|
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 | ||
|
Gyges posted:Being a truther isn't going to come up in the debate. I don't know why we're suddenly indulging in the fantasy that it might. Neither Gravel being a truther nor Kucinish believing in alien abductions came up in the 2008 debates. I dunno, there's a pretty big difference in the way that kind of information spreads now compared to 2008. A lot more people would be aware of it, and I can't imagine it not coming up as a question during one of the debates, should he make it.
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 19:02 |
|
|
Meanwhile, Howard Schultz continues to be complete garbage: https://twitter.com/mikememoli/status/1116095483452239876
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Meanwhile, Howard Schultz continues to be complete garbage: Has Schultz met the threshold for the debates?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
I see that I missed truther chat. My take is that he’s never going to be president and I don’t actually want him to be president but I do want him on that stage to rip into Biden so him being a truther isn’t very relevant to that. If Bernie was a truther this would be a very different calculus imo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2019 23:36
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Has Schultz met the threshold for the debates? He's running as an Independent so I doubt he'd qualify anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2019 23:37
|
|
|
I do find it heartening that the best the billionaire class can throw at us is Schultz and Zuckerberg. If those are their best and brightest then there's definitely hope.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2019 23:45
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1116109538787303430 God, Nate Silver is a bad pundit. He's a good data person, but yeesh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2019 23:48
|
|
|
the guy crushing harris in polling is second tier lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2019 23:58
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted:https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1116109538787303430 https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1116111559070236673
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 00:01
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Here's the thing, though. In 2008, he bagged a whopping 0.9% of the votes in the Iowa caucus. If "association with Obama" was really enough to bump someone's performance from 0.9% to 25+%, then the Dems probably wouldn't have done so poorly in the ten years following Obama's election. If the best thing he's got going for him is "not personally popular, but spent several years standing next to someone who was personally popular", then I'm not really sweating over his chances. But like these things don't happen in a vacuum. In a hypothetical 2020 primary where Biden was running against Obama, he'd also be pulling single-digits (as would Bernie). Like the whole reason he's pulling 25-30% now is due to a lack of serious contenders in the rest of the field (outside of Bernie, who's targeting a whole different lane). Like, I agree with the conclusion that Biden is gonna flame out, I just feel like this is a weird way to approach it. Hillary lost in 08 but then won in 16. The circumstances of the race change, so past failure isn't guarantee of current failure. oh gently caress are we going to have to revisit which one is the Good Nate and which one is the Bad Nate?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 00:07
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Has Schultz met the threshold for the debates? He's not running in the dem primary so don't see why he should be invited.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 00:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/newrepublic/status/1115977836765110272
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 00:08
|
|
|
I don't think anyone's in denial about his popularity, I just think there's a lot of disagreement as far as why he's as popular as he is and whether he'll remain that popular.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 00:15
|
|
|
Son of Thunderbeast posted:I don't think anyone's in denial about his popularity, I just think there's a lot of disagreement as far as why he's as popular as he is and whether he'll remain that popular. The denial is in thinking that it won't last.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 00:17
|
|
|
Biden is so singularly unfit to be president in this time period and for the challenges we face but the electorate is EASILY clueless enough for him to win the primary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 00:17
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Biden is so singularly unfit to be president in this time period and for the challenges we face but the electorate is EASILY clueless enough for him to win the primary. Goddamnit why can't this loving dinosaur just go away and let us move on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 00:21
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:The denial is in thinking that it won't last. He's our last two term democratic vice-president yet only has slightly better numbers than a self described democratic socialist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 00:24
|
|
|
This should have been obvious? All the demographic data that exists shows fairly conclusively that most democrats don't follow the lead of the Super Online Twitter Stars that people in this thread, bizarrely, seem to think speak for the majority of the party. The idea that, I dont even know what to call it, awkward but non-sexual touching? was going to destroy Biden's candidacy by proving once and for all he was despicable sexmonster was always wishful thinking. I mean he's Joe Biden so he'll still probably find some way to blow this, but there's definitely a faction in the party that WANTS "centrist" policies. We're going to have to sell some of those people on the merits of progressive policies, and not dismiss them as worthless neoliberal shitheads or whatever, if those policies are ever going to be enacted. You can't purge centrists from a party that's probably 50-60% moderates and expect to win enough seats to enact a progressive agenda. It's just impossible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 00:24
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:Goddamnit why can't this loving dinosaur just go away and let us move on. The rest of the centrists in the field are going to (politically, metaphorically) carve him into little pieces if he jumps into the race. Then he'll go away. Gnumonic posted:This should have been obvious? All the demographic data that exists shows fairly conclusively that most democrats don't follow the lead of the Super Online Twitter Stars that people in this thread, bizarrely, seem to think speak for the majority of the party. The idea that, I dont even know what to call it, awkward but non-sexual touching? was going to destroy Biden's candidacy by proving once and for all he was despicable sexmonster was always wishful thinking. This is not what people here have been saying would destroy his candidacy. We've been saying that A, his super-racist record as a legislator, B, his super-sexist record as a legislator, C, his super-pro-Wall Street record as a legislator, and especially D, his penchant for saying really stupid things that alienate voters, will tank his candidacy. Majorian fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Apr 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 00:25
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:But like these things don't happen in a vacuum. In a hypothetical 2020 primary where Biden was running against Obama, he'd also be pulling single-digits (as would Bernie). Like the whole reason he's pulling 25-30% now is due to a lack of serious contenders in the rest of the field (outside of Bernie, who's targeting a whole different lane). Hillary spent eight years winning establishment support and clearing the field, and even then she still had serious trouble against a nobody who hadn't been planning to run. Now Bernie is the one with years of preparation under his belt, while Biden seems to be worse off than Hillary ever was. You say there's a lack of serious contenders, but there's tons of contenders who seem more serious than Biden. At the very least. Are you really suggesting that the only reason Biden is doing so well is because the other candidates are historically weak? theblackw0lf posted:The denial is in thinking that it won't last. Ultimately, no one knows until it actually happens. But so far, every argument I've seen saying he'll win has fallen into the same "well, everyone knows that ACTUALLY Americans love moderate Republicans and hate liberals and leftists, so the only possible course for the Dem party to take is a sharp rightward turn" argument.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 00:26
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Ultimately, no one knows until it actually happens. But so far, every argument I've seen saying he'll win has fallen into the same "well, everyone knows that ACTUALLY Americans love moderate Republicans and hate liberals and leftists, so the only possible course for the Dem party to take is a sharp rightward turn" argument. Plus if people of color and women are the future of the Democratic Party, that's a real problem for Biden, given his record. They're not going to like him for very long once Harris, Booker, Gillibrand, etc, start hammering him on school busing, Anita Hill, and the rest of his terrible record.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 00:31
|
|
|
if this loving guy is the nominee, i'll vote locally and just write GRAVEL in the other candidate spot for president thanks Michigan
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 00:32
|
|
|
Gnumonic posted:This should have been obvious? All the demographic data that exists shows fairly conclusively that most democrats don't follow the lead of the Super Online Twitter Stars that people in this thread, bizarrely, seem to think speak for the majority of the party. The idea that, I dont even know what to call it, awkward but non-sexual touching? was going to destroy Biden's candidacy by proving once and for all he was despicable sexmonster was always wishful thinking. Yeah when I sniff women's hair it's totally non-sexual. "Moderates" lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 00:32
|
|
|
I didn't vote for HRC and I won't vote for Biden.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 00:41
|
|
|
Zikan posted:This presumed strategy is at odds with her fundraising model though. I thought her finance director quit because she refused to take big donor money?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 00:42
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ChangePolls/status/1116123496877371393 I know that's within the margin of error and it's still early, but seeing Bernie on top in CA is very promising.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1116101473811750912
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 00:48
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:https://twitter.com/ChangePolls/status/1116123496877371393 Including Biden. Holy poo poo that's cool. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 00:48
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:https://twitter.com/ChangePolls/status/1116123496877371393 Cory Booker almost falling below Julian Castro in the polls is probably the funniest thing I'll see all week
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Hillary spent eight years winning establishment support and clearing the field, and even then she still had serious trouble against a nobody who hadn't been planning to run. Now Bernie is the one with years of preparation under his belt, while Biden seems to be worse off than Hillary ever was. You say there's a lack of serious contenders, but there's tons of contenders who seem more serious than Biden. At the very least. Are you really suggesting that the only reason Biden is doing so well is because the other candidates are historically weak? Er, no, I think he's doing well because the serious threats to him haven't begun campaigning in earnest and the primary hasn't really started yet. I'm just saying I think Biden's past failures aren't predictive because the situation is meaningfully different in multiple ways from his previous campaigns, in ways that are generally advantageous to him. Gnumonic posted:This should have been obvious? All the demographic data that exists shows fairly conclusively that most democrats don't follow the lead of the Super Online Twitter Stars that people in this thread, bizarrely, seem to think speak for the majority of the party. The idea that, I dont even know what to call it, awkward but non-sexual touching? was going to destroy Biden's candidacy by proving once and for all he was despicable sexmonster was always wishful thinking. I think there's absolutely truth that a LOT of the Dem electorate are in fact centrists/moderates, and that's worth acknowledging; I think the breakdown is probably something like 40-60 leftists-centrists in the most optimistic case. I think in any pure heads-up race between Bernie and Establishment Candidate, Bernie loses. But that's not what's happening in 2020, and more importantly, there's significant division within centrists. Your average 60-year-old rural white boomer man and your 35-year-old-Asian-urban woman might both not support Bernie, but they also very likely support different candidates from each other. Which is where Bernie has his best in. Majorian posted:Plus if people of color and women are the future of the Democratic Party, that's a real problem for Biden, given his record. They're not going to like him for very long once Harris, Booker, Gillibrand, etc, start hammering him on school busing, Anita Hill, and the rest of his terrible record. Yeah. The real threat to Biden is Harris, who (along with to a lesser degree Mayor Pete) consistently beats her name recognition in the polls (i.e., when people learn about her, they like her). I think she's going to peel a lot of suburban women/older black voters off the centrist bloc, and I don't think Biden has a winning coalition without those.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 00:50
|
|
|
Is there a chance that people like Kamala, Beto, Amy Klonuchar etc band behind Biden instead to make him the heads up candidate against Bernie?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 00:53
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:Is there a chance that people like Kamala, Beto, Amy Klonuchar etc band behind Biden instead to make him the heads up candidate against Bernie? Absolutely not. The most defining trait of all those folks is their sociopathic ambition and they absolutely will not sacrifice themselves to boost Biden.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:Is there a chance that people like Kamala, Beto, Amy Klonuchar etc band behind Biden instead to make him the heads up candidate against Bernie? Some of the no-hopers like Klobuchar/Gillibrand/Inslee? Maaaaaybe (but very unlikely), but someone who's actually serious like Kamala or Beto? Hell no, they both are in it to win it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 01:00
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Some of the no-hopers like Klobuchar/Gillibrand/Inslee? Maaaaaybe (but very unlikely), but someone who's actually serious like Kamala or Beto? Hell no, they both are in it to win it. You might even say Beto was born to be in it
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 01:13
|
|
|
Beto is %100 running to gently caress volunteer groupies. When he says "I just gotta be in it" he is referring to strange
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 01:15
|
|
|
When a Senator looks in a mirror they see a future president looking back at them, and at this point that also applies to reality TV stars and no-name House reps so don't expect any of these people to actually drop before they're out of money. Their egos won't allow it.AlBorlantern Corps posted:Beto is %100 running to gently caress volunteer groupies. When he says "I just gotta be in it" he is referring to strange Finally a platform the people can understand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 01:18
|
|
|
AlBorlantern Corps posted:Beto is %100 running to gently caress volunteer groupies. When he says "I just gotta be in it" he is referring to strange I mean, that's what I'd do if I was Buttigieg.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 01:23
|
|
|
Beto is less excited at the prospect of winning the presidency than about the daydream that there might be a movie made about his life some day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 01:25
|
|
|
On the other hand https://twitter.com/ShaneGoldmacher/status/1116102502070534150 Buttigieg putting up some of his best numbers yet in New Hampshire
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 01:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 19:02 |
|
|
Really eager to see the complete and total cratering of ButtChug's poll numbers once he's not plastered on every TV talk show in existence every day. If that ever happens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2019 01:43
|
|