I see the same type of loyalty this time around to Tulsi, as we did in 2016 with many of the Bernie Bros. Will her supporters write her in? Or, will they bite the bullet and support the Dem candidate?
Tulsi is pretty much done. Will her voters be the New Bernie Bros?
- Thread starter FAUlty Gator
- Start date
It's too bad. She is the best candidate when it comes to foreign policy.
She has what? 2%? Not much support to be divvied up.
Yeah...but it's a loud and active 2%, supported by the Russian bots...which we know are responsible for winning elections in this country.
All 4 of them? 3 of whom are republicans trying to convince you they are moderates?
Yea, she's a Russian asset, right? Unbelievable that she's being dragged around like that by some publications. They eat their own.
Her dropping out will have virtually no impact on the leaders. Might as well get the numbers down.
If that. This is nowhere near an analogous situation. More comparable to Jill Stein voters.
Jill Stein voters along with Ralph Nader voters have been blamed (along with Russian bots) for causing losses for Dem candidates in recent elections.
Um, no. Ralph Nader had an impact, Jill Stein did not. Now had you said "the electoral college", I'd have agreed with you. After all, 3 million more people voted for Hillary.
I really dislike Tulsi. Her campaign is promoting the idea that CNN cut her off to protect Warren. Literally everybody got cut off during the parts of the debate I listened to.
Uh yeah...
The number of votes cast for Stein in the three states that proved to be pivotal (Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) exceeded Trump’s margin of victory over Clinton.
Heh.That's not entirely true. Some of us just think she has a great ass.
The first post I thought about making was: "Sort of want. Just not as POTUS."
You can't just assume all of those people would have voted for Hillary if Stein wasn't in the race. Some of them might have chosen simply not to vote if Hillary and Donald were their only choices.
Gary Johnson got three times the number of votes in those states as Stein. He had a much bigger impact than Stein did and I suspect more of his voters would have voted for Trump if forced to choose one of the top two candidates. But, again, most Johnson voters like myself had no intentions of voting for Trump and would have stayed home otherwise.
My point is that you simply can't assume third party voters would have gone a certain way if that wasn't an option.
When it comes to the 2020 election... All Dems will be united. There is NO doubt in my mind that it happens.
The general election will 100% be about what people think of Donald Trump.
I will support the democrat unless the republicans nominate Jon Huntsman or Evan McMullin to replace the disgraced criminal trump.
god willing. Never underestimate the stupidity of people who HAVE to vote for the candidate that matches 100% of their values over the one that only matches 80% when a guy who matches 0% is burning the country down. Those people exist by the millions, unfortunately.
I'm not doubting this, but the difference is that Jill Stein voters were never going to vote for Hillary and (more importantly) a number of those Stein voters were disenfranchised Bernie Bros. That's the point.
I only said that people have blamed Stein and Nader for the losses. That's not really debatable. They have and many still do.
Again...I stated that "people blamed Stein and Nader" for messing up elections. You argued with that point which I don't know why. There's tons of people who blamed them. Not hard to find a bunch of them on the internet.
Remember... Jane Sanders tweeted "Vote your conscience" on election day. Not a single word about Hillary.
And Jill Stein made Bernie the offer to step aside as the Green Party nominee so he could be on the ballot.
There are plenty of reason to be suspect of who Jill Stein really is and what she is up to.
You can find more people in NAMBLA on the internet than you can people who still blame Jill Stein. For exactly the reason I pointed out: Bernie bros. that would NEVER have voted Hillary anyways. Hence, your original analogy is poor. There were WAY more Bernie Bros. than Tulsi supporters. If you don't believe me, lets compare the two tallies by the end of primary season.
She's the ONLY Democratic candidate that Trump's base likes, so that ought to tell us something.
I won't argue that one bit.
But it leads to the question, what would be happening in the GOP right now if Trump hadn't hijacked the party apparatus? Would John Kasich or someone else be in decent shape going into primary season? If they had a primary season, that is.
Um, no, not exactly ... I dislike Warren, and her policies, as much as I dislike Trump.
If Pete, Biden, or Sanders are the nominee, they get my vote. If not, I'll vote for a good 3rd party alternative, or write in.
If it was a whole new primary this time around, or a primary of candidates challenging Trump (a sitting POTUS)?
Remove Sanders from that list and I agree. Although, my dislike for Trump outweighs my dislike for Warren.
I'd vote for her. Sorry I didn't post that correctly. The cons only like her. Hate the rest. Granted a third of them like her because "she's hot".
Good Lord...WTF are you even talking about? It's obvious you haven't read any of my posts in this thread...including the OP.
Here's the original post:
I see the same type of loyalty this time around to Tulsi, as we did in 2016 with many of the Bernie Bros. Will her supporters write her in? Or, will they bite the bullet and support the Dem candidate?
I only compared their loyalties. Not numbers. Not impact. I asked if her supporters will write her in or vote for the candidate. So, all of your ranting raving is sheer lunacy and has nothing to do with my original post which merely asks what Tulsi voters will do.
Calm the eff down.
Challengers to Trump.
We've always had incumbents. But I don't EVER recall an entire primary run being cancelled and a national committee just rubber stamping the incumbent. Frankly, it gives the appearance that Ronna Romney McDaniel is hiding any cracks in the party.
I've seen parties not fielding a challenger, but Obama, for instance, still had to go through the primary process in 2012.
The reason I ask, and specifically used Kasich's name, was he was asked about it on some show I was listening to, replied he would not likely have made a run, but that he disagreed with the RNC not having primaries at all.
Well then what is the point of the analogy? You just eloquently explained why this thread is pointless though. Thank you.
Yea, I have no idea how it would pan out. If someone reasonable, and by that, I mean someone other than an obscure business man challenged him, like Carolinahawkeye mentioned (Huntsman or even Romney) I'd be all over that primary voting for one of them.
When it comes to the general, Trump is a disaster, but there were some people on that stage last night that I would absolutely not vote for, and unfortunately, would vote 3rd Party or no vote for POTUS at all (ala 2016).
Nominate Pete, Biden, Tulsi, and even Amy or Yang, and I'll vote for them. Anyone else, and I'd be hard pressed to throw my support to them.
It certainly explains much of your idiocy. Starting with your illiteracy.
Thread gets started.
Menace doesn’t/ can’t read OP.
Menace throws fit arguing against things the thread isn’t about.
Menace is shown how dumb he is.
Menace blames subject of thread for his own idiocy.
BAU
@Huey Grey and @Hawk It Up both made the same point I did about your analogy. In fact, you're the only one who seems to agree with your analogy.
Tulsi is too moderate for the politically immature and mentally deranged portion of the American voter base. She’s the most electable candidate the Democratic Party has and too many are too blind to see it.
Not sure who said that Trump voters are a fan of her. I think it has more to do with being able to relate to the mass hysteria and knee jerk labeling that has been a hallmark of the last two political campaigns.
Not sure who said that Trump voters are a fan of her. I think it has more to do with being able to relate to the mass hysteria and knee jerk labeling that has been a hallmark of the last two political campaigns.
It isn't just Menace. Half the posters on this board thinks they aren't allowed to read a post before replying to it.
Latest posts
-
Monday Six-Pack, 9/30: Caitlin Clark, Christine Brennan, Media Days, More
- Latest: WaterlooChazz
-
-
-