Running Primary Poll Thread

Author: Imabench

Posts

Total: 193
Topic's author
#121
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Compared to Trump im sure they would be happy with whichever candidate voters prefer, and after the debacle in 2016 at avoiding scandal where they failed hard, Im certain that their number one desire would be for someone to win cleanly with a majority so that superdelegates dont even become a factor again. 
#122
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Imabench
In terms of Russia, his administration has also put sanctions on Russian oligarchs, increased funding to the EDI, and has sent weapons to Ukraine. https://www.npr.org/2018/07/20/630659379/is-trump-the-toughest-ever-on-russia
In terms of "buddying up" that is a good thing in my opinion. If you called Putin a murderous tyrant, he probably wouldn't be willing to work with you.

Yeah, the 9/11 thing and Iran crap are shameful. If we do get involved, say with ISIS, I want us to go in full force, complete our predetermined objectives, and then leave. He has pulled some troops out of Syria and Afghanistan, though.

Yes the unemployment rate was already decreasing. My point is that in many ways, these are record levels. 

The deregulation and new regulations added have saved taxpayers and businesses nearly $8 billion. Regulations create inefficiencies in the market, and are generally unnecessary. 

I read about the methane regulation from your link. It said that small companies were against it, while big companies supported it. That leads me to believe that compliance costs were too large for the small companies, which helped big companies retain their market share. Either that or it was an ex ante regulation, meaning the rules might not have applied to them at all.
#123
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,460
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Imabench
Bernie supporters were so pissed off about it last time around and demanded it be reformed. 

It's not.

The way the DNC has rigged the candidate pairings to favor Warren and hamstring Biden during the debates is obvious and disgusting.

The way the Media is now going full attack mode on Biden and his son is outrageous, and it's clear the DNC is behind it.
#124
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,460
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Imabench
Oh and let's not even get into the kinds of questions the "moderators" fielded to each of them...

Seriously, the DNC should have zero say in how those debates are run. Conflict of interest applies.
Topic's author
#125
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
UPDATE: CASTRO CAMPAIGN IS FUCKED. 

The qualifications for the next round of debates being held in November have recently been raised to higher standards, which has devastating effects for a number of candidates still in the field. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/us/politics/democratic-debate-criteria.html 

In order to qualify for the next debate, candidates have to:

1 -  Receive individual donations from at least 165,000 people, consisting of at least 600 unique donors in at least 20 states (Not that hard to do)
2a - Candidates must stand at 3% or higher in at least four approved national or early state polls OR
2b - Or they can reach 5% or higher in two early state polls

Since diversity of donors is not a hard threshold to hit, the poll number requirements are the kingmakers. Candidates who hit 3% or higher in state polls refer to the states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, the first four states that will have primary contests. 

Candidates who have not hit 3% in at least 4 national polls:
- Tulsi Gabbard (Twice)
- Julian Castro (Once)
- Klobuchar (Once)
Steyer, Bennet, Delaney, and all the other D-list candidates who no one even cares about. 

Of the three most notable names who have not hit 3% nationally at least four times, they can still qualify if they hit 5% in state polls at two different points
- Klobuchar hit 8% in Iowa once
- Steyer hit 6% in Nevada once

Candidates who are probably free and clear to be in the November debate, assuming they can clear the fundraiser thresholds, are Biden Warren and Sanders (obviously), but also Buttigieg, Yang, Harris, Beto and Booker...... So currently 8, with Klobuchar and Steyer just needing a little good fortune to qualify. 

Of the 10 candidates who made it into the most recent debate, Klobuchar is close to staying in the debate, but Castro is fucked. He has only hit 3% a single time in a national poll and needs to do so four times to qualify, and he has not hit 5% ever in a state poll..... Assuming he misses the derbate, there's a chance that billionaire candidate Bob Steyer, who jumped into the race very late and is funding his own campaign entirely, could stand in to take that tenth spot. Steyer has been spending shitloads of his own cash in Nevada trying to build up support, if he can pull off a 5% in a Nevada state poll, where he once broke 6% back in August, but has since dropped down to 2% in the state as of early September: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/nv/nevada_democratic_presidential_caucus-6866.html

Regardless if Klobuchar can stay in or Steyer can sneak in, the Castro campaign is as good as fucked, since failing to appear in a televised debate right before the primary votes start is an essential death sentence. 

Topic's author
#126
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
POLL UPDATE: SANDERS IS FUCKED, NEVADA WIDE OPEN


While in national polls Sanders has almost always been right behind Warren if not overtaking her occasinally, data from state poll contests are being released more often, and they paint a grim picture for Sanders. 

In Iowa, multiple polls have Warren squarely at 23% or so, Biden also in the low 20's as well, with Sanders in the low teens a full ten points behind either of them.... Normally this is not a big deal, candidates can suffer losses in Iowa and still do better in the following primaries. Sander's best odds arguably were New hampshire, the second primary in the campaign which is basically an extension of his home state of Vermont. 

THE FACT THAT HE HAS ONLY HIT 12% AND IS ALMOST IN 4TH PLACE SHOULD RING SOME FUCKING ALARM BELLS FOR HIM

In a New Hampshire poll recently released, Warren leads 27 points, Biden right behind her at 25 points, then a double digit drop occurs where Sanders is at 12 percent. Sanders is doing so poorly in New Hampshire that he's within spitting distance of falling into fourth place behind Buttigieg, who has 10%....

The last two polls to come out of New Hampshire had Bernie up near 25%. While the odds that he actually lost half of his support in the state in about two weeks highly unlikely, the mere fact that he floundered in a poll so much should be incredible cause for concern. Warren's 27% seems inflated compared to her previous numbers of about 16% in weeks prior, but it's not a difficult idea to believe that a lot of Sanders supporters switched over to Warren, since Bernie's losses (minus 13%) almost match the gains made by Warren (Plus 11%) over the same time period. 

Doing bad in one early primary can be a bit embarrasing, doing bad in two of the first primaries is catastrophic. Even Jeb Bush and all the money he had behind him in 2016 couldnt sustain him past the South Carolina primary after he floundered in the first primary contests, It's forseeable that the same could happen to Bernie if he is hemorraging his base to Warren at the alarming rate it appears to be in early contests. 

But lets say he hangs through those first two contests. He's stubborn and believes himself, lets say he gives it a shot in Nevada and South Carolina. 

He's equally fucked in those states as well


Nevada poll shows Sanders from September 4th to September 23rd losing half his support again! Going from almost 30% to not even hitting 15%... You may also notice that Warren's numbers in that same time frame has NOT moved in the slightest for whatever reason. That's because according to the poll, A WHOPPING 21.2% OF RESPONDERS SAID THEY WERE UNDECIDED 


Even if Sanders is lucky enough to win HALF of those undecided voters back to his base, that still would only put him at a total of 24% or so, which would likely fall short of either Biden or Warren if they split the other half of undecided voters among themselves.... He would have to win 2/3rds of undecided voters to back him, which considering how close his platform is to Warren's is highly unlikely. 

Okay so, 0 for 3 in early primaries. Fairly bad, whats his odds in the next state though?

Next state is South Carolina. Biden Country. He's been winning the state with almost 40% support since february




Long story short, Bernie is set up to get PLASTERED in all of the first four primary contests in the primary, barring a miracle turnaround in Nevada and campaign implosions by Warren in Iowa and New Hampshire. 
#127
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Imabench
All of those numbers are still before most people have even really keyed into the race. Alot of people simply aren't/weren't paying attention. Those numbers will continue to change. 

The number 2 choice for most Biden supporters is Bernie. Biden is leaking oil bad. He can't get through a debate without going off on some weird semi racist rant about sending social workers into black people's homes because they don't know how to take care of their kids. Biden's numbers rely heavily on the idea that he can beat Trump. As it becomes clearer that he has absolutely no chance of beating Trump, it will be interesting to see where his supporters go. 
Topic's author
#128
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
There's a lot in your response that is blatantly incorrect so I'll just highlight the most important ones that also happen to be the most easily disprovable. 

The number 2 choice for most Biden supporters is Bernie

Biden supporters have Warren as their backup choice slightly more than they do for Bernie: https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/

Biden is leaking oil bad.
He's in the top 2 of every early state primary and still holds a national lead according to most polls: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

As it becomes clearer that he has absolutely no chance of beating Trump, it will be interesting to see where his supporters go. 
He literally has the best odds of beating Trump out of any of the candidates 





#129
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Warren you must save US from the clutch of Trump and the dullness of Biden!
#130
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 16,404
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Warren you must save US from the clutch of Trump and the dullness of Biden!

Warren would be a blessing to DJT
#131
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 16,404
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Imabench
I predict a Sanders and Warren unification against Biden. What do you think?
Topic's author
#132
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
-->
@ILikePie5
Initially I thought that Sanders and Warren would compete to be the representation of the liberal faction of the party and split the electorate after a number of primaries took place, handing Biden the win by trying to compete against each other. But if Sanders gets drubbed in the first few races and drops out before we even hit the fifth contest, Warren would def absorb a majority of his base which could put her over the top. 

Sanders doesnt despise Biden enough to pull the trigger and bail right away, but if his turnout is shitty enough he might realize his moment is up and bow out, which I think would hand Warren the nomination if he does it early enough in the race.... Not unless polls are somehow under-representing how much support Biden actually has and the actual turnout somehow favors him. 

#133
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Imabench
Biden supporters have Warren as their backup choice slightly more than they do for Bernie
You found 1 poll that shows them in a statistical tie and described what I said as "blatantly incorrect". You may want to re-evaluate whether your biases are spilling into your opinions. 

He's in the top 2 of every early state primary and still holds a national lead according to most polls
His support has been slowly but steadily declining for months. But by "leaking oil" i meant he is not fit for this race. He often forgets what state he is in, can't remember people names, goes off on weird, sort of crazy rants. Biden is not up to this. When he already had the lightest campaign schedule of anyone running, his campaign was suggesting that he reduce his schedule. His poll numbers aren't tanking likely because alot of people aren't watching. They see clips on the news that were chosen because they made sense but they are missing the large chunks where he is just rambling about nonsense. Once more people are paying closer attention it will be obvious he is not fit to be president. 

He literally has the best odds of beating Trump out of any of the candidates 
Bernie's polls for beating trump are about the same as Biden's. But Biden has absolutely no chance of beating Trump. Like I said, Biden doesn't seem to remember where he is, what he's talking about, what his policies are etc. in debates. If Biden gets on a debate stage with Trump, he will be destroyed. Biden has the same corrupt, centrist problems that Hilary had. No one is excited to see Joe Biden as president. Which means a large percentage of the population will just stay home. Why would they go vote for another corportist shill who won't do anything for them. Bernie has a massively energized base. His policies actually excite people and are easily understandable. He even came out ahead of Trump in Texas of all places. Bernie can win. Biden cannot. 

#134
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
I predict a Sanders and Warren unification against Biden. What do you think?
It wouldn't be likely. Their bases are very different. Bernie has a very diverse base. His base is largely working class people who want real change. Warren's base is largely white, upper middle class people. They don't want to see massive change. They like warren because she will make some improvements but, ultimately, will leave intact the corrupt system those upper middle class white people benefit from. 

Real progressives don't like Warren. Warren's white, upper middle class base don't like sanders. Ironically, it is the Biden voters that are more likely to move.
Topic's author
#135
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
You may want to re-evaluate whether your biases are spilling into your opinions. 
That's HILARIOUS coming from you, every single one of your initial claims and even responses are seeped in your own bias.

If you even had the ability to separate bias from reality we wouldn't even be having this discussion in the first place XD
#136
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Imabench
That's HILARIOUS coming from you, every single one of your initial claims and even responses are seeped in your own bias.
Please provide examples. What have I said that is untrue? Biden frequently gets confused and forgets names, places, policies. He goes on weird rants that have little or nothing to do with what he is talking about. Someone like that would get destroyed by Trump. 

Sanders is in 1st in several states. Many polls have put him as the number 2 choice for Biden voters. The one you provided puts that as a statistical tie. Nationally he is still in a statistical tie with warren. 

These are all empirical facts. Everyone has biases, i don't pretend i am immune. But my opinions are based on hard facts. You appear to enjoy ignoring facts you don't like. i made several points based in facts and laid out my logic in how i came to my conclusions. You responded with an attack with nothing backing it up at all. 
Topic's author
#137
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
Sanders is in 1st in several states

These are all empirical facts. Everyone has biases, i don't pretend i am immune. But my opinions are based on hard facts. 

You have no idea what a 'fact' is do you?

 i made several points based in facts
You havent posted a single source for literally anything you've claimed, dumbass. 

#138
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Imabench
An emerson poll had bernie tied with biden for 1st at 26% in California . However California polls keep changing. But he he certainly in the running to win there

An emerson poll has bernie winning in colorado.

A yougov poll put sanders in the lead in Nevada.

All three candidates are in a tight race in New Jersey

And there are alot of races where biden leads and bernie is a close 2nd while warren trails. 

These are facts. The attacks aren't making you look less biased. 
Topic's author
#139
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
Im going to go ahead and do a step by step breakdown of why youre being competely retarded. Dont bother responding to me afterwards because youve already wasted everyones time already with your rampant stupidity. 

Lets begin

An emerson poll had bernie tied with biden for 1st at 26% in California 
1) 'Tied' doesnt mean Bernie is in the lead or that Biden's campaign is imploding as you suggest, as evidenced by the next point:

2) The poll you cite was one of only three polls taken around the same time period that you cherry picked to try to support your dumb claim..... Of all three of the polls taken from California, Biden beats Sanders in the other 2 you opted to ignore because they didnt confirm to your bias, and overall Sanders is in third place behind Biden and Warren which directly undermines your claims. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ca/california_democratic_primary-6879.html


A yougov poll put sanders in the lead in Nevada.

The poll was from almost a month ago now and more recent data has been released with updates figures, showing Sanders with almost HALF the support that Warren or Biden has. Of all three of the most recent available polls for Nevada, you again cherrypick the one poll you like the most because it fits your bias while blatantly ignoring the other two showing Bernie struggling to stay above 10% 


All three candidates are in a tight race in New Jersey
Now you're just being pathetic....

1 - Being THIRD PLACE in a 'tight race' by almost double digits doesnt equate to Bernie being in the lead or doing better than Biden... Sanders is down nearly 10 points compared to Biden... Furthermore, New Jersey's primary is so late in the year that it holds no strategic relevance to the race either now, in the short term future, or for almost the entire  first half of 2020..... It's primary is June 2nd, which is one of the last contests that will take place where someone may have already clinched the nomination for all we know. 



And there are alot of races where biden leads and bernie is a close 2nd while warren trails. 
In Iowa Biden has around 20% whereas Bernie struggles to stay north of 10%, Warren leads both of them
In New Hampshire Bernie has half the support Biden currently does based on the most recent and up to date data, 25% to 12%, Warren also leads
In Nevada Biden has a 9 point lead over Bernie 23% to 14%, Warren has 19%
In South Carolina Biden routinely pushes up near 20% while Bernie and Warren struggle to maintain 20%
In California a number of polls when averaged out have both Biden and Warren ahead of Sanders
In Texas Sanders is in FOURTH PLACE behind Bernie, Warren, and Beto o'Rourke. 
In Massachusetts, perhaps the most liberal state in the US, Sanders clocked in at 8% in the only recent and up-to-date poll.


In North Carolina Biden is almost at 40% while Bernie cannot even get to 20% https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/nc/north_carolina_democratic_presidential_primary-6874.html

In Florida, Biden is at 35% and Warren is at 24% while sad old Sanders is only at 14% https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/fl/florida_democratic_presidential_primary-6847.html

If you go through the list of all the polls that have been taken at state levels, Sanders gets whipped in nearly all of them https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/ Here are two more highlights that I havent touched on up to this point that only further proves your stupidity

Georgia Polls = Biden is at 41%, Warren is at 17%, Sanders is at 8%
Maryland Polls = Biden is at 33%, Warren is at 21%, Sanders is at 10%



An overwhelming majority of polls taken by many different sources in many different states and also nation wide all repeat the same common consensus: Biden and Warren are the leaders, Bernie is usually in third place behind both, and by a large enough margin that to claim that Biden is leaking oil badly or that Bernie is performing better than Biden to even a slight degree is utterly inaccurate..... You either cannot wrap your head around this because:

1 - Youre too stupid to know how numbers work and what polls indicate
2 - You genuinely dont know what constitutes a 'fact' and are unable to separate fact from opinion or speculation 
3 - You are so consumed in your ass-backwards bias that you are literally unable to see that you are wrong on so many levels because of how clouded your vision is from your own ignorance
Or 4 - You purposefully intend to push a false narrative because you do not know how to convince people to support your viewpoint using things like reason and common sense. 




#140
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Imabench
The ad hominem attacks just make you look weaker.

You still haven't bothered to address the reality that Biden's mind is going. You keep referring back to polling but completely skip over that fact. He is not up to this campaign. As we get closer to the actual votes being cast and more people start actually paying attention, this will become increasingly obvious. Biden's numbers are going to drop. Once we accept that Biden's numbers are going to drop significantly, then you realize that many of the current polls aren't super relevant. With Biden in the lead in alot of places, once his numbers collapse that shakes up the race entirely. Have you seen Biden in the debates? Do you honestly think Biden is up to an actual election? 

1) tied for 1st is, by definition, in 1st. Are you so partisan you will dispute the meaning of 1st?

2) You asked for polls where bernie was in 1st. I provided some and you proceed to attack me personally. Could you at least pretend like you are willing to actually discuss this like an adult? As I keep telling you, Biden is not running much of a campaign. He is surviving on name recognition and Obama nostalgia. That won't last. He has no real platform, and even when he does have ideas, he can't remember what they are. 

 Being THIRD PLACE in a 'tight race' by almost double digits doesnt equate to Bernie being in the lead
I had a poll showing them all within 3 or 4 points, which would be a statistical tie. I'm having trouble finding it this morning. But even the most recent one from monmouth shows warren and bidden in a statistical tie.

#141
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
Remember everyone, nearly every poll showed Trump losing significantly.
#142
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@bmdrocks21
Remember everyone, nearly every poll showed Trump losing significantly.
False.

#143
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist

Depends on the polls.
#144
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@bmdrocks21

That is like saying it depends on pretty much anything what action you would like to take. Saying it depends is a truism. It would be something more informative of your position if you said most polls are wrong or most polls are right. 

Saying Hillary had 90% chance doesn't state the comparison between the numbers of Trump and Hillary. It could be neck and neck but given this polling data thought the swing states were for sure on Hillary's side had it lost. You didn't say anything about the methodology of the poll instead gave it to me. 

How about the poll I gave? You didn't give a response to that instead talked about a poll that agreed with you. 
#145
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
In your poll, the national average of polls showed Hillary winning by 3%. My point is the polls aren't always to be trusted. Especially this far out.
Topic's author
#146
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
-->
@bmdrocks21
Polls fluctuate naturally over time and 100% accuracy is always elusive since how vocal people are in expressing their opinions compared to who actually turns out for the race and votes are never one in the same.... People also change their minds since, especially more recently, numerous candidates have enough in common where a single voter could struggle picking 1 of 3 or 4 different candidates to fully back in a field of a dozen..... Polls never ends an argument of who will get how much since only the actual election/primary does that.

The useful things about polls is that it gives us a rough estimate of what to expect. We can all expect Sanders, Warren, and Biden will be the big three candidates once the primaries start taking place, Castro, Booker, Klobuchar, and others will start dropping out due to lack of support, Harris, Buttigieg, and Beto may do well enough in a few early contests to raise eyebrows and make people recosnider their support...... And some of the more in depth polls that dont just take a survey question and post it on their site to make talking points (CNN, Fox) can add insights into which candidates get the most of their support from which segments of society. 

Polls dont dictate results at all, but they give us an idea of what the result will be, which is where their value is. 

(As for 2016, that election was interesting because it drove out different levels of turnout than initially expected or anticipated from poll takers, who often limit their results to responses from 'likely voters' rather then just anyone who responds to their questions, where more rural voters in Swing states benefited Trump)
Topic's author
#147
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
The ad hominem attacks just make you look weaker.

Your repeated inability to use facts and logic and actual sources are the bigger issue, which is why the ad-hominem attacks are all your responses are worth responding with. 

 tied for 1st is, by definition, in 1st
And Bernie is not tied for first, which is something you are not cognitively developed enough to understand. Cherrypicking two polls from almost a month ago showing Bernie doing half okay does not equate to him being tied for first, especially when 90% of other polls you continue to ignore due to your inability to negate your bias show him doing substantially poorer then either Warren or Biden. 

You asked for polls where bernie was in 1st. I provided some and you proceed to attack me personally
I asked for you to proof behind your wildly asinine claims you made in the thread. You failed to provide a single link to an actual poll, failed to comprehend that doing well in a single poll you cherrypick from several taken at the same time does not constitute Sanders being in the lead or in the top 2, and continue to be dumb enough to regard your own warped bias as genuine fact just because its your opinion. 
#148
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Imabench
You clearly have no intention of discussing this with any level of maturity. I'm guessing you are a republican and therefore want Biden to win? So any mention of a real progressive actually fixing america's problems seems crazy. 
Topic's author
#149
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
You clearly have no intention of discussing this with any level of maturity
There's no point in trying to be civil with someone who is too incompetent to see reality or see even the most basic of facts, because conversations about complex issues require at least a rudimentary understanding of the world around us, which is something you lack and likely will continue to lack for the foreseeable future. 

Fix your bias, maybe bash your head against a pole several times to see if something loosens up in your brain and somehow kickstarts it into working again, and then I'll be able to discuss events civilly with you.... I wont hold my breath 


#150
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,460
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Imabench
I'm guessing you are a republican and therefore want Biden to win?
This is what you are up against with the new and improved Democratic party, where the slightest dissent labels you an outsider.