|
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 | ||
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:It might help, since Sanders and Warren will not have open FBI investigations... At the risk of sounding  , I would honestly not be the least bit surprised if this ends up NOT being the case during the general. I mean, I could easily see Trump trying to force an investigation on some imaginary charge to use as a distraction from his own fuckups, or because he's broke brained enough to figure it worked in 2016 so it'll work again. Normal people will roll their eyes and know it's not even worth dignifying with a response, meanwhile CNN and Fox will both be blasting the headline "SANDERS/WARREN UNDER INVESTIGATION" nonstop.
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 15:32 |
|
|
Chilichimp posted:So just to be clear, you'll never vote for Liz Warren, and it's because So you believe nothing a candidate does is bad unless it loses them voters for that explicit reason? Good to know for future reference.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 20:57
|
|
|
Marlows posted:So you’re just going to ignore the consistent polling evidence in favor of a poorly constructed art project that just so happens to justify your priors. Shocking. This is like bringing up the fact that Clinton won the electoral college. It is true and also entirely misses the point. In an American presidential election you do not win by getting the most votes nationally you win by getting enough votes in a bunch of separate races. Trump's debate performance didn't have to make people like him better it just had to remind the right people of why they didn't like Clinton. His favourability going down after the debate is entirely compatible with the argument that he won the debate because the election didn't hinge on favourability it hinged on turnout and Trump said what he had to say on that front. For instance: if a bunch of voters in Michigan watched his exchange over NAFTA and were so pissed off by Clinton's answer that they decided they were simply going to mark the Presidential ballot blank then that counts as a win for Trump in this context, even if those same voters then reported to a pollster that their view of Trump was worse after the debate. And keep in mind that the Clinton campaign was so worried about her low favourability in Michigan that they actually concluded any visits to the state by the candidate would do more harm than good because they would remind voters that Clinton was then nominee and that was expected to depress turn out. So for Trump to use the debates to remind everyone about Clinton's association with NAFTA was a clever move even if it didn't move the national numbers (or in fact moved the national numbers slightly against him).
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 21:02
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:It might help, since Sanders and Warren will not have open FBI investigations and an utter, utter inability to relate to people on a personal level. Just wait till Russigate comes home to roost and the FBI starts dropping reports on how these candidates are receiving massive social media assistance from Chinese bots who are retaliating against Trump's extremely effective trade war.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Just wait till Russigate comes home to roost and the FBI starts dropping reports on how these candidates are receiving massive social media assistance from Chinese bots who are retaliating against Trump's extremely effective trade war. Eh, it helps that neither of them have the decades of baggage that Hilldawg did, though. No one who would turn out to vote D is gonna believe that Bernie is anywhere near as corrupt as Trump is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:So just to be clear, you'll never vote for Liz Warren, and it's because The thing about the DNA test is that it never mattered It didn't matter to Trump, to his followers, to her followers and especially not to the native American community. Being native American is about holding that identity and being part of their struggle. Living that life and facing their problems. If a person doesn't have any experience as a native American then their DNA doesn't matter. Even if she was 50% native American it wouldn't matter as long as she was born white and raised in a white middle class family. That she used her DNA test to imply even a fraction of a membership of the native American community was an insult to them. What she would have done is not get the DNA test. Maintained her story and just used her political influence to support the Native American community in a positive way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Just wait till Russigate comes home to roost and the FBI starts dropping reports on how these candidates are receiving massive social media assistance from Chinese bots who are retaliating against Trump's extremely effective trade war. Sure, and while I'm at it, I'll eagerly anticipate Trump revealing that he's a lizard person from the planet Zarg too. After all, that's about as likely to happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:Sure, and while I'm at it, I'll eagerly anticipate Trump revealing that he's a lizard person from the planet Zarg too. The idea that Donald Trump (or the FBI) would never blatantly abuse their power for personal advantage is kind of a new one in the hot take collection, I gotta say.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:The idea that Donald Trump (or the FBI) would never blatantly abuse their power for personal advantage is kind of a new one in the hot take collection, I gotta say. This isn't that and you know it; please try to be intellectually honest. The FBI is not going to do this, and any investigation by Trump's DOJ is going to look hilariously politically motivated. The only people who will believe there's any "there" there are people already in his camp. Trump suffers from a credibility gap that's the size of the Grand Canyon; no one that isn't a chud trusts a single word that comes out of his mouth. Fritz Coldcockin fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Aug 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:This isn't that and you know it; please try to be intellectually honest. The FBI is not going to do this, and any investigation by Trump's DOJ is going to look hilariously politically motivated. The only people who will believe there's any "there" there are people already in his camp. Trump suffers from a credibility gap that's the size of the Grand Canyon; no one that isn't a chud trusts a single word that comes out of his mouth. The FBI investigated Bernie's Sander's wife for some bullshit already
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 21:43
|
|
|
Terror Sweat posted:The FBI investigated Bernie's Sander's wife for some bullshit already Yes, and it's definitely stayed front page news and mortally wounded his candidacy because Bernie's penchant for secrecy over a 30-year stint in the Washington spotlight has destroyed his credibility. Oh, wait...
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
Terror Sweat posted:The FBI investigated Bernie's Sander's wife for some bullshit already They investigated Jane based on rumors spread by Trump's VT campaign manager.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 21:55
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:This isn't that and you know it; please try to be intellectually honest. The FBI is not going to do this, and any investigation by Trump's DOJ is going to look hilariously politically motivated. The only people who will believe there's any "there" there are people already in his camp. Trump suffers from a credibility gap that's the size of the Grand Canyon; no one that isn't a chud trusts a single word that comes out of his mouth. "The FBI aren't going to do that", he said a little less than three years after the FBI director torpedoed Hillary. Now imagine what they'd be willing to pull if somebody who actually threatens the elites gets the nomination.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:So just to be clear, you'll never vote for Liz Warren, and it's because chilichimp, she didn't have to publish the results. no-one knew she got the test done. when it came back with trace amounts of native american heritage, she could've just ignored the issue. instead she went and triumphantly claimed she had proof of her ancestry... she has claimed native american ancestry all of her life, and you can claim all you want that she was just naive and doing it cause her mom was wrong. but then she got those dna results and decided that based on one-drop rules she was right all her life. do you think that's ok?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
Folks also forget about the other icky part of that whole mess which was the video she released that was one big "No, no, Elizabeth didn't benefit from Affirmative Action, she earned these things."
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/EmmaKinery/status/1160297794869088258 Can we put him out to pasture yet?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:https://twitter.com/EmmaKinery/status/1160297794869088258 jesus loving christ can he stroke out or something already
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 22:45
|
|
|
Is it really a "gaffe" if he's lost his sense of time?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:Is it really a "gaffe" if he's lost his sense of time?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:So just to be clear, you'll never vote for Liz Warren, and it's because The thing Warren did was actually bad. You can argue it's somewhat understandable, but it was still wrong and you're wrong if you defend it. By itself it isn't necessarily a reason not to support Warren, but it's one of the list of things that makes her a significantly worse choice than Sanders in the primary (though her actual policy differences are obviously the bigger issue). Oh Snapple! posted:Folks also forget about the other icky part of that whole mess which was the video she released that was one big "No, no, Elizabeth didn't benefit from Affirmative Action, she earned these things." And there's also this part, yeah. The whole thing was an actual genuine gently caress-up on Warren's part in a way that goes beyond just being a tactical misstep.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
I was unaware that the 2016 debates were held in the backstage area of a High School theater, and consisted of two people who weren't either Hillary or Donny poorly imitating Hillary and Donny, only gender switched. While the idea of seeing if other people saying the same things might result in a different perception of the event is interesting, that isn't what happened and doesn't actually tell you anything of real substance. If I am suddenly persuaded by the words of Donny because they are coming out of another person's mouth, that doesn't mean I would be persuaded by them coming out of his mouth. Once again, it's a very interesting thought experiment. However, showing the flaws in our perceptions of arguments based on gender is kind of irrelevant to the past event that everyone experienced through their gender biases. VitalSigns posted:
Her trade policies didn't magically appear in the debate and then disappear after it. Her lovely selling of her poor choices was a campaign long thing. People both thought that she did better than Donny in the debates, thus winning, and that they didn't want to vote for her because she sucked. We don't have to pretend there was a vast conspiracy of smug assholery to sell Hillary's debate performance to the nation. There is a long history of people both winning debates and losing races, because debates only partially intersect with the values and motivations that drive people to vote for a candidate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 23:16
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Her trade policies didn't magically appear in the debate and then disappear after it. Her lovely selling of her poor choices was a campaign long thing. People both thought that she did better than Donny in the debates, thus winning, and that they didn't want to vote for her because she sucked. What does "doing better" or "winning the debate" mean in this context?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 15:32 |
|
|
The new thread with its fresh scent is located here: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3895923
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2019 23:43
|
|