2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT | Hickenlooper makes it to the debate
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
I wonder how many Putin state dinners she'll attend between now and the 2020 election.
The first part of your post dismissed two candidates based on the early polls the second part of your post said are meaningless...Out of the “serious” candidates Gillibrand and Booker are DOA
He should probably drop out based on this expert analysis
He hasn’t even announced yet, calm your jets. Polls are meaningless until the primary kicks into gear.
There’s no need to look at polls to know that Gillibrand and Booker probably aren’t going very far.
Tulsi's going to be Jill's next VP in '20, isn't she?
Getting in an early attempt to frame Bernie criticisms as social media manipulation.
That New Knowledge experiment sounded risky and lucky not to face charges. It's cool that they pulled it off and got good data. If they are for keeping elections clean going forward that information would be helpful in recognizing and tracking interference. Something other nations might be able to learn and adapt to secure their own elections.
What is the cross-over between Sanders and Gabbard supporters? These candidates don't appear to have much in common.
The majority of Gabbard supporters are TYT regulars that remember that she backed Bernie once and she said bad things about getting involved in the Syrian conflict.
That being said there aren't all that many Gabbard supporters. Majority of the people who like her already prefer Bernie, and those that prefer her are a very small crowd.
Occasionally I catch obscure left leaning You Tube political channels defending Tulsi. Thankfully TYT have slowly turned on Tulsi, and supporting Bernie. Maybe they supported her because she was the closest candidate to Bernie, which makes their response to Warren worse.
Then, in a scenario where Sanders doesn't run his supporters aren't expected to become hers to any great degree?
I’m not dismissing them based on the polls. They have no path to victory.
The majority of Sanders voters have other 2nd picks and have no idea who Gabbard is.
Oh? How do you figure that without looking at the polls? Without polling data, what's the path to victory difference between a Booker and a Harris?
They might flip to Biden when he's in the race, as he's more conservative.
The reaction to their announcements? The fact that nobody was really excited at the prospect of him running in the first place? You don’t need polling to know that Booker was always going to be a dud.
This entire thread is based on baseless speculation and you’re seriously giving me the third degree over this?
Booker is devoid of personality, has a history of defending private equity and standing up for people like Mitt Romney, and is one of the biggest charter school advocates in the country. None of those things make me think he’ll gain any traction in a dem primary.
As far as Gillibrand goes, her bridges with the establishment have been burned because of the Al Franken debacle and she has no path on the left because of Sanders and Warren. Not even mentioning how many problematic votes she made as a rep when she was a lot more conservative.
Also this
And of those few that do know her most don't seem to want to have anything to do with her or will openly admit it anyhow.
Thought they'd flock to Warren? or split that way. It might be easier for Harris if Sanders does announce.
Biden biding his time. A few years back he sounded like he legitimately wanted out of politics. This waiting to announce appears a bit like grandfatherly worry and waiting in the wings just in case he's needed. Probably wants to join at the last minute for showmanship and timing benefits. As everyone knows he's already got the recognition and support to make it far in the primary.
Given how conservative Tulsi is I assumed they'd flock to the most conservative candidate and Biden is very popular with Bernie's supporters. Biden likely was recovering from his son's death, which would take yers to recover. He must have finally gotten strong enough to move on so he can restart his political career. Yep, that's his advantage.
Depends on why they were Bernie in the first place. Not everyone is policy first.
This is not the case based on polling. Stop thinking every Sanders supporter is like you.
Polling says the opposite. Biden voters are more likely to go to Warren. Bernie's more likely to go to Booker. Both are more likely to go to the other. But that's at the moment. I doubt the overlap will shift completely. Don't assume that voters follow policy or political spectrum nitty-gritty. They do not.
There's a full year until the first primary/caucus and at least four months until the first debate. Plenty of time.
He really does only have one expression: he looks like he's a little slow, and is trying to follow what the person's saying, but still doesn't quite understand.
Following up on the post above, in which I happened to quote Vox's Sarah Kliff: Kliff published a pertinent follow-up piece today.
I noticed that influential observers (such as interfluidity) are highlighting some key elements of Kliff's piece:
https://twitter.com/interfluidity/status/1092529706300170240
Last edited:
At this point Jill Stein should be in jail for fucking collusion. I'm tired of her shit.
This is absolutely not true. Polling has shown otherwise. Bernie’s base in 16 was not mostly just young leftists. A sizable part of his base were more conservative White Dems who didn’t want Hillary.
Gabbard's use of "neocon/neolib" as scarecrows to rail against the mechanics of criticism, in and outside her own party, and as an antiestablishment deep state dogwhistle highlights her thinking and makes it all worse. Hopefully this run of hers makes her lose her seat to another Dem, too.
Clipping the dates off on the bottom tweets is very bad form: https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/810026680949571584
Indeed. Helio's edited tweet is from 2016.
Also lol that David Duke's twitter BANNER is Tootsie for prez.
Got it from the first reply to the tweet I posted. I went to go look for the response nd couldn’t find it. Guess I now know why!
And make no mistake, I don’t like tulsi and it’s not meant to be a defense of her.
Her tweets are her response from another time he tried to praise her, so probably fair to say she’d have a similar reaction to it now.
That he supports her says mountains more than her rejection would.
He supports her because she has a long history of homophobic and racist views.
It says far more about Tulsi than it does David Duke.
TYL what hyperbole is. She didn't have my vote (as I said in the post you're actually quoting) because of a myriad of other reasons, not the least of which is her homophobia.
- Status