DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)
sbenois said:
Really Nan?
Sure, and if I told you to jump off a cliff would you do that too? I want you to be well-rested and ready to go for the next climate forum. Sadly, your new idol, LIz, and "joltin' Joe" won't be there:
Sanders to attend latest climate forum while Biden and Warren pass
Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke and Amy Klobuchar to also miss the MSNBC event timed to align with global climate strikes
mrincredible said:
It seems strange that the WFP would deliver an endorsement with over four months remaining before Iowa. But maybe their announcement at this stage of the game gives them some notoriety?
The WFP’s line of thinking, from its national director, Maurice Mitchell:
Mr. Mitchell and other Working Families Party leaders said in interviews that their endorsement came with a message to other progressive organizations. Rather than passively observe the primary, they said, these groups should choose a side and flex their organizing muscle during the early stages to help knock Mr. Biden off his perch.
“If our focus is on victory, we can’t be delusional about it,” Mr. Mitchell said. “You don’t defeat the moderate wing of Democrats through thought pieces or pithy tweets, you defeat their politics through organizing.”
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
The Working Families Party endorses Senator Warren for President.
https://twitter.com/WorkingFamilies/status/1173614425565204480?s=20
At the second link, you can see that some Bernie fans are not taking it well, and using the Twitter to vent about it.
"Some Bernie fans" allow you to post your daily installment of Bernie hate.
Just reporting what you could read if you bothered to read the links.
But why should anyone be interested in "some Bernie fans"?
"Why should anyone be interested in 'some Bernie fans'?" you ask? Well, Paul, for one.
Michael Tracey posted a typical insult due to the endorsement, and Paul responded with, "Nobody wants their stupid ole endorsement, anyhow", or words to that effect.
https://twitter.com/paulsurovell/status/1173666626203541504?s=20
I think what I said is accurate. The WFP endorsement isn't going to change many votes.
Dave Weigel noted that the endorsement was based 50% on a rank-and-file membership survey and 50% on the "leadership". WFP refuses to give any details on how the two cohorts voted. In 2015 the WFP endorsed Bernie (with 87% of the membership support) but the endorsement was divisive among the leadership.
DaveSchmidt said:
mrincredible said:
It seems strange that the WFP would deliver an endorsement with over four months remaining before Iowa. But maybe their announcement at this stage of the game gives them some notoriety?
The WFP’s line of thinking, from its national director, Maurice Mitchell:
Mr. Mitchell and other Working Families Party leaders said in interviews that their endorsement came with a message to other progressive organizations. Rather than passively observe the primary, they said, these groups should choose a side and flex their organizing muscle during the early stages to help knock Mr. Biden off his perch.
“If our focus is on victory, we can’t be delusional about it,” Mr. Mitchell said. “You don’t defeat the moderate wing of Democrats through thought pieces or pithy tweets, you defeat their politics through organizing.”
The way the vote works is that it is a 50/50 split between members votes and leadership votes, and they won't release the total vote totals for each group. So, the leadership may have clinched this behind the scenes. They released the separate totals in 2015.
paulsurovell said:
I think what I said is accurate. The WFP endorsement isn't going to change many votes.
Dave Weigel noted that the endorsement was based 50% on a rank-and-file membership survey and 50% on the "leadership". WFP refuses to give any details on how the two cohorts voted. In 2015 the WFP endorsed Bernie (with 87% of the membership support) but the endorsement was divisive among the leadership.
Yes, looks like we cross-posted. I was going to link to Dave Weigel, also.
nan said:
The way the vote works is that it is a 50/50 split between members votes and leadership votes, and they won't release the total vote totals for each group. So, the leadership may have clinched this behind the scenes. They released the separate totals in 2015.
Its possible......
paulsurovell said:
On the other hand, I think the 9/11 victims lawsuit contains evidence that strongly suggests that Saudi Arabia was behind 9/11.
I can't follow the debates you guys are having about who said that Israel was behind 9/11, because I don't want to waste time on conspiracy theories like that. But what you are saying about Saudi Arabia and their support for violent flavors of Islam (not just 9/11) is very true. I don't understand why we are covering that up. The Saudi's are not our friends.
Tulsi hurts Bernie in New Hampshire.
