I think it's interesting that, on DU, in this Democratic Primaries Forum,

[MineralMan]

those who have chosen a favorite candidate have chosen Kamala Harris in numbers that exceed both Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders combined. Now, we're not seeing that in the number of posts supporting individual candidates, but it appears that twice as many participants in this Forum who have specified a candidate have chosen Harris over either of the two men.

Perhaps we should pay attention to that. Perhaps there's a message we're not receiving clearly, somehow.

What do you think?

[msongs]

1. the stat that counts is that 83% do NOT choose her as first choice nt

[MineralMan]

2. Actually, I don't think that's necessarily true.

It's very early, of course. Harris is attracting attention and appears to be appealing strongly to POC and women. She speaks well, and is staying out of the infighting that has already begun among the primary candidates.

It is significant, I believe, that early declarers of support for her outnumber those for either Sanders or Biden by double. It might not be meaningful by the end of the campaign next year, but it is significant now, at least on DU.

[SFnomad]

9. Wow, that's some serious (((spin))) job you've got going there.

Replace her with any other person on the list and you can say that more than 90% did NOT choose them as their first choice either.

[crazycatlady]

16. 50% are undecided

They very well could break for her as their first choice.

I'm undecided and am keeping my options open. I recently read her book, and while I really like her, I feel her skill set is much more useful as AG>

[Hortensis]

32. I like to think 98% or so are "undecided" and some just

playing a choose game, knowing much will become known about our choices over the next year and a half. Of course a few are really serious already, no doubt.

I casually pay maybe 25% of Bernie's 8% the respect of assuming they'll stick with him to the end since that's the proportion who angrily refused to vote Democrat when he didn't win the nomination before. But who knows? I also like to think they could maybe do differently.

[crazycatlady]

33. I just attended a conference about working on the presidential campaigns

On our name tags, they asked us to list our top 3. Many people there (including myself) couldn't even narrow their choices down to 3.

So far, I've only eliminated one (Tulsi Gabbard) from my list.

[Hortensis]

41. And that's a group of serious people.

Interesting.

Gabbard would already have eliminated herself from my consideration if I were hiring for a new fast food joint.

[hlthe2b]

3. I think that without knowing the total N of how many DUers this represents, it is beyond meaningless

Granted DU is a very specialized and likely non-representative audience, but even among DUers we don't know if we are talking a mere handful of votes separating each or more.

I guess admins want to keep this "all in fun" so they've not responded to requests to add the totals, but without that info I find it impossible to take very seriously.

[MineralMan]

4. That's true. We don't know the actual raw numbers.

It's also true that DU doesn't really reflect the national Democratic Party electorate very well at all. I just find it interesting. It's a point that can be discussed.

I am impressed with her impact on audiences so far, though. Her appeal to demographic groups we need very badly next year is strong, and that will definitely be a factor, I think.

I like her. As I have said before, I think she would make an outstanding VP candidate for Joe Biden, if he ends up as the nominee, which is a distinct possibility. She would bring with her badly-needed votes from groups that were not particularly active in 2016.

We'll see, of course.

[hlthe2b]

6. I like her a lot too...

I just don't know what to make of our findings... She has been pretty flawless so far in her roll-out--even with those wanting to dissect her prosecutorial stints.

[MineralMan]

8. She's a very effective speaker.

That counts for a lot in the popularity contest the presidency has turned out to be.

[bigtree]

14. I think in Kamalas case

...she's relating the most basic formula for gaining support and approval.

Sen. Harris is demonstrating that she cares about people's lives and livelihoods. It's not as if she doesn't convey policy or substantive political priorities in her talks with voters. She demonstrates a broad and deep understanding of the issues that affect our lives and she makes that clear to the potential voters (and others) she's interacting with on the trail that she intends to act forcefully on their behalf.

We place all sorts of qualifications on presidents, but communicating empathy and concern have to be among the top requirements for a successful presidency, not forgetting that's also a requisite for winning elections.

[MineralMan]

24. Very good points!

[KitSileya]

11. For one thing, DU is a whole lot whiter than the national Dem party electorate

Too many of our AA members have been driven off the forum in the last three years. DU is lesser for it, unfortunately.

[crazycatlady]

17. I also think DU is older than the Dem electorate

I may be wrong, but it seems like most DUers are Baby Boomers. The Dem electorate is much younger as a whole.

[LAS14]

35. How were they driven off? What kind of posts?? nt

[KitSileya]

40. Just take a look at the African AMerican group over the past 4 years, and you'll get the answer.

Also, the BOG group.

