Who the hell are the 5% of people who have never heard of Trump or Obama???
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
2020 Presidential Democratic Primary Debates 3&4 |OT| July 30-31, 2019
- Thread starter SweetNicole
- Start date
- Status
Who the hell are the 5% of people who have never heard of Trump or Obama???
CNN's debate format is shocking, there's barely room for substance in policy or getting to know the candidate as a person. 15 second rebuttals are an asinine concept and encourages the Gish Gallop method of 'debating' that lets opponents get zingers that you cannot counter.
I've been reading Team Of Rivals which is about Abraham Lincoln's run to the Presidency and his opponents who eventually became part of his cabinet. In their debates they allowed at least an hour and a half if I remember correctly, obviously too long for this day and age but at the very least we should get to know WHY a candidate has made the policy decisions they have made, even if we don't agree with it.
I've only had a brief look at Town Halls, but they tend to be better at getting to see how a candidate can handle the tough questions with substance.
Gee I wonder what you are implying here. It's gross and dirty.
Nationally? Regionally? By state? Overall? That simply isn't true and has never been true for decades upon decades. We've already seen Sanders poll well above 25% in 2016, not to mention that polling in 2018 showed him to be the most popular politician in America. That's some wacked out, incorrect, shit you're saying.
When he wasn't running for president. Hilary had higher polling when she wants running, too. It proves nothing about his viability as a president.
Keep in mind that a majority of delegates (50% +1) is required to secure the nomination. If there are 3 or more candidates by the end of the race, nobody is reaching that number.
3 fallacies and counting. Impressive work. The truth of the matter is that nothing you've said is relevant to the points being made, and simply having 'higher' numbers by itself does not adequately address any relative differences in polling between candidates. It's a deflectionary tactic of no substance.
Beyond that, I could point to many politicians that have held elected office and weren't running, never having reached such high water marks, and it still wouldn't be relevant to the wholely dishonest claim that Sanders has a ceiling of 25%. If you're at all interested in substantive discussion — taking the path that seems to just be about ripping down a candidate at any cost is a weird route to take.
Last edited:
He's actually the most liked person running for president right now.
My fan fiction has Bernie getting 100% of the delegates and then deferring to Warren because he's such a gentleman. She returns the favor, but while they're busy competing for the smallest ego, somehow Hickenlooper swoops in and takes the nom right before the buzzer. Warren just smiles and dumps gatorade on Bernie, and then everyone laughs
That depends on the poll:He's actually the most liked person running for president right now.
(That's also a more recent poll) Either case, it's really only competition between Bernie or Biden on favorability since everyone else still has a LOT less name rec. May I say that's it's impressive that De Blasio manages to have the most unfavorability with abysmal name rec?
That depends on the poll:
(That's also a more recent poll) Either case, it's really only competition between Bernie or Biden on favorability since everyone else still has a LOT less name rec. May I say that's it's impressive that De Blasio manages to have the most unfavorability with abysmal name rec?
Yeah I picked the Gallup poll because it was the most recent poll I saw on their favorability ratings. I think with de Blasio it's because he's infamous in a sense, with the whole Eric Garner situation. Pretty amusing data point though.
I wanted Bernie to win against Hillary, but I accept that the reality of 4 years later, and being the same message people just have a bad perception of him. Saying the same old things, which is true and fine because he was so progressive back then and still today with the same ideas, so how can he change the message? I do also think his age and being 4 years older now is a perception problem. Thats why I think he will be stuck around 25%.
I am glad a number of Bernie supporters last time around also realize that Warren is a better bet going against Trump.
I am glad a number of Bernie supporters last time around also realize that Warren is a better bet going against Trump.
Of course higher numbers count when it comes to winning elections, those numbers certainly didn't get him the nomination when last Bernie ran. The fact is Hillary had to take a dive before he could get those results with polling, had been that popular before he might have posed a real challenge in '16 after Super Tuesday. Maybe in '20 we'll get new results, but until then we have history to base his popular on.
Because when it really counts it doesn't appear, and this ignores the context for what happened for this to be possible. Which relied on Hillary losing to Trump. That poll wasn't done in a vacuum or on an Earth where Hillary won the presidency, it was done at that specific time and place.
Where is this complaining when people do this with other candidates running? I'm not ripping down Bernie "at all cost" it's pointing out facts about his numbers and to demystify his real popularity in America.
Take a look at his recent popularity polling. You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that his high polling was the subject of time and place and then use past performances where 'his support didn't show when it counted' (this is blatantly untrue) to discount the CURRENT Sanders support in completely different scenarios.
I've complained in this fashion about arguements made against other candidates, so have others.
It's a fair opinion to prefer Warren over Sanders, but there's nothing of substance to suggest that people have a bad perception of him. There are some ardent ABBers on Era, but in the real world he remains highly popular.
Last edited:
Someone just posted a poll that has him with very high unfavorables, with only de Blasio having a higher unfavorable rating
I'm not discounting that Bernie didn't become stronger post-'16, only how this wasn't always the case with his popularity. Sure it is, he lost the nomination - if he was that popular when he was running against Hillary as the polls show he should have done a lot better than he did. The support he dreamt of never materialised back then. And to this day he's had a tough battle in the polling against candidates like Joe Biden, who is the front runner.
Ok.
Tulsi is a homophobic Assad apologist who will carry water for right wing religious sects that support conversion therapy.
Yeah, Bernie clearly needs to address his underperformance with the Steve Bannon crowd.
Yes, because he was the VP people have this idea that he must share Obama's ideals and therefore any attack on him is taken as an attack on Obama (not helped by Biden freely using Obama as a shield whenever he can).
Biden would have to be brain dead not to use Obama as a shield. If any politician could leverage someone with 97% approval rating, they would.
That would be the "voting down ballot only" ticket as far as I'm concerned.
Anyone who likes Tulsi either doesn't care about her homophobic statements or agrees with her offensive statements about gay people.
It's horrible to watch her fans online (mostly places like Reddit) who just don't give a shit about gay people and still try to convince people they are left. Sorry, no one is buying that act.
Tulsi is the only person running in which I couldn't bring myself to vote top of the ticket if she was on it. I couldn't live with myself voting someone who hates such contempt for gay people.
It's horrible to watch her fans online (mostly places like Reddit) who just don't give a shit about gay people and still try to convince people they are left. Sorry, no one is buying that act.
Tulsi is the only person running in which I couldn't bring myself to vote top of the ticket if she was on it. I couldn't live with myself voting someone who hates such contempt for gay people.
I dont think Biden is spiteful
I haven't seriously looked into them because her candidacy is a joke, but people aren't allowed to grow and change?
I think Tulsi is a bad candidate for many reasons, but you can make this argument about most candidates if you replace the target demographic.
But for Tulsi, it is literally two populations that are being heavily targeted around the world: LGBTQs and Muslims.
I really don't get how Tulsi is getting so much play in this thread - she is polling at 1% and is a worse candidate than even Biden
With Russian bots, Republicans, and hype from destroying Harris, she's gonna ascend
20% is great for a well known candidate running for President or any politician. He's roughly as well liked and viewed as unfavourable, and known as Biden and there's no way you can argue that Biden is viewed negatively overall. Having a 1/8th unfavourable for a known politician is a fantastic ratio.
Here's what a candidate with high unfavourable polling looks like. Hilary Clinton only ever peaked at roughly 66% favourable throughout her career with low 'no opinion/don't know' and was underwater throughout the entirety of her 2016 run.
You can also see her consistent sub 40% with independents, and Candidates like Warren will see their unfavourables rise as more become aware of them.
Last edited:
She went after Yass Queen 2.0 and it got some media attention so some deflection is necessary.
Some folks are so threatened by certain candidates that they'll boost anyone who draws blood from them, even if it's a homophobic, racist extremist.
This "signal boosting" thing is still going on, huh?
Tulsi isn't going anywhere near the nomination, she just took a swipe at Harris that hurt because it was true. And whoa, we've been talking about Tulsi Gabbard instead of Harris's record ever since, as if her sucking makes anything she said at the debate untrue. Fancy that.
Tulsi isn't going anywhere near the nomination, she just took a swipe at Harris that hurt because it was true. And whoa, we've been talking about Tulsi Gabbard instead of Harris's record ever since, as if her sucking makes anything she said at the debate untrue. Fancy that.
There are some people online who rather have a homophobe than a "moderate".
- Status