Jump to content
270soft Forum
HonestAbe

Dem Ticket Combination

Democratic Ticket  

22 members have voted

  1. 1. What will the combination for the Dem Ticket be

    • Prez-Male, VP- Female
    • Prez-Female, VP Male
    • Prez-Female, VP Female
      0
    • Prez-Male, VP-Male
      0


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, jnewt said:

Do you have a link for this? I always hear about statistics like this but I don't know any Bernie supporters who would ever vote for Trump. If Dems put up another awful candidate I'd be likely to vote third-party or write-in, but I would never vote for Trump. And if Warren were the nominee I would absolutely vote for her. She's one of the few Dems I can pretty much guarantee I would vote for regardless of Veep choice.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/4/23/1852590/-Roughly-20-of-Bernie-Sanders-voters-would-rather-vote-for-Trump-if-Warren-Harris-or-Buttigieg-win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WVProgressive said:

Nina Turner, a politician from Ohio, she was a surrogate for Bernie in 2016 and ran with Dennis Kucinich for governor of Ohio in 2018.

Isn't it a good thing that he's winning people who would otherwise be Trump voters? Isn't one of the arguments for Biden that he could win over Trump voters?

It is a good thing. You seem to question that I think I wouldn't. 

Regarding Biden, that is one of the arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 My top 5 tickets:

1.Sanders/Warren

2.Sanders/Buttigieg

3.Warren/Sanders

4.Buttigieg/Sanders

5.Biden/Warren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jnewt said:

Do you have a link for this? I always hear about statistics like this but I don't know any Bernie supporters who would ever vote for Trump. If Dems put up another awful candidate I'd be likely to vote third-party or write-in, but I would never vote for Trump. And if Warren were the nominee I would absolutely vote for her. She's one of the few Dems I can pretty much guarantee I would vote for regardless of Veep choice.

I have a friend who in 2015 and 2016 was the text book definition of a 'Bernie Bro', in fact he was shaping a lot of his world views based off of Sanders. However, in 2018 he became a MAGA loving, red hat wearing, facebook trolling, Trump supporter. So far it seems like he's still in camp Trump but he has posted the occasional post about Sanders.

 

There absolutely is people who went from Sanders to Trump and those people may very well end up going from Trump to Sanders, back to Trump this time around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

I have a friend who in 2015 and 2016 was the text book definition of a 'Bernie Bro', in fact he was shaping a lot of his world views based off of Sanders. However, in 2018 he became a MAGA loving, red hat wearing, facebook trolling, Trump supporter. So far it seems like he's still in camp Trump but he has posted the occasional post about Sanders.

 

There absolutely is people who went from Sanders to Trump and those people may very well end up going from Trump to Sanders, back to Trump this time around.

I'm curious about what socio-economic class the person is in. I know a lot has been made about the suburban college educated whites that are leaving the GoP, but I feel that 20% is still interesting number. But I feel alot of the Sanders-Trump vote lowerclass white voters that had anti-establishment views, and I am curious if- after 4 years of Trump being the President- if they still feel he is the 'anti-establishment' candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

I'm curious about what socio-economic class the person is in. I know a lot has been made about the suburban college educated whites that are leaving the GoP, but I feel that 20% is still interesting number. But I feel alot of the Sanders-Trump vote lowerclass white voters that had anti-establishment views, and I am curious if- after 4 years of Trump being the President- if they still feel he is the 'anti-establishment' candidate.

I would probably say his parents are both upper middle class, and during the 2016 election cycle he was in college, which fits the students for Bernie narrative. He ended up dropping out but now he's heavily into sales and doing pretty well for himself. I'd say he's in the low end of the lower middle class, or high end of the working class. I'm not sure if anti-establishment views will be as big of a factor in this case this time around, as it might have been in 2016 though.

I do think the anti-establishment views have a lot to do with it for a lot of those potential voters. I also feel like Trump would still appeal to them as 'anti-establishment', I mean, if they view the main stream as representing establishment it'd be easy to see Trump as 'anti-establishment' despite him being the current president and more or less having abandoned the 'drain the swamp' mantra. I have to wonder if there is anyone else who will appeal to them as an outsider though, apart from Trump and Sanders, and with similarly strong support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d wager that Sanders support is higher than the polls indicate. And I’d wager Trumps support is higher than the polls indicate.  Many of their supporters are not on the rolls that would be used for these polls.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HonestAbe said:

I’d wager that Sanders support is higher than the polls indicate. And I’d wager Trumps support is higher than the polls indicate.  Many of their supporters are not on the rolls that would be used for these polls.  

I wonder where support would stand for Republicans if any REAL Conservative or Libertarian candidates of note were declared, and not a seeming acclamation nomination by the biggest RINO to win the U.S. Presidency. :S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

Republicans have no desire in wasting the inbumbent advantage.  

But, their incumbent is their disadvantage. Their destroying their party in the long-term for short-term gain. But that seems to be a growingly common mentality in politics - and economics - everywhere, and shows that "the stupids" are indeed gaining massive power and influence, and all will suffer because of it - especially given that only China shows consistent long-term vision and planning politically and socially in the world today - a bad sign indeed, as the Western World is practically handing Beijing ascendency because of our idiotic leaders and their mismanagement and myopic vision. Oh, and forget about "America being great again" anytime soon - it's NOT going to happen with the current crop of power players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

I wonder where support would stand for Republicans if any REAL Conservative or Libertarian candidates of note were declared, and not a seeming acclamation nomination by the biggest RINO to win the U.S. Presidency. :S

They would be limited to their bases (which can’t win alone).  It would take a number of candidates from different appeals to make it a competitive process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

They would be limited to their bases (which can’t win alone).  It would take a number of candidates from different appeals to make it a competitive process.

But don't you see the problem. Because of the Duopoly's iron control of affairs (I know I harp on it often, but it's a very real problem in U.S. politics, regards of who acknowledges), once Donald Trump was nominated, most hard Conservatives and Libertarians were based with a difficult - probably for many, painful - choice: vote for a candidate who betrays their very party and ideological principles by nature, so the PARTY can win, sit at home and have the Democrats win, or vote for the Libertarian or Constitution Party or McMullin, and end up throwing away their vote, in how the electoral system. They were CHEATED by the American nomination and electoral system - like so many are in so many elections. To use an old Soviet adage in a different way here, many had to "take a bullet for the party." The American voters, as a whole, deserve far better than the fifth-shoddiest, most-corrupt, and with least-real-choice, and least-representative electoral system and political culture in the First World, after only Singapore, Japan, Hungary, and Romania, and about tying with Portugal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

But, their incumbent is their disadvantage. Their destroying their party in the long-term for short-term gain. 

Clearly the GOP disagrees with your assessment. 

The GOP I think has veered and is more willing to “win” and “compromise” than “be right” and “lose”.  They tried the opposite in 2008 and 2012 and neither worked out and fractured the party.  I fear Dems did not pay attention.  The RINO tag and disdain for moderates didn’t benefit the party on the national level.  Just as I fear Dems trying to root out people who aren’t pregressive enough and spin moderate Democrats as somehow morally unfit will do the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

Clearly the GOP disagrees with your assessment. 

The GOP I think has veered and is more willing to “win” and “compromise” than “be right” and “lose”.  They tried the opposite in 2008 and 2012 and neither worked out and fractured the party.  I fear Dems did not pay attention.  The RINO tag and disdain for moderates didn’t benefit the party on the national level.  Just as I fear Dems trying to root out people who aren’t pregressive enough and spin moderate Democrats as somehow morally unfit will do the same. 

Then they will end up with a non-party, with no real platform and no real unifying purpose to do so, like the latter-day Whig Party in late 1840's and 1850's. And where are they now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

Then they will end up with a non-party, with no real platform and no real unifying purpose to do so, like the latter-day Whig Party in late 1840's and 1850's. And where are they now?

I’ll take that bet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

I’ll take that bet. 

Your faith in your shepherds is strong, little sheep, even as they lead you off a cliff...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Patine said:

Your faith in your shepherds is strong, little sheep, even as they lead you off a cliff...

Nah, I just remember reading how the Democratic Party survived William Jennings Bryan

And I’m sure the Democrat Party will survive Bernie too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HonestAbe said:

Nah, I just remember reading how the Democratic Party survived William Jennings Bryan

And I’m sure the Democrat Party will survive Bernie too. 

Well, frankly, I'd like to see the political failure, demise, and exposure of both the Republican and Democratic Parties in the U.S., their breaking up into a natural, organic multi-party system without unhealthy forced, coalitions, the EC abolished, the FPTP/gerrymandered House of Representatives reformed entirely, and all other corrupt and rigged electoral institutions by which the Duopoly unfairly and tyrannically keeps power done away with or thoroughly reformed, and a respectable, modern political system with true choice for American voters and so many Americans not being forced to "take bullets for their party" anymore, come to be. That would be a glorious new dawn!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

Well, frankly, I'd like to see the political failure, demise, and exposure of both the Republican and Democratic Parties in the U.S., their breaking up into a natural, organic multi-party system without unhealthy forced, coalitions, the EC abolished, the FPTP/gerrymandered House of Representatives reformed entirely, and all other corrupt and rigged electoral institutions by which the Duopoly unfairly and tyrannically keeps power done away with or thoroughly reformed, and a respectable, modern political system with true choice for American voters and so many Americans not being forced to "take bullets for their party" anymore, come to be. That would be a glorious new dawn!

I like this, I like all of this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Patine said:

Well, frankly, I'd like to see the political failure, demise...

Trust me we all know what cheering section you are in. 

“Some people just like to see the world burn”

This is why we never see eye to eye in here.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

Trust me we all know what cheering section you are in. 

“Some people just like to see the world burn”

This is why we never see eye to eye in here.  

That's not my point-at-view at all. But it must be that strict political partisans and party loyalists to taught to see those who won't support the current political culture and standing electoral institutions as is, but need see great need for improvement, as automatically being labelled "anarchists" and "nihilists." It's unfortunate these reactionary declarations shut down meaningful dialogue to solve the REAL, deep-rooted problems plaguing society, and not just play "whack-a-mole" with the symptoms of them, which almost all politicians and ideologues in the support of the "Halls of Power" are content to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...