Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

2nd Democratic Debate Poll

2nd Democratic Debate  

26 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will come out as a winner on the Tuesday Debate?

    • Williamson (flopped the last debate)
    • Delaney
      0
    • Hickenlooper
    • Ryan (flopped the last debate)
      0
    • Bullock (did not qualify for the last debate)
    • Klobuchar
    • O'Rourke (flopped the last debate)
    • Buttigieg (arguably a winner of last debate)
    • Warren (arguably a winner of last debate)
    • Sanders (underwhelmed in last debate)
  2. 2. Who will come out as a winner on the Wednesday Debate

    • Inslee
    • Gillibrand
    • Gabbard
    • Bennet
      0
    • De Blasio
    • Booker
    • Yang
    • Castro (arguably a winner of last debate)
    • Harris (arguably a winner of last debate)
    • Biden (underwhelmed in last debate)
  3. 3. Will you watch the 2nd debate?



Recommended Posts

2nd Democratic Debate Poll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Buttigieg supporter, I'm stoked over the lineup of the first night.  Buttigieg is the only on that stage with fire and purpose when he speaks.  The one nine are wet blankets.  He's going to mop up the floor and finally get his breakout moment to become a top contender.

I'm going with Biden on the second night.  He knows letting Harris get the upper hand last time cost him greatly.  This is where he fires back, tearing into her image as a friend of minorities.  

First debate is actually airing the night of my 8th wedding anniversary, and I'm still not going to miss it.  ;c)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am disappointed with the lineups.Bernie and Warren will share the stage and neither of them will share it with Biden.I think this debate is bad for progressive movement.

Share this post


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

I am disappointed with the lineups.Bernie and Warren will share the stage and neither of them will share it with Biden.I think this debate is bad for progressive movement.

For real. They should do debates in order of polling numbers, with a smaller one being the leaders, and a big one for the non-leaders (Biden, Harris, Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, and maybe O'Rourke). Would definitely be more entertaining and better for the Democratic establishment in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Rodja said:

I am disappointed with the lineups.Bernie and Warren will share the stage and neither of them will share it with Biden.I think this debate is bad for progressive movement.

It might be for the best. Sanders and Warren are in danger of canceling each other out. If Sanders or Warren is going to win, then one of them has to take the others supporters. I think it's good that they go after each other on this next debate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

For real. They should do debates in order of polling numbers, with a smaller one being the leaders, and a big one for the non-leaders (Biden, Harris, Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, and maybe O'Rourke). Would definitely be more entertaining and better for the Democratic establishment in the long run.

One of the rare times i agree with your opinion on political issues.

6 hours ago, vcczar said:

It might be for the best. Sanders and Warren are in danger of canceling each other out. If Sanders or Warren is going to win, then one of them has to take the others supporters. I think it's good that they go after each other on this next debate. 

You are probably right.It might not be as bad as it seemed at first.Still my fear is that they are both on night one and people tend to forget night one faster.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

For real. They should do debates in order of polling numbers, with a smaller one being the leaders, and a big one for the non-leaders (Biden, Harris, Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, and maybe O'Rourke). Would definitely be more entertaining and better for the Democratic establishment in the long run.

 

2 hours ago, Rodja said:

One of the rare times i agree with your opinion on political issues.

Regardless of current polling, I think this tactic would be an irresponsible overreach of influence by the media that SHOULD call into question their contracts in arranging debate, how they organize them, and the integrity and bias shown. Case and point, I am FIRMLY under the opinion - and I think a solidly backed opinion - that, despite immense reciprocal public animosity between the two, that Donald Trump would NOT have won in 2016, not the GE - and certainly not the Republican Primaries - if it were not for the all the free and constant bandwidth given to him constantly, even if it was meant to attack him and be negative coverage. The media has far too much undue influence in the process, and has become toxic, in fact, in the process. Because, the U.S. has no real, highly-respected, high-brow, reliable source of NEWS that doesn't drip thickly with partisan bias and incendiary, click-bait headlines - certainly nothing, anymore, compare to the BBC, the CBC, Chanel 1, al-Jazira, etc. - American media and journalism has become a joke - internally and internationally.

Share this post


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

 

Regardless of current polling, I think this tactic would be an irresponsible overreach of influence by the media that SHOULD call into question their contracts in arranging debate, how they organize them, and the integrity and bias shown. Case and point, I am FIRMLY under the opinion - and I think a solidly backed opinion - that, despite immense reciprocal public animosity between the two, that Donald Trump would NOT have won in 2016, not the GE - and certainly not the Republican Primaries - if it were not for the all the free and constant bandwidth given to him constantly, even if it was meant to attack him and be negative coverage. The media has far too much undue influence in the process, and has become toxic, in fact, in the process. Because, the U.S. has no real, highly-respected, high-brow, reliable source of NEWS that doesn't drip thickly with partisan bias and incendiary, click-bait headlines - certainly nothing, anymore, compare to the BBC, the CBC, Chanel 1, al-Jazira, etc. - American media and journalism has become a joke - internally and internationally.

But...if the media was intending to provide negative coverage of Trump as you say...and he won anyway...then doesn’t that suggest media does NOT have the influence that you say it does?

Share this post


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

But...if the media was intending to provide negative coverage of Trump as you say...and he won anyway...then doesn’t that suggest media does NOT have the influence that you say it does?

The influence may not have been intended - but in my opinion it still skewed the election completely unfairly in his favour. If you look at the breadth of history - especially world history, and not just American history, though the latter in places too - a lot of botches and cock-ups have happened because people of power and organizations of influence misused or miscalculated - or just screwed up entirely - their application of such clout, leading to unintended, and even, disastrous results. It doesn't mean the undue amounts of influence, and the intention to use them in a dubious and manipulative manner, wasn't still there to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Rodja said:

I am disappointed with the lineups.Bernie and Warren will share the stage and neither of them will share it with Biden.I think this debate is bad for progressive movement.

This is the exact way I wanted Harris, Biden, Warren, and Sanders to be split. It gives a chance for the gloves to come off. It will hopefully give a clearer picture of who can take the mantel of their lane, but imagine the fireworks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rodja said:

One of the rare times i agree with your opinion on political issues.

You are probably right.It might not be as bad as it seemed at first.Still my fear is that they are both on night one and people tend to forget night one faster.

 

It won’t be that bad. The 3rd debate is likely to be one night. So the standouts from either debate will get coverage going into the 3rd debate which will require 2% in the polls in national polls and way more donors. This debate will probably have less than 10 people: Biden, Harris, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg for sure. Maybe Gabbard, Castro, and O’Rourke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, vcczar said:

It won’t be that bad. The 3rd debate is likely to be one night. So the standouts from either debate will get coverage going into the 3rd debate which will require 2% in the polls in national polls and way more donors. This debate will probably have less than 10 people: Biden, Harris, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg for sure. Maybe Gabbard, Castro, and O’Rourke. 

I believe O'Rourke has already qualified. Castro has hit 3 of 4 polls, and Booker has already hit the polling requirement but not the donors, surprisingly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres a off chance that we might have ELEVEN qualifiers. 

Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris, O'Rourke, Booker, Castro, Yang, Buttigieg, Gabbard, and if he gets a fantastic moment Bullock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Herbert Hoover said:

Theres a off chance that we might have ELEVEN qualifiers. 

Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris, O'Rourke, Booker, Castro, Yang, Buttigieg, Gabbard, and if he gets a fantastic moment Bullock.

Klobuchar seems likely to qualify as well. Already has 3 of the polls required, I would put her ahead of Bullock to make it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Herbert Hoover said:

Theres a off chance that we might have ELEVEN qualifiers. 

Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris, O'Rourke, Booker, Castro, Yang, Buttigieg, Gabbard, and if he gets a fantastic moment Bullock.

 

8 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

Klobuchar seems likely to qualify as well. Already has 3 of the polls required, I would put her ahead of Bullock to make it. 

I expect a lot of the people to sink below 2% as people start focusing on the top 5 polling candidates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, vcczar said:

 

I expect a lot of the people to sink below 2% as people start focusing on the top 5 polling candidates. 

However, it doesn't matter if they taper off now because it can be any polls during the period. O'Rourke could get 0% in every poll from now until September and still get in. The September debate will be crowded, but I expect the later debates to be 5-6 candidates max.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully we'll get some contrasts between Bernie and Warren, as well as between Biden and Harris.

I believe Bullock is the only new person on the stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People I'm most interested in in terms of their debate performances this time around:

Castro

If Castro has another strong performance, he might start moving into #1 for people.

Bernie-Warren

If you combine their %s, they out-poll Biden. Allowing like-minded voters to have a side-by-side comparison might help to consolidate the vote one way or the other.

