Election 2020

[Art Vandelay]

You're finally starting to see the clear media bias

I can't argue against media bias

[Sour Masher]

Given how much has changed in terms of acceptance of LBGT, this poll surprises me. I guess a am around younger people too much, because I thought the numbers would be much more in favor of accepting a gay president. The fact that only 50% of people polled would even consider voting for a gay president, and 37% would never vote for one puts Mayor Pete is a very bad way. I don't imagine any other demographic would be so unfavorable to voters--at least they wouldn't admit to such a bias, I'd bet. Even more concerning is only 25% of people thought their neighbors would vote for a gay president and only 40% said the country would. So even for those voters who would hypothetically vote for a gay president, many of them still would not for fear of backing a losing candidate. It is 2019, but Mayor Pete may still have the toughest biases to overcome in this election. I'd love to see an honest poll asking about who would or would not vote for a Jew, Muslim, or Atheist, but I doubt we'd get honest answers on the first two.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...i6e?li=BBnb7Kz

[Sour Masher]

Interesting poll. Do you think the phrasing of the question of if the country "is ready for" vs "would you personally support" changes it?

One is analyzing others, the other is introspective. I'd guess that most people have no idea what the country would actually support.

Sure, but whether they know or not, their opinion, unfounded in facts though it may be, informs their decisions. Only 50% say "they are definitely or probably reader for a gay president." Heck, including the probably means at least some of the those respondents are not actually ready. However, since only 25% think their neighbor would, and only 40% think the country would, I think the total number of people who would vote for a gay president is less than 50%, because some of those who claim they would vote for a gay president may not, because they do not think such a candidate can win. Not because of them, mind you, they are woke, but others are not. It is the same argument my mother used against me marrying a black women, btw. She wasn't against it, but I had to think of the children and society and all that.

[Gregg]

Interesting poll. Do you think the phrasing of the question of if the country "is ready for" vs "would you personally support" changes it?

One is analyzing others, the other is introspective. I'd guess that most people have no idea what the country would actually support.

Absolutely, they are two different things entirely.

[nullnor]

the basset hound Fred was always in the newspaper. awesome dog, sure not sure if he was real or an invention of the mainstream media. but he got so much coverage it had to be basset hound bias.

[B-Fly]

Biden falls to fourth place in the latest Iowa Caucus poll, but it's really tight for the top 4.

Warren 22%, Sanders 19%, Buttigieg 18%, Biden 17%

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/us/politics/iowa-poll-warren-biden.html

[DMT]

A guy in my HS class is running Biden campaign in IA, apparently not very well.

[Gregg]

Biden falls to fourth place in the latest Iowa Caucus poll, but it's really tight for the top 4.

Warren 22%, Sanders 19%, Buttigieg 18%, Biden 17%

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/u...ren-biden.html

I am not being funny when asking these next two questions.

1) Is the tightness of these bad or good for the party? I would guess bad, maybe it doesn't matter this early.

2) Politically good for the country and not the party, would pre-election HRC, be better than today's Warren?

[Gregg]

A guy in my HS class is running Biden campaign in IA, apparently not very well.

You are in High School!!??

Kidding aside. That is pretty cool, did you like him?

My wife went to HS with Rod Blagojevich, didn't care for him said he was weird.

[DMT]

You are in High School!!??

Kidding aside. That is pretty cool, did you like him?

My wife went to HS with Rod Blagojevich, didn't care for him said he was weird.

Yes he was a nice guy, but I would've never guessed he'd make it that far. Actually the last time I saw him he sold me a hot dog in Wrigley Field in 2001!

[B-Fly]

I am not being funny when asking these next two questions.

1) Is the tightness of these bad or good for the party? I would guess bad, maybe it doesn't matter this early.

2) Politically good for the country and not the party, would pre-election HRC, be better than today's Warren?

1) I don't think it matters this early. The key is whether all of these candidates ultimately bow out gracefully when their path to the nomination becomes no longer viable, and lend enthusiastic support to the winner.

2) Better in what way and for whom? They are similar in that their are smart, experienced, wonky women in their 70s who sweat the policy details. But they are at close to opposite ends of the ideological spectrum of the Democratic Party in their policy platforms and instincts. So if you're a progressive, Warren is much better. If you're a centrist, you'd probably prefer Clinton. But ultimately Clinton also had far more accumulated negatives than Warren has, in terms of issues that caused voters, rightly or wrongly, to distrust her or question her character. I'd view the presidency of either of those women as vastly superior to what we've got today, but I'd take Warren over Clinton.

[Kevin Seitzer]

You are in High School!!??

Kidding aside. That is pretty cool, did you like him?

My wife went to HS with Rod Blagojevich, didn't care for him said he was weird.

My MIL went to high school with Mitch McConnell.

[Gregg]

Yes he was a nice guy, but I would've never guessed he'd make it that far. Actually the last time I saw him he sold me a hot dog in Wrigley Field in 2001!

The good story gets even better!

[Teenwolf]

I am not being funny when asking these next two questions.

1) Is the tightness of these bad or good for the party? I would guess bad, maybe it doesn't matter this early.

2) Politically good for the country and not the party, would pre-election HRC, be better than today's Warren?

The result of a tight race, where nobody accumulates more than 30% of the vote total, would be bad for unifying the Democratic party. Right now, there's a battle within the party between neoliberal corporatist types like Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, and Kamala Harris, and more "fundamental change" candidates like Warren, Sanders, Yang, and Gabbard. If nobody accumulates 50% of the vote on the first ballot at the convention, they attempt to find a unity ticket, that is 2 primary candidates forming a POTUS/VP ticket if those 2 hold more than 50% of the vote (or 50% of the awarded delegates, not sure, probably delegates). It's possible that we could see the 2 "progressives" unite on the first ballot if Sanders and Warren get over 50%. It's looking quite unlikely that 2 of the centrists could get 50% at this point, unless Biden does much better than his current trajectory, and Mayor Pete takes his small run from 5-7% and runs it up to 20%, but that's highly unlikely, in my mind, given his complete inability to appeal to black voters rendering him non-viable (though they could try to stick him with Biden and say that Biden absolves Buttigieg's weakness there).

However, if the Democrats cannot find a viable unity ticket, then voting would go to a 2nd round, wherein the dreaded superdelegates reappear to swing the primary to their choice. If the DNC uses the superdelegates to take the leadership from the leading vote-getter, that would be very bad for party unity. But that's just one narrow outcome of many. I believe Warren and Sanders would unite if they're able to, as it would avoid the appearance of rigging.

[Ken]

My MIL went to high school with Mitch McConnell.

Military intelligence liaison