1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Dem Primary Debate

Discussion in 'US Politics' started by Frank Underwood, Jun 27, 2019.

  1. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat Enthusiast EXP: 18 Years

    Threads:
    285
    Messages:
    2,253
    Trophy Points:
    3,797
    Ratings:
    +1,050
    Burn! Burn! Burn!

    No to Neoliberalism 20/20!

    New Hampshire primary: Bernie Sanders wins, CBS News projects

    Bernie Sanders has won the New Hampshire primary, CBS News projected just after 11 p.m. Tuesday. Pete Buttigieg finished second and Amy Klobuchar came in third. CBS News projects Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren are not on pace to win any delegates.

    The primary also led to two candidates dropping out: Andrew Yang and Michael Bennet.

    Exit polls show nearly half of voters (48%) decided on a candidate late, in just the past couple of days.

    Exit polls show Democratic primary voters prioritized beating President Trump over having a candidate who agrees with them on the issues. Of the majority of voters concerned about beating Mr. Trump, their support was split between Buttigieg and Klobuchar. For voters more concerned about a candidate agreeing with them on issues, support went to Sanders.

    Another issue that separated the field was whether voters wanted a candidate who can bring needed change or one who can unite the country. Of those who said they want change, support went to Sanders. Of those who are looking to unite, support was split between Buttigieg and Klobuchar.

    Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/live-update...-election-results-updates-tonight-2020-02-11/

     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2020
  2. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat Enthusiast EXP: 18 Years

    Threads:
    285
    Messages:
    2,253
    Trophy Points:
    3,797
    Ratings:
    +1,050
    From what I've seen on Twitter, the mainstream media is downplaying Bernie's win in New Hampshire while saying that Buttigieg and Klobuchar are the big winners of the night.

    Welcome to the Twilight Zone. At least the progressives are mocking the coverage. Michael Moore tweeted "If only Bernie had come in third he’d be getting more attention. Sadly, I can see no path forward for him. What makes him think by getting the most votes in state after state that he’ll be the eventual nominee?! That’s that crazy DemSocial thinking for you."
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2020
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat Enthusiast EXP: 18 Years

    Threads:
    285
    Messages:
    2,253
    Trophy Points:
    3,797
    Ratings:
    +1,050
    Nevada Dems Hire Buttigieg Organizer As "Voter Protection Director"
     
  4. Michael Torrance

    Michael Torrance Soap Chat Enthusiast EXP: 2 Years

    Threads:
    84
    Messages:
    2,391
    Trophy Points:
    1,098
    Occupation:
    Instigator
    Location:
    Alexis' studio
    Ratings:
    +3,912
    But he didn't get the most voters in "state after state." Moore, who is a clumsy storyteller in his films, is no better in his tweets. Buttigieg won in Iowa (with a small difference from Sanders) and got more delegates in Iowa, but Sanders fanatics are claiming that is because of voter fraud. Then Sanders wins (with a small difference from Buttigieg) in New Hampshire and his fanboys present it is a landslide and, of course, now a completely legit election since their "boy" won. I have seen nothing from Sanders' camp (his campaign and his zealots) that would make me vote for him to be president. Quite the opposite with their tactics. And Sanders' own minions in 2016 have given all of us plenty of ammunition why the "but you need to vote against Trump" argument doesn't hold water.
     
  5. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat Enthusiast EXP: 18 Years

    Threads:
    285
    Messages:
    2,253
    Trophy Points:
    3,797
    Ratings:
    +1,050
    You don't have to be a "Sanders fanatic" to recognize how shady the Iowa caucuses were. Between votes for Sanders being assigned to other candidates, Shadow app's ties to Buttigieg and his campaign, or the Iowa Democratic Party's lawyer saying “the incorrect math on the Caucus Math Worksheets must not be changed to ensure the integrity of the process."

    Even amid the fuckery, Sanders won the popular vote in Iowa by 2,580 votes. As Pete Buttigieg once said, "At risk of sounding a little simplistic, one thing I believe is that in an American Presidential election, the person who gets the most votes ought to be the person who wins." I agree, but I also believe that should apply to EVERY election.

    That's so silly. I haven't heard any Sanders supporter refer to his victory in New Hampshire as a "landslide." If anything, they've acknowledged it was closer than they expected. Perhaps the reason Bernie supporters find the New Hampshire primary legit is because it wasn't plagued with the failures, lack of transparency, and inconsistencies of the Iowa caucuses.

    Meanwhile, the establishment fanboys in the mainstream media dismiss Bernie's win or refuse to talk about him at all. Instead, they continue focusing on Buttigieg and Klobuchar. Chris Matthews even said that Buttigieg and Klobuchar "trounced" Bernie with their combined vote tallies. The contempt that the media has for Bernie has helped push people in his camp.

    Oh, that pesky Sanders and his "zealots" fighting for the health and economic well being of their fellow citizens. What a turn off!

    I have seen nothing from the smear merchants in the Dem establishment or the mainstream media that would make me vote for a neoliberal. Quite the opposite with their tactics.



    And yet more of Clinton's "minions" voted for McCain over Obama in 2008 (25%, compared to 12% of Sanders supporters that voted for Trump over Clinton.)

    I'm proud that I'm not in the "blue no matter who" camp. Neocons and neoliberals created the conditions that led to Donald Trump's presidency. The Dem establishment has shown they support most of Trump's policy agenda anyway. They just want someone in office who will put a well spoken spin on ugly policies, as well as be subservient to the intelligence community.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2020
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat Enthusiast EXP: 18 Years

    Threads:
    285
    Messages:
    2,253
    Trophy Points:
    3,797
    Ratings:
    +1,050
    Watch 2019 Pete Buttigieg Give a Devastating Critique of 2020 Pete Buttigieg’s Campaign Strategy

    At Friday night’s Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire, Pete Buttigieg attacked Bernie Sanders—who is polling ahead of Buttigieg in the state—for “dividing people with a politics that says, if you don’t go all the way to the edge, it doesn’t count. A politics that says, it’s my way or the highway.” On Sunday, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Buttigieg if he believed “that the Democrats can defeat Donald Trump if they have to defend socialism.” Answered the former Indiana mayor: “I think it will be lot harder.” Elsewhere on Sunday, Buttigieg told a crowd that Sanders’ universal health-coverage plan was too expensive and that the party needs to “do something” about the federal deficit even though the subject is “not fashionable in progressive circles.”

    Buttigieg is running second in New Hampshire polls ahead of Tuesday’s primary, but he’s still in fifth place nationally—behind Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Michael Bloomberg—and has almost no nonwhite support. Winning in New Hampshire is important for his near-term narrative momentum, and as Mother Jones’ Tim Murphy noted, his sudden concerns regarding fiscal responsibility, the risks of socialism, and the off-putting steadfastness of Sanders’ principles may have been developed strategically to attract the moderate Republican and independent voters who are allowed to participate in the state’s “open” Democratic primary if they choose.

    As leftist journalist Walker Bragman noted, the gambit is the exact type of campaign strategy that Buttigieg denounced, with almost an eerie degree of foresight, during a February 2019 appearance at Scripps College. (He’d announced that he’d formed a presidential exploratory committee a month earlier.) First he described writing an essay about Sanders while in college and praised him for being forthright about his positions:

    "There was a moment where people just weren’t saying what they believed, especially on the left—they were just so cowed by living in this conservative moment that even Democratic presidents or politicians were saying conservative things, which to me raised the question of why we bothered voting for [Democrats]. So what was so interesting to me about then–obscure congressman Sanders was that he just said what he thought. He attached himself to this label that was really suicidal in most contexts politically, socialist, especially 20 years ago. And just said what he was about. And I wished that more people on both sides of the aisle would just do that. And I really respected that and still do.

    You know, I think I have a somewhat different message in 2020 than he does and I’m certainly a very different messenger. But to the extent that he just opened up the conversation and just moved the kind of outer fencepost of what we could talk about between right and left, I think that’s a very healthy thing and it’s good that he’s in this process again."

    (CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski also noted on Sunday that Buttigieg praised Sanders in 2017 as a politician who “wore his ideas on his sleeve but also seemed to be capable of working with Republicans.” Said Buttigieg, then: “Conviction politics can actually make you more convincing, not less, with independents and folks on the other side of the aisle because at least they know that you’re motivated by values, even if your values are different.”)

    Later the Scripps event’s moderator asked Buttigieg about a poll which had found that 58 percent of Democrats were comfortable saying they supported socialism. Here’s part of his response:

    "I think [I’m] from a generation that didn’t grow up in this era where you had communism and socialism here [gesturing upward to one side], kind of the same thing in people’s imagination, and then you had democracy and capitalism here [gesturing upward to the other side], also the same thing. So if you were for socialism you were with communism, which meant you were against democracy. And I think that just doesn’t compute for anybody my age or younger. Because we’re living in this moment when socialism could mean Venezuela but it could mean Denmark. It could mean Social Security. And what’s really interesting in the moment we’re living in is the tensions that are arising between capitalism and democracy. And the real question is, when those tensions arise, do you defend capitalism over democracy, or do you defend democracy over capitalism? Those are the questions that I think need to be answered for our generation.

    And so in terms of whose approval ratings are where on the idea, look, I think we’ve gotta remember that the conduct of these campaigns changes the answer to some of those questions. The fact that Bernie Sanders got in, in 2016, changes the numbers on socialism among Democrats for 2020. And we’ve got to recognize that there’s more to campaigns than just trying to get over the finish line. The conduct of the campaigns matters. And Republicans were very smart about this. They ran super-uphill campaigns in the ’60s with ideas that seemed preposterously far-out when Goldwater campaigned on them, and then became mainstream by the time Reagan campaigned on them. Or at least the second or third time Reagan campaigned on them, and actually won. And that was how conservatives began to win not just an election but an era. And I think serious progressives should be thinking about how we set the conditions for our values to be in the ascendant over the next 20 or 30 years, not just how we get through 2020."

    Up-and-Coming Phenom Buttigieg and Long-Shot Candidate Buttigieg said that Sanders was admirably principled in a way that independents and Republicans respected, and implied that denouncing socialism was destructive to the long-term interests not just of the Democratic Party but of democracy itself. Presidential Contender Buttigieg says that Sanders is obnoxiously inflexible and that socialism is electorally and financially dangerous. The conduct of a campaign really can change the answer to some questions, huh?

    Source: https://slate.com/news-and-politics...mocrats-should-stop-demonizing-socialism.html

    2017 Buttigieg was quite astute. Trump recently told reporters “Frankly, I’d rather run against Bloomberg than Bernie Sanders because Sanders has real followers, whether you like him or not, whether you agree with him or not. I happen to think it’s terrible what he says. But he has followers. Bloomberg’s just buying his way in.”
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2020
  7. Snarky's Ghost

    Snarky's Ghost Soap Chat Oracle EXP: 19 Years

    Threads:
    510
    Messages:
    6,964
    Trophy Points:
    6,136
    Occupation:
    INFJ
    Location:
    Haunting that cozy cellar under Falcon Crest
    Ratings:
    +8,981
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat Enthusiast EXP: 18 Years

    Threads:
    285
    Messages:
    2,253
    Trophy Points:
    3,797
    Ratings:
    +1,050
    Bernie Sanders Has an MSNBC Problem
    Cable news networks, particularly the "liberal" one, are a growing barrier to his surging campaign.

    For all the talk of cord-cutting and the rise of the digital campaign, cable television remains central to politics. Donald Trump rode billions of dollars in free media to the White House in 2016. Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer are running a political science experiment of sorts, blanketing the country with TV spots—and seeing their poll numbers rise accordingly. (Polling at 3 percent when he first entered the race, Bloomberg has since shot up to 15 percent—at a cost of about $30 million per percentage point.) Old people watch a lot of television. Old people vote. The best way to reach these voters is to get on TV and stay there.

    Bernie Sanders’s campaign is different. Although Sanders is spending money on television and radio ads—$5 million in February alone—his campaign is built on grassroots energy and a near-monopoly on young voters. His polling with senior citizens is anemic. A recent Morning Consult poll found that Sanders led millennial voters with 43 percent support; the next highest candidate, Joe Biden, was at 16 percent. The same poll found that only 13 percent of Baby Boomers supported Sanders—half the number supporting Biden.

    Sanders has framed himself as an outsider, taking on the political establishment as a democratic socialist. But as he has surged in the polls—he now leads Biden with all voters—he is increasingly running up against another establishment: the media, and particularly cable news.

    Trump’s takeover of the Republican Party was aided by a coup at Fox News. After some early turbulence, Fox quickly got in line and has become something like state TV, an echo chamber for the president’s point of view. Sanders has fewer natural allies in cable TV. In fact, the supposedly liberal network, MSNBC, has become a serious obstacle, pumping out Republican anti-Sanders talking points with increasing frequency.

    After last Friday’s Democratic debate, Chris Matthews waxed apoplectic about what electing a socialist could mean for America. “I have an attitude towards [Fidel] Castro,” he said. “I believe if Castro and the Reds had won the Cold War there would have been executions in Central Park, and I might have been one of the ones getting executed. And certain other people would be there cheering, OK?” Matthews’s colleagues pointed out that Sanders was more of a Danish type of socialist than a Castro type of socialist, but to little avail.

    Two days later, James Carville, Bill Clinton’s former campaign guru, went on Morning Joe to rant about how a Sanders nomination would bring about the apocalypse. Literally. “The only thing between the United States and the abyss is the Democratic Party,” he said. “That’s it. If we go the way of the British Labour Party, if we nominate Jeremy Corbyn, it’s going to be the end of days.” The same day, Chuck Todd, who also hosts NBC’s Meet the Press, read from an article from the right-wing website The Bulwark comparing supporters of Sanders, who is Jewish, to “brownshirts.”

    And in the lead-up to Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary, Lawrence O’Donnell argued that the real story was that Bernie was losing momentum because his poll numbers were down from the last Democratic primary—even though he is now facing more than a half-dozen opponents, compared to 2016, when he faced one. “The story of the Sanders campaign so far this year is how much ground he’s lost from four years ago,” O’Donnell said. He also ignored the fact that Sanders is leading nationally, which wasn’t the case in 2016.

    This is not a new phenomenon. An analysis by In These Times found that Sanders “received not only the least total coverage (less than one-third of Biden’s), but the most negative” coverage on MSNBC’s prime-time programming. MSNBC’s hostility to Sanders presents a sharp contrast to Fox News’s treatment of Trump. “Fox sycophancy dominates its prime-time hours, as Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity praise Dear Leader, and the morning shift, when the hosts of Fox & Friends supply him with ample supplication,” Jack Shafer wrote in 2017. “Trump completes this unvirtuous circle by tweeting back his approval. The ensuing feedback loop serves both the man and the network, making both seem larger than they really are.”

    That is not to say that MSNBC, or any journalistic entity, should attempt to replicate Fox’s propagandistic approach to “news” programming. But the antipathy toward Sanders points to larger issues at the network.

    While other media outlets, particularly in print, have grappled with the rise of leftists such as Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in recent years, MSNBC’s prime-time shows have invested heavily in coverage of the president’s war with the “deep state” and his ties to Russia. MSNBC has become increasingly filled with talking heads with national security experience—not exactly the type of people who can speak to the rise of democratic socialism in the Democratic Party. With some exceptions, such as All In With Chris Hayes, MSNBC has been obsessed with unraveling Dan Brown-ish ties between Trump and foreign leaders, often letting the issues that Sanders talks about, like health care and income inequality, fall by the wayside.

    MSNBC is also a prominent stage for the Democratic elites that Sanders has bashed for his entire political career. His primary strategy is built around ignoring more traditional paths to the nomination, snubbing party mandarins who appear on Morning Joe in favor of turning out new voters. Indeed there is some anecdotal evidence that MSNBC’s distaste for him is helping—a New Hampshire voter told the network on Tuesday that she was voting for Sanders because of the network’s negative coverage of the candidate. “It made me angry, and I said, ‘OK, Bernie has my vote,’” she said.

    Sanders’s problems reaching older voters certainly go beyond cable news—socialism is viewed more negatively by those who grew up during the Cold War, for instance—but at the moment, he’s facing a wall of bad coverage across networks that reinforces doubts about his candidacy. Tune in to CNN or Fox News or the Sunday shows, and you hear the same questions about Sanders’s political beliefs, his electability, and his age. Sanders has been surging in spite of these questions, but there are growing signs that the resistance to his campaign will be led by cable news anchors.

    Source: https://newrepublic.com/article/156545/bernie-sanders-msnbc-problem
     
  9. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat Enthusiast EXP: 18 Years

    Threads:
    285
    Messages:
    2,253
    Trophy Points:
    3,797
    Ratings:
    +1,050
    The Iowa Caucus Sham Continues


    Don't Vote "Blue No Matter Who", Vote Anti-Establishment No Matter Who
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2020
  10. Michael Torrance

    Michael Torrance Soap Chat Enthusiast EXP: 2 Years

    Threads:
    84
    Messages:
    2,391
    Trophy Points:
    1,098
    Occupation:
    Instigator
    Location:
    Alexis' studio
    Ratings:
    +3,912
    No, the reason they find it legit is because Sanders won. If he loses, it is then rigged. I mean, this thread alone shows it.

    Oh yes, what a Robin Hood he is. Shame on anyone trying to criticize his and his campaign's tactics. Nonetheless, the divisiveness and the arrogance are huge turn offs. I don't doubt the Sanders fanboys will rally around him. But if he ends up the party's nominee, this time the Democrats will lose the popular vote together with the electoral college. But somehow it will of course all be blamed on the DNC, the establishment, and the other broken records of his defenders.
     
  11. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat Enthusiast EXP: 18 Years

    Threads:
    285
    Messages:
    2,253
    Trophy Points:
    3,797
    Ratings:
    +1,050
    You made that up to suit your narrative. There has been a ton of reporting on the failures and inconsistencies of the Iowa caucuses. The same can't be said for the New Hampshire primay.

    Gee, I can't imagine why anybody would rally around a guy who wants to give them health care, a college education, a living wage, and an end to military coups. In reality, the divisiveness and arrogance comes from the mainstream media and the Democratic establishment who sneer and turn up their nose at the people trying to reform our corrupt political system.

    The Democratic establishment and their enablers try to make their victims feel like they are the cause of animosity and contempt. It's gaslighting 101, but that doesn't work on me. So-called "liberal" MSNBC spouts right wing propaganda about Bernie and his positions, calls his supporters "trolls" and "brown shirts," links socialism with executions, etc. It's disgusting.

    That would mean he's more unpopular than Hillary Clinton, when in reality he's one of the most popular politicians in the country. This is just your own personal hatred talking.

    He also won't betray the working class in the swing states, which is ultimately why Hillary lost to Trump. Another neoliberal Dem would likely end up in the same position as her.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2020
  12. Michael Torrance

    Michael Torrance Soap Chat Enthusiast EXP: 2 Years

    Threads:
    84
    Messages:
    2,391
    Trophy Points:
    1,098
    Occupation:
    Instigator
    Location:
    Alexis' studio
    Ratings:
    +3,912
    And yet, all one has to do is read your posts.


    Well, at least the Trump and Sanders camps do like the same broken records about the mainstream media, versus the soooo reliable fringe websites they promote.

    Clinton was a bad candidate, no question. But two wrongs do not make a right (or left).
    And, why would I have personal hatred of him? Much as you love name-calling anyone who criticizes Sanders as a neo-liberal neo-con etc, one can simply search my posts to see my positions. As for his performance, should he be the nominee (there is still a long way to go), it will all be proven in November. But I am not holding my breath for an admission of "wow, he was a terrible candidate for a general election" when he loses.
     
  13. Snarky's Ghost

    Snarky's Ghost Soap Chat Oracle EXP: 19 Years

    Threads:
    510
    Messages:
    6,964
    Trophy Points:
    6,136
    Occupation:
    INFJ
    Location:
    Haunting that cozy cellar under Falcon Crest
    Ratings:
    +8,981
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat Enthusiast EXP: 18 Years

    Threads:
    285
    Messages:
    2,253
    Trophy Points:
    3,797
    Ratings:
    +1,050
    All of which include articles and videos to support my position.

    The "soooo reliable" mainstream media consists of propagandists for the Democratic and Republican parties. They sound like a broken record with their smears of Sanders & progressives.

    The two wrongs were Clinton and Trump. Being pro-worker, pro-single payer, and anti-war made Sanders the sensible alternative to both of them because he's their antithesis.

    I recall some of your earlier posts, which is why I find your current posts jarring. You either use stock Democratic establishment talking points, or you ignore things I say completely.

    I use neoliberal and neocon as pejoratives because I'm coming at them from a progressive point of view. In turn, the neoliberals and neocons treat progressive and socialist the same way.

    Remember when the DNC thought Trump "was a terrible candidate for a general election," so they implemented the pied piper strategy and lost to him? Good times.

    If Sanders loses, you can expect an admission of "wow, the media did a great job gaslighting the public into voting against their own interests."

    Of course, his detractors won't give him any credit if he wins either.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2020
  15. Seaviewer

    Seaviewer Soap Chat Enthusiast EXP: 18 Years

    Threads:
    34
    Messages:
    2,040
    Trophy Points:
    4,327
    Location:
    Australia
    Ratings:
    +3,381
    Theoretically there's still plenty of opportunity for someone to overtake him but history is very much on his side now.
    That's presuming the moderates can unite behind one candidate. If the same pattern holds up, a Buttigieg-Klobuchar ticket could prevail at the convention.

    Klobuchar's unexpectedly strong showing does make me wonder how Harris might have gone if she'd hung in a little longer. Although she did kind of flame out after the first debate so maybe she made the right choice to keep her options open for later.
     
  16. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat Enthusiast EXP: 18 Years

    Threads:
    285
    Messages:
    2,253
    Trophy Points:
    3,797
    Ratings:
    +1,050
    Of course, but the fact that they're continuing to disregard Sanders after he received the most votes in Iowa and New Hampshire says a lot.

    From what I've seen, most moderates are the type who vote blue no matter who. I'm sure they'll unite behind any candidate (with the possible exception of Sanders.)

    Harris has some competition. There are reports that Hillary Clinton is also angling for a VP position. Of course, neither has a chance if Bernie wins the nomination.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2020
  17. Snarky's Ghost

    Snarky's Ghost Soap Chat Oracle EXP: 19 Years

    Threads:
    510
    Messages:
    6,964
    Trophy Points:
    6,136
    Occupation:
    INFJ
    Location:
    Haunting that cozy cellar under Falcon Crest
    Ratings:
    +8,981
    So Hillary shoots herself in the foot twice with Bernie: by not making him her running mate in 2016, and then badmouthing him such that he can't make her his running mate in 2020.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Zable

    Zable Soap Chat TV Fanatic EXP: 3 Years

    Threads:
    24
    Messages:
    1,473
    Trophy Points:
    690
    Ratings:
    +859
    @Snarky's Ghost Lol, I don't think that's something she has to rue.

    Do you think Bernie can win the mid-west, and what will that do to his campaign if he doesn't?

    If Lizzie drops out, do you think she will throw her support around Bernie?
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2020
  19. Zable

    Zable Soap Chat TV Fanatic EXP: 3 Years

    Threads:
    24
    Messages:
    1,473
    Trophy Points:
    690
    Ratings:
    +859
    I think Joe & Lizzie will drop out and both will give their support (and their campaign network and infrastructure) to Amy.

    I hear Mike likes Amy lots, so there's a good chance he'll team up with her: either get the nomination and pick her as veep, or else drop out someways before the convention and back her in all ways.

    All that leaves Pete in the belly of the whale, awaiting his fate.

    If Amy gets the Dem's presidential nomination, then I think she will see to it that most of those who ran with her will have a spot in her government, even cabinet. It will be interesting to see who she personally wants as veep, but I doubt it will be Lizzie.

    But I'm not writing off a Bloomberg-Klobuchar ticket.

    Nor a lesser chance Klobuchar-Buttigieg ticket.

    A Buttigieg-Warren or Klobuchar ticket only if the whale delivers Pete a miracle.
     
  20. Frank Underwood

    Frank Underwood Soap Chat Enthusiast EXP: 18 Years

    Threads:
    285
    Messages:
    2,253
    Trophy Points:
    3,797
    Ratings:
    +1,050
    Bernie Now MASSIVE Favorite To Be Democratic Nominee


    MSNBC’s Pundits Aren’t Taking Bernie’s Front Runner Status Very Well


    Desperate Elizabeth Warren Tries To Take Bernie Down With Her
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2020

Share This Page