Tennis Forum banner

5101 - 5120 of 5433 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
39,219 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,545 Posts
It seems odd that after losing by roughly 4,000 votes, Pete would only be tied with Sanders in the New Hampshire delegates, 9 each. When he lost by 6,000 in Iowa he pulled a +1 (maybe 2 after recanvas). 2,000 votes closer to victory in the second state and he only broke even in delegates. The oddities of US elections.
After winning the popular vote in the first two contests, Bernie Sanders has seen off the challenge from Warren on the left and consolidated his position as a front-runner. As I mentioned last week, after the Iowa caucuses, many observers underestimated him. Still, in New Hampshire, as in Iowa, Sanders’s margin of victory over Pete Buttigieg was a narrow one: about four thousand votes, or 1.5 percentage points. And, thanks to the quirks of the Iowa caucuses, Buttigieg is still ahead in the delegate count. According to CNN, Buttigieg now has twenty-three delegates, Sanders has twenty-one, Warren has eight, and Amy Klobuchar, who came in a strong third place in New Hampshire, has seven. | The New Yorker
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
Who is the unknown you're referring to?

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Sanders nationally was a virtual unknown at the eve of the 2016 elections, certainly relative to the Clinton name recognition. So when people compare his performance 4 years ago with his performance today among like 8 candidates, it only serves to point out what a troubled campaign Hillary had from the start. It's all rather ironic cause the Hillary fanbots accuse Sanders of being divisive, while he continues to have one of the highest approval ratings among all politicians and their idol is one of the most divisive and hated figures in the history of US politics, and apparently is bent on carrying on with that reputation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,640 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,640 Posts
It seems odd that after losing by roughly 4,000 votes, Pete would only be tied with Sanders in the New Hampshire delegates, 9 each. When he lost by 6,000 in Iowa he pulled a +1 (maybe 2 after recanvas). 2,000 votes closer to victory in the second state and he only broke even in delegates. The oddities of US elections.
either way, i'm pretty sure that black Americans aren't going to let the corn farmers in Iowa or the prep school stoners in New Hampshire tell them who they have to vote for... neither Sanders nor Buttigieg are strong general election candidates. Let them keep arguing... the more they quibble about who won which small white state, the better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,913 Posts
either way, i'm pretty sure that black Americans aren't going to let the corn farmers in Iowa or the prep school stoners in New Hampshire tell them who they have to vote for... neither Sanders nor Buttigieg are strong general election candidates. Let them keep arguing... the more they quibble about who won which small white state, the better.
Neither was Trump (so said centrist Dems)

So with all due respect the last thing we need is any centrist Democrat nonsense about who is or isn't a "strong general election candidate". They never been good at that estimation. The "moderate" nomes in recent past all crashed and burned (Gore, Kerry, Hillary). The one that won (Obama) came from the progressive wing even tho he joined the dark side once he got elected.

And besides substantively it's a compromise. "strong general electon candidate" is code for someone with "republican-lite" policies. And and in case of Bloomberg it's not even "lite". I'm afraid the DNC's heading down the cliff with their "we need to stop a racist authoritarian oligarch with another racist authoritarian oligarch" approach. This is recipe for disaster — black people will go #neverbloomberg in the general election — and y'all know what the consequence of that will be.

At least one other rich guy gets it

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,607 Posts
Tom Steyer is just as harmful as Bloomberg. Just because he's virtue signalling about Bloomberg's racism, it doesn't mean he would be a worthy president. At least Bloomberg is more efficient at self-promotion, making Steyer jealous I guess...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,640 Posts
Neither was Trump (so said centrist Dems)
I can't speak for other moderate Dems, but never once did i say in '015/16 that Trump was a weak candidate for the other side... i always saw him as a threat. As i remember, it was mostly the elitist-leftists who were dismissing Trump and making jokes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,583 Posts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,545 Posts
Iowa Dems chair resigns after caucus chaos | News.com
"The fact is that Democrats deserved better than what happened on caucus night. As chair of this party, I am deeply sorry for what happened and bear the responsibility for any failures on behalf of the Iowa Democratic Party," Price wrote.
...
Both Buttigieg's and Sanders' campaigns requested a partial recanvass ... The party has said it will not change mistakes in the math and the only opportunity to correct it would be a recount, which would be the candidates' next option after the recanvass is completed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,545 Posts
Bloomberg Pursues Wealthy Donors, but Not Their Checkbooks | NYT
Michael Bloomberg has sworn off taking money from other people for his presidential campaign. But in private, he is courting rich Democrats, potentially posing a challenge for his moderate rivals.
...
Mr. Bloomberg told the group that he did not want their money and would not accept it if they offered it. What he wanted, he said, was their personal support...If they felt compelled to write a check, he told them to send it to the Democratic National Committee or the progressive group Swing Left.
...
...It has unnerved — and sometimes intrigued — supporters of other Democratic candidates, who fear that Mr. Bloomberg’s charm offensive could discourage giving to other candidates who lack multibillion-dollar personal fortunes with which to fund their efforts.
 
5101 - 5120 of 5433 Posts
Top