2020 Presidential Democratic Primary Debates 1+2 |OT| June 26-27, 2019

Nerokis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,670
I'm in the Rachel Maddow/Chuck Todd portion of the debate, and these two questions keep coming up in my head:

1) Why is Marianne Williamson on that stage?
2) Why is Joe Biden on that stage?
 

Nerokis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,670
(OOC: I'm going to assume you were/are one of those students who sat/sits in the front.)

Yes, you in the front?

- - - - - - - - -

Something Bernie has been reaffirming to me throughout this debate is that it is both his weakness and his strength that he isn't a particularly agile politician. RE: calling out Biden, there has been at least one obvious chance for him to do it in an impactful way, and he didn't take it - instead, he just went back to his usual lines. I say it's also a strength because agility often means flexibility and flexibility often means being willing to go places you don't like, and it's admirable that he's a very consistent dude, but it's definitely one of those things that has made me look at him with both curiosity and apprehension as a candidate.
 

Jon Carter

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,105
This is something that really disappointed me about Beto. He's strong when he's genuine. What the fuck was he thinking when he over-rehearsed all those bullshit answers and non-answers? Who told him it was a good idea to use his very limited amount of time to tell anecdotes no one gives a shit about instead of just answering the question like a normal human being? It's not like he has terrible policies that he needed to distract from. All he had to do was answer directly, with his normal charisma.
 

Tracygill

Member
Nov 2, 2017
1,334
The Left
Better for someone to get a leg up off Biden that agrees with Bernie on M4A. Though, she has been a bit shaky, I'd rather her get the leg up than one of the centrist.
Does she agree with Bernie on Medicare For All?

January:
 

LordByron28

Member
Nov 5, 2017
1,101
Beto/Booker. Este ticketo es fantastico. Muy chances de beatiñg El Trumpo.
Given how Beto debated the other night and his debates against Ted Cruz. He would flounder against Trump. Most of the progressive wing of the party would throw a stink at Booker's past record and acceptance of lobbying money especially from Private for Profit prisons.
 

Nerokis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,670
debate 2 rankings (* indicates someone underperformed relative to group):

presidential: Harris
presidential potential: Biden (by default), Sanders*, Buttigieg, Gillibrand
hmm: Hickenlooper, Bennett
hmmm: Yang*, Swalwell
okay, thanks for coming, bye: Williamson*
 

Bad_Boy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,745
I think if harris was in the day 1 debate she would have eaten everyone alive, including warren.
 

Nerokis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,670
Gillibrand? Holy shit, actually. I guess her obnoxious performance can be construed as effective by some.
look who else is in that group. having an inspired performance isn't a prerequisite to being placed above Hickenlooper

I didn't find Gillibrand appealing at all, but she was an effective speaker on some important issues, did a solid job drawing from her background, and came across as fluent and reassured regardless of the question put before her

she is a Presidential Potential
 

gutter_trash

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
12,477
Montreal
Gillibrand's problem is that she is not authentic, not real, she comes off as super fake.

why do I say this? because she changes her stances every mid-term or election cycle to the tune of the flavor of the month.


her positions on Guns and Immigration are like total 180s
 

Working yet?

Member
Oct 31, 2017
1,768
look who else is in that group. having an inspired performance isn't a prerequisite to being placed above Hickenlooper

I didn't find Gillibrand appealing at all, but she was an effective speaker on some important issues, did a solid job drawing from her background, and came across as fluent and reassured regardless of the question put before her

she is a Presidential Potential
Funny that, because I actually found Hickenlooper to be the better candidate of the two. Gillibrand didn't distinguish herself from the rest of the candidates in my view. She said exactly what I'd expect a democrat to say. Nothing unique beyond that. What I'll remember her for is her constant interruptions. I've already compared her to a housefly, earlier. She drew herself from the background, but for all the wrong reasons. Lessons should be taken from de Blasio who did a good job drawing the discussion towards him. Of course, opinions and all.
 

Window

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,926
There was an interview with Howard Dean where he says ending private health insurance completely is not a tenable position for a candidate to hold in the GE and that Warren if she goes to the GE will likely walk it back. I think he's probably right. It's possible to have Medicare for all and private health insurance coexist, with the right policy (like in Australia).
 

Nerokis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,670
Funny that, because I actually found Hickenlooper to be the better candidate of the two. Gillibrand didn't distinguish herself from the rest of the candidates in my view. She said exactly what I'd expect a democrat to say. Nothing unique beyond that. What I'll remember her for is her constant interruptions. I've already compared her to a housefly, earlier. She drew herself from the background, but for all the wrong reasons. Lessons should be taken from de Blasio who did a good job drawing the discussion towards him. Of course, opinions and all.
I honestly can't remember a single notable moment from Hickenlooper. Gillibrand's statement on facing down McConnell over women's reproductive rights stood out to me: it's absolutely true not a lot of other candidates (especially on that particular stage) have the credibility she does in this area.

I found the way she inserted herself into the discussion more effective, too. For instance, Hickenlooper's "but socialism, wtf?? guaranteeing jobs, omg??" stuff was boring. Gillibrand's attempt to flesh out a middling version of Medicare-for-All, for example, was better.

Aside from some awws at his adorable face, Hickenlooper got nothing from me except hmms.
 

Working yet?

Member
Oct 31, 2017
1,768
I honestly can't remember a single notable moment from Hickenlooper. Gillibrand's statement on facing down McConnell over women's reproductive rights stood out to me: it's absolutely true not a lot of other candidates (especially on that particular stage) have the credibility she does in this area.

I found the way she inserted herself into the discussion more effective, too. For instance, Hickenlooper's "but socialism, wtf?? guaranteeing jobs, omg??" stuff was boring. Gillibrand's attempt to flesh out a middling version of Medicare-for-All, for example, was better.

Aside from some awws at his adorable face, Hickenlooper got nothing from me except hmms.
He played the role of the 'realistic, composed candidate'. With his (very sketchy) boasts concerning the legalisation of marijuana, low teen abortions, climate change and the like. On a closer inspection, it's patently obvious that he misrepresented his role in these achievements either entirely or partially. However, if I only judge him on his performance, he certainly seemed like the sort of candidate who walked the walk. The sort of candidate who can be relied upon to slowly realign American attitudes without scaring republicans. And, yeah, I complained about his fearmongering about socialism earlier as well.

For interest's sake, I did look at fivethirtyeight's figures, and Gillibrand seems to have lost some ground, while Hickenlooper actually improved a bit. Neither stand a chance to win the nomination, though, thankfully.
 

Nerokis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,670
He played the role of the 'realistic, composed candidate'. With his (very sketchy) boasts concerning the legalisation of marijuana, low teen abortions, climate change and the like. On a closer inspection, it's patently obvious that he misrepresented his role in these achievements either entirely or partially. However, if I only judge him on his performance, he certainly seemed like the sort of candidate who walked the walk. The sort of candidate who can be relied upon to slowly realign American attitudes without scaring republicans. And, yeah, I complained about his fearmongering about socialism earlier as well.

For interest's sake, I did look at fivethirtyeight's figures, and Gillibrand seems to have lost some ground, while Hickenlooper actually improved a bit. Neither stand a chance to win the nomination, though, thankfully.
I can mostly agree with all that, but I think he's benefiting from a combination of how easy it is to fulfill his particular niche and his first significant burst of exposure. He didn't actually do a particularly good job projecting competence, presidential temperament, or whatever else. Even when he talked (sketchily) about his record, he could have done a much better job contextualizing things like that teen abortion statistic, which he sort of just threw out there for people to "oh really?" at.

God, though, how quiet is it in this thread that we ended up having a back and forth about these candidates of all candidates? :P
 

Tracygill

Member
Nov 2, 2017
1,334
The Left
There was an interview with Howard Dean where he says ending private health insurance completely is not a tenable position for a candidate to hold in the GE and that Warren if she goes to the GE will likely walk it back. I think he's probably right. It's possible to have Medicare for all and private health insurance coexist, with the right policy (like in Australia).
I would take into account that Howard Dean might be a little bit biased when it comes to healthcare discussions.
Dean, though he rarely discloses the title during his media appearances, now serves as senior advisor to the law firm Dentons, where he works with the firm’s Public Policy and Regulation practice, a euphemism for Dentons’ lobbying team. Dean is not a lawyer, but neither is Newt Gingrich, who is among the growing list of former government officials and politicians that work in the Public Policy and Regulation practice of Dentons.

The Dentons Public Policy and Regulation practice lobbies on behalf of a variety of corporate health care interests, including the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a powerful trade group for drugmakers like Pfizer and Merck.
After Dean began working in the lobbying industry, he gave a talk about how to navigate the post-Citizens United campaign finance world. “I’ve advised a lot of clients in the industries that I usually end up working with, which are mostly health care industries, not to give any money to either side, or if you do, give it to both sides because politicians really don’t know much about the issues,” Dean said. “But they remember the ads, and they remember who was on whose side and who wasn’t, and it makes a big difference.”
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/14/howard-dean-lobbyist/
 

Window

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,926
I would take into account that Howard Dean might be a little bit biased when it comes to healthcare discussions.


https://theintercept.com/2016/01/14/howard-dean-lobbyist/
Regardless of his biases, the point he makes is worth considering on its own merits, whether there would be enough support from US voters on removing private health insurance completely. I do think it's a tough sell. Many countries with universal health care still have room for private health insurance schemes. The problem of adverse selection in such a dual system can be addressed with proper policy, which encourages high income earners to opt for private insurance through additional taxation on top of the basic tax to fund medicare. It still covers everyone unless they opt out to private but they have to pay the medicare tax regardless. That's how it works in Australia.
 
Last edited:

Zelas

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,808
How are you not getting it? Bernie's policy proposal does not eliminate private insurance. If it did, us taxpayers would have to fund someone's cosmetic surgery. That's a fact. Never did I say that private insurance would be competing with the government Medicare. It would purely be supplemental. In that sense yes, you can pretty much say it's being eliminated. It's not in truth, but you can pretty much say it is.

Folks saying they want to keep their existing coverage is only a thing because the media frames it the way you just did.

What does it mean to like your coverage? It means that you like your doctor, your health care center, whether ER is close by, etc... Jesus christ you're stubborn. I know this is how it is first hand because my family has had their private insurance changed multiple times. Each time meant we needed a different doctor, we had to change where we can access the ER without extra fees, where we have to visit that doctor (now it's a lot farther away), etc... When it comes to dental I've had to go to almost a dozen different dentists when I was growing up because of private insurance.

Explain why you like your private insurance. Is it not because of where you go to see a doctor, where you go for ER, or where you go to dentist or eye specialist? Why do you think people can't have their private insurance changed on a whim by their employer? Literally the private insurance industry as we know it does not give you choice a lot of times. That's a lie that needs to be called out.
Again, please tell me where I said Bernie’s plan was a 100% ban instead of an effective ban. Tell me why “employer based plans will not be allowed to compete against Sanders’ M4A” somehow means they’ll be able to compete against M4A. I’m “not getting” it because you can’t explain away reality.

Like the reality of you trying to couch Sanders’ unpopular stance while he’s sending new statements tripling down on the fact that his plan is going to EFFECTIVELY ban private insurance in MOST, not all cases:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-harris/democrat-harris-clarifies-she-wont-ban-private-health-insurance-idUSKCN1TT1X6
Sanders, of Vermont, issued a statement Friday taking a veiled shot at Harris, saying all candidates need to be clear about their stance on Medicare for All.

“”That means boldly transforming our dysfunctional system by ending the use of private health insurance, except to cover non-essential care like cosmetic surgeries,” Sanders said.
Update your programming.
 

KidAAlbum

Member
Nov 18, 2017
971
Again, please tell me where I said Bernie’s plan was a 100% ban instead of an effective ban. Tell me why “employer based plans will not be allowed to compete against Sanders’ M4A” somehow means they’ll be able to compete against M4A. I’m “not getting” it because you can’t explain away reality.

Like the reality of you trying to couch Sanders’ unpopular stance while he’s sending new statements tripling down on the fact that his plan is going to EFFECTIVELY ban private insurance in MOST, not all cases:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-harris/democrat-harris-clarifies-she-wont-ban-private-health-insurance-idUSKCN1TT1X6


Update your programming.
Did you forget that you originally responded to me? I'm the one who initially said private insurance isn't banned because it isn't, but it does become much much smaller. That was all I said. You're the one who told me I was being disingenuous when I wasn't. I never stated it would compete with Medicare.

