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

[Indus]

BTW This is Biden's 3rd time running for President and he has never, ever, won even one Presidential State Primary.

Can he keep his streak alive?

 

[Blackjack200]

BTW This is Biden's 3rd time running for President and he has never, ever, won even one Presidential State Primary.

Can he keep his streak alive?

LMAO and his whole pitch is electability. Unreal.

 

[fskimospy]

No and No.

Clinton ran against Perot and the GOP which diluted the election much more so than Nader and Johnson/ Stein did.

And anything left of insane right wing is too liberal so whatever.

It is true that Perot affected the 1992 election likely more than Nader/Johnson/Stein did, but it's a little known fact that if anything Perot hurt CLINTON, not Bush. There was a period where Perot exited the race and Clinton's advantage over Bush increased dramatically. When he re-entered, Clinton's lead shrank.

If you're interested in a more comprehensive look at this myth fivethirtyeight did a bit on it:

The Ross Perot Myth

George H.W. Bush only lost his re-election bid in 1992 because a peculiar independent candidate from Texas, Ross Perot, drew more voters away from Bush than fro…

fivethirtyeight.com

As for Mondale, he was the liberal in that race. I don't know what else to tell you but they ran the liberal candidate and they lost.

 

[thilanliyan]

But our base is bigger than their's is, and if we can nominate someone who excites our base we turn out to vote and we win.

That base needs to move to those swing states lol.

 

[Mai72]

Damn the Yang Gang is no more.

I wanted that $1k a month so I could stay at home and play video games all day. 🙁

Oh well. back to work. 🙂

 

[Bitek]

In Trump's defense, Biden was leading the pack when this whole Ukraine debacle started. If anything, I think that the impeachment might have convinced some voters that Hunter Biden was a shady character, and that his Dad might have been covering for him.

For me, it's was how poorly and weakly he fought against these baseless accusations against his own son. WTF, he should be on fire.

It's going to be a brawl, and Joe just looked feckless.

 

[Jhhnn]

His appointment to the board of Burisma was transparently corrupt, even if Trump's actions in applying political pressure to the Ukrainian Government were indefensible. Both can be true. It didn't seem like the corruption was a big story in the primaries, but it's possible it hurt him with voters anyway.

And, uhh, what corrupt things did he do for Burisma, anyway? And why do you care, other than to tar his father with innuendo?

 

[nakedfrog]

Damn the Yang Gang is no more.

I wanted that $1k a month so I could stay at home and play video games all day. 🙁

Oh well. back to work. 🙂

You could do that now if that's what you actually want to do.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Back to my campaign slogan rant

Bernie’s isn’t embarrassing but it isn’t great either. I’ll rate it as good enough.
Warrens is an embarrassment, the others suck.
Edit: oops Pete is on this page, his is pretty good. Simple easy idea and nobody likes lifetime Politicians.


WTF was Yang thinking
Just like Warrens an over complicated, smart person idea




And the others, Bookers is pretty weird

 

[nakedfrog]

Oh, poor Yang, America is very against thinking harder.

 

[Jaskalas]

Question: How fucking stupid does one have to be to get himself impeached over interfering in a 5th-place candidate’s campaign? Asking for a friend...

Impeached, what's that? Where the opposition stamps their feet and Mitch laughs?

 

[Jhhnn]

Impeached, what's that? Where the opposition stamps their feet and Mitch laughs?

It's also where the GOP gets to wear the stench of it for the election. Their True Believers lost their sense of smell long ago but it's far from universal.

 

[Maxima1]

Now you're quoting op-ed pieces to 'prove' your views?

Remember when we used to make fun of Trumpkins for mistaking some op-ed for actual evidence supporting their argument? You guys become more like them every day.

He doesn’t have to cite anything for this really. It’s self-evident.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1222691220566237185

This is what happens when the Joe Manchins control the media.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1227001098273280001

As for Mondale, he was the liberal in that race. I don't know what else to tell you but they ran the liberal candidate and they lost.

Why did you decide to cite nothing?

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/10/this-day-in-politics-sept-10-1984-809266

“On this day in 1984, Walter Mondale, the Democratic presidential nominee and a former vice president, unveiled a plan in a news release to reduce the federal budget deficit by two-thirds — about $425 billion in today’s money — by 1989.

Earlier, at the Democratic National Convention in San Francisco, Mondale had said: “Here is the truth about the future: We are living on borrowed money and borrowed time. These deficits hike interest rates, clobber exports, stunt investment, kill jobs, undermine growth, cheat our kids and shrink our future.”

Lol So liberal! Yes, lets siphon money out of the economy, while Reagan is adding to it…. He’s so liberal in comparison!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mondale_1984_presidential_campaign

"[…] while Mondale, though often on the right side of the specifics, didn't really stand for anything at all.”

Sounds like Broom Hilda?

 

[hal2kilo]

It will be interesting to see what the results will be in states that actually demographically represent the American population. This "me first" system is a pathetic way to make decisions about how the whole country feels about these candidates. The media is desperate for anything but Trump news, milk this for all the bad rumors, and nasty reality TV like made up fights, and so on. We have to beat Trump, and it's obvious he's going to pull every Fn thing he can do to get reelected and get away with it. I'll support whoever becomes the nominee. I just wish the Dems would stop doing the usual, and give the other side a million talking points while certain elements have to have their agendas satisfied or they will go home.

 

[ivwshane]

He doesn’t have to cite anything for this really. It’s self-evident.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1222691220566237185

This is what happens when the Joe Manchins control the media.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1227001098273280001

Why did you decide to cite nothing?

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/10/this-day-in-politics-sept-10-1984-809266

“On this day in 1984, Walter Mondale, the Democratic presidential nominee and a former vice president, unveiled a plan in a news release to reduce the federal budget deficit by two-thirds — about $425 billion in today’s money — by 1989.

Earlier, at the Democratic National Convention in San Francisco, Mondale had said: “Here is the truth about the future: We are living on borrowed money and borrowed time. These deficits hike interest rates, clobber exports, stunt investment, kill jobs, undermine growth, cheat our kids and shrink our future.”

Lol So liberal! Yes, lets siphon money out of the economy, while Reagan is adding to it…. He’s so liberal in comparison!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mondale_1984_presidential_campaign

"[…] while Mondale, though often on the right side of the specifics, didn't really stand for anything at all.”

Sounds like Broom Hilda?

So liberalism means spending without regard to the deficit?

How old are you because you seem steeped in decades of republican propaganda.

 

[Maxima1]

So liberalism means spending without regard to the deficit?

How old are you because you seem steeped in decades of republican propaganda.

You don't look more liberal by taking money out of the economy.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1225133607724945415

 

[ivwshane]

You don't look more liberal by taking money out of the economy.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1225133607724945415

It’s clear that you have no idea what the fuck your are talking about.

 

[Maxima1]

It’s clear that you have no idea what the fuck your are talking about.

lol What kind of response is this? Even Republicans have ignored it because they know the implications on the economy. Democrats are not more liberal by signaling they'll take money out of the economy and letting the Republicans trounce them with their pet spending and tax cuts.

 

[ivwshane]

lol What kind of response is this? Even Republicans have ignored it because they know the implications on the economy. Democrats are not more liberal by signaling they'll take money out of the economy and letting the Republicans trounce them with their pet spending and tax cuts.

Spending doesn’t make something liberal. That’s just fucking stupid. Based on that logic, republicans would be considered liberal since they typically spend more than democrats and democrats wouldn’t be considered liberal since they want to raise taxes which is a way of taking money out of the economy.

What makes economic policy liberal is, wait for it... liberal policies.

 

[ultimatebob]

For what it's worth, the used car market is still suffering from "Cash For Clunkers". The average price for a used car would probably still be about $1,000 less if it wasn't for that fiasco.

 

[nakedfrog]

For what it's worth, the used car market is still suffering from "Cash For Clunkers". The average price for a used car would probably still be about $1,000 less if it wasn't for that fiasco.

Source?

 

[ivwshane]

For what it's worth, the used car market is still suffering from "Cash For Clunkers". The average price for a used car would probably still be about $1,000 less if it wasn't for that fiasco.

Fiasco? What was the purpose of the policy? Did it achieve its goals? It was only a fiasco if you didn’t care about its policy Goals and only your own self interests.

 

[Maxima1]

Spending doesn’t make something liberal. That’s just fucking stupid. Based on that logic, republicans would be considered liberal since they typically spend more than democrats and democrats wouldn’t be considered liberal since they want to raise taxes which is a way of taking money out of the economy.

What makes economic policy liberal is, wait for it... liberal policies.

I think it goes without saying that austerity is a conservative policy.

 

[Jhhnn]

lol What kind of response is this? Even Republicans have ignored it because they know the implications on the economy. Democrats are not more liberal by signaling they'll take money out of the economy and letting the Republicans trounce them with their pet spending and tax cuts.

You haven't been very honest here. Lower deficits don't take money out. They just put less in. It should be perfectly obvious that borrowing money from the Rich to give it back to them as tax cuts accomplishes a lot less than taking the tax money & spending it on domestic programs. Well, other than for the Rich.

Your reference to Krugman is dishonest. The situation in 2009 was entirely different than in 2017.

 

[ivwshane]

I think it goes without saying that austerity is a conservative policy.

Lol no not necessarily. Context is important. Government austerity during economic boom times can be smart policy, during recessions, no. Neither is liberal or conservative, it’s economic theory, in this particular case it’s Keynes economic theory. One might call it liberal because the left has latched on to the theory but that doesn’t make it liberal.