Buttigieg triples fundraising, sets new record

[Hestia11 572]

50 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

Only if you get to 15%

She’s averaging near that right now.

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

She’s averaging near that right now.

Yes and no.  In no SC, NH, or Nevada polls has she come close to that. And only 1 Poll in Iowa has her within the margin. It’s hard to trust national numbers when for Dems Cali and NY makeup 1/4 of the voter base, and she’s the senator of one of those states. 

[Hestia11 572]

16 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

Yes and no.  In no SC, NH, or Nevada polls has she come close to that. And only 1 Poll in Iowa has her within the margin. It’s hard to trust national numbers when for Dems Cali and NY makeup 1/4 of the voter base, and she’s the senator of one of those states. 

There have been hardly any post-debate SC, NH, or NV polls. We only have Iowa and national polls to look at right now. The others aren’t really accurate.

[Patine 470]

6 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

There have been hardly any post-debate SC, NH, or NV polls. We only have Iowa and national polls to look at right now. The others aren’t really accurate.

You're probably wasting your time here, @Hestia11, and in the "Citizenship" thread as well. It's become blatantly apparent that @HonestAbe does not respond to rationality, reason, or logical argument, and may, quite likely, even be a troll.

[Actinguy 862]

2 hours ago, Hestia11 said:

 

But she has 3x the polling numbers. Votes matter in the end.

Agreed entirely.  But we’re still a year away from the end, and there’s going to be bills to pay in the meantime.

Though the truth of the matter is, I hope they’re both on the winning ticket, in either order.

Team work makes the dream work! ;c)

[Hestia11 572]

2 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Agreed entirely.  But we’re still a year away from the end, and there’s going to be bills to pay in the meantime.

Though the truth of the matter is, I hope they’re both on the winning ticket, in either order.

Team work makes the dream work! ;c)

It’s true. But, money can get you a lot, it’s true, but I think they both have plenty as of right now. Poll numbers matter more right now, it’s what gets you attention. 

[Patine 470]

2 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Agreed entirely.  But we’re still a year away from the end, and there’s going to be bills to pay in the meantime.

Though the truth of the matter is, I hope they’re both on the winning ticket, in either order.

Team work makes the dream work! ;c)

That would be, to me, one of the worse possible tickets a Democratic National Convention could produce in 2020. Maybe not THE worst, but pretty far down there.

[Actinguy 862]

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

That would be, to me, one of the worse possible tickets a Democratic National Convention could produce in 2020. Maybe not THE worst, but pretty far down there.

Ok.  What’s the best?

[Patine 470]

Just now, Actinguy said:

Ok.  What’s the best?

The ABSOLUTE best would be hard to say outright. But a LOT of possibilities would be better in my mind. As a student of history and government on a GLOBAL, and not just, U.S. level, I am well aware of MANY elections around the world, throughout history, where the "Devil one didn't know," more or less - at least in terms of what they'd actually do in higher office, was elected to get rid of an incumbent "Devil one did know, but who had become untenable," and ended up soundly regretting their replacement as well. I could see that as a very real possibility for one of these two darling candidates getting elected.

[jnewt 37]

20 minutes ago, Patine said:

That would be, to me, one of the worse possible tickets a Democratic National Convention could produce in 2020. Maybe not THE worst, but pretty far down there.

Agreed

[Actinguy 862]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

The ABSOLUTE best would be hard to say outright. But a LOT of possibilities would be better in my mind. As a student of history and government on a GLOBAL, and not just, U.S. level, I am well aware of MANY elections around the world, throughout history, where the "Devil one didn't know," more or less - at least in terms of what they'd actually do in higher office, was elected to get rid of an incumbent "Devil one did know, but who had become untenable," and ended up soundly regretting their replacement as well. I could see that as a very real possibility for one of these two darling candidates getting elected.

You won’t actually say who would be best?  Or even good?  You’re just hear to knock down other people’s choices?

[jnewt 37]

39 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

You won’t actually say who would be best?  Or even good?  You’re just hear to knock down other people’s choices?

You know exactly what he's saying. He's saying there is no "best" choice. Only differing levels of bad choices.

[Herbert Hoover 199]

I'll jump in and just say that I think that I'd prefer Harris to stay off of the 2020 ticket if at all possible simply due to her history with criminal justice reform and her general snakiness. 

I think my ideal ticket would be something along the lines of Buttigieg/Warren. Neither are my first choice, but I think that would be a somewhat balanced and electable ticket. 

[Sean F. Kennedy 14]

1 hour ago, Actinguy said:

You won’t actually say who would be best?  Or even good?  You’re just hear to knock down other people’s choices?

He's saying anointed candidates like the two that you've said you think are the best ticket will not excite the progressive base when you go in depth with their actual history and current problems. (Kamala on jailing parents of truant kids, not prosecuting Steve Mnuchin and having campaign contributions from Trump and  Buttigieg what's the ignoring the low income citizens in South Bend, firing South Bend's first black Chief of Police, his horrible relationship with the African American community and his city)

I could go on...

[Actinguy 862]

7 hours ago, Dr. Insano said:

He's saying anointed candidates like the two that you've said you think are the best ticket will not excite the progressive base when you go in depth with their actual history and current problems. (Kamala on jailing parents of truant kids, not prosecuting Steve Mnuchin and having campaign contributions from Trump and  Buttigieg what's the ignoring the low income citizens in South Bend, firing South Bend's first black Chief of Police, his horrible relationship with the African American community and his city)

I could go on...

Ending Trump’s presidency should excite the progressive base.

[Actinguy 862]

7 hours ago, jnewt said:

You know exactly what he's saying. He's saying there is no "best" choice. Only differing levels of bad choices.

No, it’s just his usual schtik.  He rails against the way the world is while not actually offering any realistic solutions — because then he’d have to come out in favor “for” something, and it’s much easier to complain.

You're telling me that even though we have more candidates now than we’ve ever had at any point in history, there’s STILL not a single good candidate among them?  That’s ridiculous.  Yes, we are never going to find perfection.  That’s a fool’s errand — candidates are humans, and if they have any level of experience in anything, they have a history of having to make difficult decisions.  There’s going to be times for any candidate when they made the wrong call — the question is, do they realize that...and what did they learn from it.

But it’s much trendier to just whine and bitch about perceived missteps from perfection, without bringing your own supposedly perfect candidate to the table — and that just adds zero value to the conversation.

[Patine 470]

12 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

No, it’s just his usual schtik.  He rails against the way the world is while not actually offering any realistic solutions — because then he’d have to come out in favor “for” something, and it’s much easier to complain.

You're telling me that even though we have more candidates now than we’ve ever had at any point in history, there’s STILL not a single good candidate among them?  That’s ridiculous.  Yes, we are never going to find perfection.  That’s a fool’s errand — candidates are humans, and if they have any level of experience in anything, they have a history of having to make difficult decisions.  There’s going to be times for any candidate when they made the wrong call — the question is, do they realize that...and what did they learn from it.

But it’s much trendier to just whine and bitch about perceived missteps from perfection, without bringing your own supposedly perfect candidate to the table — and that just adds zero value to the conversation.

Actually, I do have solutions I would - and do - advocate. But they're on the - I guess you'd say - radical side. But that's because I see the state of the world being in such a dire mess due to long mismanagement, incompetence, sticking to failed ways of doing things, and - of course - unbridled greed and criminal activity in the upper echelons, above legal and judicial reach, that only radical solutions would be sufficient to make enough difference to POSSIBLY prevent the death spiral of global civilization into a new Dark Age that is almost certain in an uncomfortably foreseeable future. But since you seem to be a conventional and conformist type, politically, comfortable and complacent with the broken and dysfunctional system, my proposed solutions would likely fall on deaf ears - or even be ridiculed.

[Actinguy 862]

46 minutes ago, Patine said:

Actually, I do have solutions I would - and do - advocate. But they're on the - I guess you'd say - radical side. But that's because I see the state of the world being in such a dire mess due to long mismanagement, incompetence, sticking to failed ways of doing things, and - of course - unbridled greed and criminal activity in the upper echelons, above legal and judicial reach, that only radical solutions would be sufficient to make enough difference to POSSIBLY prevent the death spiral of global civilization into a new Dark Age that is almost certain in an uncomfortably foreseeable future. But since you seem to be a conventional and conformist type, politically, comfortable and complacent with the broken and dysfunctional system, my proposed solutions would likely fall on deaf ears - or even be ridiculed.

But...that’s kind of my point.  You just ridicule other people’s choices without making a serious attempt to propose your own because you don’t want them to be ridiculed...even though that’s what you do.

[Patine 470]

13 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

But...that’s kind of my point.  You just ridicule other people’s choices without making a serious attempt to propose your own because you don’t want them to be ridiculed...even though that’s what you do.

I don't ridicule. I may scathingly criticize and condemn, but I always have a reason behind it. You may not like my reasons for criticism, but that doesn't instantly turn it to ridicule. In my experience, a lot of my points of view have been dismissed as "ridiculous," "conspiracy theories," "utterly unworkable," "crazy-talk," etc., but when pressed as to why, I usually get worm scripts and old saws, and it's always very apparent that those dismissing my ideas don't even consider them or actually think about them, but reflexively dismiss them - as though, often, trying to AVOID actually thinking about them too long. I tend to get the same reaction when I actually try to explain why I criticize and disapprove of many other people's viewpoints. The only alternative would be for to sellout my principles and conform to what I see as an inherently flawed and broken system just to be taken seriously - but that would be a self-betrayal of conviction, and falling into a typical social trap - one which Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul both actually fell into.

[Actinguy 862]

It would seem I am not alone.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/williesworld/amp/Democrats-dream-ticket-is-Kamala-Harris-and-14074670.php

[Sean F. Kennedy 14]

5 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Ending Trump’s presidency should excite the progressive base.

That's not enough, stop being so partisan and blind to your own bias. People are being critical of the candidates you don't like so you're being dismissive. You're literally repeating what happened in 2016. It's the job of the politicians to get our votes, shaming will never work. Keep being dismissive towards people like @Patine @jnewt and others and all you are doing is hurting your own argument. 

[Actinguy 862]

1 hour ago, Dr. Insano said:

That's not enough, stop being so partisan and blind to your own bias. People are being critical of the candidates you don't like so you're being dismissive. You're literally repeating what happened in 2016. It's the job of the politicians to get our votes, shaming will never work. Keep being dismissive towards people like @Patine @jnewt and others and all you are doing is hurting your own argument. 

I’m not being dismissive.  I’m asking who people prefer.  Nobody has answered me, they only criticize my choices.  I’m dismissive of the non-responses I’m receiving, I guess.

[Guest]

Warren claims $19+ million last Q

[Patine 470]

2 hours ago, Actinguy said:

I’m not being dismissive.  I’m asking who people prefer.  Nobody has answered me, they only criticize my choices.  I’m dismissive of the non-responses I’m receiving, I guess.

Maybe the fact that I can't optimistic, excited, or fully supportive of one candidate, even among 24 (well, 25, TECHNICALLY, but we won't go there) might show my overall state of being highly dubious and critical of the whole system is something I firmly believe - because no one among all of those candidates has any platform, plan, agenda, or appetite to tackle the REAL, DEEP-SEATED, CRIPPLING issues of the U.S. that have been ignored, brushed under the carpet, denied, thought are actually good ideas, or only ever have their symptoms dealt with like a game of "whack-a-mole," that are festering and rotting like a cancer within American society and governance, practically unchecked. Also, just beating an untenable incumbent at all costs as the only concern to be worried about, and save anything else for a nebulous future after Election Night celebrations, but focus on getting the strongest "silver bullet" candidate as the central and pinnacle priority reminds of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) in 1980 - they voted out the very unpopular Ian Smith, and celebrated as Robert Mugabe took power - but it wasn't long before they realized the prize they had gotten instead...

[Actinguy 862]

5 hours ago, Dr. Insano said:

That's not enough, stop being so partisan and blind to your own bias. People are being critical of the candidates you don't like so you're being dismissive. You're literally repeating what happened in 2016. It's the job of the politicians to get our votes, shaming will never work. Keep being dismissive towards people like @Patine @jnewt and others and all you are doing is hurting your own argument. 

I don’t really know what you’re talking about, but to be clear: I am not trying to be flippant.  There is truly nothing that ANY candidate has proposed, no matter how implausible, that excites me HALF as much as the prospect of stopping Trump does.

 

That truly is everything, to me.  

 

And so I guess I find it just as infuriating when people claim they won’t vote for certain democrats (if those dems become the nominee) as the same people feel when I don’t...join them in agreeing to not back certain democrats?  I guess?  I struggle to find the right analogy.  But I also struggle to understand how the far left plans to achieve ANYTHING until Trump is gone.  

How is removing Trump not a unifying goal for the entire party?

We can disagree about what might come after, and that’s okay.  But what comes after is NOTHING, unless we remove Trump.  

I’ll be voting for any democrat who wins the nomination, with a smile on my face, when the day comes.  I have my preference on who my favorite candidate is, and other have theirs, and that’s fine.  That’s part of the process, the whole point of having a primary.  I don’t get annoyed when we disagree on who the best Democrat candidate is.  I get annoyed when people pretend there are candidates who are equivalent to or worse than trump.