Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
TheCid

2020 Election

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, TheCid said:

First we should have reparations for Native Americans, then for Mexicans for Southwest states and California.  Then for descendants of railroad, factory, mining, education, government, etc. workers before those industries were unionized.  In other words, reparations for descendants of people who were not wealthy white males.

I don't support reparations for anyone.      Anyhow,  I was interested in Bloomberg's POV since as someone that implemented stop-and-frisk I was curious what other type of pandering he might support.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I don't support reparations for anyone.      Anyhow,  I was interested in Bloomberg's POV since as someone that implemented stop-and-frisk I was curious what other type of pandering he might support.

 

Neither do I.  Just making a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

The group wants to increase the number of House members with military and intelligence backgrounds

TAAKBEW724I6TPUWNLNYDAQ6SA.jpg
 

Interesting.  The majority of veterans and active military vote Republican, so this may not mean a lot in swing districts.  It didn't in two f the past elections cited.  Of course, this seems to indicate an "intelligence" background is just as good as a military one.  Many intelligence people are civilians and may have served very little, if any, in the military.

Sen Lindsay Graham is a retired Air Force Reserve colonel.  Sen Martha McSally is a retired Air Force colonel.

Here's a breakdown by party:  Many more details in the link.

From my perspective, having served in the military can be a plus, but it can also be a negative.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

dk_2020-01-24_numbers.png

dk_2020-01-24.png

What's it all about Alfie?   I don't understand the colored dots and the colored circles. 

Somewhat confusing, but I guess it means that Biden is definitively in the lead for the Dem nomination?  With Sanders number two and Warren a falling number three?

Of course it is one survey source that surveyed 497 people who say they are likely to vote in primary.  Then a survey of 545 Registered (Democrats?) who actually may or not vote.

Share this post


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

What's it all about Alfie?   I don't understand the colored dots and the colored circles. 

Somewhat confusing, but I guess it means that Biden is definitively in the lead for the Dem nomination?  With Sanders number two and Warren a falling number three?

Of course it is one survey source that surveyed 497 people who say they are likely to vote in primary.  Then a survey of 545 Registered (Democrats?) who actually may or not vote.

The color circles represent where a candidate is,  based on the color-ID at the top.     But yea,  this is a really poorly designed graphic. 

I would like to see it with only the 4 or 5 leading candidates and the scale changed (e.g. every 5% instead of every 10%)    so that the differences between the 4 or 5 stand out more.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Bloomie's Buy Me A Presidency right on target.

Well spending 100 million a week will do that!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Well spending 100 million a week will do that!  

Yeah, 100 million here, 100 million there and soon we're talking about real money.

He was smart to skip the earliest primaries since they have so few delegates and

that's the true name of the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I dislike Bloomberg, Steyer or Trump using their money to secure a nomination or election, is it really worse than all the billions, if not trillions, used already, especially dark money?

Share this post


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

While I dislike Bloomberg, Steyer or Trump using their money to secure a nomination or election, is it really worse than all the billions, if not trillions, used already, especially dark money?

Steyer's argument is that nobody knows him.  He is not famous like Trump, Bloomberg, Biden or even Sanders.  So he advertises along with campaigning on the ground.  

Steyer believes that the wealthy should face higher taxes and he has made the giving pledge which is to spend his fortune n worthwhile causes.  Whenever I hear him speak I am impressed.  He faces a real uphill battle but is willing to spend his own dough to give it a try.

Oh, and while Trump claimed he was self-financing I doubt that was true in 2016 and it certainly isn't true any longer.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everytown for Gun Safety, backed by the former N.Y. mayor, will double its spending from 2018.

RJ5O7XWIIYI6TIP6ZJDORVLTYA.jpg
 

The top Trump ally in the House is setting his sights on filling the remaining two years of former senator Johnny Isakson’s term.

JMJZTCCBOAI6VCL7JFJLRZXOOI.jpg
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iowa Dems and DNC have changed the way in which their caucuses work.   It has always been confusing to me - they need to get a primary if they want to be first in the nation.  One person, one vote and go home.

There are at least three different results - person getting most votes, person actually getting most delegates and something else.  I think.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/27/politics/iowa-caucuses-how-they-work/index.html

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TalkTalk123 said:

 

 

Is there a reason to watch either of these as they relate to the 2020 Election?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can something be rigged again which wasn't rigged before?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TalkTalk123 said:


Debbie Wasserman Schultz, ring a bell?

I doubt that DWS could somehow manage to rig the results of all 50 primaries.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TalkTalk123 said:
Let the rigging begin
This is a bit like that. In this case, DNC lawyers argue that they don't owe anyone a fair process, and that the rules in their charter are basically not binding in court. In fact, if they wanted, DNC attorney Bruce Spiva argued, they could choose their nominee in a smoke-filled back room and it still wouldn't be legally actionable.

All political parties in the US are private entities. They legally do not have to choose anyone. Whether it's fair or not is an opinion and a different matter. Washington was right that ideally there would NO parties at all but there are and this is what happens.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, TalkTalk123 said:

Looking at Vautrin question, yes need I say more.

Yes, why should anyone open the links you have posted.

Of course, as Gershwinfan later explained, the primary process is neither a legal nor a Constitutional process.  Each party determines how they will function.

As for Sanders, he is an independent masquerading as a Democrat.  If he and his supporters are so upset, let him run as an independent.

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.


© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...