Red Mosquito

The reality of the matter is, the way the rules are currently written...it takes greater than 50% to win. So the question is reasonable, because it’s increasingly likely that nobody is going to win according to the rules as written.

What bothers me is that this problem is a result of the Democratic establishment’s noncommittal, insecurity-based approach to this nomination process. They have let their own worry over electability, the viability of blue collar whites, Trumpism, and the progressive-vs-donor class fight lead them to qualification rules that kept too many people on the debate stage too far into the game, and prevented the field from being culled such that it’s doubtful someone COULD win 50%. “Should the rules change because of that mess” isn’t a question for candidates. It’s not remotely for them to say. It *shouldn’t* be for them to say. They’re the ones racing.

Every person on that stage would be a fool to say “yeah, let someone win with 38% if that’s the most anyone gets,” except Sanders, who’d be a fool not to. That’s literally the reason why they don’t get to decide it, and why it’s not worth asking them.

Bi_3 wrote:Also, I still support Bloomy. I'm just doubtful he can recover from that first hour gangbang.

What about his performance last night keeps you in his camp? He was completely exposed for what he is.

verb_to_trust wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Also, I still support Bloomy. I'm just doubtful he can recover from that first hour gangbang.

What about his performance last night keeps you in his camp? He was completely exposed for what he is.

One debate is one debate. Running the US is not about winning a 5 on 1 reality show contest, it's like running a Fortune 100 company (Bloomy built one) and I predominantly care about maintaining the American global dominance that Trump is systematically destroying. No one else up there (well, maybe ratface) is in that same camp, Sanders is clearly of the opposite view, so I'll stick with Bloomy until I pull the lever then vote for whomever the blue team puts up there.

McParadigm wrote:What bothers me is that this problem is a result of the Democratic establishment’s noncommittal, insecurity-based approach to this nomination process. They have let their own worry over electability, the viability of blue collar whites, Trumpism, and the progressive-vs-donor class fight lead them to qualification rules that kept too many people on the debate stage too far into the game, and prevented the field from being culled such that it’s doubtful someone COULD win 50%. “Should the rules change because of that mess” isn’t a question for candidates. It’s not remotely for them to say. It *shouldn’t* be for them to say. They’re the ones racing.

Every person on that stage would be a fool to say “yeah, let someone win with 38% if that’s the most anyone gets,” except Sanders, who’d be a fool not to. That’s literally the reason why they don’t get to decide it, and why it’s not worth asking them.

Shouldn’t a primary be exactly this? Especially in an election cycle when so much is at stake?

Trump suffered withering attacks from everyone during his primary and had no problem recovering and becoming president once he had the nomination.

In understand there’s a lot of anxiety on the blue team right now and a desire to get through the ugly primary process we knew it would be. But the process will play out as it will and once it’s one of these people vs. Trump these fractional support levels wont matter too much.

Superblood Wolfmoon wrote:

McParadigm wrote:What bothers me is that this problem is a result of the Democratic establishment’s noncommittal, insecurity-based approach to this nomination process. They have let their own worry over electability, the viability of blue collar whites, Trumpism, and the progressive-vs-donor class fight lead them to qualification rules that kept too many people on the debate stage too far into the game, and prevented the field from being culled such that it’s doubtful someone COULD win 50%. “Should the rules change because of that mess” isn’t a question for candidates. It’s not remotely for them to say. It *shouldn’t* be for them to say. They’re the ones racing.

Every person on that stage would be a fool to say “yeah, let someone win with 38% if that’s the most anyone gets,” except Sanders, who’d be a fool not to. That’s literally the reason why they don’t get to decide it, and why it’s not worth asking them.

Shouldn’t a primary be exactly this? Especially in an election cycle when so much is at stake?

Trump suffered withering attacks from everyone during his primary and had no problem recovering and becoming president once he had the nomination.

In understand there’s a lot of anxiety on the blue team right now and a desire to get through the ugly primary process we knew it would be. But the process will play out as it will and once it’s one of these people vs. Trump these fractional support levels wont matter too much.

Unless they are "XXXX or bust" and in the general you lose the 5 states that actually matter because that fraction choose the later.

That’s always a possibility but I’m hoping this time around the “XXXX or bust!” folks rethink their approach.

ehh, uber will get me exactly where I want to go though. Fuck the bus that gets me close.

Does that analogy still work if the government purposely runs my car off the road in an effort to force me to take the bus? Kinda feel like I’d rather just stay home than swallow my dignity and ride their bus (or better yet, burn their bus and riot).

Bi_3 wrote:

Orpheus wrote:Sources: b_i in shambles, driving around downtown Las Vegas begging (thru texts) for address to Bernie's ballot box

Bloomy was never the best option to beat Trump. This is something you made up in your head.

Orpheus wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Orpheus wrote:Sources: b_i in shambles, driving around downtown Las Vegas begging (thru texts) for address to Bernie's ballot box

Bloomy was never the best option to beat Trump. This is something you made up in your head.

Seriously. That the RM Bloomberg Stans could watch Daddy fall on his fucking face the way he did last night and still act like he's a viable candidate is disturbing. It's the exact sort of confirmation bias you see from the MAGA cult.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Does that analogy still work if the government purposely runs my car off the road in an effort to force me to take the bus? Kinda feel like I’d rather just stay home than swallow my dignity and ride their bus (or better yet, burn their bus and riot).

Its more like if your neighborhood was on fire, including your house, and the only escape vehicles to be found were busses. But the busses couldn’t run unless they were full, and you didn’t get the bus you wanted so you just went back inside with the fire and blamed everyone else for your subsequent problems.

McParadigm wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Does that analogy still work if the government purposely runs my car off the road in an effort to force me to take the bus? Kinda feel like I’d rather just stay home than swallow my dignity and ride their bus (or better yet, burn their bus and riot).

Its more like if your neighborhood was on fire, including your house, and the only escape vehicles to be found were busses. But the busses couldn’t run unless they were full, and you didn’t get the bus you wanted so you just went back inside with the fire and blamed everyone else for your subsequent problems.

Maybe if the bus drivers helped start the fire and are evacuating you to a building that's slightly less on fire

McParadigm wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Does that analogy still work if the government purposely runs my car off the road in an effort to force me to take the bus? Kinda feel like I’d rather just stay home than swallow my dignity and ride their bus (or better yet, burn their bus and riot).

Its more like if your neighborhood was on fire, including your house, and the only escape vehicles to be found were busses. But the busses couldn’t run unless they were full, and you didn’t get the bus you wanted so you just went back inside with the fire and blamed everyone else for your subsequent problems.

Are you referring to every election or is this just Trump hysteria?

This metaphor is being tortured to death!

Also the floor is lava

verb_to_trust wrote:

Orpheus wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Orpheus wrote:Sources: b_i in shambles, driving around downtown Las Vegas begging (thru texts) for address to Bernie's ballot box

Bloomy was never the best option to beat Trump. This is something you made up in your head.

Seriously. That the RM Bloomberg Stans could watch Daddy fall on his fucking face the way he did last night and still act like he's a viable candidate is disturbing. It's the exact sort of confirmation bias you see from the MAGA cult.

Almost as bad as believing we can add over $60T in spending this decade without ending up like Venezuela. Almost.

Bi_3 wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

Orpheus wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Orpheus wrote:Sources: b_i in shambles, driving around downtown Las Vegas begging (thru texts) for address to Bernie's ballot box

Bloomy was never the best option to beat Trump. This is something you made up in your head.

Seriously. That the RM Bloomberg Stans could watch Daddy fall on his fucking face the way he did last night and still act like he's a viable candidate is disturbing. It's the exact sort of confirmation bias you see from the MAGA cult.

Almost as bad as believing we can add over $60T in spending this decade without ending up like Venezuela. Almost.

BL3 is the kind of guy who has a Blue Cross Blue Shield tramp stamp.

Rob wrote:That last question of the debate is bugging me. Why have we listened to democrats say for 3 years that the person with the most votes should win, but when it comes to their own nomination process, that shouldn’t apply? I mean, if one person had 30% and another 28%, ok, that’s close and maybe there should be a process. But it sounded to me like they just flat out rejected the idea that the winner is the one with the most votes.

Agree. The real story here should already be how ridiculous the DNC process is. This is why Bloomy seems relatively unfazed following last night’s beatdown. And he already is running damage control on The View (which is now a more civilized venue for discussion than the DNC debates hilariously)

From Page 196:

McParadigm wrote:What do we think the odds are, if Bernie gets the nom, that centrists of both parties work together to run a third candidate? Who would they coalesce behind?

96583UP wrote:Bernie is not going to get the nom

this is the election where it becomes very clear the DNC is full if shit

the superdelegates shouldnt exist

instead the feudal lords will select their king

From Page 197:

96583UP wrote:everyone wants to criticize the electoral college

meanwhile, peel back the Democratic Party nomination process and you won’t have to go far to find out it is fundamentally undemocratic in cases where a candidate receives less than 50%

the superdelegates get to decide. and the superdelegates are bound to nothing. they can have conflicts of interest. candidates can donate to superdelegates’ wives’ charities. candidates can promise them jobs. quid pro quo. nothing having to do with the will of the people.

these state primaries are near meaningless

if the progs want to use their twitter shaming powers for good then they should get out in front of this

express a preference that superdelegates vote proportionally in line with the delegate vote count

and refuse quid pro quos

96583UP wrote:

Rob wrote:That last question of the debate is bugging me. Why have we listened to democrats say for 3 years that the person with the most votes should win, but when it comes to their own nomination process, that shouldn’t apply? I mean, if one person had 30% and another 28%, ok, that’s close and maybe there should be a process. But it sounded to me like they just flat out rejected the idea that the winner is the one with the most votes.

Agree. The real story here should already be how ridiculous the DNC process is. This is why Bloomy seems relatively unfazed following last night’s beatdown. And he already is running damage control on The View (which is now a more civilized venue for discussion than the DNC debates hilariously)

From Page 196:

McParadigm wrote:What do we think the odds are, if Bernie gets the nom, that centrists of both parties work together to run a third candidate? Who would they coalesce behind?

96583UP wrote:Bernie is not going to get the nom

this is the election where it becomes very clear the DNC is full if shit

the superdelegates shouldnt exist

instead the feudal lords will select their king

From Page 197:

96583UP wrote:everyone wants to criticize the electoral college

meanwhile, peel back the Democratic Party nomination process and you won’t have to go far to find out it is fundamentally undemocratic in cases where a candidate receives less than 50%

the superdelegates get to decide. and the superdelegates are bound to nothing. they can have conflicts of interest. candidates can donate to superdelegates’ wives’ charities. candidates can promise them jobs. quid pro quo. nothing having to do with the will of the people.

these state primaries are near meaningless

if the progs want to use their twitter shaming powers for good then they should get out in front of this

express a preference that superdelegates vote proportionally in line with the delegate vote count

and refuse quid pro quos

but pay-to-play for the DNC nom aside,

I will say Bernie looks way better equipped to take on Trump in the debates.

Bloomy way too passive and Trump would look to do the same thing Warren did to him last night.

Bernie is the best fighter to punch-out Trump right now