Election 2020

[Teenwolf]

Elizabeth Warren going extremely negative on Bernie.

Asked what she could say to convince voters at home leaning towards voting Sanders, "what's the single policy point you would argue to them?"

Her response was light on details, heavy on Bernie bashing nonsense. "I get real stuff done. I have rock solid values and I get stuff done. I don't wanna be President just to yell at people, I wanna be President to change things.

Nice to see Warren's political analysis has the same depth as The View. That's her policy position, "I won't yell as much"??? You guys still supporting her... c'mon.... this is beyond pathetic. Thinking she would beat Trump by mimicking Clinton, playing the gender card and talking about how mean her opponent is. No way.

[GwynnInTheHall]

So, if for example, Mayor Pete has 32% of the delegates, Bernie has 30%, Warren has 28%, and Biden has 10%, you think the democratic answer is that Mayor Pete should automatically be the nominee? I'd ask the same of Teenwolf.

Yes, do you think HRC should have been president since she got 3 Million more Votes that the Duff Beer guy?

[DMT]

Yes, do you think HRC should have been president since she got 3 Million more Votes that the Duff Beer guy?

Those really aren't comparable situations.

[GwynnInTheHall]

That's interesting. I came away thinking the author of the piece likely supports Bernie or Warren.

I post things in here that get a--You make a few good points. But...…… I was just iterating my But.

Iterating my But, a good name for a band?

[DMT]

Elizabeth Warren going extremely negative on Bernie.

Asked what she could say to convince voters at home leaning towards voting Sanders, "what's the single policy point you would argue to them?"

Her response was light on details, heavy on Bernie bashing nonsense. "I get real stuff done. I have rock solid values and I get stuff done. I don't wanna be President just to yell at people, I wanna be President to change things.

Nice to see Warren's political analysis has the same depth as The View. That's her policy position, "I won't yell as much"??? You guys still supporting her... c'mon.... this is beyond pathetic. Thinking she would beat Trump by mimicking Clinton, playing the gender card and talking about how mean her opponent is. No way.

Extremely negative? Lol

[GwynnInTheHall]

When are we switching to direct democracy where we all vote from our phones on all the issues?

I works on Dancing with the Stars......

[Kevin Seitzer]

Yes, do you think HRC should have been president since she got 3 Million more Votes that the Duff Beer guy?

I don't like the electoral college system and don't think it's good that Trump became president with fewer votes, but that's a different question than my scenario in the primaries with more than two viable candidates getting large percentages of the vote. Just to be clear, you'd support Mayor Pete getting the nomination in that scenario? And you think that's the will of the electorate in that situation?

[GwynnInTheHall]

Those really aren't comparable situations.

Why not, the question was--do you think the person with the most votes should win the nomination.

Yes I do. As long as the primary has been run ethically, which to this point I believe it has been.

Even if it ISN'T Sanders, as long as this sustains, whomever get's the most votes should be the nominee.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I don't like the electoral college system and don't think it's good that Trump became president with fewer votes, but that's a different question than my scenario in the primaries with more than two viable candidates getting large percentages of the vote. Just to be clear, you'd support Mayor Pete getting the nomination in that scenario? And you think that's the will of the electorate in that situation?

I would, he's not my 1st choice, but he's given me no reason to do otherwise. I'm still in on Sanders, Pete, Biden and Klobachar at this point. Out on Warren and Bloomberg.

EDIT: I think I've made it pretty clear, my priority is the Person, not the platform.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Why not, the question was--do you think the person with the most votes should win the nomination.

Yes I do. As long as the primary has been run ethically, which to this point I believe it has been.

Even if it ISN'T Sanders, as long as this sustains, whomever get's the most votes should be the nominee.

Are you purposefully ducking the thorny part of that scenario or just not understanding it?

[Kevin Seitzer]

I would, he's not my 1st choice, but he's given me no reason to do otherwise. I'm still in on Sanders, Pete, Biden and Klobachar at this point. Out on Warren and Bloomberg.

This isn't about who you prefer, or at least I hope you're not suggesting we set up national electoral systems slanted to specifically choose the candidate you like. You believe that represents the will of the electorate in that scenario, even though 60% of them wanted a much more progressive candidate?

[GwynnInTheHall]

Are you purposefully ducking the thorny part of that scenario or just not understanding it?

Read my edit--I noticed I hadn't addressed the Thorny part. Hope that helps.

[GwynnInTheHall]

This isn't about who you prefer, or at least I hope you're not suggesting we set up national electoral systems slanted to specifically choose the candidate you like. You believe that represents the will of the electorate in that scenario, even though 60% of them wanted a much more progressive candidate?

I want the candidate with the most integrity--Period--if that were a Republican--I'd vote for that candidate.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I want the candidate with the most integrity--Period--if that were a Republican--I'd vote for that candidate.

Wait--aren't elections all ABOUT who I'd prefer vs who You'd prefer?

[Kevin Seitzer]

Read my edit--I noticed I hadn't addressed the Thorny part. Hope that helps.

Not really. I'm not asking about how you choose a candidate to support. I'm asking about what you think is a fair way for a party to choose a nominee among multiple potentially viable choices. I'll take the names off of it because, although I thought that would help clarify, it seems to be confusing instead.

New Hypothetical Scenario:
40% vote for Candidate A, 30% would have Candidate B as their second choice, 10% would have Candidate C as their second choice
35% vote for Candidate B, all 35% would have Candidate C as their second choice and they all absolutely abhor Candidate A
25% vote for Candidate C, all 25% would have Candidate B as their second choice and they all absolutely abhor Candidate A

You think Candidate A should win the nomination with 40% support, even though 60% of the electorate hate Candidate A? Or would Candidate B, with 35% support as first choice and 55% support as second choice, be a better representative of the will of the electorate?