dagblog - Comments for "Why the Washington Post's Attack on Bernie Sanders is Bunk"

Well, eliminating Michigan &

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 12:42:57 +0000

In reply to It is my turn to give you a

Well, eliminating Michigan & Florida changed the calculus a lot (as did Obama's team's much better attention to delegates rather than votes in caucuses). Florida later got half its vote counted, but that was long after the disqualification let the momentum and many superdelegates flow to Obama.

Hillary's poll numbers were fine going into February - her cash-on-hand wasn't. (I'm not sure in the end whether the cash was a bigger deal than the impression of sloppy lackadaisical cash management, being out of touch with her own campaign and supporting the "inevitable" meme).

She's locked up a huge lead of endorsements early, both political (congress, governors) & getting there with unions et al - those of course aren't votes, but 538 considers them 1 of 3 critical predictors in elections -- maybe that will change this year, but I can't see DNC types abandoning her easily for Bernie.

Obama was successful at being pretty much all things to all people. Bernie doesn't have that luxury, nor does he have the pull with minorities that gave Obama such a boost like in South Carolina.

In short, you can't be certain, especially with the media tilting the scale, but I'd rather be in her shoes than his.

I of course know Wallace but

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 12:04:47 +0000

In reply to Look it up on Wiki. Humphrey

I of course know Wallace but forgot Humphrey was still in the game. What a crazy year.

Look it up on Wiki. Humphrey

trkingmomoe — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 11:37:52 +0000

In reply to I think Humphrey was out by

Look it up on Wiki. Humphrey ran in 72 and so did George Wallis as Democrats.

It is my turn to give you a

trkingmomoe — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 11:31:21 +0000

In reply to She's been taking shit for

It is my turn to give you a good link. I said up thread that Clinton's numbers are running about the same as they did in 2007. Here is WaPo from Oct 3, 2007.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100202365.html

Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, 53 percent support Clinton, compared with 20 percent for Obama and 13 percent for former senator John Edwards (N.C.).

Despite rivals' efforts to portray her as too polarizing to win the general election, a clear majority of those surveyed, 57 percent, said Clinton is the Democratic candidate with the best chance on Nov. 4, 2008. The percentage saying Clinton has the best shot at winning is up 14 points since June. By contrast, 20 percent think Edwards is most electable and 16 percent think Obama is, numbers that represent a huge blow to the "electability" argument rivals have sought to use against her.

It is interesting to go back and look at her last campaign. It is also fun to find WaPo still up to the same types of memes. I hope they are not using the same crystal ball.

I think Humphrey was out by

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 09:25:13 +0000

In reply to I am glad you are passionate

I think Humphrey was out by 1972? but was a mess for other reasons, incl Eagleton, Jimmy Carter's intrigue, John Connally's Democrats for Nixon, etc. I certainly like Sanders more than Obama, and don't get the whole Biden thing.

I am glad you are passionate

trkingmomoe — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 07:27:44 +0000

In reply to She's been taking shit for

I am glad you are passionate about her. I like the link you posted too. I read every word of it. I just like his issues better and I am glad he is in this to win. We will have to see how this unfolds. Every election is different.

The first national presidential race I voted in was for McGovern. He screwed up picking Engalton as his VP. There was no way I would vote for Nixon. He also ran a bad campaign. I remember it as a Humphrey and McGovern soap opera. Vietnam was going on then to with lots of demonstrations. The Democratic Convention was a awful mess. No one wins with a campaign like that. This is a different electorate today with different issues. Sanders respects Clinton so I don't see it turning into a soap opera or mud slinging fest.

Sanders had a good weekend in Massachusetts. Boston rally according to a friend of mine in that area, had 20,000+ inside and 4,000+ outside. Officially it was 26,000 that attended.

