I mean I agree with most of this. Her resume wasn’t actually bad compared to other presidents like GWB, but to call her insanely overqualified most qualified ever is redonkulous. Warren is better qualified and earned her seat at the table for example. Objectively probably Obama was a better president than BClint but he did not meet his potential where probably Bclint did. I get that I’m kind of contradicting myself but Obama came in with a blank check from the American people where Clinton did not. Clinton was there because of Perot. My beef with Obama is that the president that showed up was a different president than the one that primaried. I honestly was too young to remember Bclint’s primary so I couldn’t make an educated statement on the matter.
Was Perot a Russian asset?
IDK why don’t you ask him
warren has fallen a bit in recent polls and biden keeps gaining slowly (biden’s still definitively ahead overall, though in white people land it’s still very close)
The problem with convincing of electability is right now–pretty much every poll says Biden beats trump and the other candidates get veryyyy concerning vs trump heads up in the key states.
Whether that’s true or not when the right wing machine and the media non stop attacks the dem candidate for every day till the election, who knows.
Yeah I think it’s a mistake to read much into those polls now. Like, after Trump runs a week of Ukraine/Hunter ads in Wisconsin, Michigan, PA, etc, Biden is going to lose a few points in the polls… Even if they just go Biden → Not Voting, it’ll still hurt him.
Trump has the benefit of not losing many votes over his scandals because he’s already lost most of the voters who aren’t totally bought in on his cult of personality.
And of course they’re going to call Biden a socialist just like they’re going to call Liz and Bernie a socialist. It might not stick as much, but it’ll probably just send Joe into a five minute rant about record players when he tries to respond to it, so…
Pete Buttigieg is the guy in the zombie movie that got bit and lies about it to the group so that they let him into the shelter.
Nah, we always over-estimate voters here but most are simply low info and can’t/won’t see past their own checking accounts. As long as the economy remained strong she’d win re election, just like Trump is probably going to win re election if the economy doesn’t tank next year.
In my mind that takes him from a grade of F as a candidate to D-. He should bring that back and go full DGAF mode.
Lol I think that’s just some1 standing behind him, unless that’s the joke, sorry experimenting with posting from phone and it feels like I’m drunk af
update the chart!
https://twitter.com/TimRyan/status/1187405891856785410?s=20
yay!
Also…boo!
https://twitter.com/TrackerDebate/status/1187309092366405633?s=20
I grew up mostly around republicans and I tend to be surrounded by republicans in my daily life and I don’t think any of them would vote for a democrat. It really isn’t two different, but similar, sides in the us, republicans in real life constantly demonize and talk shit about democrats, it’s part of their every day life. They kinda fall into three different categories:
There’s the single issue pro-life republicans that may talk about voting for a dem, but will have some relative that spends the months leading up to the election needling them about how you HAVE to vote republican because abortion is the most important issue, their church will also do the same thing.
There’s the group of people that have had, “republicans are better for the economy” drilled into their heads since they were little and will continue to believe that regardless of any evidence.
Then there’s the group of random single-issue voters that would vote democrat but, “well I just don’t understand why we have to let men use a ladies restroom,” or some other idea that makes no sense.
No matter how much these people talk about considering dems, or join republicans for pete facebook groups, none of them are voting for dems. They might sit out and not vote, but that’s it. Yang has a small group of people that will massively benefit from the freedom dividend, people who would decide solely on this issue, but none of those people vote anyway.
Imagine Hillary running again and losing to Trump again.
FYP
Dang I really thought there would be a drop off before the November debates, now it’s looking like 10 is a real possibility, or more.
They should have made the threshold 5 percent, ez game.
I mean, the obvious flaw in the DNC’s plan to make it “harder” to qualify for the debates is that by making the thresholds that low, they actually encourage candidates to raise money/campaign on the “i need to make the next debate so help me out” narrative. This narrative, obviously, works, because people are optimists who think, ok, i don’t HATE this dude, i’ll throw him a buck because maybe he has something good to say.
Then it’s a self-perpetuating cycle because they might have a decent moment on the debate stage, which then puts their polling high enough for the next one, and so on.
I get that the DNC doesn’t want the optics of screwing people over or “fixing” the game, but that has got to stop.
also Pete back to 10% nationally woot!
They really need to just make it the top 6-7 already and announce who qualified the week before the debate or whatever. The DNC also needs to stop letting the networks run the debates. These questions are god awful. The party shouldn’t be letting giant corporations set the agenda and tone of the debates.
I miss the old days when the League of Women Voters ran them.