Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread

Who are your favorite candidates?

  • Kamala Harris

    Votes: 43 8.0%
  • Elizabeth Warren

    Votes: 99 18.4%
  • Julián Castro

    Votes: 16 3.0%
  • Pete Buttigieg

    Votes: 51 9.5%
  • Kirsten Gillibrand

    Votes: 7 1.3%
  • John Delaney

    Votes: 9 1.7%
  • Tulsi Gabbard

    Votes: 63 11.7%
  • Bernie Sanders

    Votes: 338 62.9%
  • Amy Klobuchar

    Votes: 12 2.2%
  • Joe Biden

    Votes: 45 8.4%
  • Andrew Yang

    Votes: 112 20.9%
  • Cory Booker

    Votes: 7 1.3%
  • Marianne Williamson

    Votes: 19 3.5%
  • Mike Bloomberg

    Votes: 12 2.2%

  • Total voters
    537

MikeDawg

Banned deucer.
3 out of 4 Americans loathed bernie Saunders plan to allow prison inmates to vote. Welp that's gonna cost him some reputation.

That's really REALLY dumb ngl if you commit a crime you forfeit all your constitutional freedoms. Any reason why the constitutional right to vote should be excepted?

No. I don't think so.
I think inmates should be able to vote, and some of the candidates probably do as well, but saying yes when someone asks you if the boston bomber should vote on live television is stupid as fuck. Say "no" or "we should have that conversation" depending on your position, then move on.

On that note, the biggest problem with the "purity" (ie stan) politics movement is that in order to effect change, you need to get elected. Turns out, you can say "maybe" when someone asks you a loaded or unpopular question to retain votes, then fight for that issue once you actually have the power to do so.
 
Last edited:
I think inmates should be able to vote, and some of the candidates probably do as well, but saying yes when someone asks you if the boston bomber should vote on live television is stupid as fuck. Say "no" or "we should have that conversation" depending on your position, then move on.

On that note, the biggest problem with the "purity" (ie stan) politics movement is that in order to effect change, you need to get elected. Turns out, you can say "maybe" when someone asks you a loaded or unpopular question to retain votes, then fight for that issue once you actually have the power to do so.

It's almost like there's a difference between campaigning and leading.
Let me get this straight.

A convicted murderer is arrested and is in jail for the rest of his life.

His victim lost his right to vote permanently (because he is dead) yet the murderer should keep his.

Irony of 2019 my good sir.

No. You commit a crime you're done. You have no business interacting with the outside world at all. It's called a prison for a reason.
 

atomicllamas

but then what's left of me?
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Let me get this straight.

A convicted murderer is arrested and is in jail for the rest of his life.

His victim lost his right to vote permanently (because he is dead) yet the murderer should keep his.

Irony of 2019 my good sir.

No. You commit a crime you're done. You have no business interacting with the outside world at all. It's called a prison for a reason.
The question is phrased poorly, as is your hypothetical. Better hypothetical is should possessing a couple ounces of marijuana disqualify someone from voting. The answer is obviously no.
 
hmm yeah maybe time to start in on that self reflection rather than calling ppl that actually make arguments russians: this idea that alpha males will protect us from each other is the basis of authoritarianism across history. I won't go into how your post evidences the internalization of this idea because it is evident. Some extensions of this ideology lies in incelism, school shooterisms, and just general patriarchal male behavior where men are obsessed with this fantasy leading to its becoming reality: as men cannot fathom that women can win or even deserve a place, in a competition that is supposed to be about the triumphing of alpha males. Stop trying to be the hero, or find heros for others, stop trying to save other people, and focus on yourself, and even saving yourself isn't worth so much energy if you're just giving yourself up to another fate.

it's time for ppl to grow up and stop looking for octogenarian 'alpha males' to save them, particularly men who grew up on the internet
It’s about human psychology. You can keep pretending that other things like policy matter in how humans decide who to follow. You’re fighting nature. That’s a futile endeavor.

And nice try with the ad hominem attack. I’ve obviously stated my personal choice in this thread yet you found a way to attack my objective analysis of political skill and why it is more important to voters than policy. Ignore these concepts at your peril.
 
3 out of 4 Americans loathed bernie Saunders plan to allow prison inmates to vote. Welp that's gonna cost him some reputation.

That's really REALLY dumb ngl if you commit a crime you forfeit all your constitutional freedoms. Any reason why the constitutional right to vote should be excepted?

No. I don't think so.
I vehemently disagree with the idea of surrendering human rights because one committed a crime. Bernie Sanders is correct for two reasons:

1) laws are often unjust, created by men in power to serve men in power

2) laws are never enforced equally
 

Texas Cloverleaf

This user has a custom title
is a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
3 out of 4 Americans loathed bernie Saunders plan to allow prison inmates to vote. Welp that's gonna cost him some reputation.

That's really REALLY dumb ngl if you commit a crime you forfeit all your constitutional freedoms. Any reason why the constitutional right to vote should be excepted?

No. I don't think so.
So by your logic someone who commits a crime, for example let's say failed to pay a parking ticket, is no longer entitled to the freedom of due process, freedom of religion, or freedom of speech.

Am I understanding your position correctly?
 

thesecondbest

Just Kidding I'm First
The question is phrased poorly, as is your hypothetical. Better hypothetical is should possessing a couple ounces of marijuana disqualify someone from voting. The answer is obviously no.
Then maybe he should say "i believe non violent criminals should retain their right to vote" not "the boston bomber should be able to vote"
I mean i still like bernie more than the rest of the field but this was really dumb and he's suffering in the polling because of it. He went from being tied with biden for top odds to a tier below.
 

termi

bike is short for bichael
is a Community Contributoris a Top Tiering Contributor
3 out of 4 Americans loathed bernie Saunders plan to allow prison inmates to vote. Welp that's gonna cost him some reputation.

That's really REALLY dumb ngl if you commit a crime you forfeit all your constitutional freedoms. Any reason why the constitutional right to vote should be excepted?

No. I don't think so.
"if you commit a crime you forfeit you forfeit all your constitutional freedoms" this is both demonstrably false and morally indefensible tho. demonstrably false because you typically still have a right to live, freedom of thought and expression, etc when you get convicted of a crime, morally indefensible because human rights are typically considered universal and unalienable, they're not to be bargained with for no reason other than "well i don't think you deserve them." however, of course there are situations in which your basic rights can be suspended if they are in conflict with another person's basic rights. when i point a loaded gun at someone else, i am threatening their right to live, bodily integrity and whatnot, so in this case it can be argued that i can be physically harmed and/or restrained (harming my basic rights) with the intent of preventing me from violating another person's rights (and if im deemed dangerous i may be locked up for a longer time, losing my right to free movement, because i may otherwise violate other people's rights again).

now here's the million dollar question: do prisoners violate other people's rights by voting (which is a human right, so typically inalienable)? i would argue that this is not the case under any circumstance. in other words, there is no reasonable justification to take away their right to vote if you take human rights seriously.

NB: im not a political liberal (in the broad sense, not in the american sense) and i have some philosophical issues with rights-based philosophy, but if i have to be unhappily married to liberalism, i would at least like it to adhere to its own principles, and its principles indicate that human rights are kind of a big deal!
 

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
3 out of 4 Americans loathed bernie Saunders plan to allow prison inmates to vote. Welp that's gonna cost him some reputation.

That's really REALLY dumb ngl if you commit a crime you forfeit all your constitutional freedoms. Any reason why the constitutional right to vote should be excepted?

No. I don't think so.
because laws are sometimes made specifically targeted to disenfranchise certain segments of the population (like drug laws)

i dont understand american fascination with punishment when related to justice considering jail is meant to be rehabilitative in nature to allow people to come back into society after a mistake, rather than locking them up to discard them as humans
 

MikeDawg

Banned deucer.
Because "justice" makes people feel good, and there's no "justice" in treating bad people like humans.

Which is why competent politicians like Liz and Kamala dodged "Should the Boston Marathon bomber vote?" and pivoted to the disenfranchisement of released felons and the overzealous incarceration of nonviolent criminals. You have to respect a nuanced situation by giving a nuanced answer.

For better or for worse, Bernie has no concept of nuance, and it bites him in the butt at times like this. He should have just ignored the question and pivoted with "Well, Chris, how many of the Boston Marathon victims had affordable healthcare?" like he usually does. Instead, he voluntarily brought up rapists and murderers then said "slippery slope". Why didn't he skip to the bottom of the already-existing slope with drug users and homeless thieves? The world may never know.
 
Last edited:
Then maybe he should say "i believe non violent criminals should retain their right to vote" not "the boston bomber should be able to vote"
I mean i still like bernie more than the rest of the field but this was really dumb and he's suffering in the polling because of it. He went from being tied with biden for top odds to a tier below.
Bernie dropping in the polls was because of Biden gaining more vote share from declaring. What Bernie said won’t hurt him much if any. Echoing the others, he should have pivoted or answered the question with a question about nonviolent offenders.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
It’s about human psychology. You can keep pretending that other things like policy matter in how humans decide who to follow. You’re fighting nature. That’s a futile endeavor.

And nice try with the ad hominem attack. I’ve obviously stated my personal choice in this thread yet you found a way to attack my objective analysis of political skill and why it is more important to voters than policy. Ignore these concepts at your peril.
lol, cmon, you got found out for having nothing, you equate 'political skill' w being an alpha male and i've seen in our discussion that it turns for you political skill is just whiteness and maleness. political skill and policy cannot be completely separated, all the power of the alpha male is just an illusion masking the establishment's incompetence, if you give people something else to put their confidence in, perhaps they'll come around.

a way better argument would have been just asserting that more center candidates appeals to a conservative population, but i keep forgetting, policy doesn't matter right
 
Last edited:

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
also i encourage yall to watch the new aoc documentary thats out now, it is v interesting

a thing i was intrigued by in it was that, in the primary race she contested against an establishment figure, she got just enough money to run a poll that showed she was 35 points behind 5 days or so before the vote.

of course she went on to win that race.

I have discussed my skepticism of polling with verbatim on discord. as a i expressed there, i feel like polling shows where people are at, but now how they are changing. it's like if you constantly check a pot it will seem like it takes forever to get hotter.
 
lol, cmon, you got found out for having nothing, you equate 'political skill' w being an alpha male and i've seen in our discussion that it turns for you political skill is just whiteness and maleness. political skill and policy cannot be completely separated, all the power of the alpha male is just an illusion masking the establishment's incompetence, if you give people something else to put their confidence in, perhaps they'll come around.

a way better argument would have been just asserting that more center candidates appeals to a conservative population, but i keep forgetting, policy doesn't matter right
Political skill has nothing to do with whiteness. Keep shoving your progressive purity in the faces of America voters and they will keep running to Republicans selling them snake oil.

The few Democrats with political skill went on to win the Presidency. If you can’t see what Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had over this crop of lames you’ll never get it. (Hint: it ain’t policy)
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
People who know Bernie have always known that this is his stance on criminal voting rights. CNN asked because they knew this-- but people also love Bernie because he stands up for his views. No backing down was the right call politically, and it was the right call morally and in policy.

The Civics: If we say that some class of offenders to society lose their right to vote, than we're essentially giving The Government the right to decide who does and doesn't count as a voter, as its own constituency. Even if you make it a class of criminals who lose their rights, like "violent criminals", who defines what a violent criminal is? It's bound to be some byzantine process that will end up disprapportionately affecting vulnerable groups. Even if you aren't worried about how the definition is carried out, you should worried that you are inherently giving the state one more tool to disenfranchise those who stand up to it, and one more incentive to tyrannically abusing its power.

The practical: Peoples who don't have the right to vote are more at risk of human rights violations and poor treatment by the state. Look even at how our own island territories are treated compared to Hawaii. If you don't want human rights violations committed in your name, expand voting rights as much as possible. Mass murderers and rapists are not as a voting block going to swing elections. Large blocks of imprisoned voters, often non-violent or un-rightfully imprisoned, are people we definitely want our elected officials accountable to.

...and we should expand voting rights and representation in federal government to all of our territories and resident foreigners, including undocumented immigrants.
 

Sam

i say it's all just wind in sails
is a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
1. Already debunked in this thread

2. FEC only gives this data for donations over $200. Each candidate only had this data for donations over $200

3. This is just a straight up lie. They showed up as N/A in crosstabs because the data would have had a large margin of error. Literally ever poll weighs the responses as a percentage of the electorate, this poll is no different

The amount of misinformation on the last page or so is disheartening. Please stop.
 

SPACE FORCE meeps

LAW & ORDER!
is a Tiering Contributoris a Past SCL Champion
in a subset of 411 people, and given the fact that younger people have a lower response rate to polls, it's not unreasonable to have fewer than 125 age 18-50 respondents

look through some of the nyt upshot's polls from the 2018 midterms, a good number of polls had subsamples of age 18-45 voters under 30% of total sample
 

THE_IRON_...KENYAN?

Banned deucer.
Thats because they called people on landlines. Only old people have landlines. Also you cant just not include people under 45 as part of the voter base
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
the polls dont mean anything, and can't think of anything more sheeple-like than obsessing over polls, as I said in a post that has since been ignored for the sake of baiting some type of victim complex among Sanders supporters using polls: polls show one moment, like a single still of an image from a movie. They show us a moment in a scene, but not the overall development of that scene. If you were to photograph someone smiling at 1000 frames per minute, you would learn nothing about facial expressions of emotion because each shot would look nearly identical to the last one. In fact, many of the shots you would take would be properly called 'noise' and need to be thrown out since they look identical to each other as no change seems to occur between frames. In AOC's documentary she describes a poll showing that she was down 35 points 5 days before the election she went on to win.

in fact, with the way primary voters obsess about candidates' electability using polls means that polls can be undertaken as a way of actually changing the political landscape for a candidate, much as a thermometer slightly modifies the temperature of the substance thats heat it measures. Since polls influence voters, you should be dubious of them especially so early out in this stage, as they may be tools to modify political opinion or misrepresent political opinion in order to serve some other purpose than mere information gathering

and it gets even worse if you try to analyze based on a poll because in focusing in a subsection you create a new distorted picture out of that subsection.
 
Last edited:

MikeDawg

Banned deucer.
Thats because they called people on landlines. Only old people have landlines. Also you cant just not include people under 45 as part of the voter base

"The study was conducted for CNN via telephone by SSRS, an independent research company. Interviews were conducted from April 25 to April 28, 2019 among a sample of 1,007 respondents. The landline total respondents were 358 and there were 649 cell phone respondents."

This took literally 30 seconds to Google & ctrl+f "cell phone".

And they did include many people under 45, just as Sam explained.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 1)

Top