They’ll run Weekend at Biden’s before they let AOC have a go.
LOL AOC.
Same corporate dem, groomed since high school with a carefully crafted image.
Ready to replace Bernie the sheepdog as token ‘left’.It was my understanding that she doesn’t take corporate donations. Neither does Jasmine Crockett. I looked previously. They have very few high name supporters. Bernie can’t be trusted though. Dude got bought a long time ago.
I’m out of the loop here boss. Can you explain what’s going on with Bernie?
The donations are public. Last I checked he’s eaten up with big corporations. AOC and Jasmine Crockett were not. It wasn’t too long ago, and it explained why some people represent citizens while others don’t. Notice Crockett busts their asses constantly.
IDC about corporate donations.
She was groomed from higfh school age as part of a hispanic democratic program.
They can’t shut up about how she was a simple waitress while at the time she ran an israeli start up.
She hasn’t been artound for as long as Bernie the snake but it’s clear from her corporate votes (and accompanying crocodile tears and excuses) she does the same thing.
There are already plenty plenty of examples.I wish the mods would give us a YouTube to alt bot. Maybe I can fix that in my side by fiddling with a resolver some place.
Google were awful US regime scum decades ago, now everyone feels the need to do something about them.
Harris needs to retire. You don’t lose to Trump and get to run again.
She lost to Trump AND Biden.
Just watch them put in Hillary for round two
Please don’t give them any ideas.
She honestly feels like she deserves the presidency. The Clintons were pissed when people they knew supported Obama over Hilary because Obama was relatively new to politics and Hilary had “paid her dues”. That those people genuinely believed Obama was the better candidate did not matter at all to them. Most Democrats view elected office as a career rather than a calling.
She acted like she was entitled to it, something that was owed to her. That’s not how it works.
She just needs one more try and she’ll surely win
She’s pro Israel. Fuck Kamala.
If she was ever able to win a Democratic primary they wouldn’t have gone through so much trouble to avoid having one in the last election.
the house limit is TWO do-overs.
She’s actually a two time loser already because of the primaries. Not everyone is allowed to fail 3 times like Beto O’Rourke.
The top 3 in that should be a non-starter. I’d support AOC. I don’t actually know enough about the others to comment one way or the other.
Polls are not the mechanism parties use to “pick” candidates. That’s just not how the process works. Pollsters aren’t arms of the DNC or the RNC. They’re independent firms measuring name recognition and voter preference at a given moment, and the only way to do that is by giving respondents a fixed list of relevant, high visibility figures. It’s a methodological constraint, not a political command.
The real issue is subtler. Media ecosystems amplify a handful of names, donors flock to whoever looks viable, and voters often gravitate toward whoever they’ve heard of. That creates a feedback loop where the visible become even more visible. But polls are downstream from that loop, not upstream. They reflect the landscape; they don’t choose it.
If you want to critique the system, aim at the actual gatekeepers. Ballot access rules, debate thresholds, fundraising networks, and media exposure do far more to narrow the field than a Rasmussen questionnaire ever will. Blaming the poll is mistaking the thermometer for the weather.
Those same ‘independent firms’ do manipulate data for the parties. This was a poll from 2016, the only way they could show Hillary beating Bernie is if they only polled her demographic. And any voter not looking at the methodology would be convinced that Hillary was truly beating Bernie and in turn vote for her.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to show here? That younger voters preferred Sanders? That’s on there, but your red circle is mostly covering it.
To get the numbers they wanted, showing Hillary beating Bernie, they only polled Hillary’s demographic. They completely omitted polling the 18-49yo demographic to gaslight that the public wanted Hillary.
They polled them. I can make out under your line that “Under ?5” (presumably “55”) is 53-45 in favor of Sanders. But the smaller age breakdowns were too small.
Is this a deliberate avoidance of polling younger voters in order to boost Clinton? Or did they try polling evenly but their methodology is outdated and skewed older? Or are they getting an accurate sample of voters and the boomers are just vastly outnumbering everyone else? I don’t think the answer is clear.
But I feel like drawing your circle in a way that obscures the “Under ?5” demographic which did favor Sanders and then saying that they didn’t poll the demographic that favors Sanders comes off as shady. Like the pollsters, it’s not clear whether it’s deliberately misleading or a simple accident.
That was just how my finger traced it. Other polling from CNN before the primary season showed numbers for all age ranges with Bernie beating the hell out of Hillary. It wasn’t until after super Tuesday that the demographics polled start skewing towards Hillary. The part I was highlighting was no data polled from 18-49
Edit sp
I’d assume that somewhere later it explains what “N/A” and “*” mean here, but you can see that “Under 55” picks Sanders while “50-64” picks Clinton. So my guess is that “N/A” means that the size of that group is too small for them to have confidence in it. When they combine the two columns together, there’s enough (that’s why there’s data show in “Under 55”).
Like (I’m just making up numbers), maybe they determine that they need 100 respondents to have any statistical power. And they got 70 in the 18-34 group and 87 in the 35-49 group, but 103 in the 50-64 and 450 in the 65+.
You can see a hint of this in the sampling error, also: the larger number on 50-64 means that was the smallest of the groups shown. Meanwhile “55 and Older” is clearly a larger group than “Under 55”.
Probably, “*” means “no responses”. They don’t want to say “0%” because they know it’s not true that there are literally zero younger voters who had no opinion, but none of the people they surveyed answered that way. That’s another hint that the group is small.
Yes the devil’s in the detail, but there is no such thing as a survey without methods; and every method has its constants and assumptions. Yes, sometimes there are ulterior motives - but frequently it’s just lack of time, money, thematic tradeoffs, methodological complexity, etc.
This is why it’s good to have different mutually independent polling companies asking the same questions. They won’t perfectly align, but they will give a corridor of reasonable expectation.
This was only one example. If they were constraints like time or money there would still be some results from the 18-49 demographic. I had other samples from other polls during this time frame that used similar methodology to manipulate perception.
You’re probably right in this specific case; this seems suspiciously one-sided. Do you have a link to the source where they explain their methods?
Generally something like this can happen though, especially if you do e.g. random dialing on the landline to survey people; mostly older people still use landlines and mostly retired people actually pick up during office hours. A good social scientist would obviously try to measure and control for those sampling errors though, not make them on purpose to get pre-determined results.
I have the methods for this poll buried somewhere. I do remember it was a mix of landline/cell, in person, and mail.
I hate to tell you, but a hardcore progressive will not be nominated. As they always do, the party leadership will decide that the way to beat MAGA is to be MAGA.
Stop obsessing over the presidency. You want revolution? All politics is local. Start by putting younger progressives on planning commissions, school boards. Move up to city councils, county supervisor. Then start taking state offices. You have to elect progressives to local offices for name recognition.
Fortunately this is happening, and has been for a decade now. We need to keep it up.
This plan didn’t work with Trump in 2016. Republicans rammed him in where he wasn’t (shouldn’t have been) welcome because they refused to allow any other candidate. In the same election, Democrats let their party officials to ram Hillary through because the party wouldn’t accept Bernie.
Suggest we find someone WE like and do what Republicans did. It doesn’t matter if it’s an “outsider” or not, but I’d appreciate it if we could not pick a child rapist and sex trafficker, kthx!
I genuinely think our candidate hasn’t really made themselves known to be willing to run yet. I don’t think it’s AOC this time, though I think she’s got what it takes to do the job. I don’t think it’s Harris, people still feel burned by 2020. I hope we can do better than Newsom.
Kinda still want to draft Jon Stewart because he genuinely gives a fuck, can communicate like few others, knows how to be damned serious when he needs to be, and if he were on that list today he’d be near the top if not at it, just like that. And when asked, he didn’t say no. We could do far worse and still be okay.
But yeah, I’m waiting to see what happens. I don’t think the candidate I want that I’m sure will win is on the field yet. But I hope AOC is the running mate, whoever that person winds up being.
Jon Stewart admitted he was in the Epstien Files. He was mentioned by Epstein as the type of person they needed to “properly present” one of their stories/ lies.
He didn’t have to admit anything. He just wants to be as honest and transparent with people as he can be.
Some of his recent interviews have given me the tiniest shred of hope that he may run. He isn’t flatly shutting down the idea any more. He isn’t saying he will run, but he used to be vehemently against the idea.
It’s depressing that a fucking comedian is legitimately one of the better options for a presidential candidate.
Yeah, maybe they should find someone more qualified like a banker or a lawyer.
On the other hand, a comedian has been thwarting one of the richest, most powerful men in the world for the last 4 years.
As opposed to the usual economic parasite from the owner class?
The things a person does for a living or a hobby do not make someone more or less fit for an elected position. Their character, intelligence, and ideals do. Jon Stewart has all of those qualities.
There is only one name on the above list that shouldn’t be repeatedly kicked in the face and barred from any position of authority, and that’s AOC. Everyone else is corrupt as hell.
I wasn’t shitting on him or saying he wasn’t qualified. Just saying it’s sad that none of the actual civil servants who have presumably dedicated their lives to it are good candidates. The guy who’s primary goal has been to entertain people for most of his life just fucking fell into it and is better than all of them. It’s depressing.
The reason republicnas in 2016 were able to get trump is partly because the primary field was so saturated with milquetost candidates. The party apparatus was kind of behind Jeb Bush, but Jeb cluld not stand up against the abuse Trump threw at hime and the others. This was the good times, before trump actually won, but was totally abusing these generic polititians. Its really where the cult around him started.
For the dems though, it really was just Bernie vs Hillary. The party machine coalesced around her years before the primaries even began, and despite what we think about her she was more capable than Jeb Bush. Bernie dis not undress her like Trump did to Jeb, but rank and file Dem voters were different at that time. Still fear driven. Still full of “its time for a woman!” Energy. Not that there is anything wrong with a female president, but that identity was about as deep as it got for some people.
In many ways, the dem party rank and file is more united now than it was in 2016. We couldnt have rammed Bernie through (believe me we tried) because there were enough people who truely wanted Hillary, or were too afraid to “risk it” on Bernie.
If the party really wanted to stop Trump, they would’ve done what the democrats did to Bernie. Hell, the democrats themselves helped Trump: https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/
You can see with how quickly all the oligarchs lined up to kiss Trump’s ass that they’re perfectly happy with him being in power.
Democrats spent years neglecting State and County elections to focus their main attention on flashy National races that could bring in big donors. Coupled with how Democrats with name recognition like to park their asses in Congress until they’re frail and elderly, never making way for the next generation, there’s just not a deep pool of talent to draw on for the Presidency.
AOC is the candidate I see available who would be the best suited for the actual White House but I have doubts she could win the Primary or the General. Gavin might be electable but his problems are deep enough they might discourage folks Left of Center from backing him and I really wouldn’t want him in the White House anyways. Mark Kelly is getting his name tossed around. I don’t know enough about him to know how I’d feel about electing him. He might be electable though. He’s getting National name recognition with his battle against Hegseth. He’s a moderate and a military veteran with appeal among Independents. He doesn’t seem to have any real controversies and he’s new enough to politics to not have alot of baggage or strong negative opinions attached to him (though that could change in 3 years). JB Pritzker being a billionaire would hurt him among Leftists but he could win both the Primaries and General I think. His wealth could help him rally support from both the Upper Classes and Democratic party insiders. His relative lack of controversy or strong negative opinions about him would help him in the General as would his growing name recognition on the National stage. Plus he’s isn’t afraid to go for the political jugular when he needs too. Personally don’t want a Billionaire as president but I would prefer him over Newsom. And Kamala is a joke. She’ll have even less support this time then last time. If super delegates start to rally around her, you’ll know for a fact she’s the controlled opposition candidate.
Mark Kelly is a pretty respectable dude who should have wide appeal, even if he’s not super progressive. Pritzker could do it, you’re right. Either one of these two saying they want AOC as a running mate (and actually listening to her) elevates them on my list of candidates immediately.
He’s simultaneously pretty moderate and rabidly anti-gun, he seems unelectable to me.
Can we not pick another boomer for president? I’m very much done with that whole generation.
I don’t think we should vote for anyone who’s gonna be over 65 when their term ends.
Don’t worry because as we know Kamala is brat
Jay Pritzker
American democracy is selecting whether you wont to be hit in the face or the groin, and then being handed a “I voted” sticker to wear on your shirt.
I might try “groin” next time just to mix it up. Yes, I know I am terrible and I am why the system sucks. I know.
Fuck Harris. I’d vote for a blue Smurf than her. Gimme something you retarded Dems!
Regurgitating failed policy and ideas is all they got.
Please tell me this isn’t real, they aren’t polling already, with Harris out in front?
We learned nothing. I know the establishment learned nothing, they are as arrogant in passing the buck onto voters for their bad status quo candidates. Because she’s a minority woman it’s ok they lost, because everyone’s a racist sexist. Is the subtext.
Of course she was widely hated, including by woman and blacks, and lost ground with all groups. But the establishment taught the sheep to bleet that part, and they are repeating it in loud chorus, bleeting at anyone wanting a change of strategy, saying it’s them to blaaaaaaa me for not believing hard enough.
It’s way too early to even be thinking about this, but Harris is out. Newsome is out, for not throwing his hat in the ring in 2024 when we needed someone that could win, and he could with a little populist platforming. Hell Harris could’ve won, if she attacked some groups cheating us and forcefully and convincingly told us she would fix healthcare and drugs.
We cannot even have that though. The rich won’t allow us what every other country in the developed world gets, even as the only alternative is guarenteed death of the republic permanent dictatorship of the worst people in the world fully intent on putting people into concentration camps if they get support to do it.
Why did they leave out RO KHANNA?
Ro Khanna needs to run on legitimizing the Epstein investigation, bolstering checks and balances and prosecuting the grifters.
Affordability and healthcare would also be a given with him.
That’s what I’d focus on first term, staying tight and consistent on messaging like Zohran.
Ro Khanna is mid af
As compared to who?
Actual progressive candidates?
Where are those? If any of them are running in the primary against Ro, they have my vote.
