|
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 | ||
|
Pander posted:I wish I had brainworms so I could make posts this dumb too. I mean, warren is disturbingly fond of american imperialism. It's probably the biggest thing, besides how horrifically she has treated native americans, that keeps me from accepting her as a second choice to bernie.
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 19:55 |
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Both Bernie and Warren are going until March at least. Under a scenario where it is Sanders vs. Harris I think that there is most likely a juicy cabinet position with Warren's name on it if she is willing to stay in the race as long as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
Amy just drop out already.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 22:17
|
|
|
One thing that I quite don't understand. I keep hearing that all of the other sub 1% polling candidates are just doing it for book deals. How does that work exactly? I mean, they obviously don't have that many supporters so why would a publisher throw money at them for a book deal when there wouldn't be any buyers for the book? There must be something that I'm not getting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 22:30
|
|
|
Gravel doesn't have enough individual donors, the DNC has nothing to do with it
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:I know it is Kamala but please let Trump take the bait A sad commentary on the Democratic Party when this is lightyears better than the party leadership's position. goethe.cx posted:Gravel doesn't have enough individual donors, the DNC has nothing to do with it Sure they do, they set the rule.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
Majorian posted:A sad commentary on the Democratic Party when this is lightyears better than the party leadership's position. Sure, I was more responding to the implication that they were intentionally rigging it against Gravel
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
Luckyellow posted:One thing that I quite don't understand. I keep hearing that all of the other sub 1% polling candidates are just doing it for book deals. How does that work exactly? After your presidential run you'll have more name recognition than when you began. You can convince a publisher you can move books because of this name recognition. It also gives you an excuse to write a book, a final chapter to discuss all the life lessons attained and how convinced you are that America TRULY IS the greatest nation on earth because You, a Giant loving Idiot, got to get 1% in a national poll a few times and eat some fried food on a stick in the Benton IA fair.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Luckyellow posted:One thing that I quite don't understand. I keep hearing that all of the other sub 1% polling candidates are just doing it for book deals. How does that work exactly? They aren't doing it for book deals, they're doing it as a book tour. I think basically any representative or Senator can get a book deal, but nobody buys them unless they run for president. And even then, nobody reads them. Barack Obama eating a dog and Hillary Clinton owning slaves were stories that came out after their respective elections, despite the fact that both of those stories were in the books the candidates wrote and published well before the election
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Sure they do, they set the rule. Christ they had 20 candidates on the stage as it is. it's not like it was a super strict set of requirements. Gravel had the same opportunity that everyone else had to meet the qualification. Yang and Momma Moonbeam did it, the fact that he didn't isn't the fault of the DNC it's simply that he lacked the support to qualify. Not everything is a loving conspiracy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 23:08
|
|
|
Maybe if Gravel wanted to go to the debate, he could've made literally a single public appearance anywhere, or done literally even a single rally.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
That would be elder abuse (much like the current Gravel campaign). He probably isn't even aware of what's going on
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:Maybe if Gravel wanted to go to the debate, he could've made literally a single public appearance anywhere, or done literally even a single rally. It's almost as if it's really a stunt being run by a few dumb teenagers or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
Skex posted:"if the Democratic establishment isn't rigging the primary why do I keep insisting that they are?" Like, I don't think they're rigging it against Gravel or whatever, but the DNC and peripheral orgs like DCCC have really gone out of their way to present an image of just being corrupt and cagey as all hell. I can not hold it against anyone at this point who sees a conspiracy where one would make no sense, because we've already uncovered literal conspiracies that make no loving sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 23:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I want Bernie to win, but look at this poll, let's all give up and agree Biden is the nominee. I really want Bernie to win though, as a Bernie supporter, let's all give up ok. Please justify this probation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2019 23:45
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:It's almost as if it's really a stunt being run by a few dumb teenagers or something. The Gravel campaign is, to the best of my knowledge, the only presidential campaign in American history to have to release a proof of life video.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 00:10
|
|
|
Skex posted:"if the Democratic establishment isn't rigging the primary why do I keep insisting that they are?" I didn't suggest that it was a conspiracy. Obviously Gravel didn't make it onto the stage because he didn't clear the not-too-terribly-high hurdle for the debates. But a poster said that the DNC had nothing to do with it, and that's not strictly true. They set the rule, and even if it wasn't that difficult of a rule to overcome for a lot of candidates, it still feeds into the perception that the DNC behaves rather arbitrarily during its primaries. VH4Ever posted:It's almost as if it's really a stunt being run by a few dumb teenagers or something. While I take your point, "dumb" is not an adjective I'd use. I wish I had their grasp of politics or international relations at that age. Majorian fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Jul 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 00:25
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I didn't suggest that it was a conspiracy. Obviously Gravel didn't make it onto the stage because he didn't clear the not-too-terribly-high hurdle for the debates. But a poster said that the DNC had nothing to do with it, and that's not strictly true. They set the rule, and even if it wasn't that difficult of a rule to overcome for a lot of candidates, it still feeds into the perception that the DNC behaves rather arbitrarily during its primaries. I mean.... how is it arbitrary? You need to create a cutoff SOMEWHERE to not end up with a hundred randos on the stage, and polling + supporter count feels pretty reasonable? Like what's a better what way to do it? Oh Snapple! posted:Please justify this probation. tbh responding to every predictive claim of "I think [X] will happen" with "Oh, so you WANT [X] to happen?!" or "Oh wow so we're supposed to give up and just let [X] happen?!" is super tedious and bogs down the thread 100% of the time. Like sometimes folks just wanna... speculate on an outcome... without it being an expression of what they want to go down. It is absolutely possible to both want Bernie to win and also think he's probably not gonna win, and it's annoying that any time anyone says this they're accused of being some kind of concern-troll infiltrator
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 00:30
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:You aren't wrong, but we already know establishment Dems will rig poo poo even when there is no reason to do so and it isn't in their interest (i.e. the cost of being found out far outweighs the benefits gained from loving with the process). Oh and they've openly stated that they're allowed to and if you don't like it you're welcome to form your own political party. No poo poo the powerful tend to use their power to maintain their power. That's why concentrated power is bad period regardless of who it's concentrated in. But I mean come on they've bent over backwards in order to at least appear to be fair, Obviously they're going to do what can to twist things to their favor, just like we're going to. It really comes down to what the youth do, will they break all historical precedence and show the gently caress up and push the Democrats to the left? Or will they do what the youth have historically done and sit home on their asses like they've done for every election in my lifetime. Odds and experience suggest the latter however things really haven't ever been as dire as they are today. I mean not even loving W who was loving awful came close to approaching how blatantly horrible and evil this administration and it's Republican enablers are today. And that fucker started 2 loving forever wars he still played by the agreed to rules (or at least didn't blatantly and obviously violate them, he may have tortured "terrorists" but he didn't put children in concentration camps, I know low loving bar but it's a hell of a lot easier for some dipshit suburban housewife to rationalize torturing a "terrorist" than it is to accept the idea of a baby being brutalized. Boomers aren't going to save us they've still got Reagan Derangement Syndrome and are stuck in the 80s/90s. Gen X is even worse as most of us never really got to experience pre-Reagan America when a strong social safety net and active government (along with the only in tact manufacturing base after WW2) created the "American Dream". So it comes down to hoping that maybe the threat of extinction in their immediate future along with a desire to stick to the loving olds motivates the youth to do what young people historically don't do, be politically active. Unfortunately the poling isn't going to reflect that, the poling is going to reflect what has historically happened and we won't even have a clue on which model is in play until after the first primaries. If Bernie and or Warren seriously out perform their poling then that's when we'll have our first indication on whether things might get better at some point in our future. Skex fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Jul 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 00:34
|
|
|
Here's a "Good for Bernie" poll: https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1146560154692980742?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 00:35
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:I mean.... how is it arbitrary? You need to create a cutoff SOMEWHERE to not end up with a hundred randos on the stage, and polling + supporter count feels pretty reasonable? Like what's a better what way to do it? I'm not saying there's a better way to do it; any metric would likely have come off as arbitrary. It's a no-win situation for the DNC; I'm just saying, given that they've gone out of their way to present themselves as capricious and overbearing in their primary process over the past several years, this particular episode doesn't help. Lycus posted:Here's a "Good for Bernie" poll: That is a good poll. If many of us ITT are correct, Bernie is closer to Biden than this poll reflects, which is A Good Thing. Skex posted:But I mean come on they've bent over backwards in order to at least appear to be fair, I don't agree with this at all. They've paid lip service on a couple occasions, but that's it. Majorian fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Jul 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 00:35
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I'm not saying there's a better way to do it; any metric would likely have come off as arbitrary. It's a no-win situation for the DNC; I'm just saying, given that they've gone out of their way to present themselves as capricious and overbearing in their primary process over the past several years, this particular episode doesn't help. If you want people to join your movement, you better give them a change to change. The DNC has made a good faith gesture in putting in place what are frankly really loose of standards (the poling threshold should have been at least poling outside the margin of error IMO) the individual contribution limits are good, they show that you have a broad enough level of support that you aren't just some vanity candidate buying your way on the stage. Attacking people doing a good thing simply because they did something bad in the past is like punishing a dog for correctly following an instruction because they failed to follow it in the past. It basically sends a signal that it doesn't matter if they improve so where is the incentive for them or others to do so? If the Left insists on telling everyone who isn't in total lock step with them to gently caress off, even when they are entertaining leftists policies then where is the incentive for shitdems to change? I'm not saying not to be wary, but at least give them a chance to prove that they've improved. It's in all of our interest at this point for the process to be perceived as fair so that we can go into the election with a unified coalition. The Centrists have recognized that if they alienate the left the way they've done in the past they're screwing everyone including themselves to they have so at least put forward a process that will be perceived as fair and to be perceived as such it actually kind of has to be. I don't trust them to do what's right because it's right, but I do trust them to do what they think is in their best interest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 00:51
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I'm not saying there's a better way to do it; any metric would likely have come off as arbitrary. It's a no-win situation for the DNC; I'm just saying, given that they've gone out of their way to present themselves as capricious and overbearing in their primary process over the past several years, this particular episode doesn't help. I mean, I feel like the reasoning that keeps coming up is "because the DNC has done some shifty rigging in the past, we should assume everything they do is shifty rigging, no matter how inconsequential, reasonably-designed or neutral" which just feels... dumb? Like, the DNC is not some brilliant group of puppetmasters, their rigging efforts are usually brazen and self-evident (and not particularly effective, but that's another argument). Like, instead of assuming poo poo like "This debate scheduled is rigged, I don't know how or why but I assume it is" wouldn't a more reasonable approach be to look at what they're actually doing and then determine if it's fair or not? Like it's one thing to see something suspicious and presume ill-intent based on previous behavior. But in this case (and with the debate night distributions) it's looking at something where there's no wrong-doing and nothing unreasonable and STILL presuming ill-intent for... a not-crime. It's not that the DNC has earned good will, it hasn't, but I feel like we should at least wait for an action that feels fishy? Majorian posted:That is a good poll. If many of us ITT are correct, Bernie is closer to Biden than this poll reflects, which is A Good Thing. imho this is a pretty bad poll for anyone but Biden, because it's the only poll that shows the debates not having a meaningful effect. Like if all polls showed this, the conclusion would be "Biden is invincible"
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 00:54
|
|
|
Lycus posted:Here's a "Good for Bernie" poll: Castro and higher should stay in, rest should gtfo
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:Please justify this probation. I just don't think this space has room for that kind of negative energy
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 01:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
That entire Unity Reform Commission exercise that shaped the rules for this primary cycle was just lip service to you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 01:08
|
|
|
sasfk
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 01:12
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mviser/status/1146570781108948992
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 01:19
|
|
|
"I'm not trapped in here with you," Biden began...
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 01:28
|
|
|
The DNC might have avoided the perception of rigging if they hadn't altered the goalposts to be on stage post-campaign season kickoff. And yes, Im aware campaign season never actually ends.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 01:35
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:AOC is not going to endorse anyone until either Warren or Bernie drops, and then she's going to endorse the one of them who's left So, Bernie? What are Warren's fundraising numbers for Q2? I am sure some of those that were all "I'll vote Bernie, but I just gave a lil bitty tiny bit to Warren" will keep her in for a bit longer. Judakel fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Jul 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 01:39
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:I mean, I feel like the reasoning that keeps coming up is "because the DNC has done some shifty rigging in the past, we should assume everything they do is shifty rigging, no matter how inconsequential, reasonably-designed or neutral" which just feels... dumb? Like, the DNC is not some brilliant group of puppetmasters, their rigging efforts are usually brazen and self-evident (and not particularly effective, but that's another argument). Like, instead of assuming poo poo like "This debate scheduled is rigged, I don't know how or why but I assume it is" wouldn't a more reasonable approach be to look at what they're actually doing and then determine if it's fair or not? Sure, but you know me (or at least my posting). I don't tend to engage in conspiracy-mongering all that often. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that the DNC rigged the debate lineup against Gravel personally. But they were the ones who chose the cutoff number for donor support, and the fact that establishment twerps like Hickenlooper and Ryan got spots and Gravel didn't doesn't help with the perception that they're an arbitrary organization. Z. Autobahn posted:imho this is a pretty bad poll for anyone but Biden, because it's the only poll that shows the debates not having a meaningful effect. Like if all polls showed this, the conclusion would be "Biden is invincible" Biden's numbers were considerably higher pre-debate in pretty much every poll - I don't remember if the ABC poll had him at or lower than 29%, but I'd be surprised if it did. Like I said.  Pinky Artichoke posted:That entire Unity Reform Commission exercise that shaped the rules for this primary cycle was just lip service to you? Kind of, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
The ABC poll makes sense if only because Bernie was the second choice for a lot of Biden people. But I care a lot more about Iowa and I want him to listen more carefully to the questions, because he has answered those same questions perfectly before. Hopefully Gillibrand can be placed on another stage? You're not breaking through so stop interrupting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 01:42
|
|
|
That's honest at least
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 01:49
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:I just don't think this space has room for that kind of negative energy "I like Bernie BUT *insert some stupid poo poo*" is some bad faith bullshit with a years long history at this point and it comes off as really dumb to hit VS for treating that behavior in a (frankly incredibly restrained) derogatory manner.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 01:53
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:"I like Bernie BUT *insert some stupid poo poo*" is some bad faith bullshit with a years long history at this point and it comes off as really dumb to hit VS for treating that behavior in a (frankly incredibly restrained) derogatory manner. "I like Bernie but I think he's going to lose" is a completely valid viewpoint with zero contradiction. I like a lot of poo poo that I think isn't going to happen. Being cynical or skeptical or pessimistic isn't the same thing as concern-trolling, and it's dumb to treat it as such.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:"I like Bernie but I think he's going to lose" is a completely valid viewpoint with zero contradiction. I like a lot of poo poo that I think isn't going to happen. I don't really have an issue with what that dude was saying, my point is more that "I like Bernie, BUT" style posting is something with a history of bad faith attached to it and I don't think it's particularly incumbent on anyone to accept that THIS TIME that's not true. The second part of this is that was an exceptionally mild response anyway, and downright saint-like coming from VS. While this is on my mind, framing jokes lightly poking at a dude's last name for literally being "Butt" as homophobic is really dumb and dishonest and those probes should probably stop imho. Oh Snapple! fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Jul 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 01:59
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:tbh responding to every predictive claim of "I think [X] will happen" with "Oh, so you WANT [X] to happen?!" or "Oh wow so we're supposed to give up and just let [X] happen?!" is super tedious quote:Like sometimes folks just wanna... speculate on an outcome... without it being an expression of what they want to go down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 02:12
|
|
|
Marxalot posted:Biden was sundowning the entire time so And what the hell is this
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 02:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 19:55 |
|
|
 Wow! Libslayer Bernie!
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 02:19
|
|
