| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016: Primary Season
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 25,228
|
John Lewis:
Quote:
|
In all my years of activism ‘I never saw him, never met him’
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 19,066
|
Waiting for a new SC poll for the Dems to come out. Anything showing Bernie surging would be YUGE.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 3,292
|
I don't think there are any reliable polls from Nevada right now? Or are there?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/20/2012
Posts: 27,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike91
John Lewis:
|
Is that picture photoshopped? Because if not... 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike91
|
He's confirming it being a toss up based on the infrequency of polling in Nevada and using a poll that's unreliable for his standards in making the judgement
I agree it's a little worrying but given the fact as recently as last week internal Clinton polling showed her with a 25 point lead and this poll isn't a strong predictor for his standards (but he decided to use it because it's all we have) I'm not too worried. Caucus states do favor insurgents however so it'll be closer than polled.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/20/2012
Posts: 27,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike91
He stands just as much chance as Hillary at this point. Hillary is already viewed as dishonest and untrustworthy by DEMOCRATS. And that's a proven fact as shown by the entry polls. Again, this is just more fear propaganda by Clinton supporters to scare people away from Sanders. Truth is Hillary is damaged goods and a lot of democrats know that, hence why there's the possibility of some suggesting that neither Sanders or Clinton might end up with the nomination.
Neither did Obama or most other presidential candidates. Weak argument there. Not everyone has the liberty of being Sec. of State. But it's not like she's without flaws, despite her experience. Sanders didn't support both efforts to destabilize the middle east that allowed for the rise of terrorist organizations, such as ISIS, like Clinton did with Iraq and Libya. Sanders knows enough and has good enough judgment - which, YES, does matter.
Many Americans support this on both sides. This is not the argument to make against Sanders. There's a reason the Wall Street issue is a potentially damaging thing for Clinton.
edit: Also, most people in the 1% are okay with paying more taxes. Harry Reid will tell you that.
Yet another weak, unfounded, opinion based argument. Most people think he does just fine in debates. Hillary's performed better in most of them but that doesn't mean Sanders has been terrible.
 The lies. Again, more fear propaganda. Learn what democratic socialism is. It's already implemented in several services that you likely use or have used such as SOCIAL security, public schools, highways, weekends (yes this is a socialist idea), minimum wage, hospitals, etc. Americans LOVE socialism and take advantage of it everyday. They just don't like the word.
Yet he's stated multiple times that it is in relation to his healthcare plan, where the average family would save around $5,000 a year for healthcare.
Try again. |
Not sure why people are acting like foreign policy is the most important thing to worry about in a candidate. I guess maybe because it's Hillary's strong suit.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by The Countess
Do you guys think that Obama is going to be beloved by Democrats like or greater than Bill Clinton in the years ahead?
|
In fact here are some numbers...
Quote:
|
It’s a message that played well among Dems in Milwaukee, but just as importantly, it’s likely to land on fertile soil in South Carolina, where Democrats give the president a 93% approval rating.
|
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
Not sure why people are acting like foreign policy is the most important thing to worry about in a candidate. I guess maybe because it's Hillary's strong suit.
|
It's most important to me. That's why I value it highly.
Different ideas have different importance to different people
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
Not sure why people are acting like foreign policy is the most important thing to worry about in a candidate. I guess maybe because it's Hillary's strong suit.
|
It's important because it's something the president actually has a lot of power and say in. Also, it's a very important issue in the general election.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/30/2011
Posts: 11,666
|
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
Not sure why people are acting like foreign policy is the most important thing to worry about in a candidate. I guess maybe because it's Hillary's strong suit.
|
Perhaps it is one of the most important things to worry about in a world with ISIS as a legitimate, territory-holding entity, Russia becoming more aggressive, North Korea allegedly developing missiles that can hit our west coast, and tensions still rising in both the Middle East and in parts of Europe. In recent memory, we've undergone a significant Parisian terror attack, a virtual siege on Crimea that resulted in Russia fully annexing the country, an ongoing Syrian civil war with most land dominated by the same entity that carried out the Paris attacks and continues to murder and execute civilians and journalists, and more around the globe. Why wouldn't foreign policy be one of the driving forces behind an election for Commander in Chief of the United States? Why is it being downplayed by anyone, or focused upon less in debates than other topics?
It's certainly not the only issue, but let's be real here - the fact that Hillary literally annihilates every Independent and Republican candidate on the issue isn't a good enough reason to act like it's not going to be one of the core focuses of the next administration. It's incredibly important.
Just today, one of his own current colleagues questioned his capability as Commander in Chief:
Quote:
Kaine, who endorsed the former secretary of state in May 2014, referred to Sanders' statements during the debate which he characterized as showing a lack of fluency on the issues compared to Clinton.
“The difference between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders on these national security issues is very, very high stakes in a world that's very challenging and that needs American leadership and Hillary Clinton right person to demonstrate that leadership immediately upon taking the oath office in January 2017, as I hope she'll do," he said.