She's been taking shit for

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 04 Oct 2015 21:20:37 +0000

In reply to He is doing better then I

She's been taking shit for months from NYTimes to WaPo to Msnbc to of course Fox and friends, with pumped up media glee for Elizabeth Warren, then Bernie and even Joe fucking Biden. http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillarys-poll-numbers-being-sunk-by-media... As he notes, she finally did her mea culpa in the exact terms the demi-god media fucks demanded, just like they ordered AL gore to do in 2000 but he didn't. All-over an email server that wasn't even hacked unlike State's. Well I don't like the news slithers brazenly manipulating facts or pre-determined what the values of this campaign should be even though they refuse to refute obvious lies. I don't think Bernie's support unaided is anything close to what's reported, and if he's unfortunate enough to get nominated, he'll make McGovern look like a success - not due to his own issues but the bullshit they'll wrap around his neck. I'm for Hillary simply because she seems the most able to tell the media and GOP to fuck off and die and get away with it (yes, I know I contradict with her apologetics). She's still got a huge pile of cash - $30+mill, and will certainly raise a good deal more in the coming months. Her national lead is still huge despite all, and she has more of a ground game in more states this time. We shall see BTW, hard to see the upside for Bernie in the national or say South Carolina polls. Even Iowa is still a Longshot for him. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

He is doing better then I

trkingmomoe — Sun, 04 Oct 2015 16:27:57 +0000

In reply to NY Times announced a criminal

He is doing better then I thought he would. Her numbers seem to be running the same way they did when running against Obama. It is a win win for him because he can go back to congress with all that support. Less then 2 weeks there will be the first debate. We will have a better idea how all this will play out after that.

NY Times announced a criminal

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 04 Oct 2015 14:56:56 +0000

In reply to I remember what they did.

NY Times announced a criminal investigation into Hillary in July, only to walk it back over the following week, but still the scuttlebutt remains she might be indicted even though there's almost 0 chance of that. Like but hey, William Safire for years assured us that Whitewater would bring her to jail - or he'd eat his shoe? Bernie is getting only a slight taste of these slime so far. If he looks serious he'll get more, but certainly not as much as a Clinton or Clinton colleague. The steady berating of Clinton counts as a long promo advertisement for Bernie at this point, likely to end the day after never.

The lack of PAC money certainly hurts Bernie along with not having endorsements vs. Hillary's large one (she just got the Teacher's Union yesterday, but the Firefighters are holding off), while Bernie's massive private donations appear to have drawn close but not equal to Hillary's (yet?). Not able to win? a lot of new dynamics in 2016 - ground game is 1 of them. Here you can look at the 2016 primary schedule - while Super Tuesday is important, 54% of delegates are chosen by March 15.

There was a graphic I had showing candidates' raised money vs. PAC money, and a number were at almost 100% PAC/super-backer (like Fiorina - just a shill to get, yep, Hillary - and the press doesn't mind ignoring her lies like the foetus on the table and the describer's insisting it was an abortion (I saw a doctor's analysis the other day where he pointed out procedures in the video that are no longer done in the US, so either way old video or outside the US - doesn't matter - the press won't challlenge).

More an issue, will a quite conservative country where 90+% supported the Iraq invasion and even the "liberal" Democrats have largely backed waterboarding and indefinite detention at GItmo going to support a to-be 75-year-old self-described socialist? I can get into issues, but largely Sanders' appeal relies on say the younger college crowd, disenfranchised progressive wing or Hillary-fatiguers - whether that's enough to overcome her long builtup standing, including likely a much bigger female constituency and likely more traction in the south? we'll see.

I remember what they did.

trkingmomoe — Sun, 04 Oct 2015 11:53:46 +0000

In reply to Sounds like more "death

I remember what they did. Tweety was the worst. I quit watch McLaughlin when Jack Germond stop appearing. I stopped watching Tweety in 2007 because of his Hillary bashing.

After 2008 many have unplugged their cable.

They don't have the influence that they did then, now that there is social media and a large blogosphere. Even poor people can own a cell phone that is an android and keep up with news through social media. TV with rabbit ears can bring in the nightly news.

The village does not want him in the Whitehouse. He is not an insider and to liberal.

Politico did a hit piece on him about not being able to win without super pac money. They were interviewing paid campaign workers about what they thought in Iowa and New Hampshire. They down played his ground game and said which Republican had the best ground game. This was last week so all I could do was laugh at the author. They said he would hit a wall on Super Tuesday because it takes money and more money to get past that. Keep writing that kind of stupid stuff and I will unfriend them off my FB. I didn't bother to share that. The GOP staff workers need to worry about putting a plug in the drain they are circling.