|
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 | ||
|
LinYutang posted:https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/06/25/joe-biden-2020-democrats-1380317 I'm surprised you didn't also post the next question, in which 26% of likely primary voters said Booker calling Biden out made them less likely to vote for Booker, and 52% had no opinion. But before we get all wrapped up in despairing about the Dem electorate, let's look at the actual text of the questions: quote:Table POL18: As you may know, Joe Biden recently discussed his ’civil’ working relationship with senators James Eastland of Mississippi and Herman So the Biden question included a defense of Biden right there in the question and portrayed him as a civil rights pioneer. And the Booker question watered down his attacks into some decorum-poisoned line about models for bringing the country together. No wonder this poll turned out favorable for Biden - especially since over half of respondents had heard little or nothing about Biden praising segregationists, and therefore had to rely solely on the question as their sole source of information about it.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 01:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 14:41 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:So? It doesn't exist in the General Election either. yeah that's part of the whole nonexistence thing
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 01:17
|
|
|
All primaries should be on the same day
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 01:19
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:All primaries should be on the same day Great idea if you like having hillary clintons and joe bidens and assorted jeb!s forever
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 01:20
|
|
|
So is this a Third Way psyop, or?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 01:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/PostOpinions/status/1143673256723001346 Biden is trash and I will actively sabotage him if he is the nominee.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 01:45
|
|
|
This is interesting https://mobile.twitter.com/Robillard/status/1143505423460438016 https://mobile.twitter.com/Robillard/status/1143507045095788545
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 02:21
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:This is interesting The problem is that Trump is going to turn out literally every last republican in red and purple states.....
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 02:24
|
|
|
I'd like to remind everyone that no one is paying attention to the primary right now. This weekend, after the debates have happened and been reported on and people have their takes, is literally the first time that polls will be even close to mattering.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 02:39
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:I'd like to remind everyone that no one is paying attention to the primary right now. This weekend, after the debates have happened and been reported on and people have their takes, is literally the first time that polls will be even close to mattering. Even then we're mostly just pissing on each other's legs until 2020. this election will take twenty-seven years, just like 2016 did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 02:48
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:Even then we're mostly just pissing on each other's legs until 2020. this election will take twenty-seven years, just like 2016 did. Oh yeah. Like, I think the polls will matter to the extent that we can learn something from how they move more than the actual numbers. If Biden maintains his lead but drops a few points, then that would signal that maybe we've been right that his lead is just name recognition and he won't survive being exposed to the public. Or if Yang goes from margin of error to four or five percent, maybe we've gotta start worrying about Yangmentum
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 02:53
|
|
|
Warren, Biden and Harris would all probably lose rally badly to Trump. Sanders has the best chance against him in a general.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 03:12
|
|
|
Nah, Warren can get all the Clinton voters plus the motivated Trump haters. She'd roll in the general
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 03:14
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Nah, Warren can get all the Clinton voters plus the motivated Trump haters. She'd roll in the general You just named two groups that are the same group. Clinton ran entirely on "Trump Bad"
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 03:17
|
|
|
im gonna want to watch Warren in a real-people debate before I make that call, because it is entirely going to come down to how she comes off. if she goes full Lisa Simpson again then yes, she could absolutely lose this thing in extremely embarrassing fashion. if she finds some way to tap into angry people that might actually work though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 03:17
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:You just named two groups that are the same group. Clinton ran entirely on "Trump Bad" Yes but apathy was high since we were assured that Clinton was a shoo-in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 03:20
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:im gonna want to watch Warren in a real-people debate before I make that call, because it is entirely going to come down to how she comes off. if she goes full Lisa Simpson again then yes, she could absolutely lose this thing in extremely embarrassing fashion. her loving website calculator poo poo has me worried oxsnard posted:Yes but apathy was high since we were assured that Clinton was a shoo-in. percentage of population wise, wasn't turnout the same or a little higher than 2012?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 03:22
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Yes but apathy was high since we were assured that Clinton was a shoo-in. she turned out to be more of a shoe-off
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 03:23
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:her loving website calculator poo poo has me worried it's completely in the cards. but let's be real here: if you are the kind of dipshit who can be moved by checking out a candidate's policy page on their website, you are very much in the market for a neat little calculator to play with. we get to see an Elizabeth Warren rated for public consumption, in competition, with someone whose guts she hates. she'll have an opportunity to show passion. it will be interesting to see how that ends up looking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 03:29
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:
Almost identical, yeah. Swap a few hundred thousand black voters for a few hundred thousand Trump new-voters was the difference. I believe the youth vote dropped as well. That could easily be explained by enthusiasm imo
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 03:29
|
|
|
The problem is that Clinton lost for so many reasons, it's very easy to say "While as the long as the Dem does or doesn't do *specific thing Clinton didn't or did do* they're guaranteed to win!" Because that forgets that one of the big mistakes Clinton made was campaigning to win by just enough. Her campaigns computer algorithm would say that they were gonna win a district by 100 votes, they figured they had it in the bag and din't need to bother trying to run that lead up at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 03:36
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:The problem is that Clinton lost for so many reasons, it's very easy to say "While as the long as the Dem does or doesn't do *specific thing Clinton didn't or did do* they're guaranteed to win!" This is absolutely true. All the algorithms depended on the same level of voter turnout and all. By refusing to campaign, it depressed any possible GOTV, and is what killed Clinton. Obama came to Michigan to try to save the state, and the Hillary people were furious about that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 03:38
|
|
|
Let's just take a second to reflect on the fact that the Clinton campaign and every pundit just assumed that it was virtually certain black turnout would be the same as 2012. Just mind boggling
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 03:43
|
|
|
Voting share turnout in midterms 2010 - 41.8 2014 - 36.7 2018 - 49.3 That's your "gently caress Trump" turnout. He's gonna get crushed in 2020
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 03:49
|
|
|
you'd think the fact obama lost about 4 million votes between 2008 and 2012 would've clued at least one person in on the importance of maintaining voter contact
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 03:51
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:white dems in sc are succ incarnate. the people currently in leadership all they've ever known is trying to stanch the bleeding from the post-civil rights realignment What polls are you looking at? Because Sanders has like twice the support from white voters in SC. Related: https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1143699657262018562?s=19
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 04:00
|
|
|
There's going to be ~20 million new 18 year olds in 2020 vs 2016 and probably 6-8 million dead boomers. You get 40% of the new voters to turn out, and you got yourself a pretty decent move in the electorate. GOTV with the kids, who are much more likely to identify as socialist, will be absolutely key
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 04:04
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Voting share turnout in midterms Certainly looks that way. But it isn't inevitable. Especially if Biden becomes the nominee - it'll depress Democratic turnout.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 04:06
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Voting share turnout in midterms I have total faith in the democrats to gently caress up a sure thing again
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 04:08
|
|
|
Uncle Wemus posted:I have total faith in the democrats to gently caress up a sure thing again The positive thing is that the Dems didn't really do *anything* in 2018. Beto's campaign did a bang up job in TX and there were some other decent stories like that. But on a national level they were the same old idiots as usual. And the electorate still showed up, I'm guessing strictly because "gently caress Trump" We got 18 months. I'm already working here in Texas as a volunteer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 04:13
|
|
|
Beto loving sucked and blew the election . Nobody likes Beto And Warren will get absolutely destroyed by Trump . Fascism lite vs. real fascism hmmm I wonder who people will vote for ???
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 04:18
|
|
|
Punk da Bundo posted:Beto loving sucked and blew the election . Nobody likes Beto Warren could lose to Trump but not because of this dumb reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 04:20
|
|
|
Punk da Bundo posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 04:21
|
|
|
Beto is a milquetoast turd, but his campaign did a drat good job. They helped flip a few house seats and showed people the possible pathway to switching Texas to blue as early as possible
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 04:21
|
|
|
Uncle Wemus posted:I have total faith in the democrats to gently caress up a sure thing again I just did the Dr. Strange thing where you look at every possible future, and I can confirm that if Biden is the nominee he will run an ad slamming Trump for failing to build the wall, and promising that President Biden really will secure the border
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 04:22
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:Yikes. Bernie getting crushed in the South again seems very possible. If I'm reading correctly, Bernie only has 4% of the black vote there. Bernie is not winning the deep south: his path to victory is basically holding onto as much of his 2016 delegate areas as possible
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 04:48
|
|
|
Typo posted:Bernie is not winning the deep south: his path to victory is basically holding onto as much of his 2016 delegate areas as possible No Democrat is winning the deep south.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 04:52
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:No Democrat is winning the deep south. I meant the primaries
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 04:55
|
|
|
I think whoever wins the primary should refuse to debate Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 05:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 14:41 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:No Democrat is winning the deep south. Republicans can lose it though
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 06:19
|
|