Werthless wrote:

Bill McNeal wrote:

Gimpy wrote:

Brantt wrote:This is totally off the rails. Terrible moderating. Not sure anyone is accomplishing anything.

I actually agree with you

Same, this is a mess

Some of it is the candidates.

Absolutely, they’re all good hard at each other and not really saying a lot of any substance.

slugsrbad wrote:If Bloomberg has practice he would have added “If polls matter we would be working to re-elect President Clinton” instead of just weekly adding in that polls don’t matter

You are so right. That line was there for the taking.

Bloomberg almost said “I bought them” re: dem seats won in midterms and stopped himself

Still knocking that rust off!

What a stupid end to a dumb debate.

My vow of politics thread silence was short-lived.

Shit show of a debate again. Only the mic of the question's recipient should be hot and then cut off when the allotted time ends. The other mics should be off then entire time.

Moderators suck too. Can't we do better than people who read teleprompters for a living? The captains of the local elementary school debate club are a better choice.

Many of the answers tonight sounded like this to me:

Tim Duncan is supporting Bloomberg. I’m glad the Spurs are missing the playoffs this year.

Sanders was not good tonight especially the weird bellowing rant over PB where neither one of them would shut up, come at me Bernie bros

Bernie Sanders looks electable in surveys — but it could be a mirage

Good write up on Vox. And there's absolutely a pro-Bernie side of the case, but it's one that requires some creative interpretation.

Also, god knows where things are on electability come November. Maybe the Coronavirus will kill enough old Republican leaning people and crashed the economy so bad that the Dems could've nominated even Warren and won. But think this reads like about as good of a measurement as we can have at this point, and it probably doesn't point to nominating Bernie Sanders if one's chief concern is the Dems winning the White House, even if Bernie's nomination would piss irrelevant types like me off the most.

Medal of Freedom winner shares more of his prize winning thoughts:

“It looks like the coronavirus is being weaponized as yet another element to bring down Donald Trump,” Limbaugh said at the start of his lengthy, misinformation-filled rant. “Now, I want to tell you the truth about the coronavirus. ... I’m dead right on this. The coronavirus is the common cold, folks.”

“The drive-by media hype of this thing as a pandemic, as the Andromeda strain, as, ‘Oh, my God. If you get it, you’re dead...’ I think the survival rate is 98%,” he said. “Ninety-eight percent of people who get the coronavirus survive. It’s a respiratory system virus.”

He also pushed the conspiracy theory that this virus was manufactured by the Chinese government as a biological weapon.

jerseyhoya wrote:Bernie Sanders looks electable in surveys — but it could be a mirage

Good write up on Vox. And there's absolutely a pro-Bernie side of the case, but it's one that requires some creative interpretation.

Also, god knows where things are on electability come November. Maybe the Coronavirus will kill enough old Republican leaning people and crashed the economy so bad that the Dems could've nominated even Warren and won. But think this reads like about as good of a measurement as we can have at this point, and it probably doesn't point to nominating Bernie Sanders if one's chief concern is the Dems winning the White House, even if Bernie's nomination would piss irrelevant types like me off the most.

Polling data is what we have to describe the current state, the probability that something will happen if an election was held today. But the election is not today. The election is in November. Honestly, i don't believe many of the claims that I see in the polls that a supporter will vote for 1 candidate only, and not vote otherwise if someone else wins the nomination. With a current President at 50+% unfavorability, they will come out.

This article from 2016, which I randomly googled from years ago, reminds me that Kerry and Hillary Clinton were nominated when primary voters sought to be smart, and Obama was nominated when electability was ignored.

https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/2/11 ... nald-trump

In another of this popular series where somebody goes out into the countryside and finds Trump supporters who seem to be voting against themselves and their own interests, NPR talk to a woman who would like her minimum wage increased, and she doesn't have health insurance anymore because she can't afford it. When she was told she could get subsidies the answer that she wanted nothing to do with any Obama anyting. And then when with a quick Trump 20/20. Got to be honest it's hard to just to wrap my head around that line of thinking

joe table wrote:Sanders was not good tonight especially the weird bellowing rant over PB where neither one of them would shut up, come at me Bernie bros

It was his turn and Pete was interrupting. It is literally the opposite of what you are saying.

Sanders spoke most. Everyone was talking over each other. It was extremely low information.