2020 Democratic Poll

[vcczar 52]

New poll

[Hestia11 14]

I meant Obama  oops. Now I wish you could edit votes.

[vcczar 52]

11 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

I meant Obama  oops. Now I wish you could edit votes.

Too late. You're now a Trump supporter. 

[Hestia11 14]

Just now, vcczar said:

Too late. You're now a Trump supporter. 

Nooo.....maybe @admin_270 can get a feature to edit votes. That’d be useful.

[ThePotatoWalrus 0]

1. Nobody has any name-recognition amongst non-political people or people outside of their state. They would all get smashed in a real election against Trump.
2. Biden but that's pushing it.
3. Same level

[vcczar 52]

27 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

1. Nobody has any name-recognition amongst non-political people or people outside of their state. They would all get smashed in a real election against Trump.
2. Biden but that's pushing it.
3. Same level

They'd have many months to gain name recognition. Only people that remembered the 2004 Keynote address knew who Obama was before he won the Democratic primary. The same can be said of Bill Clinton (he gave the keynote address in 1988), but no one knew who he was in the pre-primaries in 1992. Many polls suggest that Sanders would have defeated Trump in 2016, but how many voters knew who Bernie Sanders was even in Oct 2015? Yet, he was competitive in the primaries. I think the name-recognition matters most in the pre-primaries. The "no bodies" have to establish themselves by the November or December before January of the Election. Many times people like these "fresh faces" more than they do the presumptive frontrunner. These "no bodies" on the first list basically need to be nationwide names by November 2019. They still have over a year to do this. 

[Conservative Elector 2 14]

1. None (but if I had to pick, I chose Bullock)

2. None (Biden all the way)

3. Trump

[Rodja 1]

1.I am torn between Sens.Booker and Merkley

2.Bernie definetly,but i also love idea of Biden running.

3.Obama by FAR.

 

[vcczar 52]

1. I picked Bullock from the first list because I think he would be the hardest one for Trump to insult. Bullock is such an "every man" that insulting him is like insulting his own base. I would prefer someone more progressive than Bullock though, but I think the other options leave themselves open for attack. 

2. Clearly Biden, who I think is the only one that can handle Trump on the stage and probably make him look bad even to his own supporters. The rest are either not combative enough or I see them as exciting the Trump base, including my two preferred candidates Sanders and Warren. I'd rather Trump lose, so I'll take someone more moderate than I am. 

3. Easily Obama. I'm trying to think of one positive area that Trump has been better in than Obama but I can't think of one. Trump inherited Obama's economy. It usually takes two years until you can credit the new president (that date is Jan. 20ish 2019). It isn't in foreign policy, since he's straining relations when Obama repaired them after Bush. It's definitely not in social policy or political appointments. Can't think of anything. Trump is most similar to Harding--a terrible president that is out of his league, but happens to be presiding with a strong economy. Like Harding, he won't be considered the worst president in US history (assuming nothing worse is revealed or occurs), but he's undeniably in the bottom 10 in a presidential ranking. 

[Thunder 0]

1. "Electability"-wise, clearly the non-coastal relatable-ish Bullock.

2. Bernie and Biden both have embarrassing statements or the capacity to make them that could last a GE cycle, all others but Holder and Brown was either a Harvard professor or billionaire, and Brown seems the most "attract Trump votes"-like.

3. Obama.

I do believe, however, that most of the candidates could beat Trump.

[POLITICALBOMB 0]

On 8/16/2018 at 9:17 PM, Hestia11 said:

Nooo.....maybe @admin_270 can get a feature to edit votes. That’d be useful.

I feel like that could be abused. like someone could go back and cover their tracks if they lied.

[ThePotatoWalrus 0]

1 hour ago, POLITICALBOMB said:

I feel like that could be abused. like someone could go back and cover their tracks if they lied.

I feel like being called out on it by multiple people would be enough proof to make it irrelevant to change it.

[Thunder 0]

On 8/16/2018 at 11:53 PM, ThePotatoWalrus said:

3. Same level

 

I'm curious why. This doesn't seem to fit most of your rhetoric.

[ThePotatoWalrus 0]

Just now, Thunder said:

I'm curious why. This doesn't seem to fit most of your rhetoric.

What is my rhetoric? Lol. I always try to see things from all sides in a nonbiased view. I love what Obama did for civil rights and social issues, but Daddy Trump has been great for the economy and my wallet. I'm just more vocal about my support for Trump since he's the incumbent. Anybody in the United States who doesn't support the sitting President (not saying you should approve, but you should support him, though technically I approve of every president since LBJ) or would wish any foreign leader to be our President in place of an actual American citizen (they may personally disagree with) is by definition a cuck, treasonous, and in my opinion, a piece of shit who is ungrateful to be an American.

