Lol wtf is Harris doing here?
Representing the planned opposition that is nearly the entirety of the Democratic party.
At this point I can only conclude that the dnc want a third trump. Though, I guess that tracks, they can continue plundering and getting aipac money and doing fuck all while saying ‘eeeehhhhh we’re soooooo powerless what are we suppppoooosedddd to dooooo!?’
Polls like this look are based on name-recognition. Harris is the first (and only) name a lot of people will come up with when asked “who should be the Democratic candidate?”
She doesn’t seem interested (she hasn’t been working on keeping her name in the news like Newsom has), so she’ll fall off the polls as other people climb.
AOC is the only viable option.
AOC is 36. The last 23 presidents were all at least 42 (and that was Theodore Roosevelt: 1901-1909). I don’t see her winning, due to her being as young as she is. Maybe next run or the one after that.
Wish she would be more popular than she is.
She’s young enough to become hud or secretary of something, then be vp for 8 years then be prez for 8 years and still be under 65 leaving office. There’s no hurry.
Shes a party sheepdog
I have many criticisms of AOC but if we’re talking about electoral politics I literally can’t point to anyone with a known name that could be better on policy and actually win.
I would love other names though if you have suggestions.
Which party?
The corp Dems don’t like her. Which should tell you she is actually doing right.
Their controlled opposition is internal too.
Please don’t run Harris again.
They will, then blame everyone else again when she loses
She will get destroyed in the primaries. She has zero chance of winning once people are paying attention. These results in the tweet are meaningless because unless you’re a politics Andy like you and I you have no idea who any of these people are besides Harris. Honestly, I hope she runs. She’ll split the vote with other corporate owned Democrats like Newsom.
Realistically, all the corpo owned dems will consolidate power behind their frontrunner and drop out if there is a genuine chance of an outsider winning. No?
They will. And they’ll try to run a spoiler progressive candidate like Elizabeth Warren was in 2020. But they’ll still lose.
Looking forward to seeing it happen. :)
Harris needs to retire. You don’t lose to Trump and get to run again.
Just watch them put in Hillary for round two
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.
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.
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.
IF this is the slate, Democrats have already lost.
AOC might be able to do it. She’d need to start now, and its going to need to be a people powered campaign. They work fundamentally differently than corporate donation powered campaigns. Any other form of candidate or campaign will be to submit to fascism entirely.
Advocating for any of the other names is about as much as advocating for Republicans directly. They wont win.
Some alternatives:
-
Ro Khanna
-
Graham Platner (he’d be have been only been in the senate for 2yrs, but he’s got the potential)
-
Chris Van Hollen
-
Abdul El-Sayed
-
Dean Phillips
-
John Conyers
-
Jon Stewart
-
Shri Thanedar
The next president will be both M4A and Abolish ICE or they’ll be a Republican.
Agree with your message, but keep in mind that 2028 is in 3 years, no one is running at this moment or declared they will be running.
This is corporate media just setting candidates for us.
This is corporate media just setting candidates for us.
I agree with this evaluation.
but keep in mind that 2028 is in 3 years, no one is running at this moment or declared
I’m aware and I think this is already a strategic mis-step. They needed to begin campaigning the day that Trump won. This is how Mamdani won. Its how Bernie came within a hogs breath of toppling the Clinton dynasty from within their own party. They didn’t wait, they went to work. People powered campaigns operate in a fundamentally different manner and need more time to get going. However, they have the advantage that they exponentiate in how they scale. While they simultaneously take longer to get going, they’re practically impossible to stop once they do. If Bernie had even one more month, maybe two more months to campaign in the run up to the 2016 primary, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Right now no progressive/ grass-roots populist has thrown their had in the ring and I think this is a mistake.
Right on!
Stewart would not run, and perhaps for the best. Whoever holds that position will have to be disappointing in some regards due to reality, and Stewart may be better only soeaking to the aspects he excels at without owning the stuff that would tarnish his image and legacy.
Stewart would not run,
Stewart might run. They’re closer to running than they’ve ever been before.
I like John Stewart way too much to ever want him to be a politician.
I would sacrifice Jon’s pleasure for the sake of the country. He’s a good person and believe in him. If he announced, everyone who knows up from down wouldn’t bother competing, outside of the Democratic primary where people might try to move him in some positions. But it would be a fools errand and a waste of political capitol to try and beat them, for either Republicans or Democrats.
I had this perspective until I started watching him again recently. I know my politics have moved left since I grew up listening to him. But he’s stood still. It’s kind of painful to watch how much he loses the forest for the trees on every single issue. Feels like he’s a gatekeeper at this point. Basically keeping a large portion of millennials from being moved further left.
He’d be the best president in my lifetime if he won. But, that bar is in the dirt.
Removed by mod
AOC has started. I just donated to her last week.
Consider planning ahead to campaign/ volunteer for them. Also, plan the uncomfortable work of converting your friends, family, strange cousins, neighbors, people at the bus stop, everyone you can to vote for AOC.
Donations are great and important, but at the end of the day, its people power that wins elections. Actual humans contacting other humans they know and explaining why they should support the candidate.
Definitely. I could probably help with graphic design of materials if that kind of thing is required.
Dean Phillips needs to be forgotten. I’m from his state, I know and have run a business for one of his closest friends; these are NOT people who should have power over anyone. Beyond being HUGE supporters of the Palestinian genocide, their interest is in money. That’s it. Dean Phillips is shallow, stupid, and vain. Nice of him to call out Biden, but I cannot fathom how he is on any kind of list for the actual President. I guess because he’s not known in other places? People in Minnesota do not take him seriously, there are reasons for that - we know him.
-
There is no way they run her again fuck they can’t actually be that inept. If they do it again I will genuinely take it as evidence that their goal is to lose.
Their goal is to lose. Liberals are fascists who are very committed to their own brand of theater.
The masses are kind of dumb. Since she ran against trump the first time, they might be inclined to vote for her just to paycologically undo their first vote.
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.
People are irredeemable idiots if AOC is that low. Shapiro is literally IDF. Newsom and Harris are pro genocide. Booker is another pro genocide traitor
AOC is 36. The last 23 presidents were all at least 42 (and that was Theodore Roosevelt: 1901-1909). I don’t see her winning, due to her being as young as she is. Maybe next run or the one after that.
Wish she would be more popular than she is.
Billionaires have paid a lot of money to control the narrative on her
The illusion of choice.
Can we not pick another boomer for president? I’m very much done with that whole generation.
Don’t worry because as we know Kamala is brat
I need to create a bot that adds “… in the US” to every post of US Americans.
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.
