DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Primaries V

can you explain this article, please? this is classic word play at it's best.

so Kasich's people have good credit scores at 60%.

but hilary's people have a 26% rate of having a bad credit score.

so that means 74% of her supporters have fair/good/excellent credit scores.

which means 40% of kasich's supporters have bad credit scores.

uhhh.....ok. what was the point of this article?

You are the exception to more than one rule...

i highly doubt that.

there might be a level of intolerance with liberals, but it's not the same as the hate i see coming from the right, specifically trump supporters.

intolerance and hate aren't same. some similarities, sure, but not the same.

It was confusing at first, but I think you're interpreting it wrong. Read the article. Use the graph. There's ratings for "bad", "fair", "good", and "excellent".

The author didn't really make it clear.

Oh I read many sources and even watch FOX News sometimes to get information from everywhere. Point being, when people riot, I hear calls for far more harsh treatment of those who riot. Of how they should be dealt with very harshly and far more jail times and punishment dealt out. How police shouldn't hold back. At how the police should be allowed to use violence against violence.

I mean if that is what you preach, why not be held to the same standards you support? And don't get me wrong, I feel the same way about the left. It's just that in this particular case, it applies to the right.

So, really, there are 4 credit rankings.

Hillary's "bad" is basically 26%.
Her "fair" is 7.3%
Her "good" is 16%, and her
"excellent" is 50%.

Kasich's supporters are:
Bad 10.5%
"fair" 3.5%
Good 26%, and
Excellent 60%



The numbers for the others are there also.

well, i'm playing around with the graph right now.

with the credit scores of a 720+ and above, Donald trump supporters are last in that category. every candidate cracked 50%, except him.

basically, the graph could make literally any candidate look good or bad, depending on which numbers you want to use.


so, IMO, it's a pointless article. credit score is based off so many factors.

for example, you make more money than me.

but what if i have a higher credit score?

it means absolutely nothing.

Yes, there are some really stupid Trump supporters but did you read the Guardian article I posted way back on page 1 that got no responses? Not all Trump supporters, not even the majority of Trump supporters, are in it because of some hate and prejudice. Sure those make for the best stories but there is a deep underlying base of Trump supporters who, oddly enough, want very much the same thing Sanders supporters wanted... a chance. Blue collar, rural Americans who have seen their jobs shipped overseas because of NAFTA, which was supported by both sides but is a Clinton legacy.

In my opinion, there are 3 voting mentalities in this election...

1. Sanders supporters who recognize all of the problems and want deep government intervention and control to fix them all.
2. Trump supporters who recognize all of the problems and want government to stop the hemorrhaging of jobs so they can rebuild and fix the problems themselves.
3. All other supporters who really don't want much to change other than a mild shift left or right.

Well, he loves the poorly educated.

Good.
And this means?????
Excellent. You're getting it.
Even better - you're getting it. Hey, I never said the article proved anything, did I? I simply told you you weren't understanding the scope of the article. Period.


Correct in that it doesn't mean much at all. It does have some meaning though. Not anything enough to determine who to vote for.

Credit scores do mean something for individuals, with a doubt. And it doesn't have much to do with income (some part of it does). I have a pretty darn high credit score. Doesn't make me good or bad as a person, or as a voter. It just means if I want a loan, I'll get it.

Why do you insist on insulting all those Democrats that are flocking to Trump? Millions of them!

that's fine Arch....

we agree. which is why i was addressing the guy who posted the article. 40.

he posted it, so obviously it means something to him.

?
you do realize there are a ton of conservatives who are also uneducated and poor, right?

i found this more interesting than i thought it would be.

Laura Bush: 'Don't ask' if I'll vote for Trump

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/17/politics/laura-bush-donald-trump-xenophobic/index.html

(CNN)Former first lady Laura Bush declined to say if she would vote for Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump's presidential bid should he win the nomination and warned Americans against embracing isolationism and xenophobia, in an interview published Thursday.

Bush at first said she wouldn't answer if she would support Trump as the GOP nominee -- "don't ask that" -- and pointed to the family's support for Jeb Bush's unsuccessful bid -- during a USA Today interview to promote her new book, "We are Afghan Women: Voices of Hope."

But questioned further on Trump and his call for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the U.S., the former first lady reluctantly addressed Trump's rise.

"This is what I want Americans to remember -- what our real values are," she said. "We don't have any religious tests in the United States. And that's what we need to remember."

"We have a tendency in the United States, and it's happened other times in our history, to become sort of isolationist and xenophobic, and you know, we're just going to stay here together and not pay attention to the rest of the world," she said.

Her husband, President George W. Bush, won wide praise for his leadership in the wake of 9/11, and was careful to never demonize all Muslims for the act of radical terrorists.

In a speech ahead of the South Carolina primary, the former president interwove praise for his younger brother while also taking aim at Trump.

"I understand that Americans are angry and frustrated but we do not need someone in the Oval Office who mirrors and inflames our anger and frustration," Bush had said.

I'm not sure why you found it so interesting. I've been telling you that there are MILLIONS of people out there who feel the same way.. we like a fair amount of what Trump says, we'd love to jump on board and get behind him... except for his brash approach to insulting and demonizing other nationalities and ethnicities. His base loves it but if he had taken a more moderate tone on that issue, he'd beat Hillary in a landslide of epic proportions.

And honestly, he's too deeply invested in it to back off now..

Another way to make a decision about a candidate is by analyzing voters supporting a candidate and their economic policies.

Disagree, if he hadn't come out of the gates in the beginning, ranting and getting attention in a field of 14, he would be sipping tea with Bush, at home.

What, by the way, are the main subjects of the election today?
Immigration, Trade, Big Government? All the things Trump brought up through his rants. He has changed the course of discussion and he will no doubt change course again as the field dwindles.

The reason it was interesting to me is because it came from the family started two wars.

One thing I always credit Bush with doing was that no matter what, he made it clear to the world he was at war with terrorist, not Islam. He made that clear over and over again.

Trump isn't doing that. Ban all Muslims? Really?

There are millions who support him for the very words and tone he uses. So who outnumbers who? That's the issue.

Because the ridiculous his comments, the more support he gets.

there are millions of conservatives who don't like his rhetoric and brash approach. But guess what?

There are millions who do.

Give you an inch and you run a mile!

You say half truths and leave out the whole story all the time.

We know you love Hillary, you have from the beginning, so why continue to play these games with us?

You say...

"Trump isn't doing that. Ban all Muslims?"

You just happen to leave out the rest of the sentence...

"Temporarily, until we know who these people really are that we are letting in."

Conservatives are wise enough to see the BS. Millions of them.

it's ILLEGAL, 40.

it's a ban on all muslims.

temporary or not is irrelevant!!! a ban is a ban. and he's targeting a specific religion, which is not only stupid, it's unconstitutional. you can't be serious right now in defending this guy.

Horse Hockey! A temporary stop in immigration is not illegal and is not a Ban! It has been done throughout our history! Muslim Americans can come and go as they please. It is our Nation and we can bring in who we like! We can also kick out any non-citizens, anytime we want!

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/how-united-states-immigration-system-works-fact-sheet

j/c

I found this interesting.
All you Dawgs can make of it what you will... but Nate Silver's 'Moneyball' site is more often right than wrong....

Trump Voters’ Aversion To Foreign-Sounding Names Cost Him Delegates

If Donald Trump somehow falls three delegates short of reaching the magic 1,237 delegates needed for the Republican nomination, he may be haunted by an obscure outcome from the primary voting in Illinois on Tuesday. There’s clear evidence that Trump supporters in Illinois gave fewer votes to Trump-pledged delegate candidates who have minority or foreign-sounding names like “Sadiq,” “Fakroddin” and “Uribe,” potentially costing him three of the state’s 69 delegates.

This pattern appears to be a phenomenon unique to Trump’s supporters.

Illinois Republicans hold a convoluted “loophole” primary: The statewide primary winner earns 15 delegates, but the state’s other 54 delegates are elected directly on the ballot, with three at stake in each of the state’s 18 congressional districts. Each campaign files slates of relatively unknown supporters to run for delegate slots, and each would-be delegate’s presidential preference is listed beside his or her name. As a result, the top presidential candidate in each congressional district usually claims all three of the district’s delegates.

Except on Tuesday, a handful of congressional districts split their delegates in ways that cast doubt on voters’ racial motivations. Did voters have genuine personal preferences for the mostly anonymous individuals running for these slots, or was it a case of “what’s in a name?”

A FiveThirtyEight analysis of the dozen highest vote differentials within district-level Trump slates reveals a startling pattern: In all 12 cases, the highest vote-getting candidate had a common, Anglo-sounding name. But a majority of the trailing candidates had first or last names most commonly associated with Asian, Hispanic or African-American heritages. Of the 54 Trump delegate candidates in the state, two of the three worst-trailing candidates were the only two Trump candidates with Middle Eastern-sounding names.

DISTRICT LEADING TRUMP DELEGATE VOTES TRAILING TRUMP DELEGATE VOTES DROP-OFF
IL-13 Doug Hartmann 31,937 Raja Sadiq 24,103 -25%
IL-16 Eric Miller 34,214 Michael Bissenbach 28,915 -16
IL-06 Paul Minch 35,435 Nabi Fakroddin 30,639 -14
IL-13 Doug Hartmann 31,937 Toni Gauen 28,337 -11
IL-02 James Devors 11,938 Taneequa Tolbert 10,615 -11
IL-17 Rich Nordstrom 24,697 Jim Uribe 22,036 -11
IL-01 Michael Burke 16,972 Christopher Hilliard 15,571 -8
IL-15 Philip Chapman 45,387 Sam Stratemeyer 41,642 -8
IL-01 Michael Burke 16,972 Antonio Alonso 15,576 -8
IL-18 Kent Gray 37,091 Sandra Yeh 34,344 -7
IL-15 Philip Chapman 45,387 Maria Hough 42,363 -7
IL-04 Kevin Jayne 5,797 Rolando Arellano 5,437 -6
Largest disparities within district-level Trump delegate slates
SOURCE: CBS CHICAGO

In the western Chicago suburbs, a Trump delegate candidate named Nabi Fakroddin received 14 percent fewer votes than a member of the same Trump slate named Paul Minch. In southern Illinois, a would-be Trump delegate named Raja Sadiq received an eye-popping 25 percent fewer votes than a slate-mate named Doug Hartmann. And in a rural western Illinois district, a losing Trump delegate named Jim Uribe received 11 percent fewer votes than one named Rich Nordstrom. In all three cases, the disparity appeared to cost Trump a delegate.

In an African-American majority district on Chicago’s South Side, a Trump delegate named Taneequa Tolbert received 11 percent fewer votes than a slate-mate named James Devors. And in a neighboring Chicago district, a Trump delegate named Antonio Alonso received 8 percent fewer votes than a slate-mate named Michael Burke. In these two instances, Trump still swept all three district-level delegates because no other candidate’s delegates came close.

Of the seven Trump delegate candidates with minority or foreign-sounding names, all seven were among the dozen worst-trailing Trump candidates in the state: Sadiq, Fakroddin, Tolbert, Alonso, Uribe, Sandra Yeh and Rolando Arellano. The 47 Trump delegate candidates with Anglo-sounding names tended to garner far more votes.

Not all cases of “split districts” appeared to involve candidates with foreign-sounding names. In some districts, there were significant vote differences between members of Ted Cruz’s and John Kasich’s slates that didn’t appear to have anything to do with racial or ethnic backgrounds. But Trump’s Illinois disparities were unique to his candidacy, and they lend credibility to the theory that racial resentment is commonplace among his supporters.

Ironically, in the case of Illinois, such resentment also appears to have played to Trump’s own detriment.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trum...-him-delegates/

Here's what's wrong with politics.

A politician will say anything, at any time, to pander for votes.

Hillary promised she would put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.

Then, realizing her mistake a few days later, she said "I was mistaken."

Please.

http://nypost.com/2016/03/16/hillary-to-coal-country-i-love-coal-i-swear/

we already know whats wrong with politics. stop bringing the same nonsense up over and over. we get it. you hate hilary. we got it.

anyway, to further along the discussion:

There Aren’t Enough White Voters for GOP Win

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...hite-voter.html

There Aren’t Enough White Voters for GOP Win
Trump talks about reaching Hispanics and blacks, but he’d be the most unpopular candidate with either group ever to lead a national ticket.
With every cycle, American politics is covered more like sports.
There are channels and programs that have elevated once obscure insider moments like the NFL combine or the living rooms of the Iowa caucus into national obsessions. Everyone is an expert because every one watches the game played on television. Everyone blogs, everyone calls into Mad Dog or Rush, everyone knows everything. No one knows anything.
But everyone is an expert. Information is consumed to confirm rather than inform opinions and in the Internet’s endless feedback loop of misinformation, every hunch quickly escalates into an opinion hardened into a truth. If only Seattle had run against New England, they would have won the Super Bowl. And in politics, for many Republicans the most unassailable truth is that winning the presidency is easy if only… and here everyone finishes the sentence with their pet theory of electoral politics.

That there is so much conviction that it might be easy for Republicans to win a national election is an odd one given history. Over the last six presidential elections, Democrats have won 16 states every time for a total of 242 electoral votes out of the 270 needed to win. In those same six elections, Republican presidential candidates carried 13 states for 103 electoral votes. Here’s another way to look at it: The last time a Republican presidential candidate won with enough votes to be declared the winner on election night was 1988.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan won 56 percent of white voters and won a landslide victory of 44 states. In 2012, Mitt Romney won 59 percent of whites and lost with 24 states. But it’s a frequent talking point that white voter enthusiasm was higher for Reagan and turnout down for Romney. Not so. In 1980, 59 percent of whites voted and in 2012, 64 percent of whites voted.
But still the myth survives that there are these masses of untapped white voters just waiting for the right candidate. Call it the Lost Tribes of the Amazon theory: If only you paddle far enough up the river and bang the drum loud enough, these previously hidden voters will gather to the river’s edge. The simple truth is that in there simply aren’t enough white voters in the America of 2016 to win a national election without also getting a substantial share of the non-white vote. Romney won 17 percent of the non-white vote. Depending on white voter turnout, a Republican needs between 25 percent and 35 percent of the non-white vote to win. RealClearPolitics has a handy tool so you can play with the percentages.
The Trump campaign talks about being able to reach out to Hispanics and African Americans but it’s not an overstatement to say he would be the most unpopular candidate with either group to ever lead a national ticket. Only 12 percent of Hispanics have a favorable view of Trump with 77 percent unfavorable. Even among Hispanic Republicans, he has a 60 percent unfavorable ranking. Among African Americans, 86 percent have an unfavorable view of Trump.

play iconDonald Trump's Phone Interviews Are A Convenient Campaign StrategyDonald Trump's Phone Interviews Are A Convenient Campaign Strategyplay iconFlorida Gov. Rick Scott Endorses Trump, Asks GOP To 'Come Together'Florida Gov. Rick Scott Endorses Trump, Asks GOP To 'Come Together'play iconNow Trump Is Suggesting Riots Will Break Out If He's Not NominatedNow Trump Is Suggesting Riots Will Break Out If He's Not Nominated
To have even a chance at winning a national election, a nominee must get 90-plus percent of their own party. But one out of every three Republicans view Trump unfavorably.
A function of a contested primary? Not really. Hillary Clinton has an 83 percent favorability with Democrats in the middle of her very hot battle with Bernie Sanders.
One of Hillary Clinton’s greatest weaknesses is her perceived lack of honesty and trust. Only 37 percent of Americans believe she is honest and trustworthy. That could be a devastating opportunity for an opponent to exploit. But only 27 percent of the public believes Donald Trump is honest.
We can go on. But of course none of this will dissuade the Trump believers who will point to his dismantling of the Republican field as proof that he is a new force in politics and to use that popular phrase I loathe, “there are no rules.” It’s a legitimate point and one impossible to argue as there is no alternative universe in which there was an alternative election in which the Republican candidates ran better campaigns against Trump.
It’s true that voter registration and turnout is up in the Republican primaries and I don’t see any reason not to credit Trump with those increases. We’ve seen this before with little impact on the general election but more voters and more voter enthusiasm are positive.
Trump has accumulated about half of the 1237 delegates he needs to secure the nomination and there are credible scenarios where he does not become the nominee. (That’s another piece.) In my view, Donald Trump, if he does claim the party’s mantle, would be a historically weak and vulnerable nominee.
But let’s not kid ourselves. Even if John Kasich or Ted Cruz, the remaining two candidates, were to emerge, the advantage is still very much with the Democrats. And until the party grows its appeal with non-white voters, it’s going to take an inside straight to win the White House.

that's a ban 40. give it up.

Only in emotional libby land.

Hilarious! You post this ^^

And then post this below.

We get it, you hate Trump. We get it.

I have to wonder, if the libs are so scared of trump, what is the reason?

There Aren’t Enough White Voters for GOP Win

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...hite-voter.html

There Aren’t Enough White Voters for GOP Win
Trump talks about reaching Hispanics and blacks, but he’d be the most unpopular candidate with either group ever to lead a national ticket.
With every cycle, American politics is covered more like sports.
There are channels and programs that have elevated once obscure insider moments like the NFL combine or the living rooms of the Iowa caucus into national obsessions. Everyone is an expert because every one watches the game played on television. Everyone blogs, everyone calls into Mad Dog or Rush, everyone knows everything. No one knows anything.
But everyone is an expert. Information is consumed to confirm rather than inform opinions and in the Internet’s endless feedback loop of misinformation, every hunch quickly escalates into an opinion hardened into a truth. If only Seattle had run against New England, they would have won the Super Bowl. And in politics, for many Republicans the most unassailable truth is that winning the presidency is easy if only… and here everyone finishes the sentence with their pet theory of electoral politics.

That there is so much conviction that it might be easy for Republicans to win a national election is an odd one given history. Over the last six presidential elections, Democrats have won 16 states every time for a total of 242 electoral votes out of the 270 needed to win. In those same six elections, Republican presidential candidates carried 13 states for 103 electoral votes. Here’s another way to look at it: The last time a Republican presidential candidate won with enough votes to be declared the winner on election night was 1988.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan won 56 percent of white voters and won a landslide victory of 44 states. In 2012, Mitt Romney won 59 percent of whites and lost with 24 states. But it’s a frequent talking point that white voter enthusiasm was higher for Reagan and turnout down for Romney. Not so. In 1980, 59 percent of whites voted and in 2012, 64 percent of whites voted.
But still the myth survives that there are these masses of untapped white voters just waiting for the right candidate. Call it the Lost Tribes of the Amazon theory: If only you paddle far enough up the river and bang the drum loud enough, these previously hidden voters will gather to the river’s edge. The simple truth is that in there simply aren’t enough white voters in the America of 2016 to win a national election without also getting a substantial share of the non-white vote. Romney won 17 percent of the non-white vote. Depending on white voter turnout, a Republican needs between 25 percent and 35 percent of the non-white vote to win. RealClearPolitics has a handy tool so you can play with the percentages.
The Trump campaign talks about being able to reach out to Hispanics and African Americans but it’s not an overstatement to say he would be the most unpopular candidate with either group to ever lead a national ticket. Only 12 percent of Hispanics have a favorable view of Trump with 77 percent unfavorable. Even among Hispanic Republicans, he has a 60 percent unfavorable ranking. Among African Americans, 86 percent have an unfavorable view of Trump.

play iconDonald Trump's Phone Interviews Are A Convenient Campaign StrategyDonald Trump's Phone Interviews Are A Convenient Campaign Strategyplay iconFlorida Gov. Rick Scott Endorses Trump, Asks GOP To 'Come Together'Florida Gov. Rick Scott Endorses Trump, Asks GOP To 'Come Together'play iconNow Trump Is Suggesting Riots Will Break Out If He's Not NominatedNow Trump Is Suggesting Riots Will Break Out If He's Not Nominated
To have even a chance at winning a national election, a nominee must get 90-plus percent of their own party. But one out of every three Republicans view Trump unfavorably.
A function of a contested primary? Not really. Hillary Clinton has an 83 percent favorability with Democrats in the middle of her very hot battle with Bernie Sanders.
One of Hillary Clinton’s greatest weaknesses is her perceived lack of honesty and trust. Only 37 percent of Americans believe she is honest and trustworthy. That could be a devastating opportunity for an opponent to exploit. But only 27 percent of the public believes Donald Trump is honest.
We can go on. But of course none of this will dissuade the Trump believers who will point to his dismantling of the Republican field as proof that he is a new force in politics and to use that popular phrase I loathe, “there are no rules.” It’s a legitimate point and one impossible to argue as there is no alternative universe in which there was an alternative election in which the Republican candidates ran better campaigns against Trump.
It’s true that voter registration and turnout is up in the Republican primaries and I don’t see any reason not to credit Trump with those increases. We’ve seen this before with little impact on the general election but more voters and more voter enthusiasm are positive.
Trump has accumulated about half of the 1237 delegates he needs to secure the nomination and there are credible scenarios where he does not become the nominee. (That’s another piece.) In my view, Donald Trump, if he does claim the party’s mantle, would be a historically weak and vulnerable nominee.
But let’s not kid ourselves. Even if John Kasich or Ted Cruz, the remaining two candidates, were to emerge, the advantage is still very much with the Democrats. And until the party grows its appeal with non-white voters, it’s going to take an inside straight to win the White House. [/quote]

Hillary is a power starved compulsive liar... this isn't news. Her only "conviction" is her own rise to power.

That doesn't make her a whole lot different than 99% of the rest of the politicians, it just is what it is.

Agreed. Perhaps you missed this part of my post? "A politician will say anything, at any time, to pander for votes."

I used hillary as an example.

Some on here seem to think anything and everything she says is golden.

As far as Trump is concerned, the power brokers in the Republican Party, the Wall Street Fat cats and the Bankers are going to do everything possible to end his chances. You know, all those people who have always had our best interests at heart and now are trying to protect us from the Donald.

I don't think he will survive it.

Cruz may soon rise.

Why did you quote my entire article?

And who said liberals are scared of trump? You realize we were BEGGING for this to happen since the start?

You understand that, right? Go back and look at past threads. Man I was damn near praying that trump would be the nominee.


And now look at the train wreck going on in the GOP. Go ahead and do that brokered convention too. Trust me, I won't complain. I encourage it!! Do it!!

Man imma open up a phone line like Ms. Cleo.

Like who?

If Cruz of all people rises out of a brokered convention....man y'all might not win one state come Election Day.

First time ever a president will have a clean sweep of states?

Wait, never mind. He'll have Texas and..... Kansas lmao

I was referring to your comment: " your boy is gonna get slaughtered in the general."

Crystal ball, fact ( in your mind) or fiction???

Nothing is ever set in stone, but so far my political predictions have come to fruition.

But yea, I truly believe that Clinton is going to mop the floor with trump.

If it's even trump. We don't know what's going on of the brokered convention.


Hilary wins regardless, so it doesn't matter.

If Trump gets into the general you'll see that wall he's going to build suddenly change to a mall and we all just misunderstood.

We're gonna build a mall. It will be a great big mall. Like wow!! And I promise you. I PROMISE you. Americans are gonna pay for it.

Trump isn't the scary one, that's Cruz. Trump just makes for good comedy.

I will say this credit scores can say a lot about a person, however they can also be so very wrong about telling you about a person.

when I first got married at a young age my score was ZERO. I got that score into the high 700's, then got hurt when I was self employed and my score dropped into the low 400's. I got it back into the 700's then my wife got hurt and was off work for 9 months. Our score dropped back into the high 400's. We got our scores back into the mid 700's then we signed for a butt load of student loans for our kids and we dropped into the mid to low 600's again. Today after being off work for 15 months my score stands at a 848 (I had to buy another car today as the deqalership is taking the demo back that they were so kind to let me drive for 15 months while I wasn't working. Anyway my score could go back into the dumper in a year if I am forced to remain on SSDI instead of being able to go back to work. I have seen this same story with 10's of thousands of people over the years, and just like me a lot of them never changed, just their scores did.

well....lmao

if we end up going to war with russia under Trump, make sure to send only trump supporters.

Kremlin criticizes Trump ad, sees 'demonization' of Russia

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kremlin-criti...--politics.html

MOSCOW (AP) — Vladimir Putin’s spokesman is criticizing an online ad from Donald Trump portraying the Russian president as one of America’s toughest opponents. He’s denouncing what he calls the demonization of Russia during U.S. elections.

The video features Putin and what appears to be a fighter for the Islamic State group. It says that “when it comes to facing our toughest opponents, the Democrats have the perfect answer,” then cuts to footage of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton barking like a dog — a clip from earlier this year.

Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Thursday he’s seen the video, but doesn’t know if Putin has.

He said “we regard it negatively” and complained that “the demonization of Russia and everything connected to Russia is, unfortunately, an obligatory part of an American election campaign.”