I just want to see Tulsi in a debate take on WarrenSpeaker to Animals wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:26 pmWarren is the latest star in the media's propaganda narrative.
Whether that narrative translates to an election outcome remains to be seen. I think she is their best bet, but I think Bernie is just as strong if not more so.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Struggling Democratic presidential candidates are facing the bad news that they are not among the 10 who have qualified for the next debate, a predicament that is likely to spell doom for their campaigns.
Hours ahead of a midnight Wednesday deadline to qualify, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand announced she was dropping out of the race after spending at least $4 million on advertising in recent months to qualify.
Billionaire climate change activist Tom Steyer, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock and self-help guru Marianne Williamson were also among those missing September’s debate, as were Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and a handful of others.
To appear on stage in Houston next month, they had to hit 2% in at least four approved public opinion polls while securing 130,000 unique donors . Two new polls released Wednesday affirmed that they were all below the threshold.
The question shifted from who would qualify for the following debate to who would stay in the race.
“Our rules have ended up less inclusive ... than even the Republicans,” Bullock said on MSNBC, referring to the thresholds set by the Democratic National Committee. “It is what it is.”
The 10 candidates who qualified for September’s debate are Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Julián Castro, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Andrew Yang.
That's Houston af lolIt is what it is
A lot of the DNC are celebrating this news.Hastur wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 11:28 pmBye-bye Tulsi. It was nice getting to know you. That should teach everyone not to go after the media darlings.
https://www.apnews.com/008a92a9497641a0b81ff8ddef8c96b2
Sorry, but being right of Stalin doesn't mean she is centrist.StCapps wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:16 pmThe hell she doesn't, her record is centrist and she's running as a progressive trying to outflank Bernie, they can tear down her attempt to move to the left and undercut her centrist credentials, two birds with one stone.clubgop wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:00 pmOn what though? She doesnt have a record like Harris does as a prosecutor. She doesnt have a voting record a Democrat can really attack. The pocohantus thing? No Democrat can touch that, they'll get called out as Donald Trump.Speaker to Animals wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:12 pm
but Warren is weak as fuck imo. There is a very real chance somebody is going to do to her what Tulsi did to Harris.
She's vulnerable, not sure the other Democrats will take advantage of it, especially Kid Gloves Bernie, but her chin is hanging in the air, begging to be hit.
You have to grade her relative to other Democrats. She is campaigning that she is as far to the left as any other Democrat, while actually being to the right of most of the field, exposing that will hurt her with both moderates and progressives. Not moderate enough for the moderates because she is pandering to the far left, and not far left enough for the far left because she just pretending to be one of them. Two birds with one stone.The Conservative wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 3:07 amSorry, but being right of Stalin doesn't mean she is centrist.StCapps wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:16 pmThe hell she doesn't, her record is centrist and she's running as a progressive trying to outflank Bernie, they can tear down her attempt to move to the left and undercut her centrist credentials, two birds with one stone.
She's vulnerable, not sure the other Democrats will take advantage of it, especially Kid Gloves Bernie, but her chin is hanging in the air, begging to be hit.
In Mass, she is a joke, and in reality the only reason she is going to carry Mass is because the Democrats here are going to swallow their pride, bite their tongue and vote for her because ”Orange man bad!”
The entire Democrat party is so far left that anyone who runs left of center is going to look like a centrist, because on the left that's a pretty wide margin.
You confirmed what I already said, the point is that if she is still a centrist on a party that is so far left that Stalin an Mao seems conservative in comparison.StCapps wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 3:14 amYou have to grade her relative to other Democrats. She is campaigning that she is as far to the left as any other Democrat, while actually being to the right of most of the field, exposing that will hurt her with both moderates and progressives. Not moderate enough for the moderates because she is pandering to far left, and not far left enough for the far left because she just pretending to be one of them. Two birds with one stone.The Conservative wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 3:07 amSorry, but being right of Stalin doesn't mean she is centrist.StCapps wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:16 pmThe hell she doesn't, her record is centrist and she's running as a progressive trying to outflank Bernie, they can tear down her attempt to move to the left and undercut her centrist credentials, two birds with one stone.
She's vulnerable, not sure the other Democrats will take advantage of it, especially Kid Gloves Bernie, but her chin is hanging in the air, begging to be hit.
In Mass, she is a joke, and in reality the only reason she is going to carry Mass is because the Democrats here are going to swallow their pride, bite their tongue and vote for her because ”Orange man bad!”
The entire Democrat party is so far left that anyone who runs left of center is going to look like a centrist, because on the left that's a pretty wide margin.
Take out Warren and the scale tips so far left it would fall off whatever surface it's on.
Absolution Style by Premium phpBB Styles
