Chat Forum
It is currently Sat Jul 11, 2020 1:21 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5622 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83 ... 141  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 6:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3121
And Tulsi with a very respectable 6% :lol: 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 6:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:41 am
Posts: 1746
flaggETERNAL wrote:
Imo the only 2 candidates who can beat Trump are Biden and Bernie. Dont know if any of the others appeal to enough American voters in enough numbers. Is Warren losing voters to Pete? I assume they'd have a very similar base.

I tend to agree but feel that Trump would dismantle Biden on the debate stage, whereas Bernie would dismantle Trump.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 9:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28271
Andrew Yang has had enough and is boycotting MSNBC for their one sided BS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axjSQ4Sxb7c


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 9:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28271
Sanders the top 3 candidate covered the least and most negatively by MSNBC:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/ ... t-negative

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 11029
MSNBC’s parent company Comcast are also major Biden and Buttigieg donors. Biden’s kickoff fundraiser was at a Comcast exec’s house. No conflict there.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/ ... mcast-blue


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 11029
Tulsi on Rogan yesterday...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PdYud9re7-Q


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 10:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 18093
eldanielfire wrote:
Sanders the top 3 candidate covered the least and most negatively by MSNBC:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/ ... t-negative

Image

There's more negative(blackspace) mentions for Biden than Sanders across the 6 shows


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 10:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 18093
Bowens wrote:
So Buttigieg showing a similar trajectory over the last six weeks (though still failing to crack 10%) is a momentum shift in your words but Bernie drawing closer to Biden than any time since he entered the race isn’t. Ok bud.

Not a momentum shift:

Image

I don't know what that graph is, it's no labelled. Looking at the RCP average here. Buttigeg has gone from 5.5-10.5, Sanders from 17.8 to 17.8 with a high of 19.3 along the way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 10:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3121
Ok krystal. What’s on your radar?

https://youtu.be/xfRT7rs2Ea4


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 10:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28271
Ewinkum wrote:
Ok krystal. What’s on your radar?

https://youtu.be/xfRT7rs2Ea4


I've grown to love Krystal. She's one of the most intelligent commentators out there. Here's her schooling everybody on Bill Maher on why Bernie is the best candidate to beat Trump, especially the Dem establishment prick to her right:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMb4vRxDQpY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 10:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1515
Location: Saint Paul
Bowens wrote:
MSNBC’s parent company Comcast are also major Biden and Buttigieg donors. Biden’s kickoff fundraiser was at a Comcast exec’s house. No conflict there.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/ ... mcast-blue


It seems that the staffers didn't get the memo as the graphic Eldaniel posted shows that there has been more love for Warren overall than either Biden or Bernie.

I discount Williams entirely.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 11029
puku wrote:
Bowens wrote:
MSNBC’s parent company Comcast are also major Biden and Buttigieg donors. Biden’s kickoff fundraiser was at a Comcast exec’s house. No conflict there.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/ ... mcast-blue


It seems that the staffers didn't get the memo as the graphic Eldaniel posted shows that there has been more love for Warren overall than either Biden or Bernie.

I discount Williams entirely.


Biden gets about twice the cable news coverage of Warren overall, that graphic doesn’t tell you how many hours eg Maddow gives of positive coverage vs Hayes giving negative coverage (he’s the closest thing they have to a progressive host).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 11029
paddyor wrote:
Bowens wrote:
So Buttigieg showing a similar trajectory over the last six weeks (though still failing to crack 10%) is a momentum shift in your words but Bernie drawing closer to Biden than any time since he entered the race isn’t. Ok bud.

Not a momentum shift:

Image

I don't know what that graph is, it's no labelled. Looking at the RCP average here. Buttigeg has gone from 5.5-10.5, Sanders from 17.8 to 17.8 with a high of 19.3 along the way.


Early states poll as mentioned above. You keep ignoring the polling average trend over the last six weeks (Bernie +5 - identical to Buttigieg’s) because it doesn’t suit your narrative.

And as mentioned he outperforms polls due to the number of first time voters he attracts. I’d say his team are feeling better about the race than they have at any point right now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 18093
puku wrote:
Bowens wrote:
MSNBC’s parent company Comcast are also major Biden and Buttigieg donors. Biden’s kickoff fundraiser was at a Comcast exec’s house. No conflict there.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/ ... mcast-blue


It seems that the staffers didn't get the memo as the graphic Eldaniel posted shows that there has been more love for Warren overall than either Biden or Bernie.

I discount Williams entirely.

And she's really up in the polls!

It's a nonsense piece.

http://inthesetimes.com/features/msnbc-bernie-sanders-coverage-democratic-primary-media-analysis.html

Quote:
Biden was also the only one of the three candidates to see his on-air mentions increase, rather than decline, in September, even as his polling numbers steadily went south. Part of the reason was the Ukraine scandal that erupted in September: News broke that President Trump had conditioned the release of aid to Ukraine upon an investigation of Biden’s son, who had accepted a well compensated position with a Ukrainian oil company in 2014. MSNBC gave the story wall-to-wall coverage, pushing up Biden’s mentions. Almost all of this coverage was neutral—stating that Trump was trying to dig up dirt on Biden—but was occasionally positive, as when Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson speculated that the “impeachment dynamic sort of confirm[s] Biden’s aura of electability because he’s the one Trump is most afraid of, so maybe he’s one we ought to go with.”


No fucking shit

Quote:
By and large, however, such critiques of Biden were subsumed by positive coverage, presenting him as the safest, strongest choice to take on Trump—or, as Matthews put it, the Democrats’ “designated driver.”

“What happens if you get Joe Biden and a rocky stock market? That’s a bad combination for President Trump,” MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle said on Brian Williams’ show, contrasting Biden with an unnamed “socialist” whom she implied Trump would successfully redbait.

One common line, deployed in six different episodes by both hosts and guests, was that the contest between Biden (on one side) and Warren or Sanders (on the other) was a battle between the “head” and the “heart” of the Democratic Party—implying Biden was the smart choice.


I mean, you have Sanders supporters making the case that Biden is the safe candidate and that's the wrong one.

They kind of gloss over the fact that Biden is getting more negative press than the others combined.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28271
paddyor wrote:
There's more negative(blackspace) mentions for Biden than Sanders across the 6 shows


the programs aren't all the same though.

Quote:

The analysis, which is the cover story for In These Times magazine's December issue, found:

-64% of the 240 episodes examined discussed Biden, 43% discussed Warren, and 36% discussed Sanders;
-25% of the episodes only discussed Biden, while just 5% mentioned only Warren and 1% mentioned only Sanders;
-Sanders had the highest percentage of negative mentions (20.7%) and the lowest percentage of positive mentions (12.9%);
-87% of Sanders' negative mentions came from Matthews' Hardball and Williams' 11th Hour;
-Warren had the lowest percentage of negative mentions (7.9%) and the highest percentage of positive mentions (30.6%);
-11.3% percent of Biden's mentions were negative.

Media critic Adam Johnson pointed out that Marcetic's analysis likely understates MSNBC's negative stance toward Sanders, given that it did not examine "consistently anti-Sanders shows AM Joy and Stephanie Ruhle."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 18093
Bowens wrote:
paddyor wrote:
Bowens wrote:
So Buttigieg showing a similar trajectory over the last six weeks (though still failing to crack 10%) is a momentum shift in your words but Bernie drawing closer to Biden than any time since he entered the race isn’t. Ok bud.

Not a momentum shift:

Image

I don't know what that graph is, it's no labelled. Looking at the RCP average here. Buttigeg has gone from 5.5-10.5, Sanders from 17.8 to 17.8 with a high of 19.3 along the way.


Early states poll as mentioned above. You keep ignoring the polling average trend over the last six weeks (Bernie +5 - identical to Buttigieg’s) because it doesn’t suit your narrative.

And as mentioned he outperforms polls due to the number of first time voters he attracts. I’d say his team are feeling better about the race than they have at any point right now.

This is what you said
Quote:
No. He has gone up 5 points in the polling average since October and overtaken Warren for second.


I've linked back to what I'm talking about twice.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 18093
eldanielfire wrote:
paddyor wrote:
There's more negative(blackspace) mentions for Biden than Sanders across the 6 shows


the programs aren't all the same though.

Quote:

The analysis, which is the cover story for In These Times magazine's December issue, found:

-64% of the 240 episodes examined discussed Biden, 43% discussed Warren, and 36% discussed Sanders;
-25% of the episodes only discussed Biden, while just 5% mentioned only Warren and 1% mentioned only Sanders;
-Sanders had the highest percentage of negative mentions (20.7%) and the lowest percentage of positive mentions (12.9%);
-87% of Sanders' negative mentions came from Matthews' Hardball and Williams' 11th Hour;
-Warren had the lowest percentage of negative mentions (7.9%) and the highest percentage of positive mentions (30.6%);
-11.3% percent of Biden's mentions were negative.

Media critic Adam Johnson pointed out that Marcetic's analysis likely understates MSNBC's negative stance toward Sanders, given that it did not examine "consistently anti-Sanders shows AM Joy and Stephanie Ruhle."

He got 90 negative mentions to Sanders 50. And they consider the “safe” label to be positive but I’ve been assured on here that he is indeed the “safe” candidate and that is in fact a negative. IMO it can be either so I don’t think you can say it’s positive only.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28271
paddyor wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
paddyor wrote:
There's more negative(blackspace) mentions for Biden than Sanders across the 6 shows


the programs aren't all the same though.

Quote:

The analysis, which is the cover story for In These Times magazine's December issue, found:

-64% of the 240 episodes examined discussed Biden, 43% discussed Warren, and 36% discussed Sanders;
-25% of the episodes only discussed Biden, while just 5% mentioned only Warren and 1% mentioned only Sanders;
-Sanders had the highest percentage of negative mentions (20.7%) and the lowest percentage of positive mentions (12.9%);
-87% of Sanders' negative mentions came from Matthews' Hardball and Williams' 11th Hour;
-Warren had the lowest percentage of negative mentions (7.9%) and the highest percentage of positive mentions (30.6%);
-11.3% percent of Biden's mentions were negative.

Media critic Adam Johnson pointed out that Marcetic's analysis likely understates MSNBC's negative stance toward Sanders, given that it did not examine "consistently anti-Sanders shows AM Joy and Stephanie Ruhle."

He got 90 negative mentions to Sanders 50. And they consider the “safe” label to be positive but I’ve been assured on here that he is indeed the “safe” candidate and that is in fact a negative. IMO it can be either so I don’t think you can say it’s positive only.


No one is saying Biden is the Establishment's glowing boy favourite. We know they didn't want him to run as the favoured Harris as Biden lacks the woke points. He isn't loved but he's their guy. However these stats clearly show that they are trying to freeze out Sanders with considerably smaller coverage and when they do giving him a higher rate of negative coverage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 11029
paddyor wrote:
Bowens wrote:
paddyor wrote:
Bowens wrote:
So Buttigieg showing a similar trajectory over the last six weeks (though still failing to crack 10%) is a momentum shift in your words but Bernie drawing closer to Biden than any time since he entered the race isn’t. Ok bud.

Not a momentum shift:

Image

I don't know what that graph is, it's no labelled. Looking at the RCP average here. Buttigeg has gone from 5.5-10.5, Sanders from 17.8 to 17.8 with a high of 19.3 along the way.


Early states poll as mentioned above. You keep ignoring the polling average trend over the last six weeks (Bernie +5 - identical to Buttigieg’s) because it doesn’t suit your narrative.

And as mentioned he outperforms polls due to the number of first time voters he attracts. I’d say his team are feeling better about the race than they have at any point right now.

This is what you said
Quote:
No. He has gone up 5 points in the polling average since October and overtaken Warren for second.


I've linked back to what I'm talking about twice.


You’re the one who brought up momentum shifts originally. When it was pointed out that Bernie is +5 in 6 weeks (ie gaining momentum) you referred back to April. Either you’re talking about the entirety of the average or you’re talking about momentum, which he currently has, in national and especially state polls.

Saying that he seems to have a ceiling is more of a fair critique, but again given the nature of his support opinion polls usually underestimate him. They would feel very confident if they went into eg NH with a 4 point lead.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 18093
I’m looking at the RCP National poll of polls and he’s been bobbing along between 15 and 20 for a few months. It looks like a needle rather than a line. There’s no noticeable uptick beyond the MOE(+/-3%).

I’m not looking at state polls as the rules vary state to state and the demographics are usually quite different(Iowa doesn’t look like the Democratic Party for example). Now maybe he wins them and things start to swing behind him but it hasn’t happened yet. He hasn’t outperformed the polls yet either. His performance so far has been solid and nothing more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 18093
eldanielfire wrote:
paddyor wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
paddyor wrote:
There's more negative(blackspace) mentions for Biden than Sanders across the 6 shows


the programs aren't all the same though.

Quote:

The analysis, which is the cover story for In These Times magazine's December issue, found:

-64% of the 240 episodes examined discussed Biden, 43% discussed Warren, and 36% discussed Sanders;
-25% of the episodes only discussed Biden, while just 5% mentioned only Warren and 1% mentioned only Sanders;
-Sanders had the highest percentage of negative mentions (20.7%) and the lowest percentage of positive mentions (12.9%);
-87% of Sanders' negative mentions came from Matthews' Hardball and Williams' 11th Hour;
-Warren had the lowest percentage of negative mentions (7.9%) and the highest percentage of positive mentions (30.6%);
-11.3% percent of Biden's mentions were negative.

Media critic Adam Johnson pointed out that Marcetic's analysis likely understates MSNBC's negative stance toward Sanders, given that it did not examine "consistently anti-Sanders shows AM Joy and Stephanie Ruhle."

He got 90 negative mentions to Sanders 50. And they consider the “safe” label to be positive but I’ve been assured on here that he is indeed the “safe” candidate and that is in fact a negative. IMO it can be either so I don’t think you can say it’s positive only.


No one is saying Biden is the Establishment's glowing boy favourite. We know they didn't want him to run as the favoured Harris as Biden lacks the woke points. He isn't loved but he's their guy. However these stats clearly show that they are trying to freeze out Sanders with considerably smaller coverage and when they do giving him a higher rate of negative coverage.

I think what the stats show is that it doesn’t make much of a difference at all. Warren gets great positive coverage and tanks in the polls......


I also think it’s really subjective as to what is positive /negative. Half the Biden neutral mentions are without doubt Trump/Ukraine related.

I also kind of suspect it’s mostly driven by catering to their audience. If you go on Twitter you’d think the US is chock full of Bernie Bros, they’re really active there(it’s not close)..,...not watching tv which is kind of an older audience. I don’t even have satellite anymore neither do my friends. If Sanders wants more TV coverage he needs his surrogates less online and more on screen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 11029
paddyor wrote:
I’m looking at the RCP National poll of polls and he’s been bobbing along between 15 and 20 for a few months. It looks like a needle rather than a line. There’s no noticeable uptick beyond the MOE(+/-3%).


I really can’t phrase it any better than I did when I initially replied to you, before you went on to make the same point five more times:

Quote:
He’s at his highest point in the polling average since April. Now close to 20%. Morning Consult early states poll has him 3 points behind Biden, was about a 17 point gap in early October.


Saying you don’t pay attention to state polls is laughable. No one ignores them during the primaries, in fact they’re more important because there isn’t a single national primary.

Quote:
He hasn’t outperformed the polls yet either.


What does this mean? Obviously we are talking about historic results since we have nothing to go on yet in this cycle.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -5224.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 2:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10237
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Bokkom wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
Akkerman wrote:
officially announced, bloomberg in

Quote:
Jumping into the race almost a year after Senator Elizabeth Warren announced she was exploring a candidacy, Bloomberg is pursuing an unorthodox strategy in which he will skip the first four states in the primary season calendar – Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina – to make a play for the so-called Super Tuesday states in early March.

He has announced that his campaign will be entirely self-funded, meaning he cannot qualify for the Democratic presidential debates under current rules, which require candidates to receive at least 10,000 individual donations.

“He has never taken a political contribution in his life,” chief adviser Howard Wolfson told the Associated Press. “He is not about to start. He cannot be bought.”

Bloomberg, 77, has a net worth estimated at more than $50bn. His entry to the race was not welcomed by the current field.

“I’m disgusted by the idea that Michael Bloomberg or any billionaire thinks they can circumvent the political process and spend tens of millions of dollars to buy elections,” Vermont senator Bernie Sanders tweeted Saturday.

“If you can’t build grassroots support for your candidacy, you have no business running for president.”


Thanks Tulsi and Bernie for this shit show.


Blame anybody else - DT is HRC and I claim my soggy cigar

And I thought it was a democratic process?
Apparently only if you back the establishment candidates.



One of the things that the Atlantic article references about the current state of American politics is the downfall of the Machine. Establishment, bah blah but the Machine believed in comprise as a way for government to function. With the downfall and more power to the people we now have this situation, where compromise is seen as a weakness and not believing in this and that policy. The machine had its flaws too, just look at how Truman became VP. But in placing more power to the people, it allowed for more polarization.

I am just ma at Bernie and Tulsi because before Bernie's fit in 2016, aided by Tulsi stepping down to begin her drive to nowhere nonsense, the party would have stepped and told the majority of these no hopers to quit. It can be argued that the traditional machne would have stopped Trump.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 2:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 18093
Bowens wrote:
paddyor wrote:
I’m looking at the RCP National poll of polls and he’s been bobbing along between 15 and 20 for a few months. It looks like a needle rather than a line. There’s no noticeable uptick beyond the MOE(+/-3%).


I really can’t phrase it any better than I did when I initially replied to you, before you went on to make the same point five more times:

Quote:
He’s at his highest point in the polling average since April. Now close to 20%. Morning Consult early states poll has him 3 points behind Biden, was about a 17 point gap in early October.


No, he's at 17.8% which goes back to August(18.25). His support has oscillated around 17% +/- 3%. I've no idea what that poll is but I had a look and I'm not convinced. RCP state averages below.
Quote:
Saying you don’t pay attention to state polls is laughable. No one ignores them during the primaries, in fact they’re more important because there isn’t a single national primary.

Iowa Sanders bold, Biden Undelined
RCP Average 11/6 - 11/19 24.0 18.3 17.7 16.3 5.3 3.3 2.7 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.5 0.7 0.7
NH
RCP Average 11/13 - 11/26 20.0 17.0 14.3 13.7 5.0 3.7 3.3 3.0 2.7 2.3 0.5 0.5 0.3
Nevada
RCP Average 10/28 - 11/13 29.0 20.0 19.8 7.3 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.3
SC
RCP Average 10/15 - 11/17 35.3 16.3 12.8 6.5 6.3 4.0 2.5 2.3 1.8 1.5 0.5 0.3

He has a clear lead over Biden in one of the early states, peachy! If Gabbard doesn't steal his lunch with independents in NH he might come in first.

It's not laughabale at all. If national polls showed Sanders out in front you'd be pointing to them. I don't think Buttigieg jumping to the top in Iowa and NH is that important......like yourself I note.

Quote:
Quote:
He hasn’t outperformed the polls yet either.


What does this mean? Obviously we are talking about historic results since we have nothing to go on yet in this cycle.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -5224.html

So I had a look at the results. Clinton out performed the polls a dozen or more times(+3%) and Sanders about 6 and seem mostly open primaries. I'll believe him consistently outperforming the polls when it happens, until then it's all hope.

Here's Jeremy Corbyn on new registered voters

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1199621729783623683

Here's the tories on course to pick up 67 seats

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1199810172262211584


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10237
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
The Bernie and Tulsi cultists want to tell you about negative press coverage and being ignored by the mainstream, allegedly. However bring up how the media portrayed HRC in 2016 and that the MSM is as much and aid as an obstacle. That will be a no because warmonger, etc, etc, establishment, machine etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10237
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
paddyor wrote:
Bowens wrote:
paddyor wrote:
I’m looking at the RCP National poll of polls and he’s been bobbing along between 15 and 20 for a few months. It looks like a needle rather than a line. There’s no noticeable uptick beyond the MOE(+/-3%).


I really can’t phrase it any better than I did when I initially replied to you, before you went on to make the same point five more times:

Quote:
He’s at his highest point in the polling average since April. Now close to 20%. Morning Consult early states poll has him 3 points behind Biden, was about a 17 point gap in early October.


No, he's at 17.8% which goes back to August(18.25). His support has oscillated around 17% +/- 3%. I've no idea what that poll is but I had a look and I'm not convinced. RCP state averages below.
Quote:
Saying you don’t pay attention to state polls is laughable. No one ignores them during the primaries, in fact they’re more important because there isn’t a single national primary.

Iowa Sanders bold, Biden Undelined
RCP Average 11/6 - 11/19 24.0 18.3 17.7 16.3 5.3 3.3 2.7 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.5 0.7 0.7
NH
RCP Average 11/13 - 11/26 20.0 17.0 14.3 13.7 5.0 3.7 3.3 3.0 2.7 2.3 0.5 0.5 0.3
Nevada
RCP Average 10/28 - 11/13 29.0 20.0 19.8 7.3 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.3
SC
RCP Average 10/15 - 11/17 35.3 16.3 12.8 6.5 6.3 4.0 2.5 2.3 1.8 1.5 0.5 0.3

He has a clear lead over Biden in one of the early states, peachy! If Gabbard doesn't steal his lunch with independents in NH he might come in first.

It's not laughabale at all. If national polls showed Sanders out in front you'd be pointing to them. I don't think Buttigieg jumping to the top in Iowa and NH is that important......like yourself I note.

Quote:
Quote:
He hasn’t outperformed the polls yet either.


What does this mean? Obviously we are talking about historic results since we have nothing to go on yet in this cycle.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -5224.html

So I had a look at the results. Clinton out performed the polls a dozen or more times(+3%) and Sanders about 6 and seem mostly open primaries. I'll believe him consistently outperforming the polls when it happens, until then it's all hope.

Here's Jeremy Corbyn on new registered voters

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1199621729783623683

Here's the tories on course to pick up 67 seats

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1199810172262211584



NH is right next door to Bernie's homestate but Tulsi is supported by basically Republicans and Independents so we will see


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 7:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 11029
Quote:
t's not laughabale at all. If national polls showed Sanders out in front you'd be pointing to them. I don't think Buttigieg jumping to the top in Iowa and NH is that important......like yourself I note.


Anyone who follows this stuff closely will tell you that state polls are more important in the primaries. You don’t have to take my word for it, ask around. Buttigieg is still narrowly ahead on average in NH but most of the polls in November have Bernie in the lead (while Tulsi and Yang are also rising and Biden is cratering - down like 10 points in a month). Biden also way down in Iowa. Iowa is interesting because Biden allegedly has strength with the white working class and in the midwest but Iowa has the third highest percentage of non-college whites in the country after WV and Kentucky. This demographic played a big role in swinging the Rust Belt and former Dem areas to Trump.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/po ... e-degrees/

I looked around to see if any polls include that specific demographic and Quinnipiac does. Their most recent Iowa poll has Bernie #1 with that group in Iowa with Biden and Warren tied for second. Buttigieg way behind. When we talk about flipping Trump voters in the Rust Belt, these are the voters. They don’t seem too hot on Joe.

Bernie also very strong with Latinos who are important in western states.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/us/b ... oters.html

Biden will win SC and most of the southern states (that will all vote Republican in November) but elsewhere it’s up for grabs. Bernie is basically holding steady or rising everywhere and unlike Buttigieg his numbers don’t fluctuate wildly from single digits to low 20s depending on the pollster.

In the end if Biden’s Boomer base is enough to carry him to the general I think youth turnout for Democrats will be way down, they overwhelmingly support Bernie. Same thing happened in 2016. I honestly think Hillary might have had slightly more youth support than he does too.

Quote:
[Clinton] slipped badly in the key battleground states that really mattered. In Florida, the Democratic margin of victory for the youth vote from 2012 to 2016 dropped 16 points. In both Ohio and Pennsylvania, the drop was 19 points.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 7:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6132
Yanks, who would you vote in a race between Trump and
Biden

or

Sanders

or

Warren


Assuming those are the only 3 that have a chance to win the nomination.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 7:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10237
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
Bowens wrote:
Quote:
t's not laughabale at all. If national polls showed Sanders out in front you'd be pointing to them. I don't think Buttigieg jumping to the top in Iowa and NH is that important......like yourself I note.


Anyone who follows this stuff closely will tell you that state polls are more important in the primaries. You don’t have to take my word for it, ask around. Buttigieg is still narrowly ahead on average in NH but most of the polls in November have Bernie in the lead (while Tulsi and Yang are also rising and Biden is cratering - down like 10 points in a month). Biden also way down in Iowa. Iowa is interesting because Biden allegedly has strength with the white working class and in the midwest but Iowa has the third highest percentage of non-college whites in the country after WV and Kentucky. This demographic played a big role in swinging the Rust Belt and former Dem areas to Trump.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/po ... e-degrees/

I looked around to see if any polls include that specific demographic and Quinnipiac does. Their most recent Iowa poll has Bernie #1 with that group in Iowa with Biden and Warren tied for second. Buttigieg way behind. When we talk about flipping Trump voters in the Rust Belt, these are the voters. They don’t seem too hot on Joe.

Bernie also very strong with Latinos who are important in western states.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/us/b ... oters.html

Biden will win SC and most of the southern states (that will all vote Republican in November) but elsewhere it’s up for grabs. Bernie is basically holding steady or rising everywhere and unlike Buttigieg his numbers don’t fluctuate wildly from single digits to low 20s depending on the pollster.

In the end if Biden’s Boomer base is enough to carry him to the general I think youth turnout for Democrats will be way down, they overwhelmingly support Bernie. Same thing happened in 2016. I honestly think Hillary might have had slightly more youth support than he does too.

Quote:
[Clinton] slipped badly in the key battleground states that really mattered. In Florida, the Democratic margin of victory for the youth vote from 2012 to 2016 dropped 16 points. In both Ohio and Pennsylvania, the drop was 19 points.


A couple of points, Clinton stats are skewed as she followed Obama, who was a generational figure. Her percentages were more in line with Kerry which She exceeded.

Bidens numbers drop as a frontrunner, it is the nature of being a frontrunner. He is essentially trying to hold the lead he came in with. Sanders is not under attack from all comers like Biden is because Biden is frontrunner.

Also based on the increased turnout for moderates in Kentucky and Virginia, it appears, voters are voting blue and not worries about, a nominee they can fall in love with. After 4 years of Trump, the overall goal is victory. There will be less people deciding to sit this one out because they think it wont matter and She can win but I ain't gonna help her nonsense.

Are you gonna say that the deep south isn't important because they will vote Republican in the general? Because in 2016 outsided of Michigan where Bernie's whole message was arrest the govenor, he only won in the whitest of states. And he still sucks with older blacks. Maybe you should find a 40 and over black person to burst your bubble and find out why he does.


Last edited by Deadtigers on Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 7:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10237
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
flaggETERNAL wrote:
Yanks, who would you vote in a race between Trump and
Biden

or

Sanders

or

Warren


Assuming those are the only 3 that have a chance to win the nomination.


Which ever Dem is the nominee. If Bloomberg won the primary, he would have my vote.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 8:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28271
paddyor wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
paddyor wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
paddyor wrote:
There's more negative(blackspace) mentions for Biden than Sanders across the 6 shows


the programs aren't all the same though.

Quote:

The analysis, which is the cover story for In These Times magazine's December issue, found:

-64% of the 240 episodes examined discussed Biden, 43% discussed Warren, and 36% discussed Sanders;
-25% of the episodes only discussed Biden, while just 5% mentioned only Warren and 1% mentioned only Sanders;
-Sanders had the highest percentage of negative mentions (20.7%) and the lowest percentage of positive mentions (12.9%);
-87% of Sanders' negative mentions came from Matthews' Hardball and Williams' 11th Hour;
-Warren had the lowest percentage of negative mentions (7.9%) and the highest percentage of positive mentions (30.6%);
-11.3% percent of Biden's mentions were negative.

Media critic Adam Johnson pointed out that Marcetic's analysis likely understates MSNBC's negative stance toward Sanders, given that it did not examine "consistently anti-Sanders shows AM Joy and Stephanie Ruhle."

He got 90 negative mentions to Sanders 50. And they consider the “safe” label to be positive but I’ve been assured on here that he is indeed the “safe” candidate and that is in fact a negative. IMO it can be either so I don’t think you can say it’s positive only.


No one is saying Biden is the Establishment's glowing boy favourite. We know they didn't want him to run as the favoured Harris as Biden lacks the woke points. He isn't loved but he's their guy. However these stats clearly show that they are trying to freeze out Sanders with considerably smaller coverage and when they do giving him a higher rate of negative coverage.

I think what the stats show is that it doesn’t make much of a difference at all. Warren gets great positive coverage and tanks in the polls......


I also think it’s really subjective as to what is positive /negative. Half the Biden neutral mentions are without doubt Trump/Ukraine related.

I also kind of suspect it’s mostly driven by catering to their audience. If you go on Twitter you’d think the US is chock full of Bernie Bros, they’re really active there(it’s not close)..,...not watching tv which is kind of an older audience. I don’t even have satellite anymore neither do my friends. If Sanders wants more TV coverage he needs his surrogates less online and more on screen


Therefore it's telling that MSNBC, a channel who have had a few ex journalists say outright they were throw out for supporting Bernie and being anti-Clinton purposely feature Sanders considerably less than the other 2 top 3 candidates. That's not to say MSNBC is influencing the polls, we know there are so many factors in play there, but they are doing what they believe they can to alt any Bernie charge for the nomination.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8591
flaggETERNAL wrote:
Yanks, who would you vote in a race between Trump and
Biden

or

Sanders

or

Warren


Assuming those are the only 3 that have a chance to win the nomination.


Weird/bad assumption.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6132
goeagles wrote:
flaggETERNAL wrote:
Yanks, who would you vote in a race between Trump and
Biden

or

Sanders

or

Warren


Assuming those are the only 3 that have a chance to win the nomination.


Weird/bad assumption.


Why?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28271
Sometimes you forget how nuts and stupid some Americans are:

Quote:

The former MLB player Aubrey Huff is taking Bernie Sanders’ run for White House very seriously, teaching his sons to shoot in case the Democrat wins the presidency in 2020 and introduces socialism to the United States.

“Getting my boys trained up on how to use a gun in the unlikely event @BernieSanders beats @realDonaldTrump in 2020,” he wrote on Twitter earlier this week. “In which case knowing how to effectively use a gun under socialism will be a must.” Huff also provided a warning for anyone attempting to introduce universal free healthcare to the US: “By the way most the head shots were theirs,” he wrote alongside a picture of a shooting range target with bullet holes.


AUBREY HUFF

@aubrey_huff
Getting my boys trained up on how to use a gun in the unlikely event @BernieSanders beats @realDonaldTrump in 2020. In which case knowing how to effectively use a gun under socialism will be a must. By the way most the head shots were theirs. @NRA @WatchChad #2ndAmendment

View image on Twitter
7,156
5:39 AM - Nov 26, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
36.5K people are talking about this
Patricia Arquette was one of the celebrities to respond to Huff’s post. “Are you warning your kids to never call the fire department or police because that’s too socialist too? Or that they should never to go to Europe because they have health care for all people? Because the US is far more dangerous,” she wrote in reply to his tweet.

Sanders is not the only subject Huff gave his opinion on recently. On Sunday he tweeted a story about former NFL star Michael Strahan’s divorce settlement, commenting that: “Divorce rates amongst athletes will continue to rise until the justice system is rightfully fixed. No way women who have never threw a touchdown pass, hit a game winning 3, or hit a 2-0 slider deserve half of a mans hard earned money just for having his babies”.

Huff has worked as a color commentator since his retirement from baseball in 2012. He won two World Series titles in 2010 and 2012 with the San Francisco Giants. He has also spoken of his struggles with anxiety and depression during his playing career.


Last edited by eldanielfire on Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10237
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
You should never forget. Some of us get daily reminders just how insane this country is. I mean guys like Bloomberg, Patrick and a few others would be conservatives in Europe but here, they are moderate liberals.

The thing to always remember is voting and elections are flawed by design. Who will lead your town or city, county, state or province, and nation, is a fundamentally a rational question. But unlike the vast majority of Job openings, we open it up to people with no experience in the subject matter and allow the answer to be based on emotions instead rational things like experience, work sample, etc.
The US population has not voted for the experienced candidate for president since 1988 and have chosen some emotional reason over another.

And then you have the conservative propaganda wing which has made it so that in a recent poll Trump was rated a better president than Lincoln by 53 percent of registered Republicans. So Huff is not the only crazy American or Republican.

Also if you read these articles about Trump's effect on the suburbs and how freshman Democrats are dealing with Impeachment (spoiler alert: the one in rural Iowa is in a fight for her life), you may get a better feel for the american voters and their aversion to rational arguments.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/ ... men-voters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1XZ174


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14120
:shock:

Creepier Joe https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/ ... 0926555137


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28271
fatcat wrote:


I've been watching the SNL skits about the Primaries, and Woody Harrelson does a good job on Biden, but the script writers just can't even come close to the near the edge uncomfortableness of Biden's talking :lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:41 am
Posts: 1746
eldanielfire wrote:
fatcat wrote:


I've been watching the SNL skits about the Primaries, and Woody Harrelson does a good job on Biden, but the script writers just can't even come close to the near the edge uncomfortableness of Biden's talking :lol: :lol: :lol:

All I could think of after this word salad of creep shit was Bad Lip Reading


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:48 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9853
Location: Indiana
Bowens wrote:
They would rather lose to Trump again and be #TheResistance for four more years than risk Bernie winning. That’s what it comes down to.


That's how party politics works sometimes. No one is ever going to say we'd rather be the opposition than hold the presidency, but it's much easier to be the opposition running against the president instead of backing presidential policies that you're not for. Bill Clinton 1992 is a perfect example. Everyone thought Bush was winning a 2nd term, so all the bigshots stayed out waiting for '96. A guy from the right side of the party was nominated and he unexpectedly wins. Clinton's win pushed the Democratic Party nationally to the right for more than a decade. I think he was losing anyway, but I am absolutely convinced some Republicans torpedoed McCain in 2008 on purpose by foisting Palin on him because there were a ton of Republicans that hated McCain, and Palin became the story of the campaign that year.

If your loyalty is "to a cause" instead of "to a party" - which party loyalty is near zero at the moment in this country, liberals hate the Democratic Party and conservatives hate the Republican Party - it's better to have the opposing party win the election than to have a person against your cause be your party's nominee AND win the election. Donald Trump winning the nomination and election in 2016 completely killed the power of certain wings of the Republican Party. Either you stood principled and lost all relevance, or you ignored everything you said and back him publicly (and there are a LOT of those people).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:31 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9853
Location: Indiana
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/us/p ... -2020.html

Quote:

WASHINGTON — In early November, a few days after Senator Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign announced widespread layoffs and an intensified focus on Iowa, her senior aides gathered for a staff meeting at their Baltimore headquarters and pelted the campaign manager, Juan Rodriguez, with questions.

What exactly was Ms. Harris’s new strategy? How much money and manpower could they put into Iowa? What would their presence be like in other early voting states?

Mr. Rodriguez offered general, tentative answers that didn’t satisfy the room, according to two campaign officials directly familiar with the conversation. Some Harris aides sitting at the table could barely suppress their fury about what they saw as the undoing of a once-promising campaign. Their feelings were reflected days later by Kelly Mehlenbacher, the state operations director, in a blistering resignation letter obtained by The Times.

“This is my third presidential campaign and I have never seen an organization treat its staff so poorly,” Ms. Mehlenbacher wrote, assailing Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Harris’s sister, Maya, the campaign chairwoman, for laying off aides with no notice. “With less than 90 days until Iowa we still do not have a real plan to win.”

The 2020 Democratic field has been defined by its turbulence, with some contenders rising, others dropping out and two more jumping in just this month. Yet there is only one candidate who rocketed to the top tier and then plummeted in early state polls to the low single digits: Ms. Harris.

From those polling results to Ms. Harris’s campaign operation, fund-raising and debate performances, it has been a remarkable comedown for a senator from the country’s largest state, a politician with star power who was compared to President Obama even before Californians elected her to the Senate in 2016.

Yet, even to some Harris allies, her decline is more predictable than surprising. In one instance after another, Ms. Harris and her closest advisers made flawed decisions about which states to focus on, issues to emphasize and opponents to target, all the while refusing to make difficult personnel choices to impose order on an unwieldy campaign, according to more than 50 current and former campaign staff members and allies, most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity to disclose private conversations and assessments involving the candidate.

Many of her own advisers are now pointing a finger directly at Ms. Harris. In interviews several of them criticized her for going on the offensive against rivals, only to retreat, and for not firmly choosing a side in the party’s ideological feud between liberals and moderates. She also created an organization with a campaign chairwoman, Maya Harris, who goes unchallenged in part because she is Ms. Harris’s sister, and a manager, Mr. Rodriguez, who could not be replaced without likely triggering the resignations of the candidate’s consulting team. Even at this late date, aides said it’s unclear who’s in charge of the campaign.


An article with FIFTY sources. That's a lot of people to piss off. :lol:

Quote:
Yet it has come to this: After beginning her candidacy with a speech before 20,000 people in Oakland, some of Ms. Harris’s longtime supporters believe she should consider dropping out in late December — the deadline for taking her name off the California primary ballot — if she does not show political momentum. Some advisers are already bracing for a primary challenge, potentially from the billionaire Tom Steyer, should she run for re-election to the Senate in 2022. Her senior aides plan to assess next month whether she’s made sufficient progress to remain in the race.

“For her to lose California would be really hard and it’s not looking good,” said Susie Buell, a longtime Harris donor from the Bay Area.


Quote:
From the start, the campaign structure seemed ripe for conflict. Ms. Harris divided her campaign between two coasts, basing her operation in Baltimore but retaining some key advisers in the Bay Area. She bifurcated the leadership between two decidedly different loyalists: her sister, the chair, and Mr. Rodriguez, a trusted lieutenant who had managed her 2016 Senate campaign. Mr. Rodriguez was a central figure at the San Francisco-based consulting firm, SCRB, that had helped direct Ms. Harris’s rise for a decade; all of the firm’s partners were lined up to advise the presidential race.

The two camps were soon competing, each stocked with people who shared a tight bond with Ms. Harris but who regarded each other with suspicion or worse. The setup cost Ms. Harris opportunities to recruit some of her party’s most sought-after outside strategists and left her reliant on a team less experienced in national politics than in California, an overwhelmingly blue state where campaigns often turn on factional infighting within the Democratic Party.

Dan Sena, a former executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, met early with Ms. Harris’s team and came away concerned that they were overly reliant on political thinking shaped in California’s idiosyncratic political system.

“Winning in California requires a different road map, between a top-two candidate system and the expensive TV markets,” Mr. Sena said. “When it comes to winning there is a right way, the wrong way and the California way.”


Quote:
There are also generational fissures. One adviser said the fixation that some younger staffers have with liberals on Twitter distorted their view of what issues and moments truly mattered, joking that it was not President Trump’s account that should be taken offline, as Ms. Harris has urged, but rather those of their own trigger-happy communications team.


Read the rest at the link. They have a copy of the resignation letter you can read.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5622 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83 ... 141  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dan54., Flyin Ryan, les@mooloolaba, Santa, ticketlessinseattle and 43 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group