[LAS14]

46. I don't know how to look over 4 years of posts but I did skim...

... the first couple of pages and didn't see anything that suggested dissatisfaction with DU itself. Could you give a couple of links?

tia
las

[KitSileya]

64. No links, or I'm sure my post will be hidden.

But you can search for things like the infamous POSUCS thread, which was allowed to stand by juries of DU's finest (sarcasm), or the Stockholm Syndrome thread (ditto) - it told African-American DUers exactly what many, many white DUers thought about them. Talk about hostile environment.

[LAS14]

81. Oh, wow... thanks. nt

[SidDithers]

42. +1...

good point.

Sid

[Hortensis]

69. Dem party is @3/4 white, very close to the U.S.'s 76%.

13.3% are black. I’m just throwing that in for a reference for this discussion.

Agree loss of some members who posted in the black forum is a real shame. DU is the lesser for it. It’d be interesting to know what the current racial breakdown of DU is.

[KitSileya]

71. I'd be surprised if even 5% of the posts on DU

were written by African-Americans. It's not only being on the membership rolls, it's being able to participate in the discussion too, as we well know from the general election process.

[Hortensis]

79. A tremendous shame if true, both things. Not to put down

the current AA group, but it has been an especially vital and worthwhile forum and hopefully will once again grow to what we know it can be. I dropped by to see what was being said because of the reliably sensible and thoughtful discussion there, in very marked contrast to its dilution in the main forums. I wish they'd return and do what they'd have to to prevail.

[Blue_true]

22. DU is significantly more liberal than the Democratic Party average voter.

DU is also more progressive than the average democratic primary voter.

[Hortensis]

45. Actually really doubt that. It's probably a vocabulary issue.

The average Democrat is and always has been very progressive. Last time 3/4 of Sanders' voters were ordinary Democrats just choosing for the guy they liked best who promised bigger faster but longstanding Democratic goals, no ideological difference. They shouldn't be mistaken for the remaining subgroup who call themselves capital-P Progressive but are not exactly reliably progressive voters. Those the "my leader or screw Democrats and the horse they rode in on" ones who decamped for Trump, Stein, Johnson, etc.

The huge discrepancy between Sanders' tiny 8% and the current uber-high #s of intensely pro-Sanders threads and and posts, more than all the others put together, is extremely striking. Clearly, this is where some uber-loyal (and very busy) followers are coming to promote a leader settled on long ago. It might be interesting to see what happened to the #s if we had to identify all the pictures with stop signs before we could post, but we're seeing zealotry in action again anyway.

[forklift]

66. My observation matches yours nt

[empedocles]

5. 'Interesting', . . . and important.

[MineralMan]

7. Well, its importance is undetermined.

Either way, it's very interesting to me. I remember watching her campaign launch speech and being quite impressed with her as a speaker. That's a very big deal, actually, when it comes to typical casual voters. She appears to think well on her feet, and addresses her target audience in ways they appear to appreciate.

Presentation is a very, very big deal when it comes to presidential races. Since that election is about as close as we get to a national election, it's interesting to follow. I realize that it's not a national election, but it pretends to be one in public.

[comradebillyboy]

10. I would presume it means Kamala is popular with the DU crowd.

I don't know if there is any deeper meaning at this time.

[BooScout]

12. I think we're smarter and better informed. :P

I've chosen Harris but I'm not locked in. There are several other candidates I really like and several I don't like.

[WeekiWater]

25. I could easily go to Harris.

I'm waiting to hear where she stands on a number of issues. We can make inference from her public comments but for the most part she is void of any readable platform. She is lagging behind most candidates in that area. There isn't even an "issues" or "policy" section on her website.

Again, I love what she is doing and could easily switch over. I don't question her progressive credentials or the fact that I think she would be an excellent negotiator and fighter.

[floppyboo]

13. There's definitely something to be said for a prosecutor fighting Trump

I mean, what's Trump going to say: You're tough on crime? haha! He doesn't have much wiggle room to diss her.
She would be an awesome contender for President and I wish her luck.

[tiredtoo]

15. imho

du has been biased in favor of "establishment" candidates. On most other threads saying something even slightly derogatory against an establishment candidate got one close to being booted. Even recommending a movie or tv clip that was in the least bit unfavorable to establishment candidates would raise some shackles.
Having said that, this thread and the posts here are entertaining and may eventually be helpful in our ultimate selection. I have a few on my no list but my yes list is much longer and still too early to pick one over the others.

[peggysue2]

18. 50% remain undecided . . .

for a reason. Many (who like me) have several favs but want to wait and watch what all these candidates can do. Kamala Harris had a terrific start out of the box and is a very strong contender. And there is a genuine yearning for another woman on the Democratic ticket.

