PPP: Biden and other Dems all lead Trump; Trump leads potential primary

[BudgieForce]

Even the pollster that Hillary's SuperPAC paid to say she beat Bernie by 47 points in a debate has Bernie close to being the strongest Democrat.

In fairness, Hillary did win the primary by 10 points.

[Lord Admirale]

Even the pollster that Hillary's SuperPAC paid to say she beat Bernie by 47 points in a debate has Bernie close to being the strongest Democrat.

I don't think anyone would be pulled apart easier than Bernie "People's Republic of Burlington, Vermont" Sanders.

The GOP would MASSACRE him if he was nominated.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Even the pollster that Hillary's SuperPAC paid to say she beat Bernie by 47 points in a debate has Bernie close to being the strongest Democrat.

I don't think anyone would be pulled apart easier than Bernie "People's Republic of Burlington, Vermont" Sanders.

The GOP would MASSACRE him if he was nominated.

The Republicans call everyone even a step to their left a socialist. Why not nominate a real one? It's not going to be much different.

[Blair]

How is it so close with Harris?

Because she sucks, and is the epitome of what the rust belt, and frankly lots of others rejected last year. Far lefties are just too thick to put practicality over their "purist" ideals. Maybe she might be a perfect candidate for just ideology for many democrats, and even the base, but her practically is crap. For christ sakes people, she is, and would do worse than even Hillary in America, and probably would somehow manage to even underperform Clinton in wwc territory.

No, it's because she lacks the name recognition. Most voters barely even know she exists, they're not going to know that she's "a thick purist lefty". You can dislike her, but let's not change facts.

She votes party line about 85%, that is pretty partisan. The more people get to know about this person, the more she will flop in polls. If she is the nominee, I could envision an unlikely but possible situation in which I would favor Trump over her. For every presidential election since 1960, my theoretical vote was Safe D, in 2020, when I get a real vote, Harris would be the first person to throw me into the Likely D pile in over half a century if she were the nominee.

Have we had a senator win the nomination who has voted less than 80-85% with the party line?

I really don't understand how anyone could claim to be a democrat (and support any other standard liberal democrat) but suddenly bulk at Harris?

[Beet]

I hate Harris. If she wins, I'm leaving the party. Same with Gabbard.

[Holmes]

You just hate California because of your sad insecurities, but it's your life.

[Mr. Morden]

You just hate California because of your sad insecurities, but it's your life.

What if another Californian is nominated, like Garcetti?  Does Beet leave the party then?

[BlueSwan]

How is it so close with Harris?

Because she sucks, and is the epitome of what the rust belt, and frankly lots of others rejected last year. Far lefties are just too thick to put practicality over their "purist" ideals. Maybe she might be a perfect candidate for just ideology for many democrats, and even the base, but her practically is crap. For christ sakes people, she is, and would do worse than even Hillary in America, and probably would somehow manage to even underperform Clinton in wwc territory.

No, it's because she lacks the name recognition. Most voters barely even know she exists, they're not going to know that she's "a thick purist lefty". You can dislike her, but let's not change facts.

This. I would be surprised if name recognition for Harris even clears 20%. And amongst those mayyybe 20%, probably only a third or less actually know anything meaningful about her outside of her name.

Average people know very little about politics and very few actual politicians outside of the super famous ones or their local senator/governor/congressman.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

I hate Harris. If she wins, I'm leaving the party. Same with Gabbard.

I won't leave, literally nothing could make me leave, but I hate Harris, Gabbard is ok, just overated.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

There is literally no reason to hate Harris. She's the future of the Democratic Party.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

There is literally no reason to hate Harris. She's the future of the Democratic Party.

She did deny a trans woman medical care in prison. I'd hate for that to be the future of the party.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Even the pollster that Hillary's SuperPAC paid to say she beat Bernie by 47 points in a debate has Bernie close to being the strongest Democrat.

In fairness, Hillary did win the primary by 10 points.

I remembered when she collapsed 50 points in a year.

[TheLeftwardTide]

There is literally no reason to hate Harris. She's the future of the Democratic Party.

LOL

I hate Harris. If she wins, I'm leaving the party. Same with Gabbard.

I won't leave, literally nothing could make me leave, but I hate Harris, Gabbard is ok, just overated.

Nothing? What if the party became the Democratic Socialist Party (actually, not Sanders-style social democracy)?

[Possiblymaybe]

There is literally no reason to hate Harris. She's the future of the Democratic Party.

She did deny a trans woman medical care in prison. I'd hate for that to be the future of the party.

Someone in another thread said people would never vote for her because of her uber liberal LGBT stance. Now you're saying she's isnt progressive enough on LGBT to be the future of the party? Lol this is confusing.. 
If you're referring to the case where her lawyers argued the state shouldn't pay for gender reassignment for a felon then Elizabeth Warren said exactly the same thing.
https://jezebel.com/5941540/elizabeth-warren-opposes-sex-reassignment-surgery-for-transgendered-inmate

[Ban my account ffs!]

You just hate California because of your sad insecurities, but it's your life.

What if another Californian is nominated, like Garcetti?  Does Beet leave the party then?

Hopefully

[Beet]

California sucks because, in part, it gathers together the votes of millions of people who are needed elsewhere. But that has nothing to do with my dislike of Harris.

There is literally no reason to hate Harris. She's the future of the Democratic Party.

She did deny a trans woman medical care in prison. I'd hate for that to be the future of the party.

Someone in another thread said people would never vote for her because of her uber liberal LGBT stance. Now you're saying she's isnt progressive enough on LGBT to be the future of the party? Lol this is confusing.. 
If you're referring to the case where her lawyers argued the state shouldn't pay for gender reassignment for a felon then Elizabeth Warren said exactly the same thing.
https://jezebel.com/5941540/elizabeth-warren-opposes-sex-reassignment-surgery-for-transgendered-inmate

Warren sucks, too.

You just hate California because of your sad insecurities, but it's your life.

What if another Californian is nominated, like Garcetti?  Does Beet leave the party then?

Hopefully

You're the last person I'd have thought had a vendetta against me.

[Canis]

You just hate California because of your sad insecurities, but it's your life.

What if another Californian is nominated, like Garcetti?  Does Beet leave the party then?

Hopefully

You're the last person I'd have thought had a vendetta against me.

Et Tu Snowguy716?

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

American taxpayers should not pay for a felon's gender reassignment surgery, lool. A person who isn't a felon deserves it more.

[Mr. Morden]

California sucks because, in part, it gathers together the votes of millions of people who are needed elsewhere. But that has nothing to do with my dislike of Harris.

What is the source of your dislike of Harris?  I might be misremembering, but I thought you just didn't like her on electability grounds?  That you didn't think she'd do well in the general election, and so that's why you don't want her to be nominated?  But if you're talking about leaving the party if she's nominated, then I guess it must be something more?

Also, it continues to seem weird to me that you criticize California's concentration of Democratic voters while sporting a DC avatar. 

[Mr. Morden]

Warren sucks, too.

You posted this two weeks ago, in a thread titled "Warren vs. Merkley":

Two great choices. May we be lucky enough for it to come down to these two.

[Beet]

California sucks because, in part, it gathers together the votes of millions of people who are needed elsewhere. But that has nothing to do with my dislike of Harris.

What is the source of your dislike of Harris?  I might be misremembering, but I thought you just didn't like her on electability grounds?  That you didn't think she'd do well in the general election, and so that's why you don't want her to be nominated?  But if you're talking about leaving the party if she's nominated, then I guess it must be something more?

Also, it continues to seem weird to me that you criticize California's concentration of Democratic voters while sporting a DC avatar. 

She's not very electable, but moreso, she's the type of overhyped candidate America loves. Although maybe that makes her more electable, but I doubt it... probably just enough to clear the primary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, and I posted this in July:

I guess Warren, even though she sucks. VP maybe Merkley.

My view of Warren is she sucks, but is one of the best of bad choices. Hence, I will occasionally encourage her candidacy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So? Criticize DC all you want. This is a rapidly gentrifying city, the poor will gradually be removed the area as being undesirable. I think it's hypocritical for the supposed people's and worker's party to be overseeing all of this, yes.

[Mr. Morden]

She's not very electable, but moreso, she's the type of overhyped candidate America loves. Although maybe that makes her more electable, but I doubt it... probably just enough to clear the primary.

But why would you leave a political party for electability reasons?  I understand not backing her in the primary for electability reasons.  But you said you'd leave the party if she's nominated.  So you're saying "I agree with this political party on the issues, and I agree with its presidential nominee on the issues, but I'm nonetheless going to leave the party because I don't think she's good enough at convincing *other* voters to back her"?  That doesn't make any sense to me.  Why not just support the party that you agree with on the issues?

[Beet]

She's not very electable, but moreso, she's the type of overhyped candidate America loves. Although maybe that makes her more electable, but I doubt it... probably just enough to clear the primary.

But why would you leave a political party for electability reasons?  I understand not backing her in the primary for electability reasons.  But you said you'd leave the party if she's nominated.  So you're saying "I agree with this political party on the issues, and I agree with its presidential nominee on the issues, but I'm nonetheless going to leave the party because I don't think she's good enough at convincing *other* voters to back her"?  That doesn't make any sense to me.  Why not just support the party that you agree with on the issues?

Mr. Morden, I appreciate that you show you read my posts and try to understand them, but please understand that they represent how I feel at any given moment. Whether or not I actually leave the party if she wins, depends.

Now with Senator Harris, I heard people talking about her as the next presidential nominee back when she was attorney general. She represents the one tendency that's done the most damage to America in the past 15 years, and that's the tendency for hype over substance. The housing bubble, the Iraq war, the idea that Obama was going to fix partisan differences, the Tea Party, and Trump mania are all examples of this "hype." With Harris and Gabbard I see the same thing building, which is why they are favorites for the nomination in my view. Usually it's some sort of massive cultural zeitgeist behind something that has very little substance to it, that society ends up regretting and making recriminations for. Personally, I've never been behind any of these "trains," but have never been able to stop any of them. The net result has been, IMO, negative.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren are both pretty weak candidates IMO. I don't think they would fit well with the general electorate. Both would probably do better than Hillary, but why play on hard mode when you can play on easy mode and nominate a more electable candidate?

I may change my tune on Kamala if she gets better at speaking (she's alright right now), but a California black women is going to be perceived as too liberal for the general electorate, and progressives aren't even fond of her.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Even the pollster that Hillary's SuperPAC paid to say she beat Bernie by 47 points in a debate has Bernie close to being the strongest Democrat.

I don't think anyone would be pulled apart easier than Bernie "People's Republic of Burlington, Vermont" Sanders.

The GOP would MASSACRE him if he was nominated.

The Republicans call everyone even a step to their left a socialist. Why not nominate a real one? It's not going to be much different.

Because, in Bernie's case, folks would actually believe it, and the candidate will already have admitted to it.