2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBeware persons are trying to convince you Bernie can win.
He won't. Regardless of online polls results and the new found love of them and crazed belief that they actually represent more than people clicking away multiple times.
He won't win the nomination.
He will never be President of the United States.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Bubzer
(4,211 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)Finished it for you.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)It is an absurd thing to worry about. It takes very little web-development ability to ensure only one vote per IP address... or if that's not good enough; one vote per MAC address. Both are fairly easy to implement for online polling.
artislife
(9,497 posts)CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)Ann Selzer's Iowa Poll is considered the "gold standard" of polling. Nate Silver gives her methodology an A+ rating. He's only given that rating to three pollsters. Ever. Both campaigns were waiting on the results of this poll. She predicted the Iowa caucus results in 2008 and many others.
Selzer has Bernie within 9. Single digits, people!
Prepare for all kinds of posts like this.
They're convinced that their posts are magical and will lull you into voting for Hillary.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Sure he wont. Because you say so, and that makes it true!
Thanks for the morning laugh!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)what is the path to victory YOU see?
indeed!
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Doh!
George II
(67,782 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)And my conscience won't let me vote for someone who openly dismisses and disrespects the bill of rights of the constitution she wishes to swear to preserve, protect, and defend.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)And the more Hillary people keep doing stupid OP's like this makes it even more certain. I can't wait to see Hillary in tears of defeat like in 2008. Yum! Yum!
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)I think that Selzer poll that shows Bernie within nine--with 40+ days to go--is causing complete hysteria in the Hillary camp.
"Get out there NOW and swamp those message boards! We must convince all Bernie supporters that he is a bad man!!! Go, I tell you! Fly monkeys fly!!!!"
(((cues dramatic music)))
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and so how does he get past South Carolina?
Cue dramatic music indeed!
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)He just needs the press bump that winning Iowa and NH would give him to make sure that SC is respectable.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)OMG!
shakes head!
How long have you followed politics? Do you understand the Electoral College?
Texas, 222 Clinton ahead 61-10 (Delegates won: 135-22)
Florida, 214 Clinton ahead 57-22 (Delegates won: 122-47)
South Carolina, 53 Clinton ahead 71-23 (Delegates won: 38-12)
North Carolina, 107 Clinton ahead 60-23 (Delegates won: 64-25)
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)South Carolina is so heavily in the bag for Hillary at this point that Bernie simply is not going to win there. If he did by some miracle, Hillary may as well concede the next day because it would be utterly over already. Bernie doesn't need to win there though, he just needs a respectable enough loss coupled with the name recognition and press boost than wins in Iowa and NH would give him so that when he heads to the later states with a much larger chance than if he was going there today. That's also when the many months of hard work of thousands of Sanders supporters across the nation will come into play.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)hahahahahaha...."concede the next day".....AS IF!
"utterly over".....hahahahahahahaha!!
http://www.npr.org/2015/11/13/455812702/clinton-has-45-to-1-superdelegate-advantage-over-sanders
http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2015/11/super-delegates-support-clinton
and speaking of SC
http://abcnews4.com/news/lowcountry-and-state-politics/half-of-sc-superdelegates-voice-support-for-clinton
John Poet
(2,510 posts)She should concede NOW,
and spare the Democratic Party from an ugly loss in the General election.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)Don't you remember what happened after Obama won Iowa? The "Clinton is inevitable" meme was destroyed. The media began to break away from favoring Clinton. They began covering both candidates and treating the race as a contest between two main opponents.
That's exactly what Clinton does not want.
Without her, "But I'm next! This is my race!" meme to clutch--she is very vulnerable.
Get to work Bernie supporters! I've never made phone calls until this Bernie's campaign. If we're going to win this, we need to get people to the caucuses and the polls.
We can do this!!!
We're within single digits in Iowa. We'll take Iowa, then NH and then fight like dogs to win the rest of the states!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Hillary already has well more than half of the delegates needed to win...
That's WHY she has a 94% chance of winning....losing both those states doesn't significantly impact that...
But whatever gets you through the night I suppose...
by the way....have you noticed the polling in Iowa lately?
George II lays it out pretty well right here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=902689
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)The Clinton campaign tried this meme in 2008, "She has all of the Super Delegates, so the race is all ready decided."
How far did that get you in 2008?
Your schtick is bunk.
The Super Delegates always follow the will of the people. Always.
The Super Delegates will do exactly as they did in 2008--follow the will of the American people.
