|
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 | ||
|
Z. Autobahn posted:That article literally shows Biden as more popular than Bernie. As soon as Biden starts running for president he'll remind everyone why they didn't vote for him the last time he ran for president, or the time before that. That poll just really blows out of the water the idea that Hillary die-hards still pissed about 2016 are a big enough force to threaten Bernie.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 05:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 03:41 |
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:The reason I don't buy the "Well, Hillary focused on Trump and it didn't work, thus it's a losing tactic!" is that it's ignoring the fact that literally everyone assumed Trump didn't have a shot, including the media which broadcast "Hillary's got 99% chance to win!" all the time. Like, the utter certainty everyone had of Hillary's victory was a HUGE factor in 2016 (hell, it's why Comey released his letter which ultimately tipped the balance). A campaign of "Well, I'm better than the other guy" doesn't work if everyone's convinced the other guy doesn't stand a chance, but it's totally different when "the other guy" is actually in power. Hell it worked for President Kerry!
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 05:37
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:The reason I don't buy the "Well, Hillary focused on Trump and it didn't work, thus it's a losing tactic!" is that it's ignoring the fact that literally everyone assumed Trump didn't have a shot, including the media which broadcast "Hillary's got 99% chance to win!" all the time. Like, the utter certainty everyone had of Hillary's victory was a HUGE factor in 2016 (hell, it's why Comey released his letter which ultimately tipped the balance). A campaign of "Well, I'm better than the other guy" doesn't work if everyone's convinced the other guy doesn't stand a chance, but it's totally different when "the other guy" is actually in power. I do agree. And I'm not saying "Hillary lost because she went after Trump." We've done this a million times. There were many different things Hillary did wrong (and some she didn't do but were done to her) that probably factored into the narrow loss. I just think its not hard to see how someone would see than and more importantly see how many successful candidates in '17 and '18 won on things like healthcare and immigration reform and not "anti-Trump" and that candidates will decide its better to be "for something" than "against Trump." Especially since "against Trump" comes built in. I also think that there's a different dynamic in "This is what Trump will be/He'll get it together when he's President." vs "HE'S HAD FOUR YEARS AND THIS IS WHAT HE IS!" Not to mention that the same message from a different person can come off very differently. I just think in a lot of ways Trump does his own attacks on himself. You can sit back and wait for him to do and say terrible things and react without ever really giving him the respect of going on the offensive. And that allows you to play the high minded civil servant who cares about the people more than Trump. Because after 6 years of this poo poo we should learn that digging up dirt on Trump doesn't actually move the needle because its been buried under dirt. edit: But again, I don't pretend to know what WILL happen. I'm just an rear end in a top hat spending too much time online. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Jan 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 05:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hell it worked for President Kerry! Bush was a popular president with an approval rating 30 points higher than Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 05:43
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:The reason I don't buy the "Well, Hillary focused on Trump and it didn't work, thus it's a losing tactic!" is that it's ignoring the fact that literally everyone assumed Trump didn't have a shot, including the media which broadcast "Hillary's got 99% chance to win!" all the time. Like, the utter certainty everyone had of Hillary's victory was a HUGE factor in 2016 (hell, it's why Comey released his letter which ultimately tipped the balance). A campaign of "Well, I'm better than the other guy" doesn't work if everyone's convinced the other guy doesn't stand a chance, but it's totally different when "the other guy" is actually in power. It's not a 100% either-or dichotomy, though - whoever wins the nomination in 2020 is going to have to lay into Trump a fair bit, no question. But they can't do that to the complete exclusion of laying out a positive plan and unifying message. That was one of Hillary's many mistakes, and it was one of her biggest ones.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 05:44
