Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
vcczar

Democrats at 3-Way Tie

Democrat 3-way tie poll  

24 members have voted

  1. 1. Which Democrat would you most likely support in the primary?

    • Biden
    • Warren
    • Sanders
    • None (I'll support a Republican, 3rd Party, or no one)
  2. 2. Which Democrat is most likely to defeat Trump in the electoral college (i.e. win back WI, MI, and PA).

    • Biden
    • Warren
    • Sanders
    • None of them has a realistic change of winning the electoral college unless a recession occurs.
  3. 3. Which of the following Democrats is likely to accomplish more as president if the Senate remains in Republican hands?

    • Biden
    • Warren
    • Sanders
    • They will all be equally impotent without control of both houses of Congress.


Recommended Posts

Latest Monmouth poll has Sanders and Warren tied in first and Biden just 1pt beneath them It also shows increased support for Booker. Harris is a distant 4th. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the non-stop verbal mistakes Biden is making, I wouldn't be surprised if his numbers decrease, but I'll be interested if there is any corroboration for this poll's results, which has a pretty big MoE.

Share this post


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

Latest Monmouth poll has Sanders and Warren tied in first and Biden just 1pt beneath them It also shows increased support for Booker. Harris is a distant 4th. 

Definitely an interesting outcome, though notable that it's wildly different from the polls of just two days ago with no obvious explanation for the downward shift.  Today, it's an outlier.  We'd need a few more supporting polls to give it real significance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.Bernie.I supported him in 2016,and he still has given better proposals than Warren(as much as i love her) or any other Dem candidate.

2.Bernie and Biden.I doubt Warren could,but if she continues to go upwards it is a big possibility.

3.Biden,and i mean this as a negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Definitely an interesting outcome, though notable that it's wildly different from the polls of just two days ago with no obvious explanation for the downward shift.  Today, it's an outlier.  We'd need a few more supporting polls to give it real significance.

 

The geriatric GE I predicted is nigh! Biden, Sanders, and Warren, and of course, Trump, are all each older then my MOTHER (mind, Warren, only very slightly so, but still) - and I'm one of the very oldest regular posters on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Definitely an interesting outcome, though notable that it's wildly different from the polls of just two days ago with no obvious explanation for the downward shift.  Today, it's an outlier.  We'd need a few more supporting polls to give it real significance.

 

 

The Economist/YouGov has similar numbers

 

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/u4gcv1suy6/econTabReport.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Reagan04 Out of curiosity: is Joe Walsh actually a primary option for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

@Reagan04 Out of curiosity: is Joe Walsh actually a primary option for you?

Yes sir, he's the best one I've got so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Reagan04 said:

Yes sir, he's the best one I've got so far.

Glad to hear that!

Share this post


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

The Economist/YouGov has similar numbers

Ya, these 2 recent polls are the reason for the significant down-tick in Biden's % on RealClearPolitics. YouGov number is same as previous YouGov poll number from a week earlier.

So these 2 make up a minority among recent polls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Yes sir, he's the best one I've got so far.

 

6 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Glad to hear that!

I wish I could say the same. I'm not sure what appeal Walsh or Weld have apart from that they aren't Trump. Weld is actually, imo, preferable to Walsh and it's not even really close.

At least Sasse is running for re-election here so I can support his campaign and feel like I'm contributing a bit to the Republican party this go round.

Share this post


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

The geriatric GE I predicted is nigh

I think age is typically a net positive up to a certain age. The problems start to occur when you get health issues. That's my big question with Biden - are his slip ups just typical stuff (saying lots of stuff every day, people who are less careful speaking like Biden are bound to make a few slip ups), or are they reflective of something else?

I don't see similar stuff from Warren or Sanders, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Yes sir, he's the best one I've got so far.

I've never heard of Joe Walsh.

Share this post


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

I've never heard of Joe Walsh.

Probably for the better. He served one term in congress and is credited with helping create Trump's 'base'/'politics'/'rhetoric' sort of thing. Or at least he has apologized for his role in it already and is now being 'brave' by running against Trump.

Share this post


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

 

I wish I could say the same. I'm not sure what appeal Walsh or Weld have apart from that they aren't Trump. Weld is actually, imo, preferable to Walsh and it's not even really close.

At least Sasse is running for re-election here so I can support his campaign and feel like I'm contributing a bit to the Republican party this go round.

The Republican Party, in the long-term, signed it's death warrant, as I see things, when they nominated Donald Trump, who belonged, personally to, and advocated, personally, for, NONE of the party's major ideological camps, and is only notable for being "newsworthy" and "sensationalist" (in fact, I'm firmly convinced we would not have won in 2016, not even the primaries, if the media hadn't given him a tonne of free attention, even if it was slanted as "negative press"). In fact, I believe, in the long-term, this is the same signing of a party death warrant as the Whig Party refusing to touch slavery in it's platform in the 1840's and 1850's.

Share this post


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

The Republican Party, in the long-term, signed it's death warrant, as I see things, when they nominated Donald Trump, who belonged, personally to, and advocated, personally, for, NONE of the party's major ideological camps, and is only notable for being "newsworthy" and "sensationalist" (in fact, I'm firmly convinced we would not have won in 2016, not even the primaries, if the media hadn't given him a tonne of free attention, even if it was slanted as "negative press"). In fact, I believe, in the long-term, this is the same signing of a party death warrant as the Whig Party refusing to touch slavery in it's platform in the 1840's and 1850's.

Firstly, I agree that Trump won because of the free press, and likely will win again for the same reason. However, I think it's over dramatic to think this will be the end of the GOP. Even if it is, it won't be the end of a more conservative ideology based party. The Libertarian, or Constitutional parties would get propped up, or an entirely new party would be formed in it's place. So even if it's possible(I don't think it is) that the Republican party ends up being no more, a conservative based party would still exist and the two party system would still be relatively unchanged.

Share this post


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

Firstly, I agree that Trump won because of the free press, and likely will win again for the same reason. However, I think it's over dramatic to think this will be the end of the GOP. Even if it is, it won't be the end of a more conservative ideology based party. The Libertarian, or Constitutional parties would get propped up, or an entirely new party would be formed in it's place. So even if it's possible(I don't think it is) that the Republican party ends up being no more, a conservative based party would still exist and the two party system would still be relatively unchanged.

I didn't say the U.S. would become electoral (as opposed to dictatorial) one-party system under the Democrats - in a way like Fidesz is becoming in Hungary, or like the Liberal Democrats in Japan or People's Action Party in Singapore pretty much are. I would certainly expect another party to come up to bat, like the Republicans did in 1856, the very year the Whigs committed their final party death knell at their last convention and cross-nominated the American (Know-Nothing) candidate, but former Whig President, Millard Fillmore, who came ended up coming in a distant third. In fact, I'd like to see a new viable challenger like the Libertarians who would call out constant, institutional violations of government authority and constant government overreach, corruption, and crime, and endless military adventurism, as opposed to gleefully instigate it and indulge in it, while hypocritically and with a "second face" preaching high-minded ethics and even "Christian" morality.

Share this post


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

Firstly, I agree that Trump won because of the free press, and likely will win again for the same reason. However, I think it's over dramatic to think this will be the end of the GOP. Even if it is, it won't be the end of a more conservative ideology based party. The Libertarian, or Constitutional parties would get propped up, or an entirely new party would be formed in it's place. So even if it's possible(I don't think it is) that the Republican party ends up being no more, a conservative based party would still exist and the two party system would still be relatively unchanged.

 

 

32 minutes ago, Patine said:

The Republican Party, in the long-term, signed it's death warrant, as I see things, when they nominated Donald Trump, who belonged, personally to, and advocated, personally, for, NONE of the party's major ideological camps, and is only notable for being "newsworthy" and "sensationalist" (in fact, I'm firmly convinced we would not have won in 2016, not even the primaries, if the media hadn't given him a tonne of free attention, even if it was slanted as "negative press"). In fact, I believe, in the long-term, this is the same signing of a party death warrant as the Whig Party refusing to touch slavery in it's platform in the 1840's and 1850's.

One interesting thing that I see happening different in 2020 than 2016:  No more free press.  I mean, obviously they're still going to cover him because he's the President -- but the tone of that coverage is changing dramatically.  In 2016, Trump would randomly call into a news station and the anchor would go "Oh!  What a fun surprise!  Hey Donald, gotta ask you -- are you having fun?  Is this what you hoped it would be?  Do you think you can really beat Bush and Cruz?  Haha!  Hilarious!  Oh, what fun we're having together!"

In 2020, the tone will dramatically change.  I keep CNN on in my office 24-7...the sound is off unless I'm actually interested in the story, but I watch the headlines at the bottom of the screen.  They are about as antagonistic to Trump as they could possibly get without declaring that they themselves are running for President.  If he's stupid enough to call in, they're not going to treat the conversation like a fun ratings-grabbing diversion.  They're going to treat it like a trial.

Is that enough to change the results in 2020?  Maybe, maybe not.  But it's at least one significant change -- he's going to be treated like the villain by non-Fox media...not the class clown.

Share this post


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

I've never heard of Joe Walsh.

He was the lead guitarist for the James Gang during their peak years and for the Eagles on two of their best albums (Hotel California and The Long Run) 😉

Share this post


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

 

 

One interesting thing that I see happening different in 2020 than 2016:  No more free press.  I mean, obviously they're still going to cover him because he's the President -- but the tone of that coverage is changing dramatically.  In 2016, Trump would randomly call into a news station and the anchor would go "Oh!  What a fun surprise!  Hey Donald, gotta ask you -- are you having fun?  Is this what you hoped it would be?  Do you think you can really beat Bush and Cruz?  Haha!  Hilarious!  Oh, what fun we're having together!"

In 2020, the tone will dramatically change.  I keep CNN on in my office 24-7...the sound is off unless I'm actually interested in the story, but I watch the headlines at the bottom of the screen.  They are about as antagonistic to Trump as they could possibly get without declaring that they themselves are running for President.  If he's stupid enough to call in, they're not going to treat the conversation like a fun ratings-grabbing diversion.  They're going to treat it like a trial.

Is that enough to change the results in 2020?  Maybe, maybe not.  But it's at least one significant change -- he's going to be treated like the villain by non-Fox media...not the class clown.

I check CNN daily but I do so with the belief that it's generally just going to tell me what I want to hear or what I should fear. It's basically the liberal version of Fox News now, which is equally, if not more, biased. For much more balanced news I check thehill.com , which used to be center-to- center-right, but then turned center-to- center-left when Trump became the nominee. I also use realclearpolitics which considered about every view point. None of the major news networks are very helpful in presenting news without some sort of spin. 

Despite being a Kucinich-Sanders-Warren Democrat, if I owned a news network, I would demand a Cronkite like neutral presentation and equal airtime for conservative and liberal commentary. I'd also fact check all politicians and parties equally. I'd give more time to 3rd parties than most networks. I would hold election debates for not just presidential elections but other elections. The debates would be totally organized differently. There would also be bipartisan debates with primary candidates of other parties mixed together. The moderators would include candidates running for offices to create more tension and hopefully a more substantive debate than the usual vanilla questions. The board of directors for this news company would have a rule that there must be a balance of left-leaners and right-leaner, whether 3rd party, independent, or major party supporter. When endorsing a candidate, rather than having the network make a single endorsement, there will be a list of how many of the employees are endorsing each candidate. The big name employees would be listed at the top, since most people would be interested in who they support, but the network itself will not have an official endorsement. 

Share this post


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

I check CNN daily but I do so with the belief that it's generally just going to tell me what I want to hear or what I should fear. It's basically the liberal version of Fox News now, which is equally, if not more, biased. For much more balanced news I check thehill.com , which used to be center-to- center-right, but then turned center-to- center-left when Trump became the nominee. I also use realclearpolitics which considered about every view point. None of the major news networks are very helpful in presenting news without some sort of spin. 

Despite being a Kucinich-Sanders-Warren Democrat, if I owned a news network, I would demand a Cronkite like neutral presentation and equal airtime for conservative and liberal commentary. I'd also fact check all politicians and parties equally. I'd give more time to 3rd parties than most networks. I would hold election debates for not just presidential elections but other elections. The debates would be totally organized differently. There would also be bipartisan debates with primary candidates of other parties mixed together. The moderators would include candidates running for offices to create more tension and hopefully a more substantive debate than the usual vanilla questions. The board of directors for this news company would have a rule that there must be a balance of left-leaners and right-leaner, whether 3rd party, independent, or major party supporter. When endorsing a candidate, rather than having the network make a single endorsement, there will be a list of how many of the employees are endorsing each candidate. The big name employees would be listed at the top, since most people would be interested in who they support, but the network itself will not have an official endorsement. 

