Democratic Primary Poll (Formerly Warren or Gabbard)

[Bitek]

I just saw Pete on real time. Has the bar been set so low that he appealed to me because he sounded smart and thoughtful? Don't get me wrong, I thought he made some really good points but I can't help but feel biased simply because he didn't sound like a Cheeto.

Listening to him is a hell of a contrast.

Trump is poisoning everything and making us forget how things used to be not so long ago.

 

[Jaskalas]

Is Pete Buttigieg a Transformational Candidate?

Trump would be the oldest president in history at 74; Buttigieg would be the youngest at 39. Trump landed in politics via his money and celebrity after years in the limelight; Buttigieg is the mayor of a midsize midwestern town, unknown until a few weeks ago. Trump is a pathological, malevolent narcissist from New York, breaking all sorts of norms. Buttigieg is a modest, reasonable pragmatist, and a near parody of normality. Trump thrives on a retro heterosexual persona; Buttigieg appears to be a rather conservative, married homosexual. Trump is a coward and draft dodger; Buttigieg served his country. Trump does not read; Buttigieg does. Trump’s genius is demonic demagoguery. Buttigieg’s gig is careful reasoning. Trump is a pagan; Buttigieg is a Christian. Trump vandalizes government; Buttigieg nurtures it.​

​

To put it simply, Mayor Pete seems almost designed to expose everything that makes the country tired of Trump.​

Can a wholesome, pure hearted candidate survive the crucible of a campaign?
Do we want him to?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Only 25% of Democratic voters supporting abolishing ICE. Pathetic. That's such a minimal step compared to the deep systemic changes that are needed.

Yeah! HASHTAG OPEN DUH BORDERS FOR EVRY1!

All the SMART AND WEALTHY countries are doing that... Oh wait...

You fucking moron. Thank god 75% of democrats at least pass the bar for not being completely retarded.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Pete's trying to play a game now and I'm not wild about it. He's saying coastal folks need to understand the Trump voters in the flyover regions... but no indication that those flyover folks need to cut their racist bullshit and irrational fears of who uses which bathroom and join the modern world.

I listen to their economic fears when they aren't so coated in crap.

I'm much rather continue to shame those people and make the reach out to the vast population that didn't vote last time and get them to put things over the top for the D candidate.

That's PRECISELY what you fucking idiots ignored and that's PRECISELY why you lost to Trump.

People like you are doomed to repeat the past it seems. Pretty sad you can't learn from your mistakes. You think they are some kind of minority that we can all point and laugh at. They clearly proved you wrong there last election.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Courting racists ain't my path to victory. I'm comfortable trying to reach all of those people who didn't vote in those states rather than trying to convert cult members.

Based on the rally, Trump supporters haven't wavered and just want more more more... speaking of people who want piss in their faces.

But I'm not saying make them angry. I'm saying dismiss them. They're useless.

So by your definition, if people don't live in an urban city then I guess they are by default racist?

You're so delusional - and that's exactly what Pete is trying to prevent. You ARE the problem with the party.

 

[HomerJS]

So by your definition, if people don't live in an urban city then I guess they are by default racist?

You're so delusional - and that's exactly what Pete is trying to prevent. You ARE the problem with the party.

I completely understand jack's anger towards those people. Hard to have a discussion with people willing to believe anything told to them by Trump. How can policy be discussed when we can't agree on the same set of facts?

Blue states: There is a moon orbiting the earth
Red stated: There are two moons orbiting the earth. Trump told us.

 

[Jaskalas]

Hatred of others is a poison. Yes you can harm them, but it does reflect back on you. Because you are not alone in carrying agency, in taking action. We can be retaliated against. And absent civil discourse we have no nation. If there is anyone or anything you hold dear in this world, then anger is not going to serve you in protecting them. Not when the enemy is within. Not if Afghanistan / Syria is the destination you would resign us to. We must not reduce ourselves to sectarian division and violence.

Yes, I call people out if they do not desire reaching out and inspiring voters. Because you need to pause and consider. Where does that road lead, if we are no longer interested in having elections? If we do not believe voting is the answer? I see mutual death and destruction if civil discourse has fallen out of favor. If you look at fellow Americans who might not automatically vote for you and just dismiss them as Nazis or Trumpanzies. What have you then!?

Stereotyping and hating a large segment of the population, because they don't know you have their interests at heart? I mean... if they see your condemnation they sure as hell will never vote for you. All you are doing then is handing Trump voters. Making your enemy stronger via the Bushism "You're either with us or against us". For you to drive such polarization is to drive us away from civil discourse. It is the SAME EXACT issue regarding Muslims in general. Whether we want to foster a national union or mutual destruction. We all carry the power to push our nation a little towards either direction. For we humans are empathic creatures and we leave our mark on each other.

What mark do you want to leave, do you believe in the Bush doctrine, or are you a liberal / progressive who sees value in all humans? Do you strive to save them, or harm them? Remember that the answer is not really for them, but the future you set for yourself. Only in saving them can we save ourselves. And "them" are not necessarily Nazis or Trumpanzies but everyone else caught in the middle. Ours needs be a path towards giving them salvation by reaching out and offering them shelter.

It is through recruitment, by reaching out and inspiriting voters, that we will band together to overcome and push out our worst nature.

 

[jackstar7]

So by your definition, if people don't live in an urban city then I guess they are by default racist?

You're so delusional - and that's exactly what Pete is trying to prevent. You ARE the problem with the party.

Actually, no, dipshit. I'm talking specifically about Trump voters and supporters. They are a lost cause and fuck 'em.

But those people who didn't vote in 2016? I want to engage them and I don't think that's done by half-assed pandering and ignoring racism.

You are such a whiny child, I swear.

 

[Jaskalas]

Democrats spend a lot of time and effort custom tailoring messages for specific groups. They've missed the largest one.

Which group is that?

Old white guys?

Is this correct, @Jaskalas ?

Let's try this again, with some clarity from a recent article.
AP: After 2016 loss, Democrats know they need white male voters

“The white male vote is indispensable, it’s a part of any winning coalition,” said Democratic pollster Ronald Lester, who worked for Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016. He noted that successful national Democrats perform well with white men, and that includes Barack Obama, whose strength among white men in the Rust Belt helped fuel his White House victories in 2008 and 2012.​

Let me repeat that. 1: The strategists in the party know what's up, and 2: Barrack Obama did better than Hillary Clinton. Proof:

Whites voted for in 2012:
Obama: 39%
Romney: 59%

Whites voted for in 2016:
Clinton: 37%
Trump: 57%

It's not rocket science, and it's clearly not racism if they favored our first Black President. They did not neglect Clinton as a minority (she is not). They did so for another reason, as I return to repeat a pillar of mine. It's the economy. Trump, through his lies, spoke to them. My entire point is that we need to compete in, and win in that arena. To not lose the Rust Belt again, they need to feel like we care about them. And no, that clearly didn't happen in 2016. We can do better, it has happened before, it can happen again.

We need to inspire American voters with bold plans that they know aren't just the status quo. Aren't just more trickle down plus or minus a few percent. We need to take charge and win the hearts of our people again. Let them hope for a better future. Not hate on them after they were fooled by a con man.

 

[mect]

Pete's trying to play a game now and I'm not wild about it. He's saying coastal folks need to understand the Trump voters in the flyover regions... but no indication that those flyover folks need to cut their racist bullshit and irrational fears of who uses which bathroom and join the modern world.

I listen to their economic fears when they aren't so coated in crap.

I'm much rather continue to shame those people and make the reach out to the vast population that didn't vote last time and get them to put things over the top for the D candidate.

What do you mean he doesn't indicate that flyover folks need to cut their racist bullshit and irrational fears of who uses which bathroom? Pete addresses this repeatedly. He would be the first openly gay presidential candidate. He's constantly addressing LGBTQ issues. He's not saying we should be pandering to the Pence types. He's saying that there are a significant number of people in flyover country that support LGBTQ individuals and minorities, but were at the same time frustrated by politicians that appeared to ignore their portion of the country, and as such were willing to look beyond Trump's disgusting personality in a vote to burn the system down. Pete isn't saying we need to tolerate racism and homophobia, he's saying there are a lot of people in this region that are on the Dems side when it comes to social issues, and all the Dems need to do is to make them feel like their also an important part of the country, that the Dems will represent them as well.

 

[jackstar7]

What do you mean he doesn't indicate that flyover folks need to cut their racist bullshit and irrational fears of who uses which bathroom? Pete addresses this repeatedly. He would be the first openly gay presidential candidate. He's constantly addressing LGBTQ issues. He's not saying we should be pandering to the Pence types. He's saying that there are a significant number of people in flyover country that support LGBTQ individuals and minorities, but were at the same time frustrated by politicians that appeared to ignore their portion of the country, and as such were willing to look beyond Trump's disgusting personality in a vote to burn the system down. Pete isn't saying we need to tolerate racism and homophobia, he's saying there are a lot of people in this region that are on the Dems side when it comes to social issues, and all the Dems need to do is to make them feel like their also an important part of the country, that the Dems will represent them as well.

He has pandered to Pence, albeit mildly indirectly.

I like Pete and won't be mad if he rises high in the party, but he's playing the towards a middle-ground and I can't laud that effort. The middle between reasonable and shitshow still has too much shit on it.

 

[jackstar7]

We need to inspire American voters with bold plans that they know aren't just the status quo. Aren't just more trickle down plus or minus a few percent. We need to take charge and win the hearts of our people again. Let them hope for a better future. Not hate on them after they were fooled by a con man.

Trumpland is being punished by Trump policy.

If they want to keep getting hit in the head, let 'em.

I'd rather the appeals be made to the tens of millions of non-participants from 2016 who might now see a vested interest in participating.

 

[Lanyap]

Even Obama and long time Democratic consultant Joe Trippi are putting out warnings to the dems.

Obama warns progressives to avoid 'circular firing squad' as Democrats prepare for 2020 showdown

Barack Obama has urged progressives in the US to avoid becoming part of a “circular firing squad” that takes aim at people who do not share all their views.

In what will be interpreted as a comment about the nature of the rivalry between different factions within the Democratic Party, the former president stressed the need for compromise.

“The way we structure democracy requires you to take into account people who don’t agree with you,” he said at an event in Berlin hosted by the Obama Foundation. “And that, by definition, means you’re not going to get 100 per cent of what you want.”

According to The Hill, he added: “One of the things I do worry about sometimes among progressives in the United States….is a certain kind of rigidity where we say, ‘Uh, I’m sorry, this is how it’s going to be’, and then we start sometimes creating what’s called a “circular firing squad”, where you start shooting at your allies because one of them has strayed from purity on the issues.

“And when that happens, typically the overall effort and movement weakens.”

Democratic adviser on 2020: 'We could blow this'

But, he allowed, “We could blow this.”

“We’re a party that’s totally capable of making the path easier for [Trump], particularly if we fall into the traps he tends to set,” Trippi said in an interview on the Yahoo News podcast “The Long Game.”

 

[mect]

He has pandered to Pence, albeit mildly indirectly.

I like Pete and won't be mad if he rises high in the party, but he's playing the towards a middle-ground and I can't laud that effort. The middle between reasonable and shitshow still has too much shit on it.

He's also very directly called Pence out. I would agree if Pete was playing towards the middle in terms of policy, but he's not. I can't think of a single policy that he supports that I wouldn't consider progressive. I'd say his message is much more that Dems need to try to bring those in the middle on board the progressive agenda.

 

[dank69]

Let's try this again, with some clarity from a recent article.
AP: After 2016 loss, Democrats know they need white male voters

“The white male vote is indispensable, it’s a part of any winning coalition,” said Democratic pollster Ronald Lester, who worked for Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016. He noted that successful national Democrats perform well with white men, and that includes Barack Obama, whose strength among white men in the Rust Belt helped fuel his White House victories in 2008 and 2012.​

Let me repeat that. 1: The strategists in the party know what's up, and 2: Barrack Obama did better than Hillary Clinton. Proof:

Whites voted for in 2012:
Obama: 39%
Romney: 59%

Whites voted for in 2016:
Clinton: 37%
Trump: 57%

It's not rocket science, and it's clearly not racism if they favored our first Black President. They did not neglect Clinton as a minority (she is not). They did so for another reason, as I return to repeat a pillar of mine. It's the economy. Trump, through his lies, spoke to them. My entire point is that we need to compete in, and win in that arena. To not lose the Rust Belt again, they need to feel like we care about them. And no, that clearly didn't happen in 2016. We can do better, it has happened before, it can happen again.

We need to inspire American voters with bold plans that they know aren't just the status quo. Aren't just more trickle down plus or minus a few percent. We need to take charge and win the hearts of our people again. Let them hope for a better future. Not hate on them after they were fooled by a con man.

2% is probably within the margin of error ffs. The GOP does well with white men because they only care about white men, specifically rich white men, and the white men that vote GOP all believe that it is the Democrats standing in the way of their becoming rich. After all, the Democrats take all their taxes, while the GOP gives them an extra $20-80 a week. See they can already feel themselves getting richer by the hour.

 

[jackstar7]

He's also very directly called Pence out. I would agree if Pete was playing towards the middle in terms of policy, but he's not. I can't think of a single policy that he supports that I wouldn't consider progressive. I'd say his message is much more that Dems need to try to bring those in the middle on board the progressive agenda.

Again, I'm not anti-Pete, just not enthused by him. Where are his policy ideas?

 

[Blackjack200]

Again, I'm not anti-Pete, just not enthused by him. Where are his policy ideas?

Good primer right here:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/all-about-pete

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Pete Buttigieg on being a gay candidate: ‘I’m not running to be president for any one group’

Smart man - while everyone else in Democrat clown bus is taking sides, outcasting groups, and propping up other groups - Pete looks like the smartest one thus far. If he wins the nomination he has my vote. He seems to have a clear understanding of what it's like to be in the working class instead of the privileged coastal liberal class. It's also clear to me that he understands proper priorities - that economics clearly outweighs babies crying about social issues.

Looks like his official running announcement on Sunday.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/202...-taxing-the-rich-future-of-us-capitalism.html


He's also not stupid and knows the benefits of capitalism instead of acting as if it's a horrible system. He acknowledges there are issues with it - but still understands the importance of it.

John Harwood: You have an unusually broad set of peer groups, angles of vision on the American economy as a mayor, as a veteran, as a McKinsey management consultant. What’s right about American capitalism?

Pete Buttigieg: Well, American capitalism is one of the most productive forces ever known to man, and there’s so much that this country has been able to unlock, especially in the last century, in terms of technology, in terms of prosperity. Now where it goes wrong is when it’s only being experienced in certain parts of the country or by certain kinds of people, and I think it goes to show just how important it is for capitalism to work that it be backed by all of the other pieces that business alone can’t solve. But when it’s working right, there’s nothing like it. It’s extraordinary.

You think about the changes that have happened, the advancements in health, in communications in every field that had been led by our country. What frightens me is it’s no longer obvious that our country will be the most important driver of advancements of humankind in the 21st century. Not unless we do some things differently.

I do think he tripped himself up here a little on this question series. He's acting as if tax cuts are the sole reason for inequality - and the interviewer says "Well, what about technological change, globalization, and movement of capital"?

And the reality is, globalization is what has contributed the most to our inequality. Hands down. It's why jobs have been eliminated - and the interviewer is right in that it has increased equality... globally... Heh, the problem is that he is failing to realize that "equality" with shithole countries means lowering our standards and slightly propping up their standards. Congrats! People in sweat shops now get paid $1.25/hour equivalents. Yay for equality!

John Harwood: Is that the reason why you think we have expanding income inequality?

Pete Buttigieg: I think it’s a vicious cycle. This didn’t just happen. The economy is not some creature that just lumbers along on its own. It’s an interaction between private sector and public sector. And public sector policies, for basically as long as I’ve been alive, have been skewed in a direction that’s increasing inequality.

And a lot of this is the consequence of what you might call the Reagan consensus. There was a period where even Democrats seemed to operate in this framework that assumes that the only thing you’d ever do with a tax is cut it. That those tax cuts were assumed to pay for themselves. The empirical collapse of that supply side consensus, I think, is one of the defining moments of this period that we’re living through.

John Harwood: Why do you ascribe it to the Reagan consensus as opposed to technological change, globalization, movement of capital?

Pete Buttigieg: Well, all of these forces interact. But none of these forces automatically have to make our society more unequal. If anything, globalization was supposed to create more equality among nations.

John Harwood: Well actually it has created more equality in the world. It’s taken millions of people out of poverty.

Pete Buttigieg: Sure, it’s lifted so many out of poverty. And by the way, there are ways that it can work for us at home, too. But again, we’re seeing a concentration of wealth and power that skews things in the opposite direction.

The fundamental truth is, it turns out a rising tide does not lift all boats. Not on its own. Especially if some of the boats are sort of tethered to the ocean floor. And that’s the kind of pattern that we’ve been on.

 

[blankslate]

Dayum.....

Mike Gravel has no delusions of winning... he just wants to point a flamethrower at Corporate Dem faces and char Da Fook out of them...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1114649105937178624

https://twitter.com/x/status/1116702515536334849

of course it's just sooo uncouth...


__________

 

[alien42]

I think Warren is more valuable as a Senator.

time to add mayor Pete to the poll, he's officially in and currently polling in third behind Biden and Sanders.

 

[dank69]

time to add mayor Pete to the poll, he's officially in and currently polling in third behind Biden and Sanders.

Okay I added him. Only room for one more option I think, and I don't think I can change existing choices...

 

[hal2kilo]

Dayum.....

Mike Gravel has no delusions of winning... he just wants to point a flamethrower at Corporate Dem faces and char Da Fook out of them...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1114649105937178624

https://twitter.com/x/status/1116702515536334849

of course it's just sooo uncouth...


__________

He's made such an impression on me, that I had to Google him. Completely forgot about him. I wonder why.

 

[soundforbjt]

Okay I added him. Only room for one more option I think, and I don't think I can change existing choices...

I'd save the last spot for Biden, if he gets in. He is leading all the polls, iirc.

 

[dank69]

I'd save the last spot for Biden, if he gets in. He is leading all the polls, iirc.

Yeah, much to my dismay.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I'd save the last spot for Biden, if he gets in. He is leading all the polls, iirc.

Honestly I would just reserve that last slot until debates start or something. This clown car continues to magically find more space it seems.