2020 election

[StCapps]

https://nypost.com/2017/11/02/ex-dnc-ch ... m-primary/

New York Post would say that. The "Bernie only lost because Hillary cheated" thing, is a myth perpetuated by the right, and the far left, because it's a convenient way to attack Hillary Clinton. The primary wasn't close, Hillary had that thing locked up from the beginning, Bernie was never anywhere close to winning, and that wasn't only because "she cheated", it's because Bernie Sanders is a lot weaker of a candidate than the Hillary Haters think he is.

[Speaker to Animals]

https://nypost.com/2017/11/02/ex-dnc-ch ... m-primary/

New York Post would say that. The "Bernie only lost because Hillary cheated" thing, is a myth perpetuated by the right, and the far left, because it's a convenient way to attack Hillary Clinton. The primary wasn't close, Hillary had that thing locked up from the beginning, Bernie was never anywhere close to winning, and that wasn't only because "she cheated".

https://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks- ... democracy/

Want more sources?

[StCapps]

https://nypost.com/2017/11/02/ex-dnc-ch ... m-primary/

New York Post would say that. The "Bernie only lost because Hillary cheated" thing, is a myth perpetuated by the right, and the far left, because it's a convenient way to attack Hillary Clinton. The primary wasn't close, Hillary had that thing locked up from the beginning, Bernie was never anywhere close to winning, and that wasn't only because "she cheated".

https://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks- ... democracy/

Want more sources?

I want a source that proves her rigging it robbed Bernie Sanders, and swung voting totals by large margins, none of your articles say that, they just say she cheated, no proof Bernie would been the nominee if no cheating had occurred.

She beat him by a 12% popular vote margin, what makes you think Bernie would have made up that giant gap without cheating?

[Speaker to Animals]

New York Post would say that. The "Bernie only lost because Hillary cheated" thing, is a myth perpetuated by the right, and the far left, because it's a convenient way to attack Hillary Clinton. The primary wasn't close, Hillary had that thing locked up from the beginning, Bernie was never anywhere close to winning, and that wasn't only because "she cheated".

https://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks- ... democracy/

Want more sources?

I want a source that proves her rigging it robbed Bernie Sanders, and swung voting totals by large margins, none of your articles say that, they just say she cheated, no proof Bernie would been the nominee if no cheating had occurred.

You have that.

[StCapps]

She won 11 more primaries and won the popular vote by 12 points. None of your articles prove that Bernie would have made up that ground.

She won South Carolina by a massive margin, Nevada by a solid margin and smashed him on Super Tuesday. This "only rigging won Clinton the nomination" is a complete myth, Bernie never had a chance with or without rigging.

So Iowa was close, and Bernie won New Hampshire, that doesn't mean he was robbed dude, you're such a fool. She won all the most populous states with the most delegates by huge margins, cleaned up in the South too.

The only states Bernie won were small northern rural states, plus Michigan (where Bernie barely edged her out) and Washington. Bernie lost, because Bernie is a shit candidate, even worse than Clinton in terms of electability, not because he was robbed.

Bernie got fucking destroyed, it was never close except at the very beginning during the first two primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire, small rural northern states. After that, it was total Clinton domination, superdelegates didn't decide it, rigging didn't decide it, dude just got smashed.

[StCapps]

Can't fool me with that revisionist nonsense, unlike some people, I actually remember the Democrat primaries. Bernie used kid gloves on Hillary and didn't want to exploit her biggest weaknesses, he didn't want to talk about the damn emails. He's a donk candidate who never stood a chance, don't snow.

[The Conservative]

So? Dude is still the front runner, that doesn't mean anything.
/shrugs

Quit jumping the gun, wait until Biden actually crashes and burns, it's not that unlikely to happen, but nothing has happened that has torpedoed him yet, let alone a parody site.

Grasping at straws dude, Biden is up 14-30 points in all the latest polls, up 20 points on Sanders on aggregate, seriously dumb of you to claim he's done right now, like next level retarded, seeing only what you want to see wishful thinking.

If anything Biden's chances of winning have gone up since last time you claimed he was done and he was nowhere near done, ever since he announced he's been surging, I expected him to get a bump, but even I underestimated how much of a bump him announcing would have. He's at 44% in the latest poll, up 30 points on Sanders, in a packed field dude.

Try actual analysis that isn't obviously influenced by what you want to happen.

Clinton has 90% of winning.

That isn't 90% of the vote, that percentage chance of winning the election based on the polls, which were on average only 2-3 points off.

Even that analysis says Trump would win if he won Ohio, Florida, Michigan and North Carolina which they had as "too close to call" toss ups, and Pennsylvania which was only leaned Clinton by 3 points and Trump won Pennsylvania with a margin less than 1 point.

The polls were wrong, but not nearly as wrong as you seem to believe, the polls weren't off by 20 points in 2016, not even close, they were only off by around 2-3 points in key swing states, within the margin of error.

If you think the polls in 2020 are going to be off by 20 points or more, you are just being silly. Biden has the lead right now, suggesting otherwise is asinine.

Biden is nothing more than the next best candidate in the line of broken candidates.

There is nothing he has going for him.

[StCapps]

Clinton has 90% of winning.

That isn't 90% of the vote, that percentage chance of winning the election based on the polls, which were on average only 2-3 points off.

Even that analysis says Trump would win if he won Ohio, Florida, Michigan and North Carolina which they had as "too close to call" toss ups, and Pennsylvania which was only leaned Clinton by 3 points and Trump won Pennsylvania with a margin less than 1 point.

The polls were wrong, but not nearly as wrong as you seem to believe, the polls weren't off by 20 points in 2016, not even close, they were only off by around 2-3 points in key swing states, within the margin of error.

If you think the polls in 2020 are going to be off by 20 points or more, you are just being silly. Biden has the lead right now, suggesting otherwise is asinine.

Biden is nothing more than the next best candidate in the line of broken candidates.

There is nothing he has going for him.

There is even less going for all the other democrat nominees, at least to most Democrats, at this moment in time. You overestimate his opposition, or, you are tunnel visioning on his weakness and are blinded to the weakness of his opponents, especially relative to Biden's weaknesses.

[The Conservative]

That isn't 90% of the vote, that percentage chance of winning the election based on the polls, which were on average only 2-3 points off.

Even that analysis says Trump would win if he won Ohio, Florida, Michigan and North Carolina which they had as "too close to call" toss ups, and Pennsylvania which was only leaned Clinton by 3 points and Trump won Pennsylvania with a margin less than 1 point.

The polls were wrong, but not nearly as wrong as you seem to believe, the polls weren't off by 20 points in 2016, not even close, they were only off by around 2-3 points in key swing states, within the margin of error.

If you think the polls in 2020 are going to be off by 20 points or more, you are just being silly. Biden has the lead right now, suggesting otherwise is asinine.

Biden is nothing more than the next best candidate in the line of broken candidates.

There is nothing he has going for him.

There is even less going for all the other democrat nominees, at least to most Democrats, at this moment in time. You overestimate his opposition, or, you are tunnel visioning on his weakness and are blinded to the weakness of his opponents, especially relative to Biden's weaknesses.

Biden will get crushed by his own actions and words, we have decades of documentation, video, it doesn't show him in a flattering light.

He is known as Gropy Joe for a reason.

He has backtracked on many of his own statements in the past and is a broken candidate. The only people that will vote for Joe Biden are the same ones that voted for Obama blindly.

[StCapps]

His history is already backed into the cake, fresh gaffes are needed, old ones are irrelevant. He might very well make the new gaffes that torpedo him, but he hasn't made them yet.