[Patine 81]

5 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Daddy Trump has been great for the economy and my wallet.

For now. Until the raised commodity prices from Trump's completely unnecessary, inexplicable, and completely ill-thought-out tariff wars hit the American economy hard. But then again, American economic thinking has always been very short-term purviews and thinks and to Hell with the long-term or even considering it for almost a century now. But with much more patient, thoughtful, and long-term economic thinkers in Asia, I don't expect the United States to maintain it's economic supremacy into the foreseeable future, to be honest.

[ThePotatoWalrus 0]

15 minutes ago, Patine said:

For now. Until the raised commodity prices from Trump's completely unnecessary, inexplicable, and completely ill-thought-out tariff wars hit the American economy hard. But then again, American economic thinking has always been very short-term purviews and thinks and to Hell with the long-term or even considering it for almost a century now. But with much more patient, thoughtful, and long-term economic thinkers in Asia, I don't expect the United States to maintain it's economic supremacy into the foreseeable future, to be honest.

aNY dAy nOw GuYs

[Patine 81]

1 minute ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

aNY dAy nOw GuYs

Your juvenile, uninformed, unsubstantiated optimism and blind faith in ALL aspects of your nations' and favorite politician's unqualified and absolute success and merit is cute, but misguided...

[Edouard 1]

I would say Biden because he can have a shot in Pennsilvania for example, with Michigan which should flip it's already giving him good chances.

For Bernie...I'm shared.

Bernie could make vote millions of unpledged poors, at the opposite, millions of citizens from the middle class could be pushed to vote for Trump.

Minnesota could turn Republican while Ohio would become a huge tossup, Florida would become safer like the whole Bible Belt.

Kamala Harris vs Trump = same race than 2016, even if much closer I would not be surprised that only Michigan flips to the Dems and no other change.

[wolves 4]

Biden would dominate against Trump I believe. That's sad though. Honestly. Horrible politician who shares views that need to be replaced with more Sanders-ite views.

[Patine 81]

4 hours ago, wolves said:

Biden would dominate against Trump I believe. That's sad though. Honestly. Horrible politician who shares views that need to be replaced with more Sanders-ite views.

It wouldn't be sad if he did beat Trump, whose an even worse politician. At least Biden would be more moderate and level-headed. But then, the zeitgeist has stupid now. Everyone wants and demands extreme politicians of sort or another. Moderate, centrist, sensible, and level-headed politicians willing to compromise OFTEN and not just hammer inflexible, hard, ideological pure or populist agendas are seen as undesirable by many. That's the real sad part. And it's not just in the U.S., but around the world. It's like the whole political feel of the '20's-'40's (especially as it was then in Continental Europe, though it's must more widespread today) - and we all know how THAT story went...

[MysteryKnight 3]

1. This was tough, I picked Booker only because I feel like he has the best charisma and able to convey a strong and inspirational message and get people out to vote, but corruption and being part of the elite establishment would definitely hurt. My personal choice would be Merkley but he just doesn't have the name recognition or personality necessary to beat Trump. 

2. I picked Bernie. Seeing the enthusiasm from 2016, I can't imagine any of the other candidates delivering the message and getting the vote out as well as him in this age range. Sherrod Brown is a close second. Platform-wise he is the best to get progressive, moderate and conservative votes all at once, but lack of name recognition and excitement 

3. Barack obviously. In every issue that I can think of Obama has done a better job so far 

[IonicAmalgam 0]

1) Harris is terrible. She's a great orator, but she is CORRUPT AS )(*^. Trump could dump opposition research on her like no tomorrow. Great example of identity politics in California and voters being idiots. In a primary debate she literally gave a call out to her corrupt owners on live TV saying she will take care of them. Our previous senator was better. The Republican option was better. Anyone on the ballot on California would've been better than her. She is Hillary 2.0, except personable, and less centrist on social issues. O'Malley was pretty competent in debates and platform but he failed in 16. Closest to Biden imo.
2) Brown is the most electable with Ohio and the platform, but Biden has name recognition. I would personally prefer Warren for integrity but she's not going to be popular in the middle of America (she would still win and is my preferred ticket, just not the one with the highest chance of winning). Would go with Bernie but he's getting old and he deserves a break, would prefer Bernie as an adviser instead. That being said, I think Biden would be a continuity president and not a reformer the country needs. Even though Biden is the most electable.
3) Neither from a legacy standpoint. Obama was a continuity president who failed to really move the needle (ACA is a dumpsterfire in implementation and a cop-out to the insurance industry without fixing root causes). He also gave false hope to people and prevented reforms. Trump is terrible from a competency standpoint but at least he's making people pay more attention. Also some of his unpopular policies are actually good from a long term standpoint (well not the best choice but better than status quo).

[LokiLoki22 0]

I mean't Obama. I guess DT just got an unexpected boost