Democratic Primary Poll (Formerly Warren or Gabbard)

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Warren or Gabbard


  • Total voters
    73
  • This poll will close: .
Jan 6, 2005
10,348
413
126
#51
wow, you're a petty 3rd-grader and you refuse to accept it, learn, and evolve.
So you think Warren submitting to a DNA test was a stroke of political brilliance and that she projects herself as inspired? The Austrians and Prussians learned that some officers are better suited for staff, policy and strategy, while others are better suited for command. At least that is what my 3rd grade teacher told us right before snack time. I had apples and pretzels.

Warren is an exceptional staff officer. She would make an outstanding VP.
 
Jun 21, 2005
10,014
123
126
#52
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.
Hmmm...sounds like the the current administration.
 

ewdotson

Senior member
Oct 30, 2011
319
59
101
#53
Gabbard's a wolf in sheep's clothing. There's a reason she's so well-liked by Breitbart. I voted Warren, but would go with Harris over either.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
59,716
322
126
#54
If Dems run Warren in 2020, they lose again. Just calling that right now. Harris is an even harder sell. Booker less than either of them.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
59,716
322
126
#56
Dems are going to have to do a *SERIOUS* gut check in the next 12 months. I was listening to a show the other day and some talking head was on air practically screaming that this is the #metoo era and that presidential candidate must be "a woman or a person of color".

If you want to lose in 202, that's how you lose. That mentality is not going to win you Michigan, Wisconsin, PA, or Ohio. I really wish this wasn't an issue at this day and age, but it certainly is.
 
Oct 6, 2009
22,567
1,053
126
#57
Dems are going to have to do a *SERIOUS* gut check in the next 12 months. I was listening to a show the other day and some talking head was on air practically screaming that this is the #metoo era and that presidential candidate must be "a woman or a person of color".

If you want to lose in 202, that's how you lose. That mentality is not going to win you Michigan, Wisconsin, PA, or Ohio. I really wish this wasn't an issue at this day and age, but it certainly is.
Gender/race should not matter.
 
Oct 18, 2013
12,267
468
126
#58
Hmmm...sounds like the the current administration.
That torch has been moved further than ever under Trump, but, he did not light it and he certainly was not the first to carry it. Juxtaposed to an administration like Obama's only makes what is a horrible situation look even worse, but, keep in mind Trump was not the first but in reality is just the best example.
 
Oct 18, 2013
12,267
468
126
#60
Gender/race should not matter.
BS. It totally matters. Obama being the first Black president matters. Clinton being a woman mattered.

I don't mean that as sarcasm either. Obviously Obama won which made what he did more historical, but, both of them mattered for what they did to further their gender and race politically.
 
Oct 6, 2009
22,567
1,053
126
#61
BS. It totally matters. Obama being the first Black president matters. Clinton being a woman mattered.

I don't mean that as sarcasm either. Obviously Obama won which made what he did more historical, but, both of them mattered for what they did to further their gender and race politically.
That is infinitely less important than getting Trump out of the goddamned WH.
 
Oct 18, 2013
12,267
468
126
#62
That is infinitely less important than getting Trump out of the goddamned WH.
Less important sure. I'm not a fan of Warren, but, put her next to Trump and she looks to be able to walk on water from my view.

But, to say gender/race don't matter, or, should not matter is wrong. It matters to a huge chunk of people on the Left.

If the Dems try and put two white guys up against trump, I would bet that you would see a huge backlash from the Left. I'm not even sure if they would be willing to vote for them even if it meant voting against Trump. I would hope so, but, I worry it would be too much.

In my opinion, they need to get a woman as VP at the very least. That will still upset many as it would mean the woman is serving the man, but, I really think it matters to most on the Left that a woman be in there.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
59,716
322
126
#63
That is infinitely less important than getting Trump out of the goddamned WH.
Which is why I said it's gut check (or reality check more appropriately) that this is not an election to push a social agenda. You put your individual agendas aside, poll the ever loving crap out of states that swung for Trump and understand what they want in a candidate. Then you try and push someone through that has a punchers chance of running the table on the states they *NEED* to win. They go for the throat and can't play the "With her" card and then go to a run out the clock campaign strategy.
 
Oct 6, 2009
22,567
1,053
126
#64
Less important sure. I'm not a fan of Warren, but, put her next to Trump and she looks to be able to walk on water from my view.

But, to say gender/race don't matter, or, should not matter is wrong. It matters to a huge chunk of people on the Left.

If the Dems try and put two white guys up against trump, I would bet that you would see a huge backlash from the Left. I'm not even sure if they would be willing to vote for them even if it meant voting against Trump. I would hope so, but, I worry it would be too much.

In my opinion, they need to get a woman as VP at the very least. That will still upset many as it would mean the woman is serving the man, but, I really think it matters to most on the Left that a woman be in there.
If there is a backlash against a white male candidate then America deserves another 4 years of ass rape. Assuming RBG makes it past 2020 Trump would likely get to appoint 3 more justices to the SCOTUS. America will not recover from that until 2100.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
59,716
322
126
#65
If there is a backlash against an OLD white male candidate then America deserves another 4 years of ass rape. Assuming RBG makes it past 2020 Trump would likely get to appoint 3 more justices to the SCOTUS. America will not recover from that until 2100.
FTFY
 
Jan 6, 2005
10,348
413
126
#66
You are right that it shouldn't. But it super fucking does.
To his credit, Obama did not make his candidacy about his race, allowing him to keep the electorate focused on his message, with a strong slogan to support it.

So far, the talking heads are focused on the identities of each Democrat candidate more so than what they actually bring to the table, and nearly all the editorials on the subject are race/gender rather than policy focused.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
59,716
322
126
#67
To his credit, Obama did not make his candidacy about his race, allowing him to keep the electorate focused on his message, with a strong slogan to support it.

So far, the talking heads are focused on the identities of each Democrat candidate more so than what they actually bring to the table, and nearly all the editorials on the subject are race/gender rather than policy focused.
Correct. He was young, "cool" and a speaker that didn't put you to sleep. Compare him to Al Gore or John Kerry and he's vastly more interesting candidate.
 
Jun 23, 2004
27,344
526
126
#68
Warren Campaigned in New Hampshire. There's a news segment covering it.

Full video, not the best quality.
Oh, those Youtube comments are not so friendly. Fox News played some clips where Warren had all but lost her voice, but that doesn't seem to be from the same moment as this video. She was wearing the same red shirt.

My first impression, aside from her voice and speaking style standing out, would be she's trying very hard to be relatable. Which might circle back to her heritage and if she's a fraud. Not in policy, but in personality. Seems like she's putting up a front, but maybe that's what all public speakers tend to do with various degrees of success.

Okay, so maybe she's not young or charismatic. She does seem to know how to weave together talking points into more effective communication.

Her policy itself seems spot on. Like, I don't take any exception to what I heard although it was really a one or two note segment. Helping people, and stopping corruption in government. She drew that out into a 15 minute speech, and not many Democrats are going to say no to those two items. My final impression is I'd love to see her 1vs1 debate some of the others who are running, or even looking to run. A sparring match to draw out strengths and weaknesses. To help in making a decision on her.

I'll start this two-year campaign as generally positive on Warren, 3/5.
She may be a flawed candidate, but policy is important.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,317
1,013
126
#69
Dems are going to have to do a *SERIOUS* gut check in the next 12 months. I was listening to a show the other day and some talking head was on air practically screaming that this is the #metoo era and that presidential candidate must be "a woman or a person of color".

If you want to lose in 202, that's how you lose. That mentality is not going to win you Michigan, Wisconsin, PA, or Ohio. I really wish this wasn't an issue at this day and age, but it certainly is.
yeah fuck real political qualifications. Who needs that shit anyways?

REAL qualifications are things you're born with... such as race... and gender. Wait were we still talking about a klan meeting?
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
59,716
322
126
#70
yeah fuck real political qualifications. Who needs that shit anyways?

REAL qualifications are things you're born with... such as race... and gender. Wait were we still talking about a klan meeting?
Ummm not sure that's an argument you want to propose there.

In 2016 you had these choices:
- Political Science major
- Social activist for 50+ years
- 2 term senator
- Secretary of State for 4 years

or....

- Some guy associated with Miss America pagents
- Bankrupted a bunch of businesses
- Really good at self promoting his name

I mean political qualifications matter right?
 
Oct 6, 2009
22,567
1,053
126
#71
Ummm not sure that's an argument you want to propose there.

In 2016 you had these choices:
- Political Science major
- Social activist for 50+ years
- 2 term senator
- Secretary of State for 4 years

or....

- Some guy associated with Miss America pagents
- Bankrupted a bunch of businesses
- Really good at self promoting his name

I mean political qualifications matter right?
Any conservative/libertarian/Republican that claims to care about policy can be immediately dismissed as a retard or a troll or both.
 
Oct 18, 2013
12,267
468
126
#72
Warren Campaigned in New Hampshire. There's a news segment covering it.

Full video, not the best quality.
Oh, those Youtube comments are not so friendly. Fox News played some clips where Warren had all but lost her voice, but that doesn't seem to be from the same moment as this video. She was wearing the same red shirt.

My first impression, aside from her voice and speaking style standing out, would be she's trying very hard to be relatable. Which might circle back to her heritage and if she's a fraud. Not in policy, but in personality. Seems like she's putting up a front, but maybe that's what all public speakers tend to do with various degrees of success.

Okay, so maybe she's not young or charismatic. She does seem to know how to weave together talking points into more effective communication.

Her policy itself seems spot on. Like, I don't take any exception to what I heard although it was really a one or two note segment. Helping people, and stopping corruption in government. She drew that out into a 15 minute speech, and not many Democrats are going to say no to those two items. My final impression is I'd love to see her 1vs1 debate some of the others who are running, or even looking to run. A sparring match to draw out strengths and weaknesses. To help in making a decision on her.

I'll start this two-year campaign as generally positive on Warren, 3/5.
She may be a flawed candidate, but policy is important.
The problem I have with her is how she defines the things she is against. So, for her the fact that the government makes a small profit on student loans to her is corruption and exploitation. I very much disagree with that as being define as either corruption or exploitation.
 
Oct 18, 2013
12,267
468
126
#73
Any conservative/libertarian/Republican that claims to care about policy can be immediately dismissed as a retard or a troll or both.
You don't think that there is a single person in those groups that actually cares about policy? If not, you are setting yourself up for a loss.
 
Oct 6, 2009
22,567
1,053
126
#74
You don't think that there is a single person in those groups that actually cares about policy? If not, you are setting yourself up for a loss.
If they cared about policy and were not retarded they would be Democrats.
 
Oct 18, 2013
12,267
468
126
#75
If they cared about policy and were not retarded they would be Democrats.
That is the type of misunderstanding that helped the Dems lose. Understand that thinking your opposition is inherently bad will contribute this time as well. Don't know if it will lead to a loss, but, its a misstep for sure.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS