|
Who do you want to be the 2020 Democratic Nominee? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe "the liberal who fights busing" Biden |
|
27 | 1.40% |
| Bernie "please don't die" Sanders |
|
1017 | 52.69% |
| Cory "charter schools" Booker |
|
12 | 0.62% |
| Kirsten "wall street" Gillibrand |
|
24 | 1.24% |
| Kamala "truancy queen" Harris |
|
59 | 3.06% |
| Julian "who?" Castro |
|
7 | 0.36% |
| Tulsi "gay panic" Gabbard |
|
25 | 1.30% |
| Michael "crimes crimes crimes" Avenatti |
|
22 | 1.14% |
| Sherrod "discount bernie" Brown |
|
21 | 1.09% |
| Amy "horrible boss" Klobuchar |
|
12 | 0.62% |
| Tammy "stands for america" Duckworth |
|
48 | 2.49% |
| Beto "whataburger" O'Rourke |
|
32 | 1.66% |
| Elizabeth "instagram beer" Warren |
|
284 | 14.72% |
| Tom "impeach please" Steyer |
|
4 | 0.21% |
| Michael "soda is the devil" Bloomberg |
|
9 | 0.47% |
| Joseph Stalin |
|
287 | 14.87% |
| Howard "coffee republican" Schultz |
|
10 | 0.52% |
Jay "nobody cares about climate change  " Inslee |
|
13 | 0.67% |
| Pete "gently caress the homeless" Butt Man |
|
17 | 0.88% |
| Total: | 1930 votes | ||
|
This is when Bernie really needs to step his game up to stay in the running. gently caress taxing the uber-rich, throw them straight into the gulags. 
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 04:49 |
|
|
It would be pretty cool if Bernie was waiting for the competition to move the overton window to the left, so that he can jump in and push things even farther left.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 01:03
|
|
|
Bernie coming in with the solid anti-Maduro take on Venezuela. https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1088573769243914240 https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1088573771395596293 Edit: I am loving bad at posting tweet conversations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 01:19
|
|
|
I want Bernie to be president but he has to at least be thinking about getting behind Warren early. If him and Warren split votes that could lead to one of the much worse candidates winning...
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 01:32
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I want Bernie to be president but he has to at least be thinking about getting behind Warren early. If him and Warren split votes that could lead to one of the much worse candidates winning... Iowa and New Hampshire are going to filter out at least half of the democratic ticket hopefuls and its kinda pointless to talk about who will get behind who before then
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 01:42
|
|
|
Wait, the Governor of Massachusetts is a Republican. Does that mean Warren would be replaced by a Republican if she won?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 01:52
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:Wait, the Governor of Massachusetts is a Republican. Does that mean Warren would be replaced by a Republican if she won? Massachusetts is a special election only state afaict.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 01:58
|
|
|
scott brown is already signing a lease deal on his newest truck
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 01:59
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Massachusetts is a special election only state afaict. Oh yea, duh
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 02:07
|
|
|
I feel like there’s some crazy leftism game theory going on here, where if Bernie runs, there’s higher odds of a centrist winning, but if he doesn’t run, then Warren becomes the frontrunner, but if Warren wins, then it makes it more likely that Trump will win
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 02:13
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:This implies that working class white people are the principle vector of racism in America. Hillary did well with poorer white people. Trump did well with wealthier suburbanites.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 02:17
|
|
|
smg77 posted:I hope you're right. If he cares more about issues than his dumb forever war with the Democratic Party he'll stay out of the race and throw his support to his preferred candidate. Yeah Dogg the best way to get economic justice is to support *checks notes* woke capitalism The issues and the Dems being poo poo are one and the same BENGHAZI 2 fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Jan 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 03:02
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:I feel like there’s some crazy leftism game theory going on here, where if Bernie runs, there’s higher odds of More likely Trump will win against Warren? Not at all. Most incumbents rely on their records and performance in an election. Not with Trump. It's been only two years and I already can't even list everything that went wrong without making this post into a novel. And we still have two more years to go. Hell, look at the current shutdown. We would enter an recession that is explicitly Trump's fault. You can have Warren do anything cringeworthy and she'll still be able to win. For better or worse, when the economy gets worse, the President always get blamed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 03:22
|
|
|
Luckyellow posted:More likely Trump will win against Warren? Not at all. To clarify: I think the Democrat is favored to win in 2020, regardless of the candidate, possibly by a lot. But if I had to pick the Dem most likely to lose, it’d be Warren.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 03:24
|
|
|
Warren has a video of her “Ultra-Millionaires tax”. The interesting thing is that in the video she talks about how it could be used to invest in, among other things, a Green New Deal. So guess we know she’ll be coming out with a GND proposal most likely. https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1088622462470946817?s=21
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 03:42
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Bernie needs a better answer than that. There's also the speech he made at MLK Day in South Carolina on invitation of the NAACP.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 03:57
|
|
|
yeah i dunno. bernie just doesn't give me that *feeling* i just dont know that he *gets it*
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 05:45
|
|
|
Didn't Nancy Pelosi literally say 'all lives matter'? Bernie's not the best on that but the bar is so goddamn low it might not even matter, not like anybody else has any credibility.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 05:57
|
|
|
This post used to criticize Warrens proposal is actually a strong argument in favor of it https://twitter.com/patrickruffini/status/1088618891146919936?s=21
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 06:25
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/1087800624090091520
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 07:12
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:One thing I'm just gonna put out here - I have a sinking feeling that Sanders is not going to run. It's just a general impression I'm getting. Yeah I've started thinking he might not run this time. On social media I've started encountering people that are adamantly opposed to his even running that supported him in 2016, and I can't get a clear answer from any of them why; the sentiment is definitely out there though. It sounds like a not-ineignificant number of people from his 2016 campaign are signing on with others too. It's making me wonder how many of his big supporters were there primarily because he was not-Hillary rather than any particular allegiance to him or his policies. mcmagic posted:I want Bernie to be president but he has to at least be thinking about getting behind Warren early. If him and Warren split votes that could lead to one of the much worse candidates winning... This is one of many strong arguments for her getting out there early IMO. Even if there are only 4 or 5 candidates standing after Iowa or NH, them both being there will split the progressive vote. It won't guarantee one of them loses, but it would make it much harder to win. Ghost Leviathan posted:Didn't Nancy Pelosi literally say 'all lives matter'? Yes, she did it in her town hall with Joy Reid. Joy jumped in right after and largely saved her from it, and I was kinda surprised it didn't get any attention.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 07:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/CoryBooker/status/276852185512411136
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 08:36
|
|
|
 i hope she does get picked as bernie's veep 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 09:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1088831755140939779?s=21 Stay tuned to see whether Schultz joins the Democratic race or torpedoes it by running as an independent. (Or maybe he just plays around with speculation for a few weeks to get free press for his book...)
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
I think that's an artifact that six years ago Twitters retweet and reply system was much dumber. https://twitter.com/darlingCorinne/status/820038575550906368
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 18:43
|
|
|
I mean, misreading that GQ article is obviously concern trolling, but you have to wonder what precisely the trolls don't like about Bernie that motivates them. Is it the taxes? Is it the annihilation of the insurance industry? Is it the end of casino capitalism on Wall Street? The implication that class is as important as identity? What don't these nominally liberal people like about him? Why don't these cowards who just aren't ~feeling~ him this time (though OF COURSE they supported him in 2016) just say what they loving mean and what they believe in? dream9!bed!! fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Jan 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1088881301619425280
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
rip ojedamentum
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 20:33
|
|
|
ojeda’s campaign lasted one whole scaramucci
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 20:45
|
|
|
Warren still sucks. She’s finally caught up to the compromise zeitgeist of four years ago on some economic policies without showing any indication that she envisions or even supports a world beyond capitalism. She’s shown absolutely zero imagination with respect to climate change. She’s old, white, and a product of Harvard, which are terrible signifiers for a party that claims to be obsessed with these things. And she appealed to loving blood quantum laws to try to win a Twitter fight with dumbest president to ever live.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:She’s finally caught up to the compromise zeitgeist of four years ago on some economic policies Her wealth tax proposal is substantially left of anything proposed by a major US politician in the last 50 years easily. Nobody is running on 'lets abolish capitalism' my dude.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
I just said that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:I just said that. That's not 'the compromise zeitgeist of four years ago' lol.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 22:38
|
|
|
The wealth tax proposal isn't even a recent change for Warren! https://twitter.com/ddayen/status/1088522077496270849
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
The compromise zeitgeist of four years ago was defend the ACA to the death and strike a grand bargain on entitlement reforms. If you think Warren's current policies are four years out of date, you just flat out do not remember four years ago. Any election before this one, proposing a wealth tax would've immediately put Warren into the comedy candidate section, and Jon Stewart would be quipping about her crazy tax scheme and absurd belief that trans women are human. Now it's being taken seriously, and Warren is still in the top two of the officially announced candidates. I know, I know, we all want to see billionaires on pikes on the White House Lawn. But you can't go from 0 to 100 overnight. You actually need to build a political movement. That's what is happening. I said in another thread that Bernie is the benchmark by which all the candidates must be measured. Any one of them who is promising a worse world than Bernie can be dismissed out of hand. Warren actually sees that and is laying out a more aggressive policy platform than Bernie did in 2016. That's big. That's important. That's good. Don't poo poo her just because she isn't promising to have Jeff Bezos executed
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
Technocratic adjustments to the tax code were absolutely within the zeitgeist, both during the primary, and after, though usually coded as making “the rich pay their fair share” or similar bloodless language. Warren’s wealth tax is an improvement, and would have been great during the Clinton administration.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 22:59
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Technocratic adjustments to the tax code were absolutely within the zeitgeist, both during the primary, and after, though usually coded as making “the rich pay their fair share” or similar bloodless language. Warren’s wealth tax is an improvement, and would have been great during the Clinton administration. This is ludicrously reductionist. You're equating the neoliberal tax credit games Clinton and Obama played with a massive new progressive tax.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 23:02
|
|
|
If a completely new wealth tax is a “technocratic adjustment to the tax code” are there any tax changes that aren’t that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
dream9!bed!! posted:I mean, misreading that GQ article is obviously concern trolling, but you have to wonder what precisely the trolls don't like about Bernie that motivates them. On the level of your average normal person (as opposed to your actual politicians or Neera Tanden types), it's mostly a cultural thing. They "identify" as a certain type of professional, serious person who is kind and open-minded about race and sexual orientation, and they perceive the left as representing a certain stereotype of a immature white person who is willing to "throw minorities under the bus" and what have you. As a result, they perceive the things the left says in the same way we might perceive conservatives who are arguing that conservatism is the least racist ideology. They know that the left is a bunch of bigoted white bros. There is no doubt in their mind of this, and anything the left says is just seen as the desperate flailing of a racist dudebro who knows the liberal in question is seeing through them. The most characteristic negative thing about their actual ideology could best be described as an ambivalence towards material inequality. They just don't care much about it, because it's not something they encounter in their lives (whereas they probably do know some black or LGBT people, so they value a certain limited type of anti-racism that ignores the material). Of course, what I'm describing is probably the best type of this person. There are certainly also people who just don't want to see their taxes increase. But I think most people similar to your average D&D poster are more ambivalent than they are directly opposed to material redistribution. Their opposition stems more from a personal distaste towards the left (and the implication that they might not be the good guys). Kobayashi posted:Technocratic adjustments to the tax code were absolutely within the zeitgeist, both during the primary, and after, though usually coded as making “the rich pay their fair share” or similar bloodless language. Warren’s wealth tax is an improvement, and would have been great during the Clinton administration. It doesn't make sense to act like this is fundamentally "less radical" than something like MfA or a $15 minimum wage. If anything, a non-trivial wealth tax like this is a considerably bigger direct threat to the wealthy than either of those things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 04:49 |
|
|
is bernie even going to run :-\
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 00:30
|
|