|
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 | ||
|
QuoProQuid posted:obviously we're still almost two years out but early polling suggests that almost any democratic candidate could beat trump. from ppp: Just like 2016...
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 05:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
Pylons posted:A lot can happen during the primary debates. I expect a lot of Bernie's opponents to go extremely hard on him, though it obviously remains to be seen whether those attacks will land or not. They'll attack him, but they're going to have to attack each other even more viciously. There are already so many centrists running on the Democratic ticket, with more to come, that they will need to kneecap one another if they want to stand out from the crowd. Harris' or Beto's or Booker's platforms certainly aren't going to make them stand out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 05:29
|
|
|
Pylons posted:A lot can happen during the primary debates. I expect a lot of Bernie's opponents to go extremely hard on him, though it obviously remains to be seen whether those attacks will land or not. Those attacks would largely consist of attacking policy which lol good luck. They'd essentially be exposing themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 05:29
|
|
|
Yes uh, I know I borrowed M$A from you, and have no real intention to ever do anythign to implement it, but have you considered that college debt is good?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 05:30
|
|
|
Majorian posted:They'll attack him, but they're going to have to attack each other even more viciously. There are already so many centrists running on the Democratic ticket, with more to come, that they will need to kneecap one another if they want to stand out from the crowd. Harris' or Beto's or Booker's platforms certainly aren't going to make them stand out. I don't expect the progressives running to stray from attacking him either, though, Gabbard in particular (who's nominally a progressive, at least to a small segment of Sanders supporters) can easily attack his record on the VA.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 05:31
|
|
|
the age thing is indicative of a typically American brain disease, where candidates are evaluated as individual personalities, as for a job interview, rather than as replaceable representatives of an ideology, a platform or a party so you get all this useless and endless scrutiny over 'qualifications'
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 05:32
|
|
|
Verviticus posted:theres no way biden is electable after the primaries ruin him, right? if he's only that much ahead of bernie before its demonstrated explicitly just how racist and creepy and lovely he is, i assume he'll tank that poll is a nationwide general election poll, so it is not supremely relevant for figuring out who gets the nomination. biden is the only candidate persistently getting 25% and above in primary polling right now. that is not a prohibitive lead (clinton was polling around ~50% around this time in 2015) but it puts him far ahead of sanders, who is polling at about 16% among Democrats per morning consult
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 05:32
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I mean, tbf, there are a whole lot of Very Online Centrist types who just a couple months ago were shrieking, "No more white male presidents," who then promptly dropped that when Beto came onto the scene. Now many of the same folks are screaming, "No more old presidents." Which makes me think that they're not really interested in judging candidates by their platform, and instead just want to oppose Bernie at all costs. I'm not saying that's the case for everyone who is concerned about his age, of course, but there are certainly a few people concern trolling. I have no doubt there are people guilty of it and like you have a poster you specifically know of that kind of contradiction it might be a fair criticism. But as a broad dismissal it seems like it actively ignores the general arguments within the Democratic base and seems rooted more in the accuser's biases, to me. But for the sake of honesty I admit my own opinion might be influenced by one of the same posters from once making the same criticisms at me when I expressed some apprehension about Cynthia Nixon's knowledge and qualifications (before i ultimately voted for her). So its possible I'm judging from my own bias. edit: But I think I'm just arguing for good faith if people are consistent. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Jan 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 05:33
|
|
|
I’m glad Tulsi is running since she can siphon off a good chunk of the most crazy Bernie ‘16 supporters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 05:33
|
|
|
Pylons posted:I don't expect the progressives running to stray from attacking him either, though, Gabbard in particular (who's nominally a progressive, at least to a small segment of Sanders supporters) can easily attack his record on the VA. I wouldn't be surprised if Gabbard was running for a cabinet position. She has to know she's a long shot and I doubt she's running just to push issues, although it would be amazing if she somehow managed to get every other candidate to pledge support for Assad
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 05:36
|
|
|
SeANMcBAY posted:I’m glad Tulsi is running since she can siphon off a good chunk of the most crazy Bernie ‘16 supporters. same but Kamala and the Hillfolk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 05:36
|
|
|
Alright, I’m going to throw something in that seems to be getting ignored: I live about a mile away from Tree of Life in Pittsburgh, and Sander’s previous votes that aligned with the gun lobby earlier in his career make me lean heavily towards Warren in a primary. And I do know that Sander’s record overall isn’t some Manchin-esque NRA bull-poo poo, but it is poor enough that it does make me think gun control won’t be a major priority for his administration.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 05:37
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Just like 2016... polls in January 2015 were still doing match-ups between clinton and jeb!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 05:37
|
|
|
yeah i cant imagine supporting bernie sanders after he shot up that synagogue
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 05:38
|
|
|
Dreissi posted:Alright, I’m going to throw something in that seems to be getting ignored: *starves to death due to crushing student and medical debt* but what about GUNS?!?! I got married in Newtown and my wife's family is there, I could give two shits about meandering gun control that riles up the gun nuts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 05:40
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:yeah i cant imagine supporting bernie sanders after he shot up that synagogue Very productive, thanks. Maybe you can make more jokes about how 11 people getting murdered in my neighborhood makes me think gun control is important.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 05:41
|
|
|
Meaningful gun control is impossible without either a Supreme Court willing to change the accepted meaning of the second amendment, or just repealing the second amendment all together. There's not much any Democratic candidate could do. Hell the last time Democrats tried to make gun control an issue their big idea was banning people on the Do-Not-Fly List from buying guns. If that's the "gun control" the other candidates are offering, who cares?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 05:43
|
|
|
Dreissi posted:Very productive, thanks. Maybe you can make more jokes about how 11 people getting murdered in my neighborhood makes me think gun control is important. Gun Control is important but next to impossible to enact without a filibuster proof senate or if you want to go the amendment route, much larger control of state houses. But it's a seriously losing issue and doesn't address the underlying issues that lead to said shootings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 05:43
|
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong. Didn't the data out of the 2018 results suggest that NRA support hurt candidates and aren't there reports of the NRA suffering membership and donation drops? I haven't seen any thing that makes a definitely case that its a decisive issue FOR gun control but it very much didn't seem to be a negative either? If you don't personally care about gun control that's your right, but I'm not sure "gun control is a losing issue we should abandon" is necessarily any more true a statement than "medicare for all is a losing issue we should abandon." We have a whole lot of advocacy of late for both that seems to be working. But I fully admit I'm not well versed on this particular subject so I might be off or missing something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 05:47
|
|
|
I'm not saying abandon it, I'm saying it's something you enact from a position of power which extends way beyond the whitehouse. Something the Dems are extremely far away from even if Bernie wins.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 05:49
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:Meaningful gun control is impossible without either a Supreme Court willing to change the accepted meaning of the second amendment, or just repealing the second amendment all together. There's not much any Democratic candidate could do. Hell the last time Democrats tried to make gun control an issue their big idea was banning people on the Do-Not-Fly List from buying guns. If that's the "gun control" the other candidates are offering, who cares? I think, assuming the Supreme Court doesn't strike it down, Washington state voted for a gun control measure in 2018 that could serve as a good model for the rest of the country. Particularly punishing gun owners who don't keep their guns properly secured. Pylons fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Jan 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 05:49
|
|
|
Matt Zerella posted:Gun Control is important but next to impossible to enact without a filibuster proof senate or if you want to go the amendment route, much larger control of state houses. I’ll be frank; you are not wrong. I grew up in WV and know how loving bonkers people are about it. But those issues related to getting (compliant with current SC precedent) gun control passed? Those issues apply to economic policies just as harshly. Seriously society altering legislation will have to contend with the filibuster either way. Just to go on record, I’m in favor of the kinds of policy Sanders and Warren pitch. I want someone far left of center to win the nomination.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 05:50
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Correct me if I'm wrong. Didn't the data out of the 2018 results suggest that NRA support hurt candidates and aren't there reports of the NRA suffering membership and donation drops? I haven't seen any thing that makes a definitely case that its a decisive issue FOR gun control but it very much didn't seem to be a negative either? I think that gun people are about as activated as they're gonna get. If you're a single issue gun voter, you're also probably a white supremacist and vote Republican every time regardless of whether or not gun control is an issue in that specific election.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 05:51
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Correct me if I'm wrong. Didn't the data out of the 2018 results suggest that NRA support hurt candidates and aren't there reports of the NRA suffering membership and donation drops? I haven't seen any thing that makes a definitely case that its a decisive issue FOR gun control but it very much didn't seem to be a negative either? I think the bigger problem is that, while there's a plausible legislative path forward for M4A and a lot of the other parts of Sanders' agenda, there really isn't a way forward for gun control at this point. The courts are stacked against it, and it's only going to get worse as Trump fills more benches.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 05:51
|
|
|
Pylons posted:I think, assuming the Supreme Court doesn't strike it down, Washington state voted for a gun control measure in 2018 that could serve as a good model for the rest of the country. This one? quote:I-1639 raises the legal age to buy any semi-automatic rifle to 21, from 18. People wanting one also have to pass an enhanced background check, show proof that they have taken a firearms-training course, and wait 10 business days before they take possession of the weapon. Yeah that's probably about as much "gun control" as we can get away with right no. I don't really consider it very impressive. If some Democratic candidates wanna run on you gotta wait ten days before you can do a mass shooting, great. But I find it hard to imagine anybody picking a candidate based on that bold proposal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 05:56
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:This one? I think the more impactful part of the proposal is that someone who doesn't properly secure their guns can be charged if someone steals them and goes on to commit a crime with the stolen gun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 05:58
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I think the bigger problem is that, while there's a plausible legislative path forward for M4A and a lot of the other parts of Sanders' agenda, there really isn't a way forward for gun control at this point. The courts are stacked against it, and it's only going to get worse as Trump fills more benches. I honestly think the judicial angel makes it more important to get someone in the Whitehouse who prioritizes the issues. The courts are getting stacked, but they aren’t full. The next president can appoint a lot of judges (I hope) and prioritizing their opinions on gun control should be important. Legislatively, you are correct as well. With red state senate democrats, there’s a baked in continent that will make meaningful gun control tough to get through the senate. I just want someone that will give it a serious shot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 05:59
|
|
|
Dreissi posted:I’ll be frank; you are not wrong. I grew up in WV and know how loving bonkers people are about it. But those issues related to getting (compliant with current SC precedent) gun control passed? Those issues apply to economic policies just as harshly. Seriously society altering legislation will have to contend with the filibuster either way. You start by actually earning voter loyalty outside of team sports and giving the people something. You start dismantling the hellish technocratic neoliberal centrist amalgamation the Democratic Party has become and enact real universal healthcare (m4a being the first step), a much higher marginal tax rate on the rich, college debt relief, postal banking, expanded SNAP programs, public works projects like a modern rail system and infrastructure build ups (not loving python coding boot camps in coal towns). Start showing these people who have slowly seen their communities dissolve because jobs left for other countries that there's something to live for and they don't have to watch their children move to NY or SF for work. Give people REAL hope. You earn that and all of a sudden these cling to your gun types are going to seriously relax. Maybe not enough where they don't love their Guns but maybe, just maybe they stop making them the center of their lives. You don't do this solely for them. I'd like to point this out before some smug computer toucher starts putting "economic anxiety" in italic text. Gun control is a bandaid on a sliced open jugular. Let's stop the bleeding and then We can worry about putting on the dressing on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 05:59
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:I think that gun people are about as activated as they're gonna get. If you're a single issue gun voter, you're also probably a white supremacist and vote Republican every time regardless of whether or not gun control is an issue in that specific election. And I would think that would be a case to be made for why gun control advocacy is a valuable tool to activate and engage voters. That certainly seemed to be the impression from the Parkland aftermath. And if the argument is that winning is about engaging and growing your numbers, not trying to to tap into those roundly opposed to you the gun control debate seems like a key example of that to me. Majorian posted:I think the bigger problem is that, while there's a plausible legislative path forward for M4A and a lot of the other parts of Sanders' agenda, there really isn't a way forward for gun control at this point. The courts are stacked against it, and it's only going to get worse as Trump fills more benches. To be honest I think the reservation against is that I'm not sure Gripweed is right that the venn diagram of gun rights people and racists/conservatives is as close to a circle as that. I think its probably the majority but there does seem to be a wing of leftism that steers towards gun rights. And then some others who seem concerned about appeasing that wing. And with some to dismiss a somewhat fair criticism against Bernie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 06:00
|
|
|
Matt Zerella posted:You start by actually earning voter loyalty outside of team sports and giving the people something. The "economic anxiety" argument is that it's not the lack of social programs that keep these types of people from voting for Democrats. They will hate these social programs as long as they're going to people who, they feel, don't deserve them. It's obvious who these people are and what they're motivated by.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 06:04
