|
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 | ||
|
Chilichimp posted:Hey Charlz... THROW YOUR IDEAS ABOUT WHO IS ELECTABLE BASED ON 60 YEAR OLD CAMPAIGNS OUT THE WINDOW. I don't see why when folks from 1920 were spot on H. L. Mencken posted:“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 06:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
I spent the last day reading through 800 posts in this thread. Cutting off baby wee wees was discussed 10x more than climate change. "climate" was mentioned 2 times in the last 800 posts. Is the green new deal just assumed to be happening? Is it an iron clad policy? What is problematic about it, besides requiring moving money from the military industrial complex (in the centrist and republican minds)?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 06:34
|
|
|
Ranter posted:I spent the last day reading through 800 posts in this thread. Cutting off baby wee wees was discussed 10x more than climate change. "climate" was mentioned 2 times in the last 800 posts. I don't think we have any climate change deniers in the thread but the baby cutters come out of the woodwork when circumcision gets brought up, so naturally there's more argument there. Also tbf neither topic is particularly primary related aside from Inslee's quixotic messaging campaign and Yang talkin' about wang. The Green New Deal is being debated and sooner or later the House will pass something that will die in the Senate. The biggest criticisms you'll probably hear about it is that it contains a bunch of social programs alongside the environmental stuff but these are criticisms launched by disingenuous morons who missed the words "New Deal" in the title of the bill and are conveniently ignoring what the original New Deal was all about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 06:51
|
|
|
fawning deference posted:The idea that everyone except Sanders doesn't give a poo poo about poverty is preposterous Not really, sadly. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 06:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Why are you pretending that the only kind of political communication is convincing people to your political side? Liberals are confused and irritated by materialist politics, they consider it an inherently dishonest cheat. Poor people are supposed to bow to their betters, not ask if they can please have a little bit more
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 06:57
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 07:54
|
|
|
fawning deference posted:The idea that everyone except Sanders doesn't give a poo poo about poverty is preposterous John Edwards entire identity was this before his outrageous and disgusting affair was revealed and his house became the symbol of empty-suit corruption.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 07:56
|
|
|
The mythical Bernie/Tulsi voter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 08:05
|
|
|
bird cooch posted:Yeah that doesn't change my support for Mayor Pete or my issues with Sanders at all. lol nobody cares.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 08:25
|
|
MrFlibble posted:Its probably a better strategy than the Clinton Classic of "well don't vote for her, she doesn't need your vote" And it forever will be a better strategy until Sanders wins the primary and loses the general. There's no way he can lose the primary without many believing there was a vast conspiracy against him. And that's I support him beyond the fact there aren't any better+viable candidates at this point. If the socialist can't beat Trump of all people then at least it'll disprove the notion that the the electorate is craving leftist policy. Otherwise we repeat this same tedious debate four years from now.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 09:45
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:And it forever will be a better strategy until Sanders wins the primary and loses the general. There's no way he can lose the primary without many believing there was a vast conspiracy against him. If the socialist can't beat Trump of all people and a leftist fundamentally can't win in America then that's not just it for a debate you find tedious, that's it for human civilization. There's no time for anything less.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 11:05
|
|
|
Every other candidate is either running off rich doners, doesn't want to help poor people get better healthcare, or made a career out of putting poor people in jail while allowing the rich or police to skate. I have no idea why you would think only Bernie cares about the poor. The fact that only Bernie Sanders and sort of Warren (she keeps waffling on medical care and people being bled dry for insulin is not sustainable) are really running a campaign centered around the interests of the vast majority of this country is an embarrassment and not something that should be flippantly hand waved away because its uncomfortable. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 11:49 on Mar 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 11:44
|
|
|
USA Today has Dems saying 55-35 they care more about victory than ideology. At this point, polls are more name-recognition than "lasting commitment". Trump is w/in the margin of error w/ every Dem except Biden. Usually w/ the economy as strong as it is, the incumbent would be stronger but he's a weaker-than-usual one w/ either a recession or a bombshell out of the Mueller report dragging him down. 50-50 I don't think there's as much foreign interference this time around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 11:57
|
|
|
Does the economy being "strong" really matter that much anymore when most of the effects of that are unseen outside of CNBC crowing about it? The economy was strong under Obama and his successor lost the election. I think incumbency matters but to me the stock market maintaining while cost of living and other every day expenses get higher and wages stagnating doesn't seem like it's really that helpful outside of people that are totally unaffected. That segment of the population is shrinking as millennials and gen z get older. I remember articles in 2013 of swing Obama voters (real independents that often flip based on how lovely their life is at the time) staying home or switch to vote Republican since they saw very little of the soaring economy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 12:19
|
|
|
SeANMcBAY posted:Not really, sadly. They care about poverty, just not in a good way
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 12:32
|
|
|
swampland posted:If the socialist can't beat Trump of all people and a leftist fundamentally can't win in America then that's not just it for a debate you find tedious, that's it for human civilization. There's no time for anything less. yeah i'm not entirely sure people get why folks are so gung ho for bernie. it isn't him, it's that we're hosed if someone who's generally moderate by global standards can't win here. because we're going to need changes unheard of in human history to avert catastrophic climate change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 14:02
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:https://twitter.com/scottbix/status/1109104520544563200 #Feel the Butt For real I have this feeling...I think Pete can do it
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 14:36
|
|
|
Radish posted:Does the economy being "strong" really matter that much anymore when most of the effects of that are unseen outside of CNBC crowing about it? The economy was strong under Obama and his successor lost the election. I think incumbency matters but to me the stock market maintaining while cost of living and other every day expenses get higher and wages stagnating doesn't seem like it's really that helpful outside of people that are totally unaffected. That segment of the population is shrinking as millennials and gen z get older. I remember articles in 2013 of swing Obama voters (real independents that often flip based on how lovely their life is at the time) staying home or switch to vote Republican since they saw very little of the soaring economy. It's possible this formula has less basis in reality today, since the gains of the economy are so inequitably distributed. I think the stock market does matter more for the GOP base than the Dem base though. I know quite a few GOP voters that are single issue voters, and that issue is: do I have more money? They've been turning on Trump over the trade war and the shut down hurting GDP, and also they mostly didn't like the result of the tax cut. The stock market is a big issue to the classic FYGM crowd. If you're a Democratic candidate though, good god, it's so obvious that a strong economic message wins here. No one is under the illusion that this poo poo works anymore. Even the FYGM folks know it's broken, it's just broken in their favor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 14:42
|
|
|
paternity suitor posted:#Feel the Butt Pete is probably the biggest establishment option I'm ok with. I hate his "I WAS A SOLDIER HERE'S MY THOUGHTS ON WHY GUNS BELONG IN SCHOOLS IN IRAQ BUT NOT AMERICA" thing but he seems most willing of them to work with the progressive wing and despite being The Ultimate Cop: A Soldier his political background is actually fine. Plus I genuinely think mayors/governors are waaaaaaaaaay more prepped for being president than senators/reps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 14:44
|
|
|
pete wants to stay in syria. . . thinks capitalism can be saved, skeptically supports the green new deal, and refuses to answer questions about reparations. . . wow!
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 15:08
|
|
|
Typo posted:basically part of the problem with a lot of the thinking on the left since roughly forever is that it's impossible for a poor person to have agency or lovely political views as a result of agency. And any failure for anyone making under $50,000 a year or w/e for faling to conform with <insert political opinion here> is only because of capitalist conspiracies brainwashing them or w/e. As Kobayashi say, it's a very simple narrative and you get the fun of engaging in a good vs evil Manichean struggle along class lines. Conveniently, it also allows you to speak "for the people". It's just that this view is wrong and a loving 5 minute conversation with a Trump voter who isn't rich will tell you that right away.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 15:10
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:Pete is probably the biggest establishment option I'm ok with. I hate his "I WAS A SOLDIER HERE'S MY THOUGHTS ON WHY GUNS BELONG IN SCHOOLS IN IRAQ BUT NOT AMERICA" thing but he seems most willing of them to work with the progressive wing and despite being The Ultimate Cop: A Soldier his political background is actually fine. Yeah. I'm not sold on wanting him in the White House, but I am sold on wanting him on the debate stage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 15:17
|
|
|
MrFlibble posted:Its probably a better strategy than the Clinton Classic of "well don't vote for her, she doesn't need your vote" It's never going to cease to amaze me the number of people who, even three years into the Trump presidency, will rush breathlessly into this thread and brag about how they didn't vote for Hillary, thereby helping to usher in this administration in some small way. "Hahaaaaaaaaa. I owned you. You have been owned. I read something a smug person said somewhere and it kept me away from the polls, so hahHAH! LOL! Burn! I showed you real good. You have been owned!" Like... okay, man. edit: "OWNAGE!" Chilichimp fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Mar 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
Pulcinella di Bund posted:pete wants to stay in syria. . . thinks capitalism can be saved, skeptically supports the green new deal, and refuses to answer questions about reparations. . . So he does support the GND then, though? I don't know enough about him I suppose but from what I've read from the two primary threads he seems to be a little to the right of Warren with some hawkish tendencies. He is also impressively bright.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 15:22
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:https://twitter.com/scottbix/status/1109104520544563200 "We had a goal to raise some money and we raised that sum a few days early." *mic drop*
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 15:23
|
|
|
ELO Musk posted:So he does support the GND then, though? I don't know enough about him I suppose but from what I've read from the two primary threads he seems to be a little to the right of Warren with some hawkish tendencies. He is also impressively bright. to the right of Warren(who is very bad) and hawkish tendencies, is a disaster. put him and beto and all of them in the debates so we can see how awful their policies really are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 15:24
|
|
|
It's loving insane to me how many people have convinced themselves Warren is awful when she's running to the left of 2016 Sanders. She has some problems but her opinions and proposals have mostly been great. Bernie can be better without Warren being bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 15:30
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:It's loving insane to me how many people have convinced themselves Warren is awful when she's running to the left of 2016 Sanders. She has some problems but her opinions and proposals have mostly been great. ...but... she's a nerd?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:It's loving insane to me how many people have convinced themselves Warren is awful when she's running to the left of 2016 Sanders. She has some problems but her opinions and proposals have mostly been great. to the left except for the part where she equivocates on M4A, wants sanctions on NK, voting for the increase in the military budget... Not to mention very recent conversions, like changing her stance on school vouchers and free college. Warren is a fine 2nd option. But the idea that she is better than Bernie for the left is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 15:48
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:yeah i'm not entirely sure people get why folks are so gung ho for bernie. it isn't him, it's that we're hosed if someone who's generally moderate by global standards can't win here. because we're going to need changes unheard of in human history to avert catastrophic climate change. How good is Trump's second term going to be for countering climate change?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
smg77 posted:How good is Trump's second term going to be for countering climate change? Any candidate who can't be trusted to implement massive scale green infrastructure campaign is exactly the same level of bad on the environment. Baby steps are literally the same as nothing at this point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 16:07
|
|
|
AOC put it pretty well a little while ago that climate change deniers and people saying "hmm I believe it exists but maybe we should do baby steps that doesn't interfere with anything" result in the same exact thing and one isn't really any better than the other. Liberals say they want to fix problems but they want to do it in a way that doesn't make a single rich person unhappy and that's fantastically more unrealistic and not "sensible" as anything she or Sanders is proposing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 16:20
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Any candidate who can't be trusted to implement massive scale green infrastructure campaign is exactly the same level of bad on the environment. Baby steps are literally the same as nothing at this point. If your response is to the current climate crisis is "hrmm... maybe we can incentivize businesses to pollute less with some tax credits???" then you are most likely not serious on the issue and are just trying to disperse energy into projects that won't challenge big business interests. People like that are not just weak allies but active enemies of progress who turn full MAGA chud the nanosecond serious reform looks likely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 16:20
|
|
|
I can't wait to see what excuses/conspiracy theories the Bernie people come up with to justify his losing this time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 16:24
|
|
|
IMO the argument being made here isn't that an environmental moderate like a GND-skeptical Dem and someone who actively wants to destroy the world like Trump are equally bad in the short term, it's more about momentum. Currently we are hurtling rightward culturally and economically with no signs of slowing, with climate science skepticism being part of that cultural shift. Another term of Trump will be another 4 years of that rightward trend. A term of Biden or Beto, or any other moderate, will slow that momentum but they cannot stop it so long as they are convinced of the goodness of capitalism and their Republican colleagues. Only a broad left movement has a hope of turning back the clock of that rightward shift even a little - it has to be one that is utterly antagonistic towards the right. The point is not helping Bernie win so he can fix everything, because he won't - the point is proving those ideas can win elections, retaking momentum, and ideally making it harder for Republicans to win in the future. A Democrat winning in 2020 means gently caress all if the next President after him is a Republican - I would argue that enfranchising more people, ending gerrymandering, and court stacking are the most urgent issues we're currently facing, because without them meaningful, lasting climate policy doesn't even have a glimmer of hope.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 16:25
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Any candidate who can't be trusted to implement massive scale green infrastructure campaign is exactly the same level of bad on the environment. Baby steps are literally the same as nothing at this point. Not saying we don't need massive and immediate reform, but pretending that keeping us on track for the 2° disaster is no different from the assholes demanding that we just floor this bitch and get on track for 4° is silly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
bird cooch posted:I can't wait to see what excuses/conspiracy theories the Bernie people come up with to justify his losing this time. There will be none. Because Bernie will win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:There will be none. Because Bernie will win. Not unless y'all figure out how a zero-sum game works. Because right now you are going to lose because you still don't understand how this works. Even worse, this year it's not going to be a one-on-one and O'Malley competition. bird cooch fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Mar 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 16:30
|
|
|
bird cooch posted:Not unless y'all figure out how a zero-sum game works. Because right now you are going to lose because you still don't understand how this works. Even worse this year it's not going to be a one-on-one and O'Malley competition. "Ok time for some game theory" 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 16:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
bird cooch posted:Not unless y'all figure out how a zero-sum game works. Because right now you are going to lose because you still don't understand how this works. Even worse this year it's not going to be a one-on-one and O'Malley competition. Oh ok well then your victory is assured, sit back and relax
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2019 16:35
|
|