Let's get this party started! Bernie is within 9 in Iowa and drawing enormous crowds. What have you done to help Bernie Sanders win today?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)My "schtick" is called Reality...
I suggest YOU take a look at the polls
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
Also see this brand spanking new poll
http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/886fdcf9-30c4-4b42-bf69-7abb6729418b.pdf
Now...you need to understand WHY she has a 94% chance of winning...
http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/886fdcf9-30c4-4b42-bf69-7abb6729418b.pdf
Now...do you forego chemotherapy or radiation if the doctor says it will give you a 94% chance of survival?
If the Doctor says you only have a 5% chance of survival...do you ignore it....or do you get your affairs in order?
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)You said, "Hillary already has well more than half of the delegates needed to win."
Your schtick is not called reality. It's called the baloney platter with an obvious side of disproven bunk.
Were you asleep during the 2008 primary when Hillary lost--after touting the same Super Delegate talking point?
You have nothing.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)In 2008....we had John Edwards in the race and viable....
Martin O'Malley does not have John Edwards polling numbers...
So in fact it is YOU that has nothing...or next to nothing.....a 5% chance!
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)They'll do what they have always done--they'll represent the will of the American people, the voters.
They clearly did it in 2008. They'll clearly do the same in 2016.
You aren't still defending your original point, "Hillary already has well more than half of the delegates needed to win," are you?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You knew I was talking about "super" delegates.....how embarrassing for you..
regardless...my point STILL stands....
She has over HALF of the SuperDelegates......which is HOW Barack Obama beat her last time....
There does that make you feel any better?
by the way...
Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus Quinnipiac Clinton 51, Sanders 40, O'Malley 6 Clinton +11
Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus Loras College Clinton 59, Sanders 27, O'Malley 4 Clinton +32
Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus PPP (D) Clinton 52, Sanders 34, O'Malley 7 Clinton +18
Good luck with that...
George II
(67,782 posts)Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus Quinnipiac Clinton 51, Sanders 40, O'Malley 6 Clinton +11
Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus Loras College Clinton 59, Sanders 27, O'Malley 4 Clinton +32
Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus PPP (D) Clinton 52, Sanders 34, O'Malley 7 Clinton +18
Even if Sanders were to "win" the Iowa Caucuses, say by 5% (VERY generous assumption of mine), there are 44 delegates up for grabs (I've seen different numbers, but they're around 44)
That would mean the Sanders would get 23 delegates, Clinton 21 - a net "win" of ONE delegate.
The real delegate wins are more complicated than this, but won't be too much different when the final numbers are in.
There's a similar situation in New Hampshire, but only 24 delegates available.
Right now it's basically a dead heat (45-44 in favor of Sanders) If it winds up like that, both Sanders and Clinton would get 12 of those delegates.
In the big picture, winning either or both of those states only gets a candidate "bragging rights", that's all.
Now, as far as the big states with lots of delegates, here are a few as of today (State, Total Delegates, Poll result, Delegates/Candidate):
Texas, 222 Clinton ahead 61-10 (Delegates won: 135-22)
Florida, 214 Clinton ahead 57-22 (Delegates won: 122-47)
South Carolina, 53 Clinton ahead 71-23 (Delegates won: 38-12)
North Carolina, 107 Clinton ahead 60-23 (Delegates won: 64-25)
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)I had been waiting for Ann Selzer's Iowa Poll for some time. I was unsure of the findings (because the polls have been all over the map), but I trusted that her poll would be exceedingly accurate.
She nails every Iowa race with unparalleled accuracy.
As someone with a degree in science writing, I've spent a great deal of time analyzing information and data. I'm interested in accuracy and scientific methodology. I've seen a great deal of bunk in my day.
Nate Silver gives Ann Selzer's Iowa Poll an A+ rating (a rating he's given to only three pollsters).
I judge the accuracy and the validity of other polls--as they compare to Selzer's Iowa polls. She's just that accurate. I dismiss other polls that show Hillary up by 32 or 22 in Iowa, because they are so off the mark, compared to Selzer's gold-standard methodology.
I analyzed the Monmouth poll a couple of weeks ago that showed Clinton up by 26 in Iowa. Their methodology excluded all Iowans under the age of 26. 69 percent of those polled were older than 45. That poll also excluded first-time caucus goers. What a mess. You can't get an accurate reading with sloppy methods like that.
I don't analyze sub-par polls any more. There aren't enough hours in the day.
I pay attention to the most scientifically accurate pollster, Ann Selzer. And I look forward to her next poll, which comes out in about a month.
George II
(67,782 posts)Selzer still has Clinton 9% ahead. And as I noted above, even if Sanders were to eke out a very close "win", it would mean that he earns one or two more delegates than Clinton (~23-21?). It takes almost 2400 delegates of the approximately 4800 to nominate.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)brooklynite
(94,694 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Gunz
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Oh I remember, "I know you are but what am I?"
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Why ARE you thinking of poor Paul Ruebens?
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)the NRA!
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Bad retort.
Poor form.
No treat for you today.
George II
(67,782 posts)....2%er. And after the campaign is over most likely he'll make that leap into the 1%.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)No?
Didn't think so....
just lame ass regulation defamation...
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)you accused her of "payoff".....
Please show us where she was "paid off"
Even Bernie couldn't do it at the last debate...it was hilarious!
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)"Cut it out!"
droidamus2
(1,699 posts)By income Bernie is in the top 5% mostly due to what he earns as a Senator. By personal wealth Bernie is worth less than $500,000.00 and it is estimated to be in the top 1% you have to worth somewhere in the area of 8.3 million dollars. Maybe you should do your research.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...pretax health insurance and savings plan, which is also income)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/30/on-tax-returns-sanders-and-wife-report-200000-in-income-mostly-from-his-senate-post/
Based on this income, this site puts him at 98.1% for all American individuals.
http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-is-your-income-percentile-ranking.html#.VnGL3korJ7M
No doubt if his pre-tax income were also included, that would put him toward the top of the 2% and possibly in the top 1%.
These aren't my numbers, they're numbers based on his own 2014 tax return and US Census Bureau data.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who rails against the billionaire class on the presidential campaign trail, reported relatively modest income last year: just more than $200,000 on a tax return filed jointly with his wife.
The vast majority of the couples income came from Sanderss $174,000 Senate salary and Social Security benefits that both he and his wife, Jane, a former college president, receive."
How Horrible! OMG! A Senate Salary and Social Security. Oh the Horror, the Horror!
George II
(67,782 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)I suppose he is supposed to return all or some of his Senate Salary?
George II
(67,782 posts)....decided to use that adjective is his choice and doesn't change the fact that his income is higher than 98.1% of Americans. Yet he's running around the country (on other people's dime, by the way) "yowling" (to use your word) about the 1%, when he's only 0.9% away from that club.
Funny he drew the line at 1% and not 2%, huh?
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)For example; hillary made made $25 million in speeches since 2014. Most of that from banks, and the rest from other big corporations... so a little less than 5 times the threshold to be a one percenter. It worth mentioning, that doesn't include her retirement income from being secretary of state (which is the same as what she earned in the role), or the absurd amounts of tax-free money funneled through and into her foundation. Suffice it to say, She's in the upper echelons of the 1%.
Bernie Sanders doesn't make close to $521k/year though
Sanders had an estimated net worth of $330,000 in 2013, according to financial disclosures filed with the U.S. Senate and analyzed by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group that tracks money in politics. But that's a relative pittance on Capitol Hill, where the median net worth for a member of Congress topped $1 million in 2013, according to the Center's analysis. In the Senate, Sanders is downright poor: the median there was about $2.8 million.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/07/08/421151627/sanders-among-the-least-wealthy-presidential-candidates
George II
(67,782 posts)....and was questioned by skeptics, it mysteriously jumped to "between $300,000 to $800,000" (huge spread!) and now is considered to be $700,000.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/money/2016-presidential-candidates-net-worth-donald-trump-vs-bernie-sanders-and-more
Hekate
(90,773 posts)rurallib
(62,439 posts)best argument ever for jumping on the Hillary bandwagon
for the humor impaired
demmiblue
(36,875 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)them so bogus.
What if they gave an online poll and only Bernie supporters clicked?
"Bernie is winning in all 50 states!"
LS_Editor
(893 posts)And one completely unsupported.
Laser102
(816 posts)One is president, one will never be. Let the hate begin.
LS_Editor
(893 posts)Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Don't you know what you wrote?
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Always showed him winning.SECRETARY Kerry. It's a waste of time.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Gothmog
(145,486 posts)newfie11
(8,159 posts)I think that covers it!
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)tecelote
(5,122 posts)Beware of people telling you we all cheat.
-------------------------------------
Hillary = Landlines
Bernie = Internet
Bernie's going to win.
