The Democratic Presidential Debates

Spiritual_Chaos

F Me In The Brain said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Bernie Sanders says he thinks Trump would “chew [Bloomberg] up and spit him out” in a debate

https://youtu.be/qKU_cGXApz8

Was Bernie holding his breath AND speaking at the same time?

Perhaps I need to reconsider my position, that would be quite a talent. 

Dude looks like he wants to be the Red Clown to supplant the Orange Clown.  How did this happen?  He looked fine the other night?

He did it straight after his interview with:

The Juggler

Ledbetterman10 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Folks,

Here's the thing...after yesterday's unsurprising news that Russia is at it again and Trump is covering it up, we all have to be on the same page. That's number one.

Number two...no matter who the nominee is, a moderate billionaire with a sexist past from a sexist time, a former Obama VP, or a socialist senator from Vermont who is closer to the NRA than most would like.....one thing is clear---WE ALL HAVE TO UNITE BEHIND WHOMEVER IS THE NOMINEE.

Donald Trump is an existential risk to our democracy. Defeating him is more important than literally ANY OTHER ISSUE in this campaign. I really hope the candidates in the next debate focus on that instead of tearing each other down. That's number three (Biden voice).

You know I am an independent. My views are moderate mostly. But I can tell with 100% certainty that I will back Bernie or Elizabeth, or the reincarnation of Hillary as a result of a brokered convention. I also pledge to volunteer my time to help whomever it is. I hope you all will do the same.

Quit the bickering. Focus on the most important thing that unites all of us------defeating this fucking Russian stooge in November. Literally the future of the country is dependent upon this.  Anything else you care about policy-wise should be a distant second. 

That all sounds well and good, Juggler. But if Sanders goes into the convention with the most delegates, but not the 1,991 he needs to secure the nomination, and the superdelegates give the nomination to someone else, forget about beating Trump, I think it could be an electoral death-sentence for the Democrats. Let's say, hypothetically, that Sanders gets 33% of the total votes in the primary and that's the plurality, but he doesn't receive the nomination. Well that's 33% of registered democrats that might tell the party to fuck off forever. 

I've said this many times, democrats love finding ways to lose elections they should win.

Doesn't mean we can't do whatever we can to help whoever the nominee is

That's true. I just think, in this scenario where Sanders has a plurality but not the majority, granting him the nomination likely will bode well for Trump's re-election, but to deny him the nomination will have ramifications that go well beyond the Trump presidency....

I personally think Trump will beat whoever the nominee is. So for the sake of their democratic party's future, the DNC better not fuck with their voters and say "Sure you like Bernie Sanders, but we're smarter than you and we know he can't beat Trump, so here's Bloomberg." That would blow up in their faces two-fold. First off, they'll piss off a large portion of their party, and secondly, in my opinion, Bloomberg will lose anyway. 

You're not exactly going out on a limb predicting treacherous waters if there is a brokered convention, dude. Of course that will dramatically weaken whoever is the nominee. 

My point is a simple one--no matter who it is/no matter how it plays out, support him/her and stop driving wedges before it's too late. The democrats have, once again, offered up a less than ideal field of candidates. Trump should be easy to beat but they are stepping all over themselves yet again. We gotta come together. Too much is at stake. 

I'm not suggesting I'm going out on a limb, dude. I know I'm saying what anyone else that understands this process already knows. But your "we gotta come together, too much is at stake" stance is easier said than done. If by some chance Sanders gets the nomination, will Bloomberg and Biden be behind him? Warren likely will, but I'm not sure about them. And if he doesn't win the nomination, and it's perceived by his supporters that he was screwed, they're not going to come out and vote for Bloomberg or whoever. 

Also, half the country loves Trump, and they've already banded together. In fact, their bond (or whatever you wanna call it) has become stronger over the past four years. They're all in unison to see the democrats destroyed. You want (as I do, but I'm skeptical that it happens) the other half of the country to come together over the course of June through November. Not impossible, but as I said, easier said than done.

Yes. They've already said as much. Bloomberg even said he will continue his spending machine on whoever the nominee is. THAT is the kind of unity the democrats need right now. Not what we saw a few days ago. That's the point.
One of Sanders' campaign managers or top surrogates came out earlier this week and said they would not accept his money. THAT is exactly what we do not need. 

Again--I don't think you are saying anything new. The incumbent always has an advantage. This one, in particular, should be easier to beat than the democrats are making it out to be. Despite the stuff you say in your second paragraph, it is still true that he has a lower approval rating than just about any incumbent in the history of polling running for re-election. And before you say something about polls, just about every incumbent in the history of polling has also gotten within a point or two of his approvals on election day. So he SHOULD be easy to beat. The democrats are shooting themselves in their collective foot. They need to stop. And fast. 

Hmm I didn't see that (the bolded part). Yeah that would be beyond foolish. 

And as for polls, yeah as I've said before, I don't put much stock in them, but I don't completely dismiss them either. I was curious to see what Bush's approval rating was in February 2004 compared to Trump's today. According to Gallup, Trump is at 49% (pretty good considering everything that's wrong with him and his presidency), Obama was at 45% in February 2012, and Bush was at 51% in February 2004. So unless this page I'm linking to is incorrect, Trump doesn't have the lowest approval rating of any incumbent running for re-election. It has Obama at 45% in Feb. 2012, and Bush Sr. at 41% in Feb 1992.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

Regarding trumps approval rating, I trust 538 aggregate more than anyone. They rate the polls based on their history and methods and weigh all polls based on that. Although they had clinton at 65% chance to win, they sounded a warning bell then because they had all the swing states needed to get her to 270 votes all very close.

They have trump now at 43% aggregate which is about +1 from where he usually is.

But there are warning signs. WI polling  out this week has trump up 7 to 11 depending on the candidate.  PA looks a little better for the dems but fla is tied as usual, with Bloomberg the best at +6. Thanks alot Warren. 

.

So pretty damn close to Obama if I'm looking at the right page https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

If you consider 47 and 43.3 to be close that is. Some might not. But I do considering how seemingly unpopular Trump is and how seemingly popular Obama was. 

In a country this divided, 4 points isn't as close as you think, especially considering Obama's ceiling (which is also extremely important to consider since Trump has made zero effort in expanding his base) was 20 points higher. Obama got his approvals up near 54% before his re election. Trump has barely been over 43% since right after his inauguration.

See my post above for more details. 

Ledbetterman10

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Folks,

Here's the thing...after yesterday's unsurprising news that Russia is at it again and Trump is covering it up, we all have to be on the same page. That's number one.

Number two...no matter who the nominee is, a moderate billionaire with a sexist past from a sexist time, a former Obama VP, or a socialist senator from Vermont who is closer to the NRA than most would like.....one thing is clear---WE ALL HAVE TO UNITE BEHIND WHOMEVER IS THE NOMINEE.

Donald Trump is an existential risk to our democracy. Defeating him is more important than literally ANY OTHER ISSUE in this campaign. I really hope the candidates in the next debate focus on that instead of tearing each other down. That's number three (Biden voice).

You know I am an independent. My views are moderate mostly. But I can tell with 100% certainty that I will back Bernie or Elizabeth, or the reincarnation of Hillary as a result of a brokered convention. I also pledge to volunteer my time to help whomever it is. I hope you all will do the same.

Quit the bickering. Focus on the most important thing that unites all of us------defeating this fucking Russian stooge in November. Literally the future of the country is dependent upon this.  Anything else you care about policy-wise should be a distant second. 

That all sounds well and good, Juggler. But if Sanders goes into the convention with the most delegates, but not the 1,991 he needs to secure the nomination, and the superdelegates give the nomination to someone else, forget about beating Trump, I think it could be an electoral death-sentence for the Democrats. Let's say, hypothetically, that Sanders gets 33% of the total votes in the primary and that's the plurality, but he doesn't receive the nomination. Well that's 33% of registered democrats that might tell the party to fuck off forever. 

I've said this many times, democrats love finding ways to lose elections they should win.

Doesn't mean we can't do whatever we can to help whoever the nominee is

That's true. I just think, in this scenario where Sanders has a plurality but not the majority, granting him the nomination likely will bode well for Trump's re-election, but to deny him the nomination will have ramifications that go well beyond the Trump presidency....

I personally think Trump will beat whoever the nominee is. So for the sake of their democratic party's future, the DNC better not fuck with their voters and say "Sure you like Bernie Sanders, but we're smarter than you and we know he can't beat Trump, so here's Bloomberg." That would blow up in their faces two-fold. First off, they'll piss off a large portion of their party, and secondly, in my opinion, Bloomberg will lose anyway. 

You're not exactly going out on a limb predicting treacherous waters if there is a brokered convention, dude. Of course that will dramatically weaken whoever is the nominee. 

My point is a simple one--no matter who it is/no matter how it plays out, support him/her and stop driving wedges before it's too late. The democrats have, once again, offered up a less than ideal field of candidates. Trump should be easy to beat but they are stepping all over themselves yet again. We gotta come together. Too much is at stake. 

I'm not suggesting I'm going out on a limb, dude. I know I'm saying what anyone else that understands this process already knows. But your "we gotta come together, too much is at stake" stance is easier said than done. If by some chance Sanders gets the nomination, will Bloomberg and Biden be behind him? Warren likely will, but I'm not sure about them. And if he doesn't win the nomination, and it's perceived by his supporters that he was screwed, they're not going to come out and vote for Bloomberg or whoever. 

Also, half the country loves Trump, and they've already banded together. In fact, their bond (or whatever you wanna call it) has become stronger over the past four years. They're all in unison to see the democrats destroyed. You want (as I do, but I'm skeptical that it happens) the other half of the country to come together over the course of June through November. Not impossible, but as I said, easier said than done.

Yes. They've already said as much. Bloomberg even said he will continue his spending machine on whoever the nominee is. THAT is the kind of unity the democrats need right now. Not what we saw a few days ago. That's the point.
One of Sanders' campaign managers or top surrogates came out earlier this week and said they would not accept his money. THAT is exactly what we do not need. 

Again--I don't think you are saying anything new. The incumbent always has an advantage. This one, in particular, should be easier to beat than the democrats are making it out to be. Despite the stuff you say in your second paragraph, it is still true that he has a lower approval rating than just about any incumbent in the history of polling running for re-election. And before you say something about polls, just about every incumbent in the history of polling has also gotten within a point or two of his approvals on election day. So he SHOULD be easy to beat. The democrats are shooting themselves in their collective foot. They need to stop. And fast. 

Hmm I didn't see that (the bolded part). Yeah that would be beyond foolish. 

And as for polls, yeah as I've said before, I don't put much stock in them, but I don't completely dismiss them either. I was curious to see what Bush's approval rating was in February 2004 compared to Trump's today. According to Gallup, Trump is at 49% (pretty good considering everything that's wrong with him and his presidency), Obama was at 45% in February 2012, and Bush was at 51% in February 2004. So unless this page I'm linking to is incorrect, Trump doesn't have the lowest approval rating of any incumbent running for re-election. It has Obama at 45% in Feb. 2012, and Bush Sr. at 41% in Feb 1992.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

Regarding trumps approval rating, I trust 538 aggregate more than anyone. They rate the polls based on their history and methods and weigh all polls based on that. Although they had clinton at 65% chance to win, they sounded a warning bell then because they had all the swing states needed to get her to 270 votes all very close.

They have trump now at 43% aggregate which is about +1 from where he usually is.

But there are warning signs. WI polling  out this week has trump up 7 to 11 depending on the candidate.  PA looks a little better for the dems but fla is tied as usual, with Bloomberg the best at +6. Thanks alot Warren. 

.

So pretty damn close to Obama if I'm looking at the right page https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

If you consider 47 and 43.3 to be close that is. Some might not. But I do considering how seemingly unpopular Trump is and how seemingly popular Obama was. 

In a country this divided, 4 points isn't as close as you think, especially considering Obama's ceiling (which is also extremely important to consider since Trump has made zero effort in expanding his base) was 20 points higher. Obama got his approvals up near 54% before his re election. Trump has barely been over 43% since right after his inauguration.

See my post above for more details. 

Hey fair enough. You’re the poll guy so I am interested i your perspective cause I am not a pill guy at all. Doubt Trump nears that level of approval before November (or ever). But I also don’t think it’ll matter considering his potential opponents. 

Edit: Also, I regards to your post above this, I’m not trying to spin anything, I just don’t think polls or Trump’s approval rating is a good indicator of what’s going to happen in November. I wasn’t around this board in 2016, but I’d wager a guess there was a lot of confidence in Hillary based on polls. 

And as you know well, national polls are deceiving in these elections. It may come come down to just a few districts in swing states like last time. 

mrussel1

Not particularly surprising...  
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/bernie-sanders-briefed-by-us-officials-that-russia-is-trying-to-help-his-presidential-campaign/2020/02/21/5ad396a6-54bd-11ea-929a-64efa7482a77_story.html

Lerxst1992

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Folks,

Here's the thing...after yesterday's unsurprising news that Russia is at it again and Trump is covering it up, we all have to be on the same page. That's number one.

Number two...no matter who the nominee is, a moderate billionaire with a sexist past from a sexist time, a former Obama VP, or a socialist senator from Vermont who is closer to the NRA than most would like.....one thing is clear---WE ALL HAVE TO UNITE BEHIND WHOMEVER IS THE NOMINEE.

Donald Trump is an existential risk to our democracy. Defeating him is more important than literally ANY OTHER ISSUE in this campaign. I really hope the candidates in the next debate focus on that instead of tearing each other down. That's number three (Biden voice).

You know I am an independent. My views are moderate mostly. But I can tell with 100% certainty that I will back Bernie or Elizabeth, or the reincarnation of Hillary as a result of a brokered convention. I also pledge to volunteer my time to help whomever it is. I hope you all will do the same.

Quit the bickering. Focus on the most important thing that unites all of us------defeating this fucking Russian stooge in November. Literally the future of the country is dependent upon this.  Anything else you care about policy-wise should be a distant second. 

That all sounds well and good, Juggler. But if Sanders goes into the convention with the most delegates, but not the 1,991 he needs to secure the nomination, and the superdelegates give the nomination to someone else, forget about beating Trump, I think it could be an electoral death-sentence for the Democrats. Let's say, hypothetically, that Sanders gets 33% of the total votes in the primary and that's the plurality, but he doesn't receive the nomination. Well that's 33% of registered democrats that might tell the party to fuck off forever. 

I've said this many times, democrats love finding ways to lose elections they should win.

Doesn't mean we can't do whatever we can to help whoever the nominee is

That's true. I just think, in this scenario where Sanders has a plurality but not the majority, granting him the nomination likely will bode well for Trump's re-election, but to deny him the nomination will have ramifications that go well beyond the Trump presidency....

I personally think Trump will beat whoever the nominee is. So for the sake of their democratic party's future, the DNC better not fuck with their voters and say "Sure you like Bernie Sanders, but we're smarter than you and we know he can't beat Trump, so here's Bloomberg." That would blow up in their faces two-fold. First off, they'll piss off a large portion of their party, and secondly, in my opinion, Bloomberg will lose anyway. 

You're not exactly going out on a limb predicting treacherous waters if there is a brokered convention, dude. Of course that will dramatically weaken whoever is the nominee. 

My point is a simple one--no matter who it is/no matter how it plays out, support him/her and stop driving wedges before it's too late. The democrats have, once again, offered up a less than ideal field of candidates. Trump should be easy to beat but they are stepping all over themselves yet again. We gotta come together. Too much is at stake. 

I'm not suggesting I'm going out on a limb, dude. I know I'm saying what anyone else that understands this process already knows. But your "we gotta come together, too much is at stake" stance is easier said than done. If by some chance Sanders gets the nomination, will Bloomberg and Biden be behind him? Warren likely will, but I'm not sure about them. And if he doesn't win the nomination, and it's perceived by his supporters that he was screwed, they're not going to come out and vote for Bloomberg or whoever. 

Also, half the country loves Trump, and they've already banded together. In fact, their bond (or whatever you wanna call it) has become stronger over the past four years. They're all in unison to see the democrats destroyed. You want (as I do, but I'm skeptical that it happens) the other half of the country to come together over the course of June through November. Not impossible, but as I said, easier said than done.

Yes. They've already said as much. Bloomberg even said he will continue his spending machine on whoever the nominee is. THAT is the kind of unity the democrats need right now. Not what we saw a few days ago. That's the point.
One of Sanders' campaign managers or top surrogates came out earlier this week and said they would not accept his money. THAT is exactly what we do not need. 

Again--I don't think you are saying anything new. The incumbent always has an advantage. This one, in particular, should be easier to beat than the democrats are making it out to be. Despite the stuff you say in your second paragraph, it is still true that he has a lower approval rating than just about any incumbent in the history of polling running for re-election. And before you say something about polls, just about every incumbent in the history of polling has also gotten within a point or two of his approvals on election day. So he SHOULD be easy to beat. The democrats are shooting themselves in their collective foot. They need to stop. And fast. 

Hmm I didn't see that (the bolded part). Yeah that would be beyond foolish. 

And as for polls, yeah as I've said before, I don't put much stock in them, but I don't completely dismiss them either. I was curious to see what Bush's approval rating was in February 2004 compared to Trump's today. According to Gallup, Trump is at 49% (pretty good considering everything that's wrong with him and his presidency), Obama was at 45% in February 2012, and Bush was at 51% in February 2004. So unless this page I'm linking to is incorrect, Trump doesn't have the lowest approval rating of any incumbent running for re-election. It has Obama at 45% in Feb. 2012, and Bush Sr. at 41% in Feb 1992.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

Regarding trumps approval rating, I trust 538 aggregate more than anyone. They rate the polls based on their history and methods and weigh all polls based on that. Although they had clinton at 65% chance to win, they sounded a warning bell then because they had all the swing states needed to get her to 270 votes all very close.

They have trump now at 43% aggregate which is about +1 from where he usually is.

But there are warning signs. WI polling  out this week has trump up 7 to 11 depending on the candidate.  PA looks a little better for the dems but fla is tied as usual, with Bloomberg the best at +6. Thanks alot Warren. 

.

So pretty damn close to Obama if I'm looking at the right page https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

If you consider 47 and 43.3 to be close that is. Some might not. But I do considering how seemingly unpopular Trump is and how seemingly popular Obama was. 

In a country this divided, 4 points isn't as close as you think, especially considering Obama's ceiling (which is also extremely important to consider since Trump has made zero effort in expanding his base) was 20 points higher. Obama got his approvals up near 54% before his re election. Trump has barely been over 43% since right after his inauguration.

See my post above for more details. 

Another  note is trumps approvals are close to where they were in 2016. If you factor in a couple % u decided in the polls, his 43% approval is too damn close to his 46% vote total. 

Lerxst1992

dignin said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Folks,

Here's the thing...after yesterday's unsurprising news that Russia is at it again and Trump is covering it up, we all have to be on the same page. That's number one.

Number two...no matter who the nominee is, a moderate billionaire with a sexist past from a sexist time, a former Obama VP, or a socialist senator from Vermont who is closer to the NRA than most would like.....one thing is clear---WE ALL HAVE TO UNITE BEHIND WHOMEVER IS THE NOMINEE.

Donald Trump is an existential risk to our democracy. Defeating him is more important than literally ANY OTHER ISSUE in this campaign. I really hope the candidates in the next debate focus on that instead of tearing each other down. That's number three (Biden voice).

You know I am an independent. My views are moderate mostly. But I can tell with 100% certainty that I will back Bernie or Elizabeth, or the reincarnation of Hillary as a result of a brokered convention. I also pledge to volunteer my time to help whomever it is. I hope you all will do the same.

Quit the bickering. Focus on the most important thing that unites all of us------defeating this fucking Russian stooge in November. Literally the future of the country is dependent upon this.  Anything else you care about policy-wise should be a distant second. 

That all sounds well and good, Juggler. But if Sanders goes into the convention with the most delegates, but not the 1,991 he needs to secure the nomination, and the superdelegates give the nomination to someone else, forget about beating Trump, I think it could be an electoral death-sentence for the Democrats. Let's say, hypothetically, that Sanders gets 33% of the total votes in the primary and that's the plurality, but he doesn't receive the nomination. Well that's 33% of registered democrats that might tell the party to fuck off forever. 

I've said this many times, democrats love finding ways to lose elections they should win.

Doesn't mean we can't do whatever we can to help whoever the nominee is

That's true. I just think, in this scenario where Sanders has a plurality but not the majority, granting him the nomination likely will bode well for Trump's re-election, but to deny him the nomination will have ramifications that go well beyond the Trump presidency....

I personally think Trump will beat whoever the nominee is. So for the sake of their democratic party's future, the DNC better not fuck with their voters and say "Sure you like Bernie Sanders, but we're smarter than you and we know he can't beat Trump, so here's Bloomberg." That would blow up in their faces two-fold. First off, they'll piss off a large portion of their party, and secondly, in my opinion, Bloomberg will lose anyway. 

You're not exactly going out on a limb predicting treacherous waters if there is a brokered convention, dude. Of course that will dramatically weaken whoever is the nominee. 

My point is a simple one--no matter who it is/no matter how it plays out, support him/her and stop driving wedges before it's too late. The democrats have, once again, offered up a less than ideal field of candidates. Trump should be easy to beat but they are stepping all over themselves yet again. We gotta come together. Too much is at stake. 

I'm not suggesting I'm going out on a limb, dude. I know I'm saying what anyone else that understands this process already knows. But your "we gotta come together, too much is at stake" stance is easier said than done. If by some chance Sanders gets the nomination, will Bloomberg and Biden be behind him? Warren likely will, but I'm not sure about them. And if he doesn't win the nomination, and it's perceived by his supporters that he was screwed, they're not going to come out and vote for Bloomberg or whoever. 

Also, half the country loves Trump, and they've already banded together. In fact, their bond (or whatever you wanna call it) has become stronger over the past four years. They're all in unison to see the democrats destroyed. You want (as I do, but I'm skeptical that it happens) the other half of the country to come together over the course of June through November. Not impossible, but as I said, easier said than done.

Yes. They've already said as much. Bloomberg even said he will continue his spending machine on whoever the nominee is. THAT is the kind of unity the democrats need right now. Not what we saw a few days ago. That's the point.
One of Sanders' campaign managers or top surrogates came out earlier this week and said they would not accept his money. THAT is exactly what we do not need. 

Again--I don't think you are saying anything new. The incumbent always has an advantage. This one, in particular, should be easier to beat than the democrats are making it out to be. Despite the stuff you say in your second paragraph, it is still true that he has a lower approval rating than just about any incumbent in the history of polling running for re-election. And before you say something about polls, just about every incumbent in the history of polling has also gotten within a point or two of his approvals on election day. So he SHOULD be easy to beat. The democrats are shooting themselves in their collective foot. They need to stop. And fast. 

Hmm I didn't see that (the bolded part). Yeah that would be beyond foolish. 

And as for polls, yeah as I've said before, I don't put much stock in them, but I don't completely dismiss them either. I was curious to see what Bush's approval rating was in February 2004 compared to Trump's today. According to Gallup, Trump is at 49% (pretty good considering everything that's wrong with him and his presidency), Obama was at 45% in February 2012, and Bush was at 51% in February 2004. So unless this page I'm linking to is incorrect, Trump doesn't have the lowest approval rating of any incumbent running for re-election. It has Obama at 45% in Feb. 2012, and Bush Sr. at 41% in Feb 1992.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

Regarding trumps approval rating, I trust 538 aggregate more than anyone. They rate the polls based on their history and methods and weigh all polls based on that. Although they had clinton at 65% chance to win, they sounded a warning bell then because they had all the swing states needed to get her to 270 votes all very close.

They have trump now at 43% aggregate which is about +1 from where he usually is.

But there are warning signs. WI polling  out this week has trump up 7 to 11 depending on the candidate.  PA looks a little better for the dems but fla is tied as usual, with Bloomberg the best at +6. Thanks alot Warren. 

.

It's not Warrens fault your candidate is a terrible candidate. He said and did all those things to women and minorities all himself.

If people thought Hillary had baggage, they haven't seen anything yet.

He did? You have the proof Warren forgot to bring with her to the debate?

MY candidate? I have MB 4th. Pete Joe Amy all ahead of him. I'd probably vote for trump before a dishonest socialist.  At least Bernie is pure.

mickeyrat

  Russia trying to help Bernie Sanders's campaign, according to briefing from U.S. officials - The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/bernie-sanders-briefed-by-us-officials-that-russia-is-trying-to-help-his-presidential-campaign/2020/02/21/5ad396a6-54bd-11ea-929a-64efa7482a77_story.html

mickeyrat

  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bloomberg-says-hell-release-women-from-ndas/2020/02/21/2d11b04c-54ed-11ea-b119-4faabac6674f_story.html

mickeyrat

  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/21/yes-buttigieg-is-gay-enough-richie-jackson-says/

Spiritual_Chaos

Spiritual_Chaos

mickeyrat said:

  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bloomberg-says-hell-release-women-from-ndas/2020/02/21/2d11b04c-54ed-11ea-b119-4faabac6674f_story.html

Warren shows she's presidential and gets shit done.

Spiritual_Chaos

https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1230715645076967424?s=20

brianlux

Spiritual_Chaos said:

https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1230715645076967424?s=20

I would be good with that! 

Lerxst1992

brianlux said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1230715645076967424?s=20

I would be good with that! 

Are you sure? That probably would indicate trump gets re-elected

 (or Biden wins, selects yang vp, then retires)

ecdanc

Seems someone was offended by one of my earlier posts, so admin asked me to explain "insufferable whiteness." Here is most of the message I sent in response:

I assume no one was offended by "insufferable." Presumably, I can call a politician insufferable without raising any hackles (others say far worse about politicians on these boards, obviously). So, the issue is the word "whiteness," right? My assurance that I'm not being bigoted may not carry much weight, so all I can do is explain how I'm using the word:

I'm using "whiteness" not to define the attribute of an individual (i.e., "Buttigieg is white"), but in the sense it's used by scholars of race, racism, and--yes--whiteness. Whiteness is a social formation--a discourse or way of looking at the world--that is the root of US racism. In other words, whiteness is the set of characteristics, structures, systems, and powers that defines the "white" as the normative, and that recognizes anything non-white as other and inferior. To put it as bluntly as I know how, the ideology of whiteness IS American racism. 

So, when I say Buttigieg is being insufferably white, I'm saying that his past actions and his present positions are directly linked to the ideology of whiteness. Ultimately, then, only racists who should be offended by my post. Thus, while I appreciate your well-intentioned efforts to address the complaints (that are, most likely, disingenuous--given the disdain for my persistent anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-transphobic stances here, I imagine some people just saw a chance to "get" me, so to speak), I'm speaking from a body of scholarly and political work that is anti-racist and any cries of "reverse racism" ("ecdanc hates white people") are most likely from people who have a very facile understanding of US race and racism. 

mrussel1

Way to be insufferable.  Must be the white privilege you've benefited from your entire life.  

pjl44

ecdanc said:

Seems someone was offended by one of my earlier posts, so admin asked me to explain "insufferable whiteness." Here is most of the message I sent in response:

I assume no one was offended by "insufferable." Presumably, I can call a politician insufferable without raising any hackles (others say far worse about politicians on these boards, obviously). So, the issue is the word "whiteness," right? My assurance that I'm not being bigoted may not carry much weight, so all I can do is explain how I'm using the word:

I'm using "whiteness" not to define the attribute of an individual (i.e., "Buttigieg is white"), but in the sense it's used by scholars of race, racism, and--yes--whiteness. Whiteness is a social formation--a discourse or way of looking at the world--that is the root of US racism. In other words, whiteness is the set of characteristics, structures, systems, and powers that defines the "white" as the normative, and that recognizes anything non-white as other and inferior. To put it as bluntly as I know how, the ideology of whiteness IS American racism. 

So, when I say Buttigieg is being insufferably white, I'm saying that his past actions and his present positions are directly linked to the ideology of whiteness. Ultimately, then, only racists who should be offended by my post. Thus, while I appreciate your well-intentioned efforts to address the complaints (that are, most likely, disingenuous--given the disdain for my persistent anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-transphobic stances here, I imagine some people just saw a chance to "get" me, so to speak), I'm speaking from a body of scholarly and political work that is anti-racist and any cries of "reverse racism" ("ecdanc hates white people") are most likely from people who have a very facile understanding of US race and racism. 

Noted

The Juggler

Not surprising that Russia wants Bernie to win the nomination. They also want Trump to be re-elected 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/21/politics/bernie-sanders-russia-election-interference/

Sanders told Russia is trying to help his campaign

Washington (CNN)Sen. Bernie Sanders said Friday that his campaign was briefed about Russian efforts to help his presidential campaign, intensifying concerns about the Kremlin's role in the US presidential race.

It remains unclear how Russia is attempting to help Sanders, according to The Washington Post, which first reported the effort. The revelation comes a day after it was reported that the US intelligence community believes Moscow is taking steps to help President Donald Trump win and at a time when Sanders is emerging as the Democratic front-runner.

Speaking to reporters in Bakersfield, California, Friday afternoon, Sanders confirmed that his campaign was briefed about the Kremlin's efforts about a month ago and condemned Russia's attempts to interfere in US elections. 

"It was not clear what role they're going to play. We were told that Russia, maybe other countries, are going to get involved in this campaign, and look, here's the message to Russia: stay out of American elections," Sanders said. 

"And what they are doing, by the way, the ugly thing that they are doing, and I've seen some of their tweets and stuff, is they try to divide us up. That's what they did in 2016 and that is the ugliest thing they are doing -- is they are trying to cause chaos, they are trying to cause hatred in America."

The Vermont senator speculated that the news broke on Friday afternoon in order to have an impact on Saturday's Nevada caucuses, in which he is a leading candidate.

Two of Sanders' centrist Democratic rivals seized on the news, with Michael Bloomberg's campaign calling Russian support for Sanders a "no-brainer" for Moscow.

"They either nominate the weakest candidate to take on their puppet Trump, or they elect a socialist as President," Bloomberg's campaign tweeted.

And former Vice President Joe Biden told CNN's Arlette Saenz in Las Vegas that the report indicates that Putin doesn't want him to be elected.

Trump briefed

Trump has been briefed on the Russian effort to help Sanders, a White House official said. The timing of the briefing wasn't clear. 

At a rally in Las Vegas before the Post's report broke, Trump suggested Moscow would prefer Sanders to win, not him, making no mention of the fact he'd been briefed about the matter.

"Doesn't he (Russian President Vladimir Putin) want to see who the Democrat's going to be? Wouldn't you rather have, let's say, Bernie? Wouldn't he rather have Bernie, who honeymooned in Moscow?" Trump said.

At Wednesday night's debate, Sanders was asked about online aggression from some of his supporters. Without mentioning the intelligence briefing, he replied, "All of us remember 2016, and what we remember is efforts by Russians and others to try to interfere in our elections and divide us up. I'm not saying that's happening, but it would not shock me."

Asked Friday by CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room" why the Sanders campaign didn't disclose Russia's involvement, Ro Khanna, a national co-chair of the campaign, said the Vermont senator didn't want to publicly reveal sensitive information. As for why Moscow would want to boost Sanders, Khanna said he has "no idea what motivates Vladimir Putin."

Russia's long-running effort to interfere in US elections

Russian interference in the last presidential election -- which the US intelligence community believes was aimed at boosting Trump's candidacy and hurting his opponent, Hillary Clinton -- led to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. Part of the election interference included a Russian government-linked troll operation that sought to help Trump's candidacy and undercut that of Clinton in part by posting messages in support of Sanders. 

Since 2016, US intelligence officials have continued to consistently warn about Russia's ongoing efforts to interfere in American elections, noting threats to both the 2018 midterms and the 2020 presidential race.

On Thursday, CNN and other outlets reported that the intelligence community's top election security official delivered a briefing to lawmakers last week warning them that the intelligence community believes Russia is already taking steps to interfere in the 2020 election to help Trump. 

The President has repeatedly downplayed the threat as he has dismissed any suggestion that Kremlin influence played a role in his election. 

US intelligence officials, however, have continued to consistently warn about Russia's ongoing efforts to interfere in American elections. 

Last month, FBI Director Christopher Wray told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Russia was continuing to "engage in malign foreign influence" online with the goal of sowing division and discord, "and to generate controversy, to generate distrust in our democratic institutions in our electoral process."

ecdanc

The Juggler said:

Not surprising that Russia wants Bernie to win the nomination. They also want Trump to be re-elected 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/21/politics/bernie-sanders-russia-election-interference/

Sanders told Russia is trying to help his campaign

Washington (CNN)Sen. Bernie Sanders said Friday that his campaign was briefed about Russian efforts to help his presidential campaign, intensifying concerns about the Kremlin's role in the US presidential race.

It remains unclear how Russia is attempting to help Sanders, according to The Washington Post, which first reported the effort. The revelation comes a day after it was reported that the US intelligence community believes Moscow is taking steps to help President Donald Trump win and at a time when Sanders is emerging as the Democratic front-runner.

Speaking to reporters in Bakersfield, California, Friday afternoon, Sanders confirmed that his campaign was briefed about the Kremlin's efforts about a month ago and condemned Russia's attempts to interfere in US elections. 

"It was not clear what role they're going to play. We were told that Russia, maybe other countries, are going to get involved in this campaign, and look, here's the message to Russia: stay out of American elections," Sanders said. 

"And what they are doing, by the way, the ugly thing that they are doing, and I've seen some of their tweets and stuff, is they try to divide us up. That's what they did in 2016 and that is the ugliest thing they are doing -- is they are trying to cause chaos, they are trying to cause hatred in America."

The Vermont senator speculated that the news broke on Friday afternoon in order to have an impact on Saturday's Nevada caucuses, in which he is a leading candidate.

Two of Sanders' centrist Democratic rivals seized on the news, with Michael Bloomberg's campaign calling Russian support for Sanders a "no-brainer" for Moscow.

"They either nominate the weakest candidate to take on their puppet Trump, or they elect a socialist as President," Bloomberg's campaign tweeted.

And former Vice President Joe Biden told CNN's Arlette Saenz in Las Vegas that the report indicates that Putin doesn't want him to be elected.

Trump briefed

Trump has been briefed on the Russian effort to help Sanders, a White House official said. The timing of the briefing wasn't clear. 

At a rally in Las Vegas before the Post's report broke, Trump suggested Moscow would prefer Sanders to win, not him, making no mention of the fact he'd been briefed about the matter.

"Doesn't he (Russian President Vladimir Putin) want to see who the Democrat's going to be? Wouldn't you rather have, let's say, Bernie? Wouldn't he rather have Bernie, who honeymooned in Moscow?" Trump said.

At Wednesday night's debate, Sanders was asked about online aggression from some of his supporters. Without mentioning the intelligence briefing, he replied, "All of us remember 2016, and what we remember is efforts by Russians and others to try to interfere in our elections and divide us up. I'm not saying that's happening, but it would not shock me."

Asked Friday by CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room" why the Sanders campaign didn't disclose Russia's involvement, Ro Khanna, a national co-chair of the campaign, said the Vermont senator didn't want to publicly reveal sensitive information. As for why Moscow would want to boost Sanders, Khanna said he has "no idea what motivates Vladimir Putin."

Russia's long-running effort to interfere in US elections

Russian interference in the last presidential election -- which the US intelligence community believes was aimed at boosting Trump's candidacy and hurting his opponent, Hillary Clinton -- led to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. Part of the election interference included a Russian government-linked troll operation that sought to help Trump's candidacy and undercut that of Clinton in part by posting messages in support of Sanders. 

Since 2016, US intelligence officials have continued to consistently warn about Russia's ongoing efforts to interfere in American elections, noting threats to both the 2018 midterms and the 2020 presidential race.

On Thursday, CNN and other outlets reported that the intelligence community's top election security official delivered a briefing to lawmakers last week warning them that the intelligence community believes Russia is already taking steps to interfere in the 2020 election to help Trump. 

The President has repeatedly downplayed the threat as he has dismissed any suggestion that Kremlin influence played a role in his election. 

US intelligence officials, however, have continued to consistently warn about Russia's ongoing efforts to interfere in American elections. 

Last month, FBI Director Christopher Wray told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Russia was continuing to "engage in malign foreign influence" online with the goal of sowing division and discord, "and to generate controversy, to generate distrust in our democratic institutions in our electoral process."

Or they’re  just trying to “help” both general-election candidates, so no matter the result some Americans will think the election was tainted?

The Juggler

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Folks,

Here's the thing...after yesterday's unsurprising news that Russia is at it again and Trump is covering it up, we all have to be on the same page. That's number one.

Number two...no matter who the nominee is, a moderate billionaire with a sexist past from a sexist time, a former Obama VP, or a socialist senator from Vermont who is closer to the NRA than most would like.....one thing is clear---WE ALL HAVE TO UNITE BEHIND WHOMEVER IS THE NOMINEE.

Donald Trump is an existential risk to our democracy. Defeating him is more important than literally ANY OTHER ISSUE in this campaign. I really hope the candidates in the next debate focus on that instead of tearing each other down. That's number three (Biden voice).

You know I am an independent. My views are moderate mostly. But I can tell with 100% certainty that I will back Bernie or Elizabeth, or the reincarnation of Hillary as a result of a brokered convention. I also pledge to volunteer my time to help whomever it is. I hope you all will do the same.

Quit the bickering. Focus on the most important thing that unites all of us------defeating this fucking Russian stooge in November. Literally the future of the country is dependent upon this.  Anything else you care about policy-wise should be a distant second. 

That all sounds well and good, Juggler. But if Sanders goes into the convention with the most delegates, but not the 1,991 he needs to secure the nomination, and the superdelegates give the nomination to someone else, forget about beating Trump, I think it could be an electoral death-sentence for the Democrats. Let's say, hypothetically, that Sanders gets 33% of the total votes in the primary and that's the plurality, but he doesn't receive the nomination. Well that's 33% of registered democrats that might tell the party to fuck off forever. 

I've said this many times, democrats love finding ways to lose elections they should win.

Doesn't mean we can't do whatever we can to help whoever the nominee is

That's true. I just think, in this scenario where Sanders has a plurality but not the majority, granting him the nomination likely will bode well for Trump's re-election, but to deny him the nomination will have ramifications that go well beyond the Trump presidency....

I personally think Trump will beat whoever the nominee is. So for the sake of their democratic party's future, the DNC better not fuck with their voters and say "Sure you like Bernie Sanders, but we're smarter than you and we know he can't beat Trump, so here's Bloomberg." That would blow up in their faces two-fold. First off, they'll piss off a large portion of their party, and secondly, in my opinion, Bloomberg will lose anyway. 

You're not exactly going out on a limb predicting treacherous waters if there is a brokered convention, dude. Of course that will dramatically weaken whoever is the nominee. 

My point is a simple one--no matter who it is/no matter how it plays out, support him/her and stop driving wedges before it's too late. The democrats have, once again, offered up a less than ideal field of candidates. Trump should be easy to beat but they are stepping all over themselves yet again. We gotta come together. Too much is at stake. 

I'm not suggesting I'm going out on a limb, dude. I know I'm saying what anyone else that understands this process already knows. But your "we gotta come together, too much is at stake" stance is easier said than done. If by some chance Sanders gets the nomination, will Bloomberg and Biden be behind him? Warren likely will, but I'm not sure about them. And if he doesn't win the nomination, and it's perceived by his supporters that he was screwed, they're not going to come out and vote for Bloomberg or whoever. 

Also, half the country loves Trump, and they've already banded together. In fact, their bond (or whatever you wanna call it) has become stronger over the past four years. They're all in unison to see the democrats destroyed. You want (as I do, but I'm skeptical that it happens) the other half of the country to come together over the course of June through November. Not impossible, but as I said, easier said than done.

Yes. They've already said as much. Bloomberg even said he will continue his spending machine on whoever the nominee is. THAT is the kind of unity the democrats need right now. Not what we saw a few days ago. That's the point.
One of Sanders' campaign managers or top surrogates came out earlier this week and said they would not accept his money. THAT is exactly what we do not need. 

Again--I don't think you are saying anything new. The incumbent always has an advantage. This one, in particular, should be easier to beat than the democrats are making it out to be. Despite the stuff you say in your second paragraph, it is still true that he has a lower approval rating than just about any incumbent in the history of polling running for re-election. And before you say something about polls, just about every incumbent in the history of polling has also gotten within a point or two of his approvals on election day. So he SHOULD be easy to beat. The democrats are shooting themselves in their collective foot. They need to stop. And fast. 

Hmm I didn't see that (the bolded part). Yeah that would be beyond foolish. 

And as for polls, yeah as I've said before, I don't put much stock in them, but I don't completely dismiss them either. I was curious to see what Bush's approval rating was in February 2004 compared to Trump's today. According to Gallup, Trump is at 49% (pretty good considering everything that's wrong with him and his presidency), Obama was at 45% in February 2012, and Bush was at 51% in February 2004. So unless this page I'm linking to is incorrect, Trump doesn't have the lowest approval rating of any incumbent running for re-election. It has Obama at 45% in Feb. 2012, and Bush Sr. at 41% in Feb 1992.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

Regarding trumps approval rating, I trust 538 aggregate more than anyone. They rate the polls based on their history and methods and weigh all polls based on that. Although they had clinton at 65% chance to win, they sounded a warning bell then because they had all the swing states needed to get her to 270 votes all very close.

They have trump now at 43% aggregate which is about +1 from where he usually is.

But there are warning signs. WI polling  out this week has trump up 7 to 11 depending on the candidate.  PA looks a little better for the dems but fla is tied as usual, with Bloomberg the best at +6. Thanks alot Warren. 

.

So pretty damn close to Obama if I'm looking at the right page https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

If you consider 47 and 43.3 to be close that is. Some might not. But I do considering how seemingly unpopular Trump is and how seemingly popular Obama was. 

In a country this divided, 4 points isn't as close as you think, especially considering Obama's ceiling (which is also extremely important to consider since Trump has made zero effort in expanding his base) was 20 points higher. Obama got his approvals up near 54% before his re election. Trump has barely been over 43% since right after his inauguration.

See my post above for more details. 

Hey fair enough. You’re the poll guy so I am interested i your perspective cause I am not a pill guy at all. Doubt Trump nears that level of approval before November (or ever). But I also don’t think it’ll matter considering his potential opponents. 

Edit: Also, I regards to your post above this, I’m not trying to spin anything, I just don’t think polls or Trump’s approval rating is a good indicator of what’s going to happen in November. I wasn’t around this board in 2016, but I’d wager a guess there was a lot of confidence in Hillary based on polls. 

And as you know well, national polls are deceiving in these elections. It may come come down to just a few districts in swing states like last time. 

That's why 538 was more accurate than any of the those other sites that were giving Clinton a 90% chance of winning on election day morning. Nate Silver said 70% or so and people called him crazy. He was right. Clinton was a heavy favorite but that didn't mean she was a stone cold mortal lock. 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gave-trump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/