Update your programming. I'm not going to waste my time again with your posts. You clearly didn't understand what I said in the first place and became confused in the process.
 

Zelas

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,808
Did you forget that you originally responded to me? I'm the one who initially said private insurance isn't banned because it isn't, but it does become much much smaller. That was all I said. You're the one who told me I was being disingenuous when I wasn't. I never stated it would compete with Medicare.

Update your programming. I'm not going to waste my time again with your posts. You clearly didn't understand what I said in the first place and became confused in the process.
I didnt forget anything. Like now you weren’t being 100% truthful, so I said you were being disingenuous, then I had to explain what that meant. Just admit Bernie plan is designed to be an effective ban by not allowing private insurance to offer competing plans outside of non essential care.
 
Dec 13, 2018
121
If you guys want a unique way to follow the news, checkout :

murmuration.wisc.edu

It tracks the activities of flocks, like minded posters on twitter, with respect to the news each day. It’s a research project so not very user friendly, but worth spending some time to figure out.

You pick up on some unique activity sometimes like Andrew Yang being popular amongst far right and other things. The events are hand labeled by students.
 

lmcfigs

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
6,579
If you guys want a unique way to follow the news, checkout :

murmuration.wisc.edu

It tracks the activities of flocks, like minded posters on twitter, with respect to the news each day. It’s a research project so not very user friendly, but worth spending some time to figure out.

You pick up on some unique activity sometimes like Andrew Yang being popular amongst far right and other things. The events are hand labeled by students.
Very cool and not problematic to label people Bernie bros.
 

dlauv

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,553
This is something that really disappointed me about Beto. He's strong when he's genuine. What the fuck was he thinking when he over-rehearsed all those bullshit answers and non-answers? Who told him it was a good idea to use his very limited amount of time to tell anecdotes no one gives a shit about instead of just answering the question like a normal human being? It's not like he has terrible policies that he needed to distract from. All he had to do was answer directly, with his normal charisma.
 

Ryuelli

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,554
This is something that really disappointed me about Beto. He's strong when he's genuine. What the fuck was he thinking when he over-rehearsed all those bullshit answers and non-answers? Who told him it was a good idea to use his very limited amount of time to tell anecdotes no one gives a shit about instead of just answering the question like a normal human being? It's not like he has terrible policies that he needed to distract from. All he had to do was answer directly, with his normal charisma.
As a huge Beto fan, this is something most people over at /r/Beto2020 are asking (and agreeing with) as well. After 3 debates (if we include the Cruz ones), it's pretty clear that the whole anecdote thing quite clearly is an atrocious use of the 30 seconds-1 minute he has to answer questions in a debate. It's a great tool to pull out in town halls, but a waste of time when you don't have the time.

Unfortunately, the general public isn't going to turn into Facebook Lives and watch his nearly daily multiple town halls to get a feel for who this guy really is. He inspires me more than any politician has since Obama, but unless his campaign changes and changes fast, he's going to turn into this campaign season's version of Jeb! (or maybe more accurately, Marco Rubio - someone who had a lot of potential going into the campaign season but then just floundered hard), which is sad because unlike Jeb he doesn't deserve it.
 
Last edited:

dlauv

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,553
As a huge Beto fan, this is something most people over at /r/Beto2020 are asking (and agreeing with) as well. After 3 debates (if we include the Cruz ones), it's pretty clear that the whole anecdote thing quite clearly is an atrocious use of the 30 seconds-1 minute he has to answer questions in a debate. It's a great tool to pull out in town halls, but a waste of time when you don't have the time.

Unfortunately, the general public isn't going to turn into Facebook Lives and watch his nearly daily multiple town halls to get a feel for who this guy really is. He inspires me more than any politician has since Obama, but unless his campaign changes and changes fast, he's going to turn into this campaign season's version of Jeb! (or maybe more accurately, Marco Rubio - someone who had a lot of potential, well, potential going into the campaign season but then just floundered hard), which is sad because unlike Jeb he doesn't deserve it.
More of this and less about a George Washington painting he remembered he saw one time and really liked it:


I saw this live and he got applause for his NRA diatribe.
 

RoKKeR

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,379
This is something that really disappointed me about Beto. He's strong when he's genuine. What the fuck was he thinking when he over-rehearsed all those bullshit answers and non-answers? Who told him it was a good idea to use his very limited amount of time to tell anecdotes no one gives a shit about instead of just answering the question like a normal human being? It's not like he has terrible policies that he needed to distract from. All he had to do was answer directly, with his normal charisma.
Agreed. Something that was brought up on Pod Save is that Beto's breakout moment was his answer to the NFL kneeling question, in which he immediately gave an answer right off the bat and THEN gave further explanation... not this flowery, pre-rehearsed bullshit about a painting. It was pretty disappointing as I think he really has the ability to connect with people well, but did everything but in his first debate.
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
7,040
So, the morning consult poll is in for the debate, and well...


Biden goes down to 32%, Warren stayed statisically the same (lost 1% but that's MOE stuff) at 12%, Bernie is flat at 19%, Harris jumped up to 12%, Beto lost half his voters, Butt is about the same.

Interesting movement in second choices:
Sanders second choice is still Biden and vice versa by huge margins BUT now Buttigieg's second choice is Harris(And Biden is no longer anwhere seen in Butt's second choices when he was top with Warren second), Harris voter's second choice is Warren, Warren voter's second choice is Harris.

Bernie's voters are most likely to overlook Biden's foot in mouth in the last debate it seems.
 

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
6,784
Minnesota
Bernie's voters are most likely to overlook Biden's foot in mouth in the last debate it seems.
Not so sure about that. Bernie voter's second choice being Biden has seen a notable drop, and Biden voter's second choice being Bernie as seen a notable uptick. These were the numbers as of June 3rd:



36% to 27% is a 9 percentage point drop, and 28% to 32% is a 4 percentage point increase. It probably just doesn't seem that impactful because there were already so many Bernie voters who had Biden as their second choice (and vice versa), but there has definitely been some movement in Bernie's favor when it comes to second choice candidates and we don't know if it will turn into a trend yet.
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
7,040
Not so sure about that. Bernie voter's second choice being Biden has seen a notable drop, and Biden voter's second choice being Bernie as seen a notable uptick. These were the numbers as of June 3rd:



36% to 27% is a 9 percentage point drop, and 28% to 32% is a 4 percentage point increase. It probably just doesn't seem that impactful because there were already so many Bernie voters who had Biden as their second choice (and vice versa), but there has definitely been some movement in Bernie's favor when it comes to second choice candidates and we don't know if it will turn into a trend yet.
Bernie voters are now the only major block that would prefer Biden if their candidate of choice were gone, there has been movement everywhere, but Warren voters have moved away from Bernie to Harris, Harris voters have moved away from Biden to Warren and Buttigieg with Bernie nowhere in the running for second choice, and Buttigieg moved toward Harris and Warren away from Biden with Biden and Bernie nowhere in the running.

Bernie supporters are the sole bloc still willing to consider Biden as a second choice, and Biden vice versa.

On top of this, if you still think this second choice shift bodes well for Bernie you have this:


Bernie's unfavorables (In the DEMOCRATIC party, mind, they're going to be much higher in the general electorate) are now greater than 20% and they're higher than Biden's 21%. Meanwhile Harris and Warren's unfavorables have gone down.
 

Bliman

Member
Jan 21, 2019
1,381
I would like a Harris- Buttigieg ticket. How do you think black voters would react to that? would they turn off or would come out to vote? And is there a candidate that would make the black voters enthusiastic?
 

I Am Second

Member
Mar 30, 2019
8
I think Yang is the only viable option if Democrats (and Republicans) want the best possible future for the United States:

"Last week, Oxford Economics, a high-end consultancy, unveiled the findings of its latest peek into the future in a report entitled How Robots Change the World. Like most of these inquiries, it foresees a “great displacement” of employment by Automation 2.0. But this displacement, the report says, will not be evenly distributed around the world or within countries. “Our research shows,” it says, “that the negative effects of robotisation are disproportionately felt in the lower-income regions of the globe’s major economies – on average, a new robot displaces nearly twice as many jobs in lower-income regions compared with higher-income regions of the same country. At a time of worldwide concern about growing levels of economic inequality and political polarisation, this finding has important social and political implications.” The report makes for pretty sobering reading. It claims that, on average, each additional robot wipes out 1.6 jobs. In lower-income regions of the world, each machine displaces 2.2 jobs, but only 1.3 in higher-income areas. The researchers compiled a “vulnerability score” for different regions in five countries – the UK, USA, France, Germany and Japan. The resulting maps confirm that employment in poorer areas will be hit harder by automation. “The regional inequalities that exist within countries,” it concludes, “such as England’s north-south divide, could be exacerbated by the rise of the robots.” The report notes that this trend “has important implications for policy design in advanced economies pursuing international competitiveness through automation”." (6/30/19, Source)
 

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
6,784
Minnesota
Bernie voters are now the only major block that would prefer Biden if their candidate of choice were gone, there has been movement everywhere, but Warren voters have moved away from Bernie to Harris and Buttigieg (They no longer even have Bernie in the running for second choice) Harris voters have moved away from Biden to Warren and Buttigieg with Bernie nowhere in the running for second choice, and Buttigieg moved toward Harris and Warren away from Biden with Biden and Bernie nowhere in the running.

Bernie supporters are the sole bloc still willing to consider Biden as a second choice, and Biden vice versa.

On top of this, if you still think this second choice shift bodes well for Bernie you have this:


Bernie's unfavorables (In the DEMOCRATIC party, mind, they're going to be much higher in the general electorate) are now greater than 20% and they're higher than Biden's 21%. Meanwhile Harris and Warren's unfavorables have gone down.
You misinterpreted what I said. I didn't say that all the second choice movement was movement in Bernie's favor, just SOME movement, and we don''t know the extent of it, that's all.

Also, 538's poll (also conducted by Morning Consult) has Bernie as the most popular candidate in the Democratic party after the debate, and the data below inherently includes the opinion shift from specific voters pre and post debate, while the independent Morning Consult poll does not:




His favorables increased +2 and unfavorables decreased -.1. We'll just have to see if his numbers continue to improve.

Again, I'm not saying that the results were all in Bernie's favor, but he did gain something out of his debate performance, objectively.
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
7,040
You misinterpreted what I said. I didn't say that all the second choice movement was movement in Bernie's favor, just SOME movement, and we don''t know the extent of it, that's all.

Also, 538's poll (also conducted by Morning Consult) has Bernie as the most popular candidate in the Democratic party after the debate, and the data below inherently includes the opinion shift from specific voters pre and post debate, while the independent Morning Consult poll does not:




His favorables increased +2 and unfavorables decreased -.1. We'll just have to see if his numbers continue to improve.

Again, I'm not saying that the results were all in Bernie's favor, but he did gain something out of his debate performance, objectively.
So, we're actually citing the same poll, but the poll I cited has one more day of data than the 538 article cites. You realize that, right?
 

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
6,784
Minnesota
So, we're actually citing the same poll, but the poll I cited has one more day of data than the 538 article cites. You realize that, right?
Incorrect. The poll I cited was done on behalf of 538 (it was a collaboration) while the poll you cited was Morning Consult doing their own poll. Morning Consult's respondents were interviewed on the 27th and 28th only (the 30th is when the article was updated).

538's respondents were polled (by Morning Consult) in three waves:

Round 1 (pre-debates):

06/19 - 06/26

Round 2 (post 1st debate):

06/26 - 06/27

Round 3 (post 2nd debate):

06/27 - 06/28

The methodologies between both polls were completely different. 538's poll was more rigorous in measuring the debates' tangible effects on voters opinions, since the respondents were the same before and after the debates.



And here's Morning Consult's methodology for comparison:

 

BillyRockets

Member
Sep 12, 2018
138
I would like a Harris- Buttigieg ticket. How do you think black voters would react to that? would they turn off or would come out to vote? And is there a candidate that would make the black voters enthusiastic?
As a black man I can tell you I and many others I know would not like that ticket. Harris is pretty much infamous now for locking up black people and Buttigieg was saying All Lives Matter back in 2015 and is dealing with a tragedy in his state of a cop killing a black man very poorly.
 

Bliman

Member
Jan 21, 2019
1,381
As a black man I can tell you I and many others I know would not like that ticket. Harris is pretty much infamous now for locking up black people and Buttigieg was saying All Lives Matter back in 2015 and is dealing with a tragedy in his state of a cop killing a black man very poorly.
But who would you make feel great to vote for?