We're trapped in our USA bubble.

@josh_is_exciting Gibbs position wasn't serious. Hannity's was. Gibbs was only illustrating how silly it was.

@josh_is_exciting Good grief.

@josh_is_exciting There was no "close association", except on Fox News.

@josh_is_exciting Hannity is a master at fast talking to inflame his audience, which makes them stop thinking. And it works perfectly. You say it "isn't quite the case" that Obama helped build the bombs. Isn't quite the case? What, he just bought the bomb making materials? Held his hair back as he built them?

Again, good grief. Conversely, I wouldn't say Trump was involved with Epstein's crimes simply because they were filmed and photographed together multiple times, or because Trump said Epstein liked women "on the younger side", or because Trump said he would be dating that 10 year old in a few years. All those things are disgusting and could be spun to smear Trump if you already hated Trump, which I do. But just because Trump hangs out with child sex trafficker doesn't make TRUMP a child sex trafficker or a child molester. Not quite.

1. Don't you think Trump got more votes that were not for him but were against Hillary?
2. What if we get a Democratic ticket like that again in 2020. I am a Democrat but will not vote for crazy Bernie

@St-Sinner 1) Yes. But that ship has sailed. It's all about Trump now. 2) I think Bernie is unlikely to be the candidate. But even if he is, no one is going to vote AGAINST Bernie by voting for Trump. Those who would claim as much are just voting for Trump.

@greyeyed123

Correct. Bernie will not be president. He can be nominated by progressives but America is not ready to elect these demographics. It is hard for us to accept but poll after poll has established this fact.

1. Gay
2. Atheist
3. Jewish
4. Mormon
5. Woman - is likely and overdue but she must be very very good, equally good is not enough. (Just like an immigrant with an accent, you have to be twice as good as a white man to succeed).

@St-Sinner What a load of crap. If not for the electoral college we'd have a woman president right now. America voted IN THE MAJORITY for a woman to be president. So to say that America's not ready for it when she got 3 million more votes than the guy that won is totally misreading the dynamics of the electorate of America.

@redbai I agree. If Americans want to do something, they don't give a damn about history or trends or demographics. They just do it. (This can be both a good and bad thing, but it's in the character of the country.)

@redbai You don't want to play by the rule?

@St-Sinner A point that has nothing to do with whether or not people want a woman president. The facts are votes indicate voter preference not the electoral college. The electoral college is a process designed to control who gets to be president if they think the voters are wrong.

@redbai
We complain about electoral college only when we lose. This is a game and there are rules. Play or don't play. If you have the numbers, change the rule in Congress. But constant whining will do nothing. Every time we want to talk about electoral college in 2016, we should talk about how bad Hillary was.

The fact was Hillary lost badly... very. She had Obama's legacy of popular 8 years, the economy was in an upward swing, wars were folding, she had a lot funds and her opponent was almost written off as a loser. But she worked very hard at losing. Although she was not a natural leader, behaved like the office was her entitlement, used the same old career politicians and political hacks of 30, 40, 50 years in Washington in her team, trust me a woman candidate matters in the Southern States. They do not think like the voters think in progressive states.

@St-Sinner "We complain about electoral college only when we lose."

You have noticed that the only time the electoral college is an actual issue is when we lose, right? There is no modern example of Democrats winning the electoral vote while losing the popular vote. Many rules across the country were designed that way by Republicans, not the least of which is gerrymandering. The Republican strategy is to get people in the mindset that these things never happened, are not continuing to happen, and move on.

"It is even possible that Mr. Trump could win while losing the national vote by as much as five percentage points."

[nytimes.com]

@greyeyed123
Change the rule if you have the numbers (people behind you) OR don't complain. Until then play by the rule.

@St-Sinner I think you are missing the point. Complaining about an unjust rule doesn't mean someone isn't playing by the unjust rules. And since we are talking about an injustice of election, suggesting we get more people behind us (when we already do and that is the injustice we're complaining about) to change the rule misses the point entirely and ironically.

Getting 50% of the vote, but winning 76% of the seats is a 26% advantage. Is that just "whining" and "rules" that need to be "changed" if "we get enough people behind us"? Do you see the problem?

@St-Sinner Don't include me in your "we". I've been an independent all my life and I have said for decades that the electoral college was nothing except a power grab the the powers-that-be to ensure they get who they want as President.

That said, it's also off point. The college has nothing to do with determining whether or not the country is ready for a woman president The college defines who those in power are willing to give power. There is nothing that indicates that "the country" and the "powers-that-be" are the same.

Those that complain about the Electoral College, do not understand its origin.

electoral votes goes are scattered throughout the country based on the same number as Representatives in the house.

it was designed to prevent highly populated states from dominating the presidential election. so far in his work. if it wasn't for the Electoral College presidential candidate would only campaign the populated states for example California Illinois in New York.

the only way the less populated states viice in the presidential election is through the Electoral College.

@m16566 I well understand the point of the electoral college. Another point of the electoral college, which you may not understand, is to exaggerate the win during close elections so the electorate would be more confident in the winner (and keep the country more politically stable). It was never meant to go the OTHER way, giving the win to the person who got FEWER votes (which completely undermines the confidence in the winner and the political stability of the system).

Moreover, the Fox News talking point about California and New York is nonsense. There are not enough people in those two states to overrule the rest of the country, although many conservatives and Fox News commentators float this as if it were a fact.

There is also a long tradition in the US of valuing "one person, one vote". That is completely distorted via the electoral college, gerrymandering, and the representation in the Senate. Wyoming, for example, has 400,000+ voters and gets two senators. California has 25 MILLION voters...and gets two senators.

In terms of representation in the senate, a voter for senate in Wyoming has a vote worth 57+ TIMES that of a voter in California.

determining the representatives in the House of Representatives and the Senate was another compromise designed to keep large populated states from dominating government. each state gets two representatives in the Senate.
the number of representatives in the house of Representatives is based on the number of people in the state. this ensures large population state dominate government.

@m16566 Again, I am aware.

do you believe that the population Centers should control government ?

@m16566 I think you skipped a word or two in your question. I'm not sure what it/they are. I do believe "majority rules" within certain limits is at the center of our government, yes.

@maturin1919 Biden and Harris have no chance? The number 1 and 4 in the (latest) polls? I wonder how you came to that conclusion.

I think the questions were tough, and maybe they were trying to avoid being viewed as the "liberal media", so pushed even harder, but I don't think anyone terribly fumbled their responses.

You know blaming moderators, debates does not work. It is the results that matter. The outcome that we have to live with. We expect our candidates to emerge from these challenges, these adversities.

@greyeyed123 "Though" is one way to describe it. But it seems quite lopsided to me. You hear questions like "what about the right wing voter?" all the time but never once do you hear a question for the moderates about the progressive base.

@maturin1919 I was talking about the primaries. The general election is a different question. But even there I would really question them having low chances. If they get the nomination a lot can happen until the election take place.
The projections at the time were right. The polls did not lie. It was just interpreted in the wrong way by the media. The polls had an error margin that were well within what the end result turned out to be. It was just media bias.

@Dietl I think a good leader can easily handle even unfair questions, and in this environment, will have to.

@greyeyed123 The problem is that the moderators create a narrative and influence how the candidates will be viewed. On the one hand you can't avoid this bias but on the other you can at least try to mitigate it. Everybody talks about russia influencing the election but that's what CNN (among others) is doing as well with those little things.

@maturin1919 I get that you "feel" that they have to chance but this is a believe with no evidence behind it. We can't honstly predict how good the chances in the general elections are yet. To say Trump will win for sure or that any other will win for sure is ridiculous right now. Trump has a big advantage but he is far from unbeatable.

@Dietl Maybe, but if they are actually good at handling such questions, it helps them much more than if they were given softball questions people shrug at.

@greyeyed123 I see your point and I agree to an extent. But in my view the moderates are the ones getting softball questions at the moment. That's my problem.

@maturin1919 Wrong. You are fake news.

@Dietl Wouldn't that be natural? What kind of hardball question would one have for a moderate?

@maturin1919 This might be true, but I don't think so at this point. Trump can be beaten (even Trump knows this).

I do think the first two debates were disasters. I found this third one interesting--nothing yet to write home about, but also not a disaster.

@maturin1919
But Debbie Wasserman Schultz is not the chairwoman of the DNC any more. DNC has changed its ways. Hasn't it?

@greyeyed123 I don't think that that would be natural. It doesn't surpise me. But you should ask hard questions from all angles in order to be balanced. That's the ideal media should strive to. Otherwise accusations like "fake news" are at least in part deserved imo.
I already mentioned asking questions about the progressive base for instance.

@maturin1919
That is what DNC and Democrats are claiming.

@maturin1919 So you vote for Trump?

@Dietl Can you give an example of a hard question one would give to a moderate that would be similar to a hard question given to a more radical/exaggerated position? Any way you ask it would seem to favor a more radical/exaggerated position.

@greyeyed123 Like "What policies do you support to appease the progressive voters?". But to be clear. Not one candidate is radical. Not one is far left. Not one supports socialist policies (I would like that, but it isn't the case). The most left candidate, Bernie Sanders, proposes policies that worked for decades in other countries. Policies that 60 years ago would be considered moderate. The overton window has shifted so far to the right that to be a republican you have to be stupid and delusional (sorry, but there is no nicer way to say this). And one contributing factor to this is the media. The "center" is not the natural position when poll after poll shows that the population actually overwhelmingly supports those "radical" policies.

@Dietl I'm not sure that's a hardball question, but everything else you say I certainly agree with. (Who was it last night who was criticized for having a bold vision for the future, and countered that Republicans never worry about pushing too hard for their bold visions? I think it was Warren. That would have been a hardball question to the middle, I must admit. It was actually a very effective pivot in the moment.)

@greyeyed123 Yeah, that was Warren. It's the same when everybody asks how you would pay for [insert wealth programm that benefits the poor] and you never hear the same question about military expenses or tax cuts for the rich. Which questions do and which don't get asked tells you a lot about bias of the questioner.

No thanks to Harris.
I've already caught her in a really stupid lie,
that she didn'tneed to tell.

Kamala Harris is a distant four now. How do you think she will catch up? Most Democrats will listen to you about voting blue except the moderates and independents who switched to Trump in 2020. Most of those Obama-turned-Trump-voters say they will vote for Trump again. Why is that?

@KKGator I'm lukewarm on Harris, but I did see a clip her a few days/weeks ago where she was musing about Trump's nonsense, and said, "It really has to stop," lol. Such a perfect sentiment. She also seems tough as nails, which is refreshing to me. Other than that at this point, I shrug.

@St-Sinner I am an independent. I didn't vote for 45 in 2016, and I'm sure as hell not going to vote for 45 next year.

@St-Sinner Because it's a lie that there are "Obama turned Trump" voters.

@greyeyed123 I liked that Harris was a prosecutor. Initially, I was interested and hopeful.

Then, she was on a radio show and was asked a question about rap music.
She said she listened to "Biggie and Tupac" while she was in college.
She graduated from law school in 1989.
Tupac's first release wasn't until 1991, and Biggie's wasn't until 1994.
She was blatantly pandering. She told a completely unnecessary lie, just to make herself more appealing to black voters. Or fans of rap music.
I was done with her right then and there.

I know all politicians lie, but I'm really sick of catching them doing it.
And I'm really sick of catching them lying about shit they don't even
have to lie about.
And I'm REALLY, REALLY sick of catching them lying about shit that's just so
fucking easily fact-checked.

Which one do you think has the best chance of winning votes in the general.... Far Left or Moderate?

@St-Sinner I've always been a political junkie, but at this point I honestly don't know. My gut is moderate, but that could be entirely wrong. Bernie and Trump were very, very popular with many of the SAME PEOPLE last time, and they couldn't be more different politically or temperamentally.

People don't vote ideas. They vote on how they feel about the person.

@greyeyed123
You are right about who voters vote for. People vote for a person, not for ideas. People here hardly talk about that. I will say that voters saw Trump as an outsider, who can drain the swamp, break the status-quo, gridlocked Washington of doing lame duck things with bickering all the time and deliver results. Great ideas did not matter in 2016. It is the person that voters voted in.

@St-Sinner Data seems to show everyone does that. People tend to vote for the person they feel good about voting for, and THEN justify it afterward with positions, ideas, etc.

@greyeyed123
Correct. I will give you an example how a Democratic candidate with better ideas and governance record lost. His name was Michael Dukakis.

@St-Sinner His unemotional answer to the question about having his wife raped and murdered was the problem. There was a much better way to answer that question, but he didn't do it because he didn't know how.

@greyeyed123
You forgot about looking like a dork with a ridiculous helmet in an army tank. It was hard to imagine him as a Commander-in-Chief. These things matter.

@St-Sinner I didn't forget. The rape thing was the coffin. The helmet was the last nail in it.

@LimitedLight Twelve percent of Bernie supporters voted for Trump. That's huge, given they are polar opposites politically. As I said, many people do not vote on ideas or politics, at least not on any sophisticated level. They look at the person, they seem to like them, then they rationalize the vote later based on policy, etc.

@LimitedLight [npr.org]

Anecdotally, I know personally several people who were head over heals for Bernie, and switched to Trump--and are still head over heals for Trump.

@LimitedLight I'm not sure what your point is. Sanders' politics and either Republican OR Trump politics don't overlap at all. That's my point. Many people don't care about the actual policies or politics. They get behind someone they like, and then make up reasons why they are behind them.

@LimitedLight There is only apparent overlap if you know absolutely nothing about either of them. Those are the people I'm talking about, and the reason they supported both.

@LimitedLight Again, the only way you could think Trump and Bernie had substantive overlap is if you really weren't paying much attention at all to anything, pre or post 2016. (Newsmax? Really? We're just going to pretend "no more wars" originated with Trump, and pretend that Bernie was for, let's say, the Iraq War?)

@LimitedLight I'm sorry. I thought you were arguing with me. I guess we agree on this.