Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 1
Be sure to see the chart: "Many early state activists don't want Gabbard or Sanders"

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/we-asked-democratic-act...
We Asked Democratic Activists Who They’re Backing — And Who They’d Hate To See Win
Sanders, however, is deeply unpopular among supporters of just about all the other top-tier candidates — about half to three-quarters of activists who supported one of the eight candidates who were ranked the highest in the first table would not want to see Sanders win the nomination. Biden, too, is unpopular among supporters of Booker, Warren and Sanders, again garnering around 50 percent opposition. Most Sanders supporters, meanwhile, were opposed to Klobuchar, Biden and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
While the data on who Democrat voters would not want to see win the nomination might be interesting, I'm not sure it really matters much. When you vote, you don't get to assign negative votes to any of the candidates. The important issue when it comes to winning an election is that more people prefer one candidate over the alternative. They may like or hate both.

So the poll forces Democratic voters to choose among the group of candidates who would be at the bottom of their list. Is that choice actually someone they despise? or simply a candidate that ranks slightly behind other candidates that the voter prefers? Would they still vote for that candidate over Trump?

Also, it's very early in the process. While I read and follow a lot of news, I couldn't tell you a handful of facts about half of the current candidates. If I had to choose who was on the bottom of my list, I would be choosing mostly out of ignorance at this point. I suspect a lot of voters are in a similar situation.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Democrats are in a huge pickle with Sanders. After how Bernie was cheated by Hillary, rigged system, etc. Bernie supporters didn't come out and vote for Hillary in large numbers, some did, but a large % of them stayed home.

Fast forward to 2020, if Bernie gets shafted again you can kiss most of the Bernie vote bye bye, they will not vote for the Dem nominee out of spite/anger for Bernie getting shafted is the same as they themselves being disrespected and shafted, and they would be right.

Bernie will be the favorite in terms of excitement and votes, if he wins the nomination chances are small he would be Trump, however if Bernie gets screwed again, Bernie will be the reason the Democrat choice comes up short and loses to Trump as well.

Tough spot, Democrats would have been much better off if Bernie didn't enter the race in the first place.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Many early state activists don't want Gabbard or Sanders"

Lindytoes,

I supported Bernie in 2016, and was convinced at that time that he would trounce Trump if allowed to run. This is a different time, though, and I believe that Bernie's time is past. Ever since she announced her run, I have supported Harris for president or, alternatively, as VP with Joe Biden for Pres.

At the current moment, I am pretty sure that a Harris/Buttegieg ticket would be unbeatable. Harris is the most presidential of all the candidates other than Sanders, Biden, or Booker. She is the best choice because women are currently ascendant and it is undeniably time for a woman to be president. Warren is not the right woman, though.

Buttegieg would be a solid VP choice and could deliver the blue collar Midwestern votes that Hillary lost. Joe Biden would do the same, but I can't see him voluntarily agreeing to run as VP again. Campaigning is just too hard to play second fiddle again.

Anything can happen in the long slog that is primary season, but I would be very confident in a Harris/Buttegieg ticket.

Despite the intensity with which decent people despise Trump, there is a remote possibility that he could beat some of the less stellar Democrats in the running. Harris has the charisma, as well as the gravitas, to beat Trump soundly with every group but older males. Either Joe or Pete could pull in those votes to the direct detriment of Trump.

So long as we don't screw things up, Trump is toast. And that is a welcome thought.

:-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<<So long as we don't screw things up, Trump is toast. And that is a welcome thought.>>>

So you are unhappy with:

lowest unemployment among blacks
same for Hipanics
same for women

13,000,000 off food stamps

reduced taxes

Just a few of Pres. Trump's accomplishments; but you want an Obama stagnant economy?

WHY?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
So you are unhappy with:

lowest unemployment among blacks
same for Hipanics
same for women

13,000,000 off food stamps

reduced taxes

Just a few of Pres. Trump's accomplishments; but you want an Obama stagnant economy?

WHY?


Why did you insist on being fact challenged? Look at an economic chart that covers 2009 to now. There is no Trump bump. He is riding a trend that started under Obama. The stats you are quoting have nothing to do with Trump - he just happened to be POTUS while it happened.

Otherwise you could actually see his "accomplishments" in the actual data.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Nigel,

You are lost my friend, Obama over regulated, over taxed, squeezed the private sector, record number of people dropped out of the workforce, record Government money injected into the economy, economy so fragile it needed near 0 interest rates, record number of people on welfare and foot stamps, etc.

Obama is not responsible for today's stronger economy, just no way in hell.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Nigel,

You are lost my friend, Obama over regulated, over taxed, squeezed the private sector, record number of people dropped out of the workforce, record Government money injected into the economy, economy so fragile it needed near 0 interest rates, record number of people on welfare and foot stamps, etc.

Obama is not responsible for today's stronger economy, just no way in hell.


I know you want to believe that. I understand. The problem is that the data does not support your premise. All the economic indicators Trump pretends he is responsible for have been on an undeniable trend line since 2009.

You just have to LOOK.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Democrats are in a huge pickle with Sanders. After how Bernie was cheated by Hillary, rigged system, etc. Bernie supporters didn't come out and vote for Hillary in large numbers, some did, but a large % of them stayed home.

Link?

Oh, of course, you don't have one. Because that's FALSE. Sanders supporters came out for Hillary in far greater numbers than Hillary voters came out for Obama in 2008. Hillary just mismanaged her campaign so badly that she ignored both her messaging and the rust belt; which is how she managed to win the popular vote by 3% and still lose the Electoral College.


Fast forward to 2020, if Bernie gets shafted again you can kiss most of the Bernie vote bye bye, they will not vote for the Dem nominee out of spite/anger for Bernie getting shafted is the same as they themselves being disrespected and shafted, and they would be right.

I don't think the DNC is going to make the same mistake again. They can't, really, because there is no Hillary! cult awaiting coronation. Bernie is a known quantity and his popularity is evident, and if he falters it will be largely perceived as his own shortcoming. Tough for The Man to hold you down when you are, in fact, The Man. If anyone has a legitimate gripe about being held back at this point it's Elizabeth Warren who has laid out more detailed policy proposals than the rest of the field combined, but gets almost no enthusiasm from popular media coverage (they being too busy parsing the daily idiocy of Trump Tweets to focus on anything as boring as actual policy). More, young blood like Buttigieg really brings the age contrast into the picture. Most people can see Buttigieg serving out eight years, Sanders almost needs to run as a one-and-done with a VP that is poised to take over. In any case, there are so many positive choices on the Dem side, expecting epic self-destruction of the Democrat candidacy by bitter Bernie supporters is wishful thinking, to put it kindly.


Bernie will be the favorite in terms of excitement and votes, if he wins the nomination chances are small he would be[at?] Trump,

The cool thing about Bernie is the excitement he started in 2016 has already changed the national narrative on both sides of the aisle. Trump has been a wake-up call to many moderate Republicans who are waking up to realize their party is all about socialism, just with a smaller pool of beneficiaries. On the Democrat side, Bernie's biggest obstacle is bitter Hillary voters, which is also an obstacle for every candidate who isn't Hillary Clinton. For everyone else to the left of Mussolini, Sanders is a welcome presence on the national stage - he can speak to middle America better than Trump can, or Hillary could, and possibly as well as Biden can. Plus, he's not well known to lie to America's face like Trump, not nationally reviled like Hillary, and still has that relatably rough edge that seems to have dulled a bit on Biden. Sanders has some sharp competition from the likes of Buttigieg who has as firm a grasp on substance and ability to charge up an audience, plus the verve of youth and a likability quotient that is off the charts. Either comes off as a more favorable choice than Trump the Failing Boorish Liar.


Tough spot, Democrats would have been much better off if Bernie didn't enter the race in the first place.

That's what Republicans (the in-the-know ones, not the head-in-the-sand, lock-the-channel-on-FOX ones) are largely saying about Trump. Trump needs to worry about whether he's going to get primaried from the not-criminally-corrupt faction of the Republican party. Democrats? Don't worry about us. We're all good here.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<<Why did you insist on being fact challenged? Look at an economic chart that covers 2009 to now. There is no Trump bump. He is riding a trend that started under Obama. The stats you are quoting have nothing to do with Trump - he just happened to be POTUS while it happened.>>>

Maybe you should change your glasses.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<<Why did you insist on being fact challenged? Look at an economic chart that covers 2009 to now. There is no Trump bump. He is riding a trend that started under Obama. The stats you are quoting have nothing to do with Trump - he just happened to be POTUS while it happened.>>>

Maybe you should change your glasses.

Are you able to find data that supports your premise?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<<So you are unhappy with:

lowest unemployment among blacks
same for Hipanics
same for women

13,000,000 off food stamps

reduced taxes>>



Why yes, of course they are! Desperately unhappy!


After the election democrats were predicting a disastrous recession and another war fomented by Trump, perhaps more than one.

It's mightily frustrating that their predictions haven't come to fruition, and the best they can do is to say it's all a legacy of Obama' wise policies.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<<That's what Republicans (the in-the-know ones, not the head-in-the-sand, lock-the-channel-on-FOX ones) are largely saying about Trump. Trump needs to worry about whether he's going to get primaried from the not-criminally-corrupt faction of the Republican party. Democrats? Don't worry about us. We're all good here.>>>

Put this message over all social media platforms, please.
Print the post Back To Top