Democratic Primaries

ehrnst

(32,640 posts)

47. {crickets}

Reply to corbettkroehler (Reply #43)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 03:49 PM

Apr 2019

Thought as Much.

When You Got Nothing, It's Best To Just Stop Digging Oneself Into An Even Deeper Hole, I Suppose.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

68 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A pass-agg reminder: at this point in the 2016 cycle: [View all] Recursion Apr 2019 OP

Agreed. TwilightZone Apr 2019 #1

here is the Gallup chart history, up until last fall (new one should be out soon) Celerity Apr 2019 #33

The Gallup history is already linked in the article. TwilightZone Apr 2019 #35

that link only has a chart up to 2015, this one is from September 2018 Celerity Apr 2019 #36

K&R. rzemanfl Apr 2019 #2

Who do you think "they" are? Amimnoch Apr 2019 #3

Russian influence was not limited to supporting Trump Recursion Apr 2019 #4

This is one the main things I like about Buttigieg. marylandblue Apr 2019 #5

Hillary had a favorable rating of 49% when she announced her candidacy for president in Apr 2015 Kaleva Apr 2019 #6

That's because the moment a woman appears "politically ambitious", athena Apr 2019 #10

When Hillary was talking about running back in 2012 and 2013.... Kaleva Apr 2019 #12

Post removed Post removed Apr 2019 #7

She was at 49% in May of 2015, roughly same point in election cycle thesquanderer Apr 2019 #8

Plenty of smart liberals fell for divisive stuff during and after the primaries IronLionZion Apr 2019 #9

I agree enthusiastically! athena Apr 2019 #11

The timeline on her approval numbers may be a little off, but the point is spot on. StevieM Apr 2019 #13

Her favorability went down because of things like her email server karynnj Apr 2019 #15

Her time as SoS artislife Apr 2019 #16

No. The fake email scandal was not self-inflicted. StevieM Apr 2019 #17

Believe what you want, but the series shows when her numbers tanked karynnj Apr 2019 #18

I don't disagree about when her numbers tanked, but that I do disagree about the notion StevieM Apr 2019 #20

Did you look at the link to polling report.com? karynnj Apr 2019 #22

I am not disputing when her numbers first dropped. StevieM Apr 2019 #24

Your second paragraph is speculation as was my comment karynnj Apr 2019 #25

She was not "hiding" anything. (eom) StevieM Apr 2019 #29

Because she had the emails, the SD could not comply with Congressional and FOIA requests karynnj Apr 2019 #31

Believe what you like. StevieM Apr 2019 #32

I was very very concerned with the Bush and Rove private seever karynnj Apr 2019 #34

You are obviously determined to believe that this phony scandal was real StevieM Apr 2019 #65

The state department of was not a Republican karynnj Apr 2019 #66

I am well aware of who Obama appointed. StevieM Apr 2019 #68

Comey brought it back to the foreground after Clinton had pretty much dealt with it. Voltaire2 Apr 2019 #19

Colin Powell used private email too. It was a non-issue. StevieM Apr 2019 #21

When Powell was the SoS, the email system was an intranet karynnj Apr 2019 #23

This is my biggest issue with the whole e-mail scandal... Drunken Irishman Apr 2019 #27

+1 Kentonio Apr 2019 #28

Had there not been a fake scandal about an email server there would have been StevieM Apr 2019 #30

Her server turned out to be way more secure than the State Dept's server. ehrnst Apr 2019 #41

At this point in the 2016 cycle, Hillary had already fallen from the 60s karynnj Apr 2019 #14

Not quite... Drunken Irishman Apr 2019 #26

Not Just The Paid Speech Circuit But Speaking To Wall Street corbettkroehler Apr 2019 #37

How about selling books through corporations like Amazon and WalMart? ehrnst Apr 2019 #38

Can Individual Book Sales Lobby You On A Particular Piece Of Legislation? corbettkroehler Apr 2019 #39

I'm talking about millions of $$ of personal income made via sales through Amazon and Walmart, ehrnst Apr 2019 #40

No Comment? (nt) ehrnst Apr 2019 #42

To The Same Extent You Think I've Missed Your Point, You've Missed Mine corbettkroehler Apr 2019 #43

You Haven't Given Any Examples of the 'Influencing of Legislation" by Paying An ehrnst Apr 2019 #44

My Previous Response Stands (n/t) corbettkroehler Apr 2019 #48

So You Can't Give An Example Of The Purported Official Being Paid $$$$$ For A Speech ehrnst Apr 2019 #49

I Could If I Wanted To But Suspect That It Would Be Disregarded Out Of Hand corbettkroehler Apr 2019 #50

Another Evasion. You Can't Make A Prima Fascie Case Because Your "Evidence" Is "Fictional." ehrnst Apr 2019 #53

This message was self-deleted by its author ehrnst Apr 2019 #62

Still Waiting. (nt) ehrnst Apr 2019 #61

Still waiting for that PM from you with that "corroboration." ehrnst Apr 2019 #63

Hillary had challenged people to come up NYMinute Apr 2019 #45

Those making that false smear still aren't able to produce anything ehrnst Apr 2019 #46

{crickets} ehrnst Apr 2019 #47

They just keep churning the same non-issues NYMinute Apr 2019 #55

That's not the half of it. ehrnst Apr 2019 #57

This is why I've seen the word "devotees" used by some people NYMinute Apr 2019 #59

Still No Examples Of Actual, Non-Fictional "Influencing of Legislation" ehrnst Apr 2019 #54

Still Waiting On That "Corroboration" Of Fictional Wall Street Speaking Fees For Elected ehrnst Apr 2019 #58

LOL :) Looks like a long wait. JHan Apr 2019 #67

That is your opinion, it is not fact Fresh_Start Apr 2019 #51

Not only not fact, but debunked falsehood. ehrnst Apr 2019 #60

The radio silence is telling, isn't it? (nt) ehrnst Apr 2019 #64

This message was self-deleted by its author CentralMass Apr 2019 #52

K&R betsuni Apr 2019 #56