|
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 | ||
|
VitalSigns posted:Correct. She doesn't?
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 19:26 |
|
|
Speaking of structural change: Warren has strongly come out in favor of abolishing the electoral college. Bernie has not. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/voting-changes/?utm_term=.989c0edae97b
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:15
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:Speaking of structural change: Warren has strongly come out in favor of abolishing the electoral college. Bernie has not. Warren comes out in favor of whatever will get her numbers up, and this should be a huge red flag that makes that case. This is an inconsequential thing to debate, because it ain't happening.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:19
|
|
|
The other reason to not take Warren seriously, again, is that she has already said that she'll be welcoming big donors back should she make it to the GE.Judakel posted:Warren comes out in favor of whatever will get her numbers up, and this should be a huge red flag that makes that case. This is an inconsequential thing to debate, because it ain't happening. Also this. Her campaign to this point has been nothing but her throwing out everything she can to gain momentum. So much of it is getting dropped once she no longer has to set herself apart. Oh Snapple! fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Jul 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:20
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/1126156518586494977?s=20 This study is very interesting. Never trumpers warming up a bit, but the actual "economic anxiety" vote (e.g. Obama to Trump) has soured. That's the swing vote in WI and MI and PA
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:21
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:So the argument is that she cannot be trusted because she wasn't balls-to-the-wall about M4A from the beginning?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
Also, again, she's a warhawking poo poo who is perfectly OK with serious crimes against humanity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:The other reason to not take Warren seriously, again, is that she has already said that she'll be welcoming big donors back should she make it to the GE. This is a huge point to stress as well. She has no intention of making structural changes because she is going to need the existing structure's money to campaign in the GE.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:Also, again, she's a warhawking poo poo who is perfectly OK with serious crimes against humanity. What?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:24
|
|
|
How many never-trumpers were there
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:24
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Where does that fall in the timeline I just described? Exactly. The end of that timeline. It actually isn't, given that the polling for M4A is misleading. When asked whether people want a public healthcare plan, people said yes. When asked if they would support a plan that would eliminate their private insurance, support for M4A plummets. That's a preception problem, sure. It'll fix itself when people get on M4A and discover how good it is. But in the meantime, understanding that people are actually really loving scared of that option and opt for incremental change isn't bering spineless, it's being a good loving politician.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:24
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:What? Look up her statements on Israel and foreign policy in general. She is bad on those.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:25
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/1126156518586494977?s=20 But it still just blows my mind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:25
|
|
|
twodot posted:You can trust her if you like, but it should be incredibly obvious that she is less trustworthy than a person who has been balls-to-the-wall about M4A from the beginning. I mean I find it difficult to trust someone who genuinely believes that a tax on stock and bond trades is a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:25
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I mean I find it difficult to trust someone who genuinely believes that a tax on stock and bond trades is a good idea. Hahah of course this is what it boils down to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:25
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:It actually isn't, given that the polling for M4A is misleading. This is only due to the shock of thinking that you'll be without insurance. Anyway, you're just making my point that Warren is a political coward with no spine, which is what started this discussion. enraged_camel posted:I mean I find it difficult to trust someone who genuinely believes that a tax on stock and bond trades is a good idea. Hahaha. I knew you never really cared about structural change. Just don't dress it up next time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:Hahah of course this is what it boils down to. Well, we were talking about trust, which is why I brought it up. Bernie clearly doesn't understand the finer details of the economy, and has not given serious thought to how he would accomplish his goals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:27
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Well, we were talking about trust, which is why I brought it up. Bernie clearly doesn't understand the finer details of the economy, and has not given serious thought to how he would accomplish his goals. That tax is a wonderful idea and he understand those details pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:28
|
|
|
UP AND ADAM posted:How many never-trumpers were there quite a few, and they're all regular guests on msnbc's evening lineup
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:29
|
|
|
Another reminder that Warren had the chance to make the biggest political impact of her life by either running in 2016 or, failing that, endorsing Bernie to try to stop the party from putting forth the human manifestation of ghoulish failure. Instead, she was a complete and total coward.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:30
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I mean I find it difficult to trust someone who genuinely believes that a tax on stock and bond trades is a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:31
|
|
|
Judakel posted:That tax is a wonderful idea and he understand those details pretty well. Why is it a wonderful idea? twodot posted:If you are actively opposed to Sanders' policies, you can just say that instead. Like call Sanders an idiot, that's a real conversation. What if I like some, but not all, of Sanders' policies, and the details he has released so far don't exactly fill me with confidence regarding his grasp on how things work? twodot posted:Claiming it's reasonable to trust Warren because she's been inconsistent in the policies she supports is bizarre garbage. I never said that though?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:35
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:What if I like some, but not all, of Sanders' policies, and the details he has released so far don't exactly fill me with confidence regarding his grasp on how things work? enraged_camel posted:So the argument is that she cannot be trusted because she wasn't balls-to-the-wall about M4A from the beginning? quote:I never said that though?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:38
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:Speaking of structural change: Warren has strongly come out in favor of abolishing the electoral college. Bernie has not. Amusing how people pretend Bernie's ideas are politically impossible pie-in-the-sky and then turn around and praise something that can't happen without 2/3 of both houses of congress plus 3/4 of the states at the same time that we've all acknowledged we can't get 60 Senate votes for anything. "But but the popular vote interstate compact--" doesn't work unless you get a majority of electoral votes and aint no Republican-controlled chamber going to vote away an advantage that paid off for them twice in 16 years. So how many Democratic trifectas do you have in state governments, whoops not enough. And unlike an amendment states can withdraw so not only do Democrats need complete control of 270 EV worth of state governments they have to hold that forever. enraged_camel posted:She doesn't? Yeah I don't take her contradicting herself at a debate seriously, where's her healthcare plan, it's not in her website, she hasn't announced it like she's announced her other plans. Candidates say poo poo they don't mean at debates all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:40
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:It actually isn't, given that the polling for M4A is misleading. I'll take "lessons we failed to learn from in 2016" for 500 thanks Alex.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:42
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I mean I find it difficult to trust someone who genuinely believes that a tax on stock and bond trades is a good idea. Why isn't it a good idea
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:44
|
|
|
twodot posted:Because it should be extremely obvious that a person who is balls-to-the-wall about <anything> from the beginning is more trustworthy than someone who isn't. This is a matter of debate, to say the least. I generally share everyone's sentiments regarding politicians who "flip-flop" based on public opinion polls, but also I find it difficult to fault someone for listening to what the public wants. To me, it depends on the candidate, and what kind of person they are generally. Warren has an extremely solid track record when it comes to fighting for causes she believes in. To me, it's okay if she isn't fully sure on other issues, and has come around to them only recently. In my humble opinion, this doesn't make her any less trustworthy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:46
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Warren comes out in favor of whatever will get her numbers up, and this should be a huge red flag that makes that case. This is an inconsequential thing to debate, because it ain't happening. Even bad moderate D's are against the electoral college....
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:48
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:This is a matter of debate, to say the least.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:50
|
|
|
twodot posted:It is not. You are wrong. I really am not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:53
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:This is a matter of debate, to say the least. The key thing here is that we don't think she believes in these causes and, as such, will not fight for them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:53
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I find it difficult to fault someone for listening to what the public wants. Well yeah if you just assume that's what happened then sure. And if I just assume someone wouldn't offer to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge unless it's his to sell than I'd find it difficult to fault such a generous offer too. The public supported Medicare For All a year ago too, why weren't they listening then? Maybe all the flipfloppers were coincidentally all visited by the Ghost of Christmas Future right when they needed a polling bump and their hearts all grew three sizes, that's certainly possible. But it's a lot more likely that politicians who change their tune when they want to get elected aren't saying what they believe, they're just saying what they think voters want to hear.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:55
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/1126156518586494977?s=20 You mean Never-Trumpers are blatant liars and immoral fucks who will always come back to the fold? Wow, what news! (The absolutely depressing thing is this would be news to a lot of loving "moderate" Democrats and centrists) TulliusCicero fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Jul 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:56
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Well, we were talking about trust, which is why I brought it up. Bernie clearly doesn't understand the finer details of the economy, and has not given serious thought to how he would accomplish his goals. This is a joke, right? Every single one of Bernie's proposals is outlined in a bill that he has introduced as a sponsor. From increasing worker representation on boards, to how to increase the estate tax, to M4A. His proposals are far more detailed than Warren, because all of Bernie's main proposals are outlined in bills introduced in congress, while Warren has essentially a page on her website. As for Warren's poll numbers, you realize that he poll average has her behind Bernie in the nomination, and doing substantially worse against Trump in the general. Not to mention that Warren is not competing in Bernie's lane. Warren's voters are white and educated. She's competing with Harris for that segment, not Bernie. Hell, in today's HarrisX poll Warren managed to get 1% of African American voters and 8% of Latinos, versus 8 and 26 for Bernie, respectively.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:56
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:. Hell, in today's HarrisX poll Warren managed to get 1% of African American voters and 8% of Latinos, versus 8 and 26 for Bernie, respectively. Interesting how Warren's "problem" with PoC is so rarely brought up
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:58
|
|
|
The one thing I'll say about Warren is that she seems to understand the nature of the modern Republican Party and as such won't waste time trying to compromise like Obama did, so that alone would probably make her presidency an improvement over his. But it's clear that Warren isn't just Bernie as a slightly younger, more polished-sounding woman, she has a different track record and has waffled more than he has, so there's no reason not to vote for Bernie if you want the unadulterated versions of Bernie's policies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:58
|
|
|
A Warren general election would just be 6 months of her eating poo poo over the Native American thing and flailing her way to a historic loss.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 04:58
|
|
|
She would absolutely pull a Biden and defend her family's fraud and land theft.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 05:01
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:A Bernie general election would just be 6 months of him eating poo poo over the millionaire thing and flailing his way to a historic loss. Mantis42 posted:A Kamala general election would just be 6 months of her eating poo poo over not being "black" thing and flailing her way to a historic loss. Mantis42 posted:A Biden general election would just be 6 months of him eating poo poo over speaking and talking and flailing his way to a historic loss. Mantis42 posted:A Marriane general election would just be 6 months of her eating crystals and flailing her way to a historic loss. This is fun and easy
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 05:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 19:26 |
|
|
She's from a white family in OK and they aren't military. They're scumbags and the fact that you don't see this as immediately disqualifying is telling. A Kamala general would be Trump bragging about how she didn't prosecute his boy and also refused to prosecute a pedophile priest, with added bragging about her being a colonial administrator gently caress who gets off on securing convictions against innocent black men. Also the ice-cream cone pictures would be posted and her dad would get up and tell everyone what a terrible piece of poo poo he raised yet again. A Marianne election would be a referenda on White Christianity despite her being a Christian. Pizzagate will become the mainstream Republican position even faster and the mass graves would pile up. A Biden general would be apocalyptic. It would reveal a new form of evil upon the earth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2019 05:09
|
|