which is worst D candidate for president?

[jdog21]

that she won the governor's race in south carolina tells me she has already overcome those perceived electoral handicaps you listed

Maybe or maybe the voters didn't know about them and just voted for who ever had R next to their name

 

[jdog21]

which is worst D candidate for president?

honestly, I cannot make up my mind They are all bad..

but Gabbard would be least of 2 (or more) evils

I don't think Bloomberg is a big liar like Warren... so he would not be the one I choose in this poll

geez..kinda like choosing between Hitler, Stalin and Mao-----------

Why isn't Bernie Sanders an option on this poll?

 

[tres borrachos]

which is worst D candidate for president?

honestly, I cannot make up my mind They are all bad..

but Gabbard would be least of 2 (or more) evils

I don't think Bloomberg is a big liar like Warren... so he would not be the one I choose in this poll

geez..kinda like choosing between Hitler, Stalin and Mao-----------

Who cares what a Trump supporter thinks of the opposing party's candidates? You wouldn't vote for one of them anyway.

 

[Mongidig]

Who cares what a Trump supporter thinks of the opposing party's candidates? You wouldn't vote for one of them anyway.

I care! It's a lot of fun to laugh at these clowns and the people who support them.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Ask yourself why a Trumper would create a poll like this?

Just another Trumpian smear effort.

 

[narrowroad]

I care! It's a lot of fun to laugh at these clowns and the people who support them.

lol...

and notice how it's Gabbard and Warren who get least support

misogynists!!!!!!!!!

Dims are misogynist..

(just thought I would act like one of those everything-is-racism-or-sexism folks)

 

[Patriotic Voter]

What a rich selection to pick from. At least half of them is terrible as a candidate for president. Only Biden, Warren and Mr. Socialist are the only decent ones IMO.

There is no socialist on the ballot and everyone who pays attention knows that.

 

[Josie]

There is no socialist on the ballot and everyone who pays attention knows that.

Bernie Sanders disagrees with you.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Bernie Sanders disagrees with you.

Everyone who knows who Bernie Sanders is knows he is a Democrat. There has never been such a thing as socialism in America.

 

[Josie]

Everyone who knows who Bernie Sanders is knows he is a Democrat. There has never been such a thing as socialism in America.

Take it up with Bernie. He calls himself a socialist.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

No he doesn't. He never did.

 

[Josie]

No he doesn't. He never did.

He does. He made a whole speech about it a few years ago.

Read Bernie Sanders's speech on democratic socialism in the United States - Vox

And at a debate:

Bernie Sanders: Why I'm a Democratic Socialist - CNN Video

 

[Patriotic Voter]

You just proved my point by posting the term "DEMOCRATIC Socialist." Not just Socialist. Therefore, he is NOT a socialist.

 

[Josie]

you just proved my point by posting the term "democratic socialist." not just socialist. Therefore, he is not a socialist.

lol! ..

 

[narrowroad]

There is no socialist on the ballot and everyone who pays attention knows that.

they are all virtual socialists

 

[narrowroad]

Sure, if you are ****ing psychotic, it's kinda like choosing between Hitler, Stalin and Mao..... I mean it's pretty much a given that if a Democrat is elected in 2020, tens of millions of Americans will be murdered by the state....

Do you even realize how crazy you sound with that kind of ****?

liberals "voted" in 1973, 7 liberals to 2 normies (all 7 men) to kill millions of innocent people just bc they of where they happen to live, which place they did not ASK to live (the womb). Others put them in that location but they, t he innocents, have to pay the price for it, with torture and death..

The number is up to something like 62 million since then)

Roe v Wade

so yeh, I rest my case

 

[Fishking]

You have to admit, though: Yang is a pretty damn likeable guy. If personality was the sole determining factor for making somebody President, he'd win hands down. The problem is when he starts talking about policy, and that's when everything goes to ****.

His statement on economic disparity and race was perhaps the most poignant one I've heard on that issue.

Heaven forbid he say something with some validity.

 

[Cardinal]

Heaven forbid he say something with some validity.

 

[Perotista]

You have to admit, though: Yang is a pretty damn likeable guy. If personality was the sole determining factor for making somebody President, he'd win hands down. The problem is when he starts talking about policy, and that's when everything goes to ****.

His statement on economic disparity and race was perhaps the most poignant one I've heard on that issue.

I think likability is a very important part of winning an election. Let’s face, our presidential election is basically a beauty contest. Usually folks don’t vote for someone they dislike. Now history shows that those who identify or affiliate with either major party vote for their candidate on average 90% of the time regardless of who that candidate is. But those who affiliate or identify themselves with the two major parties make up 60% of the electorate, give or take a point or two. The rest are swing voters, we usually call them independents. Independents as a whole or in general don’t pay much attention to the day to day grind of politics or the goings on in Washington. They also do not pay that much attention to policy, generally speaking.

Usually the more charismatic candidate wins. Bill Clinton up charisma up the ying yang over both Bush Sr. and Dole. Bill was a very likable guy. G.W. Bush didn’t have that much charisma, but he was a down home type of guy which a lot of folks could identify with. Gore and Kerry were more or less statues lacking any charisma. Obama had charisma, much more than the stoic McCain and Romney. Reagan had charisma and won over the policy wonk Mondale and Carter who lost his charm as a down home guy.

But Carter had that down home charm in 1976 when he defeated the semi statue Ford. 2016 is hard to put either candidate into the charisma class. Hillary did come across as elitist, aloof while Trump was obnoxious. The way I looked at it, it was the schoolyard bully vs. the wet mop. I guess when neither candidate is likable, lacks charisma, one of them still must win. Sort of like Nixon vs. Humphrey in 1968.

I do think when it comes to the swing, independent voter, a likable personality is very important. Maybe more so than policy or stances on the issues since most don’t pay that much attention to them. A great slogan helps, one that is short and memorable. Okay, 2016 broke the mold. But then we had two candidates going against each other who were the most disliked and unwanted candidates in our history of presidential elections.

I went back to 1952 checking favorable ratings of the two major party candidates. In every election the candidate with the higher favorable's won. The lone exception was 2016 where Hillary had a 38% favorable vs. Trump 36%. Then again, Hillary did win the popular vote, so perhaps an asterisk needs to be placed on 2016.

 

[Cardinal]

I think likability is a very important part of winning an election. Let’s face, our presidential election is basically a beauty contest. Usually folks don’t vote for someone they dislike. Now history shows that those who identify or affiliate with either major party vote for their candidate on average 90% of the time regardless of who that candidate is. But those who affiliate or identify themselves with the two major parties make up 60% of the electorate, give or take a point or two. The rest are swing voters, we usually call them independents. Independents as a whole or in general don’t pay much attention to the day to day grind of politics or the goings on in Washington. They also do not pay that much attention to policy, generally speaking.

Usually the more charismatic candidate wins. Bill Clinton up charisma up the ying yang over both Bush Sr. and Dole. Bill was a very likable guy. G.W. Bush didn’t have that much charisma, but he was a down home type of guy which a lot of folks could identify with. Gore and Kerry were more or less statues lacking any charisma. Obama had charisma, much more than the stoic McCain and Romney. Reagan had charisma and won over the policy wonk Mondale and Carter who lost his charm as a down home guy.

But Carter had that down home charm in 1976 when he defeated the semi statue Ford. 2016 is hard to put either candidate into the charisma class. Hillary did come across as elitist, aloof while Trump was obnoxious. The way I looked at it, it was the schoolyard bully vs. the wet mop. I guess when neither candidate is likable, lacks charisma, one of them still must win. Sort of like Nixon vs. Humphrey in 1968.

I do think when it comes to the swing, independent voter, a likable personality is very important. Maybe more so than policy or stances on the issues since most don’t pay that much attention to them. A great slogan helps, one that is short and memorable. Okay, 2016 broke the mold. But then we had two candidates going against each other who were the most disliked and unwanted candidates in our history of presidential elections.

I went back to 1952 checking favorable ratings of the two major party candidates. In every election the candidate with the higher favorable's won. The lone exception was 2016 where Hillary had a 38% favorable vs. Trump 36%. Then again, Hillary did win the popular vote, so perhaps an asterisk needs to be placed on 2016.

I've said myself that in every election (popular vs EC notwithstanding), the winner every time was the more charismatic candidate.

I believe that the charisma of the current batch of Democratic candidates is relatively neutral. Which might not sound great on its surface, but Clinton's was even worse than Trump's, and Trump is downright repulsive (which is of course a large part of his allure...and that is the asterisk).

 

[narrowroad]

ok, u who chose Warren, please tell us why (the lying? policy? both?):

 

[ALiberalModerate]

liberals "voted" in 1973, 7 liberals to 2 normies (all 7 men) to kill millions of innocent people just bc they of where they happen to live, which place they did not ASK to live (the womb). Others put them in that location but they, t he innocents, have to pay the price for it, with torture and death..

The number is up to something like 62 million since then)

Roe v Wade

so yeh, I rest my case

Yep, obviously psychotic.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

they are all virtual socialists

They are all Democrats. None of them are socialists. There is no reason to deny this fact,

 

[Perotista]

I've said myself that in every election (popular vs EC notwithstanding), the winner every time was the more charismatic candidate.

I believe that the charisma of the current batch of Democratic candidates is relatively neutral. Which might not sound great on its surface, but Clinton's was even worse than Trump's, and Trump is downright repulsive (which is of course a large part of his allure...and that is the asterisk).

I can agree with that. I would say JFK, Reagan, Bill Clinton and Obama were the most charismatic of the presidents in my lifetime. All won a second term except JFK. I'm sure JFK would have waltz to his second term in 1964 had he not been shot. All four were very likable guys.

Yeah, neutral is a nice way to put it.

 

[Crosscheck]

I've said myself that in every election (popular vs EC notwithstanding), the winner every time was the more charismatic candidate.

I believe that the charisma of the current batch of Democratic candidates is relatively neutral. Which might not sound great on its surface, but Clinton's was even worse than Trump's, and Trump is downright repulsive (which is of course a large part of his allure...and that is the asterisk).

True, we are not seeing anyone with the charisma of a Reagan or Obama in this field.

But what is interesting is taking in all the candidates, I can't think of any current or past candidates to have such a degree of repulsiveness of Trump.
Of course Trump will always have his core group and those Republicans who would never vote Democrat. But the Independents is who will determine the next President.
For me the most remarkable thing to demonstrate this repulsiveness was when Trump attended the World Series game and received chants of "Lock him up" from the crowd.
There are always a pocket of protestors but nothing this scale.

Even if you try and think back to prior candidates you really can't think of anyone that repulsive.
There are always those moments when someone has a blunder such as when Rick Perry couldn't remember which agency he said he'd abolish. But nobody was booing him.