Bullock

Interesting to see if he'll make any splash.

Biden-Harris

Will Harris be able to keep the pressure up on Biden, or will Biden steady the boat?

Yang

He had the least time of any candidate in his last debate. It will be interesting to see if he simply is able to speak more, and whether his ideas will be able to garner any more traction after the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Williamson did great in her CNN Town Hall and her debate performance was very disappointing. I think she'll do better this time, but the hurdle will be if she can win back any people she scared away the first time around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting to be that the first night is basically the 2 most left candidates against a bunch of centrists (minus Beto and Pete, who are center-left). I think for the most part Bernie and Warren won't really go after each other, they will more so just go after the other candidates that don't want to make big structural changes. 

For night 2, I'm sure Biden and Harris will go at it again. de Blasio probably goes after Biden as well. 

I'm still hoping Gillibrand can do something to get a boost in the polls, but she isn't placed with a great group for that. Harris will probably over shine her like last time. She will probably be seen as having a good night but not enough to change anyone's minds and vote for her.

 

After this, the field should narrow considerably. At the very least, we should see Delaney, Ryan, Hickenlooper, and the candidates that didn't make the debates at all drop out, and perhaps a few more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MysteryKnight said:

At the very least, we should see Delaney, Ryan, Hickenlooper, and the candidates that didn't make the debates at all drop out, and perhaps a few more. 

Why should those the media tycoons felt didn't match up to their arbitrary thresholds to appear in a debate that is not formally or officially part of the electoral process feel any obligation or pressure to drop out? This is exactly part of what I'm talking about the arbitrary overuse and existence of the power and influence of a few big media outlets. It's like I had said about 2016 - the media's constant attacks on, and exposure of, Trump, even if meant to be "negative" and knock him out of the race, ended up backfiring and, in my strong opinion, he would have never been elected without it - even if the intention was the reverse, the free press time still applied the undue influence there.

Share this post


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

 Why should those the media tycoons felt didn't match up to their arbitrary thresholds to appear in a debate that is not formally or officially part of the electoral process feel any obligation or pressure to drop out? This is exactly part of what I'm talking about the arbitrary overuse and existence of the power and influence of a few big media outlets. It's like I had said about 2016 - the media's constant attacks on, and exposure of, Trump, even if meant to be "negative" and knock him out of the race, ended up backfiring and, in my strong opinion, he would have never been elected without it - even if the intention was the reverse, the free press time still applied the undue influence there.

If you think Messam, Moulton, Gravel, and Sestak (the 4 major candidates that didn't make the debate) actually have a chance of doing anything in the primaries, I'd like to know why you think that. Messam has been running since the beginning of the year and still polls 0% in every poll. Unknown mayor to President is not a good jump. Moulton is better fit in congress as his ideas are nothing new and nothing other candidates running don't already make a better case for. Same goes for Sestak. Gravel was never a serious campaign to begin with. 

Share this post


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

If you think Messam, Moulton, Gravel, and Sestak (the 4 major candidates that didn't make the debate) actually have a chance of doing anything in the primaries, I'd like to know why you think that. Messam has been running since the beginning of the year and still polls 0% in every poll. Unknown mayor to President is not a good jump. Moulton is better fit in congress as his ideas are nothing new and nothing other candidates running don't already make a better case for. Same goes for Sestak. Gravel was never a serious campaign to begin with. 

But shouldn't they, and their campaign staff, make that decision on their own, and for their own reasons, and when they choose, however long that may take, and NOT because a media outlet setting an arbitrary bar left them out of a debate?

Share this post


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

Why should those the media tycoons felt didn't match up to their arbitrary thresholds to appear in a debate that is not formally or officially part of the electoral process feel any obligation or pressure to drop out? This is exactly part of what I'm talking about the arbitrary overuse and existence of the power and influence of a few big media outlets. It's like I had said about 2016 - the media's constant attacks on, and exposure of, Trump, even if meant to be "negative" and knock him out of the race, ended up backfiring and, in my strong opinion, he would have never been elected without it - even if the intention was the reverse, the free press time still applied the undue influence there.

The media didn’t set the limits.  The DNC did.  And since the candidates want the DNC’s money, they have to play by the DNC’s rules.

If you’re going to constantly criticize the way this nomination process is conducted, you could at least first take a moment to learn how this nomination process is conducted.

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...