Comments

2

You’re right... gotta vote for the candidate that the Purity Progressives want. Gotta make a statement. Who cares about actually, you know, winning.

Purity Progressives are once again ready to cut off their nose to spite their face. Well done, idiots.

3

Like you said, it is still ridiculously early. Right now most voters are basing their choice on name familiarity, and nothing more. This means politicians known nationally, along with a handful of people who, for whatever reason, seems to have excited a subset of the Democratic base. The fact that the Vice President and the person who came in second in the last primary are the two leaders when it comes having the best chance to win should be no surprise. Put it this way, if Biden was President for 8 years, then Obama would be the favorite by a long shot. It is telling that there are no governors on that list, even though they are obviously more qualified than half the people there (and more electable).

That being said, some of the people who are popular would also be tough to elect. It isn't that we can't elect someone of color or a woman (we did, and we came awfully fucking close) but it is harder. Obama was elected during the start of a depression, and he was an ideal candidate for a lot of whites. He was a centrist (his policies would have been considered mainstream Republican just a few years ago). The only parental figure he ever knew well was white, and he spent much of his time talking about his white grandparents (from Kansas, no less). He is a lot different than, say, Jesse Jackson (who is far more progressive, and a civil rights leader).

Most of the candidates on that list are weak. Warren, Sanders and Biden all stand a chance, but they are all old. O'Rourke hasn't done shit, and lost his last race to one of the most unpleasant people on the planet. Yang and Buttigieg are unqualified. Of all the people listed, Klobuchar probably has the best chance. She is from a swing state, unlike most of the people up there. The governors running (who I believe are all white men) have a good chance as well. Julian Castro is stronger than all of them.

4

There are two people to support in this election if you want policy change. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. The rest are more of the same 3rd Way corporate Democrats that we've been subject to for decades. Want to make sure Wall Street and the oil industry come first? Want another Trump in 2020 or 2024? Then support a corporate Democrat! There are plenty to choose from. We've got them in all shapes sizes, genders, sexual orientations and colors.

5

@2 yeah, for sure we want "purity" like actually doing something about climate change and record level inequality, moron.

6

"There are two people to support in this election if you want policy change. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. "

Total bullshit. It is damn near impossible to determine who will bring about change. Remember the last Democrat we elected. He fucking ran on "Hope and Change". Things changed, a little, but not necessarily as much as if we had elected someone like Hillary Clinton. Her policies as Senator where to the left of Omama's, and she had more experience. You just can't assume that a President Sanders or Warren will actually get shit done. Omama left office with a shitload of things he wanted to accomplish, but couldn't. Meanwhile, it took a guy considered to be anti-liberal to actually pass the greatest set of progressive laws since the New Deal (the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act and the Great Society programs). The point is, you really can't tell what someone will be able to accomplish. It takes more than a platform. It takes political skill, the cooperation of Congress and luck. It is impossible to tell who will actually deliver that. The best we can do is elect the candidate with the best chance of winning and hope for the best.

7

@6 Hillary for change! And I'm full of bullshit? Lol. I can't keep you from sticking your head in the sand, I can only hope you suffocate.

8

The old “You gotta be a white guy to beat a white guy” strategy.

Solid. Solid. Let’s just paint Kamala up in some white face and paste a beard on her. Then, when she wins in a landslide victory she can peel the disguise off and teach America a lesson about how it’s whats on the inside that really counts... Wait...that’s not the lesson anymore? What’s on the inside DOESNT matter? Ok. Just go with a real white guy then cuz ain’t no way in hell America would ever elect someone who’s black.

Shit. That’s not right either.

Hmmmm. Just spitballing here, but how about we try and elect someone with good ideas and policies that don’t cost 10 times out GDP?

9

We haven’t had a white male democratic presidential candidate since 2004. Can we please find a modicum of perspective before hyperventilating about the oppressively white male make up of the current slate of candidates?

10

Typically the best candidate is not necessarily the one decorated with popular gender, age, and color adjectives.

11

@10 Lol, perhaps on the right. But that's because nobody but a white dude could win their nomination. Here's an idea, race, gender, and age do matter and the only ones delusional enough to pretend they don't are conservative asswipes like yourself. Sometimes people who feel like their demographics haven't been represented want to be represented. It's only people who are already overwhelmingly represented who don't think representation matters.

Now, onto the "purity" test. That attack always seems to be against the people who don't support your centrist candidate and never reflect the idea that you might be the purist. As stated previously, Obama failed the purity test when it came to Hillart voters in 2008 who switched to vote R in the general almost triple historical averages. I honestly wonder what would have happened had Bernie won in 2016. I'm assuming he would have failed the purity test of all those middle class, older white women who wanted their gender and race represented in the White House and, instead of arguing how Sanders supporters switched (despite the level of those switches being the average for any presidential election), would we have proposed that the Hillary supporters were at fault because 30+% ender up voting Trump out of spite?

12

@11.Good job. Thats the same argument a white supremacist would make.

13

@12 Thanks, obviously alt-right troll. Keep on living in your imaginary land of zero context.

14

@6 One can't tell who is going to be able to implement change (also depends on legislative branch) but we certainly can tell who wants to implement change and unless forced by us will never implement change.

