Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No you dont, we already this discussion as well. You want to kick out Conservative Democrats, You arent going to win back a seat that is +10 Republican if you run a Berniecrat
I voted for Joe Manchin.
Quote:
Im not questioning the values of you or any other Berniecrats , im questioning your strategy. You cant win any of the aforementioned districts even if you win every Democrat and Independent who lives there, you would still have to bring over some Republicans, You cant do that with a Berniecrat.
Sometimes you need a Joe Manchin type.
Joe is honest. If Joe says he supports this or that, that is how he votes. That is why I voted for him. I don't always agree with him but I know where he stands.
Yes, we need more Joe Manchin's and far less Obama and Hillary's.
03-12-2017, 03:12 PM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
No you dont, we already this discussion as well. You want to kick out Conservative Democrats, You arent going to win back a seat that is +10 Republican if you run a Berniecrat
Im not questioning the values of you or any other Berniecrats , im questioning your strategy. You cant win any of the aforementioned districts even if you win every Democrat and Independent who lives there, you would still have to bring over some Republicans, You cant do that with a Berniecrat.
Sometimes you need a Joe Manchin type.
I think a lot of those areas could actually be competitive with a "Berniecrat." He can do well in districts whose primary interest is economic, as opposed to a bunch of social conservatives (American Taliban types) who just want to screw over anyone who isn't just like them.
I think a lot of those areas could actually be competitive with a "Berniecrat." He can do well in districts whose primary interest is economic, as opposed to a bunch of social conservatives (American Taliban types) who just want to screw over anyone who isn't just like them.
Bernie won in WV. It wasn't that long ago that all three House seats were held by (D)'s. Now there isn't a one. One can argue if this is good or bad but the people of WV aren't interested in social issues. For the most part they are interested in economic ones.
Back when they weren't Wall Street stooges they did quite well.
Joe is honest. If Joe says he supports this or that, that is how he votes. That is why I voted for him. I don't always agree with him but I know where he stands.
Yes, we need more Joe Manchin's and far less Obama and Hillary's.
2 problems here.
1. When I said your side of the party supports purity test, you said "Stupid me......I want politicans who do what they say".Are you saying your purity test is only that they do what they say or are you saying you dont support a purity test ????
Either way, in the context of conservative Dems, you seem to not support them regardless of your vote for Manchin.
2. This weird support of Manchin is exactly what I mean when I mention Berniecrats and their support of people like Tim Ryan and Tulsi Gabbard. You like who the Republicans tell you to like, Even though by your own standard you align more with other Democrats.
Bernie won in WV. It wasn't that long ago that all three House seats were held by (D)'s. Now there isn't a one. One can argue if this is good or bad but the people of WV aren't interested in social issues. For the most part they are interested in economic ones.
Back when they weren't Wall Street stooges they did quite well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF
I think a lot of those areas could actually be competitive with a "Berniecrat." He can do well in districts whose primary interest is economic, as opposed to a bunch of social conservatives (American Taliban types) who just want to screw over anyone who isn't just like them.
Bernie Sanders won a primary, he also won Wyoming, Kansas, idaho and Oklahoma. None of those states are being won by a Democrat on a national level. Democrats held a supermajorities in most Southern States until 2006 or 2010, none of the Southern States have voted for a Democrat in the Presidential since 1976.
Newsflash: If HRC won just what she won plus Florida, the 45th POTUS remains Trump.
Dems concede Rust Belt = no path to 270
If Hillary Clinton wins Florida and North Carolina(neither are rust belt states) then she is President even while losing the one congressional district in Maine and the defections in the electoral college that we had this year.(she would be at 271)
Lets also not forget that Democrats have made a push in Arizona for years that is clearly paying off.
If Hillary Clinton wins Florida and North Carolina(neither are rust belt states) then she is President even while losing the one congressional district in Maine and the defections in the electoral college that we had this year.(she would be at 271)
Lets also not forget that Democrats have made a push in Arizona for years that is clearly paying off.
NC is Dem's fools gold. No BO, no Dem will win NC.
Arizona will stay red, margins may get slimmer, but it won't change.
Dems face a mutually exclusive choice: Lose Rust Belt or have path to 270.
1. When I said your side of the party supports purity test, you said "Stupid me......I want politicans who do what they say".Are you saying your purity test is only that they do what they say or are you saying you dont support a purity test ????
I'm saying "stop being a lying POS".
Quote:
Either way, in the context of conservative Dems, you seem to not support them regardless of your vote for Manchin.
2. This weird support of Manchin is exactly what I mean when I mention Berniecrats and their support of people like Tim Ryan and Tulsi Gabbard. You like who the Republicans tell you to like, Even though by your own standard you align more with other Democrats.
NC is Dem's fools gold. No BO, no Dem will win NC.
Arizona will stay red, margins may get slimmer, but it won't change.
Dems face a mutually exclusive choice: Lose Rust Belt or have path to 270.
To be clear, Trump won Michigan and Wisconsin by what, 10,000 votes each, Pennslvania by 60,000
I think what you meant to say is that Republicans have no path without the rust belt, you guys have to sweep the entire region to win the Presidency, Democrats only need 2 states.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
