Poodlestrike
Banned
You should try posting bigger images, I can see nearly an entire sentence in one screen.
Anyway, online polls prove nothing and you know that.
Anyway, online polls prove nothing and you know that.
PoliGAF 2015 |OT2| Pls print
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
brainchild
Banned
I posted these from my phone, sorry.
Anyway, it's not proof of anything, just that if that does reflect the distribution of opinions in America, then Bernie's stance on gun control makes sense, considering his reliance on populist support.
shinra-bansho
Member
I don't know what you thought posting massive images of self-selecting online polls with mostly questions devoid of nuance and/or framed in poor ways across a variety of mostly populist or niche issues was supposed to show.
If you think the question "Are you in favor of decriminalizing drug use?" would receive a net positive response, I don't really know what to say.
icarus already posted some actual polling on gun control.
Here's one on views of government provision of healthcare.
On the level of business regulations.
On taxes and government services.
As for your second part, I'm sure he's an honest and principled man. He's also one that panders. He hasn't had to pander as much in safe liberal Vermont. But trying to rationalise his pandering as anything more than pandering smacks of an inability to accept he is just another political animal and not some transcendent mythical perfect unicorn.
That he is still walking the line on gun control is presumably because if and when he doesn't become the Democratic nominee, he'll need to go back to the Vermont electorate for his Senate seat.
If you think the question "Are you in favor of decriminalizing drug use?" would receive a net positive response, I don't really know what to say.
icarus already posted some actual polling on gun control.
Here's one on views of government provision of healthcare.
On the level of business regulations.
On taxes and government services.
As for your second part, I'm sure he's an honest and principled man. He's also one that panders. He hasn't had to pander as much in safe liberal Vermont. But trying to rationalise his pandering as anything more than pandering smacks of an inability to accept he is just another political animal and not some transcendent mythical perfect unicorn.
That he is still walking the line on gun control is presumably because if and when he doesn't become the Democratic nominee, he'll need to go back to the Vermont electorate for his Senate seat.
Poodlestrike
Banned
"It's not proof of anything, it just means that I'm right."
But seriously though, those polls don't reflect anything about the general population. Online polls are, by nature, not random samples, and as such cannot be assumed to apply to any group other than their specific sample.
Hey GAF, so I've kinda been getting more and more curious about politics. I haven't ever really bothered much with it so I'm aware there's a gigantic mountain of information for me to tackle. Is there any really good way to get started?
A second thing, a couple of friends of mine posted this whole thing about a group called "citizens for ethics reform". I want to learn about it from a few sources. Can anyone provide me a decent amount of relatively unbiased information, either themselves or from another site? I've been looking up stuff but I'm not sure if I'm navigating the right kinds of sources.
A second thing, a couple of friends of mine posted this whole thing about a group called "citizens for ethics reform". I want to learn about it from a few sources. Can anyone provide me a decent amount of relatively unbiased information, either themselves or from another site? I've been looking up stuff but I'm not sure if I'm navigating the right kinds of sources.
Officerrob
Banned
If they are looking for a way to get me not to watch, this would do it. Absolutely no way I'm watching a bunch of rambling statements
All you can do is really pick an issue and start doing research. Try and stick with places that don't have any obvious bias and you should be ok.
As far as "Citizens for Ethics Reform" goes, it doesn't look like there's too much out there about them but the ballot measure they got passed last year doesn't look too bad on paper.
brainchild
Banned
I don't know what you thought posting massive images of self-selecting online polls with mostly questions devoid of nuance and/or framed in poor ways across a variety of mostly populist or niche issues was supposed to show.
If you think the question "Are you in favor of decriminalizing drug use?" would receive a net positive response, I don't really know what to say.
icarus already posted some actual polling on gun control.
Here's one on views of government provision of healthcare.
As for your second part, I'm sure he's an honest and principled man. He's also one that panders. He hasn't had to pander as much in safe liberal Vermont. But trying to rationalise his pandering as anything more than pandering smacks of an inability to accept he is just another political animal and not some transcendent mythical perfect unicorn.
That he is still walking the line on gun control is presumably because if and when he doesn't become the Democratic nominee, he'll need to go back to the Vermont electorate for his Senate seat.
My point was to compare and contrast American opinions on gun control compared to other issues that Bernie's platform addresses.
