2 2
turtlespeed

DNC Hopefuls

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

So, the difference here, is that you agree with Big Oil, I mean The DNC's position.

I agree with neither position.  Again, get a better strawman.

Quote

 It is OK, in your book, that money is trumping the hard work and effort that Sanders has put in. 

Again, the DNC is going to trump the very hard work (and the blood, sweat and tears) of 28 out of the 29 candidates.  Just crush them under their jackbooted heel.  They've already done it to 21.   That's how it works.  If they end up with the most electable person that will represent them, they have done a good job - even if you hate the person they choose.

And Sanders is not their best candidate.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

yes, its ageist,

Hi Wendy,

And some trivia on that:

Bernie Sanders (born September 8, 1941) - 79

Joe Biden Jr. (born November 20, 1942) - 77

Mike Bloomberg (born February 14, 1942) - 78

Donald Trump (born June 14, 1946) - 73

Ronald Reagan (born February 6, 1911) – Went into office in Jan 1981, age 70

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  And I think you have nailed it about Bernie simply cannot work with others.  He has been an indie his entire political life.  He comes across, to me, as a 'my way or the hiway' type of person.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
43 minutes ago, billvon said:

And Sanders is not their best candidate.  

 

Says who?  Certainly not the voters.  Last time around Trump got the let’s just-blow-the-whole-thing-up vote.  In much the way Trump got disaffected Obama voters, Sanders could take that block from Trump in a way Bloomberg will not.

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

It is OK, in your book, that money is trumping the hard work and effort that Sanders has put in. 

Sanders must compete in the marketplace of ideas. He has fairly revolutionary policy proposals. Hard work and effort may or may not be enough to convince enough people to try them. Working hard does not make him right. You are selling your country short if you believe Bloomberg's TV and internet advertising can buy him the minds of people. What they can do is put his ideas in front of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

The DNC didn't trample them.

They spent the time and effort to get up on a debate stage.

The public opinion trampled them.

NOW - it seems that the DNC is trampling them with everything they have.

I see it like Big Oil going after a grass-roots Protest group.  You're Ok with that kind of thing, right?

I'd like to insert another perspective:  DNC candidates got into the race, IMHO, way WAY too early.  Those really early ones started getting a lot of attention, so the field was swarmed with all those who felt they needed to throw their hats in, regardless of having their "exploratory" stages complete.  Because of the massive field, news channels started hosting debates in some kind of attempt to get everyone's positions out there, to compare one against the other, and possibly make some kind of sense of it all (not that that was their driving reason for hosting debates, but it made the reporting much easier).  So, they started by hosting multiple iterations of debates with randomly selected portions (read: everyone qualified).  As time went on, hosts (whether the host of the debate, or the DNC) had to come up with qualification metrics so that a single event could be held, with a manageable number of participants.  

However, the filing deadline had not been reached.  With the circus that has resulted from so many early entries, sometimes we forget that Iowa and NH *just* had their events. And the field has been culled. 

So, for someone who chose to enter the race before the deadlines, and in an appropriate amount of time before the Iowa caucus, why should he be penalized for not jumping into the fray a year (plus) too early?  Okay -- now that the caucus/primary season has started (especially with today being Super Tuesday), I could see requiring someone to meet a polling or "primary minimum" showing going forward, but for Bloomberg, the fundraising and polling cut-offs were arbitrary carry-overs from the initial trim-down of the extreme field of declared candidates.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, kallend said:

How any organization chooses its leaders is up to members of the organization. 

Political parties are organizations. If you're not a party member then it's not your business. 

I kind of wish he organizations didn’t have such a stranglehold on the process, but, well, money + USA ...

Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

I kind of wish he organizations didn’t have such a stranglehold on the process,

Donald Trump, and now Bernie Sanders both demonstrate that the two organizations do not have control. Neither was wanted by the people who run their party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Says who?  Certainly not the voters.  Last time around Trump got the let’s just-blow-the-whole-thing-up vote.  In much the way Trump got disaffected Obama voters, Sanders could take that block from Trump in a way Bloomberg will not.

Sanders is a rock star with New England liberals and he got half the numbers in NH as he did four years ago.  I'd say the less than representative set of Iowa and NH says more about the majority who split votes between other candidates.

