• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump's numbers are climbing.

Crovax said:
That's just silly I'd take Hillary all day on those odds. You have to either have to be a Bern Bro or just completely uninformed to think Bernie has a 20% chance
Click to expand...

Anyone making predictions now -- this early -- would need crystal balls.

:D
 
Riveroaks said:
Anyone making predictions now -- this early -- would need crystal balls.

:D
Click to expand...

You don't need a crystal ball to see that Hillary's historic lead makes her a virtual lock to win the nomination
 
Crovax said:
You don't need a crystal ball to see that Hillary's historic lead makes her a virtual lock to win the nomination
Click to expand...

Again, Bernie is close enough to Obama's 2008 precedent (and polling significantly better than Republican frontrunners) to put this to a lie. Odds favour Hillary to be sure, but she's not a virtual lock.
 
Surrealistik said:
And again, aggregate polling matters, which demonstrates that Bernie is precisely where Obama was in 2008, not the endorsements; endorsements ultimately follow the polls as Obama has shown.
Click to expand...

Except that when Obama ran in 2008 most of the endorsements were undecided, Hillary already has over 80% of the possible endorsements. Polling doesn't mean as much as endorsements at this stage and endorsements also help the GOTV and Bernie isn't just behind on endorsements he only has 2, which puts him in a much worse situation than Obama was.
 
Crovax said:
Except that when Obama ran in 2008 most of the endorsements were undecided, Hillary already has over 80% of the possible endorsements. Polling doesn't mean as much as endorsements at this stage and endorsements also help the GOTV and Bernie isn't just behind on endorsements he only has 2, which puts him in a much worse situation than Obama was.
Click to expand...

Only if you believe both that endorsements are indelible and matter more than aggregate polling and the trajectories of that polling.
 
blarg said:
unless more people vote democrat
Click to expand...

Only IDIOTS vote Democrat. If we can just get them down to only one or two votes per idiot, Trump will win in a landslide.

We need less of these:

ObamaPhone-Lady.jpg


And more of these:

th
 
reason10 said:
Only IDIOTS vote Democrat. If we can just get them down to only one or two votes per idiot, Trump will win in a landslide.

We need less of these:

ObamaPhone-Lady.jpg


And more of these:

th
Click to expand...


nah that just some partisan bull ****
 
I can get behind and see where dems carp about the republican field. I'm not impressed either. But to support hillary of sanders is beyond consideration.
 
MrT said:
An interesting claim...one that is completely unfounded considering that individuals with a college degree and a post-college degree tend towards Democrat (with the later being a stronger correlative link).
Click to expand...

If I was $100k in debt at 22 I'd probably vote democrat too.
 
Lets hope Trump continues to climb in the GOP polls and wins the primaries and then the nomination next summer. He and the debacle awaiting him in November is just the enema the party needs to rid itself of the right libertarian and tea party infection that has taken over the party.
 
Surrealistik said:
Only if you believe both that endorsements are indelible and matter more than aggregate polling and the trajectories of that polling.
Click to expand...

Endorsements do matter more than polling at this stage, that has pretty much been shown. And while endorsements arent 100% indelible they are very firm. Like when you talk about Obama picking up endorsements in 2008 he picked up uncommitted endorsements, he didnt take any of Hillarys.
 
Crovax said:
Endorsements do matter more than polling at this stage, that has pretty much been shown. And while endorsements arent 100% indelible they are very firm. Like when you talk about Obama picking up endorsements in 2008 he picked up uncommitted endorsements, he didnt take any of Hillarys.
Click to expand...

I might be more inclined to agree with the relevance of endorsements if this were an election cycle like any other, that skepticism of the political system and the politicians responsible for that skepticism weren't at or near all-time highs as is anti-establishment sentiment, and Hillary's own favourability and trustworthiness ratings so low. In light of these anomalous circumstances, it is my view that endorsements won't count for nearly as much in this nomination process; the fact that blatantly establishment politicians reviled by the people favour blatantly establishment candidates who are likewise despised (Hillary certainly is outside of the hardcore democrat faithful) seems extremely unlikely to feature the same impact. Past trends are always right until they're wrong, usually due to extenuating and exceptional circumstances (such as the current political climate).
 
reason10 said:
It's FACT, whether you liberals like it or not.
Click to expand...

yes that your spewing partisan bull **** is fact regardless of how liberals feel
 
reason10 said:
At least you're honest that liberals feel. They damned sure do not THINK.
Click to expand...

and more bull**** from you its in the rite place but that dosent make it any less stupid
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom