Trump overtakes Clinton on average of polls

62 comments on “Trump overtakes Clinton on average of polls ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Infused 1

   23 May 2016 at 12:05 pm

   I predicted last year Trump would win and people thought I was nuts.

   I wish I had put some money down.

   You can bet the US’s next president will be Trump.
   • McFlock 1.1

     23 May 2016 at 12:13 pm

     Well, if he’s just putting on an act and is actually smarter than he pretends, he probably won’t be worse than gwb.

     If he really is as stupid as he appears, then hopefully he’ll be impeached before he irradiates anyone.
     • Infused 1.1.1

       23 May 2016 at 12:31 pm

       He will most likely be the best thing for the US (read the US, not the rest of the world) in a long time.

       Hillary is a puppet. Well, they all are. But everyone has strings on her.
       • McFlock 1.1.1.1

         23 May 2016 at 1:29 pm

         In what way will he be the best thing for the US?

         He’ll get into a trade war with China, legitimise lead in the water supply, and continue to hold the line against doing anything about climate change.

         On the plus side the latter means Florida’s fucked.
         • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1.1

           23 May 2016 at 4:02 pm

           Yeah, Trump will get into a trade war with China, and take some manufacturing back to the USA.

           In contrast, Clinton would start a real war with China (and Russia).
           • McFlock 1.1.1.1.1.1

             23 May 2016 at 4:29 pm

             “take some manufacturing back to the USA”

             lol
             good luck with that. They don’t have the infrastructure or talent pool to spool that up before the dollar collapses and shortages ensue.

             And you’ve conveniently blotted over trump’s ideas on massively ramping up NATO spending, giving nukes to south korea and Japan, and so on. Totally see China and Russia being cool with that, no puchback whatsoever /sarc
             • Colonial Viper …

               23 May 2016 at 7:29 pm

               good luck with that. They don’t have the infrastructure or talent pool to spool that up before the dollar collapses and shortages ensue.

               Why would the US dollar collapse?

               And you’ve conveniently blotted over trump’s ideas on massively ramping up NATO spending, giving nukes to south korea and Japan, and so on.

               1) Trump has said that he will slash US spending on NATO, because he expects European countries to pay their own way in defence.

               2) South Korea and Japan are probably only a month away from building their own warheads anyway. They have all the nuclear reactors, fissionable materials and technical skills required to do so.
               • McFlock …

                 23 May 2016 at 7:58 pm

                 What do you think happens when you get into a trade war with your biggest trading partner? They call in your markers.

                 Anyway, 1: he wants 24 Nat nations to increase their military spending to cold war levels.
                 2: you reckon that either nation has all the centrifuges needed to get weapons-grade isotopes at warhead quantities within a month?
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   23 May 2016 at 9:03 pm

                   They call in your markers.

                   The financial markets would be very pleased if China dumped large quantities of Treasuries on to the open market, because there is a lot of investment cash looking for a home right now.

                   If the dumping caused the price of Treasuries to crash, the US government could buy back its debt for less than its face value.

                   2: you reckon that either nation has all the centrifuges needed to get weapons-grade isotopes at warhead quantities within a month?

                   If I were them I would already have purified most of what was required and set it aside.

                   The main reason being that both countries are right next to sometimes less than friendly nuclear armed states.
                   • McFlock …

                     23 May 2016 at 9:37 pm

                     Lol

                     so now usd might collapse but this is good because debt repayments. As long as China wants payment in usd not rmb…

                     as for your supposing that both sth Korea and *Japan* choose to violate the npt, that’s a pretty big call for those of us who can’t read the matrix.
           • Mosa 1.1.1.1.1.2

             24 May 2016 at 8:00 pm

             I wanted BERNIE!
             Hillary will be divisive.
             Trump will be decisive but the losers are the American working class.
             The real winner is the status quo
     • Phil 1.1.2

       23 May 2016 at 12:57 pm

       If he really is as stupid as he appears

       To paraphrase Dolly Parton, it takes a lot of intelligence to make someone look this vacuous.
       • McFlock 1.1.2.1

         23 May 2016 at 1:17 pm

         Possibly.