15

@1, Tulsi is also a woman of color, so there are two running.

16

Given Trump, 2020 may not be the year that progressives would like it to be. The focus is beating Trump.

Nate Silver: How Joe Biden Could Win The 2020 Democratic Primary
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-joe-biden-could-win-the-2020-democratic-nomination/

17

FUCK THAT SHIT.

Women and POC shouldn't be elected just because they are women and POC. How about thinking how the Executive branch interacts with the Legislative and Judicial branches? Wouldn't that be a good idea for a change?

18

Or maybe I'm voting for Biden because he isn't waaaaaaay the fuck out there on the left.

I'm not voting for a candidate who professes that free college education for anyone and everyone is a good idea. It's not. It's the trickle-down economics of the left.

If there's a woman or a minority running who isn't pandering to the far left, let me know.

Side note, the worst thing to happen to women and minorities in recent memory is Hillary Clinton.

If it's the difference between a woman having access to an abortion she needs or not, I will take a white guy over the hallow victory of nominating a woman or minority who loses.

We can not choose "first woman president" over women's rights.

19

@4: What if I don't want policy change and I just want to stack the federal bench with decent judges?

20

@1 GermanSausage: I agree.
Wm. Steven Humphrey, this chart looks like something made up---and touched up----by a MAGA cap wearing rally boy for Joey Gibson and / or Matt Shea.
@16: Your comment makes we want to beat Trumpty Dumpty---with a blunt object really, really hard.

21

The election is over a year and a half away, Biden is going to have plenty of time to gaffe his way out of the nomination, don't worry.

Eventually he is going to be on a stage with a preteen girl or two and is going to sniff or grope them way too obviously, or he is going to say something that he is unable to understand is really racist/sexist.

It is basically inevitable.

22

@1
@15

Beige is a color too, you asswipes.

Besides, Liz is 0.00000000000014% "Native" American.
True, under the 'one drop' rule she wouldn't qualify because she actually only has a couple of molecules of "Native" blood but, still, if it was good enough for Yale it should be good enough for you losers.

23

@22: Left or Right, everyone has to admit that Warren's hilariously inept and racist handling of her past dishonesty about her heritage was fucking hysterical.

The cherry being that her DNA test proved she was far "whiter" than the average American, something that surprised literally nobody.

24

Crooked Donald is a "person co color," orange...

25

I think that after Clinton we need to be very careful about electing sex addicts.

26

@23 there is no evidence that Warren's story of her upbringing is false or that she is lying, which suggests that you are a mud-slinging moron like other rightwingers who wallow in shitty tabloid stories from 20--30 years ago.

27

Warren rocks the news with her progressive policy proposals on a weekly basis

Rightwing morons triggered by smart powerful women: "blood ... Pocahonta ..vomit"

28

@26 you gotta admit it was pretty funny when Warren thought 1/1024 Native American counted as being Native American. She should've taken a DNA test years ago and came out to correct her story.

29

@28 tabloid media (which includes Fox) regurgitating the same stupid story for decades to incite misogyny and racism is not funny at all.

30

26 27 29

go outside and play with the dog for god's sake....

31

I hope "anon1256" makes a dozen more posts on this topic, I am dying of laughter.

33

Prior to being vp biden was known for putting his foot in his mouth. He mostly avoided that problem for his tenure as second fiddle but the longer the spotlight is on him the more likely it is he will return to form. The only person who competes with biden for his mastery of the unforced error is hillary clinton.

34

@33 -- Good point. It is very common for Democrats to second guess themselves. Given the last race was so close, and one of the many reasons that Trump was elected was because Hillary Clinton had the audacity to be female, it is reasonable to assume that it would have been better to nominate someone like "Uncle Joe". He isn't a socialist secular Jew from Brooklyn, like Bernie. He is just a nice, grandfatherly dude from Delaware.

But that argument is full of holes. First of all, Clinton was a horribly weak candidate. She was hated by both the left and the right, and disliked by the apolitical. Her being female hurt her candidacy, but her simply being irritating hurt her more. Then there was the emails. She would be President right now if not for the fucking report about the emails.

Biden has similar baggage. There are so many things that he has done, and so many big mistakes that he has made that he is a bad candidate. He is also old, and comes off less as a charming, folksy guy, and more like a creepy old dude. I realize Trump is even creepier, but America tends to go with the creep they like once a guy is in office. Biden can win, but he is still a very weak candidate.

Someone like Hickenlooper is much stronger. He is ten years younger, and has none of the baggage. He is not the strongest candidate, but he is much stronger. Not because he is a white guy, but because he doesn't come as a radical, and has very little baggage.

There has been a very strong trend over the last forty years towards electing candidates with less experience. Lack of baggage is more important than lack of experience. Ideally you get someone with very little baggage, but enough experience to actually accomplish something.

35

Can we pleeaase make Uncle "Handsy" Joe's campaign slogan be:

GET BEHIND BIDEN! 20/20

36

“...a clearly qualified woman (Hi, Elizabeth) or person of color (Hi, Kamala)...”

Wow! So Kamala isn’t “qualified”???... Ouch! That’s harsh.

And... Elizabeth, the only Native American In the race, isn’t a “person of color”???... That’s not very woke of you.


Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.