Gillibrand is Gone

[Reagan04 376]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/us/politics/kirsten-gillibrand-2020-drop-out.amp.html&ved=2ahUKEwjgv9SuxabkAhVwTd8KHQHfCVgQiJQBMAN6BAgDEAM&usg=AOvVaw2xj1wHO_YXYpNsM9VKW_uV&ampcf=1

As per the prediction of several users, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) has dropped out of the race.

[admin_270 310]

Who is still running that won't make this round of debates?

• Bullock
• de Blasio
• Delaney
• Gabbard
• Messam
• Ryan
• Sestak
• Steyer
• Williamson
• Bennet

My guess is the more conventional candidates are more likely to drop out after this than the less conventional.

I would consider Bullock, Bennet, Gabbard, Ryan the more conventional.

[admin_270 310]

I guess every time a candidate drops out, the remaining candidates have a greater opportunity to get attention, so there's a counter-acting consideration.

[vcczar 607]

3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Who is still running that won't make this round of debates?

• Bullock
• de Blasio
• Delaney
• Gabbard
• Messam
• Ryan
• Sestak
• Steyer
• Williamson
• Bennet

My guess is the more conventional candidates are more likely to drop out after this than the less conventional.

I would consider Bullock, Bennet, Gabbard, Ryan the more conventional.

Gabbard isn’t conventional. She’s kind of like Warren and Sanders but with a more isolationist foreign policy and less of a focus on civil rights. However that’s kind of a generalization on my part. 

[Herbert Hoover 81]

6 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I guess every time a candidate drops out, the remaining candidates have a greater opportunity to get attention, so there's a counter-acting consideration.

I'd say Gabbard stays in until October at least. Here's who I expect to remain by Iowa and their general polling position:  

1. Biden

2. Warren

3. Sanders

4. Buttigieg

5. Booker

6. Yang

7. O'Rourke

8. Gabbard

9. Delaney

I'd expect the rest to drop out. 

[admin_270 310]

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

Gabbard isn’t conventional.

You're right, she's eclectic enough to make me put an asterisk next to that.

[Hestia11 204]

1 minute ago, Herbert Hoover said:

I'd say Gabbard stays in until October at least. Here's who I expect to remain by Iowa and their general polling position:  

1. Biden

2. Warren

3. Sanders

4. Buttigieg

5. Booker

6. Yang

7. O'Rourke

8. Gabbard

9. Delaney

I'd expect the rest to drop out. 

Harris will stay in. 

[admin_270 310]

Yang is now polling in 6th according to the latest RCP average, ahead of O'Rourke and Booker.

He now has a recent poll (Emerson) where he polled ahead of Buttigieg, in 5th.

[vcczar 607]

1 minute ago, Hestia11 said:

Harris will stay in. 

@Herbert Hoover

yeah I think Harris will be in. Delaney, O’Rourke, and maybe Booker will be out. The latter two if they aren’t double digits in IA, NH, SC, or NV by mid January. 

[admin_270 310]

If Bernie or Warren dropped out, the other probably would be the front-runner in short order.

[Herbert Hoover 81]

16 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

Harris will stay in. 

I forgot Harris. Whoops!

[SilentLiberty 67]

5 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

If Bernie or Warren dropped out, the other probably would be the front-runner in short order.

Which is both funny and true. It's funny because both campaigns are in it for the long haul which really just might spite their agenda(s)

[admin_270 310]

7 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

Which is both funny and true. It's funny because both campaigns are in it for the long haul which really just might spite their agenda(s)

Ya, for supporters of either, the best outcome might be for them to form a Non-Aggression Pact until IA and NH are done, and then whoever has the weaker numbers withdraw and endorse the other candidate. This allows time for the vote to consolidate before Super Tuesday and momentum for the candidate who will then go up in the polls.

[ThePotatoWalrus 87]

I love Mommy Gabbard. If she doesn't make it in i'm rioting and resisting arrest

[Actinguy 463]

I say Steyer stays in despite missing this debate.  He’s the closest to qualifying in October’s debate, and by that point people will be interested to see him on the stage for the first time.  

Gabbard is sure to drop out.  Her campaign is already in debt.

[Patine 246]

7 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Gabbard is sure to drop out.  Her campaign is already in debt.

Oh, shucks!

Gabbard is actually one of my very least favourite "viable" candidates (other than Trump), along with Harris, Williamson, Buttigieg, and O'Rourke. So, no big loss, anyways, if she does.

[vcczar 607]

3 hours ago, admin_270 said:

If Bernie or Warren dropped out, the other probably would be the front-runner in short order.

I think this is true. One good sign for Warren is that she’s actually the 2nd choice of many Sanders, Harris, Biden, and Buttigieg voters. Sanders is only a 2nd choice for manual warren voters. For whatever reason, his 2nd largest group of the Bernie as a 2nd choice is from Biden supporters. 

[ThePotatoWalrus 87]

 

Shitposter in chief. This man knows how to control the media. Once in a lifetime President.

[Patine 246]

2 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

 

Shitposter in chief. This man knows how to control the media. Once in a lifetime President.

Well, the Republicans already had their sad day when they abandoned every single ideal and high ground they may have ever held, signed their long-term death warrant as party, and nominated Donald Trump for U.S. President at their National Convention in 2016.

[SilentLiberty 67]

7 minutes ago, Patine said:

Well, the Republicans already had their sad day when they abandoned every single ideal and high ground they may have ever held, signed their long-term death warrant as party, and nominated Donald Trump for U.S. President at their National Convention in 2016.

You keep saying that, maybe one day it'll come true

[Patine 246]

2 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

You keep saying that, maybe one day it'll come true

I firmly believe it already has - the fruits of the GOP nomination's foolish and reckless abandon to party just haven't been made manifest yet. I think if the Libertarians do become the new main right-wing party, at least they won't be (at first) so flagrantly corrupt, criminal, authoritarian, hawkish-for-corporate-profit-abroad, cloaked-in-secrecy-and-spy-culture, hypocritical morally, and, yes, even outright treasonous to their own people and nation as the GOP have become to the core as a party.

[vcczar 607]

9 hours ago, Patine said:

Well, the Republicans already had their sad day when they abandoned every single ideal and high ground they may have ever held, signed their long-term death warrant as party, and nominated Donald Trump for U.S. President at their National Convention in 2016.

I’m remembering when Gore Vidal responded the moment Obama won election in 2008. He said emphatically, “The Republican Party, is of today, as terminated as the Whig Party in 1852.”

2010 GOP swept Congress, was competitive in 2012. In 2016, the managed to win the EC with arguably the least favored nominee in US history (facing the next least favorable). In 2018, they still held the Senate. 

I don’t think they’re close to dying. Both major parties have abandoned ideals and evolved or devolved in the course of their lifetimes. 

I keep wanting them to collapse but they have to allow that as a team. 

[Actinguy 463]

2 hours ago, vcczar said:

I’m remembering when Gore Vidal responded the moment Obama won election in 2008. He said emphatically, “The Republican Party, is of today, as terminated as the Whig Party in 1852.”

2010 GOP swept Congress, was competitive in 2012. In 2016, the managed to win the EC with arguably the least favored nominee in US history (facing the next least favorable). In 2018, they still held the Senate. 

I don’t think they’re close to dying. Both major parties have abandoned ideals and evolved or devolved in the course of their lifetimes. 

I keep wanting them to collapse but they have to allow that as a team. 

They're dying in the sense that the Republican Party is not what it was pre-Obama.  It was eaten from the inside by the tea party, brought about by Sarah Palin (and, therefore, by John McCain).  Trump is the result of that.

The new Republican Party may be stronger than the old party was, at least for now, in terms of voter support.  That's frightening in itself to me, as somebody who actually used to like a lot about the GOP until Palin, Trump, and others hijacked it.  But the election results are strong, suggesting this new GOP may be around for the forseeable future, even if it seemingly has no connection to what came before.

[pilight 146]

We've heard this before.  In 1994 the Republicans were crowing that they had a "permanent majority".  They were in the minority in both houses of congress by 2006 and in the six presidential elections since '94 they've won the popular vote once.  In 2008 Democrats were ridiculing the GOP as a "regional party".  Today that term much more accurately describes the Dems.

[vcczar 607]

2 minutes ago, pilight said:

We've heard this before.  In 1994 the Republicans were crowing that they had a "permanent majority".  They were in the minority in both houses of congress by 2006 and in the six presidential elections since '94 they've won the popular vote once.  In 2008 Democrats were ridiculing the GOP as a "regional party".  Today that term much more accurately describes the Dems.

How can the Dems be the more regional party? They control the house and have won the PV in every election in the 21st century, except in 2004. The Dems are easily more National than regional considering they win just about every urban area in the country. Likewise GOP isn’t regional either because it wins just about every rural area across the country. The battle is in the suburbs.