If you want to treat the Gallup as the gold standard (despite having orders of magnitude smaller sampling sizes), be my guest. If you'd like, I can post plenty of Gallup polls that will show a similar contrast.
Anyway, as for the pandering, I don't know what you're talking about. I'm not denying that Bernie panders. You've lost me. Also, if you want to talk in absolutes (i.e. "mythical perfect unicorn"), despite me being quite clear in explaining that I don't think that Bernie's perfect, then you've lost my interest in this discussion.
The point was more than isidewith.com isn't really a good resource for the sort of thing you're looking at.
PlayALLtheGames
Banned
God this guy is a fucking chode.
brainchild
Banned
"It's not proof of anything, it just means that I'm right."
But seriously though, those polls don't reflect anything about the general population. Online polls are, by nature, not random samples, and as such cannot be assumed to apply to any group other than their specific sample.
I'll do the same for some Gallup polls, though it'll take me some time. Let's see if it changes my argument
shinra-bansho
Member
It's not the gold standard, it's just an actual poll and not some online self-selected nonsense that's about as useful as Facebook likes.
You say you admit that he's pandering, and at the same time try to rationalize it as not pandering but rather due to valid pragmatic reasons. If you weren't intent on hand-waving away his positions on gun control by claiming that they're due to an apt reading of mood of the nation and that the issue is too intractable - while issues like provision of universal healthcare and education apparently aren't - rather than simply because he has to hold those positions to maintain his Senate seat, then we wouldn't be tumbling down this rabbit hole.
The US is divided on a whole host of issues, gun control among them. But that isn't the rationale behind the different approaches to the issues. And it's deliberately obtuse and/or disingenuous to suggest it is.
You say you admit that he's pandering, and at the same time try to rationalize it as not pandering but rather due to valid pragmatic reasons. If you weren't intent on hand-waving away his positions on gun control by claiming that they're due to an apt reading of mood of the nation and that the issue is too intractable - while issues like provision of universal healthcare and education apparently aren't - rather than simply because he has to hold those positions to maintain his Senate seat, then we wouldn't be tumbling down this rabbit hole.
The US is divided on a whole host of issues, gun control among them. But that isn't the rationale behind the different approaches to the issues. And it's deliberately obtuse and/or disingenuous to suggest it is.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Traditional polls use random sampling. Online polls do not and are skewed towards particular demographics. The latter is not exactly statistically useful and I'm kind of surprised we have to make this distinction.
User 463088
Banned
Let's say that I accept your premise on face value. That a majority of Americans do, in fact, support things like single payer, small "s" socialism and the rest. (I don't, but for sake of argument, let's say I do.)
Then why is Bernie Sanders not so far ahead of any other candidate? There are three possible explanations: 1) They care about these issues to the same degree as Sanders, but they think that someone else (i.e. Hillary) is better at addressing them. 2) These issues don't impact their vote, and there are some other mythical issues that are more important to them or 3) they disagree with Sander's approach.
Regardless, it's not good news for John McCain. Erm, I mean, Bernie Sanders. Either these issues aren't important, or they simply don't like what he's selling. There's a reason for that. We are, for better or worse, a country that perceives itself to be center-right. Even when people support programs like Social Security and Medicare, they are opposed to government intervention in both of them. (Don't try to fight the logic there). Bernie's policies may be popular, but his package isn't resonating with people.
I would start out making sure you're informed with your local information. Make sure you know who your Senators are. Know who represents you in the House. Find out who are your state representatives. Use that as a jumping off point. Take a look at their voting record. Read what you can find about the things they've voted for or against. Find out where you fall on the political spectrum. Then, if you find out you enjoy politics, call your local Democratic/Republican committee. See if they need someone to volunteer. The best way to learn is to get active in some campaign, even if you only do it one day. They'll love the help, and you'll learn a bunch.
brainchild
Banned
I never said this and you assumed incorrectly. It may be pandering, but it may also be pragmatism. Doesn't have to be dichotomous.
brainchild
Banned
Just because the American people may happen to agree with Sanders, it doesn't mean that they'll automatically assume he's the best person to lead the country. Hell, they may not even know that he agrees with them!
