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 |
|
Ytlaya posted:Yeah - I consider my dad to be kind of a proxy for boomer liberals in general, and he likes Biden and got angry at me for suggesting that perhaps Biden was not good (it was apparently rude to suggest he's bad politically because his son died). He disliked Hillary in 2016 and supported Sanders in that primary, though I think that's due to sexism (not so much in the sense of viewing Hillary negatively because she's a woman, but in the sense of being willing to overlook bad things about Biden because he's an older man). Yeah, my parents are similar, although I think I've gotten them on the Bernie train because they want Trump out of office more than anything in the world and I've convinced them that Bernie's the guy to do it.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 18:28 |
|
|
# ? Jun 12, 2024 22:17 |
|
https://twitter.com/OurRev305/status/1119248986962059266
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 18:33 |
|
The thing about Biden is that he can only fall. His base of support is clear (older Dems), but his extremely high name recognition also means his share of the vote is largely speaking fixed. He's in the Jeb/Guliani slot where the same thing that gives him early strength (name recognition) is also his vulnerability (everyone who likes him already likes him). Could he make it through the primaries? Potentially, sure. But there's a million landmines he has to navigate to do that, and his vote share is nowhere near high enough that he can just weather them ala Clinton. I maintain Harris is the real threat, in that she's in the opposite position: she's third or fourth in most polls, but her name recognition is still pretty low, and she is one of the few candidates who consistently over-performs it. In other words, when voters learn about Harris, they like her, and a whole lot of voters don't know about Harris yet. I mean, this is both true, but also sort of meaningless insofar as it's based on previous primaries. The entire Bernie gamble is that the primaries in 2020 will have a much higher-than-usual turnout of people under 55. If they don't, he's in big trouble, but if they do, then Biden's not viable. redneck nazgul posted:Kirsten Gillibrand. She has the experience, the vision, and that something that will cause a diverse electorate to vote for her. She will lag behind for a while, and then move up the ranks as the higher profile primary candidates drop away. She is in a quiet phase now, securing money and behind-the-scenes support. She will surge later. Or not, but I’ll still support her until she drops out. Maybe one of only a dozen Gillibrand supporters around this joint, but whatev. lmao Gillibrand's brilliant strategy of securing money (less than Klobuchar and Booker, not to even mention the actual big dogs), getting behind-the-scenes support (all of those endorsements for... other candidates), and polling behind Yang in most polls. Z. Autobahn fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Apr 19, 2019 |
# ? Apr 19, 2019 18:34 |
|
I’m absolutely floored that Biden has no campaign or money and is also getting in super late. What the hell.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 18:35 |
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I’m absolutely floored that Biden has no campaign or money and is also getting in super late. What the hell. yeah i figured the delay was him getting all the donors and infrastructure set up.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 18:36 |
|
I’ll be curious how the big money donors act with him. Apparently a lot of them seem to support Harris.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 18:43 |
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I’ll be curious how the big money donors act with him. Apparently a lot of them seem to support Harris. Plus, ya know, not setting up infrastructure or getting donors in line already does not exactly help investor confidence... Yeah, I hope Biden steps in and self-destructs spectacularly. I'd probably sleep easier if he didn't step in at all, but still.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 18:50 |
|
Helsing posted:Why? Biden is the former Vice President of the most popular living Democrat. That's more than enough to make him the nostalgia candidate. Is Mondale still alive? Because I think he holds that title.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 18:50 |
|
VideoGameVet posted:Is Mondale still alive? Because I think he holds that title. He is indeed. He was relatively young as VP (by which I mean under 50 when he came into office); I hadn't realized that.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 18:51 |
|
mcmagic posted:I continue to think that very online leftists very much underestimate Biden's appeal to a lot of D voters who just want Obama back and for things to be normal. The same D voters who are angry a woman is not leading? The same ones who want a young person? The same ones who want a minority? They're split.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 18:53 |
|
Judakel posted:The same D voters who are angry a woman is not leading? The same ones who want a young person? The same ones who want a minority? They're split. There's an argument to be made that a lot of those voters are only half-sincere when they insist on a female, POC, and/or young candidate. I think it's a mistake to assume that's the case with most or all of them, though. (not that mcmagic or anyone else here is making that argument, to be clear)
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 18:56 |
|
