Originally posted by BackFire
Oh man, if Sanders can actually maintain his lead and win Michigan that'd be 'yuge! He was down by like 10 points in all the recent polls. Great news.
It's, historically/beating the poll news, quite impressive!
The question is, can he do repeats/shift the poll numbers? Because, as big as Michigan was, his delegate hole (and, by extension, popular vote hole) is still growing.
Ideally for him, this is a sign that Illinois have shifted more.
Michigan was do-or-die, and doing means he's made it to the next do-or-die timeframe: The 15th, with four states, multiple of them big and full of delegates.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Very true. Good article. 👆
Agreed. Found this spot on:"Donald Trump didn't create the poisoning atmosphere. He's just taking advantage of it."
Personally liked the part below, considering I argued similar with Shaky a few years ago when he said that Obama was the 'most liberal president ever.'
"there is a good case to be made that the president is actually a moderate conservative, or what used to be called a Rockefeller Republican. Socially liberal, economically center-right, and relatively hawkish on foreign policy; the president is only consistently progressive on social issues, and even he did not come out it support of gay marriage until 2012"
Originally posted by Robtard
Agreed. Found this spot on:"Donald Trump didn't create the poisoning atmosphere. He's just taking advantage of it."Personally liked the part below, considering I argued similar with Shaky a few years ago when he said that Obama was the 'most liberal president ever.'
"there is a good case to be made that the president is actually a moderate conservative, or what used to be called a Rockefeller Republican. Socially liberal, economically center-right, and relatively hawkish on foreign policy; the president is only consistently progressive on social issues, and even he did not come out it support of gay marriage until 2012"
Interesting so you accept Salon as a credible un bias source. The Apple has fallen far from the tree. Sanders would laugh at anyone who thought the Salon was considered credible.
Not really. The problem with the democratic candidates are both candidates are viable, whereas with the GOP, none of the candidates are viable.
At this point, it's all but confirmed that no matter who the final candidates are, the democrats have the November election in the bag. That's why the GOP is panicking. Both democrats are electable in a general election, whereas none of the GOP candidates are. So maybe we should talk about How the GOP is crumbling considering their years of xenophobia pandering have led the entire party into chaos and ruined their chances at the White House
Polls say most Democrats are good with both, and many races have taken a lot longer to resolve and still ended with a unification.
As long as the non-nominee endorses the nominee, problems aren't likely. I mean, polls literally say 70-80% of Democrats are fine with the other, even right now when they're going head to head.
And slightly different subject, Nate Silver on Trump-momentum:
Trump defying "momentum" so far:
IA: Pretty bad
NH: Very good
SC: Pretty good
NV: Very good
3/1: Pretty good
3/5: Pretty bad
3/8: Very good
Originally posted by Lestov16
Not really. The problem with the democratic candidates are both candidates are viable, whereas with the GOP, none of the candidates are viable.At this point, it's all but confirmed that no matter who the final candidates are, the democrats have the November election in the bag. That's why the GOP is panicking. Both democrats are electable in a general election, whereas none of the GOP candidates are. So maybe we should talk about How the GOP is crumbling considering their years of xenophobia pandering have led the entire party into chaos and ruined their chances at the White House
A few point and corrections.
The liberal party has been racist and xenophobic far longer then the republican party.
Secondly, its apparent you do not read or watch the news as you have no idea what is happening between Hilary and Sanders Campaign.
Sanders would all but have this in the bag if he went after her email scandal in which she is currently under investigation for by the FBI and DOJ.
A Trump Cruz ticket will most likley appear after Rubio gets out, and that Ticket will beat Sanders ticket.
Sanders will not run as her VP..So 20-40% of his supporters will vote for Trump.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Interesting so you accept Salon as a credible un bias source. The Apple has fallen far from the tree. Sanders would laugh at anyone who thought the Salon was considered credible.
Conor Lynch's writing appears in multiple outlets, I'm not going to discredit the story just because it happens to be on Salon.
Take the same exact story and publish it on Fox, MSNBC, CNN, Hiffington, SF Chronicle etc and it's still the same.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
A few point and corrections.The liberal party has been racist and xenophobic far longer then the republican party.
Secondly, its apparent you do not read or watch the news as you have no idea what is happening between Hilary and Sanders Campaign.
Sanders would all but have this in the bag if he went after her email scandal in which she is currently under investigation for by the FBI and DOJ.
A Trump Cruz ticket will most likley appear after Rubio gets out, and that Ticket will beat Sanders ticket.
Sanders will not run as her VP..So 20-40% of his supporters will vote for Trump.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
A few point and corrections.The liberal party has been racist and xenophobic far longer then the republican party.
Sure, until it embraced something called 'the civil rights movement,' and a huge chunk known as the Dixiecrats of it broke off and joined the Republican party, being one of the most steady blocks of the party for decades now.
If you've gotta erase 50 years and the most gigantic political shift in over a century to make your point, your point may not be very strong.
It boils down to, who is being racist and xenophobic now, not before many of us were alive.
Sanders would all but have this in the bag if he went after her email scandal in which she is currently under investigation for by the FBI and DOJ.
Not really, people on the outside don't believe your narrative about her.
You have to understand how often the Republican party has been caught crying wolf. Remember when it spent 6 months trying to attack her on Benghazi only for the hearing to make them look like jokes and a Republican major quit the panel since it was being used in his opinion for partisan attacks?
One thing about the Republican attack narratives is, if you're wrapped up in them, you may have trouble seeing those targeted as people not involved do.
Sanders didn't use that attack line because it'd make him look bad, like he's using a petty attack rather than substance. He's smart in not doing so.
Also, as the Democratic race *has* remained pretty clean, it's easier to consolidate when the time comes, as the next data will show.
A Trump Cruz ticket will most likley appear after Rubio gets out, and that Ticket will beat Sanders ticket.
Yeeea, I'm not worried about Sanders in that matchup. Cruz would help drive more people away!
Sanders will not run as her VP..So 20-40% of his supporters will vote for Trump.
Hah. So, twice the number who said they'd have trouble voting for her, huh?
Nah, that's just wishful thinking on your part.
78% of Sanders voters say they'd vote Hillary.
And that's *without* a Sanders endorsement or such, while the two are still going head to head.
Actual defections in races, btw, tend to be 10% or so, unless a party puts forward a truly off-the-base candidate (like Goldwater). During the race in '08 both candidates were at 70% satisfaction (lower than both Democratic candidates this time around!), but defections remained at traditional levels.
Republican satisfaction with their candidates, on the flip side, hovers around 50% for each of them
When it comes to 'who's party is more likely to support/defect,' we kinda have you beat cold.
Democratic and Republican are just names. The democratic party used to be conservative in values (conserving slavery) and capitalistic (limited intrusion of federal government in states rights), and the republican party was liberal in values (abolishing slavery) and socialist (intrusive federal government overriding states rights). Now the opposite is true, so if you are condemning the democratic party for its past conservatism, you are pretty much condemning the current state of the GOP.
I mean, hey, it's not democrats who are getting endorsements from racists like Phil Robertson and David Duke. Focus on the current racism of the GOP rather than the past racism of the Democratic party.