ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Obama had declared this far ahead of the 2008 election.
If a candidate hasn't at least telegraphed their intentions by now, they're not going to get traction.
Neoliberalism has wrecked the planet
- Thread starter ttystikk
- Start date
If a candidate hasn't at least telegraphed their intentions by now, they're not going to get traction.
travisw
Well-Known Member
No he didn't.
On February 10, 2007, Barack Obama, then junior United States Senator from Illinois, announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States in Springfield, Illinois. On June 3, 2008, he secured enough delegates to become the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party for the 2008 presidential election.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
There are about 15 candidates on the list of "might run" for the Democratic primary in 2020.
In 2014, two years out from the 2016 election it was about the same number as now. Sanders was on that 2014 short list but hardly considered to be a serious contender. Clinton was thought to be a lock for the nomination, which regardless of how much Berners want to revise history, turned out to be true.
In 2018, nobody is considered a lock. Sanders polls out as a 1 or a 2, depending on the poll but nothing like Clinton in 2014. Just saying that yes, Sanders has more visibility than he did in 2014. He isn't nearly as well thought of as Berners say and there is plenty of room for a better candidate to win.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Official declarations come months it even years after the unofficial ones, we all know this.No he didn't.
On February 10, 2007, Barack Obama, then junior United States Senator from Illinois, announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States in Springfield, Illinois. On June 3, 2008, he secured enough delegates to become the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party for the 2008 presidential election.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
If there's a better candidate than Bernie they'll have my vote.
I'm not holding my breath.
One of the biggest criteria for winning a nomination and indeed an election is name recognition. Mr Sanders has it like he did not for much of the 2016 race and as such it will be very difficult for any other Democratic contender outside of Clinton or Biden to compete. Nevermind that neither of them qualify as a better candidate than Bernie.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Obama had great name recognition in 2008? Yes, Clinton did in 2008 and 2016 as did Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. I didn't hear much about Obama in the years leading up to his announcement.
Winning elections is all about being a great candidate, which Obama was.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I and millions of others wished he'd lived up to his promises, too.
We won't be so easily fooled this time. Kicking Shillary to the curb is ample proof of that.
That's why we're still so strong on Bernie.
When even Nancy Pelosi doesn't see any reason for Democrats to change, there's no reason to think they'll be willing to represent We the People without money for campaign donations.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
You are being fooled.
Bernie is not a good candidate, he over promises and under delivers and he has no feel for what is important to 40% of the US.
On top of that, you are addicted to fake conspiracy theories which Trump, Bannon, and Mercer through Cambridge Analytica have exploited to split the Democratic Party.
Oh, and that bit about refusing campaign donations? Yeah that works great just about nowhere.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
And yet you can't come up with one single name you'd rather see.
You're a good little Democratic apparatchik, though; rabidly foaming at the mouth against, Against, AGAINST! anything and anyone who might be a threat to the DCCC's campaign cash machine while never being for anything that might piss off a donor.
zeddd
Well-Known Member
Shouting in the mirror?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
You are the one who keeps bringing up Bernie.
I don't think he's very good. Not bad though.
You are being fooled by the right wing propaganda machine as part of a campaign to divide the Democratic Party. It's all there for everyone to see. But of course, you can't.
That candidate who won in PA 18 a week ago. He accepted help monetarily from the DCCC. I'm glad he did. Perhaps you'd prefer he'd risk losing? Remember, he only won by about 600 votes out of 200,000 cast. Refusing money to help turn out the vote and advertising easily would have cost him those votes. On top of being easily manipulated by right wing propaganda, you Berners aren't very smart.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Keep alienating fellow Democrats. It's definitely the way to win.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Coward.
That candidate who won in PA 18 a week ago. He accepted help monetarily from the DCCC. I'm glad he did. Perhaps you'd prefer he'd risk losing? Remember, he only won by about 600 votes out of 200,000 cast. Refusing money to help turn out the vote and advertising easily would have cost him those votes.
I said your idiotic idea about refusing legal donations from the DCC would have cost the candidate and House Democrats the seat and momentum. Your reply to this insightful criticism of your oft repeated lunacy is "shut up". LOL. Very convincing.
Coward
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
You can't handle any other viewpoints but the ones Buckwit has pumped down your throat.
And you call me sanctimonious?
You're the coward because you can't face new ideas.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Your viewpoint? You call the above a viewpoint?
I said your idiotic idea about refusing legal donations from the DCC would have cost the candidate and House Democrats the seat and momentum. Your reply to this insightful criticism of your oft repeated lunacy is "shut up". LOL. Very viewpointy thing to say..
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Yet another wall of text signifying nothing but your pompous self importance in telling others what to think without a shred of supporting evidence.
It's DCCC, stupid; it stands for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
If accepting those campaign donations means that Democrats either lose anyway or win but are so beholden to their donors that they don't pass essential legislation for the benefit of the vast majority of their constituents then taking the money isn't a feature; it's a bug.
But you don't do well with logic, so I post this for others to read.
Finally, I told the gringo abandon conscience to shut up (because that's what he tells me), not you.
Revisionist dictionary strikes out again!
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Revisionist news. tty is right, just ask him.No he didn't.
On February 10, 2007, Barack Obama, then junior United States Senator from Illinois, announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States in Springfield, Illinois. On June 3, 2008, he secured enough delegates to become the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party for the 2008 presidential election.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Bring valid arguments and not only will I consider them, I might change my mind if they're convincing and fit the facts.
99% of the drivel the ballwashers post here comes nowhere near that standard.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
That's really generous of you. We are all very lucky to have you.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Lol and you call anyone else sanctimonious?That's really generous of you. We are all very lucky to have you.
When you can't acknowledge a reasonable argument, wherever it might come from, you've left the land of facts and descended into hopeless partisanship.