https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ami_Horowitz
Me neither. His Wikipedia article is short, but seems to paint a solid picture.
That said, just because the audience would be against him doesn't mean it wouldn't be highly disruptive (in fact, an angry/booing audience could be the worst outcome). I'm envisioning them having to either turn off his mic or remove him from the stage, both of which would be disasters for public perception.
An excerpt:
ISIS flag at UC Berkeley
Horowitz acted as "an ISIS supporter" while shouting terrorist rants and waving an ISIS flag inside UC Berkeley.[14] Most of the students ignored his "terrorist rants", but a "few gave him a thumbs-up, wished him luck and smiled".[15] Horowitz later switched to a "Zionist tirade" and began waving an Israeli flag, leading some students to express their outrage toward Israel, cursing and giving Horowitz obscene gestures.[14] It is unclear how long the videos took to create or how they were edited, but the video shows that Horowitz wears different clothes between the two parts of the video.[14] Horowitz wrote for Fox News that his film "unfortunately proves once and for all that there is in fact no connection between intellect and wisdom... If these are our best and brightest then we should all be afraid, very afraid."[16]
I wonder if he is a registered Republican; that would seem a fairly easy reason to disqualify him. Although not sure if Bernie is a registered Democrat -- I thought he switched back to independent after 2016. (?)
I would find it hard to argue that any non-Democrat should be able to run for the party's nomination if I was a member of the DNC. Not sure how Bernie self-identifies these days but it would be odd to let him run for the party's nomination if he is a member of a different party. Same for Bill Weld (although I checked since posting and think he is a registered Republican)
But no one asks me, so . . . .
"You must spread some Comments around before commenting on dudog84 again."
dangit!
The fossil fuel rule seems to be per individual candidate, not party, as others but not all have adopted it:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...r-small-donors
Not sure about the age 18 thing.
Anyway, the DNC has tried to limit the primaries to only Democrats. Here's the story on Bernie sanders:
Not clear it has teeth, but it has been effective this election season.Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders has signed a loyalty pledge, promising to run and govern as a Democrat if he wins the presidency in 2020, a new requirement for candidates that largely grew out of his own 2016 campaign.
The pledge Sanders signed was given to all active Democratic presidential campaigns last week. It affirms to the DNC chairman that they "are a Democrat ... are a member of the Democratic Party; will accept the Democratic nomination; and will run and serve as a member of the Democratic Party."
Sage Grouse
---------------------------------------
'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013
Thanks, Sage.
FWIW Bernie recsntly registered to run for Senate in 2024 as an independent despite previously registering as a Democrat to run for this Presidential election cycle:
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/04/70012...an-independent
The article amplifies on the quote you had as well.
So, um, huh?
My question is whether this will hurt him in the primaries. It certainly affects my view of him. But then again I'm not a socialist (though I sometimes wonder what I am nowadays).
My sense though is that it doesn't matter to his ardent followers, but I would put those "ardent" people as about 10% of D primary voters...and in 2020, unlike 2016, those people will vote against Trump when it comes down to it. They won't sit this one out.
Lots of interesting polling info amongst Iowa Democrats likely to caucus:
https://iowastartingline.com/2019/05...d-in-iowa-tie/
(I assume everyone knows the list of salt grains needed for single polling data points this far out, so to save time I will not restate them going forward if that is okay. Yes, it's just one poll. Yes, it's early. Yes, caucuses work differently. Yes, it is ultimately the Electoral College that matters. Etc. etc. etc.) I will note that Nate only rates this polling source as a C+ though.
Caucuses? Let me tell (retell) my experience in 2008 in the Democratic caucus. It was -3 and snowing here in the Rocky Mountains. Probably about 60-70 people showed up in a county with a population of 25,000. A bunch of regulars and some young people -- a few wearing "O" buttons, which I had never seen. Ms. Sage spoke on behalf of H. and did very well. The speaker on behalf of O. had come up from Denver, he made no sense whatsoever -- I mean, seriously -- and was gonged off the stage by the county chairman. Then we did the vote. The O. people won two-thirds of the vote and also won the state.
A caucus is a strange beast.
Sage Grouse
---------------------------------------
'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013
I guess he showed Mrs Sage his O face.
New Quinnipiac poll. Lots of good stuff here, but this grabbed my attention:
All info: https://poll.qu.edu/national/release...ReleaseID=2622President Trump begins his reelection campaign in a deep hole as 54 percent of American voters say they "definitely" will not vote for him, compared to 52 percent in an April 30 Quinnipiac University National Poll. Today, 31 percent say they "definitely" will vote for Trump and 12 percent say they will "consider voting for him."
Also of note, although the cake on the Dem side is not as well baked:
With a 49 - 39 percent favorability rating, former Vice President Joseph Biden is the only presidential contender, Democrat or Republican, with a clear positive score. Favorability ratings for other Democrats are negative or mixed:
41 - 48 percent for Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont;
32 - 41 percent for Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts;
27 percent favorable for Sen. Kamala Harris of California, with 30 percent unfavorable;
20 - 32 percent for former U.S. Rep. Beto O'Rourke of Texas;
23 - 31 percent for Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey;
23 percent favorable for South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, to 19 percent unfavorable;
8 - 45 percent for New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.