2020 Democratic Primary: "I'm not asking for your vote" - Tsundere Pete

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > 2020 Democratic Primary: "I'm not asking for your vote" - Tsundere Pete

«‹›787 »

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

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

LinYutang: Oct 12, 2016; NEOLIBERAL SHITPOSTER

VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO!!!

mcmagic posted:

Either way, Biden is completely out of touch with reality.

Like Trump proves, being out of touch with reality is fine as long as a winning chunk of the electorate is there with you.

# ? May 4, 2019 17:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 12, 2024 16:33

The Kingfish: Oct 21, 2015

Pakistani Brad Pitt posted:

This is a minimization of his lived cultural experience, akin to railing on Obama�s blackness because he�s not #ADOS. Please stop.

Settle down, Beavis.

# ? May 4, 2019 17:12

Tibalt: May 14, 2017; What, drawn, and talk of peace! I hate the word, As I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee

The fact that Buttegeig and O'Rourke not only considered viable candidates, but are being treated as frontrunners is baffling to me. I can't envision a world where either of them win.

# ? May 4, 2019 17:17

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Tibalt posted:

The fact that Buttegeig and O'Rourke not only considered viable candidates, but are being treated as frontrunners is baffling to me. I can't envision a world where either of them win.

What definition of the word "frontrunner" are you operating under? Neither of them have ever lead in a poll as far as I can recall. It's been Biden on top of almost all of the polling (particularly after his announcement), with Bernie leading in a few that were pre-Biden announcement.

# ? May 4, 2019 17:24

LinYutang: Oct 12, 2016; NEOLIBERAL SHITPOSTER

VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO!!!

DaveWoo posted:

Sounds about right.

Biden and Clinton will be entirely different races. Clinton had the constant perception of being untrustworthy, inauthentic, and wonkishly distant that ways that Trump could attack. She had everything feeding into that, like an FBI sword of Damocles hanging over her head that fell in late October.

People keep attacking Biden's "gaffes" because he is specifically not polished, and he's already showing himself to not care much about policy nitpicks in the same way Clinton did.

# ? May 4, 2019 17:25

Taintrunner: Apr 10, 2017; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Tibalt posted:

The fact that Buttegeig and O'Rourke not only considered viable candidates, but are being treated as frontrunners is baffling to me. I can't envision a world where either of them win.

The wealthy protect their class interests by astroturfing whichever empty suit will serve their needs. It's really that simple.

# ? May 4, 2019 17:52

Tibalt: May 14, 2017; What, drawn, and talk of peace! I hate the word, As I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee

WampaLord posted:

What definition of the word "frontrunner" are you operating under? Neither of them have ever lead in a poll as far as I can recall. It's been Biden on top of almost all of the polling (particularly after his announcement), with Bernie leading in a few that were pre-Biden announcement.

This is mostly in reaction to 538.com defining the top tier candidates as Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris, O'Rourke, and Buttegeig in their recent "draft" article.

Booker and Klobuncher both seem like much more viable candidates to me. O'Rourke and Buttegeig seem like meme candidates, but the news and social media doesn't seem to agree.

# ? May 4, 2019 18:12

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

Tibalt posted:

This is mostly in reaction to 538.com defining the top tier candidates as Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris, O'Rourke, and Buttegeig in their recent "draft" article.

Booker and Klobuncher both seem like much more viable candidates to me. O'Rourke and Buttegeig seem like meme candidates, but the news and social media doesn't seem to agree.

O'Rourke and Buttigieg are laser targeted to appeal to the pundit class, so they're punching above their weight. There's only room for one of them in the race though adn Buttigieg probably takes the lane (then tops out and loses due to lack of support outside his lane).

# ? May 4, 2019 18:15

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Tibalt posted:

Booker and Klobuncher both seem like much more viable candidates to me. O'Rourke and Buttegeig seem like meme candidates, but the news and social media doesn't seem to agree.

Donation numbers alone prove that O'Rourke and Buttigieg are way more viable than Booker or Klobuchar.

I think your perception of the race is skewed, which makes sense if you're going to 538 for news. Nate is a horrible pundit.

# ? May 4, 2019 18:17

bowser: Apr 7, 2007

DaveWoo posted:

https://mobile.twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/1124698481996832768

Sounds about right.

C'mon now this clip is taken out of context. Let's look at the full quote:

quote:

"The younger generation now tells me how tough things are. Give me a break. No, no, I have no empathy for it. Give me a break. Because here's the deal guys, we decided we were gonna change the world. And we did. We did. We finished the civil rights movement in the first stage. The women's movement came to be.

