The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Nick_Miller on June 28, 2019, 07:08:54 AM
-
Update: I cut and pasted the old poll's numbers today since we're VERY close in terms of how many people have voted (106 voters for the first poll, 101 voters
for this poll)
OLD RESULTS
Cory Booker 3 (1.7%)
Julian Castro 3 (1.7%)
John Delaney 1 (0.6%)
Tulsi Gabbard 9 (5.1%)
Kamala Harris 27 (15.4%)
John Hickenlooper 8 (4.6%)
Jay Inslee 3 (1.7%)
Amy Klobuchar 9 (5.1%)
Beto O'Rourke 23 (13.1%)
Bernie Sanders 19 (10.9%)
Elizabeth Warren 24 (13.7%)
Marianne Williamson0 (0%)
Andrew Yang 13 (7.4%)
Joe Biden (if he announces) 22 (12.6%)
Pete Buttigieg (exploratory) 10 (5.7%)
Kirsten Gillibrand (exploratory) 1 (0.6%)
Total Members Voted: 106
Caveat: I limited the list to the 20 who made the debates.
Caveat: I'd respectfully ask that if Republicans would like to vote, to please only vote in the poll if you'd actually vote for that Democratic in a primary. If you are going to vote for Trump in the general no matter what, then it really doesn't make any difference who your favorite Dem is.
Now if you say, "Well I'm leaning Trump but I would DEFINITELY vote for this Dem or that Dem in the general," then by all means vote in the poll, and frankly it would be interesting if you would comment too as to your thinking.
In fact, I'd love to hear comments from everyone re: if they have changed candidates or kept the same from the earlier poll I did. (below)
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/the-wayyyyyyy-too-early-2020-democratic-primary-poll/ (top ones were Harris 15.4%, O'Rourke 14.7%, and Biden 13.5%, but that was before he officially announced, Warren 12.8% and Sanders 11.5%)
-
Only one vote for Biden thus far. It will be interesting to see if that poor showing holds.
And I keep reading on Twitter how so many folks like the trio of Harris, Warren, and Buttigieg. I would freakin' love to watch a debate between those three.
-
Yang, then Sanders or Warren as a distant second/third. Of Sanders and Warren I'd probably go Sanders since he'd have a better shot at taking on Trump. After last night though, I need to look into Pete more.
Honestly though, I think the dems have a pretty good shot at losing again to Trump. We'll see.
-
I'm a republican, but my vote in the general election could swing either way depending on who is nominated.
If the democrats nominate someone I'd classify as a "populist clown", I'll vote for Trump without hesitation.
If someone with a good track record of governing and common sense gets nominated, I'd probably vote for them over Trump. I put down Hickenloper, as I'm familiar with him as a good governor. I'm sure there are other good ones on the list, I just don't care enough to research them until the field narrows down somewhat.
-
If the democrats nominate someone I'd classify as a "populist clown", I'll vote for Trump without hesitation.
I don't know if you intended this as a joke, but it certainly made me laugh. Good one! (even if you didn't realize what you just said there)
-
If the democrats nominate someone I'd classify as a "populist clown", I'll vote for Trump without hesitation.
I don't know if you intended this as a joke, but it certainly made me laugh. Good one! (even if you didn't realize what you just said there)
Perhaps he'd rather have the populist clown that's on his side of the aisle?
-
It sure seems to me that the ultimate candidate will come from the top five on this list. The only other one outside the top five listed that qualifies as "Presidential" to me is Gillebrand. The rest strike me as auditioning for 2024, the VP slot, the cabinet, or just trying to get attention and resources for their pet issue.
And if I had to guess now, I don't think Biden or Sanders will be the nominee. I think there is too much preference for younger, female, and new, which neither of them are.
Of course predictions are hard, especially about the future.
-
I have not loved Biden as a candidate for the presidency of late (though I do love Biden and actually voted for him in the 2008 primary). But if he ends up as nominee I'd like to see a Biden/Harris ticket with Biden maybe committing to one term if he wins.
I think there is something really wise in how they are positioning his campaign as a bit of a reset and returned stability before we can get more progressive again. (I don't necessarily agree- but I think it is the best positioning for his particular history and experience). And I love the idea of him being followed by Harris.
The other ticket I'd REALLY like to see is Warren/Buttigieg - I have loved her since I read Two Income Trap and as a Hoosier, Mayor Pete just speaks to me. I swoon when he talks about filling potholes :) He is just like the absolute best example of what brains and Midwestern values can be! (And obviously Warren still has a strong Midwestern vibe too) When he took responsibility for his handling of the South Bend Police killing I was just proud.
-
It sure seems to me that the ultimate candidate will come from the top five on this list. The only other one outside the top five listed that qualifies as "Presidential" to me is Gillebrand. The rest strike me as auditioning for 2024, the VP slot, the cabinet, or just trying to get attention and resources for their pet issue.
And if I had to guess now, I don't think Biden or Sanders will be the nominee. I think there is too much preference for younger, female, and new, which neither of them are.
Of course predictions are hard, especially about the future.
Gender should never be a criterion used to determine whether one is the best candidate for the job. By definition, it is classic sexism.
-
It sure seems to me that the ultimate candidate will come from the top five on this list. The only other one outside the top five listed that qualifies as "Presidential" to me is Gillebrand. The rest strike me as auditioning for 2024, the VP slot, the cabinet, or just trying to get attention and resources for their pet issue.
And if I had to guess now, I don't think Biden or Sanders will be the nominee. I think there is too much preference for younger, female, and new, which neither of them are.
Of course predictions are hard, especially about the future.
Gender should never be a criterion used to determine whether one is the best candidate for the job. By definition, it is classic sexism.
Of course. And it's ageism to say that Biden and Sanders are too old, and racist to say that they're too white.
Personally gender, race, and sexual orientation don't play any part in the person for whom I vote. For me, age is a legitimate indirect criterion as it can affect experience (generally a positive), and health/mental acuity/stamina (depends on the candidate).
But I think many of my fellow Americans are age-ist, racist, sexist, and/or homophobic to varying degrees.
-
In this poll I voted Warren and Castro. I've liked Castro since he spoke at the DNC convention way back when. Warren is just friggin impressive and whip-smart. I really like how she admitted to changing her views over time, starting as a young conservative believing that people who declare bankruptcy are simply failing in their personal responsibilities, and winding up railing against a financial system that fails regular people.
-
I'm a Republican who will definitely NOT vote for Trump and will definitely NOT vote for Sanders. After last night, I'm likely not going to vote for any presidential candidate. The people who "won" the debates in my opinion are Warren, Harris and Mayor Pete. Out of the three, Mayor Pete was the only one who didn't want to ban guns, fire off a bunch of executive orders and abolish private health insurance. I don't agree with them on policy, but I find them to be intelligent and competent and it was refreshing to hear full and complete sentences from presidential front runners.
I'm in the strange position of wishing the Democratic Party was as "conservative" as it was at the turn of the century and that the Republican Party wasn't full of sycophants. The Democrats prevailed in the midterms by embracing moderate candidates, but it seems like all of the candidates are racing to the left. Obama would be well to the right of everyone currently running. I would normally lean towards Biden, but he doesn't seem dexterous enough to make it through the general election.
I'm hoping whoever makes it out of the primary will pivot towards the center without having taken on too much (excuse the judgment) ridiculous promises and pledges. Hope springs.
-
The Democrats prevailed in the midterms by embracing moderate candidates, but it seems like all of the candidates are racing to the left. Obama would be well to the right of everyone currently running.
Welcome to primary season. The only way to secure funding and support at this stage is to paint yourself as an extremist.
-
I'm a Republican who will definitely NOT vote for Trump and will definitely NOT vote for Sanders. After last night, I'm likely not going to vote for any presidential candidate. The people who "won" the debates in my opinion are Warren, Harris and Mayor Pete. Out of the three, Mayor Pete was the only one who didn't want to ban guns, fire off a bunch of executive orders and abolish private health insurance.
