Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,706
Bloomburg did poorly.
That's one way of putting it.
https://twitter.com/axmed2002/status/1230551585886879747
Bloomburg did poorly.
What do you think would happen in the general if Sanders won the majority of the vote, but at the convention someone else became the nominee? I can only think that would end in a disaster even if the new nominee might have polled better otherwise.
Angry Warren is awesome. If she had this same suicide mission energy in everything and quit punching left she'd be winning. The civility and consensus building was never her lane. She needs to seek and destroy Biden and Pete with that same ruthlessness she did Bloomberg and once they are smoking craters the center is hers by default.
She can pretend Bernie doesn't exist. She's already more the consensus candidate than he is and doesn't need to waste time arguing that point. All attacking him did was alienate a lot of their shared base.
Whole debate was a disgrace. And the mods seem to egg the candidates on.
Bloomburg did poorly. Only good blow he landed was the "Amerca is not about to throw out capitalism " remark in response to Sanders "there should not be Billioniares" comment, which Bernie will have to somehow walk back if he wants to win in November.
Biden was non existent.
I have to agree that Trump won this debate.
Pretty sure we saw this in 2008, albeit under a very different circumstance: Hillary Clinton had the popular vote, Barack Obama had the most delegates. The superdelegates broke for Obama, and he went on to win the presidency with the dem voters, minus the PUMAs who turned out to be fairly unimportant, eager to see it.
This part:
Unless you're an alien who doesn't understand language, it implies that what we're saying is not genuine.
On the other hand, the defense was a lie. Klobuchar didn't just forget the name (if she ever knew it) she failed foreign relations 101: at least know something about your neighbors besides the fact they have a new president.... It was noteworthy how she defended Klobuchar over the Mexican President snafu rather than just piling on...
I agree with this....
I think Klobuchar will probably be out soon. She looked like she is trying to play the role of the "nice" candidate and is always grinning away, but then when she gets rattled she looks lightweight and her retaliations sound petty, "Are you calling me dumb?" "You tried to win an election and you loOoOost!" etc...
I guess it depends on how you react to all his claims of "I actually did it" like he was co-POTUS with Obama. VPs simply do not play that role. IOW I hear resume padding, among other things I find annoying about what Biden has to say.He jumped in and interjected himself into the conversation to say absolutely nothing....
I think he did OK, actually. no major flubs and asserted himself . But, he got almost no time. That may have been why he looked better. ...
He is the sitting president. It's always been his to lose.Sadly, I now think the election is Trump's to lose.
It was pointed out that in the next interview she did, she demonstrated sharp knowledge of subjects inside Mexico.On the other hand, the defense was a lie. Klobuchar didn't just forget the name (if she ever knew it) she failed foreign relations 101: at least know something about your neighbors besides the fact they have a new president.
The unpredictable variable in convention scenarios is who drops out and when.Has anyone been running the numbers to how the various candidates are doing in scenarios where the Super Delegates break a certain way?
IIRC, It was the first topic addressed, at the first Republican debate.Remember when Rubio and Trump got into an argument about the size of Trump's penis during a primary debate? Let me know when the Democrats get that low. Until then, I think we can dispense with the Democratic debates being a "disgrace".
Sadly, I now think the election is Trump's to lose.
Sadly, I now think the election is Trump's to lose.
Here's the problem with that, an interview like the one on Telemundo is not going to be erased because a candidate brushes up the next day after they know the questions and tries to sound knowledgeable.It was pointed out that in the next interview she did, she demonstrated sharp knowledge of subjects inside Mexico.
Not knowing one thing one time doesn't mean they don't "at least know something."
That phrasing is a way to make "you know nothing" a little nicer sounding and harder to refute.
Here's the problem with that, an interview like the one on Telemundo is not going to be erased because a candidate brushes up the next day after they know the questions and tries to sound knowledgeable.
This was an interview on Telemundo for cripes sake! It wasn't a random question on a Sunday talk show.
It’s OK. You will like socialism.