What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Bernie Sanders HQ! *A decent human being. (11 Viewers)

OK, I literally don't understand the concept that Hillary will be hurt in the general election if a primary opponent brings up issues now that are certain to be brought up again by her Republican opponent. Much better to learn to deal with them now, in an intra-mural battle, then deal with them for the first time vs. the Republican opponent.

And if she can't deal with them to the satisfaction of the Democratic base, how will she ever deal with them enough to sway the undecideds and independents?

 
Lets assume you are right and Hillary won every debate, but one. What's that say about her about a candidate that she can win every single debate, but still couldn't win the nomination?
It says 2 things:

1. She was a poor frontrunner last time around, with bad advice. Personally, I didn't care. I was for McCain anyhow, as he occupied the center position, up until the time he selected Palin. At that point, I wasn't for anyone.

2. She faced a once in a generation candidate in Barack Obama.
Getting back to the point Obama ran on hope and change, and even while or before he got to Bush and McCain he was talking about the Clintons. He ran right at her and through her and past her.

 
Yeah I'm surprised by the the level of Bernies criticism against Hillary. Somebody's giving him poor advice IMO.
Last I checked she was the overwhelming front runner. You cant sit back and make nice. If he wants it, which it sounds like he does, you have to go on an offensive.

I have been reading this thread and reading up on him. I like him and would be much happier voting for him in the election than Hillary.
How dare Bernie ask Hilary to actually state her opinions!!! Undue criticism for sure.
That wasn't the criticism I was speaking of.

This is:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senator-bernie-sanders-calls-hillary-clinton-foundation-money/story?id=30687863

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, said he is concerned by the millions of dollars flowing into the Clinton Foundation

This is the sort of thing, IMO, he should leave to the Republican party.
Having politicians in office that give favors to corporations in exchange for donations is exactly the type of thing Bernie should be concerned with.

 
Yeah I'm surprised by the the level of Bernies criticism against Hillary. Somebody's giving him poor advice IMO.
Last I checked she was the overwhelming front runner. You cant sit back and make nice. If he wants it, which it sounds like he does, you have to go on an offensive.

I have been reading this thread and reading up on him. I like him and would be much happier voting for him in the election than Hillary.
How dare Bernie ask Hilary to actually state her opinions!!! Undue criticism for sure.
That wasn't the criticism I was speaking of.

This is:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senator-bernie-sanders-calls-hillary-clinton-foundation-money/story?id=30687863

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, said he is concerned by the millions of dollars flowing into the Clinton Foundation

This is the sort of thing, IMO, he should leave to the Republican party.
He's got some great assets but integrity and trust is chief among them. He should put that right out front.

 
OK, I literally don't understand the concept that Hillary will be hurt in the general election if a primary opponent brings up issues now that are certain to be brought up again by her Republican opponent. Much better to learn to deal with them now, in an intra-mural battle, then deal with them for the first time vs. the Republican opponent.

And if she can't deal with them to the satisfaction of the Democratic base, how will she ever deal with them enough to sway the undecideds and independents?
I am speaking specifically about scandals now- the foundation, the emails, Benghazi, etc. what Hillary needs to do is make these issues partisan issues, so that independents and Democrats dismiss them as nothing more than Republican attacks. When Sanders mentions the Foundation, he hurts that effort. He can and should criticize her on real issues all day long. But this crap should be off limits. One thing that really hurt Romney last time out was when Newt Gingrich started taking shots at Bain. That prevented Romney's team from painting that as partisan sniping, and it helped create a mindset in the public that took away Romney's greatest strength (business acumen) and turned it into a weakness, leaving him nothing to run on. I don't want to see Hillary hurt the same way.

 
1. She was a poor frontrunner last time around, with bad advice. Personally, I didn't care. I was for McCain anyhow, as he occupied the center position,
At least we agree that there would be no appreciable difference between a McCain presidency and a Hillary presidency. It's just that you find that a reason to support her, while I find it a reason to despise her.

 
OK, I literally don't understand the concept that Hillary will be hurt in the general election if a primary opponent brings up issues now that are certain to be brought up again by her Republican opponent. Much better to learn to deal with them now, in an intra-mural battle, then deal with them for the first time vs. the Republican opponent.

And if she can't deal with them to the satisfaction of the Democratic base, how will she ever deal with them enough to sway the undecideds and independents?
I am speaking specifically about scandals now- the foundation, the emails, Benghazi, etc. what Hillary needs to do is make these issues partisan issues, so that independents and Democrats dismiss them as nothing more than Republican attacks. When Sanders mentions the Foundation, he hurts that effort. He can and should criticize her on real issues all day long. But this crap should be off limits.One thing that really hurt Romney last time out was when Newt Gingrich started taking shots at Bain. That prevented Romney's team from painting that as partisan sniping, and it helped create a mindset in the public that took away Romney's greatest strength (business acumen) and turned it into a weakness, leaving him nothing to run on. I don't want to see Hillary hurt the same way.
Gosh Tim, you mean that she should manipulate them?

 
Yeah I'm surprised by the the level of Bernies criticism against Hillary. Somebody's giving him poor advice IMO.
Last I checked she was the overwhelming front runner. You cant sit back and make nice. If he wants it, which it sounds like he does, you have to go on an offensive.I have been reading this thread and reading up on him. I like him and would be much happier voting for him in the election than Hillary.
How dare Bernie ask Hilary to actually state her opinions!!! Undue criticism for sure.
That wasn't the criticism I was speaking of.This is:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senator-bernie-sanders-calls-hillary-clinton-foundation-money/story?id=30687863

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, said he is concerned by the millions of dollars flowing into the Clinton Foundation

This is the sort of thing, IMO, he should leave to the Republican party.
Having politicians in office that give favors to corporations in exchange for donations is exactly the type of thing Bernie should be concerned with.
The next time you repeat this hogwash you ought to offer some evidence for it. Thus far neither you nor anyone else have provided one shred of proof that Hillary has given favors to anyone.
 
OK, I literally don't understand the concept that Hillary will be hurt in the general election if a primary opponent brings up issues now that are certain to be brought up again by her Republican opponent. Much better to learn to deal with them now, in an intra-mural battle, then deal with them for the first time vs. the Republican opponent.

And if she can't deal with them to the satisfaction of the Democratic base, how will she ever deal with them enough to sway the undecideds and independents?
I am speaking specifically about scandals now- the foundation, the emails, Benghazi, etc. what Hillary needs to do is make these issues partisan issues, so that independents and Democrats dismiss them as nothing more than Republican attacks. When Sanders mentions the Foundation, he hurts that effort.
What if I'm a Democrat who believes the foundation and the emails are real issues, not just partisan attacks?

 
Yeah I'm surprised by the the level of Bernies criticism against Hillary. Somebody's giving him poor advice IMO.
Last I checked she was the overwhelming front runner. You cant sit back and make nice. If he wants it, which it sounds like he does, you have to go on an offensive.I have been reading this thread and reading up on him. I like him and would be much happier voting for him in the election than Hillary.
How dare Bernie ask Hilary to actually state her opinions!!! Undue criticism for sure.
That wasn't the criticism I was speaking of.This is:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senator-bernie-sanders-calls-hillary-clinton-foundation-money/story?id=30687863

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, said he is concerned by the millions of dollars flowing into the Clinton Foundation

This is the sort of thing, IMO, he should leave to the Republican party.
Having politicians in office that give favors to corporations in exchange for donations is exactly the type of thing Bernie should be concerned with.
The next time you repeat this hogwash you ought to offer some evidence for it. Thus far neither you nor anyone else have provided one shred of proof that Hillary has given favors to anyone.
Right, she just takes cash in one hand and with the other writes or signs policies concerning the same parties that handed her the cash. It's like she puts on her money making hat, takes that off, puts on her "official business" hat, then puts the money hat back on. Simple.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah I'm surprised by the the level of Bernies criticism against Hillary. Somebody's giving him poor advice IMO.
Last I checked she was the overwhelming front runner. You cant sit back and make nice. If he wants it, which it sounds like he does, you have to go on an offensive.I have been reading this thread and reading up on him. I like him and would be much happier voting for him in the election than Hillary.
How dare Bernie ask Hilary to actually state her opinions!!! Undue criticism for sure.
That wasn't the criticism I was speaking of.This is:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senator-bernie-sanders-calls-hillary-clinton-foundation-money/story?id=30687863

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, said he is concerned by the millions of dollars flowing into the Clinton Foundation

This is the sort of thing, IMO, he should leave to the Republican party.
Having politicians in office that give favors to corporations in exchange for donations is exactly the type of thing Bernie should be concerned with.
The next time you repeat this hogwash you ought to offer some evidence for it. Thus far neither you nor anyone else have provided one shred of proof that Hillary has given favors to anyone.
The evidence has been posted several times by Saints.

Can you please go back to doing this horrible posting in one thread?

 
1. She was a poor frontrunner last time around, with bad advice. Personally, I didn't care. I was for McCain anyhow, as he occupied the center position,
At least we agree that there would be no appreciable difference between a McCain presidency and a Hillary presidency. It's just that you find that a reason to support her, while I find it a reason to despise her.
Well we have different agendas, probably. You want a progressive government to come in and reduce the power of corporations. I want an establishment government to essentially maintain the status quo and promote capitalism, free trade, and progressive social reforms while still supporting our corporate structure.
 
This is the sort of thing, IMO, he should leave to the Republican party.
Not understanding this logic at all. Is it because if it only comes from the GOP you can ignore it because, well, it's the GOP? Other than that, I have no idea why this topic should be avoided by anyone running against her. It's central to one of the key beliefs a lot of people hold regarding our "broken" government. It's easy enough to address if it's truly "nothing to see". :shrug:

ETA: Nevermind

One thing that really hurt Romney last time out was when Newt Gingrich started taking shots at Bain. That prevented Romney's team from painting that as partisan sniping, and it helped create a mindset in the public that took away Romney's greatest strength (business acumen) and turned it into a weakness, leaving him nothing to run on. I don't want to see Hillary hurt the same way.
:lmao:

Heaven forbid a politician be made to earn our respect and confidence.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah I'm surprised by the the level of Bernies criticism against Hillary. Somebody's giving him poor advice IMO.
Last I checked she was the overwhelming front runner. You cant sit back and make nice. If he wants it, which it sounds like he does, you have to go on an offensive.I have been reading this thread and reading up on him. I like him and would be much happier voting for him in the election than Hillary.
How dare Bernie ask Hilary to actually state her opinions!!! Undue criticism for sure.
That wasn't the criticism I was speaking of.This is:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senator-bernie-sanders-calls-hillary-clinton-foundation-money/story?id=30687863

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, said he is concerned by the millions of dollars flowing into the Clinton Foundation

This is the sort of thing, IMO, he should leave to the Republican party.
Having politicians in office that give favors to corporations in exchange for donations is exactly the type of thing Bernie should be concerned with.
The next time you repeat this hogwash you ought to offer some evidence for it. Thus far neither you nor anyone else have provided one shred of proof that Hillary has given favors to anyone.
The evidence has been posted several times by Saints.

Can you please go back to doing this horrible posting in one thread?
1. Not once. 3. Eventually I will return to that thread, but not to stay there.

 
Just because you prefer to keep your hand in the sand about Hilary and be a blind shill doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

 
More like you say it and then never shut up about it.

It would be great if we could actually talk about Bernie the candidate instead of Tim's inane set of priorities and shilling for Clinton.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sanders has no shot of winning, and I doubt that his motive is ultimately to help a Republican win, so I think he should be careful not to hurt Hillary too much.
According to the betting sites, Sanders has somewhere around a 4%-6% chance of winning the nomination -- and his own team's estimate is probably higher than that (because overconfidence in these things, especially among underdogs, is the norm).

That's a legitimate shot. There is no way in the world he is trying to "be careful not to hurt Hillary too much." He is trying to take her down.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sanders has no shot of winning, and I doubt that his motive is ultimately to help a Republican win, so I think he should be careful not to hurt Hillary too much.
According to the betting sites, Sanders has somewhere around a 4%-6% chance of winning the nomination -- and his own team's estimate is probably higher than that (because overconfidence in these things, especially among underdogs, is the norm).

That's a legitimate shot. There is no way in the world he is trying to "be careful not to hurt Hillary too much." He is trying to take her down.
sssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 
Sanders has no shot of winning, and I doubt that his motive is ultimately to help a Republican win, so I think he should be careful not to hurt Hillary too much.
According to the betting sites, Sanders has somewhere around a 4%-6% chance of winning the nomination -- and his own team's estimate is probably higher than that (because overconfidence in these things, especially among underdogs, is the norm).

That's a legitimate shot. There is no way in the world he is trying to "be careful not to hurt Hillary too much." He is trying to take her down.
betting odds <> chance to win the nomination

 
The polls' crosstabs are pretty important here.

Everyone has heard of Hillary, but 60-70% still have not heard enough about Bernie to make up their minds (WaPo).

And Hillary supposedly is the only game in town but something like 40% of Democrats will still not name her as their 1st or 2nd choice.

I also think voter enthusiasm is really important, not just for the primary, more so for the general. And Bernie has got that going. Hillary seems to be in transition with her relaunch tomorrow:

...Following her rally in New York, Clinton will attend a house party in Sioux City. On Sunday her campaign will host a "launch party" at the Iowa State Fairgrounds in Des Moines before Clinton attends another house party in Burlington. ...
Sanders's Hawkeye State visit will begin in Des Moines on Friday evening; on Saturday he will visit Marshalltown and Cedar Rapids, and on Sunday he will speak in Waterloo, Iowa Falls and Indianola.
I'm guessing Sanders will keep doing what he's been doing, getting raw, charged, large crowds who want to hear what he has to say.

The "house party" and "launch party" thing sounds like more of the controlled groups that Hillary's been doing. Personally I think she needs to transition after tomorrow and start showing she can draw people.

But referring to his own bid, he [sanders] said: "This is not an educational campaign. This is not a protest. This is a campaign to win. I do believe we can win this election."
I keep thinking about sports and politics. Hillary can't be the 68-69 Colts and just think she can show up and win.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem is that Bernie Sanders is not Joe Namath
Ok. This is his record:

72 Gov VT - L

72 US Senate - L

74 US Senate - L - f'd 3rd (Pat Leahy)

76 Gov VT - L

81 Mayor Burlington - W (defeated 6 term incumbent)

83 Mayor Burlington - W

85 Mayor Burlington - W

87 Mayor Burlington - W

88 Congress (statewide) - L (2nd as Ind., beat the Dem.) (® Jeffords' seat) (Lost to ® Pete Smith)

90 Congress (statewide) - W (first Independent elected to Congress since 1950) (Beat ® P. Smith)

92-04 Congress - W x7

06 US Senate - W (® Jeffords' seat)

12 US Senate - W

That's 19 elections, 40+ years, I can't imagine how many public speeches and debates and interviews that amounts to. Maybe he's Warner.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem is that Bernie Sanders is not Joe Namath
Ok. This is his record:

72 Gov VT - L

72 US Senate - L

74 US Senate - L - f'd 3rd (Pat Leahy)

76 Gov VT - L

81 Mayor Burlington - W (defeated 6 term incumbent)

83 Mayor Burlington - W

85 Mayor Burlington - W

87 Mayor Burlington - W

88 Congress (statewide) - L (2nd as Ind., beat the Dem.) (® Jeffords' seat) (Lost to ® Pete Smith)

90 Congress (statewide) - W (first Independent elected to Congress since 1950) (Beat ® P. Smith)

92-04 Congress - W x7

06 US Senate - W (® Jeffords' seat)

12 US Senate - W

That's 19 elections, 40+ years, I can't imagine how many public speeches and debates and interviews that amounts to. Maybe he's Warner.
Joe Namath only won once

 
“Diane Rehm’s questions were inappropriate, insensitive questioning without any minimal journalistic checking of claims. Such a statement is not only factually incorrect, but has no place in such an interview.

“It is deeply troubling to think that a well-respected media outlet like NPR would apparently rely on unsubstantiated information from the Internet in its preparation for a guest.

“Ms. Rehm’s description and follow-up question about whether other Senators have dual citizenship with Israel play into classic anti-Semitic charges of dual loyalty. Such charges have been leveled for centuries and have been a catalyst for scapegoating and vilifying Jews.

“Senator Sanders deserves a public apology, as do NPR listeners.”

“Her mistake was to not research it before she even stated it as fact. She shouldn’t have asked the question, period. Had she researched it, she wouldn’t have raised it at all. Because her question challenges not only his loyalty, but also Jewish loyalties to this country.”
Abe Foxman hits the nail right on the head

 
The problem is that Bernie Sanders is not Joe Namath
Ok. This is his record:

72 Gov VT - L

72 US Senate - L

74 US Senate - L - f'd 3rd (Pat Leahy)

76 Gov VT - L

81 Mayor Burlington - W (defeated 6 term incumbent)

83 Mayor Burlington - W

85 Mayor Burlington - W

87 Mayor Burlington - W

88 Congress (statewide) - L (2nd as Ind., beat the Dem.) (® Jeffords' seat) (Lost to ® Pete Smith)

90 Congress (statewide) - W (first Independent elected to Congress since 1950) (Beat ® P. Smith)

92-04 Congress - W x7

06 US Senate - W (® Jeffords' seat)

12 US Senate - W

That's 19 elections, 40+ years, I can't imagine how many public speeches and debates and interviews that amounts to. Maybe he's Warner.
Joe Namath only won once
Twice. 'Bama national champs in '64.

 
Sanders has no shot of winning, and I doubt that his motive is ultimately to help a Republican win, so I think he should be careful not to hurt Hillary too much.
According to the betting sites, Sanders has somewhere around a 4%-6% chance of winning the nomination -- and his own team's estimate is probably higher than that (because overconfidence in these things, especially among underdogs, is the norm).

That's a legitimate shot. There is no way in the world he is trying to "be careful not to hurt Hillary too much." He is trying to take her down.
betting odds <> chance to win the nomination
What point are you making? If it's odds vs. chance, I already converted the odds (~19:1) into chance (~5%). If your point is that a straight conversion fails to account for the distortion caused by the vigorish, okay, point taken. Maybe the true chance implied by the odds is 4.5%-6.5% instead of 4%-6%.

But if you contend that the betting odds, adjusted for vig and converted to chance, don't represent the betting market's best estimate of a candidate's chance of winning the nomination ... why would you say that? That's exactly what they represent. Ignoring the vigorish, 1:1 odds imply a 50% chance, while 3:1 odds imply a 25% chance, and so on. If it were otherwise, it'd basically be free money.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
proninja said:
It's like tim thinks it's Bernie's job to elect Hillary.

If Hillary can't take Bernie's best shot, she doesn't deserve the nomination. Also remember that Sanders has been an independent for years. He probably doesn't care that much who wins if it isn't him, because that's just more status quo. He doesn't owe the party a damn thing.
That hurts coming from you.

No, it's not Bernie's job to elect Hillary. But I don't think he should take shots that will weaken her in the general election either. He may be an independent, but he caucuses with the Democrats. I do think it matters to him who gets elected. I think if a Republican were to be elected President, Sanders wouldn't like it.

 
proninja said:
It's like tim thinks it's Bernie's job to elect Hillary.

If Hillary can't take Bernie's best shot, she doesn't deserve the nomination. Also remember that Sanders has been an independent for years. He probably doesn't care that much who wins if it isn't him, because that's just more status quo. He doesn't owe the party a damn thing.
That hurts coming from you.No, it's not Bernie's job to elect Hillary. But I don't think he should take shots that will weaken her in the general election either. He may be an independent, but he caucuses with the Democrats. I do think it matters to him who gets elected. I think if a Republican were to be elected President, Sanders wouldn't like it.
Did Hillary hold back on her criticism of Obama in 2008 for the good of the party? Methinks not, as she wanted to win, just like Bernie wants to win this time around.
Hillary was sharply criticized for going after Obama, even slightly, on the scandal stuff (Rev. Wright) and justifiably so. At the time I lost a lot of respect for her- though mostly I blame Mark Penn. Also, I firmly believe that if Hillary knew she had only a 5% chance of beating Obama, she never would have done it.

Again, I am not arguing that Sanders shouldn't criticize Hillary on legitimate issues. The Clinton Foundation is not a legitimate issue. There is no evidence whatsoever that those who donate to it receive favors from Hillary. Saints and Slapdash and whoever can repeat this falsehood a million times if they want, but its still a falsehood, spread mostly by partisan haters of Hillary Clinton. Sanders shouldn't be contributing to this nonsense. It's disappointing.

 
proninja said:
It's like tim thinks it's Bernie's job to elect Hillary.

If Hillary can't take Bernie's best shot, she doesn't deserve the nomination. Also remember that Sanders has been an independent for years. He probably doesn't care that much who wins if it isn't him, because that's just more status quo. He doesn't owe the party a damn thing.
That hurts coming from you.No, it's not Bernie's job to elect Hillary. But I don't think he should take shots that will weaken her in the general election either. He may be an independent, but he caucuses with the Democrats. I do think it matters to him who gets elected. I think if a Republican were to be elected President, Sanders wouldn't like it.
Did Hillary hold back on her criticism of Obama in 2008 for the good of the party? Methinks not, as she wanted to win, just like Bernie wants to win this time around.
Hillary was sharply criticized for going after Obama, even slightly, on the scandal stuff (Rev. Wright) and justifiably so. At the time I lost a lot of respect for her- though mostly I blame Mark Penn. Also, I firmly believe that if Hillary knew she had only a 5% chance of beating Obama, she never would have done it.Again, I am not arguing that Sanders shouldn't criticize Hillary on legitimate issues. The Clinton Foundation is not a legitimate issue. There is no evidence whatsoever that those who donate to it receive favors from Hillary. Saints and Slapdash and whoever can repeat this falsehood a million times if they want, but its still a falsehood, spread mostly by partisan haters of Hillary Clinton. Sanders shouldn't be contributing to this nonsense. It's disappointing.
Bernie's raison d'etre is to get the "billionaire class" out of politics. You think this is not a legitimate issue for him? It might be the biggest one.
No, I don't think it's a legitimate issue. Not unless you can prove that there were favors given. The Clinton Foundation is a charity.

 
proninja said:
proninja said:
It's like tim thinks it's Bernie's job to elect Hillary.

If Hillary can't take Bernie's best shot, she doesn't deserve the nomination. Also remember that Sanders has been an independent for years. He probably doesn't care that much who wins if it isn't him, because that's just more status quo. He doesn't owe the party a damn thing.
That hurts coming from you.No, it's not Bernie's job to elect Hillary. But I don't think he should take shots that will weaken her in the general election either. He may be an independent, but he caucuses with the Democrats. I do think it matters to him who gets elected. I think if a Republican were to be elected President, Sanders wouldn't like it.
You think he's going to hurt his own chances in the primary to help Hillary in the general?
We seem to be getting nowhere. I respect you too much to want to argue with you on this. Bernie will do whatever he will do. My opinion on this is really irrelevant.
 
I didn't mean to be that complicated. When a candidate like Sanders, with a very low chance of winning, decides to run for President he usually sticks to the issues- the main point of him running is to bring added attention to issues which are avoided by the major candidates- in the case of Bernie this would be income inequality, the banks, corporate power, etc. Ge wants to make these issues a more important part of the party's agenda and he may very well succeed at doing so. It's considered a no-no for this sort of candidate to make personal attacks at the frontrunner, because it doesn't help his cause, only serves to weaken the party in the general election. Since there is no evidence of any malfeasance on the part of Hillary Clinton, I regard any critique of the Clinton Foundation by Bernie to be essentially a personal

attack and beneath him. Just my opinion; you and others are welcome to disagree.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
mcintyre1 said:
I can't link because I'm on my phone, but there was a recent story about a Rick Perry rally or appearance of some sort where only one person showed up. So he warned her about gay marriage.
Santorum.
And it was three in a town of about 300.
Hard to tell who is going to come out of all of that cluster on the GOP side.

Still don't like how few Democrats are in the mix though. Hard to see any of the current ones actually winning the general election.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
mcintyre1 said:
I can't link because I'm on my phone, but there was a recent story about a Rick Perry rally or appearance of some sort where only one person showed up. So he warned her about gay marriage.
Santorum.
And it was three in a town of about 300.
Hard to tell who is going to come out of all of that cluster on the GOP side.

Still don't like how few Democrats are in the mix though. Hard to see any of the current ones actually winning the general election.
Really? I sorta see it the opposite. If the dems can't beat this group of keystone idiots, who can they beat? It's just so freakin' embarrassing.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
mcintyre1 said:
I can't link because I'm on my phone, but there was a recent story about a Rick Perry rally or appearance of some sort where only one person showed up. So he warned her about gay marriage.
Santorum.
And it was three in a town of about 300.
Hard to tell who is going to come out of all of that cluster on the GOP side.

Still don't like how few Democrats are in the mix though. Hard to see any of the current ones actually winning the general election.
Really? I sorta see it the opposite. If the dems can't beat this group of keystone idiots, who can they beat? It's just so freakin' embarrassing.
Yeah, I don't think it's hard to see Clinton winning in the general. I think she would have won the general in 2008 if she'd won the nomination, and I don't know that the Republican she'll be up against in 2016 will necessarily be stronger than McCain was. (Granted, the electoral environment is different now -- the coming election won't be a referendum on Bush's invasion of Iraq, for example.)

She might be less than 50% likely to win (assuming she wins the nomination), but if so, it can't be much less than 50%. It's not down in hard-to-see territory.

 
Bernie Sanders Can Win the Iowa Caucus
A new Democratic star is bornLet me be the first commentator to state explicitly what many Democratic insiders fear and many of the most progressive activists in the party yearn for: There is a very real prospect that Senator Bernie Sanders wins an outright victory in the Iowa caucus and pulls off one of the most stunning upsets in modern political history.

At this moment I would put the odds that Mr. Sanders upsets Hillary Clinton in the Iowa caucus at nearly 40 percent. As someone who can fairly be called a Democratic insider myself, I can report that some of the smartest Democratic strategists in national politics privately believe this but will not publicly state it. I just did.


To fully understand the powerful forces at work within the Democratic Party and national politics, and why Bernie Sanders has suddenly vaulted to a clear second place in the race for the Democratic nomination, lets briefly consider political events in the three days that began last Friday and ended on Sunday.
First, on Friday, President Obama was rebuked by Democrats in the House of Representatives over the fast track trade legislation which led—at least for now—to the bill being defeated in the House.

Then, on Saturday, Hillary Clinton made a major speech in New York in which she echoed many of the themes of progressive populist Democrats while appearing to wrap herself around the political mantle of President Obama with language so compelling it gave credence to the Republican charge that she is running for the third Obama term. I would emphasize—and this is important—that while Clinton was embracing Obama, progressives remember that not long ago Obama was personally and politically insulting prominent progressives such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), which I have previously written about in the Observer.


Next, on Sunday, Mr. Sanders and Ms. Clinton were both campaigning in Iowa, where he again aggressively opposed the trade bill and she implied that she would be a stronger trade negotiator than the president but again took no position on the trade bill.

The common denominators during these three days were that Bernie Sanders took a position of conviction and purpose opposing the trade bill, while Hillary Clinton took a position that the Washington Post today correctly reported left her “a lot of wiggle room” by failing to take any position on the trade bill.
These three days, from Friday through Sunday, are a microcosm of the forces at work within the Democratic Party that began in Washington and arrived in the heart of Iowa during campaigning for the caucus vote by the frontrunner candidate and her closest competitor.

The reason that Bernie Sanders has a viable chance of defeating Clinton in the Iowa caucus is that caucus elections involve a far smaller pool of voters than primary elections. In the caucus variation of “one person, one vote,” the candidate who can best inspire fervent supporters to attend a caucus on a frigid Iowa evening is the candidate who will win. A student at an Iowa college has the same “one vote” as the chair of the Democratic Party of an Iowa county.

In Washington Elizabeth Warren has seized the mantle of being the progressive conscience of the United States Senate, while in Iowa and other states Bernie Sanders is seizing the mantle of being the progressive conscience of the campaign for the Democratic nomination for president at a time when the progressive movement is on the ascendancy in national politics.

Mr. Sanders is the ultimate conviction politician in American politics. He is the epitome of authenticity. You will never see Mr. Sanders give paid speeches to big banks or Wall Street firms. Nor do his supporters dream of making their financial fortunes as highly paid lobbyists for special interests in Washington.

When the evening of the Iowa caucus arrives it is very possible that political experts and insiders will be astonished and confounded by the sudden appearance of new caucus participants who have never attended party meetings or caucus votes, and trudge through frigid cold and piles of snow to cast their caucus vote for Bernie Sanders.

Politics is similar to the concept of alternative universes in theoretical physics. Most political reporting in major media comes out of the universe of political insiders, where insider reporters report what they hear from insider politicians.

There is an alternate universe to this, which I would call “The Real America,” which is often missed by political insiders, which is why pundits are so often wrong.

In this alternate universe of real Americans who are suspicious of political insiders, there are people with passions and principles who are occasionally inspired to participate in politics in ways that are missed by the mainstream media until a shocking event unfolds in real time.

It is very possible that such an event could occur in the Iowa caucus in 2016, when Mr. Sanders inspires a wave of participation from highly motivated and idealistic outsiders who suddenly descend on the caucuses and carry him to a victory that will shock and stun the political establishment and political media.

This column will cause great consternation among my friends in the Clinton campaign, but I would argue that the surge Mr. Sanders could ultimately prove a blessing in disguise for Hillary Clinton. The Sanders challenge will make her a stronger and better candidate and if she is nominated, Mr. Sanders could be a kingmaker if not a king by rallying his troops to vote for Ms. Clinton or any nominee, which he surely will for whomever is nominated.

I believe it is profoundly helpful, for Democrats and for America, that Mr. Sanders is bringing his integrity, passion, sincerity and progressive principles to center stage in the presidential campaign. It is good for Democrats and for America that new people are being inspired to join the political process which can only revitalize our democracy.

In the meantime, do not be surprised if the Iowa caucus in 2016 brings an earthquake to American politics and Bernie Sanders wins one of the great upset victories in modern times.
http://observer.com/2015/06/bernie-sanders-can-win-the-iowa-caucus/

Brent Budowsky formerly served as policy aide to Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Tex) and Legislative Director to Rep. Bill Alexander D-Ark.), then Chief Deputy Majority Whip. He holds a law degree from Catholic University, and an LL.M. degree from the London School of Economics and writes a weekly column for The Hill.
Budowsky is a pretty well known progressive commentator.


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting little development here, Bernie has brought on one of the leaders of the Draft Warren campaign:

Sanders to Warren backers: Join our team...

His campaign announced Thursday it had hired Blair Lawton as its Iowa field director in an attempt at harnessing Warren’s grassroots energy, The Guardian reported.

Lawton previously served as an operative in the “Run Warren Run” movement.

“Run Warren Run” tried inspiring a fully-fledged presidential campaign by the popular lawmaker, but failed when she decided earlier this year she enjoys working in the Senate. ...
Bernie Sanders hires Elizabeth Warren 'draft' director for progressive campaignHiring of a top staffer from failed Run Warren Run effort signals opportunity for Sanders campaign to tap enthusiasm and organization done on Warren’s behalf

...the Sanders campaign has hired Blair Lawton, who served as field director in Iowa for the Run Warren Run effort,which announced it was shutting down last week.
...
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/11/bernie-sanders-hires-elizabeth-warren-draft-director
There's also this:


He added that his campaign had received donations from 150,000 people at an average of $40 apiece, earning him $6 million.

That amount would help him stay competitive in Iowa’s crucial political caucus, he believes.

“We will be outspent, but what I was always concerned about, and why I hesitated getting into this – could we raise enough money to run a strong campaign?” he asked, according to Politico.

“We will have enough money to run a strong campaign,” Sanders added. “You don’t need $2 billion to run in Iowa.”

Sanders also said Saturday some of his fundraising would purchase television airtime in Iowa.
...
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/244931-sanders-to-warren-backers-join-our-team


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Exciting to see Bernie running so strong but let's not get crazy. Remember how Howard Dean did in Iowa and he was the front runner at the time of the caucus. A vocal minority combined with a press corps that wants a race can provide a distorted picture of reality

 
From today's Burlington Free Press

Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders is gaining ground on Hillary Clinton, especially among respondents who know both candidates, according to New Hampshire poll results released Tuesday.

The poll by Suffolk University Boston shows about 41 percent of respondents favored the former secretary of state, while 31 percent preferred the Vermont senator.

That gap shrunk dramatically when pollsters factored out respondents who never heard of Sanders. Among respondents who know both candidates, 38 percent chose Clinton as their top choice, compared with 35 percent for Sanders, said David Paleologos, director of Suffolk University Political Research Center in Boston.

"What that tells us is the more Bernie Sanders introduces himself, the higher the probability the race will continue to close," Paleologos said.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top