Who are you considering?

[Actinguy 2]

Question and list of candidates taken from this poll: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/b0wzlf9avh/econTabReport.pdf

The results there were

Biden 50%
Warren 45%
Harris 39%
Sanders 38%
Buttigieg 34%
O'Rourke 24%
Booker 23%
Gillibrand 12%
Klobuchar 10%
(All others are actively being considered by less than 10% of those who plan to participate in their state's Democratic primary or caucus.)

[Rodja 0]

Those that i consider order by my probability to vote for them:

1.Bernie

2.Warren

3.Pete

4.Gravel

 

 

[Harris/Ernst 2020 0]

My top five in order are:

Beto O'Rourke

Kamala Harris

Joe Biden

Cory Booker

Elizabeth Warren

Since the race has started only Warren, Buttigieg, and Biden have move up my list.

[ThePotatoWalrus 0]

In Ohio I think I can vote in both primaries parties (I think, not very sure), and I intend to vote for Yang and Trump as it stands right now. If it came down between my top two picks I would pick Trump unless the Libertarian party somehow had a decent sized chance of winning and their nominee was Austin Petersen or something.

[Actinguy 2]

19 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

In Ohio I think I can vote in both primaries parties (I think, not very sure), and I intend to vote for Yang and Trump as it stands right now. If it came down between my top two picks I would pick Trump unless the Libertarian party somehow had a decent sized chance of winning and their nominee was Austin Petersen or something.

In Ohio you can choose which one, but can only vote in one party's.

I'm a Democrat but voted in the Republican primaries in Ohio last election to support Kasich over Trump.

[ThePotatoWalrus 0]

34 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

In Ohio you can choose which one, but can only vote in one party's.

I'm a Democrat but voted in the Republican primaries in Ohio last election to support Kasich over Trump.

Oh, makes sense. Prob voting in the Democratic Primaries then since there's more choice.

[Patine 35]

38 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

In Ohio you can choose which one, but can only vote in one party's.

I'm a Democrat but voted in the Republican primaries in Ohio last election to support Kasich over Trump.

 

3 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Oh, makes sense. Prob voting in the Democratic Primaries then since there's more choice.

Of course, a GOVERNMENT regardless of level, TAXPAYER-FUNDED electoral agency has no place at all conducting nominations for political parties (and only two political parties, not even all of them), nor should any government agency, not even an electoral commission be asking citizens for their political party support or affiliation for ANY purpose AT ALL, and the U.S. electoral agencies are the only such agencies in the First World not legally mandated to be non-partisan by nature. These matters put the U.S. electoral agencies at the same level, or close to it, of political compromise, malfeasance, and bias as those in various post-Soviet State governed by Parties of Power or many "emerging democracies" in parts of Africa and Asia.

[lizarraba 0]

YANG GANG

[Actinguy 2]

17 minutes ago, Patine said:

 

Of course, a GOVERNMENT regardless of level, TAXPAYER-FUNDED electoral agency has no place at all conducting nominations for political parties (and only two political parties, not even all of them), nor should any government agency, not even an electoral commission be asking citizens for their political party support or affiliation for ANY purpose AT ALL, and the U.S. electoral agencies are the only such agencies in the First World not legally mandated to be non-partisan by nature. These matters put the U.S. electoral agencies at the same level, or close to it, of political compromise, malfeasance, and bias as those in various post-Soviet State governed by Parties of Power or many "emerging democracies" in parts of Africa and Asia.

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

To be clear, most states (or the parties' state branches) require you to actually be a registered member of that party to vote in their primary/caucus.  

Ohio is one of the few exceptions with an open primary system, allowing you to vote in a primary without being a registered member of the party.  While these may or may not be tax payer funded (I don't know) they are run by volunteers from the parties -- not government employees, to my knowledge.

I'm actually not sure what the third party primary system is in my state, as I've never been interested enough to find out.  I know you hate the only-two-parties-matter system, but I actually like it -- it requires (in theory) each party to adopt a broader umbrella to capture as many voters as possible, rather than over-specializing and ignoring larger groups of voters.

[SilentLiberty 0]

Biden for me really depends on who is VP pick is. If it's someone a bit moderate, a bit centered, kind of doubling down on that lane, then I'd probably vote for him. If he goes further left with it then I'm probably out. 

Bullock I kinda like so I put him down as well, but out of all the ones I'd support I think he'd be last. He's just kind of there. Which is ironic I know because people say that about Hickenlooper too.

Delaney is sorta in the same boat as Bullock to me, I just think he's a bit more fiery.

Gabbard is probably in my top 3 overall for Dems, crossing a lot of boxes I look for in a candidate.

Gillibrand needs to play less identity politics but I'm otherwise a fan.

I didn't put Harris down but I could see supporting her more than any of the other ones I didn't mark down.

Hickenlooper is my guy, think he'd be a great President.

Inslee is interesting for a one issue candidate.

Beto has probably done the most to actively handicap himself. It just doesn't seem like he's campaigning with that same fire he did against Cruz. 

I disagree with Andrew Yang on a considerable amount, but I don't really disagree on where his motives are. I also think it'd be good to have his voice on the debate stage.

[ThePotatoWalrus 0]

49 minutes ago, lizarraba said:

YANG GANG

Hell yeah brother

[Patine 35]

2 hours ago, Actinguy said:

I'm actually not sure what the third party primary system is in my state, as I've never been interested enough to find out.  I know you hate the only-two-parties-matter system, but I actually like it -- it requires (in theory) each party to adopt a broader umbrella to capture as many voters as possible, rather than over-specializing and ignoring larger groups of voters.

But then you get to the point of horrid GE choices like in 2016, or both parties supporting the same monstrous, war criminal, and/or treasonous activities (for which a large number deserve to tried on very serious crimes), such as a bipartisan support for the (un)Patriot Act, the very existence and continued operation of one of biggest gang of international criminals (and matching the U.S. Department of State's definition of a "terrorist organization"), the CIA, and they're funding by taxpayers' money (but not for scrutiny by those taxpayers, because it's put under the label the U.S. Government uses to protect their highest criminals, and at the same time, commit sedition against their own people - "classified for national security purposes"), and arming Third World tyrants to abuse human rights and kill people with impunity on the U.S. taxpayer's dime, and they both support, mostly, the death penalty, and both have significant support, or just omit, illegal privatized prison slave labour, and neither moves to make the justice system itself anymore fair, or less biased. So, since all of these monstrous policies enjoy significant bipartisan support, with only a few dissenters of note, who get marginalized in primary races, easily, an American citizen with an actual ethical and moral centre cannot realistically vote for anyone who will end these horrid, criminal policies that are giving their nation a monstrous name and not throw their vote away.

[Actinguy 2]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

But then you get to the point of horrid GE choices like in 2016, or both parties supporting the same monstrous, war criminal, and/or treasonous activities (for which a large number deserve to tried on very serious crimes), such as a bipartisan support for the (un)Patriot Act, the very existence and continued operation of one of biggest gang of international criminals (and matching the U.S. Department of State's definition of a "terrorist organization"), the CIA, and they're funding by taxpayers' money (but not for scrutiny by those taxpayers, because it's put under the label the U.S. Government uses to protect their highest criminals, and at the same time, commit sedition against their own people - "classified for national security purposes"), and arming Third World tyrants to abuse human rights and kill people with impunity on the U.S. taxpayer's dime, and they both support, mostly, the death penalty, and both have significant support, or just omit, illegal privatized prison slave labour, and neither moves to make the justice system itself anymore fair, or less biased. So, since all of these monstrous policies enjoy significant bipartisan support, with only a few dissenters of note, who get marginalized in primary races, easily, an American citizen with an actual ethical and moral centre cannot realistically vote for anyone who will end these horrid, criminal policies that are giving their nation a monstrous name and not throw their vote away.

You think those things won't happen with more parties?  Most of those still have widespread public support, or at least did at the time.  

We could have 100 parties with no federal favoritism for or against any of them, but the ones that would win would still be the ones with the most public support.

Adding more parties won't alter public opinion in a significant manner.

