Jump to content

Marianne Williamson surges in the presidential primary polls. Surprised?


Recommended Posts

Posted
On 4/4/2023 at 7:22 AM, Black Jesus said:

Not y’all congratulating her polling numbers that are still in the pits :lmao:

She has a fraction of Biden’s name recognition. Of course she’s not going to be slaying the polls this early. She’s still outperforming Bernie’s polling from 2015 at this time in the race. 

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Communion

    14

  • HEAVYONIT

    6

  • Touchdown

    6

  • GraceRandolph

    6

Posted
On 4/4/2023 at 8:22 AM, Black Jesus said:

Not y’all congratulating her polling numbers that are still in the pits :lmao:

Recent approval figures show thar Williamson has higher approvals than VP Kamala Harris and that 60% of Americans have not yet heard about her. Why is the corporate media blacklisting a politician? :celestial5:

Posted
13 minutes ago, Communion said:

Recent approval figures show thar Williamson has higher approvals than VP Kamala Harris and that 60% of Americans have not yet heard about her. Why is the corporate media blacklisting a politician? :celestial5:

She won't win the nomination so it's pointless to try. If a sitting president can run for re-election and wants to run, the party will generally throw themselves behind that candidate. The incumbent advantage. Additionally, division amongst the party makes the party look weak. It's how American party politics works. 

Posted
1 hour ago, GraceRandolph said:

She has a fraction of Biden’s name recognition. Of course she’s not going to be slaying the polls this early. She’s still outperforming Bernie’s polling from 2015 at this time in the race. 

Because literally no one else has officially announced they are running. She won't be the nominee. 

Posted
55 minutes ago, Black Jesus said:

 Additionally, division amongst the party makes the party look weak. 

And why should voters or media care about if a party looks weak? The of the media is to report the news, not act as a PR firm for the Democratic Party? :celestial5:

Posted
58 minutes ago, Black Jesus said:

She won't win the nomination so it's pointless to try. If a sitting president can run for re-election and wants to run, the party will generally throw themselves behind that candidate. The incumbent advantage. Additionally, division amongst the party makes the party look weak. It's how American party politics works. 

Demanding unquestioned loyalty and unity to one of the most unpopular incumbent presidents of all time projects greater weakness, if anything. :sistrens:

 

I don’t even support Marianne’s candidacy and find it a complete waste of time and energy. But the urgency with which the DNC, Joe Biden’s administration, and liberal media have moved to quash her candidacy is still abhorrent and anti-democratic, no matter how much of a long shot her bid is.

Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Communion said:

And why should voters or media care about if a party looks weak? The of the media is to report the news, not act as a PR firm for the Democratic Party? :celestial5:

Because the media knows she has no shot in winning 

 

29 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Demanding unquestioned loyalty and unity to one of the most unpopular incumbent presidents of all time projects greater weakness, if anything. :sistrens:

 

I don’t even support Marianne’s candidacy and find it a complete waste of time and energy. But the urgency with which the DNC, Joe Biden’s administration, and liberal media have moved to quash her candidacy is still abhorrent and anti-democratic, no matter how much of a long shot her bid is.

ANY challengers from the same party as the incumbent President, Republican or Democrat, are treated the same way. Don’t act like this is some sudden move by the DNC. Didn’t Bill Weld primary Trump in 2020? How much news coverage did he get? It’s how the American political system works 

Edited by Black Jesus
Posted
4 minutes ago, Black Jesus said:

Because the media knows she has no shot in winning 

 

ANY challengers from the same party as the incumbent President, Republican or Democrat, are treated the same way. Don’t act like this is some sudden move by the DNC. Didn’t Bill Weld primary Trump in 2020? How much news coverage did he get? It’s how the American political system works 

Bill Weld and Larry Hogan were taken very seriously and received A LOT of coverage. The media desperately wanted them to happen. :ahh: 

 

Forced unity is WEAK. Sorry :celestial5:

Posted
3 hours ago, Black Jesus said:

Because literally no one else has officially announced they are running. She won't be the nominee. 

She probably won’t, but that doesn’t mean Biden shouldn’t have a challenger. Marianne is likely thinking long term, not just about a single election. 

Posted
13 hours ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Bill Weld and Larry Hogan were taken very seriously and received A LOT of coverage. The media desperately wanted them to happen. :ahh: 

 

Forced unity is WEAK. Sorry :celestial5:

You are living in an alternate reality. Bill Weld did not receive anywhere close to what Trump received. And how about the Green Party candidate? This is the way the media works

RockStarShit101
Posted

it’s gonna be Biden vs Trump in 2024 

not that woman or that floridas governor 

Posted

Gen Z is going to get behind her. 

Posted
11 minutes ago, Shelter said:

Gen Z is going to get behind her. 

Good :clap3:

Posted

Polls don't mean squat. Marianne didn't even stand a chance making it to the primaries in 2020, and she's still the laughing stock of the Democratic Party. It's going to be Biden vs. Trump, as another user pointed out. 

Posted
7 hours ago, zasderfght said:

Polls don't mean squat. Marianne didn't even stand a chance making it to the primaries in 2020, and she's still the laughing stock of the Democratic Party. It's going to be Biden vs. Trump, as another user pointed out. 

the hope is that younger generation and non-brainwashed millennials will not care who is the laughing stock of the Democratic Party

 

the same Democratic Party that had to make Joe's 2020 nomination happen by getting all the other candidates to drop out at the exact same time

Posted

 

Posted
8 minutes ago, Black Jesus said:

 

Williamson staying steady even with a Kennedy entering the race. :clap3:

Posted
20 minutes ago, Black Jesus said:

 

 

11 minutes ago, Communion said:

Williamson staying steady even with a Kennedy entering the race. :clap3:

Kennedy blowing past Williamson and taking her double digit polling from her when he’s an even less serious candidate than she is is kinda… :shutup:

 

Doesn’t seem like she has any actual constituency. Dropping to 4% after polling at 10% after a right-wing anti vaxxer enters the race doesn’t look “steady” at all.

Posted
27 minutes ago, Black Jesus said:

 

That’s very disappointing 

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

taking her double digit polling from her

Sis, we're friendly so I'm only going to slightly nudge that it is reactionary to conflate polls to purposefully smear Williamson. 

 

The last Morning Consult poll had Marianne at 4%. That is holding steady. 

 

Echelon and Morning Consult are two different pollsters. 

 

Noteworthy that Kennedy's support is almost all Biden defectors:

 

 

Edited by Communion
Posted
9 minutes ago, Communion said:

Sis, we're friendly so I'm only going to slightly nudge that it is reactionary to conflate polls to purposefully smear Williamson. 

 

The last Morning Consult poll had Marianne at 4%. That is holding steady. 

 

Echelon and Morning Consult are two different pollsters. 

 

Noteworthy that Kennedy's support is almost all Biden defectors:

 

 

Noted. Most polling out there that i've seen also omits Williamson, but keeps people like Michelle Obama. For most voters, they probably aren't even aware that anybody other than Biden is even running. :michael:

 

Still don't believe it's going to go anywhere though. That's going to be the tactic the entire way. Marianne will be left off of most polling so she can't even technically qualify for debates that won't actually be happening.

Posted

In US history has a sitting president ever been voted in favor of someone else in his own party? 
 

I like her but all she is gonna do is split votes 

Posted
9 minutes ago, FreeXone said:

In US history has a sitting president ever been voted in favor of someone else in his own party?

The last time an incumbent lost his party's nomination for president was likely the end of the 1800s. 

 

The primary system in the US as it currently exists is a largely recent invention. Even the elimination of superdelegates via the popularity of the Bernie Sanders movement for 2020 was radical in that such unappointed figures had long had over-sized influence in determining a party's nominee for president. 

 

The idea that a party's nominee be reflective of what the actual likely voters for said party want and everyone get a fair say is a pretty novel and new idea; ex: most primaries historically largely only being the result of a few contests and decided by roll call at the convention floor. 

Posted
2 hours ago, FreeXone said:

In US history has a sitting president ever been voted in favor of someone else in his own party? 
 

I like her but all she is gonna do is split votes 

It almost happened to President Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1968 primary. At that point LBJ had already completed the last 2 years of Kennedy’s term + his own first full term (he was still allowed a second full term and could’ve been president for 10 years). 

Incumbent president Lyndon B. Johnson had been the early front-runner for the Democratic Party's nomination, but he withdrew from the race after only narrowly winning the New Hampshire primary. Eugene McCarthy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Vice President Humphrey emerged as the three major candidates in the Democratic primaries, until Kennedy was assassinated. VP Humphrey won the primary and ended up losing to Nixon in the general election. 

 

 

Posted
6 hours ago, Communion said:

The last time an incumbent lost his party's nomination for president was likely the end of the 1800s. 

 

The primary system in the US as it currently exists is a largely recent invention. Even the elimination of superdelegates via the popularity of the Bernie Sanders movement for 2020 was radical in that such unappointed figures had long had over-sized influence in determining a party's nominee for president. 

 

The idea that a party's nominee be reflective of what the actual likely voters for said party want and everyone get a fair say is a pretty novel and new idea; ex: most primaries historically largely only being the result of a few contests and decided by roll call at the convention floor. 

So basically shows them what the voters want like they low key tried adapt BERNIES principles. Interesting. 

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.