Nothing in particular. Just the usual ebb and flow of Trump's poll numbers which seem to be stuck in a channel between the high 30s and low 40s for the past 18 months
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
Nothing in particular. Just the usual ebb and flow of Trump's poll numbers which seem to be stuck in a channel between the high 30s and low 40s for the past 18 months
Unless there are serious indictments before the midterms, I can't see it changing.
Giuliani hinted the special counsel told them it would be wrapped up by September.
Giuliani is clueless as to when the investigation will wrap up. In his mind, he would love for it to end then because he thinks it would clear Trump and allow him to sail into the Nov mid terms with a bit of momentum. In reality, the investigation may not be wrapped up until sometime next year because Trump is dragging his feet on an interview.
I saw posted somewhere else a few weeks back that the polls have been a little cyclic: varying between a tight race with a narrow Dem lead (not enough to win a majority with gerrymandering) and a really large Dem lead (probably a ~5-15 seat majority). However the trend through the cycles is a gradual tightening.
I usually follow Silver's tracker, although today's most recent polls haven't been added yet.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
hahahahahahahaha
Dems preparing for 2020
the democratic party is run by cowards and losers
Keith Ellison is apparently fecking off from the DNC job and running for AG in Minnesota. That will leave Perez and the establishment types to set things up for 2020, which is already under way through the new anti-Bernie rule.
They were never going to be able change the Dem Party, sadly.
Bernie is one of why Hillary lost.
come on mateHow so ?
This is very true.
Hillary is a bigger reason why Hillary lost.
What is wrong with a party insisting it's ring bearer being a member?
If Bernie wants to use the party as a platform, he should join.
Hillary lost because she took the voters for granted . Many Obama voters switched to Trump ,she failed to engage with them. Hillary in some ways reminds me of Tony Blair ,trying to appeal to a broader church and neglecting the grass roots.
Last edited:
Indeed, it really isn't that much to ask for.
Hillary would have won if Bernie never ran and that's a fact.
Bernie would have won if either Hillary never ran or servile fecks like Debbie Wasserman Schultz didn't feel the need to drink her bathwater.
He's not obligated to and neither should he be. He's done more for progressive causes as an outsider than the Democratic party would ever stand for.
You need to go and check the meaning of the word fact as it is not a proven fact at all. What did he actually do to make her lose ? She made a ton of mistakes that empowered her opposition and that ultimately helped her lose to a very bad candidate like Donald Trump.
That may well be true too.
It's not about what he's done. Is it that much to ask for a Democrats to lead the Democratic party?
Of course she's made mistakes, but that doesn't change the fact that the biggest reason she didn't win wasn't in her control. Comey and Bernie gave the world Trump.
Anyway, this debate was already done to death back in Nov 2016, there's little point repeating it.
I don't think that's necessary, he stands for an ultra-progressive wing with views that mainstream democrats don't espouse. He was the first one to run on raising minimum wages, paid leave, free college and single payer healthcare system before Democrats latched onto his views when he became popular.
I don't think he could have done it as an insider. Now there is a real progressive movement within the Democrat circles with longstanding dinosaurs getting primaried by more progressive candidates who stand for the same views so may be down the road Bernie might as well register as a Dem if that movement gains momentum and changes the complexion of the party.
Bernie is dangerous for establishment Dems who are in turn ruled by big interests.
When you make massive mistakes like she did then she was in control of it and lost it through her own incompetence. She continues to blame her opponent that even endorsed her after he lost in the primary even though he was treated extremely bad and was wronged by the DNC own rules. Hillary and her DNC people even screwed him over big time by giving Hillary all the party funds and 0 to Bernie even though the rules said they should have. She had everything set in her favor but could not get it done though the Comey thing was bad but not a disaster as she still got the majority vote.
You brought it up and i am only responding to it.
That’s all very well, but the point remains that it really isn’t that ridiculous for any organization to expect their leader to be a member.
This. His stance on not taking money from Super PACs and relying on small individual donors got establishment candidates on both sides shook.
How can he not be obliged? It's a party and with any party, they set their rules. A political party is not a public organisation. What he's done for progressives does not matter.
He is trying to use the Democratic party as a platform to reach more people so it makes total sense for him to be subject to their rules.
The Dems haven't said he can't run. They've said to use their platform, he has to join them.
Sounds very reasonable to me.
True. You just have to look at the reactions of Kamala Harris ,Cory Booker ,Kirsten Gillibrand who have now refused Corporate pac money.Whether it is genuine is another question but they understand there is a problem.
I mean what kind of lesson did Trump's election teach Dems?
I'd think the lesson was that they need to be inclusive in reaching out to economically neglected people, go back to their roots of engaging with and strengthening labor unions rather than rely on social progressive causes or go about hysterically calling all Republicans racist and misogynist.
If you want to draw lines for your party, sure do it by all means but that also tends to mean that you are excluding people who could otherwise vote for you at an election. Bernie has a dedicated following among liberals, liberals are the democratic base. Now if Bernie runs as an independent, he's not splitting votes from conservatives, he's splitting votes from liberals. Its a classic case of two cats fighting over a loaf of meat while a dog comes in and runs away with it.
If your base wants to listen to an independent more than you, you can acknowledge that and adjust your messaging to line up with your people or make it harder for that person by rigging your party nomination.
For all the shit Trump does, he atleast gets one thing right, which is developing a connection with his voting base. Its basic and natural thing to do and somehow the snobby smart, overeducated democratic party seems to be consistently missing it.
Once again, they have not denied Bernie running. They have said "join us". I don't how someone can complain about asking their potential leader to join them.
This has nothing to do with policies, it's just common sense imo.
This has nothing to do with policies, it's just common sense imo.
Imo the problem is actually the difference in voter bases. Trump (and now GOP) base is happy to vote on being 'anti'. Anti obama, anti free trade, anti Islam, anti Mexico etc. And running like that ia the easiest politics ever - you don't have to define or articulate a position outside of not being something.
The dems base actually want policy and ideas to get them excited. Being simply anti- Trump isn't enough- though it obviously should be.
Not wanting to sound all snobby, but also reflected in education levels.
The dems base actually want policy and ideas to get them excited. Being simply anti- Trump isn't enough- though it obviously should be.
Not wanting to sound all snobby, but also reflected in education levels.
Bernie doesn't want to join the democrats because its not helpful to building support right now. A large group of voters in this country are not happy to support democrats because they've seen democrats be weak and cowardly and beholden to corporate interests. Meanwhile this is what the Real Democrats are up to.
Here's the senate majority leader, but Bernie not having a D next to his name is the real problem!
It’s like saying Hillary would have won if Trump never ran. And no that’s not what defines a fact. A fact, however, is that Bernie endorsed her. Anyway, it’s not like you denied my original claim.
The stuff about Hilary winning if Bernie didn't run is silly because it essentially suggests that everyone who wasn't Hilary Clinton should've shut up and let her run unchallenged in 2016, not questioning anything she said in a primary process that's supposed to be engineered exactly for that debate.
Strictly speaking it may be true that Bernie highlighting a lot of Hilary's weaknesses dented her chances and any momentum she had heading into the main race. But at the same time this is her fault, because the weaknesses being highlighted were valid and Bernie's strengths and alternative platform started to garner support. Suggesting none of that should've happened is basically saying you don't really give a feck about democracy so long as your candidate wins. Which is...well, yeah.
Strictly speaking it may be true that Bernie highlighting a lot of Hilary's weaknesses dented her chances and any momentum she had heading into the main race. But at the same time this is her fault, because the weaknesses being highlighted were valid and Bernie's strengths and alternative platform started to garner support. Suggesting none of that should've happened is basically saying you don't really give a feck about democracy so long as your candidate wins. Which is...well, yeah.