But there's also the winning factor. Winning is everything for 2020. All of our candidates are vastly superior to what's squatting in the WH at the moment.

This is a job interview not only for credentials and experience but for the final result: who can take the Trumpster and his odious enablers to the woodshed and come out victorious? Our future as a country hangs on that answer.

I like Biden and Harris and Warren and Booker, thus far. Inslee is also very interesting. Beto O'Rourke is an unknown factor at this point. He may prove to surprise us all. Or not.

All of that will be determined on the campaign trail for the most experienced to the least.

That's why I'm holding back.

[Awsi Dooger]

19. Wow...the highest very low number among very low numbers

We have had multiple threads along these lines. It's like ongoing desperation to apply a tire inflator. Nobody with any type of foundational grasp or probability grasp will fall for it.

In horse racing when somebody has to be the favorite in a jumbled confusing field and holds shaky 7/2 odds, the sharp guys immediately look elsewhere.

[OilemFirchen]

20. It's a metric.

Regardless of the number of participants, it is representative and does have merit. It will also change over time.

Sure would have been useful last time around...

[Lucid Dreamer]

21. Two types of preferences must be recognized.

1. I prefer the policies of ...
2. I prefer the odds of gaining the WH of ...

These may not be the same persons.
I'll vote in the primary based on Option 2.

[TwilightZone]

23. Could also be that some posters who do have a preference are remaining...

"undecided" intentionally to avoid preconceptions.

I'm not one of them, but I've seen a few fairly prolific posters who seem pretty attached to candidates, but are still undecided.

I'm also surprised at Warren's support here or lack thereof. After how much she was discussed during the 2016 campaign, I thought she would be one of the front-runners early on.

[Lancero]

29. The lack of support doesn't really surprise me.

Warren and Sanders are two candidates that are frequently grouped together here, but with both running they're pulling from the same base.

[LongtimeAZDem]

26. I have noted that a number of member's posts do not seem to match their stated preference

so, while the numbers are interesting, they must be taken with a grain of salt.

[MineralMan]

27. That doesn't surprise me, really.

For example, my preference is due to my expectations of the outcome, not necessarily my actual preference. It is the outcome that matters most to me. We absolutely must elect a Democrat to the presidency, and should select a nominee who will help get other Democrats elected to Senate seats.

I believe that Biden, right now, is the best choice for doing exactly that. With a firebrand VP choice, I think he could help us regain control of federal government. That is my goal, and my only goal for 2020.

[LongtimeAZDem]

28. Hear, hear

[mitch96]

30. "With a firebrand VP choice"

Nothing stopping Biden from retiring after two years and giving the post to his VP choice.
The Electorate could "test drive" the VP to Prez candidate and if the people are happy they could elect her/him to a second term.. What cha tink?
m

[MineralMan]

31. If Biden runs, it will be with the intention of holding office

for at least one term. He may not be interested in a second term, though. I have no idea. However, he will understand that he needs to select a VP candidate who will attract voters who might not particularly like him as well as others.

Joe Biden understands politics. He knows why people are selected as VP nominees.

[Tipperary]

39. Agree. nt

[forklift]

65. I think a lot of supporters of a particular candidate

are "undecided" so they can be on juries to hide posts critical of their candidate. I think it is by design.

Then again, I could be wrong.

[LongtimeAZDem]

67. I suspect that as well, and it's not just the "undecideds"

[Amimnoch]

34. Number of supporters doesn't equal number of loudest supporters.

Just looking at the most current threads, nearly 80% of the posts are from/about/in support of the candidate with only 8% declared for him.

[MineralMan]

38. That's very true. Actually, that's what got me thinking

about this.

[LAS14]

36. One thing it means is that a lot of Kamala supporters are quiet people, who...

... don't post a lot, since her percentage in the "choose-a-candidate" count is disproportionate to the number of posts supporting her. That is, if MineralMan's count's are accurate. How do you get a count of that second group??????

[MineralMan]

37. I don't have any actual count - just percentages of those who have made a choice.

You're right though that those who have picked Kamala Harris aren't speaking up that much.

[bigtree]

48. maybe not posting ops

...plenty represented in replies to posts.

Btw, this is a DEAD forum. More attention and response in GD, despite the complainers. Divorcing this from general news is self-defeating and effectively has diverted many visitors away from participating in GDP.

[MineralMan]

49. It will get much busier. Guranteed.

[MineralMan]

50. It's not a dead forum at all.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forums

[The Truth Is Here]

43. Here's my problem

I don't want to disclose my preferred candidate.

I'd rather go from undecided to undisclosed.

