HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Rasmussen Reports: Sander...

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:51 PM

Rasmussen Reports: Sanders Gains Big As Clinton Falls

Hillary Clinton's numbers continue to fall, while support for Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has surged significantly in Rasmussen Reports' latest look at the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Our latest national telephone survey finds that 50% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters still say they would vote for Clinton if their party's state primary was held today, but that’s down nine points from January and 12 points from last November. Twenty-four percent (24%) now prefer Sanders who had only four percent (4%) support nine months ago.

The remaining announced candidates - former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee and former Virginia Senator Jim Webb - each earn just two percent (2%) of the vote from Democratic primary voters. Ten percent (10%) prefer some other candidate, while another 10% are undecided.
In the face of increasing legal questions about the safety of secrets on the private e-mail server she used as secretary of State and of the vigorous intraparty challenge from Sanders, belief that Clinton is likely to be next year's Democratic presidential nominee has dropped noticeably over the past month.

Forty-six percent (46%) of all voters - and 24% of Democrats - think Clinton should suspend her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination until all of the legal questions about her use of the private e-mail server are resolved


The survey of 536 Likely Democratic Primary Voters was conducted on August 23-24, 2015 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.


[Imgur]

Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/sanders_gains_big_as_clinton_falls

53 replies, 2930 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 53 replies Author Time Post
Reply Rasmussen Reports: Sanders Gains Big As Clinton Falls (Original post)
jkbRN Aug 2015 OP
Indepatriot Aug 2015 #1
Metric System Aug 2015 #2
AtomicKitten Aug 2015 #6
fbc Aug 2015 #8
Indepatriot Aug 2015 #48
MaggieD Aug 2015 #15
Garrett78 Aug 2015 #18
MaggieD Aug 2015 #20
Garrett78 Aug 2015 #21
MaggieD Aug 2015 #22
Garrett78 Aug 2015 #23
MaggieD Aug 2015 #24
Garrett78 Aug 2015 #25
MaggieD Aug 2015 #29
Garrett78 Aug 2015 #31
MaggieD Aug 2015 #32
Garrett78 Aug 2015 #33
MaggieD Aug 2015 #34
Garrett78 Aug 2015 #36
MaggieD Aug 2015 #37
Garrett78 Aug 2015 #41
MaggieD Aug 2015 #42
Garrett78 Aug 2015 #43
BainsBane Aug 2015 #35
Garrett78 Aug 2015 #38
Indepatriot Aug 2015 #49
JDPriestly Aug 2015 #52
sabrina 1 Aug 2015 #3
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Aug 2015 #27
onehandle Aug 2015 #4
Ed Suspicious Aug 2015 #11
MaggieD Aug 2015 #14
Garrett78 Aug 2015 #28
HereSince1628 Aug 2015 #17
BlueCaliDem Aug 2015 #51
riversedge Aug 2015 #5
MaggieD Aug 2015 #9
riversedge Aug 2015 #10
demwing Aug 2015 #39
Zorra Aug 2015 #7
dorkzilla Aug 2015 #12
MaggieD Aug 2015 #13
dorkzilla Aug 2015 #16
MaggieD Aug 2015 #19
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Aug 2015 #26
MaggieD Aug 2015 #30
Garrett78 Aug 2015 #44
MaggieD Aug 2015 #47
Garrett78 Aug 2015 #53
NanceGreggs Aug 2015 #45
MaggieD Aug 2015 #46
Indepatriot Aug 2015 #50
BooScout Aug 2015 #40

Response to jkbRN (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:57 PM

1. It's not going to be a "happy" New Year for Team Weather Vain

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indepatriot (Reply #1)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 01:58 PM

2. Is that what the Sanders campaign is being called?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Metric System (Reply #2)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:08 PM

6. Hillary Clinton: "You know where I stand."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #6)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 04:44 PM

8. LOL great image

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Metric System (Reply #2)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 09:52 PM

48. Well played, from the grand rhetorical tradition of "I know you are but what am I".......

 

I may need a break for a few days to recover from such a drubbing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MaggieD (Reply #15)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 05:04 PM

18. General vs. Primary

You understand the difference between hypothetical general election match-ups and primary polling, right?

Mind you, I don't think Sanders will be the nominee. But your link doesn't refute the OP. It doesn't even relate to the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #18)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 05:06 PM

20. I think it does

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #20)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 05:12 PM

21. But you're wrong.

This isn't one of those things about which there can be a difference of opinion. The OP has to do with primary polling between Democratic candidates (I do agree that Rasmussen doesn't have a great reputation, but that's a separate issue). What you posted has to do with a hypothetical match-up between Clinton and potential GOP opponents.

2 completely different things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #21)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 05:17 PM

22. So what?

 

The difference means nothing. We keep hearing people say Dems are abandoning Clinton, liberals will sit home, etc. But there is not a shred of data to support that. Is there?

Keep in mind, there is a reason they are rarely polling Sanders against republicans. In fact I have not seen a signal national poll polling Sanders against the republican field. Have you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #22)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 05:25 PM

23. Again...

what you posted doesn't refute the OP, because what you posted and what the OP posted are 2 very different things. You can insist that the difference doesn't mean anything or that what you posted somehow relates to the OP, but that would be like arguing 2 plus 2 equals 37.

Again, I don't think Sanders will be the nominee and, like you, I haven't seen much in the way of Sanders vs. GOP (one exception: http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/latest-national-poll-shows-bernie-sanders-beating-scott-walker-donald-trump-jeb-bush).

But you're bringing up unrelated issues. My only point was that what you posted didn't refute (or even relate to) the OP, because it didn't. Objectively-speaking, they are 2 very different things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #23)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 05:32 PM

24. I think it requires the use of common sense

 

YMMV. Not worth arguing about in my book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #24)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 05:40 PM

25. Yes, common sense would be nice. Better luck next time.

That you think hypothetical polling vs. potential GOP candidates refutes primary polling between Democratic candidates is just mind-numbing.

If you wanted to argue that Clinton's decline and Sanders's bump are not very significant, that would be one thing. You could make that argument. But your response to the OP was completely irrelevant to said OP. That's not up for debate, it's objectively evident. While it's probably not worth all of this back-and-forth, it does tell me something important about the way you operate. You're not just apples and oranges. You're like apples and sofas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #25)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 05:53 PM

29. Well one is Rasmussen

 

And one is an aggregate of national polls. That's the first common sense to be injected. Obviously the second one has more credibility.

Secondly, the Rasmussen poll shows (like every other poll) a huge gap when comparing HRC to Sanders. That is the second injection of common sense.

The third injection of common sense is that 25% of the Dem party voters consider themselves extremely liberal, so the fact that 9% of them switched to Sanders after he entered the race is completely unsurprising, and not indicative of anything. He appears to be at his ceiling, but time will tell.

The final injection of common sense is that national polling shows those Sanders voters will vote for her. Ergo, the Rasmussen poll is not indicative of much at all if you compare it to the national polling.

Does that help?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #29)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 05:57 PM

31. None of which...

changes the fact that the link you posted refutes the OP. The OP is about the rise and fall of primary polling numbers. Period. That's all it is. Your link was to a poll that is unrelated and irrelevant to the OP. And the points you just made are irrelevant to that point.

Again, you can argue that the OP isn't very meaningful (as you're doing, for example, with your 3rd point above) and that Rasmussen doesn't have a strong reputation (though numerous other polls also show that Sanders is polling higher than he once did and that Clinton is polling lower than she once did). But you can't argue that your link was related or relevant, because it simply isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #31)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 06:01 PM

32. I think it has everything to do with refuting it

 

We will have to agree to disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #32)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 06:06 PM

33. I say 2+2=4

You say it's 37. Agree to disagree.

Seriously, some things aren't up for debate. Primary polling numbers between Clinton and Sanders are not related to hypothetical polling numbers between Clinton and, say, Bush or Trump. That's so obvious that it's hard to believe we're having this debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #33)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 06:08 PM

34. You can say whatever you want - free speech is awesome

 

However reading the tea leaves of polling data is an art form, not a black and white subject by any means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #34)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 06:17 PM

36. I'll try one more time with an example.

A)

Okay, let's say the OP posted a link to hypothetical polling numbers between Sanders and potential GOP candidates that showed Sanders beating each of them (like the link I provided previously). And the OP said something such as, "See, Sanders is more likely to win than Clinton."

You could then show hypothetical polling numbers between Clinton and potential GOP candidates that show Clinton beating each of them by a larger margin than Sanders does. Doing that would be relevant and would successfully refute the OP.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

B)

Whereas what you did was attempt to refute the easily verifiable fact that the Clinton vs. Sanders numbers have shifted (which, again, is all the OP is really saying) by showing hypothetical match-ups between Clinton and GOP candidates.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Surely you see the difference. And, no, I'm not calling you "Shirley."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #36)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 06:24 PM

37. I wasn't responding to the OP, I was responding to this....

 

"It's not going to be a "happy" New Year for Team Weather Vain"

You can apologize any time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #37)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 06:42 PM

41. Still not relevant.

The person who posted the "weather vain" comment is clearly implying that Sanders is headed toward the nomination. Now, you and I can agree that that's highly unlikely and could quite easily refute that in a number of ways (pointing out that his deficit is still very large even if it's declined a bit, pointing out that Clinton's campaign is spending much more money, pointing out that Clinton is well-known and that 25% of registered voters still haven't even heard of Sanders according to a CNN poll, pointing out that Sanders doesn't have the backing of the party establishment, etc., etc., etc.). See, numerous valid ways to refute the "weather vain" poster. But your reply wasn't one. You posting Clinton's hypothetical match-ups with GOP candidates doesn't refute the "weather vain" comment regarding Clinton's primary prospects. It's unrelated and irrelevant data, as one is about an ongoing match-up between Clinton and Sanders and the other is about a hypothetical match-up between Clinton and Bush/Trump/et al. Forensics (Speech and Debate) 101. And I think this horse has been soundly beaten.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #41)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 06:43 PM

42. LOL - just admit you screwed up and move on

 

That's really the best thing to do at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #42)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 07:04 PM

43. As I said...

whether your reply was to the OP or the "weather vain" poster, your reply was equally irrelevant. Again, there were numerous valid ways to go about refuting the weather vain poster (I'll throw out another one: Sanders isn't very charismatic in a world obsessed with celebrity and the Cult of Personality). You instead replied with completely unrelated data comparing Clinton with GOP candidates when the weather vain poster was commenting on the shift in the Clinton-Sanders numbers. One doesn't have anything to do with the other. Try as you might, that's not subjective or up for debate. One simply doesn't have anything to do with the other. Period. You might as well be comparing baseball statistics with football statistics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #18)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 06:13 PM

35. Do you understand the difference between 50 and 24?

It's still a 26 point lead, after months of relentless attacks in the press. If Sanders becomes seen as a serious contender, he will be attacked as well (not by the GOP because they want to run against him) but by Clinton and the media more generally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #35)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 06:30 PM

38. Your point?

I see that around here there's an epidemic of making irrelevant points. Sigh. What does pointing out the difference between their numbers have to do with my comment to Maggie?

Yes, Clinton has a large lead in the polls. No, I don't think Sanders will be the nominee. But that doesn't have any bearing on my pointing out to Maggie that a poll about hypothetical general election match-ups doesn't have anything to do with the shift in primary polling numbers that has occurred (again, the latter is what the OP is about--nothing more).

Anyway, as for the GOP preferring to face Sanders, I'm not sure that's true given how polarizing Clinton is. I'm not saying you're wrong--it's a fair opinion. I'm just not convinced you're right--if for no other reason than it can't be proven. It's conjecture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #35)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 09:59 PM

49. Do you understand the difference between 59 and 4?

 

If you take HRC's 9 point slide and add Bernie's 20 point gain then Senator Sanders has moved 29 points closer to Secretary Clinton. By any metric, that is a substantial movement in the polls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #35)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 04:52 AM

52. Sanders does not attack other candidates, does not say negative things about them

and does not publish or broadcast negative ads.

I don't think any candidates or interest groups will dare to disseminate negative ads or negative articles about Sanders all that much because they will get too much blow-back.

Sanders' approach pretty much limits not only himself but other candidates to a discussion of the issues and not of political gossip.

Candidates, regardless of party, will look very bad if they are in any way personally associated with negative attacks on Bernie. They will look like they are dirty players, like they somehow cheat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:00 PM

3. It's no longer just outliers showing Bernie's increasing poll numbers. One you could dismiss, but

this is the third or fourth so far showing that the more people get to know him, the more support he is getting, blowing away the myth that 'Dems can't win on a Progressive Message'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #3)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 05:49 PM

27. In the long term, that's probably more important than anything Bernie himself might do in office.

If we can get enough folks to believe again, and not simply always choose the 'triangulation' candidate, we can get a lot of better candidates into office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:02 PM

4. 536 polled out of millions by a right-wing pollster.

Give it up Hillary. You're 'done.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #4)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 04:52 PM

11. Do you not understand how statistical analysis works? You know you don't need poll millions

to arrive a meaningful number.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #11)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 04:55 PM

14. But you DO need more than 500

 

Rasmussen is not known for it's high level of accuracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #14)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 05:51 PM

28. Margin of error.

It isn't that you "need more than 500," per se. But the greater the sample the smaller the margin of error. For this particular poll, the margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #11)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 05:02 PM

17. I suspect the answer will be "maybe", but polls -should- be questioned.

There are issues of how much push is in each question
There are issues of whether representation was correct in participants
And there are questions about how the representation was mathematically balanced to deal with uneveness in polling and lying by participants.

536 -representative- voters polled would give better than a 5% margin of error on questions that don't have built in push.

One of the problems is people lie about how likely they will be primary voters.

Primary participation is really very poor among democrats, and it has patterns in identifiable strata of age, race, and income

Dealing with the math that balances those things is not done very well by most polling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #4)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 01:36 AM

51. I share your cynicism. Most posters now cheerleading the Rasmussen poll would, too, if their

hatred of Democrats and especially Hillary Clinton and President Obama didn't blind them so.

Fact of the matter is, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. She has won and will keep the 70-80% African-American demographic and 73% Latino demographic. She's won over 94 House Dem Reps endorsements, 29 Dem Senator endorsements, and 7 solid Dem Governors.

Bernie Sanders has won exactly ZERO.

I don't see him winning beyond New Hampshire and Vermont. Maybe another State here or there, but that's it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:03 PM

5. Hillary only down 9pts from Jan. and 26 pts ahead of Sanders should be the headline.



Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Hillary Clinton's numbers continue to fall, while support for Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has surged significantly in Rasmussen Reports' latest look at the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Our latest national telephone survey finds that 50% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters still say they would vote for Clinton if their party's state primary was held today, but that’s down nine points from January and 12 points from last November. Twenty-four percent (24%) now prefer Sanders who had only four percent (4%) support nine months ago.

The remaining announced candidates - former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee and former Virginia Senator Jim Webb - each earn just two percent (2%) of the vote from Democratic primary voters. Ten percent (10%) prefer some other candidate, while another 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #5)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 04:48 PM

9. It's a republican polling company

 

So of course they are going to misled to smear the Dem front runner. And Bernie supporters seem to love republican talking points nowadays. Sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #9)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 04:52 PM

10. yes, there is that odd couple link between the two.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #5)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 06:34 PM

39. Exactly. Stories about Bernie should talk about Hillary

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 02:11 PM

7. Great news! Especially considering Bernie gets virtually no MSM coverage whatsoever.

More and more volunteer groups for Bernie are forming every week, spreading name recognition and the message.

We are going to pull this off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 04:53 PM

12. Webb is polling better than O’Malley?

BULLSHIT. Can’t be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkzilla (Reply #12)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 04:54 PM

13. Well it is Rasmussen - LOL!

 

Accuracy hasn't been their strong suit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #13)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 05:01 PM

16. Thankfully.

Jesus who would even fall for that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dorkzilla (Reply #16)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 05:05 PM

19. Rethugs would fall for it....

 

They definitely did in 2012. Apparently their symptoms are communicable. LOL!

Reality: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/26/1415688/-Hillary-Clinton-s-poll-numbers-haven-t-dropped-at-all-and-this-one-chart-proves-it#

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 05:48 PM

26. Heh. She can't.

If she suspended her campaign "until all of the legal questions about her use of the private e-mail server are resolved", that would be it, she'd simply lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #26)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 05:55 PM

30. Maybe Bernie should suspend his campaign until....

 

He can make a single case that he can actually pass one of his proposals through congress. LOL - JK. But it makes as much sense as someone suggesting she should suspend her campaign because of a fake republican smear campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #30)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 07:10 PM

44. I agree that Sanders...

would have one hell of a time getting his proposals passed. Precisely because they require things like a drastic reduction in military spending, a substantial hike in tax rates for the wealthy, etc. In other words, his proposals are too progressive. Under Eisenhower, the top marginal tax rate was 91%...heaven forbid we hike it up to, say, 50%. Gasp!

That's what makes it all the more absurd that so many insist that the DU opposition to the party establishment is coming predominantly from a right wing perspective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #44)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 08:06 PM

47. I don't think opposition is coming from a "right wing perspective"

 

I just think certain group are co-opting rethug talking points and tactics to smear her. Just because they borrow heavily from rethug talking points and tactics doesn't mean they agree with rethugs. At least beyond the "I hate HRC" meme.

I guess it never occurs to them that there are good reasons republicans hate her. She kicks their ass. Personally liberals joining in with rethugs to smear her in an attempt to defeat our front runner disgusts me. YMMV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #47)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 12:44 PM

53. I see that in very limited quantities.

Whereas Clinton supporters keep insinuating that that constitutes the bulk of DU Clinton opposition. The primary tactic of the right is to paint Clinton as an extreme liberal, which is certainly not the leftist critique of Clinton and other Corporate Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #30)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 07:20 PM

45. Your first mistake ...

... is using terms like "it makes as much sense as ..." There are people who don't want any sense to be made, or to be injected into the discussion.

I keep reading here that the PTB in the Party are panicking, and are desperate for Biden to enter the race and "save"
the Dems from certain defeat in the GE due to HRC's many "failures".

Seriously, in what bizarro universe would the Party look at Hill's numbers and say, "OMG! She's far ahead of the Dem competition, and she beats every Republican in head-to-head match-ups. We've got to get someone else! She's toast!"

Swear to God, this place is absolutely mind-boggling at times - and these days, more often than not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #45)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 08:00 PM

46. LOL - good point

 

That would be insane. And yes, this place is definitely mind boggling lately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #45)

Thu Aug 27, 2015, 01:20 AM

50. I would say that Sanders closing 29 points (HRC down 9, BS up 20) has to have them just a little

 

concerned. If it doesn't she should fire some of her team and hire someone who knows what they're doing. There's still 6 months before the first primaries and Sanders is closing quite a bit....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Original post)

Wed Aug 26, 2015, 06:34 PM

40. Just saying.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread