and now, this: https://hubpages.com/politics/Super-Tuesday-Biden-Victories-Questioned-by-Election-Watchers
Guess they finally "got the dirt" on Biden, huh? I don't mean that they found anything out that we haven't already known, I mean they've dragged the Biden name through enough mud for some of it to stick. They don't want to campaign against anyone else.
I do not know take the link offered in post #21 and decide for yourself I do not know these people nor their track record. ergo, offered without opinion.
Looks like "they" are trying to steal the nomination from Sanders, you mean. The shady stuff favors Biden (in 2016 it favored Clinton in the primaries, and then Trump in the general). Whatever the explanation, and several are possible, it is unlikely to be chance - some kind of cause and effect is almost certain. Btw: this was predicted, as the link asserts. Various lefty sources called it - including "Bradblog" most specifically. (Odd factoid: Marketing research and polling techniques have all improved dramatically in the past few decades, becoming measurably more reliable and sophisticated and informative, with the exception of exit polling in key elections in the US. For some reason nobody knows how to do reliable exit polls in US elections, especially in districts using electronic voting machines without handmarked paper ballots.)
The Biden voters I have talked to have been universally ignorant of Biden's political history and legislative record.
Oh, I know them, but it makes no sense whatever for them to be stealing the nomination from Biden, as per your post. The same post which makes no sense in light of the article to which it was [presumably] responding, which suggests an unfair advantage being manipulated for Biden. So... What do you mean? Biden voters don't matter; only potential and possible Trump voters matter, as long as they're aware of the impeachment hearings and the republican response to/spin on/remastering of them.
No women ...yet again. All those women who campaigned, out of the race. Many voters think that Biden sounds more competent than any of the women who were running? Oookay. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
There's "competent "and there's "competent to defeat Trump". I know that most of the Dem candidates had leads over Trump at various stages but remember last time when ,ahead of the vote ,even though Clinton was ahead in general expectations it was far,far too close even then for comfort- and so it proved. Personally I would put Sanders in the same category . It is a pity, but the chilling effect of having such a viable ruinous option in the General Election (Trump's reelection) means that fair competition amongst his opponents may have to take a back seat. Just perhaps the administration's response to the Coronavirus will mean that even Sanders will be a shoe in. We will know that very soon, I'd say.
Why would the candidate's sex be an issue? I can think of several women in high-profile positions in US government who were neither very nice people nor desirable president material. However, if blowing the lid off endemic sex abuse were less raw and an atmosphere of fed-upness with mouthy women didn't prevail, a woman in the White House would be timely. If only Hillary Clinton had been a little more likable!! If competence were the central issue, Warren would have done much better. The other women in that race were lightweights - too young and inexperienced and passionate instead of level-headed. Competence doesn't enter into Presidential elections. It's about making people feel safe. Washington being the father of his country is no accidental slogan: they're essentially choosing a parent or guardian. Republicans usually present a strong father figure, by raising up a bogeyman they promise to fight on your behalf. Democrats usually offer a nurturing parent, by promising social reform, or ending some turmoil. This time, the waters are so very troubled, they think they have a better chance of winning by pissing off the fewest possible people.
New bogeyman. They didn't raise it, so their response to it is unrehearsed, i.e. hopelessly inappropriate. They scramble to protect the money, rather than the people.
I don’t see Sanders as a shoe-in; I see Biden getting the nomination. Anything can happen, of course. Trump also has a good track record for the economy and other policies that have given him a strong base. I don’t think it will be an easy win for anyone. You have to watch less biased news sources to give a more objective view of the race.
Personally, I wouldn't consider voting for evil people, of any sex or gender. Sure, Sara Palin would have been less horrible than Donald Trump, and maybe Condoleezza Rice would have been less awful then Bush II (though she'd still have been surrounded by Rove and Cheney, so same difference) Men also need to be "nice" before I consider them. I suppose that's a yes. It 's also why the candidates i vote for never attain high office
Point out who these “evil” women were who dropped out of the Presidential race? The point I’m making is that when it comes to leadership roles, society as a whole judges women differently than men. The word “nice” isn’t being used to describe any of the male candidates. We are more concerned with their political track records and resumes, and their future promises that they’re proposing, not how “nice” they are. But when it comes to women, how “nice” they are comes into play. Those pesky double standards, eh?
At least you're honest about your sexism, sculptor. lol I think that is why women aren't taken seriously enough - and it's ultimately why Hillary didn't win...many people felt she simply wasn't ''nice'' enough. Oh well...
