Democratic Primary Poll (Formerly Warren or Gabbard)

[Victorian Gray]

Women seem to have pause when it comes to voting for a female candidate which unfortunately is not limited to Hillary. If the Dems want the best chance nominating someone like Biden would probably be their best bet. Sanders would have been my first choice, but he's just too old at this point.

Sanders is 77, Biden is 76.

 

[brycejones]

Sanders is 77, Biden is 76.

See too old.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You wrote off Warren for basically 2 public comments.

go back to thinking about what you said.

I don't mind Gabbard in the lesser role...but again as mentioned earlier: she was basically raised in a Clockwork Orange family of Wurm eaters and Baal worshipers so...you know, I honestly believe in how people can learn and reform themselves...but still, that.

I wrote off Warren because she was foolish enough to fall for a GOP trap over her heritage and she has the excitement and energy of a college professor.

 

[Bitek]

I voted Gabbard just because I think Warren missed her chance in 2016, and she should learn from Hillary's mistake and remain an influential senator.

I think 7 have a legit shot at the nomination..

Beto
Biden
Harris
Gabbard
Sanders
Warren
Booker

I'm not sure which one will win out but everyone will have their positives and negatives.

I'd cut that list to four, at most.

Beto
Biden
Harris
Booker (maybe)

Really i think the race is Biden's to win, and the rest of the race is for VP.

I like Harris for VP.

Sharrod Brown has a chance to make a Ron Paul/Sanders like splash, but I don't know if he can get the majority.

 

[Indus]

Yeah Booker has the child rape baggage which GOP are going to nail on him again and again and again and we know they don't believe in facts but its disgusting enough that it might lose him some votes.

Biden is the most soft spoken.. gonna be hard to dismiss him especially after 8 years as Obama's VP.

P.S. Harris if she doesn't get the nomination would make an excellent SCOTUS pick to replace RBG.

 

[Brainonska511]

Women seem to have pause when it comes to voting for a female candidate which unfortunately is not limited to Hillary. If the Dems want the best chance nominating someone like Biden would probably be their best bet. Sanders would have been my first choice, but he's just too old at this point.

I think it's time we stop nominating old people for office. They've done enough in leadership positions.

 

[preCRT]

Would never support Gabbard for meeting with Bashar al-Assad. Just as I'd never support anyone who went to meet with Hitler.

Warren is my Senator, but don't think she has much of a chance since the rest of the country hates all pols from MA, on either side. [See Romney, Teddy K, Dukakis, Tsongas, Kerry...] That is why no matter how popular, even our Republican Governor Charlie Baker will never even consider running nationally.

 

[Jhhnn]

Gabbard's past anti-gay comments make her a non-starter for Dems in general.

Warren's problem over the whole Fauxcahontas smear make her unelectable.

We need to find somebody else.

 

[vi edit]

Beto or nothing at this point.
White
Male
Young
Charismatic

He's a white Obama.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Similar to republicans running in 2016, I am for equality in that I will be getting out the popcorn for the hilariousness that will be the Democrat election. Hilarity to ensue, guaranteed.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Gabbard's past anti-gay comments make her a non-starter for Dems in general.

Warren's problem over the whole Fauxcahontas smear make her unelectable.

We need to find somebody else.

Considering how old and senile Warren is, something tells me something anti-gay will turn up for her too

 

[Jaskalas]

Who the fuck's a democrat? I'm not even an American.

Apologies, it's easy to forget this is not just American P&N.

It would be more accurate for me to say... it's surprising to see someone not a Republican, take on the mantle of Neocon policy. For sweeping regime change across the Middle East, just cause they're bad guys. I would have expected you to learn the lesson, to appreciate the cost of anarchy when a government falls to violence. Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya have been hellscapes following western intervention.

Granted, Afghanistan has been in ruins since the soviet invasion. Iraq, post-ISIS, is actually trying to stabilize under Iranian influence. But our most recent "success"? UNDP head describes situation in Libya as "catastrophic". Every Muslim nation we overthrow is merely exchanging one bloodbath for another. You're not saving lives by killing a "few bad men". Democracy and human rights cannot simply spring forth one day. It takes an educated people, under stable footing. We're talking multiple generations of effort, where the tribes and worst human impulses are suppressed by overwhelming martial law and military force.

One might say Democracy rises from tyranny. To try and skip that part is a potentially catastrophic mistake, as a nation (and a common people) have not yet formed. Tribes will merely splinter and slaughter each other. I would caution you against being too hasty in assuming that violence is the solution for the Syrian people, or of any people trapped under the iron boot of a dictatorship.

One can engage and negotiate for a better life for the Syrian people, without first destroying everything holding them together. We did not have to arm the terrorists over there, while pretending that we're the ones saving them from murderers. Regime change is usually a terrible idea.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

One might say Democracy rises from tyranny. To try and skip that part is a potentially catastrophic mistake, as a nation (and a common people) have not yet formed. Tribes will merely splinter and slaughter each other. I would caution you against being too hasty in assuming that violence is the solution for the Syrian people, or of any people trapped under the iron boot of a dictatorship..

How does democracy rise from tyranny - when the subsequent government is corrupt and the sole purpose is to keep the general populace uneducated? All you have to do as a "leader" is proclaim "we will give you things" and people automatically are attracted to it out of stupidity and ignorance.

 

[brycejones]

How does democracy rise from tyranny - when the subsequent government is corrupt and the sole purpose is to keep the general populace uneducated? All you have to do as a "leader" is proclaim "we will give you things" and people automatically are attracted to it out of stupidity and ignorance.

See: Trump

 

[Jaskalas]

Gabbard's past anti-gay comments make her a non-starter for Dems in general.

You made me curious to see if there is any substance to that.

Here's an in-depth look on that issue.

And, considering she speaks positively for LGBT, has a 100% record on LGBT issues in Congress, and the issue was already settled in the SCOTUS, what possible negativity is there? What harm do you envision?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Apologies, it's easy to forget this is not just American P&N.

It would be more accurate for me to say... it's surprising to see someone not a Republican, take on the mantle of Neocon policy. For sweeping regime change across the Middle East, just cause they're bad guys. I would have expected you to learn the lesson, to appreciate the cost of anarchy when a government falls to violence. Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya have been hellscapes following western intervention.

Granted, Afghanistan has been in ruins since the soviet invasion. Iraq, post-ISIS, is actually trying to stabilize under Iranian influence. But our most recent "success"? UNDP head describes situation in Libya as "catastrophic". Every Muslim nation we overthrow is merely exchanging one bloodbath for another. You're not saving lives by killing a "few bad men". Democracy and human rights cannot simply spring forth one day. It takes an educated people, under stable footing. We're talking multiple generations of effort, where the tribes and worst human impulses are suppressed by overwhelming martial law and military force.

One might say Democracy rises from tyranny. To try and skip that part is a potentially catastrophic mistake, as a nation (and a common people) have not yet formed. Tribes will merely splinter and slaughter each other. I would caution you against being too hasty in assuming that violence is the solution for the Syrian people, or of any people trapped under the iron boot of a dictatorship.

One can engage and negotiate for a better life for the Syrian people, without first destroying everything holding them together. We did not have to arm the terrorists over there, while pretending that we're the ones saving them from murderers. Regime change is usually a terrible idea.

You didn't bother with any of those links did you?

 

[Jaskalas]

You didn't bother with any of those links did you?

Saddam used WMDs on the Kurds.
Saddam had torture dungeons too!
Saddam had to go!

... and then the Iraqis truly faced a slaughter. First from our invasion / war, then later from ISIS. Why the heck are you hell bent on repeating those mistakes? If at first you do not succeed, try try again? But you are talking of killing hundreds of thousands of people in some misbegotten crusade to... do what, exactly? Assassinate one bad man? Another will follow. There is nothing special about Assad.

The goal should be peace and stability, not regime change. The two may not always be mutually exclusive, but I hardly think the case has been made that this is our only option. Or even a good choice, given our track record.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Saddam used WMDs on the Kurds.
Saddam had torture dungeons too!
Saddam had to go!

... and then the Iraqis truly faced a slaughter. First from our invasion / war, then later from ISIS. Why the heck are you hell bent on repeating those mistakes? If at first you do not succeed, try try again? But you are talking of killing hundreds of thousands of people in some misbegotten crusade to... do what, exactly? Assassinate one bad man? Another will follow. There is nothing special about Assad.

The goal should be peace and stability, not regime change. The two may not always be mutually exclusive, but I hardly think the case has been made that this is our only option. Or even a good choice, given our track record.

You didn't read any of those links did you?

 

[Jhhnn]

Similar to republicans running in 2016, I am for equality in that I will be getting out the popcorn for the hilariousness that will be the Democrat election. Hilarity to ensue, guaranteed.

Considering how old and senile Warren is, something tells me something anti-gay will turn up for her too

Your empty derision is so cute.

 

[Jhhnn]

You made me curious to see if there is any substance to that.

Here's an in-depth look on that issue.

And, considering she speaks positively for LGBT, has a 100% record on LGBT issues in Congress, and the issue was already settled in the SCOTUS, what possible negativity is there? What harm do you envision?

Your reading comprehension skills are poor if that's what you got from your own link. Gabbard's explanation for the change isn't really convincing. It becomes an issue of trust.

 

[ivwshane]

I wrote off Warren because she was foolish enough to fall for a GOP trap over her heritage and she has the excitement and energy of a college professor.

You have no idea how childish and superficial you sound, do you? Your reasoning is the equivalent to those that supported bush because he was someone they could have a beer with.


This country is fucked!

 

[zinfamous]

Considering how old and senile Warren is, something tells me something anti-gay will turn up for her too

senile?

lol

 

[zinfamous]

I wrote off Warren because she was foolish enough to fall for a GOP trap over her heritage and she has the excitement and energy of a college professor.

wow, you're a petty 3rd-grader and you refuse to accept it, learn, and evolve.

 

[Victorian Gray]

You have no idea how childish and superficial you sound, do you? Your reasoning is the equivalent to those that supported bush because he was someone they could have a beer with.


This country is fucked!

The shark, it's been jumped.

 

[Jaskalas]

Your reading comprehension skills are poor if that's what you got from your own link. Gabbard's explanation for the change isn't really convincing. It becomes an issue of trust.

Trust on what? There's a perfect record in Congress over a settled issue. One group endorsed her opponent, others stood by her.

What, if a Democrat controlled Congress passes pro-LGBT legislation you think a Democrat President would veto it? You're joking right?

And that's my point. How can there be concern if there is no reasonable expectation of harm?