proving once again hillary staffers are walking losers and infect everything they touch. these people were working Kamala’s campaign and then moved on to warren’s team weeks before her fake accusations against bernie. And look at all the good they’ve done
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Virginia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Virginia
Hillary was just a bad candidate look at how she performed and other blue states like Minnesota and Maine if Virginia is a toss up so are those states.
Hillary was just a bad candidate look at how she performed and other blue states like Minnesota and Maine if Virginia is a toss up so are those states.
Romney lost virginia by ~3 points.
Bush won there twice. The only two democrats to win virginia in the past 50 years were clinton and obama.Its a battleground state.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Virginia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Virginia
I mean if even Hillary was able to win it by 5% and the demographics have continued to shift even more in the Dems favor since 2016 then I'd say it's far from one of the top concerns for Dems rn.
I will say it's interesting that Bernie isn't doing well in hypothetical matchups there right now. Obviously that could change as we get closer to the election and if he's officially chosen as the nominee. But interesting to consider if the new blue suburban voters in Virginia don't like him
Romney lost virginia by ~3 points.
Bush won there twice. The only two democrats to win virginia in the past 50 years were clinton and obama.Its a battleground state.
The demographics in Virginia have shifted DRASTICALLY in even the last 10 years. Any election pre-2008 there is nowhere near relevant.
fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-iowa-caucuses-are-in-4-days-almost-anything-could-still-happen
An article about how off polls have been for Iowa in the past. Most notable: 2004 Dem primary, Kerry got 17 more points than polls predicted, Edwards got 18 more, Dean got 11 less, and Gephart got 14 less.
The 96 republican primary had the candidates polling at second and third end at 4th and 5th, whole those polling 4th and 5th performed 9 and 14 points better than expected.
So Monday may have some surprises in store
The demographics in Virginia have shifted DRASTICALLY in even the last 10 years. Any election pre-2008 there is nowhere near relevant.
Even so the most recent local elections there JUST saw democrats gain control of the senate and house and even then they only have a 2 and 10 seat majority.
A "blue" state doesn't have such thin margins. Colorado used to be a swing state but now the Republican party there is dead. Virginia is not there yet
Hillary only won Virginia by 5 points despite the VP nominee also being from there by the way
I mean if even Hillary was able to win it by 5% and the demographics have continued to shift even more in the Dems favor since 2016 then I'd say it's far from one of the top concerns for Dems rn.
I will say it's interesting that Bernie isn't doing well in hypothetical matchups there right now. Obviously that could change as we get closer to the election and if he's officially chosen as the nominee. But interesting to consider if the new blue suburban voters in Virginia don't like him
Like i said the democrat base in virginia is in the north DMV metro area. Those are corporate dems not progressives
yang cool but bro really should drop out soon, just be bernie's VP
Bernie will probably pick someone like Nina turner, but I’m not really sure if that would be better than yang
Why is your username gabapentin lmao
I like gabapentin
prescribed for anxiety lol
People have been making hay of Bernie’s comment on George Wallace but I really think it was blown out of proportion. He was clearly not pro segregation just acknowledging Wallace’s political acumen. Some people think it’s a virtue to ignore the appeal of right populism— they did it with Trump in 2015/16 and beyond– and I think that’s a mistake.
People have been making hay of Bernie’s comment on George Wallace but I really think it was blown out of proportion. He was clearly not pro segregation just acknowledging Wallace’s political acumen. Some people think it’s a virtue to ignore the appeal of right populism— they did it with Trump in 2015/16 and beyond– and I think that’s a mistake.
only people making hay of it are right wing publications. it didn't gain any traction once the full interview, where he compared wallace to hitler was made available
We’re really debating whether or not to have a fair trial
this country is beyond f***ed
Bernie will probably pick someone like Nina turner, but I’m not really sure if that would be better than yang
Nina Turner is an opportunist with zero principles
Nina Turner is an opportunist with zero principles
I don’t know much about her, what makes you say that
I don’t know much about her, what makes you say that
She just seems like she is always trying to ride whatever wave to get her name out. She only got her senate seat running unopposed, and then got crushed running for Ohio Sec. of State. She started to get more involved in national politics in 2016 and jumped between Hillary, Stein and Bernie.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-iowa-caucuses-are-in-4-days-almost-anything-could-still-happen/
An article about how off polls have been for Iowa in the past. Most notable: 2004 Dem primary, Kerry got 17 more points than polls predicted, Edwards got 18 more, Dean got 11 less, and Gephart got 14 less.
The 96 republican primary had the candidates polling at second and third end at 4th and 5th, whole those polling 4th and 5th performed 9 and 14 points better than expected.
So Monday may have some surprises in store
Nate Silver is really smart but also biased. When the polls had Hillary winning Iowa last year he told us repeatedly that Bernie has no shot. Now that Bernie is in the lead “anything can happen.”
I trust the data but I try not to read his commentary because he always has a angle.