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

[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).

It is easy to be a Dem when you think the people deserve better treatment. If I were a righty I would agree that the rich should just keep getting more and more wealth and power. Not sure why I would want that, but I would.
Hillary was investigated by the Repubs a dozen times and they found nothing. Yet soime people are dumb enough to keep calling her crooked or corrupt. What does it take to teach you guys the facts. The Repubs had all the power of the house and senate and found nothing. They proved for a fact that the Clintons are honest.

[anonymoose]

No one gives a shit what California thinks !

No one. Is that what you think? No one.

This is anecdotal but when I lived in New Mexico in the early '90's I heard people complaining about da Californians. When I lived in Idaho in the late '90's they complained about da Californians. When I skied in Montana they complained about da Californians. When I go to my condo in Hawaii most of my neighbors are from California and they complain about da Californians and their politics which is why they're in Hawaii.
For some reason California is thought of as a different country and culture (from my perspective).
Their politics are certainly different.

[cawacko]

It is easy to be a Dem when you think the people deserve better treatment. If I were a righty I would agree that the rich should just keep getting more and more wealth and power. Not sure why I would want that, but I would.
Hillary was investigated by the Repubs a dozen times and they found nothing. Yet soime people are dumb enough to keep calling her crooked or corrupt. What does it take to teach you guys the facts. The Repubs had all the power of the house and senate and found nothing. They proved for a fact that the Clintons are honest.

The level of denial in this response is so strong it’s almost impressive. Because someone isn’t found guilty in a court of law does not automatically make them honest. That’s just an asinine presumption. Because someone can skirt the law does not mean they aren’t/can’t be corrupt.

The ultimate irony here is your blind loyalty to the Clinton’s is basically the same loyalty we see from some Trump supporters towards him.

At the end of the day Nordberg I read progressive writers and I listen to progressive radio (Pacifica free speech radio, the home of democracy now) so I’ve heard what progressives have said about the Clinton’s. So your claim that only people on the right think they are corrupt is flat out false.

[Wilhelm Zenz]

New Gallup data shows a possible path to victory for Bernie Sanders

The report examines how the Democratic party has changed over the past 18 years, and finds the party’s voters are becoming increasingly left-wing. That helps explain not only Sanders’s then-surprising success in 2016, but why he’s (correctly) seen as one of the frontrunners today.

The report examines how the Democratic party has changed over the past 18 years, and finds the party’s voters are becoming increasingly left-wing. That helps explain not only Sanders’s then-surprising success in 2016, but why he’s (correctly) seen as one of the frontrunners today.

Gallup’s basic finding: Democrats have gotten a lot more liberal
Gallup’s pollsters looked through data on the Democratic party since 2000, dividing it into three distinct periods: 2001-2006, when a growing number of Democrats were identifying as liberal; 2007-2012, when the share of Democrats who described themselves as liberal was steady, and 2013-2018, when it once again began to increase.

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/19/182315...chances-gallup

[Wilhelm Zenz]

Poll: Majority of Americans say they will "definitely not" vote for Trump's reelection https://www.nbcnews.com/card/poll-ma...-trump-n964146

[CFM]

A person can be qualified but disliked. 2016 was the first election in which both candidates had negative public approval ratings.

Just another excuse from the losing side.

[MAGA MAN]

I feel sad that people like you do not have a clue what your party does and has plans for. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...e-plan/548720/ I undersand you are brand new to politcs and have no knowledge of what the Repubs have been doing as policy. This plan started in the 80s. It is no secret.

I applaud any effort to reduce the size and scope of FedCo.

[Nordberg]

The level of denial in this response is so strong it’s almost impressive. Because someone isn’t found guilty in a court of law does not automatically make them honest. That’s just an asinine presumption. Because someone can skirt the law does not mean they aren’t/can’t be corrupt.

The ultimate irony here is your blind loyalty to the Clinton’s is basically the same loyalty we see from some Trump supporters towards him.

At the end of the day Nordberg I read progressive writers and I listen to progressive radio (Pacifica free speech radio, the home of democracy now) so I’ve heard what progressives have said about the Clinton’s. So your claim that only people on the right think they are corrupt is flat out false.

Actually it does. The repubs would do anything to nail her. The faiiled because they had nothing. No blind eye at all, just the ability to evaluate the facts and the trial results. 12 fucking investigation all run by the Repubs. If she were a crook,don't you think they would have found something? Damn you know she is a crook. Lets see the evidence other that Fox Gnus and right wing propganda.
Your absolute blind right wing hate keeps you believing things that are not in evidence. You should demand more. You should question that Clinton mistaken belief and actually demand some proof before you jump in the fiery pit of lies and propaganda.

[Nordberg]

I applaud any effort to reduce the size and scope of FedCo.

Not what it does. It merely distributes the wealth of America to the top. I don't know why you love billionaires and hate the masses, but obviously, you do. https://www.cbpp.org/research/povert...ome-inequality If you take the time to read this, you might learn something. The wealth gap accelerated from 1970s on. Trump did the same thing with his tax cuis and deregulation of wealthy people and corporations. It is not good for you, if your selfishness is all you cling to. Then you should not be a Trumplestilskin.

[MAGA MAN]

Not what it does. It merely distributes the wealth of America to the top. I don't know why you love billionaires and hate the masses, but obviously, you do. https://www.cbpp.org/research/povert...ome-inequality If you take the time to read this, you might learn something. The wealth gap accelerated from 1970s on. Trump did the same thing with his tax cuis and deregulation of wealthy people and corporations. It is not good for you, if your selfishness is all you cling to. Then you should not be a Trumplestilskin.

Democrats love wealthy donors.

[Flash]

Democrats love wealthy donors.

Agreed. Democrats always imply that most money from billionaires goes to Republicans. Hillary spent twice the money as Trump and much of that came from wealthy donors including corporations.

[Nordberg]

Democrats love wealthy donors.

Bernies average donor in 37 bucks. Warren is taking no money from the wealthy and corporations. Do you always make things up? The Repubs are the party of rich white men. Will Daffy refuse mega-rich donors? I can't believe I typed that. He is a taker and lover of the wealthy. I suppose his tax cut for the wealthy and corporations was missed by you?

[Nordberg]

Agreed. Democrats always imply that most money from billionaires goes to Republicans. Hillary spent twice the money as Trump and much of that came from wealthy donors including corporations.

Agreed, you are wrong. https://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasa.../#313279833e83 Top 50 richest families. 28 mainly Repbs. 7 mainly Dems 15 to both. We do not imply it. We state it and prove it.

[Flash]

Just another excuse from the losing side.

How is the fact that both candidates had a negative public approval rating an excuse for anything?

It just told us what we already knew. Americans often vote for the lesser of two evils, in 2016 neither was a lesser evil.

[Flash]

Agreed, you are wrong. https://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasa.../#313279833e83 Top 50 richest families. 28 mainly Repbs. 7 mainly Dems 15 to both. We do not imply it. We state it and prove it.

This only applies to the 50 richest families. Those are a small percent of the wealthy in American and a small portion of all donors.
The U. S. has 11 million millionaires (700,000 were added in 2017).

A better indicator is looking at the campaign contribution reports. Many of the top corporations gave to Hillary in 2016.