Bernie Sanders is leading in the polls.
And you know Harper’s is a liberal leaning magazine right? Did they say anything untrue? Is there some other reason to dismiss the points it makes?
a lot of people seem to have some kinds of purity tests for candidates . They won’t vote for somebody who only meets 95% of what they support. So I suppose 20 people running might be needed since they are going to mark 18 of them off their list right off the bat.
What does this even mean?
You can only vote for one person. So you whittle down the field however you see fit till you come up with the one you like the best (or dislike the least as the case may be).
If candidate A meets 95% of what I like and candidate B meets 96% then I am voting for candidate B. Why wouldn’t I?
But a guy who only meets 80% of your list may actually be the best chance to win in the general election.
Yeah, I’m not understanding the people who say “So-and-so doesn’t support X or Y. He/she is dead to me.”
Purity tests on issues shouldn’t be a thing for 2020. It should be who can win the fucking electoral college. If a candidate coming out against Issue X will play well in PA, MI, WI and OH, even if I support Issue X with all my heart and soul, I’m going to gladly overlook our difference in opinion.
At this point, I want Trump/the GOP *out *more than I want any specific policy or legislative change.
But at this point, there’s no way of knowing who might be the best chance to win the general election. Polls are almost entirely reflective of name recognition. By this time next year, they might be worth taking into consideration. But right now, people talking about “electability” are just projecting their own biases onto the electorate.
The election is 20 months away. This is not the time to try to play 12 dimensional chess. Pick the candidate or candidates YOU like, and be prepared to re-evaluate as the field thins and more reliable polls become available.
Am I confusing you with someone else? Didn’t you say in a recent thread that you were completely committed to supporting Sherrod Brown? That would imply that the other 19+ candidates are “dead to you”, would it not?
You are clearly unfamiliar with SDMB groupthink. Only moderates evaluate candidates based on their policies and records. Progressives just mindlessly apply “purity tests”.
Good for Bernie for leading one particular poll of New Hampshire voters, but it is clearly Biden who is leading in “the polls” at this point.
I don’t understand all this kvetching about which is the preferred candidate. I mean, I get it to a point: We all have our favorites whom we hope will win in the primaries.
I’m fond of Brown, Biden, Harris, Inslee – any and all would make fine presidents with sufficient experience, intelligence and background to start putting things right should they prevail.
But honestly? There are things my dog has left behind in the yard that I would vote for over Trump. There are creatures living under slimy primordial mud somewhere in Wyoming who would have my vote over him.
In the end, I don’t care who is the Democratic nominee in the general election. They will have my vote. Quarreling over who is marginally more qualified than another simply provides foreign actors with more fodder for exploitation. And believe me; they will continue to use it.
I certainly wouldn’t read it that way.
One can state that they are completely committed to … pick any of 'em but the one who leads with that right now might be Sanders … and also say that will 100% support whoever wins the nomination and have others they would 100% support next if that 100% committed to candidate drops out.
Sanders may be pretty much the bottom of my list but if he becomes the nominee he will have my support against Trump and today’s GOP 100%.
Other candidates are “dead to me” is whole nuther thing than having a choice you are completely behind.
Polls of the general public or even of Iowa and NH are indeed poor measures this early on. That doesn’t mean that discussions based more on what often gets called “the fundamentals” are impossible.
One can have strong opinions, even data-based ones, on what sort of candidate would be mostly likely to win the nomination, what their path to the nomination might be, and who could best win the general and why, even now. One can best agree or disagree with positions and track records or lacks of such, even now. Circumstances may change but hell that can happen the day before an election.
-
Other polls have shown Biden leading
-
Yeah, so? The dems attacked each other plenty last election. If Harpers loved Bernie or Harris, of course they attack Biden.
Yeah, he’s my guy, but no one’s dead to me if they can win MI, PA and WI.
I’m responding to people who say “So-and-so doesn’t support X” or “So-and-so said this” or “So-and-so says they support X,” followed up by something to the effect of “They’re dead to me.”
Supporting someone is absolutely not the same as actively writing someone off because of disagreements on an issue or two.
Oh, that’s an easy one. Creatures living under slimy primordial mud in Wyoming have revolutionized modern science, and are responsible for at least one Nobel Prize.
And even if Tulsi Gabbard were to (somehow) win the nomination, I’d still hold my nose and vote for her in the general. But we’re not in the general election right now; we have to get through the primaries first, and so of course we’re going to be using various criteria to form preferences between the candidates.
some of the people running now may not even be running when votes are cast. That happens every time - a guy can’t raise money so they quit before a single vote is cast.
Well, that was me that said that, and I already explained it once. I’m not sure how you convince yourself that there’s a difference between supporting one candidate and not supporting any of the other candidates, but whatever.
<sigh…> I know. It is just distressing to see bickering over what are essentially insignificant differences. I guess it triggers in me that same sense of hopeless futility I felt while watching Bernie’s supporters hate on Hillary so much in 2016, when their voting records in the Senate were virtually indistinguishable. The Russians exploited that schism with great glee and to great effect.
Like you, if either Tulsi Gabbard or Bernie Sanders is the nominee, I’d vote for them over Trump, without hesitation. I do understand that people have strong preferences in the primaries. I have them, too. But in the end, getting Trump out is the top priority. By a thousand miles.
I’m not sure how you convince yourself that saying “So-and-so is dead to me because he doesn’t support Medicare for all” is the same as saying “my favorite is So-and-so,” but whatever.
Cosigned.
LOVE both of these posts. I am so glad to see people on this board who understand this fundamental truth of American politics. (My son doesn’t understand it at all; we have had to stop talking about politics because he is such an extreme purity troll, essentially.)