• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

[LIVE REAL-TIME RESULTS*] The 2020 New Hampshire Primary Election Thread! Votes come in at 7 or 8PM Est. tonight.

ThePiddle

Member
May 6, 2019
280
389
285
If the underlying cause requires me to go to a specialist, I'm screwed in a socialized healthcare system anyway due to lack of availability.

The big difference is that I don't view one method as "right" and the other as "wrong", I have no emotional or moral attachment to the method used, I am just trying to make the best choice based on history and based on evidence. If socialized healthcare had an established track-record of providing generation after generation with reliable access to care, I would support it, but it doesn't, so I don't.

This is for the socialists to prove. The skeptics have history on their side. I am open to explanations as to why it'll be different this time, but like I said it seems like the USA is lectured by countries with younger, less-developed, less-stable socialized services while the USA can boast -- objectively -- about the stability of its own social services.

Why does healthcare have to be for all, not just some who are vetted and approved to receive it? The USA has offered medicaid and medicare for decades to the people who need it most. Won't a socialized system eventually reach the point where healthcare is not available to all anyway, which then leads us to vet and approve those who receive it anyway? Why does socialism need to add so much extra bureaucracy if the outcome is the same (or worse)?


Our bad dietary habits have much to do with shorter life expectancy. Conflating the avg life expectancy with healthcare is far too simplistic for my tastes when so many other factors are involved. I do wonder how you come to the conclusion of "worse overall healthcare quality" when most of the best medicines and best hospitals are in the USA.

One's healthcare does not begin and end with hospitals and doctors, right? Out of all the services provided, "immediate treatment" in a life-threatening situation is the priority. The price of services and the wider availability of quality-of-life services is important but secondary. I think we overmedicate and overprescribe which is why we have some of theses problems in healthcare. I'm open to alternative viewpoints.
For healthcare quality: http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/best-healthcare-in-the-world/

I agree that Americans have worse diets and are more obese. Stress also contributes to obesity, and we are one of the most stressed populations in the world. Americans' main source of stress is debt, and our main source of debt is medically related. I just think an adjustment to the system may treat the underlying cause.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
2,987
3,702
1,705
Montreal, Quebec
This is nothing more than another Pete pushing post and I have no idea why you keep blindingly not paying attention. Pete is not the establishment candidate, he's not going anywhere, they already prepared and spammed SC and NV with Biden ads before Iowa, and Amy is a close consideration which is why she has more DNC and DNC directly connected endorsements than anyone else on the field.

Pete doesn't have the demographics or the pull to go anywhere after NH and NH is primarily because of momentum from Iowa. The overlap suggests that if Warren were to drop out Amy would have gone ahead of Pete. Which is what she should do because Warren has no chance of winning at this point.

This is how things are going to work, Nevada will be a surprise shakeup, maybe a Biden win and Steyer and Amy will be in good positions causing everyones predictions to go out of wack, and Bernie may have a good chunk as well. Then Biden wins SC with Amy and Steyer, and then Biden will basically win nearly every primary unless Amy manages to snag a few. If Biden falters they will switch to Amy, if they are uncertain they will back Bloomberg and Amy until one is hows one is more stable than the other, likely after ST, then choose that candidate. Actually, the one they choose will be extremely clear by ST.

Pete can't win a good chunk of the states coming up and I'm not just talking about southern states either. His momentum from Iowa has already dwindled and wasn't enough to beat a Bernie that people were saying for the last 3 weeks 2 or 3 times a week that his massive expected lead kept dropping, and if not for that momentum he would have lost to Amy. That's not a stable candidate for the DNC.

Get Pete out of your head, he's going nowhere. The DNC gave him Iowa because he put everything there and was the only guy who could stop an early Bernie and they still had to cheat, and he wasn't even that far ahead. The guy has no realistic chance of winning, he may even drop out before ST but he will definitely drop out after.
How can you say Pete's momentum has dwindled after last night? It's just the opposite, at least from early indications in media coverage. I'll be much more comfortable about writing him off if/when he struggles to crack the top 3 in Nevada and SC.

He's tight with Hillary and Obama figures, he's also flip-flopped in spectacular fashion on some major issues over the course of just one year. His advisers seem to have turned him into a cookie-cutter politician, spewing verbal diarrhea when "answering"/avoiding questions. Also, from an Intercept piece written a couple of days ago regarding his fundraising:

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN of former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has taken the unusual step of sending its national policy director, Sonal Shah, on the road. For the past several months, she has been headlining high-dollar fundraisers across the country, according to a slew of invitations obtained from a variety of sources.

It’s common for campaigns that rely on wealthy donors to lean on surrogates and senior officials to buttress their fundraising operations, but sending the aide in charge of crafting policy on a tour of American mansions is an unusual approach and wipes out the line between policymaking and solicitation of campaign contributions. Almost all of the invitations typically tout the role of Shah, a veteran of both Google and Goldman Sachs, as the campaign’s national policy director.
He's the complete opposite of Bernie where fundraising and policymaking are concerned, closer to Hillary than any of the other candidates currently in the race. He's also currently better suited to keep his campaign rolling through the grind than Biden, CNBC claiming some of his donors are now interested in Pete - and that was before the NH results.

Pete represents everything wrong with politicians and that's why the establishment likes him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThePiddle

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
19,990
40,808
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
For healthcare quality: http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/best-healthcare-in-the-world/

I agree that Americans have worse diets and are more obese. Stress also contributes to obesity, and we are one of the most stressed populations in the world. Americans' main source of stress is debt, and our main source of debt is medically related. I just think an adjustment to the system may treat the underlying cause.
Ah, so a subjective third-party list.

Y'know something I noticed? The USA may be 37th on that list, but it is also the first country on that list with more than 150 million citizens, let alone over 200 million, let alone over 300 million.

If we are comparing similarly-sized populations, the USA's closest rival on the list would be Indonesia at 92nd, and that's it. No other countries with similarly-sized populations appear in the top 100, not China, not Russia, not Pakistan, not India, not Brazil, not Nigeria.

I believe scale has much to do with the viability of these ideas and it is telling that out of the 36 countries ranked ahead of the USA, only one of them (Japan) takes care of more than 100 million people.

Small countries with small populations are obviously easier to take care of. Densely-populated cities also have an easier time implementing social services due to the advantages of close proximity. Democrats keep falling into the same (obvious) trap where an idea that works in a city or a relatively small population is extrapolated to work just as well when applied across a broader population.

We still must answer the concern as to whether these systems will be viable for more than a few generations. Two of the oldest -- the USA's medicare and the UK's NHS -- have been showing cracks for awhile. Young systems are obviously going to be shiny and at their best in the first decade or two.
 
  • Thoughtful
  • Like
Reactions: Arelyon and Ornlu

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
7,184
5,469
1,075
How can you say Pete's momentum has dwindled after last night? It's just the opposite, at least from early indications in media coverage. I'll be much more comfortable about writing him off if/when he struggles to crack the top 3 in Nevada and SC.
You aren't paying attention that's why, he got the placement he was already going to get. The Iowa momentum just stabilized where he was already going to be, the part you're ignoring is that Bernie fell by a large margin from where he was expected to be just almost 2 weeks ago, and Amy came out of nowhere.

You are having the belief that the close proximity to Bernie is due to Petes momentum and that just doesn't add up. Warren was the only other person that was supposedly going to be in second place and she lost that after she crashed a ways before. He's going nowhere and you are constantly adjusting reality to put Pete in some imaginary advanced positions and I don't know why.


He's tight with Hillary and Obama figures, he's also flip-flopped in spectacular fashion on some major issues over the course of just one year. His advisers seem to have turned him into a cookie-cutter politician, spewing verbal diarrhea when "answering"/avoiding questions. Also, from an Intercept piece written a couple of days ago regarding his fundraising:
That's nice, what's new about this? Biden is their nominee, Pete's not getting any of those endorsements Biden is, or Amy is, he's only getting a handful of those endorsements at best, and several key funding sources are also not looking at Pete they are looking at Biden, some were with Klobuchar, and now after NH many are looking at KH, not Pete.


He's the complete opposite of Bernie where fundraising and policymaking are concerned, closer to Hillary than any of the other candidates currently in the race. He's also currently better suited to keep his campaign rolling through the grind than Biden, CNBC claiming some of his donors are now interested in Pete - and that was before the NH results.
He's left of Biden.

Also almost all the major fims/individuals/groups that were key to HIlary/OBama/Jeb etc have all been looking at Biden with some on Klobuchar, and after NH, some are iffy on Biden and more are looking at Klobuchar, very few are looking at Pete. In terms of connected politicians, Amy has more endorsements than any other person in the party.

You are assuming because Pete is trying to be a 100% all in socialist trying to be a generic politician while being gay means he's a "favorite" o the establishment despite the establishment not making any clear moves they are behind Pete and showing sings they are still mostly looking at Biden with rising support for Amy.

If something happens to Biden and Amy they may back him as a last resort but that's unlikely, it's more likely something will happen to him, especially as his name and his uh, social stance on a certain issue becomes more clear as his coverage increases.
 

ThePiddle

Member
May 6, 2019
280
389
285
Ah, so a subjective third-party list.

Y'know something I noticed? The USA may be 37th on that list, but it is also the first country on that list with more than 150 million citizens, let alone over 200 million, let alone over 300 million.

If we are comparing similarly-sized populations, the USA's closest rival on the list would be Indonesia at 92nd, and that's it. No other countries with similarly-sized populations appear in the top 100, not China, not Russia, not Pakistan, not India, not Brazil, not Nigeria.

I believe scale has much to do with the viability of these ideas and it is telling that out of the 36 countries ranked ahead of the USA, only one of them (Japan) takes care of more than 100 million people.

Small countries with small populations are obviously easier to take care of. Densely-populated cities also have an easier time implementing social services due to the advantages of close proximity. Democrats keep falling into the same (obvious) trap where an idea that works in a city or a relatively small population is extrapolated to work just as well when applied across a broader population.

We still must answer the concern as to whether these systems will be viable for more than a few generations. Two of the oldest -- the USA's medicare and the UK's NHS -- have been showing cracks for awhile. Young systems are obviously going to be shiny and at their best in the first decade or two.
I mean... this is also the World Health Organization's findings. But I'm sure that there will be no source that is credible enough for you right now. (Linking to pdf of WHO report).


The scalability thing is always brought up, which I think is a rather specious point. Because it's never been successful at a larger scale means we shouldn't try it?

I think I've brought enough to this argument in terms of where we rank in quality, how we pay more, how it negatively affects our finances and how that correlates to stress/obesity, and how ultimately we have a shorter life expectancy than other countries with national healthcare.

The argument against is less control, longer wait times for service, potential communism, less individual choice, and that we are too big for national care to work. Am I missing anything?

As long as we all understand the pros and cons, that's all that really matters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
19,990
40,808
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
I mean... this is also the World Health Organization's findings. But I'm sure that there will be no source that is credible enough for you right now. (Linking to pdf of WHO report).
Well a "source" isn't going to prove something as subjective as "healthcare quality". To use a less-serious example, you may as well link me Top 100 lists from IGN and Game Informer to prove which console provides the best gaming quality.

WHO is a source, but not one that I would consider authoritative on overall healthcare quality. But I have set that aside, because ultimately we have to start from somewhere, which is why I mentioned the difference in population sizes instead of just dismissing the findings outright.

The scalability thing is always brought up, which I think is a rather specious point. Because it's never been successful at a larger scale means we shouldn't try it?
Red herring. I never said that we shouldn't try it, nor did I say my reason for not wanting to try it is because "it's never been successful at a larger scale".

I am simply pointing out facts that need to be addressed before proceeding forward. Scalability is not spurious, it is one of the most central concerns for any planned system in any context for any society at any point in human history. Methods used to feed 100,000 may not work for 1,000,000 and people starve instead. Methods used to care for 40 million may not work for 400 million and people die instead. Methods used to stack bricks to a height of 5 meters may not work for a height of 500 meters and the building falls over.

The burden is on the ones proposing the new system. It is not unreasonable to ask the architects: y'know, your 1,000 meter tower toppled to the ground and crushed a bunch of our people last time. How do you propose to avoid that with this new 2,000 meter tower?

It is not unreasonable to doubt the architects who -- instead of providing the blueprints and explaining the improved engineering techniques -- tell me that it is my moral obligation to help them build the tower and that I will definitely benefit from the tower this time around if I would simply just give them the resources to build it.

I think I've brought enough to this argument in terms of where we rank in quality, how we pay more, how it negatively affects our finances and how that correlates to stress/obesity, and how ultimately we have a shorter life expectancy than other countries with national healthcare.

The argument against is less control, longer wait times for service, potential communism, less individual choice, and that we are too big for national care to work. Am I missing anything?

As long as we all understand the pros and cons, that's all that really matters.
An argument for the long-term viability of the system seems to be missing. What works for you today will not necessarily work for your children or your grandchildren. Generally speaking, most welfare systems seem to lack a sensible check-valve to ensure the system remains viable for future generations. I expect most of these highly-praised systems will crash in the next 30 years. Will all those who advocated for the systems self-reflect? Probably not. So I'd rather just avoid the whole mess, sorry for being cynical about it.

To give a personal example, I have paid into social security since starting a "real job" as a teenager, but I do not expect to get an equal return on my investment. I worked within my state's department of transportation, writing reports on job bids, witnessing firsthand how much money is wasted when the gov't bureaucracy gets its hands on something.
 
Last edited:

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
6,350
9,346
910

With M4A you would have no out of pocket expenses, and no premiums, co-pays, or deductibles. The cost for that is $0 if you make 29K or less a year, otherwise 4% of any amount you make over 29K. So someone making 50K a year would pay less than $1500 a year. At 100K you'd pay like $2900 and so on.

That would save a lot of people a lot of money. Hell I just checked and my own medical + dental + vision costs (all of which is included in M4A) this past year were more than they would cost under Sanders' plan. And that's not including any visits or prescriptions or deductibles or copays or...anything at all besides the straight up cost of my health/vision/dental plans.

Also you can go to any hospital or doctor you want with his plan. And you dont have to worry about things like losing it/being denied, or staying at a job just for the health insurance.

The big issue with keeping any private insurance around is that it will inherently keep a major problem we have with it now. A basically tiered system where the well off/rich get better treatment than those without the means to cough up ridiculous amounts of money they simply don't have. That's simply not the way health care should work. It shouldn't be a for astronomical profits business, it should be about helping people who need help.
The average American doesn’t even know how much they really are paying for insurance, since so much of it is “employer” funded. Employer funded just means they pay you less.
 
  • Fire
Reactions: Ornlu

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
11,952
19,897
855
I am hearing vote numbers went slightly up over 2016 [ok news, but not good enough]
I am hearing under 29 votes went down over 2016 [terrible news for radicals and Bernie]
I am hearing Bernie's % of vote went down from like 60% in 2016 vs HRC to the 20s. [Awful news for bernie].

Meanwhile, trump did tremendously and the media is silent.

Heard these numbers on a podcast so haven't checked/verified, but it's unlikely the caster lied.
 

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Mar 5, 2009
8,177
7,250
1,470
Is Pete really all that moderate? Most of the time he talks and says nothing of real substance. The few times he has elaborated on what he wants to do he has seemed pretty left leaning from what I have heard.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
11,952
19,897
855
and how ultimately we have a shorter life expectancy
Be careful of misunderstanding statistics.

The decrease in life expectancy isn't because of poor health care, it was largely because our suicide rate was skyrocketing. White middle aged male suicide rate during the recession.


[Chose very left wing source on purpose]

In a follow-up to their groundbreaking 2015 work, they say that a lack of steady, well-paying jobs for whites without college degrees has caused pain, distress and social dysfunction to build up over time. The mortality rate for that group, ages 45 to 54, increased by a half percent each year from 1999 to 2013.

If people half the age of life expectancy increase their suicide rate, life expectancy goes down.

And that isn't even taking into account the rise in teenage suicides, especially among girls.

And now, under Trump and record low unemployment, we see life expectancy rise for the first time in years:


Beware of health advocates using life expectancy as a direct measure of care quality. Anyone paying attention would understand a driving force of the drop has been suicide rate, not quality of care.
 
Last edited:

zeorhymer

Gold Member
Nov 9, 2013
2,604
2,251
750
San Francisco, CA
I am hearing vote numbers went slightly up over 2016 [ok news, but not good enough]
I am hearing under 29 votes went down over 2016 [terrible news for radicals and Bernie]
I am hearing Bernie's % of vote went down from like 60% in 2016 vs HRC to the 20s. [Awful news for bernie].

Meanwhile, trump did tremendously and the media is silent.

Heard these numbers on a podcast so haven't checked/verified, but it's unlikely the caster lied.


Yes, Trump trounced all of the previous incumbents in NH. Considering that no one is going against him, there's a giant turnout for some reason.
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
7,184
5,469
1,075
Pete isn't a moderate, he's right of Bernie that doesn't take much to accomplish. He's basically where Warren is with some difference on certain policies, but he acts an talks like a generic DNC plant. But he's far left of Delaney, and Bennet.
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
7,184
5,469
1,075


Yes, Trump trounced all of the previous incumbents in NH. Considering that no one is going against him, there's a giant turnout for some reason.
Bill Weld is running against him. Even with that he's blowing up more and more showing that people really don't want the DNC field to win and that impeachment backfired.

BTW updated figures at 97% in:

97.67% reporting
CandidateTotal Votes% VotesDel.

Donald Trump
128,95485.5%22
Bill Weld13,7009.1%0
Total Write-ins4,1982.8%0


He'll probably break 130k when the rest of the results come in. People are clearly done with the Democrats and want to push him to victory.

Iowa also had trump break some records.
 

ThePiddle

Member
May 6, 2019
280
389
285
Be careful of misunderstanding statistics.

The decrease in life expectancy isn't because of poor health care, it was largely because our suicide rate was skyrocketing. White middle aged male suicide rate during the recession.


[Chose very left wing source on purpose]




If people half the age of life expectancy increase their suicide rate, life expectancy goes down.

And that isn't even taking into account the rise in teenage suicides, especially among girls.

And now, under Trump and record low unemployment, we see life expectancy rise for the first time in years:


Beware of health advocates using life expectancy as a direct measure of care quality. Anyone paying attention would understand a driving force of the drop has been suicide rate, not quality of care.
Excellent points and supporting evidence. I'm not pulling life expectancy from other outlets, just my own time spent researching and my own conclusions.

I do think a correlation could still be drawn towards healthcare, since much of suicide is attributed to lack of financial security, and medical debt plays the biggest role in that. Or there is the "mental health" element of it, which is a lack of treatment issue for many; also, there's a high proportion of unemployed males with mental health issues.

Just something to consider.
 

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Mar 5, 2009
8,177
7,250
1,470
Pete isn't a moderate, he's right of Bernie that doesn't take much to accomplish. He's basically where Warren is with some difference on certain policies, but he acts an talks like a generic DNC plant. But he's far left of Delaney, and Bennet.
That's been my impression of him too. I've found it weird that the media is trying to spin him as some sort of moderate that both sides would be able to get on board with.
 

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
2,987
3,702
1,705
Montreal, Quebec
You aren't paying attention that's why, he got the placement he was already going to get. The Iowa momentum just stabilized where he was already going to be, the part you're ignoring is that Bernie fell by a large margin from where he was expected to be just almost 2 weeks ago, and Amy came out of nowhere.

You are having the belief that the close proximity to Bernie is due to Petes momentum and that just doesn't add up. Warren was the only other person that was supposedly going to be in second place and she lost that after she crashed a ways before. He's going nowhere and you are constantly adjusting reality to put Pete in some imaginary advanced positions and I don't know why.
Pete's Iowa result wasn't at all surprising and definitely not due to any momentum, he was putting in the work there and had the advantage of not being sidelined by the Senate's impeachment trial. Biden had the same advantage, but obviously it's more complicated with him because Dems forced Hunter into the spotlight and even some of the hardcore anti-Trump members here have conceded it looks shady.

I don't need to adjust reality to say Pete has momentum unless we're looking at different metrics. I'm judging it by election results, media coverage and fundraising. The guess work comes in whether or not this will help Pete moving forward. Positive national headlines tend to do that.

I never thought Biden had what it took to become the nominee, he was a high profile target taking the attention away from other candidates like Pete and Klobuchar. In order for him to reverse course and prove me wrong he'll need to win the next two states. Average polling from Realclearpolitics currently has him up on Bernie by 3.5%. 538's January polls from Fox News has him up by 8%, Suffolk has him up by 2%, Myers Research (not familiar with them) has Bernie up by 1%. He lost that monstrous lead he had last summer. Headlines after Iowa and NH will have an affect on those numbers, which is why I asked if the media would take the gamble of praising Pete at Biden's expense.

Also almost all the major fims/individuals/groups that were key to HIlary/OBama/Jeb etc have all been looking at Biden with some on Klobuchar, and after NH, some are iffy on Biden and more are looking at Klobuchar, very few are looking at Pete. In terms of connected politicians, Amy has more endorsements than any other person in the party.

You are assuming because Pete is trying to be a 100% all in socialist trying to be a generic politician while being gay means he's a "favorite" o the establishment despite the establishment not making any clear moves they are behind Pete and showing sings they are still mostly looking at Biden with rising support for Amy.

If something happens to Biden and Amy they may back him as a last resort but that's unlikely, it's more likely something will happen to him, especially as his name and his uh, social stance on a certain issue becomes more clear as his coverage increases.
Klobuchar definitely has a shot, but she faces the same problem as Pete in Nevada and South Carolina. Her polling numbers have been abysmal.

Maybe I read that wrong, but Pete's no socialist. He's no moderate either, but pundits have put him in that lane, so that's what the masses will believe. His being gay wouldn't hurt him in an ideal world, but it will, especially with the minority groups he needs to win over. It's why I think that if he were to become the nominee he wouldn't be able to beat Trump, but if he's at the top of the Dem ticket he'd help Democrats hold the House and give them a fighting shot at taking the Senate, same as Biden, Klobuchar or Bloomberg.

Bernie's the socialist/communist scare, I completely understand that, but that's a concern better left to Democrats to figure out. If he were to win the nomination and somehow beat Trump we already know he'd get stonewalled by Congress, so the worst case scenarios are fantasies as far as I'm concerned. He doesn't have what it takes to control "his" party the same way Trump does the Republicans.

I want to see Trump get a second term and some justice delivered for all the Dem fuckery of the last four years, and I know his supporters won't like me saying this, but nominating Bernie's the best way to make that happen. I see it as the high risk, high reward scenario.
 

ThePiddle

Member
May 6, 2019
280
389
285
Bill Weld is running against him. Even with that he's blowing up more and more showing that people really don't want the DNC field to win and that impeachment backfired.

BTW updated figures at 97% in:

97.67% reporting
CandidateTotal Votes% VotesDel.

Donald Trump
128,95485.5%22
Bill Weld13,7009.1%0
Total Write-ins4,1982.8%0


He'll probably break 130k when the rest of the results come in. People are clearly done with the Democrats and want to push him to victory.

Iowa also had trump break some records.
Trump is wrecking it. There is an undeniable appeal in pushing him forward when the media and democrats constantly whine and complain about him and feign moral superiority over him.

Even as a Bernie supporter, every time he says, "we must defeat Donald Trump, he is a xenophobe, a bigot, a racist, a liar, and I believe he is the most dangerous president this country has ever seen," it's really hard not to roll my eyes and groan.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Ornlu

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
7,184
5,469
1,075
I never thought Biden had what it took to become the nominee, he was a high profile target taking the attention away from other candidates like Pete and Klobuchar. In order for him to reverse course and prove me wrong he'll need to win the next two states. Average polling from Realclearpolitics currently has him up on Bernie by 3.5%. 538's January polls from Fox News has him up by 8%, Suffolk has him up by 2%, Myers Research (not familiar with them) has Bernie up by 1%. He lost that monstrous lead he had last summer. Headlines after Iowa and NH will have an affect on those numbers, which is why I asked if the media would take the gamble of praising Pete at Biden's expense..
Stop using garbage aggregates that are constantly proven wrong for the last 4 years as any source of meaningful data only use local polling and aggregates of those if you use any aggregates at all, if you did Klobuchars third place finish wouldn't have been surprising in NH, and you'd see the full scope of Bernies massive lead declining up until yesterday.

The media is mostly DNC controlled they aren't going to do anything with Pete.

Klobuchar definitely has a shot, but she faces the same problem as Pete in Nevada and South Carolina. Her polling numbers have been abysmal.
These aren't comparable, Klobuchar needed good wins in Iowa and NH to fundraise more money, she only put her first ad in Nevada on Tuesday and will be using her "surprise" finish and the new money she has earned and is earning to place ads all over both states. Pete always had staff and ads in both so the fact he's polling shit proves my point he's got no gas. He has no hole to far from, it's all plugged up.

We also haven't had recent polls from SC or Nevada, especially the latter, so things may look worse for Pete than they did back at those polls, South Carolina is dead for Pete for obvious reasons from Religion, to blacks, to his terrible record being more well known. In Nevada he would need to stand out in a state where most of the voters are from one location so generic politician won't work very well there in a state where 70+% of landmass if government owned.

He basically has to win Vegas or do good in vegas and make up for it everywhere else and I can't see that happening. Warren will drop out for sure unless she's planning to go all in on ST, which I doubt she has the money to make it to but her campaign is framing it that way with her ad pulls.

Pete can't possibly do it.

Biden and Bernie already have headstarts so it's basically Amy and Steyer aiming for that 3rd place spot or possibly higher.

I fully expect Pete to crash and burn in the next two states. Will he make it to ST? Possibly, as it's only a few days from the South Carolina primary, although he would have limited funds so would have to carefully pick a select couple states and go all in hoping for a victory.

Bernie's the socialist/communist scare, I completely understand that, but that's a concern better left to Democrats to figure out. If he were to win the nomination and somehow beat Trump we already know he'd get stonewalled by Congress, so the worst case scenarios are fantasies as far as I'm concerned. He doesn't have what it takes to control "his" party the same way Trump does the Republicans.

I want to see Trump get a second term and some justice delivered for all the Dem fuckery of the last four years, and I know his supporters won't like me saying this, but nominating Bernie's the best way to make that happen. I see it as the high risk, high reward scenario.
You forget that him having the nom makes it easier for radical socialists to win a lot of blue state seats. It's blue cities in red states he would have issues getting seats in. If he were to beat trump in imagination land he would have a good deal of control, maybe not total, but he would be able to pass some shit bills.

Amy being the nominee would shatter the dem party more than Bernie, because not only would it end the communist movement spawned from Bernie once and for all, but Democrats would have to readjust their ways of thinking with this extreme LGBT, Microagression, echo chamber, our way or the highway, collective nonsense they have been on since 2010 and will have to completely reshape the party since Amy would be a more competent Hillary.

Otherwise Joe losing would have similar effects, the chock may not sting as much though, but it'll still hurt.
 
Apr 12, 2013
6,284
385
620
I am hearing vote numbers went slightly up over 2016 [ok news, but not good enough]
I am hearing under 29 votes went down over 2016 [terrible news for radicals and Bernie]
I am hearing Bernie's % of vote went down from like 60% in 2016 vs HRC to the 20s. [Awful news for bernie].

Meanwhile, trump did tremendously and the media is silent.

Heard these numbers on a podcast so haven't checked/verified, but it's unlikely the caster lied.
The vote numbers were the highest they've ever been (Over 288,000, and there will be a few thousand more when it's all said and done).

Of course Bernie's numbers are down when it was a field of 9 candidates yesterday vs 2016 with a field of 2.

They are saying (last I saw) that 18-29 year olds were only 11% of the vote, vs 19% in 2016. Assuming that number is accurate it's pathetic. Sanders will not win (imo) without them. It's their future and they can decide to vote for it, or not.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Joe T.

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
11,952
19,897
855
The vote numbers were the highest they've ever been (Over 288,000, and there will be a few thousand more when it's all said and done).

Of course Bernie's numbers are down when it was a field of 9 candidates yesterday vs 2016 with a field of 2.

They are saying (last I saw) that 18-29 year olds were only 11% of the vote, vs 19% in 2016. Assuming that number is accurate it's pathetic. Sanders will not win (imo) without them. It's their future and they can decide to vote for it, or not.
2016 was Bernie 151,584 vs HRC 95,252 for a total of 247ish. A rise to 288 is not particularly significant when you take into consideration this 'new' blood wasn't the youth and the Dems need massive enthusiasm to beat Trump.

And no, Bernie needed to do much better in NH, given it's sibling status to Vermont. Having the 'radical' vote drop to 20something percent from 60% is huge. It means tons of people defected from Bernie the second they had a chance to, and that more people came out not to vote for radical change, but against it. this is bad news for every candidate which is promoting radical ideology... which is all of them, though the candidates which best present as something sort of moderate might survive.

That is terrible news give Bernie also won the state, which hurts all other candidates.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
19,990
40,808
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
These close calls can only mean that the party is still very divided over who should be the candidate. That's not a recipe for success. It's almost like running 20 candidates was a bad idea, but nah, nobody could've forseen division in the party this late in the game. Unity Fund will smear over any pesky disunity. Remember to vote party over policy in 2020!

Hillary voters blamed Bernie Bros for not showing up to vote for Hillary in 2016 and the bitterness persists to this day. Imagine after the 2020 loss to Trump: a five-way firing squad when Bidenites, Warrenites, Buttigiegers, Klobucharans, and Bernie Bros all stand with pistols aimed at the other groups, blaming one another for who is truly to blame for the loss. Yang Gang and Mommy Gabbard followers will be in the jungles using guerilla tactics to chip away further and drive more wedges in their own party.

Your group should've voted for [candidate] anyway! x4 lol

 
Apr 12, 2013
6,284
385
620
2016 was Bernie 151,584 vs HRC 95,252 for a total of 247ish. A rise to 288 is not particularly significant when you take into consideration this 'new' blood wasn't the youth and the Dems need massive enthusiasm to beat Trump.

And no, Bernie needed to do much better in NH, given it's sibling status to Vermont. Having the 'radical' vote drop to 20something percent from 60% is huge. It means tons of people defected from Bernie the second they had a chance to, and that more people came out not to vote for radical change, but against it. this is bad news for every candidate which is promoting radical ideology... which is all of them, though the candidates which best present as something sort of moderate might survive.

That is terrible news give Bernie also won the state, which hurts all other candidates.
The only thing worrying me about any of this is the low youth turnout. We'll see if that pattern holds for NV/SC and Super Tuesday. If it does then yeah it's very possible he'd be in a lot of trouble. However if he can keep winning regardless, it wouldn't matter. It is extremely frustrating to me though over these first couple of states.

For the number fudging that's going on, we can look at the Republican side in 2016 where there were 284,000 votes cast. Last night? Just over half of that! OMG doom and gloom for Trump right? I guess for people who don't understand much of anything, or want to willfully post misleading information to push a narrative.
 
Last edited:

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
7,184
5,469
1,075
So here's the 98% breakdown:
98.01% reporting
CandidateTotal Votes% VotesDel.

Bernie Sanders
75,92325.7%9
Pete Buttigieg72,15924.4%9
Amy Klobuchar58,53519.8%6
Elizabeth Warren27,2619.2%0
Joe Biden24,8458.4%0
Tom Steyer10,6733.6%0
Tulsi Gabbard9,6053.3%0
Andrew Yang8,2702.8%0
Total Write-ins4,4211.5%0
Deval Patrick1,2580.4%0


It's all fun and games at first glance but these numbers are a disaster. And while we can make fun of candidates like Deval who barely got ground despite being in NH since day 1, he still for a good chunk of people.

We are looking at over 250k voters in New Hampshire with a good amount staying home. Of that 250k nearly 5k are write ins. 5 candidates have around 10% or more of the vote and 3 have around 20% of the vote or over.

Even someone like Steyer managed 10,000 of that 250K and while Tulsi and Yang were not real factors they, along with Deval, exceed 20k of that 250k.

This isn't a party that's organized and unified slowly coalescing around a candidate, this is the party fractured and still just as split as it was before with the same high "undecided/no vote" rates we would see in a primary with 1 million voters or more.

If this was a 4 man race, (excluding Biden intentionally taking a hit) and 5th was a major gap and everyone below were peanuts like the last few elections sure. But that's not the case, the person who was suspected to have so much support, so much hype, and so much ground to stand on only beat 2nd place by a "marginal" amount who didn't try nearly as hard.

3rd place actually was within spitting distance of second and only lost ground after 60% of the vote due to counties they didn't have time to campaign in, and other candidates below her taking votes. All 3 of these are way too close or were way too close to each other.

Biden abandoned the state but still managed to make it to near 25k of the 250k votes, and during most of the night was less than 1000-1500 votes away from Warren and in some cases people were calling for the gap to close. In the end Warren prevailed but only by a few thousand.

The gap between Warren and Amy Klobuchar is significant but still way too close for a primary that's supposed to be gathering behind the primary candidates in competition two primaries in.

Steyer was barely a factor and managed 10k of the vote.

Deval+Tulsi+Yang, all three who didn't have much presence and started out weak but grew by 50% of the vote in, cumulatively beat Steyer by a good margin and are within spitting distance of Biden, and if you add write-ins they pass Biden.

This is a very bad sign. if we still have splits like this in NV the DNC is going to have to say screw it and start to uh, begin intervening before ST. They need ST to be just a competition of key competitors and the top 2 or 3 being the only ones after ST running, leading to the eventual coalescing of the nominee. If you keep this kind of divide for too long you'll have too many people clinging to too many candidates making unity hard in the general.

This whole thing is a mess when you look at it objectively and strategically and the DNC was supposed to have done something about this early but didn't. Although they still have the Hillary card as long as they put her campaign pac (that's pending jut in case)filing expires, which is very soon and before ST.
 

ThePiddle

Member
May 6, 2019
280
389
285
Afro Republican Afro Republican do you know when the deadline for Hillary is? I have this nagging, conspiracy-theorist feeling that the crowded field is designed to pull as many votes away from Bernie Sanders as possible, push everything towards a brokered convention, and then hand Hillary the reins for round 2.
 

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
2,987
3,702
1,705
Montreal, Quebec
Stop using garbage aggregates that are constantly proven wrong for the last 4 years as any source of meaningful data only use local polling and aggregates of those if you use any aggregates at all, if you did Klobuchars third place finish wouldn't have been surprising in NH, and you'd see the full scope of Bernies massive lead declining up until yesterday.

The media is mostly DNC controlled they aren't going to do anything with Pete.

These aren't comparable, Klobuchar needed good wins in Iowa and NH to fundraise more money, she only put her first ad in Nevada on Tuesday and will be using her "surprise" finish and the new money she has earned and is earning to place ads all over both states. Pete always had staff and ads in both so the fact he's polling shit proves my point he's got no gas. He has no hole to far from, it's all plugged up.

We also haven't had recent polls from SC or Nevada, especially the latter, so things may look worse for Pete than they did back at those polls, South Carolina is dead for Pete for obvious reasons from Religion, to blacks, to his terrible record being more well known. In Nevada he would need to stand out in a state where most of the voters are from one location so generic politician won't work very well there in a state where 70+% of landmass if government owned.

He basically has to win Vegas or do good in vegas and make up for it everywhere else and I can't see that happening. Warren will drop out for sure unless she's planning to go all in on ST, which I doubt she has the money to make it to but her campaign is framing it that way with her ad pulls.

Pete can't possibly do it.

Biden and Bernie already have headstarts so it's basically Amy and Steyer aiming for that 3rd place spot or possibly higher.

I fully expect Pete to crash and burn in the next two states. Will he make it to ST? Possibly, as it's only a few days from the South Carolina primary, although he would have limited funds so would have to carefully pick a select couple states and go all in hoping for a victory.

You forget that him having the nom makes it easier for radical socialists to win a lot of blue state seats. It's blue cities in red states he would have issues getting seats in. If he were to beat trump in imagination land he would have a good deal of control, maybe not total, but he would be able to pass some shit bills.

Amy being the nominee would shatter the dem party more than Bernie, because not only would it end the communist movement spawned from Bernie once and for all, but Democrats would have to readjust their ways of thinking with this extreme LGBT, Microagression, echo chamber, our way or the highway, collective nonsense they have been on since 2010 and will have to completely reshape the party since Amy would be a more competent Hillary.

Otherwise Joe losing would have similar effects, the chock may not sting as much though, but it'll still hurt.
I don't think our views are as different as you make them seem. Bernie never really held a massive lead in NH unless you're citing single polls like Emerson that had him up by as much as 15%. Warren, Biden and Buttigieg all took polling leads in NH at various points. This was the beauty of a crowded field (from the establishment's point of view), Bernie was never going to be able to dominate the way he did against a single candidate like Hillary in 2016.

I'm totally with you insofar as Pete's weaknesses, but I see him gaining rather than losing support. Just like they're praising him for placing 2nd in New Hampshire, he'll be praised if he can make the top 3 in Nevada. That's no easy task, but we've seen how much power the media still wields. Pete's mainstream coverage is almost all positive, even though his campaign sunk the Des Moines poll, is linked to the Iowa app. and now to Nevada's Democratic party. He seems to have people in high places watching his back, whether that's simply to crush Bernie or to help nominate Pete remains to be seen. I'm hoping I'm wrong and you're right on this point.

I think the big difference between us is that you view the Dem party as being more left-wing than I do, which is why you see Klobuchar being more damaging than Bernie. Don't mistake the sensational coverage the more radical members get to mean the party as a whole supports such ideas. Vague policies like the Green New Deal are media-driven marketing attempts to shift the Overton window, they don't exactly say much about where the party sits on the various issues tied to it. Bernie's free college and Medicare for All policies are receiving their fair share of opposition within the party, for example. There's a reason they were afraid to go on record when McConnell put the Green New Deal to a vote (4 Dems against, 43 "present").
 
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
7,184
5,469
1,075
Afro Republican Afro Republican do you know when the deadline for Hillary is? I have this nagging, conspiracy-theorist feeling that the crowded field is designed to pull as many votes away from Bernie Sanders as possible, push everything towards a brokered convention, and then hand Hillary the reins for round 2.
They can't announce her at the convention that's stupid, they would cause people to stay home. They are going to have to introduce her before or in ST, and they can only do it if there's a big opening, Biden is fumbling and Amy is too risky.

She has waited to long to keep pushing her ego out on people and making headlines, she has only a few weeks left before she is no longer able to continue holding her pending FEC filings to get around Ballot deadlines, and since one of those deadlines is CA which she would NEED to have in the general to win (literally no way a Dem can get to 270 without it unless it's a super blow out with Trump winning only 5 states) she HAS to decide very shortly.

If she wastes too much time she'll lose the ability to be on several state ballots, most importantly CA. It's likely that if they decide it's too risky and they want to keep their options open, the DNC will send her out before or after Nevada, it can't be later than that because they would have to place her out to sizzle on the grill. SC is way too late since ST is only a few days later.
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
7,184
5,469
1,075
I think the big difference between us is that you view the Dem party as being more left-wing than I do, which is why you see Klobuchar being more damaging than Bernie.
I know the difference, and the difference is your overplaying Pete as a long-term establishment investment to keep an eye out when that person is Amy with some already putting shares on her. Pete doesn't have that, which should tell you that he's no a favorite of the establishment, if anything he's a last resort if the rising Amy and Biden both falter, and as of now both are unclear so Hillary may also potentially be a just in case factor.

NH vote split is too divided as is, the Bernie hype for it didn't work as well as people were expecting and while Pete was a close second the overall numbers were pretty low.

CANDIDATESVOTEPCT.DELEGATES

Bernie Sanders
151,58460.4%15

Hillary Clinton
95,25238.09

The top 3 candidates put together barely beat just Bernies numbers from 2016, if you add Hillary you get closer to the total number for this years DNC primary in NH.

Once Bernie shows his decent numbers, Bide shows his southern chops with SC, and Amy continues with surprise leads, and Bloomberg keeps pumping in money and starts joining the debates soon, there's no room for Pete.
 

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
6,911
3,673
1,500
Trump is wrecking it. There is an undeniable appeal in pushing him forward when the media and democrats constantly whine and complain about him and feign moral superiority over him.

Even as a Bernie supporter, every time he says, "we must defeat Donald Trump, he is a xenophobe, a bigot, a racist, a liar, and I believe he is the most dangerous president this country has ever seen," it's really hard not to roll my eyes and groan.
And this is one of the many reasons I have jumped ship from the Democrats.
 
Apr 12, 2013
6,284
385
620
I'm calling bullshit on the 19% 17-29 year old vote in 2016 vs the 11% this time narrative currently being pushed.

The 11% number was from the first batch of exit polls coming into MSNBC. The person talking on MSNBC when reporting it says that it's the "5 O'clock hour". Also, they were only using the first batch....very possibly not even a good enough sample size to get anything too meaningful.

What this means is the first batch of exit polls could well have underrepresented the youth, and over represented the old, because generally speaking the old people vote throughout the morning and day when the young people are at school and work.

So sure it could just be my own bias wanting that to be true...but my bullshit meter is going off trying to find a logic where the youth vote somehow would drop by such a substantial amount. And even if it somehow did, It's not because they suddenly don't want to/or are too lazy to go vote for Bernie Sanders. There would more logically be another reason.

Hopefully time will tell that I am right. We'd need more of those very reliable exit polls to see.

Edit: I see a Politico article saying the youth was 14% of the vote this time. I'm still not buying that it was even down that much. If anything I would think it would be the same or higher than 2016.
 
Last edited:

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
2,987
3,702
1,705
Montreal, Quebec
I know the difference, and the difference is your overplaying Pete as a long-term establishment investment to keep an eye out when that person is Amy with some already putting shares on her. Pete doesn't have that, which should tell you that he's no a favorite of the establishment, if anything he's a last resort if the rising Amy and Biden both falter, and as of now both are unclear so Hillary may also potentially be a just in case factor.

NH vote split is too divided as is, the Bernie hype for it didn't work as well as people were expecting and while Pete was a close second the overall numbers were pretty low.

CANDIDATESVOTEPCT.DELEGATES

Bernie Sanders
151,58460.4%15

Hillary Clinton
95,25238.09

The top 3 candidates put together barely beat just Bernies numbers from 2016, if you add Hillary you get closer to the total number for this years DNC primary in NH.

Once Bernie shows his decent numbers, Bide shows his southern chops with SC, and Amy continues with surprise leads, and Bloomberg keeps pumping in money and starts joining the debates soon, there's no room for Pete.
I don't currently see him as a long-term investment, I see him having the potential to become one. How well he performs in the next two states is going to heavily factor into his viability moving forward. Would be foolish to drop hundreds of millions behind a Dem nominee that struggles with minorities, even some of the most biased lefties would have to see that he'd get steamrolled by Trump.
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
11,952
19,897
855
The only thing worrying me about any of this is the low youth turnout. We'll see if that pattern holds for NV/SC and Super Tuesday. If it does then yeah it's very possible he'd be in a lot of trouble. However if he can keep winning regardless, it wouldn't matter. It is extremely frustrating to me though over these first couple of states.

For the number fudging that's going on, we can look at the Republican side in 2016 where there were 284,000 votes cast. Last night? Just over half of that! OMG doom and gloom for Trump right? I guess for people who don't understand much of anything, or want to willfully post misleading information to push a narrative.
There are a sizeable amount of Dems who will never vote socialism. Period. No matter how much they may hate Trump, the economy is booming and Sanders would be, even in his best case, disastrous for the economy, and worst case absolutely disastrous for America. Between that and 4 more years of a great american economy plus a mean tweeter? Landslide for Trump. And that's ignoring the fact Bernie will come off as a crazy old man who had a heart attack to many voterw.

The DNC will do everything they can to stop Sanders, and in doing so enrage the radical left that does support him. Or they embrace socialism, and push away the moderates, business dems, and working class dems.

Trapped with no good option, they're probably going to impeach again. Which is hilarious. Failed mueller, failed impeachment 1... there is a decent chance the house will go Republican simply because the current house is so single minded.

And yes, the numbers in NH were fantastic for trump. As is his fundraising. As is the enthusiasm for him, as shown by fund raising, turnout in NH, turnout at rallies.... the press has turned him into an underdog, and american's love underdogs.
 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
2,112
2,725
495
I'm calling bullshit on the 19% 17-29 year old vote in 2016 vs the 11% this time narrative currently being pushed.

The 11% number was from the first batch of exit polls coming into MSNBC. The person talking on MSNBC when reporting it says that it's the "5 O'clock hour". Also, they were only using the first batch....very possibly not even a good enough sample size to get anything too meaningful.

What this means is the first batch of exit polls could well have underrepresented the youth, and over represented the old, because generally speaking the old people vote throughout the morning and day when the young people are at school and work.

So sure it could just be my own bias wanting that to be true...but my bullshit meter is going off trying to find a logic where the youth vote somehow would drop by such a substantial amount. And even if it somehow did, It's not because they suddenly don't want to/or are too lazy to go vote for Bernie Sanders. There would more logically be another reason.

Hopefully time will tell that I am right. We'd need more of those very reliable exit polls to see.

Edit: I see a Politico article saying the youth was 14% of the vote this time. I'm still not buying that it was even down that much. If anything I would think it would be the same or higher than 2016.

Why do you think it would be higher than 2016?
 
Apr 12, 2013
6,284
385
620
Why do you think it would be higher than 2016?
Because the 3 options are:
1. Youth vote is less
2. The same
3. More

I would think the answer would be more, because Sanders overall has more backing than in 2016, and the youth are heavily in favor of socialism. Add in the fact that theyve gone through a few years of a Trump presidency, and due to those things I would imagine higher turnout for youth than any other time in modern history.

I still think we will see it, but if so then why would we not have seen it in the first 2 states? I dont know but I'm certainly interested in super tuesday numbers (along with the next 2 states being on a Saturday, which could help with youth turn out).

Very basically im betting on record youth turnout and I'm miffed we apparently have good turn out so far...but not from the 18-29 crowd.

If that pattern holds it annoys me that a big reason im a Sanders supporter is because I want to see the country have a bright future...but if this same future really doesnt care enough to get out and vote, why the hell should I keep caring? I might be dead in 20 years, I personally dont care much who wins for myself. It will never make a big difference for myself.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ThePiddle

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,189
4,581
540
Moore Park Beach
Because the 3 options are:
1. Youth vote is less
2. The same
3. More

I would think the answer would be more, because Sanders overall has more backing than in 2016, and the youth are heavily in favor of socialism. Add in the fact that theyve gone through a few years of a Trump presidency, and due to those things I would imagine higher turnout for youth than any other time in modern history.

I still think we will see it, but if so then why would we not have seen it in the first 2 states? I dont know but I'm certainly interested in super tuesday numbers (along with the next 2 states being on a Saturday, which could help with youth turn out).

Very basically im betting on record youth turnout and I'm miffed we apparently have good turn out so far...but not from the 18-29 crowd.

If that pattern holds it annoys me that a big reason im a Sanders supporter is because I want to see the country have a bright future...but if this same future really doesnt care enough to get out and vote, why the hell should I keep caring? I might be dead in 20 years, I personally dont care much who wins for myself. It will never make a big difference for myself.
Sanders may do well but as he is really only attracting a fringe base of the communist part of the Democratic party, when he loses the nomination to a viable candidate, will you back that candidate or will you go out and riot and burn shit down with the others?
There are quite a few Sanders fans that openly say they will burn the town down if he loses, Your comment on that ?
You understand why non-bernie democrats want to be anonymous when they donate to the DNC?

It is not the republicans that fear Bernie and his fans at this point. It is the more moderate democrate candidates and their voters that are dead afraid of what the crazy and violent bernie-army will do to them.
 
Last edited:
Apr 12, 2013
6,284
385
620
Sanders may do well but as he is really only attracting a fringe base of the communist part of the Democratic party, when he loses the nomination to a viable candidate, will you back that candidate or will you go out and riot and burn shit down with the others?
There are quite a few Sanders fans that openly say they will burn the town down if he loses, Your comment on that ?
You understand why non-bernie democrats want to be anonymous when they donate to the DNC?

It is not the republicans that fear Bernie and his fans at this point. It is the more moderate democrate candidates and their voters that are dead afraid of what the crazy and violent bernie-army will do to them.
Its called passion and excitement. Maybe if there were any other decent human beings running their supporters could grasp that idea.

As it is I'll simply not vote if he isnt the nominee. If Bloomberg is the nominee I might vote Trump.
 
  • Fire
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,189
4,581
540
Moore Park Beach
Its called passion and excitement.
Death Threats and talking about firebombing peoples houses is just "passion and excitement".
Sorry, but in that world I would prefer if the police would just shoot them all.
There are too many terrorists in the world as it is. No need to let homegrown terrirosts have their way.
 

X-Fighter

Member
Jan 10, 2020
336
329
250
Death Threats and talking about firebombing peoples houses is just "passion and excitement".
Sorry, but in that world I would prefer if the police would just shoot them all.
There are too many terrorists in the world as it is. No need to let homegrown terrirosts have their way.
As if only some of Bernie's supporters are crazy... Probably every candidate on each side has crazy people supporting them.
 
Apr 12, 2013
6,284
385
620
Death Threats and talking about firebombing peoples houses is just "passion and excitement".
Sorry, but in that world I would prefer if the police would just shoot them all.
There are too many terrorists in the world as it is. No need to let homegrown terrirosts have their way.
Of the millions of supporters he has, some will be nut jobs. It's a given.

You're buying into media created narratives. Stop.
 
Last edited:

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,189
4,581
540
Moore Park Beach
As if only some of Bernie's supporters are crazy... Probably every candidate on each side has crazy people supporting them.
Both sides fallacy. Cute.

There are actual research that shows far left and bernie supporters have significant higher rates of mental illness like bipolar, schizophrenia and such compared to normal not crazy people.

When it comes to violent and crazy. Why is it that normal democrats now are scared of bernie-fans and afraid of them turning to intimidation and violence?
 
Apr 12, 2013
6,284
385
620
Both sides fallacy. Cute.

There are actual research that shows far left and bernie supporters have significant higher rates of mental illness like bipolar, schizophrenia and such compared to normal not crazy people.

When it comes to violent and crazy. Why is it that normal democrats now are scared of bernie-fans and afraid of them turning to intimidation and violence?
Do you have a link for this crazy bernie supporters research? Hypothetically even if exists, and isnt funded by some anti Sanders organization, and it was all factual the logical answer could be that there are sick and desperate people out there who need help, and Sanders is the only one who is actually fighting for them. It could also be because he's supported by the youth, who may be more likely to go online and harass someone or more likely to be violent etc...
 
Last edited:

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,189
4,581
540
Moore Park Beach
Do you have a link for this crazy bernie supporters research? Hypothetically even if exists, and isnt funded by some anti Sanders organization, and it was all factual the logical answer could be that there are sick and desperate people out there who need help, and Sanders is the only one who is actually fighting for them. It could also be because he's supported by the youth, who may be more likely to go online and harass someone or more likely to be violent etc...

Sorry your friends are more likely than average people to be mentally ill. Well, instead of shouting and crying about it, maybe try to get them mental health treatment so they get well.
 
Last edited: