Dictator Trump wrote:
Yosingleryx wrote:
Sanders is not a Democrat. Outsider.
Trump is not a republican. .
Errr. Yeah. That was my point.
Dictator Trump wrote:
Yosingleryx wrote:
Sanders is not a Democrat. Outsider.
Trump is not a republican. .
Errr. Yeah. That was my point.
On an unrelated note, Dems continue to lose... looks like 'faux news' is what the people prefer, rather than "orange man bad" 24/7
semsurrrrr wrote:
On an unrelated note, Dems continue to lose... looks like 'faux news' is what the people prefer, rather than "orange man bad" 24/7
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/484592-fox-news-primetime-lineup-delivers-highest-ratings-in-network-history
Most people prefer a good work of fiction.
After watching him again last night - sad, but true.
https://images.theweek.com/sites/default/files/12_76.jpg?resize=900x900
semsurrrrr wrote:
On an unrelated note, Dems continue to lose... looks like 'faux news' is what the people prefer, rather than "orange man bad" 24/7
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/484592-fox-news-primetime-lineup-delivers-highest-ratings-in-network-history
I always wonder why people talk about this. Regular viewers of Fox News represent less than 1% of the US population.
Granted, they skew very old. For instance, about 81% of Hannity viewers are 55 and over. So that means the ones who watch Fox are old and more likely to vote.
But Fox News ratings tells you very little about the overall electorate. It's just too small a viewership to be significant.
And if you do want to quibble about ratings of left versus right, MSNBC and CNN together tend to draw more viewership than Fox by itself.
Yosingleryx wrote:
Dictator Trump wrote:
Trump is not a republican. .
Errr. Yeah. That was my point.
It can't be "your" point because you erased "He has dictator dreams."
Bernie has hit the big time! He’s starting to be trolled like HRC. Scared, trumpanzees?
Good piece by John Avlon.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/25/opinions/bernie-sanders-versus-donald-trump-avlon/index.html
Fat hurts wrote:
semsurrrrr wrote:
On an unrelated note, Dems continue to lose... looks like 'faux news' is what the people prefer, rather than "orange man bad" 24/7
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/484592-fox-news-primetime-lineup-delivers-highest-ratings-in-network-historyI always wonder why people talk about this. Regular viewers of Fox News represent less than 1% of the US population.
Granted, they skew very old. For instance, about 81% of Hannity viewers are 55 and over. So that means the ones who watch Fox are old and more likely to vote.
But Fox News ratings tells you very little about the overall electorate. It's just too small a viewership to be significant.
And if you do want to quibble about ratings of left versus right, MSNBC and CNN together tend to draw more viewership than Fox by itself.
Losers always have excuses.
It's the only mainstream news alternative to the echochambers of CNN and the NBCs. Obviously, the majority of people get their news from online and social media, as 'dinosaur media' dies. The point is, and this is just one indicator, the liberal/leftist propaganda is failing.
In addition to many other points, it's obvious the electorate is moving away from the Democrat party. Bernie Sanders is an existential threat to his party. Many moderate Dems are turned off.
This will be glaringly obvious come this election.
jesseriley wrote:
Bernie has hit the big time! He’s starting to be trolled like HRC. Scared, trumpanzees?
They are in full panic mode because they suddenly realized that running against Bernie, which slightly improves Trump's chances, has a huge downstream effect on Republicans running for all other offices. Now they are trying to stop the Sanders landslide they created which will wipe them out. That is not going well.
Another YUGE win for the Donald
No wonder Dems are screeching so loudly - they don't know how to win!
semsurrrrr wrote:
jesseriley wrote:
Bernie has hit the big time! He’s starting to be trolled like HRC. Scared, trumpanzees?
Why do you often use "trumpanzees"? As if we're simians? Are we stupid, is that it?
You do realize that the most valid and reliable study we have shows that Trump voters outperform Hillary voters on virtually all verbal and quantitative reasoning measures?
Are you not the party of illegal immigrants and inner city minorities, all of which have lower IQs on average than redneck "trumpanzees"?
Smarten up
As to your insipid point, your own party establishment knows that Bernie will doom you. Use your brain. The MSM rejects Trump because they want to keep the Dems in power. The MSM rejects Bernie because they fear he offers Trump the best chance of victory, which will NOT keep the Dems in power.
Again, use your brain. Learn life. Understand the world, and get going.
Racist drivel ^^^^
SilIy WiIly wrote:
With all the polls coming out lately and being used for the Dems as the barometer for which to decide who could take on Trump, it's worth noting that the more specific polls (state by state, candidate vs candidate, etc) were actually the most inaccurate and/or biased against Trump in 2016.
Found some old data lying around about how much the state by state polls were off:
Missouri- Had Trump winning by 11.0, with the largest gap being 15. He won by 19.1!
So an 8.1 swing for Trump.
Wisconsin- Not a single poll ever had Trump even tying HRC. The average on RCP was 6.5 for HRC. He won by 0.8.
So a 7.3 swing for Trump.
Minnesota- HRC always had 6-12 points on Trump. She won by 1.5.
So a 7.0 swing toward Trump. (If Gary Johnson doesn't run, Trump likely wins the state.)
Iowa- Trump averaged 3.0 over HRC. He won by 9.5.
So 6.5 swing for Trump.
Ohio- Had Trump winning by 3.5. He won by 8.0.
So 5.5 swing for Trump.
Michigan- Always had HRC up by at least 5.0, and usually closer to 10.0. Trump won by 0.2.
So let's say 6-9 swing for Trump.
Pennsylvania- Same as Michigan. Except Trump won by 1.2.
So another 5-6 swing for Trump.
North Carolina- Only had Trump winning with a very late surge by 1.0, after being down consistently 2-4 for months. He won by 3.2.
So a 2.7 swing for Trump.
So, put faith in what you wish, but don't be shocked if the results are similar this time around.
But doesn't that scare you as a Trump supporter?
Wisconsin- Not a single poll ever had Trump even tying HRC. The average on RCP was 6.5 for HRC. He won by 0.8.
Michigan- Always had HRC up by at least 5.0, and usually closer to 10.0. Trump won by 0.2.
Pennsylvania- Same as Michigan. Except Trump won by 1.2.
He pulled off a miracle in those three states that gave him the win.
Do you feel he can repeat that? There is no margin for error, and he's vulnerable in a number of other states he won.
Either the polls were way off (possibly) or he pulled off a long streak of upsets.
That's like winning in blackjack 8 hands in a row.
Can he go back to the table and do that again?
semsurrrrr wrote:
Another YUGE win for the Donald
No wonder Dems are screeching so loudly - they don't know how to win!
dailywire dot com /news/trump-win-court-rules-trump-can-withhold-funds-to-states-with-sanctuary-cities?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=mjk
LOL ... a link from originating from FacePlant, a Republican fake news propaganda machine. . . .
Now, please explain how this illegal act get more votes for republicans in those areas.
Trumpanzees think immigrants are stupid?
The ones I know are smart, energetic, and ambitious. That’s why they come here, and that’s how they survive.
agip wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
What do you think voters in SC want to hear? About policy and foreign affairs, or drama/simple stuff?
yeah that's the question - what is the point of the debates? To make money for the network? Public service to help the electorate make its choice? To entertain?
I certainly wish the news people stepped up and forced some dignity on the situation. Debating has nothing to do with governing so the whole thing is stupid.
It's not the news people that need to step up and force some dignity on the situation it's those who are in the debate. Every time I watch these things it amazes me how poorly they respond to questions. It seems so simple just to be logical with your answers but that rarely happens...
Fat hurts wrote:
semsurrrrr wrote:
Why do you often use "trumpanzees"? As if we're simians? Are we stupid, is that it?
You do realize that the most valid and reliable study we have shows that Trump voters outperform Hillary voters on virtually all verbal and quantitative reasoning measures?
Are you not the party of illegal immigrants and inner city minorities, all of which have lower IQs on average than redneck "trumpanzees"?
Smarten up
As to your insipid point, your own party establishment knows that Bernie will doom you. Use your brain. The MSM rejects Trump because they want to keep the Dems in power. The MSM rejects Bernie because they fear he offers Trump the best chance of victory, which will NOT keep the Dems in power.
Again, use your brain. Learn life. Understand the world, and get going.
Racist drivel ^^^^
Well, I wasn't the one who referred to all Trump supporters as chimpanzees, was I? Let us not forget, jesseriley, that there are also Trump supporters who are black. So you're calling black Trump supporters chimpanzees?
A sickening racist and bigoted comparison, if I've ever seen one, right L L?
SilIy WiIly wrote:
So, put faith in what you wish, but don't be shocked if the results are similar this time around.
Likewise I'm sure.
Dictator Trump wrote:
LOL ... a link from originating from FacePlant, a Republican fake news propaganda machine. . . .
Now, please explain how this illegal act get more votes for republicans in those areas.
huh? Here's a link you might find more appropriate, c u c k:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/court-rules-trump-administration-can-withhold-grants-sanctuary-cities-n1143511We are just so scared, trumpanzee. How’s the mass-shooting business going? That’s all you got.