[W_HAMILTON]

47. Uh, why?

[MineralMan]

58. OK.

[BannonsLiver]

44. I think the fact undecided is crushing everyone badly means it's too early to draw firm conclusions.

[Eliot Rosewater]

51. What I think is we have AWESOME candidates other than one, and ANY of them I would be PROUD

to vote for.

Every single fucking republican is a DISGRACE!

[spicysista]

52. It is pretty interesting.

Maybe Harris supporters are a bit more wary of posting, in general. I don't post as much as many others around here. It's not because I'm any less passionate about the Democratic party or politics. I've always preferred in person conversations.
As far as the DU poll and what it all means..... IDK, MineralMan.
I do take it to mean that those that are for her, are unbashedly so. The moment she announced, I was ready for her. I do really like other candidates, too. But, I absolutely adore her.
Watch her work across the south (anywhere there's a strong black Greek presence).

[Maxheader]

53. She's cute and apparently handles herself well

in front of the press...

[Tipperary]

55. Cute?

Seriously?

[MineralMan]

59. You beat me to it while I was typing.

[MineralMan]

56. Cute? Really?

She's running for President. Use a different adjective, please.

[Tipperary]

60. Lol. Thank you.

[LongtimeAZDem]

68. It's relevant. It shouldn't be, I agree, but it is. A telegenic candidate has had a better chance

ever since Kennedy debated Nixon.

It's worse for women, but it's true for men as well; Bruce Babbit should have never changed from glasses to contacts, and Paul Simon's appearance was comic fodder.

It mattered with HRC, and the right wing went nuts for Sarah Palin until she started talking; they've already noticed Gabbard. It's a plus for Harris, and it's a strike against some other well-qualified qualified candidates.

No, it's not fair; yes, it shouldn't matter. But let's not be naive, please.

[MineralMan]

70. It's the word "cute" that is the problem.

She's a grown-up woman, not a middle school girl. "Cute" is a minimizing word and not a compliment to someone running for President.

[LongtimeAZDem]

72. I would have said "beautiful" or "attractive" , but then, I've been to chicken to bring it up

so, I won't fault the person who actually raised the issue.

[MineralMan]

74. I would not have used any words that talked about appearance.

She's quite an accomplished public official. She's also a very good public speaker. She's an attorney. She has held public office. What she looks like is irrelevant, or should be in discussions of her as a candidate.

She's not "cute." That's a demeaning, sexist term.

[LongtimeAZDem]

75. Oh, come on, I know all that. As I said, it shouldn't matter, but you and I are old enough

to know better.

As much as we want people to be above such things, it's one of the advantages Biden has over Sanders.

[MineralMan]

76. Biden has many advantages over Sanders, IMO.

His appearance isn't one of them, really.

I think such issues are important to keep in mind. It's difficult enough for a woman to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. We don't need to make it more difficult by using words like "cute" when discussing female candidates. That's a big mistake.

[LongtimeAZDem]

77. OK, I won't argue the point anymore. But I'm dissapointed, TBH.

[Tipperary]

80. Again. Thank you.

Amazing you have to have this conversation. Smh.

[forklift]

54. Pro-Bernie OPs outnumber others by 2:1

What do they say about the loud and vocal minority?

[NurseJackie]

57. I have a theory about why that may be, but it's not a very flattering one....

I have a theory about why that may be, but it's not a very flattering one.... so, for obvious reasons, I won't elaborate on it.

[LongtimeAZDem]

61. Pretty sure it's the same one I alluded to above

[ecstatic]

62. She's the only candidate I've donated to this cycle, but

I'm really scared. My top priority is getting a democrat...any democrat...elected next year. My heart wants Kamala, my mind remembers 2016, and frankly 2018 in Georgia. There are way too many sexist idiots in this country. Of the choices we have, I think Booker could go the furthest when it comes to pulling together President Obama's coalition. The running mate issue could get ugly and he'd have to tread lightly, but I think he could win the nom and the GE.

[Hortensis]

73. I think the big revelation of this thread is that Sanders is only at 8%.

Astonishing given that strongly positive Sanders OPs and postings within other threads overwhelmingly dominate DU's primary and other political discussion.

I think we could count on a majority of his supporters to have weighed in for him, so Sanders’ 8% may actually be a fairly true representation of his support on DU. Not exactly a Sanders wave.

That's the big takeaway, although for those curious it would still leave open the question of how many of his current “8%-ish” supporters are ordinary Democrats who just prefer him out of the field at this point but will vote reliably for our nominee when the day comes. By nature, most of those are probably not spending hours every day flooding DU with his name and searching the web for polls showing Sanders as a frontrunner. So subtracting them from the 8% would leave those who are.

[KPN]

78. What message?