         But republicans seem to have acquired the ability over the years to attract the more natural talent 🙂
     • Andre 1.1.3

       23 May 2016 at 1:33 pm

       I’ve been aware of Trump’s existence for about 25 years now (not a highlight, let me assure you). He’s been running the exact same schtick the whole time. So even if he’s got the smarts to do something else, that’s quite a deep rut he’s worn for himself that’ll be bloody hard to climb out of.

       On the other hand, that schtick has worked really well for him so far so it’s a tough argument that he should change it.
   • aerobubble 1.2

     23 May 2016 at 2:56 pm

     Trump should call for the entire asteroid belt be dropped in Mars, so that a earth gravity planet be created for all the climate change sceptics, ibviously they would think it would be a temperate paradise.
   • Colonial Viper 1.3

     23 May 2016 at 3:59 pm

     I wish I had put some money down.

     I did, way back in the early days.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 1.4

     23 May 2016 at 7:41 pm

     Is that before or after your predicted war with North Korea finally starts? 😆
     • Phil 1.4.1

       24 May 2016 at 1:24 pm

       Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day. 🙂

       Note also most of the people now loudly crowing about how they ‘predicted’ a Trump nomination are strangely silent on how their Sander’s predictions are going.
2. Bill 2

   23 May 2016 at 12:20 pm

   I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Trump gains the Presidency. Liberals have taken to the same play book they used against Reagan, Bush, Bush jr….ridicule and dismiss. It doesn’t work.

   I’ll watch any head to heads that may happen between Clinton and Trump. And I’ll express no surprise should Trump wipe the floor with her in those debates.

   Cat Boyd has some interesting observations in this column

   http://www.thenational.scot/comment/cat-boyd-could-us-election-circus-help-shatter-our-illusions-about-american-power.17636

   And ‘The Young Turks’ kind of echo the sentiments here (from about 3 min 15 for the guts of it)
3. Lanthanide 3

   23 May 2016 at 12:30 pm

   “(though I wouldn’t bet on Bernie going quietly).”

   Then he’s a traitor to the Democrats.
   • Bill 3.1

     23 May 2016 at 12:38 pm

     What a ridiculous assertion Lanthanide.
     • weka 3.1.1

       23 May 2016 at 1:15 pm

       It’s likely the super delegates will be the traitors to the Democrats (voters that is).
       • Phil 3.1.1.1

         23 May 2016 at 1:30 pm

         Yeah!

         All those superdelegates who ignore The Will Of The People and go into the convention supporting the candidate who won fewer popular votes and gained fewer pledged delegates… they’re disgusting. How dare they. Shoot the lot of ’em.
     • Lanthanide 3.1.2

       23 May 2016 at 2:49 pm

       So if he refuses to endorse Hillary, and as a result Trump wins, you don’t think he’s a traitor to the party he tried to run for?
       • Ad 3.1.2.1

         23 May 2016 at 3:01 pm

         Hold breath until Convention.
       • adam 3.1.2.2

         23 May 2016 at 3:02 pm

         Brought and paid for by Keeping the Record Straight – ah Lanthanide?

         Like blaming Ralph Nader for the lack of spine by democrats when Bush stole the election in Florida, or the utter lack of spine by democrats in the face of the new Jim Crow laws.

         Establishment democrats are friends of the people – Yeah right.
       • Bill 3.1.2.3

         23 May 2016 at 3:08 pm

         So seeing an election process through suddenly becomes ‘not endorsing’? fuck’s sake
         • Lanthanide 3.1.2.3.1

           23 May 2016 at 3:10 pm

           This is what it said, Bill:

           Clinton will likely get a second bounce when Bernie Sanders ends his campaign and endorses her.

           (though I wouldn’t bet on Bernie going quietly).

           It Bernie doesn’t end his campaign AND endorse her, then he’s a traitor.
           • Bill 3.1.2.3.1.1

             23 May 2016 at 3:42 pm

             Bullshit Lanthanide.

             At first you simply cut and pasted “though I wouldn’t bet on Bernie going quietly” straight from the post, and stated, by that statement, that if he saw the process through – if he didn’t quietly drop out and go away – that he was being a traitor.

             Over two hours later, that shifted to if he refuses to endorse and trump wins because…, then he should be held up as a traitor.

             Twenty minutes later you put quotes around words that I can’t see you’ve actually written anywhere (bar the repeated initial cut and paste from the post) and lumped on you’re two hours later shimmy to amount to a new set of criteria for why or how Sanders would/should be considered a traitor.

             As far as arse covering goes, it’s kind of threadbare.
             • Colonial Viper …

               23 May 2016 at 4:19 pm

               The polls I have seen show Bernie as the candidate who would clearly and easily beat Trump in a head to head.

               So maybe it is the Democratic Party hierarchy who are the real “traitors” for backing their establishment candidate Clinton ahead of Bernie, the candidate who can not only take the Presidency clean off Trump, but who will do the best for the people of the USA.
             • Lanthanide …

               23 May 2016 at 5:49 pm

               Bill, how I interpreted the statement:
               “I wouldn’t bet on Bernie going quietly”

               was meaning that:
               “when Bernie Sanders ends his campaign and endorses her.”

               would not take place. The key word being the “AND” in there.

               My original post at #3 didn’t make that clear – obviously it was a very quick and short comment (a whole 7 words), which was mis-interpreted by you, hence my follow up.

               There is no arse-covering at all, merely making my point more clear – that if Bernie doesn’t endorse Hillary, he will be a traitor.

               If you choose to believe some other sequence of events, that’s fine by me – I can’t stop you.
       • weka 3.1.2.4

         23 May 2016 at 3:11 pm

         “So if he refuses to endorse Hillary, and as a result Trump wins, you don’t think he’s a traitor to the party he tried to run for?”

         What makes you think he won’t support Clinton if she wins the nomination?

         What do you mean by endorse exactly?
         • Lanthanide 3.1.2.4.1

           23 May 2016 at 3:17 pm

           What makes you think he won’t support Clinton if she wins the nomination?

           Nothing makes me think that. I made the statement that if he doesn’t endorse her, he’s a traitor.

           What do you mean by endorse exactly?

           Publicly endorse, as is the standard custom in American politics when someone else wins the party’s nomination.

           As soon as it was clear that Clinton had no chance of comeback in the 2008 nomination contest, she unequivocally endorsed Obama. Sanders needs to do the same, and if he doesn’t, he’s a traitor.
           • adam 3.1.2.4.1.1

             23 May 2016 at 3:56 pm

             I call BS Lanthanide on your lack of understanding of the USA and the electoral process. This is not 2008, the difference between Sanders and Clinton are not the same as Obama and Clinton.

             Should I mention you have completely rolled over the independent’s by your statements, and playing a games with them, loses elections, which is why Clinton is unelectable, not a Sanders endorsement (what ever that means anyway in the real world)

             But go for your scape goat now, then you will fell smug.
             • Lanthanide …

               23 May 2016 at 5:55 pm

               “the difference between Sanders and Clinton are not the same as Obama and Clinton.”

               Yip, because Obama was ahead in pledged delegates, whereas Sanders is far far behind.
               • adam …

                 23 May 2016 at 8:46 pm

                 Have you got your head up you bum Lanthanide? Or is the pay check from set the record straight too good?

                 Please, the difference between Sanders and Clinton just in case you missed it – is one of substance. But sure keep playing semantic politics and minutia it seems to be your grove.
                 • Lanthanide …

                   24 May 2016 at 7:18 am

                   Yip, Clinton has a substantial lead over Sanders, I agree.
           • weka 3.1.2.4.1.2

             23 May 2016 at 4:48 pm

             Are you talking about before the nomination is confirmed or after?

             “Nothing makes me think that. I made the statement that if he doesn’t endorse her, he’s a traitor.”

             An odd thing to say if you weren’t thinking it. Traitor is a very strong word.
             • joe90 …

               23 May 2016 at 5:02 pm

               Traitor is a very strong word.

               Regarding Sanders at this stage of the campaign it is but his campaign manager, that’s exactly what he is.

               http://thedailybanter.com/2016/05/bernies-campaign-manager-says-donald-trump-speaks-the-truth-when-he-attacks-hillary/
               • Colonial Viper …

                 23 May 2016 at 5:27 pm

                 The Trump Clinton TV debates are going to be a lot of fun.
             • Lanthanide …

               23 May 2016 at 5:54 pm

               “Are you talking about before the nomination is confirmed or after?”

               Really, he should have done it already. The next stop is after California. But if he wants to hang on until the convention, that’s fine. He will be a traitor if, after he is clearly beaten, he doesn’t quickly endorse Clinton unequivocally.

               “An odd thing to say if you weren’t thinking it.”

               Er, how? I have no particular opinion about whether he will or won’t endorse Clinton. But, if he doesn’t, he’s a traitor.

               How is it “odd” to consider outcomes of possible future events, but not consider those future events any more likely than any other outcome?

               it’s like saying it would be a disaster for Trump to win the presidency. That doesn’t mean I think it’s going to happen – merely that I can give a label to that outcome.
   • Ad 3.2

     23 May 2016 at 12:55 pm

     He’s entitled to give it a good crack. And shunting Hillary leftwards has been useful.

     His tone of speech at the Democratic Convention will go a long way to determining whether he’s a mere footnote or the start of a Superpac that is a long term force for Party renewal, or one of generating support for bold and popular candidates in Congress, Senate and into the state governments.

     He hasn’t made a good start in the last week by seeking to undermine sitting Democratic figures. Poor judgement in the timing of the attack. I hope he keeps it tidy until after the Convention.
     • joe90 3.2.1

       23 May 2016 at 1:33 pm

       He’s entitled to give it a good crack.

       Indeed, but he may well have gotten things terribly wrong, too.

       In a 2014 interview Bernie Sanders stated that working class whites were the largest voting bloc, and therefore if they could be brought into the liberal fold, you would have your political revolution. The problem with this is it skips over the reason they are not in the fold in the first place…their own racism. Working class whites abandoned the democratic party because of the Civil Rights Act and the infamous “southern strategy”. Working class whites opposed attempts at “socialized medicine” that would have integrated southern hospitals.

       […]

       Sanders and other white progressives have long been challenged on this by people of color, but as Sikivu Hutchinson noted, Sanders and his ilk have longed disdained any inter-sectional analysis on race and income inequality. Sanders isn’t immune to these kind of racial blind spots because he participated in protests against housing discrimination in the 1960s. The more I talk to people of color and women who have long been involved in liberal politics, the more they confirm that white male left progressives can exhibit as much racial arrogance and misogyny as their conservative counterparts.

       http://the-orbit.net/blackskeptics/2016/05/22/white-male-led-revolution-american-inequality-say/
       • Ad 3.2.1.1

         23 May 2016 at 2:34 pm

         Yeah there’ll be plenty of ‘told-you-so’s’ come out of the woodwork after California and prior to the convention (far better to get in early and pour scorn on the moisties like I did two months ago on TS).

         But forget the bloggers.
         If you like your counter-factual games about how much easier it would have been for the Democrats to counter Trump, if only ……., you’ll love Nate Silver’s little interactive game here:

         http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/

         You can break down swing likelihoods by ethnicity, state by state, and then figure out the cumulative delegate effects.
         • Phil 3.2.1.1.1

           23 May 2016 at 3:31 pm

           It’s not hard to make a reasonably compelling narrative that Trump moves the needle in his favor with non-college educated whites, but loses out with Hispanic and college-educated whites… and then loses the electoral college by a few more than Romney did.

           With those slight demographic shifts, North Carolina and Ohio would be the key swing states. Florida probably stays Democrat. If you get a surge in Hispanic turnout, then states like Georgia and Arizona are very much ‘in play’ and even Texas (in the wettest and wildest of Democrat dreams) could be a state where Clinton gets close.
           • Ad 3.2.1.1.1.1

             23 May 2016 at 4:10 pm

             Fun game isn’t it?

             Imagine if you did the same algorithms here:
             electorate v party v deprivation index v habitation index v E9 data
             • Phil …

               23 May 2016 at 4:38 pm

               I like watching the coloured squares go back and forward… 😛

               The NZ version would be fascinating, but I assume the multi-dimensional nature of the selection of party would make it much harder to model robustly.
           • McFlock 3.2.1.1.1.2

             23 May 2016 at 4:43 pm

             Well, the thing about Florida is that the “Hispanics” are more Cuban and Puerto Rican than Mexican.

             I suspect Trump’d have a stronger line on Cuba than Obama/Clinton
             • Colonial Viper …

               23 May 2016 at 7:25 pm

               Cubans in Florida lean strongly Republican. And they are evil on Obama for recently normalising relations with Cuba.
             • Phil …

               24 May 2016 at 1:38 pm

               I never suggested Florida becoming marginally more democrat was exclusively a hispanic/mexican/other issue. Florida’s white population is a little bit more educated (in terms of college degrees) than the average american state, so that should favour Clinton over Trump.
   • mikesh 3.3

     25 May 2016 at 12:44 am

     If he believes Hilary is crap, then endorsing her would simply be dishonest. And if he is a “traitor to the Democrats”, so what. Big deal.
4. Penny Bright 4

   23 May 2016 at 5:30 pm

   Seen this?

   All False statements involving Donald Trump

   http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

   All False statements involving Hillary Clinton

   http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/?page=1

   All False statements involving Bernie Sanders

   http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/statements/byruling/false/

   Penny Bright
   2016 Auckland Mayoral candidate.
5. Draco T Bastard 5

   23 May 2016 at 8:41 pm

   An interesting point I saw on the news tonight: Both Trump and Clinton are equally hated @57%
6. Jenny 6

   24 May 2016 at 6:56 am

   What is going to happen next is that Hillary Clinton will get a bounce of her own once she clinches the Democratic nomination.

   This is debatable, as polls show that the voting public favour Sanders over Trump more than they favour Clinton over Trump.

   Hilarly Clinton’s nomination by the Democratic Party could just as easily see a slump rather than a bump from disappointed voters demonstrated as being hungry for a non-establishment candidate.
   No matter how much she protests it and denies it, Hilary Clinton is seen as an establishment politician from inside the Washington Beltway, at a time when voters want someone from outside of it.

   Clinton will likely get a second bounce when Bernie Sanders ends his campaign and endorses her.

   And when is this likely to happen?

   Sanders has said that he intends to make a fight of it at the Democratic Convention.

   While Clinton supporters have been desperately calling for Sanders to stand down.

   If Clinton wins this contested convention, any endorsement of her by Sanders following the convention could hardly be seen as sincere by the voting public.

   And what will be Sanders perceived message?

   Vote for the least unlovely candidate?

   This message is hardly likely to galvanise the American voting public, desperate for change.

   The fact that the Clinton team thinks Sanders endorsement is vital to Hilarly Clinton’s campaign against Trump, just further shows her weakness as a candidate;
   • Phil 6.1

     24 May 2016 at 12:49 pm

     polls show that the voting public favour Sanders over Trump more than they favour Clinton over Trump.
     The Clinton campaign has been pretty tame and had a very low volume of ‘attack’ ads aimed at Sanders, while the vitriol from the Sanders camp has definitely increased recently.

     In a general election matchup, Sanders would face a lot more heat than has currently been the case and it’s a virtual certainty his electability would suffer under the heat of the full Republican barrage currently hammering Clinton.

     Hilarly Clinton’s nomination by the Democratic Party could just as easily see a slump rather than a bump from disappointed voters demonstrated as being hungry for a non-establishment candidate.
     Meh. In ’12 Romney faced exactly the same criticism from republicans who wanted an outsider candidate, but he got two bumps; one after locking up the nomination and another one after the convention. The thing with bumps though, is that they are exactly that; bumps – there tends to be no long-lasting effect on polling results and everything reverts back to the mean come election day. At the moment, we’re at a Trump-bump peak.

     Sanders has said that he intends to make a fight of it at the Democratic Convention.
     By the time of the convention, Clinton will, presumably, have more pledged and unpledged delegates in her corner than Sanders does in his. On the first floor vote, she’ll get a majority and… that’s it. Clinton’s the nominee for the Democrats. The idea of a ‘floor fight’ is Sanders playing on the ignorance of voters, plain and simple.

     If Clinton wins this contested convention,
     A contested convention is defined as a convention where no individual becomes the nominee on the first ballot. With only two candidates on the first ballot, it is mathematically impossible for the Democrat convention to be contested (unless, by some freakish coincidence, they both score the same total-delegate number).

     any endorsement of her by Sanders following the convention could hardly be seen as sincere by the voting public.
     In ’08, Clinton gave one of the most gracious, humble, sincere speeches i’ve ever seen from a politician. It was obvious she and her team were now fully behind Obama. Why would Sanders be incapable of the same?

     The fact that the Clinton team thinks Sanders endorsement is vital to Hilarly Clinton’s campaign against Trump, just further shows her weakness as a candidate;
     The Clinton endorsement of Obama in ’08 was vital to unifying the party after a protracted primary campaign. Was Obama a weak candidate?
7. Detrie 7

   24 May 2016 at 11:26 pm

   This is just a temporary glitch. Hillary will regain her rightful place on top. We’ve already worked out exactly how this game will pay out. There’s no doubt Hillary will be the nominee and president, but not because it’s what the voters want, deserve or even Donald’s incredible showmanship.

   US Presidents are selected by big business. They prefer republican, but if none are suitable (like idiot Trump) will support a democrat, especially if that person has a strong record of supporting wall st, pharma and the military machine, plus has a suitable mechanism for accepting ‘legal’ bribes, in this case, the Clinton Foundation. The democrat party itself is also on the take now under new self-imposed rules, with business sponsoring the upcoming convention, helping set more rules and ensuring super delegates have all the cash they need. Rigging of ballots or verbal voting just icing on the cake. Political clubs can do that stuff.

   Hillary really is a good big business Presidential candidate. The only minor technical problem is that she doesn’t have the charisma or acting skills of Bill Clinton or Obama – Hence appears disingenuous and at times unsure of herself. As Jon Stewart noted recently, he doesn’t know what she really stands for. It all seems an act and a poor one. http://bit.ly/jonstewart-hillary

   No matter. The short term solution is for her to avoid debates which is now happening, letting others do the work for her, including hubby. Short clips of her being nice to someone underprivileged always goes down well. The motherly thing which people remember. No doubt the media (another big sponsor) will slowly play ball, knowing Hillary is now the far safer candidate than Trump, who is there only to keep the ratings up. It will be a juggling act, but nothing they haven’t done before.

   For the public, many will be happy ‘they’ have finally selected the first woman president. Yay! In 2008 it was selecting the first black president, giving the perception the [minority] voters had a say in the matter. Yet Obama took as many bribes and flip flops as the Clintons. Big business won either way, although unlike Bush, Obama was intelligent, with a soul, which has been a problem. Ideally you want a political stooge to be pliable, willing and stupid. Hillary is intelligent, but also very willing [to continue the dynasty] and her soul hidden away. Almost perfect.

   As for Bernie Sanders, who we greatly admire (since an honest politican is a rare gift), many of his followers will either vote green, write in his name or stay home. Voting Hillary is not an option. Their lost democrat vote will be taken up by some republicans who can’t stand Trump, now quietly voting Hillary, who is more republican than democrat anyway. Her democrat badge is just for marketing purposes, primarily to pander to minorities and ageing feminists. Yes, we live in a vibrant plutocracy. Americans just don’t know it yet… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy
   • Phil 7.1

     25 May 2016 at 1:15 pm

     many of his followers will either vote green, write in his name or stay home. Voting Hillary is not an option.

     You’re making the same mistake party advocates make in NZ: just because a few people are vocal, it doesn’t mean they represent all the people who vote the same way.

     There’s three broad sub-groups within the Democrat Party’s primary voting bloc, in descending order of number:
     1) registered democrats
     2) independents who ‘lean’ democrat
     3) independents with no expressed preference for either republicans or democrats.

     Sanders does disproportionately well with the second group – people who are not registered as democrats, but whom have ideological positions and voting histories which make them Democrats in everything but name.

     An interesting fact about this group is that the vote-Sanders subset of them have unfavorable views of Clinton, but are VERY favorable of Obama. It’s highly likely once Obama endorses Clinton (either at or before the convention) this group will fall in lockstep with their registered-democrat brethren and support Clinton.
     • Phil 7.1.1

       26 May 2016 at 9:33 am

       … and here’s more on the topic:
       http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sanders-isnt-doing-well-with-true-independents/
8. The Lone Haranguer 8

   25 May 2016 at 3:59 pm

   Trump beat a divided and bewildered Republican Party. He will also beat a divided and bewildered Democratic Party.

   But he wont beat a united Democratic Party.

   Bernie for VP anyone?
   • Phil 8.1

     26 May 2016 at 9:25 am

     I’m not convinced Bernie wants VP – it’s a toothless, largely thankless, role in all cases except where the senate is tied 60:60 (then the VP gets casting vote).
     • Phil 8.1.1

       26 May 2016 at 9:39 am

       ^50:50, not 60:60.
     • Colonial Viper 8.1.2

       26 May 2016 at 11:52 am

       it’s a toothless, largely thankless, role

       Dick Cheney largely proves your premise wrong.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS