CalvinBall wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:The Haverford School's most famous alum is going to be running for Senate in Colorado now after dropping out of the race to face Trump.

It'll be interesting to see how many of the people running bow out. If more than one or two stay in, he'll romp in the primary. If one candidate gets the focus of the lefty donor community, it might become competitive. He went out of his way to be captain moderate during his brief prez run.

Seen two polls in the past two weeks with Hickenlooper up double digits on Gardner & over 50%, with the other Dem tested down mid single digits and under 40%. Though the other potential candidates are so unknown and Trump is so disliked in Colorado that I think Gardner is an underdog regardless of who he faces. Just much more of one vs. Hickenlooper.

Ballotpedia lists 14 (!!) candidates in the D primary without Hick.

4 of them had raised real money as of the last filing deadline. I won't pretend to know if one of those is best positioned to consolidate the sorts of voters who would be angry at Hickenlooper for opposing Medicare for All and pot legalization back when it passed and whatnot.

Wolfgang622 wrote:

Brantt wrote:

Bill McNeal wrote:

Brantt wrote:

momadance wrote:

Bucky wrote:for a guy who bills himself as the "great negotiator", his way of "taking on" china is absolutely laughable.

This is the guy who bankrupted 3 casinos multiple times.

It's beyond amazing that people don't understand the dynamics of how he used Chapter 11 to make himself a ton of money.

No, it’s perfectly clear. He abused bankruptcy courts and screwed over tons of small businesses/small business owners to make a lot of money for himself. Don’t act like it was shrewd, it may have technically been legal, but it was immoral as hell.

If you view it as immoral behavior your issue is with the lawmakers in Congress for creating the bankruptcy laws, not the business owners who simply follow the law to maximize their profits.

Adultery is legal so my wife’s moral issue should be with CONGRESS for permitting such an abomination and not with me who is just trying to grab every pussy which the law allows me.

Yeah, The Donald probably did use that line on one or all of his wives.

Wait just 1 minute here...

Is this really a valid arguement?!?!?!

Sarah Sanders predictably joins Fox News.

Hope that keeps her from running for governor.

Unfortunately, that is probably in preparation for her running for governor.

Maybe, but I'd guess the Fox gig is easier and pays more. And she might not want to move her family. Her dad left Arkansas as soon as he could, and really hasn't been back since.

I read the other day that something like 12% of people who voted for Bernie in the 2016 Democratic primary wound up voting for Trump.

I am too lazy to do a real statistical analysis or even a fake one, but it seems to me if that is even half true he really would have beaten Trump.

Granted there had been no seriously negative campaign run against him so we can't truly know, but I was surprised by how high that number was, and in any event I would think the number of people who DID vote for Hillary but WOULDN'T have voted for Bernie is a whole lot smaller than the number who 1,584,771 voted for Bernie but then evidently voted for Trump (that is, 12% of Bernie's 2012 primary vote total). And particularly not so in PA, WI, and MI - but really any significant swing in the popular vote in 2016 to the D side would have tipped the election, presumably.

Wolfgang622 wrote:I read the other day that something like 12% of people who voted for Bernie in the 2016 Democratic primary wound up voting for Trump.

I am too lazy to do a real statistical analysis or even a fake one, but it seems to me if that is even half true he really would have beaten Trump.

Granted there had been no seriously negative campaign run against him so we can't truly know, but I was surprised by how high that number was, and in any event I would think the number of people who DID vote for Hillary but WOULDN'T have voted for Bernie is a whole lot smaller than the number who 1,584,771 voted for Bernie but then evidently voted for Trump (that is, 12% of Bernie's 2012 primary vote total). And particularly not so in PA, WI, and MI - but really any significant swing in the popular vote in 2016 to the D side would have tipped the election, presumably.

watch out. i said this the other day and created a stir

(respects of people voting for warren/sanders and not losing standard ballot Democrats)

What about the people who voted for Trump, didn’t vote for Hillary, but would have voted for Bernie but now might vote for Biden or Warren (or even Bernie)? Those are the ones you’ve got to get!

I'm not arguing with the numbers, but it does seem to me that a Bernie>Trump>Hillary voter is about as big an idiot as you will find. More so than a Biden>Trump>Warren voter.

traderdave wrote:Unfortunately, that is probably in preparation for her running for governor.

I do think that, once Trump is finally held accountable for his crimes, his popularity will follow a Nixon trajectory, and that should put a very deserved stench on all those who supported him, especially lying liars like SHS.

Also, being on TV regularly gives an opponent lots of potential opportunities for negative ads.

The question was asked where jar jar and Ivanka are. All this Jewish talk and stuff. They just seem to be missing in action, probably just done some well-deserved vacation

Any blowback for the surprise reduction the number of jobs created? Down by 1/2 million. I mean that's not insignificant in terms of revisions. in fact that's like two good months worth of numbers that have just been dissolved.

How not to fight climate change in 2019

1. Eliminate rain forests by setting them on fire
2. Replace rain forests with cattle

“Your candidate might be better on, I don’t know, health care, than Joe is, but you’ve got to look at who’s going to win this election,” Jill Biden said Monday at a campaign event in Nashua, N.H. “And maybe you have to swallow a little bit and say, ‘Okay, I personally like so and so better,’ but your bottom line has to be that we have to beat Trump.”

“We may not be good on issues, but we’re going to win so you should join up.” What a bizarre selling point.

Gimpy wrote:

“Your candidate might be better on, I don’t know, health care, than Joe is, but you’ve got to look at who’s going to win this election,” Jill Biden said Monday at a campaign event in Nashua, N.H. “And maybe you have to swallow a little bit and say, ‘Okay, I personally like so and so better,’ but your bottom line has to be that we have to beat Trump.”

“We may not be good on issues, but we’re going to win so you should join up.” What a bizarre selling point.

And it was stated in a remarkably inarticulate fashion considering that Jill is well educated.

Gimpy wrote:

“Your candidate might be better on, I don’t know, health care, than Joe is, but you’ve got to look at who’s going to win this election,” Jill Biden said Monday at a campaign event in Nashua, N.H. “And maybe you have to swallow a little bit and say, ‘Okay, I personally like so and so better,’ but your bottom line has to be that we have to beat Trump.”

“We may not be good on issues, but we’re going to win so you should join up.” What a bizarre selling point.

Just the flip side of: "We're great on the issues but we're likely to get our butts kicked so you should join up."

False dichotomy. For most voters, issues do in fact matter. Weird poll out of AZ, by the way--Biden barely edges Trump, Trump barely edges Warren, but Trump beats Bernie by 10. Probably should simply ignore it--I mean, there probably are some Warren>Trump>Bernie voters out there, but I can't imagine there are all that many, and I'd imagine there are at least as many Bernie>Trump>Warren voters.

I'm pleased no one has challenged by 3 person race analysis by citing Arrow's impossibility theorem.

TenuredVulture wrote:False dichotomy. For most voters, issues do in fact matter.

Not so. For most voters, winning does in fact matter.