Democratic Primary Poll (Formerly Warren or Gabbard)

[dank69]

And now Mayor Pete has come out against allowing felons to vote...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pete-buttigieg-faces-backlash-saying-151621760.html

Let's see if he is capable of adjusting his view as there is more national discussion about it.

 

[glenn1]

And now Mayor Pete has come out against allowing felons to vote...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pete-buttigieg-faces-backlash-saying-151621760.html

Let's see if he is capable of adjusting his view as there is more national discussion about it.

I don't think voting rights for convicts is an issue that resonates with a large majority of American voters. Their opinions about it are likely not strongly held if they've even thought about the issue at all and it's probably smart politics on his part to take a cautious line on it. This one thing probably won't by itself change the minds of any primary voters and it's probably a "safer" position in the general election.

 

[dank69]

I don't think voting rights for convicts is an issue that resonates with a large majority of American voters. Their opinions about it are likely not strongly held if they've even thought about the issue at all and it's probably smart politics on his part to take a cautious line on it. This one thing probably won't by itself change the minds of any primary voters and it's probably a "safer" position in the general election.

That really isn't the point though. It is the wrong position on a fundamental American right.

 

[glenn1]

That really isn't the point though. It is the wrong position on a fundamental American right.

I doubt any candidate will meet a threshold of not having the "wrong position on a fundamental American right." For example in the last election Hillary Clinton's positions on evesdropping and privacy were horrendously bad and the very definition of "wrong position on a fundamental American right" and she was still a better choice than her general election opponent.

 

[Blackjack200]

Alienating 5% of the electorate when that's less than the typical margin of victory in presidential elections is a curious strategy. Seeming like you're proud of alienating them is even more curious. Most folks including the 5% will accept a candidate they don't totally agree with but if you hold them out as an actual enemy of the other 95% then gaining that acceptance is probably out of reach.

Who is alienating anyone? I was pointing out that an avowed redistributionist probably doesn't have as much appeal to the 5% with literally the most to lose?

 

[dank69]

I doubt any candidate will meet a threshold of not having the "wrong position on a fundamental American right." For example in the last election Hillary Clinton's positions on evesdropping and privacy were horrendously bad and the very definition of "wrong position on a fundamental American right" and she was still a better choice than her general election opponent.

This is correct, but we aren't in the general yet so we have a chance to mold our candidates into the best that they can be.

 

[Blackjack200]

I doubt any candidate will meet a threshold of not having the "wrong position on a fundamental American right." For example in the last election Hillary Clinton's positions on evesdropping and privacy were horrendously bad and the very definition of "wrong position on a fundamental American right" and she was still a better choice than her general election opponent.

Unfortunately those horrendously bad positions are almost universal outside of guys like Rand Paul, and does he even fight that stuff anymore?

 

[glenn1]

Who is alienating anyone? I was pointing out that an avowed redistributionist probably doesn't have as much appeal to the 5% with literally the most to lose?

There seems a reasonably strong undercurrent of voters who seem to be running with the "we don't want your vote if you're ______" and added the rich to the list along with the "deplorables." No matter how much you think the rich should pay in taxes they're still Americans and voters with real wants and needs just like the 95% have. Some amount of appealing to their desires and preferences would go a long way. That doesn't mean they won't necessarily pay higher taxes but spend more time explaining how those high taxes benefit them also.

 

[Blackjack200]

There seems a reasonably strong undercurrent of voters who seem to be running with the "we don't want your vote if you're ______" and added the rich to the list along with the "deplorables."

Can you give examples? Or is this just something you perceive?

No matter how much you think the rich should pay in taxes they're still Americans and voters with real wants and needs just like the 95% have. Some amount of appealing to their desires and preferences would go a long way. That doesn't mean they won't necessarily pay higher taxes but spend more time explaining how those high taxes benefit them also.

I mean, in my opinion a platform to attack climate change, rebuild infrastructure, and deal with the serious problems involving health care costs and student debt is a platform that could absolutely appeal to someone in any income bracket.

 

[Jaskalas]

There seems a reasonably strong undercurrent of voters who seem to be running with the "we don't want your vote if you're ______" and added the rich to the list along with the "deplorables." No matter how much you think the rich should pay in taxes they're still Americans and voters with real wants and needs just like the 95% have. Some amount of appealing to their desires and preferences would go a long way. That doesn't mean they won't necessarily pay higher taxes but spend more time explaining how those high taxes benefit them also.

To maintain a civil society that won't string them up and eat them. And I mean literal cannibalism here, it's in their best interests to maintain Capitalism in a functioning state. We are quite dysfunctional at the moment, and are only descending further into despair and disrepair. Because of income inequality, aka, this generation brings home less relative money than the previous. The working class, both poor and middle, are being starved out.

And what do starving animals do? You might offer them a crumb, but they'll take your whole arm off.

We need a fully realized social safety net implemented before it comes to that. Before we descend any further down the inevitable evolution of Capitalism, we need policy in place that patches it up, that fixes it, and allows Capitalism to thrive well into the future. Long after we have devalued labor and brought about a revolution in automation. We need policy that forms a social safety net that leaves NO ONE behind, that protects all of us and benefits all of us.

We need a functioning society again. America existing in 2050 benefits everyone.

 

[glenn1]

To maintain a civil society that won't string them up and eat them. And I mean literal cannibalism here, it's in their best interests to maintain Capitalism in a functioning state. We are quite dysfunctional at the moment, and are only descending further into despair and disrepair. Because of income inequality, aka, this generation brings home less relative money than the previous. The working class, both poor and middle, are being starved out.

And what do starving animals do? You might offer them a crumb, but they'll take your whole arm off.

We need a fully realized social safety net implemented before it comes to that. Before we descend any further down the inevitable evolution of Capitalism, we need policy in place that patches it up, that fixes it, and allows Capitalism to thrive well into the future. Long after we have devalued labor and brought about a revolution in automation. We need policy that forms a social safety net that leaves NO ONE behind, that protects all of us and benefits all of us.

We need a functioning society again.

I think you need to travel more if you think that even the poor in the U.S. are being "starved out." They may need to work undesirably long hours, have little in the way of liquid savings, and may have fewer luxuries than the rich or middle class, but the idea they're barely maintaining subsistence lifestyle is ridiculous. The idea the U.S. is simply awaiting a spark to launch a modern day version of the French Revolution is ridiculous as well.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I think you need to travel more if you think that even the poor in the U.S. are being "starved out." They may need to work undesirably long hours, have little in the way of liquid savings, and may have fewer luxuries than the rich or middle class, but the idea they're barely maintaining subsistence lifestyle is ridiculous. The idea the U.S. is simply awaiting a spark to launch a modern day version of the French Revolution is ridiculous as well.

Are you kidding me? If you don't have an iPhone X then you're clearly being oppressed....

 

[dank69]

I think you need to travel more if you think that even the poor in the U.S. are being "starved out." They may need to work undesirably long hours, have little in the way of liquid savings, and may have fewer luxuries than the rich or middle class, but the idea they're barely maintaining subsistence lifestyle is ridiculous. The idea the U.S. is simply awaiting a spark to launch a modern day version of the French Revolution is ridiculous as well.

Link

 

[hal2kilo]

There seems a reasonably strong undercurrent of voters who seem to be running with the "we don't want your vote if you're ______" and added the rich to the list along with the "deplorables." No matter how much you think the rich should pay in taxes they're still Americans and voters with real wants and needs just like the 95% have. Some amount of appealing to their desires and preferences would go a long way. That doesn't mean they won't necessarily pay higher taxes but spend more time explaining how those high taxes benefit them also.

What the fuck don't the rich already have. Jesus! OH yea you're president of the FYGM party.

 

[jackstar7]

Are you kidding me? If you don't have an iPhone X then you're clearly being oppressed....

Your entitlement projection is hilarious.

It's not just you, obviously, but you do it with a little something extra and I appreciate it.

 

[Bitek]

I get that, but if it weren't for Bernie it is likely we wouldn't even be having these discussions and it is likely the Dems would not be adopting most of his policy proposals in some form or another. Additionally, he has the rare ability to appeal to conservatives in a way I haven't seen elsewhere. His age does really bother me as well, and it is the primary reason I have not selected him as my choice right now, but we will have a much more difficult time winning if we can't find a candidate that can do what he does so well.

Same boat as @vi edit, also got Mayor Pete currently checked off in the poll.

I appreciate Bernie's efforts to push the issues, but I don't think he would be particularly effective as an executive.

I also think he goes too far on the issues to be practical, eg his extremely generous M4A plan with no copays (far more generous than say, the Canadian or UK public health systems.) I didn't like his tax plan in 2016 either.

That being said, his actual history is more practical than his rhetoric, and I would still vote for him over Trumpo any day.

Really a big hurdle for him is age, as well as a lot of weird statements he's made over the years that may sink him with bigger exposure.

Not yet willing to trust that Bernie is not a huge gamble.

 

[vi edit]

To further expand on some things I'm what I would consider a "recovering conservative". I've spent most of my life in "purple" areas where rural america bleeds over into somewhat progressive or democratic heavy blips on the map. Peoria, IL. Iowa City, IA. Omaha NE. I currently live in Lexington, KY. One set of my grandparents were lifelong farmers in IL and as conservative and "redhat" as you could get. The other set had a grandma that was an ultra hippy artist and a grandpa that oversaw a large organized labor union in downstate IL. They were also incredibly active in supporting and doing volunteer stuff in Obama's campaigns.

My background is about as purple as it can get. Early in my voting and through my early and mid 20's I voted conservative. Hell I used to listen to Hannity and Colmes on AM radio when I was doing a lot of driving for work. But contrary to some opinions, as my household income went up, as I had kids, as I got more involved in healthcare, and just simply matured as a person and understood what I felt was important in both life and policy I starting bending hard toward democratic policies. As the Republican party got taken over by the Tea Party zealots and just turned into a clown show of obstruction, distraction, and denial to basic human needs the Republican party was dead to me.

The Trump presidency is both the most insane but most deserved thing I've seen happen politically in my lifetime. I feel like I've got a bit of a unique perspective having sort of grown up and lived in DMZ political areas where a lot of local issues start to blur party ideological lines. And now trying to sift through this pile of candidates is just a mess.

It's just deeply frustrating that that we are faced with the decision of "What candidate stands the best chance to beat the most uniquely unqualified president and has run the most dumpster fire of an administration in modern history" instead of "What candidate is the best for our country". They aren't the same people. And that's very disturbing to me.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

My background is about as purple as it can get. Early in my voting and through my early and mid 20's I voted conservative. Hell I used to listen to Hannity and Colmes on AM radio when I was doing a lot of driving for work. But contrary to some opinions, as my household income went up, as I had kids, as I got more involved in healthcare, and just simply matured as a person and understood what I felt was important in both life and policy I starting bending hard toward democratic policies. As the Republican party got taken over by the Tea Party zealots and just turned into a clown show of obstruction, distraction, and denial to basic human needs the Republican party was dead to me.

The Trump presidency is both the most insane but most deserved thing I've seen happen politically in my lifetime. I feel like I've got a bit of a unique perspective having sort of grown up and lived in DMZ political areas where a lot of local issues start to blur party ideological lines. And now trying to sift through this pile of candidates is just a mess.

It's just deeply frustrating that that we are faced with the decision of "What candidate stands the best chance to beat the most uniquely unqualified president and has run the most dumpster fire of an administration in modern history" instead of "What candidate is the best for our country". They aren't the same people. And that's very disturbing to me.

I think part of the problem (in regards to what is disturbing to you) is because some people are using this notion of "Conservative bad" movement as a reasoning to shift further and further and further and further left.... When that should have no real basis of changing your political views.

Now the moderates (or simply, rational) lefties are being cannibalized by their own party. It isn't pretty - And I can't say it's the correct move for "coming together" as a party. But hey, I'm no expert - But just from the outside looking in it doesn't seem like this is the best outcome that the left could be utilizing.

 

[dank69]

I think part of the problem (in regards to what is disturbing to you) is because some people are using this notion of "Conservative bad" movement as a reasoning to shift further and further and further and further left.... When that should have no real basis of changing your political views.

Now the moderates (or simply, rational) lefties are being cannibalized by their own party. It isn't pretty - And I can't say it's the correct move for "coming together" as a party. But hey, I'm no expert - But just from the outside looking in it doesn't seem like this is the best outcome that the left could be utilizing.

100% wrong. The "left" had been dragged so far right that half the country couldn't tell the difference anymore in the 90s. The "left" is starting to drift back to where it should have stayed all along but still has a ways to go. The right is 100% insane. Anyone "in the middle" is insane. Conservatives have had 4 decades of getting their way on economic policy with very little "liberal" policy passed and it has been an unmitigated disaster. The middle right now is somewhere between "awful shit we have tried multiple times and has failed every time" and "let's try to undo at least a little bit of that awful shit" when we should be full steam ahead "undo all the awful shit right the fuck now before it is too late to turn back." Honestly I think the tipping point for "too late" was 2016 and we're are all fucked but YMMV.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

100% wrong. The "left" had been dragged so far right that half the country couldn't tell the difference anymore in the 90s. The "left" is starting to drift back to where it should have stayed all along but still has a ways to go. The right is 100% insane. Anyone "in the middle" is insane.

"Everyone that isn't thinking what I'm thinking is insane"

I haven't heard this type of message from other humans multiple times when it comes to arguing/debate...

 

[dank69]

"Everyone that isn't thinking what I'm thinking is insane"

I haven't heard this type of message from other humans multiple times when it comes to arguing/debate...

Yeah I hear it a lot from a guy named s0me0nesmind1 on this very forum all the time, usually attached to a post where he is spouting some ridiculous shit. However, you can't refute my claim so stop whining.

 

[vi edit]

I understand where he's coming from. There's some things that certainly make me cringe a bit. The fact that "pro-reparations" is now a checkbox on a democratic candidate platform is just...uhg. Same with the hoopla around felon voting rights. If democrats lose it's because getting caught up in things like this and setting up circular firing squads on each other will be the reason. Instead of focusing on actual things like crime reform, drug policies, and the inequality in education and access to it and taking paths forward we are going to let buzz topics like that that play well on Fox news dominate the news cycles.

 

[Bitek]

I understand where he's coming from. There's some things that certainly make me cringe a bit. The fact that "pro-reparations" is now a checkbox on a democratic candidate platform is just...uhg. Same with the hoopla around felon voting rights. If democrats lose it's because getting caught up in things like this and setting up circular firing squads on each other will be the reason. Instead of focusing on actual things like crime reform, drug policies, and the inequality in education and access to it and taking paths forward we are going to let buzz topics like that that play well on Fox news dominate the news cycles.

Yeah, I can't believe they are taking the reparations bait.

The election for the Ds is hold 2016, get back PA, WI and MI.

Reparations, letting felons vote from prison, not being cautious on immigration are unforced distractions.

They just need to not be crazy, and focus on healthcare and real middle class job security. Doing something on college costs will go a long way too in the suburbs. This shouldn't be this hard.

 

[soundforbjt]

Yeah, I can't believe they are taking the reparations bait.

The election for the Ds is hold 2016, get back PA, WI and MI.

Reparations, letting felons vote from prison, not being cautious on immigration are unforced distractions.

They just need to not be crazy, and focus on healthcare and real middle class job security. Doing something on college costs will go a long way too in the suburbs. This shouldn't be this hard.

This election is the Democrats to lose, if they fuck this layup, they need to go back to the drawing boards and start over. All they need is to not lose the 80.000 votes in three states, I'm sure Trump hasn't gained many.

 

[vi edit]

I wanted to slap some DNC spokesperson(or at least speaking on behalf of the DNC) with a frozen trout a day or two after Bernie did his town hall on Fox News. This guy was upset that Bernie was on there and giving Fox news the time of day and a chance to spin his message.

I wanted to toss my shoe at the tv when he was saying that. Mother fucker....Trump won because 1 out of every 100 people in 3 different states checked the box for Trump instead of Clinton. If Bernie can reach that one person, if not 2 out of 100 and resonate with them...Trump doesn't win. The national democratic message *HAS* to have a plan besides "Joe Biden" to reach out to those voters. If Biden stumbles and can't win primaries in the big states, they will be in full on panic mode.