VitalSigns posted:lol no. The German Empire was not in any sense a "democratically elected government" and there was no democratically-chosen form of government after the Kaiser abdicated, the Imperial Reichstag just took power into its own hands. Ebert specifically did not want to allow the Germans to choose their new form of government because Germany would have gone commie. That's why he struck a deal with military instead of holding elections, and of course the Spartacists didn't try to overthrow Ebert's unelected government until his troops started murdering them, so ya know it's a little weird to hand-wring about people you're shooting shooting back. That's not completely accurate. Ebert's SPD was the majority party that had remained from before the start of WWI. Ebert led the "revolution" against the Monarchy, attempting to institute a constitutionalist state along American lines (which had its own major downsides later on in Weimar history). The SPD always intended to hold elections and they were held right around the time the crack-down on the Spartacists started. In January of 1919, the various centrist parties managed to win an overwhelming majority of the National Assembly. If they had been unpopular, they probably wouldn't have carried the vote. And yes, one of the major demands by the Spartacists was the replacement of the current German republic and the establishment of worker's councils without a general election first. The Spartacists were divided between revolutionaries and reformers, but by late 1918 they were already occupying government buildings in Berlin. Ebert made a devil's bargain with the German military and the results of that bargain was the Kapp Putsch, but he was faced with an existential challenge from both the left and the right, not just a political one. Again, not a particularly straightforward narrative about the popular left vs. an unpopular center. VitalSigns posted:Sure, and that was really my point, that the USSR had reasons for doing what it did, and while you can point to any number of grievous errors by Stalin, they had good reasons not to trust the SPD even if ultimately it would have been in the best interests of both sides to work together. Those reasons were all based on a shallow reading of the SPD (which wasn't a monolith and wasn't just Ebert) and on the shallow analysis that social-welfare capitalism was a greater evil than Nazism (because Nazism was a petit-bourgeois rebellion against capitalism and couldn't last very long, you see, etc). Its easy to flip this argument and say that the SPD's errors don't justify the USSR's decision to literally fuel the Nazi war machine until '41. VitalSigns posted:One other nitpick, Hindenberg wasn't technically a Nazi only in the same way Trump isn't technically a Nazi (too low-brow for a high-society type like him). He wasn't a card-carrying Party member, but he was still a far right psycho who spent the entire interwar period spreading the stab-in-the-back myth, blaming Jews, democrats, socialists, etc for losing the war. Yes, this was pretty much my point. By the time 1932 had rolled around, there weren't many electoral options besides a sundowning Dolchstosslegend-spreading idiot (Trump) and Hitler. The SPD didn't support him out of any kind of approval of his policies. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 19:01 |
|
Majorian posted:There's an argument to be made that a lot of those voters are only half-sincere when they insist on a female, POC, and/or young candidate. I think it's a mistake to assume that's the case with most or all of them, though. (not that mcmagic or anyone else here is making that argument, to be clear) I think there is a lot of bitterness, and it is going to harm the people who stand for nothing solid the most. Sanders is the only candidate that has a stable, consistent base of support.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 19:03 |
|
Majorian posted:Plus, ya know, not setting up infrastructure or getting donors in line already does not exactly help investor confidence... if your desired outcome is a sanders nomination, biden needs to stay in long enough to eat up enough support from the rest of the centrist field before imploding
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 19:05 |
|
Majorian posted:There's an argument to be made that a lot of those voters are only half-sincere when they insist on a female, POC, and/or young candidate. I think it's a mistake to assume that's the case with most or all of them, though. (not that mcmagic or anyone else here is making that argument, to be clear) IDK, I feel like almost all the people I see making this argument are pretty consistently backing Harris/Warren/Pete/Beto, who hit at least some of those milestones. The Biden backers are a whole different group.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 19:06 |
|
You're making the whole "liberals hate socialists more than fascists" thing a bit too on the nose here.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 19:15 |
|
This is really good https://twitter.com/onlxn/status/1119285552551841792
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 19:21 |
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I’m absolutely floored that Biden has no campaign or money and is also getting in super late. What the hell. I’m starting to think he won’t actually enter the race because he knows he’ll get #metoo’d into the stratosphere on day 1. That or he’s waiting to see if the first wave of accusations has a long term effect on his pol numbers. Either way I’m really not getting the vibe of someone serious about being president.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 19:28 |
|
Z. Autobahn posted:IDK, I feel like almost all the people I see making this argument are pretty consistently backing Harris/Warren/Pete/Beto, who hit at least some of those milestones. The Biden backers are a whole different group. I think that's probably largely true, although I have seen a couple formerly "NO MORE WHITE MEN!!!" types on Twitter switch to "Oh wait actually Pete/Beto are good."
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 19:29 |
|
Majorian posted:I think that's probably largely true, although I have seen a couple formerly "NO MORE WHITE MEN!!!" types on Twitter switch to "Oh wait actually Pete/Beto are good." Yeah, I'd say that the most common framing I've seen is "no more old, white*, men", with any one of those three qualities being replaced considered permissible *yes Bernie is jewish, I know this, we're talking about other people's framing
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 19:37 |
|
Z. Autobahn posted:Yeah, I'd say that the most common framing I've seen is "no more old, white*, men", with any one of those three qualities being replaced considered permissible It still strikes me as really weird that being a member of the ethnic group which has been more brutally oppressed in the past 100 years than any other ethnic group just sorta doesn't count for anything anymore, cuz hey, on the surface Jews look kinda white*. And it's not like people have stopped shooting up loving synagogues... *Except for all the middle eastern Jews who, you know, don't at all.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 19:42 |
|
Gnumonic posted:It still strikes me as really weird that being a member of the ethnic group which has been more brutally oppressed in the past 100 years than any other ethnic group just sorta doesn't count for anything anymore, cuz hey, on the surface Jews look kinda white*. And it's not like people have stopped shooting up loving synagogues... I mean, speaking as a Jew, ethnic identity *is* complicated, insofar as it's an arbitrary classification system and Judaism doesn't mesh well with the framework, especially when we talk about privilege. For example, a black Jew is, undeniably, both black and a Jew, so the argument could be made that a white Jew is both white and a Jew. I've definitely benefited from white privilege my whole life; I've also had to deal with anti-semitism. It's complicated and messy and exposes the underpinnings of why "race" is ultimately an arbitrary construct.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 19:45 |
|
Biden probably has not reached his ceiling. He can expect a bounce from his announcement. Also, Morning Consult polling suggests that if Harris, Beto, Buttigieg, or Sanders implodes, Biden would be the main beneficiary. Also, let's not discount the possibility of the non-Bernie wing of the party consolidating around Biden if Biden wins some early states. But let's say for the sake of argument that Biden were at his ceiling. Even then his moderate, Boomer base could net him a plurality of the pledged delegates—let's say roughly 30%—on the first DNC ballot, and Biden would then go on to win the second ballot, including with superdelegates. Let's keep in mind that Biden's older voters are the demographic most likely to vote in a primary. Or if Biden's main opposition, Bernie, goes to the convention with a small plurality and Biden is right behind him then Biden still wins. In that scenario Harris, Beto, Buttigieg, and Booker delegates plus superdelegates could and would put Biden over the top on some ballot after the first. Now would that tear the party apart and advantage Trump in the general? Of course. But the cohort in charge of the Democratic Party would get to keep its control over that party rather than ceding it to Berners, and if anyone doesn't think their maintained control is paramount to them then we have drastically different reads on politics and institutional psychology. My point is that assuming Bernie remains Biden's main opposition, then Biden would actually have to implode in order to lose the nomination, not just narrowly lose the delegate horse race. Some posts here have addressed the possibility of a Biden implosion with a comparison to Jeb/Guiliani, but that comparison doesn't hold imo. Guiliani couldn't win IA or NH so he pretended momentum didn't matter and focused on Florida instead. Then early state results cut into Guiliani's national numbers. In contrast, Biden is polling well in IA and NH. As for Jeb, he was a conventional politician at a time when Republican voters and the far-right media backbone wanted a rude overtly bigoted celebrity with no experience to wreck Washington. Biden on the other hand will benefit from a corporate media who is afraid of Sanders and from a plurality of the party that just wants to beat Trump and get back to normal. Biden's past conservativism will be seen by those same groups as a mature and moderating influence, his gaffes small compared to Trump, and his chastising of millenials meat for the Boomer base. The debates hardly seem to have the potential to change this, because all Biden has to do is play to his existing base. He's got this thing locked up, I wish I was wrong.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 20:10 |
|
VideoGameVet posted:Is Mondale still alive? Because I think he holds that title. Yes, he has endorsed Klobuchar.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 20:11 |
|
From Biden's perspective this is a great time to jump into the race because the party establishment is just starting to really freak out over Bernie's momentum and Biden can offer himself up as the only candidate capable of beating Bernie. That pitch might also help paper over his lack of campaign infrastructure.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 20:18 |
|
Typo posted:she won the primaries iirc, if we are talking about the ge you might have a point. But we are talking about Biden's 2020's appeal among D primary voters Against: A former republican, the mayor from The Wire, and a guy who was a Democrat just long enough to run a protest campaign that ended up winning 20 states. That last guy thinks he has a chance this time around, and uh, is currently the clear front runner.* *Offer not valid in primaries containing Biden.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 20:20 |
|
Armack posted:Biden probably has not reached his ceiling. He can expect a bounce from his announcement. Also, Morning Consult polling suggests that if Harris, Beto, Buttigieg, or Sanders implodes, Biden would be the main beneficiary. Also, let's not discount the possibility of the non-Bernie wing of the party consolidating around Biden if Biden wins some early states. While you echo a lot of my fears, one thing that might save us is that Iowa is a Caucus, so it's a social gathering focused on generating enthusiasm for your candidate, and honestly I just don't see Biden successful in that kind of setting. Honestly I think he'll be lucky to get second. Another thing is that a campaign is only as good as its staff, and a lot of the top staff have already been gobbled up by other candidates.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 20:22 |
|
Armack posted:The debates hardly seem to have the potential to change this, because all Biden has to do is play to his existing base. He's got this thing locked up, I wish I was wrong. The race is still extraordinarily fluid; see Buttigieg shooting up from 1% to 10% in a week. And the reason it's fluid is because early polling is overwhelmingly dominated by name recognition. The threat to Biden from the debates isn't that he explodes (though he well might), it's that the voting public at large will be introduced to many Biden alternatives who they previously didn't know about and who they realize they like more than him. Both Harris and Butt consistently beat their name recognition by far more than Biden, for example, and both stand hugely to the exposure to a national audience they have yet to gain, and both target a large percentage of the 'establishment base' that is currently backing Biden.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 20:23 |
|
Z. Autobahn posted:I mean, speaking as a Jew, ethnic identity *is* complicated, insofar as it's an arbitrary classification system and Judaism doesn't mesh well with the framework, especially when we talk about privilege. For example, a black Jew is, undeniably, both black and a Jew, so the argument could be made that a white Jew is both white and a Jew. I've definitely benefited from white privilege my whole life; I've also had to deal with anti-semitism. It's complicated and messy and exposes the underpinnings of why "race" is ultimately an arbitrary construct. That's totally fair. I guess I should have said: It's weird as gently caress to me that Bernie gets labeled as "another white guy" whereas mayor Pete, due to his sexuality, somehow doesn't count as that, when it's likely they've both benefited from white privilege AND faced discrimination. I mean, I don't think people saying that are saying it in good faith, and I mostly hear that sentiment from wealthy "liberals" who instinctively oppose Bernie out of motivated reasoning. Though, in an academic context, at least, it's pretty common to employ "shared history of oppression" as the most significant criterion for identifying a disadvantaged group, and it's pretty unambiguously clear that Jews qualify under that standard. (I might be biased; I'm not Jewish but probably 2/3 of my close friend and colleagues have been, and it's been stunning to me just how much antisemitism there is in 21st century America. My dissertation advisor was a super religious, but also super progressive and anti-Israel Jew who would wear a yarmulke every day and there were a few times where people would walk up to him on the street when he was with his family and call him a kike. In loving San Francisco... Obviously it's not the same thing as anti-black racism but when he would express fear for his family's safety it seemed pretty justifiable to me.)
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 20:24 |
|
HootTheOwl posted:Against: A former republican, the mayor from The Wire, and a guy who was a Democrat just long enough to run a protest campaign that ended up winning 20 states. in polling during D primaries 2016: the most effective Hillary tactic vs Bernie in appealing to primary voters was by "hugging" Obama Obama has sky high approvals among Democrats and when polled on what kind of Democrat they are (including labels like moderate, liberal, conservative etc) the most common response was "obama democrat" basically I think way too much of this thread projects their own disillusion with Obama onto the primary electorate as a whole, most primary voters don't care about liberalism vs socialist or w/e that DnD posters care about. Hugging Obama is extremely effective tactic even if you think it's dumb or counter-revolutionary or w/e.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 20:30 |
|
Armack posted:Yes, he has endorsed Klobuchar. he was a senator from MN so it make sense
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 20:32 |
|
Typo posted:in polling during D primaries 2016: the most effective Hillary tactic vs Bernie in appealing to primary voters was by "hugging" Obama Do you think Obama is going to endorse any one candidate in particular before the primary is over? He didn't endorse Hillary until it was clear she had it in the bag. Hard to hug Obama when he won't campaign with you. Joe is gonna have to campaign for himself, and you think him saying "Obama" a million times will just cast a magic spell over the Dem primary voting base, and I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen. Joe Biden is bad at campaigning and the field is crowded as gently caress. Z. Autobahn posted:I mean, speaking as a Jew, ethnic identity *is* complicated, insofar as it's an arbitrary classification system and Judaism doesn't mesh well with the framework, especially when we talk about privilege. For example, a black Jew is, undeniably, both black and a Jew, so the argument could be made that a white Jew is both white and a Jew. I've definitely benefited from white privilege my whole life; I've also had to deal with anti-semitism. It's complicated and messy and exposes the underpinnings of why "race" is ultimately an arbitrary construct. The way I see it as another Jew is that the Nazis don't care about how much you've benefited from white privilege. WampaLord fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Apr 19, 2019 |
# ? Apr 19, 2019 20:34 |
|
Gnumonic posted:It still strikes me as really weird that being a member of the ethnic group which has been more brutally oppressed in the past 100 years than any other ethnic group just sorta doesn't count for anything anymore, cuz hey, on the surface Jews look kinda white*. And it's not like people have stopped shooting up loving synagogues... Because in the last 100 years they haven't. At least not in America. In America Jews are basically white unless you need anything involving a calendar. White is, and always has been, the fluid amalgamation of whatever races are required to make 50%+1 of the voting population White in order to perpetuate it's own existence.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 20:36 |
|
Typo posted:in polling during D primaries 2016: the most effective Hillary tactic vs Bernie in appealing to primary voters was by "hugging" Obama quote:Obama has sky high approvals among Democrats and when polled on what kind of Democrat they are (including labels like moderate, liberal, conservative etc) the most common response was "obama democrat"
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 20:38 |
|
WampaLord posted:Do you think Obama is going to endorse any one candidate in particular before the primary is over? He didn't endorse Hillary until it was clear she had it in the bag. Hard to hug Obama when he won't campaign with you. obama isn't going to endorse him unless he either won outright or is on the verge of winning, but he doesn't need to: Biden was Obama's VP and that speaks for itself quote:Hard to hug Obama when he won't campaign with you. quote:and you think him saying "Obama" a million times will just cast a magic spell over the Dem primary voting base
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 20:39 |
|
HootTheOwl posted:Because in the last 100 years they haven't. At least not in America. In America Jews are basically white unless you need anything involving a calendar. White is, and always has been, the fluid amalgamation of whatever races are required to make 50%+1 of the voting population White in order to perpetuate it's own existence. I mean, unless you wear a Yarmulke or are orthodox or appear visibly Jewish, which, again, some Jews, uh, do. And, again, a good many Jews would definitely not be recognized by a majority of Americans as white. There are dark skinned Jews.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 20:41 |
|
Typo posted:Worked for Hillary Hillary pre-cleared the field, you keep ignoring various factors about why this is different from 2016 whenever they suit your argument. This isn't 2016. Biden does not have a pre-cleared field. Like "worked for Hillary" is a pointless argument, she was always going to win, so whatever her strategy was didn't need to be evaluated too well. You can't point at things she did as evidence that they're going to work for every candidate going forward who doesn't have a pre-cleared field.
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 20:41 |
|
WampaLord posted:Hillary pre-cleared the field, you keep ignoring various factors about why this is different from 2016 whenever they suit your argument. This isn't 2016. Biden does not have a pre-cleared field. Clearing the field certainly helped Hillary, also "hugging Obama" is extremely powerful tactic in helping her beat Bernie. Those two things are not mutually exclusive
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 20:43 |
|
If anything, the fact that a no-name socialist Senator from Vermont was able to make the race genuinely competitive despite starting as a self-admitted gimmick campaign is a good indicator that the Hillary strategy is pretty bad!
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 20:44 |
|
|
# ? Jun 12, 2024 22:17 |
|
HootTheOwl posted:I'm sure you have some evidence to back this up? quote:You're misunderstanding me. I firmly believe Biden will win if he enters the race for roughly what you described. But I also don't think Hillary would have survived an earnest primary challenge. Fair enough
|
# ? Apr 19, 2019 20:45 |