That's what I keep coming back to with Bernie. That he can say whatever he wants, but it won't actually happen so then whatever. Like trump with the wall. Just a way to rile up his base. But then again.... what if it does happen? Socialism doesn't work. We know this. So what if like trump with the wall, he doesn't actually do that, but instead whatever the extreme left equivalent of trump's little internment camps are? Very BS that you can't vote by the way. Generally I agree with felons not having the right to vote, but at a certain point for non-violent crime you've paid your dues and learned your lesson and get back to it. Actually come to think of it I know someone who's in a similar position as you dixie, I think if I can't make up my mind on my vote come election I'll just ask him who he wants to vote for and cast a ballot that way as a protest vote almost.
Gabbard, hands down. She’s the most logical person. Booker also would have been good with a better push. Sanders should pick Gabbard to be VP when he wins the primary.
I hear this a lot, but the data doesn't back it up at all. Depending on the poll you pick Sanders is either beating Trump by a greater margin than every other candidate running, or he's beating Trump by a greater margin than everyone else running except Biden. I haven't even seen a poll where he's losing to Trump, although I'm sure one is out there somewhere... I think you're underestimating the importance of character to a lot of voters, and maybe his ideas are a little more popular than you think, or at least it seems like a lot of voters are more interested in his popular ideas than they are concerned about his unpopular ones. Also, he's gone up in the polls quite a bit since his health scare. I really don't know if voters actually care about this that much.
If they don’t care about trump’s health, they don’t care about sanders. I think if him or Biden wins the nomination, they win the election clear as day. Warren is more likely a toss up. Anyone else and you’re giving it to trump.
Trump's lawyers are basically saying the president cannot commit a crime as President ("acting in the public interest") and the whole thing should be dismissed. The Senate is ok with this. Alexander (TN) is saying that the Democrats proved their case (insinuating Trump is guilty of the accusations), but it's up to the voters to decide....when the fundamental issue is Trump using his position to cheat on the election. For fucking reals? I know the White House is technically reality TV, but if this was on "House of Cards", you would stop watching because it jumped the shark.
Most poll results can hardly be considered “data.” And you shouldn’t be assuming their accuracy just because they call themselves polls. It’s highly dependent on methodologies, sample sizes, other statistical variables. And even then, the only consistently (usually) reliable ones are exit polls in a major election cycle.
How would they not be data? That doesn't mean they're absolute, of course, but they are far more accurate than anyone's predictions based solely on an opinion. A given poll can have bad methodology, an unrepresentative sample, or be off for any number of reasons. However, polling has error margins for a reason. One or two polls don't mean a whole lot, but when you have hundreds saying the same thing for months, averaging double or triple above the error margin it's far from a random meaningless sample. There are upsets in polling, but not like that. If America voted Sanders or Trump today Trump's chance would be less than 1% . Trump's actual chances in the real election are of course much better than that because a lot can happen in ten months until November, but I don't get how someone can just totally discount all polling.
Part of me still thinks that her being a woman actually hurts her. No matter her baggage or the occasional misguided policy idea, being a woman still counts as a negative for a lot of voters. I want to see how Bernie is polling in the rust belt. Those are the only states that truly matter at this point. I feel there could be enough momentum to see some surprises though. Remember the Kentucky governor race even though Bevin was a piece of shit.
I’m not discounting all polling. I’m discounting most polling. And I discount them the same way I discount fortune cookies as data. Even trend analysis across polls tends to not be very accurate predictors. The best it’s every been was in 2012 when a few high-level statisticians were able to do a deep analysis of a shitload of polls and predicted the outcome of every state with 99% accuracy. That hadn’t really happened before or since, certainly not in 2016.
I found it refreshing to hear him say that the reason he doesn’t have Warren or Biden in his show isn’t because of his support for Sanders, it’s because he hates them. The bad actors really went incendiary on Rogan completely forgetting that he is, in fact, the most popular talk show host in the entire world. Sanders is the only Dem candidate who could beat Trump. Warren and Biden most assuredly won’t.
I thought this article was interesting. The numbers certainly are. The preordained bit makes sense, too. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...eing-tuned-out-america-because-no-ncna1126996
I’d be interested to see who his VP would be. Let’s assume he wins. But he’s 140 years old. He could die or take a medical resignation in his first term. If he had a strong vp candidate, that could solidify a lot of people’s support and possibly get him more.
Makes sense. The last impeachment had a lot more coverage since we all got to find out that the president’s cock is bent.
Welp, the Senate votes to NOT allow witnesses; who ever saw that coming? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...lling-witnesses-acquitted-senate-live-updates
They aren't supposed to predict outcomes outright. They are supposed to provide the likelihood of certain outcomes. The polls WERE accurate in 2016. Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million. That's almost exactly where the polls had her. The polls in the last two weeks showed an election that was a toss up, with a slight edge to Hillary. The reason it was such a 'shock' is because the people at MSNBC and CNN are idiots, not because the polls were way off. It has never happened in a presidential election where you had a candidate winning by something like 7-9 points nationally for 3 months straight and then lose when the votes are tallied (I'm talking about the last months, not the year before the election of course). The polls are not perfect, but they are better than you're giving them credit for. If the polls are the same in November as they are now Trump will lose, but that's a big if.
What even is the point in following it constantly? What happened is pretty obvious; Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate Biden. He wanted them to feel pressured to do so without explicitly saying it so he could claim plausible deniability. That is pretty much the whole story. I'm not sure it's actually necessary to watch dozens of hours of testimonies and news clips to make up your mind about how feel about that. I check in once in awhile, but all it ever is is someone giving their personal spin on it. Sure, I care plenty about the issue of corruption in general, and what Trump did is a problem. I'm just not seeing it as so much more or less egregious than a thousand other stories that barely even get mentioned. You could say it's a bit worse because he's the president and not a senator or house rep, but that's about as far as I would go there.