It confirms what a lot of us have known for decades, that the average American is as thick as tar.
2016 Presidential Campaign
- Thread starter Kreskin
- Start date
It confirms what a lot of us have known for decades, that the average American is as thick as tar.
I guess every bra burning ****ed up feminist is going to be angry for the next couple of days :lol:
Yes. Misogyny had a lot to do with this outcome. A suprising number of Americans don't like girls.
Big date hunting Muzzies and Meskins?
Which will be different. . . how, exactly?
The **** you assume and say about Americans is getting kind of boring to the point you sound like a broken record.
I sound like a moron?
No i don't like girls because i'm not a pedophile you ****ing idiot
Why are you posting about polls if you don't care about polls?
Anyway, I've always said it's a tight race but national polls don't give the clearest picture. For now, it's best to look at how the electoral college changes.
I posted this to Daily Kos........
The Dem elites did the party in. They rigged the deal against Bernie, got caught yet carried on. And the DNC has no shame using their 'super delegates' to have Hillary win. Even the Media went along with the connected Dems and Sanders got no coverage at all. Bernie was getting 30,000 plus to his rallies which Hillary and Trump got half that.
Bernie's message has never changed.
Just one example was she called the TPP "the gold standard of trade' before she saw the response Sanders was getting to his opposition to it and changed her tune. Her VP guy, Kaine, was on the team pushing the TPP and supported it until a day before he was picked then suddenly he was against it.
On the one hand there was Clinton, who had been underwater in her favorability ratings in the polls for literally decades, who voted for the Iraq War, and who compiled a far-from-progressive record as Secretary of State. Her secretive meetings with the Banksters etcetera. The DNC didn't understand that the 'common' people saw all of this and weren't buying it.
I personally recall when the idea of Pot being legalized to stop the drug related crime was an issue, maybe it was 2008, and she flatly refused to talk about it and rambled on about law enforcement has to carry on the war on drugs.
Many other Democrats might have offered in the primaries, progressives who might have had a chance, perhaps another woman to finally break that glass ceiling like Elizabeth Warren but being smart politicians, they all knew the fix was in, and that the DNC was going to do everything in its power to make Clinton the nominee.
It was “her turn”. As I've said before, democracy is not supposed to be a turn-based gaming system. Clinton would never have been in consideration without her married name. And at the same time her married name was an anchor.
You had a better choice. A person who even now has one of the best favorability ratings in the polls of any national figure in your country. A true progressive, with ideas and policies that ring true for most of your electorate.
No-one can say for certain what would have happened “if”. You can blame the outcome on Comey if you wish, but be reminded that Clinton was uniquely vulnerable to his allegations, and Sanders was not. You can blame the outcome on Wikileaks if you wish, but be reminded that Clinton was uniquely vulnerable to those allegations, and Sanders was not.
And despite the bias of the DNC that helped deny him the nomination, Sanders went full-court for Clinton during the presidential campaign, in face of calls from some of his supporters that he was a sell-out. In the national context, he did the right thing, as hard as it may have been.
During the primaries, one of the most common attacks on Bernie Sanders was that he wasn't anywhere near as "electable" in the general election as Hillary Clinton.
As Donald Trump is poised to assume the presidency, let's take a look back at how Sanders was polling against Trump in a head-to-head general election matchup.
The RealClearPolitics average from May 6-June 5 had Sanders at 49.7% to Trump's 39.3%, a 10.4-point cushion.
In that same time frame, Trump was polling close to Clinton and was even ahead in multiple polls.
During an appearance on Meet The Press at the end of May, Sanders acknowledged that disparity: "Right now, in every major poll, national poll and statewide poll done in the last month, six weeks, we are defeating Trump often by big numbers, and always at a larger margin than secretary Clinton is."
Sanders defeated Clinton in both the Wisconsin and Michigan primaries, two of the states that Trump surprised in on Tuesday.
Would Bernie Sanders have defeated Donald Trump?
The Dem elites did the party in. They rigged the deal against Bernie, got caught yet carried on. And the DNC has no shame using their 'super delegates' to have Hillary win. Even the Media went along with the connected Dems and Sanders got no coverage at all. Bernie was getting 30,000 plus to his rallies which Hillary and Trump got half that.
Bernie's message has never changed.
Just one example was she called the TPP "the gold standard of trade' before she saw the response Sanders was getting to his opposition to it and changed her tune. Her VP guy, Kaine, was on the team pushing the TPP and supported it until a day before he was picked then suddenly he was against it.
On the one hand there was Clinton, who had been underwater in her favorability ratings in the polls for literally decades, who voted for the Iraq War, and who compiled a far-from-progressive record as Secretary of State. Her secretive meetings with the Banksters etcetera. The DNC didn't understand that the 'common' people saw all of this and weren't buying it.
I personally recall when the idea of Pot being legalized to stop the drug related crime was an issue, maybe it was 2008, and she flatly refused to talk about it and rambled on about law enforcement has to carry on the war on drugs.
Many other Democrats might have offered in the primaries, progressives who might have had a chance, perhaps another woman to finally break that glass ceiling like Elizabeth Warren but being smart politicians, they all knew the fix was in, and that the DNC was going to do everything in its power to make Clinton the nominee.
It was “her turn”. As I've said before, democracy is not supposed to be a turn-based gaming system. Clinton would never have been in consideration without her married name. And at the same time her married name was an anchor.
You had a better choice. A person who even now has one of the best favorability ratings in the polls of any national figure in your country. A true progressive, with ideas and policies that ring true for most of your electorate.
No-one can say for certain what would have happened “if”. You can blame the outcome on Comey if you wish, but be reminded that Clinton was uniquely vulnerable to his allegations, and Sanders was not. You can blame the outcome on Wikileaks if you wish, but be reminded that Clinton was uniquely vulnerable to those allegations, and Sanders was not.
And despite the bias of the DNC that helped deny him the nomination, Sanders went full-court for Clinton during the presidential campaign, in face of calls from some of his supporters that he was a sell-out. In the national context, he did the right thing, as hard as it may have been.
During the primaries, one of the most common attacks on Bernie Sanders was that he wasn't anywhere near as "electable" in the general election as Hillary Clinton.
As Donald Trump is poised to assume the presidency, let's take a look back at how Sanders was polling against Trump in a head-to-head general election matchup.
The RealClearPolitics average from May 6-June 5 had Sanders at 49.7% to Trump's 39.3%, a 10.4-point cushion.
In that same time frame, Trump was polling close to Clinton and was even ahead in multiple polls.
During an appearance on Meet The Press at the end of May, Sanders acknowledged that disparity: "Right now, in every major poll, national poll and statewide poll done in the last month, six weeks, we are defeating Trump often by big numbers, and always at a larger margin than secretary Clinton is."
Sanders defeated Clinton in both the Wisconsin and Michigan primaries, two of the states that Trump surprised in on Tuesday.
Would Bernie Sanders have defeated Donald Trump?
I bet more people voted for her because she was a woman than voted against her because she was one.
She couldn't even win the 'safe' areas that a Black guy with a Muslim middle name won,....twice..........
Sanders was winning even in conservative Utah, only without all the sexism and xenophobia. Because he was talking about the things that matter to people that aren’t hardcore Democrats. To the Dem elites and the DNC I say "It’s the economy, stupid". Not the Wall Street economy, the real one.
Sanders led with it, and talked about it in blunt terms. Clinton did not lead with it, and talked about it in platitudes. The peons have heard platitudes before.
The people wanted change and the only one they could believe 'may' change things was Trump.
But on the bright side, CBC said last night that this is good for keystone. That must be terribly frustrating for you Alberta haters.
Breakfast is served for those who ordered it!
This should make it taste a little better!
And you can wash it down with this!
This should make it taste a little better!
And you can wash it down with this!
So Clinton went to sleep rather than give her speech? I assumed at some point in the night both would speak.
And pretty much everybody assumed Clinton would win.
Kinda shows what assuming gets you, don't it?