2020 Democrats

[TwitchySeal]

I think this is a pretty big issue for a good deal of voting groups, and I think it's fair to say that conservative / religious groups are one of those groups of people.

But at the end of the day I think the best thing to look at is the polls here - https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/30/pete-buttigieg-gay-president-poll-061350

A lot of people will at a conscious level think, "I'm tolerant, I'd definitely vote for a gay president," but subconsciously they'll be a little uncomfortable with it, and if they're not sure who to vote for, this'll tip the scales. This subconscious effect is best captured in neighbor polling, where "your neighbors" IMO ends up being a proxy for "your community's collective subconscious":

That gap grew even wider when voters were asked whether they thought their neighbors were ready for a gay president. About a quarter of respondents answered affirmatively, while 46 percent said their neighbors were either definitely or probably not ready for a gay president. Pluralities of both Democrats and Republicans, as well as independents, all said they did not believe that their neighbors were ready for a gay president.

This might bode poorly for him in a general election, though I doubt that a lot of people are wavering on whether to vote for Trump or not -- most people either love him or hate him --, and the LGBT thing is an effect which pushes most people only slightly. Also, any negative effect will be counterbalanced to some extent by some LGBT people being actively driven to vote for him.
....

If all that was true, how did Hillary run at all? By avoiding this delicate issue?

She filed with the FEC?

Well that does solve the riddle.

Is 'how did she even run at all' something people are saying?

I'm usually pretty good at keeping up with right wing conspiracy theories but haven't heard this one.

Or are you just implying the lesbian tabloid rumors should've stopped her from getting the nomination.

[1713424257]

1713424257

[1713424257]

1713424257

[Spendulus]

I think this is a pretty big issue for a good deal of voting groups, and I think it's fair to say that conservative / religious groups are one of those groups of people.

But at the end of the day I think the best thing to look at is the polls here - https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/30/pete-buttigieg-gay-president-poll-061350

A lot of people will at a conscious level think, "I'm tolerant, I'd definitely vote for a gay president," but subconsciously they'll be a little uncomfortable with it, and if they're not sure who to vote for, this'll tip the scales. This subconscious effect is best captured in neighbor polling, where "your neighbors" IMO ends up being a proxy for "your community's collective subconscious":

That gap grew even wider when voters were asked whether they thought their neighbors were ready for a gay president. About a quarter of respondents answered affirmatively, while 46 percent said their neighbors were either definitely or probably not ready for a gay president. Pluralities of both Democrats and Republicans, as well as independents, all said they did not believe that their neighbors were ready for a gay president.

This might bode poorly for him in a general election, though I doubt that a lot of people are wavering on whether to vote for Trump or not -- most people either love him or hate him --, and the LGBT thing is an effect which pushes most people only slightly. Also, any negative effect will be counterbalanced to some extent by some LGBT people being actively driven to vote for him.
....

If all that was true, how did Hillary run at all? By avoiding this delicate issue?

She filed with the FEC?

Well that does solve the riddle.

Is 'how did she even run at all' something people are saying?

I'm usually pretty good at keeping up with right wing conspiracy theories but haven't heard this one.

Or are you just implying the lesbian tabloid rumors should've stopped her from getting the nomination.

Hillary has long been known to have such interests and it did seem to be an issue in her presidency attempt.

Maybe it's one of those things that will only be an issue if it's a Repub candidate. Or if it's the "wrong" Demo candidate, and of course Buttigieg is the "wrong candidate."

[TwitchySeal]

I think this is a pretty big issue for a good deal of voting groups, and I think it's fair to say that conservative / religious groups are one of those groups of people.

But at the end of the day I think the best thing to look at is the polls here - https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/30/pete-buttigieg-gay-president-poll-061350

A lot of people will at a conscious level think, "I'm tolerant, I'd definitely vote for a gay president," but subconsciously they'll be a little uncomfortable with it, and if they're not sure who to vote for, this'll tip the scales. This subconscious effect is best captured in neighbor polling, where "your neighbors" IMO ends up being a proxy for "your community's collective subconscious":

That gap grew even wider when voters were asked whether they thought their neighbors were ready for a gay president. About a quarter of respondents answered affirmatively, while 46 percent said their neighbors were either definitely or probably not ready for a gay president. Pluralities of both Democrats and Republicans, as well as independents, all said they did not believe that their neighbors were ready for a gay president.

This might bode poorly for him in a general election, though I doubt that a lot of people are wavering on whether to vote for Trump or not -- most people either love him or hate him --, and the LGBT thing is an effect which pushes most people only slightly. Also, any negative effect will be counterbalanced to some extent by some LGBT people being actively driven to vote for him.
....

If all that was true, how did Hillary run at all? By avoiding this delicate issue?

She filed with the FEC?

Well that does solve the riddle.

Is 'how did she even run at all' something people are saying?

I'm usually pretty good at keeping up with right wing conspiracy theories but haven't heard this one.

Or are you just implying the lesbian tabloid rumors should've stopped her from getting the nomination.

Hillary has long been known to have such interests and it did seem to be an issue in her presidency attempt.

Maybe it's one of those things that will only be an issue if it's a Repub candidate. Or if it's the "wrong" Demo candidate, and of course Buttigieg is the "wrong candidate."

I think the main difference is that Pete is an openly gay man, married to another man.  Hillary is an openly straight woman, married to a man.

[Spendulus]

....
I think the main difference is that Pete is an openly gay man, married to another man.  Hillary is an openly straight woman, married to a man.

Naw...

He's just not the Chosen One. You and all your Dem friends are getting signals from the fat guys in the back room as usual. Subtle signals, about who you should choose. Just obey, don't question.

Or question, but within the allowed confines.

[TwitchySeal]

....
I think the main difference is that Pete is an openly gay man, married to another man.  Hillary is an openly straight woman, married to a man.

Naw...

He's just not the Chosen One. You and all your Dem friends are getting signals from the fat guys in the back room as usual. Subtle signals, about who you should choose. Just obey, don't question.

Or question, but within the allowed confines.

What should I question?  Pete is openly gay, or Hillary is not openly gay.  That's what we're talking about right?

[TECSHARE]

....
I think the main difference is that Pete is an openly gay man, married to another man.  Hillary is an openly straight woman, married to a man.

Naw...

He's just not the Chosen One. You and all your Dem friends are getting signals from the fat guys in the back room as usual. Subtle signals, about who you should choose. Just obey, don't question.

Or question, but within the allowed confines.

What should I question?  Pete is openly gay, or Hillary is not openly gay.  That's what we're talking about right?

No, that is what you are talking about. It amazes me how bigoted people trying to virtue signal are. They run around wagging their fingers at everyone when they are the biggest racist/sexists/homphphobe/etc in the room. I suppose it is an effective technique to distract from that fact.

[TwitchySeal]

....
I think the main difference is that Pete is an openly gay man, married to another man.  Hillary is an openly straight woman, married to a man.

Naw...

He's just not the Chosen One. You and all your Dem friends are getting signals from the fat guys in the back room as usual. Subtle signals, about who you should choose. Just obey, don't question.

Or question, but within the allowed confines.

What should I question?  Pete is openly gay, or Hillary is not openly gay.  That's what we're talking about right?

No, that is what you are talking about. It amazes me how bigoted people trying to virtue signal are. They run around wagging their fingers at everyone when they are the biggest racist/sexists/homphphobe/etc in the room. I suppose it is an effective technique to distract from that fact.

Tecshare,

Do you consider me, or anyone else who has posted in this thread,  more of a bigot than David Duke.

[Spendulus]

....
I think the main difference is that Pete is an openly gay man, married to another man.  Hillary is an openly straight woman, married to a man.

Naw...

He's just not the Chosen One. You and all your Dem friends are getting signals from the fat guys in the back room as usual. Subtle signals, about who you should choose. Just obey, don't question.

Or question, but within the allowed confines.

What should I question?  Pete is openly gay, or Hillary is not openly gay.  That's what we're talking about right?

Nope. What you should question is within the allowed confines of what you know you are allowed to question. It's all about who your chosen candidate is.

Did you think you were going to choose a candidate? That's not the way your political party works.

Let me explain. Biden has been picked for you. Now the whisper campaign about Pete must be contributed to.

Hillary has been picked for you. Her rug licking will be ignored 100%. That is not one of your subjects of conversation.

Is it starting to make sense?

[KingScorpio]

i like kamala harris, the most, but i don't think democrats will win, democrats have made america hedonistic and unsustainable, they are now for greed reasons hate russia.


joe biden is the biggest trash american's can vote for, he is just a career politician, claims he is fighting racist injustice but defacto thinks "after me the flood" and just turns race relation upside down, instead of seeking to boost equity.

trump is unknowingly the most communist candidate.

biden represents whats wrong with democracy

[squatz1]

joe biden is the biggest trash american's can vote for, he is just a career politician, claims he is fighting racist injustice but defacto thinks "after me the flood" and just turns race relation upside down, instead of seeking to boost equity.

trump is unknowingly the most communist candidate.

biden represents whats wrong with democracy

Me and some friends have described Biden as the candidate that the Democrats who vote Democrat down the line will vote for. The people who don't really know too much about politicans, haven't really kept up, but are voting for the name that is most familiar. Most of the time, that name is going to be Biden.

I really wanna see how Pete does in Iowa, could determine if THE BIG MO can drag him onwards. Pretty sure he literally put all of his resources there.

[nutildah]

Me and some friends have described Biden as the candidate that the Democrats who vote Democrat down the line will vote for. The people who don't really know too much about politicans, haven't really kept up, but are voting for the name that is most familiar. Most of the time, that name is going to be Biden.

I really wanna see how Pete does in Iowa, could determine if THE BIG MO can drag him onwards. Pretty sure he literally put all of his resources there.

Its not a bad strategy, as Iowa certainly is important here, however I see zero chance of him winning the dem primary. Maybe 8 years down the line...

Honestly I didn't care for Biden at all until this whole Ukraine / Hunter Biden / Burisma thing surfaced. It came to light just how hard Trump was attacking Biden, and now I feel its our (anybody who doesn't like Trump) duty to rally behind Biden. Despite some people's assertions that Ukraine spelled the end of Biden's legacy, he's doing quite well in the polls, having his biggest lead over the next candidate since mid September.



Still, anything can happen during the debates. If Bernie pulls ahead of him I won't be upset, or surprised. If Warren or anybody else pulls ahead, I will be surprised, and somewhat disappointed.

[Astargath]

Me and some friends have described Biden as the candidate that the Democrats who vote Democrat down the line will vote for. The people who don't really know too much about politicans, haven't really kept up, but are voting for the name that is most familiar. Most of the time, that name is going to be Biden.

I really wanna see how Pete does in Iowa, could determine if THE BIG MO can drag him onwards. Pretty sure he literally put all of his resources there.

Its not a bad strategy, as Iowa certainly is important here, however I see zero chance of him winning the dem primary. Maybe 8 years down the line...

Honestly I didn't care for Biden at all until this whole Ukraine / Hunter Biden / Burisma thing surfaced. It came to light just how hard Trump was attacking Biden, and now I feel its our (anybody who doesn't like Trump) duty to rally behind Biden. Despite some people's assertions that Ukraine spelled the end of Biden's legacy, he's doing quite well in the polls, having his biggest lead over the next candidate since mid September.



Still, anything can happen during the debates. If Bernie pulls ahead of him I won't be upset, or surprised. If Warren or anybody else pulls ahead, I will be surprised, and somewhat disappointed.

Trump wins in Iowa LUL

[Gyfts]

Debate breakdown


Joe Biden - Good ol' Joe. Didn't have an amazing night but didn't say anything controversial enough for anyone to talk about it. Sleepy old Joe still holds true. There were a few moments where he raised his voice to try and wake people up but fell flat. Still think he will continue to be the front runner and don't think any other candidates were compelling enough to take away his voters. Not too many attacks launched on Biden tonight either.

Bernie Sanders - Had a decent night but same as Joe, I don't think he gained too much traction and will remain steady in the polls. Few exchanges with Joe trying to take away his voters but I highly doubt any Biden voters are going to change camps. His best bet is to attack Elizabeth Warren but he has refused to do so and at some point he's going to have no other choice. Without Warren's voters, Sanders does not have the edge over Biden.

Elizabeth Warren - Had a miserable night and completely got pummeled in her nonsensical answers. Likewise, didn't attack Bernie Sanders so she's staying in 3rd place and I don't see her overtaking Bernie. Two months ago Warren was competitive with Biden and had overtaken Bernie. When Sanders had his heart surgery I never imagined he'd overtake Warren again but considering Warren's campaign imploded on itself within the last 2 months, I don't think she'll gain in the polls after tonight. Warren seems dishonest about her leftist policies while Bernie, on the surface level, seems more genuine. I don't see any reason why a progressive would support Warren over Bernie other than the fact she's a women.

Pete Buttigieg - Probably the winner of the debate. He had solid answers to most questions but most importantly clapped back at Elizabeth Warren for these arbitrary gate keeping fund raising standards. She tried to attack Pete over holding private fundraisers as if political campaigns aren't expensive. On that note, what does Warren gain from the exchange? Are there Buttigieg voters that are actually going to switch from Pete's camp to hers just because Warren called him out on selling 900$ per bottle wine to donors?

Yang - Voice of reason on impeachment was his highlight. No sense that Democrats should be so hyper focused on impeachment because it's likely going to backfire with independents.

Amy Klobachar - Dying in the polls and her campaign is going to end soon.

Tom Steyer - Dying in the polls and his campaign is going to end soon.

[Flying Hellfish]

Me and some friends have described Biden as the candidate that the Democrats who vote Democrat down the line will vote for. The people who don't really know too much about politicans, haven't really kept up, but are voting for the name that is most familiar. Most of the time, that name is going to be Biden.

I really wanna see how Pete does in Iowa, could determine if THE BIG MO can drag him onwards. Pretty sure he literally put all of his resources there.

Its not a bad strategy, as Iowa certainly is important here, however I see zero chance of him winning the dem primary. Maybe 8 years down the line...

Honestly I didn't care for Biden at all until this whole Ukraine / Hunter Biden / Burisma thing surfaced. It came to light just how hard Trump was attacking Biden, and now I feel its our (anybody who doesn't like Trump) duty to rally behind Biden. Despite some people's assertions that Ukraine spelled the end of Biden's legacy, he's doing quite well in the polls, having his biggest lead over the next candidate since mid September.



Still, anything can happen during the debates. If Bernie pulls ahead of him I won't be upset, or surprised. If Warren or anybody else pulls ahead, I will be surprised, and somewhat disappointed.

IA's momentum building is real but it's predictive power for eventual nominee isn't really that strong.  Ask Bill Clinton (who lost it) or Cruz (who won it over Trump).

Pete to me is a lot more like Cruz winning IA than Obama just because Cruz was the establishment guy (besides good old Jeb) running against the Populist Trump.  The dem base doesn't want Pete I don't think he has any chance of winning the nom.  He got hammered in the last few weeks and at the debate and he has been shown to be the biggest newest flip flopper of them all.  Once the MSM and the other noms turned to pete his polls are trending back down.  I think at this point he is going to under preform in IA and Bernie is going to over preform the polls and win IA.

[btcusury]

This isn't mean to sound rude or anything along those lines, but I don't think that the country is ready yet to elect a gay person.

That already happened in 2008 with Obama, who is thoroughly gay (although not officially).

That sounds like something people who don't like Obama made up, which is pretty messed up on multiple levels.  It's pretty accepted among historians that James Buchanan was gay though.  That was before the civil war though, so doesn't really change what squatz said.

Sure it sounds like that, but that says nothing about whether it's true or not. There is a lot of evidence showing Obama is gay and not even into women (many of the other puppet/easily-controlled politicians are perverts who are into both genders and sometimes children too). Consider for example the fascinating account of Larry Sinclair (who seemed to have nothing to gain other than getting killed) about Obama: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QK0eGp3N6A

I stand corrected though about James Buchanan.

i like kamala harris, the most, but i don't think democrats will win, democrats have made america hedonistic and unsustainable, they are now for greed reasons hate russia.


joe biden is the biggest trash american's can vote for, he is just a career politician, claims he is fighting racist injustice but defacto thinks "after me the flood" and just turns race relation upside down, instead of seeking to boost equity.

trump is unknowingly the most communist candidate.

biden represents whats wrong with democracy

Wait, wat? You like Kamala Harris the most and you think Trump rather than Bernie is the most communistic candidate?? What MSM outlet have you been paying attention to, The Harris Post?

Did you see Tulsi Gabbard obliterating psycho Kamala in 3 minutes?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1-CRrMDSLs

Let me explain. Biden has been picked for you. Now the whisper campaign about Pete must be contributed to.

Hillary has been picked for you. Her rug licking will be ignored 100%. That is not one of your subjects of conversation.

Is it starting to make sense?

But they know Biden has about 0 chance of beating Trump. The guy mumbles malarkey, he doesn't even make any sense much of the time, he's geriatric. Hillary may have atrocious health to the point of traveling around in a disguised ambulance, but she is able to remain coherent. She is their only hope.

Honestly I didn't care for Biden at all until this whole Ukraine / Hunter Biden / Burisma thing surfaced. It came to light just how hard Trump was attacking Biden, and now I feel its our (anybody who doesn't like Trump) duty to rally behind Biden. Despite some people's assertions that Ukraine spelled the end of Biden's legacy, he's doing quite well in the polls, having his biggest lead over the next candidate since mid September.

That's quite insane, to think it's your duty to rally behind some super-weak candidate because Trump pointed out corruption by the Bidens and Obama (which others including myself had been pointing out well before Trump ever did anything) and the same folks who incessantly drilled into your mind the Russian collusion hoax for over two years now shifted from one country to the next, continuing to project and accuse others of what they themselves are doing. I bet you still believe there was some kind of unclear "Russian collusion", and that they have lots of solid evidence to impeach Trump. 

[nutildah]

That's quite insane, to think it's your duty to rally behind some super-weak candidate because Trump pointed out corruption by the Bidens and Obama (which others including myself had been pointing out well before Trump ever did anything) and the same folks who incessantly drilled into your mind the Russian collusion hoax for over two years now shifted from one country to the next, continuing to project and accuse others of what they themselves are doing.

Trump didn't point out anything. He just says anything that comes into his mind that he thinks will sound good to his supporters. His claims are based on zero evidence. I think a beach ball could beat Trump for president. Since that beach ball is named Joe Biden, I will be supporting him.

I bet you still believe there was some kind of unclear "Russian collusion", and that they have lots of solid evidence to impeach Trump. 

They did have solid evidence to impeach Trump. He's been impeached.

[ubercool]

Lots of Bernie supporters on the forum ha..!!
If given proper support then Pete had a great chance of fighting. He's witty and knows what should be done.

[Gyfts]

Looks like Julian Castro officially ended his 2020 Presidential campaign. Of course, everyone knew this was coming and it seems clear Castro only held his campaign up to see if he could secure a Vice Presidential spot or cabinet position in the Democratic nominee's administration. He was polling at less than one percent throughout his campaign so I can't imagine many people will be disappointed. - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/us/politics/julian-castro-dropping-out.html



Also, our favorite candidate Marianne Williamson is close to ending her campaign as she has now laid off her entire campaign staff nationally. - https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2020-white-house-hopeful-williamson-lets-go-of-entire-campaign-staff

Was really rooting for Marianne 2020. I can't tell you all how disappointed I am.


Also to add, betting odds currently reflect that Andrew Yang is ahead  of Amy Klobuchar winning the nominee which is interesting considering Klobuchar is an established US senator with political experience where as Yang came out of thin air shooting himself to the national stage. Yang hit is Q4 fund raising goal and is picking up a bit of momentum it seems like but it's not being shown in the polling averages.

[squatz1]

Looks like Julian Castro officially ended his 2020 Presidential campaign. Of course, everyone knew this was coming and it seems clear Castro only held his campaign up to see if he could secure a Vice Presidential spot or cabinet position in the Democratic nominee's administration. He was polling at less than one percent throughout his campaign so I can't imagine many people will be disappointed. - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/us/politics/julian-castro-dropping-out.html



Also, our favorite candidate Marianne Williamson is close to ending her campaign as she has now laid off her entire campaign staff nationally. - https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2020-white-house-hopeful-williamson-lets-go-of-entire-campaign-staff

Was really rooting for Marianne 2020. I can't tell you all how disappointed I am.


Also to add, betting odds currently reflect that Andrew Yang is ahead  of Amy Klobuchar winning the nominee which is interesting considering Klobuchar is an established US senator with political experience where as Yang came out of thin air shooting himself to the national stage. Yang hit is Q4 fund raising goal and is picking up a bit of momentum it seems like but it's not being shown in the polling averages.

Honestly he'll probably end up with a cabinet position anyway, he's someone who's trusted around the DNC establishmnt and he'd be given something like he was given in the Obama admin -- HUD or something minor like that.

In other news some of his staffers are saying that the primary process has the deck stacked against minorities due to the makeup of Iowa and New Hampshire (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/02/castro-democratic-primary-093079) They're pretty much saying that because of the demographics in Iowa and NH not representing the rest of the party (minority wise) and the reliance on doing well in these states to do well in the rest of the primary, that it is unfair towards minorities.

[TwitchySeal]

Looks like Julian Castro officially ended his 2020 Presidential campaign. Of course, everyone knew this was coming and it seems clear Castro only held his campaign up to see if he could secure a Vice Presidential spot or cabinet position in the Democratic nominee's administration. He was polling at less than one percent throughout his campaign so I can't imagine many people will be disappointed. - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/us/politics/julian-castro-dropping-out.html



Also, our favorite candidate Marianne Williamson is close to ending her campaign as she has now laid off her entire campaign staff nationally. - https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2020-white-house-hopeful-williamson-lets-go-of-entire-campaign-staff

Was really rooting for Marianne 2020. I can't tell you all how disappointed I am.


Also to add, betting odds currently reflect that Andrew Yang is ahead  of Amy Klobuchar winning the nominee which is interesting considering Klobuchar is an established US senator with political experience where as Yang came out of thin air shooting himself to the national stage. Yang hit is Q4 fund raising goal and is picking up a bit of momentum it seems like but it's not being shown in the polling averages.

Honestly he'll probably end up with a cabinet position anyway, he's someone who's trusted around the DNC establishmnt and he'd be given something like he was given in the Obama admin -- HUD or something minor like that.

In other news some of his staffers are saying that the primary process has the deck stacked against minorities due to the makeup of Iowa and New Hampshire (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/02/castro-democratic-primary-093079) They're pretty much saying that because of the demographics in Iowa and NH not representing the rest of the party (minority wise) and the reliance on doing well in these states to do well in the rest of the primary, that it is unfair towards minorities.

It's a fair argument to make in general.  Always having the same 4 states primary or caucus before everyone else doesn't seem like the most effective way to choose the best candidate for the other 46.  There's been a push to change it for a while, so it could happen soon.

Iowa and NH are two of the least diverse states, but SC and NV also happen before Super Tuesday - NV has much higher hispanic population than average and same with SC blacks.  (ironic that SC is the only race where we already knew the outcome months ago: old white guy wins in a land slide)