Politico poll released 8/22/18 shows Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden leading Donald Trump by 12 pt, 13 pt

[SBJJ]

I think if you looked at the total time he spent talking about trade vs. the total time he spent talking about Russia, it wouldn't be close. Also, polling shows that the Republican base cared way more about immigration than about Russia

But we are talking about how he differed from the other candidates. I heard NO other candidate minus Paul who was campaigning on better ties with Russia.

We just disagree. I’m 100% sure Trump ran on better relations with Russia. It came up NUMEROUS times

 

[waiguoren]

But we are talking about how he differed from the other candidates. I heard NO other candidate minus Paul who was campaigning on better ties with Russia.

We just disagree. I’m 100% sure Trump ran on better relations with Russia. It came up NUMEROUS times

I know he ran on that. I was talking about how he was able to so brutally smite the opposition with the Wand of Gamelon. Of all the issues where he differed from the others, I think the base responded best to his stance on immigration relative to the opposition. I mean, he also accused GWB of lying us into Iraq but I really don't think that helped him at all in the primary (probably did in the general).

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Now we all know that polls and math in general are fake news that are concocted arbitrarily to further narratives by George Soros: this much was proven after polls in 2016 rendered the most accurate popular vote total projections in modern history, considerably more accurate than in 2012. But this is interesting.

It honestly makes me sick to my snowflake stomach, though, thinking of how much good that could be prevented by a now-staunchly conservative Supreme Court - that otherwise could have been passed through had the Court not been taken over by Republicans.




https://www.politico.com/story/2018...00159-745e-d507-abdf-7e7f55750000&nlid=630318

We've already been sold this bill of bullshit. I'm afraid none of us are going to buy it again.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/23/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-presidential-polls/index.html

Any numbers lead in raw votes was a phantom lead for the Clinton campaign. The Presidency isn't decided by how much New York and California likes you. The Democrats could get every man, woman, and dead person in all of California and New York to vote for them, and it's still not going to sway the Presidential election.

 

[SRN]

Lol Polls.... Hilary was supposed to be the president.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think @Jack V Savage 's favorite candidate Martin O'Malley has a shot. However, my Bernie Sanders-voting best childhood friend says I'm totally wrong and that O'Malley is a terrible orator. I feel that Elizabeth Warren is possibly the biggest threat to Trump.

To be clear, O'Malley was my favorite candidate in the 2016 election. I'm not like a huge fan of him. I liked that he kind of split the difference between Sanders and Clinton ideologically and seemed nearly as competent as Clinton. I think governor is good experience. Dry personality and appearance seemed to make it less likely that he could be characterized effectively by the opposition. Being a (very) white male, it seemed that it would be harder to rile the GOP against him. Of plausible candidates, I think Warren at this time would be my favorite, though there are some I don't know enough about. She's been the top target of the GOP smear machine so far, and I fear some of it is sticking.

 

[lfd0311]

Not suprising. If the Dems would simply have ran Biden in16 he'd be President right now.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I see what you see, though I'll note that it's always possible for Trump to commit political suicide by abandoning his base on immigration/trade.

I don't think his base knows anything at all about immigration policy. As long as he starts Twitter fights with non-white celebrities and makes a big deal of random immigrant crimes, his base will be happy. He can flip totally on trade, and they'd say that they were always anti-free-trade.

 

[SBJJ]

I know he ran on that. I was talking about how he was able to so brutally smite the opposition with the Wand of Gamelon. Of all the issues where he differed from the others, I think the base responded best to his stance on immigration relative to the opposition. I mean, he also accused GWB of lying us into Iraq but I really don't think that helped him at all in the primary (probably did in the general).

I was simply replying to Trotsky saying he had no differences with the other candidates. I’d say Immigration Trade and Foreign Policy(in some ways) all were differences

Might seem minimal. But those are big things to differ on when it comes to your party.

I honestly don’t even look at Trump as a Republican which is why I like him

 

[SBJJ]

Not suprising. If the Dems would simply have ran Biden in16 he'd be President right now.

I think Bernie would have beat Trump also.

 

[lfd0311]

I think Bernie would have beat Trump also.

More importantly I think Biden would have beat Hillary, but that for some reason was not going to be allowed to happen.

 

[Trotsky]

I think @Jack V Savage 's favorite candidate Martin O'Malley has a shot. However, my Bernie Sanders-voting best childhood friend says I'm totally wrong and that O'Malley is a terrible orator. I feel that Elizabeth Warren is possibly the biggest threat to Trump.

O'Malley is a fine orator, but his policy platform was/is shit, which is why he has no chance in the primary. He's basically a moderate Republican of yesteryear but with a boner for gun regulation. You're nor going to invigorate voters by saying you're primary adversary will be the NRA.

 

[Trotsky]

More importantly I think Biden would have beat Hillary, but that for some reason was not going to be allowed to happen.

I don't think there was any "not allowed" about it. I think he was genuinely not personally ready for a campaign due to personal tragedy, and Clinton already had a long head start and had availed herself of the DC machinations.

 

[lfd0311]

I don't think there was any "not allowed" about it. I think he was genuinely not personally ready for a campaign due to personal tragedy, and Clinton already had a long head start and had availed herself of the DC machinations.

Fair point. I also think he probably knew that it was Hillary's "time". He did take some serious shots at her while announcing he wasn't running for President.

 

[Rational Poster]

To be clear, O'Malley was my favorite candidate in the 2016 election. I'm not like a huge fan of him. I liked that he kind of split the difference between Sanders and Clinton ideologically and seemed nearly as competent as Clinton. I think governor is good experience. Dry personality and appearance seemed to make it less likely that he could be characterized effectively by the opposition. Being a (very) white male, it seemed that it would be harder to rile the GOP against him. Of plausible candidates, I think Warren at this time would be my favorite, though there are some I don't know enough about. She's been the top target of the GOP smear machine so far, and I fear some of it is sticking.

Warren should have been Hillary's VP.

Huge strategic mistake.

She's Bernie-lite with more charisma.

 

[HockeyBjj]

I think @Jack V Savage 's favorite candidate Martin O'Malley has a shot. However, my Bernie Sanders-voting best childhood friend says I'm totally wrong and that O'Malley is a terrible orator. I feel that Elizabeth Warren is possibly the biggest threat to Trump.

Don't know this O Malley, but Elizabeth Warren would be a huge mistake imo. She'd face the same troubles Hillary did, with many people voting against her as she seems crazy, and not being able to get the D base as out in droves as she just seems another washed up establishment candidate

 

[Possum Jenkins]

I find it amazing that neither Biden or Sanders' age gets brought up more. They're 75 and 76, respectively!

That means we're potentially selecting men that'll be 85 or 86 at the end of their second term. I absolutely lover Bernie but that's too old for anyone to be head of state. We see in Trump the dangers of having a person without all his mental capacities in a position of power.

Warren being 69 is only slightly better.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Don't know this O Malley, but Elizabeth Warren would be a huge mistake imo. She'd face the same troubles Hillary did, with many people voting against her as she seems crazy, and not being able to get the D base as out in droves as she just seems another washed up establishment candidate

She's certainly more likable than Hillary, who was correctly seen as a very moderate Democrat, especially when compared to Bernie.

Warren is kind of an in-between Hillary and Bernie. And you have to remember, moderates had about 20 years to build up hate for Hillary. Warren isn't nearly as abrasive and has been in the public eye for even one decade.

 

[Trotsky]

She's certainly more likable than Hillary, who was correctly seen as a very moderate Democrat, especially when compared to Bernie.

Warren is kind of an in-between Hillary and Bernie. And you have to remember, moderates had about 20 years to build up hate for Hillary. Warren isn't nearly as abrasive and has been in the public eye for even one decade.

Warren should have been Hillary's VP.

Huge strategic mistake.

She's Bernie-lite with more charisma.

Disagree about Warren as both a VP choice and as a presidential candidate.

With her as Clinton's VP the sexism strategy would have been even more intense since Warren comes off as kind of spastic and manic.

Warren is, in my opinion, a considerably worse orator than Clinton and is only marginally more charismatic. And, unlike Clinton who is generally cool and composed, I could see her getting rattled by the pot shots.

 

[bobgeese]

If their was an election tomorrow and the entire country voted Dump would lose miserably.

The sad part is you tools actually believe this. It’s gonna make 2020 all that much more amusing.

 

[bobgeese]

Warrens comments the other day sunk any hope she had for the presidency.