Uncle Biden leads the field in New Hampshire and Iowa, according to 2 new polls. its tied in Nevada!

[busybee01]

Far right wing conservatives won in Great Britain because of the quirks in how Britain conducts it's elections.

No matter why / how they won, the trend still remains that the radicals are due for a loss in this country this election, making Biden the safest candidate for the Democrats.

Even Trump knows Biden is the greatest threat to him. Trump and Republicans are the right wing radicals and they are due for a loss.

 

[Mac-7]

I hope biden wins the nomination because he’s easier to beat than bernie
and if the crazy bernie campaign worker in Iowa is correct, war will break out in the democrat party as marxists bernie wackos battle biden supporters

I still believe we will see a repeat of 2016. I don't see any way the DNC, still controlled by old, white, selfish, corrupt farts like Pelosi and Schumer, allow Bernie to have the nomination. Pelosi has had to fight off the radicals like AOC and Omar to retain power before being bullied / forced into this Impeachment she knows was a bad idea. T

he Democrats are also scared of the trend of how when a Conservative wins Parliament in the UK the US follows suit here, that giving the nomination to a leftist extremist / socialist like Bernie will guarantee Trump's re-election.

look for the sequel to 'Bernie's Betrayal' in theaters near you sometime in late spring, early summer at the latest.

I think the bernie campaign worker in Iowa could be making a credible threat of violence if bernie is not nominated

See Chicago 1968 democrat national convention

 

[bendog]

If Biden hangs close early on, Super Tue has about 580 delegates from S States on Super Tue and that doesn't count Tex. If it all turns to dust for him then, maybe it's wide open and even a possibility for Bloomberg. But if Biden is running even in Northern States and getting 70% of the delegates in the South ….. well, we saw how 2016 turned out for the aged hippie from New Hampshire who abandoned Brooklyn

 

[busybee01]

I did not participate in the 2016 Democrat primaries but numbers do not lie. Clinton got 54% to Sanders' 42% Clinton was clearly the choice of Democrat voters. The primaries were not rigged.

I am sorry, lil' snowflake, but the Chairwoman of the DNC publicly admitted that the 2016 Primaries were rigged, that they did help Hillary cheat in debates, and that they did funnel money earmarked for other candidates to her. The 2016 Democratic Primaries WERE rigged, and I am inclined to believe the woman who was in charge of the DNC at the time rather than someone who refuses to believe the truth / what is confessed to.

She gave her opinion rather than a fact. She even admits it.
"This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party's integrity."

The fact is that she is entitled to her opinion and I am entitled to mine. Your opinion is a opinion and not fact. They were not rigged. 54% of Democrats voted for Clinton and the DNC had nothing to do with it. Numbers are numbers whether you like it or not. The Democrat primary voters are not concerned financial sharing agreements when they vote.

 

[busybee01]

If Biden hangs close early on, Super Tue has about 580 delegates from S States on Super Tue and that doesn't count Tex. If it all turns to dust for him then, maybe it's wide open and even a possibility for Bloomberg. But if Biden is running even in Northern States and getting 70% of the delegates in the South ….. well, we saw how 2016 turned out for the aged hippie from New Hampshire who abandoned Brooklyn

What delivered the nomination to Obama were black voters in 2008. Those black voters went to Clinton in 2016. Also suburban voters in open primaries are likely to support Biden's message of crossing party lines to get things done. In 2018, a larger number of suburban voters than usual voted in Georgia's Democrat Governor's primary. Since Republicans are cancelling their primaries, they could decide to cross party lines.

 

[easyt65]

I did not participate in the 2016 Democrat primaries but numbers do not lie. Clinton got 54% to Sanders' 42% Clinton was clearly the choice of Democrat voters. The primaries were not rigged.

I am sorry, lil' snowflake, but the Chairwoman of the DNC publicly admitted that the 2016 Primaries were rigged, that they did help Hillary cheat in debates, and that they did funnel money earmarked for other candidates to her. The 2016 Democratic Primaries WERE rigged, and I am inclined to believe the woman who was in charge of the DNC at the time rather than someone who refuses to believe the truth / what is confessed to.

She gave her opinion rather than a fact. She even admits it.
"This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party's integrity."

The fact is that she is entitled to her opinion and I am entitled to mine. Your opinion is a opinion and not fact. They were not rigged. 54% of Democrats voted for Clinton and the DNC had nothing to do with it. Numbers are numbers whether you like it or not. The Democrat primary voters are not concerned financial sharing agreements when they vote.

So you and Busy are calling Donna Brazile a liar....

This is what's hilarious to me - even when your beloved masters admit / confess to cheating, committing crimes, etc... You still lie, deny, and refuse to believe it.

BRAZILE admitted - declared publicly - that she and the DNC 'rigged' the DNC primaries, helped Hillary cheat in debates, funneled donations earmarked for other candidates in other races into Hillary's campaign....AND YOU CALL HER A LIAR, as I it did not happen

The same thing with Biden - the man gave a videotaped confession of extorting the previous Ukraine PM - BRAGGED about doing it - and you call HIM a liar, claim it never happened, even though its a VIDEOTAPED confession you can watch again right now.

Bwuhahahaha....

You poor, pathetic, desperate, reality-denying snowflakes...

 

[easyt65]

The hacked / released personal Democrat e-mails exposed the fact that Democrats 'rigged' the 2016 Primaries....

You snowflakes can have and express all the OPINIONS you want, but FACTS are FACTS. OPINIONS don't change FACTS.

 

[busybee01]

I did not participate in the 2016 Democrat primaries but numbers do not lie. Clinton got 54% to Sanders' 42% Clinton was clearly the choice of Democrat voters. The primaries were not rigged.

I am sorry, lil' snowflake, but the Chairwoman of the DNC publicly admitted that the 2016 Primaries were rigged, that they did help Hillary cheat in debates, and that they did funnel money earmarked for other candidates to her. The 2016 Democratic Primaries WERE rigged, and I am in
clined to believe the woman who was in charge of the DNC at the time rather than someone who refuses to believe the truth / what is confessed to.

She gave her opinion rather than a fact. She even admits it.
"This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party's integrity."

The fact is that she is entitled to her opinion and I am entitled to mine. Your opinion is a opinion and not fact. They were not rigged. 54% of Democrats voted for Clinton and the DNC had nothing to do with it. Numbers are numbers whether you like it or not. The Democrat primary voters are not concerned financial sharing agreements when they vote.

So you and Busy are calling Donna Brazile a liar....

This is what's hilarious to me - even when your beloved masters admit / confess to cheating, committing crimes, etc... You still lie, deny, and refuse to believe it.

BRAZILE admitted - declared publicly - that she and the DNC 'rigged' the DNC primaries, helped Hillary cheat in debates, funneled donations earmarked for other candidates in other races into Hillary's campaign....AND YOU CALL HER A LIAR, as I it did not happen

The same thing with Biden - the man gave a videotaped confession of extorting the previous Ukraine PM - BRAGGED about doing it - and you call HIM a liar, claim it never happened, even though its a VIDEOTAPED confession you can watch again right now.

Bwuhahahaha....

You poor, pathetic, desperate, reality-denying snowflakes...

She did not. She gave her opinion. "but as I saw it," means that she was giving her opinion. The DNC did not rig the primary. Voters voted for the Democrat candidate they wanted. It was not Sanders. I suppose the DNC sent out memos to voters and told 54% of them to vote for Clinton. You are also mischaracterizing what the agreement was. The agreement was that Clinton would assume the DNC's debt and pay it off through Clinton's fundraising arm. That would obviously work help Clinton in the general since Clinton's chances of winning was assured once Biden decided not to run. Sanders was not going to win no matter what.

Biden told Ukraine that they had to fire a corrupt prosecutor before they would receive aid from the US. That was a move supported by American officials, the international community and Ukrainians themselves. He did not confess to anything.

 

[easyt65]

She did not.

As I said, your butt-hurt OPINION does not change FACT, lil' reality-denying false-narrative pushing snowflake:

Donna Brazile Admits Cheating, But Clinton Campaign Has Yet to Apologize


Even Dem 2020 Candidate Hopeful Warren declared the 2016 election was rigged for Hillary:

Clinton backer agrees primary was 'rigged'

.

 

[busybee01]

The hacked / released personal Democrat e-mails exposed the fact that Democrats 'rigged' the 2016 Primaries....

You snowflakes can have and express all the OPINIONS you want, but FACTS are FACTS. OPINIONS don't change FACTS.

FACTS are FACTS however your opinion is not fact. What you are packing is lies.

"The hackers have been dribbling out material for a month. But the WikiLeaks dump on Friday was different. It was massive—over 20,000 emails and thousands of attachments, including social security, passport, and credit card numbers of Democratic donors. And Wikileaks didn’t just haphazardly dump the information: It used its Twitter account to highlight emails that supposedly exposed a corrupt effort by the DNC to secure the presidential nomination for Clinton.

This is, to put it lightly, an exaggeration. Sure, there’s an email by a finance staffer ineptly trying to play communications staffer. But his suggestion that the DNC attack Sanders over his religion, or lack thereof, died without anyone acting on it.

Other emails highlighted by Wikileaks as evidence of corruption in fact show staffers getting guidance from attorneys on how to comply with campaign finance laws and spitballing ways to respond to attacks from Sanders on the integrity of the nomination process. A look at the “inner workings of the party’s financial operation,” The Washington Post said, reveals that “flattery, cajoling, and favor-bestowing [go] into winning rich supporters.” The same could be said of almost any political operation in this country.

Wikileaks’s tweets conjured dark and menacing conspiracies, but these are not borne out by the emails themselves. Take the group’s claim that the “DNC knew of Hillary paid troll factory attacking Sanders online.” The highlighted email isn’t some secret communication laying out nefarious plots. It’s a summary of a panel discussion on Fox News Sunday.

But forget the emails for a second. The main problem with the notion that the DNC rigged the results for Clinton is that it requires one to assume the improbable. The DNC had no role or authority in primary contests, which are run by state governments. Clinton dominated the primaries. The DNC, through state parties, had a bit more influence over caucuses … where Sanders dominated Clinton.

None of the thousands of leaked emails and documents show the DNC significantly influencing the results of the nomination. Furthermore, if it is true that last fall Clinton campaign chair John Podesta tried but failed to have DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz sacked, the underlying premise of the entire WikiLeaks dump—that Wasserman Schultz machinated to deliver Clinton the nomination—is hard to believe.

The main direct consequences of the WikiLeaks dump have been the resignation of Wasserman Schultz—which will probably relieve the Clinton team as much as satisfy Sanders supporters—and tut-tutting from the press, which sees something nefarious in the DNC strategizing how to get favorable press or grousing about a campaign accusing it of corruption.

The more serious problem is the divisive impact the dump has had on a party that is in the midst of trying to unite the Sanders and Clinton constituencies. Sanders and his allies have reiterated unambiguous support for Clinton, affirmed their belief in the integrity of the process, and stressed the urgency of a unified front against Donald Trump. Unfortunately, that is not enough for some Sanders supporters, who have taken to booing their own leader. "

Clearly this was a attempt by Russia to influence the election. They pointed to exactly the interpretation they wanted to divide Clinton and sore Sanders losers.

No, the DNC Didn’t Rig the Primary in Favor of Hillary

 

[easyt65]

As I said, Brazile admitted to helping Hillary cheat and you still refuse to accept it.

Biden gave a videotaped confession, and you still say it never happened.

You can't fix 'TDS'...