So my message is, get involved. There's no place to hide. You can go and you can make all the money in the world, but you can't build a wall high enough to keep the pollution out. You can't live where—you can't not be diminished when your sister can't marry the man or woman, or the woman she loves. You can't—when you have a good friend being profiled, you can't escape this stuff.

And so, there's an old expression my philosophy professor would always use from Plato, 'The penalty people face for not being involved in politics is being governed by people worse than themselves.' It's wide open. Go out and change it."

So you see, he's not saying "gently caress you millennials", he's saying "we, the greatest generation, single-handedly solved racism and sexism. So what your excuse millennials? Stop whining and change the wor--no, no not by voting for Bernie you morons!"

# ? May 4, 2019 18:17

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

Tibalt posted:

This is mostly in reaction to 538.com defining the top tier candidates as Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris, O'Rourke, and Buttegeig in their recent "draft" article.

Booker and Klobuncher both seem like much more viable candidates to me. O'Rourke and Buttegeig seem like meme candidates, but the news and social media doesn't seem to agree.

Have you considered the possibility that Nate is an idiot who is really bad at punditry?

Though how the hell you arrived to the conclusion that Booker and the Klobb are viable candidates is beyond me.

# ? May 4, 2019 18:18

Tibalt: May 14, 2017; What, drawn, and talk of peace! I hate the word, As I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee

WampaLord posted:

Donation numbers along prove that O'Rourke and Buttigieg are way more viable than Booker or Klobuchar.

Maybe we live in a world where a small town mayor that was a no-name last year is poised to be swept into the presidency based on nothing. Maybe he has a better chance than the relatively well known Senators.

I don't loving know anymore.

# ? May 4, 2019 18:20

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Tibalt posted:

Maybe we live in a world where a small town mayor that was a no-name last year is poised to be swept into the presidency based on nothing.

I don't loving know anymore.

No, I'm not saying he's going to win, Biden has stolen all of his momentum, I highly doubt he wins, I'm just saying he's way more viable than the two total joke candidates that you think are more viable for...some reason?

Again, probably read more than just 538.

# ? May 4, 2019 18:21

Tibalt: May 14, 2017; What, drawn, and talk of peace! I hate the word, As I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee

WampaLord posted:

Again, probably read more than just 538.

You keep saying this, but you're the one saying that 538 is reading the race right?

And it's not only 538 treating Buttegeig as a major candidate.

# ? May 4, 2019 18:25

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Tibalt posted:

You keep saying this, but you're the one saying that 538 is reading the race right?

And it's not only 538 treating Buttegeig as a major candidate.

They are right that he is more of a major candidate than Klobuchar/Booker, yes. Are you incapable of nuance? Can you wrap your mind around the concept of a candidate who has better than a snowball's chance in hell, but is not a guaranteed lock for the Presidency?

Mayor Pete has like a 10% chance of being President compared to Biden's 50% or Bernie's 30%, but that's still way more of a shot than Booker/Klobuchar's 1% chance.

(all numbers are totally arbitrary to prove my point, please do not read anything into them specifically)

e: vvv It's led Tibalt to think that Booker/Klobuchar are viable, so it's clearly doing something wrong as well, that's my problem. Again, nuance, rarely are things all good or all bad.

WampaLord fucked around with this message at 18:34 on May 4, 2019

# ? May 4, 2019 18:28

Eiba: Jul 26, 2007

WampaLord posted:

No, I'm not saying he's going to win, Biden has stolen all of his momentum, I highly doubt he wins, I'm just saying he's way more viable than the two total joke candidates that you think are more viable for...some reason?

Again, probably read more than just 538.

I'm not sure why you're so down on 538 when it's been saying exactly what you've been saying.

I'm sure there's a lot to poo poo on with regards to Nate Silver, but it's easy to tune out the punditry and just pay attention to when his site is making poll-based observations. They do that pretty well, to be honest.

# ? May 4, 2019 18:32

Zero_Grade: Mar 18, 2004; Darktider 🖤🌊

~Neck Angels~

I'm honestly a little surprised that Booker hasn't even had the tiniest of polling bumps or been higher than like 3% so far.

Not that surprised since he hasn't, y'know, done anything, but a little.

# ? May 4, 2019 18:39

Republicans: Oct 14, 2003; - More money for us

- Fuck you

Zero_Grade posted:

I'm honestly a little surprised that Booker hasn't even had the tiniest of polling bumps or been higher than like 3% so far.

Not that surprised since he hasn't, y'know, done anything, but a little.

I'm not. I don't know a single person who hasn't pegged him as full of poo poo at first glance.

# ? May 4, 2019 18:45

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Tibalt posted:

Maybe we live in a world where a small town mayor that was a no-name last year is poised to be swept into the presidency based on nothing. Maybe he has a better chance than the relatively well known Senators.

I don't loving know anymore.

I feel like the media and Democratic establishment actually underestimated the extent to which liberals would flip their poo poo and cling to white men candidates. Kamala Harris was clearly who they intended to be the frontrunner, and that did not pan out well, so they kept an eye out for white men they felt they could work with (like Beto or Buttigieg). Beto came first, and then came Buttigieg who is basically like a more competent and savvy Beto.

LinYutang posted:

Biden and Clinton will be entirely different races. Clinton had the constant perception of being untrustworthy, inauthentic, and wonkishly distant that ways that Trump could attack. She had everything feeding into that, like an FBI sword of Damocles hanging over her head that fell in late October.

People keep attacking Biden's "gaffes" because he is specifically not polished, and he's already showing himself to not care much about policy nitpicks in the same way Clinton did.

While that's true, as Jeet Heer mentioned in his tweet Clinton did have some actual appeal by virtue of potentially being the first woman president, and I imagine there's a subset of liberals who were enthusiastically pro-Clinton who don't like Biden (probably currently represented by Harris and some Warren supporters).

Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 18:50 on May 4, 2019

# ? May 4, 2019 18:47

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

"Tibalt thought that Klobuchar and Booker were viable candidates because of 538" is just kind of a made-up notion, and it's whats tripping this conversation up.

They are US Senators, vs. a small-city mayor and a Senate loser. They both have had big news cycles in the last couple of years, Klobuchar in particular. That is reason enough for somebody who isn't 100% on the trolley to think that they are more likely to be major candidates. New realities take everyone at least some amount of time to adjust to, some more than others.

# ? May 4, 2019 18:49

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1124731838197637120

# ? May 4, 2019 19:11

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

LinYutang posted:

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1124407471534149632?s=19

Biden also polling in the 40s in a Virginia poll.

Typo posted:

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1124410526824574976

granted a lot of this is a announcement bounce but I wouldn't be surprised if the debates begin with biden floating above 30 and Bernie 20~25, buttgieg: 10-~15 everyone else <10

Note that they left a very important candidate out of these tweets. "Not Sure" is a major contender here, beating everyone except Biden and Bernie in both polls. That shows that Bernie has plenty of room to improve, and that even with all these candidates there's still a lot of Dem voters who feel like none of them are really appealing. Note also that these are both from the same poll - it looks like they had two versions of the question, where the only difference was the ordering of the list and how many maybe candidates they included.

Some of the other questions are a lot more interesting, though. Let's look at my favorite so far:

code:

Which one of the Democratic presidential candidates has the best chance of winning against Donald Trump?
Base: All Respondents

40% - Joe Biden
23% - None
13% - Bernie Sanders
4%  - Hillary Clinton
4%  - Kamala Harris
3%  - Beto O'Rourke
2%  - Michael Bloomberg
2%  - Elizabeth Warren
1%  - Other
1%  - Pete Buttigieg
i'm not even going to transcribe the rest of the list

So this shows two things. One, Joe Biden is winning handily among the electability group. Two, the vast majority of this clowncar lineup is in a loving dire state. Hillary Clinton literally did better in the "who could beat Donald Trump" question than everyone except Biden and Bernie. Even if you take into account that this question was asked to all voters rather than just Dems, that's still a completely loving sad state of affairs.

Incidentally, Sanders is even with Biden in name recognition among all respondents, and only a couple points behind in favorability. Additionally, Biden and Sanders are the only two candidates who have a higher favorability rating than Trump (which, again, should be setting off mega alarm bells in the Dem lineup).

Based on this poll alone, it looks like Biden and Bernie are the only ones that are credible contenders right now - everyone else might be able to build themselves up into being real contestants, but they certainly don't stand up to the top two right now.

# ? May 4, 2019 19:12

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Mellow Seas posted:

"Tibalt thought that Klobuchar and Booker were viable candidates because of 538" is just kind of a made-up notion, and it's whats tripping this conversation up.

They are US Senators, vs. a small-city mayor and a Senate loser. They both have had big news cycles in the last couple of years, Klobuchar in particular. That is reason enough for somebody who isn't 100% on the trolley to think that they are more likely to be major candidates. New realities take everyone at least some amount of time to adjust to, some more than others.

Sorry, it's just frustrating when I try to educate someone and they take the completely wrong interpretation of my words and draw an erroneous conclusion, it's kind of a pet peeve.

# ? May 4, 2019 19:27

Gyges: Aug 4, 2004; NOW NO ONE
RECOGNIZE HULK

Mellow Seas posted:

"Tibalt thought that Klobuchar and Booker were viable candidates because of 538" is just kind of a made-up notion, and it's whats tripping this conversation up.

They are US Senators, vs. a small-city mayor and a Senate loser. They both have had big news cycles in the last couple of years, Klobuchar in particular. That is reason enough for somebody who isn't 100% on the trolley to think that they are more likely to be major candidates. New realities take everyone at least some amount of time to adjust to, some more than others.

Keeping in mind how far out we are, I think it's important to remember the hilarious Republican clown cars of 2012 and 2016. Also the ridiculous Giuliani run of 2008. With this many assholes running, there is guaranteed to be wild fluctuations and white hot flashes in the pan. Beto and Buttigieg are both new faces that are tailor made for the media and low info who think they're high info voters to fall for. Similarly, there's still plenty of time for Booker, or one of the other paper tigers to suddenly roar.

My guess, is that the first two debates are the actual start of the primary. When people reluctantly awaken from their quadrennial political slumbers and begin annoyingly following politics again. Groggier than ever, having their usual slumber forcefully interrupted repeatedly since last they awoken. If so we'll see a bunch of the hopeless fools fall completely off to Hickenlooper territory. If not, we're in for a long summer as Biden's support slowly erodes, Bernie stays steady. The rest of the pack then continues differentiating itself by who is in the mid-high single digits, who is between three and five percent, and who is polling at one percent or less.

# ? May 4, 2019 19:39

Kith: Sep 17, 2009; You never learn anything
by doing it right.

DaveWoo posted:

https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1124731838197637120

where to start

# ? May 4, 2019 20:05

Tibalt: May 14, 2017; What, drawn, and talk of peace! I hate the word, As I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee

WampaLord posted:

Sorry, it's just frustrating when I try to educate someone and they take the completely wrong interpretation of my words and draw an erroneous conclusion, it's kind of a pet peeve.

Interesting that it happens to you enough to become a pattern there.

# ? May 4, 2019 20:12

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

DaveWoo posted:

https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1124731838197637120

# ? May 4, 2019 20:14

YaketySass: Jan 15, 2019; Blind Idiot Dog

Kith posted:

where to start

Love to identify with a total failure.

# ? May 4, 2019 20:17

Ragnar34: Oct 10, 2007; Lipstick Apathy

Biden plans to secure the nonretiree vote by getting top 100 in the fortnight leaderboards and/or banning fortnight forever. That's just what's going to happen, someone tell Silver, maybe he's interested in being correct for a change.

DaveWoo posted:

https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1124731838197637120

Never mind, the youth vote has been spoken for. Biden may as well focus on old people turnout.

# ? May 4, 2019 20:29

Gyges: Aug 4, 2004; NOW NO ONE
RECOGNIZE HULK

At least we know that Bernie is awakening the force of socialism then.

# ? May 4, 2019 20:31

Kraftwerk: Aug 13, 2011; i do not have 10,000 bircoins, please stop asking

I know it�s still too early and that there�s debates etc but Biden�s domination in the polls at the moment has me demoralized.
We got candidates with great policy alternatives and bold promises for a better future and we ignore all that for more of the same...

# ? May 4, 2019 20:57

The Muppets On PCP: Nov 13, 2016; by Fluffdaddy

Kraftwerk posted:

I know it�s still too early and that there�s debates etc but Biden�s domination in the polls at the moment has me demoralized.
We got candidates with great policy alternatives and bold promises for a better future and we ignore all that for more of the same...

it's soft support based on a false notion of electability

# ? May 4, 2019 21:01

Groovelord Neato: Dec 6, 2014

yeah the only thing that's giving me hope is barely a majority of biden supporters are backing him because they actually like him.

# ? May 4, 2019 21:03

LinYutang: Oct 12, 2016; NEOLIBERAL SHITPOSTER

VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO!!!

Most Democrats want the party to be more moderate. Biden does have the space to consolidate a strong base of support.

# ? May 4, 2019 21:20

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Gyges posted:

At least we know that Bernie is awakening the force of socialism then.

This was my first thought too

�I sense an awakening....can you feel it?�

# ? May 4, 2019 21:21

Edgar Allan Pwned: Apr 4, 2011; Quoth the Raven "I love the power glove. It's so bad..."

how do republicans want to be more conservative?

# ? May 4, 2019 21:31

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

Edgar Allan Pwned posted:

how do republicans want to be more conservative?

Full nazi.

Also if Democrats want to be more moderate I guess I don't feel too bad when I don't vote for Biden so he can destroy social security. :shrug: