Yeah, it’ll always be Bernie. Besides all of the political reasons, I want to run it vs Trump. I want to find out who wins. I’ll take the “I told you so’s” from the people that say he can’t win if he doesn’t but I’m going to shove it down moderate democrats throats forever if he does win.
Yeah, it’ll always be Bernie. Besides all of the political reasons, I want to run it vs Trump. I want to find out who wins. I’ll take the “I told you so’s” from the people that say he can’t win if he doesn’t but I’m going to shove it down moderate democrats throats forever if he does win.
Just admit you’re wrong about Bernie and I’ll be glad to have a broader discussion. Until then, burn books.
Yeah, it’ll always be Bernie. Besides all of the political reasons, I want to run it vs Trump. I want to find out who wins. I’ll take the “I told you so’s” from the people that say he can’t win if he doesn’t but I’m going to shove it down moderate democrats throats forever if he does win.
Just admit you’re wrong about Bernie and I’ll be glad to have a broader discussion. Until then, burn books.
Book burning comes after gun confiscation. Which Bernie wants.
Favorable/unfavorable among dems is 47 to 7. What a disaster.
Her numbers in that poll are very good, if you can’t see that it’s because you don’t know how to read polls.
The luster is starting to dull with her. Sure, she will continue to dominate the below 28 crowd who hasn’t made enough money to break the earned income credit yet. However for those that have broken the glass... or should I say drywall ceiling of their parents basement to get their own place, she’s tanking fast.
We can have different interpretations of these numbers, it’s really messy when the proportion of people that don’t know who she is so large. But for me, the fact that you’re willing to concede that they aren’t horrible just reaffirms my position that they’re actually very good.
It’s pretty clear how the 44% is going to break. The people least likely to have heard her are women, young people, blacks and Hispanics. Those are the people most likely to give her a favorable rating.
I also think the independent numbers are misleading. There was a poll a few weeks ago with similar numbers but it had a political leaning numbers for liberal, moderate and conservative and she did better with moderate there. It wasn’t amazing, iirc it was 30% favorable and 36% unfavorable, but an ok number. I think that’s the middle ground voter you want to find. My hunch is libertarians are fucking up the polling numbers for “independents”.
She's going to have to veer more centrist in the debates or that monumental exposure will destroy her ratings
I literally just said her numbers with moderates aren’t bad. I think there is a specific type of “centrist” that doesn’t like her and makes a lot of noise but I’m not convinced that voting block is relevant. Howard Schultz thought he’d be president running against her as a centrist and hows that going?
AOC is a disaster for the dems. It's hilarious. She's become the shining star to the super progressives and everyone else is embarrassed of her.
Agree with this. The country is full of well-informed moderate liberal Democrats who know she is the embodiment of Clinton's focus on transgender bathrooms. It's a loser. She's passionate, yes. She's forward-thinking, yes. She's progressive, yes. Hell, is she possibly ahead of her time? Yes. All of that is good for academic discussion. But her policies are too radical and too unrealistic and she's going to scare people away. Mark that down. Just like Hillary did pandering to the left edge of her constituency group .... trying to be too many things to too many people.
The thing about Hillary is that people have it all wrong about her. There is nothing unqualified about Hillary. She just made a error in campaign calculation. She should not have played to the AOC wing of the party. There really aren't enough of them IMO, and I'm convinced they don't vote as big as they talk.
The harder call for Hillary was gay marriage. That alienates a lot of people in the middle and on the right; but as a liberal turning your back on the gay community on their most important issue is quite risky. There are a lot of gay people, and they do fucking vote.
I'll make it simple: AOC is the result of breeding Rosie Perez with Rosanne Rosannadanna. And nobody wants to watch and listen to either for more than a few minutes. And if you look at her college photos, it's obvious her looks are fading too fast. She'll be over before her nipples reach her belly button.
AOC is a disaster for the dems. It's hilarious. She's become the shining star to the super progressives and everyone else is embarrassed of her.
Agree with this. The country is full of well-informed moderate liberal Democrats who know she is the embodiment of Clinton's focus on transgender bathrooms. It's a loser. She's passionate, yes. She's forward-thinking, yes. She's progressive, yes. Hell, is she possibly ahead of her time? Yes. All of that is good for academic discussion. But her policies are too radical and too unrealistic and she's going to scare people away. Mark that down. Just like Hillary did pandering to the left edge of her constituency group .... trying to be too many things to too many people.
The thing about Hillary is that people have it all wrong about her. There is nothing unqualified about Hillary. She just made a error in campaign calculation. She should not have played to the AOC wing of the party. There really aren't enough of them IMO, and I'm convinced they don't vote as big as they talk.
The harder call for Hillary was gay marriage. That alienates a lot of people in the middle and on the right; but as a liberal turning your back on the gay community on their most important issue is quite risky. There are a lot of gay people, and they do fucking vote.
I'll make it simple: AOC is the result of breeding Rosie Perez with Rosanne Rosannadanna. And nobody wants to watch and listen to either for more than a few minutes. And if you look at her college photos, it's obvious her looks are fading too fast. She'll be over before her nipples reach her belly button.
Back in the day, Rosie Perez did some quality nude work.
AOC is a disaster for the dems. It's hilarious. She's become the shining star to the super progressives and everyone else is embarrassed of her.
Agree with this. The country is full of well-informed moderate liberal Democrats who know she is the embodiment of Clinton's focus on transgender bathrooms. It's a loser. She's passionate, yes. She's forward-thinking, yes. She's progressive, yes. Hell, is she possibly ahead of her time? Yes. All of that is good for academic discussion. But her policies are too radical and too unrealistic and she's going to scare people away. Mark that down. Just like Hillary did pandering to the left edge of her constituency group .... trying to be too many things to too many people.
The thing about Hillary is that people have it all wrong about her. There is nothing unqualified about Hillary. She just made a error in campaign calculation. She should not have played to the AOC wing of the party. There really aren't enough of them IMO, and I'm convinced they don't vote as big as they talk.
The harder call for Hillary was gay marriage. That alienates a lot of people in the middle and on the right; but as a liberal turning your back on the gay community on their most important issue is quite risky. There are a lot of gay people, and they do fucking vote.
I'll make it simple: AOC is the result of breeding Rosie Perez with Rosanne Rosannadanna. And nobody wants to watch and listen to either for more than a few minutes. And if you look at her college photos, it's obvious her looks are fading too fast. She'll be over before her nipples reach her belly button.
Back in the day, Rosie Perez did some quality nude work.
AOC is a disaster for the dems. It's hilarious. She's become the shining star to the super progressives and everyone else is embarrassed of her.
Agree with this. The country is full of well-informed moderate liberal Democrats who know she is the embodiment of Clinton's focus on transgender bathrooms. It's a loser. She's passionate, yes. She's forward-thinking, yes. She's progressive, yes. Hell, is she possibly ahead of her time? Yes. All of that is good for academic discussion. But her policies are too radical and too unrealistic and she's going to scare people away. Mark that down. Just like Hillary did pandering to the left edge of her constituency group .... trying to be too many things to too many people.
The thing about Hillary is that people have it all wrong about her. There is nothing unqualified about Hillary. She just made a error in campaign calculation. She should not have played to the AOC wing of the party. There really aren't enough of them IMO, and I'm convinced they don't vote as big as they talk.
The harder call for Hillary was gay marriage. That alienates a lot of people in the middle and on the right; but as a liberal turning your back on the gay community on their most important issue is quite risky. There are a lot of gay people, and they do fucking vote.
That's exactly all why the right keeps bringing her up. They are trying to use her platform to broadbrush all Democrats.
Way to state the obvious Hondbag. Politicians and politics love, almost need, a polarizing foe or issue to campaign against. AOC is a somewhat unusual case in that she's young, pretty, and minority. Everything else fits perfectly, and the aberrations help capture more attention.
Well, she's loud. Someone in her party better step up and be that loud. Booker, Harris and the White Squaw aren't doing a good job of distancing themselves from that edge. Where is the moderate Democrat? Seriously? Who is it?
In my view, if you really think the Trump movement is bad for the country, and there's a part of me that does, then the kryptonite to that movement is going to be a reasonable moderate. I think the country would recognize it and embrace it.
You want to win? You need a winner.
The problem is that because the weak democrat candidates have been moderates, the loudest faction of dem voters have convinced people that they need a far left progressive to win. Which is a major mistake imo.
It's like they forget that Obama wasn't a super progressive.
If the democrats had another Obama it would be hard to argue that candidate shouldn’t get the nomination. They don’t.
Democrats have been getting their asses kicked by republicans, using this moderate schtick, for 20 years. Even under the great Obama they continued to hemorrhage seats of all forms across the country. Moderate democrats have proven the thing they’re best at is losing to republicans.
The progressive movement was bigger and louder in 2018 than any time in the last two decades and it was the best election for dems in that time outside of 2008. And again, they don’t have another Obama.
I know this is akin to the kiss of death but as I look at the field and had to vote for one it would be Kamala Harris. Who is your man or woman for 2020?
There's zero chance of you voting for anyone with a D next to their name.
Comments
Guess which one Trump will relate AOC to in the coming months?
AOC needs to step up.
Probably a little too moderate for me but she would be a tough out She's HUNGRY for the job