US Presidential Election 2020

I reckon Biden has cut a deal with Warren to be his VP or Treasury Secretary, hence her being frosty to Sanders seemingly out of nowhere.

The contents of a meeting that happened in December 2018 all of a sudden leak accusing Warren's "good friend" (her words), Sanders, of saying a woman couldn't win the presidency.

Remember, this is the same woman that was played by Hillary in 2016. Hillary sounded out Warren about being her VP, purely to prevent Warren from endorsing Sanders. Hillary of course had no intention of nominating Warren as her VP but simply outpoliticked her.

FatherTed

Maybe Bernie said something that was taken out of context like maybe he referred to something about Clinton in 2016, who knows. But Bernie has always said a woman could be President. Here he is as far back as 1988:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHDsaViTUvo


Warren was a Republican in 1988 so I would tend to take his word over hers.

eire4

Deleted User wrote: »

I reckon Biden has cut a deal with Warren to be his VP or Treasury Secretary, hence her being frosty to Sanders seemingly out of nowhere.

The contents of a meeting that happened in December 2018 all of a sudden leak accusing Warren's "good friend" (her words), Sanders, of saying a woman couldn't win the presidency.

Remember, this is the same woman that was played by Hillary in 2016. Hillary sounded out Warren about being her VP, purely to prevent Warren from endorsing Sanders. Hillary of course had no intention of nominating Warren as her VP but simply outpoliticked her.

Or it could be more prosaic and that Warren has been going backwards a bit in polls more recently and Sanders doing better. Bottom line though overall is it is a primary there will be some spats I don't really see this as anything significant.

The Phantom Jipper

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I reckon Biden has cut a deal with Warren to be his VP or Treasury Secretary, hence her being frosty to Sanders seemingly out of nowhere.

The contents of a meeting that happened in December 2018 all of a sudden leak accusing Warren's "good friend" (her words), Sanders, of saying a woman couldn't win the presidency.

Remember, this is the same woman that was played by Hillary in 2016. Hillary sounded out Warren about being her VP, purely to prevent Warren from endorsing Sanders. Hillary of course had no intention of nominating Warren as her VP but simply outpoliticked her.

It wasn't out of nowhere. It was a reaction to Sanders activists and staffers trying to portray her as an elitist despite their non-aggression pact.

I'm not sure where you're getting these VP conspiracy theories from. Clinton was never going to have a female running mate. Warren endorsed her as Sanders was never going to win but was potentially going to divide the party by staying in the race too long, which is what happened to a certain degree.

The Phantom Jipper

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

It wasn't out of nowhere. It was a reaction to Sanders activists and staffers trying to portray her as an elitist despite their non-aggression pact.

I'm not sure where you're getting these VP conspiracy theories from. Clinton was never going to have a female running mate. Warren endorsed her as Sanders was never going to win but was potentially going to divide the party by staying in the race too long, which is what happened to a certain degree.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/25/warren-hillary-clinton-vice-president-1435422

The Phantom Jipper

[Deleted User] wrote: »

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/25/warren-hillary-clinton-vice-president-1435422

Your assertion was that Clinton played her, essentially tricking her into endorsing her and betraying Sanders for a shot at VP. And that the same is happening with Biden this time. Any articles that support that?

Water John

Do people generally accept that, Warren knew she was micked and recording?

It is just a spat before any primary. Once there's a full commitment by all, after convention, that's what is important.

ThomasFlynn

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

The democratic primary of 2008 was far more brutal between Clinton and Obama than 2016 was, yet Obama still won the election in a landslide.

There's no correlation between the visciousness of a primary contest and how they subsequently fare in the general election, in fact there is some evidence that it might actually help them as they've been properly battle tested. The democrats wanted a coronation for Hillary, now they wanted a coronation for Biden, absolutely pathetic.

Mitt Romney previous GOP nominee came out and publically destroyed Trump during the 2016 primaries, yet it didn't affect his chances of winning.

That's the Republicans though. The Right hold their nose eventually, the Left less so.

Things that shouldn't be forgotten:
1) The Republicans have won the popular vote once in the last 30 years. Yet they've had 3 of the 7 presidential terms in that time.
2) The left-wing positions generally are supported by a majority yet they can't win elections.
3) The Republicans are winners and pragmatists. They do what it takes to win. The Democrats don't.
4) American isn't ready to elect a female president yet.
5) The courts are now completely full of Trump's nominees. They've basically got control of many circuits and states for the next generation.

Some obvious things come across as snark from Republicans and Edgelords but it doesn't mean they aren't true.

The Phantom Jipper

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

Your assertion was that Clinton played her, essentially tricking her into endorsing her and betraying Sanders for a shot at VP. And that the same is happening with Biden this time. Any articles that support that?

You said it yourself, Hillary had no intention of electing Warren.

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

Clinton was never going to have a female running mate.

Warren was hoodwinked.

No evidence to support the Biden/Warren thing.

Then again, there was no evidence at this time in 2016 that Hillary would hoodwink Warren.

Time will tell.

The Phantom Jipper

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You said it yourself, Hillary had no intention of electing Warren.



Warren was hoodwinked.

No evidence to support the Biden/Warren thing.

Then again, there was no evidence at this time in 2016 that Hillary would hoodwink Warren.

Time will tell.

Hillary may have vetted her but in real terms, a two woman ticket was not a runner. One woman on the ticket was too many for some people.

Your original point was that Warren was tricked so that she wouldn't endorse Bernie. Your own article that you linked says that Warren only endorsed Clinton after she already had the nomination wrapped up so it doesn't make any sense.

FWIW I think she would endorse Bernie if it's a close race between him and Biden and he has a realistic chance of winning.

eagle eye

The only way you are going to see a female president is if one gets on the ticket as a running mate. Do two terms as VP and then run for POTUS.

The Phantom Jipper

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

Hillary may have vetted her but in real terms, a two woman ticket was not a runner. One woman on the ticket was too many for some people.

Your original point was that Warren was tricked so that she wouldn't endorse Bernie. Your own article that you linked says that Warren only endorsed Clinton after she already had the nomination wrapped up so it doesn't make any sense.

FWIW I think she would endorse Bernie if it's a close race between him and Biden and he has a realistic chance of winning.

My own point shows that Warren dodged Bernie endorsement because Hillary hoodwinked her into thinking she had a shot at VP.

Bernie has already beaten Warren. Her latest move has been a poor political one.

It's between Bernie and Biden.

The Phantom Jipper

[Deleted User] wrote: »

My own point shows that Warren dodged Bernie endorsement because Hillary hoodwinked her into thinking she had a shot at VP.

Bernie has already beaten Warren. Her latest move has been a poor political one.

It's between Bernie and Biden.

No, your point was refuted by the one article you linked to try and support it.

As an aside, it's not even clear that this episode has been bad for Warren. The 538 poll of debate watchers showed the debate was a positive for Warren and that Sanders lost support following it.

The Phantom Jipper

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

No, your point was refuted by the one article you linked to try and support it.

As an aside, it's not even clear that this episode has been bad for Warren. The 538 poll of debate watchers showed the debate was a positive for Warren and that Sanders lost support following it.

No, my article refuted your 'Hillary would never select a woman VP' claim.

So, she either was serious about Warren being her VP, or she was hoodwinking Warren (which I think was the case). Either way, you're wrong.

I don't care about polls. Bernie was dismissed after his heart operation. The only poll that matters will be in November. Warren won't be part of it unless she's on the Sanders or Biden ticket.

Rjd2

Rjd2 wrote: »

It's just a starter though,,,Bernie will come under serious fire now,,,those who see Putin under there beds will question his loyalty also.

Going to be interesting if he can fight them off.

https://twitter.com/page88/status/1218946004692742147
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1218923727259414531


Its been happening for months here and there but its going to step up hugely if he gets even more momentum. Its absolutely sickening but it was to be expected.

Amusing the same people who were so upset by the supposed sexism aimed at Warren were quite content to question the loyalty of a women of color who fought for her nation not to long ago. :pac:

The Phantom Jipper

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No, my article refuted your 'Hillary would never select a woman VP' claim.

So, she either was serious about Warren being her VP, or she was hoodwinking Warren (which I think was the case). Either way, you're wrong.

I don't care about polls. Bernie was dismissed after his heart operation. The only poll that matters will be in November. Warren won't be part of it unless she's on the Sanders or Biden ticket.

Good grief. You claimed she pulled the wool over Warren's eyes by dangling the VP slot in front of her as an inducement to betray Bernie. Your own article makes clear that Warren only endorsed Clinton AFTER the nomination had been wrapped up and it was mathematically impossible for Bernie to win. And based on this guff you've concluded that Biden has made the same deal with her. A bit of speculation can be fun but at the very least make an effort for it to make some sort of sense.

eire4

Rjd2 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/page88/status/1218946004692742147
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1218923727259414531


Its been happening for months here and there but its going to step up hugely if he gets even more momentum. Its absolutely sickening but it was to be expected.

Amusing the same people who were so upset by the supposed sexism aimed at Warren were quite content to question the loyalty of a women of color who fought for her nation not to long ago. :pac:

Well I will say is this. They were many Democrats hoping Trump would get the nomination for the Republicans last time as they thought Clinton would win easily and look how that turned out for them.
IMHO the same applies here but in reverse.

ghost of ireland past

The Democrats just don't get it. Perceptions matter.

This is on RT today. I know it's RT but so what.

https://www.rt.com/usa/478746-biden-warns-media-ukraine/ wrote:

Joe Biden’s presidential campaign has issued a warning to the media cautioning journalists against spreading what he called “debunked” theories about his controversial role in having a Ukrainian prosecutor removed from office.
...
Biden has previously bragged about his role in having [former Prosecutor General Viktor] Shokin fired, even admitting on camera that he presented an ultimatum to Ukrainian authorities, threatening to withhold a billion-dollar loan guarantee unless the prosecutor was given the boot. It emerged later that Biden’s own son Hunter sat on the board of the Burisma energy company which Shokin had been investigating for corruption.
...
...[Biden] has already publicly admitted to threatening to withhold money from Ukraine unless authorities did his bidding — which, somewhat ironically, is exactly what Democrats impeached Trump for last month.

The last line there is correct. Biden appears to have done exactly the same thing as Donald Trump, by withholding aid.

I understand that Trump is completely corrupt himself but corruption is rampant in politics and the Democrats need to start acknowledging that, instead of trying to deny it. Trump doesn't deny it even though Trump is the swamp.

everlast75

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

The Democrats just don't get it. Perceptions matter.

This is on RT today. I know it's RT but so what.

The last line there is correct. Biden appears to have done exactly the same thing as Donald Trump, by withholding aid.

Perceptions matter. So do facts.

Research why Biden withheld the money, who agreed that it should be withheld, note the fact that it was done in the open, note that Biden didn't personally profit from his removal, note that it didn't benefit Biden's reelection campaign, research all of this and then see if its the same.

Try reading more than just the headline.

And one more thing. Trump has lied over 16,000 times in the last year. Try applying some scepticism to any allegation coming out of his mouth.

eagle eye

McGregor supporting Trump now. World is gone mad.

everlast75

eagle eye wrote: »

McGregor supporting Trump now. World is gone mad.

Repeated blows to the head will do that to you

Manic Moran

Perceptions matter. So do facts.

Accurate or not, it is a talking point with a grain of truth which will be hammered down everyone’s throats in the campaign. I’m a little surprised that Hunter’s odd military career doesn’t get brought up as well. Getting a double-waiver to get in is rather rare, I have seen some claim that Hunter is the only person in USN history to get a double waiver for direct commission into Public Affairs (before then blowing it), but I cannot independently verify it. JAG, at least, would be logical for him and the Navy, but PA? Obviously the Navy isn’t commenting, and I wouldn’t expect them to, but it leaves open the favoritism/nepotism allegations which will be all but impossible to refute.

everlast75

Manic Moran wrote: »

Accurate or not, it is a talking point with a grain of truth which will be hammered down everyone’s throats in the campaign. I’m a little surprised that Hunter’s odd military career doesn’t get brought up as well. Getting a double-waiver to get in is rather rare, I have seen some claim that Hunter is the only person in USN history to get a double waiver for direct commission into Public Affairs (before then blowing it), but I cannot independently verify it. JAG, at least, would be logical for him and the Navy, but PA? Obviously the Navy isn’t commenting, and I wouldn’t expect them to, but it leaves open the favoritism/nepotism allegations which will be all but impossible to refute.

Accurate or not - you mean to say, be it the truth or a lie... let's talk about it. FFS.

Trump is an un-indicted co-conspirator. That is a fact.
Trump withheld ILLEGALLY properly allocated funding for the Ukraine in order to benefit himself personally in the upcoming election. That is a fact.

Hammer those facts down everyone's throat, instead of innuendo and conspiracy theories. Or would you rather hitch your trailer to the crazy train that is Rudy Gulliani?

Christ - the compulsion to march to Trump's tune is infuriating. The man is a compulsive liar.

After Trump has been dealt with, investigate* the hell out of Biden, his son, Burisma - fill your boots.

But in the meantime, 45 has properly impeached by the house, and the Senate is refusing to have a fair trial. 69% of Americans want to see witnesses. 51% of Americans want him convicted and removed.

Any allegation against Biden or whoever by Trump is the equivalent of jangling car keys in front of a cat to distract it. Try not to fall for it.



*this has already been investigated by the Ukraine and there is nothing there.

eagle eye

everlast75 wrote:

Trump is an un-indicted co-conspirator. Trump withheld ILLEGALLY properly allocated funding for the Ukraine in order to benefit himself personally in the upcoming election.

Americans don't care about this. It's the Ukraine, it means nothing to the majority of Americans.

everlast75

eagle eye wrote: »

Americans don't care about this. It's the Ukraine, it means nothing to the majority of Americans.

51% want him convicted and removed, so you're statement without quantification is not true.

If they don't care about what Trump did to the Ukraine, then why the hell do they care about what Biden does there?

The point I'm making is that why the hell do people chase every allegation made by a compulsive and prolific liar?

eagle eye

everlast75 wrote:

51% want him convicted and removed, so you're statement without quantification is not true.

He is unpopular, hated even, this is why they want that. If he stamped on a teddy bear you'd get the same figures.

everlast75 wrote:

If they don't care about what Trump did to the Ukraine, then why the hell do they care about what Biden does there?

Biden was/is considered clean cut so anything that might unveil another side the him is of major interest to many people.

everlast75 wrote:

The point I'm making is that why the hell do people chase every allegation made by a compulsive and prolific liar?

In this day and age with all the lies on social media it's hard to know what to believe.
There are people out there and I'm talking in the tens of millions who will believe anything that's posted on a social media sites.

everlast75

eagle eye wrote: »

In this day and age with all the lies on social media it's hard to know what to believe.
There are people out there and I'm talking in the tens of millions who will believe anything that's posted on a social media sites.

People should give the benefit of the doubt to the person who hasn't lied 16,000+ times.

eagle eye

everlast75 wrote:

People should give the benefit of the doubt to the person who hasn't lied 16,000+ times.

Not many of them on social media.

StringerBell

eagle eye wrote: »

Not many of them on social media.

Been a fair amount of lies spewed on social media from the man.

eagle eye

StringerBell wrote:

Been a fair amount of lies spewed on social media from the man.

I'm not disagreeing with you. It's just that's the norm on social media sites.

Rjd2

Its really stepping up isn't it?

The Democrat party really want Bernie to **** the **** off.

Clinton the women who lost an election to an idiot who after 2016 blamed everyone PUTIN@!!! hammering him today.

Bernie campaigned for her quite a bit in 2016, so its not his fault that despite all her advantages she somehow lost to Donald Trump.


https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/hillary-clinton-full-a-fiery-new-documentary-trump-regrets-harsh-words-bernie-1271551

Also thiss is poor from Bernie tbf,,,a surrogate wrote a piece on the corruption of Biden and he apologised for it.

He needs to realise the establishment loath him and actually fight back because this is forced civility means he loses.


https://twitter.com/KyleKulinski/status/1219465065511952385

SharpshooterTom

everlast75 wrote: »

51% want him convicted and removed, so you're statement without quantification is not true.

51% is a high water mark, the impeachment and conviction polls have generally hovered around 45-50% as per FiveThirtyEight. People who would never vote for him anyway.

Itssoeasy

The no one liked him accusation by Clinton to sanders seems a bit harsh. I mean my view from just watching Bernie sanders talk he doesn’t look like someone who may be a nice person but he does seem like someone who wouldn’t be into the whole Washington scene and so probably doesn’t socialise with his democratic colleagues which is fine for him to do. That is just an opinion and I may be wildly off the mark.

bfa1509

If I were a gambling man, which I am: I have put €50 on not a single republican voting against Trump in impeachment trial. This will win me €125. €50 of which I have already put on Trump winning the 2020 election. This will win me €150. €50 of this I have already put on Michael Bloomberg being the Democratic nominee to run against Trump, which will win me €400.

So I will be coming out the end of 2020 with either +€525 at best or -€150 at worst. Not a bad gamble.

Nody

bfa1509 wrote: »

If I were a gambling man, which I am: I have put €50 on not a single republican voting against Trump in impeachment trial. This will win me €125. €50 of which I have already put on Trump winning the 2020 election. This will win me €150. €50 of this I have already put on Michael Bloomberg being the Democratic nominee to run against Trump, which will win me €400.

So I will be coming out the end of 2020 with either +€525 at best or -€150 at worst. Not a bad gamble.

I'd agree on your first though I could see someone maybe putting down their vote or simply happen "not to be there due to unforeseen medical condition" or similar, GOP when it comes to the vote are very much tribal in that sense. Second one is still a gamble but I can see the angle for it but due to many unknowns on who'll be the nominee etc. The third one though I think is simply not going to happen and I'd argue Bernie over him for the spot basically and I think that if you're going for a hail mary bet you should get better odds :P

seamus

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The no one liked him accusation by Clinton to sanders seems a bit harsh. I mean my view from just watching Bernie sanders talk he doesn’t look like someone who may be a nice person but he does seem like someone who wouldn’t be into the whole Washington scene and so probably doesn’t socialise with his democratic colleagues which is fine for him to do. That is just an opinion and I may be wildly off the mark.

My gut feeling on the Hilary thing is that it's a targetted ploy.

There's a foaming-at-the-mouth contingent, who've been fed the idea that Clinton is a literal she-devil, and these people cannot be swayed. I had an Irsh person drunkenly tell me that he would have voted for Trump because he "just couldn't have voted for Hilary". He couldn't give me a reason why, he just hated her with a passion.
I mean, what is that? It's not like she eats babies or has set up internment camps. It's pure brainwashing; hate Hilary above all else, because she's evil.

So Clinton comes out with a really harsh attack on Sanders. "Nobody likes him", is barely a step away from, "I hate him". And since the enemy of my enemy, etc., it means she's given Bernie a massive shot in the arm. She has made it very clear that he is as far removed from Clinton as he can be, that they don't stand around in boardrooms drinking fine wine and laughing with one another.

And in the simplistic psychology of a brainwashed mind, it makes Bernie one of the good guys. Or at least, less of a bad guy.

Clinton endorsing Sanders for the Democratic ticket would have been a kiss of death for the Dems. Clinton pretending to hate Bernie....is a boost in support for him. She'll get more and more irritated as time goes on about it, and if he gets picked, she'll publish a harsh column about the selection that's high on emotion and short on facts.

4068ac1elhodqr

bfa1509 wrote: »

If I were a gambling man, which I am: I have put €50 on not a single republican voting against Trump in impeachment trial. This will win me €125. €50 of which I have already put on Trump winning the 2020 election. This will win me €150. €50 of this I have already put on Michael Bloomberg being the Democratic nominee to run against Trump, which will win me €400.
So I will be coming out the end of 2020 with either +€525 at best or -€150 at worst. Not a bad gamble.

Most of those prices are all either outdated or incorrect e.g.

i) Not a single republican (Senators) voting against Trump in impeachment trial is only 1.20. Instead 1-4 against might be more realistic, and better at 3.75.
ii) Trump winning the 2020 election is only 1.75 and has been for a month, 6mths before that only around 1.9 or evens.
Thus 50 invested (for these two) would only be gross rtn of 105 for you.
Also some of these (too similar) localised markets, cannot be combined as doubles/accas anyway.

Can't see Bloomberg getting DN (vacant persona). Instead Warren@8, multiplied by the Nandos lady over in the uk Labour party@7.5.
Could also thrown in formation type for IrePol. Yes FF will likely win most seats, the only question is in what form it will take? {FF/Greens, FF/L/G or FF/Indies}. Any three combos are around the 8.0 mark.
So a (wildcard) low, slow, novelty treble of 512/1.

Tchaikovsky

seamus wrote: »

Clinton endorsing Sanders for the Democratic ticket would have been a kiss of death for the Dems. Clinton pretending to hate Bernie....is a boost in support for him. She'll get more and more irritated as time goes on about it, and if he gets picked, she'll publish a harsh column about the selection that's high on emotion and short on facts.

But was she not asked whether she'd support him if he were the Democratic nominee rather than endorsing him for the nomination? The fact that she wouldn't flat out support him against Trump says everything about what a thundering cvnt she is. Particularly as Bernie campaigned for her in 2016 and more of his supporters voted for her in the GE than he supporters did for Obama in 2008.

Laughable that she says that "no one likes him" when he's by far the most popular politician in the US.

duploelabs

Bernie moves ahead of Biden in a CNN poll
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/22/bernie-sanders-moves-past-joe-biden-top-2020-democ/

bfa1509

Nody wrote: »

I'd agree on your first though I could see someone maybe putting down their vote or simply happen "not to be there due to unforeseen medical condition" or similar, GOP when it comes to the vote are very much tribal in that sense. Second one is still a gamble but I can see the angle for it but due to many unknowns on who'll be the nominee etc. The third one though I think is simply not going to happen and I'd argue Bernie over him for the spot basically and I think that if you're going for a hail mary bet you should get better odds :P

The first two are a shoe in win. It comes through even if a voter abstains. A republican has to vote against him, which would be a career ending move if they did.

You wont get any hail mary bets from me. Only safe investments I think Bloomberg is playing a very smart game out of the limelight while Sanders and Biden make complete fools of themselves.

Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »

Most of those prices are all either outdated or incorrect e.g.

Yes, they are outdated because I made the bets a long time ago. I put the Trump winning 2020 bet on a year ago when the odds were better. The impeachment bet I put on before christmas and the Bloomberg bet last week (I admit the Bloomberg one is a bit more of a long shot but the potential returns I couldn't resist!!)

4068ac1elhodqr

bfa1509 wrote: »

Yes, they are outdated because I made the bets a long time ago. I put the Trump winning 2020 bet on a year ago when the odds were better. The impeachment bet I put on before christmas and the Bloomberg bet last week (I admit the Bloomberg one is a bit more of a long shot but the potential returns I couldn't resist!!)

This commentary/practice is generally not useful, and known as 'aftertiming'.

bfa1509

Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »

This commentary/practice is generally not useful, and known as 'aftertiming'.

I wasn't giving hot tips, only stating who I (literally) had my money on for the election. I guess it's not aftertiming if I post a picture of the open bets:




https://imgur.com/al680ut

Quin_Dub

bfa1509 wrote: »

The first two are a shoe in win. It comes through even if a voter abstains. A republican has to vote against him, which would be a career ending move if they did.

You wont get any hail mary bets from me. Only safe investments I think Bloomberg is playing a very smart game out of the limelight while Sanders and Biden make complete fools of themselves.



Yes, they are outdated because I made the bets a long time ago. I put the Trump winning 2020 bet on a year ago when the odds were better. The impeachment bet I put on before christmas and the Bloomberg bet last week (I admit the Bloomberg one is a bit more of a long shot but the potential returns I couldn't resist!!)

Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »

This commentary/practice is generally not useful, and known as 'aftertiming'.

bfa1509 wrote: »

I wasn't giving hot tips, only stating who I (literally) had my money on for the election. I guess it's not aftertiming if I post a picture of the open bets:




https://imgur.com/al680ut

##Mod Note##

This isn't a gambling thread...

Thanks

pixelburp

duploelabs wrote: »

Bernie moves ahead of Biden in a CNN poll
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/22/bernie-sanders-moves-past-joe-biden-top-2020-democ/

Within the margin of error though, so it's a wait n' see situation if this is an outlier or not. 538 rates the CNN pollster as a B+ so they're reliable "enough" but could just be a statistical aberration.

Honestly, I genuinely thought Sanders' campaign was dead & buried after his health scare & what had seemed to be stalling momentum, overtaken by Warren for left-wing support.

Mind you, that attempted smear of Sanders being sexist does hint that there might be internal data pointing towards him as a serious rival. I would presume the various campaigns have their own polling data...

duploelabs

pixelburp wrote: »

Within the margin of error though, so it's a wait n' see situation if this is an outlier or not. 538 rates the CNN pollster as a B+ so they're reliable "enough" but could just be a statistical aberration.

Honestly, I genuinely thought Sanders' campaign was dead & buried after his health scare & what had seemed to be stalling momentum, overtaken by Warren for left-wing support.

Mind you, that attempted smear of Sanders being sexist does hint that there might be internal data pointing towards him as a serious rival. I would presume the various campaigns have their own polling data...

Particularly when Bannon, despite his direction is very very astute, describes Sanders as the one threat he fears https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/steve-bannon-this-is-the-democratic-ticket-trump-should-fear

eire4

pixelburp wrote: »

Within the margin of error though, so it's a wait n' see situation if this is an outlier or not. 538 rates the CNN pollster as a B+ so they're reliable "enough" but could just be a statistical aberration.

Honestly, I genuinely thought Sanders' campaign was dead & buried after his health scare & what had seemed to be stalling momentum, overtaken by Warren for left-wing support.

Mind you, that attempted smear of Sanders being sexist does hint that there might be internal data pointing towards him as a serious rival. I would presume the various campaigns have their own polling data...

I think your right about internal polling in regards to the recent attacks on Sanders and I would imagine that will only intensify if he starts off well in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Rjd2

duploelabs wrote: »

Particularly when Bannon, despite his direction is very very astute, describes Sanders as the one threat he fears https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/steve-bannon-this-is-the-democratic-ticket-trump-should-fear

Nothing there about him rating Bernie .

He was suggesting Harris and Beto who did very well.:P

The moaning about the Rogan endorsement online is amusing and hypocritical, as many of the Never Trumper conservatives who are heroes online with those who loath Bernie are absolute monsters who played a huge role in laying the groundwork for Trump.

When it comes to Bernie,,,expect plenty of endorsements for Biden in the next few weeks from those who dropped out.

Ultimately in the field,,only Tulsi and possibly Williamson will endorse Bernie...

Yang when he drops out? Dunno tbh.

Gbear

Rjd2 wrote: »

The moaning about the Rogan endorsement online is amusing and hypocritical, as many of the Never Trumper conservatives who are heroes online with those who loath Bernie are absolute monsters who played a huge role in laying the groundwork for Trump.

CNN are smearing Rogan as well as part of their corporatist Democrat push against Bernie.

Rjd2

Gbear wrote: »

CNN are smearing Rogan as well as part of their corporatist Democrat push against Bernie.

Once he threw Cenk Uygur and that lady who wrote the perfectly reasonable Biden piece in the guardian about his corruption,,,then he really opened the door for them. Bernie and his team can't keep throwing people under the bus to appease people who loath him and will find something else to criticise him for anyhow.

Rogan is not perfect obviously, but these tweets captured the bull**** of the backlash perfectly.

https://twitter.com/krystalball/status/1220678668676206595
https://twitter.com/matthewaraven/status/1220571798653284352

https://twitter.com/aishaismad/status/1220652348734873600

StringerBell

Gbear wrote: »

CNN are smearing Rogan as well as part of their corporatist Democrat push against Bernie.

Is it not some LGBTQ group smearing him and complaining? I assume being reported on by most media outlets rather than actually attacking him?

I'll check again later but thats what the link saw earlier seemed to show anyway