Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 266: Round 2 - The Discord in Concord

(+) Yeah! (+)

LordoftheMorons posted...

Dont give me 50 bucks

joke's on you my poor life decisions have made me immune from this statement

---

red sox 777 posted...

Don't like Bloomberg, but how is he wrong? California belonged to Mexico, then there were a lot of Americans who moved in and decided they didn't want to be part of Mexico anymore. And they declared their independence, and then declared they wanted to be part of the United States. And the United States accepted and, after winning a war of aggression with Mexico, annexed California.

How is that in any sense better than what Russia did in Crimea? In fact the US action seems clearly worse in that Crimea definitely belonged to Russia before 1954 and was granted to Ukraine by the totalitarian central government of the Soviet Union.

Crimeas independence referendum was carried out under the watchful eye of Russian military occupation after the Russians installed a pro-Russian government

---

Jakyl25 posted...

I always have to fight my instinct to OBEY what Im told. Im naturally a bootlicker and had to learn how to rebel without guilt

Give me 50 bucks

---

Give @KamikazePotato 50 bucks.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Don't like Bloomberg, but how is he wrong? California belonged to Mexico, then there were a lot of Americans who moved in and decided they didn't want to be part of Mexico anymore. And they declared their independence, and then declared they wanted to be part of the United States. And the United States accepted and, after winning a war of aggression with Mexico, annexed California.

How is that in any sense better than what Russia did in Crimea? In fact the US action seems clearly worse in that Crimea definitely belonged to Russia before 1954 and was granted to Ukraine by the totalitarian central government of the Soviet Union.

hot take but maybe both american and russian imperialism are bad

---

Here you go
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Crimeas independence referendum was carried out under the watchful eye of Russian military occupation after the Russians installed a pro-Russian government

As opposed to the California referendum which never happened at all?

---

https://twitter.com/shimonpro/status/1227348471331553280?s=21

---

Crimea is a tricky situation, it use to belong to Russia before it was given to Ukraine. Also opinion polls before 2014 and the referendum had a majority wanting to rejoin Russia.

Of course that doesn't excuse Russia from just taking it or "righting a wrong" as they put it...

---

So what happens if all the prosecutors on that case resign and the DOJ refuses to replace them? I suppose if it happened before the conviction was entered the case would have to be dismissed for lack of prosecution but it if happens between the conviction and sentencing?

---

Another Bloomberg quote Seph would agree with:

https://twitter.com/bethlynch2020/status/1227237015697186820?s=21

---

It is interesting how all the front runners are all trying to chip away at a big part of Trump's base.

For Biden, he's going after those moderates. The middle of the road voters that Trump managed to peel away from Clinton. For Sanders, he's going after true independents. Those people that don't trust either party and view outsider status as a good thing. For Bloomberg, it is hardcore, intense racists.

Tough to say which will pay off at this point.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Here you go

Thanks for funding my personal interests as much as Trump funded social services

---

Welp

https://twitter.com/mikedelmoro/status/1227360598553481221?s=21

---

ive seen a lot of people on social trashing virginia for being upset about us getting rid of lee jackson day. as a resident of the state please allow me to clear things up. lee jackson day is the SHIT. not because the holiday has any special meaning, or because there is some cool festival or event surrounding it (i dont think ive ever seen someone celebrate it) but because it always falls the friday before MLK day. which means its always a four day weekend. which is fucking great. they are giving us election day off in exchange which is not an equal trade. we already have multiple holidays in november. cutting off the middle of the work week is the worst. i definitely dont need first monday operating on an island. and i definitely dont need 2nd monday at all. rename the holiday, take down the statues, erase them from history for all i care. but i wont forgive the democrats in this state for fucking up the best part about january

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Welp

https://twitter.com/mikedelmoro/status/1227360598553481221?s=21

very normal and very cool

---

So most polls close in 40 minutes, and all closed will be closed in an hour forty minutes.

C'mon NH be cool, babies.

---

the bernie bros at my workplace were all in consensus today that if he does not win tonight then it has to be rigged

which is certainly a healthy way to approach an election

---

Sanders has a 66% chance according to 538, which makes him the prohibitive favorite but he's certainly not a lock.

I mean you'll find crazy people supporting everyone's campaign so it isn't a total surprise to find a contingent of "if my guy loses it must be rigged!" anywhere. Iowa certainly didn't help things by being so incompetent because that feeds right into that narrative (for both Sanders and Buttigieg, honestly).

But I am optimistic for now! Not a "if he loses it must be rigged" kind of feeling but more of a "if he loses I would be surprised" kind of feeling.

---

oh id certainly be stunned if he lost tonight too. the absolutism of it has to be rigged though just boggles my mind

obviously not saying thats the entire fanbase, just an phenomenon i witnessed today

---

iiaattgg posted...

the bernie bros at my workplace were all in consensus today that if he does not win tonight then it has to be rigged

which is certainly a healthy way to approach an election

the right way to do it is to insist that rigging an election is impossible and anyone who doesn't pre-commit to respecting the result is a dangerous nazi

then when you lose, insist that it must have been rigged and that the result is illegitimate and due entirely to russian hacking

---

It is also worth noting Biden has completely retreated from NH to instead focus on SC. Which is interesting, considering Nevada is next and just a couple of weeks ago he was running even with Bernie.

It really does make SC a "last stand" sort of scenario for Biden, where if he somehow loses there, it will likely end his campaign. I can't imagine him being able to go forward in that scenario.

---

have any of the last stand in SC people ever actually won and done something with their campaign

---

saw they hit that boy jussie smollett again

---

iiaattgg posted...

the bernie bros at my workplace were all in consensus today that if he does not win tonight then it has to be rigged

which is certainly a healthy way to approach an election

I'm in a Right-Wing Facebook group with a lot of people who think t's rigged, because they're talking about how "Bernie will bend the knee" to whoever the DNC chooses.

It being rigged is actually a very common thought when it's always incompetent!

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I'm in a Right-Wing Facebook group with a lot of people who think t's rigged, because they're talking about how "Bernie will bend the knee" to whoever the DNC chooses.

It being rigged is actually a very common thought when it's always incompetent!

will you accept the results if he loses?

---

I was actually looking into that earlier today. I don't know for Republicans because I didn't look into it but since like the 1950s there have only been a couple of candidates that lost both Iowa and NH and went on to win the nomination.

One of those is (Bill) Clinton. He actually didn't win a single state until Super Tuesday. There was no SC in the first four that year, and no southern states at all before Super Tuesday, and he got beaten pretty bad everywhere until then. He only won one state Super Tuesday, but he won it huge (Georgia).

He then went on to win SC, WY, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas over the next week while losing every traditional democratic state (besides Hawaii). After that he had the nomination much more in hand and he won most of the other states. So relying solely on conservative states and black voters worked for Clinton, but it is very uncommon.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

It is also worth noting Biden has completely retreated from NH to instead focus on SC. Which is interesting, considering Nevada is next and just a couple of weeks ago he was running even with Bernie.

It really does make SC a "last stand" sort of scenario for Biden, where if he somehow loses there, it will likely end his campaign. I can't imagine him being able to go forward in that scenario.

Seems like it would be a big mistake to surrender NV. SC could easily be written off by pundits as a state Joe was "supposed" to win, whereas a NV win would very likely trigger a comeback narrative (which is possible in SC if he wins by a big enough margin, but he really can't afford not to lock down the moderate lane ahead of Super Tuesday).

---

iiaattgg posted...

have any of the last stand in SC people ever actually won and done something with their campaign

Dems (Eventual winner; Early wins):

2016: Clinton; Won Iowa and Nevada before winning SC in a blowout.
2008: Obama; Won Iowa and Nevada before winning SC in a blowout.
2004: Kerry; Won Iowa and NH before losing SC.
2000: Gore; Won Iowa and NH (and everything. SC was actually much later in the process back here)
1992: Clinton; Got annihilated in Iowa (76.6-2.8); Second in NH. Eventually became the frontrunner when he cleaned up in the South during Super Tuesday.

GOP:

2016: Trump; 2nd in Iowa. Won NH and then SC.
2012: Romney; Iowa was a mess. Won NH. Got crushed in SC. Stabilized afterwards.
2008: McCain; Distant 3rd in Iowa. Won NH. Michigan was 3rd and McCain was 2nd. 2nd in Nevada. Won SC.
2000: Bush 43; Won Iowa (and Alaska which went the same day). Lost NH. Won SC.

So in summary, on the Dem side not... really. You could argue Bill Clinton sorta pulled that strategy off. 2008 McCain did something close but he did have a NH win under his belt.

edit: oh suprak beat me to it, at least on the dems

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Seems like it would be a big mistake to surrender NV. SC could easily be written off by pundits as a state Joe was "supposed" to win, whereas a NV win would very likely trigger a comeback narrative (which is possible in SC if he wins by a big enough margin, but he really can't afford not to lock down the moderate lane ahead of Super Tuesday).

Yeah, it seems totally crazy to me because NV is at least better suited to Biden than Iowa or NH. There haven't even been polls out recently so to abandon it now is crazy. The only thing I can think of is they have some sort of abysmal internal polling results they aren't releasing. Otherwise it seems like a mistake strategically.

---

xp1337 posted...

Dems (Eventual winner; Early wins):

2016: Clinton; Won Iowa and Nevada before winning SC in a blowout.
2008: Obama; Won Iowa and Nevada before winning SC in a blowout.
2004: Kerry; Won Iowa and NH before losing SC.
2000: Gore; Won Iowa and NH (and everything. SC was actually much later in the process back here)
1992: Clinton; Got annihilated in Iowa (76.6-2.8); Second in NH. Eventually became the frontrunner when he cleaned up in the South during Super Tuesday.

GOP:

2016: Trump; 2nd in Iowa. Won NH and then SC.
2012: Romney; Iowa was a mess. Won NH. Got crushed in SC. Stabilized afterwards.
2008: McCain; Distant 3rd in Iowa. Won NH. Michigan was 3rd and McCain was 2nd. 2nd in Nevada. Won SC.
2000: Bush 43; Won Iowa (and Alaska which went the same day). Lost NH. Won SC.

So in summary, on the Dem side not... really. You could argue Bill Clinton sorta pulled that strategy off. 2008 McCain did something close but he did have a NH win under his belt.

edit: oh suprak beat me to it, at least on the dems

Oh was March 10 super Tuesday? There were 10 states up, but I thought March 3 was super Tuesday because it was the first big vote of the year (7 states). Clinton only won one on March 3 but yeah he completely cleaned up the south on March 10 which is basically what got him the nomination.

I forgot who the other person was who didn't win Iowa or NH. It was someone random like McGovern. I didn't really look into theirs I just heard their name as the other.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

It is also worth noting Biden has completely retreated from NH to instead focus on SC. Which is interesting, considering Nevada is next and just a couple of weeks ago he was running even with Bernie.

It really does make SC a "last stand" sort of scenario for Biden, where if he somehow loses there, it will likely end his campaign. I can't imagine him being able to go forward in that scenario.

While he doesn't "need" to win Nevada he does need to be at least a strong second, especially if he finishes 5th here. If he finishes third in Nevada everyone will have jumped ship by SC.

---

Wikipedia (where I was looking up results tables) characterized March 10 as Super Tuesday though I see the case for March 3 too. I think they consider it such as it was the day with the most contests of the entire season.

---

I don't think there's much chance of Biden being totally dead before Super Tuesday, but if things go poorly he could be in a situation where getting a majority of delegates is almost out of reach and he's relying on a contested convention.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Yeah, it seems totally crazy to me because NV is at least better suited to Biden than Iowa or NH. There haven't even been polls out recently so to abandon it now is crazy. The only thing I can think of is they have some sort of abysmal internal polling results they aren't releasing. Otherwise it seems like a mistake strategically.

Also Bernie has some vulnerability there; the largest union in the state is basically doing a soft anti-endorsement of Bernie/Warren due to M4A (basically because they negotiated really good healthcare benefits), and if Biden could convince them to straight up endorse him over Buttigieg it would probably help him a lot:
https://twitter.com/Culinary226/status/1227364202618249217

---

1% of the votes are in!

Sanders - 28.8%
Klobuchar - 25.7%
Buttigieg - 18.6%
Warren 13.1%
Biden - 6.5%

Time to start making wild extrapolations with almost no votes in, gentlemen.

---

More Stone fuckery:
https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1227385729120116742

---

If that holds up, then Buttigieg's bump lasted less than a week.

---

3% in!

Sanders - 26.9%
Klobuchar - 22%
Buttigieg - 21.3%
Warren - 11.2%
Biden - 8.4%

...ok I'll stop now. That is an egregiously bad start for Biden and Warren though!

---

All we can definitively say is lol Biden.

---

We have once again activated the K L O B M E N T U M

---

iiaattgg posted...

will you accept the results if he loses?

Define accept?

I think the only candidate with substantial amount of passionate supporters is Bernie, so if anyone else manages to win I think the Dems are totally screwed.

---

Actually, is it normal for results to start being reported before voting finishes?

I thought that used to not be a thing

---

inject all of this lolbiden straight into my veins hell yeah

LordoftheMorons posted...

Actually, is it normal for results to start being reported before voting finishes?

I thought that used to not be a thing

In 2016 I specifically remember them reporting a Hillary blowout with there still being hours-long lines at the polls, which caused a lot of Bernie supporters in those states to cry foul

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Actually, is it normal for results to start being reported before voting finishes?

I thought that used to not be a thing

I was wondering the same thing! Polls don't close everywhere for another 30 mins so it is weird we're getting results already, right? Do they usually do this?

Reg posted...

inject all of this lolbiden straight into my veins hell yeah

...ok one more update. 5% in!

Sanders - 27%
Buttigieg - 22.4%
Klobuchar - 21.4%
Warren - 9.8%
Biden - 8.6%

We are getting dangerously close to lolWarren lolBiden territory now. Getting doubled by Klobuchar anywhere should be disqualifying.

---

who ever would have guessed early on that Klobuchar would end up being the leading female candidate
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Define accept?

I think the only candidate with substantial amount of passionate supporters is Bernie, so if anyone else manages to win I think the Dems are totally screwed.

you know what i mean homie

not claim its rigged/there was cheating

---

Way too early, wild speculation and random guessing based on stupid possibilities that probably won't even happen:

Does Warren stay in if she finishes 5th place in single digits behind even Biden in NH which really should be a good state for her? Probably right?

---

This is petty af, but ever since Biden got blown out at Iowa I've been thinking about this post

---