POLITICS Democratic Nominee 2020 Lollapalooza

100% agree.

And the numbers aren't favorable for her argument, at least from a worldwide scale, nor is it close -

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoz...ween-men-and-women-is-justified/#419d860f6da4

 

Now, at the US level, they may have an argument, but I'm not sure how that's allowed to be divided according to FIFA rules -

https://sports.yahoo.com/here-are-t...-in-its-discrimination-lawsuit-230443224.html

 

It's blurry because I believe the women are assuming the TV revenue package is a 50/50 split between the USMNT and USWNT. The tale of the tape is that people watch MLS, no one watches women's rec league soccer.

 

Fair as well.

Of course, if men make the World Cup last year this is all null and void.

 

I don't think they do generate more revenue, which is kind of surprising

 

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), whose White House candidacy has polled at an embarrassing 0% in multiple national public surveys, became the first Democrat presidential hopeful to pull the plug on his 2020 campaign.

 

Nice effort Eric. Seemed like a great idea I suppose.

 

The Russians said so

 

Why doesn’t she advise them to follow her lead and just blow her way to the below-average?

 

Tom Steyer, Come on Down! You are the newest Democratic Presidential Candidate.

 

At least he’s not running as an independent. His silliness will be over shortly.

 

I realize you have to have a huge ego to seriously consider running for President, but I am still genuinely amazed at the number of people who stay in long after it's obvious to everyone else but them that they have no shot.

 

Perhaps it’s more than it seems.

Most candidates (almost exclusively) of either Party agree to turn over what’s left of their campaign coffers to the nominating Party upon cessation of their campaign. In turn, the Party adds those collected funds to the general pot, and doles it out as they see fit - with the Party’s national nominee obviously taking the lion’s share.

If you look at some candidates and wonder why they’re in the race, you can usually trace and find that they are particularly strong and embedded with one or more key donor groups, and who might enthusiastically contribute large sums to that candidate while they are in the race, but perhaps would not do the same for another.

This is why Graham ran in 2016, as he had pull with many donors that Jeb! did not.

It may also explain why you’ve got de Blasio running, too, because as the sitting mayor of NYC, he’s better able to get bigger money (read: make bigger promises and side deals - and which is not unique to either Party, or any one candidate) than Harris or Warren will be able to pull in at this stage.

JMO.

 

Makes sense, but how many of these are still in the black when they finally withdraw?

 

I'll say this, [uck fay] men's and women's soccer equally. Also, [uck fay] Alabama, Florida, and Auburn as much as soccer

 

Sighs

 

Lots and lots and lots.

Using Graham / de Blasio as examples - when you think about what they’re paying to basically have a skeleton admin, and to show up at a few campaign events here and there, the amount they’re spending pales in comparison to what they’re taking in.

 

He’s trying to curry some Party favor back for his Kavanaugh vote.

If this were basketball, we’d call this the “makeup call”.

 

I'm for paying the soccer teams exactly the same.