Electability is also an important issue. Agreeability in and of itself is not enough to win a presidential election.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
If I'm guilty of anything it's just in using hyperbolic language for dramatic and humorous effect, which is what I used to think people were doing when they repped Bernie but then I find out they're serious. But referential language like Messiah Complex is just a colorful way to describe notions of a political savior which is absolutely relevant given how people talk and argue about Bernie; I would like to think it's obvious that I'm not suggesting anyone has the psychological condition causing them to believe they or Bernie is Jesus Christ.
To the larger point, the idea that we 'know' Bernie will be a top president is as laughable as saying that we 'know' Obama would be. Jimmy Carter was a nice and ethical guy too but that didn't make him effective at the job. What's Bernie got going for him that Obama and Carter didn't? I mean, we've got this huge digression going because you guys can't even admit a trivial point that's patently obvious to everyone else regarding gun control.
Politicians tailoring their votes to their constituents is not a huge black mark but the incredible resistance to the this fact doesn't make sense unless Bernie has to be something more than a politician. It's gratuitous to complain that we can't know what his true motivations were because we can't know the truth of anyone's motivations about anything. For all we know, every reversal Hillary has made has not been for political expediency but for honest good faith reasons. Last time I checked that didn't stop anyone from making reasonable and probable conclusions.
brainchild
Banned
Well, to be honest, it's really not even that serious. There are thousands of reasons that someone might believe that a candidate will become a great president. There is no objective standard here, just plain ol' subjectivity. Had I known I would be asked for proof of my claims, I probably would have kept the thought to myself.
I've already explained ad nauseum why I think that Bernie is a commendable politician, and I don't really feel like regurgitating all that right now. But to be clear, no, I don't 'know' that he'll be a top president, of course. He's just done a great job in convincing me that he would be, based on everything that I know about him up to this point.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
I'm not asking for literal proof he would be a top president, that would be absurd. I'm making a point about the ridiculous adulation being thrown at Bernie and trying to highlight this through contrast to Obama and other politicians who were viewed in similar ways. The very idea of calling a presidential candidate a top 5 president before they're even elected is nonsensical.
All that said, just because something is ultimately a subjective determination does not mean there are not rational/objective factors that are weighed to make the determination. I'm plenty familiar with the Bernie sales pitch, I'm just flummoxed that people find that pitch so compelling that they're happy to widely extrapolate Bernie to the same caliber as Abraham Lincoln (who we warmly regard despite accepting the fact he made some very bad decisions, but you'll never catch a Bernie supporter admitting to any flaw/mistake/error).
Aaron Strife
Banned
I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just saying it's funny how Bernie supporters put forth all these pie in the sky scenarios that probably wouldn't even happen with a Dem Congress (Obamacare just passed with a supermajority if you recall, single payer lol?) but then with gun control they suddenly start talking pragmatism.
Especially since Hillary's gun control proposals aren't even outrageously groundbreaking in terms of public opinion, just in contrast to the NRA's "Yeah those elementary school students can have guns!" philosophy.
Lord_Byron28
Member
Because he lives in and represents Vermont which has a lot rural area and has a high amount of people that use guns for sport and hunting.
User 463088
Banned
Let's also not pretend that Sanders isn't capable of poli-flip-flop speaking, either. In July, he did an interview with Couric and said that pot was a “gateway drug” that can lead to heroin and cocaine use." Now, three months later, he's for decriminalizing it. (And I don't fault him for having a change of heart. Intelligent people listen to facts, reality and can often change their opinion. Unless it's economic policy out of the 1960s......)
He is a politician who is fortunate enough to live in a liberal state where his liberal positions don't require him to form deep coalitions with people who disagree with him, because, liberal Vermont typically does agree with him on most things. Interestingly, where he's been out of the mainstream on modern liberal thought (i.e. guns and immigration reform) it's because he claims he has to represent his state's (and in the case of immigration) unions interests. That's not a problem, but it shows that he's maybe not the fount of all that is liberal and pure. He's a good person, with some good ideas and some not so good ideas. Like when he voted to allow guns on Amtrak trains. Or voted against the Brady Bill the first, second, third, fourth and fifth time. Or when he worked to make sure nuclear waste didn't go to Vermont, but, instead, went to a poor, mostly Mexican-American area of rural Texas. So, there are times where he'll sell his liberal values for the benefit of his constituents. We just, to paraphrase the old joke, are simply haggling over the price.