Biden doesn't want Medicare for All. He wants to stick with the ACA, improve it, and add a public option but not eliminate private insurance. I'm an independent, but I think he's as good as you'll get from a republican standpoint. Delaney and Gabbard don't look too bad. Most of the front runners, I can't see voting for.
-
I'm a Republican who will definitely NOT vote for Trump and will definitely NOT vote for Sanders.
I'm a former registered and voting republican, but I have to ask about this- If you aren't for trump, why wouldn't you vote for Sanders in the general if it came to that? He's been ineffective in the past, so I doubt much would get done relative to other democratic options, but he would be less dangerous and volatile, and isn't pro cruelty at the border.
(Note on my current political status, I have shifted quite far to the "left", but I think that is more of the overton window shifting VERY far to the right. Internationally I am a centrist, in America I am a bleeding heart liberal. Before denouncing the right I was fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Looking at the current GOP you may be able to see why I consider my current fiscally conservative and socially liberal leanings to be most compatible with the Democratic party)
I will be voting for Warren in the primary, and hopefully the general. She is progressive, but strong on policy, doing well in the Obama administration as well as later on, and she has a good track record on honesty and openness! By far my favorite pick, and I look forward to having her in the "main" debates.
-
If you aren't for trump, why wouldn't you vote for Sanders in the general if it came to that?
I wouldn't vote for Sanders because I believe his worldview and his outlook are just as harmful as Trump's. I think his foreign policy would be extremely dangerous for the country and I do not agree with his views on capitalism. Sanders didn't support the war in Iraq. Got it. WHAT IS his current stance of foreign intervention? When WOULD he intervene, if ever? How would he respond to foreign provocation? He's never said. He has been allowed to skate by on vague platitudes that lack any meaningful substance. Sanders and Trump were both for pulling out of the TPP. They both have the type of dogmatic economic populism that I find disingenuous and dangerous. Sanders supported the Sandinistas and actual Communist regimes, he is a Democrat only when convenient and he continued his campaign in 2016 for purely selfish reasons. I honestly believe he wanted Hillary to lose so that he could run again. The support he (and Jill Stein) received from foreign influence doesn't garner much attention. Sanders represents an underhanded form of entitlement that I cannot abide.
I do not believe in allowing people to wrap themselves in blankets of victimhood. Capitalism has is faults, but I will take it over any other economic system. I fully support working towards equal opportunity...I will never support forcing equal outcomes. Bernie crosses that line for me. Bernie has 0 percent chance of passing any of his proposed policies through Congress. That would leave us with his SC nominations (not sure what he meant by "rotating judges"), foreign policy and executive orders. All of those are a dealbreaker for me.
-
(not sure what he meant by "rotating judges")
I found this comment by Sanders curious as well. I believe he was implying that he could somehow rotate current Supreme Court Justices off the court (maybe to district-level Supreme courts) and rotate newly-appointed-by-him Justices onto the Supreme Court.
Perhaps an interesting idea, but I'm fairly certain it is unconstitutional on its face. I'm surprised...OK, well then again I am not...that the moderators didn't ask for clarification on that.
-
In additional to the unconstitutionality of it, rotating judges on SCOTUS sounds like a terrible idea. The republicans would just rotate back in their preferred judges when they had power again.
-
In additional to the unconstitutionality of it, rotating judges on SCOTUS sounds like a terrible idea. The republicans would just rotate back in their preferred judges when they had power again.
Agreed on that entirely- even blatant court packing would be a much less awful idea.
Sanders scares me. Not quite as much as trump, but he isn't much better in my mind. Still, I think I would have to vote for him in the general if faced with the choice. This is why I registered to vote in the primaries!
-
I find it odd that there isn't very much support for Buttigieg. He seems like a great candidate personally, has solid middle ground positions on most issues, and steps back from the shit flinging contests that are popular these days but really unrelated to good politics.
-
I find it odd that there isn't very much support for Buttigieg. He seems like a great candidate personally, has solid middle ground positions on most issues, and steps back from the shit flinging contests that are popular these days but really unrelated to good politics.
His lack of federal experience concerns many (including me), but his intelligence, thoughtfulness, and focus on a new era excite many (including me). And hell, as far as lack of support goes, he's currently a strong third on this poll (and I'd theorize that's he's won over a lot of former Beto supporters, and will slowly win over Biden supporters). And nationally he's running 5th or so. I would anticipate him getting a small bump in the polls next week based on his debate performance.
He has a chance. And he would be a very strong VP pick, especially for Warren or Harris.
-
I find it odd that there isn't very much support for Buttigieg. He seems like a great candidate personally, has solid middle ground positions on most issues, and steps back from the shit flinging contests that are popular these days but really unrelated to good politics.
I think he will be great in 4-8 years. He is a small town mayor right now. Pres is a HUGE leap. I would love to see him run for Senate. I am sure he mostly plans to just get his name out, and a VP pick would be a nice bonus.
-
I find it odd that there isn't very much support for Buttigieg. He seems like a great candidate personally, has solid middle ground positions on most issues, and steps back from the shit flinging contests that are popular these days but really unrelated to good politics.
I think he will be great in 4-8 years. He is a small town mayor right now. Pres is a HUGE leap. I would love to see him run for Senate. I am sure he mostly plans to just get his name out, and a VP pick would be a nice bonus.
The problem is that Indiana is a VERY red state. I don't know that any Dem, whether or not it's Pete, has a chance to win a state-wide election in Indiana these days. He ran Treasurer already and lost. Losing another state-wide election would really hurt his political pedigree. And he's wrapped up so much of his identity being a Hoosier, and specially a South Bender, that he can't very easily carpetbag to another more friendly state, like Michigan or Illinois. He's in a similar boat with Beto, Stacey Abrams, etc. How does a bright young Dem rise very far in a red state?
-
Unfortunately there isn’t an option for the majority of Americans who won’t be voting in the primary and the plurality/majority who won’t be voting at all.
Sure there is. It's called, "I've voluntarily abdicated my right/duty as a citizen, so I'm gonna sit down now and let the actual voters continue the conversation without me."
-
I find it odd that there isn't very much support for Buttigieg. He seems like a great candidate personally, has solid middle ground positions on most issues, and steps back from the shit flinging contests that are popular these days but really unrelated to good politics.
I think he will be great in 4-8 years. He is a small town mayor right now. Pres is a HUGE leap. I would love to see him run for Senate. I am sure he mostly plans to just get his name out, and a VP pick would be a nice bonus.
The problem is that Indiana is a VERY red state. I don't know that any Dem, whether or not it's Pete, has a chance to win a state-wide election in Indiana these days. He ran Treasurer already and lost. Losing another state-wide election would really hurt his political pedigree. And he's wrapped up so much of his identity being a Hoosier, and specially a South Bender, that he can't very easily carpetbag to another more friendly state, like Michigan or Illinois. He's in a similar boat with Beto, Stacey Abrams, etc. How does a bright young Dem rise very far in a red state?
That's a good point. I don't know what the solution is, but I don't think it is jumping to president. Maybe it is running for president, getting names to cabinet or VP, and then running for president in 4-8 years. I like the guy, he just reminds me a lot of Ilhan Omar who was good at her smaller role, but IMO made the jump way before she was ready, and it shows.
-
Unfortunately there isn’t an option for the majority of Americans who won’t be voting in the primary and the plurality/majority who won’t be voting at all.
Sure there is. It's called, "I've voluntarily abdicated my right/duty as a citizen, so I'm gonna sit down now and let the actual voters continue the conversation without me."
That is just so cool!! What a country!!! Other people will waste spend their time virtue signaling and debating which set of politicians will be less horrible. Then they’ll quite literally line up to make some mathematically insignificant vote. Allowing the rest of us to not bother. That lets the rest of us hike, bike, raise kids, drink beer, have sex, invest, grow our gardens,etc. without spending even a minute on this silliness important function of governance.
So for the politically involved, thanks for taking hits for the team!!
It is rather strange that someone who posted on this thread uniquely in order to signal that he and others like him will not be participating, sees no irony in calling out someone else who does plan to participate for virtue signaling.
-
I'm honestly confused, because BC previously posted that all political threads should be banned and that talking about politics is a sign of a character defect. Yet he posts in an awful lot of political threads.
BC, your tag says "Politics DESTROYS kindness, decency, and community." Yet your posts are not kind and aim at mocking other members of this community.
-
Every time that someone brags to me about not nothing to vote, I smile and nod along. I want my voice to matter more than theirs, and apparently they agree with me.
-
*Smiles and nods*
-
*Smiles and nods*
*shuffles feet awkwardly*
-
I'd consider myself a right leaning libertarian. I did not vote for Trump and don't plan on it this time around. I voted for Biden and Buttigieg in the poll. I'd prefer someone far more moderate than Sanders or Warren. I am not a big believer in free everything. I honestly like Buttigieg the most for the simple fact that he seems like a genuinely decent human being. He handles himself really well....just something about him that i really like and i can't quite put my finger on it. I do think Biden probably has the best shot against Trump, but he just seems so old and not as quick on his feet. He also gives off the fake politician persona to me.
-
I find it odd that there isn't very much support for Buttigieg. He seems like a great candidate personally, has solid middle ground positions on most issues, and steps back from the shit flinging contests that are popular these days but really unrelated to good politics.
I think he will be great in 4-8 years. He is a small town mayor right now. Pres is a HUGE leap. I would love to see him run for Senate. I am sure he mostly plans to just get his name out, and a VP pick would be a nice bonus.
The problem is that Indiana is a VERY red state. I don't know that any Dem, whether or not it's Pete, has a chance to win a state-wide election in Indiana these days. He ran Treasurer already and lost. Losing another state-wide election would really hurt his political pedigree. And he's wrapped up so much of his identity being a Hoosier, and specially a South Bender, that he can't very easily carpetbag to another more friendly state, like Michigan or Illinois. He's in a similar boat with Beto, Stacey Abrams, etc. How does a bright young Dem rise very far in a red state?
That's a good point. I don't know what the solution is, but I don't think it is jumping to president. Maybe it is running for president, getting names to cabinet or VP, and then running for president in 4-8 years. I like the guy, he just reminds me a lot of Ilhan Omar who was good at her smaller role, but IMO made the jump way before she was ready, and it shows.
Maybe Mayor Pete could run for a congressional seat first. I don't know bupkus about Indiana, but even red states have blue districts.
I cannot imagine anyone going from mayor of a small Midwestern city of 102,000 people to president of a diverse nation of over 329,000,000. It is beyond ridiculous to me that anyone actually supports him for this. I like the guy and think he has promise, but come on.
-
I cannot imagine anyone going from mayor of a small Midwestern city of 102,000 people to president of a diverse nation of over 329,000,000. It is beyond ridiculous to me that anyone actually supports him for this. I like the guy and think he has promise, but come on.
If you can imagine anyone voting for Trump you should be able to imagine someone voting for Mayor Pete.
-
I cannot imagine anyone going from mayor of a small Midwestern city of 102,000 people to president of a diverse nation of over 329,000,000. It is beyond ridiculous to me that anyone actually supports him for this. I like the guy and think he has promise, but come on.
If you can imagine anyone voting for Trump you should be able to imagine someone voting for Mayor Pete.
I would like to think the left has slightly higher standards than Trump.
Pete is definitely better than the orange man-baby, but I agree. He doesn't have enough experience to be running for president.
-
1. Warren
2. Sanders
3. Yang
4. Inslee
I'd be thrilled with any of these four as the nominee. However, I'm very aware of the risk of progressives splitting the vote in the primary and handing the nomination to Biden, so my voting strategy is going to be to vote for whichever of these four is in the strongest position to beat Biden by the time the primary gets to my state (if any of them are still in contention at all). If none of these four are in contention by the time the primary gets to my state then I'll have to reconsider at that time and choose a new strategy.
