And you know this because?
I actually talked to people who say they might vote for Sanders in hopes of getting him elected and embarassing the Democrats, but if no one cared that an admitted socialist was running last year, why would they care next November. It’s not the America I grew up in anymore.
It wouldn’t be an embarrassment. Clinton, with all her legal baggage, would probably be more of an embarrassment.
she (Hillary) doesn’t know the date of the most important primary that confronts her candidacy. In that election the FBI gets the only vote: whether it thinks she should be prosecuted, or cleared, for her handling of government email outside of State Department protocols.
Pretty sensible take … although we are talking about the Democrats (sensible can be an infrequent option at times).
While the Republicans’ large field has be derided as a “clown car” - the small Democratic field features just two candidates drawing all the numbers … neither of them drawing even 50% so far.
So … one way of looking at it is … either Democrat leader seems to have the support of less than half the party. Or “doesn’t even have half of their own party’s support”.
Coupled with the mystery of how many HARD votes each candidate got (not listed by the DNC … just the percentages of the vote!) … it makes me wonder if the overall GOP number of voters dwarfed the DNCs – thus hurting their fundraising and making Iowa look like a possible red state switch from the last Presidential election.
In the most recent Iowa elections … conservative Joni Ernst won a resounding victory to become Iowa’s Senator for the next six years.
How many of Sanders’ numbers were due to an “Anyone but Hillary” sentiment rather than a Socialist sentiment would be an interesting question. Or vice-versa (aversion to Socialism might have some tepid voters weighing in for " … even Hillary" to keep the party from going through the Socialist looking glass. Sanders up until recently has not even been a Democret … but calls himself a Socialist. :hmmm:
it is my opinion.
Clinton has legal baggage the would probably be more of an embarrassment! WOW, that is an understatement.
But you know, just like the end of the Iowa Caucus, the toss of a coin between Hil and Bernie was good enough. What difference does it make anyway? :rolleyes:
A coin toss is a primitive way to decide an election.
I guess we’ll see if she even stays in the race for the presidency or not. That is the DoJ’s call, not ours. We can’t judge her, only her actions.
It’s kind of funny. Thanks!
Iowa’s caucuses aren’t elections. They are caucuses. People sometimes tie.
Sorry, poor choice of words on my end. Thanks for the correction.
If the FBI recommends indictment and the DOJ does not act on it, do you think that will tarnish her image in any way and turn voters against her?
She can pick a running mate that will be willing to pardon her after she is forced to resign, ala Nixon.
You’re right. I hadn’t thought of that.
Even if she’s guilty, and I have no idea if she is or not, no, I don’t think it will tarnish her reputation among her supporters enough to cost her the election. That’s just my opinion, of course, and I’m not one of the persons who will vote for her.
After reading that, the headline doesn’t match the substance of the article. He explains how detailed the whole process is, and then admits that coin tosses were how some were decided.
He didn’t prove his headline at all.
The author is carrying water for Hillary.
Someone told him that Bernie also won some coin tosses, so he reported this rumor as fact, without verification or detail.
He explains that while coin tosses were involved in some cases, they ultimately didn’t matter in terms of Clinton securing an overall win. The article title (“Coin-Toss Fact Check: No, Coin Flips Did Not Win Iowa For Hillary Clinton”) does match with its content.