Trump carried centrists last election.  If the lineup is Trump vs Sanders then Trump will get the Centrists and Sanders will get the lefties.  If the lineup is Trump vs Bloomberg/Biden/Warren/Buttigeig Trump will get fewer centrist but WAY FEWER lefties will vote for Trump as some kind of bullshit protest vote.  I'd like to say they learned their lesson that he really can win, if not then they deserve another four years of Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TriGirl said:

I'd like to insert another perspective:  DNC candidates got into the race, IMHO, way WAY too early.  Those really early ones started getting a lot of attention, so the field was swarmed with all those who felt they needed to throw their hats in, regardless of having their "exploratory" stages complete.  Because of the massive field, news channels started hosting debates in some kind of attempt to get everyone's positions out there, to compare one against the other, and possibly make some kind of sense of it all (not that that was their driving reason for hosting debates, but it made the reporting much easier).  So, they started by hosting multiple iterations of debates with randomly selected portions (read: everyone qualified).  As time went on, hosts (whether the host of the debate, or the DNC) had to come up with qualification metrics so that a single event could be held, with a manageable number of participants.  

However, the filing deadline had not been reached.  With the circus that has resulted from so many early entries, sometimes we forget that Iowa and NH *just* had their events. And the field has been culled. 

So, for someone who chose to enter the race before the deadlines, and in an appropriate amount of time before the Iowa caucus, why should he be penalized for not jumping into the fray a year (plus) too early?  Okay -- now that the caucus/primary season has started (especially with today being Super Tuesday), I could see requiring someone to meet a polling or "primary minimum" showing going forward, but for Bloomberg, the fundraising and polling cut-offs were arbitrary carry-overs from the initial trim-down of the extreme field of declared candidates.  

 

I agree with you on most.  

My questions are more derived from whether or not B-berg met the ballot access laws.

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates

He didn't announce his candidacy until 24 Nov 18

Deadlines possibly missed:

AL, AR, & NH. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
8 hours ago, kallend said:

If you're not a party member then it's not your business. 

Hi John,

And that is where the DNC screwed up.  Bernie is & always has been an independent.

They should never have let him on the stage.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  IMO he is the one candidate that can ensure a Trump 2nd term.  However, I would vote for him over Trump.

Edited by JerryBaumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I heard that Bloomberg was going to be spending big money on commercials, I did not expect to see them because I don't watch broadcast television. But damned if he doesn't manage to pop up every time I watch videos from my favorite Youtube channels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

PS)  IMO he is the one candidate that can ensure a Trump 2nd term.

But we know from 2016 that there were crossover voters who voted for Trump when they could not vote for Sanders. We don't know of any others for whom that is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Says who?  Certainly not the voters.  Last time around Trump got the let’s just-blow-the-whole-thing-up vote.  In much the way Trump got disaffected Obama voters, Sanders could take that block from Trump in a way Bloomberg will not.

It appears that Trump would prefer to face Sanders. But, I'm starting to suspect that perhaps you are right and Jerry, (and Trump) are wrong. Sanders could be seen as an even better way to "stick it to the man" than Trump has been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

It appears that Trump would prefer to face Sanders. But, I'm starting to suspect that perhaps you are right and Jerry, (and Trump) are wrong. Sanders could be seen as an even better way to "stick it to the man" than Trump has been.

The Trump supporters who want to stick it to the man see the government as "the man" and think Trump is going to do something about that by getting the government out of their pockets.  Those same people definitely don't want Bernie Sanders in their pockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
38 minutes ago, DJL said:

The Trump supporters who want to stick it to the man see the government as "the man" and think Trump is going to do something about that by getting the government out of their pockets.  Those same people definitely don't want Bernie Sanders in their pockets.

That ignores the large number of people who think of Wall street bankers and corporations as "the man". I know they aren't the same people, but a lot of them did not come out for Hillary. The outcome in the swing states will come down to who is motivated to vote. Just being the "anti-Trump" may not be enough for someone like Bloomberg.

Edited by gowlerk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kallend said:

If you're not a party member then it's not your business. 

Well said komrade kallend.

But it is our business.  People have a right to know how the candidates are chosen.  I can see by many here the left isn't interested in getting the candidate that is best for the country, merely the candidate that can unseat Trump.  BTW...keep looking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi DJL,

This is my concern with Bernie.  He is so far to the left that the moderates will not vote for him; they will just not vote.

Jerry Baumchen

I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2