-
I find it odd that there isn't very much support for Buttigieg. He seems like a great candidate personally, has solid middle ground positions on most issues, and steps back from the shit flinging contests that are popular these days but really unrelated to good politics.
His lack of federal experience concerns many (including me), but his intelligence, thoughtfulness, and focus on a new era excite many (including me). And hell, as far as lack of support goes, he's currently a strong third on this poll (and I'd theorize that's he's won over a lot of former Beto supporters, and will slowly win over Biden supporters). And nationally he's running 5th or so. I would anticipate him getting a small bump in the polls next week based on his debate performance.
He has a chance. And he would be a very strong VP pick, especially for Warren or Harris.
This argument always confuses me. I view the presidency as less than about politics and policies. It's more about diplomacy, and keeping order, and making final decisions. And even more so about the ability to think quick and a way above average ability to learn-on-the-job, because quite frankly NOTHING can prepare someone to be president, especially since every administration faces unique challenges.
I would MUCH prefer a mayor who has had to wear multiple hats and perform in an executive and diplomatic position (even if it's just a local level thing, the skill is still being exercised), to someone who "marinated in DC" (as ole Pete would say), after being a successful lawyer or policy drafter, or even professor. I love Elizabeth Warren and I would be beyond thrilled to have her as President, but she is a fighter and is good at that. I don't want my president to necessarily be a fighter or overtly passionate tbh. There are plenty of roles for those folks...I want someone whip-smart and with a cool head. That's why Buttigieg has been my favorite from day one. For me, he exemplifies the skills learned and implemented, and the natural character of an ideal leader.
He seems like the type that he may not know about some thing on Monday. But if needed, he could be an expert on it by Wed. As president you may rarely encounter the things that you have experience in, and rather need to pivot and read up quick on things you've never had to deal with before. Also different needs require different qualifications. Right now we need someone well-versed in Foreign Affairs (whether in experience or in intellectual curiosity...Buttigieg has both IMO when it comes to international issues).
-
I find it odd that there isn't very much support for Buttigieg. He seems like a great candidate personally, has solid middle ground positions on most issues, and steps back from the shit flinging contests that are popular these days but really unrelated to good politics.
His lack of federal experience concerns many (including me), but his intelligence, thoughtfulness, and focus on a new era excite many (including me). And hell, as far as lack of support goes, he's currently a strong third on this poll (and I'd theorize that's he's won over a lot of former Beto supporters, and will slowly win over Biden supporters). And nationally he's running 5th or so. I would anticipate him getting a small bump in the polls next week based on his debate performance.
He has a chance. And he would be a very strong VP pick, especially for Warren or Harris.
This argument always confuses me. I view the presidency as less than about politics and policies. It's more about diplomacy, and keeping order, and making final decisions. And even more so about the ability to think quick and a way above average ability to learn-on-the-job, because quite frankly NOTHING can prepare someone to be president, especially since every administration faces unique challenges.
I would MUCH prefer a mayor who has had to wear multiple hats and perform in an executive and diplomatic position (even if it's just a local level thing, the skill is still being exercised), to someone who "marinated in DC" (as ole Pete would say), after being a successful lawyer or policy drafter, or even professor. I love Elizabeth Warren and I would be beyond thrilled to have her as President, but she is a fighter and is good at that. I don't want my president to necessarily be a fighter or overtly passionate tbh. There are plenty of roles for those folks...I want someone whip-smart and with a cool head. That's why Buttigieg has been my favorite from day one. For me, he exemplifies the skills learned and implemented, and the natural character of an ideal leader.
He seems like the type that he may not know about some thing on Monday. But if needed, he could be an expert on it by Wed. As president you may rarely encounter the things that you have experience in, and rather need to pivot and read up quick on things you've never had to deal with before. Also different needs require different qualifications. Right now we need someone well-versed in Foreign Affairs (whether in experience or in intellectual curiosity...Buttigieg has both IMO when it comes to international issues).
I like this post.
And I say this constantly too; the President, no matter how experienced or inexperienced she is, is NEVER going to be a subject matter expert on even 10% of the issues that come up. It's impossible to be completely well-versed on any issue that could potentially arise. The President always has to rely on her own team of experts, and the bureaucracy itself, to keep things moving and to react to situations. I agree that if Pete needed to be moderately well-versed on a topic within 48 hours, he could probably pull it off about as well as anyone else could. I also think he would gather a dynamic and forward-looking, data-driven team around him.
-
Well I updated the OP to let people more easily compare the results of the two polls, as of July 5th.
Big Losers: Beto (DAMN what a fall from 13% to 0% in such a short time), Bernie, Hickenlooper, Biden
Big Winners: Pete, Harris, Warren
It's pretty clear at this point that the three in the "Big Winners" group are favorites for forum-goers at this point. People are welcome to keep voting on this poll. I'll likely do another one in September after the first of the "second round" debates has concluded. The field might be a bit smaller by then.
-
Big Winners: Pete, Harris, Warren
Ironic. Those are 3 of my least favorites, throw Bernie in that mix also.
I'm pulling for Biden and some of the lower tier candidates.
-
Big Winners: Pete, Harris, Warren
Ironic. Those are 3 of my least favorites, throw Bernie in that mix also.
I'm pulling for Biden and some of the lower tier candidates.
As a dyed in the wool Trump fan, are you supporting the candidates you feel are most likely to lose?
-
Big Winners: Pete, Harris, Warren
Ironic. Those are 3 of my least favorites, throw Bernie in that mix also.
I'm pulling for Biden and some of the lower tier candidates.
As a dyed in the wool Trump fan, are you supporting the candidates you feel are most likely to lose?
Trump fan? LOL Where did you come up with that? I didn't even vote for him. Biden was leading the polls the last I saw, and he had the best head to head numbers when matched up against Trump in polling, so that's hardly supporting someone I feel is more likely to lose. I don't see how you are coming up with that logic, or lack there-of.
Who are you planning to vote for? Oh wait, you're Canadian.
-
Maybe Mayor Pete could run for a congressional seat first. I don't know bupkus about Indiana, but even red states have blue districts.
I cannot imagine anyone going from mayor of a small Midwestern city of 102,000 people to president of a diverse nation of over 329,000,000. It is beyond ridiculous to me that anyone actually supports him for this. I like the guy and think he has promise, but come on.
Currently the districts in Indiana are all fairly heavily biased one way or the other (7 Republican, 2 Democrat) and he lives in one of the Republican districts. Doesn't currently look like there any reason to hope 2020 census redistricting would help him. Perhaps he could move to Gary and talk Pete Visclosky into retiring from Congress and endorsing him in that district.
Every time that someone brags to me about not nothing to vote, I smile and nod along. I want my voice to matter more than theirs, and apparently they agree with me.
Philosophically, I agree with you; however, I also understand why many Americans feel disenfranchised. Most people live in "safe" districts where the dominate party is nearly guaranteed to win the general election. Unless they participate in the dominate party's primary it is easy to feel like your vote doesn't matter. I suppose a strategic voter who opposes the extremes of the dominate party should register in that party in spite of opposition to its view to provide support for a centrist candidates in the primaries.
-
Maybe Mayor Pete could run for a congressional seat first. I don't know bupkus about Indiana, but even red states have blue districts.
I cannot imagine anyone going from mayor of a small Midwestern city of 102,000 people to president of a diverse nation of over 329,000,000. It is beyond ridiculous to me that anyone actually supports him for this. I like the guy and think he has promise, but come on.
Currently the districts in Indiana are all fairly heavily biased one way or the other (7 Republican, 2 Democrat) and he lives in one of the Republican districts. Doesn't currently look like there any reason to hope 2020 census redistricting would help him. Perhaps he could move to Gary and talk Pete Visclosky into retiring from Congress and endorsing him in that district.
Every time that someone brags to me about not nothing to vote, I smile and nod along. I want my voice to matter more than theirs, and apparently they agree with me.
Philosophically, I agree with you; however, I also understand why many Americans feel disenfranchised. Most people live in "safe" districts where the dominate party is nearly guaranteed to win the general election. Unless they participate in the dominate party's primary it is easy to feel like your vote doesn't matter. I suppose a strategic voter who opposes the extremes of the dominate party should register in that party in spite of opposition to its view to provide support for a centrist candidates in the primaries.
Yeah. I vote without fail, but I've voted in 4 different states in my lifetime, and only 1 of my 7 votes for president and 2 of of my 14-odd votes for statewide office amounted to anything other than than pissing into a gale-force wind. That's a lot of pointless votes. At this point, I mostly vote so I can feel free to bitch about the outcome without feeling hypocritical.
-
Thought this was interesting and matches up quite well with the results of this poll. The Harris-Warren-Buttigieg lane and the demographics of this site seem to line up quite well.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/lanes-are-starting-to-emerge-in-the-2020-democratic-primary/
-
Thought this was interesting and matches up quite well with the results of this poll. The Harris-Warren-Buttigieg lane and the demographics of this site seem to line up quite well.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/lanes-are-starting-to-emerge-in-the-2020-democratic-primary/
I know you’re speaking general demographics. But as a millennial black woman I’d like to raise my hand and wave it and say “I’m here I’m here”. So far Buttigieg is at the top for me and Harris is further down on my list. I’m sure she would be adequate, but I don’t really want adequate after this last go around. While I agree that she did well in the debates, zingy-ness never has an affect on my opinion of candidates. I’m going to look at their resume, and whether they are a one trick pony, or have that range of skills + the temperament and character I expect in a president. .We need exemplary as our next president, to get us out of the ditch.
-
Thought this was interesting and matches up quite well with the results of this poll. The Harris-Warren-Buttigieg lane and the demographics of this site seem to line up quite well.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/lanes-are-starting-to-emerge-in-the-2020-democratic-primary/
I know you’re speaking general demographics. But as a millennial black woman I’d like to raise my hand and wave it and say “I’m here I’m here”. So far Buttigieg is at the top for me and Harris is further down on my list. I’m sure she would be adequate, but I don’t really want adequate after this last go around. While I agree that she did well in the debates, zingy-ness never has an affect on my opinion of candidates. I’m going to look at their resume, and whether they are a one trick pony, or have that range of skills + the temperament and character I expect in a president. .We need exemplary as our next president, to get us out of the ditch.
Yes, speaking in general demographics.
I’m registered as an independent and my state is a closed primary late in the calendar so I won’t have much direct say in the nominee, but I’m interested because I dislike most of what Trump has done. That said, I’m hoping for a more pragmatic nominee that less inclined to the more extreme economic positions espoused by Sanders and Warren. Of the leading contenders I’d put Buttigieg at the top of my list right now, and I’ve made small contributions to a couple candidates not in that top group, hoping to help them into the next round of debates this fall and steer the debate in the Democratic Party away from the extreme left.
-
I just wish the candidate' supporters could restrain themselves from being so salty.
The biggest negative with having so many candidates and people getting engaged this early is...all but one candidate will lose the contest for the nom, meaning that those candidates' most ardent supporters also are going to lose. Only one group is going to be ecstatic! The rest, which will likely be the majority, need to accept the math here.
Biden is probably going to lose the primary. Bernie is probably going to lose the primary. Same for Warren, Harris, Pete, Booker, etc.
I have been mostly supporting Pete. I give him $ and I think his voice is a valuable one to have in the debates, but I realize he will almost certainly lose. It will mitigate my disappointment when it happens, but it also tempers my enthusiasm, because it's hard to get super excited when your brain is reminding you, "Nick, you're backing a probable loser."