Jump to content

2016 Democratic Thread


southsider2k5
 Share

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 7, 2016 -> 08:28 PM)
Depending on how badly Rubio got dinged by the debate, Trump might still be the favorite.

 

Unless Bush/Christie shift all their support behind Kasich.

 

Can Kasich be dynamic and inspirational enough to tear off support? It seems Trump will have his 25% and Cruz his Santorum/Huckabee/Tea Party coalition of 15-17.5%

 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/hillary-clin...-210913805.html

Probably not the best way to get young Democratic women back to your side....

Dude, I know it's your posting style, but 3 of the 4 unrelated clauses are about the Republicans. This thread doesn't need your speculations about how Republican debate performances will impact Republican poll results. We have a thread for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 6.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 7, 2016 -> 08:37 PM)
Dude, I know it's your posting style, but 3 of the 4 unrelated clauses are about the Republicans. This thread doesn't need your speculations about how Republican debate performances will impact Republican poll results. We have a thread for that.

 

Then at least the Hillary Clinton discussion should pretend to be about substance...and ideology, rather than personal characteristics.

 

Mexsoxfan mentioned Trump as GOAT but he actually has a very good chance at the Republican nomination again thanks to Rubio.

Edited by caulfield12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 7, 2016 -> 10:01 PM)
Then at least the Hillary Clinton discussion should pretend to be about substance...and ideology, rather than personal characteristics.

Please?????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

It's almost as if I've been asking for that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/women-who-su...-234239662.html

 

And here comes the backlash from the Albright and Steinem comments.

 

 

The funny thing to me is Bill Clinton pissed off everyone in South Carolina eight years ago...yet African-Americans are overwhelmingly supporting Clinton when the majority of Sanders' goals are seemingly more directly lined with their self interests in comparison to Hillary's "bite-sized" plans that poll well. The major difference is that he continues to frame his populism in economic/social class frame of reference rather than in racism/sexism/discrimination terms.

 

Another interesting development is how quick the Clinton camp was to claim a technical win when Sanders clearly had the most supporters in terms of sheer numbers at the caucuses...and this in the face of her blowing a 56-5 lead in support a year ago.

 

Also not helping is Elizabeth Warren not endorsing but pretty much now a surrogate for Sanders.

 

Wonder if Caroline Kennedy and Oprah go for Sanders this time like they did for Obama eight years ago?

Edited by caulfield12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 8, 2016 -> 04:10 AM)
We need to dispel with the notion that greg775 doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing.

What he's doing .... uh,

• Expressing distaste for Hillary a lot.

• Making a TRUE statement about superficialities being important to American voters. Do a Google on Nixon's appearance on TV vs. Kennedy. It was a BIG FACTOR.

• Forgive me for posting about Hillary screaming when I heard about it on TV (somebody said it was sexist to comment on a woman screaming and not a man, because if a man does it it's perceived as forceful) and then sure enough I listened to her most recent speech and she was SCREAMING while spouting dumb cliches.

One poster pointed out it's scary HOW MANY TIMES I've been actually right about some things.

 

Forgive me if I post about Hillary a lot in a Democratic forum. There are only 2 candidates for gosh sakes. Hillary and Bernie.

p.s. when I got asked to quit calling them nicknames did you notice I, uh, stopped doing so? If all posters obeyed like that it'd be a better board IMO. Truthfully since I got asked to quit giving my pet names for Bernie and Hillary ... I STOPPED DOING SO.

Edited by greg775
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 7, 2016 -> 11:16 PM)
What he's doing .... uh,

• Expressing distaste for Hillary a lot.

• Making a TRUE statement about superficialities being important to American voters. Do a Google on Nixon's appearance on TV vs. Kennedy. It was a BIG FACTOR.

• Forgive me for posting about Hillary screaming when I heard about it on TV (somebody said it was sexist to comment on a woman screaming and not a man, because if a man does it it's perceived as forceful) and then sure enough I listened to her most recent speech and she was SCREAMING while spouting dumb cliches.

One poster pointed out it's scary HOW MANY TIMES I've been actually right about some things.

 

Forgive me if I post about Hillary a lot in a Democratic forum. There are only 2 candidates for gosh sakes. Hillary and Bernie.

p.s. when I got asked to quit calling them nicknames did you notice I, uh, stopped doing so? If all posters obeyed like that it'd be a better board IMO. Truthfully since I got asked to quit giving my pet names for Bernie and Hillary ... I STOPPED DOING SO.

who was that?

 

I do love comparing elections in the 60's to now. People were all over the message boards back then talking about Nixon's sweat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is certainly an entertainment value to Christie as he is quite clearly the best bully on the stage. Trump is just crass but unoriginal. Christie clearly has the practice of studying psychologically what will devastate an opponent and hitting them with it. Not a great quality outside of the schoolyard but good fodder on debates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 8, 2016 -> 03:04 PM)
who was that?

 

I do love comparing elections in the 60's to now. People were all over the message boards back then talking about Nixon's sweat.

History is history. It was a factor in the election. Candidates as you are well aware spend amazing amounts of time practicing looking into cameras, making sure they don't look scary on TV. Whether it's 30 percent or 50 percent ... superficial issues like looks and how one sounds definitely trump the issues in many cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 8, 2016 -> 03:31 PM)
History is history. It was a factor in the election. Candidates as you are well aware spend amazing amounts of time practicing looking into cameras, making sure they don't look scary on TV. Whether it's 30 percent or 50 percent ... superficial issues like looks and how one sounds definitely trump the issues in my case.

 

Oh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone's supporting Sanders because of his eloquence (he's like a cross between Larry David and Woody Allen but taller), his style or appearance, it's almost 100% what he represents or symbolizes or a protest against the establishment.

 

Now on those occasions like Nixon and JFK in 1960, it might have been a small factor, but less so than the Kennedy machine greasing Chicago.

 

And, in another way, it's going to be turned against Rubio now...that he's just another more packaged, less intellectual version of Obama without the ability to do well in retail politics outside of his own bubble of advisors. The further irony here is he was taken down a peg or two by a candidate some have argued was unelectable due to his weight issues in Christie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 8, 2016 -> 08:31 PM)
I don't think anyone's supporting Sanders because of his eloquence (he's like a cross between Larry David and Woody Allen but taller), his style or appearance, it's almost 100% what he represents or symbolizes or a protest against the establishment.

 

Now on those occasions like Nixon and JFK in 1960, it might have been a small factor, but less so than the Kennedy machine greasing Chicago.

 

And, in another way, it's going to be turned against Rubio now...that he's just another more packaged, less intellectual version of Obama without the ability to do well in retail politics outside of his own bubble of advisors. The further irony here is he was taken down a peg or two by a candidate some have argued was unelectable due to his weight issues in Christie.

 

A whiny accused child rapist. Nice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So every actor and actress that has worked with Woody Allen should be boycotted in your opinion?

 

Where does political correctness begin and end?

If the comparison was Bill Clinton, am I implicitly calling, let's say Marco Rubio, a rapist and womanizer if they have some of the same political traits and I had compared Rubio to Obama and Clinton?

Edited by caulfield12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 06:54 AM)
So every actor and actress that has worked with Woody Allen should be boycotted in your opinion?

 

Where does political correctness begin and end?

If the comparison was Bill Clinton, am I implicitly calling, let's say Marco Rubio, a rapist and womanizer if they have some of the same political traits and I had compared Rubio to Obama and Clinton?

 

what the f*** are you talking about? You said Sanders was a cross between Larry David and woody allen, I agree with the first one and disagree with the second one. I didnt say anything about boycotting everyone that has worked with Woody Allen, i said WOODY ALLEN IS A WHINY ACCUSED CHILD RAPIST.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 07:31 AM)
what the f*** are you talking about? You said Sanders was a cross between Larry David and woody allen, I agree with the first one and disagree with the second one. I didnt say anything about boycotting everyone that has worked with Woody Allen, i said WOODY ALLEN IS A WHINY ACCUSED CHILD RAPIST.

 

So if you were the best dancer at Juilliard and I compared you to Michael Jackson and Prabhu Deva, your first response would be to take offense?

 

If someone compares Rubio to Clinton as a politician, he should say I don't take it as a compliment because "I'm not a philanderer and accused rapist like him."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 9, 2016 -> 10:37 AM)
So if you were the best dancer at Juilliard and I compared you to Michael Jackson and Prabhu Deva, your first response would be to take offense?

 

If someone compares Rubio to Clinton as a politician, he should say I don't take it as a compliment because "I'm not a philanderer and accused rapist like him."

 

It's like your brain is constantly just starting to slip into another dimension or something. Come back, caulfield!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...