Exactly, it meant nothing. Cruz is still largely hated by everybody . As long as Bernie doesn't drag the independents to the democratic side (he shouldn't if he's this far ahead of Clinton) Trump will have a resounding win. I don't even think Cruz will place 2nd, he'll come in third at best
Rubio stole his shine (even though he came in 3rd, wtf)
And i really hope the Hillary loss isn't too devastating in NH. I don't like her (never will) but common sense has it that we need a Democrat win and she's the only one who can beat the Republicans.
Bernie Sanders winning the nomination would be the biggest political mistake ever made
Rubio stole his shine (even though he came in 3rd, wtf)
And i really hope the Hillary loss isn't too devastating in NH. I don't like her (never will) but common sense has it that we need a Democrat win and she's the only one who can beat the Republicans.
Bernie Sanders winning the nomination would be the biggest political mistake ever made
Yep he did. It's because he wasn't expected to do so well but came in third, almost second. That, and because the establishment loves him so someone making a good comeback story who the establishment likes will always generate good headlines. The same thing will happen if Clinton somehow pulls off the New Hampshire upset .
I agree with your sentiments on hoping Hillary's more than likely loss isn't too bad. A single digit loss would not generate nearly as much bad press for her as as a double digit loss. Either way Sanders will get good press though that generally won't affect his status in Nevada. They need more polling there tbh
Yep he did. It's because he wasn't expected to do so well but came in third, almost second. That, and because the establishment loves him so someone making a good comeback story who the establishment likes will always generate good headlines. The same thing will happen if Clinton somehow pulls off the New Hampshire upset .
I agree with your sentiments on hoping Hillary's more than likely loss isn't too bad. A single digit loss would not generate nearly as much bad press for her as as a double digit loss. Either way Sanders will get good press though that generally won't affect his status in Nevada. They need more polling there tbh
The establishment + the press are pushing Rubio so hard. He's so green though (and a traitor to his own ppl considering he's a product of immigrants).
Hillary gets so much bad press already, i don't think it could get worse lol. Has she gotten a single positive article this year?
I mean, she won Iowa and people (like Politico) are still calling her a "wounded frontrunner"
Lucky for Hillary, even if she lost NH by a landslide Bernie has 0 minority appeal and he won't get through Nevada (hispanics) and SC (blacks)
The establishment + the press are pushing Rubio so hard. He's so green though (and a traitor to his own ppl considering he's a product of immigrants).
Hillary gets so much bad press already, i don't think it could get worse lol. Has she gotten a single positive article this year?
I mean, she won Iowa and people (like Politico) are still calling her a "wounded frontrunner"
Lucky for Hillary, even if she lost NH by a landslide Bernie has 0 minority appeal and he won't get through Nevada (hispanics) and SC (blacks)
That's what I see too. Not sure why Rubio is being pushed when they could be pushing someone like Jeb. Rubio is better than Trump/Cruz to them but still...
Yeah literally every article is negative. I'm surprised she's even still up because there has not been a single good piece of info. And true he has very little minority appeal right now, he may cut into her lead somewhat but I don't think it'll change things. It's possible and that's what Sanders' camp and supporters hope for, we'll find out in Nevada and South Carolina.
Bernie just needs that name recognition, and I think he can make inroads with blacks & hispanics, particularity on healthcare and education.
I'm still not sure if name recognition is the problem. I mean he has had a lot of recognition the last few months.
And even if you want to say that he's only campaigned heavily in two states (Iowa and New Hampshire) even with his name recognition he still lagged behind Clinton with minorities in Iowa by quite a bit.
