|
Who do you wish to win the Democratic primaries? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe Biden, the Inappropriate Toucher |
|
18 | 1.46% |
| Bernie Sanders, the Hand Flailer |
|
665 | 54.11% |
| Elizabeth Warren, the Plan Maker |
|
319 | 25.96% |
| Kamala Harris, the Cop Lord |
|
26 | 2.12% |
| Cory Booker, the Super Hero Wannabe |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Julian Castro, the Twin |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Kirsten Gillibrand, the Franken Killer |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Pete Buttigieg, the Troop Sociopath |
|
17 | 1.38% |
| Robert Francis O'Rourke, the Fake Latino |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| Jay Inslee, the Climate Alarmist |
|
8 | 0.65% |
| Marianne Williamson, the Crystal Queen |
|
86 | 7.00% |
| Tulsi Gabbard, the Muslim Hater |
|
23 | 1.87% |
| Andrew Yang, the $1000 Fool |
|
32 | 2.60% |
| Eric Swalwell, the Insurance Wife Guy |
|
2 | 0.16% |
| Amy Klobuchar, the Comb Enthusiast |
|
1 | 0.08% |
| Bill de Blasio, the NYPD Most Hated |
|
4 | 0.33% |
| Tim Ryan, the Dope Face |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| John Hickenlooper, the Also Ran |
|
7 | 0.57% |
| Total: | 1229 votes | ||
|
Lastgirl posted:don't want to alarm anyone who posted Kamala Harris stuff on this page That would be ideal but Kraftwerk posted:With the insane amounts of money the fossil fuel companies have made, couldn’t they shift their business model to renewable energy? They already have the engineers and scientists and money to tackle the problem in ways governments can’t. Also even if we ignore climate change we are going to run out of oil eventually, so why not diversify to gain a market advantage. Until some D&D poster figures out how to run freight off a solar panel or how everyone is going to make it to work without gas - We'd be a lot better off not leaving the incredibly dirty and dangerous poo poo to a bunch of capitalists trying to do everything as cheaply as possible, regardless of the consequences for everyone else. This is also where I put in some blurb about how fossil fuels billionaires (kochs lol) are generally incredibly activist and a large part of why we have pseudo fascists running around all over the drat place talking about how ~the deep state libs~ are conspiring to use all of America's money to give cellphones to black people. Nationalizing these dipshits is something we can do literally today and not merely hold as as some long term "well, hopefully if both parties stop being so remarkably right wing, maybe we can do this in 2070" plan e: I'm tired as poo poo; I think this came off as more argumentative than I wanted it to be  I'm just trying to pass off completely severing capital from a particular means of production as something that's not just doable, but necessary if we want a healthy planet (and also democracy). Unironically. e2: Also to actually answer the question, no they can't. Not within a capitalist system that requires them to make increasingly more money at all times. Renewables are more expensive than fossil fuels. Also it's not technically a renewable but any American expansion of nuclear energy gets met with weirdly well funded and organized pressure for some mysterious reason lmao Marxalot fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Jun 30, 2019 |
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 13:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
I'm pretty sure most billionaires have bought into their own lies and think renewables are fake and gay.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 14:03
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I’m just tired of “well you know (name) will not keep to their promises” as if that’s some kind of tangible negative. You’re predicting the future, and it’s deliberately hard to argue with someone who feels they can prognosticate eventual timelines. Past performance can be an indicator of future results (certain conditions apply). Pretty much every politician is in the game of over-promising and under-delivering so its a pretty crucial determinant for voters... and its possible figure out by looking at peoples' actual records. Yes, people can change, but I'd rather give the vote to the guy banging on about structural inequality for 30 years because he might do something about it rather than the person who learned the phrase "structural inequality" last week in preparation for the debates.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 15:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ddiamond/status/1145207316742070272
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 15:43
|
|
|
He is unbelievably awful. It’s a wonder someone voted for him in the thread poll.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 16:00
|
|
|
lol why were we worried about Biden again
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:lol why were we worried about Biden again Because we're well acquainted with how lovely American olds can be in great numbers
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:lol why were we worried about Biden again https://twitter.com/ddiamond/status/1145314391228895232
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 16:05
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:lol why were we worried about Biden again Because Trump broke everyone's sense of what's normal. Also, he was next in line, which usually counts for a lot but Biden gonna Biden.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 16:19
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Some of us have late enough primaries where we might have to strategically vote for our second choice if things look bad for our first.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 16:25
|
|
|
Today’s the big Pride parade/festival in Seattle. So, yeah. Super cool beans, Biden.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:lol why were we worried about Biden again Because voters are morons and still very likely to back him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:lol why were we worried about Biden again
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
I asked my 60 something year old mom if she watched the debates; she said no. I told her about Harris knife loving Biden about busing; she said she's glad she didn't watch because she "really really likes him." Don't worry, she doesn't vote 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 16:32
|
|
|
JazzFlight posted:I mean, like in a sane world people would see any of these quotes and go, "Oh yeah, this guy sucks!" but I'm sure there will be polls where somehow his support goes up or stays steady because in our world people go "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU I DON'T WANT TO THINK ABOUT POLITICS LA LA LA LA LA." For real. This is the party where most people plugged their ears and told themselves someone incapable of avoiding scandal and who'd had a decades-long campaign waged against them on top of that was even remotely electable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 16:36
|
|
|
He's Michael Scott. He's been possessed by a TV character. There's no other explanation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 16:37
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:For real. This is the party where most people plugged their ears and told themselves someone incapable of avoiding scandal and who'd had a decades-long campaign waged against them on top of that was even remotely electable. Yeah Clinton wasn’t even remotely electable. She only thrashed your guy in a nationwide primary and came within 70,000 votes in three states of winning. Not remotely electable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Yeah Clinton wasn’t even remotely electable. She only thrashed your guy in a nationwide primary and came within 70,000 votes in three states of winning. Not remotely electable. I love that your metric for her being electable is, A, barely beating a primary challenger who wasn't running a serious campaign with the help of a super-friendly DNC, and B, losing to lovely reality TV star and noted rapist Donald Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Yeah Clinton wasn’t even remotely electable. She only thrashed your guy in a nationwide primary and came within 70,000 votes in three states of winning. Not remotely electable. Every presidential campaign she's run has been a failure, and she and her husband bought a house in NY in September of 1999 so she'd qualify for the 2000 Democratic Primary in one of the few states where she'd have had a chance of winning a state-wide election.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
She was clearly "electable" she won the election. She was also clearly a horrifically bad candidate and probably the only D who could lose the electoral college to Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Yeah Clinton wasn’t even remotely electable. She only thrashed your guy in a nationwide primary and came within 70,000 votes in three states of winning. Not remotely electable. Berne (unironically) Would Have Won
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 16:51
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Yeah Clinton wasn’t even remotely electable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 16:51
|
|
|
Yeah I don't know why that post continued on from there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 16:57
|
|
|
It wasn't Clinton's fault that Bernie didn't know, and still doesn't know, how to 'play the game' He thinks he can drift his way through the campaign with old fashioned stump speeches and a progressive platform. He won't hobnob with the rich, he refuses to buy off the DNC or the media, he refuses to hire the top consultants. Well where did that get him in 2016?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 17:00
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:It wasn't Clinton's fault that Bernie didn't know, and still doesn't know, how to 'play the game' You really think it's possible for him to "buy the media?" I don't. They hate who he is on a fundamental level.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
"Electability" as is commonly used is completely meaningless and just a euphemism for "politician who makes me feel good". Hillary Clinton was the second most unpopular major party candidate ever nominated in US history, and somehow lost to the most unpopular because her campaign was an incompetent and hypercorrupt clusterfuck, nevertheless she was ""electable" because supporting her makes me feel smart and sophisticated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:You really think it's possible for him to "buy the media?" I don't. They hate who he is on a fundamental level. Yeah I do, for the right amount. But he bought $5000 coats and a 3rd home, a luxury sportscar etc instead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 17:41
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Yeah Clinton wasn’t even remotely electable. Not remotely electable. I'm glad you can now see what the rest of the nation did
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:Yeah I do, for the right amount. But he bought $5000 coats and a 3rd home, a luxury sportscar etc instead. This is a joke right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 17:51
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Yeah Clinton wasn’t even remotely electable. She only thrashed your guy in a nationwide primary and came within 70,000 votes in three states of winning. Not remotely electable. Your great centrist hope threw the race to Donald loving Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
B B posted:Every presidential campaign she's run has been a failure, and she and her husband bought a house in NY in September of 1999 so she'd qualify for the 2000 Democratic Primary in one of the few states where she'd have had a chance of winning a state-wide election. And even then they had to murder JFK jr to clear the field.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:This is a joke right? I see you are unfamiliar with forums poster Calibanibal
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:She was clearly "electable" she won the election. except she literally didn't
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:lol why were we worried about Biden again
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:He's still the front runner so I wouldn't count him out just yet lol. But yeah, I've banged that "Biden wasn't a serious candidate the last 20 years and he won't be one now" drum Increasing Nervously since before he announced. If he ever drops out of first in the polling he's completely done, but until that happens he's very scary because of how much of a swiss cheese brained republican he is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 18:14
|
|
|
I think the Biden fear is that regular voters will just be voting to not have a literal racist clown as president, and will pull the lever for "oh things were better when he was in charge" rather than a woman or a SOCIALIST!!! Biden is doing everything possible to lose that momentum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
Biden is like Clinton in 08, in that their opponents are clearly more well liked, but people are concerned about their electabilty. The second Biden underperforms in a primary is the second that he is done.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 18:26
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:He's still the front runner so I wouldn't count him out just yet lol. But yeah, I've banged that "Biden wasn't a serious candidate the last 20 years and he won't be one now" drum Increasing Nervously since before he announced. as someone who was much more bullish on biden's chances than almost everyone else itt Biden is currently on track to poll 4/5th by Jan 2020 the actual policy questions from the 1970s could be overcame, the problem is that Biden is clearly no longer the Biden who fought Paul Ryan in 2012. It's clear the dude is starting to have senior moments and is not there 100% of the time anymore. Almost every actual voter in the D base care the most about taking down TRUMP and wants a fighter to go in there and rip the guy's face off, the Biden of 2012 certainly looked to be that person but the Biden of 2020 is Mr.Senile and nobody would pick him to go after Trump instead of <insert candidate>.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Biden is like Clinton in 08, in that their opponents are clearly more well liked, but people are concerned about their electabilty. The second Biden underperforms in a primary is the second that he is done. Clinton 2008 actually did pretty well and tied the PV w/obama, unless Biden comes back 100% swinging after a brain transplant or something next debate he's on track to win 1 random state in March or something and that's it
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 18:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1145338268197838848 Let's be honest about who Warren is: Hillary 2.0 with a better set of "plans".
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 18:31
|
|
