emergence, it's becoming very difficult to game out a scenario where Sanders does not end up the nominee. Unless, ya know, Bloomberg's money actually can cure AIDS. I of course agree that he’s looking increasingly likely to get the nom with a plurality, but he just keeps looking like a weaker and weaker candidate to me. Going from 23 points ahead in NH in 2016 to less than 2 points over nobody Buttigieg doesn’t strike me as a position of strength. Pete and Amy are in essentially the same lane, which beats Sanders about 45 to 25, even if you assume best case scenario for Sanders that consolidation of all others would be a wash between the two lanes. Idk if I’m missing something, but I’m seeing these two primary results as more of an indictment of Sanders’ general electability than evidence of any kind of widespread desire for him in office. If Klobuchar is actually happening, I tend to think she has the best electability argument of the pack, given her extremely wide winning margins. If Warren’s finished, I’m moving to Pete or Amy, depending on which is still in and looking strongest against Sanders by the time I vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.