It may be something else that's affecting him even more than recognition
Remember how people were asking for a transcript of Hillary's speeches at Goldman Sachs? Here's one of them, and it's on female empowerment and investment in women entrepreneurs
Remember how people were asking for a transcript of Hillary's speeches at Goldman Sachs? Here's one of them, and it's on female empowerment and investment in women entrepreneurs
She needs to release all of the transcripts then because Bernie is being disengenuous with saying she accepted so much money and expects that she has to return the favor. If this is what she talked about throughout her speaking days then this basically goes along with what she said since the beginning, nothing was wrong and everyone does it without much scrutiny
edit: for some reason I can't watch the video lol. I'll just go on your word
She needs to release all of the transcripts then because Bernie is being disengenuous with saying she accepted so much money and expects that she has to return the favor. If this is what she talked about throughout her speaking days then this basically goes along with what she said since the beginning, nothing was wrong and everyone does it without much scrutiny
edit: for some reason I can't watch the video lol. I'll just go on your word
Hilary Supporters: "The NRA donates to Republicans which is why they won't pass gun reform! The big banks donate to Hilary, but she's above influence, unlike Republicans".
Hilary Supporters: "The NRA donates to Republicans which is why they won't pass gun reform! The big banks donate to Hilary, but she's above influence, unlike Republicans".
Well just look at her record of fighting against Wall Street.
I was working in the credit card industry during the first big push on this, and was still following the news on it when it passed. Let me tell you: This was a truly evil bill, and it's a truly evil law. Literally everything that the credit card associations, the banks, and the American Banking Association said in support of this bill was a lie. And they knew it. It was common water-cooler gossip inside the industry that everything our lobbyists were saying was a flat-out lie.
And while quid pro quo bribery is extremely rare in American politics, the sheer number of Democratic politicians who changed sides on this bill after receiving big donations is dizzying.
Here's what the industry knew at the time:
All forms of credit card fraud, taken together, have averaged close to 0.4% of transaction volume, varying only by a couple hundredths of a percent, for almost as long as the industry has existed.
This fraud is covered by the 0.5% of transaction volume that the credit card associations charge, with plenty of money left over to fund the authorization and clearing system and brand advertising. (The rest of the interchange fee goes to the merchant bank and the issuing bank.)
Of all of the forms of credit card fraud, bankruptcy fraud is and was such a tiny sliver of the fraud as to make no difference. (Although there was something about to happen in the early 2000s that the banks wanted to get out in front of, more on that in a second.) But because they flat-out lied about how much bankruptcy fraud was costing them, the lobbyists promised Congress, the Presidents, and the American public that if this bill passed, they would be able to pass the savings on to the public, which would result in lower credit card rates. How's that worked out for you?
Look. In the late 80s, the credit card industry funded a study of how Americans use credit cards that found that (at the time) the average American had nine credit cards, carried five of them in their wallet or purse leaving the other four in the drawer, and only used at most three of those five cards at all regularly. They also found that the card most used was, in most cases, the first card they had ever been issued.
Well, the banking industry was still reeling from the losses it took during what we usually call the Savings and Loan Crisis (which affected a lot more than S&Ls). So this is why, in the late 80s and through most of the 90s, every bank in America was doing two things: mailing out pre-approved credit cards to every household in America, and handing out pre-approved credit cards on college campuses to anyone with a pulse.
They knew that the other banks were doing so, too, but they believed that card usage pattern wouldn't change, that if people had 20 or 30 cards, they would still throw all but 5 into a drawer and mostly only use one. But in the late '90s, the banks became aware of two things:
The dot-com boom was almost certainly a bubble and about to burst, which would end the long trend of low unemployment during the 90s, and ...
The average American family had an open, unsecured credit line, vulnerable to bankruptcy, of at least five times what they could imaginably pay back. Especially if one or more wage earners lost a job. So to keep people from farming cash advances and declaring bankruptcy whenever the dot-com bubble burst, the banking industry spent tens of millions of dollars on bribes to get credit-card debt made non-dischargeable. Even though they knew that credit card debt was almost never fraudulent, that they lost almost nothing to credit card fraud in bankruptcies, and that they had been wildly irresponsible in issuing that credit in the first place. And Hillary Clinton knew all of this.And she took the money and changed her vote anyway. So did a lot of them.
. As long as Bernie doesn't drag the independents to the democratic side (he shouldn't if he's this far ahead of Clinton) Trump will have a resounding win. I don't even think Cruz will place 2nd, he'll come in third at best
He's the one I'm most worried about 
