|
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 | ||
|
Cerebral Bore posted:You don't get to say poo poo like this when you're pretending that people ITT are actually supporting some anti-vax agenda. I can and I will because I haven't. I'm also not claiming that people in the thread are advocating an anti-vaxx agenda, I'm claiming that they aren't taking Williamson's anti-vaxx agenda (including her other public appearances and her book sales) seriously and some are crossing the line into abelism to do so. Why in the gently caress can't people in this thread argue honestly? VitalSigns posted:Can you actually show a correlation between Williamson being in a debate, and an increase in deaths, I don't think you can. I just wanted to point out that this right here is a really common anti-vaxx talking point. It leads directly to the bullshit claim that vaccine-preventable diseases like measles are just "harmless childhood diseases" that everyone used to get and since no one has died they aren't a big deal. The only thing missing here is that clip from the Brady Bunch about how "measles is no big deal". Before some disingenuous poo poo decides that I'm accusing VitalSigns of being an anti-vaxxer, let me just be really specific that I don't believe VitalSigns is an anti-vaxxer, I'm just warning you not to fall for their framing.
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
It's not a coincidence that noted anti-vaxxer VitalSigns is also a Bernie stan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 20:22
|
|
|
This forum truly is pathetic for how much energy we expend concerning ourselves with a joke grifter candidate who is polling at 1%. “Lol crystal queen” memes are dumb but she also literally doesn’t matter. It has about as much effect as “lol giant meteor 2020” memes do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 20:24
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I just wanted to point out that this right here is a really common anti-vaxx talking point. It leads directly to the bullshit claim that vaccine-preventable diseases like measles are just "harmless childhood diseases" that everyone used to get and since no one has died they aren't a big deal. The only thing missing here is that clip from the Brady Bunch about how "measles is no big deal". So no, you can't actually show that Williamson talking about South America in a debate leads to any demonstrable increase in the numbers of anti-vaxxers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Warren raising more than Sanders seem pretty relevant.... Given the nature of her fundraising (no big donor dinners and such like Pete & Joe & Kamala), I agree 100%. It looks very much like she and Bernie combined had FAR more individual donors in Q2 than Kamala/Pete/Joe combined, and I think the Warren and Sanders bases can largely unify. There's only so much momentum you can buy with money raised off of the rich, but if the streets are flooded with Bernie and Liz volunteers, then the other candidates are far more handcuffed. And, of course, if either Bernie or Liz wins, the fact that they are so far ahead now in motivated supporters means that they are the two most likely to be able to continue inspiring active mass action after their election. Bernie will be a HUGE President Liz promoter and vice versa.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
Warrens “base” will be immediately be spun down and abandoned much like Obama’s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 20:33
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:Just curious what the remaining "Warren is still running out of money" true believers make of this: What I make of it is that every "Voting for Bernie but throwing Warren a little money for *half-measure plan*" is to blame.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 20:33
|
|
|
teacher_man posted:Given the nature of her fundraising (no big donor dinners and such like Pete & Joe & Kamala), I agree 100%. The issue is that one of them needs to get out before someone else starts gaining all the momentum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 20:33
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I'm not going to waste my time responding to the disingenuous bullshit from other posters, but I'd just like to point out that I haven't advocated or supported these policies or folks like Biden or Buttigieg once. I'm pissed off that so many here treat this issue as no big deal, that a compromised immune system is just a loving joke and that calling out clear ableism is just being "a tedious liberal". These are the same folks who advocate for such horrors as bleach enemas for children with autism, so when the issue is taken lightly, you're going to be push back. Just going to respond to this with my previous reply "I think some posters are responding poorly to your yelling because 90% of candidates in this primary are actively working towards making it impossible to seek treatment for medical issues of any kind. Much less immune disorders. It's not that people don't think vaccinations are important so much as they're more concerned with the men and women on stage who are fighting for policy that will make it literally impossible to survive with an immune disorder regardless of whether or not a bunch of pampered upper class dickheads bringing back the old plagues we put down 50-100 years ago." Though I do want to add that you really shouldn't excuse the mainstream democrats as "just being uninformed". They're not. They just don't give a poo poo about you, your family, or anyone but themselves. When people post the crystal wizard with a decent take it's not necessarily an endorsement of said crystals witch. It's more of a dig at just how loving -awful- the Democratic frontrunners are. It's not that people don't take basic healthcare seriously. It's that everyone else is so much loving worse. Maybe I'm just projecting. Marxalot fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Jul 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
Judakel posted:What I make of it is that every "Voting for Bernie but throwing Warren a little money for *half-measure plan*" is to blame. It was also a quarter defined by Warren receiving an infinite amount of uncritical puff pieces as folks looked for a viable Non-Biden/Bernie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:It was also a quarter defined by Warren receiving an infinite amount of uncritical puff pieces as folks looked for a viable Non-Biden/Bernie. Of course. As she tackles more complex, structural problems, her plans do seem to be getting worse. She has a plan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
Phone posted:Warrens “base” will be immediately be spun down and abandoned much like Obama’s. This. I don't expect her to continue calls for action after winning and any orgs supporting her will be abandoned as soon as they aren't needed to secure power. Especially considering that she has already stated she'll be courting corporate bidders if she makes it to the general. Her future corporate donors will not be interested in large, popular movements and she will respond accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
Phone posted:Warrens “base” will be immediately be spun down and abandoned much like Obama’s. This is the concern, obviously, but I think she's too close to Bernie for it to go like Obama's abandoned coalition. Bernie isn't going to stop pounding the drum until he's loving dead and he will hit President Warren from the left if he needs to, and The Bros will be with him. mcmagic posted:The issue is that one of them needs to get out before someone else starts gaining all the momentum. I don't see it. The last thing we need is FEWER non-corporate voices. We need Bernie to stay in as long as possible to keep Liz honest, even if she pulls ahead and away. I don't buy the idea that there's this obviously-limited percentage of available voters relative to the mainstream/garbage major candidates. Ideally Bernie keeps his base and wins some from the poo poo candidates and Warren keeps her base and wins more from the poo poo candidates. If we have a primary season with Liz and Bernie trading progressive policy shots (but not personal, since they seem to like each other), that's good for all of us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 20:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So no, you can't actually show that Williamson talking about South America in a debate leads to any demonstrable increase in the numbers of anti-vaxxers. Look, I get that you think I’m some bad faith poster because I haven’t spent months talking about how much I love Bernie Sanders but I voted for him before and I still support him now. That doesn’t give you the right to continually dance around my clear points and post in bad faith yourself. I just loving expect my progressive candidates to take science and public health and climate change seriously and I’m not going to tolerate harmful anti-science bullshit from progressives. You shouldn’t either. The World Health Organization has listed vaccine hesitancy on their list of the ten largest risks to global health, in between Weak Primary healthcare and Dengue. Climate change of course tops the list. So there’s your loving harm. And no, I’m not going to congratulate someone for pointing out the loving obvious with regards to restarting aid to South America, especially when they are literally making money off of their harmful anti-science and anti-medicine beliefs. They don’t deserve a loving cookie when she can buy her own from the proceeds of their harmful books. Somehow Sanders can advocate for these issues without harming others but I’m supposed to just ignore the needs of others because Williamson said something reasonable? gently caress that. You folks keep going on and on about the harm caused by foreign wars but you can’t seem to understand that much of that harm is caused not by the immediate bombing, but the destruction of infrastructure that leads to preventable illnesses running rampant and treatable illnesses becoming deadly. Public loving health stops with blockades as well. This poo poo only gets worse with Climate Change, as the WHO points out. Your magical crystal grandma spouting info easily found on this forum or twitter doesn’t change this, and she would be in no way capable of preventing those deaths or understanding how to prevent them in the first place. She’s only here to make money off of books that harm innocent people. Calling people “tedious liberals” for pointing this out isn’t useful in the slightest. Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Jul 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 20:46
|
|
|
Marxalot posted:Just going to respond to this with my previous reply I mean, they all support at least a Medicaid buy-in type scheme if not full on M4A, Gillibrand actually wrote parts of Bernie's M4A bill, Inslee and Hickenlooper both did what they could to expand coverage in their states within the constraints of the ACA and their local laws...clearly they are monsters who want to see Americans dying in the streets.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
teacher_man posted:This is the concern, obviously, but I think she's too close to Bernie for it to go like Obama's abandoned coalition. Bernie isn't going to stop pounding the drum until he's loving dead and he will hit President Warren from the left if he needs to, and The Bros will be with him. What do you think? Bernie's going to go to Warren and say "Warren, we need to keep your non-excitable base going and get them to support plans that you yourself don't really support?" The people voting and seriously supporting Warren aren't seriously progressive. They're mostly centrists who want a woman in the White House. There's a reason she is all over the place as far as healthcare, which is a major issue that would upset her "base".
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
Why would you carry any sort of water for the PPACA in 2019? Why?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Okay so for actually stating "I am or am not voting for this or that person," fine. I have to agree it's kind of bitchy to do that and doesn't really foster discussion, despite definitely being guilty of this myself. I'm not going to outright ban discussion about what specific candidates might specifically do during the general, but I also don't want to see it become the same thing as the electability debate in the mainstream media where people constantly raise the specter of "electability" solely as a vague excuse for why no one but their chosen candidate is acceptable. And in general, it's a little early to be talking about what candidates' general election plans are when the convention is still more than a year away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 20:58
|
|
|
Judakel posted:What do you think? Bernie's going to go to Warren and say "Warren, we need to keep your non-excitable base going and get them to support plans that you yourself don't really support?" The people voting and seriously supporting Warren aren't seriously progressive. They're mostly centrists who want a woman in the White House. There's a reason she is all over the place as far as healthcare, which is a major issue that would upset her "base". A huge chunk of her base are definitely the types who want Trump gone so they can stop being mad and relax. Doesn't matter what the Dem pres does; so long as Trump is gone everything is fixed, right? And they'll be the people confused when 2024 rolls around and progressives are saying they aren't going to bother turning out for Warren's reelection. "What do you mean the camps are still open? Didn't President Warren promise to close them after an appropriate review period??"
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
USAID being a front for the CIA has done a hell of a lot more to reduce vaccination rates world wide than Oprah's energy crystal facebook mom could ever hope to if she lived a thousand years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:A huge chunk of her base are definitely the types who want Trump gone so they can stop being mad and relax. Doesn't matter what the Dem pres does; so long as Trump is gone everything is fixed, right? And they'll be the people confused when 2024 rolls around and progressives are saying they aren't going to bother turning out for Warren's reelection. "What do you mean the camps are still open? Didn't President Warren promise to close them after an appropriate review period??" They would definitely be mad at real structural change, because they lead very comfortable lives. Can someone post that graphic of how soft Warren's support is and how many would consider voting for someone else?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
Pinky Artichoke posted:I mean, they all support at least a Medicaid buy-in type scheme if not full on M4A, Gillibrand actually wrote parts of Bernie's M4A bill, Inslee and Hickenlooper both did what they could to expand coverage in their states within the constraints of the ACA and their local laws...clearly they are monsters who want to see Americans dying in the streets. Unironically, yes. An affordable yet means tested option to access a public-private medicaid partnership for $300 a month is basically what you just said. The option of absolute sociopaths who literally do not care if you die so long as it keeps their investment portfolio strong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 21:20
|
|
|
teacher_man posted:If we have a primary season with Liz and Bernie trading progressive policy shots (but not personal, since they seem to like each other), that's good for all of us. I've asked before but no one seems to know: if a candidate competes in some primaries and wins delegates, and then drops out, are those effectively free delegates, or do they tend to vote for whoever their candidate endorses after dropping out, or what? That's kinda crucial to know, in considering how to approach this. I do agree that it's great news strategically for the left that Bernie and Warren are both doing well. What's not clear to me is what are the tactics for the primary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:I've asked before but no one seems to know: if a candidate competes in some primaries and wins delegates, and then drops out, are those effectively free delegates, or do they tend to vote for whoever their candidate endorses after dropping out, or what? That's kinda crucial to know, in considering how to approach this. I don't know either, but I wonder if the reason nobody can readily answer this is because it's actually a patchwork of laws, rules, norms and guidelines for delegates that vary by state.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
Another thing to remember is that voters are very stupid and Bernie/Warren voters' second choice could easily be Biden or Harris.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:I've asked before but no one seems to know: if a candidate competes in some primaries and wins delegates, and then drops out, are those effectively free delegates, or do they tend to vote for whoever their candidate endorses after dropping out, or what? That's kinda crucial to know, in considering how to approach this. The short answer is that if a candidate drops out, his or her delegates don't have to vote for the candidate their candidate endorses, but in practice, of course, delegates are loyal to a candidate and will probably do what a candidate asks. It's largely been a moot question up to this point, because, since primaries became the main way parties picked candidates, there hasn't been a case where none of the candidates had a majority of the delegates going into the convention. (Technically, the parties don't even require pledged delegates to vote for the candidate they're pledged to.some states have laws saying they have to, but only New Mexico criminalizes a delegate voting for a candidate they aren't pledged to. This led to a failed attempt by Republicans in 2016 to peel enough delegates off Trump that he wouldn't win in the first vallot.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 21:50
|
|
|
I don't think it really matters whether Warren and Bernie split the vote. If Warren just straight up wins, she still loses the general.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 21:57
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:I think people are concerned that they'll split the progressive vote, neither of them will get a majority, then it'll go to a second round at the convention at which point obviously the superdelegates will nominate some centrist shitbird like Biden or Harris. And that will be that. Armack posted:I don't know either, but I wonder if the reason nobody can readily answer this is because it's actually a patchwork of laws, rules, norms and guidelines for delegates that vary by state. Ok, so there are four kinds of delegates. Three of these types are pledged delegates and the fourth are unpledged or automatic delegates (aka superdelegates). Per DNC rules, "Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them." Not really enforceable so faithless electors are possible but that's the rule. So the pledged delegates are not bound to the candidate so much as they are bound to the will of the voters and are expected to act accordingly when voting, at least on the first ballot. So if Harris drops and endorses Biden, she doesn't turn her delegates over to Biden. Those delegates are expected to still vote for Harris because that is what the voters indicated. There are sometimes state laws which require this, as well. The real confusion, at least for me, is on the second ballot. If no one receives 1,885 delegate votes on the first ballot, then the supers are brought in and a second round of voting begins, and the vote threshold for a majority becomes 2,267 delegate votes. But I can't find anything that says candidates can ever release their delegates in subsequent voting rounds, so in a multiple ballot scenario it is either entirely up to the supers to come to an agreement, or it's possible that at the convention there will need to be a vote to approve the release of pledged delegates from nonviable candidates. Of course thanks to the 15% threshold, at most four or five candidates will actually get delegates. And of those maybe two will actually have delegate totals breaking the double digits. So the idea that it will come down to whether or not Pete can release his two delegates he got from one county in California seems pretty unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
Judakel posted:I don't think it really matters whether Warren and Bernie split the vote. If Warren just straight up wins, she still loses the general. IDK why this is any kind of foregone conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
if warren drops out I expect her to endorse harris or someone instead of bernie
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
Condiv posted:if warren drops out I expect her to endorse harris or someone instead of bernie This would be very disappointing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:This would be very disappointing. She endorsed Clinton after all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
Condiv posted:if warren drops out I expect her to endorse harris or someone instead of bernie This is almost certainly what would happen imo and also I bet the majority of Warren 1st supporters would choose Harris second at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
kidkissinger posted:She endorsed Clinton after all. by the same logic, surely famous clinton-endorser Bernard Sanders will pick a centrist over Warren when he drops out because ?????
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
eke out posted:by the same logic, surely famous clinton-endorser Bernard Sanders will pick a centrist over Warren when he drops out because ????? lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:IDK why this is any kind of foregone conclusion. Because Trump already embarrassed her as soon as she launched her campaign and she has no definable base except those who are rather comfortable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
I wish Bernie had some details about what he as President should do about the opioid crisis. Saying “as a Senator I proposed jailing pharma execs” is nice, but an “if elected I will do this” outline would win him support in places where I think he could use it. These places went for Hillary in the primary and then Trump in the general, and they’re communities where firefighters have turned into OD recovery specialists who sometimes spray water on a blaze. There’s even a rich gently caress family making big amounts of money on it, so it fits into Bern’s overall narrative of dancing around guillotines. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Jul 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Because Trump already embarrassed her as soon as she launched her campaign and she has no definable base except those who are rather comfortable. Any D nominee starts at 45% and Trump is unpopular. She could easily win. Also, the idea that Trump "embarrassed" her because he's a racist piece of who called her a racial slur doesn't really jive with me. mcmagic fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Jul 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
To be more precise Trump goaded her into embarrassing herself, which is even worse.
Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Jul 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
So with all Trumps baggage, her taking a dumb blood test is going to be the thing that makes her lose? IDK if I buy that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 22:30
|
|