Love it.
Klinker said:
Its possible......
Yes, because they won't release the numbers and previously they did and then there is this:
paulsurovell said:
Dave Weigel noted that the endorsement was based 50% on a rank-and-file membership survey and 50% on the "leadership". WFP refuses to give any details on how the two cohorts voted. In 2015 the WFP endorsed Bernie (with 87% of the membership support) but the endorsement was divisive among the leadership.
One thing we know is that Sanders got no more than 80 percent of the membership vote this time, and that’s only if Warren swept all 56 leadership votes.
Warren's first major piece of legislation she'd push for is an anti-corruption plan:
https://www.vox.com/2019/9/16/20867216/elizabeth-warren-anti-corruption-bill
This kind of approach is why I like Warren -- she's targeting ways to change the way the system works in order to change outcomes. It's more ambitious than Biden's "let's just try to get things back to how they were" and more effective than Sanders' "rallies will inspire change" approach (yes, I'm blatantly over-simplifying both Biden and Sanders positions here).
paulsurovell said:
Klinker said:
Never a straight answer. You could just say it Paul. You could just say that you don't believe that Israel was behind 9/11. But you can't because deep in your antisemitic heart you believe its the truth.
Your mock outrage is pathetic.
I'm having trouble finding where I was asked if Israel was behind 9/11, so I'm not sure where you get your "Never a straight answer" thing.
But since you asked, I've seen no evidence that suggests that Israel was behind 9/11.
On the other hand, I think the 9/11 victims lawsuit contains evidence that strongly suggests that Saudi Arabia was behind 9/11.I've posted references to the lawsuit and asked PVW about it, but he/she has avoided them. So I'll ask you:
What is your opinion of the 9/11 victims' lawsuit against Saudi Arabia, and the DOJ withholding documents about the FBI investigation of Saudi Arabia? And we can discuss Robert Mueller's odious role later.
Waiting for a straight answer.
Bump.
nan said:
Yes, because they won't release the numbers and previously they did and then there is this:
What of that? Warren endorsed a WFP candidate for one of two at-large seats that are reserved, under the Philadelphia City Charter, for non-majority parties. In effect, she endorsed a WFP candidate against whoever the GOP candidates are.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:
Dave Weigel noted that the endorsement was based 50% on a rank-and-file membership survey and 50% on the "leadership". WFP refuses to give any details on how the two cohorts voted. In 2015 the WFP endorsed Bernie (with 87% of the membership support) but the endorsement was divisive among the leadership.
One thing we know is that Sanders got no more than 80 percent of the membership vote this time, and that’s only if Warren swept all 56 leadership votes.
That's methodologically correct, but it doesn't address the lack of transparency.
basil said:
paulsurovell said:
On the other hand, I think the 9/11 victims lawsuit contains evidence that strongly suggests that Saudi Arabia was behind 9/11.
I can't follow the debates you guys are having about who said that Israel was behind 9/11, because I don't want to waste time on conspiracy theories like that. But what you are saying about Saudi Arabia and their support for violent flavors of Islam (not just 9/11) is very true. I don't understand why we are covering that up. The Saudi's are not our friends.
They aren't our friends but perhaps Mueller (then) and the DOJ (now) were/are protecting Saudi Arabia because they were told "they belong to intelligence so leave them alone".
paulsurovell said:
paulsurovell said:
paulsurovell said:
Klinker said:
Never a straight answer. You could just say it Paul. You could just say that you don't believe that Israel was behind 9/11. But you can't because deep in your antisemitic heart you believe its the truth.
Your mock outrage is pathetic.
I'm having trouble finding where I was asked if Israel was behind 9/11, so I'm not sure where you get your "Never a straight answer" thing.
But since you asked, I've seen no evidence that suggests that Israel was behind 9/11.
On the other hand, I think the 9/11 victims lawsuit contains evidence that strongly suggests that Saudi Arabia was behind 9/11.I've posted references to the lawsuit and asked PVW about it, but he/she has avoided them. So I'll ask you:
What is your opinion of the 9/11 victims' lawsuit against Saudi Arabia, and the DOJ withholding documents about the FBI investigation of Saudi Arabia? And we can discuss Robert Mueller's odious role later.
