In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Using my friend Google I found out that a push poll uses loaded questions, so it makes sense to my why they might be an accurate representation. But the links posted here made it seem like there were some legitimate polls in which Sanders tied with Clinton? But maybe they're push polls? I looked at them and I wasn't too convinced (1200 people is a pretty small sample size in my opinion).
I have no idea what's going to happen this presidential campaign. I could easily see it going both ways. Or rather at this point, I don't know if I'd be surprised with any outcome because I'm so lost! The problem with reading this forum is that there are supporters from both camps and they both raise good points hahaha.
On February 13 2016 11:39 Frudgey wrote: I'm so confused right now.
Using my friend Google I found out that a push poll uses loaded questions, so it makes sense to my why they might be an accurate representation. But the links posted here made it seem like there were some legitimate polls in which Sanders tied with Clinton? But maybe they're push polls? I looked at them and I wasn't too convinced (1200 people is a pretty small sample size in my opinion).
I have no idea what's going to happen this presidential campaign. I could easily see it going both ways. Or rather at this point, I don't know if I'd be surprised with any outcome because I'm so lost! The problem with reading this forum is that there are supporters from both camps and they both raise good points hahaha.
A push poll is like the one that got Republicans to say they were in favor of bombing agrabah. They asked like 5 legit middle East and ISIS questions before and 5 more after, then drop in the "ha-ha so stupid" question in the middle. So what they do is prime you to get the answer they want. So they call a Dem, say Bernie favors a bunch of policies and say "do you agree" then they ask some Hillary things, slightly less favorable to the average Dem and say " do you agree " then they ask who you are likely to vote for.
by the by a large part of labor cost in u.s. is the healthcare benefits and such. a single payer or something more efficient is just important in terms of economic competitiveness
On February 13 2016 12:07 Deathstar wrote: This is the pulled Ted Cruz ad (pulled because the blond is a former pornstar). Eh the ad is whatever. But SC is heating up wrt ads
Yet another ridiculous article from the left wing press asking why women aren't voting for Clinton.Why does the left always bring EVERYTHING back to gender and race now? And people are surprised Trump is doing so well? This is "blowback".
Yet another ridiculous article from the left wing press asking why women aren't voting for Clinton.Why does the left always bring EVERYTHING back to gender and race now? And people are surprised Trump is doing so well? This is "blowback".
Identity politics works (to its potential) when it's sprinkled to a cake of truths, half truths, and baseless assertions that sound good. Clinton has simply become too overt and thus the loser in playing the game.
Trump has benefitted from conventional stereotypes on how immigration discussions are "supposed to go." Everybody know illegal immigration is a net benefit, anti illegal immigration types are racists and white men, etc. He might be the king of anti-establishment/status quo. I don't think the connection on his popularity will be made by society's racebaiters or sexists.
Yet another ridiculous article from the left wing press asking why women aren't voting for Clinton.Why does the left always bring EVERYTHING back to gender and race now? And people are surprised Trump is doing so well? This is "blowback".
Identity politics works (to its potential) when it's sprinkled to a cake of truths, half truths, and baseless assertions that sound good. Clinton has simply become too overt and thus the loser in playing the game.
Trump has benefitted from conventional stereotypes on how immigration discussions are "supposed to go." Everybody know illegal immigration is a net benefit, anti illegal immigration types are racists and white men, etc. He might be the king of anti-establishment/status quo. I don't think the connection on his popularity will be made by society's racebaiters or sexists.
The connection has already been made by those paying attention. The problem with your analysis is that those folks supporting Trump are yet to realize the role the "It's just a yellow star" or rather "it's just a registry" plays in how this all plays out.
Question for Hillary supporters, can Hillary win if she loses both NV and SC or is that essentially the end of her campaign?
Yet another ridiculous article from the left wing press asking why women aren't voting for Clinton.Why does the left always bring EVERYTHING back to gender and race now? And people are surprised Trump is doing so well? This is "blowback".
Identity politics works (to its potential) when it's sprinkled to a cake of truths, half truths, and baseless assertions that sound good. Clinton has simply become too overt and thus the loser in playing the game.
Trump has benefitted from conventional stereotypes on how immigration discussions are "supposed to go." Everybody know illegal immigration is a net benefit, anti illegal immigration types are racists and white men, etc. He might be the king of anti-establishment/status quo. I don't think the connection on his popularity will be made by society's racebaiters or sexists.
The connection has already been made by those paying attention. The problem with your analysis is that those folks supporting Trump are yet to realize the role the "It's just a yellow star" or rather "it's just a registry" plays in how this all plays out.
Question for Hillary supporters, can Hillary win if she loses both NV and SC or is that essentially the end of her campaign?
not a hillary supporter per se - but I think if jeb! can drag it out for an unreasonable amount time, then clinton should be totally fine at this point with just about any outcome where she does not get numbers like in NH. and if I look at the delegates gained there - it was 14 - 9 for bernie.
that's a victory sure. though will it matter in the end?
winning a battle is one thing, winning the god damn war another thing entirely.
Yet another ridiculous article from the left wing press asking why women aren't voting for Clinton.Why does the left always bring EVERYTHING back to gender and race now? And people are surprised Trump is doing so well? This is "blowback".
Identity politics works (to its potential) when it's sprinkled to a cake of truths, half truths, and baseless assertions that sound good. Clinton has simply become too overt and thus the loser in playing the game.
Trump has benefitted from conventional stereotypes on how immigration discussions are "supposed to go." Everybody know illegal immigration is a net benefit, anti illegal immigration types are racists and white men, etc. He might be the king of anti-establishment/status quo. I don't think the connection on his popularity will be made by society's racebaiters or sexists.
The connection has already been made by those paying attention. The problem with your analysis is that those folks supporting Trump are yet to realize the role the "It's just a yellow star" or rather "it's just a registry" plays in how this all plays out.
Question for Hillary supporters, can Hillary win if she loses both NV and SC or is that essentially the end of her campaign?
not a hillary supporter per se - but I think if jeb! can drag it out for an unreasonable amount time, then clinton should be totally fine at this point with just about any outcome where she does not get numbers like in NH. and if I look at the delegates gained there - it was 14 - 9 for bernie.
that's a victory sure. though will it matter in the end?
winning a battle is one thing, winning the god damn war another thing entirely.
Well the point was, what happens if Sanders wins the next two battles?
My take is that if Sanders can make those races close, let alone win them, then Hillary is in serious trouble.
South Carolina is the more important state for Sanders I think. If he can close the gap there he will have by necessity closed the gap amongst a lot of key demographics. Nevada is quite a bit less important, especially since he probably has a natural bump in caucus states.
I don't even understand that line of attack. Clinton and/or her advisors are incredibly inept with how they have conducted this and to be honest the 2008 campaign.
Her best surrogates are members of the media that were never affiliated with her but just happen to be Establishment Democrats.
Very interesting article from msnbc today. If I were in the Clinton camp, I would be starting to get uncomfortable with the narratives going into NV/SC. Basically if Bernie is -10 or closer in either, it will look very poor. Articles like this don't exactly help her case that she's learned from her (many) mistakes in 2007.
As of last week, the Clinton campaign had only two campaign offices in South Carolina: one in Charleston and another in the capital, Columbia, with just 14 full-time staffers including state director Clay Middleton. The campaign also has nine “get out the vote” sites – smaller-scale sites devoted to turnout – across the state.
The Sanders campaign, meanwhile, had 240 staffers on the ground as of last week – 80 percent of them African-American – spread across 10 offices statewide.
I can't believe how inept her campaign has been. 2 offices in SC just goes to show how lazy her campaign has been; she thought she didn't even have to campaign for black votes. Really worrisome for general election prospects if she gets past Sanders.
Fool me once, shame on... shame on, you? Fool me you can't get fooled again!
It's probably not Clinton behind it so much as lazy media.
The number one thing the media loves to do to "authentic" candidates is find any discrepancy or possible hypocrisy and make a story out of it. Combined with ever decreasing attention paid to accuracy in reporting, and this sort of thing isn't all that surprising.
I've seen some less generous interpretations that suggest that some in the media who are used to thinking of themselves as "the left" feel challenged by Sanders, and are trying to tear him down. That's possible, but in general I think stupidity is a better explanation than malice.
On February 13 2016 16:33 darthfoley wrote: Very interesting article from msnbc today. If I were in the Clinton camp, I would be starting to get uncomfortable with the narratives going into NV/SC. Basically if Bernie is -10 or closer in either, it will look very poor. Articles like this don't exactly help her case that she's learned from her (many) mistakes in 2007.
As of last week, the Clinton campaign had only two campaign offices in South Carolina: one in Charleston and another in the capital, Columbia, with just 14 full-time staffers including state director Clay Middleton. The campaign also has nine “get out the vote” sites – smaller-scale sites devoted to turnout – across the state.
The Sanders campaign, meanwhile, had 240 staffers on the ground as of last week – 80 percent of them African-American – spread across 10 offices statewide.
I can't believe how inept her campaign has been. 2 offices in SC just goes to show how lazy her campaign has been; she thought she didn't even have to campaign for black votes. Really worrisome for general election prospects if she gets past Sanders.
Fool me once, shame on... shame on, you? Fool me you can't get fooled again!
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.
On February 13 2016 16:39 Seuss wrote: It's probably not Clinton behind it so much as lazy media.
The number one thing the media loves to do to "authentic" candidates is find any discrepancy or possible hypocrisy and make a story out of it. Combined with ever decreasing attention paid to accuracy in reporting, and this sort of thing isn't all that surprising.
I've seen some less generous interpretations that suggest that some in the media who are used to thinking of themselves as "the left" feel challenged by Sanders, and are trying to tear him down. That's possible, but in general I think stupidity is a better explanation than malice.
There's no doubt this came out of the Clinton Camp, these interviews and changing the caption didn't "just happen", and they didn't gleefully spread it because they wanted it to just coincidentally line up with the recent "I didn't see him, but I met the Clintons" nonsense.
On February 13 2016 12:07 Deathstar wrote: This is the pulled Ted Cruz ad (pulled because the blond is a former pornstar). Eh the ad is whatever. But SC is heating up wrt ads
Yet another ridiculous article from the left wing press asking why women aren't voting for Clinton.Why does the left always bring EVERYTHING back to gender and race now? And people are surprised Trump is doing so well? This is "blowback".
Identity politics works (to its potential) when it's sprinkled to a cake of truths, half truths, and baseless assertions that sound good. Clinton has simply become too overt and thus the loser in playing the game.
Trump has benefitted from conventional stereotypes on how immigration discussions are "supposed to go." Everybody know illegal immigration is a net benefit, anti illegal immigration types are racists and white men, etc. He might be the king of anti-establishment/status quo. I don't think the connection on his popularity will be made by society's racebaiters or sexists.
The connection has already been made by those paying attention. The problem with your analysis is that those folks supporting Trump are yet to realize the role the "It's just a yellow star" or rather "it's just a registry" plays in how this all plays out.
Question for Hillary supporters, can Hillary win if she loses both NV and SC or is that essentially the end of her campaign?
not a hillary supporter per se - but I think if jeb! can drag it out for an unreasonable amount time, then clinton should be totally fine at this point with just about any outcome where she does not get numbers like in NH. and if I look at the delegates gained there - it was 14 - 9 for bernie.
that's a victory sure. though will it matter in the end?
winning a battle is one thing, winning the god damn war another thing entirely.
Well the point was, what happens if Sanders wins the next two battles?
My take is that if Sanders can make those races close, let alone win them, then Hillary is in serious trouble.
well fair enough then. I think if he makes an actual competition of the upcoming mentioned primaries, she will go from feeling the bern to it's getting hot in here/the roof is on fire :p
EPT
