I will probably be voting for Warren.
Running Primary Poll Thread
Posts
Total:
193
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I hope Sanders gets the nomination. Do you watch Kyle Kullunski/Secular talk?
-->
@Alec
there are some of Sander's ideas I do like, but he's too socialist for me, it's too bad, if he was a moderate and more thoughtful for all American's I could maybe be on his side.
Kyle Kullunski/Secular talk
no, never heard of it.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
No the first primary states.
When we transition into the general election, THEN the national polls become a good measurement to use, but since we're still balls deep into the primary season the only polls that are really important are the ones in the first couple of states that hold primaries.
No the first primary states.When we transition into the general election, THEN the national polls become a good measurement to use, but since we're still balls deep into the primary season the only polls that are really important are the ones in the first couple of states that hold primaries.
But I like the graph. Why can't your one have a graph?
Basic summary: Harris has lost nearly all the support she initially gained after her first debate performance
After nearly doubling her poll numbers after a strong debate performance in late June (Going from 7% to 15% nearly overnight), Kamala Harris has since regressed back to the numbers she was seeing before the debates began. 6 of the most recent national polls all have Harris polling between 7 to 9% nationwide
State by state examinations also show some regression for her
In Iowa, a 5 point drop in numbers compared to early July after the first debate has her now at 11%, putting her in danger of sliding out of the top 5 if the trends continue: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html#polls
In New Hampshire, polls after the first debate had her anywhere from 9% to 18%, but the two most recent polls covering the state have her sitting below 9% now, leaving her in a close tie for fourth place with Pete Buttigieg: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-6276.html#polls
In California, one of the states Harris does the strongest in, her previous highs of 23% following the first debates have slid down to 17% in the most recent poll to come out for that state, dropping her from 2nd place to 4th behind Sanders, Warren, and Biden: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ca/california_democratic_primary-6879.html#polls
(Other states dont have enough polling info from before the debate, immediately after the debate, and polls from the month of August to show any patterns)
While Harris is still definitely one of the top tier candidates with some decent odds of becoming the nominee compared to most of the field, the numbers clearly show that the advantage she gained following her first debate performance has effectively been lost a month later, leaving her back at square one and having to start over.
WARREN! WARREN!
-->
@RationalMadman
+1
The value must contain from 3 to 5000 characters
-->
@bsh1
I will probably be voting for Warren.
Please do. Imma register as a Dem just so I can vote her even tho I’m on the TrumpTrain
-->
@Greyparrot
Which State you in Dawg
-->
@ILikePie5
Warren's home state.. my vote does not matter.
-->
@ILikePie5
Imma register as a Dem just so I can vote her even tho I’m on the TrumpTrain
If you think she's the most beatable of the main democratic options, you're miscalculating.
-->
@bsh1
Trump already beat a pandering, condescending woman once. It's going to be a blowout as the Dems double down on vagina power.
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump already beat a pandering, condescending woman once. It's going to be a blowout as the Dems double down on vagina power.
This reads as sexist; I'd like to think you're better than that.
Besides, I don't think that Warren being a weak candidate is actually the case. Warren and Hillary are very different politicians, both ideological and personally. Drawing an equivalence then between them is difficult, if you are going to be intellectually honest about it. And frankly, Trump's position is so weak that he would struggle to get reelected against Marianne Williamson. No, I think that among the major Democrats, Trump would struggle least against Kamala Harris. Warren would probably win.
-->
@bsh1
If you think she's the most beatable of the main democratic options, you're miscalculating.
If Sanders wasn't running she might be though.
Biden's biggest faults are when he occasionally misspeaks and says something goofy, which given the current political situation we are in is pretty tolerable for now, and he benefits a lot from being Obama's VP by positioning himself as being a third term for Obama if he gets elected, which a lot of Dem voters would love to have at this point. Hell, people are willing to forgive his past statements about race and women and even the whole 'touching' thing just because of that, and there arent any glaring political stances of his people might take issue with since he has been fairly quiet on policy stances in the first place.
Harris hasn't had much of a national profile prior to this point, and she has shown herself to be passionate and articulate, though her numbers are now sliding as she drifts back towards being an unknown candidate.
Warren has the native ancestry thing, which to most people isnt a big deal, but the whole 'Massachusetts Ivy League liberal' thing has a BIG stigma to it that could be a big turnoff to voters who are very centrist and independent. (See Michael Dukakis in 1988 on this one). Conservatives would be quick to paint her as a far left socialist too, which to Dems isnt that big of a deal, but to Independent voters would be a sticking point since a vast majority of the country is not nearly as liberal as some candidates think it is.
I dont have many problems with any of those things myself but I do question her electability. Hers is the one I have the most concern for in a matchup against Trump second only to Bernie.
-->
@bsh1
This reads as sexist; I'd like to think you're better than that.Besides, I don't think that Warren being a weak candidate is actually the case. Warren and Hillary are very different politicians, both ideological and personally. Drawing an equivalence then between them is difficult, if you are going to be intellectually honest about it. And frankly, Trump's position is so weak that he would struggle to get reelected against Marianne Williamson. No, I think that among the major Democrats, Trump would struggle least against Kamala Harris. Warren would probably win.
The very idea that having a vagina is a qualification for leadership is about as bad as holding up a color chart to someone's skin to decide if that person can speak for you properly.
There is no denying at all that this primary is the most intersectional in the history of Dem primaries where value is added from immutable traits like genitalia and melanin. The most popular genitalia and melanin count will win.
-->
@Imabench
Obviously, Biden is a decent candidate, and would likely beat Trump, but he is not *especially* strong against Trump when compared to the top tier of the candidates right now. Indeed, it was the illusion that we needed to nominate someone "electable" in 2016 that led us to nominate someone who lost what should have been a slam-dunk race. Ideologically bland candidates are increasingly failing to motivate voters, partly due to increasing partisanship. Comparing this election to 1988 is thus a non-starter, because the dynamics are shifting in favor of bolder policy positions. In 1988, this country was far more powerful and prosperous (relative to the rest of the world) than it feels now, and so the dynamics favored candidates who would maintain the status quo (namely, ideologically bland candidates). As the sense that America is losing its footing accelerates, the dynamics are naturally shifting away from those kinds of politicians. As for Harris, this is not her moment. Her performance in the last debate demonstrated that while she has many talents, her attempt to be both moderate and liberal at the same time is untenable.
One downside of nominating electable candidates is that these candidates tend to generate far less enthusiasm, which depresses turnout and increases the likelihood of swing voters choosing their opponent. Obama was considered by most pundits less electable than Clinton, yet he won in a landslide. Clinton was considered more electable than Bernie, but she lost in a close race. In American politics, we too often assume that ideologically bland candidates will be the most electable, but in trying to pick someone that appeals to everyone, we pick someone who excites no one. In attempting to choose the most electable candidate, then, we may just wind up with someone who is unable to turn out voters at the rate necessary to flip key states.
-->
@Greyparrot
The very idea that having a vagina is a qualification for leadership is about as bad as holding up a color chart to someone's skin to decide if that person can speak for you properly.
How does this respond to anything I actually said?
-->
@bsh1
You reply too fast.
-->
@bsh1
I don't mind that Warren is another condescending elite snob like Hillary, but there's a chance, unlike Hillary that she could pivot out of that role after the primaries. YYW laid out the things Warren needs to change in her approach to win earlier in this thread.
-->
@Greyparrot
YYW laid out the things Warren needs to change in her approach to win earlier in this thread.
Most of Coal's "to-do" list is so generic that it applies to literally every candidate running in any Presidential race ever. Warren has, admirably, I think, been able to avoid the kind of condescending aura that surrounds Clinton because she is able to convey as genuine concern for the common man. Yes, she comes across as wonkish and erudite, both traits that could lead to labels of "snobbishness," but she frames her arguments in explicitly populist terms, which has helped her to elide that label so far. She has been relentlessly focused on policy--not on issues of, as Coal put it, "wokeness"--and I would agree with him that "wokeness" is not particularly strong ground for any Democrat approaching this general election. What Warren really needs to do is to continue to do exactly what she has been doing. If she does that, she stands an excellent shot at winning.
-->
@bsh1
It's not nearly as simple as that. Warren is a professor like Clinton. Her relatability is forced because she has been trained to pontificate all her life, and only now must she pretend to be one of the people.
People can see through the facade.
Hilarity Update: John Delaney campaign event only gets 11 visitors
If you think thats pathetic, it actually is way worse
"The night before, on Delaney’s Facebook page, just two people had said they would attend, and one of those was his campaign director."
John Delaney is basically the Jim Gilmore of the 2020 Dem field
-->
@Greyparrot
I think you are misjudging her. If she really was as inauthentic as Clinton, she wouldn't be surging in the polls. She has been remarkably able to translate her wonkishness into language which goes to the heart of everyday Americans' concerns, something which Clinton was never able to do.
-->
@bsh1
It's been a long time since a coastal elite held the office.
-->
@bsh1
Kerry, Hillary..Dukakis...No Coastal Elite has won since JFK (60 years ago)
That's 15 elections in a row...
-->
@bsh1
Also, Trump is far, far more masterful at playing the village idiot than Warren.
-->
@bsh1
If you think she's the most beatable of the main democratic options, you're miscalculating.
Lmao she’s a fraud and a socialist in terms of redistribution of wealth
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump is far, far more masterful at playing the village idiot
I think the word you're looking for is 'being'. 'Playing' implies that one is simply feigning being something else they otherwise are not, which i don't think applies here.
-->
@Imabench
Case in point. You're convinced. Think about the poor working man, it's a slam dunk that he doesn't come across as professorial to a flyover country voter.