Re: Presidential Election 2016
Posted: February 21st, 2016, 10:42 am
Architecture, Development, and Infrastructure of the Twin Cities
https://urbanmsp.com/
Thank God for Vic Berger's videos and vines. Best part of the election so far.
No idea what you're quoting, but good luck in the general election if superdelegates push Hillary over the top. There are many Primaries beyond Super Tuesday, after which Hillary's path gets more difficult.Clinton will be the nominee. After three contests favorable to Sanders she and Sanders have each won 51 delegates. South Carolina and a bunch of large Super Tuesday states favor her heavily. There is absolutely no path for Bernie to overcome her super delegate lead.
That's a really weird "fact check." Just watch the video. Huerta was shouted down as translator by Bernie people, yelling "no," "she's with Hillary" and "get off the stage" (all this rather than offer an alternate/Bernie translator so that Spanish-speakers could participate), and rather than deal with that Snopes just sticks to whether anyone chanted a particular phrase.http://usuncut.com/politics/snopes-rumo ... ers-false/
There just isn't anything to add anymore. Posting this in case someone here missed the fact-check.
The people who will decide the general election are not yet paying attention.Haven't there been multiple national polls showing Bernie would beat Trump easier than Clinton would? It doesn't necessarily make sense to me, but the data is there.
There are probably more Sanders supporters who say (right now) that they won't vote for Clinton than vice versa. There's a similar effect on the Republican side with everyone except Rubio, the universal second choice.Haven't there been multiple national polls showing Bernie would beat Trump easier than Clinton would? It doesn't necessarily make sense to me, but the data is there.
An 85-year old woman (and civil-rights lion) trying to translate the caucus got shouted off the stage by Sanders supporters, resulting in an English-only caucus. I can see why she might be a little peeved about that, even though I also get why Sanders supporters wanted a neutral party.That's a really weird "fact check." Just watch the video. Huerta was shouted down as translator by Bernie people, yelling "no," "she's with Hillary" and "get off the stage" (all this rather than offer an alternate/Bernie translator so that Spanish-speakers could participate), and rather than deal with that Snopes just sticks to whether anyone chanted a particular phrase.http://usuncut.com/politics/snopes-rumo ... ers-false/
There just isn't anything to add anymore. Posting this in case someone here missed the fact-check.
And decides they didn't because it's not on the video and a bunch of Bernie supporters said that particular phrase was not chanted.
This incident looks terrible for the Bernie supporter in the room, regardless of whether "English only" was chanted.
I'm not fully sold on this, because I'd like to see the standard deviation in addition to the <2% average (though since the sample size is small, I'd rather just see the individual polling averages for each of the five elections in feburary/march), but it would make sense. Political polarization is also why polling agencies haven't been completely decimated by dismal response rates, compared to past elections when many states could swing either way. Fivethirtyeight's analysis last fall used polls that are 3-4 months out-of-date, both for this election and historically, and included elections dating back to 1952 to expand the sample size (aka not part of our current polarized period).In a comprehensive analysis of elections between 1952 and 2008, Robert Erikson and Christopher Wleizen found that matchup polls as early as April have generally produced results close to the outcome in November.
Even much earlier “trial heats” seem to be far from meaningless. As partisan polarization has increased over the last three decades, there’s some evidence that early polling has become more predictive than ever. In all five elections since 1996, February matchup polls yielded average results within two points of the final outcome.
Someone being "moderate" or "independent" doesn't automatically mean they're centrists. While speculative, I doubt the ideological pool of centrists that Clinton can get, but Bernie can't, is as large as some think. Some of the Bernie's advantage in head-to-head polls probably comes from blue collar whites Bernie has won over, civil libertarians and foreign policy doves, those who are moderate or pro-gun (gun control still isn't a winning issue for democrats), those concerned with campaign finance reform, etc.But as political scientists Shawn Treier and D. Sunshine Hillygus have argued, two-dimensional surveys of voter ideology do not provide a useful guide to the American electorate. To the great disappointment of the Post editorial board, many self-identified “moderates” are not sober Beltway centrists but in fact “cross-pressured” by a mix of strong liberal and conservative beliefs.
The unstable and multidimensional identity of the “moderate” voter helps explain why Sanders’s own polling numbers have regularly confounded the prejudices of pundits. In New Hampshire, for instance, where experts repeatedly stressed his strength with “liberals,” Sanders actually did even better with “moderate/conservative” voters.
They haven’t endorsed him, and many think he doesn’t stand a chance to win. They’re overwhelmingly supporting Hillary Clinton. Yet Democrats are in awe of their schlumpy, old colleague Bernie Sanders.
Hill Democrats are scrambling to figure out how they can capture some of Sanders’ magic — and his ability to conjure up campaign cash, seemingly out of thin air, from an apparently endless stream of supporters.
Exactly, he's latching onto the Democratic Party when it's convenient for him. And she helps her party out because that's how the whole working-together-as-a-party thing goes. He would need a ton of help from them in the generals and as president. He can try to raise money later, if there is a "later."Ok, but really... The DNC hasn't really helped him either... He's been Independent. The DNC has done A LOT for Hillary so far in her past two runs... you might think she owes it to them. They certainly haven't been helping Bernie out for years. And to imply that Sanders wouldn't become a fundraiser for the party once he has become president or the presidential candidate is silly.
He understand it. He just opts out.Bernie hasn't raised a single cent. Not only does it make him look like an opportunist, using the Democratic party for his own purposes, but it also shows how little he understands this whole process. An amateur who doesn't understand how elections work or doesn't care.
So what? If Bernie Sanders is ever elected president, his entire agenda will be dependent on his party's success in the Congressional elections. If he's serious about that, he should be doing it now, not in three months when the nomination is set.Ok, but really... The DNC hasn't really helped him either... He's been Independent. The DNC has done A LOT for Hillary so far in her past two runs... you might think she owes it to them. They certainly haven't been helping Bernie out for years. And to imply that Sanders wouldn't become a fundraiser for the party once he has become president or the presidential candidate is silly.