US Presidential Election XII

[BVS]

So, the American people hearing the word "Socialist" bandied about would have sunk his numbers lower than Clinton's? Really? Clinton's numbers were garbage during the primaries and they're garbage now, why would you not think Sanders would have been able to keep up his? It's not like Clinton is really getting attacked by a major ad blitz or anything - people just don't like her.

Biden's choice had nothing to do with being ready. He didn't have a prayer once Bernie became a big thing and polling proved that time and again which is why he admitted he didn't join the race in the first place.

Now, the sad part is that Clinton supporters all would have been way better off with Biden. You'd have somebody in the same range politically with hardly any of the baggage. But they weren't willing to compromise on the dream of electing the first female President because it was her turn.

You can pretend all you want and remain in fantasy land, but the truth has been pointed out to you time and time again; Bernie was never really vetted nor put up against Republican voters. If you don't get that, you NEVER will.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Just going to echo the to your post about immigration, namkcuR. Your posts in general in these political discussions have been very balanced and thoughtful and well-argued, and I very much appreciate that and wanted to let you know that .

 

[BigMacPhisto]

You can pretend all you want and remain in fantasy land, but the truth has been pointed out to you time and time again; Bernie was never really vetted nor put up against Republican voters. If you don't get that, you NEVER will.

And you don't seem to get that this third party voting share exists precisely because Clinton and Trump are the nominees. That 3% that Jill Stein is getting would be virtually all in Bernie's column if he were the nominee along with a good chunk of that Johnson vote from disgusted centrists and the like (as he harms Clinton slightly more than he does Trump).

That's a pretty big fucking deal in my mind. Just the 3% of the vote on Election Day for Stein will be about 4 million votes. That's almost the margin between Romney and Obama last time alone - and virtually all of them would have voted for Sanders had he been the nominee.

You can come up with all of your vetting nonsense of which no facts can ever possibly exist since Sanders was never the nominee, but the only evidence we have are the match-up polls and favorability polls taken by the American people in which they really liked Mr. Sanders to a much greater degree. Maybe one day you'll come to the realization that a lot of this has to do with Mrs. Clinton and not some vast right wing conspiracy to discredit her. Trump has fuck all to do with millions of liberals being disgusted by Hillary Clinton, just as they were disgusted by Bill Clinton and gave Nader almost 3,000,000 votes at the turn of the century.

 

[BVS]

And you don't seem to get that this third party voting share exists precisely because Clinton and Trump are the nominees. That 3% that Jill Stein is getting would be virtually all in Bernie's column if he were the nominee along with a good chunk of that Johnson vote from disgusted centrists and the like (as he harms Clinton slightly more than he does Trump).

No, I do get its because they are the nominees. That's what you don't get, that's how poor of a candidate Sanders was, a better candidate with Sanders' platform slightly tweaked, AND actually had a plan on how to implement things would have cleaned house.

Maybe one day you'll come to the realization that a lot of this has to do with Mrs. Clinton and not some vast right wing conspiracy to discredit her.

It's simpleton assumptions like this that keep you from having a real conversation with the adults in here.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Yeah, because plans and policy details were so important among the Clinton primary voters who by a much wider margin couldn't even name a single policy plank of her platform. Not to mention that Sanders' supporters will leave this planet with college degrees by about a 2-1 margin over Clinton voters.

And then go and call the other poster a child because he blames Clinton's own actions for why people don't trust her. Insult the queen and BVS is always ready to jump in and declare "Heresy!"

Because those of us that have spent our entire political lives are being babies for not considering the Clintons as liberals despite them not being a key part of the civil rights movement, anti-free trade movement, anti-bank movement, anti-imperialist movement, environmental movement - and have usually worked in ways that are antithetical to such causes. Nor were they part of the policies supported by the far-left press over the last six decades or did Bill even do anything to help unions, the bedrock of liberal politics, during his tenure as President.

She is the one trying to suddenly wrap herself in the clothing of something she never was simply because it's the politically prescient thing to do and nearly half the Democratic primary voters saw through the charade and said otherwise. Her policies and actions do not have to be accepted by people that have lived their lives on the far-left nor were they forgiven at the ballot box by such people in 2000 or 2016 (if the Stein numbers even remotely hold up).

Call Clinton the leader of the Democratic Party or the only real option out of the current two choices or whatever else you want. But don't call her a liberal, or suggest that those that call themselves one are being childish, because it's really not a thought process based in reality. The liberal movement is something that has stood outside the confines of the Democratic Party organization and has accomplished a tremendous amount without their support (and often against their attacks, such as DOMA and the Iraq War vote). It does not need to fold itself under the banner of one individual simply because of an established party structure, nor should it be silenced for pointing out wrongs and hypocrisy because one party is considered less odious than the other.

 

[digitize]

And you don't seem to get that this third party voting share exists precisely because Clinton and Trump are the nominees. That 3% that Jill Stein is getting would be virtually all in Bernie's column if he were the nominee along with a good chunk of that Johnson vote from disgusted centrists and the like (as he harms Clinton slightly more than he does Trump).

I really struggle with the assertion that Sanders would play better among centrists than Hillary.

I say this as kind of a centrist myself. I'm socially pretty mainstream Democrat but economically close to dead center. And honestly the idea of Sanders as president scared me. I would have voted for him against Trump because Trump is uniquely apocalyptic. Or even against most of the Republican clown car (Kasich is the only one who would have made it a close call, I guess). But I substantially prefer being able to vote for Hillary because she's much closer to my views - as a centrist. And it's not hard to imagine someone a couple shades redder than me crossing the GOP line against Sanders more easily than I would have.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[trojanchick99]

Won't someone think of the poor dead horse!

Sent from my SM-G920V using U2 Interference mobile app

 

[BVS]

And then go and call the other poster a child because he blames Clinton's own actions for why people don't trust her. Insult the queen and BVS is always ready to jump in and declare "Heresy!"

You really don't get it do you? I've stated several times that it's Clinton's actions. You're building a strawman so you can post another canned rant. I've stated time and time again that I'm not excited about casting my vote for Clinton, but that's how bad the choices were this campaign.



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Axver]

And you don't seem to get that this third party voting share exists precisely because Clinton and Trump are the nominees.

This is far too Americentric a view. The rise of minor parties as a challenge to the established party system (whether it be binary, trinary, whatever) is a wider phenomenon of Western liberal democracy in the past couple of decades. In Australia, we have between a quarter to a fifth of the vote going to minor parties at both state and federal elections, with that percentage consistently increasing from election to election (as recently as last decade the minor party share of the vote was just a tenth). In New Zealand, no party has had a majority in parliament for two decades - and this in a country where, off the top of my head, there had been majorities dating back to the 1890s.

Those are the two polities with which I have the best knowledge, but it's a trend mirrored in many other countries, with new insurgent parties stealing vote shares from the established parties. Europe is full of such examples. And often the candidates of the established parties are very talented and charismatic. The Greens in Australia, for example, achieved most of their gains against Kevin Rudd - who, as much as he is now a whipping boy, was at the time polling record popularity figures.

What I'm saying is that whoever the Democrats and Republicans nominated, we should expect to see an increase in the minor party vote. It would be remarkable if there weren't one, and we would need to ask why (because as much as the US system has its peculiarities, so does every polity; it usually fits into broader Western trends and, indeed, often sets them). Now, yes, the unpopularity of Clinton and Trump will quicken the drift to minor parties, but that drift would occur anyway.

I would also suggest your argument against Clinton is overblown, because Republicans are clearly choosing the Libertarians over Trump at a far greater rate than Democrats are going Green. To tell you the truth, I think Stein's figures are terrible. How the fuck is she only polling 3% in 2016? Especially if this apocalyptic unpopularity of Clinton is true?

 

[Irvine511]

I really struggle with the assertion that Sanders would play better among centrists than Hillary.

I say this as kind of a centrist myself. I'm socially pretty mainstream Democrat but economically close to dead center. And honestly the idea of Sanders as president scared me. I would have voted for him against Trump because Trump is uniquely apocalyptic. Or even against most of the Republican clown car (Kasich is the only one who would have made it a close call, I guess). But I substantially prefer being able to vote for Hillary because she's much closer to my views - as a centrist. And it's not hard to imagine someone a couple shades redder than me crossing the GOP line against Sanders more easily than I would have.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

This is where the election will be won. Hillary can easily peel off the middle and even some right-leaning women. Bernie is enough out of the mainstream that he could easily cause some socially moderate supply siders -- terrified at the thought of higher taxes and socialized medicine -- to look at Trump and rationalize that "at least he'll surround himself with good people." And pull the lever.

The 1990s were a good time for most. Especially the affluent. Her husband's economic record bathes her in a good enough light for these folks.

 

[Irvine511]

I've stated time and time again that I'm not excited about casting my vote for Clinton

Which is now part of the FYM rules. No one can possibly admit to thinking that she might be a highly competent executive with a sophisticated understanding of world affairs plus an understated but glowing record of bipartisan accomplishments in the Senate, a seat she won handily twice.

Just admit that she's unlikeable.

 

[namkcuR]

Which is now part of the FYM rules. No one can possibly admit to thinking that she might be a highly competent executive with a sophisticated understanding of world affairs plus an understated but glowing record of bipartisan accomplishments in the Senate, a seat she won handily twice.

Just admit that she's unlikeable.

I can admit to all of what you just said, while simultaneously acknowledging that she is, ideologically, not as much to the left as I would like, particularly on foreign affairs(too interventionist). I don't care at all about the unlikeable or untrustworthy numbers. Politicians in general are an untrustworthy bunch.

Generally speaking, I am holding out hope that she is indeed to the left of where Bill was when he was President on a multitude of things, and that she is genuine about attempting to accomplish the stuff in her platform that was added for Bernie($15 minimum wage, free public college tuition, public option, opposition to the worst parts of the TPP, etc). We'll see.

 

[namkcuR]

Just going to echo the to your post about immigration, namkcuR. Your posts in general in these political discussions have been very balanced and thoughtful and well-argued, and I very much appreciate that and wanted to let you know that .

Hey, thanks

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

You're welcome .

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Axver, regarding Stein, she has absolutely no money to compete with and absolutely zero media attention. The American system requires money in order to compete whereas elsewhere parties can emerge out of the woodwork in the UK and randomly start winning local and district elections, etc.

I generally think your assumption is wrong regarding it being normal for third party support to quickly grow to a sizable share of the electorate and I feel that this is just a unique case due to Trump and Clinton being so disliked. I think the Libertarian party probably has more room for growth, but I wouldn't be shocked if the Libertarian/Green vote in 2020 was under 5%. Americans are just too stuck in their ways of voting for these two parties and feel it's the apocalypse if the other side wins, thus making them afraid of the spoiler effect. I really think R and D will dominate through the end of my lifetime and nothing will change, especially if major campaign finance and/or electoral reform doesn't happen. Doesn't help either that the non-white share of the country (as in, the growing majority of the population) has been pulled under the banner of the Democratic Party. Blacks aren't going to want to rebel against the party of Obama nor are Latinos going to quickly jump ship from the group they joined recently to stop Trump.

On the other hand, millennial (and future generation) whites will make up the majority of the third party vote just as they are now to the point where Trump is polling fourth with millennials. Those that are anti-government but don't relate to the "whites are getting screwed" rhetoric will vote Libertarian while the white liberals that don't have a social connection to the Democratic Party will go Green or whatever because they don't have a historical and/or emotional connection to the Democrats. Call it white privilege if you will, but I think it really is more due to circumstances. Nader's spoiler effect, Obama and Trump running, etc. These are historical events effecting the chances for future third parties and the makeup of their voters and without them we might have a different storyline entirely.

Although it should be pointed out that blacks, for example, are supporting Stein and Johnson by about the same numbers within the community as the rest of the country although you can argue that's because Trump is polling at 2% among that group...but it isn't just whites, obviously, that are willing to shift from the two party structure although they have more reason to do so because of the lack of emotional attachment or having to care about a particular racial demographic's cause. To young whites, the Democratic Party just represents nothing more than a group that has been weak-willed against Republicans and whose leaders have gone along with abhorrent causes like the War in Iraq, repeal of Glass-Steagall, etc. There's no real legislative positive from Democrats other than Obamacare from the lens of a person whose political life begins in this century.

Thinking about it more, the millennial (and younger) vote is what's going to be key for the life of these third parties. It's clear that virtually all of the Johnson/Stein voters are young people (which is why they are both doing better than Trump among that group), but if you get, say Tulsi Gabbard as the nominee in the future or even someone like Obama that can be seen as a liberal savior despite the reality, you're going to see that Green Party vote dissipate quickly. Likewise, the only hope for the Republican Party in the future is to basically just become the Libertarian Party, so if you get a Gary Johnson-type Republican Presidential nominee, there goes the sizable Libertarian protest vote.

It's basically a reaction to the nominee. Bush wasn't the right kind of Republican, hence Perot. Clinton wasn't a liberal and betrayed the cause, hence Nader. When the candidates are adequate for the party faithful like W Bush or Obama, the protest votes dries up almost immediately and thus hampers the third parties for years to come in terms of support, money, infrastructure, etc.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

This is where the election will be won. Hillary can easily peel off the middle and even some right-leaning women. Bernie is enough out of the mainstream that he could easily cause some socially moderate supply siders -- terrified at the thought of higher taxes and socialized medicine -- to look at Trump and rationalize that "at least he'll surround himself with good people." And pull the lever.

But Bernie also gets the potential four million Stein voters in his column, so there's that. I think the idea of a centrist middle is kind of overblown. Between the third parties and the guaranteed 40% or so for Trump and Clinton each, they're really competing over a small sliver of non-partisan (or open-minded) Americans that make up about 10% of the electorate - essentially the "missing" group from the polls that lead these Clinton-Trump-Johnson-Stein matchups to only have about a 90% response rate.

I mean, for Clinton, it's the difference between losing the election or winning in a landslide, but you can't help but think having that 3% from the Stein column and a fair share from the 8% of the Johnson column would have come in handy. A Democratic nominee that didn't lead for so many to rebel against the party would already have this won without having to even try to appeal to that centrist sliver.

 

[Diemen]

centrist sliver.

Do you have numbers to back up the implication that centrists are a sliver compared to the Stein & Johnson voters?

 

[BigMacPhisto]

I'd argue that it's a sliver about the same size at the moment. I mean, you can just look at the polls.

Likewise, Trump and Clinton never really fall below 40% so most of that 80% share of the electorate pretty much made up their minds that they would support them in November once they became the nominee and the latest CNN poll attests to that as both have 90% of the support of people within their own party and that's a huge share of the electorate combined.

I think this election is really going to prove the ineffectiveness of television advertisement, especially in our polarized climate and with Trump barely spending a dime. You can't even reach a great deal of people with live television anymore, for starters, but even then you're competing for the small group of people who haven't made up their minds - many of them being extremely low information voters. So, Clinton spent $50 million after becoming the nominee with nothing to show for it all in the hopes of winning over the least informed voters in November - the people that don't have an opinion between right and left despite being adults. So, from my perspective and what I've seen elsewhere about the heavily polarization and shrinking center, it's a relatively small group that Clinton and Trump are playing for in terms of getting them on their side and eventually to the polls. The likely voter party faithful were on the wagon from Day One for each side.

As far as the comparison goes, the current polling when combining third party choices actually leaves you with an unaffiliated sliver that is much smaller since Trump and Clinton are now getting about 85% of the vote combined and Stein/Johnson are sitting about 9-11%...that leaves very few likely voters actually not having made up their minds although there's obviously going to be some shifting from one or the other as we near November and there's no accounting for just how big that stupid segment of the electorate happens to be (not to be confused with actual centrists).

I'll repost that CNN breakdown of their most recent poll since it has some startling numbers...even 11% of Clinton supporters think Trump is more honest and trustworthy.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/06/_politics-zone-injection/trump-vs-clinton-presidential-polls-election-2016/

 

[Popmartijn]

To tell you the truth, I think Stein's figures are terrible. How the fuck is she only polling 3% in 2016? Especially if this apocalyptic unpopularity of Clinton is true?

Well, some argue that Stein is the Trump of the left. And one Trump is already enough.
ElectoralVote

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Re: a previous BMP post

Gary Johnson harms Trump, not Clinton. He's a former republican for a reason. The libertarian ticket typically tailors to republicans with a conscience. Plus, more republicans are in search for a second choice from Trump than democrats are. Libertarians feature a core idea of conservatism -- small government etc. there's a reason why almost every prominent politician who identifies as libertarian has at some point been a republican.

 

[phanan]

BMP, at it again.

 

[Axver]

Axver, regarding Stein, she has absolutely no money to compete with and absolutely zero media attention. The American system requires money in order to compete whereas elsewhere parties can emerge out of the woodwork in the UK and randomly start winning local and district elections, etc.

You fundamentally misunderstand other political systems, then. Yes, the US is the most awash in cash. But it's not as if you can turn up with only a few bucks and mount a campaign in other Western democracies. Every prominent third party or political insurgent has to have cash resources that are significant relative to the country's population and the general spend of major parties. They won't have the same financial clout but there won't be moths in their wallets either. Put it this way: the Greens down here didn't get where they are by being shit at fundraising.

I generally think your assumption is wrong regarding it being normal for third party support to quickly grow to a sizable share of the electorate and I feel that this is just a unique case due to Trump and Clinton being so disliked.

Are you trying to deny that the rise of third parties is not a trend occurring across Western democracies? Because that's the sort of flat-earthism that has got a lot of established parties into the pickle they're in now.

I'm not denying that the race between Trump and Clinton has its own dynamic of disenchantment that is boosting the growth of third parties in the US at this election. But there is a much broader phenomenon of people growing disenchanted with their major parties, no matter how good or bad the candidate, and either one of the US's notable minor parties - i.e. the Greens and the Libertarians - would have serious questions to answer if they did not grow their vote by some amount at this election. That's all.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Well, some argue that Stein is the Trump of the left. And one Trump is already enough.
ElectoralVote

I thought that was supposed to be Sanders?

 

[Kieran McConville]

Everyone outside of the sensible centrist centre - whatever that is - is the Trump of the left. The Trump of the right is of course Trump, until he is seen off in due course, as he will be. After that we await the new demagogue.

 

[womanfish]

Hypothetically speaking...

Let's say the third party share of the vote stays about the same as what we've seen in polling, ending up being around 10-15% of the electorate and preventing Trump or Clinton from reaching 50% of the popular vote.

Are the Clinton backers from the primaries seriously going to suggest if she loses that she was the Democrats' best shot? Or that she would have been a stronger choice than Bernie or Biden?

And I'm not bringing this up to open a can of worms or compare her to other candidates, but when you have a nominee as historically unlikable as Trump, and who would have to win the election with under 50% of the vote, it's clear that the argument can't be made that he's some truly strong candidate.

In fact, FiveThirtyEight argued today that two separate models of the economy would give the Democrat or Republican a slight edge depending on the model. In other words, Trump is trailing a generic Republican that would be slightly leading or barely behind at this point (for example, a Marco Rubio that wins the primaries would surely be leading Clinton in the polls right now given what we saw earlier in the year).

So, taking all of that into consideration, you're looking at a very flawed candidate in Hillary Clinton. And no, I'm not referring to her stances, personable issues, etc. I'm talking about her electability which is clearly terrible if she's been losing ground for the last month to Donald Trump of all people in spite of her built-in demographic and financial advantage.

So, maybe, just maybe, next time when some condescending assholes act like they know a thing or two about who has the best chance of beating the Republican nominee despite all the polling saying otherwise, we can call them out on their bullshit without even a need for a discussion. If Hillary Clinton somehow loses to Donald fucking Trump, every single one of her primary voters owes the rest of America a big apology.

To start, this hypothetical is unknowable. But there are some things that we could logically deduce would be the reality if Sanders won the nomination.

1. He was inevitably more popular during the primary than he would have been in the general election. More far left people are engaged in the primaries, and more centrists in the general.

2. His favorability would have gone down like everyone else once they get in the real election game. He was at 53% I believe in the primaries. Right now, Clinton is -10 in her favorablity, I can see Sander slipping to 0 to -5 easily.

3. He would have had to release his tax returns. And any reasonable person knows there is something in those returns that is NOT good.

4. And this is the biggest one - Sanders can't expand the map like Clinton.
Berniebots always talk about how Sanders would be winning in a "landslide" right now if he were the candidate. But theres a problem with their logic.

Sure, Bernie might have a more significant national lead (although Hillary leading by 6 over the past month is near historic highs for August)
AND Bernie may have led by higher margins in traditional blue states.
BUT
If he wins blue states by 14 and Clinton wins them by 7 - THAT doesn't change anything. A win is a win.

In reality, Clinton is putting more states in play than ever imagined.
NC, SC, Georgia, possibly Utah, Virginia is a done deal, CO is a done deal, solid in Florida and PA, Missouri within 1 point, Survey Monkey just put her +1 in TEXAS, and down 2 in MISSISSIPPI!!!

on the other hand, Sanders would probably have flipped Utah, Missouri and possibly Kansas? Three tiny states. I also think he would lose Florida to Trump. Which would wipe out all 3 of those flipped states.