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Could you expand on that? I'm not sure I see why gun control is any more likely to be struck down by the courts than any other leftist policy. It's more of a right-wing activist judge issue than many other left-of-center policies. Judges like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were picked, in part, because they're vociferously anti-gun control. Pylons posted:The "economic anxiety" argument is that it's not the lack of social programs that keep these types of people from voting for Democrats. They will hate these social programs as long as they're going to people who, they feel, don't deserve them. It's obvious who these people are and what they're motivated by. Which is why it doesn't make sense for the Dems to try to woo "moderate" white affluent suburban Republican voters, and instead work to turn out working class that just stayed home in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 06:13
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's more of a right-wing activist judge issue than many other left-of-center policies. Judges like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were picked, in part, because they're vociferously anti-gun control. But again, wouldn't that theoretically give me reason to prioritize (to some degree) a president who would put in judges who support gun control? If that's an issue I care strongly enough about?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 06:15
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:But again, wouldn't that theoretically give me reason to prioritize (to some degree) a president who would put in judges who support gun control? If that's an issue I care strongly enough about? Sure, but I'm not seeing much evidence that Sanders is less likely to do that than other Democratic candidates. It's not like very many of his opponents have substantially better records on the issue than he does.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 06:16
|
|
|
The best methods we have for combating gun violence (social programs, mental health, etc) are all things Bernie is campaigning on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 06:17
|
|
|
Pylons posted:I think the more impactful part of the proposal is that someone who doesn't properly secure their guns can be charged if someone steals them and goes on to commit a crime with the stolen gun. That doesn't actually stop mass shootings in any way
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 06:19
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Sure, but I'm not seeing much evidence that Sanders is less likely to do that than other Democratic candidates. It's not like very many of his opponents have substantially better records on the issue than he does. I think I can probably accept that more than "gun control is a loser" and the rancor that question got. Assuming its true. I admit I don't know the candidates' gun control records super well but I'm inclined to think at least Gillibrand is better on them (but I could be wrong and of course its just one issue). Ideally for me its an issue that gets pressed in the primaries and that all the candidates support acceptably. Or like the default "no war but class war" thing that a bunch of people obviously sincerely believe. Not to be dismissive of that. Its obviously a sincere belief people hold that the issues they support are directly necessary to bring about other changes. Its just not my driving force.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 06:25
|
|
|
SeANMcBAY posted:I’m glad Tulsi is running since she can siphon off a good chunk of the most crazy Bernie ‘16 supporters. This is a load of crap, she won't ever have a serious support base. She's a joke. DONT THREAD ON ME posted:The best methods we have for combating gun violence (social programs, mental health, etc) are all things Bernie is campaigning on. At this point, this is really the only correct answer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 06:29
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Bring it on, libs This is a great video. For those that don't know, or are too young to remember, Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow has been Bill Clinton's theme song since the 1992 primary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 06:29
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I think I can probably accept that more than "gun control is a loser" and the rancor that question got. Assuming its true. I admit I don't know the candidates' gun control records super well but I'm inclined to think at least Gillibrand is better on them (but I could be wrong and of course its just one issue). Ideally for me its an issue that gets pressed in the primaries and that all the candidates support acceptably. Gillibrand was virulently anti-gun control while she was in the House, actually - she had a 100% positive rating from the NRA. Obviously she's evolved on the issue since then, but still, it's a fair thing to examine, if we're going to delve into Bernie's more complicated gun control votes. quote:Or like the default "no war but class war" thing that a bunch of people obviously sincerely believe. Not to be dismissive of that. Its obviously a sincere belief people hold that the issues they support are directly necessary to bring about other changes. Its just not my driving force. I wouldn't read too much into that; most of the time people say that, it's either to emphasize how much class politics touches all issues of social justice, or (more often) just to troll annoying centrists like Fulchrum (RIP). Majorian fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Jan 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 06:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:That doesn't actually stop mass shootings in any way If it encourages gun owners to keep their guns securely locked up, it does. Certainly for school shootings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2019 06:31
|
|