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:My number one pick is honestly Warren, but I don’t think she alone would win. I think Harris appeals to a larger audience, and like Obama can win. I think UHC could start to happen under Harris. I don’t think she’ll be great about Israel, I don’t know enough about Venezuela to have an opinion. As for other hot spots, I don’t think we should be the world police, but that’s going to take another decade of people like AOC being popular to push the party in the direction me and a lot of this thread want. On Wall Street, the election process is going to be a make it or break for her. She’ll need to go harder left (regulation, dealing with college debt ect ...) to win, but i think she will. Poking at this a little more, you would agree politicians can be duplicitous, yeah? Especially when it comes to campaign promises? For example, Obama famously campaigned on a public option for health care then dropped it like a hot potato after winning. In your thoughts where "she'll need to go harder left", what is it that gives you confidence a politician thats forced to adopt policies on the campaign trail due to competitive pressure, believes in those policies and will follow through with fighting for them? One of the strengths of Bernie is he's been speaking passionately on these issues his whole life so its easier to believe he cares about trying to push those issues. This gives him an authenticity that drew so many people. Warren to her credit is the only other person running who even has a whiff of this authenticity, as she has been vocal about economic issues for some time. Though, in her case its in the shadow of Sanders for a lot of reasons, and thus she doesn't garner many peoples first choice. I think the problem is, if a candidate has to move in any direction policy wise on the trail, then they never believed in that and can't realistically be trusted to care about following through on it. I'm wondering how you approach that and where you draw the lines in deciding to believe them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 05:45
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I do agree. And I'm not saying "Hillary lost because she went after Trump." We've done this a million times. There were many different things Hillary did wrong (and some she didn't do but were done to her) that probably factored into the narrow loss. I just think its not hard to see how someone would see than and more importantly see how many successful candidates in '17 and '18 won on things like healthcare and immigration reform and not "anti-Trump" and that candidates will decide its better to be "for something" than "against Trump." Especially since "against Trump" comes built in. The laserlike focus on healthcare in the run up to the 2018 elections was one of the smartest things I have seen Dems do in a while, pick an issue that affects basically everyone whether they follow politics or not and where the GOP's position is toxic and just hammer on it endlessly. They had Republicans backed into a corner so well they had to come out and pretend to support parts of the ACA they had spent years trashing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 06:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is a total lie by the by, and the fact that you just uncritically repeated it without even checking if it was accurate because it matched what you wanted to believe, should be an indication that you need to take a step back and examine your biases That's the poster who still hasn't provided proof for this: LionArcher posted:And yet sanders is sexist, had huge issues with his campaign being sexist, took 50 mill from the DNC, dismisses Russia act of war.... and is old which is particularly funny given the grift game Clinton ran on state parties funneling millions to her campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 06:10
|
|
|
Why on Earth are people still biting for LionArcher's schtick?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 06:28
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:I just don't see any other candidate being able to really build up steam against Bernie. With the possible exception of Warren, every other candidate is going to be offering Bernie's policies, but at least slightly worse. Once he actually announces I'm pretty confident he's going to continue doing what he has been doing, introducing new and even more aggressive policies. Which all the other candidates will have to respond to. I wouldn't be so sure about that. As much as I'd like to see Bernie run away with it this time resoundingly, remember its unlikely the last centrist/establishment democrat candidate standing against him this time will be nearly as problematic as Clinton was. Clinton was uniquely awful as both a candidate and campaigner. Bernie is gonna be up against an establishment darling that sounds like a human this time without as much baggage and is gonna have the backing of DNC, all of the MSM, and the russiagaters peddling bullshit that he's a Kremlin op or useful idiot for them. Gresh fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Jan 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 06:29
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:Why on Earth are people still biting for LionArcher's schtick? because sometimes the people who unironically agree with him bite
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 06:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/EliLake/status/1089583526465495041
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 06:52
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 06:54
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/elilake/status/304961327485562881?lang=en