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...sanders-219202
It's important, and Hillary's campaign isn't the only entity to recognize this.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Watching the debate finally. Interesting that Bernie asserts that it's the people who want the "political revolution."
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 7,055
|
The Presidential campaign last longer then our faves album campaign era lol
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Is RCP just not updated yet today, or are they declining to include the most recent Nevada poll for some credibility reason?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
Is RCP just not updated yet today, or are they declining to include the most recent Nevada poll for some credibility reason?
|
Hm? Do you only use polls from RCP?
The pollster does have credibility issues (and polled literally one part of the state) though. Whether they use it or not will be found out later today I'm guessing though
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/20/2012
Posts: 27,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
It's most important to me. That's why I value it highly.
Different ideas have different importance to different people
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bloo
It's important because it's something the president actually has a lot of power and say in. Also, it's a very important issue in the general election.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
Perhaps it is one of the most important things to worry about in a world with ISIS as a legitimate, territory-holding entity, Russia becoming more aggressive, North Korea allegedly developing missiles that can hit our west coast, and tensions still rising in both the Middle East and in parts of Europe. In recent memory, we've undergone a significant Parisian terror attack, a virtual siege on Crimea that resulted in Russia fully annexing the country, an ongoing Syrian civil war with most land dominated by the same entity that carried out the Paris attacks and continues to murder and execute civilians and journalists, and more around the globe. Why wouldn't foreign policy be one of the driving forces behind an election for Commander in Chief of the United States? Why is it being downplayed by anyone, or focused upon less in debates than other topics?
It's certainly not the only issue, but let's be real here - the fact that Hillary literally annihilates every Independent and Republican candidate on the issue isn't a good enough reason to act like it's not going to be one of the core focuses of the next administration. It's incredibly important.
Just today, one of his own current colleagues questioned his capability as Commander in Chief:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...sanders-219202
It's important, and Hillary's campaign isn't the only entity to recognize this. |
Of course it's important, but I still don't think that it's the sole reason to vote for someone. She has a big advantage in the issue for obvious reasons which is good for her.
But I'd argue that if we stopped worrying so much about problems (not completely, just to a lesser extent) in other countries, we'd be able to get a lot more done in our own country. Is there any other country so involved in foreign conflicts?
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
Hm? Do you only use polls from RCP?
The pollster does have credibility issues (and polled literally one part of the state) though. Whether they use it or not will be found out later today I'm guessing though
|
I find RCP to be the most reliable. I typically use HuffPost (which is including the Nevada poll) because of the easier-to-use and more appealing graphical interface.
Can you link me to the new Nevada poll? As a Data major I'm pretty interested in seeing the details of this sort of thing - too many polls are conducted improperly, and if there's some issue with one that's claiming a 23+ point gap has vanished in a month and two weeks, I want to know about it. 
I think that as far as reliability goes, RCP > 538 > HuffPost, of the major three trackers I use. As far as comprehensive information and analysis, though, 538 is by far the best.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
You bitches didn't tell me how good her closing statement was, woo Jesus 
Can't eat for her to win in Nevada and crush in SC. |
The whole "I'm not a single-issue candidate" line
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
I find RCP to be the most reliable. I typically use HuffPost (which is including the Nevada poll) because of the easier-to-use and more appealing graphical interface.
Can you link me to the new Nevada poll? As a Data major I'm pretty interested in seeing the details of this sort of thing - too many polls are conducted improperly, and if there's some issue with one that's claiming a 23+ point gap has vanished in a month and two weeks, I want to know about it.
I think that as far as reliability goes, RCP > 538 > HuffPost, of the major three trackers I use. As far as comprehensive information and analysis, though, 538 is by far the best. |
Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton tied in Nevada
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
Of course it's important, but I still don't think that it's the sole reason to vote for someone. She has a big advantage in the issue for obvious reasons which is good for her.
But I'd argue that if we stopped worrying so much about problems (not completely, just to a lesser extent) in other countries, we'd be able to get a lot more done in our own country. Is there any other country so involved in foreign conflicts?
|
We might do well to focus more on our domestic policy and I don't disagree, but I feel far more secure in Hillary's policies here at home as well. We also have to look at a sort of realistic view of the scope of our involvement. Sure, we can do less in the future - but right now, we have to deal with the consequences of our past involvement and with direct threats against us from NK and ISIS, as well as an ideological and implied threat from Russia. If any of these situations spark and blow up into something more disastrous, then I'd be a lot more secure in having Hillary deal with that situation personally. We've got to look back at our world's history and realize that pulling out and being diplomatic just might not be enough to resolve the current conflicts at hand, and a lot of people feel like there's more to come. It's been about seventy years since the last world war, but in my opinion, we're at greater risk now for massive international conflict than we've been since the Cold War.
But I do agree, that will never be the only reason to choose a candidate and that will not be the only focus for the next President, we do have a lot to address at home as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
