Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Sanders within couple points of Clinton

TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 12:10:31 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
I'm a nut, I know, but this is not a cake walk for Clinton. Clinton supporters, please try to remember 2007

http://www.nytimes.com...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 12:57:04 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 12:10:31 AM, TBR wrote:
I'm a nut, I know, but this is not a cake walk for Clinton. Clinton supporters, please try to remember 2007

http://www.nytimes.com...

Can't Hillary beat a man?
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 12:58:08 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 12:10:31 AM, TBR wrote:
I'm a nut, I know, but this is not a cake walk for Clinton. Clinton supporters, please try to remember 2007

http://www.nytimes.com...

That's good.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 1:07:44 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 12:10:31 AM, TBR wrote:
I'm a nut, I know, but this is not a cake walk for Clinton. Clinton supporters, please try to remember 2007

http://www.nytimes.com...

He's also 4 points ahead in New Hampshire
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 1:18:15 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 12:10:31 AM, TBR wrote:
I'm a nut, I know, but this is not a cake walk for Clinton. Clinton supporters, please try to remember 2007

http://www.nytimes.com...

Clinton supporters are pretty uninformed. They're going along the lines of "gee golly wouldn't it be great to have a female president." They're the definition of uninformed. And if asked I'm sure quite a few of them won't be able to explain why she's a better choice than Sanders.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,684
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 1:45:12 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 1:18:15 AM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 1/11/2016 12:10:31 AM, TBR wrote:
I'm a nut, I know, but this is not a cake walk for Clinton. Clinton supporters, please try to remember 2007

http://www.nytimes.com...

Clinton supporters are pretty uninformed. They're going along the lines of "gee golly wouldn't it be great to have a female president." They're the definition of uninformed. And if asked I'm sure quite a few of them won't be able to explain why she's a better choice than Sanders.

Ouch, what a Bern.
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 3:49:28 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 1:18:15 AM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 1/11/2016 12:10:31 AM, TBR wrote:
I'm a nut, I know, but this is not a cake walk for Clinton. Clinton supporters, please try to remember 2007

http://www.nytimes.com...

Clinton supporters are pretty uninformed. They're going along the lines of "gee golly wouldn't it be great to have a female president." They're the definition of uninformed. And if asked I'm sure quite a few of them won't be able to explain why she's a better choice than Sanders.

I'm not disparaging Clinton voters, but like Trump, she is winning primarily on name recognition and inertia. Sanders negatives are all about perception - as in "socialists".
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 4:14:36 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Sanders is only doing good in Iowa, New Hampshite, and Vermont. If you look at literally any other state he's getting whipped by Clinton in double digits

http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Down 20 in Nevada
Down 30 in Massachusetts
Down 18 in Minnesota
Down 36 in North Carolina
Down 22 in Oklahoma
Down 35 in Louisiana
Down 13 in Michigan
And down over 40 in Florida
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 6:07:12 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 4:14:36 AM, imabench wrote:
Sanders is only doing good in Iowa, New Hampshite, and Vermont. If you look at literally any other state he's getting whipped by Clinton in double digits

http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Down 20 in Nevada
Down 30 in Massachusetts
Down 18 in Minnesota
Down 36 in North Carolina
Down 22 in Oklahoma
Down 35 in Louisiana
Down 13 in Michigan
And down over 40 in Florida

Banking on Iowa and New Hamsphire is smart for an underdog candidate, as the momentum gained from early wins over a front runner may be all it takes to make a candidate seem viable. Look at Giuliani in '08. He bet it all on Florida but by the time the voting got there, he was all but forgotten because he lost the early states. If Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire, he has a feasible road to the nomination.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 2:37:54 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 4:14:36 AM, imabench wrote:
Sanders is only doing good in Iowa, New Hampshite, and Vermont. If you look at literally any other state he's getting whipped by Clinton in double digits

http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Down 20 in Nevada
Down 30 in Massachusetts
Down 18 in Minnesota
Down 36 in North Carolina
Down 22 in Oklahoma
Down 35 in Louisiana
Down 13 in Michigan
And down over 40 in Florida

Look back at 2007, not much different.

Now, I'm not saying Sanders will win North Carolina, Oklahoma, but this same Clinton arrogance played out before.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 2:42:18 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 2:37:54 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/11/2016 4:14:36 AM, imabench wrote:
Sanders is only doing good in Iowa, New Hampshite, and Vermont. If you look at literally any other state he's getting whipped by Clinton in double digits

http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Down 20 in Nevada
Down 30 in Massachusetts
Down 18 in Minnesota
Down 36 in North Carolina
Down 22 in Oklahoma
Down 35 in Louisiana
Down 13 in Michigan
And down over 40 in Florida

Look back at 2007, not much different.

Now, I'm not saying Sanders will win North Carolina, Oklahoma, but this same Clinton arrogance played out before.

I think Sanders could win North Carolina before Clinton.
Tsar of DDO
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 2:49:32 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 2:42:18 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/11/2016 2:37:54 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/11/2016 4:14:36 AM, imabench wrote:
Sanders is only doing good in Iowa, New Hampshite, and Vermont. If you look at literally any other state he's getting whipped by Clinton in double digits

http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Down 20 in Nevada
Down 30 in Massachusetts
Down 18 in Minnesota
Down 36 in North Carolina
Down 22 in Oklahoma
Down 35 in Louisiana
Down 13 in Michigan
And down over 40 in Florida

Look back at 2007, not much different.

Now, I'm not saying Sanders will win North Carolina, Oklahoma, but this same Clinton arrogance played out before.

I think Sanders could win North Carolina before Clinton.

The complete dismissal of Sanders is almost the same Obama at this point. I had friends telling me Edwards was the only electable guy at this point.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 2:59:57 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 2:49:32 PM, TBR wrote:

The complete dismissal of Sanders is almost the same Obama at this point. I had friends telling me Edwards was the only electable guy at this point.

Most people who speculate on politics (except, well, people who have a background in the mechanics of elections and more than a general understanding of both popular demographics and how they break down across the electorate on both sides) generally don't know what they're talking about.

What people do, when they talk about politics, is the exact opposite of what they should be doing. They focus only on the candidates themselves, and not on the people who are going to be electing them.

A smart political speculator is always going to try to figure out where the country is first, and then figure out what kinds of expectations that's going to translate into for a candidate (on either side). Then, figure out who fits those requirements, controlling for the relative force of the establishment on both sides.

The point is that what matters more than anything is where the country is, and most people (except the ones who know how to ask the right questions) are just totally incompetent. A person who sort of exemplifies the stupidity of the pundit-class better than anyone else I've ever seen (she's like a hipster Sarah Palin) is S.E. Cupp, on CNN. She is probably the dumbest political commenter I've ever seen.

But the thing is as well, that when you're figuring out who "fits into the mold" of what America's people want, you've got to really understand the candidates themselves, and how they operate their campaigns which I think most people also aren't capable of doing. Romney, for example, may have won the nomination but the people running his campaign were disgracefully inept in the primaries. Hillary played well in her primary against Obama, but Obama had the best organization and state/local-level infrastructure of any candidate in the course of American history.

Sanders has the kinds of grassroots support that Hillary will never have, which is why the DNC (and that stupid cunt Debbie Wasserman Shultz) have been fairly unsettled over his popularity, but Clinton has money and superpacs... and that's something that's really significant to account for as well.
Tsar of DDO
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 3:18:40 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 12:10:31 AM, TBR wrote:
I'm a nut, I know, but this is not a cake walk for Clinton. Clinton supporters, please try to remember 2007

http://www.nytimes.com...

you are a nut for many more reasons than just this one lol j/k but yeah it would be a major upset if Clinton doesn't make it in. If she starts feeling she is loosing she will be more ruthless in her attacks than Bernie will be, he can't use the emails against her, so how does he 'attack" her, they agree or seem similar on too many things. Her name and her sex he can't compete with imo. I don't see a way he can effectively make himself look like a better choice.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 3:22:59 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 2:59:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/11/2016 2:49:32 PM, TBR wrote:

The complete dismissal of Sanders is almost the same Obama at this point. I had friends telling me Edwards was the only electable guy at this point.

Most people who speculate on politics (except, well, people who have a background in the mechanics of elections and more than a general understanding of both popular demographics and how they break down across the electorate on both sides) generally don't know what they're talking about.

What people do, when they talk about politics, is the exact opposite of what they should be doing. They focus only on the candidates themselves, and not on the people who are going to be electing them.

A smart political speculator is always going to try to figure out where the country is first, and then figure out what kinds of expectations that's going to translate into for a candidate (on either side). Then, figure out who fits those requirements, controlling for the relative force of the establishment on both sides.

The point is that what matters more than anything is where the country is, and most people (except the ones who know how to ask the right questions) are just totally incompetent. A person who sort of exemplifies the stupidity of the pundit-class better than anyone else I've ever seen (she's like a hipster Sarah Palin) is S.E. Cupp, on CNN. She is probably the dumbest political commenter I've ever seen.

But the thing is as well, that when you're figuring out who "fits into the mold" of what America's people want, you've got to really understand the candidates themselves, and how they operate their campaigns which I think most people also aren't capable of doing. Romney, for example, may have won the nomination but the people running his campaign were disgracefully inept in the primaries. Hillary played well in her primary against Obama, but Obama had the best organization and state/local-level infrastructure of any candidate in the course of American history.

Sanders has the kinds of grassroots support that Hillary will never have, which is why the DNC (and that stupid cunt Debbie Wasserman Shultz) have been fairly unsettled over his popularity, but Clinton has money and superpacs... and that's something that's really significant to account for as well.

I agree with all points. One point I have been making is, the attention has been on the "anger" on the right. There is plenty of anger on the left too. Not complete dissatisfaction with Obama, but ennui at where we are. Sanders has been hitting that hard, and Clinton only sounding like a echo of Sanders.

I will also say of Obama, he had a ground game people thought was impossible. That happened, in large part, by the grass roots support he was able to capitalize on. Sanders has that too. Obama was a phenomenon that I can't see Sanders living up to, but Clinton can't win it all with money and name recognition.

Sanders needs to better address the "socialism" question. Can't just pretend everyone is cool with that. When he has a couple of these primary's behind him we will see is he is really on a tract or just aberration.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 3:28:02 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 3:18:40 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/11/2016 12:10:31 AM, TBR wrote:
I'm a nut, I know, but this is not a cake walk for Clinton. Clinton supporters, please try to remember 2007

http://www.nytimes.com...

you are a nut for many more reasons than just this one lol j/k but yeah it would be a major upset if Clinton doesn't make it in. If she starts feeling she is loosing she will be more ruthless in her attacks than Bernie will be, he can't use the emails against her, so how does he 'attack" her, they agree or seem similar on too many things. Her name and her sex he can't compete with imo. I don't see a way he can effectively make himself look like a better choice.

See, its funny that several people on the right have made the comment on Sanders blowing it with the emails. That, Sanders reaction to the emails, got him more supporters than any attack he could have made from it.

Clinton being a woman is a huge deal. It is for me to. I want to elect a woman, so does my Mother, wife and sister. All of them are saying, "just not this woman". It will be a huge plus for her, but don't expect all women to fall in-line with Clinton - they didn't last time around either.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 3:35:18 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 3:28:02 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/11/2016 3:18:40 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/11/2016 12:10:31 AM, TBR wrote:
I'm a nut, I know, but this is not a cake walk for Clinton. Clinton supporters, please try to remember 2007

http://www.nytimes.com...

you are a nut for many more reasons than just this one lol j/k but yeah it would be a major upset if Clinton doesn't make it in. If she starts feeling she is loosing she will be more ruthless in her attacks than Bernie will be, he can't use the emails against her, so how does he 'attack" her, they agree or seem similar on too many things. Her name and her sex he can't compete with imo. I don't see a way he can effectively make himself look like a better choice.

See, its funny that several people on the right have made the comment on Sanders blowing it with the emails. That, Sanders reaction to the emails, got him more supporters than any attack he could have made from it.

I didn't know that, you think he got more supporters from the independents? I doubt because of that he gained any of Clinton's supporters.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 3:39:22 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 3:35:18 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/11/2016 3:28:02 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/11/2016 3:18:40 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/11/2016 12:10:31 AM, TBR wrote:
I'm a nut, I know, but this is not a cake walk for Clinton. Clinton supporters, please try to remember 2007

http://www.nytimes.com...

you are a nut for many more reasons than just this one lol j/k but yeah it would be a major upset if Clinton doesn't make it in. If she starts feeling she is loosing she will be more ruthless in her attacks than Bernie will be, he can't use the emails against her, so how does he 'attack" her, they agree or seem similar on too many things. Her name and her sex he can't compete with imo. I don't see a way he can effectively make himself look like a better choice.

See, its funny that several people on the right have made the comment on Sanders blowing it with the emails. That, Sanders reaction to the emails, got him more supporters than any attack he could have made from it.

I didn't know that, you think he got more supporters from the independents? I doubt because of that he gained any of Clinton's supporters.

I think he picked off a bunch of Clinton supporters with that. All people who are polling for Clinton are not enamored with her, they are just "good democrats". That good will, that willingness to dismiss the Clinton witch-hunt (this is how the left views almost all of the Clinton scandals) bought him a ton of credibility, elevating him as a statesmen. Had he jumped up and down at it, they would have been turned off - I would have been turned off.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 3:45:26 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 3:39:22 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/11/2016 3:35:18 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/11/2016 3:28:02 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/11/2016 3:18:40 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/11/2016 12:10:31 AM, TBR wrote:
I'm a nut, I know, but this is not a cake walk for Clinton. Clinton supporters, please try to remember 2007

http://www.nytimes.com...

you are a nut for many more reasons than just this one lol j/k but yeah it would be a major upset if Clinton doesn't make it in. If she starts feeling she is loosing she will be more ruthless in her attacks than Bernie will be, he can't use the emails against her, so how does he 'attack" her, they agree or seem similar on too many things. Her name and her sex he can't compete with imo. I don't see a way he can effectively make himself look like a better choice.

See, its funny that several people on the right have made the comment on Sanders blowing it with the emails. That, Sanders reaction to the emails, got him more supporters than any attack he could have made from it.

I didn't know that, you think he got more supporters from the independents? I doubt because of that he gained any of Clinton's supporters.

I think he picked off a bunch of Clinton supporters with that. All people who are polling for Clinton are not enamored with her, they are just "good democrats". That good will, that willingness to dismiss the Clinton witch-hunt (this is how the left views almost all of the Clinton scandals) bought him a ton of credibility, elevating him as a statesmen. Had he jumped up and down at it, they would have been turned off - I would have been turned off.

interesting, makes sense, I guess I see a society that likes scandal and strife, I mean look a the talk shows on tv as an example so I just didn't see there being enough people left in the world that would respond that way.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 3:50:58 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 3:45:26 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/11/2016 3:39:22 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/11/2016 3:35:18 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/11/2016 3:28:02 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/11/2016 3:18:40 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/11/2016 12:10:31 AM, TBR wrote:
I'm a nut, I know, but this is not a cake walk for Clinton. Clinton supporters, please try to remember 2007

http://www.nytimes.com...

you are a nut for many more reasons than just this one lol j/k but yeah it would be a major upset if Clinton doesn't make it in. If she starts feeling she is loosing she will be more ruthless in her attacks than Bernie will be, he can't use the emails against her, so how does he 'attack" her, they agree or seem similar on too many things. Her name and her sex he can't compete with imo. I don't see a way he can effectively make himself look like a better choice.

See, its funny that several people on the right have made the comment on Sanders blowing it with the emails. That, Sanders reaction to the emails, got him more supporters than any attack he could have made from it.

I didn't know that, you think he got more supporters from the independents? I doubt because of that he gained any of Clinton's supporters.

I think he picked off a bunch of Clinton supporters with that. All people who are polling for Clinton are not enamored with her, they are just "good democrats". That good will, that willingness to dismiss the Clinton witch-hunt (this is how the left views almost all of the Clinton scandals) bought him a ton of credibility, elevating him as a statesmen. Had he jumped up and down at it, they would have been turned off - I would have been turned off.

interesting, makes sense, I guess I see a society that likes scandal and strife, I mean look a the talk shows on tv as an example so I just didn't see there being enough people left in the world that would respond that way.

I am not making some qualitative remark here, but I am talking about a difference between the two party's. There isn't one democratic I know of who wants to discuss Benghazi, emails, or WhiteHouse sex. They are so tired of it, anyone who brings the subjects up is toxic. Generally speaking, we are laughing at the circus across the isle and don't want our party to look anything like that.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 5:16:18 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 3:50:58 PM, TBR wrote:
I am not making some qualitative remark here, but I am talking about a difference between the two party's. There isn't one democratic I know of who wants to discuss Benghazi, emails, or WhiteHouse sex. They are so tired of it, anyone who brings the subjects up is toxic. Generally speaking, we are laughing at the circus across the isle and don't want our party to look anything like that.

I'm reserving judgement until all the facts and investigation comes out, however if true some of what has been reported is very troubling. Sex scandal is troubling in that the mentality of a person in such an elevated position raises a lot of questions. If you are in an elevated position, government, church whatever you are held to a much much higher standard than the average person. If you are in charge with running our country you shouldn't let yourself be distracted with your personal life and you'd better have a very tight control over it, doesn't matter what party you are from. With that said if there is any "wrong doings" or cover ups with emails or Benghazi then she certainly shouldn't be running our country. If in fact nothing comes of it, she certainly could take the high road and make her accusers look extremely bad. So we shall see how it all plays out. How or if any of this impacts Bernie time will tell, my personal opinion I like him more, just not sure he's tough enough to deal with other countries, but again I just don't have that info.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 5:24:46 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 5:16:18 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/11/2016 3:50:58 PM, TBR wrote:
I am not making some qualitative remark here, but I am talking about a difference between the two party's. There isn't one democratic I know of who wants to discuss Benghazi, emails, or WhiteHouse sex. They are so tired of it, anyone who brings the subjects up is toxic. Generally speaking, we are laughing at the circus across the isle and don't want our party to look anything like that.

I'm reserving judgement until all the facts and investigation comes out, however if true some of what has been reported is very troubling. Sex scandal is troubling in that the mentality of a person in such an elevated position raises a lot of questions. If you are in an elevated position, government, church whatever you are held to a much much higher standard than the average person. If you are in charge with running our country you shouldn't let yourself be distracted with your personal life and you'd better have a very tight control over it, doesn't matter what party you are from. With that said if there is any "wrong doings" or cover ups with emails or Benghazi then she certainly shouldn't be running our country. If in fact nothing comes of it, she certainly could take the high road and make her accusers look extremely bad. So we shall see how it all plays out. How or if any of this impacts Bernie time will tell, my personal opinion I like him more, just not sure he's tough enough to deal with other countries, but again I just don't have that info.

The email was incredibly poor judgment. Benghazi is preposterous . Would yet another investigation satisfy you?

Look. There are scandals that can mater. Endlessly chasing scandals is worthless distraction. I don't see anything in the email thing other than laps of good judgment. I don't see anything at all in the sexual escapades of anyone, and I see a witch-hunt in Benghazi. We, the left, don't give one rats a$$ about any of it. Birther charges, endless votes over ACA, these make the GOP look like childeren.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 11:57:15 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 12:57:04 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/11/2016 12:10:31 AM, TBR wrote:
I'm a nut, I know, but this is not a cake walk for Clinton. Clinton supporters, please try to remember 2007

http://www.nytimes.com...

Can't Hillary beat a man?

Apparently she can:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 2:46:01 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 2:37:54 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/11/2016 4:14:36 AM, imabench wrote:
Sanders is only doing good in Iowa, New Hampshite, and Vermont. If you look at literally any other state he's getting whipped by Clinton in double digits

http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Down 20 in Nevada
Down 30 in Massachusetts
Down 18 in Minnesota
Down 36 in North Carolina
Down 22 in Oklahoma
Down 35 in Louisiana
Down 13 in Michigan
And down over 40 in Florida

Look back at 2007, not much different.

In 2007 there were enough candidates in the DEM race with enough similarities between them for voters to casually switch support from one candidate to another with ease whenever one got some momentum... This time around though it is squarely a two-horse race, with Sanders being much further to the left than Hillary overall... With Biden refraining from jumping in as well, Hillary will annex most of his voter support (which would have included me) and solidified her lead in most states
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 3:28:02 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 2:46:01 AM, imabench wrote:
At 1/11/2016 2:37:54 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/11/2016 4:14:36 AM, imabench wrote:
Sanders is only doing good in Iowa, New Hampshite, and Vermont. If you look at literally any other state he's getting whipped by Clinton in double digits

http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Down 20 in Nevada
Down 30 in Massachusetts
Down 18 in Minnesota
Down 36 in North Carolina
Down 22 in Oklahoma
Down 35 in Louisiana
Down 13 in Michigan
And down over 40 in Florida

Look back at 2007, not much different.

In 2007 there were enough candidates in the DEM race with enough similarities between them for voters to casually switch support from one candidate to another with ease whenever one got some momentum... This time around though it is squarely a two-horse race, with Sanders being much further to the left than Hillary overall... With Biden refraining from jumping in as well, Hillary will annex most of his voter support (which would have included me) and solidified her lead in most states

Don't disagree with that. With Biden out, all that support went to Clinton. Sanders, however, is tapping the same vein as Obama did.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 4:19:08 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/11/2016 11:57:15 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/11/2016 12:57:04 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/11/2016 12:10:31 AM, TBR wrote:
I'm a nut, I know, but this is not a cake walk for Clinton. Clinton supporters, please try to remember 2007

http://www.nytimes.com...

Can't Hillary beat a man?

Apparently she can:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

I just meant she had bad luck in the past, but she did handily beat John Spencer!
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 4:42:17 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 3:28:02 AM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 2:46:01 AM, imabench wrote:
At 1/11/2016 2:37:54 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/11/2016 4:14:36 AM, imabench wrote:
Sanders is only doing good in Iowa, New Hampshite, and Vermont. If you look at literally any other state he's getting whipped by Clinton in double digits

http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Down 20 in Nevada
Down 30 in Massachusetts
Down 18 in Minnesota
Down 36 in North Carolina
Down 22 in Oklahoma
Down 35 in Louisiana
Down 13 in Michigan
And down over 40 in Florida

Look back at 2007, not much different.

In 2007 there were enough candidates in the DEM race with enough similarities between them for voters to casually switch support from one candidate to another with ease whenever one got some momentum... This time around though it is squarely a two-horse race, with Sanders being much further to the left than Hillary overall... With Biden refraining from jumping in as well, Hillary will annex most of his voter support (which would have included me) and solidified her lead in most states

Don't disagree with that. With Biden out, all that support went to Clinton. Sanders, however, is tapping the same vein as Obama did.

He's definitely catching lightning in a bottle but the problem is that I dont think there is enough people for him to lure to his side to capture momentum to overtake Hillary. If his entire gameplan to win states is to win one contest after another (Iowa then New Hampshire then domino theory takes over) then Hillary would only have to break the chain of wins to keep her base, which looks like she will do in South Carolina
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 3:29:50 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/12/2016 4:42:17 AM, imabench wrote:
At 1/12/2016 3:28:02 AM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 2:46:01 AM, imabench wrote:
At 1/11/2016 2:37:54 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/11/2016 4:14:36 AM, imabench wrote:
Sanders is only doing good in Iowa, New Hampshite, and Vermont. If you look at literally any other state he's getting whipped by Clinton in double digits

http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Down 20 in Nevada
Down 30 in Massachusetts
Down 18 in Minnesota
Down 36 in North Carolina
Down 22 in Oklahoma
Down 35 in Louisiana
Down 13 in Michigan
And down over 40 in Florida

Look back at 2007, not much different.

In 2007 there were enough candidates in the DEM race with enough similarities between them for voters to casually switch support from one candidate to another with ease whenever one got some momentum... This time around though it is squarely a two-horse race, with Sanders being much further to the left than Hillary overall... With Biden refraining from jumping in as well, Hillary will annex most of his voter support (which would have included me) and solidified her lead in most states

Don't disagree with that. With Biden out, all that support went to Clinton. Sanders, however, is tapping the same vein as Obama did.

He's definitely catching lightning in a bottle but the problem is that I dont think there is enough people for him to lure to his side to capture momentum to overtake Hillary. If his entire gameplan to win states is to win one contest after another (Iowa then New Hampshire then domino theory takes over) then Hillary would only have to break the chain of wins to keep her base, which looks like she will do in South Carolina

Clinton needs to win and win big early. The reason is that the "inevitability" label is the same thing she lost last time around.