Pretty sure he said if either Bernie or Trump run.
Super Tuesday 2016 |OT| The Final Incursion is a double Incursion (Mar 5-15 contests)
- Thread starter B-Dubs
- Start date
- Status
Pretty sure he said if either Bernie or Trump run.
Orbis Tabula
Member
I think the central question is this: can we determine Clinton did something wrong simply because there is a federal investigation? Or is the federal investigation the method we use to determine that someone did something wrong? Is an investigation paramount to guilt? Or can there be an investigation that eventually finds a person innocent?
I realize that's actually four questions, but they're all basically the same. Because what matters is the outcome of the investigation. If a thorough and fair investigation of Clinton found no wrongdoing, and exonerated her, would the stink of having been investigated still be a problem?
boiled goose
good with gravy
"Everyone who works financial industry are evil, nefarious people." Classic Strawman.
For the sake of the other people following our exchange. No, they are not necessarily evil. Probably largely non evil. People look out for their interests. That is normal. The problem is the SYSTEM. When the system is ruled by money, not votes, then laws get passed based on the views of donors, not constituents. That is the entire argument. So simple, and yet wet pinned you squirm and avoid, and distract, and strawman. Again, the parallels with religious apologetic is truly fascinating.
And... the questions from the post that got reposted 3 times never got answered. Truly amazing. I am truly shocked at the avoidance. WOW.
I think the "email scandal" is complete BS at the moment.
Same with "benghazi" and "IRS" and "solyndra".
The one problem is that there could be a scandal. And no, not the silly classified email scandal. I honestly dont care about that. The issue could be of state dept doing favors in exchange for Clinton foundation support. That is a clear conflict of interest. That could be the real issue. Is there evidence? I don't know tbh.
Bloomberg wanted to enter the race to ensure a crazy outsider did not win the election.
If the race is Hillary vs. Trump, him entering the race is not a good idea for ensuring that. So I very much doubt he will do so (and the news articles are saying the same thing).
Finale Fireworker
Member
It's worrisome. I just hope we show up in November.
This is the most terrifying thing I have seen so far. This cannot happen in the GE.
Tavis Smiley says Trump can win the black vote
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/03/01/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-black-voters-primary-elections-2016-column/81150932/
Where is the exit polls to back this claim?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/03/01/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-black-voters-primary-elections-2016-column/81150932/
Where is the exit polls to back this claim?
plagiarize
Banned
Loads of the people who are part of the Republican bump are people turning out to vote against Trump.
I wouldn't panic yet. Trump won't get in via low turnout from liberal white men. If he gets in it'll be becausea chunk of those liberal white men voted Trump... but not because they didn't vote.
And if it's Trump... you'll have the GOP helping get people out to vote more than ever before.
Honestly though, I do love how they have realised that they actually stacked the deck against their interests with voter ID laws and gerrymandering and such.
Tesseract
Banned
balladofwindfishes
Member
It's meaningless...
Trump's path to victory requires more than just a low turnout.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Historically, voter turnout in primaries has been a poor predictor of voter turnout in the general. Trump could still win on the back of high turn out, but using this as evidence for it is to run counter to empiricism.
cpp_is_king
Member
It's worrisome. I just hope we show up in November.
That seems like a mighty big coincidence that exactly the same number of people would no-show on one side as show for the first time on the other side.
Is there any hard evidence to suggest that's what happened, as opposed to 3 million Demoncrats shifting Republican? As unlikely as that sounds, I just find it strange that the numbers match up so perfectly.
plagiarize
Banned
Based on what polling? Of the total people who voted yesterday how many of them do you think are strongly against a Trump presidency?
Didn't Hillary get more votes than Trump yesterday?
Tesseract
Banned
Yeah, that's true.
Maintenance
Member
This is shaping up to be one hell of an election.
Right cause people who vote for Cruz, Rubio and Carson are going to jump on the Hilldog train.
People continue to underestimate the Republicans in GE, you need high voter turnout to be sure of victory. Anything under 52% will be cutting it close and Hills might not even get that.
plagiarize
Banned
Obama vs Clinton was an epic contest where a presumed winner was taken down in a long hard fought campaign.
Sanders vs Clinton just doesn't gave the same draw Obama vs Clinton did, or Trump vs the GOP establishment has.
But Trump vs Clinton has massive draw, on both sides... and I see no reason to think a high voter turn out will be bad for the Democrats when it so very rarely is these days.
Nazgul_Hunter
Member
It's a number of things. The big concern, of course, is that it portends a lower Democratic turnout in the fall.
Another plausible explanation is that the D primaries have less uncertainty and lower stakes than the Republican ones. Despite the noise he's made in the polls, Sanders isn't that popular with Democrats, which basically means to a large portion of the Democrats won't come out to vote, when it's basically guaranteed Clinton will win.
On the other hand, the Republican primary is literally a civil war between the authoritarian wing and the elites. Trump's bringing in new people for sure, but the field is just way bigger.
Also, the 2008 Democratic primary was the de facto presidential election. There was little doubt that after 8 years of Dubya the Democrats were gonna win it. It's not so clear this year that Obama will be succeeded by a Republican.
Macho Madness
Member
Pushing primary turnout as "worrying" is exactly the thing cable news wants you to think it means. If it gets more of you out to vote, fine, but it's a poor indicator of a winner in November.
plagiarize
Banned
I didn't remotely claim that. Polling suggests a third of registered Republicans won't vote for Trump. I presume that number will come down, but only a third of that eight million came out to vote Trump. A lot of the rest came out to vote against him.
Maintenance
Member
I'd have to disagree on that. They are losing to a monster they created, Frankenstein-style.
It's not epic like Barack vs Hillary, more like watching a train crash live.
TheLaughingStock
Member
Probably not. Relax. The people in big trouble atm are the Republicans calling Trump a con man when they've been con men and women themselves on virtually every issue including caring about the country and the future of the GOP. Now if Trump has some effective rhetoric for Hillary that works or her rhetoric doesn't get traction on him, then buckle up.
However, Trump has to become the nominee first.
fierrotlepou
Member
So Trump is gonna win huh? How is this even possible?
plagiarize
Banned
Trump is going to make the mistake of using gendered insults. Almost guaranteed. Women and minorities will decide this election.
Maintenance
Member
Off topic: your avatar and username combination is perfect.
He definitely will, probably even double down on it after being called out.
excelsiorlef
Member
Gross...In many ways Facebook Bernie memers are the new GOP Facebook memers.
Once again people are underestimating Trump and Republicans, what you seeing is a circus to galvanize the GOP electorate. All this posturing is full on BS, in the end when Trump is the nominee everyone will fall in line. Anyone expecting a fractured republican party at the GE is kidding themselves and making the situation even more dangerous. The last thing you want is a complacent population that thinks Hills or Bernie will win this based on not being Trump.
Macho Madness
Member
Yeah, he tends to double down on things instead of apologizing. And when he does apologize, he does it in that spoiled brat "I'm sorry that YOU'RE offended" kind of way.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Bernie has to win big March 15. Polling is more sparse in these states, but still have projected to sweep all those states using polls that are a few weeks old.
I honestly don't understand some of the optimism from the Bernie camp.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/why-bernie-sanders-won-su_b_9363416.html
Is this delusion?
I generally trust some of TYT's political analysis. What am I missing??
The polls are not looking good for these March 15 states. Bernie momentum is not obvious to me.
excelsiorlef
Member
08 was coming off a Bush Presidency and 16 is coming off a Obama Presidency.
I think I read somewhere the incumbent party primary historically has lower turn out than the non incumbent party.
plagiarize
Banned
Trump isn't going to win because Democratic voters were complacent. Because they aren't. Most Democrats would be happy with either Sanders or Clinton. So turn out is down.
Most GOP primary voters would not be happy with at least one of the three front runners, whichever one that is for that individual.
When the race is Clinton vs Trump, Democrats will show up to vote in close to record numbers if not in record numbers. Trump wins this by winning moderates or Reagan democrats. Not by complacent Democrats staying home.
Maintenance
Member
maquiladora
Member
Trump needs to be stopped. I think enough people will get that by the time the general election comes round.
A need to believe.
The Jackdog
Member
Can someone with a little knowledge of Bernie's tax plan help me out?
I saw a friend write this in response to bernie's tax plan, outlined here:
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-bernie-sanders-s-tax-plan
and heres the response
is that, essentially, correct?
I saw a friend write this in response to bernie's tax plan, outlined here:
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-bernie-sanders-s-tax-plan
and heres the response
is that, essentially, correct?
This guy in my neighborhood has displayed a sign in his tree that says "Socialist preach failure & abortion" It has been there for 15 years.
Today, about 8 houses down, in the middle of the median I found another one! It reads "Socialist teach subject/verb agreement"
What does that mean? I googled for 30 seconds and I only saw grammar and English help. About verbs.
Today, about 8 houses down, in the middle of the median I found another one! It reads "Socialist teach subject/verb agreement"
What does that mean? I googled for 30 seconds and I only saw grammar and English help. About verbs.
excelsiorlef
Member
It's dillusion.
Sanders doesn't just have to win a lot of States he needs to win big, even if he wins the next 10 States by say 4 delegates each he'd only gain on Clinton 4 delegates. He needs to win and blow her out time and time again to make up for his utter failure in the South. In the end I don't think the Northern Strategy is going to pay off.
Probably. People like to point out that European nations have a lot of social programs that we don't, but the fact is we also have one of the lowest tax rates in the first world. And we don't even have a national sales tax or value added tax, to boot. Money has to come from somewhere.
plagiarize
Banned
It's delusion. Almost everywhere is calling it a loss for Sanders. He's completely ignoring that Clinton did better than she needed to yesterday delegate wise, making things even harder for Sanders down the line... and he totally downplays Clinton winning MA.
Oh she only won all the states she was expected to. And MA, but she won that in 2008, which sort of sounds like a valid point until you realise that she lost 2008 because she lost the minority vote, and MA is a very white state.
Sanders is beatable in states he should win. Clinton isn't so far.
This guy in my neighborhood has displayed a sign in his tree that says "Socialist preach failure & abortion" It's been there for 15 years.
Today, about 8 houses down, in the middle of the median I found another one! It reads "Socialist teach subject/verb agreement"
What does that mean? I googled for 30 seconds and I only saw grammar and English help. About verbs.
That is what you should expect to be finding in Google on this topic.
The first sign is grammatically incorrect. The subject, "socialist", does not fit the plural verb. If it was "socialists", plural, it would work. But the use of a singular "socialist" doesn't make sense.
This guy in my neighborhood has displayed a sign in his tree that says "Socialist preach failure & abortion" It has been there for 15 years.
Today, about 8 houses down, in the middle of the median I found another one! It reads "Socialist teach subject/verb agreement"
What does that mean? I googled for 30 seconds and I only saw grammar and English help. About verbs.
The first guy wrote it wrong. It should read "Socialists preach failure and abortion"
Tesseract
Banned
Universal healthcare, no special interests, a decent tax plan for the struggling working class (they desperately need 4 to 6k extra in their pockets per year), protectionist job growth ...
The Muslim stuff is bad, as is kicking out current illegals
But I'm okay with the rest, especially when border patrol says that 20% of all immigrants caught along the border are criminals.
That's not to say I'm voting for him, but I get why people will
Orbis Tabula
Member
This guy in my neighborhood has displayed a sign in his tree that says "Socialist preach failure & abortion" It has been there for 15 years.
Today, about 8 houses down, in the middle of the median I found another one! It reads "Socialist teach subject/verb agreement"
What does that mean? I googled for 30 seconds and I only saw grammar and English help. About verbs.
They're making fun of the first sign. It should say "Socialists teach" or "socialist teaches." The first signs Subject and verb don't agree.
excelsiorlef
Member
Or something like A Socialist preaches failure and abortion
breakYODAy
Member
I think the general idea is that now the southern states are out of the way, many of the remaining contests are generally more winnable for Sanders, where the demographics aren't as unfavorable. He's got a lot of money now after raising 40 million in February, so he could concevably start to win quite a few states if the ground game is strong enough.
Hillary still has a big lead on him, though its being blown out of proportion due to the superdelegate totals. The big question is whether or not these superdelegates would feel the pressure to switch if he does start winning more states. My guess would be no, since the DNC seems committed to ensuring she is the nominee.
- Status