Waiting for a straight answer.
Bump.
Paul, while I am glad you have seen the light I am not really interested in having on going conversations with you.
Klinker said:
Klinker said:
paulsurovell said:
paulsurovell said:
paulsurovell said:
Klinker said:
Never a straight answer. You could just say it Paul. You could just say that you don't believe that Israel was behind 9/11. But you can't because deep in your antisemitic heart you believe its the truth.
Your mock outrage is pathetic.
I'm having trouble finding where I was asked if Israel was behind 9/11, so I'm not sure where you get your "Never a straight answer" thing.
But since you asked, I've seen no evidence that suggests that Israel was behind 9/11.
On the other hand, I think the 9/11 victims lawsuit contains evidence that strongly suggests that Saudi Arabia was behind 9/11.I've posted references to the lawsuit and asked PVW about it, but he/she has avoided them. So I'll ask you:
What is your opinion of the 9/11 victims' lawsuit against Saudi Arabia, and the DOJ withholding documents about the FBI investigation of Saudi Arabia? And we can discuss Robert Mueller's odious role later.
Waiting for a straight answer.
Bump.
Paul, while I am glad you have seen the light I am not really interested in having on going conversations with you.
Famous last words.
paulsurovell said:
basil said:
paulsurovell said:
On the other hand, I think the 9/11 victims lawsuit contains evidence that strongly suggests that Saudi Arabia was behind 9/11.
I can't follow the debates you guys are having about who said that Israel was behind 9/11, because I don't want to waste time on conspiracy theories like that. But what you are saying about Saudi Arabia and their support for violent flavors of Islam (not just 9/11) is very true. I don't understand why we are covering that up. The Saudi's are not our friends.
They aren't our friends but perhaps Mueller (then) and the DOJ (now) were/are protecting Saudi Arabia because they were told "they belong to intelligence so leave them alone".
So we are supporting our worst enemies because they pay us a few hundred million dollars? I don't buy that.
paulsurovell said:
That's methodologically correct, but it doesn't address the lack of transparency.
I think that's a fair comment. Given some of the reactions by Sanders supporters, perhaps they will reconsider publicizing the vote breakdowns.
The leadership is entitled to vote as they see fit. It seems like some people assume that because Warren gained the endorsement there must be some kind of conspiracy in the party. I'm not sure how the party picks its leadership but if the members don't like what the leadership is doing the answer is to elect new leadership.
Thanks Dave Schmidt for posting the explanation of the early endorsement. I also read the Politico article about the endorsement so it's a little more clear to me now.
New poll from NBC:
In a new NBC/WSJ poll, Joe Biden draws 31% compared to 25% for Elizabeth Warren. At 14%, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders trails Warren by a double-digit margin while 15 other candidates receive support of 7% or less.
Seven others – former Reps. Beto O’Rourke and John Delaney, current Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, billionaire executive Tom Steyer, Sen. Michael Bennet, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, and former Obama Cabinet member Julian Castro – draw just 1%.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/17/biden-warren-lead-in-latest-nbcwsj-2020-democratic-poll.html
sbenois said:
New poll from NBC:
In a new NBC/WSJ poll, Joe Biden draws 31% compared to 25% for Elizabeth Warren. At 14%, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders trails Warren by a double-digit margin while 15 other candidates receive support of 7% or less.
Seven others – former Reps. Beto O’Rourke and John Delaney, current Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, billionaire executive Tom Steyer, Sen. Michael Bennet, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, and former Obama Cabinet member Julian Castro – draw just 1%.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/17/biden-warren-lead-in-latest-nbcwsj-2020-democratic-poll.html
Okay it's one poll.
I'm willing to say with some confidence that if Sanders dropped out, a large majority of his supporters shift to Warren. Maybe enough to bump her ahead of Biden. I doubt any of Sanders' supporters would shift their allegiance to Biden.
If Warren dropped out, I think you'd see more of a split of her supporters between Biden and Sanders.
Buttigieg and Harris seem to be the middle of the field with 7% and 5% respectively, and maybe Andrew Yang with his 4%. I'm not sure where those voters would go if those candidates dropped out.
mrincredible said:
Okay it's one poll.
I'm willing to say with some confidence that if Sanders dropped out, a large majority of his supporters shift to Warren. Maybe enough to bump her ahead of Biden. I doubt any of Sanders' supporters would shift their allegiance to Biden.
If Warren dropped out, I think you'd see more of a split of her supporters between Biden and Sanders.
Buttigieg and Harris seem to be the middle of the field with 7% and 5% respectively, and maybe Andrew Yang with his 4%. I'm not sure where those voters would go if those candidates dropped out.
Sanders supporters would shift to Tulsi, not Warren. And Sanders is not dropping out based on one NBC poll.
Sanders supporters would shift to Tulsi the 1%er? Tells you everything you need to know about Sanders supporters and their interest in ensuring that Democrats win in 2020.
nan said:
Sanders supporters would shift to Tulsi, not Warren. And Sanders is not dropping out based on one NBC poll.
Just speculating. Pure hypothetical thought exercise.
I'm fully aware Sanders is not backing out, even if his support level were to remain at 15% in the actual primaries.
I'll throw in one more bit of speculation: if for some strange reason Biden dropped out, Warren would scoop up most of his support. There was one more aspect of this poll. She was the first or second choice of 45% of the respondents, more than any other candidate. That stat is the basis of my theory that she would gain the most if either were out.
sbenois said:
Sanders supporters would shift to Tulsi the 1%er? Tells you everything you need to know about Sanders supporters and their interest in ensuring that Democrats win in 2020.
If you want to win in 2020 you will vote for Sanders. He's a much better shot than Warren. And Tulsi would eat Trump for dinner and spit him up in the morning. Trump would not even know what hit him.
But, you won't even treat either of these candidates with the slightest respect, so don't lecture me on winning in 2020. I was the only one in 2016 warning you that Hillary was a loser. People want real change. They are not getting off the couch for change-lite.
mrincredible said:
Just speculating. Pure hypothetical thought exercise.
I'm fully aware Sanders is not backing out, even if his support level were to remain at 15% in the actual primaries.
I'll throw in one more bit of speculation: if for some strange reason Biden dropped out, Warren would scoop up most of his support. There was one more aspect of this poll. She was the first or second choice of 45% of the respondents, more than any other candidate. That stat is the basis of my theory that she would gain the most if either were out.
I don't know what Sanders plan is for backing out so I'm surprised you are fully aware of it. As far as I know, right now his plan is to win and, despite what you hear on MSM, he is a contender.
Not sure Biden's support would go to Warren, although that would make sense politically. However, I read somewhere that Biden supporters often listed Bernie as their second choice. This seemed unbelievable to me, but when you realize that Biden supporters often don't care about policies and just vote on name recognition, it makes more sense.
No one knows what is going to happen yet. It is still early.
nan said:
sbenois said:
Sanders supporters would shift to Tulsi the 1%er? Tells you everything you need to know about Sanders supporters and their interest in ensuring that Democrats win in 2020.
If you want to win in 2020 you will vote for Sanders. He's a much better shot than Warren. And Tulsi would eat Trump for dinner and spit him up in the morning. Trump would not even know what hit him.
But, you won't even treat either of these candidates with the slightest respect, so don't lecture me on winning in 2020. I was the only one in 2016 warning you that Hillary was a loser. People want real change. They are not getting off the couch for change-lite.
PLEASE STEP AWAY FROM THE BROWN ACID.
Thank you.
sbenois said:
PLEASE STEP AWAY FROM THE BROWN ACID.
Thank you.
Someone should have said that to Clinton supporters in 2016. Not that they would have listened.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Employment Wanted
Latest Jobs
Employment Wanted
Help Wanted
-
May 3, 2024 at 2:32pm
-
Cat Lovers - become part of our lovely Silver Hound Cat Sitter team
May 3, 2024 at 2:12pm
-
PT Driving mother’s Helper needed
May 1, 2024 at 10:31am
-
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
Part-time Nanny in Scotch Plains
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
Full-time Nanny in Scotch Plains
May 1, 2024 at 9:10am
-
Nanny Wanted Live in or Live out $1400-$1600
May 1, 2024 at 4:49am
Lessons/Instruction
Advertisement
I was going to stay "Dont' hold your breath" but why don't you hold your breath. That's a good idea.