Name names, plz.

10/26/2016 2:09:01 PM

Quote :

"ex-fucking-zactly (which makes me wonder why you bring it up in your defense"

bc GE polls poll GE voters, not primary voters

10/26/2016 2:12:13 PM

Perhaps the fact that no one can name any should scare you more than the possibility of a Trump presidency.

When Hillary wins 2016, by the time 2020 rolls around she really will be up in years. Then maybe her health will be a real concern - Trump's would be too.

You guys should start thinking to 2020.

But I'll give you a name...what about Warren? She'd be great going up against Wall St.

10/26/2016 2:13:32 PM

Quote :

"Obama seemed to come out of nowhere and steal 2008 from her and you guys went all goo-goo eyed over him. Who's to say that couldn't have happened for 2016 had the DNC not had such a grip on the primary for Hillary"

8 years in and 2 elections won and you're still casually delegitimizing him

10/26/2016 2:15:29 PM

How am I doing that? He did, he came out of nowhere and won 2008, and I'm just saying that could happen again.

And he should be. Look at the legislation that carries his name that was supposed to be his legacy. It will be gone in another 4 years replaced with something else nobody wants. But currently, the middle class can't afford to have health insurance anymore.

But it was supposed to save us so much money.

Look, I didn't come in here to talk about him, he's old news, a has been. Let's talk about who could've supplanted Hillary, if not for The Bern.

10/26/2016 2:21:58 PM

Quote :

"bc GE polls poll GE voters, not primary voters"

no, they don't. go to RCP and just click on the polls in the Trump vs. Sanders category

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

here's the last one Q did.

https://www.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us06012016_Ugb28vf.pdf

very first question

Quote :

"Who would you like to see win the Democratic nomination for president this year: Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders?"

10/26/2016 2:24:27 PM

^^he should be what?

[Edited on October 26, 2016 at 2:25 PM. Reason : delegitimized?]

10/26/2016 2:25:25 PM

^^
Cmon, that question is prefaced with (If Democrat or Democrat leaner)

10/26/2016 2:29:20 PM

^^At this point, how can you call his key piece of legislation a legitimate piece of anything?

10/26/2016 2:34:06 PM

Quote :

"Obama seemed to come out of nowhere and steal 2008 from her and you guys went all goo-goo eyed over him."

In 2004, I thought that he would run for president in the near future.

10/26/2016 2:37:29 PM

^^ are you really this clueless?

[Edited on October 26, 2016 at 2:41 PM. Reason : ^ yep. he absolutely didn't come out of nowhere]

10/26/2016 2:37:31 PM

Quote :

"Cmon, that question is prefaced with (If Democrat or Democrat leaner)"

so? the 3rd question is about Trump only because it was after he clinched the nomination. earlier polls asked the same kind of questions about the primary candidates before launching in to GE questions.

the point is your claim that the GE questions about Sanders vs. Trump polled different people than primary polls is incorrect.

10/26/2016 3:05:16 PM

It's not but keep on doing your thing and obfuscating the facts. Not fooling anyone with half a brain.

10/26/2016 3:33:18 PM

lol ok

10/26/2016 3:35:36 PM

Quote :

"And he should be. Look at the legislation that carries his name that was supposed to be his legacy. It will be gone in another 4 years replaced with something else nobody wants. But currently, the middle class can't afford to have health insurance anymore."

The overwhelming majority of Americans under 65 who have health insurance get it through their employer. Obamacare didn't change that, all it did was reduce the rate at which their premiums were increasing and improve the quality of the insurance they were getting. This rate increase everyone is hand wringing about effects roughly 10% of the 1.5% of Americans who are insured through the exchange.

Don't let facts get in the way of talking points against the most popular departing President in history though. Republicans spent 8 years doing absolutely nothing except trying to slander his name, and they failed. Instead they ruined their own party and helped usher another Clinton into the White House.

[Edited on October 26, 2016 at 6:31 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2016 6:29:08 PM

Wolf beating that close race drum hard tonight.

10/26/2016 6:42:05 PM

Quote :

"But I'll give you a name...what about Warren? She'd be great going up against Wall St."

I would have voted for her without a doubt, but she's too powerful in the Senate and she probably thought dividing the party in an ugly race against Hillary would be unwise. Any other viable candidates that could have actually beat Hillary? You know, because she was such a weak and unlikeable candidate and only won because she's crooked and bought the election.

10/26/2016 7:12:44 PM

Quote :

"The Bernie = Trump people are literally just he worst. It's simply baffling."

A lot of people follow them because of the trade deals, loss of manufacturing jobs and campaign finance. Trump's "drain the swamp" speech about lobbyists and congress resonated with these same people.

Quote :

"IDK. The Bernie Bros who still won't shut up about the election being "rigged" are about as bad as mouth breathing Trump supporters. I guess to them, saving face is more important than saving this country from absolute ruin."

Well now we know for a fact it was rigged. we didn't have the facts back during the primary and were just speculating but it turned out that we were right now that all of the leaks have come out.

Quote :

"and will likely abstain or write in for the president (I am not in a swing state anyway). "

Why are you a supporter of a man and not progressive policies? I just don't understand why people still identify as "bernie supporters" when he is not in the race and there is another candidate with a more aggressive approach to the same policies.

Quote :

"What was the DNC supposed to do? "

Wait and see who the people voted for before determining the primary

Quote :

"If more people wanted Bernie Sanders to be the candidate, he would have gotten more votes. Period. "

Nope. They didn't allow independents to vote in many states where bernie clearly had more support

Quote :

"Why didn't anyone else who was a better candidate run against her, besides Bernie?"

because "better" is being based on popularity and name recognition. Theres millions better than trump and clinton, but most people don't know their names and wouldn't recognize them.

Quote :

"Fairly by legal terms, sure."

This is what rigged means. Everything is set up for them to have an unfair advantage without breaking the law, but even when they do break the law, they still are likely to get away with it. This applies to wall street, the washington elite, and police.

10/26/2016 7:12:54 PM

Quote :

" Well now we know for a fact it was rigged. we didn't have the facts back during the primary and were just speculating but it turned out that we were right now that all of the leaks have come out. "

please provide concrete, verifiable evidence of such rigging, thnx.

Quote :

"Nope. They didn't allow independents to vote in many states where bernie clearly had more support"

LOL. So what you're saying is all the states where Bernie could have won should have changed their primary rules just this once to allow Dems and Independents (but def not Repubs or anyone else) to vote however they felt like at the very last minute, because Bernie would have won fairly this way. Got it.

Quote :

" because "better" is being based on popularity and name recognition. Theres millions better than trump and clinton, but most people don't know their names and wouldn't recognize them. "

Yes. Cleary equity and making every single person in America who wants to run for president be treated exactly the same and given them same exact opportunities would have prevented Clinton and Trump from winning. Who cares if these people are unknown, completely unqualified, stand zero chance of actually winning. Elections shouldn't be popularity contests, because that's not fair! LOL

Quote :

" This is what rigged means. Everything is set up for them to have an unfair advantage without breaking the law, but even when they do break the law, they still are likely to get away with it. This applies to wall street, the washington elite, and police."

No. That's not at all what rigging means. Rigging means laws were broken and there was a vast conspiracy/collusion to overturn the results; it means that no matter what, it would have been completely impossible for Clinton to lose the primary. Please show me, not in Bernie math please, that Hillary had no possible path to beating Sanders, so she and a vast group of people stuffed ballots, changed votes, or threw them away. I'll wait for concrete evidence k. You are using the exact same retarded logic Trump and his supporters are using to explain his impending defeat. It's nonsense.







[Edited on October 26, 2016 at 7:36 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2016 7:25:05 PM

Quote :

"A lot of people follow them because of the trade deals, loss of manufacturing jobs and campaign finance. Trump's "drain the swamp" speech about lobbyists and congress resonated with these same people. "

It's a lot easier to make that speech if Paul fucking Manafort isn't your campaign chair for four months. Those people got conned by Don the Con.

It's an EXTREME minority of Sanders fans who fell for that bullshit.

^ eh, it's semantics but I kind of see Earl's point here. The system is set up to be far harder to a relative outsider like Sanders.

[Edited on October 26, 2016 at 7:44 PM. Reason : X]

10/26/2016 7:42:16 PM

It may very well be semantics, but just because something is "unfair" doesn't mean it's rigged. There's a huge distinction between the two.

10/26/2016 7:50:50 PM

Quote :

"Obamacare didn't change that"

It certainly did fucking "change that." My premiums have gone through the roof, along with every other person buying insurance, either through the exchanges or through their employer. These robber baron insurance companies area charging everyone more to make up for the ACA's losses.

10/26/2016 8:27:26 PM

So you're saying your previously low, affordable premiums you had before Obamacare would have remained low and affordable up until today if Obamacare had never been passed, because the insurance industry had set fair and reasonable prices to ensure that everyone had equal access to affordable healthcare?

10/26/2016 8:35:19 PM

I love how every argument regarding how well Obama has done ends in the unmeasurable "Oh yea, well it would have been x times worse without x legislation." I know my premiums would have gone up, I've expected that every year. But my increases have been manageable before the ACA, with anywhere between a 3-12% increase. This year? 50% increase in premiums, plus 1100 more in my deductible, with the loss of my prescription plan. This is across the board with Aetna, Cigna, BCBS and United.

10/26/2016 8:52:31 PM

Quote :

"I love how every argument regarding how well Obama has done ends in the unmeasurable"

It actually is measurable. Before the ACA passed, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance were growing at ~7% a year. Since its passage, it's grown at 3% or less per year. I understand your anecdotal example says otherwise, but nationally that hasn't been the case. My employer-sponsored insurance hasn't gone up a dime in 5 years, for example (although in 2012 they used rising rising healthcare costs as an excuse to not give anyone raises).

[Edited on October 26, 2016 at 9:14 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2016 9:09:00 PM

Megyn Kelly vs. Newt Gingrich

https://youtu.be/1RVqTfIKGbU

Him: "You are fascinated with sex"

Very heated video, plus he says the most idiotic things ("the odds are Clinton will lose"). Must watch!

10/26/2016 11:49:46 PM

^ posted on the prior page opie

10/27/2016 8:45:49 AM

Trump's "Election is Rigged" rhetoric is really resonating with his supporters. See the comments:

http://www.wral.com/ap-gfk-poll-clinton-appears-on-cusp-of-commanding-victory/16166113/

10/27/2016 10:26:57 AM

early voting numbers are youge

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/26/politics/early-voting-statistics-2016-election/
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/north-carolina-early-vote-tracker.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-clinton-early-voting-230315

10/27/2016 11:07:53 AM

CNN is doing everything to convince us that this is a close race.

10/27/2016 12:07:45 PM

It's not like the democratic primaries were "rigged". Oh shit...

10/27/2016 1:14:10 PM

Which of the two primaries has Trump complained most about being rigged?

10/27/2016 1:29:46 PM

Probably the one where wikileaks exposed the DNC is a cesspool of corrupt scum

10/27/2016 1:57:14 PM

You have the proof to back that up? Cuz I can easily go back and find all of his quotes regarding the other one being rigged.

Or were you answering a question that I wasn't actually asking as usual?

Also, can you provide a list of things Trump says that you don't believe?

[Edited on October 27, 2016 at 2:19 PM. Reason : asdf]

10/27/2016 2:05:25 PM

Quote :

"You guys should start thinking to 2020. "

I already am. Keep Trump out, but don't keep Hillary around for long. A Warren/Booker challenger ticket would be my dream scenario. Warren is a more likable, less scandalous, and legitimately progressive version of Hillary and Booker is now what Obama was in 2004.

10/27/2016 2:21:02 PM

Booker isn't like Obama in 2004 at all

10/27/2016 2:22:55 PM

Yeah, Booker's pretty much been ruined by the stank of New Jersey politics. Plus his actual public policy record is pretty horrific and littered with failures. I don't want him anywhere near the top of a Presidential ticket.

Also lol at the prospect of a primary challenge in 2020. Never going to happen.

[Edited on October 27, 2016 at 2:31 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2016 2:28:11 PM

^Examples?

10/27/2016 3:09:09 PM

other than them both being black men, why do you compare Booker in 2016 to Obama in 2004?

10/27/2016 3:25:48 PM

Young political "celebrities" well liked by younger voters, well educated, progressive values, coming from urban population centers, elected to Senate without a whole lot of experience yet making big waves early.

10/27/2016 3:28:25 PM

Booker was the mayor of a big city and has been in the political spotlight for nearly a decade

10/27/2016 3:30:28 PM

So then he's more qualified than Obama was at that point.

Either way, I like him. He won me over during the anti-gun filibuster, and watching him and Warren prop each other up that night made me think they'd be a great team.

I don't know what the failures mentioned above were but I'm going to read up on them once someone tells me what they were.

10/27/2016 3:35:57 PM

The most egregious was his role in Newark Watershed, which was a shit sandwich of bad policy and government corruption. Also his record on crime was pretty bad, overseeing a rise in violent crime during his tenure as mayor while it was dropping around the country.

[Edited on October 27, 2016 at 3:52 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2016 3:51:25 PM

it's also kind of ridiculous to equate Clinton and Warren

they're both white women in their 60's, and that's about it. they have vastly different backgrounds and policy ideas.

you're essentially playing the role of an ad executive hack by saying, "white woman. black man. 2020.", clapping your hands and saying "boom".

10/27/2016 4:02:09 PM

Other than being black and youngish, Booker and Obama aren't anything alike. And why would Warren run for VP instead of President?

10/27/2016 4:02:43 PM

^I want Warren at the top of the ticket, no one is talking about her as a VP. And I'm suggesting general voters are going to look at Booker similarly to the way they viewed Obama from 04-08.

Quote :

"they're both white women in their 60's, and that's about it. they have vastly different backgrounds and policy ideas. "

That's the point. So many leftists who don't like Hillary would support Warren, and we can stop all the stupid "sexist Bernie-Bros" accusations.

Quote :

"Also his record on crime was pretty bad, overseeing a rise in violent crime"

That's not what I've seen. I read in a couple of sources that crime was his #1 priority and that violent crimes significantly decreased. He also lowered his own salary while raising salaries for cops, fire fighters, and other city workers, while decreasing the city's budget by tens of millions of dollars.

10/27/2016 4:20:07 PM

ah i misread. I still think there are better candidates out there than him for VP though.

10/27/2016 4:28:12 PM

^^ Elizabeth Warren is a version of Elizabeth Warren. it's lazy to say that she's a progressive version of Hillary Clinton.

10/27/2016 4:36:50 PM

Quote :

"No. That's not at all what rigging means. Rigging means laws were broken and there was a vast conspiracy/collusion to overturn the results; it means that no matter what, it would have been completely impossible for Clinton to lose the primary. Please show me, not in Bernie math please, that Hillary had no possible path to beating Sanders, so she and a vast group of people stuffed ballots, changed votes, or threw them away. "

Hillary doesn't have to do any of that because the system is already rigged for her to win without it. Its not direct rigging of the election in a traditional sense. Its a much more sophisticated rigging of the information people use to make their decision about who to vote for.

Quote :

"I already am. Keep Trump out, but don't keep Hillary around for long. A Warren/Booker challenger ticket would be my dream scenario. Warren is a more likable, less scandalous, and legitimately progressive version of Hillary and Booker is now what Obama was in 2004."

Its not going to happen until at least 2024 so you might as well dust off the "BUT THE REPUBLICANS OBSTRUCTED" excuse for 2020.

Quote :

"That's the point. So many leftists who don't like Hillary would support Warren, and we can stop all the stupid "sexist Bernie-Bros" accusations. "

Theres no way the democrats are moving to the left after this election and next 4 years pushes more people to the right. Trump's supporters will be back in 2020. Why would the democratic party suddenly try to move left?

Quote :

"^ Elizabeth Warren is a version of Elizabeth Warren. it's lazy to say that she's a progressive version of Hillary Clinton."

She's looking fake now. All of that wall street talk evaporated when she didn't endorse bernie and endorsed hillary. Another democrat who is all talk.

10/27/2016 4:47:14 PM

Elizabeth Warren isn't an establishment, Democratic machine candidate. She's about as populist and liberal as they come. I don't see how anyone could compare her with Hillary, other than the fact that's she's an incredibly intelligent woman and tough as nails. As much as I'd love for her to be president, I don't see how she could ever realistically get elected when trying to take down the banking industry. It would be great if Americans would want that, but I don't see it happening.

^ It's lame to call her a sellout for endorsing Clinton. You're just a bitter Bernie Baby.

[Edited on October 27, 2016 at 4:53 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2016 4:53:00 PM