^

10/24/2016 4:57:29 PM

Quote :

"the polls have to be close or we stop being interested."

sure. or, as is the actual case with polls right now and not the bullshit conspiracy theory you're trying to push, they'd show clinton with enough votes to win without even including battleground states.

let's be clear here. on election night, obama had a 0.7 point lead over romney. that means that clinton's lead is more than 7 times the gap that obama had when he was on his way to wining 332 EVs.

only someone wanting to find something to be outraged about as they adjust their tin foil hat would look at a 5 point gap today and say SEE IT'S RIGGED FOR RATINGS

[Edited on October 25, 2016 at 9:11 AM. Reason : .]

10/25/2016 8:57:11 AM

High quality poll showing Clinton up 7 in NC. If that's not enough of a canary in the coal mine for the GOP, the Democrats swept the entire I-4 corridor in Florida early voting, even heavy Republican Polk County. This is going to get ugly.

[Edited on October 25, 2016 at 10:34 AM. Reason : .]

10/25/2016 10:34:13 AM

Quote :

"Colin Powell says he will vote for Hillary Clinton. Says will serve w/ distinction and cites experience and stamina"

Two things. 1) Does anyone care what Colin Powell thinks or does anymore? 2) what is the national obsession with stamina this cycle?

10/25/2016 3:04:50 PM

Stamina is just as important as HP and Magicka to alot of voters

10/25/2016 4:28:33 PM

Because there's a woman running.


Looks like even Donald Trump disagrees with Donald Trump supporters.


[Edited on October 25, 2016 at 5:25 PM. Reason : -]

10/25/2016 5:23:59 PM

golielax you are comparing it with other rigged poll data to say that it isn't as rigged? The fact that obamas lead was small supports the idea that the polls were rigged.

10/25/2016 5:47:44 PM

So you're telling me everything is rigged? I don't even know what's real anymore! Who am I? What is this life I am living???

10/25/2016 5:55:15 PM

Quote :

"Does anyone care what Colin Powell thinks or does anymore?"

Yes.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/major_political_figures

Quote :

"2) what is the national obsession with stamina this cycle?"

That word in Powell's quote was probably meant to contradict Trump raising the issue. Don't know about any obsession, but they are both old as hell

[Edited on October 25, 2016 at 6:06 PM. Reason : Reagan is the only President older than these two on inauguration day.]

10/25/2016 5:58:43 PM

Trump is even older than Reagan was on his first inauguration.

10/25/2016 8:23:06 PM

Ooooh yeah good point.

10/25/2016 9:34:03 PM

I think with Trump's actions and words though, he just doesn't seem as old. Besides, most younger voters, if they even remember Reagan, they remember the old, ailing Reagan.



But hey, if Trump is going to lose, I hope it is an absolute trounce. That way, the Republicsns won't ever try an experiment like this again. Maybe they'll implement something like super-delegates to make sure that the party gets what the party wants.

[Edited on October 25, 2016 at 9:42 PM. Reason : e]

10/25/2016 9:41:29 PM

Those younger voters were all about Bernie, so I don't think age actually has much to do with anything.

10/25/2016 9:56:04 PM

Quote :

"Maybe they'll implement something like super-delegates to make sure that the party gets what the party wants."

I suspect some states would abandon their winner-take-all primaries first.

10/25/2016 10:12:14 PM

I think every state should divide electoral votes, but not by districts like Maine and Nebraska. More like how most of the Democratic primaries work. That would allow 3rd party candidates to get a couple of electoral votes and make it so candidates have to work harder within each state.

Romney won 15 electoral votes from NC with 50.39% of the vote. That's the third most electoral votes he got from any one state while being the smallest margin of victory he had in any of the states he won. The difference was less than 100,000 votes.

10/25/2016 10:24:48 PM

Quote :

"That way, the Republicsns won't ever try an experiment like this again"

I know you think that it's not the case, but Trump is the Republican Party.

he's what happens when you have decades of dog whistles/anti-intellectualism/the conservative bubble of Fox News and talk radio.

10/26/2016 12:24:10 AM

you guys are reading too far into this. trump is simply a protest vote. nothing more. nothing less.

10/26/2016 12:26:13 AM

^^ wishful optimism

they'll be back

[Edited on October 26, 2016 at 12:46 AM. Reason : but yeah this clearly wasn't an 'experiment.' this was primary politics at its worst.]

10/26/2016 12:44:37 AM

^^^You keep thinking that. But I know more people with my point of view than anything else, and my point of view is that our party has been hijacked.

10/26/2016 1:10:58 AM

i can never take warren seriously again. i see how the same type of thing happened over and over in the gop. bernie was the left's version of trump except they had safeguards built into the primary system and the gop didn't.

the republican voters dont like trump they just don't believe there is anything else outside of the establishment. if there was a well-spoken version of trump without the sexism, theyd be all for him

[Edited on October 26, 2016 at 2:00 AM. Reason : k]

10/26/2016 1:55:52 AM

^^ how many people do you know?

10/26/2016 2:10:05 AM

if the GOP was hijacked, it was back in the 90s when Gingrich thought he sold evangelicals on small government, but in reality just brought in a bunch of anti-intellectuals who feared foreigners and minorities. "Common sense" aka the dumb racist shit my uncle says at thanksgiving has ruled the day ever since

[Edited on October 26, 2016 at 5:54 AM. Reason : Also if the GOP had super delegates they would have went for trump too]

10/26/2016 5:40:32 AM

^^At least 7 people from all different walks of life who don't like Trump and what he stands for, and wish they had someone else to vote for. These 7 are undecided, but likely not going to vote at all.

So +7 for Hillary.

8 if you include myself.

10/26/2016 7:11:27 AM

The Bernie = Trump people are literally just he worst. It's simply baffling.

10/26/2016 7:52:30 AM

IDK. The Bernie Bros who still won't shut up about the election being "rigged" are about as bad as mouth breathing Trump supporters. I guess to them, saving face is more important than saving this country from absolute ruin.

10/26/2016 10:49:15 AM

10/26/2016 10:52:22 AM

As a Bernie supporter there is no way in hell I would ever back Trump. With that said I have no love for the DNC at this point and I do hope the two party system crumbles. I am focused on my local races here and will likely abstain or write in for the president (I am not in a swing state anyway).

10/26/2016 11:08:49 AM

^^But can't you admit, even a little, that the cards were stacked heavily against Bernie in the Primary? I mean hell, it looks like the DNC all but promised it would do everything it could to get Hillary elected behind the scenes.

So short of the favorable media coverage that Hillary gets, Trump's people have no real cause to cry a rigged election. Bernie supporters on the other hand...I can see how they might be upset. Having said that, it's time they quite whining at this point and just move on.

10/26/2016 11:09:05 AM

No, not really. Clinton had way more votes cast for her nationwide. The incessant bitching about places like AZ being "rigged" was due to Republican election policies like getting rid of polling places and people not knowing they had to register as democrats, versus independents. The victim complex and excuses are tired, and the same people who were so sure he was going to win, despite all the evidence to the contrary, are the ones who still won't let it go and posting the same "killary" memes on FB 24/7.

[Edited on October 26, 2016 at 11:15 AM. Reason : .]

10/26/2016 11:14:50 AM

wait, are you seriously trying to argue that sanders was on equal footing?

10/26/2016 11:24:43 AM

Bernie lost because he didn't campaign or spend any money in south. The Democratic primary doesn't have any winner take all states, so he could have made up his entire delegate deficit had he made an effort to connect with those voters. As much as we all wish the south didn't exist, it does, and a President has to try and represent those people too. Bernie didn't, so he lost. Period.

10/26/2016 11:27:45 AM

No. Obviously Hillary was the "safe" and establishment choice and the DNC was fully on board with her. Sanders wasn't even a Democrat until he decided to run. What was the DNC supposed to do? Abandon their faith in a candidate with tons of experience in favor of someone more radical? Not really the best idea to fracture the party when so much was at stake.

10/26/2016 11:29:09 AM

okay, so you did agree that cards were stacked against him (which is what rjrumfel said) just not that there was rigging or conspiracy (which is something he didn't say)

10/26/2016 11:34:09 AM

^^
They knew Hillary was a weak candidate and could lose to anyone other than Trump/Cruz. This is referenced in Podesta's emails, several times if I remember right. She was the "safe" choice for polititians, not for the people, because Clinton is all about favors.

[Edited on October 26, 2016 at 11:37 AM. Reason : .]

10/26/2016 11:36:39 AM

Quote :

"^^^You keep thinking that. But I know more people with my point of view than anything else, and my point of view is that our party has been hijacked."

7

not 8, not 9, not 10

7

10/26/2016 11:36:59 AM

The DNC threw their support behind an established candidate they assumed would have the best chance at winning the general election, instead of an independent candidate with policies far more to the left of center. If you can't see the logic behind this, I don't know what else to tell you. Is it "fair"? I guess not, but I really don't know what you should expect them to do instead. But yes, there's a difference in backing the established, "safe" choice from the beginning and not doing him any favors, as opposed to outright election rigging and voter fraud. If more people wanted Bernie Sanders to be the candidate, he would have gotten more votes. Period.

And I don't know where you get the idea she was such a 'weak' candidate. People had been talking about her succeeding Obama since like 2013. Why didn't anyone else who was a better candidate run against her, besides Bernie? Unfavorability matters, but obviously not as much as people think, given who's left standing.



[Edited on October 26, 2016 at 11:45 AM. Reason : .]

10/26/2016 11:40:47 AM

I'll try to find the emails I mentioned. Bernie also won GE polls by greater margins over and over. It was plainly obvious

They pushed Clinton because they knew they would be rewarded under her administration. And yes, I'm sure it was also about Democratic loyalty, which is a fault.

[Edited on October 26, 2016 at 11:47 AM. Reason : .]

10/26/2016 11:46:06 AM

Quote :

"They knew Hillary was a weak candidate and could lose to anyone other than Trump/Cruz."

The RNC strategy for beating Hillary has been, in order,

1. Hope she loses to a 75 year old Jewish independent in the Democratic primary
2. Hope she gets indicted by the DOJ/FBI
3. Hope she dies of some phantom sickness
4. Hope they can depress Democratic turnout by reminding everyone about her husband's infidelities

None of those things are strategies, they were moonshots against someone they knew they had no chance of beating clean.

10/26/2016 11:47:12 AM

Who else should have been the nominee besides an independent, democratic socialist who switched parties a year before the general election then? I'd really like to know.

Quote :

"Bernie also won GE polls by greater margins over and over. It was plainly obvious"

Polls based on hypothetical situations that don't pan out don't mean shit when your "better" candidate can't even beat the establishment choice. That's like saying, well if the Panthers had played the Patriots instead in the Super Bowl last year, they totally would have won. Just look at the polls!

[Edited on October 26, 2016 at 11:50 AM. Reason : .]

10/26/2016 11:48:08 AM

primary voters do not represent GE voters in the slightest

10/26/2016 11:54:05 AM

Quote :

"And I don't know where you get the idea she was such a 'weak' candidate. People had been talking about her succeeding Obama since like 2013. Why didn't anyone else who was a better candidate run against her, besides Bernie? Unfavorability matters, but obviously not as much as people think, given who's left standing. "

she was firmly established in the party with a major fundraising potential and significant name recognition (with a reputation for political retribution), no one wanted to run against her because they wouldn't win the nomination. sanders only seemed to enter the race reluctantly, his campaign efforts were not serious at first (and were mismanaged when they did become serious)

but even still she is a weak candidate, she is extremely unlikable and not a natural campaigner (which she will admit to). i mean, for fucks sake, even trump has been able to challenge her.

10/26/2016 12:02:19 PM

Bernie was not on even close to being on even footing. Clinton won fairly.

Not mutually exclusive.

10/26/2016 12:07:04 PM

Fairly by legal terms, sure.

10/26/2016 12:08:25 PM

The reanimated corpse of Michael Dukakis could have beaten pussy grabber in the general.

[Edited on October 26, 2016 at 12:08 PM. Reason : Oh wait is he dead? I dunno lol]

10/26/2016 12:08:29 PM

https://theringer.com/electing-hillary-isnt-enough-9f4651f0f852#.i1eckg48x

10/26/2016 12:45:24 PM

Quote :

" primary voters do not represent GE voters in the slightest "

who cares? this type of thinking is totally putting the cart before the horse, no matter how much you don't want to admit it.

10/26/2016 1:13:36 PM

Quote :

"The fact that obamas lead was small supports the idea that the polls were rigged."

no. it supports the idea that you know fuck all about polls and math.

Quote :

"The Bernie Bros who still won't shut up about the election being "rigged" are about as bad as mouth breathing Trump supporters"

that's what I've been saying since last winter. they have the same mentality, sans the ridiculous racism and xenophobia

Quote :

"Bernie also won GE polls by greater margins over and over."

which doesn't mean shit. Bernie had virtually no negative campaigning leveled against him. the guy is a socialist who has lauded cuba and castro, vacationed in the soviet union, etc. once he started getting hit by incessant negative ads about how he's a communist sympathizer who legit wants to shift the US to a socialist democracy, he would have cratered in a way no primary poll could have accurately predicted.

Quote :

"primary voters do not represent GE voters in the slightest"

ex-fucking-zactly (which makes me wonder why you bring it up in your defense).

that shit might not matter these days to young democratic leaning people, who had a larger representation in the primaries than they will in the GE. but it sure as shit matters to old people, like it or not.

were the odds against him? hell yes.

did he benefit greatly by getting treated with kid gloves from Clinton? you're goddamn right he did


[Edited on October 26, 2016 at 1:53 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2016 1:40:31 PM

Quote :

"Who else should have been the nominee besides an independent, democratic socialist who switched parties a year before the general election then? I'd really like to know."

Still waiting on an answer besides "crooked Hillary bought this election and everyone was too scared to run against her"

10/26/2016 1:59:24 PM

Quote :

"that's what I've been saying since last winter. they have the same mentality, sans the ridiculous racism and xenophobia"

They are an extremely caricaturized (is that a word?) minority of Sanders' supporters.

10/26/2016 2:06:13 PM

^^Obama seemed to come out of nowhere and steal 2008 from her and you guys went all goo-goo eyed over him. Who's to say that couldn't have happened for 2016 had the DNC not had such a grip on the primary for Hillary.

[Edited on October 26, 2016 at 2:07 PM. Reason : ^]

10/26/2016 2:07:16 PM