equates to less than 20% of the required delegates for the nomination... ergo, super tuesday is a joke upon all of the blue team...
Tulsi remains. She met the most recent debate requirements so the DNC changed the rules, again. Enjoy two old White Guys, debate. And regardless of her being "media" ' ed out by the DNC ala Sanders '16 Her message just may be more significant in 2024 with no incumbent President. Yes, Trump will WIN 2020What of 2024?
Tulsi will still be too young in 2024. The way things are going, many will consider her too young in 2036. She remains a funny color, strange religion, belief system few Democrats can accept. Can anyone picture her winning the Senate or Governorship of Hawaii any time soon? Would anyone put her in a Presidential cabinet? Would that even help seeing Castro got nowhere?
Who in **** cares what all the dyed in wool Trumpers think of any Democratic candidates? They're certainly not going to vote for anyone but the Painted Clown under any circumstance. The Risen Christ himself could be running and they'd be going on about how nobody likes hippies anymore even if they can raise dead people
Pete eeked out a victory in Iowa by the slimmest of margins in a contested caucus and it was all down hill from then on. South Carolina showed he made no headway at all with the black or older voters coming in a distant fourth. Both Pete and Amy are too poor of resources to win much on super-Tuesday without momentum and the free media it brings. Bloomberg was forcing up the cost of ad buys exponentially because he was willing to buy anywhere, any time at virtually any price at a time when they were having trouble balancing the books from what they spent in LOSING in South Carolina. The timing was a pretty simple calculus. They want to see if they have made any headway for all their efforts at broadening their strength in South Carolina and see polling results on those 14 super Tuesday states. Unless they see any real avenue for success, they are throwing good money after bad, increasing their campaign debt with ads that are not doing any good and increasing the chance that the candidate they think will harm democratic chances both at the top of the ticket and down ticket will gain unstoppable momentum while moderates bicker for scraps, and wasting potential political capital and good will with the Biden campaign and the democratic establishment. Once Biden kills Sanders and both of them, by solidifying his base of support among blacks, older voters, and moderates, with nothing but momentum in the super tuesday states, there is virtually no plus side to hanging around and running up debt when they could be unwinding staff costs and ad costs. What forced them out was lack of momentum, campaign infrastructure and resources for an all court press across the country. What is the purpose of them continuing on with virtually no chance of winning much on Super -tuesday to catch up with Biden or Sanders?
I am not at all sure that advertising is the key to victory. I heard recently on the news that Joe Biden won Massachusetts without spending even a penny on advertising there--and without any "ground game."
Think about it. Joe Biden is the one candidate in the race who needed neither. He's the Classic Coke candidate. He's been defining his image in the party for 50 years, and every single voter that is going to cast a ballot, already knows Good ol' Joe Biden, Obama's second in command, former chairman of the senate judiciary who already ran for this same office twice before. We know who he is, know what he stands for and we already know his strengths and weaknesses. That's how he got away with that super-Tuesday result having no money. What's he going to buy that he does not already have?
Exactly. And, Joe is going to stampede to the Win Over Trump the Same Way. The amazing thing is THIS: Trump (and his supporters) still haven't realized that None (Repeat NONE) of this "Uncle Joe" stuff is going to stick. You can see the increasing frustration as they see Trump headed to a Catastrophic Defeat.
Presdint Bitten cans put Buttygig in charges of the Genders Idendidy Regulatins dept and That Amy Clovenhoof sure do looks a like and sounds like that Lois Learner gal from the Clayton admin so puts her there and gets some more money’s from those Replicans
Well, I am not that certain that we "know what he stands for." He seems like a chameleon here. For instance, he was in favor of the Hyde Amendment (which bars the use of federal funds to help pay for an abortion, except when the life of the mother is at stake)--until he was against it... He was in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act (which prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex unions, and allowed the states to do the same)--until he was against it... And he was in favor of banning openly homosexual men and women from the military--until he was against it... Has he simply "evolved"? Has he truly (and honestly) changed his opinion? Or has he merely been a political opportunist?
Well, I have not noticed any of this "increasing frustration." And serious political analysts (not mere political hacks) seem to think that Donald Trump has the edge for the November election. No, it is not a sure thing for the president--for his supporters to imagine that it is would be to bask in overconfidence--but he probably has a 60 percent--even perhaps a 70 percent--chance of winning. After all, the incumbent has an inherent edge. (He does not always win. Within my lifetime, Jimmy Carter lost in 1980, and George H.W. Bush lost in 1992--although, in the latter instance, Ross Perot was a bit of a factor--but Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all won second terms.) Donald Trump's personality--which is boisterous, egotistical, coarse, and prone to gratuitous insults and taunts--is about all that might take him down. But his policies have almost uniformly been wildly successful; and they are embraced by most of those in purple states. (When people make a claim concerning "the American people," they are usually throwing in those from New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago--which are in deep blue states--and which, therefore--do not really count, in terms of presidential-election politics.) To reiterate: I am not so confident as to state, unequivocally, that Donald Trump will win in November; but I do think that it is rather likely.
links please. I don't recall him being in favor of the Defense of marriage Act but I could be wrong because he is a devout catholic as well as a liberal.. One big problem of having a career that spans 48 years ( first elected in 1972) is that you have a lot more evolving to do in public, and its all documented in votes. In my view, if you haven't evolved in the last half century on some of these issues, I don't want you in there! My guess is that it is sincere, on both the Hyde Amendment and certainly gay rights. He came out in favor of same sex marriage earlier than either the Clintons or Obama, and it was not yet at majority approval back then, even in the Democratic party. I just think like most politicians of that generation, they never thought the day would come when they would be sitting down with a group of gay men in their office to discuss public policy issues. They literally barely knew any open gay men in their circle. The gay rights movement was still basically in diapers.
At this point, anybody who would even care about positions that Biden held DECADES Ago are people who had no intention of voting for him anyway. But, everyone knows that in 48 years of public life that people will change and evolve.
Well, here is one link: https://www.businessinsider.com/democrats-who-voted-for-doma-2013-3 Since he changed his position just a few months ago--when he was running for the Democratic nomination for the presidency--it seems much more likely that it was a (rather cynical) attempt to mollify the Democratic base.
"DECADES" ago? (Caps in original) He held the position favoring the Hyde Amendment until just a few months ago...
Oh well. People evolve. If he changed his position to get more votes, that is what every politician does.
Neither was going to win so why not run for VP on Bidens ticket? Either would be a perfect stooge for the Establishment after Uncle Joe gets fitted with a straight jacket.
It is much easier to ignore homelessness then treat their needs. Many suffer needlessly. Homelessness should be a national emergency. Not the sniffles.
Perhaps that is the reason that I do not like any traditional politician--whether he (or she) has a "D" or an "R" beside his (or her) name. No exceptions. I like only those people who have not dedicated their lives to politics--and who do not view politics as their primary (or even sole) vocation.
Just how often is an also-ran (for president) selected as the vice-presidential nominee? Besides, as John Nance Garner famously declared, the vice presidency is not worth "a bucket of warm spit." (And that is the sanitized version.) So I quite doubt that many contenders for the presidential nomination would be content with this...
