The Democratic Presidential Debates

mickeyrat said:

The Juggler said:

MIKE WILL GET IT DONE

according to the radio ads in my area. Mike does things. Thats a quote!!!

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I'm supportive of doing things.  

Full disclosure, the following are the observations and opinions of a Buttigeg supporter.

A win is a win, for sure. But I would have expected Bernie to win NH by more than 1.6%. I believe he won NH by 22% in 2016...but I very well could be wrong.

I personally believe we are down to a final 5 at most, and likely a final 3 now.

I find it hard to believe that Warren or Biden have a legitimate shot at this point as they seem to be trending in the opposite direction. Though it does seem Biden is poised to do well in SC.

I kind of get the feeling that Sanders has peaked. At this point most people likely know if they are a Bernie Sanders voter or not.

That leaves us with Pete and Amy. She seems to be the candidate that is gaining the most ground of late and I think she seems to be doing very well. Unfortunately, I cannot help but to wonder if is going to be too little too late. As stated, I think most voting for Sanders have already made up their minds. I think the same applies to Biden as well. My belief is that the majority of undecideds remaining are chosing between Warren, Amy and Pete. People like the "hot hand" and if Pete has a couple more good showings in the very near future, I think he winds up being the nominee.

Pete/Amy 2020!

mrussel1 said:

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Bernie should quit whining about Iowa and move on already. Really Bernie, you can’t win coming in second in Iowa? 

Timestamp on when he "whined" about Iowa the most recent?

https://apple.news/AizHAnpitRHyONtTeS2qU9Q

Ain't got a subscription. 

But whatevz. He gets questions about it. He and Petes agrees the popular vote is what counts, so Bernie won - jippie. Pete weasel-pushing the narrative of his win was "smart" but backbone-less. Bernie countered it by him saying how he won for real. just like Biden countered when Pete attacked.

Weasel pushing?  I'd argue the opposite.  Bernie declaring "decisive" victory was much closer to weasely... considering as of this moment, Pete is the winner and has the most SDE's.  Iowa is a caucus and that's how delegates work.  You don't get to declare victory because you won the popular, when that's not how the process is set up.  Just ask Hillary.  

If you were an honest man, you would say they both were the winners getting the same delegates. That is what it was all about?

And I don't need to ask "Hillary" - I CAN JUST ASK PETE:

"At risk of of sounding a little simplistic, one thing I believe is that in an american presidential election, the person who gets the most votes ought to be the person who wins"

The "Pete standard" as Jake Tapper calls it. And even Pete can't spin it:

https://youtu.be/KpKJJ5lbOS8

(and now you maybe will say  - but that is the presidential election, he didn't say ioooowaaaaaa - he's free on a technicality.

And we all know who famously was let free on a technicality) 

They didn't get the same delegate count, so why would anyone say that?  It's 13-12 currently.  Now that doesn't mean re-canvassing won't flip that, but as of now, it's not a tie.  

What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?

Was he wrong?  As of this moment, no he's not.  So that means he had strong data coming from his precinct captains.  Tell me what was weasly about it, and contrast it with why Sanders saying his victory was "decisive" is okay.  

A house is red.

Stupid Mayor: That house is blue.

Stupid Mayor lies.

Days later the house is painted blue.

M Russel: Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not.

If the house was red. Yes, he was wrong. 

Tenses is a thing.

How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.  

I just did. You just put your energy into putting people down, instead of having to face the argumentation. Proven not only by this, but also your "pot blabla kettle" post. 

But it is okey. You have been bending backwards to try to save your arguments while they go sour in hours, for Biden and Pete these last few pages. I understand it takes a toll. You have been a (making up) Dream(s) Warrior.

So with your silly story, you're saying that because of the chance that re-canvassing may change teh result, Pete should not declare victory.  By contrast, because the re-canvassing may change the result it's okay that Sanders declares "decisive" victory?  Can you please square that logic, because it completely escapes common sense.  

C'mon @spiritual_chaos I'm ready to "face the argumentation".  Explain to me why it's wrong for Pete to declare victory with an official lead in the delegates, but okay for Bernie who is behind to declare decisive victory?  You're like our own little Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda while you litter the boards with You Tube clip, memes and gifs.  

Like Bernie like son.

It is interesting that the only person on the board actively advocating for Bernie isn't a US citizen.  I don't have any problem with our Canadian, Australian, Swedish friends putting out their opinion.  I'm pointing out that on a rock board from a leftish wing band, there aren't really any Bernie fans from the US.  
Gallup released a poll today that shows that 53% of Americans would not vote for a socialist.  That includes a majority of independents and 25% of Democrats.  That's a death poll for Sanders and the D's if it's accurate.  By contrast 8/10 would vote for a gay candidate.  That number surprises me a bit.  Either way, now you know why Trump has been white gloves on Sanders.  Here's the applicable table and link:

Willingness to Vote for Candidates With Diverse Characteristics, by Party ID

% Yes, would vote for that person

	Republican	Independent	Democrat
	%	%	%
Black	91	97	99
Catholic	95	94	97
Hispanic	90	94	99
A woman	86	95	99
Jewish	92	92	95
An evangelical Christian	88	77	77
Gay or lesbian	62	82	89
Under the age of 40	63	72	75
Over the age of 70	73	68	66
Muslim	42	71	88
An atheist	41	68	69
A socialist	17	45	76
GALLUP, JAN. 16-29, 2020

https://news.gallup.com/poll/285563/socialism-atheism-political-liabilities.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

That’s a disheartening poll in so many ways. 

Prejudice is alive and well, and comes in many different flavours. 

For what's considered a protected class in this country,  the numbers are better than I expected.  I don't consider a political or economic ideology protected.  The Muslim numbers are disappointing. 

Based on how you've responded, I'm not sure that you took from my comment what I had intended. I'm not referring to the low numbers who would consider voting for "a socialist" - that's no surprise, especially considering what seems to be a pretty poor understanding of what that means for many people. It's the low numbers for most of the other categories, whether gay, female, Muslim, atheist, particularly but not just for the Rs.

However, nice to see that only 73% of Republicans would consider voting for Trump

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Bernie should quit whining about Iowa and move on already. Really Bernie, you can’t win coming in second in Iowa? 

Timestamp on when he "whined" about Iowa the most recent?

https://apple.news/AizHAnpitRHyONtTeS2qU9Q

Ain't got a subscription. 

But whatevz. He gets questions about it. He and Petes agrees the popular vote is what counts, so Bernie won - jippie. Pete weasel-pushing the narrative of his win was "smart" but backbone-less. Bernie countered it by him saying how he won for real. just like Biden countered when Pete attacked.

Weasel pushing?  I'd argue the opposite.  Bernie declaring "decisive" victory was much closer to weasely... considering as of this moment, Pete is the winner and has the most SDE's.  Iowa is a caucus and that's how delegates work.  You don't get to declare victory because you won the popular, when that's not how the process is set up.  Just ask Hillary.  

If you were an honest man, you would say they both were the winners getting the same delegates. That is what it was all about?

And I don't need to ask "Hillary" - I CAN JUST ASK PETE:

"At risk of of sounding a little simplistic, one thing I believe is that in an american presidential election, the person who gets the most votes ought to be the person who wins"

The "Pete standard" as Jake Tapper calls it. And even Pete can't spin it:

https://youtu.be/KpKJJ5lbOS8

(and now you maybe will say  - but that is the presidential election, he didn't say ioooowaaaaaa - he's free on a technicality.

And we all know who famously was let free on a technicality) 

They didn't get the same delegate count, so why would anyone say that?  It's 13-12 currently.  Now that doesn't mean re-canvassing won't flip that, but as of now, it's not a tie.  

What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?

Was he wrong?  As of this moment, no he's not.  So that means he had strong data coming from his precinct captains.  Tell me what was weasly about it, and contrast it with why Sanders saying his victory was "decisive" is okay.  

A house is red.

Stupid Mayor: That house is blue.

Stupid Mayor lies.

Days later the house is painted blue.

M Russel: Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not.

If the house was red. Yes, he was wrong. 

Tenses is a thing.

How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.  

I just did. You just put your energy into putting people down, instead of having to face the argumentation. Proven not only by this, but also your "pot blabla kettle" post. 

But it is okey. You have been bending backwards to try to save your arguments while they go sour in hours, for Biden and Pete these last few pages. I understand it takes a toll. You have been a (making up) Dream(s) Warrior.

So with your silly story, you're saying that because of the chance that re-canvassing may change teh result, Pete should not declare victory.  By contrast, because the re-canvassing may change the result it's okay that Sanders declares "decisive" victory?  Can you please square that logic, because it completely escapes common sense.  

C'mon @spiritual_chaos I'm ready to "face the argumentation".  Explain to me why it's wrong for Pete to declare victory with an official lead in the delegates, but okay for Bernie who is behind to declare decisive victory?  You're like our own little Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda while you litter the boards with You Tube clip, memes and gifs.  

Like Bernie like son.

It is interesting that the only person on the board actively advocating for Bernie isn't a US citizen.  I don't have any problem with our Canadian, Australian, Swedish friends putting out their opinion.  I'm pointing out that on a rock board from a leftish wing band, there aren't really any Bernie fans from the US.  
Gallup released a poll today that shows that 53% of Americans would not vote for a socialist.  That includes a majority of independents and 25% of Democrats.  That's a death poll for Sanders and the D's if it's accurate.  By contrast 8/10 would vote for a gay candidate.  That number surprises me a bit.  Either way, now you know why Trump has been white gloves on Sanders.  Here's the applicable table and link:

Willingness to Vote for Candidates With Diverse Characteristics, by Party ID

% Yes, would vote for that person

	Republican	Independent	Democrat
	%	%	%
Black	91	97	99
Catholic	95	94	97
Hispanic	90	94	99
A woman	86	95	99
Jewish	92	92	95
An evangelical Christian	88	77	77
Gay or lesbian	62	82	89
Under the age of 40	63	72	75
Over the age of 70	73	68	66
Muslim	42	71	88
An atheist	41	68	69
A socialist	17	45	76
GALLUP, JAN. 16-29, 2020

https://news.gallup.com/poll/285563/socialism-atheism-political-liabilities.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

That’s a disheartening poll in so many ways. 

Prejudice is alive and well, and comes in many different flavours. 

For what's considered a protected class in this country,  the numbers are better than I expected.  I don't consider a political or economic ideology protected.  The Muslim numbers are disappointing. 

Based on how you've responded, I'm not sure that you took from my comment what I had intended. I'm not referring to the low numbers who would consider voting for "a socialist" - that's no surprise, especially considering what seems to be a pretty poor understanding of what that means for many people. It's the low numbers for most of the other categories, whether gay, female, Muslim, atheist, particularly but not just for the Rs.

However, nice to see that only 73% of Republicans would consider voting for Trump

Lerxst1992 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Bernie should quit whining about Iowa and move on already. Really Bernie, you can’t win coming in second in Iowa? 

Timestamp on when he "whined" about Iowa the most recent?

https://apple.news/AizHAnpitRHyONtTeS2qU9Q

Ain't got a subscription. 

But whatevz. He gets questions about it. He and Petes agrees the popular vote is what counts, so Bernie won - jippie. Pete weasel-pushing the narrative of his win was "smart" but backbone-less. Bernie countered it by him saying how he won for real. just like Biden countered when Pete attacked.

Weasel pushing?  I'd argue the opposite.  Bernie declaring "decisive" victory was much closer to weasely... considering as of this moment, Pete is the winner and has the most SDE's.  Iowa is a caucus and that's how delegates work.  You don't get to declare victory because you won the popular, when that's not how the process is set up.  Just ask Hillary.  

If you were an honest man, you would say they both were the winners getting the same delegates. That is what it was all about?

And I don't need to ask "Hillary" - I CAN JUST ASK PETE:

"At risk of of sounding a little simplistic, one thing I believe is that in an american presidential election, the person who gets the most votes ought to be the person who wins"

The "Pete standard" as Jake Tapper calls it. And even Pete can't spin it:

https://youtu.be/KpKJJ5lbOS8

(and now you maybe will say  - but that is the presidential election, he didn't say ioooowaaaaaa - he's free on a technicality.

And we all know who famously was let free on a technicality) 

They didn't get the same delegate count, so why would anyone say that?  It's 13-12 currently.  Now that doesn't mean re-canvassing won't flip that, but as of now, it's not a tie.  

What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?

Was he wrong?  As of this moment, no he's not.  So that means he had strong data coming from his precinct captains.  Tell me what was weasly about it, and contrast it with why Sanders saying his victory was "decisive" is okay.  

A house is red.

Stupid Mayor: That house is blue.

Stupid Mayor lies.

Days later the house is painted blue.

M Russel: Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not.

If the house was red. Yes, he was wrong. 

Tenses is a thing.

How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.  

I just did. You just put your energy into putting people down, instead of having to face the argumentation. Proven not only by this, but also your "pot blabla kettle" post. 

But it is okey. You have been bending backwards to try to save your arguments while they go sour in hours, for Biden and Pete these last few pages. I understand it takes a toll. You have been a (making up) Dream(s) Warrior.

So with your silly story, you're saying that because of the chance that re-canvassing may change teh result, Pete should not declare victory.  By contrast, because the re-canvassing may change the result it's okay that Sanders declares "decisive" victory?  Can you please square that logic, because it completely escapes common sense.  

C'mon @spiritual_chaos I'm ready to "face the argumentation".  Explain to me why it's wrong for Pete to declare victory with an official lead in the delegates, but okay for Bernie who is behind to declare decisive victory?  You're like our own little Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda while you litter the boards with You Tube clip, memes and gifs.  

Like Bernie like son.

It is interesting that the only person on the board actively advocating for Bernie isn't a US citizen.  I don't have any problem with our Canadian, Australian, Swedish friends putting out their opinion.  I'm pointing out that on a rock board from a leftish wing band, there aren't really any Bernie fans from the US.  
Gallup released a poll today that shows that 53% of Americans would not vote for a socialist.  That includes a majority of independents and 25% of Democrats.  That's a death poll for Sanders and the D's if it's accurate.  By contrast 8/10 would vote for a gay candidate.  That number surprises me a bit.  Either way, now you know why Trump has been white gloves on Sanders.  Here's the applicable table and link:

Willingness to Vote for Candidates With Diverse Characteristics, by Party ID

% Yes, would vote for that person

	Republican	Independent	Democrat
	%	%	%
Black	91	97	99
Catholic	95	94	97
Hispanic	90	94	99
A woman	86	95	99
Jewish	92	92	95
An evangelical Christian	88	77	77
Gay or lesbian	62	82	89
Under the age of 40	63	72	75
Over the age of 70	73	68	66
Muslim	42	71	88
An atheist	41	68	69
A socialist	17	45	76
GALLUP, JAN. 16-29, 2020

https://news.gallup.com/poll/285563/socialism-atheism-political-liabilities.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

That’s a disheartening poll in so many ways. 

Prejudice is alive and well, and comes in many different flavours. 

For what's considered a protected class in this country,  the numbers are better than I expected.  I don't consider a political or economic ideology protected.  The Muslim numbers are disappointing. 

Based on how you've responded, I'm not sure that you took from my comment what I had intended. I'm not referring to the low numbers who would consider voting for "a socialist" - that's no surprise, especially considering what seems to be a pretty poor understanding of what that means for many people. It's the low numbers for most of the other categories, whether gay, female, Muslim, atheist, particularly but not just for the Rs.

However, nice to see that only 73% of Republicans would consider voting for Trump

That poll is the worst.  People lie. 

9 out of 10 republicans would vote for a black person?  HA

A person who is Jewish?  HA

A Hispanic person?  HA

This is people being PC bullshitters and not admitting how they really feel/would vote.

Based on nothing but my opinion and observations in life.  No way 9 out of 10 vote for those categories.  I would put the numbers at 5 out of 10, at best. 

And, a gay person?  Those church dummies will not do that -- this would be even less than would vote for the people listed above, in my opinion.

Obama did win twice and one of the most solid republican states has a black senator. 

The " church dummies" might never vote for Pete but they'd probably never vote D anyway.

Perhaps some would want to mask bigotry in these polls but I find it hard to believe that would influence what they say about socialism, which was the least popular category in the poll. Not good news for Bernie 

Agreed, Tim Scott is a great example.  And yes, the point of the poll (or the point of me posting it) is that a socialist is the worst 'demo' of any polled.  People are just so conditioned by the cold war that it's still ingrained in anyone older than 40, at least at some level.  

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Bernie should quit whining about Iowa and move on already. Really Bernie, you can’t win coming in second in Iowa? 

Timestamp on when he "whined" about Iowa the most recent?

https://apple.news/AizHAnpitRHyONtTeS2qU9Q

Ain't got a subscription. 

But whatevz. He gets questions about it. He and Petes agrees the popular vote is what counts, so Bernie won - jippie. Pete weasel-pushing the narrative of his win was "smart" but backbone-less. Bernie countered it by him saying how he won for real. just like Biden countered when Pete attacked.

Weasel pushing?  I'd argue the opposite.  Bernie declaring "decisive" victory was much closer to weasely... considering as of this moment, Pete is the winner and has the most SDE's.  Iowa is a caucus and that's how delegates work.  You don't get to declare victory because you won the popular, when that's not how the process is set up.  Just ask Hillary.  

If you were an honest man, you would say they both were the winners getting the same delegates. That is what it was all about?

And I don't need to ask "Hillary" - I CAN JUST ASK PETE:

"At risk of of sounding a little simplistic, one thing I believe is that in an american presidential election, the person who gets the most votes ought to be the person who wins"

The "Pete standard" as Jake Tapper calls it. And even Pete can't spin it:

https://youtu.be/KpKJJ5lbOS8

(and now you maybe will say  - but that is the presidential election, he didn't say ioooowaaaaaa - he's free on a technicality.

And we all know who famously was let free on a technicality) 

They didn't get the same delegate count, so why would anyone say that?  It's 13-12 currently.  Now that doesn't mean re-canvassing won't flip that, but as of now, it's not a tie.  

What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?

Was he wrong?  As of this moment, no he's not.  So that means he had strong data coming from his precinct captains.  Tell me what was weasly about it, and contrast it with why Sanders saying his victory was "decisive" is okay.  

A house is red.

Stupid Mayor: That house is blue.

Stupid Mayor lies.

Days later the house is painted blue.

M Russel: Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not.

If the house was red. Yes, he was wrong. 

Tenses is a thing.

How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.  

I just did. You just put your energy into putting people down, instead of having to face the argumentation. Proven not only by this, but also your "pot blabla kettle" post. 

But it is okey. You have been bending backwards to try to save your arguments while they go sour in hours, for Biden and Pete these last few pages. I understand it takes a toll. You have been a (making up) Dream(s) Warrior.

So with your silly story, you're saying that because of the chance that re-canvassing may change teh result, Pete should not declare victory.  By contrast, because the re-canvassing may change the result it's okay that Sanders declares "decisive" victory?  Can you please square that logic, because it completely escapes common sense.  

C'mon @spiritual_chaos I'm ready to "face the argumentation".  Explain to me why it's wrong for Pete to declare victory with an official lead in the delegates, but okay for Bernie who is behind to declare decisive victory?  You're like our own little Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda while you litter the boards with You Tube clip, memes and gifs.  

Like Bernie like son.

It is interesting that the only person on the board actively advocating for Bernie isn't a US citizen.  I don't have any problem with our Canadian, Australian, Swedish friends putting out their opinion.  I'm pointing out that on a rock board from a leftish wing band, there aren't really any Bernie fans from the US.  
Gallup released a poll today that shows that 53% of Americans would not vote for a socialist.  That includes a majority of independents and 25% of Democrats.  That's a death poll for Sanders and the D's if it's accurate.  By contrast 8/10 would vote for a gay candidate.  That number surprises me a bit.  Either way, now you know why Trump has been white gloves on Sanders.  Here's the applicable table and link:

Willingness to Vote for Candidates With Diverse Characteristics, by Party ID

% Yes, would vote for that person

	Republican	Independent	Democrat
	%	%	%
Black	91	97	99
Catholic	95	94	97
Hispanic	90	94	99
A woman	86	95	99
Jewish	92	92	95
An evangelical Christian	88	77	77
Gay or lesbian	62	82	89
Under the age of 40	63	72	75
Over the age of 70	73	68	66
Muslim	42	71	88
An atheist	41	68	69
A socialist	17	45	76
GALLUP, JAN. 16-29, 2020

https://news.gallup.com/poll/285563/socialism-atheism-political-liabilities.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

That’s a disheartening poll in so many ways. 

Prejudice is alive and well, and comes in many different flavours. 

For what's considered a protected class in this country,  the numbers are better than I expected.  I don't consider a political or economic ideology protected.  The Muslim numbers are disappointing. 

Based on how you've responded, I'm not sure that you took from my comment what I had intended. I'm not referring to the low numbers who would consider voting for "a socialist" - that's no surprise, especially considering what seems to be a pretty poor understanding of what that means for many people. It's the low numbers for most of the other categories, whether gay, female, Muslim, atheist, particularly but not just for the Rs.

However, nice to see that only 73% of Republicans would consider voting for Trump

That poll is the worst.  People lie. 

9 out of 10 republicans would vote for a black person?  HA

A person who is Jewish?  HA

A Hispanic person?  HA

This is people being PC bullshitters and not admitting how they really feel/would vote.

Based on nothing but my opinion and observations in life.  No way 9 out of 10 vote for those categories.  I would put the numbers at 5 out of 10, at best. 

And, a gay person?  Those church dummies will not do that -- this would be even less than would vote for the people listed above, in my opinion.

Obama did win twice and one of the most solid republican states has a black senator. 

The " church dummies" might never vote for Pete but they'd probably never vote D anyway.

Perhaps some would want to mask bigotry in these polls but I find it hard to believe that would influence what they say about socialism, which was the least popular category in the poll. Not good news for Bernie 

Agreed, Tim Scott is a great example.  And yes, the point of the poll (or the point of me posting it) is that a socialist is the worst 'demo' of any polled.  People are just so conditioned by the cold war that it's still ingrained in anyone older than 40, at least at some level.  

they didnt ask about fake socialists or fake social democrats. Would have been cool to ask how everyone feels about party hijackers......

You're cracking me up on this line of thought! 

Lerxst1992 said:

F Me In The Brain said:

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Bernie should quit whining about Iowa and move on already. Really Bernie, you can’t win coming in second in Iowa? 

Timestamp on when he "whined" about Iowa the most recent?

https://apple.news/AizHAnpitRHyONtTeS2qU9Q

Ain't got a subscription. 

But whatevz. He gets questions about it. He and Petes agrees the popular vote is what counts, so Bernie won - jippie. Pete weasel-pushing the narrative of his win was "smart" but backbone-less. Bernie countered it by him saying how he won for real. just like Biden countered when Pete attacked.

Weasel pushing?  I'd argue the opposite.  Bernie declaring "decisive" victory was much closer to weasely... considering as of this moment, Pete is the winner and has the most SDE's.  Iowa is a caucus and that's how delegates work.  You don't get to declare victory because you won the popular, when that's not how the process is set up.  Just ask Hillary.  

If you were an honest man, you would say they both were the winners getting the same delegates. That is what it was all about?

And I don't need to ask "Hillary" - I CAN JUST ASK PETE:

"At risk of of sounding a little simplistic, one thing I believe is that in an american presidential election, the person who gets the most votes ought to be the person who wins"

The "Pete standard" as Jake Tapper calls it. And even Pete can't spin it:

https://youtu.be/KpKJJ5lbOS8

(and now you maybe will say  - but that is the presidential election, he didn't say ioooowaaaaaa - he's free on a technicality.

And we all know who famously was let free on a technicality) 

They didn't get the same delegate count, so why would anyone say that?  It's 13-12 currently.  Now that doesn't mean re-canvassing won't flip that, but as of now, it's not a tie.  

What was it when he declared victory and had his team call up every news source in america to make sure that story spread?

Was he wrong?  As of this moment, no he's not.  So that means he had strong data coming from his precinct captains.  Tell me what was weasly about it, and contrast it with why Sanders saying his victory was "decisive" is okay.  

A house is red.

Stupid Mayor: That house is blue.

Stupid Mayor lies.

Days later the house is painted blue.

M Russel: Was he wrong? As of this moment, no he's not.

If the house was red. Yes, he was wrong. 

Tenses is a thing.

How about constructing a mature argument and actually countering my point.  

I just did. You just put your energy into putting people down, instead of having to face the argumentation. Proven not only by this, but also your "pot blabla kettle" post. 

But it is okey. You have been bending backwards to try to save your arguments while they go sour in hours, for Biden and Pete these last few pages. I understand it takes a toll. You have been a (making up) Dream(s) Warrior.

So with your silly story, you're saying that because of the chance that re-canvassing may change teh result, Pete should not declare victory.  By contrast, because the re-canvassing may change the result it's okay that Sanders declares "decisive" victory?  Can you please square that logic, because it completely escapes common sense.  

C'mon @spiritual_chaos I'm ready to "face the argumentation".  Explain to me why it's wrong for Pete to declare victory with an official lead in the delegates, but okay for Bernie who is behind to declare decisive victory?  You're like our own little Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda while you litter the boards with You Tube clip, memes and gifs.  

Like Bernie like son.

It is interesting that the only person on the board actively advocating for Bernie isn't a US citizen.  I don't have any problem with our Canadian, Australian, Swedish friends putting out their opinion.  I'm pointing out that on a rock board from a leftish wing band, there aren't really any Bernie fans from the US.  
Gallup released a poll today that shows that 53% of Americans would not vote for a socialist.  That includes a majority of independents and 25% of Democrats.  That's a death poll for Sanders and the D's if it's accurate.  By contrast 8/10 would vote for a gay candidate.  That number surprises me a bit.  Either way, now you know why Trump has been white gloves on Sanders.  Here's the applicable table and link:

Willingness to Vote for Candidates With Diverse Characteristics, by Party ID

% Yes, would vote for that person

	Republican	Independent	Democrat
	%	%	%
Black	91	97	99
Catholic	95	94	97
Hispanic	90	94	99
A woman	86	95	99
Jewish	92	92	95
An evangelical Christian	88	77	77
Gay or lesbian	62	82	89
Under the age of 40	63	72	75
Over the age of 70	73	68	66
Muslim	42	71	88
An atheist	41	68	69
A socialist	17	45	76
GALLUP, JAN. 16-29, 2020

https://news.gallup.com/poll/285563/socialism-atheism-political-liabilities.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

That’s a disheartening poll in so many ways. 

Prejudice is alive and well, and comes in many different flavours. 

For what's considered a protected class in this country,  the numbers are better than I expected.  I don't consider a political or economic ideology protected.  The Muslim numbers are disappointing. 

Based on how you've responded, I'm not sure that you took from my comment what I had intended. I'm not referring to the low numbers who would consider voting for "a socialist" - that's no surprise, especially considering what seems to be a pretty poor understanding of what that means for many people. It's the low numbers for most of the other categories, whether gay, female, Muslim, atheist, particularly but not just for the Rs.

However, nice to see that only 73% of Republicans would consider voting for Trump

That poll is the worst.  People lie. 

9 out of 10 republicans would vote for a black person?  HA

A person who is Jewish?  HA

A Hispanic person?  HA

This is people being PC bullshitters and not admitting how they really feel/would vote.

Based on nothing but my opinion and observations in life.  No way 9 out of 10 vote for those categories.  I would put the numbers at 5 out of 10, at best. 

And, a gay person?  Those church dummies will not do that -- this would be even less than would vote for the people listed above, in my opinion.

Obama did win twice and one of the most solid republican states has a black senator. 

The " church dummies" might never vote for Pete but they'd probably never vote D anyway.

Perhaps some would want to mask bigotry in these polls but I find it hard to believe that would influence what they say about socialism, which was the least popular category in the poll. Not good news for Bernie 

mickeyrat said:

BEULLER!!!! OH BEULLER, can you help a fella out and answr the damn question.

HOW DOES THE BERN GET HIS EXTREME  AGENDA PASSED?

Inquiring minds want to know......

He doesn't have to get it passed.  He has to set the stage for people to understand why his system would be better than what we are dealing with now.

mickeyrat said:

Gern Blansten said:

mickeyrat said:

BEULLER!!!! OH BEULLER, can you help a fella out and answr the damn question.

HOW DOES THE BERN GET HIS EXTREME  AGENDA PASSED?

Inquiring minds want to know......

He doesn't have to get it passed.  He has to set the stage for people to understand why his system would be better than what we are dealing with now.

you think his supporters understand that?  They are expecting everything he is promising served up on a silver platter, arent they?

No they aren't.  They are hoping for someone to occupy the office that focuses on the people instead of the 1%.  

They are hoping for anyone who isn't tRUmp.