 

[Actinguy 2]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

But then you get to the point of horrid GE choices like in 2016, or both parties supporting the same monstrous, war criminal, and/or treasonous activities (for which a large number deserve to tried on very serious crimes), such as a bipartisan support for the (un)Patriot Act, the very existence and continued operation of one of biggest gang of international criminals (and matching the U.S. Department of State's definition of a "terrorist organization"), the CIA, and they're funding by taxpayers' money (but not for scrutiny by those taxpayers, because it's put under the label the U.S. Government uses to protect their highest criminals, and at the same time, commit sedition against their own people - "classified for national security purposes"), and arming Third World tyrants to abuse human rights and kill people with impunity on the U.S. taxpayer's dime, and they both support, mostly, the death penalty, and both have significant support, or just omit, illegal privatized prison slave labour, and neither moves to make the justice system itself anymore fair, or less biased. So, since all of these monstrous policies enjoy significant bipartisan support, with only a few dissenters of note, who get marginalized in primary races, easily, an American citizen with an actual ethical and moral centre cannot realistically vote for anyone who will end these horrid, criminal policies that are giving their nation a monstrous name and not throw their vote away.

The reason that candidates who support what you're saying here find themselves marginalized is because these are marginal beliefs.

The average American does not believe the CIA is a terrorist organization, for example.  That doesn't make it right or wrong, it's just an opinion that is not shared by the majority of Americans and therefore someone who strongly pushes that take is likely to find themselves pushed to the margins.

[Patine 35]

2 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

You think those things won't happen with more parties?  Most of those still have widespread public support, or at least did at the time.  

We could have 100 parties with no federal favoritism for or against any of them, but the ones that would win would still be the ones with the most public support.

Adding more parties won't alter public opinion in a significant manner.

 

They may have at the time, but the main parties strategically (and deceptively) like to omit them completely from their platforms. And, if you look at First World Nations with a true multi-party, and politically healthier, system, parties opposed to such sociopathic, criminal monstrosity due arise, make issues of them, and actually gain votes (even significant numbers) for bringing these betrayals by incumbent politicians back into the limelight.

[Actinguy 2]

Just now, Patine said:

They may have at the time, but the main parties strategically (and deceptively) like to omit them completely from their platforms. And, if you look at First World Nations with a true multi-party, and politically healthier, system, parties opposed to such sociopathic, criminal monstrosity due arise, make issues of them, and actually gain votes (even significant numbers) for bringing these betrayals by incumbent politicians back into the limelight.

I'm still not sure that I buy that there's a market in America right now for a strong third party that specifically follows the beliefs that you state here.  To the degree that such a market exists, it is filled I would think by the Libertarians -- a party that already exists, and has been on the ballot in most if not all states for quite some time, but is not taken particularly seriously in the general election except as a "spoiler" because the beliefs it pushes are not broadly embraced by the general public.

 

[Actinguy 2]

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

They may have at the time, but the main parties strategically (and deceptively) like to omit them completely from their platforms. And, if you look at First World Nations with a true multi-party, and politically healthier, system, parties opposed to such sociopathic, criminal monstrosity due arise, make issues of them, and actually gain votes (even significant numbers) for bringing these betrayals by incumbent politicians back into the limelight.

Americans are not Europeans.  We actually had a war about this.  A few of them, arguably.  

[Patine 35]

2 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

The reason that candidates who support what you're saying here find themselves marginalized is because these are marginal beliefs.

The average American does not believe the CIA is a terrorist organization, for example.  That doesn't make it right or wrong, it's just an opinion that is not shared by the majority of Americans and therefore someone who strongly pushes that take is likely to find themselves pushed to the margins.

If the CIA's activity (and spending of taxpayer's money to do so) wasn't kept in a secrecy that made the U.S. government in a state of sedition, treason, and betrayal of their own people, but showed the graphic, horrific, stomach-churning, acts, comparable to the KGB and Gestapo, their money was paying for, without consultation, things might be a bit different. At the very least, turning on the CIA might not be so marginal if the evidence of their crimes were treasonously covered up by a criminal government.

