American Democratic Primaries

Who do you think will win? In which parts of the country? And who do you like the best?

Attached: pocahontas.jpeg (1990x3000, 664.84K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=vghXHCAGcIw
boards.4chan.org/u/thread/2820706

Some asspuppet, in the parts that decide ties by coin flips and applause-o-meters, and Deez Nutz.

fix site

Attached: 1f33a3c5bf2c23c4e71750ffb95cfcf64740d4754bc4be48fadaf4b3fc85aa02.jpg (400x386, 17.45K)

Honestly I hope every spineless shitstain who refused to organize outside of the party after the clear fraud in suppression in 2016 eats a bullet.

To choose from we only have dem socs (Not soc dems), lolbergs, or liberals. No thank you, from what I remember the communist parties of the US never got a single vote in 2016, I'm not even sure they were on the ballot since I never went out voting and just watched from home eating popcorn.

Whoever wins, we lose.

I can only see the tag line as reddit spacing.

Attached: WhereMightYouBeFrom.jpg (544x544, 68.98K)

By the way Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a confirmed plant.
The German magazine Bento wrote some clickbaity article on her, how she BTFO Trump.
You need to know, Bento is a branch of Spiegel, a bi-weekly released magazine, formerly considered left with a reputation of seriousness, which they now use to shamelessly spew neoliberal propaganda.
Bento is run by young rich hipster journalists kind of what you know in the USA (they are also connected with their US counterparts) and the journal is very similar to that of Gawker network (even their name Bento sounds like Kotaku, Japanese loanwords). What takes the cake is that some of these journos are member of the German conservative party and were pretty pissy when during the election a satirical party made fun of them. Peak conservative liberalism.
An endorsement from Bento is never a good thing, and they would never promote or endorse leftists who are actually serious.

Just so you know.

It's gonna be a clusterfuck.
It's funny because HRC was a clear frontrunner in 2016 and might have won if nobody had criticized her. Sanders definitely would have won if not cheated. This time there's nobody who's the obvious pick, and Trump can probably pull enough delusional people and Republicans to give him a second term. Only obvious way to get a different result right now is if Sanders actually runs independent this time.

Where? There is no reddit spacing you dumb faggot.

I believe it. Ocasio Cortez is a meme anyway. Give her a couple years and she’llbe One of the leaders of the party, but I do not think we will be better off for it. She’s an irrational thot who merely spouts idpol people of color crap. However, I think the Green New Deal rhetoric is a welcome change.

I’m glad Hillary lost. She represents everything wrong with liberalism in the United States.

youtube.com/watch?v=vghXHCAGcIw

Booker's amendment to the GND to include nuclear power greatly improved my opinion of him, but only because I care about the environment and he's the only person offering a serious, pragmatic plan to stop climate change within the next 20 years. He's not getting elected though since Democrats would push him as Obama 2, when Obama 1 largely failed.

Warren is probably the best overall but has no appeal outside the northeast, Harris will win the primary since she's an asskisser and they'll try pegging her as Obama 2 mixed with Clinton 2. It'll fail and her former boss, Gavin Newsom, will run against Pence in 2024. Overall it's a shitshow.

Hillary is everything wrong with the US, but with the mask slipping off. Trump is the that mask on the inside wearing the naked reality on the outside.

You really think Harris will win the primary? She’s a cop bootlicker, but I suppose the majority of Americans are as well.

Not him but:

Though I feel it's gonna be a bloodbath regardless, everyone's gonna feel like it'll be a cakewalk to win against Trump and so they'll all enter the ring.

How come? Most of the US presidents have been reelected before, what makes them think Trump won't? Anyone who didn't support him before won't now, and anyone who did will, it'll be the same result. Americans are predictable like that.

Unless they're feds. Also, don't forget that Trump won the first time without the popular vote against a candidate whom all but the most woke of social justicetards utterly despised. And even with the Sanders crowd refusing to participate, Clinton still only lost to electoral college gerrymandering. Also, unlike Bush the Younger who also won against the popular vote, Trump doesn't have September Eleven and a new provincial conquest to parade in front of voters. All he has is a bunch of failed attempts to get any of the things that he wanted.

The Democrats just caved on his stupid wall so now he has that at least. Rather than sticking the government shutdown on him, they just did a favor getting him re-elected.

Please visit us!
Current thread: boards.4chan.org/u/thread/2820706

Get fucked, faggot. Why should a handful of coastal megalopolises decide the fate of the rest of America, after benefiting from the hollowing out of the heartland?

Attached: v2 mechanization.png (476x542, 116.26K)

Physical strength is the result of testosterone, a hormone that causes people to not take shit from others.

That’s why women are weaklings and will always be inferior

Did you… just unironically post something from that fat piece of shit Bob Chipman?

Yes, because he's the exact sort of urbanite loser that would bitch and whine about "electoral college gerrymandering" with the implicitly neoliberal belief that the concentration of political (and demographic) power in a handful of coastal cities was simply the natural progression of history, and not the consequence of deliberate policy choices.

I'm confused on what you're arguing. Are you saying the electoral college is a good idea? That giving extra-democratic powers to rural dwellers even though most human beings do in fact live in large cities is a great idea?

See how it works?

The hallowing out or rural areas isn’t nessicary for progress. In fact it’s reactionary.

This is a Prager U tier understanding of politics, so you really think that city and country folk as a whole have distinct interests that this antiquated electoral system addresses?

As though working class labourers in the country have divergent interests to working class labourers in the city and that pleasing either one group would be at the detriment to the other, never mind that ignoring this arbitrary distinction that people like you try to promote, the working class as a whole make the majority of the population and this kind of geographical distinction is a superfluous distraction that legitimises a system that diminishes working class cohesion.

How conveniently vague in that this point has a very tenuous link to plurality based politics, you seem to be suggesting that a proportional system would somehow "hallow out" the rural areas at the behest of the city folk, as though the rural folk themselves have that privilege under the current system.

You don't know what you're talking about.

And what does that have to do with a fundamentally undemocratic counting system that gives more votes to people depending on geography? Is capitalism (where you have a small group with all the votes) all right too as long as it happens in the countryside?

They actually have to try to lose.

How does "one man one vote" sound for proportionality?

Of course they do. Rent control doesn't exactly top the charts in political priorities for small towns. And as everyone knows, cities have been strong Democrat bastions since, what, the 1880s with some reformist turbulence between 1920-1950?

Other poster is spooked against proportionality about muh urbanites and I say this as someone who thinks cities should be forcibly evacuated and bulldozed, but complaining about the electoral college when it comes to the assumptions underpinning the design of an entire campaign is weaksauce.

Fact is, those are the rules, Clinton and Trump both knew that going in, and Clinton made massive strategic errors. You can call it cheating, but that only means Trump was a better cheater than Clinton.

Attached: wackyraces.jpg (660x395, 276.65K)

Most lib who are against the electoral collage are against it because they hate flyover country.

I don't think that's necessarily true and motivation doesn't make it any less just to oppose an anti-democratic system.

There in fact was significant evidence of election fraud in a number of swing states. In addition, the Republicans have built up a massive system for targeted voter suppression over the last several years called Interstate Crosscheck.

We are not talking about a sporting event. The integrity of the game is irrelevent.

My heart says Bernie
My brain says Biden
My foot says Booker

Attached: fooker.png (2716x2000, 6.92M)

While tremendous amounts of cheating occurred within and between both parties (as Sanders voters know well), I agree the level of cheating, both outright fraud like destroying ballots, and legal shenanigans like redistricting, are substantially greater on the Republican side.


The point isn't the integrity of the system, but that Clinton's strategy ignored realities imposed by the electoral college. And, moreover, that she made no complaints about the electoral college until AFTER she lost the election.

Yeah, thanks user, this is what I should've been getting at. At the end of the day even Bill fucking Clinton was telling Hilldawg that she needed to put more effort into the "rustbelt" states, instead of assuming they were Dem locks - not even touching on the fact that the EC is what all presidential candidates build their campaigns around, not muh popular vote

Call me a fool. I'm a leftist so I probably am… But I still believe in Elizabeth Warren. I followed her throughout the Trump presidency as she so eloquently put Trump appointees in their place during their Senate confirmations. All this woman ever needed was five minutes to make her point and reveal how scummy these heathens in the Donald Whitehouse are. She was never hostile, never did she belittle even the worst people that came to the committee. She knew she didn't need to because she researched these people and boiled it down to five minutes where even if she didn't get and answer, anyone watching did. Now does that make her a good president? I think it does. I believe if people listen to her ideas, if they just watch her talk about her platform. They'll understand and if they're not convinced, they'll still come out with a better understanding of what this country needs.

I mean how many Congress people are talking about corruption? Like two? Three? Her, Tulsi Gabbard, and maybe Bernie (who still isn't confirmed). My fear is with her that she'll simply become another Obama where all those good ideas which are invaluable will get bogged down by another manufactured economic crisis and we will only get a watered-down version of one, insignificant part of her vision.

Reflect on this video to see what I mean.

Attached: Screenshot_20190215-041605.png (563x512 1.13 MB, 417.07K)

That picture is soy incarnate.

The electoral college IS a good thing. Are you coastal enough to believe otherwise?

It is true and you’re trying to justify your coastal reactionary views.

She used to be a registered Republican because muh markets

An antiquated institution that was created to address the fact that mail delivery was slow and dangerous in the eighteenth century should still be in place, because it keeps voting from being done by the actual population. Right.

Do you think that America’s heartland is not the real population of the United States?

Attached: B0DEA869-8787-40CD-888E-EC62731982CD.jpeg (480x258, 52.71K)

Shillary will win the dem nomination and then lose the general election to Trump again.

Does it even matter?

Considering that shit is fucked beyond repair I'll support Andrew Yang so that at least I'll have 1000 bucks for free to burn on weed while the planet burns.

More like the hollowed-out skeleton of the United States

Attached: USelection2016Cartogram.png (2500x1883, 4.31M)

The real population is 330-some million people. It is not defined by regions. That regional shit is what identitarianism does to your brain.

You should understand that something that would be in the best interests of the working class isn't the same thing as what the working class wants.
Also do you even live in a rural town? I did as a labourer for many years, you have the same problems as you would in the city, parasitic landlords, poor paying hard manual work with long anti-social hours except you live in the middle of nowhere and the nightlife is quaint.
Another thing you fail to appreciate as an example is that when those urbanites lobby for a higher federal minimum wage to help sustain themselves, rural workers get a disproportionate benefit given their lower living costs as one example.

Your fixation on urban vs rural seems like petty identitarianism that doesn't actually help the working class people who live in the rural areas (like I did) and you are coming across like an American exceptionalist defending tradition for its own sake rather than what is best for the people.

Hey Zig Forumstard soy doesn't lower your testosterone, otherwise endocrinologists would be taught how to deal with soy induced gynecomastia along with alcohol and obesity induced cases.

I'm guessing you're also the idiot defending the electoral college here, what a surprise.

Get out you astroturfing turd, you're not fooling anyone. I'm not sure why Zig Forums is forcing Warren on these dead imageboards of all places but you're not going to have any luck here.

lol, past tense.


lmao, found the gay urbanite bugman

Grow up and get a job.

I've got a job

Grow up

Get a life.