Jump to content
Biff Tannen

If your preferred Dem candidate does not get the nomination, what do you do?

If your preferred Dem candidate does not get the nomination, what do you do?  

181 members have voted

  1. 1. If your preferred Dem candidate does not get the nomination, what do you do?

    • Vote for whomever the Dem nominee is
    • Not vote
    • Vote for the Republican candidate
    • Vote third party/write in


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Calihorn said:

There is, I have no obligation to support the worst possible nominee imaginable. 

 

The worst possible is currently smearing orange shit stain on the white house and the constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Calihorn said:

God forbid we have standards for a nominee that rise above racist, sexist plutocrat.

I’ve already pointed out your warped sense of reality from snorting social media ooze. This is another indication that you have a problem. Close the social media accounts. Intervention

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, High Plains Drifter said:

 

The worst possible is currently smearing orange shit stain on the white house and the constitution.

So we try to replace him with a midget that will smear shit all over the constitution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GW Hayduke said:

I’ve already pointed out your warped sense of reality from snorting social media ooze. This is another indication that you have a problem. Close the social media accounts. Intervention

Nothing I said about Bloomberg was incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Calihorn said:

So we try to replace him with a midget that will smear shit all over the constitution?

if we have to replace him with a ham sandwich, we fucking do it.

trump and the republican senate are an actual existential threat to this country. you have to unseat him. to do so, you vote for the democrat. 

it's fucking easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Calihorn said:

Nothing I said about Bloomberg was incorrect.

Do stupid people ever wake up and realize, “holy shit, I am a fucking idiot!” or do they just continue on with their day as if everything is normal

Share this post


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

Can you tell me what you base this on?

It's counterfactual to historical evidence (cue @henrygandorf to tell us that stats and history don't matter) and I daresay my exposure to the Bros is significantly higher than yours.

i never said that, but i appreciate getting name-checked on a thread i’m not even participating in. obsession is a disease. 

12-year-old stats aside, it was the most recent poll (a couple weeks ago) that was concerning. 

cue bt to explain which polls and stats matter and which don’t. did i do that right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw, i don’t remember who (it wasn’t bt) but a bro on surly said he wouldn’t vote for bernie if he chose klobs as his vp. thought that was noteworthy and bizarre. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of you are changing my mind, I'll support literally any other nominee. Thankfully I don't have to worry about Bloomberg actually winning anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Do stupid people ever wake up and realize, “holy shit, I am a fucking idiot!” or do they just continue on with their day as if everything is normal

Don't talk that way about yourself man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

i never said that, but i appreciate getting name-checked on a thread i’m not even participating in. obsession is a disease. 

12-year-old stats aside, it was the most recent poll (a couple weeks ago) that was concerning. 

cue bt to explain which polls and stats matter and which don’t. did i do that right?

The poll which had Pete voters and Bernie voters basically equal in saying they wouldn't vote for anyone but their own guy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Calihorn said:

Seriously? Republican in Democrats clothing and fucking orb mom?

Yes, seriously.  Let's be very, very clear:  both are better than Trump.  All of them are, including Bloomberg.  This is really simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Yes, seriously.  Let's be very, very clear:  both are better than Trump.  All of them are, including Bloomberg.  This is really simple.

I mean, the first two would be crushed in the general, and Bloomberg will be a repeat of 2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Calihorn said:

I mean, the first two would be crushed in the general, and Bloomberg will be a repeat of 2016

So?  And NO.  Stop buying the hype.

(And in point of fact, Crystal Mama would never get the nod, and I doubt Tulsi would, either, but given either as the nominee, yes.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

So?  And NO.  Stop buying the hype.

(And in point of fact, Crystal Mama would never get the nod, and I doubt Tulsi would, either, but given either as the nominee, yes.)

So they shouldn't be nominee, duh. Yes, his AA support is going to crater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

trump and the republican senate are an actual existential threat to this country.

What we'd really hate to see, honestly, is a billionaire Republican using the power and influence he bought with his wealth to overrule something vital to democracy, let's say... oh I'm pulling this out of a hat... the rule that says he can only serve two 4-year terms.

Wouldn't want that. It's something that ensures that we're a democracy and not a tyrannical monarchy.

Now to take a BIG 'OLE SIP of soda out of my tiny cup...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The poll which had Pete voters and Bernie voters basically equal in saying they wouldn't vote for anyone but their own guy?

yeah, that one. i’m sitting at dfw killing time. you mind posting it right quick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What we'd really hate to see, honestly, is a billionaire Republican using the power and influence he bought with his wealth to overrule something vital to democracy, let's say... oh I'm pulling this out of a hat... the rule that says he can only serve two 4-year terms.

Wouldn't want that. It's something that ensures that we're a democracy and not a tyrannical monarchy.

Now to take a BIG 'OLE SIP of soda out of my tiny cup...

That is alarming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the 29 who voted in favor of that extension share that blame, too.  Pretty blatant self-dealing.

Now, let's dial back the "threat to the democracy" talk for a bit.  I don't see anyone bitching about the mayor of Milwaukee, who has served for 16 years at this point.  I guess he's a tyrannical monarch?  Maybe cities just get to set their own rules.  (That said, yes, Bloomberg's end run would seem to be the kind of thing that should require voter approval.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the Democrat posters ever want to hear what I’m about to say, but I’m going to say it anyway.

There is a significant block of independent voters that must be won over in order to win the election. I realize there is disagreement on this point.

In my opinion, most of those independents (51-60%) will vote for ANY Democrat over Trump, except for one scenario.

If the nominee is Bernie Sanders and polling suggests the Democrats will retain the house AND flip the senate, these voters will be so concerned about a Democrat controlled congress with Bernie in charge, some will vote Trump, enough to flip the election to Trump.

The problem is that most independents are as scared of some of Bernie’s policies like his healthcare plan, student debt cancellation, free college and other aggressive proposals, as they are of Trump. Easier to vote for what you know vs what you don’t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

None of the Democrat posters ever want to hear what I’m about to say, but I’m going to say it anyway.

There is a significant block of independent voters that must be won over in order to win the election. I realize there is disagreement on this point.

In my opinion, most of those independents (51-60%) will vote for ANY Democrat over Trump, except for one scenario.

If the nominee is Bernie Sanders and polling suggests the Democrats will retain the house AND flip the senate, these voters will be so concerned about a Democrat controlled congress with Bernie in charge, some will vote Trump, enough to flip the election to Trump.

The problem is that most independents are as scared of some of Bernie’s policies like his healthcare plan, student debt cancellation, free college and other aggressive proposals, as they are of Trump. Easier to vote for what you know vs what you don’t.

That scenario is somewhat frightening, yes.  But I'd still hold my nose and vote for Sanders.

One thing this primary season seems to be showing is that even with the House and Senate, the Democratic Party is such an internal shitshow that I'm not sure anything would get done.

Moar parties pls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
democratic. take that aggy shit elsewhere. 


I have no idea what you’re referencing. It’s just iPhone spell check gone wild. Why is that aggy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, the 29 who voted in favor of that extension share that blame, too.  Pretty blatant self-dealing.

As is true of everyone who enables a corrupt president.

Quote

Now, let's dial back the "threat to the democracy" talk for a bit.  I don't see anyone bitching about the mayor of Milwaukee, who has served for 16 years at this point.  I guess he's a tyrannical monarch?  Maybe cities just get to set their own rules.

Love 2 apologize for billionaire oligarchs rewriting the rules to get themselves power 2 own the left

15 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

None of the Democrat posters ever want to hear what I’m about to say, but I’m going to say it anyway.

There is a significant block of independent voters that must be won over in order to win the election. I realize there is disagreement on this point.

In my opinion, most of those independents (51-60%) will vote for ANY Democrat over Trump, except for one scenario.

If the nominee is Bernie Sanders and polling suggests the Democrats will retain the house AND flip the senate, these voters will be so concerned about a Democrat controlled congress with Bernie in charge, some will vote Trump, enough to flip the election to Trump.

The problem is that most independents are as scared of some of Bernie’s policies like his healthcare plan, student debt cancellation, free college and other aggressive proposals, as they are of Trump. Easier to vote for what you know vs what you don’t.

yeah-ok-good-meme.jpg.webp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie won independents in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Bernie consistently leads among independents nationwide.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

 


I have no idea what you’re referencing. It’s just iPhone spell check gone wild. Why is that aggy?

 

democrat is a noun, and could be the subject of your sentence. democratic is an adjective, used to describe or modify your subject/noun. in this case, “posters” is your subject. 

would you call someone from asia a “china person”?

grammar matters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I worry about a myriad of future scenarios that I have made up in my head and Bernie has done nothing to address them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Does M4A cover self-inflicted Internet Brain Disease?

Unfortunately I think that's terminal. The only answer for any of us is death panels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would vote for Barry Switzer if he ran against Trump.

It would be an improvement.

Also, fuck Trump and all who defend him.

Share this post


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

yeah, that one. i’m sitting at dfw killing time. you mind posting it right quick?

still waiting...

Share this post


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

The poll which had Pete voters and Bernie voters basically equal in saying they wouldn't vote for anyone but their own guy?

Well, there is the Quinnipac poll from two days ago.  

Question 8: Would you vote for Biden or Trump - Bernie voters: 85 Biden /3 Trump; Buttigieg voters: 96/2

Question 9: Would you vote for Sanders or Trump - Bernie voters 100/0; Buttigieg voters 97/0

Question 10: Would you vote for Warren or Trump - Bernie voters 94/2; Buttigieg voters 98/0

Question 11: Would you vote for Buttigieg or Trump - 82/9; Buttigieg voters 100/0

Question 12: Klob or Trump; Bernies 87/6, Peties: 99/0

Q13: Bloomberg or Trump: Bernies 85/4; Peties 96/1

It's pretty much Bernie's and Bloomberg's voters who would vote for Trump in non-trivial margins, should their guy not get it.  I hope they are trying to just work the polls to make their guy look more electable than the others.  

For what it's worth, this poll would also imply that his problems with minorities isn't really as bad as it seems.  Certainly, others have higher favorable ratings, but Buttigieg's doesn't have high negatives, just high unknowns.  Bernie (Q15)  is 71% favorable/20% unfavorable/6% "haven't heard enough".  Buttigieg (Q17) is 38/16/42.  

Share this post


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

I’ve already pointed out your warped sense of reality from snorting social media ooze. This is another indication that you have a problem. Close the social media accounts. Intervention

tenor.gif?itemid=13734863

Share this post


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

Love 2 apologize for billionaire oligarchs rewriting the rules to get themselves power 2 own the left

You're such a little shit.  Nice job editing out my last sentence.

So I'm going to corner you on this:  is Milwaukee a monarchy?  Answer the fucking question without your usual bullshit.

Share this post


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

 

would you call someone from asia a “china person”?

Only if I was running for WV senate

Share this post


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

democrat is a noun, and could be the subject of your sentence. democratic is an adjective, used to describe or modify your subject/noun. in this case, “posters” is your subject. 

would you call someone from asia a “china person”?

grammar matters. 

2a962f6b46551b0bae5555106a3d1434

Edited by hayden_horn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

still waiting...

Didn't know I got hired to be your errand boy.

18 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You're such a little shit.  Nice job editing out my last sentence.

So I'm going to corner you on this:  is Milwaukee a monarchy?  Answer the fucking question without your usual bullshit.

No, it's not. I wasn't dodging that question, it's just stupid.

Mike Bloomberg requesting a third term and the local government he bought giving him the opportunity to seek one isn't monarchy, it's oligarchic corruption in a democracy.

What you and others are trying desperately to do is say Trump is a LITERAL EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO OUR NATION while downplaying behavior from Mike Bloomberg that in Trump you would call fascism.

If you don't think someone using his insane wealth to patronage his way into limitless power is someone who would destroy a nation, then I'm not interested in your hyperbolic proclamations about what or who is going to kill America.

I'm not voting for Mike Bloomberg. No one should.

I'm not voting for Donald Trump. No one should.

I'm not voting for oligarchs.

Edited by bad_teammate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

No, it's not. I wasn't dodging that question, it's just stupid.

Mike Bloomberg requesting a third term and the local government he bought giving him the opportunity to seek one isn't monarchy, it's oligarchic corruption in a democracy.

What you and others are trying desperately to do is say Trump is a LITERAL EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO OUR NATION while downplaying behavior from Mike Bloomberg that in Trump you would call fascism.

If you don't think someone using his insane wealth to patronage his way into limitless power is someone who would destroy a nation, then I'm not interested in your hyperbolic proclamations about what or who is going to kill America.

I'm not voting for Mike Bloomberg. No one should.

I'm not voting for Donald Trump. No one should.

I'm not voting for oligarchs.

Well, you seem to be forgetting the fact that New York RE-ELECTED HIM A THIRD TIME.

I already acknowledged it was a bullshit move to get it through the council w/o voter approval, but ignoring the fact that roughly 3 dozen council members also benefitted is disingenous at best.

But that's what you do.  You're a disingenuous little shit who dances around the edges of his shitty little arguments.

And for what it's worth, the Milwaukee analogy is apt, inasmuch as people have implied that w/o 2-term limits a mayor becomes a monarch.  I don't see you shooting down that point, because it would be inconvenient for you.  You're all about opportunity instead of truth or reason.  You're a Bernie Bro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, you seem to be forgetting the fact that New York RE-ELECTED HIM A THIRD TIME.

No, I'm not forgetting that. I never said he was unelected. You're making things up.

Quote

but ignoring the fact that roughly 3 dozen council members also benefitted is disingenous at best.

I literally called them "a local government he bought".

You're just so mad and so wrong.

Quote

And for what it's worth, the Milwaukee analogy is apt, inasmuch as people have implied that w/o 2-term limits a mayor becomes a monarch. 

No one argued that.

I said "tyrannical monarchy" to make fun of the hysterics of the "DONALD TRUMP IS ENDING OUR NATION!" crowd.

If Donald went to Congress and said, "I want a third term, draft and pass a Constitutional amendment" what would that same crowd's reaction be? Would it be, "Hmm seems fine and cool for him to ask as long as we get to vote on it."?

No, it wouldn't, and you know it. But you're so emotionally and personally invested in this argument you can't back away from it.

Michael Bloomberg is an oligarch and is just as dangerous to American democracy as Donald Trump. In fact, we have direct evidence from his record that he might be even more dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Didn't know I got hired to be your errand boy.

well, now you know better.

if it says what you claim it says, you have no reason not to post it. your posting history shows you’ll post plenty of pics, links, tweets, polls, and charts if it backs up your point. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, henrygandorf said:

if it says what you claim it says, you have no reason not to post it. 

You're the one who brought the poll up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

You're the one who brought the poll up.

because you called me out by name and lied about what i said. remember when you used to rail against “disingenuous arguments”?

pepperidge farm remembers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If Donald went to Congress and said, "I want a third term, draft and pass a Constitutional amendment" what would that same crowd's reaction be? Would it be, "Hmm seems fine and cool for him to ask as long as we get to vote on it."?

Well, Congress couldn't pass a Constitutional amendment, so your scenario is flawed.

 

Quote

Michael Bloomberg is an oligarch and is just as dangerous to American democracy as Donald Trump. In fact, we have direct evidence from his record that he might be even more dangerous.

You're insane. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Well, Congress couldn't pass a Constitutional amendment, so your scenario is flawed.

hmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, Congress couldn't pass a Constitutional amendment, so your scenario is flawed.

 

You're insane. 

over 10% of the Bernie vote from the 2016 primary went to Trump.  that's how the most loyal supporters see this.  and who cares about bloomberg?  he's highly unlikely to get the nom at this point.  what will they do when bernie has a plurality but can't get to the 1900+ delegates but say Pete does?  they sit out and Trump wins?  every one who sits out this election or votes L or Green is dead to me.  vote blue no matter what. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any of y'all who have wondered why I have said that Trump is a stone-cold lock for re-election....just go back through this thread as a snapshot of exactly why that's going to happen.
We have enough people who are willing to watch the country burn on a pyre of their zero-compromise principles to tilt the whole thing Trump's way.  It only takes a few percentage points, and he's already got them.  
Eight years of Trump, guaranteed.

After watching the first two D contests play out, I have to admit I'm trending more towards this kind of thinking. Party is a mess. Fortunately, now until November is an eternity in politics and most of the country doesn't pay attention until after this nominating process is long since over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gmr548 said:


 Fortunately, now until November is an eternity in politics and most of the country doesn't pay attention until after this nominating process is long since over.

This is what I'm thinking, but if that's the case, how does Bloomberg get the nomination?  People who pay attention to primaries should know what he's doing and those that don't pay attention won't vote in the primaries.  Or is that wishful thinking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...