U.S. Politics | Page 1661 | The Popjustice Forum

U.S. Politics

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Veritaserum, Feb 16, 2016.

  1. Oh you're completely right, but his support has dropped and theirs has risen, is all I was saying (Biden's has too of course, but I personally think that'll change when the debates happen).
  2. His support has only dropped in that CNN poll that over-polled people over 50.

    Sanders remains in a very comfortable stable 2nd place.

    Warren has literally almost 90% name recognition. Nate Silver will scream his head off over Sanders supposedly having nowhere to grow yet neither does Warren.

    The same problems that plagued Sanders in 2016 are plaguing Warren.

    Buttigieg may have more room to grow in terms of name recognition, but his base is even whiter than Sanders' was in 2016.

    Like I'm all for a diverse debate of ideologies in the free market place of ideas or whatever; but let's not mince words. In the same way Clinton supporters said that Sanders had no chance in 2016, the numbers just aren't there for either Warren or Buttigieg.
    nooniebao likes this.
  3. https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us04302019_upaf67.pdf/
    This poll has Warren in second place, and Sanders in third. It's one poll, but it's something. And Buttigieg is just one point behind Sanders.
    HeartSwells likes this.
  4. Yes, both the CNN and Quinnipiac polls under-sampled young people. What is confusing?
  5. I'm sure you know more about how polls work than I do, so props to you, and you're probably right (I wouldn't know). I do think, though, that when those under sampled young people tune into the debate and hear Warren delivering almost the same platform but with far greater detail and eloquence (and without the baggage of 2016), that this trend may continue.

    Things change.


    Looks like Jeb Bush is gonna be the nominee, with Rubio and Walker vying for second place.
  6. Also just throwing this out there, even though I disagree with a lot of what you say @Sanctuary and roll my eyes at your consistent defense of Sanders, you’re clearly very well informed and well researched. I always respect you when I read your posts. (Also I’ve learned a lot from many of your posts in this thread). It’s refreshing to have an actually engaging conversation with well thought out points instead of sassy gif responses
    ItTakesAMuscle likes this.
  7. Yeah I think its still too early to count Warren out. It's difficult to remember but voting doesn't start for a while. If she keeps her performances up like she did in that town hall, I could see her gaining ground.

    She can distinguish herself from Sanders and other progressive by pointing out how well thought out her policies are. I think she can win people over.
  8. Again....people know Senator Warren. She has 89%/90% name recognition.

    People know her ideas. They wanted her to run in 2016 and she refused. She used to be the politicians centrists hated the most and would call her tone-deaf and divisive for criticizing the first black president and claim she wasn't a real Democrat. Warren was Sanders before Sanderd siphoned off her support.

    It is fine to support either Buttigieg or Warren, but this heavy-handed narrative meant to undercut Sanders and force him out the race with false claims of slowing down will just empower his millions of supporters to vote Green instead.
  9. But he “siphoned off” her support...in a race in which she wasn’t running? In 2016, like you said, he was the only option so he couldn’t have siphoned off anything. He established himself as building a grassroots movement along the same lines as her ideology, albeit more boldly openly socialist, and toured the country ten times over with it...of course he’s in the lead when the race first starts. But she may be able to position herself as the better one to lead the movement, now that she is in the race. Her fundraising has been rocky, sure. But it’s very early, and her “Warren has a plan for that” is becoming a bit of a Twitter meme that reminds me a bit of #FeeltheBern.

    Also Trump arguably had over 90% name recognition and had been musing about running for President for decades, including in the lead up to his announcement when those early Jeb Bush-in-the-lead polls were taken.
  10. Donald Trump was the front-runner from July 2015 until he won the nom a year later. Again, these false narratives do nothing but tell progressives the establishment does not care for fact or reality when viewing our votes and thus does not need them. There was never a severe change up. Trump was the early front-runner once he announced, using his name recognition to his advantage.

    Again, can you address why Warren is polling at 0% nationally with black voters? Why she is on the road to running out of cash?

    The same people who said Sanders needed to drop out in 2016 are now telling us that Sanders supporters should be sympathetic to people who are doing worse than he ever did in 2016. Why should any Sanders supporter be sympathetic to politicians performing worse than him?
  11. I mean, no, I can’t address why she has 0% with black voters, but she seems to be making an effort. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/24/poli...n-american-maternal-mortality-plan/index.html

    Yes Trump was in the lead right when he announced, but that was July, and this is May...and things already appear to be shifting.

    I don’t care if a Sanders supporter is sympathetic to any candidate - I don’t get why this has to be so personal, as though Sanders is owed something.
    If his numbers slip, are his supporters just not gonna support anyone because they’re “counting him out”? Bernie or bust? Warren saying “fair capitalism” but touting almost exactly the same policies (but actually elaborating on the details) is really so evil and so centrist that they’re all gonna go to the Green party if she surpasses him in the polls? You only get to call yourself a true progressive if you Feel the Bern?

    (I’m being slightly facetious obviously but saying it means we “don’t need” Sanders supporters when we report on polls that have him in a close third place to another progressive darling seems a bit...much.)
  12. I'm sure Sanders supporters would be more than willing to vote for Warren, if she surpassed him in polls and won the nomination! But I personally feel that it's more likely that they'll have to decide whether or not to vote for Biden or Buttigieg.
    BricksAndStrings likes this.
  13. Except Warren's infant mortality rate plan was flamed on Twitter, with her capitalist ideology likely being why she mistakenly thought it was a good idea. She basically proposed No Child Left Behind for hospitals.

    And sis, no one is getting personal. I simply pointed out that Sanders maintains a higher polling average than Buttigieg and Warren combined. You can have all the hypotheticals about what Warren could do or polls targeted at white geriatrics you want. You can support whoever you want. That is your right. I"m simply pointing out that Sanders remains in a comfortable 2nd place and that these heavy-handed narratives trying to direct his supporters to other candidates with smaller, less diverse bases will only have a negative impact on the general election. If Sanders is as naturally unelectable as you all claim to be, you won't need media narratives and back door meetings to bring about his undoing.
  14. I don’t think he’s necessarily unelectable, I just like Warren better (I also like Harris and Buttigieg even though I far prefer Warren ideologically, though I know that’s controversial). I’ll take any of them over Biden, and any democrat over Trump.

    I literally was just pointing out what the newest round of polls were indicating. I’m sure your statement about sample size is right and that it’s skewed older. I personally hope these polls are indicative of a trend - and even if they aren’t, I really really do think the debates will if nothing else significantly erode Biden’s support (if his own gaffes don’t do that for him) if not boost some of the others, especially Warren.
  15. I legit just gagged. Like, almost regurgitated today's lunch gagged.
  16. I can't wait for Buttigieg to get the same reality check Beto got when the media gets bored and moves on. It's coming and this feels like the start.
  17. His politics aside (which feels absurd to even say because he is still a Democrat, albeit less focused in his beliefs than most of the rest of them), that cover is pretty amazing, and would have been a really great thing for me to see when I was closeted in middle school and “gay” was the ultimate insult. So bizarre that some progressive gays are having the same reaction right wing homophobes would have... like can’t you disagree with his politics, not support him, but still see how shocking and cool it is that in 2019 we actually have a viable gay candidate for President in the cover of Time Magazine (with his husband!) Literally last year, in woke 2018, I would have told you that wasn’t possible.

    If I read the reactions on the last page without context I would assume either he was a republican, or the people responding were.

    (Also fine if this discussion isn’t worth having or people don’t care to address this, but please don’t bother with patronizing meme or gif responses to this - either ignore this post or respond with something thoughtful.)
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.