Now that he's trying to build a coalition of supporters, he (and his supporters) are going to find that you need a bit of pragmatism and concessions to win an election. Instead of just accepting that, though, some (Read: some not all) Sanders supporters start doing mental gymnastics of why he's not really changing his mind, or why he's always felt that way because reasons. There are two Bernie Sanders, the man and the myth. One of them will survive the primary, the other won't.
He is a politician who is fortunate enough to live in a liberal state where his liberal positions don't require him to form deep coalitions with people who disagree with him, because, liberal Vermont typically does agree with him on most things. Interestingly, where he's been out of the mainstream on modern liberal thought (i.e. guns and immigration reform) it's because he claims he has to represent his state's (and in the case of immigration) unions interests. That's not a problem, but it shows that he's maybe not the fount of all that is liberal and pure. He's a good person, with some good ideas and some not so good ideas. Like when he voted to allow guns on Amtrak trains. Or voted against the Brady Bill the first, second, third, fourth and fifth time. Or when he worked to make sure nuclear waste didn't go to Vermont, but, instead, went to a poor, mostly Mexican-American area of rural Texas. So, there are times where he'll sell his liberal values for the benefit of his constituents. We just, to paraphrase the old joke, are simply haggling over the price.
Now that he's trying to build a coalition of supporters, he (and his supporters) are going to find that you need a bit of pragmatism and concessions to win an election. Instead of just accepting that, though, some (Read: some not all) Sanders supporters start doing mental gymnastics of why he's not really changing his mind, or why he's always felt that way because reasons. There are two Bernie Sanders, the man and the myth. One of them will survive the primary, the other won't.
brainchild
Banned
These are the Gallup polls I could find that show the opinions of what Americans think about some of Bernie's stances. I did not include polls that did not directly reflect a stance as it has been publicly presented by Bernie's platform. For example, any polls where Americans were polled about government involvement of social services, without providing a context similar to Bernie's platform, were omitted. Bernie's platform publicly provides the context of each stance, so in order to draw an apples-to-apples comparison, the questions in the polls must also provide the same context. It's the closest we can get to using this data to indirectly ask these Americans what they think about Bernie's stances.
Why is this important? Well, it could affect the perception of the opinion if not properly aligned. For example, if you asked most Americans if the government should be responsible for healthcare, they might say no. However, if you ask those same people if the they would like for the government to provide free healthcare to every citizen of the country, they may be inclined to say yes.
Here's what I could find
And again, gun control
The contrast is clear (as I've noticed with virtually every poll I've seen), stricter gun control is one issue where you cannot rely on the majority of American opinion for support. It's simply not happening.
Why is this important? Well, it could affect the perception of the opinion if not properly aligned. For example, if you asked most Americans if the government should be responsible for healthcare, they might say no. However, if you ask those same people if the they would like for the government to provide free healthcare to every citizen of the country, they may be inclined to say yes.
Here's what I could find
And again, gun control
The contrast is clear (as I've noticed with virtually every poll I've seen), stricter gun control is one issue where you cannot rely on the majority of American opinion for support. It's simply not happening.
User 463088
Banned
Who ran the poll?
brainchild
Banned
Read my fucking post history (in this very thread).
Anyway, think what you want. This isn't an interesting enough conversation/topic for me to repeat myself over and over.
shinra-bansho
Member
First and foremost, you need to settle down. Or expect to take a holiday.
Secondly, having a general sentiment towards certain ideas, like a need for greater wealth redistribution, isn't an endorsement of Sanders actual policy proposals. Net support for a higher minimum wage in general is not net support for a $9 Federal minimum wage as depicted, is not support for a $15 minimum wage. And for the most part they're simply Democratic party ideals anyway; i.e. I'm not sure why you're including a bunch of charts on racial inequality.
And then even if one accepts the premise that the US citizenry en masse supports Sanders policy prescriptions, not just broad concepts, that doesn't in itself lend credence to the idea that the primary reason he's taken certain less liberal positions is because of the practical realities of public support and implementation. Especially when other pie-in-the-sky prescriptions aren't subject to this litmus test.
I'm not sure why you included immigration reform, since that's one issue where he hasn't been as progressive in his positions, not because of the practical realities of implementation, but those of being a politician with organised labour support.
Secondly, having a general sentiment towards certain ideas, like a need for greater wealth redistribution, isn't an endorsement of Sanders actual policy proposals. Net support for a higher minimum wage in general is not net support for a $9 Federal minimum wage as depicted, is not support for a $15 minimum wage. And for the most part they're simply Democratic party ideals anyway; i.e. I'm not sure why you're including a bunch of charts on racial inequality.
And then even if one accepts the premise that the US citizenry en masse supports Sanders policy prescriptions, not just broad concepts, that doesn't in itself lend credence to the idea that the primary reason he's taken certain less liberal positions is because of the practical realities of public support and implementation. Especially when other pie-in-the-sky prescriptions aren't subject to this litmus test.
I'm not sure why you included immigration reform, since that's one issue where he hasn't been as progressive in his positions, not because of the practical realities of implementation, but those of being a politician with organised labour support.
The only one that's been just released that I can find is an IBD one, but Rubio isn't up in that over their last poll. He's flat.
brainchild
Banned
My rationality is purely based on Bernie's publicly stated reasoning for taking the stances that he's taken, "because most Americans agree with me on these issues" -- Bernie Sanders. Right or wrong, it's what he claims to be the motivations for adopting most of the policies that he has. His other stances are based on morals (like the death penalty, which he is against, even though most Americans are in favor of it).
And I apologize if I seem a little feisty. I'm just a little agitated. To be honest, it would probably be better if I minimized my posting in this thread. Constantly being in the minority of expressed opinion can have an effect on one's conduct, and it is clear that that is the case for me.
Bernie is running because the DNC decided they would just elect Clinton this time around without a serious challenger. That to me is counter intuitive because if Sanders wasn't running many of the things we are discussing right now would be swept under the rug.
You'd find plenty of people who support Sanders but would have supported Warren with the same vigor. It has never been about the person but it has always been about the message.
People keep talking about the losses in midterm elections but fail to call out the reason, Super Pacs pumping millions of dollars to organize while there is low voter turnout will always lead to special interest groups having a much wider voice than actual issues people care about. We have seen these people elected into office not wanting to compromise while the Kato Institute and other similar "Think Tanks" draw up their platform and insist they never deviate from it. The pledge to never raise taxes isn't drawn up by constituents. The gridlock locally and nationally is caused because such people end up getting elected with a non compromise stance and on the back of major money used to attack their opponents. This in turn leads to a suppression of voter turnout long term and it would only continue getting worse unless major reform is made and Citizens United is overturned.
In the first six months of this presidential election cycle, more than half of the record-setting $300 million given to the various candidates came from only 358 mega-rich families and the corporations they control. The top 158 of them totaled $176 million in political spending, meaning that, on average, each one of them bought more than a million dollars’ worth of “free” speech.
If Bernie wasn't in the race all we'd hear about very centrist Hillary platform and whatever talking point Republicans are trying to paddle. Ensuring campaign finance reform remains something outside the media spotlight while millions are pumped into ensuring republicans candidates who have pledged to pare regulations; cut taxes on income, capital gains and inheritances; and shrink entitlement programs are elected.
You'd find plenty of people who support Sanders but would have supported Warren with the same vigor. It has never been about the person but it has always been about the message.
People keep talking about the losses in midterm elections but fail to call out the reason, Super Pacs pumping millions of dollars to organize while there is low voter turnout will always lead to special interest groups having a much wider voice than actual issues people care about. We have seen these people elected into office not wanting to compromise while the Kato Institute and other similar "Think Tanks" draw up their platform and insist they never deviate from it. The pledge to never raise taxes isn't drawn up by constituents. The gridlock locally and nationally is caused because such people end up getting elected with a non compromise stance and on the back of major money used to attack their opponents. This in turn leads to a suppression of voter turnout long term and it would only continue getting worse unless major reform is made and Citizens United is overturned.
In the first six months of this presidential election cycle, more than half of the record-setting $300 million given to the various candidates came from only 358 mega-rich families and the corporations they control. The top 158 of them totaled $176 million in political spending, meaning that, on average, each one of them bought more than a million dollars’ worth of “free” speech.
If Bernie wasn't in the race all we'd hear about very centrist Hillary platform and whatever talking point Republicans are trying to paddle. Ensuring campaign finance reform remains something outside the media spotlight while millions are pumped into ensuring republicans candidates who have pledged to pare regulations; cut taxes on income, capital gains and inheritances; and shrink entitlement programs are elected.
IBD/TIPP
Roland_Gunner
Member
Eh? I found the IBD poll and for them its Trump who is up while Carson and Rubio are basically treading water. I don't think IBD is a high-quality poll but if Rubio can't make a move after getting pimped non-stop by both the "MSM" and Fox News after the last debate he's in trouble.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...-leads-ben-carson-second-in-ibd-tipp-poll.htm
Manmademan
Member
Yeah I was about to say that. Iirc they had trump in second, 7 points behind Carson on 10/2, and now he's in front by untouchable margins.
Their polling has been pretty questionable lately I'm not sure I'd put a lot of stock in this.
Frank the Great
Banned
Polls of national opinion on various issues are poor measures of what a President can accomplish. What matters is the poll numbers in individual congressional districts, which have been drawn in such a way that the conservative side of issues are given much higher priority.
Bernie won't be able to do shit, regardless what the public thinks on issues.
Bernie won't be able to do shit, regardless what the public thinks on issues.
I specifically look at HuffPollster with Less Smoothing. I like noisiness because we get a much earlier glimpse at trends otherwise hidden by smoothing. I don't often compare polls from the same pollster because that's a bit too much noise.
Trump has his typical post-debate fall. Most candidates continue their approach towards 0% - Huckabee at Jindal tier now, wow. Rubio appears to be on the front of a Fiorina-esque rise - we'll see soon whether that's real or sampling error. Not sure why I said Carson was down. Maybe it showed him down last night and it was corrected this morning. I'll assume Halloween drunkenness compromised my analysis.
shinra-bansho
Member
Huh? The Huff Poll thing only has one poll that covers a post debate period (by a day) the IBD one people are talking about. So there's no post-debate aggregate data anyway.
RE: the meeting about debates.
The changes he want make sense since the more candidates there are the less likely it is he'll be called on for questions, and longer statements means he's just reading prepared remarks.
RE: the meeting about debates.
Not sure if it was mentioned already, but it seems it's the Carson campaign that's driving this. I'm assuming his staff have realised how bad he is at it, even if the voting public hasn't seemed to mind his inability to answer simple questions yet.
The changes he want make sense since the more candidates there are the less likely it is he'll be called on for questions, and longer statements means he's just reading prepared remarks.
Good luck with your journey, not enough people are knowledgeable about politics. I guess my tip would be to listen to news sources like NPR instead of CNN/FOX/MSNBC.
Manmademan
Member
That makes sense. It's really quite shocking just how BAD Carson is during debates and how it just doesn't matter at all.
Bernie is also wrong to call himself socialist.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
They know the routine.
More time for opening/closing statements means more time to say meaningless stuff that sounds great to the base. That's why they want it. He is terrible in debates, but people don't care. The far right is crazy.
Look at the man's favorables. They STILL haven't dropped much after everything he has said.
I mean, the guy is calling for a 15% flat tax that would absolutely crush the lower- and lower-middle-class incomes. Yet, even though most of these people polled probably fall into that category, they can't do the simple math to realize this and are persuaded by his idiotic meaningless statements.
Less debate time means less time for actual answers about policy, and they know that's his weakness.
This is really the best way to sell 'socialism' -- don't sell it at all, because it's really not like a traditional socialist society. Plant the seed that, yes, you can live in a nation that favors a successful market economy while also protecting its citizens with a broad safety net. THESE TWO THINGS CAN CO-EXIST AND NOT BE SOCIALISM.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
My rankings of least to most dangerous (when it comes to leading the country) of those left in the GOP race (ignoring those in the kids' debate):
Trump
Rubio
Kasich
Jeb
Christie
Paul
Huckabee
Cruz
Fiorina
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Carson
Trump
Rubio
Kasich
Jeb
Christie
Paul
Huckabee
Cruz
Fiorina
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Carson
Yellowtail
Member
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Trump needs to turn his attention to Carson if he wants to win the nomination. The meters still aren't moving for Rubio. The right is done with establishment candidates.
Yellowtail
Member
Carson's a useful foil right now. His artificially high numbers prevent more serious threats like Cruz and even Rubio from rising. The time to take him down is just before the Iowa caucus.
The best way to sell socialism is to let the flaws of capitalism continuously grow and widen.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked