LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
  • Triseult

    Nice attempt to twist the facts in a way that makes Sanders look better than he does. But really, Sanders would only get +5% on Trump? That's absolutely terrifying and way too close for comfort. Opinions swing wildly during campaigns, and there's no way of guaranteeing it wouldn't turn to Trump's favor.

    Meanwhile, Clinton would have Trump beat easily. McClatchy/Marist calls a Clinton/Trump fight strongly in Clinton's favor: Clinton 54, Trump 38, for a +16 split.

    What about Bush?

    Quinnipiac, on July 30, give the victory to Bush by 5 points. (Buss 44, Sanders 39.) In contrast, in the same poll, people gave the narrow victory to Biden in a Biden-Bush face-off (Biden 43, Bush 42) and the overwhelming victory to Biden against Trump (Biden 49, Trump 37).

    tl;dr: Cherry-picking data to make your favorite candidate look good sucks.