I wouldn't go so far as to call them Fox News, though I don't like all of the talking heads.  I actually agree with Trump (god help me)  that a fair amount of the things covered in the 24-hour news cycle are "fake news" designed to create drama for tv viewers...but because I believe that Trump is usually wrong about most things, I view their antagonistic relationship to be a net positive.  If someone wants to tell the truth, as a news reporter should want to do, then they are probably going to have to say that Trump is wrong/lying/whatever.  

That said, I too miss unbiased news - to the degree that it ever existed.  The closest I've found in recent years was CBS Scott Pelly,...so, of course, he was fired for (as he says) complaining about a hostile work environment.

 

Share this post


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

equal airtime for conservative and liberal commentary.

I'd argue that we don't need the commentary at all.  If I want to watch people fight just because they want attention, I can log into Facebook.

Just tell me what happened.  I can decide how I feel about it, I don't need anyone trying to persuade me in one direction or the other in the middle of a newscast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

 

 

One interesting thing that I see happening different in 2020 than 2016:  No more free press.  I mean, obviously they're still going to cover him because he's the President -- but the tone of that coverage is changing dramatically.  In 2016, Trump would randomly call into a news station and the anchor would go "Oh!  What a fun surprise!  Hey Donald, gotta ask you -- are you having fun?  Is this what you hoped it would be?  Do you think you can really beat Bush and Cruz?  Haha!  Hilarious!  Oh, what fun we're having together!"

In 2020, the tone will dramatically change.  I keep CNN on in my office 24-7...the sound is off unless I'm actually interested in the story, but I watch the headlines at the bottom of the screen.  They are about as antagonistic to Trump as they could possibly get without declaring that they themselves are running for President.  If he's stupid enough to call in, they're not going to treat the conversation like a fun ratings-grabbing diversion.  They're going to treat it like a trial.

Is that enough to change the results in 2020?  Maybe, maybe not.  But it's at least one significant change -- he's going to be treated like the villain by non-Fox media...not the class clown.

 

12 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I check CNN daily but I do so with the belief that it's generally just going to tell me what I want to hear or what I should fear. It's basically the liberal version of Fox News now, which is equally, if not more, biased. For much more balanced news I check thehill.com , which used to be center-to- center-right, but then turned center-to- center-left when Trump became the nominee. I also use realclearpolitics which considered about every view point. None of the major news networks are very helpful in presenting news without some sort of spin. 

Despite being a Kucinich-Sanders-Warren Democrat, if I owned a news network, I would demand a Cronkite like neutral presentation and equal airtime for conservative and liberal commentary. I'd also fact check all politicians and parties equally. I'd give more time to 3rd parties than most networks. I would hold election debates for not just presidential elections but other elections. The debates would be totally organized differently. There would also be bipartisan debates with primary candidates of other parties mixed together. The moderators would include candidates running for offices to create more tension and hopefully a more substantive debate than the usual vanilla questions. The board of directors for this news company would have a rule that there must be a balance of left-leaners and right-leaner, whether 3rd party, independent, or major party supporter. When endorsing a candidate, rather than having the network make a single endorsement, there will be a list of how many of the employees are endorsing each candidate. The big name employees would be listed at the top, since most people would be interested in who they support, but the network itself will not have an official endorsement. 

I usually get a lot of coverage on U.S. politics from three English-language news sources that are not American-owned or -based (and thus tend not to have strong American-style political biases) - those being BBC Newsworld, CBC Newsworld, and Global News, as well as Southam News, which owns, by far, the more reputable and respectable of the two daily newspapers in Edmonton - the Edmonton Journal, which has won several INTERNATIONAL journalism awards since it's first issue was published in 1903.

Share this post


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

I'd argue that we don't need the commentary at all.  If I want to watch people fight just because they want attention, I can log into Facebook.

Just tell me what happened.  I can decide how I feel about it, I don't need anyone trying to persuade me in one direction or the other in the middle of a newscast.

Especially considering the talking heads are usually no smarter or better qualified than the viewer.

Share this post


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

I'd argue that we don't need the commentary at all.  If I want to watch people fight just because they want attention, I can log into Facebook.

Just tell me what happened.  I can decide how I feel about it, I don't need anyone trying to persuade me in one direction or the other in the middle of a newscast.

I don't exist on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Instagram, or any other platforms like that. I've NEVER made an account or entered any personal information into such sites - EVER. And I have no intention of ever doing so. Such sites are a fool's game, and, in the case of Facebook, I find Zuckerberg's TOS and "ultimate vision for the Internet as a whole" very, very disturbing, and will not willingly be part of his dystopian empire.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...