Jump to content
270soft Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About MysteryKnight

  • Rank
    Political Guru
  • Birthday 10/12/1998

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    New Jersey

Recent Profile Visitors

324 profile views
  1. The procedure he had is pretty common, and doesn't take very long to recover. Bill Clinton had it in I think 2010 (and was obviously much younger than Bernie is now). I do worry that this is going to have many people questioning his health and having a negative effect on his campaign. His campaign says that the ads are just being postponed, perhaps because they coincided with events he was having that he now cancelled. Either way, Bernie is my favorite politician and I hope he is back on the trail soon.
  2. Before Trump win the presidency and he became a pro-Trump lunatic, I would have said he would have been a better president than Trump and maybe even rated him below-average instead of bad. But now he seems to been captured by the Trump GOP base and became the thing he once opposed. He's always been a pro-military neocon which is why I never liked him, but he did try to do some good work on immigration reform and climate change like 10 years ago, but he changed those views since then.
  3. Warren - Definitely the best of the night. She continues to show that she is the most intelligent candidate and the best at actually explaining her plans and a clear solution to the problem. Sometimes I feel like she sounds a little too smart for the average voter lol Beto - He actually had a really solid night. His answer on mandatory buyback for assault weapons was probably the biggest moment of the night, big applause from that. He also had other good answers as well. Castro - He was aggressive and I liked it. When he called out Biden for forgetting what he said two minutes ago, he was actually 100% correct if you look at the transcript. Nothing malicious about it, he was just calling out Biden for not actually knowing what his plan does. Bernie - He was clearly getting over an illness or just had a tired voice from so many speeches, and it hurt him a bit. Not his best performance by any means. He still got his typical points across, and they are good points, but he didn't do anything to convince people who aren't on his side. Booker - He had an okay night. He gave some good answers but was pretty unmemorable for the most part. Harris - She was trying too hard to have a big moment I think. Some of her answers, like the Wizar dof Oz comment, was just weird lol Yang - He's just up there doing his own thing. He had some good answers and also some bad answers (charter schools , foreign policy). Buttigieg - He was pretty unmemorable. He just answers with anecdotes and stories and doesn't give any policy substance. Biden - He was rambling a lot and slipping up as usual. It wasn't any worse than his other debate performances though Klobuchar - Bad. She tried so hard to get in some good one liners and they were all so cringe-worthy. She is out of touch with the party as well.
  4. Non of the republicans challenging Trump right now have any shot. They are too unknown and don't have a clear message for the GOP to jump ship and go to them. Weld is too moderate for them, Sanford has his own issues, and Walsh seems to agree with Trump's policies but just doesn't agree with his language. Kasich would have been the best chance at making some noise. He's an established member of the party, lasted pretty far in 2016, and while he's still conservative, disagrees with the extreme positions of Trump.
  5. 1. Absolutely not. It isn't a fair process at all and there is nothing more to say. 2. I'd say generally yes, because if the challenger actually makes an impact it is most likely going to push the incumbent to adopt more stances that will make them a better candidate. It is definitely a good thing if the incumbent is very unpopular with the party. There are exceptions where it isn't a good thing though. 3. Depends on how many cancel them. If it's just a handful of states, stay in, try and get the votes wherever you can. and make a case this is unfair. If it becomes that a majority of states do it, they should drop out, not endorse Trump, and try to organize something to try and expose how corrupt the party is with those tactics of shutting them out of the primary process.
  6. UBI helps working people just as much, if not more, than those who don't work. People who work such long hours now wouldn't have to. They also have economic security if they lose their job or have to take time off for some reason. Or, just extra cash for them to spend on top of what they already make. Sounds fair to me.
  7. It's a shame Gillibrand dropped out already and didn't catch on at all, I thought she was a great candidate with an important message and solid policies. I do think sexism played a role in her failure to catch on, like how she was asked everyday about Al Franken, blaming her for his demise. I would love to see her as VP to Bernie if he gets the nom, but I don't see that happening because it doesn't really help get any gains in the electoral college
  8. Buying Greenland just wouldn't make sense. There are way better things to spend money on. I also fear that Trump would buy it and use it to extract their natural resources, especially oil. Keep it in the ground. And cancelling the meeting was extremely childish. Did he really expect a different reaction from the PM?
  9. Obviously I don't speak for him, but I also find the game unplayable at the moment for the 2020 scenario. I have found that by the time Iowa rolls around the amount of undecided voters is usually way beyond 50% and screws up all the polling and results. And also, if only one candidate gets delegates because they were the only one to get 15%, it gives them huge momentum and no one else gets much even if they were only 1% less, so that carries to the next states to the point where it becomes impossible to beat them.
  10. Steyer buying his way into the debates as expected. I wouldn't be surprised if he rises in the polls a bit either. I see ads for him all over the place. His campaign has already spent millions of dollars.
  11. Minnesota 2004 +3D 2008 +10D 2012 +8D 2016 +1D 2020 +3D Wisconsin 2004 +1D 2008 +14D 2012 +7D 2016 +1R 2020 +2D Iowa 2004 +1R 2008 +10D 2012 +6D 2016 +9R 2020 +6R Michigan 2004 +3D 2008 +16D 2012 +9D 2016 +0R 2020 +1D Ohio 2004 +2R 2008 +5D 2012 +3D 2016 +8R 2020 +6R Pennsylvania 2004 +3D 2008 +10D 2012 +5D 2016 +1R 2020 +1R New Hampshire 2004 +1D 2008 +9D 2012 +6D 2016 +0D 2020 +2D Virginia 2004 +8R 2008 +7D 2012 +4D 2016 +6D 2020 +8D North Carolina 2004 +12R 2008 +1D 2012 +2R 2016 +4R 2020 +5R Georgia 2004 +17R 2008 +5R 2012 +7R 2016 +5R 2020 +4R Florida 2004 +5R 2008 +3D 2012 +1D 2016 +1R 2020 +2R Colorado 2004 +5R 2008 +9D 2012 +5D 2016 +5D 2020 +6D Arizona 2004 +10R 2008 +9R 2012 +9R 2016 +4R 2020 +2R Texas 2004 +23R 2008 +11R 2012 +16R 2016 +9R 2020 +5R Nevada 2004 +2R 2008 +12D 2012 +5D 2016 +2D 2020 +5D
  12. If more than 11 candidates qualify it will be 2 nights
  13. I'll just do the candidates I think are still relevant to the race Bennet: He's fine as a senator, but he's just a boring candidate that is not cut out for being President. The only reason he's running is because he thought everyone loved him after he called out Ted Cruz on the senate floor (which was the most emotion he has ever shown in his life) Biden: I used to like Biden when he was VP, but that was when I just started getting into politics. Now that I have been able to delve into his record and see him actually run for president, not a fan. He's just bad at running for president, his record is bad, and he will be Hillary 2.0 if he gets the nom Booker: He has great charisma, some of his past record is not good, but I like his stances on criminal justice reform. Buttigieg: He's okay, there are some problems I have with his term as mayor, and for someone who is making a key talking point of no matter what agenda we embrace (centrist or far left) republicans will call us socialists so we might as well just do what's right, he's definitely embracing closer to the centrists than the progressives of the race, so that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Castro: He's pretty great, done well in the debates. Knows his stuff on immigration and a good plan on police reform, would make great VP De Blasio: Pretending to be as far left as Bernie but he endorsed Hillary in 2016 and has a pretty bad record in NYC. Delaney: Disaster of a campaign. Has been running for over 2 years and still polls at 0-1% and that's with lending over $16 million of his own money to his campaign. Centrist agenda is not a winning agenda Gabbard: She's banking on leaving her DNC position and endorsing Bernie in 2016 and anti-war message to get the progressive vote -- and it's somewhat working. Her foreign policy is basically no regime change, but let's keep bombing terrorist groups and sending troops there. She's anti-war but not anti-peace, and it's problematic (not to mention her cozy relationships with dictators) Gillibrand: My second fave candidate. She's doing great things on women's rights and family issues. Sucks that she's been railroaded by many dems for calling on Franken to resign Harris: She's okay, her record as AG is problematic and good on Tulsi to call her out in the debates. She tries to act more progressive than she is, and her half measure "Medicare for All" plan shows who she really is Hickenlooper: Run for senate Inslee: Dedicating your campaign to climate change isn't a winning strategy, but still a good way to push the party to be more aggressive on the issue, which is very important Klobuchar: She won't be able to get voters excited to vote for her. Her plans are dull and people want change O'Rourke: Run for senate. His campaign for president has completely flopped and Cornyn is not popular, I think Beto could beat him Sanders: My favorite candidate. He's been fighting for the same stuff all his life and you know he is the real deal which is why he is so good. He will get people to the polls in record numbers - people want change. Bernie is the candidate of change and is a true leader on the most important issues. He's def the best candidate on healthcare, campaign finance reform, and climate change (aside from Inslee). Warren: Her "I have a plan" is working well, because people want a President to have a clear vision and know how they will get there. She's almost as progressive as Bernie, and the progressive agenda is the one that will win. Williamson: She's just wild. Some of her answers in the debate were actually really good and others were just strange. She reminds me of a yoga instructor. Cool person, but wouldn't be a good president. Yang: Him bringing UBI to the mainstream is a great thing. He won't win, but I think it's great to see so many people on board with that idea. He's got some strange policies and ultimately has dome some things as a candidate that are problematic.
  14. I was never for Gravel running this campaign because I knew that he wasn't in it to win it. If you are running you should be running to win. While his intentions were good, I didn't donate to his campaign or support it in any way for that reason. But I am glad he endorsed Bernie, was worried he might endorse Tulsi which would have been dumb.
  15. I really don't want to see Biden as the nominee so it's hard for me to even decide who would be a good VP, but I'll go with: Castro - increase Hispanic turnout, very good on immigration, education, and police reform policies Warren - good pick to get progressives to vote for him, but I'm not sure she would accept Harris - Further to the left than he is and gets a minority and female on the ticket Booker - basically same as Harris, but not a female Abrams - could get GA in play and excite voters I'll tell you the worst picks for him would be Delaney (or any of the centrist dems), Gabbard, or Klobuchar.
  • Create New...