It's not your parents world anymore.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)tecelote
(5,122 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)tecelote
(5,122 posts)You believe this?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)tecelote
(5,122 posts)Do you get paid to post or do you benefit financially from posting?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)could it be that someone ELSE cheated for you?
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Ka Ching.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You've got nothing else..
Jokerman
(3,518 posts)On Wed Dec 16, 2015, 09:30 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
I'm a Bernie supporter so, according to you, I must.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=902134
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
this poster is accusing another of being pais to post which is against the TOS
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Dec 16, 2015, 09:36 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is BULLSHIT!!! HRC supporters start a thread that is pure flame bait and then alert troll for Bernie supporters. They need to get a life and quit conspiring behind the scenes to purge the opposition from DU.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Accusing someone of being a paid poster is a personal attack.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree with alerter. These accusations make DU a worse place. People who do it regularly, like the person being alerted on here, should be PPRd.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: So tired of this moronic conspiracy theory.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)I didn't know it was bad to ask about a person's reason for posting. It seems relevant to me.
I appreciate your effort here.
treestar
(82,383 posts)to prove that the laws of statistics no longer apply.
It's wishful thinking. The polling organizations have done polls for years and take random samples. And they are adjusting for new technology.
I know we hung onto that a little in 2004 when it showed Kerry was behind. Still the professional pollers turn out to be correct, so it's delusional to think they are going to turn out to be wrong.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)But, only us Bernie supporters.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Only of the people who chose to answer them. Even if no one "cheats" by voting more than once, they still aren't based on a random sample. Just whoever ended up on that web page and chose to vote in it. That's not as scientific and therefore far less likely to be accurate. Otherwise, there would be examples of past elections where their predictions were the same as the outcome.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)I can't believe you are using the same arguments his campaign was using. "Don't believe the scientific polls because (insert a hundred excuses here)".
We all know how well it went for him...
artislife
(9,497 posts)6 times a day, more or less.
It is an archaic structure.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)the "polls don't matter" and "don't believe the scientific polls".
They were the ones not believing in polls. The Obama campaign did believe in them
Rmoney even had that guy with the "Uneskewered Polls" site (remember him). He was the only one they believed, and they disregarded all the established pollsters as irrelevant and archaic because they didn't favor them.
That is why he and Anne looked so shell-shocked on election night...even though everyone else was pretty sure Obama was going to win, according to the scientific polls
Gothmog
(145,486 posts)That worked so well for them
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)sonofspy777
(360 posts)Welcome to the 21st century.
The Internet rules.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Bubzer
(4,211 posts)This is what I don't get. You have a quote like - "I've upped my standards..."
I just don't understand how hillary equates to a higher standard vs. Bernie.
A good number of hillary supporters have said they're voting for her because they think she has a better chance to win... and that's their primary reason for voting for her... I can understand that...and even respect that on some level... even if I don't agree.
What I don't get how she can be considered the better choice, given how frequently she's had to change her stance to be right on a subject, or the many questionable associations she's had (mostly referring to banks here).
It just doesn't make any sense to me.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I don't have the time, or desire, to explain or justify myself to you. It's not as though it would make any difference if I were to spend time trying to help you to "understand". So why bother? You've made up your mind, and I've made up mine.
At least I don't go around pretending to "not understand" why Bernie fans like him. I understand it just fine. I just disagree.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)I suppose I should have expected that kind of reaction. I was hoping for more.
And now, back to your regularly scheduled:
Have a good one.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I do take you at your word ... but it wasn't at all clear to me that you were shifting gears.
Best 2U
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)And by that I mean we've had some pretty acerbic posts all around... up to and including people saying they can't wait to yell their "I told you so"s. I'm worried that'll really hurt the community. I've been thinking about it, and it seems to me that no matter who wins the primary, DU will lose. Maybe I'm worrying over nothing...I certainly hope so.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)That is THE MAIN REASON they support her.
Oh, they'll deny it alright. They'll deny it and deny it and deny it. However, you'll notice if you check- they've all but abandoned the Feminists forums and the issues they used to post in and about 24/7. If you don't believe me- take a look at the 3 feminist forums and see how participation there has declined. Now they're all in GDP directing their hate and vitriol at Sanders and his supporters.
cali
(114,904 posts)SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)No substance, no facts. All BULLSHIT.
There's a place for you where you'll really be wanted. It's called DI.
bvf
(6,604 posts)How do I change my avatar?
Are there any other websites you can recommend? All the ones I visit are absolutely crawling with know-nothings (I see that now).
While I have you here, does this look infected?
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Become a true believer today!
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)Bernie Sanders is clearly the rational choice in 2016.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)What evil really looks like...
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)because with your sig line, it reads like "Beware what evil looks like..." followed by a picture of Hillary! If I hadn't known your preference and sig from other posts, I really would have understood your post quite differently.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that is what you read..
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Pretty hard to misinterpret, thanks for leaving the dark side VanillaRhapsody!
Those ellipses can sure trip one up, no?
treestar
(82,383 posts)in fact the two choices where one was going to win?
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)You choose "none of the above."
treestar
(82,383 posts)then you're screwed. We're voting with the other voters. We have to be careful of how many would vote for the worse of the two.
Tote Life
(72 posts)She has no crossover appeal. 30% isn't enough to win the GE.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)And I don't mean Bernie Sanders, friend.
Tote Life
(72 posts)Show me where Clinton gets her crossover appeal in the GE.
Please, and thanks in advance.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)You are the one saying Hillary can't win in the GE, not me.
Where is your proof, or are you just talkin crap on the internets?
Tote Life
(72 posts)I just gave you the numbers on the last post. Guess you didn't like the proof.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Anyone can make up a number.
Still waiting for your "proof"
Tote Life
(72 posts)And marginal, if any, support from the Republican for Clinton.
Based on recent polls you love to tout all the time. Crosstabs are fun.
uppityperson
(115,678 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)right that is what all the polls say 30%!!!!
madokie
(51,076 posts)Too early to be laughing my ass off like this.
Bernie will be Your next President
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Nobody should have to pay for anything!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Clinton will be YOURS!
LS_Editor
(893 posts)We shall see.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)If you can't live with that here your bookmark is worthless.
LS_Editor
(893 posts)stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)The_Commonist
(2,518 posts)You, like too much of DU, unfortunately, have become completely ridiculous.
When I see your name on an OP, I know that what's to follow should be ignored, and I usually do ignore you.
But this is just beyond your usual level of ridiculousness.
DU used to be, and probably still is, the best news aggregator on the internet.
I first came here for Top 10 Conservative Idiots #1.
But when it comes time for a Democratic primary, I find DU to be less helpful, useful or interesting than a typical Youtube comments section. And it's because of people like you, and OPs like this one.
You used to be cool.
Now you're just a parody.
And not even an amusing one...
Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)boston bean
(36,223 posts)Still, sorry to disappoint you so.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Sanders can win the nomination. Afterward only allow only Sanders supporters to vote in the GE and then Sanders could win.
This will not happen, Hillary supporters will be out and active in the primaries, she is running a great campaign, she is well positioned on the issues and is the most qualified candidate running.
Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)will allow them to return to the old ways to another financial crisis. On the other hand, beefing up Dodd Frank and invoking the Volker Rule would prevent the banks from doing their games or fail. Who is pushing for the regulations to be relaxed, Sanders, Hillary is pushing for stricter rules. Return to the old ways or go forward, I will stick with going forward.
Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)which does not prevent financial crisis, I will go with the candidate who is working to prevent financial crisis. Stuck in the 40's or present day, I will stick with present day.
DFW
(54,434 posts)Stranger things have happened, and politics is nothing if not unpredictable. I know how things look today. I don't know how things will look in four months.
My rewording would say rather: "Beware of persons trying to convince you Bernie can't lose." Of course, that goes for ANY candidate a year out, as far as I'm concerned.
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)I don't know why you find such people dangerous!
FWIW, I think it's unlikely he will get the nomination. But if by some chance he does, I think he would have an excellent chance of becoming President (probably better chances than Hillary, though my money at that point would be on either one of them).
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)I shall give up my hopes and dreams that America can ever escape its corporate masters and warmongering ways and follow the wisdom of some person who posts on an internet board for she is knowledgeable beyond all belief.
Now where the fuck is that sarcasm tag.
hopeforchange2008
(610 posts)Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)times and dates?
marmar
(77,088 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Even online pollsters have a disclaimer that the their polls aren't accurate or reliable.
Or did you miss the spoke person from times who said they don't take into account the online polls because of people repeatedly clicking to have their favorite win?
MineralMan
(146,324 posts)The voters will, and DU isn't at all representative.
People here should vote for the candidate they want. The voters will decide. I think Clinton will be the nominee, and I'm pretty sure of that. But, how DUers vote is up to them. I don't care how any DUer votes, frankly.
I'll be voting for Clinton at my precinct caucus on March 1. How other DUers vote isn't going to influence who the winner is. It's a big country, full of voters.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)If she'll return all the Wall Street money!
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Oddly enough, it stinks in here already...
-app
Divernan
(15,480 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)Because this is ...wait for it.....an online poll!
Fearless
(18,421 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)lark
(23,147 posts)I hope you are wrong. He would bring the greatest positive change to this country so I will definitely vote for him in the primary. However, I'm not stupid or self-destructive so I will vote for whoever the D is in the general and that person will be 1,000,000 times better than any of the Repugs running.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)You're getting desperate and oh so tiresome.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)I believe either Bernie or Hillary, or hell, against this Republican Candidate field Homer Simpson could win.
The real interesting thins is.. would it be a good thing for him? For his devoted? For the US? For the world?
The biggest problem I've mentioned again and again is there is absolutely no potential congressional make up.. at all.. that will be willing to work to make his programs and his mass of promises even a remote possibility.. UNLESS he begins compromising, and then he'll be dubbed the traitor and another DINO, much as happened with President Obama after he won. If Bernie chooses not to compromise then he'll be come the most ineffectual president history and his only accomplishment will be his superior use of the Veto power.
Part of what everyone loves about Bernie is that he is a political outsider. Unfortunately, unless a Senate and a House is elected that also has enough political outsiders to work with him.. he'll be a toothless lion that gives great speeches.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Either they mobilize and support the legislation they want by calling/writing their reps and putting pressure on them to vote right, or else nothing ever happens. It's been a core part of his message since day one.
Lazy Daisy
(928 posts)Why do so many Hillary supporters go on and on about it? Why do they seem to worry about it. And don't say they don't. People don't post over and over again about things they don't worry about. The truth is many Hillary supporters DO have a nagging doubt, a small concern She may not make it, although the MSM tells us all daily that her coronation will be next November.
Republicans may be rolling over, but we Bernie supporters know we have a damn good chance. Hence the posts from Hillary supporters who have to "remind" us daily that it's HER turn.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)but you don't seem to have jack here
retrowire
(10,345 posts)No, this is not true.God, I'm sick of hearing this.
Which major polls are we referring to?
Facebook. It requires each vote to have an individual email address and account. Unless people are making hundreds of accounts, NO they are not voting as many times as they can for their candidate.
Live polls, NOPE, they only allow one vote per IP address, and refuse to let anyone vote any further, this can be circumvented through various means, but NOT in a way that would allow someone to vote hundreds and hundreds of times.
Official online polls like Democracy For America. They require a name, an email address and a zip code. They use cookies and IP logging as well.
So there you have it. NO, major online polls do NOT ALLOW PEOPLE TO VOTE AS MANY TIMES AS THEY LIKE.
This excuse is bunk. Hillary supporters have no excuse whatsoever.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Absolute statements have a way of biting the ass. I will assume this is more say it and hope it's true talk
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)Hepburn
(21,054 posts)You are one of two Hillary supporters I have not put on Ignore and the reason is due to the humor you both provide!
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)But why should we "beware"? It's not like it is dangerous for people to hope that their candidate will win, or to think that he can win. For now, that's what everyone should be doing: support the candidate of their choice. It's called the primaries.
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)is afraid of Bernie. So, it's BEWARE time!
HoosierCowboy
(561 posts)...a candidate NOT promoted by the Main Stream Media will have come out of no where and won the Presidency for the second time. Obama being the "nominal" first. Obama however,did engage the MSM for ads that I didn't watch in the general election, like everyone else.
Because if Bernie Sanders does win, the MSMs political king making power will have been broken. No more billions spent on campaign ads that no one watches. Already the big six public media companies are slowly starting to merge their local news as public broadcast becomes less lucrative as ads revenues fall, a sure sign they're teetering in local media markets.
Because if Bernie Sanders does win, it will be because in the end, politics is local and it will be the locals, wherever they are that make the decision.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Gothmog
(145,486 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)bowens43
(16,064 posts)hill is toast
Logical
(22,457 posts)R B Garr
(16,973 posts)with the same message are just fine, but one juxtaposed title not favoring him causes much anxiety and pitchforks.
You should know by now that Bernie's image and well-being is the No.1 concern. Everything else comes second.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)your OP is senseless shit stirring that is meant to do nothing but cause hard feelings.