The real reason, and no one in the MSM is willing to talk about this, is that people were just not going to accept her adoption.
Do you think it's confusing to have presidential primaries and special elections to replace House vacancies on the same date? It could be confusing for voters and poll workers. A Democrat and a Republican who live in the House would both be eligible for the special election, but only the Democrat would be eligible for the primary. On March 3 (Super Tuesday), people in California 25 can vote in the special election to replace Democrat Katie Hill even if they are ineligible to vote in the Democratic president primary. The same goes for April 28, when New York and Maryland have presidential primaries, New York 27 has a special election to replace Republican Chris Collins, and Maryland 7 has a special election to replace Democrat Elijah Cummings. Southern California Republican Duncan Hunter resigned, and Governor Newsom announced he will not call a special election, so that district will not be represented until next January.
I can't speak for those other states, but for CA-25, because we have the top two ("jungle") primary, the ballots will be the same for that race no matter which party's Presidential primary the voter is voting in. So it shouldn't be particularly confusing - the only difference between the party's ballots will be for the Presidential primary - the congressional special election primary will have the same set of candidates across all parties' ballots.
The main criticism I see of Bernard from influential women is the toxicity of his fans who routinely swarm his opponents on the left. It is interesting how much of this is a culture Bernard promotes, how much is organic and how much is bots e.g overnight we saw a strong bot swarm that was not organic.
What I meant is that the House elections I named are general, not primaries, so everyone can vote in them. I knew the presidential primary was the only difference. In CA, the election may or may not be the only one. It's the only one if someone gets a majority, which I doubt will happen. If nobody gets a majority, it will be decided on May 12. For NY and MD that I named, the special House election will certainly have its general winner determined the same date as a presidential primary.
Which is barely improved from his 38% approval he received during the 16 election. The only reason he won was that Clinton was stuck with a 43% favorable number and more importantly, a 55% disapproval rate. This is one big reason I don't have TOO much heartburn when it comes to 2020. During the 2018 midterms, he came in at 44%, and his party got shellacked by almost 10%. In 2020, he's going to be 10-12 points underwater, while Joe Biden is only going to be between 0-5 points underwater. That's not a winning formula for Trump, who needs his opponent to be almost as unpopular as he is
First national poll since the debate I believe New NATIONAL Reuters/Ipsos poll:Sanders - 20% (+2)Biden - 19% Warren - 12% Bloomberg - 9%Buttigieg - 6% https://t.co/2aChdwxP5r— Bahman Kalbasi (@BahmanKalbasi) January 17, 2020
I don't see "more votes than any other Republican" as a particularly big accomplishment given the pool of potential voters is continually growing.
So Bernie just pulled in $4 mil in 2 days. All the progressive institutions in the party are lining up behind him now. Despite Iowa not being his strongest state, he could win there just because of the ground game and the fact that the vote is so fractured. And then it's not hard to see him follow that up with wins in NH and NV. If that happens, it's game over IMO. He's following the Trump playbook to perfection. Identify the fears for progressives (inequality, climate, healthcare) and throw gasoline on it. Then frame everything as if he alone can fix it. It's somewhat manipulative, but ruthlessly effective. Bernie's social media game is more advanced than Trump's. If you compare Trump and Bernie social media footprint, Trump's is actually more decentralized and diverse. Bernie's is almost a perfect echo chamber, which means that once he attracts people into his sphere, they tend to stay. Biden is not strong enough to face this. He'll crumble almost immediately once voting starts. Much like traditional Republicans crumbled under Trump. The question for me remains, does Bernie then follow in Corbyn's footsteps and the socialists get a hard dose of reality that they're not as popular as they thought? Or does he have some tricks up his sleeve to unify the party and build a broad coalition.
When you base your entire strategy on the fact that you're electable, you damn well better win. I think Biden is done after he loses Iowa and NH. Which is fine, IMO, he's by far the weakest candidate now that Marianne Williamson dropped out. He's a paper tiger.
Very interesting interactive interview/endorsement process from the NY Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/13/opinion/election-nytimes-the-choice.html
Shocking news Georgia election systems could have been hacked before 2016 vote A Georgia election server contains evidence that it was possibly hacked before the 2016 presidential election and the 2018 vote that gave Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp a narrow victory over Democratic opponent Stacey Abrams, according to an election security expert. The incident, which occurred in late 2014, long before either of those elections, not only calls into question the integrity of Georgia’s voting machines during critical elections, but raises new questions about whether attackers were able to manipulate election data and voter information through the compromised server. Only recently was Lamb able to examine the server for evidence of tampering. In his affidavit, Lamb said the server appears to have been compromised in December 2014, using an unpatched vulnerability called “Shellshock” that had been publicly revealed and widely reported three months earlier. The Shellshock vulnerability is different from the Drupal one Lamb discovered when he visited the Center’s website in 2016. Both the Shellshock and Drupal vulnerabilities had been publicly exposed around the same time, but despite both receiving extensive media coverage and even a Department of Homeland Security alert in the case of Shellshock, officials at the Center for Election Systems failed to apply a patch to close either of them when the patches were released. Although a log on the server shows some of the alleged intruder’s activity on it, there are signs the intruder may have deleted important information from the log, preventing Lamb from viewing everything that occurred. A different log on the server that recorded access to the server’s content-management system — the software the Center used to publish files and content on the Center’s website for election officials to access — also thwarted Lamb’s investigation because he only had access to records going back to Nov. 10, 2016, a few days after the 2016 election. This prevented him from seeing who might have accessed the content-management system prior to that date or altered its contents. Lamb suggests in his court document that the logs were deleted intentionally and this was done for suspicious reasons. “I can think of no legitimate reason why records from that critical period of time should have been deleted,” he wrote. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...ould-have-been-hacked-before-2016-vote-100334
For sure, it was just a point on Trump being so unpopular, the most unpopular candidate in the history of elections, yet he got more votes than any other Republican candidate before him. So being unpopular does not mean he will not get a shit lot of votes. Will he get more than last time? We will see, Obama lost around 4 million votes in 2012 relative to 2008. I would Imagine that if Trump falls below 60 million, then the only way he wins is if the Democratic Candidate does a shit job at bringing out voters and also gets around 60-61 million votes. Now if the Democratic Candidate can get close to 70 million as Obama did in 2008, then even if Trump improves on his 63 million, he most likely would not win. I would be surprised (hopefully I will be wrong) if Trump gets less than 60 million votes.
No, THIS is peak ceezmad. Tendentiously interpret someone's post to make a pointless "well, actually" post. This too. Geez.