DMR Iowa Poll: Pete Buttigieg Rockets To The Top As A Clear Frontrunner

[FATCAT 60,888]

1 hour ago, Seeka said:

He's cool and all but he cannot sweep America by storm. 

I mean people said the same thing about Obama, we just don't really know where things will end up until it's happening, you know?

[hankhatesyouall 2,731]

Top me

[Seeka 12,372]

12 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

I mean people said the same thing about Obama, we just don't really know where things will end up until it's happening, you know?

True but I really don't think he's going to overrcome the big three. 

I mean, he's done better than Beto or Kamala, who have both screwed themselves over witg ridiculous policies. 

But he's not gonna overrcome the fact that he's gay. There is no amount of centrism that wilk save him from himself. 

Also this election doesn't matter that much. Honestly. The next four years, if we remove Trump, will be undoing his havoc. 

[Whispering 18,865]

4 hours ago, PunkTheFunk said:

I said he was the one to watch many months ago and everyone laughed at me.

Same! I saw him interviewed and looked into him and I predicted he would be the dark horse. 

Can he stay in the lead and build on it? I don’t know, but this is the start you want to see!

[Whispering 18,865]

4 hours ago, HybridAT said:

He's in fourth position nationally BECAUSE of lower name recognition than Biden/Warren/Sanders. That's also why he's losing to Trump in head-to-head matchups right now. Most people have still not started paying attention to the race. Obama was known nationally far more then than Pete is at this stage. He was a Senator, Pete is a Mayor. And we're still 3 months away from primaries. Minority voters want to back someone who can actually beat the Republican candidate. If you don't think minority voters will not give him a second look if he wins Iowa and finishes top 3 in NH, then I say think again. They will. He might not win SC but he can still finish strong there.

People acting like Iowa polls are not important, lol. These two latest Iowa polls showing Pete this far ahead is a bid deal! If Iowa wasn’t such a big deal, candidates wouldn’t spend months there...which they do, every election cycle.

AA voters are pragmatic voters. They will vote for who they think has a chance at winning. If Pete starts to gain momentum, they will vote for him. 

[Hybrid AT 78]

20 minutes ago, Whispering said:

People acting like Iowa polls are not important, lol. These two latest Iowa polls showing Pete this far ahead is a bid deal! If Iowa wasn’t such a big deal, candidates wouldn’t spend months there...which they do, every election cycle.

AA voters are pragmatic voters. They will vote for who they think has a chance at winning. If Pete starts to gain momentum, they will vote for him. 

Well, at least you get it. I have a really hard time defending him against all the different lies, smears and attempts to minimize or completely erase his candidacy but the facts stand for themselves. Nobody's saying he can win with his current minority support but electorate  sometimes takes time to shift or sometimes shifts even overnight. Who knows what's going to happen? I'm going to let the campaign do their job. If he's still polling at 3-4% after January then that's a different story and it makes sense to write him off. But I'm pretty sure we'll be seeing a drastic shift in numbers across the board even a month from now.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

 

2 hours ago, Whispering said:

People acting like Iowa polls are not important, lol. These two latest Iowa polls showing Pete this far ahead is a bid deal! If Iowa wasn’t such a big deal, candidates wouldn’t spend months there...which they do, every election cycle.

AA voters are pragmatic voters. They will vote for who they think has a chance at winning. If Pete starts to gain momentum, they will vote for him. 

I don't see why nuance seems to be so lost in this discussion  

If this is really your perspective, why aren't you going into threads about Bernie who has also been 1st 2nd and 3rd in Iowa in the last month and a half and saying "AA are pragmatic voters, if they see Bernie winning in these early states, they will vote for him." Why is Pete more likely to gain support for doing well in early states (whether he wins Iowa or not) than Warren or Sanders who already have built okay to decent support with AA voters? Does Pete's current 0-1% polling with black voters not worry you? Do you think its just random? He doesn't have a messaging problem or anything?

Why wouldn't any top 3 placement for Joe Biden just solidify for older AA voters that hes still their guy? If the reported reason AA voters moved from Clinton to Obama after Iowa and the early states was that they "liked his policy, but didnt see him as being electable as the "big change" candidate (and cause.. black)" and then suddenly saw him having a chance of winning, whose to say that won't happen for Bernie by this logic? He has the 2nd highest approval among AA voters, and 1st with younger AA voters. I'm just saying be consistent, and not exceptional. Anyone's gut feeling about Pete Buttigieg does not supercede facts, history, polling, trends, demographics of support, or any other established metric thats remotely useful in predicting outcomes  We might as well all default to "No one knows who will win until someone wins in the end" then. These aren't hyper partisan questions, I'm trying to ask the same questions I would ask of any candidate in any scenario. 

Also, no one is saying Iowa is just wholly unimportant or irrelevant in the grand scheme of things at all, but if you go back and look at why  the candidates that won Iowa and went on to win the nom/general or just the nom it isn't just a miracle victory in Iowa. Part of it is the media cycle being self-perpetuating. People know "Iowa means something" and thus they make it mean something. But if you actually look at those former candidates' support in national polling before and after, look at their demographics, messaging, current standings, etc. you would see that the circumstances of those candidates wins were not wholly analogous  circumstances of Pete Buttigieg in this moment in history. I'm looking at his policies, his messaging, his campaign strategy so far, his current established voting demographic and donor base, and how he is perceived in Mainstream media. Not just pulling these questions out of thin air because of some agenda I have against him  

[Lilmonzter 2,864]

Let's be really frank here

Is Pete being gay affect his voting block? He's a small town mayor with no real experience who is a homosexual.

Is America ready for a gay president?, Is America actually truly gay friendly or do they tolerate the gays? 

Is him being gay going to be a deal breaker for some people or is his message good enough

[HorusRa2 5,005]

Pete’s sexuality is not going to be an issue with his candidacy. 

The issue with Pete is going to be two-fold: can he convince black voters that he’s their guy? Evidence so far points to no, not including the shenanigans he pulled with his Douglass plan and claiming AA leaders endorsed his plan when they did not. The other problem is how is he going to win a primary when majority of primary voters want Medicare for All, not Medicare for Those Who Want It (really, it’s Medicare for who can afford it but the focus group told him not to say the quiet part loud). Especially when he was a “progressive” just 3 months ago but is now presenting himself as a “moderate.” This shift in ideology mid-primary is going to make his former problem with AA voters even more exacerbated. 

 

The only people supporting his campaign are going are going to be affluent white liberals who happen to be over 40 and all of the Warren voters who are going to leave her now that there’s a new shiny object being propped up by the media.

i also gotta keep reminding y’all that these polls are not capturing all of the people that are coming on caucus nights. People like Bernie, Yang & Tulsi are going to turn out voters that don’t get polled by these pollsters & y’all are going to get all up in your feelings about it when election night comes.

[Whispering 18,865]

4 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

 

I don't see why nuance seems to be so lost in this discussion  

If this is really your perspective, why aren't you going into threads about Bernie who has also been 1st 2nd and 3rd in Iowa in the last month and a half and saying "AA are pragmatic voters, if they see Bernie winning in these early states, they will vote for him." Why is Pete more likely to gain support for doing well in early states (whether he wins Iowa or not) than Warren or Sanders who already have built okay to decent support with AA voters? Does Pete's current 0-1% polling with black voters not worry you? Do you think its just random? He doesn't have a messaging problem or anything?

Why wouldn't any top 3 placement for Joe Biden just solidify for older AA voters that hes still their guy? If the reported reason AA voters moved from Clinton to Obama after Iowa and the early states was that they "liked his policy, but didnt see him as being electable as the "big change" candidate (and cause.. black)" and then suddenly saw him having a chance of winning, whose to say that won't happen for Bernie by this logic? He has the 2nd highest approval among AA voters, and 1st with younger AA voters. I'm just saying be consistent, and not exceptional. Anyone's gut feeling about Pete Buttigieg does not supercede facts, history, polling, trends, demographics of support, or any other established metric thats remotely useful in predicting outcomes  We might as well all default to "No one knows who will win until someone wins in the end" then. These aren't hyper partisan questions, I'm trying to ask the same questions I would ask of any candidate in any scenario. 

Also, no one is saying Iowa is just wholly unimportant or irrelevant in the grand scheme of things at all, but if you go back and look at why  the candidates that won Iowa and went on to win the nom/general or just the nom it isn't just a miracle victory in Iowa. Part of it is the media cycle being self-perpetuating. People know "Iowa means something" and thus they make it mean something. But if you actually look at those former candidates' support in national polling before and after, look at their demographics, messaging, current standings, etc. you would see that the circumstances of those candidates wins were not wholly analogous  circumstances of Pete Buttigieg in this moment in history. I'm looking at his policies, his messaging, his campaign strategy so far, his current established voting demographic and donor base, and how he is perceived in Mainstream media. Not just pulling these questions out of thin air because of some agenda I have against him  

I’ve said the same thing about AA voters on multiple occasions. As the election in Iowa in drawing closer, I’ve seen Warren and now Pete leading. It’s a positive sign for them. That doesn’t mean either will win, it’s simply the first state and typically gives some momentum, but there is still time to go and it certainly doesn’t mean they are going to win the nomination. 

Biden will probably win SC due to a long relationship and history, but if he is generally losing ground, pragmatic and moderate voters in general will look for another candidate. We will see what happens.

 

[Biggest Fan 988]

I want a Gay president Now !!!!!    
 

[Guillaume Hamon 6,984]

10 hours ago, MJHolland said:

First they ignored, then they made fun, and now they attack

Actually Pete got these "attacks" from the get-go on GGD so you can't blame folks for hypocritically adapting their reaction to him.  They were consistent lol.

12 hours ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

the guy currently in 4th place in the national polling (by double digits) has a decent poll in ONE early primary state

Good sum up. Yes it could grow and transform into a momentum in many states but so far it's not it yet so there are months to go and that remains very open.

[President Biden 5,898]

12 hours ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

We're months away from any actual votes being cast, Buttigieg has consolidated all of the millions he's taken from billionaires and other wealthy donors via well-connected Washington insiders and bundlers in the incredibly white state of Iowa, and it's... literally the only state where he's even remotely competitive.  He's double digits behind the rest of the competition in the national polling. 

The user who posted this is a hardcore Buttigieg stan and has been posting literally every single poll that's been good for him in an attempt to make him look like a top tier candidate when, in reality, all these polls really do is indicate that he's attempting to buy Iowa and is banking on wealthy white people to save his campaign. 

Boo hoo I don’t like politics and think the world is always fair.

 

 

 

Nothing is stopping progressives from taking corporate money from companies like Ben & Jerries and using it to push their politics. Corporations have full legal rights to donate in the US under our laws. And in a race against Trump, I care more about winning the election than some faux morals about campaign finance

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

On the one hand I'm happy am openly gay man who is running for President is this high there. That said, the man is a fraud. He molds and changes depending on the political climate, is in bed with big dollar donors and the establishment, and pretends to be a progressive because it's the current hot buzzword. 

Take Medicare For All for instance. In the beginning, he said he supported it and said he's a progressive. Now, he's pivoted to his Medicare For Some plan, become a centrist, and drags Medicare for All every chance he gets. 

He'll be an Obama 2.0 if he wins where he has some nice words and blah blah blah, but doesn't really end up doing anything to change stuff and sells out to the corporate Democratic donors. 

What we need is a REAL progressive who will actually fight and not bend to the corporatists' will.. 

Guess we'll see how far he'll really go though. He's polling even worse than Warren with Black voters and Iowa is like the only state he's doing good in, which is a VERY white state. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

6 hours ago, Halsey said:

Boo hoo I don’t like politics and think the world is always fair.

Nothing is stopping progressives from taking corporate money from companies like Ben & Jerries and using it to push their politics. Corporations have full legal rights to donate in the US under our laws. And in a race against Trump, I care more about winning the election than some faux morals about campaign finance

Faux morals? How about it being a legitimate political strategy to root out financial corruption in our political system? We live in a time of legalized bribery. 

"It's legal" is literally the problem. It shouldn't be. There's absolutely no reason to support this practice if you believe in the will of the people or in even the concept of Representative Democracy. One billionaire or some millionaires, companies, etc. should not be able to completely override the will of every person that an elected official is elected to represent and control the people that they elect. That's literally a fundamental threat to Democracy   Even Pete knows this. He just thinks its wrong but... is also okay with taking it. We know from like... all of recent history that every candidate that says "I won't be bought by corporate interests, I'm going to represent the people" who goes on to take that money is lying.

The funny thing about money raised in the primaries so far is that Pete's argument is we need all the money we can get to beat Trump, but he  has needed to take corporate money and donations from rich people just to raise less than the amount of money that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have raised just on  individual small donor contributions  It's clear that he needed it for his increased name recognition and to fund his campaign fundamentally.