Yet somehow, she's this disastrous candidate???

People get SO worked up by the media bullshit, where Clinton is persecuted for weeks about 1 faulty article that brought up questions of wrong-doing with the Foundation, yet admitted, nothing shows anything wrong actually happened.
But lets discuss for 5 weeks about what it LOOKS like, what COULD have happened, etc...

On the other hand - Trump Chickens out while talking to the Mexican Pres. Gets called out as a liar by Mexican Pres., Talks about how horrible black communities are to another all white audience in WA, Has a leaked memo showing that his trip to the black church has all the questions AND answers provided to him beforehand. He proceeds to address the congregation reading off a paper like a kidnapping victim reading a ransom note.
And to top it off, his Foundation is found to have made actual illegal contributions to the Florida AG (possibly others) to bribe her to drop a lawsuit against his fraudulent University.

And guess what - the media claims it's Trump that's had the GREAT WEEK!!

You can not make this shit up.

 

[womanfish]

I'd argue that it's a sliver about the same size at the moment. I mean, you can just look at the polls.

Likewise, Trump and Clinton never really fall below 40% so most of that 80% share of the electorate pretty much made up their minds that they would support them in November once they became the nominee and the latest CNN poll attests to that as both have 90% of the support of people within their own party and that's a huge share of the electorate combined.

I think this election is really going to prove the ineffectiveness of television advertisement, especially in our polarized climate and with Trump barely spending a dime. You can't even reach a great deal of people with live television anymore, for starters, but even then you're competing for the small group of people who haven't made up their minds - many of them being extremely low information voters. So, Clinton spent $50 million after becoming the nominee with nothing to show for it all in the hopes of winning over the least informed voters in November - the people that don't have an opinion between right and left despite being adults. So, from my perspective and what I've seen elsewhere about the heavily polarization and shrinking center, it's a relatively small group that Clinton and Trump are playing for in terms of getting them on their side and eventually to the polls. The likely voter party faithful were on the wagon from Day One for each side.

As far as the comparison goes, the current polling when combining third party choices actually leaves you with an unaffiliated sliver that is much smaller since Trump and Clinton are now getting about 85% of the vote combined and Stein/Johnson are sitting about 9-11%...that leaves very few likely voters actually not having made up their minds although there's obviously going to be some shifting from one or the other as we near November and there's no accounting for just how big that stupid segment of the electorate happens to be (not to be confused with actual centrists).

I'll repost that CNN breakdown of their most recent poll since it has some startling numbers...even 11% of Clinton supporters think Trump is more honest and trustworthy.

Presidential poll: Donald Trump pulls ahead of Hillary Clinton - CNN.com

Just a side note. The CNN poll has been ripped to shreds for it's terrible representation of respondents as compared to the actual make up of the electorate. Even centrist Chuck Todd was shocked by it and said it actually would have been Clinton +4 (a five point swing from the reported number)

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Why are we still acknowledging this idiocy?

Sanders was never vetted nationally. The Republican candidates never attacked him for a reason... he was never going to win, so make nice and hope he damages Hillary enough to help in the general.

The idea that once Sanders was the only candidate that he would swoop in and swallow up all the centrist swing voters is just plain laughable. The idea that he wouldn't be facing attack after attack over his socialist stances, being labeled a communist even, is equally laughable.

Oh, and the youth vote? They never turn out. Never.

If Trump is capable of beating Hillary, he'd have beaten Sanders as well.

But he's still trailing by large margins in the state by state polling, and if the election were held today he'd be creamed in the electoral college, so why in the fuck are we talking about this again?

For fake spaghetti monster in the sky's sake, leave a fucking dead horse be.

 

[Irvine511]

if HRC is so weak, makes you wonder how she clobbered Bernie in the primaries, especially in a year when "the Left" is so energized and inspired and she's a candidate with so many, many problems.

and unlikeable. don't forget that. SO unlikeable.

 

[BEAL]

Because the Clinton Machine and DNC conspired against Bernie from the start.

Voter Fraud
Emails
MURDER!!!!

 

[BVS]

Because the Clinton Machine and DNC conspired against Bernie from the start.

Voter Fraud
Emails
MURDER!!!!

Benghazi and coughing. You forgot that she's dying, but it's ok, we have flashlights on standby.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference