• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The consolidated New Hampshire primary results thread (let's try this again)

Page 16 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
26,455
5,889
136
  • Like
Reactions: Brainonska511

alcoholbob

Diamond Member
May 24, 2005
6,069
213
106
Maybe that's why Joe is in fifth place... slime attacks work in unexplainable ways.
That theory will be tested when Bloomberg starts showing up on the ballot, as he's getting a ton of heat from his previous record recently, yet is still going up in the polls with minority voters.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
28,646
2,470
126
Centrist Democrats these days are just Reaganites. That is the problem with the Democratic Party. The Oligarchs control both parties, if not directly, certainly Ideologically. The Republicans act as the Bad Cop, while the Democrats act as the Good Cop. Regardless how the Electorate votes, the Oligarchs will always benefit, everyone else will stagnate...
Hot damn, that's exactly America's problem. Thankfully, the number of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez minded people are growing, or at least becoming more visible.

You must have just started following politics otherwise you wouldn’t have posted such nonsense.

Both side bitches are the intellectually laziest people in politics.
BS, Trump aside, Democrats need to own up to the fact that many in the party are "Blue Dogs" and are simply playing good cop to Republican's bad cop. Yes they are far better than their Republican counter parts... but choosing the status quo over the R's extreme "burn it down" shouldn't win the blue dogs any prizes or adulation. Our system is rigged against its workers and we need a significant upheaval to help our people.

When it comes down to it, we do not want to hear the word "no" when it comes to policy like Sanders is promoting. Sandorski is merely pointing out the very real opposition to change that does exist within the Democrat Party. Better than Republican is good enough in a general election, but it shouldn't be something we settle for in the primaries. Our destination must be to reach further and push harder to enact meaningful and beneficial changes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
26,455
5,889
136
Hot damn, that's exactly America's problem. Thankfully, the number of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez minded people are growing, or at least becoming more visible.



BS, Trump aside, Democrats need to own up to the fact that many in the party are "Blue Dogs" and are simply playing good cop to Republican's bad cop. Yes they are far better than their Republican counter parts... but choosing the status quo over the R's extreme "burn it down" shouldn't win the blue dogs any prizes or adulation. Our system is rigged against its workers and we need a significant upheaval to help our people.

When it comes down to it, we do not want to hear the word "no" when it comes to policy like Sanders is promoting. Sandorski is merely pointing out the very real opposition to change that does exist within the Democrat Party. Better than Republican is good enough in a general election, but it shouldn't be something we settle for in the primaries. Our destination must be to reach further and push harder to enact meaningful and beneficial changes.
Ask yourself, if democrats could pass the legislation you wanted, could they do it if they had more people like Bernie or if they simply had more democrats in Congress. The answer, of course is the latter. So stop playing into the bull shit purity test.
 
Last edited:

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
73,404
7,267
126
This shit get so old. So do you honestly think that every primary election is rigged by the DNC?
No, just the last one.
Which strongly implies this one because its mostly the same people in charge, and Bernie is running again.
I'm so glad you asked a question instead of building a strawman and fighting against that. People on this forum love that fallacy more than most others.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
28,646
2,470
126
Ask yourself, if democrats could pass the legislation you wanted could they do it if trey had more people like Bernie or if they simply had more democrats in Congress. The answer, of course is the latter. So stop playing into the bull shit purity test.
You'll be voting for Bloomberg then?
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,003
542
126
Please tell me you are over 65.
i guess EMILY's List agrees it looks bad because they decided to withdrawal it and pretended they had something for everyone else. EMILY's List is the same PAC that backed until much later an anti-choice Republican against an actual pro-choice progressive.

You come across much older than me. You think little of money in politics always lashing out at those that point out the donors and self-interested Democrats. Notice all the black officials kissing Bloomberg's ass now? They only care about the $$$ for their campaigns.

Ask yourself, if democrats could pass the legislation you wanted could they do it if trey had more people like Bernie or if they simply had more democrats in Congress. The answer, of course is the latter. So stop playing into the bull shit purity test.
It's funny how you guys ignore (I) but love (R).

We don't need those Republicans anyway. Just get rid of the filibuster already.

"Furthermore, although Sanders voters are quite liberal, a lot of them aren’t Democrats, or at least don’t like to identify themselves as Democrats. Clinton crushed Sanders among self-identified Democrats, winning them by 27 percentage points, based on exit polls. But Sanders won independents who voted in the Democratic primary by 31 percentage points.

That’s why I’m skeptical that a liberal, capital “D” Democrat such as Warren, or Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, would have done better than Sanders if they’d run against Clinton. Sanders’s disaffection from the Democratic Party, which he didn’t officially join until last year, may have been an asset to his voters. Sanders didn’t have to run as “an outsider”; he really is an outsider, someone who has been on the fringes of the two-party political system.

But it turned out that there were more than 13 million people who signed up for his “revolution.” A lot of those voters are young, furthermore, so their power may grow in the years ahead. That doesn’t mean the Democratic nomination was close this time around — it really wasn’t close at all. But Sanders accomplished something almost as important, unlocking a heretofore underappreciated political coalition that could determine a lot of future elections, possibly even including the general election this year."
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
57,970
10,360
126
i guess EMILY's List agrees it looks bad because they decided to withdrawal it and pretended they had something for everyone else.
That's dishonest. It was one of several test ads never aired & leaked from the vendor. They didn't withdraw anything.

EMILY's List is the same PAC that backed until much later an anti-choice Republican against an actual pro-choice progressive.
Linky-linky.
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
8,021
698
126
So, OK.... OK....
We all know that Trump will win in November, so democrats can save themselves a lot of time and grief and either do this the easy way or the hard way.

The hard way, pretend enough blacks will come out to make any difference because every current candidate has their baggage with the black community and give blacks no reason to vote, at all, for anyone. With the current state of events, this amounts to an off-year election for most blacks. For democrats to get caught up in some alternative fantasy land will only destroy any credibility remaining.
Besides, for blacks and minorities the economy is pretty dang good at least when it comes to employment, so if blacks vote it will probably be for Donald Trump. DNC WAKE-UP-CALL.

The easy way, just suck it up good ole DNC party and hand it to Bernie.
Do that voodoo that you do so well (i.e. reference Hillary Clinton) and just rig it to Bernie.
At least democrats can lose with a little dignity, and the old white haired guy can go out with a bang. And with having given it the good old Bernie Sanders try.

So, Democrats, DNC, don't kick yourself in the ass. Don't embarrass yourself. Don't alienate your entire party and alienate every minority within. And damn it democrats, don't screw it up for 2024 as you have been doing.
Do the right thing DNC and give the old man a try, hand it to Bernie, take a chance, don't fight it anymore.
Is one white haired senior citizen not worth it?
Don't act like a schmuck DNC, Bernie is your guy.
At least try to accept THAT reality, and lose with your balls intact. You will need them come 2024.
 
Last edited:

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
28,646
2,470
126
@ivwshane You deflected so badly, but I'll need to summarize the topic lest people buy into whatever diversion you're making.

This is the continuing Democrat Primary thread, New Hampshire edition. And our current line of discussion was:

Centrist Democrats these days are just Reaganites. That is the problem with the Democratic Party.
Both side bitches are the intellectually laziest people in politics.
Sandorski is merely pointing out the very real opposition to change that does exist within the Democrat Party...
...Our destination must be to reach further and push harder to enact meaningful and beneficial changes.
...stop playing into the bull shit purity test.
You'll be voting for Bloomberg then?
I’ll be voting for anyone with a pulse who isn’t trump, period.
With the recap out of the way, it should be obvious we're not talking about the General Election. We're talking about choosing the best path for the party. For the Primary Election. And you seem hell bent on defending what @sandorski warned us about. Those who may not be Republican, yet remain stead fast against M4A, who would oppose Basic Income as "too much" and generally the Wall Street friendly Blue Dogs who make up an uncomfortable percentage of the Democrat Party. Those who would "help" people with half measures or the status quo.

This isn't both sides. This isn't some "bull shit" purity test. This is a question of who do they serve. Wall Street, or the American people? One cannot do both. As demonstrated by the opposition to meaningful change even within the Democrat Party. Those who get cozy with big money donors. Or perhaps more pointedly... those who ARE the big money donor. Enter, Michael Bloomberg. Does he not exemplify the issue @sandorski spoke of? Is it not a meaningful question and issue to raise, whether someone like that should be promoted... even championed to LEAD the Democrat Party?

We are divided between Left and Center. Progressive and Pragmatist. This is a discussion we should be having, not met with snide remarks attempting to shut it down. You rail against introspection as a purity test. You want us to have numbers, not ideology. Bloomberg would be your guy then, wouldn't he? Seems to be the destination you would have us take. Unless he does not pass your purity test. Why wouldn't he? Careful... if you oppose Bloomberg you might just sound like @sandorski .
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
26,455
5,889
136
@ivwshane You deflected so badly, but I'll need to summarize the topic lest people buy into whatever diversion you're making.

This is the continuing Democrat Primary thread, New Hampshire edition. And our current line of discussion was:








With the recap out of the way, it should be obvious we're not talking about the General Election. We're talking about choosing the best path for the party. For the Primary Election. And you seem hell bent on defending what @sandorski warned us about. Those who may not be Republican, yet remain stead fast against M4A, who would oppose Basic Income as "too much" and generally the Wall Street friendly Blue Dogs who make up an uncomfortable percentage of the Democrat Party. Those who would "help" people with half measures or the status quo.

This isn't both sides. This isn't some "bull shit" purity test. This is a question of who do they serve. Wall Street, or the American people? One cannot do both. As demonstrated by the opposition to meaningful change even within the Democrat Party. Those who get cozy with big money donors. Or perhaps more pointedly... those who ARE the big money donor. Enter, Michael Bloomberg. Does he not exemplify the issue @sandorski spoke of? Is it not a meaningful question and issue to raise, whether someone like that should be promoted... even championed to LEAD the Democrat Party?

We are divided between Left and Center. Progressive and Pragmatist. This is a discussion we should be having, not met with snide remarks attempting to shut it down. You rail against introspection as a purity test. You want us to have numbers, not ideology. Bloomberg would be your guy then, wouldn't he? Seems to be the destination you would have us take. Unless he does not pass your purity test. Why wouldn't he? Careful... if you oppose Bloomberg you might just sound like @sandorski .
I won’t be voting in the primary because it simply doesn’t matter who the candidate is. It’s a mentality that all, who claim trump and the republicans are a threat to our democracy, should have.

Now if you would like to pretend that whoever the democrats nominate will be setting the policy agenda, I’ll remind you that presidents don’t create laws so no matter what we’ll be left with something that isn’t good enough for Bernie but that he’ll end up signing anyway.

So yeah, go ahead and do your purity tests and I’ll sit back and laugh as you bicker about pointless shit and conspiracies.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,003
542
126
That's dishonest. It was one of several test ads never aired & leaked from the vendor. They didn't withdraw anything.
If you believed them. I don't know why they would think Republicans would run an ad comparing Trump to Bernie.

Linky-linky.
It took them forever to endorse Marie Newman over Dan Lipinski. Pro-choice woman vs. anti-choice man should have been easy for a PAC that supposedly focuses on putting in pro-choice women. Looked embarrassing AF after people were like "Wait, what?", so they were pressured into endorsing.


Her congressman is Rep. Dan Lipinski, one of the last remaining anti-abortion Democrats in the House. He has voted to defund health clinics that offer abortion services, and to ban abortions at 20 weeks. He opposed the Affordable Care Act and its mandate that employers cover birth control. He speaks at the annual March for Life and attends fundraisers for anti-abortion groups.

 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
57,970
10,360
126
If you believed them. I don't know why they would think Republicans would run an ad comparing Trump to Bernie.



It took them forever to endorse Marie Newman over Dan Lipinski. Pro-choice woman vs. anti-choice man should have been easy for a PAC that supposedly focuses on putting in pro-choice women. Looked embarrassing AF after people were like "Wait, what?", so they were pressured into endorsing.


Her congressman is Rep. Dan Lipinski, one of the last remaining anti-abortion Democrats in the House. He has voted to defund health clinics that offer abortion services, and to ban abortions at 20 weeks. He opposed the Affordable Care Act and its mandate that employers cover birth control. He speaks at the annual March for Life and attends fundraisers for anti-abortion groups.
You said they backed an anti-choice Republican back at #385 which wasn't true. It's not true that they ever backed Lipinsky, either.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,003
542
126
You said they backed an anti-choice Republican back at #385 which wasn't true. It's not true that they ever backed Lipinsky, either.
They backed him by not endorsing anyone even though they had just the person. The problem? Progressive. Can't have that.

lol He's a Republican through and through.
 

HurleyBird

Golden Member
Apr 22, 2003
1,986
412
136
Besides, for blacks and minorities the economy is pretty dang good at least when it comes to employment, so if blacks vote it will probably be for Donald Trump. DNC WAKE-UP-CALL.
A lot can happen between now and the election with regards to the economy. Coronavirus could very well end up hurting the markets substantially.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY