Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I will blame Hillary Clinton's supporters. Sanders would surely beat Trump in the general.
Nope. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/polls_say_bernie_is_more_electable_than_hillary_don_t_believe_them.html
That article is stupid and downright Bushian. It basically boils down to "don't trust the data, trust my gut because I know what will happen." It's utter nonsense. I prefer to trust objective data thank you very much.
You are delusional. This article is full of data. Here's an example:
"
Sanders’ explicit socialism would help Republicans broaden this critique into an all-out scare campaign about a government takeover. There are lots of reasons to believe such a campaign would succeed. In a national Reason-Rupe poll taken two years ago, capitalism had a net favorable rating of 55 percent to 38 percent. Socialism had a net unfavorable rating of 58 percent to 36 percent. Last year, Gallup asked Americans: “If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be socialist, would you vote for that person?” Forty-seven percent of respondents said they would, but 50 percent said they wouldn’t. Every other kind of candidate tested in the Gallup poll—black, Mormon, gay, Muslim, atheist—garnered majority support, probably because the question stipulated that the candidate had already been nominated by “your party.” Only a socialist nominee was rejected. Among Democrats, a socialist was the only type of nominee who didn’t get 60 percent support."
So you trust polls taken one or two years ago on a different question over polls on the direct question at hand taken yesterday? Talk about head in the sand. Everyone knows Sanders is a socialist.
Yes. And 50% of Americans say that they will not vote for a socialist, period. "Socialist" has higher negatives than "atheist" or "Muslim" in the polling.
Here's more for you: http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/sanders-socialism-and-myth-november-polls
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I will blame Hillary Clinton's supporters. Sanders would surely beat Trump in the general.
Nope. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/polls_say_bernie_is_more_electable_than_hillary_don_t_believe_them.html
That article is stupid and downright Bushian. It basically boils down to "don't trust the data, trust my gut because I know what will happen." It's utter nonsense. I prefer to trust objective data thank you very much.
You are delusional. This article is full of data. Here's an example:
"
Sanders’ explicit socialism would help Republicans broaden this critique into an all-out scare campaign about a government takeover. There are lots of reasons to believe such a campaign would succeed. In a national Reason-Rupe poll taken two years ago, capitalism had a net favorable rating of 55 percent to 38 percent. Socialism had a net unfavorable rating of 58 percent to 36 percent. Last year, Gallup asked Americans: “If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be socialist, would you vote for that person?” Forty-seven percent of respondents said they would, but 50 percent said they wouldn’t. Every other kind of candidate tested in the Gallup poll—black, Mormon, gay, Muslim, atheist—garnered majority support, probably because the question stipulated that the candidate had already been nominated by “your party.” Only a socialist nominee was rejected. Among Democrats, a socialist was the only type of nominee who didn’t get 60 percent support."
So you trust polls taken one or two years ago on a different question over polls on the direct question at hand taken yesterday? Talk about head in the sand. Everyone knows Sanders is a socialist.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I will blame Hillary Clinton's supporters. Sanders would surely beat Trump in the general.
Nope. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/polls_say_bernie_is_more_electable_than_hillary_don_t_believe_them.html
That article is stupid and downright Bushian. It basically boils down to "don't trust the data, trust my gut because I know what will happen." It's utter nonsense. I prefer to trust objective data thank you very much.
You are delusional. This article is full of data. Here's an example:
"
Sanders’ explicit socialism would help Republicans broaden this critique into an all-out scare campaign about a government takeover. There are lots of reasons to believe such a campaign would succeed. In a national Reason-Rupe poll taken two years ago, capitalism had a net favorable rating of 55 percent to 38 percent. Socialism had a net unfavorable rating of 58 percent to 36 percent. Last year, Gallup asked Americans: “If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be socialist, would you vote for that person?” Forty-seven percent of respondents said they would, but 50 percent said they wouldn’t. Every other kind of candidate tested in the Gallup poll—black, Mormon, gay, Muslim, atheist—garnered majority support, probably because the question stipulated that the candidate had already been nominated by “your party.” Only a socialist nominee was rejected. Among Democrats, a socialist was the only type of nominee who didn’t get 60 percent support."
Anonymous wrote:Better question: Who will the Republicans blame when they lose their majority in the Senate and the White House? Easy to blame Trump, but they voted for him. Who will catch the blame? Reince Priebus?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I will blame Hillary Clinton's supporters. Sanders would surely beat Trump in the general.
Nope. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/polls_say_bernie_is_more_electable_than_hillary_don_t_believe_them.html
That article is stupid and downright Bushian. It basically boils down to "don't trust the data, trust my gut because I know what will happen." It's utter nonsense. I prefer to trust objective data thank you very much.
Anonymous wrote:Trump has just swept the five primaries pretty decisively and will likely get the nomination. If he wins the general against Hillary, who will the Democrats blame?
Here are the choices:
1. Americans are dumb, uninformed, bigoted so why would anyone be surprised
2. Sanders did not do enough to support Clinton
3. Those stupid, short-sighted , stubborn Sanders supporters did not get their way and sat out the election
4. Not surprised because there are a lot of sexists and misogynists
5. Democrats f-cked up and should never have nominated someone who was so distrusted and viewed as dishonest
Add other reasons if you think I have missed any.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I will blame Hillary Clinton's supporters. Sanders would surely beat Trump in the general.
Nope. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/polls_say_bernie_is_more_electable_than_hillary_don_t_believe_them.html
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Trump is urging Bernie to run as an independent in his speech just now, and on Twitter earlier today. He knows that's his only chance of beating HRC.
Nah. He likes having Bernie in the race. Bernie exposes Hillary’s hypocritical positions.
Did you not watch the speech? This is his new thing: call Bernie a victim of the Democrats, appeal to his ego, urge him to run as an independent.
Trump also just called himself the presumptive nominee.
Anonymous wrote:Better question: Who will the Republicans blame when they lose their majority in the Senate and the White House? Easy to blame Trump, but they voted for him. Who will catch the blame? Reince Priebus?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Trump is urging Bernie to run as an independent in his speech just now, and on Twitter earlier today. He knows that's his only chance of beating HRC.
Nah. He likes having Bernie in the race. Bernie exposes Hillary’s hypocritical positions.