Poll

Vote for your preferred one or two candidates

Cory Booker
Julian Castro
John Delaney
Tulsi Gabbard
Kamala Harris
John Hickenlooper
Jay Inslee
Amy Klobuchar
Beto O'Rourke
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren
Marianne Williamson
Andrew Yang
Joe Biden (if he announces)
Pete Buttigieg (exploratory)
Kirsten Gillibrand (exploratory)

Author Topic: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll  (Read 1669 times)

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« on: March 14, 2019, 09:17:57 AM »
Poll Settings:

1) You can vote for one or two candidates.
2) You are allowed to change your vote.
3) There is no end date for the poll.
4) You can only see results after you vote.

Note: To try to be fair, I listed them in alphabetical order among the announced official candidates, and then put Biden and the exploratory committee people at the bottom.

Note: I would ask that only those who can/will vote in their Democrat primaries vote in this poll, meaning to my Republican friends here, please don't vote unless you are eligible to vote in the Dem primaries in your state, AND you plan on doing so, AND you would actually consider voting for the Dem you are voting for (i.e. please don't vote for who you view as the "worst" in order to help Trump in the general). 

Note: And sorry for calling Beto "Beta!" lol I promise it was accidental.

Note: And feel free to comment explaining your preference.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2019, 09:23:26 AM by Nick_Miller »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3748
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2019, 09:23:10 AM »
Personally, I'm not even close to being able to make this decision. I don't even think I could narrow it down to two. I'm just gonna sit back and watch for now. I may come back here and vote later.

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2019, 09:24:39 AM »
Kris, I understand. I made it so people can change their votes. I figure a lot of people will need to wait until at least June with the debates, but I know a lot of people are already giving money to campaigns.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3748
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2019, 09:25:58 AM »
Yep. It's interesting to me that there are a ton of people who already have a strong penchant for one candidate or another. They must be following things a lot more closely than I am, I guess. I haven't even come close to "vetting" them all for my personal preferences.

Johnez

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1054
  • Location: Southern California
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2019, 10:51:06 AM »
Surprised Beto is in the lead.

OtherJen

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1094
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2019, 10:55:58 AM »
Personally, I'm not even close to being able to make this decision. I don't even think I could narrow it down to two. I'm just gonna sit back and watch for now. I may come back here and vote later.

Same. I'm paying attention to city politics this year as there's a potential financial scandal and three city council seats up for election this summer/fall. I'm ignoring the 2020 races until after this November.

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2019, 11:03:14 AM »
I fixed Beto's name!

Tass

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1142
  • Age: 25
  • Location: Southern California
  • Working on a PhD...
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #7 on: March 14, 2019, 01:26:34 PM »
I voted my gut feeling with the knowledge that I can change my vote, but I don't see any way to do that.

I will do a lot more serious research when the primaries are closer - and hopefully the field will have narrowed somewhat - and I intend to kick my gut feeling to the curb in whatever way possible at that time.

At the moment I'm almost more interested in the possibility of a Republican primary. I know there's no chance of a real upset but it could start some interesting conversations. As an unaffiliated voter in my state, though, I can vote in the D primary but not the R, so that's where my attention ultimately needs to be.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2122
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #8 on: March 14, 2019, 02:07:11 PM »
Totally a gut vote at this point, but Harris and Klobuchar are my top two. I'd support any man that makes it to the general election on the Democratic ticket, but I would love to see a woman become president. Hard for me to justify voting for O'Rourke or Biden when you have so many qualified women competing this year.

BuildingFrugalHabits

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 207
  • Location: Great Plains
  • Living the dream
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #9 on: March 14, 2019, 05:06:50 PM »


Which candidate is the strongest on mitigating climate change? 

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3748
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #10 on: March 14, 2019, 05:56:40 PM »
I watched Beto's announcement video.

His wife there just to silently smile and look adoringly at him really bugged me. Like, why the hell was she even in it? Except to make women who watch it notice how awkward and strange it was that she was literally only there to provide a silent female audience for him. TO the point I had a hard time even paying attention to what he was saying.

Bad optics. Did not like, at all. My opinion of him has gone from almost nonexistent, to negative.

Tass

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1142
  • Age: 25
  • Location: Southern California
  • Working on a PhD...
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #11 on: March 14, 2019, 08:14:52 PM »


Which candidate is the strongest on mitigating climate change?

Jay Inslee claims it's him. I haven't confirmed that myself.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1495
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #12 on: March 14, 2019, 08:34:22 PM »
Realistically, Joe Biden is the Democrats' best chance of winning in 2020, because he appeals to people like me. In all fairness, people like me are the real swing voters in America right now and most of the candidates challenging for the Democratic nomination basically just see me as Public Enemy #1. People like me don't like being told that we're stupid and clinging to "guns and the Bible", instead of being treated respectfully and with caring.

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2342
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #13 on: March 14, 2019, 09:02:25 PM »
Realistically, Joe Biden is the Democrats' best chance of winning in 2020, because he appeals to people like me. In all fairness, people like me are the real swing voters in America right now and most of the candidates challenging for the Democratic nomination basically just see me as Public Enemy #1. People like me don't like being told that we're stupid and clinging to "guns and the Bible", instead of being treated respectfully and with caring.

Interesting ó which 2020 candidates have insulted people like you?

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #14 on: March 15, 2019, 07:33:22 AM »
I watched Beto's announcement video.

His wife there just to silently smile and look adoringly at him really bugged me. Like, why the hell was she even in it? Except to make women who watch it notice how awkward and strange it was that she was literally only there to provide a silent female audience for him. TO the point I had a hard time even paying attention to what he was saying.

Bad optics. Did not like, at all. My opinion of him has gone from almost nonexistent, to negative.

lol others have noticed this too.  https://deadline.com/2019/03/beto-orourke-jimmy-fallon-hands-donald-trump-announcement-video-1202576317/

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3748
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #15 on: March 15, 2019, 07:40:20 AM »
I watched Beto's announcement video.

His wife there just to silently smile and look adoringly at him really bugged me. Like, why the hell was she even in it? Except to make women who watch it notice how awkward and strange it was that she was literally only there to provide a silent female audience for him. TO the point I had a hard time even paying attention to what he was saying.

Bad optics. Did not like, at all. My opinion of him has gone from almost nonexistent, to negative.

lol others have noticed this too.  https://deadline.com/2019/03/beto-orourke-jimmy-fallon-hands-donald-trump-announcement-video-1202576317/

LOL! That was pretty funny.

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1954
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #16 on: March 15, 2019, 07:52:56 AM »
Realistically, Joe Biden is the Democrats' best chance of winning in 2020, because he appeals to people like me. In all fairness, people like me are the real swing voters in America right now and most of the candidates challenging for the Democratic nomination basically just see me as Public Enemy #1. People like me don't like being told that we're stupid and clinging to "guns and the Bible", instead of being treated respectfully and with caring.

Interesting ó which 2020 candidates have insulted people like you?

I'm also sincerely curious about this. Particularly w/regard to Sanders and Warren (who built her pre-politics career on studying how financial deregulation and lack of consumer protection has been hurting middle and lower income families).

ETA, It's WAY to early for me to pick two candidates in the poll.

Geographer

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Virginia
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #17 on: March 15, 2019, 09:04:45 AM »
I'm a Beto fan because he's young, charismatic, and was a former punk-rocker like myself. But I'd gladly vote for any of the above.

scantee

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 395
    • Do Anything
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #18 on: March 15, 2019, 10:59:41 AM »
The Democratic Party will do much better in focusing their energies on boosting turnout among apathetic left-leaning voters than trying to sway white, working class men. Nothing will placate that group (as a whole, of course there are a ton of individual of white working class men who reliably vote Democratic).

I voted for Sanders and Buttigieg. I voted for Clinton in the 2016 primary and general. Since then Iíve grown completely disillusioned with the liberal ďTax Advantaged Savings Accounts for your Climate Apocalypse Seed RationĒ approach to tweaking the current system rather than making long-term structural improvements. Sanders is the best option for putting forward a coherent set of policies that provide structural change for the poor and middle class.

Buttigieg, I donít have any illusion that heíll win, but damn he is smart with some very well-thought out policies, policies that combine incremental and structural change. Heís Beto, but with substance.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2019, 11:03:37 AM by scantee »

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2342
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #19 on: March 15, 2019, 11:07:25 AM »
The Democratic Party will do much better in focusing their energies on boosting turnout among apathetic left-leaning voters than trying to sway white, working class men. Nothing will placate that group (as a whole, of course there are a ton of individual of white working class men who reliably vote Democratic).

My sentiments exactly. *Everyone* needs compassion and caring in this country, not just poor white men.

MonkeyJenga

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7781
  • Location: Don't Ask
  • Resting up for 2020
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #20 on: March 15, 2019, 11:32:13 AM »
I have my preferences, but I'm trying to avoid getting emotionally enmeshed in the primary. This is difficult, since I've worked in politics and everyone wants my opinion on the primary. ALSO DIFFICULT BECAUSE I HAVE OPINIONS.

Whoever wins, I will support them. Even if it's one of the 2-3 people I would be kind of annoyed about. I wasn't in love with Clinton either, but I canvassed and phone banked because the other option was Trump.

I will say, I think it's a mistake to overlook Biden's history with Anita Hill. Maybe a lot of people being polled aren't even aware of it, but it would become a huge issue in the general, and give Republicans cover to point back against Trump accusations. One of Trump's strongest defenses was pointing his finger at Bill Clinton, making people disillusioned with both sides.

The Democratic Party will do much better in focusing their energies on boosting turnout among apathetic left-leaning voters than trying to sway white, working class men. Nothing will placate that group (as a whole, of course there are a ton of individual of white working class men who reliably vote Democratic).

Is this based on any research? It is incredibly difficult to get a non-voter to turn out. Democrats are always working to increase turnout, but sometimes that's not enough. You have to overcome voter apathy and structural barriers to voting. If there is a large base of potentially persuadable, reliable voters, vs a base of low-propensity likely supporters, it all depends on the size of each group. In some swing states, there simply aren't a lot of non-voting supporters to target, and you need to run persuasion campaigns.

There's a substantial segment of Obama voters who then voted for Trump in some swing states. Why should Democrats ignore them?

scantee

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 395
    • Do Anything
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #21 on: March 15, 2019, 11:48:06 AM »
Quote
Is this based on any research? It is incredibly difficult to get a non-voter to turn out. Democrats are always working to increase turnout, but sometimes that's not enough. You have to overcome voter apathy and structural barriers to voting. If there is a large base of potentially persuadable, reliable voters, vs a base of low-propensity likely supporters, it all depends on the size of each group. In some swing states, there simply aren't a lot of non-voting supporters to target, and you need to run persuasion campaigns.

There's a substantial segment of Obama voters who then voted for Trump in some swing states. Why should Democrats ignore them?

Turnout for Clinton among blacks, particularly in swing states like Wisconsin, was down substantially (Iíd have to look up exactly how much) as compared to Obama. Given how thin the margins were in states like WI and MI, had Clinton maintained more of those votes she probably would have won.

I donít think we should ignore white, working class men either. I also donít believe we should necessarily prioritize that group. You see it in this thread, but there is this common sentiment among moderate men that if Democrats do absolutely everything right, if they put on the most perfect dog and pony show, they will maybe consider voting for them. Such a high level of catering is never expected of Republicans. Can people like this be swayed, en masse, and what is cost of doing so? My sense is that most of these men will vote Republican no matter what but they value the idea that they are capital-I Independent so we go through this rigamarole about how maybe theyíll vote Democrat even though they very rarely do so. Research has shown that very few self described Independents actually are; most reliably vote one way or the other. Swing voters are different matter, they donít typically identify strongly with one party or the other. Those votes are winnable, especially if theyíve voted previously but sat the last election out.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2019, 11:49:57 AM by scantee »

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2342
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #22 on: March 15, 2019, 12:07:41 PM »
Quote
Is this based on any research? It is incredibly difficult to get a non-voter to turn out. Democrats are always working to increase turnout, but sometimes that's not enough. You have to overcome voter apathy and structural barriers to voting. If there is a large base of potentially persuadable, reliable voters, vs a base of low-propensity likely supporters, it all depends on the size of each group. In some swing states, there simply aren't a lot of non-voting supporters to target, and you need to run persuasion campaigns.

There's a substantial segment of Obama voters who then voted for Trump in some swing states. Why should Democrats ignore them?

Turnout for Clinton among blacks, particularly in swing states like Wisconsin, was down substantially (Iíd have to look up exactly how much) as compared to Obama. Given how thin the margins were in states like WI and MI, had Clinton maintained more of those votes she probably would have won.

Voter suppression explains a huge amount of this! 2016 was the first election since 1965 that didn't have the protections of the Voting Rights Act, and we saw states all over the country jumping on that to add restrictive voting laws.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/145387/underplayed-story-2016-election-voter-suppression

Stacey Abrams's focus on encouraging turnout and ensuring voting rights for all will shoot her to the top of my list should she choose to run.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2019, 12:12:42 PM by madgeylou »

Bateaux

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Port Vincent
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #23 on: March 15, 2019, 12:08:33 PM »
I voted Tulsi and Beto.   Why?   They are both cute and have cute names.  You chant those names easily, just two syllables.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3748
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #24 on: March 15, 2019, 01:04:44 PM »
Quote
Is this based on any research? It is incredibly difficult to get a non-voter to turn out. Democrats are always working to increase turnout, but sometimes that's not enough. You have to overcome voter apathy and structural barriers to voting. If there is a large base of potentially persuadable, reliable voters, vs a base of low-propensity likely supporters, it all depends on the size of each group. In some swing states, there simply aren't a lot of non-voting supporters to target, and you need to run persuasion campaigns.

There's a substantial segment of Obama voters who then voted for Trump in some swing states. Why should Democrats ignore them?

Turnout for Clinton among blacks, particularly in swing states like Wisconsin, was down substantially (Iíd have to look up exactly how much) as compared to Obama. Given how thin the margins were in states like WI and MI, had Clinton maintained more of those votes she probably would have won.

Voter suppression explains a huge amount of this! 2016 was the first election since 1965 that didn't have the protections of the Voting Rights Act, and we saw states all over the country jumping on that to add restrictive voting laws.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/145387/underplayed-story-2016-election-voter-suppression

True. But I think it's also worth pointing out that Hillary totally dropped the ball and never even visited WI during the general election season. Whereas Trump went more than once.

madgeylou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2342
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #25 on: March 15, 2019, 01:09:16 PM »
Quote
Is this based on any research? It is incredibly difficult to get a non-voter to turn out. Democrats are always working to increase turnout, but sometimes that's not enough. You have to overcome voter apathy and structural barriers to voting. If there is a large base of potentially persuadable, reliable voters, vs a base of low-propensity likely supporters, it all depends on the size of each group. In some swing states, there simply aren't a lot of non-voting supporters to target, and you need to run persuasion campaigns.

There's a substantial segment of Obama voters who then voted for Trump in some swing states. Why should Democrats ignore them?

Turnout for Clinton among blacks, particularly in swing states like Wisconsin, was down substantially (Iíd have to look up exactly how much) as compared to Obama. Given how thin the margins were in states like WI and MI, had Clinton maintained more of those votes she probably would have won.

Voter suppression explains a huge amount of this! 2016 was the first election since 1965 that didn't have the protections of the Voting Rights Act, and we saw states all over the country jumping on that to add restrictive voting laws.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/145387/underplayed-story-2016-election-voter-suppression

True. But I think it's also worth pointing out that Hillary totally dropped the ball and never even visited WI during the general election season. Whereas Trump went more than once.

I donít know if thereís any way to know the impact of the alleged ball-dropping? Whereas we  definitely know that voter suppression played a role. The number of votes suppressed in WI exceeded the gap between HRC and the Donald.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3748
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #26 on: March 15, 2019, 01:13:01 PM »
Quote
Is this based on any research? It is incredibly difficult to get a non-voter to turn out. Democrats are always working to increase turnout, but sometimes that's not enough. You have to overcome voter apathy and structural barriers to voting. If there is a large base of potentially persuadable, reliable voters, vs a base of low-propensity likely supporters, it all depends on the size of each group. In some swing states, there simply aren't a lot of non-voting supporters to target, and you need to run persuasion campaigns.

There's a substantial segment of Obama voters who then voted for Trump in some swing states. Why should Democrats ignore them?

Turnout for Clinton among blacks, particularly in swing states like Wisconsin, was down substantially (Iíd have to look up exactly how much) as compared to Obama. Given how thin the margins were in states like WI and MI, had Clinton maintained more of those votes she probably would have won.

Voter suppression explains a huge amount of this! 2016 was the first election since 1965 that didn't have the protections of the Voting Rights Act, and we saw states all over the country jumping on that to add restrictive voting laws.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/145387/underplayed-story-2016-election-voter-suppression

True. But I think it's also worth pointing out that Hillary totally dropped the ball and never even visited WI during the general election season. Whereas Trump went more than once.

I donít know if thereís any way to know the impact of the alleged ball-dropping? Whereas we  definitely know that voter suppression played a role. The number of votes suppressed in WI exceeded the gap between HRC and the Donald.

Yes.

I don't know whether there is any way to know that, either. But I think it is still worth pointing out. Because she did drop the ball there. I think her campaign made mistakes assuming that certain places were "gimmes."

The next candidate cannot afford to make those mistakes.

Omy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 116
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #27 on: March 15, 2019, 02:38:20 PM »
I am female, and while I would LOVE to see a woman as president, I am really afraid of voting for one again. Too many of the red states just aren't ready for it.

Beto/Biden ticket?

Bateaux

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Port Vincent
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #28 on: March 15, 2019, 04:25:51 PM »
I am female, and while I would LOVE to see a woman as president, I am really afraid of voting for one again. Too many of the red states just aren't ready for it.

Beto/Biden ticket?

Tulsi for VP maybe.  I'd like for her to be POTUS eventually.

Daisy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1989
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #29 on: March 15, 2019, 11:24:08 PM »
I am temporarily abandoning my vow to not post political stuff on this forum to put in a vote for Tulsi Gabbard.

 I think she is the only candidate on the horizon that would sway me away from another third party vote.

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2501
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #30 on: March 16, 2019, 01:31:00 AM »
Buttigieg, I donít have any illusion that heíll win, but damn he is smart with some very well-thought out policies, policies that combine incremental and structural change.

I've heard a couple of interviews with Buttigieg and I agree, he is notably extremely smart. This appeals to me. Don't get me wrong - all things being equal, I'd prefer a woman president - but all things are never equal and you never know how campaigns will go, so I'll record conditional support for Mayor Pete.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2122
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #31 on: March 16, 2019, 05:06:07 AM »
Buttigieg, I donít have any illusion that heíll win, but damn he is smart with some very well-thought out policies, policies that combine incremental and structural change.

I've heard a couple of interviews with Buttigieg and I agree, he is notably extremely smart. This appeals to me. Don't get me wrong - all things being equal, I'd prefer a woman president - but all things are never equal and you never know how campaigns will go, so I'll record conditional support for Mayor Pete.

Y'all have piqued my interest. I'll have to research Mr. Buttigieg. Though to be honest, if he comes across as smart, I'm more certain than ever that he'll never win the nomination.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3748
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #32 on: March 16, 2019, 07:04:54 AM »
I am temporarily abandoning my vow to not post political stuff on this forum to put in a vote for Tulsi Gabbard.

 I think she is the only candidate on the horizon that would sway me away from another third party vote.

Why is she the only one you would support?

Daisy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1989
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #33 on: March 16, 2019, 09:42:46 AM »
I am temporarily abandoning my vow to not post political stuff on this forum to put in a vote for Tulsi Gabbard.

 I think she is the only candidate on the horizon that would sway me away from another third party vote.

Why is she the only one you would support?

I am glad you asked.

My primary issue is being anti the bipartisan war machine. Eisenhower warned us in his exit speech about the great power of pro-war voices and the industry built around it, and his warnings have unfortunately turned into reality.

Tulsi Gabbard is a veteran and knows the costs of war, both monetarily and life sacrifices.

She came to my attention after seeing this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzYoDOXsNm8

Whenever I hear her speak or in interviews, she is a calm, reasoned voice on many issues, especially war. I may not agree with her on all issues, but definitely on her anti-war issues. I will not vote for anyone that supports unnecessary wars and has not thought through the issue and its ramifications.

I think she has the emotional fortitude to have principled positions and express them with confidence. I don't see how Trump can belittle her as he does others, but I am sure he will try. I think she would be the strongest against Trump.

I have to admit that my dream ticket would be Tulsi Gabbard/Rand Paul.

Omy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 116
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #34 on: March 16, 2019, 09:57:37 AM »
I'm probably being clueless...how do I change my vote on this poll?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3748
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #35 on: March 16, 2019, 10:07:18 AM »
I am temporarily abandoning my vow to not post political stuff on this forum to put in a vote for Tulsi Gabbard.

 I think she is the only candidate on the horizon that would sway me away from another third party vote.

Why is she the only one you would support?

I am glad you asked.

My primary issue is being anti the bipartisan war machine. Eisenhower warned us in his exit speech about the great power of pro-war voices and the industry built around it, and his warnings have unfortunately turned into reality.

Tulsi Gabbard is a veteran and knows the costs of war, both monetarily and life sacrifices.

She came to my attention after seeing this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzYoDOXsNm8

Whenever I hear her speak or in interviews, she is a calm, reasoned voice on many issues, especially war. I may not agree with her on all issues, but definitely on her anti-war issues. I will not vote for anyone that supports unnecessary wars and has not thought through the issue and its ramifications.

I think she has the emotional fortitude to have principled positions and express them with confidence. I don't see how Trump can belittle her as he does others, but I am sure he will try. I think she would be the strongest against Trump.

I have to admit that my dream ticket would be Tulsi Gabbard/Rand Paul.

Thanks for answering!

MonkeyJenga

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7781
  • Location: Don't Ask
  • Resting up for 2020
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #36 on: March 16, 2019, 10:27:52 AM »
Gabbard is one of the few people I think would be certain to lose against Trump. (Especially if she has a Republican VP!) I've already seen quite a few posts from Democratic-machine friends saying "anyone but Tulsi." This seems to be entirely due to her prior anti-gay stances. A lot of Democrats would be turned off, and she would have a much smaller base of volunteers.

From the other side, it would be easy for Republicans to attack her as weak on national security. Being a veteran isn't a defense there. They've been able to smear veterans who lost limbs as weak on security!
« Last Edit: March 16, 2019, 10:30:34 AM by MonkeyJenga »

Daisy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1989
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #37 on: March 16, 2019, 11:28:19 AM »
Gabbard is one of the few people I think would be certain to lose against Trump. (Especially if she has a Republican VP!) I've already seen quite a few posts from Democratic-machine friends saying "anyone but Tulsi." This seems to be entirely due to her prior anti-gay stances. A lot of Democrats would be turned off, and she would have a much smaller base of volunteers.

From the other side, it would be easy for Republicans to attack her as weak on national security. Being a veteran isn't a defense there. They've been able to smear veterans who lost limbs as weak on security!

I could care less about Democratic or Republican party machine opinions. That kind of thinking turns off independent, issue-oriented voters.

Or else you end up voting in a candidate who talks anti-war and then governs a completely different way, similar to his predecessor. Will not name names.

Oh well, we all have our opinions. Have a great day!

MonkeyJenga

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7781
  • Location: Don't Ask
  • Resting up for 2020
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #38 on: March 16, 2019, 02:48:15 PM »
Gabbard is one of the few people I think would be certain to lose against Trump. (Especially if she has a Republican VP!) I've already seen quite a few posts from Democratic-machine friends saying "anyone but Tulsi." This seems to be entirely due to her prior anti-gay stances. A lot of Democrats would be turned off, and she would have a much smaller base of volunteers.

From the other side, it would be easy for Republicans to attack her as weak on national security. Being a veteran isn't a defense there. They've been able to smear veterans who lost limbs as weak on security!

I could care less about Democratic or Republican party machine opinions. That kind of thinking turns off independent, issue-oriented voters.

Or else you end up voting in a candidate who talks anti-war and then governs a completely different way, similar to his predecessor. Will not name names.

Oh well, we all have our opinions. Have a great day!

I was responding to this part of the comment: "I don't see how Trump can belittle her as he does others, but I am sure he will try. I think she would be the strongest against Trump."

I disagree. I was saying if she doesn't have support from Democrats, including some of the most active, anti-Trump, staunchly Democratic volunteers in my network, that is going to hurt her a lot in the general election. And she certainly can be attacked. Trump and Republicans in general haven't bothered since she's unlikely to win the primary.

ETA: It would be great if she could draw enough attention to the issue that it causes more people (and thus candidates) to care about it. Right now it's not a top priority for voters the way healthcare or immigration is, so it's hard to win if being anti-war is your primary focus.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2019, 02:56:05 PM by MonkeyJenga »

Daisy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1989
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #39 on: March 16, 2019, 03:09:40 PM »
Gabbard is one of the few people I think would be certain to lose against Trump. (Especially if she has a Republican VP!) I've already seen quite a few posts from Democratic-machine friends saying "anyone but Tulsi." This seems to be entirely due to her prior anti-gay stances. A lot of Democrats would be turned off, and she would have a much smaller base of volunteers.

From the other side, it would be easy for Republicans to attack her as weak on national security. Being a veteran isn't a defense there. They've been able to smear veterans who lost limbs as weak on security!

I could care less about Democratic or Republican party machine opinions. That kind of thinking turns off independent, issue-oriented voters.

Or else you end up voting in a candidate who talks anti-war and then governs a completely different way, similar to his predecessor. Will not name names.

Oh well, we all have our opinions. Have a great day!

I was responding to this part of the comment: "I don't see how Trump can belittle her as he does others, but I am sure he will try. I think she would be the strongest against Trump."

I disagree. I was saying if she doesn't have support from Democrats, including some of the most active, anti-Trump, staunchly Democratic volunteers in my network, that is going to hurt her a lot in the general election. And she certainly can be attacked. Trump and Republicans in general haven't bothered since she's unlikely to win the primary.

ETA: It would be great if she could draw enough attention to the issue that it causes more people (and thus candidates) to care about it. Right now it's not a top priority for voters the way healthcare or immigration is, so it's hard to win if being anti-war is your primary focus.

I think she would have a smart way to deflect Trump from giving her a nickname. She seems like she would just brush it off and continue with her calm, reasoned approach. I could be wrong.

Most of the other Dem candidates, with what I know now, would cause me to vote third party again in a swing state. The war issue is that important to me.

Your comment about the Democratic machine not supporting her is probably because of the bipartisan war machine that exists. They would rather ignore her because they know they can't manipulate her. The fact that you say they say "anyone but Tulsi" ingratiates her in my eyes even more!

Yeah, I don't get the bolded part above. I think you are right about it, that people don't focus on that issue. Which is exactly what Tulsi mentions in the YouTube video I included above. I don't get how this is not the #1 issue...affects our national security, weakens our foreign policy, wastes a ton of money that could either be spent otherwise or reduce our debt or reduce taxes, creates havoc in other countries, causes us to lose civil liberties at home. Look at the open slave markets in Libya for examples of the consequences of our war policy. I don't think many people are aware of the devastation caused by war. I think any war vote should be accompanied by an increase in taxes instead of put on the country's credit card so people really know the costs.

This has been happening since the Eisenhower years so I guess I am not very hopeful, but a girl can dream...

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #40 on: March 16, 2019, 07:15:14 PM »
I'm probably being clueless...how do I change my vote on this poll?

I could have sworn that when I set up this poll, I clicked on some button that said, "let voters change their votes," but when I went into "Edit" just now, I don't see anything about it. Maybe it just meant you could click different options before you clicked "Vote" but then once you vote, that's it?

That's my only guess.

Duchess of Stratosphear

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 308
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #41 on: March 17, 2019, 07:48:49 AM »

I will say, I think it's a mistake to overlook Biden's history with Anita Hill. Maybe a lot of people being polled aren't even aware of it, but it would become a huge issue in the general, and give Republicans cover to point back against Trump accusations. One of Trump's strongest defenses was pointing his finger at Bill Clinton, making people disillusioned with both sides.



This is why I can't get super excited about Biden, but I guess I would try to get over it if he were the nominee. I do kind of think he could beat Trump, but dammit, it's time for somebody younger and female for this job.

MonkeyJenga

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7781
  • Location: Don't Ask
  • Resting up for 2020
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #42 on: March 17, 2019, 08:41:34 AM »
Gabbard is one of the few people I think would be certain to lose against Trump. (Especially if she has a Republican VP!) I've already seen quite a few posts from Democratic-machine friends saying "anyone but Tulsi." This seems to be entirely due to her prior anti-gay stances. A lot of Democrats would be turned off, and she would have a much smaller base of volunteers.

From the other side, it would be easy for Republicans to attack her as weak on national security. Being a veteran isn't a defense there. They've been able to smear veterans who lost limbs as weak on security!

I could care less about Democratic or Republican party machine opinions. That kind of thinking turns off independent, issue-oriented voters.

Or else you end up voting in a candidate who talks anti-war and then governs a completely different way, similar to his predecessor. Will not name names.

Oh well, we all have our opinions. Have a great day!

I was responding to this part of the comment: "I don't see how Trump can belittle her as he does others, but I am sure he will try. I think she would be the strongest against Trump."

I disagree. I was saying if she doesn't have support from Democrats, including some of the most active, anti-Trump, staunchly Democratic volunteers in my network, that is going to hurt her a lot in the general election. And she certainly can be attacked. Trump and Republicans in general haven't bothered since she's unlikely to win the primary.

ETA: It would be great if she could draw enough attention to the issue that it causes more people (and thus candidates) to care about it. Right now it's not a top priority for voters the way healthcare or immigration is, so it's hard to win if being anti-war is your primary focus.

I think she would have a smart way to deflect Trump from giving her a nickname. She seems like she would just brush it off and continue with her calm, reasoned approach. I could be wrong.

Most of the other Dem candidates, with what I know now, would cause me to vote third party again in a swing state. The war issue is that important to me.

Your comment about the Democratic machine not supporting her is probably because of the bipartisan war machine that exists. They would rather ignore her because they know they can't manipulate her. The fact that you say they say "anyone but Tulsi" ingratiates her in my eyes even more!

Yeah, I don't get the bolded part above. I think you are right about it, that people don't focus on that issue. Which is exactly what Tulsi mentions in the YouTube video I included above. I don't get how this is not the #1 issue...affects our national security, weakens our foreign policy, wastes a ton of money that could either be spent otherwise or reduce our debt or reduce taxes, creates havoc in other countries, causes us to lose civil liberties at home. Look at the open slave markets in Libya for examples of the consequences of our war policy. I don't think many people are aware of the devastation caused by war. I think any war vote should be accompanied by an increase in taxes instead of put on the country's credit card so people really know the costs.

This has been happening since the Eisenhower years so I guess I am not very hopeful, but a girl can dream...

The Democratic-machine descriptor was a shorthand that I didn't expect to get so much focus. It's part of it, but not all. The people I've seen "anyone but Tulsi" from include long-time campaign workers/volunteers, and also activist friends. People who are angry at the system all around, and who were protesting Schumer at the same time they were protesting Trump. That activist side is much more angry about her anti-gay history, and probably aligns with her more on foreign policy.

I am not trying to change your personal opinion on her, I am trying to explain more clearly why I think she would lose against Trump. I would expect decreased enthusiasm on multiple fronts for her candidacy.

I am not a life-long Democrat, but I will vote for whoever wins the Democratic primary. I'll also likely work for them in some capacity. If some things are equally bad on both sides*, I'm going to vote for the better option where there are differences, and press for policy reform outside of elections.

*There are technically more than 2 sides, but not realistically when it comes to presidential elections.

2Birds1Stone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5205
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Earth
  • K Thnx Bye
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #43 on: March 17, 2019, 09:53:57 AM »
As of now it looks like there is no clear winner by popular vote.

Interesting to see this play out over the next 18+ months.

rob in cal

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #44 on: March 17, 2019, 10:56:43 AM »
  Another vote for Tulsi. I've never voted for a Dem for President but wouldn't hesitate to vote for a sincerely anti-interventionist one like Gabbard.  To those concerned about the growth of populist/nationalists type movements in the US and in Europe, consider what would be happening if there hadn't been US led middle east intervention in the first place.  Most likely much less of a refugee crisis, much less destabilization in the region, and with a much smaller refugee situation, its likely that the whole populist upsurge in Europe would not be happening.

Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #45 on: March 17, 2019, 05:37:34 PM »
I read an article about how the Dems changed how super delegates work this time around. Now, they only come into play if no candidate has enough "regular" delegates come convention time. And looking back at 2016, the way I read those results is that Hillary would NOT have had enough enough 'regular' delegates come convention time.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

So then the supers would have played king/queen maker, but only at the convention, not before.

With such a crowded field this time, I wonder if anyone would be able to earn enough delegates to hit the required number before the convention?

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2122
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #46 on: March 17, 2019, 08:06:54 PM »
  Another vote for Tulsi. I've never voted for a Dem for President but wouldn't hesitate to vote for a sincerely anti-interventionist one like Gabbard.  To those concerned about the growth of populist/nationalists type movements in the US and in Europe, consider what would be happening if there hadn't been US led middle east intervention in the first place.  Most likely much less of a refugee crisis, much less destabilization in the region, and with a much smaller refugee situation, its likely that the whole populist upsurge in Europe would not be happening.

I've definitely thought about this way more than I should have. Invading Iraq was an unbelievably bad decision that's had unbelievably bad consequences for democracies throughout the West.

Daisy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1989
Re: The wayyyyyyy too early 2020 Democratic primary poll
« Reply #47 on: March 19, 2019, 04:06:07 PM »
  Another vote for Tulsi. I've never voted for a Dem for President but wouldn't hesitate to vote for a sincerely anti-interventionist one like Gabbard.  To those concerned about the growth of populist/nationalists type movements in the US and in Europe, consider what would be happening if there hadn't been US led middle east intervention in the first place.  Most likely much less of a refugee crisis, much less destabilization in the region, and with a much smaller refugee situation, its likely that the whole populist upsurge in Europe would not be happening.

Exactly. Well said.