[Actinguy 2]

Just now, Patine said:

If the CIA's activity (and spending of taxpayer's money to do so) wasn't kept in a secrecy that made the U.S. government in a state of sedition, treason, and betrayal of their own people, but showed the graphic, horrific, stomach-churning, acts, comparable to the KGB and Gestapo, their money was paying for, without consultation, things might be a bit different. At the very least, turning on the CIA might not be so marginal if the evidence of their crimes were treasonously covered up by a criminal government.

Sure, great, but you're still reaching for an American consensus that the CIA's activity should be public.  That consensus doesn't exist, no matter who runs for office on which platform.

[Patine 35]

2 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Americans are not Europeans.  We actually had a war about this.  A few of them, arguably.  

That's irrelevant. We're all humans. The emotions and morals can be drawn out by the right speakers and sources, and propaganda, social engineering, and institutional lies can move people as well. Compare Nazi Germany with Germany today.

[Actinguy 2]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

That's irrelevant. We're all humans. The emotions and morals can be drawn out by the right speakers and sources, and propaganda, social engineering, and institutional lies can move people as well. Compare Nazi Germany with Germany today.

Sure, but you're proposing that if we had more parties, our morals and values would naturally change to model whatever your favorite European countries happen to be.

I am proposing that this would not happen, as we would still have an American culture and an American history/education system that teaches us that we are -- and perhaps "must" be --  different.

[Patine 35]

25 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Sure, but you're proposing that if we had more parties, our morals and values would naturally change to model whatever your favorite European countries happen to be.

I am proposing that this would not happen, as we would still have an American culture and an American history/education system that teaches us that we are -- and perhaps "must" be --  different.

More parties and candidates would bring a bigger stage and voice to institutionally ignored or marginalized issues, and might, with the right presentation, make people stop and think about things taken for granted for so long. Your mistake is portraying social attitudes and viewpoints as being INHERENTLY more static and more dependent on a given nation they actually are. As a more extreme example, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea do not lack the social and political dynamism the U.S. does because their people unquestioningly and loyally support these horrible regimes as an inherent demographic quality, but because their political systems are FAR WORSE and MUCH MORE MARGINALIZING (in more overtly and conspicuously nasty ways) of opposition and criticism than in the U.S. It's a matter of degrees, not inherent and static socio-political attitudes based on the nation involved. That is where your argument is highly flawed.

[Sunnymentoaddict 0]

I'm supporting  Warrem till she either drops out, or she has no clear path  to the nomination.  Im honestly  surprised  how many said they would support her. Yang,  I still dont understand  his appeal.

[Sunnymentoaddict 0]

47 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Sure, but you're proposing that if we had more parties, our morals and values would naturally change to model whatever your favorite European countries happen to be.

I am proposing that this would not happen, as we would still have an American culture and an American history/education system that teaches us that we are -- and perhaps "must" be --  different.

I personally dont think a multiparty system would fix our problems overnight ; there are deeper cultural  issues  that would  still divide  the nation. However,  I personally feel such a system would drive voters out to the polls.

[Actinguy 2]

2 hours ago, Patine said:

More parties and candidates would bring a bigger stage and voice to institutionally ignored or marginalized issues, and might, with the right presentation, make people stop and think about things taken for granted for so long. Your mistake is portraying social attitudes and viewpoints as being INHERENTLY more static and more dependent on a given nation they actually are. As a more extreme example, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea do not lack the social and political dynamism the U.S. does because their people unquestioningly and loyally support these horrible regimes as an inherent demographic quality, but because their political systems are FAR WORSE and MUCH MORE MARGINALIZING (in more overtly and conspicuously nasty ways) of opposition and criticism than in the U.S. It's a matter of degrees, not inherent and static socio-political attitudes based on the nation involved. That is where your argument is highly flawed.

I guess we’ll see at least a hint of whether you’re right later this month, during the Democrat debates.  All one party, sure, but a stage (or two stages) with 20 viewpoints being presented all on more or less even footing.

Im inclined to believe there will be so much noise due to the lack of crowd control/filtering that nothing will actually change.

But if you’re right, then some one percenter should be able to break through and actually change the majority of America’s mind — not just about his or her own odds, but also about who we should be as a nation.

 

i guess we’ll see in a couple of weeks!