• 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!

New poll, Bernie Sanders falling further behind Biden and Warren

Au contraire, Bill Clinton has a much more likable personality than she has.
My opinion only ;)

Oh definitely, he knows what to say and when to say it. Its his actions I have issue with personally. I don't think Hillary would've been much better (and he would be BACK in the WH in addition) than Trump but... at least it wouldn't be Trump.
 
I mean, people were referring to Hillary Rodham as "wonky" long before she even fell in love with Bubba Clinton.
She was described by her classmates as pugnacious, impatient, and laser focused, even while they hastened to also label her as passionate.

Many described her as "formidable" and that's a very good thing for a law student but it must be tempered for politics.
 
Oh definitely, he knows what to say and when to say it. Its his actions I have issue with personally. I don't think Hillary would've been much better (and he would be BACK in the WH in addition) than Trump but... at least it wouldn't be Trump.

Oh I pulled the H lever after Bernie lost the primary. She was not my choice but I knew for sure that, at the very worst, she would be a survivable event. And I actually was more shocked by the fact that our turnout was so lazy that we lost the goddamn Senate and House.
I had higher hopes for Hillz because I expected to at least hold onto the Senate, where more liberal stalwarts like Sanders would keep her moving at least a little bit to the left instead of glomming back to her Goldwater Girl roots.

Please remember I said she was a horrible candidate. She might have grown into the presidency. We will never know.
 
Hillary is not a bad person, she was just a horrible candidate...TWICE.
She isn't cut out for it, and never was.
What Hillz was good at...her "wheelhouse"... was being a policy wonk.
That is not enough, and the personality flaws she does have alienate people.

But that doesn't make her a terrible person, just a terrible candidate.
In fact, if it wasn't for her persistence with S-CHIP, my son wouldn't have made it past his third birthday.

He's twenty-three now, and looking at a heart transplant down the road but he received three open heart surgeries by his fifth birthday.

I mean, dear Lord. Dude sounds like me c. 2015 about Hillary (although that was mainly due to the prevalence of Russian bots and widespread misinformation and me falling for it).
And that's bad.

I was really wrong about Hillary, she seems like a good person who's just been struggling with a lot notwithstanding dealing with a power-hungry womanizing sociopath ex-president of a husband.

Her condescension and obvious duplicity per the 'private and public position' comment in front of Wall Street bankers, plus her blatant willingness to engage in unethical skulduggery and conflicts of interest with the DNC per her strings attached bailout of the organization pretty clearly demonstrates to me that she is almost certainly not a good person by any traditional measure. Definitely strikes me as an amoral power seeker more than anything else, and certainly narcissistic.

Better than Trump mind you, and someone I voted for albeit extremely reluctantly, but still a bad person and a worse candidate.
 
Last edited:
The truth here is more fuzzy. It should concern all of us that Hillary was able to 'loan' the DNC money, and receive what amounted to a veto, over specific candidates for specific positions in the Democratic party administration. Staff members in the DNC really ought to be trained that offering up some 'suggestions' on how the Kentucky party can best sabotage Sanders with some hit ads before their primary, is probably not a real comforting that the playing field at the home office is neutral.

That being said, Sanders was responsible for sander's loss. When you lose more votes, more open and closed primaries, more pledged delegates, more unpledged delegate, and you lose in virtually every economic and regional demographic to your opponent, you have serious weaknesses as a candidate that were plenty exploitable by anyone. Sanders could not for the life of him win over blacks, older voters, Hispanics, moderates, women voters, then his problem was a lot bigger than some emails and spats with the DNC.

Your first paragraph: politics as usual. Parties are entitled to support whoever they want to support, over opportunistic last-time joiners.

Your second paragraph: I couldn't agree more. Sanders never had a chance. He was a weak candidate that couldn't get some essential demographics, and managed to lose to one of the weakest candidates ever. He's a loser. Some emails and spats, that's 0.00000001% of why he lost.

But of course, his followers, all in deep denial, will focus on those 0.00000001% factors to explain away his HUGE weaknesses and his landslide defeat. And they'll add some conspiracy theories to it. Such misguided people!
 
Bold of you to assume the Republicans will actually let Democrats vote in Georgia! Jokes aside, I'd like to see Biden stop hemorrhaging support before I start placing any bets for him. I'm willing to put money behind Harris or O'Rourke (like that'll happen) before Biden, especially if his lukewarm debate performances continue into the Presidential ones.

That's what concerns me. Biden's VP debate performance against that idiot Paul Ryan was great. Now, he seems much older, much more demented, much more cognitively impaired. Biden is a shadow of his own self. He won't stay competitive until the end. The Dems shouldn't be propping up a candidate who is likely to crumble, against a fierce Donald Trump.

I think the most decent option at this time is Elizabeth Warren.
 
The media literally showed Trump's empty podium before his rallies, rather than show a Bernie Sanders townhall. That's not merely "supporting their preferred candidate". People thought Trump was a joke, and so they hyper-focused on him, and did not give Bernie even a sliver of a chance. And, in terms of the primaries, there were times when Bernie either won, or maybe could have won, but the entire system was setup against him. It was admitted by Donna Brazile, and acknowledged by everyone with a principled stance - including Elizabeth Warren. Bernie, in an attempt to keep things rolling for another shot, refused to really comment on it for a long time, but EVERYONE knew it. Even conservatives know it, and they don't know ****.

The media.... they are not the Democratic Party. The entire system was setup against him, how, precisely? He was just a very weak candidate, who managed to lose to one of the weakest candidates in History, Hillary R. Clinton.
 
I mean, people were referring to Hillary Rodham as "wonky" long before she even fell in love with Bubba Clinton.
She was described by her classmates as pugnacious, impatient, and laser focused, even while they hastened to also label her as passionate.

Many described her as "formidable" and that's a very good thing for a law student but it must be tempered for politics.

I always thought the she was very focused and ambitious early on, very calculated...they she ran out of steam when it counted most.
 
But I didn't say that. I didn't create the thread. I said we were doing just fine without your opinion on our nomination process and policy initiatives and we should ignore what you say, because your agenda is not remotely ours. I can always tell, because people like you distort what we stand for and what we say, before you attack it. That is the first clue we should dismiss.

As the creator of the thread, I support this post. :peace
 
Please, that stuff doesn't matter anymore in 2019.

If anyone looks like a trainwreck waiting to happen, it's Biden. The guy seems to not know what planet he's on. The other day when he sent out condolence to those effected by the tragedies in "Houston" and "Michigan", it was sooooo cringey. It's clear he's not very sharp and capable of many mistakes, even with cards to read from, and he's a disaster when he has to defend he's record.

Would he beat Trump? Probably. But not by as much as people think he would. He ain't winning those "blue collard truckstop voters" in small towns, anymore than Warren or Sanders will. Those people fully on board team Trump because of his race war liberal tears shtick.

Warren's taking the DNA test strikes me as a college football team's losing their first game of the season. She's been sharp as a tack ever since.

If you're only going to lose one game, that's the one to lose. Doesn't hurt your rankings as much as a late-season loss.
 
Your first paragraph: politics as usual. Parties are entitled to support whoever they want to support, over opportunistic last-time joiners.

Your second paragraph: I couldn't agree more. Sanders never had a chance. He was a weak candidate that couldn't get some essential demographics, and managed to lose to one of the weakest candidates ever. He's a loser. Some emails and spats, that's 0.00000001% of why he lost.

But of course, his followers, all in deep denial, will focus on those 0.00000001% factors to explain away his HUGE weaknesses and his landslide defeat. And they'll add some conspiracy theories to it. Such misguided people!

Translate this to now. Do you think Sanders would have a better chance against Hillary in a hypothetical scenario?
 
That's what concerns me. Biden's VP debate performance against that idiot Paul Ryan was great. Now, he seems much older, much more demented, much more cognitively impaired. Biden is a shadow of his own self. He won't stay competitive until the end. The Dems shouldn't be propping up a candidate who is likely to crumble, against a fierce Donald Trump.

I think the most decent option at this time is Elizabeth Warren.

For awhile I thought that candidate was Harris. But the last round of debates suggested that Warren is much better at flinging aside ridiculous attacks, which tRump flings 24/7.
 
But I didn't say that. I didn't create the thread. I said we were doing just fine without your opinion on our nomination process and policy initiatives and we should ignore what you say, because your agenda is not remotely ours. I can always tell, because people like you distort what we stand for and what we say, before you attack it. That is the first clue we should dismiss.

Fair enough, it came across as such and I misunderstood. My apologies.
 
Her condescension and obvious duplicity per the 'private and public position' comment in front of Wall Street bankers, plus her blatant willingness to engage in unethical skulduggery and conflicts of interest with the DNC per her strings attached bailout of the organization pretty clearly demonstrates to me that she is almost certainly not a good person by any traditional measure. Definitely strikes me as an amoral power seeker more than anything else, and certainly narcissistic.

Better than Trump mind you, and someone I voted for albeit extremely reluctantly, but still a bad person and a worse candidate.
Sure, but she was competent and well-informed about policies and especially foreign policies.
She was 100 times better than Donald Trump. Not to forget, had she won, we wouldn't have the disastrous Supreme Court that we have now. That's very important.
I never liked her; I voted against her and for Obama when they faced each other in the primaries. But against Trump, I pinched my nose and voted for her, the clear lesser evil.
 
Her condescension and obvious duplicity per the 'private and public position' comment in front of Wall Street bankers, plus her blatant willingness to engage in unethical skulduggery and conflicts of interest with the DNC per her strings attached bailout of the organization pretty clearly demonstrates to me that she is almost certainly not a good person by any traditional measure. Definitely strikes me as an amoral power seeker more than anything else, and certainly narcissistic.

Better than Trump mind you, and someone I voted for albeit extremely reluctantly, but still a bad person and a worse candidate.

You'll have to expand your list by several orders of magnitude if that's your sole criteria.
I suspect you should start with Millard Filmore and work forward from there.
Sorry but politics is what it is, it's part dirty bar brawl, part Super Bowl, part quarter mile drag race.
And ALL of it is funded by backroom deals and quid pro quo.

And that last one is GLOBAL.
 
The media.... they are not the Democratic Party. The entire system was setup against him, how, precisely? He was just a very weak candidate, who managed to lose to one of the weakest candidates in History, Hillary R. Clinton.

I've already gone over this more often than I'd care to, which is why I've generally refrained from saying anything, but here's the truth of the matter:

Bernie started out at about 3% support, close to 0% name recognition (with minimal debates to expand this) and $0.00 with few committed allies in the Democratic Party; at the time a complete political nobody.

Hillary, a well-known public figure, started out at nearly 70% support, 100% name recognition and a sprawling warchest with the support of the DNC (which she held a debt based veto power over), virtually every person of power in the Democratic Party and allies in the media (as indicated per communications between the DNC and the media, people like Donna Brazile passing the Clinton campaign town hall questions and getting rewarded for it via an interim chair position, etc).

It is nothing short of astonishing that Bernie did as well as he did given the sheer uphill nature of that contest; to lose what is basically an impossible contest after narrowing the gap from more than 60% to about 12% despite that litany of disadvantages only means you're a 'loser' in the most meaninglessly technical way. Nevermind how he's singlehandedly shifted the Overton window and the Democratic Party as a whole on important points of policy, normalizing things like SP and MFA, something that would have been inconceivable only a few years ago.

Meanwhile Biden is a three time loser, and was absolutely blown away every time he ran for president; each time it wasn't even close, and this without anywhere near the same gauntlet of challenges Bernie faced. He has never shifted the conversation on policy. Further, he only got the VP job because Obama needed an old white man with a down to earth, neighbourly aesthetic to get the white vote.
 
Last edited:
Sure, but she was competent and well-informed about policies and especially foreign policies.
She was 100 times better than Donald Trump. Not to forget, had she won, we wouldn't have the disastrous Supreme Court that we have now. That's very important.
I never liked her; I voted against her and for Obama when they faced each other in the primaries. But against Trump, I pinched my nose and voted for her, the clear lesser evil.

I worked with some docs who were absolutely book smart, yet helpless as a kitten in a dire situation.
 
That's what concerns me. Biden's VP debate performance against that idiot Paul Ryan was great. Now, he seems much older, much more demented, much more cognitively impaired. Biden is a shadow of his own self. He won't stay competitive until the end. The Dems shouldn't be propping up a candidate who is likely to crumble, against a fierce Donald Trump.

I think the most decent option at this time is Elizabeth Warren.
I see I'm beginning to wear off on you, GreatNews. :twisted:

No matter our disagreements, we still work for the same values.
 
You'll have to expand your list by several orders of magnitude if that's your sole criteria.
I suspect you should start with Millard Filmore and work forward from there.
Sorry but politics is what it is, it's part dirty bar brawl, part Super Bowl, part quarter mile drag race.
And ALL of it is funded by backroom deals and quid pro quo.

And that last one is GLOBAL.

It's no secret that most politicos are duplicitous, amoral and egotistical, but be that as it may, that doesn't make Clinton less so or a 'good person'. She isn't.

It is demonstrably possible to be better than that, and authenticity and integrity, though it may hinder you in other regards, are in fact, powerful and inspiring selling points.
 
For awhile I thought that candidate was Harris. But the last round of debates suggested that Warren is much better at flinging aside ridiculous attacks, which tRump flings 24/7.
There's still a long way to go, folks.

Anybody in the top five still has a chance.
 
Warren's taking the DNA test strikes me as a college football team's losing their first game of the season. She's been sharp as a tack ever since.

If you're only going to lose one game, that's the one to lose. Doesn't hurt your rankings as much as a late-season loss.

It boils down to, will she make another one of those rookie mistakes or did some trusted confidante and associate rake her over the coals and read her the Riot Act to the point where she is now chastened and wizened enough to never make a dumb move like that again?

I say that because I do suspect that a trusted friend took her aside:

"What the HELL were you thinking? You took that stupid test? You actually thought you could shut Trump up with test results? Good God, one more dumb move like that and you won't be able to run for dogcatcher in your own home town! This is DONALD ****ing TRUMP you're up against!"

:lamo

She's smart as the dickens, but maybe she was just a wee tad naive about Trump's mastery of the media.
 
Warren's taking the DNA test strikes me as a college football team's losing their first game of the season. She's been sharp as a tack ever since.

If you're only going to lose one game, that's the one to lose. Doesn't hurt your rankings as much as a late-season loss.

Hopefully. I'm willing to throw my support behind Warren. I was afraid she wouldn't recover from the Pocahontas debacle, but maybe she will. She is certainly better than Biden, and better than the old stale weak loser known as Bernie Sanders.

Sure, the right wing PACs will attack her Pocahontas blunder. But it's not like she has a lot of other skeletons.

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, was never properly attacked in the 2016 primaries, because Hilllary was afraid of going after him and losing the support of his followers once she won the nomination, and Trump knew that the more the non-viable candidate Bernie Sanders survived, the worse for the viable candidate Clinton, so it wasn't in his interest to attack Sanders.

Now, if PACs wanted to attack Sanders, they'd have plenty of ammunition. Have you all heard of his weird statements about married women secretly fantasizing about being raped? He's already not polling well with women; well, this won't help. Or his statement that all men can understand the lust for underage girls? That won't go so well for the electorate, either. Or his support for Guatemalans who chanted "Death to America"? Or his wife's embezzlement history?

No, Sanders is a loser. If by a miracle he wins the nomination, he'll lose to Trump. We can't allow that. The sooner the loser Bernie Sanders gets out of the race, the better for the Party and for its chances in 2020.
 
Last edited:
It boils down to, will she make another one of those rookie mistakes or did some trusted confidante and associate rake her over the coals and read her the Riot Act to the point where she is now chastened and wizened enough to never make a dumb move like that again?

I say that because I do suspect that a trusted friend took her aside:

"What the HELL were you thinking? You took that stupid test? You actually thought you could shut Trump up with test results? Good God, one more dumb move like that and you won't be able to run for dogcatcher in your own home town! This is DONALD ****ing TRUMP you're up against!"

:lamo

She's smart as the dickens, but maybe she was just a wee tad naive about Trump's mastery of the media.

Honestly, I don't know why people are clutching pearls about 'Pocahontas' when Biden does something at least as stupid/cringeworthy on about a monthly basis.
 
Dude's a genius. IQ of 186. The POTUS for two terms. His economy was great. Very popular.
His wife??? Not so much.

Snopes debunked that email story.
Actually he's no dummy by a longshot, IQ reportedly 148, which IS genius level.
But it's been said Hillary has a higher IQ.
 
Back
Top Bottom