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 07:07
|
|
|
wow! what an incredible result for comrade stalin! i'm amazed at the record turnout
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 07:22
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:wow! what an incredible result for comrade stalin! i'm amazed at the record turnout i wanna know who the 3 people are who un-ironically voted for Bloomberg and the 8 for the porn lawyer 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 07:32
|
|
|
Gresh posted:I wouldn't be so sure about that. As much as I'd like to see Bernie run away with it this time resoundingly, remember its unlikely the last centrist/establishment democrat candidate standing against him this time will be nearly as problematic as Clinton was. Clinton was uniquely awful as both a candidate and campaigner. Bernie is gonna be up against an establishment darling that sounds like a human this time without as much baggage and is gonna have the backing of DNC, all of the MSM, and the russiagaters peddling bullshit that he's a Kremlin op or useful idiot for them. I wouldn't be sure how many of those are even advantages at this point, but it remains to be seen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 07:40
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:It’s fun watching a lot of you being inherently racist against Harris (holding her to a standard that Bernie fails at) but not shocking considering she’s an articulate measured black woman who’s actually done something in the last 25 years. Her speech today was straight Source your quotes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 08:02
|
|
. Yes, she has issues that have been brought up, but it’s one or two things that are going to be addressed considering all the trolls are already hammering her with it. Online on twitter im seeing a lot of women, and men fired up because of today. It’s also going to be fun watching this thread melt down over it if she wins the nomination 
|
Willa Rogers posted:That's the poster who still hasn't provided proof for this: I did not find a link to the 50 million. I got it from a tweet and I’ll walk that back. Outer stuff I said folks in this thread that are defending Bernie haven’t actually addressed, and he’s poo poo on gun control. Also, He just voted no on Russian sanctions. He didn’t Endorse Clinton until far later than he should have. And the sexism issue with his campaign is something that if it doesn’t disqualify him this time around, should still be taken seriously.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 08:15
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:I did not find a link to the 50 million. I got it from a tweet and I’ll walk that back. lmfao
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 08:19
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:I did not find a link to the 50 million. I got it from a tweet and I’ll walk that back. Outer stuff I said folks in this thread that are defending Bernie haven’t actually addressed That's because you haven't explained your bizarre charges in the slightest. Your claim that he's sexist is completely unsubstantiated, and he's actually good on gun control. He wasn't always as good, but he was never nearly as bad as Gillibrand was not so long ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 08:19
|
|
|
Gresh posted:I wouldn't be so sure about that. As much as I'd like to see Bernie run away with it this time resoundingly, remember its unlikely the last centrist/establishment democrat candidate standing against him this time will be nearly as problematic as Clinton was. Clinton was uniquely awful as both a candidate and campaigner. Bernie is gonna be up against an establishment darling that sounds like a human this time without as much baggage and is gonna have the backing of DNC, all of the MSM, and the russiagaters peddling bullshit that he's a Kremlin op or useful idiot for them. i think this too bernie is at his peak when in contrast to clinton some of these new contenders are unknown enough that people can just project whatever they want on to them bernie's gonna have to slog uphill for everything obviously he's my guy and i hope he wins, but i'm not sure he's going to find the kind of rampant support he did in 2016
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 08:27
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's because you haven't explained your bizarre charges in the slightest. Your claim that he's sexist is completely unsubstantiated, and he's actually good on gun control. He wasn't always as good, but he was never nearly as bad as Gillibrand was not so long ago. My claim that the culture around him is sexist isn’t unsubstantiated. Plenty of people writing about sanders are regularly attacked by Bernie bros, especially women. I’ve linked several twitter threads, which were not debunked but had something here or there that was cherry picked as a way of saying the overall points they made were bad, when they were not. The fact that people in This thread can’t see that a lot of voters in this country doesn’t want another old white dude running things for awhile is also telling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 08:29
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:My claim that the culture around him is sexist isn’t unsubstantiated. Plenty of people writing about sanders are regularly attacked by Bernie bros, especially women. I’ve linked several twitter threads, which were not debunked but had something here or there that was cherry picked as a way of saying the overall points they made were bad, when they were not. The fact that people in This thread can’t see that a lot of voters in this country doesn’t want another old white dude running things for awhile is also telling. Okay, so your argument has basically gone from "Bernie is an evil arrogant racist sexist!!!  " to "A small but vocal minority of his supporters are mean online," as if that were somehow peculiar to his campaign and his base of supporters.Do you see why what you're arguing is not particularly compelling? RaySmuckles posted:bernie is at his peak when in contrast to clinton Well, but this is really kind of a double-edged sword, isn't it? None of the centrist candidates or likely candidates have the level of legitimacy that Clinton supposedly had among her supporters, and that includes Biden. There's no obvious, inevitable candidate that pragmatists feel they need to automatically fall in line behind like there was in 2016. While Bernie's position this time around is a tradeoff compared to 2016 on a lot of levels, I think he's overall in a better position now. Majorian fucked around with this message at 08:46 on Jan 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 08:40
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Okay, so your argument has basically gone from "Bernie is an evil arrogant racist sexist!!! I never said he was evil. And if he ends up being the nominee, I’ll vote for him. But he’s not the golden boy this thread has a hard on for. As for actual sources to back up poo poo, here. https://medium.com/voluble/on-becoming-anti-bernie-ee87943ae699
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 08:45
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:I never said he was evil. And if he ends up being the nominee, I’ll vote for him. But he’s not the golden boy this thread has a hard on for. As for actual sources to back up poo poo, here. https://medium.com/voluble/on-becoming-anti-bernie-ee87943ae699 He's the compromise candidate 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 08:47
|
|
|
As a Jewish person, people calling Bernie “another old white guy” kinda irks me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 08:48
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:I never said he was evil. And if he ends up being the nominee, I’ll vote for him. But he’s not the golden boy this thread has a hard on for. As for actual sources to back up poo poo, here. https://medium.com/voluble/on-becoming-anti-bernie-ee87943ae699 Mmmmm yes, this seems like this was written in extremely good faith: quote:I went to his website, I went to Govtrack.us, I went to other sites examining his record to see how it squared up with his rhetoric. I tried to find unbiased articles assessing his tax policy, looking at how he would fund single payer (and what he meant by that) as well as “free college” and other promises he made. I looked at analyses on left-leaning blogs that have long advocated for universal health care to see what they thought, sites I respect and whose authors I have relied on for years for their basic objectivity within their admitted points of view. And I saw none who believed Sanders’ numbers added up. The best thing you can come up with is a half-assed thinkpiece from Medium wailing, "HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAAAAY FOR THIS?!" Really, dude?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 08:49
|
|
|
Voted for Joe, VP Stalin or Merkel
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 08:57
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:I did not find a link to the 50 million. I got it from a tweet and I’ll walk that back. Outer stuff I said folks in this thread that are defending Bernie haven’t actually addressed, and he’s poo poo on gun control. Also, He just voted no on Russian sanctions. He didn’t Endorse Clinton until far later than he should have. And the sexism issue with his campaign is something that if it doesn’t disqualify him this time around, should still be taken seriously. He voted no on sanctions that were tied to other sanctions he didn't agree with, super hosed up Also boo hoo he didn't endorse, like Clinton would have endorsed the hell king Bernard if he had won the primary
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 09:04
|
|
|
Hillary "I'm staying in because someone might kill obama for being black, think of how crazy people will go if a black man is the candidate or god forbid the president" Clinton does not have room to complain about anyone's behavior post primaries
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 09:06
|
|
|
The people who complain about Sanders staying too long in the primary fundamentally don't understand what he is trying to do. The point has always been to create a platform for leftists. Best example? Ny primary in 2016 happened in April, at a time he had nearly no chance anymore. But him staying and keeping his campaign going helped keep the volunteers engaged. Gee, i wonder if any Sanders volunteers from New York ever went on to create a campaign of her own...
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 09:10
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:My claim that the culture around him is sexist isn’t unsubstantiated. Plenty of people writing about sanders are regularly attacked by Bernie bros, especially women. I’ve linked several twitter threads, which were not debunked but had something here or there that was cherry picked as a way of saying the overall points they made were bad, when they were not. The fact that people in This thread can’t see that a lot of voters in this country doesn’t want another old white dude running things for awhile is also telling. I could link a bunch of Twitter threads of people attacking Sanders supporters and calling PoC Sanders supporters "white adjacent" and all sorts of other dumb poo poo but I won't because Twitter is not reflective of real life. Without some actual polling or other evidence showing that Bernie's supporters are more sexist than supporters of other candidates it's just a pointless exchange of anecdotes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 09:17
|
|
|
Super hosed up of bernie to vote against destroying Obama's crowning foreign policy achievement in the name of "RUSSIA  "
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 10:19
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:The people who complain about Sanders staying too long in the primary fundamentally don't understand what he is trying to do. The point has always been to create a platform for leftists. Best example? Ny primary in 2016 happened in April, at a time he had nearly no chance anymore. But him staying and keeping his campaign going helped keep the volunteers engaged. Gee, i wonder if any Sanders volunteers from New York ever went on to create a campaign of her own... No, see, they should have abased themselves - as befits their station - to the once and future candidate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 10:27
|
|
|
I can’t believe Harris is trying to pretend she wants criminal justice reform when she advocated for putting people in jail for truancy. Locking up more people for nonviolent behavior is the opposite of criminal justice reform
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 11:05
|
|
|
making the us prison system more unjust is a reform of a sort
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 11:16
|
|
|
Condiv posted:I can’t believe Harris is trying to pretend she wants criminal justice reform when she advocated for putting people in jail for truancy. Locking up more people for nonviolent behavior is the opposite of criminal justice reform Eh, her truancy program comes off as kind of good? So total prosecuted parents under the truancy law are hard to come by, but it looks like there were at least 2 in 2012, and 6 in the summer of 2008. So because no one gets into specifics, you were only prosecuted after your kids missed more then 50 days worth of school(out 180 total) and you failed mediation and intervention by judges and social workers who would connect you to programs like childcare assistance in order to help you out with whatever issues you had getting your kids to school. That year in 2008 she had over 1000 kids referred out of the to the initial intervention program to the DA, 6 convictions and 6 additional kids whos parents were are risk of being taken to trial. It’s hard to get specific examples of cases, but in at least one of the the ones in 2012, the mother in question failed to get her 2nd and 3rd grade kids to school for a total of 116 days between the two of them and was sentenced to 180 days in jail. Maybe the jail time was a tad much but if you can’t get your extremely young elementary age kids to school 32% of the time even after people reach out to help you, it seems like it was used as a stick for parents that were close to child endangerment territory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 11:38
|
|
|
freeasinbeer posted:Eh, her truancy program comes off as kind of good? jail time is not a proper solution for truancy so no it's not good. it's never a proper solution for truancy. it's not surprising that a prosecutor, who jails people like it's a bodily function, would reach for jail time as a solution to the truancy problem, but it's a poo poo solution and it lays bare her lie that she wants to enact criminal justice reform we already have a ton of people in jail for non-violent behavior that shouldn't have been criminalized in the first place or should be dealt with in a way that doesn't gently caress your life over like jail does trying to say you're in favor of criminal justice reform while jamming even more people in jail for stupid rear end reasons is idiotic
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 11:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 03:41 |
|
|
Condiv posted:jail time is not a proper solution for truancy so no it's not good. it's never a proper solution for truancy. it's not surprising that a prosecutor, who jails people like it's a bodily function, would reach for jail time as a solution to the truancy problem, but it's a poo poo solution and it lays bare her lie that she wants to enact criminal justice reform Prosecuting 6 caretakers for failing to get their kids to school over 50 days in a year after intervening in 1000+ cases seems like a significantly different story. And those interventions included social workers and judges who offered resources and help to families. That seems like an decent plan rather then just ignoring the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 11:58
|
|