Democrat field for President

[Parkbandit]

As Hillary Clinton's campaign seeks to project dominance in a field that could soon include Vice President Joe Biden, her top advisers are touting a decisive edge on a little-discussed metric: superdelegate commitments.


At the Democratic National Committee meeting in Minneapolis, where Clinton spoke on Friday, senior Clinton campaign officials are claiming that she has already secured one-fifth of the pledges needed to win the Democratic presidential nomination. They come from current and former elected officials, committee officeholders, and other party dignitaries.


The campaign says that Clinton currently has about 130 superdelegates publicly backing her, but a person familiar with recent conversations in Minneapolis said that officials are telling supporters and the undecided in the last few days that private commitments increase that number to more than 440—about 20 percent of the number of delegates she would need to secure the nomination.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-28/clinton-camp-saying-it-already-secured-one-fifth-the-delegates-needed-for-nomination

What the mother fuck? So why even have elections if Hillary already has the 130 people publicly backing her. Fuck the primary. Fuck the election.

'What difference, at this point, does the election make?'

Let the coronation commence.

http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/queenhillary.jpg

[Androidpk]

Talk about some serious BS.

[Tgo01]

What gets me is people are referring to the GOP primary as the "clown car" yet the DNC has all but said Hillary is going to get the nomination because they said so.

[Taernath]

What gets me is people are referring to the GOP primary as the "clown car" yet the DNC has all but said Hillary is going to get the nomination because they said so.

"No Fun Allowed" car?

[Candor]

What gets me is people are referring to the GOP primary as the "clown car"

That would include me, and I'm a Republican.

[Parkbandit]

That would include me, and I'm a Republican.

I would much rather have a big field to choose from than just 1.

[Archigeek]

What gets me is people are referring to the GOP primary as the "clown car" yet the DNC has all but said Hillary is going to get the nomination because they said so.

I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.

[Tgo01]

I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.

Sure I do.


"Clown car" (or "clowncar") is the nickname for the Soviet BA-64 vehicle in the realistic war game Red Orchestra: Ostfront 41-45. Coined by an unknown community member, the term spread like wildfire. The reason why many people call it the clown car is because the vehicle is often used in favour of unrealistic and "gamey" tactics. Such tactics include the popular drive-by-satchelling (wich envolves racing towards a tank, instantly jumping out at the very last second, dropping an explosive satchel charge on the back of the enemy tank, then quickly driving off before blowing up the tank).

Source. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=clown+car&defid=538628)

[Androidpk]

First debate for the Democrats isn't until October which is really sad.

[Candor]

First debate for the Democrats isn't until October which is really sad.

Transcript of the upcoming Democratic debate:

"Hi I'm Hillary. Vote for me. Thank you."

[Kembal]

As Hillary Clinton's campaign seeks to project dominance in a field that could soon include Vice President Joe Biden, her top advisers are touting a decisive edge on a little-discussed metric: superdelegate commitments.


At the Democratic National Committee meeting in Minneapolis, where Clinton spoke on Friday, senior Clinton campaign officials are claiming that she has already secured one-fifth of the pledges needed to win the Democratic presidential nomination. They come from current and former elected officials, committee officeholders, and other party dignitaries.


The campaign says that Clinton currently has about 130 superdelegates publicly backing her, but a person familiar with recent conversations in Minneapolis said that officials are telling supporters and the undecided in the last few days that private commitments increase that number to more than 440—about 20 percent of the number of delegates she would need to secure the nomination.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-28/clinton-camp-saying-it-already-secured-one-fifth-the-delegates-needed-for-nomination

What the mother fuck? So why even have elections if Hillary already has the 130 people publicly backing her. Fuck the primary. Fuck the election.

'What difference, at this point, does the election make?'



Seriously, this bugs you for some reason? The superdelegates aren't enough to secure the nomination anyway, in either party. But look who's actually running against her:

Sanders - Not actually a member of the Democratic Party, so the superdelegates have no tie to him
Chafee - Former Republican, the superdelegates have no tie to him
O'Malley - the only person any superdelegates have a tie to. not exactly running a great campaign either.

They're just publicizing this because they want Biden to know this. A Biden entry into the race would make this a massive fight, and they want to avoid that. It doesn't exactly matter either - superdelegates are not bound by any means, and they can flip their support to anyone they choose.

[Androidpk]

Of course they want to avoid a challenge, didn't you get the memo? It's Hillary's turn!

[Tgo01]

Seriously, this bugs you for some reason? The superdelegates aren't enough to secure the nomination anyway, in either party. But look who's actually running against her:

Sanders - Not actually a member of the Democratic Party, so the superdelegates have no tie to him
Chafee - Former Republican, the superdelegates have no tie to him
O'Malley - the only person any superdelegates have a tie to. not exactly running a great campaign either.

They're just publicizing this because they want Biden to know this. A Biden entry into the race would make this a massive fight, and they want to avoid that. It doesn't exactly matter either - superdelegates are not bound by any means, and they can flip their support to anyone they choose.

Democracy! What's that? Don't ask a Democrat.

[Parkbandit]

Seriously, this bugs you for some reason? The superdelegates aren't enough to secure the nomination anyway, in either party. But look who's actually running against her:


Fuck the election, just anoint her now.

[Latrinsorm]

First debate for the Democrats isn't until October which is really sad.People also complain that election season starts too soon. From their perspective I would guess that over a year before the election and months before the primaries is sad in the opposite direction.

[Androidpk]

Just watched Bernie Sanders speech in Minneapolis and I gotta say I'm impressed by him. Seriously considering re-regisgeringe as a democrat so I can vote for him in the primaries. Can't say there is a republican I'm interested in voting for anymore and that includes Senator Paul.

[Androidpk]

O'Malley was also impressive and if the DNC doesn't listen to his criticism over lack of debates then Democrats need to demand that she step down.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?327791-5/martin-omalley-democratic-national-committee-summer-meeting

[Parkbandit]

O'Malley was also impressive and if the DNC doesn't listen to his criticism over lack of debates then Democrats need to demand that she step down.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?327791-5/martin-omalley-democratic-national-committee-summer-meeting

Shut up! She's doing an amazing job for the Democrats!

LEAVE HER ALONE!!

[Parkbandit]

Just watched Bernie Sanders speech in Minneapolis and I gotta say I'm impressed by him. Seriously considering re-regisgeringe as a democrat so I can vote for him in the primaries. Can't say there is a republican I'm interested in voting for anymore and that includes Senator Paul.

He plays to the lowest common denominator and resonates with people who believe someone else has their rightful nut. It's not fair!

[Androidpk]

He plays to the lowest common denominator and resonates with people who believe someone else has their rightful nut. It's not fair!

Sure.

[Warriorbird]

Sanders vs Trump would be interesting.

[Taernath]

Sanders vs Trump would be interesting.

Yeah. I think Trump being Trump would push a lot of people to Sanders who wouldn't otherwise vote for him. On the flip side, people who wouldn't vote for a 'socialist Jew' are probably already voting for Trump.

[Androidpk]

Trump vs. Sanders = Sanders wins

Trump vs. Hillary = Trump wins

[Whirlin]

Since we're getting closer to America's Next Top President with Trump on the republican side, I nominate Neil deGrasse Tyson for the democrat side.

[kutter]

I think there are some things to think on, first Biden will get in by the end of the month and Hillary will be done. She cannot say it is a right wing witch hunt when the Obama controlled Justice Department is pursuing her. Second, Trump may be leading in some states but he needs to gather enough electoral votes to secure the nomination. There is an easy scenario that keeps Trump out, if all the candidates that win delegates get behind one candidate at the Republican convention then Trump can be locked out. If he then runs as a third party to be a spoiler, the math is such that it may prevent anyone from getting the 270 electoral votes necessary to secure the Presidency, which means it then falls to the House to elect the President and the Senate to elect the VP.

This may be the most entertaining election cycle in some time.

[Latrinsorm]

Trump vs. Sanders = Sanders wins Trump vs. Hillary = Trump winsTrump doesn't even have a majority of Republicans backing him. If he cedes the center to Hillary, she will absolutely take it and win.

[Latrinsorm]

I think there are some things to think on, first Biden will get in by the end of the month and Hillary will be done. She cannot say it is a right wing witch hunt when the Obama controlled Justice Department is pursuing her. Second, Trump may be leading in some states but he needs to gather enough electoral votes to secure the nomination. There is an easy scenario that keeps Trump out, if all the candidates that win delegates get behind one candidate at the Republican convention then Trump can be locked out. If he then runs as a third party to be a spoiler, the math is such that it may prevent anyone from getting the 270 electoral votes necessary to secure the Presidency, which means it then falls to the House to elect the President and the Senate to elect the VP. This may be the most entertaining election cycle in some time.It's an interesting thought, but what math have you seen that predicts it as opposed to the scenario where he splits the Republican vote and gift wraps the election for the Democrat candidate?

[kutter]

It's an interesting thought, but what math have you seen that predicts it as opposed to the scenario where he splits the Republican vote and gift wraps the election for the Democrat candidate?

That is always a possibility, clearly nothing is set in stone. I will have to track down the article I read that suggest that he is drawing from both sides, I was at work and it was 3 in the morning. But lets face it, a lot of the things he is talking about cross political lines. The key one being immigration obviously. Even my democrat friends admit that what he is saying makes sense. I guess the thing I find most striking is that the black community is not enraged by people who are breaking the law to enter the country and have children to secure citizenship are using an amendment meant to protect emancipated slaves.

[Latrinsorm]

That is always a possibility, clearly nothing is set in stone. I will have to track down the article I read that suggest that he is drawing from both sides, I was at work and it was 3 in the morning. But lets face it, a lot of the things he is talking about cross political lines. The key one being immigration obviously. Even my democrat friends admit that what he is saying makes sense. I guess the thing I find most striking is that the black community is not enraged by people who are breaking the law to enter the country and have children to secure citizenship are using an amendment meant to protect emancipated slaves.It is true that black voters tend to have more tolerance for illegal immigration than white, although not as much as Hispanic. Does that make you reconsider your position?

[Tgo01]

It is true that black voters tend to have more tolerance for illegal immigration than white

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

No.

[Latrinsorm]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. No.Yes. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx)

[Tgo01]

Yes. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx)

You'll have to narrow down the search for me in that link.

Which question(s) show that "It is true that black voters tend to have more tolerance for illegal immigration than white."

[Androidpk]

Hillary Clinton’s lead over Bernie Sanders in Iowa's Democratic presidential race shrinks to 7 ppts, 37%-30%, in Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll.
Lead Shrinks t
(https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbloom.bg%2F1JprJ1b&text=Clinton%20Lead%20Shrinks%20to%207ppts%20Over% 20Sanders%20in%20Iowa%3A%20Poll&via=bpolitics)


“The era of inevitability is over,” said J. Ann Selzer, president of West Des Moines, Iowa-based Selzer & Co., which conducted the poll
“She has lost a third of the support that she had in May, so anytime you lose that much that quickly it’s a wake-up call”
Clinton’s 37% support is down from 57% in May; first time the poll has showed her under 50%
Sanders’ 30% support is up from 16% in May
Coalition of voters backing Sanders resembles those who supported Barack Obama in 2008: young people, liberals, first-time caucus-goers
Vice President Joe Biden, who is still weighing a bid, is third with 14% support, up from 8% in May
Other candidates: Martin O’Malley 3%, Jim Webb 2%, Lincoln Chafee 1%; 8% not sure, another 6% say they’re uncommitted
NOTE: Poll of 404 likely Democratic caucusgoers conducted Aug. 23-26; error margin is +/- 4.9 ppts


http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-29/clinton-lead-shrinks-to-7ppts-over-sanders-in-iowa-poll

[Kembal]

Democracy! What's that? Don't ask a Democrat.

The party in the incumbent position rarely has a wide open field. 2008 was a rarity in presidential elections. (wide open fields on both sides)

This is no different than 2000 (Democratic) or 1988 (Republican).

Now, do I think the Dems are being stupid with the debate schedule? Absolutely. They're ceding media to Republicans. If it weren't for Trump sucking up all the oxygen, the Dems would have shot themselves in both feet.

[Tgo01]

This is no different than 2000 (Democratic) or 1988 (Republican).

There were 8 serious Republican candidates in 1988. There were also 9 Democrat candidates in 1968.

My point wasn't that there weren't very many Democrat candidates, my point was you dismissing all of them but Hillary to excuse the DNC and everyone associated with it from just declaring her winner already.


If it weren't for Trump sucking up all the oxygen, the Dems would have shot themselves in both feet.

I think Hillary's falling poll numbers suggest otherwise. If she ends up with very little support and doesn't end up getting the nomination then they did indeed shoot themselves in the foot.

[Androidpk]

The DNC is absolutely shooting themselves in the feet. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is just a shill for Hillary.

[Kembal]

There were 8 serious Republican candidates in 1988. There were also 9 Democrat candidates in 1968.

My point wasn't that there weren't very many Democrat candidates, my point was you dismissing all of them but Hillary to excuse the DNC and everyone associated with it from just declaring her winner already.

Bush Sr. had the endorsement of Reagan. That's a similar way of stacking the deck.

1968 is before the current primary system.


I think Hillary's falling poll numbers suggest otherwise. If she ends up with very little support and doesn't end up getting the nomination then they did indeed shoot themselves in the foot.

Hard to see what every other Dem candidate's coalition is going to be.

I don't see Biden running unless something really bad happens to Clinton....he's the "break glass in case of emergency" candidate.

[Androidpk]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNhcr4dUEAAm90R.jpg:large

[Androidpk]

Something bad as in.. her polling numbers tanking across the country?

[Tgo01]

Bush Sr. had the endorsement of Reagan. That's a similar way of stacking the deck.

Bush didn't get the endorsement until the primary was almost over, certainly didn't get it almost 1.5 years before the primary was over.


1968 is before the current primary system.

Well you just keep on changing the rules.


I don't see Biden running unless something really bad happens to Clinton....he's the "break glass in case of emergency" candidate.

Yes. And how bad is it to have someone who isn't even running at the moment be the "emergency" candidate instead of promoting all of the current candidates, or at least one other person besides Hillary.

[Kembal]

Bush didn't get the endorsement until the primary was almost over, certainly didn't get it almost 1.5 years before the primary was over.

Ok, point. That said, I'd hardly expect a party to pick another nominee over a sitting VP who's chosen to run.



Yes. And how bad is it to have someone who isn't even running at the moment be the "emergency" candidate instead of promoting all of the current candidates, or at least one other person besides Hillary.

None of the other candidates can hold together the Obama coalition. The Democratic Party is well aware that they have to replicate the same coalition to win. Clinton and Biden represent the best chances to do so.

[Tgo01]

The Democratic Party is well aware that they have to replicate the same coalition to win. Clinton and Biden represent the best chances to do so.

Ah, so the DNC chooses what is best for the party and not the voters.

[Androidpk]

So why bother having debates and primaries to begin with? At this point I'm willing to think Hillary could eat a fetus live on TV and kembal would try to rationalize it somehow.

[Latrinsorm]

You'll have to narrow down the search for me in that link. Which question(s) show that "It is true that black voters tend to have more tolerance for illegal immigration than white."ctrl+f
black

Which comes closer to your point of view -- [ROTATED: illegal immigrants in the long run become productive citizens and pay their fair share of taxes, (or) illegal immigrants cost the taxpayers too much by using government services like public education and medical services?]

As you may know, Congress is considering new laws to deal with the issue of illegal immigration. What concerns you more -- that the new laws will go too far -- or will not go far enough -- to ? (c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Protection,_Anti-terrorism_and_Illegal_Immigration_Control_Act_of_2 005#Debate)
So why bother having debates and primaries to begin with? At this point I'm willing to think Hillary could eat a fetus live on TV and kembal would try to rationalize it somehow.Since you bring the question up, what specifically would voters gain by having 23 debates instead of 6? Why [i]should we bother with more debates, or any at all?

[Androidpk]

Yeah, having informed voters never done did good for no one!

[Latrinsorm]

What specific information would voters glean in the 7th through 23rd debates that they could not already have learned from the first six?

[~Rocktar~]

Yeah, having informed voters never done did good for no one!

Less informed voters means more Liberal and Socialist politicians get into government.


What specific information would voters glean in the 7th through 23rd debates that they could not already have learned from the first six?

Whatever was not asked in the first 6, of course.

[Tgo01]

ctrl+f
black

Which comes closer to your point of view -- [ROTATED: illegal immigrants in the long run become productive citizens and pay their fair share of taxes, (or) illegal immigrants cost the taxpayers too much by using government services like public education and medical services?]

That's certainly an interesting take on your original comment.

What about this one though, from your same link:


Which comes closer to your view -- [ROTATED: illegal immigrants mostly take jobs that American workers want, (or) illegal immigrants mostly take low-paying jobs Americans don't want]?

6% more blacks over whites said illegal immigrants take jobs American workers want.

Or this question?


Based on what you have heard or read, do you approve or disapprove of the government's recent efforts to deal with illegal immigration in the U.S.?

Where blacks and whites were equal in "disapproving."

[Parkbandit]

So why bother having debates and primaries to begin with? At this point I'm willing to think Hillary could eat a fetus live on TV and kembal would try to rationalize it somehow.

You are worse than a terrorist with your War on Women™ rhetoric.

[Androidpk]

You are worse than a terrorist with your War on Women™ rhetoric.

I am literally Hitler!

[Latrinsorm]

Whatever was not asked in the first 6, of course.Ask for a specific, get a generality. I'm shocked. Shocked! I'm not that shocked.
What about this one though, from your same link:Suddenly you're able to find data from the link! It's a miracle!

Two questions found blacks to be more supportive of illegal immigrants than whites, one found them to be less, one found them to be equal. Overall, they were more supportive. 2 - 1 - 0 = 1 > 0

[~Rocktar~]

Ask for a specific, get a generality. I'm shocked. Shocked! I'm not that shocked.

Seriously dude. A typical political campaign has over 150 different positions. The last debate managed to cover about 14 major or semi-major categories. So, assuming you will not have any repeats and previous debate is in fact an indicator of future debates, that gives you 84 topics to cover. Now, the major ones will of course be repeated over and over so you may get 5 new topics a debate and that is being generous in my opinion. Now, over 6 debates, that gives you a somewhat generous estimate of covering 39 topics. That is less than 1/3 of a skimpy campaign and while you may be ok with knowing only 1/3 or less of a candidate's positions before voting them into office, other people are not so trusting.

Troll harder, this one is a fail.

BTW, here is Bernie Sanders platform (https://berniesanders.com/issues/), 13 positions on the first link alone.

[Tgo01]

Suddenly you're able to find data from the link! It's a miracle!

Two questions found blacks to be more supportive of illegal immigrants than whites, one found them to be less, one found them to be equal. Overall, they were more supportive. 2 - 1 - 0 = 1 > 0

You so silly, Latrin.

[Kembal]

Ah, so the DNC tries to choose what is best for the party and not the voters.

FTFY.

And that goes with any political party, in any country. You don't think the RNC and the Republican state parties aren't pulling their hair out over Trump? The Republican party establishment has completely lost control and they don't know what to do. You have half the candidates trying to emulate Trump now (see Chris Christie talking about tracking immigrants like FedEx tracking packages) and the other half gasping for oxygen in the media environment. You've got state parties (VA and NC) trying to change their rules to block Trump from getting on the primary ballot by forcing him to pledge that he'll support the eventual Republican nominee, something he hasn't agreed to do yet.

(Dems could do something similar to Sanders if they wanted to. He actually isn't a Democrat, after all)

To limit your outrage to the Dems b/c of Hillary is kind of pointless. What you're saying is an indictment of political parties in general.

[Androidpk]

No shortage of excuses for this one. Hillary's coronation must commence!

[Tgo01]

FTFY.

And that goes with any political party, in any country. You don't think the RNC and the Republican state parties aren't pulling their hair out over Trump?

The RNC is actively trying to limit Trump's exposure by limiting the number of debates or trying to disinvite Trump to these debates? Link?

From what I recall reading the RNC set up their debate schedule and who would be invited (based on polls) several months ago and they have stuck to it.

Kemabl, you lost this one. Badly. Be a man and shake my hand and walk away.

[Kembal]

The RNC is actively trying to limit Trump's exposure by limiting the number of debates or trying to disinvite Trump to these debates? Link?

From what I recall reading the RNC set up their debate schedule and who would be invited (based on polls) several months ago and they have stuck to it.

Kemabl, you lost this one. Badly. Be a man and shake my hand and walk away.

Uh, did you totally miss the paragraph I wrote after that? The party is actively trying to figure out how to get Trump off the primary ballot or at the very least, prevent him from doing a third party run.

Who needs to rig the debate schedule when you can make sure the ballot only shows your preferred candidates?

[Tgo01]

Uh, did you totally miss the paragraph I wrote after that? The party is actively trying to figure out how to get Trump off the primary ballot or at the very least, prevent him from doing a third party run.

You equate trying to ensure Trump doesn't run third party with trying to get Trump off the Republican ticket altogether or trying to limit his exposure that they can personally limit?

That's adorable.

There are already some states that have laws setup like this that protect both parties. It's called a "sore loser" law where someone can't run as a, say, Republican, then after they lose the primary turn around and say "Okay I'll just run as an independent now."

I actually think such laws make a lot of sense. If you want to run as an independent then run as an independent from the beginning.


Who needs to rig the debate schedule when you can make sure the ballot only shows your preferred candidates?

Your idea of "making sure the ballot only shows your preferred candidates" is weird.


(Dems could do something similar to Sanders if they wanted to. He actually isn't a Democrat, after all)

Because the pussy Sanders (who is the only fucking independent actually running so far) has already said he's such a coward that he won't run as an independent.

[Androidpk]

Because the pussy Sanders (who is the only fucking independent actually running so far) has already said he's such a coward that he won't run as an independent.

http://41.media.tumblr.com/35049b314cbf63514649014490f3d97e/tumblr_ntxgvgDTWw1s73nedo1_500.jpg

[drauz]

You equate trying to ensure Trump doesn't run third party with trying to get Trump off the Republican ticket altogether or trying to limit his exposure that they can personally limit?

That's adorable.

There are already some states that have laws setup like this that protect both parties. It's called a "sore loser" law where someone can't run as a, say, Republican, then after they lose the primary turn around and say "Okay I'll just run as an independent now."

I actually think such laws make a lot of sense. If you want to run as an independent then run as an independent from the beginning.



Your idea of "making sure the ballot only shows your preferred candidates" is weird.



Because the pussy Sanders (who is the only fucking independent actually running so far) has already said he's such a coward that he won't run as an independent.

So you "want the voters to decide"? So if someone doesn't get the nomination and thinks he has the support why shouldn't he be able to switch to independent? Let the voters decide.

They also want to ensure that he endorses who they want him to endorse, should he lose.

[Tgo01]

So you "want the voters to decide"? So if someone doesn't get the nomination and thinks he has the support why shouldn't he be able to switch to independent? Let the voters decide.

So you think it's acceptable for a candidate to run as a Republican, get all of the attention from debates, recognition from running in the Republican primary, exposure from the RNC via campaign ads, and all of that shit, then after they lose the primary they should be able to throw a temper tantrum and decide to run as an independent?

Like I said, if they feel that strongly about it then they should run as an independent from the beginning, not use one party to get attention and fame and then say "You don't want me? Fine I'll fuck with you now."

But it's cute how you tried to tie this into my "let the voters decide" bit, as if the two situations are in anyway comparable.


They also want to ensure that he endorses who they want him to endorse, should he lose.

You mean for all of the publicity and support they are giving him they have the nerve to ask that he support the eventual Republican nominee and promise not to be a little bitch and decide to run as third party if he doesn't win? They will also ask the other candidates to support Trump (even though they all hate him now) should he actually win?

The fuckers!

[Androidpk]

Tgo you almost have a good point, almost. The way the RNC and DNC have a stranglehold on debates makes it almost impossible for a third party to run for elections in this country. Until that changes then of course people are going to run under one of those parties instead of running independently.

This behavior from the Democrats, while sad, is cracking me the fuck up. You got all these high and mighty liberals who are always going on and on about the evil Republicans and then they pull this shit with the debates and Hillary Clinton.

[Androidpk]

Also, for the record, Bernie Sanders has stated more than once that if he doesn't get the Democratic nomination he will not run as an independant party because he doesn't want to split the Democratic vote.

[Tgo01]

Tgo you almost have a good point, almost. The way the RNC and DNC have a stranglehold on debates makes it almost impossible for a third party to run for elections in this country.

We have someone running for president right now who has proven time and time again that one can run as an independent and win. The guy has won as an independent for what, mayor, the US House and the US senate. He has won the highest elected position in the country other than president.

He probably could have made some real change if he ran as an independent but he's a pussy.

[Androidpk]

little bit of a difference between running on a state level and running on a national level. And what changes could he make as an independant that he can't make running under the Democratic party? He's certainly not hurting poll wise and he's drawing massive amounts of Republicans, Democrats and independants. He is in a really good position right now to make a lot of change.

[Tgo01]

And what changes could he make as an independant that he can't make running under the Democratic party?

I meant he could have helped change the two party stranglehold on elections.

Imagine how prominent an independent party would look right now if Sanders was doing all of this as an independent.

[drauz]

So you think it's acceptable for a candidate to run as a Republican, get all of the attention from debates, recognition from running in the Republican primary, exposure from the RNC via campaign ads, and all of that shit, then after they lose the primary they should be able to throw a temper tantrum and decide to run as an independent?

Like I said, if they feel that strongly about it then they should run as an independent from the beginning, not use one party to get attention and fame and then say "You don't want me? Fine I'll fuck with you now."

But it's cute how you tried to tie this into my "let the voters decide" bit, as if the two situations are in anyway comparable.



You mean for all of the publicity and support they are giving him they have the nerve to ask that he support the eventual Republican nominee and promise not to be a little bitch and decide to run as third party if he doesn't win? They will also ask the other candidates to support Trump (even though they all hate him now) should he actually win?

The fuckers!

Can you admit its impossible to win running strictly as a 3rd party? You have to be in one of two parties to get into a debate, you can't win a presidential election without a debate. So do I think its right that someone who feels they align closer to one party than another run as an independent after they lose the primary, yes. You think Trump's exposure is because hes a republican and not from what hes saying?

[Tgo01]

Can you admit its impossible to win running strictly as a 3rd party?

So that makes it okay to use one of the two parties then back stab them when you don't get the primary win?

Don't get me wrong, I don't blame anyone for wanting to use one of the two parties (unless your name rhymes with Sanders and you've ran as an independent for decades now) in order to get elected. What I have a problem with is then throwing a fit when they don't win.


You have to be in one of two parties to get into a debate

Ross Perot begs to differ.


So do I think its right that someone who feels they align closer to one party than another run as an independent after they lose the primary, yes.

And why do you feel this way? Because in this particular case it would really fuck with Republicans and you're a Democrat? Other than that do you have any actual reasons for why you think this is okay?


You think Trump's exposure is because hes a republican and not from what hes saying?

If Trump's exposure is just from what he is saying then why doesn't he just run as an independent now? He can sure as hell do it. What's stopping him?

Are you saying that none of Trump's popularity can be attributed to him running as a Republican as opposed to running as an independent?

[Androidpk]

I meant he could have helped change the two party stranglehold on elections.

Imagine how prominent an independent party would look right now if Sanders was doing all of this as an independent.

I suppose. He would have been at a huge disadvantage though. His idea isn't to influence politics though. It isn't to "push Hillary to the left." It's to win the nomination and then win the election. I can't fault him for that.

[drauz]

We have someone running for president right now who has proven time and time again that one can run as an independent and win. The guy has won as an independent for what, mayor, the US House and the US senate. He has won the highest elected position in the country other than president.

He probably could have made some real change if he ran as an independent but he's a pussy.

Yeah there is a huge difference between winning a district in a state than winning the entire nation... No presidential debate, never going to become president. There's a reason he chose to run as a democrat and not a independent. The best you can do as an independent is to split the vote of a party.

[Androidpk]

I still don't see why you have such a problem with him running on the Democratic ticket. It isn't like it affects you in any way.

[Tgo01]

Yeah there is a huge difference between winning a district in a state than winning the entire nation...

Do you know what a US senator is?


No presidential debate, never going to become president.

Again, Ross Perot would like to differ with you. He was in the presidential debates. He was in at least one that I remember watching.

[Tgo01]

I still don't see why you have such a problem with him running on the Democratic ticket. It isn't like it affects you in any way.

I don't have a problem with him running on the Democratic ticket. Like I said people can do what they want.

I just think he's a pussy. I can think someone is pussy and still no have a problem with them.

[drauz]

So that makes it okay to use one of the two parties then back stab them when you don't get the primary win?

Don't get me wrong, I don't blame anyone for wanting to use one of the two parties (unless your name rhymes with Sanders and you've ran as an independent for decades now) in order to get elected. What I have a problem with is then throwing a fit when they don't win.



Ross Perot begs to differ.



And why do you feel this way? Because in this particular case it would really fuck with Republicans and you're a Democrat? Other than that do you have any actual reasons for why you think this is okay?



If Trump's exposure is just from what he is saying then why doesn't he just run as an independent now? He can sure as hell do it. What's stopping him?

Are you saying that none of Trump's popularity can be attributed to him running as a Republican as opposed to running as an independent?

I am an independent. I've voted for both parties. recently the republican party has gone downhill in my view, while the democratic party has more or less stayed the same. So recently it has been a decision of the lesser of two evils.

But to answer your question because we are a democracy. If someone wants to run for president then they should be able to run for president. I don't care what it may cause to one party or another. My only concern is that the best person for the job gets the job. If someone wants to be a "sore loser" then that's fine by me.

I'm sure some of it is because hes on the republican ticket but I think most of it is from his speeches/ideas.

[Tgo01]

But to answer your question because we are a democracy. If someone wants to run for president then they should be able to run for president. I don't care what it may cause to one party or another.

Yeah you didn't really answer my question and I agree with this sentiment. Anyone should be able to run for president (well following the obvious requirements of course.) Where have I said I don't feel anyone should be able to run for president?

What you're saying though is you don't want the the parties to be able to control their own parties. You don't want the DNC or the RNC to say "By agreeing to run as <insert party here> you are agreeing to abide by our rules."

Why can't the RNC/DNC do that?

Why can't state governments pass "sore loser" laws? And by the way almost every single state has "sore loser" laws for elections, but very few have said laws for presidential elections.

[drauz]

Do you know what a US senator is?

Do you? They run in a district in their state just like I said... Pretty sure I don't vote for Vermont's senators.


Again, Ross Perot would like to differ with you. He was in the presidential debates. He was in at least one that I remember watching.

He was in three (i think) and the only reason he made it that far was because he was incredibly rich. So I guess you can become president as an independent, you just have to have more money than god.

[Androidpk]

I'm okay with the parties having rules to abide by. No problem there. I'm not okay with the parties trying to decide on which candidate to nominate before they even have the first debate. That is the sort of shit I'd expect to see in countries like China and Russia, not the United States of America.

[Tgo01]

Do you? They run in a district in their state just like I said...

Uh-huh...

Okay, so you have no idea what a US senator is.


I'm okay with the parties having rules to abide by. No problem there. I'm not okay with the parties trying to decide on which candidate to nominate before they even have the first debate. That is the sort of shit I'd expect to see in countries like China and Russia, not the United States of America.

Yeah I think that's bullshit too.

I think there is a huge difference between a party trying to force their candidate down everyone's throat and a party saying "Okay fine, you can run as a Republican, but if you don't win you have to support the eventual winner, and they will support you if you win."

[ClydeR]

As Hillary Clinton's campaign seeks to project dominance in a field that could soon include Vice President Joe Biden, her top advisers are touting a decisive edge on a little-discussed metric: superdelegate commitments.

Little discussed? Hardly.

It's deja vu -all- (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?30462-Superdelegates-and-you) -over- (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?32542) -again- (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?34575-Superdelegates-For-Sale). In 2008, Certain People fretted superdelegates would take the nomination from the person who won the popular vote and deliver to the institutional favorite. Don't get fooled again.

[drauz]

Uh-huh...

Okay, so you have no idea what a US senator is.



Yeah I think that's bullshit too.

I think there is a huge difference between a party trying to force their candidate down everyone's throat and a party saying "Okay fine, you can run as a Republican, but if you don't win you have to support the eventual winner, and they will support you if you win."

Sorry I was thinking of Congress, but you still equate a state vote to the entire US, and Vermont of all places.

[Tgo01]

Sorry I was thinking of Congress

Do you know what Congress is?

I feel like I'm giving a civics lesson here.

[Androidpk]

Okay, Drauz, that was pretty funny.

[drauz]

Do you know what Congress is?

I feel like I'm giving a civics lesson here.

Yes. A simple error made in haste while I'm at work. Don't be a asshole.

[Tgo01]

Yes. A simple error made in haste while I'm at work. Don't be a asshole.

:/

[Androidpk]

Yes. A simple error made in haste while I'm at work. Don't be a asshole.

You mean don't be an asshole :)

[drauz]

So back to the point. Do you think a regular person (not crazy rich) could run as an independent and have a chance?

[Tgo01]

Do you think a regular person (not crazy rich) could run as an independent and have a chance?

I think if anyone had a shot it would have been Bernie Sanders.

[drauz]

I think if anyone had a shot it would have been Bernie Sanders.

I think that the country is to polarized for that to happen. I don't think someone from outside Democrats and Republicans has a shot. He probably was worried that if he didn't win he would split the vote, and I believe it was the right call to make.

[Taernath]

I think that the country is to polarized for that to happen. I don't think someone from outside Democrats and Republicans has a shot. He probably was worried that if he didn't win he would split the vote, and I believe it was the right call to make.

It's only polarized because people still buy into the 'socialist = communist = Stalin'.

[drauz]

It's only polarized because people still buy into the 'socialist = communist = Stalin'.

Either way, there is a huge chunk of the nation that will only vote Republican or Democrat. They don't care who is on the ticket for that party they are going to vote for them regardless.

[Androidpk]

It's only polarized because people still buy into the 'socialist = communist = Stalin'.

Only simple minded people.

[Androidpk]

Either way, there is a huge chunk of the nation that will only vote Republican or Democrat. They don't care who is on the ticket for that party they are going to vote for them regardless.

Pretty much. My team is better than your team and all that jazz.

[Taernath]

Either way, there is a huge chunk of the nation that will only vote Republican or Democrat. They don't care who is on the ticket for that party they are going to vote for them regardless.

Eh, I don't know. Each party has their core, sure, but there are people who vote across party lines or are registered independent. I wouldn't say they're the majority, but they are an important voting bloc which is why a lot of candidates tone down their rhetoric once they secure a nomination.

[Androidpk]

Eh, I don't know. Each party has their core, sure, but there are people who vote across party lines or are registered independent. I wouldn't say they're the majority, but they are an important voting bloc which is why a lot of candidates tone down their rhetoric once they secure a nomination.

There definitely are but how many?

[Tgo01]

There definitely are but how many?

According to this poll 42% of Americans identify as independent. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx)

[Androidpk]

So Sanders has been invited to the Colbert show and not Hillary. Sexism!!!1

[Taernath]

According to this poll 42% of Americans identify as independent. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx)

Gallup tends to be all over the place though, and is probably dependent on how the question was phrased. If you're looking at the wiki another poll found that it was something like a 41/42 split between D and R.

[drauz]

According to this poll 42% of Americans identify as independent. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/01/10/why-people-call-themselves-independent-even-when-they-arent/

[Androidpk]

So then the question should be something like would you cross party lines. I'm currently registered republican but I tend to vote democrat.

[Tgo01]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/01/10/why-people-call-themselves-independent-even-when-they-arent/

That was a stupid article.

It basically boiled down to "People call themselves independent but their ideals are still partisan."

Well no shit. Just about every topic in this country has become partisan, it's rare for the two sides to agree on anything. So someone can't be an independent unless, what, they agree with Democrats on half the issues and Republicans on half?

Doesn't sound like my idea of "independent."

Bernie Sanders is about the most Democrat of all Democrats yet he runs as an independent.

I'm probably the most moderate person on this forum yet I'm considered a Republican just because I happen to think most Democratic politicians are pieces of shit.. I'll prove my moderateness to all y'all bitches.

[Taernath]

That was a stupid article.

It basically boiled down to "People call themselves independent but their ideals are still partisan."

Well no shit. Just about every topic in this country has become partisan, it's rare for the two sides to agree on anything. So someone can't be an independent unless, what, they agree with Democrats on half the issues and Republicans on half?

Doesn't sound like my idea of "independent."

Bernie Sanders is about the most Democrat of all Democrats yet he runs as an independent.

I'm probably the most moderate person on this forum yet I'm considered a Republican just because I happen to think most Democratic politicians are pieces of shit.. I'll prove my moderateness to all y'all bitches.

Are we talking about the independent ticket or independent voters? Both Sanders and Trump could run as independent if they don't get nominated, but an independent voter would (theoretically) fall somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum and be as likely to vote D as R.

[Androidpk]

That was a stupid article.

It basically boiled down to "People call themselves independent but their ideals are still partisan."

Well no shit. Just about every topic in this country has become partisan, it's rare for the two sides to agree on anything. So someone can't be an independent unless, what, they agree with Democrats on half the issues and Republicans on half?

Doesn't sound like my idea of "independent."

Bernie Sanders is about the most Democrat of all Democrats yet he runs as an independent.

I'm probably the most moderate person on this forum yet I'm considered a Republican just because I happen to think most Democratic politicians are pieces of shit.. I'll prove my moderateness to all y'all bitches.

You don't even vote :/

[Warriorbird]

I'm probably the most moderate person on this forum

Saved.

[drauz]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/7a/27/86/7a27863ac3fbd69bfbd6707f585d2eb4.jpg

[drauz]

That was a stupid article.

It basically boiled down to "People call themselves independent but their ideals are still partisan."

Well no shit. Just about every topic in this country has become partisan, it's rare for the two sides to agree on anything. So someone can't be an independent unless, what, they agree with Democrats on half the issues and Republicans on half?

Doesn't sound like my idea of "independent."

Bernie Sanders is about the most Democrat of all Democrats yet he runs as an independent.

I'm probably the most moderate person on this forum yet I'm considered a Republican just because I happen to think most Democratic politicians are pieces of shit.. I'll prove my moderateness to all y'all bitches.

The article boiled down to "People call themselves independent but they really aren't". If all your views align with one party and you vote based on that, you're not independent.

"Even while reporting that they are independent, respondents repeatedly clung to the partisan issue positions they had held all along. Indeed, when we asked people to place themselves on either the Republican or Democratic side of a series of issues, they were not only consistent in which side they picked across all the issues, but reminding them of partisan disagreement had no effect."

[Shaps]

Hillary Clinton should be charged and sent to prison, or heavily fined. But of course, for some reason.. people lose all mental capacity and ability to think when you mention her name. We are a sad, sad people these days.

[drauz]

Yeah you didn't really answer my question and I agree with this sentiment. Anyone should be able to run for president (well following the obvious requirements of course.) Where have I said I don't feel anyone should be able to run for president?

What you're saying though is you don't want the the parties to be able to control their own parties. You don't want the DNC or the RNC to say "By agreeing to run as <insert party here> you are agreeing to abide by our rules."

Why can't the RNC/DNC do that?

Why can't state governments pass "sore loser" laws? And by the way almost every single state has "sore loser" laws for elections, but very few have said laws for presidential elections.

But the primary isn't running for president its like the semi-finals. You are running for the chance to run for President. What I thought you were saying is that if you lose the primary that you shouldn't be able to run for President anymore (that election cycles).

Does my opinion matter to them, no. I am fine with them blocking him running the next election as their party though.

Why should states have "sore loser" laws? How does it benefit the people of their state? In my view it only serves to help the two dominate parties. I understand why and how they do it, just not how it's beneficial to the people of the state.

[Latrinsorm]

Seriously dude. A typical political campaign has over 150 different positions. The last debate managed to cover about 14 major or semi-major categories. So, assuming you will not have any repeats and previous debate is in fact an indicator of future debates, that gives you 84 topics to cover. Now, the major ones will of course be repeated over and over so you may get 5 new topics a debate and that is being generous in my opinion. Now, over 6 debates, that gives you a somewhat generous estimate of covering 39 topics. That is less than 1/3 of a skimpy campaign and while you may be ok with knowing only 1/3 or less of a candidate's positions before voting them into office, other people are not so trusting. Troll harder, this one is a fail. BTW, here is Bernie Sanders platform (https://berniesanders.com/issues/), 13 positions on the first link alone.150 different positions of which people care about maybe 6 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/153029/economy-paramount-issue-voters.aspx). That they cover the same issues over and over (as you say) is prima facie evidence that debates have diminishing returns.

[Archigeek]

150 different positions of which people care about maybe 6.

Missionary, doggie, cowgirl, reverse cowgirl, pile driver, and of course, dirty sanchez.

[Androidpk]

Damn, had no idea Kerl was such a freak.

[~Rocktar~]

150 different positions of which people care about maybe 6 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/153029/economy-paramount-issue-voters.aspx). That they cover the same issues over and over (as you say) is prima facie evidence that debates have diminishing returns.

Dude, no matter how much you want to dismiss issues and generalize, you can't tap dance your way out of making a dumbassed comment. You complain about me generalizing, sheesh. And seriously, diminishing returns still is returns none the less. Now, just move on before you eat any more of your foot.

[drauz]

BTW, here is Bernie Sanders platform (https://berniesanders.com/issues/), 13 positions on the first link alone.

That's one position with 13 solutions. Also none of the other links on the page are in the format, guessing you didn't bother clicking anything else.

[~Rocktar~]

That's one position with 13 solutions. Also none of the other links on the page are in the format, guessing you didn't bother clicking anything else.

Would you like to do your own foot work on other candidates and report back on how many issues you find? Thanks, looking forward to your report.

[drauz]

Would you like to do your own foot work on other candidates and report back on how many issues you find? Thanks, looking forward to your report.

http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm

That was tough work.

[Androidpk]

I'm not sure if Rocktar is complementing Sanders or not. So confused.

[drauz]

Less informed voters means more Liberal and Socialist politicians get into government.

Where did you get that gem from? I could only find the opposite..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_information_voter


Linguist George Lakoff has written that the term is a pejorative mainly used by American liberals to refer to people who vote conservative against their own interests, and assumes they do it because they lack sufficient information. Liberals, he said, attribute the problem in part to deliberate Republican efforts at misinforming voters.[5]

Thirty-year Republican House of Representatives and Senate staffer Mike Lofgren, in a 2011 article titled "Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult", characterized low-information voters as anti-intellectual and hostile-to-science "religious cranks", and claimed Republicans are deliberately manipulating LIVs to undermine their confidence in American democratic institutions.

[~Rocktar~]

Where did you get that gem from? I could only find the opposite..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_information_voter

No, you could only post one article claiming what you wanted to support. I suspect that you didn't look to hard on that one. Oh, and my challenge to you was to look at all the platforms of the current significant candidates and count how many positions you find. Also, add in the DNC and RNC national organization position platforms. I suggest that you will find many more than 13 positions and topics. I apologize for assuming that I was not so explicitly clear in my statement that you could understand it. I had falsely assumed that you had some understanding of the topic we were discussing.

[drauz]

my challenge to you was to look at all the platforms of the current significant candidates and count how many positions you find. Also, add in the DNC and RNC national organization position platforms. I suggest that you will find many more than 13 positions and topics. I apologize for assuming that I was not so explicitly clear in my statement that you could understand it. I had falsely assumed that you had some understanding of the topic we were discussing.

You want me to do more work than you were willing to do? No thanks. How about you tell me what issues you think there are that aren't covered in my link.

[drauz]

No, you could only post one article claiming what you wanted to support. I suspect that you didn't look to hard on that one.

That was one more link than you were able to provide.

[~Rocktar~]

You want me to do more work than you were willing to do? No thanks. How about you tell me what issues you think there are that aren't covered in my link.

You want all this proof, go find it. I set out to shoot Latrine's bullshit argument down. It isn't my job to educate you as a voter.

[drauz]

You want all this proof, go find it. I set out to shoot Latrine's bullshit argument down. It isn't my job to educate you as a voter.

I never asked for proof, I simply corrected your error. You then asked me to do legwork for you. Its not my job to educate YOU.

I did ask for your source on Low Information Voters voting democrat though. That sure sounds like I was asking for "all this proof".

[Latrinsorm]

Dude, no matter how much you want to dismiss issues and generalize, you can't tap dance your way out of making a dumbassed comment. You complain about me generalizing, sheesh.In fact I have never once criticized you for generalizing. :)
And seriously, diminishing returns still is returns none the less. Now, just move on before you eat any more of your foot.We have a word for that: negligible. Having only six debates is a non issue. To the extent that debates even provide information (which is itself... debatable ⌐■_■) they have exhausted that function before debate #7.

[Tgo01]

Is the "Republican" Latrin defending the DNC's decision to only have 6 debates?

[Latrinsorm]

I will stop all defense if any of you can tell me one thing you learned about any candidate in the 2012 debates without looking it up.

[Tgo01]

I will stop all defense if any of you can tell me one thing you learned about any candidate in the 2012 debates without looking it up.

Obama was black.

[Androidpk]

In fact I have never once criticized you for generalizing. :)We have a word for that: negligible. Having only six debates is a non issue. To the extent that debates even provide information (which is itself... debatable ⌐■_■) they have exhausted that function before debate #7.

A non issue to who? Hillary Clinton? Many democrats are making a huge fuss over it. Hell I'm a republican (for now) and I'm making a huge stink about it. Stop being a boring troll.

[Latrinsorm]

A non issue to who? Hillary Clinton? Many democrats are making a huge fuss over it. Hell I'm a republican (for now) and I'm making a huge stink about it. Stop being a boring troll.A non issue period. Certain people will pretend that certain non issues are issues, but this tells you more about the people than the issues.
Obama was black.No, wrong. All the debates showed you was that Obama had black skin. Nothing in the debate proved he wasn't Dominican. You lose! Good day sir!

I SAID GOOD DAY

[Androidpk]

Hillary complained about Obama not debating enough in 2008. And again, Latrin showing everyone what a dumbass he is.

[Latrinsorm]

Hillary complained about Obama not debating enough in 2008. And again, Latrin showing everyone what a dumbass he is.In what way does that disagree with "Certain people will pretend that certain non issues are issues, but this tells you more about the people than the issues."?

[Androidpk]

In what way does that disagree with "Certain people will pretend that certain non issues are issues, but this tells you more about the people than the issues."?

Go away.

[Androidpk]

Straight from Hillary's mouth.


. "I debated a lot in 2008 and I would certainly be there with lots of enthusiasm and energy if they decide to add more debates, and I think that's the message that a lot of people are sending their way."

[Androidpk]

Poll: Sanders grabs 9-point lead over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/252849-poll-sanders-grabs-9-point-lead-over-hillary-clinton-in-new-hampshire

[Latrinsorm]

Go away.Look man, I asked two simple questions.
-What specific information does a seventh debate give that isn't covered in the first six?
-What specific information can you or anyone else remember gleaning from the any of the 2012 debates?

If you can't even attempt to answer these, why should I believe your position? 'Because you get really angry when I question it' is not a reliable method of determining truth. 'Hilary Clinton says she's willing to do more debates but doesn't outright request them' isn't even relevant to the question.

[Androidpk]

Look man, I asked two simple questions.
-What specific information does a seventh debate give that isn't covered in the first six?
-What specific information can you or anyone else remember gleaning from the any of the 2012 debates?

If you can't even attempt to answer these, why should I believe your position? 'Because you get really angry when I question it' is not a reliable method of determining truth. 'Hilary Clinton says she's willing to do more debates but doesn't outright request them' isn't even relevant to the question.

Troll elsewhere.

[Latrinsorm]

#TrollLivesMatter

[Androidpk]

You are so full of shit I wish you'd stop pretending.


You are literally the worst kind of asshole and I'm so happy you have no power.

And seriously, you disgust me.

.

[Latrinsorm]

I can't dispute that people dislike me, that has been verified many times over.

I continue to be puzzled that people accuse me of being disingenuous. Have you really never had a disagreement before? How can you be so convinced of your rectitude that honest dissent is literally inconceivable to you? That would be so alarming to me.

[Androidpk]

Bernie Sanders has taken a narrow lead over Hillary Clinton in Iowa more than four months before the state’s caucus, according to a poll released Thursday.
The Vermont senator is favorite among 41% of Iowa likely Democratic participants, compared with 40% supporting the former Secretary of State, according to a Quinnipiac poll released Thursday. That marks a major reversal from early July, when Clinton was ahead of Sanders, 52% to 33%.

.

[Latrinsorm]

News: polls from many months before the caucus turned out to change. Check out these new polls from many months before the caucus!

[Androidpk]

Hillary's polling numbers are steadily dropping across the country? What difference does it make, it's her turn to win.

[Warriorbird]

I can't dispute that people dislike me, that has been verified many times over.

I continue to be puzzled that people accuse me of being disingenuous.

I like you AND think you are disingenuous.


Hillary's polling numbers are steadily dropping across the country? What difference does it make, it's her turn to win.

Both parties can cheat heavily. They will.

[Androidpk]

Both parties can cheat heavily. They will.

Oh no doubt. Then again I'm pretty much against both parties.

[Androidpk]

http://i.imgur.com/c125P9b.png

[Parkbandit]

https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/09/13/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-cbs-battleground-poll/

Bernie Sanders, the self proclaimed Socialist, is up 22 points over Hillary in NH.

[Warriorbird]

The cheating against Sanders/Trump will get more obvious. It'd be good for both parties if we got primary reform.

[Androidpk]

Sanders is on Colbert's show tonight.