U.S. Voters Don’t Want Socialist or Very Old President: Poll

[Nordberg]

FFS Nordberg. It’s like talking a wall

Just trying to inform you haters of the facts. You have trouble winning an argument because you are just flat out wrong. Note that I provide sources when I respond.

[MAGA MAN]

No he isn't.

Yes he is.

[Nordberg]

The irony here is your willingness to defend all things Hillary even though she and her husband are corrupt is really no different than those who stand up for Trump. Different sides of the political spectrum but partisanship ultimately trumps all (no pun intended).

No.it is your total inability to offer an argument or present any facts. You can say they are corrupt all night, but to win the argument, present some damn evidence. I know you believe it. You are a well-trained righty., barking up a tree. But I will wait some proof. Otherwise I shall fart in your general direction.

[Wilhelm Zenz]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...able-5263.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...able-5263.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ders-beto-poll Democratic voters nationwide and in early primary states ahead of the 2020 election at the moment prefer two candidates who haven’t even declared their campaigns yet: former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) ranks third.

A new Morning Consult poll released on Tuesday tracks how Democratic presidential candidates are doing among Democratic primary voters nationwide and in early voting states — namely, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. The firm says it will survey more than 5,000 registered voters daily and each week release new results to track how the race changes.

Its first report shows Biden and Sanders leading the pack, followed by Harris, among Democrats nationally and in the early voting states.

Twenty-nine percent of voters who say they are likely to vote in a Democratic primary in 2020 say they prefer Biden, followed by 22 percent who say Sanders, 13 percent who say Harris, 8 percent who say Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), 7 percent who say former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, 5 percent who say Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), and 3 percent who say Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN).

[Nordberg]

Trump is the oldest president ever. He shows signs of senility. He is either suffering from brain problems or is more stupid than Americans thought. He is a conman who came along at the right time to take advantage of a lifetime of Fox Gnus lies and rightwing crazy blogs. Problem is the rightys who created the atmosphere of fear, thought they were in control. But Trump took over and threw all who questioned him out.

[Bill]

Americans are least favorable toward a presidential candidate who’s a socialist or older than 75, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that said President Donald Trump’s approval rating ticked up in the past month.

Only 25 percent of respondents ranked “socialist” as a desirable trait for a candidate. Only 37 percent said “someone over 75” was desirable, according to the survey, released on Sunday.

The poll comes as Democrats line up for a chance to take on Trump in the 2020 presidential election. It suggests that 41 percent of voters would definitely or probably vote for Trump in 2020, against 48 percent who said they would vote for the Democratic candidate.

Among the perceived front-runners for the Democratic nomination are former Vice President Joe Biden, 76, and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, 77. Trump is 72.

Heading toward the first 2020 nominating contests about a year from now, Democratic primary voters reported that they prefer a nominee who proposes policies that could bring major change over one suggesting less change by a 55 percent to 42 percent margin.

Republicans in the White House, Congress and in the media have made “socialism” a significant point of attack.

The NBC/WSJ poll of 900 adults was conducted Feb. 24-27 and had an overall margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 percentage points.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...l?srnd=premium

NOTHING NEW:socialism.jpg

[Legion]

Trump is the oldest president ever. He shows signs of senility.

Is that so, Doctor?

[Legion]

No.it is your total inability to offer an argument or present any facts. You can say they are corrupt all night, but to win the argument, present some damn evidence.

Will you believe Donna Brazile and Fauxcahontas Warren?


The former interim head of the DEMOCRAT Party accused Hillary Clinton's campaign of “unethical” conduct that “compromised the party's integrity.” The Clinton campaign's alleged sin: A hostile takeover of the DEMOCRAT National Committee before her primary with Sen. Bernie Sanders had concluded.

Donna Brazile's op-ed in Politico is the equivalent of taking the smoldering embers of the 2016 primary and throwing some gasoline on them. Just about everything she says in the piece will inflame Sanders's passionate supporters who were already suspicious of the DEMOCRAT establishment and already had reason to believe — based on leaked DNC emails — that the committee wasn't as neutral in the primary as it was supposed to be.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who comes from the Sanders wing of the party, told CNN in response to Brazile's op-ed that the she believes the 2016 DEMOCRAT primary was "rigged."

http://tinyurl.com/y4kaf3ch


I'll understand if you don't, naturally.

[Legion]

Democrats love wealthy donors.

Didn't The Obama allow his nubile daughter to intern under DEMOCRAT mega-donor Humpin' Harvey Weinstein?

[Legion]

NOTHING NEW

I wonder where people get that idea?

[Nordberg]

Will you believe Donna Brazile and Fauxcahontas Warren?


The former interim head of the DEMOCRAT Party accused Hillary Clinton's campaign of “unethical” conduct that “compromised the party's integrity.” The Clinton campaign's alleged sin: A hostile takeover of the DEMOCRAT National Committee before her primary with Sen. Bernie Sanders had concluded.

Donna Brazile's op-ed in Politico is the equivalent of taking the smoldering embers of the 2016 primary and throwing some gasoline on them. Just about everything she says in the piece will inflame Sanders's passionate supporters who were already suspicious of the DEMOCRAT establishment and already had reason to believe — based on leaked DNC emails — that the committee wasn't as neutral in the primary as it was supposed to be.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who comes from the Sanders wing of the party, told CNN in response to Brazile's op-ed that the she believes the 2016 DEMOCRAT primary was "rigged."

http://tinyurl.com/y4kaf3ch


I'll understand if you don't, naturally.

Do you know Brazil was a huge shock and an outlier. The Dems did not know what the fuck she was talking about. She didn't get backing and remains outside.
Hillary was the front runner from the beginning and shockingly backed her. Isn't that what parties do?
The fact that some people think it was rigged ignore the Dems.s that the Dems made Bernie into a national politician. He was a little known Vermont senator who had no national reputation. The Dems putting him ,an Independent/,on the stage with Hillary made him.Bernie has no bitch at all.
I will understand if you repeat yourself again. That is what you do.
I campaigned for Bernie. But I really wanted Warren. I thiink she is wrong about it. It was not rigged and did not have to be. It was hillary's from the beginning to the end. At no point was bernie ahead or close.

[Legion]

Do you know Brazil was a huge shock and an outlier. The Dems did not know what the fuck she was talking about. She didn't get backing and remains outside.

So you say. Warren said the same thing.

Thousands of leaked emails sealed the fate of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's uneven five-plus-year tenure as DNC chair.

Wasserman Schultz's resignation announcement came as a bad situation just kept getting worse -- and it might continue to do so. That's because WikiLeaks has so far released nearly 20,000 emails, new details are still being discovered, and there is still the prospect of additional, damaging emails coming to light.

Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign. They belie the national party committee's stated neutrality in the race.

Below is a running list of the most troublesome findings for Wasserman Schultz and her party. As new revelations come out, we'll update it.

1) Targeting Sanders's religion?

On May 5, DNC officials appeared to conspire to raise Sanders's faith as an issue and press on whether he was an atheist -- apparently in hopes of steering religious voters in Kentucky and West Virginia to Clinton. Sanders is Jewish but has previously indicated that he's not religious.

One email from DNC chief financial officer Brad Marshall read: “It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist."

Marshall added in a later email: “It’s these Jesus thing.”

In response, CEO Amy Dacey said: "Amen."

2) Wasserman Schultz calls top Sanders aide a "damn liar"...

On May 17, after controversy erupted over the Nevada state DEMOCRAT convention and how fair the process was there, Wasserman Schultz herself took exception to Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver's defense of his candidate's supporters.

"Damn liar," she wrote. "Particularly scummy that he barely acknowledges the violent and threatening behavior that occurred."

3) ... and says Sanders has "no understanding" of the party

That wasn't the only time Wasserman Schultz offered an unvarnished opinion about the Sanders operation. And in one late-April email, she even questioned Sanders's connection to the party.

"Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the DEMOCRAT Party and has no understanding of what we do," she said in response to a Politico story about Sanders saying the party hadn't been fair to him.

her comment suggests a particularly dim view of Sanders that she didn't feel the need to obscure in conversations with other DNC staff.

4) A Clinton lawyer gives DNC strategy advice on Sanders

When the Sanders campaign alleged that the Clinton campaign was improperly using its joint fundraising committee with the DNC to benefit itself, Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias offered the DNC guidance on how to respond.

"My suggestion is that the DNC put out a statement saying that the accusations the Sanders campaign are not true," Elias said May 3 in response to an email about the issue sent by communications director Luis Miranda to other DNC stuff that copied Elias and another lawyer at his firm, Perkins Coie.

Elias continued: "The fact that CNN notes that you aren’t getting between the two campaigns is the problem. Here, Sanders is attacking the DNC and its current practice, its past practice with the POTUS and with Sec Kerry. Just as the RNC pushes back directly on Trump over 'rigged system', the DNC should push back DIRECTLY at Sanders and say that what he is saying is false and harmful to the DEMOCRAT party."

Elias's is Clinton's lawyer, after all. But the fact that he was talking to the DNC about how to respond would appear to suggest coordination between the DNC and Clinton campaign against Sanders in this particular case.

5) Plotting a narrative about how Sanders's campaign failed

On May 21, DNC national press secretary Mark Pautenbach suggested pushing a narrative that Sanders "never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess."

After detailing several arguments that could be made to push that narrative, Paustenbach concludes: "It's not a DNC conspiracy, it's because they never had their act together."

Paustenbach's suggestion, in that way, could be read as a defense of the committee rather than pushing negative information about Sanders. But this is still the committee pushing negative information about one of its candidates.

6) Mocking Sanders for his California debate push

One of the chief complaints from Sanders and his supporters was a lack of debates. They said the fact that there were so few was intended to help Clinton by reducing her opponents' exposure and their chances to knock her down.

After the Sanders campaign presumptuously declared that an agreement for an additional debate in California had been reached, Miranda responded to the Sanders campaign's release on May 18 simply:

"lol"

As noted, the release from the Sanders campaign was presumptuous in declaring that an agreement had been reached. Miranda could simply have been responding to the somewhat-silly tactic. But the debate never actually happened, as the Clinton campaign later opted not to participate.

7) Wishing Sanders would just end it

It's also clear that there was plenty of cheer-leading for the race to simply be over -- for Sanders to throw in the towel so that Clinton could be named the presumptive nominee. The party, of course, was still supposed to be neutral.

On May 1, in response to Sanders again saying he would push for a contested convention, Wasserman Schultz said, "So much for a traditional presumptive nominee."

8) Calling an alleged Sanders sympathizer a "Bernie bro"

The term "Bernie bro" -- or "Berniebro," depending on your style -- over the course of the campaign became a kind of shorthand for the worst kind of Sanders supporter. These were the supporters who couldn't be reasoned with and verbally assaulted opponents, sometimes in very nasty ways.

Some in the DNC apparently used the pejorative to refer to one particular radio host seen as overly sympathetic to Sanders, Sirius XM's Mark Thompson.

"Wait, this is a shit topic," Miranda wrote on May 4 after Thompson's program director, David Guggenheim, requested an interview on a Clinton fundraising controversy. "Where is Guggenheim? Is he a Bernie Bro?"

"Must be a Bernie Bro," DNC broadcast booker Pablo Manriquez responds. "Per Mark’s sage, I turned him down flat (and politely) and inquired into opportunities next week to talk about something else.

9) Criticizing Obama for lack of fundraising help -- "That's f---ing stupid"

While the Sanders emails have gained the most attention, some of the more interesting emails involve a peek behind to curtain of how party officials talk about fundraising and major donors -- and even President Obama.

In one email on May 9, DNC mid-Atlantic and PAC finance director Alexandra Shapiro noted that Obama wouldn't travel 20 minutes to help the party secure $350,000 in donations.

"He really won’t go up 20 minutes for $350k?" Shapiro wrote. "THAT’S f---ing stupid."

DNC national finance director Jordan Kaplan responded: "or he is the president of the united states with a pretty big day job."

10) Flippant chatter about donors

In a May 16 exchange about where to seat a top Florida donor, Kaplan declared that "he doesn’t sit next to POTUS!" -- referring to Obama.

“Bittel will be sitting in the shittiest corner I can find,” responded Shapiro. She also referred to other donors as "clowns."

Here are some other things Kaplan and Shapiro said about donors, via Karen Tumulty and Tom Hamburger:

Kaplan directed Shapiro to put New York philanthropist Philip Munger in the prime spot, switching out Maryland ophthalmologist Sreedhar Potarazu. He noted that Munger was one of the largest donors to Organizing for America, a nonprofit that advocates for Obama’s policies. “It would be nice to take care of him from the DNC side,” Kaplan wrote.

Shapiro pushed back, noting that Munger had given only $100,600 to the party, while the Potarazu family had contributed $332,250.

In one email attachment from Erik Stowe, the finance director for Northern California, to Tammy Paster, a fundraising consultant, he lists the benefits given to different tiers of donors to the DEMOCRAT National Convention, which started the next week in Philadelphia. The tiers range from a direct donation of $66,800 to one of $467,600 to the DNC. The documents also show party officials discussing how to reward people who bundled between $250,000 to $1.25 million.

http://tinyurl.com/yxsk6ru2

[Nordberg]

Bernie was not a Democrat and he was running on the Dems money. He has nothing to bitch about. He is an Independent.
Fair play? A Dem debating a Dem on the Dems money and the Dems stage. Anything outside that gives no reason to bitch.
I have no trouble with Obama not chasing money. Why do you? Money distorts the political process. It puts the power in the hands of big donors.
So the Dems did not exploit Bernies religion. They just talked about it. And whether he is an atheist or not is something any campaign would talk about.... Well, Trumps was an exception. He is an atheist and the other candidates let it go.

[Bill]

That is why he got his self "saved"... Got a bunch of old rich guys to welcome him into the kingdom...

So now he is a "baby Christian" & anything he does is ok, or so it seems since nary a one is gonna call him out on anything..

Not even whisper behind his back, lyin, cheatin, grabbin, must be ok for babies

[Nordberg]

That is why he got his self "saved"... Got a bunch of old rich guys to welcome him into the kingdom...

So now he is a "baby Christian" & anything he does is ok, or so it seems since nary a one is gonna call him out on anything..

Not even whisper behind his back, lyin, cheatin, grabbin, must be ok for babies

He played the religious game so the evangelist leadership had a flimsy excuse to back him. They are in the business of making and protecting their money. They are like Trump in that they fleece the poor and the easily fooled. Trump and Evangelists are in the same business.