Rubio is the one I most think will capture of republican nomination, though I still am skeptical of him being a one term senator (irony for all the critics of Obama) and his flippy-floppy on immigration. (one of the things that actually is driving Trumps numbers) I don't think Carson or Trump ultimately can withstand being frontrunners for much longer. Carson is just... ummmm spacy and strange and Trump is well Trump. What's interesting is where their supporters ultimately go (something like 50% of the primary audience). If they both manage to drop their bid, Cruz has a good chance.
Bernie has started doing "contrast messaging," which is the polite way of saying "going negative," against Hillary. That is something that (1) he pledged he wouldn't do and (2) he hasn't done in a while.
His internal numbers must be really bad.
Huh, I'm surprised he feels the need, since his supporters have taken attacking Hillary up as basically their full-time job.
"You do not have six financial institutions having assets equivalent to 60 percent of the GDP," he continued. "With all the economic and political power that these banks have, I think you've got to break them up. That has always -- that has been my view for a very, very long time. That is not Hillary Clinton's view." -Bernie Sander
The most tame attack I've heard in a while. I've seen a dozen news pieces and much social media angst about this. This has got to be the most boring contested presidential primary in recent memory.
Yeah, Bernie's "attacks" have all been policy comparisons/"this is how I voted" which look pretty bad for Hillary. Not so much attacks as showing that he's got a steady record of not being a corporate puppet.
Yeah, Bernie's "attacks" have all been policy comparisons/"this is how I voted" which look pretty bad for Hillary. Not so much attacks as showing that he's got a steady record of not being a corporate puppet.
Yeah, except holding up your own voting record in comparison to your opponent's record to make them look bad is kind of a classic method of political attack. Like, it's been done since before the country in which he's running for president was a country as hasn't stopped since kind of classic.
But I'm not surprised. Bernie seems to have this funny habit of getting passes and excuses where everybody else gets hit.
Yeah, Bernie's "attacks" have all been policy comparisons/"this is how I voted" which look pretty bad for Hillary. Not so much attacks as showing that he's got a steady record of not being a corporate puppet.
Yeah, except holding up your own voting record in comparison to your opponent's record to make them look bad is kind of a classic method of political attack. Like, it's been done since before the country in which he's running for president was a country as hasn't stopped since kind of classic.
But I'm not surprised. Bernie seems to have this funny habit of getting passes and excuses where everybody else gets hit.
Aww, did a berniephile kick your puppy or something?
It is a political attack, I will not deny that. It is just that, as someone that pays some attention to American politics I have seen so many vicious attacks that I fear I have become desensitized. This stuff is boring in comparison.
There's only a slight change in what he's saying. He's gone from implied attacks on Clinton to direct attacks Clinton and honestly I wouldn't have noticed the change if there wasn't this huge kerfuffle over it. I haven't seen him burn scarecrows or use ad hominem or anything like that. If he hadn't pledged not to do this, it wouldn't effect my opinion of him. As is, however, he's openly flip flopping, which is just about the only plausible thing that could lower my opinion of him.
Aww, did a berniephile kick your puppy or something?
No, just all these flashbacks to Ron Paul's campaign and his supporters are making me grumpy. The spam, the breathless praise, the endless excuses, the mindless declarations of victory regardless of reality, the endless conspiracy theories about his opponents and the media, the endless attacks. Oh, and for a little while there, the blatant racism.
I'm looking forward even less to the mass freakout we're going to get from Burnie supporters after his increasingly likely loss to Hillary.
I like Bernie just fine, can't fucking stand most of his supporters.
I'm looking forward even less to the mass freakout we're going to get from Burnie supporters after his increasingly likely loss to Hillary.
Looking forward to it about as much as Clinton's loss in '08. It's like there's some weird cycle in nominees.
Ugh, that was an ugly business. I was covering that on English radio, there was some nasty shit coming out of the PUMAs back then.
Though, I can't say that, for one example, the Bernie supporters reaction to the Black Lives Matter protesters interrupting his speech was any better.
After all, PUMAs started the Birther conspiracy theory, Bernie supporters started the conspiracy theory that BLM protesters were actually paid shills for the Hillary Campaign. And really, what other motivation could black people have for telling an old white guy and a big crowd of white people that they might want to pay more attention to civil rights issues, if they're not being paid off?
After all, PUMAs started the Birther conspiracy theory, Bernie supporters started the conspiracy theory that BLM protesters were actually paid shills for the Hillary Campaign. And really, what other motivation could black people have for telling an old white guy and a big crowd of white people that they might want to pay more attention to civil rights issues, if they're not being paid off?
Well, once you learn from J Edgar Hoover that the race riots of the 60s and 70s were Soviet operations, it makes perfect sense that a totalitarian like Clinton would employ the same strategy.
Well, once you learn from J Edgar Hoover that the race riots of the 60s and 70s were Soviet operations, it makes perfect sense that a totalitarian like Clinton would employ the same strategy.
Not unless you're utterly mad it doesn't. For a start, I'm pretty sure that unlike the soviets, Hillary doesn't have a wide-reaching, powerful, and extremely skilled agency of covert operatives.
And frankly, even if she did, why waste it on that? So far she's doing a great job of destroying Bernie's chances just by existing.
Other conspiracy theories include that they're not real BLM people (They are, they're just also part of other groups, and BLM has given them support), they're Conservative far-right activists, they're tea-partiers, they're Palin supporters, they're koch-funded shills, all the usual people the left tends to hate. One thing that's pretty certain is that both women were doxxed basically immediately.
Other conspiracy theories include that they're not real BLM people (They are, they're just also part of other groups, and BLM has given them support), they're Conservative far-right activists, they're tea-partiers, they're Palin supporters, they're koch-funded shills, all the usual people the left tends to hate. One thing that's pretty certain is that both women were doxxed basically immediately.
I had honestly forgotten about that, wow. Those Bernie people needed to chill out. It was only two months ago and already I forgot how boring that nonsense all was. Well that and BLM sort of fizzling into irrelevance just like every other hashtag cause out there.
Well, once you learn from J Edgar Hoover that the race riots of the 60s and 70s were Soviet operations, it makes perfect sense that a totalitarian like Clinton would employ the same strategy.
Not unless you're utterly mad it doesn't. For a start, I'm pretty sure that unlike the soviets, Hillary doesn't have a wide-reaching, powerful, and extremely skilled agency of covert operatives.
And frankly, even if she did, why waste it on that? So far she's doing a great job of destroying Bernie's chances just by existing.
I thought that was outlandish enough I didn't need greentext...
Well, once you learn from J Edgar Hoover that the race riots of the 60s and 70s were Soviet operations, it makes perfect sense that a totalitarian like Clinton would employ the same strategy.
Not unless you're utterly mad it doesn't. For a start, I'm pretty sure that unlike the soviets, Hillary doesn't have a wide-reaching, powerful, and extremely skilled agency of covert operatives.
And frankly, even if she did, why waste it on that? So far she's doing a great job of destroying Bernie's chances just by existing.
I thought that was outlandish enough I didn't need greentext...
Well, once you learn from J Edgar Hoover that the race riots of the 60s and 70s were Soviet operations, it makes perfect sense that a totalitarian like Clinton would employ the same strategy.
Not unless you're utterly mad it doesn't. For a start, I'm pretty sure that unlike the soviets, Hillary doesn't have a wide-reaching, powerful, and extremely skilled agency of covert operatives.
And frankly, even if she did, why waste it on that? So far she's doing a great job of destroying Bernie's chances just by existing.
I thought that was outlandish enough I didn't need greentext...
Not your fault, I hit that after reading some of the aforementioned supporter's positions just to make sure I had the right conspiracy. It's hard to pick up sarcasm when it's more sensible than some of the real shit people are saying.
"The poll was conducted Oct. 22-25, surveying 400 likely Iowa Democratic caucus participants via landlines and cellphones with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points. Monmouth drew its sample from registered Democratic voters who participated in at least one of the last two state primary elections and are likely to attend the February caucus."
Considering one of the tent poles of his strategy is to get the people who don't normally vote in the caucus to vote, ala Obama in 2008, to make up for his weakness among the regular caucus voters, this poll isn't saying much of anything new. If he doesn't expand the electorate of the caucus he is going to lose. This should not be taken as a statement that I think he is ahead or is going to win, but polls, especially this one don't tell us all that much about anything.
Do you have any data to suggest that strategy is being successful? The only evidence I've seen of Sanders being in the lead is that he's most talked about on social media, which doesn't account for what is actually being said about him.
Do you have any data to suggest that strategy is being successful? The only evidence I've seen of Sanders being in the lead is that he's most talked about on social media, which doesn't account for what is actually being said about him.
II'm not really that interested in this primary, I was just pointing out that a poll is only as good as the way it is structured and everyone that cares about this stuff knew he was weak among likely voters.
Even if he had a majority among a more widely sampled possible electorate I wouldn't declare him victorious either. In a caucus and to a different extent in a primary and any other election, what matters isn't only the popularity of the candidate but the money the campaign has and the organization that the candidate's campaign puts together. Caucuses are governed by some ridiculous sets of rules and even if Bernie was ahead in a theoretical poll it wouldn't mean that his campaign would be able to build an organization that could navigate that to victory. In 2008 Clinton thought she had Iowa in the bag because she controlled the chairs of the caucus locations and had more money and name recognition. The Obama campaign gamed the rules not only to maximize their delegate count but to minimize hers by getting out other candidate supporters where they couldn't win to give the delegates to someone else or getting other candidate's supporters to switch to Obama to deny Hillary a victory.
I haven't heard good things about Bernie's organization and that should worry his supporters more than the media's bias and red baiting.
The problem is usually that will account for like 4 or 5 % if you are doing well at getting people to come out that normally don't. Kinda like how Gallup had Romney winning in 2012 by 1% and in the end he lost by 4%.
Well I'll vote for him anyway. I was too young and missed out on Ralph Nader, and otherwise this race looks like a Giant Douche/Turd Sandwich situation.
I think Bernie's biggest problem with this is that he spends a lot of time preaching to the choir, and not enough trying to get new faces into the congregation. He's doing some, but his voter outreach falls behind other candidates.
He does have the social media thing going for him, but that can have mixed results, as he doesn't control the message.
Comments
-Bernie Sander
The most tame attack I've heard in a while. I've seen a dozen news pieces and much social media angst about this. This has got to be the most boring contested presidential primary in recent memory.
But I'm not surprised. Bernie seems to have this funny habit of getting passes and excuses where everybody else gets hit.
It is a political attack, I will not deny that. It is just that, as someone that pays some attention to American politics I have seen so many vicious attacks that I fear I have become desensitized. This stuff is boring in comparison.
//Leaning Hillary
I'm looking forward even less to the mass freakout we're going to get from Burnie supporters after his increasingly likely loss to Hillary.
I like Bernie just fine, can't fucking stand most of his supporters.
If you're interested in campaign comparisons, which you probably are, 2008 numbers are included further down for the purpose. Ugh, that was an ugly business. I was covering that on English radio, there was some nasty shit coming out of the PUMAs back then.
Though, I can't say that, for one example, the Bernie supporters reaction to the Black Lives Matter protesters interrupting his speech was any better.
After all, PUMAs started the Birther conspiracy theory, Bernie supporters started the conspiracy theory that BLM protesters were actually paid shills for the Hillary Campaign. And really, what other motivation could black people have for telling an old white guy and a big crowd of white people that they might want to pay more attention to civil rights issues, if they're not being paid off?
And frankly, even if she did, why waste it on that? So far she's doing a great job of destroying Bernie's chances just by existing.
Huffpo piece republished on MSN because Huffpo proper keeps redirecting me to the HuffPoAustralia frontpage. Fucking hate it when sites do that.
Other conspiracy theories include that they're not real BLM people (They are, they're just also part of other groups, and BLM has given them support), they're Conservative far-right activists, they're tea-partiers, they're Palin supporters, they're koch-funded shills, all the usual people the left tends to hate. One thing that's pretty certain is that both women were doxxed basically immediately.
Edit - Buzzfeed news also wrote about it, among others.
Considering one of the tent poles of his strategy is to get the people who don't normally vote in the caucus to vote, ala Obama in 2008, to make up for his weakness among the regular caucus voters, this poll isn't saying much of anything new. If he doesn't expand the electorate of the caucus he is going to lose. This should not be taken as a statement that I think he is ahead or is going to win, but polls, especially this one don't tell us all that much about anything.
Even if he had a majority among a more widely sampled possible electorate I wouldn't declare him victorious either. In a caucus and to a different extent in a primary and any other election, what matters isn't only the popularity of the candidate but the money the campaign has and the organization that the candidate's campaign puts together. Caucuses are governed by some ridiculous sets of rules and even if Bernie was ahead in a theoretical poll it wouldn't mean that his campaign would be able to build an organization that could navigate that to victory. In 2008 Clinton thought she had Iowa in the bag because she controlled the chairs of the caucus locations and had more money and name recognition. The Obama campaign gamed the rules not only to maximize their delegate count but to minimize hers by getting out other candidate supporters where they couldn't win to give the delegates to someone else or getting other candidate's supporters to switch to Obama to deny Hillary a victory.
I haven't heard good things about Bernie's organization and that should worry his supporters more than the media's bias and red baiting.
He does have the social media thing going for him, but that can have mixed results, as he doesn't control the message.