|
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 18, 2016 14:25:20 GMT
How so? If Sanders can be polling so well against Republicans compared to Hillary (although I do suspect it's because he hasn't been attacked much yet) then why wouldn't Elizabeth Warren do better? Compared to Sanders, shes actually a Democrat so would get more money and endorsements from the party insiders, she has a more mainstream agenda, she's a woman etc. Compared to Clinton, she would actually excite the base and her only scandal is maybe/maybe not having Native American ancestry. Sanders general election numbers look great because he hasn't been subjected to anywhere near the scrutiny and attacks that Hilary Clinton has. That would change very quickly if he was the nominee. Maybe, but Sanders is much more of an open book than Hillary - I don't actually think that he will win the nomination, but I think they may need to find a way of dumping Hillary. There just seems an awful lot of baggage and the fact shes doing her best to hide it doesn't inspire |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Feb 18, 2016 15:26:28 GMT
Biden is the go to candidate in that case. Does he actually want the job, though?
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 18, 2016 15:28:19 GMT
Biden is the go to candidate in that case. Does he actually want the job, though? I think Warren is miles better than Biden. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Feb 18, 2016 15:49:30 GMT
Biden is the go to candidate in that case. Does he actually want the job, though? A question to which the possible answers are a) Yes b) Hell yes c) Are you freaking nuts? Of course he wants it. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,838 
|
Post by jamie on Feb 18, 2016 16:23:53 GMT
Does anyone actually know why Warren didn't run? From what I've seen, whenever she was asked if she was running, they either didn't follow up with 'Why not?' or she would quickly change the subject when asked why. Considering she had a decent chance of beating Hillary and this would likely be her only chance to run for president, I'm surprised she didn't at least consider it longer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2016 16:34:12 GMT
Does anyone actually know why Warren didn't run? From what I've seen, whenever she was asked if she was running, they either didn't follow up with 'Why not?' or she would quickly change the subject when asked why. Considering she had a decent chance of beating Hillary and this would likely be her only chance to run for president, I'm surprised she didn't at least consider it longer. Did she believe she could win the GE ? If she didn't, then why would she put herself through the wholly gory, time consuming process ? & maybe she thought HC would have a better chance of getting to the White House ?? |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 18, 2016 16:43:09 GMT
I think she honestly didn't want to do it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2016 19:07:35 GMT
Why has the thread title been changed & why has the poll been taken down ?? Because the Global Moderator said so. The poll must have been left behind at the airport. Perhaps moved threads can't carry polls with them, I'm not sure. As the thread starter you can always edit your opening post and put it back to how it was. Or you could ask me to do it if you so wish. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2016 19:27:53 GMT
Why has the thread title been changed & why has the poll been taken down ?? Because the Global Moderator said so. The poll must have been left behind at the airport. Perhaps moved threads can't carry polls with them, I'm not sure. As the thread starter you can always edit your opening post and put it back to how it was. Or you could ask me to do it if you so wish. But if you put the poll back up I'll have to find something else to moan about .....  If you could, that would be good. With your godlike powers can you see the original Qs ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2016 19:40:14 GMT
Because the Global Moderator said so. The poll must have been left behind at the airport. Perhaps moved threads can't carry polls with them, I'm not sure. As the thread starter you can always edit your opening post and put it back to how it was. Or you could ask me to do it if you so wish. But if you put the poll back up I'll have to find something else to moan about ..... If you could, that would be good. With your godlike powers can you see the original Qs ? No, but I can remember what they were. I've re-added your poll with a few extra options added in; I'm sure you won't mind [winces slightly]. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2016 20:04:43 GMT
Thanks !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2016 20:37:48 GMT
Hooray! @odo is back.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2016 20:47:05 GMT
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,838
|
Post by jamie on Feb 18, 2016 20:49:05 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2016 9:47:01 GMT
So, the HC campaign appears to have gone from "Hilary, we have a problem" to "The Clinton has landed" in fairly short order.
To our US election experts, has there been any particular reason things have shifted quite so quickly, or is it just the order the states nominated (combined with a fear of Trump?)
Just seems to have turned around very quickly, & the SC win was bigger than predicted a week or so ago.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,468
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 29, 2016 10:22:19 GMT
There is a view that Sanders has campaigned somewhat poorly recently, that may be part of it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 29, 2016 10:30:00 GMT
If Sanders had been able to build up momentum from New Hampshire and from running Hillary close in Iowa and Nevada to bring some Super Tuesday states into play, then things would be different. But that hasn't happened, and even when he outspent Clinton in South Carolina he didn't go anywhere.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,261
|
Post by Sibboleth on Feb 29, 2016 12:33:28 GMT
Its a media narrative issue; Sanders has exactly the same chance of winning the nomination as he did the morning after the New Hampshire primary.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,261
|
Post by Sibboleth on Feb 29, 2016 12:38:07 GMT
There is a view that Sanders has campaigned somewhat poorly recently, that may be part of it? Errors have been made (including wasting money in SC by failing to properly grasp what I'm about to write), but fundamentally Sanders has spent his career in Vermont and does not know how to talk to Black voters (like not even how to fake it) and does not have any links to the community. And if his rhetoric is adaptable/'translatable' potentially to Latino voters it isn't really to Black voters. That isn't actually his fault, but it was always going to be a problem (and is why he's never had a realistic chance of actually winning). Sanders, though, is a huge warning to the Democratic Party Establishment with regards to future years, but I suspect they'll ignore it (resulting in much drama) because they are an extraordinarily complacent bunch. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2016 12:46:28 GMT
As much chance as a no hoper like Corbyn winning the Labour selection, less chance maybe due to super delegates. But if his supporters feel cheated look for a republican win. Cut Nose Face
|
|
