Jump to content

Biden rolls to big projected South Carolina win, buoyed by black voter support


rooster59

Recommended Posts

Such a strange path leading toward Super Tuesday:

 

a botched caucus in Iowa, then primary in New Hampshire, caucus in Nevada, followed now by the South Carolina primary.

 

If the fortunes and continuing viability of the various candidates are gonna be determined by what voters in THOSE 4 states think, it's hardly anything close to a reasonable or representative sampling of the U.S. electorate at large!!!!  Yet that's apparently where it's often de facto decided who can carry forward to campaign in the vast remaining other state primaries around the country.

 

Biden's just lucky he happened to have South Carolina to pull his chestnuts out of the fire in the nick of time, because yet another loss there would have shot any remaining chance held by his campaign -- even though the vast majority of the U.S. would not yet have even had a chance to vote yet.  There's something rather unsettling about that whole affair.

 

 

Edited by TallGuyJohninBKK
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Such a strange path leading toward Super Tuesday:

 

a botched caucus in Iowa, then primaries in New Hampshire and Nevada, followed now by South Carolina.

 

If the fortunes and continuing viability of the various candidates are gonna be determined by what voters in THOSE 4 states think, it's hardly anything close to a reasonable or representative sampling of the U.S. electorate at large!!!!  Yet that's apparently where it's often de facto decided who can carry forward to campaign in the vast remaining other state primaries around the country.

 

Biden's just lucky he happened to have South Carolina to pull his chestnuts out of the fire in the nick of time, because yet another loss there would have shot any remaining chance held by his campaign -- even though the vast majority of the U.S. would not yet have even had a chance to vote yet.  There's something rather unsettling about that whole affair.

 

 

Wrong! Nevada is not a primary. It was same as Iowa, a caucus. More importantly is the SC populations make up is non-white.  I will wait until a canidate wins, American way.

Edited by earlinclaifornia
  • Confused 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Wrong! Nevada is not a primary. It was same as Iowa, a caucus. More importantly is the SC populations make up is non-white. 

 

Thanks for the correction. I've edited it above re Nevada... But that only makes it WORSE.... Caucuses are a poor/unrepresentative means of a state choosing a party nominee. And it doesn't change my underlying point -- what business do THOSE 4 states have being the de facto deciders of what candidates are viable enough to continue thru the rest of the nation's primaries?

 

So a candidate does poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire, and then they're effectively out?  HUH???

 

 

  • Confused 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Thanks for the correction. I've edited it above re Nevada... But that only makes it WORSE.... Caucuses are a poor/unrepresentative means of a state choosing a party nominee. And it doesn't change my underlying point -- what business do THOSE 4 states have being the de facto deciders of what candidates are viable enough to continue thru the rest of the nation's primaries?

 

So a candidate does poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire, and then they're effectively out?  HUH???

 

 

I’m more concerned over the Electoral College overriding the votes cast by the majority of citizens.

 

I’m guessing you don’t have a problem with that.

 

 

 

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m more concerned over the Electoral College overriding the votes cast by the majority of citizens.

 

I’m guessing you don’t have a problem with that.

 

I actually think whomever receives the majority vote should win. However, the prospects for a constitutional amendment to make that happen would appear to be virtually non-existent.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, phkauf said:

Similar polls had Hillary crushing Trump. So hang your hat on those, while I get ready for four more years of DJT!!

And those polls along with $2 gets you a coffee at Starbucks these days (at least in America, $3 in Thailand).

Actually she did crush Trump by a handsome 3 million votes. Just that the archaic antiquated electoral college got him the job undeservingly. 
 

  • Sad 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Actually she did crush Trump by a handsome 3 million votes. Just that the archaic antiquated electoral college got him the job undeservingly. 
 

Haha again with this nonsensical argument. The rules of the game have been in place for over 200 years, she knew how things worked and just played it poorly. Maybe instead of trying to run up the popular vote in places like California, she went to Michigan or Wisconsin she would have won those states. But she didn't and lost and that is that.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2020 at 5:45 AM, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

I actually think whomever receives the majority vote should win. However, the prospects for a constitutional amendment to make that happen would appear to be virtually non-existent.

 

Not with trump in power with the cowed senate groveling in fear of a trump tweet with trump out I see possible change and hopefully consequences for encouraging foreign interference lots of weaknesses have been exposed by trumps corruption hopefully that and trump will be delt with joe has the experience to be a good president and get the ship of state back on course 

Edited by Tug
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tug said:

Not with trump in power with the cowed senate groveling in fear of a trump tweet with trump out I see possible change and hopefully consequences for encouraging foreign interference lots of weaknesses have been exposed by trumps corruption hopefully that and trump will be delt with joe has the experience to be a good president and get the ship of state back on course 

 

I wasn't following Buttigieg too closely, because I never thought he had a chance of prevailing. But in the news reports today re his dropping out of the race, there was a mention of him having had a proposal to scrap the Electoral College deal.... 

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/448510-buttigieg-doubles-down-on-scrapping-electoral-college-its-undemocratic

 

Quote

"At the end of the day, I think most Americans, of any party, ought to be able to get on board with the idea that one person, one vote, counting equally, is the fairest way to choose our president."

 

I think I, unknowingly, used almost exactly the same words and rationale in a post here the other day.... 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2020 at 2:28 AM, Jonnapat said:

If you want rid of Trump in November Biden/ Harris is the way to go.

Where did we hear that before? Oh wait , the DNC and Hillary. "Hillary is the only one to get rid of trump"

   The DNC and Obama told Biden to sit down and let Hillary run 2016 and like a good little boy he did. Now he will be our Champion ???? 

To me it sounds like he is very good at taking direction.

Edited by sirineou
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2020 at 8:24 PM, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

IMHO, the president should be elected by a majority of Americans, regardless of where they choose to live. If half the country ended up living in Mississippi, my answer would be the same.  Each and every one counts as one American and should have one vote counted equally, regardless of where they live. And obviously I'm talking about the presidential election, not state-specific elections.

 

 

The problem with that line of reasoning is you always risk the 2 wolves and sheep deciding who to eat for dinner problem. The wolves will quickly devour the sheep until there is no longer any balance. There are many more people living in the cities than in the rural areas, but both are absolutely essential for a strong, functioning country. If you don't give priority to smaller areas, then they eventually become meaningless in elections, despite their great importance overall.

 

So my feeling is exactly opposite of you. I think only considering the popular vote is very short sighted, and one of the main reasons the US system is as resillient as it is, is specifically because of the Electoral College. It would be a huge mistake to go to a strictly popular vote system.  Everyone has the same opportunity. If you really want your vote to count more, nothing stops you from moving to Wyoming. You have the same right to live there as anyone else. But if you value living in Los Angeles more than voting power, well...it's not like the math is hidden. You know the algorithm going in.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.









×
×
  • Create New...