Sanders takes convincing lead in Iowa after late surge

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 231381
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Crab said:
Indeed. That's why I have ARG included in the first post. Selzer on Thursday will be very interesting given their accuracy in the past.
Click to expand...

So where is the PPP poll and why did you not mention that she is still ahead in both major aggregates? Why does that line up with the thread title "Sanders takes convincing lead in Iowa after late surge".

Either say that Sanders is closing in on Hillary and make a thread about how it's now anyone's game (which is fair!) or don't post at all. Don't try to pick and choose the polls you show in the OP to shape a narrative which isn't really true to life.

I still haven't made up my mind about who to vote for, but this sort of stuff really irks me.
 
ivysaur12 said:
So where is the PPP poll and why did you not mention that she is still ahead in both major aggregates? Why does that line up with the thread title "Sanders takes convincing lead in Iowa after late surge".

Either say that Sanders is closing in on Hillary and make a thread about how it's now anyone's game (which is fair!) or don't post at all. Don't try to pick and choose the polls you show in the OP to shape a narrative which isn't really true to life.

I still haven't made up my mind about who to vote for, but this sort of stuff really irks me.
Click to expand...

PPP poll isn't included because I hate PPP and think they are terrible for independent reasons. Aggregates aren't there because RCP goes back a month and HuffPo seems to have some sort of spline over three months, so they dull the effect - this seems to have emerged in the last two weeks or so.
 
Crab said:
PPP poll isn't included because I hate PPP and think they are terrible for independent reasons. Aggregates aren't there because RCP goes back a month and HuffPo seems to have some sort of spline over three months, so they dull the effect - this seems to have emerged in the last two weeks or so.
Click to expand...

So no reason at all.

Great.

Bernie 2016!!
 
No reason not to include multiple polls but aggregates are shit and for people who can't sustain the idea of debating polling methods.

Days like these... said:
I think Hillary's camp latest tactic of "Bernie's a nice guy but he can't win!" is going to backfire. People don't like being talked down, patronized or being treated with condescension. Similar to here on GAF people are just going to double down on Bernie. Sorry abuela
Click to expand...

Also historically Sanders beliefs might be modern but a normal polotician vs a dynasty? Basically the old US norm. Clinton is seen as the Clinton dynasty but also the Obama administration without the man himself and clearly he stands above those in his administrations efforts.
 
I've mentioned before here in NH there are a lot of folks (many 2 time Obama voters) going for Trump Or Bernie. Bernie gaining steam is a good thing as it will cause a nice chunk of those to lean towards him. Also here in NH Bernie has been in my town multiple times. It is a college town though. Clinton has never been here. Unrelated side note, for some reason Bernie has shown up with the Ben and Jerry's guys and makes his event a big ice cream party, lol.

Its going to be interesting how things play out. If Bernie does take Iowa and NH, hes going to get a big bump just from the perceived upset by the media which will give his platform a big boost in energy and awareness. This will fuel the anti Clinton movement and make it even stronger. We have the potential of a big turning point. I spoke to some family in Cali (middle eastern) and was surprised they have started to take an interest in Sanders, not all there yet but there intrigue and interest have noticeably grown.
 
I'd like to thank all of you who are supporting Bernie. This is amazing.

As to why Bernie is surging...I think people are pretty "Eh" about Clinton. It'll be another 8 years(most likely) if she were the nominee to get another chance to vote for a progressive. We simply can't withstand the status quo any longer. The middle class is disappearing. People deserve a fair wage. We must combat climate change. We gotta stop locking people up for marijuana offenses. We got to stop the institutional racism. We deserve better than what we've been getting. We can't wait 8 years....we need Bernie to keep the focus on the real issues, healthcare, education, investing in the country not in foreign wars.
 
As much as I'd love to see President Sanders in the office next year, I think he is 20 years too early for America as a whole. Doing my part to vote for him in the primary, even though my state is Hillary central.
 
This all barely matters anyway unless there are major inroads made to shaking up Congress.

I know the Prez will have their pick of SCOTUS justices, but they have to get through the Senate anyway.
 
This will follow the same trend as 2008. The grass roots/liberals all love the under dog in this case as opposed to the anointed candidate from the Clinton machine. They will stir up enthusiasm with a genuine candidate who has been on the right side of the issues and Hillary will go home a loser. Again.
 
The "ugh, Bernie supporters" shit really goes to show how much Hillary supporters were banking on her inevitability.
 
it's only a good thing if bernie manages to at least make a bit of a race out of this, since clinton is pretty much the definition of an "eh, okay" candidate.
 
EskimoJoe said:
I like this thread, because the posts in it almost seem to be coming from different universes. A bunch of posts are thrilled because they love Bernie. Another bunch are complaining because GAF apparently hates Bernie. Then you have another set pointing out that GAF loves Bernie. It's fun.
Click to expand...

Most gafers like Bernie. Most Gafers think Hillary is a hawkish center right corporatist who is highly electable and will secure liberal supreme court justices and preside over a normalized economy that will be better for the middle class than a deregulation-happy nightmare from the right. Most gafers are pragmatic about both candidates and eschew idealism for practicality. Most gafers won't quite have to hold their nose to vote for Hillary, but they'll sniff haughtily about it.


Most gafers tip for pizza delivery.
 
Stinkles said:
Most gafers like Bernie. Most Gafers think Hillary is a hawkish center right corporatist who is highly electable and will secure liberal supreme court justices and preside over a normalized economy that will be better for the middle class than a deregulation-happy nightmare from the right. Most gafers are pragmatic about both candidates and eschew idealism for practicality. Most gafers won't quite have to hold their nose to vote for Hillary, but they'll sniff haughtily about it.


Most gafers tip for pizza delivery.
Click to expand...

i have never ordered a pizza in my life, just so you know.
 
Larry David 2016

I just hope he wins so we can see what Hillary Clinton does. Her victory speeches would be boring as hell, but if she loses there is a small chance she may evolve to a higher form.
 
tearsintherain said:
Larry David 2016
Click to expand...

Steinbrenner.jpg
 
Baraka in the White House said:
I have nothing against a Sanders presidency but man some of Bern's supporters give me diarrhea.
Click to expand...

Its bitterness. The most bitter thing about this campaign isn't against the GOP(which is a cakewalk without having to do anything), but against the Democratic establishment a lot of us only a few years ago fought for thinking they would usher in something better.

Those of us who believed in a lot of that message of equality having to fight against Hillary Clinton supporters, who should be on our side, who don't seem to care at all about where we end up as long as we stick with what's a known quantity, even if its wrong.

A lot of us see Bernie as America's last chance for a progressive identity who genuinely will try to reform the system as it needs to be instead of just paying lipservice while fucking us over in the backroom like Obama has been doing, and how Hillary will most assuredly continue to do.
 
GoldenEye 007 said:
This all barely matters anyway unless there are major inroads made to shaking up Congress.

I know the Prez will have their pick of SCOTUS justices, but they have to get through the Senate anyway.
Click to expand...

This is something that is true to a degree and folks keep mentioning. But as someone who was in the Trump or Sanders camp (leaned Sanders though) and someone watching things on the ground here in NH especially in regards to Trump support.

The point of people showing support to someone like Trump or Sanders as president for a large group of people is the message it will send to congress, the senate and the political system as a whole. There is a growing under current of people who are just tiered of traditional politicians. Picking a non traditional politician is there primary voting driver. Even if its repercussions could be problematic. They're voting (like most) on a little bit of logic (within there framework that also has personal appeal) and a whole lot of emotion.
 
-MB- said:
If he wins the primaries hes gonna get crushed by Trump in debates, I can see it happening now.
Click to expand...

Just the opposite IMHO. Trump doesn't have a lot of ammo to work with on Sanders, where as with Hillary his gameplan is obvious and "compelling". Sanders would pretty much deprive Trump of all of his positives in a debate.
 
The "well he cant get his stuff through congress anyway" thing doesn't make sense either BTW. When your elected president, usually your going to pick up seats through pure momentum in the house and senate. Obama picked up both chambers.

So saying that if Bernie is elected, that the chambers will stay just as they are with GOP controlling both makes no sense.

Also, people actually think Trump can beat Bernie in a debate? Really? What kind of ammo does Trump have in a general against common sense? He's already getting beaten by double digits in a potential Bernie match up.
 
Stinkles said:
Most gafers like Bernie. Most Gafers think Hillary is a hawkish center right corporatist who is highly electable and will secure liberal supreme court justices and preside over a normalized economy that will be better for the middle class than a deregulation-happy nightmare from the right. Most gafers are pragmatic about both candidates and eschew idealism for practicality. Most gafers won't quite have to hold their nose to vote for Hillary, but they'll sniff haughtily about it.


Most gafers tip for pizza delivery.
Click to expand...
But do they clap when it arrives?
 
Iowa and NH are some of the two whitest states in the union,

I will only be impressed if Bernie manages to win one out of Nevada, South Carolina, or Alabama
 
Inuhanyou said:
The "well he cant get his stuff through congress anyway" thing doesn't make sense either BTW. When your elected president, usually your going to pick up seats through pure momentum in the house and senate. Obama picked up both chambers.

So saying that if Bernie is elected, that the chambers will stay just as they are with GOP controlling both makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Democrats had a much more favorable map in 2008 than they do now in 2016 for the House. It would be almost impossible for them to take the House no matter what. They will probably flip the Senate, but it will be a slim majority regardless.
 
gutter_trash said:
Iowa and NH are some of the two whitest states in the union,

I will only be impressed if Bernie manages to win one out of Nevada, South Carolina, or Alabama
Click to expand...

South Carolina is Clinton's third strongest state, Alabama her strongest. If Clinton loses South Carolina she may as well quit before we even reach Super Tuesday. Even Nevada is a very tough ask, it's Clinton's 14th most favourable state. I still think it's more likely Clinton is the nominee, but if Sanders pushes her close in Nevada - not necessarily a win, but keeps it competitive - he would be the presumptive favourite to my mind. A win in Nevada would make it incredibly difficult for Clinton to come back.

Again, this is unlikely. Just clarifying the hypothetical. Iowa is uncertain enough itself.
 
Jelly Rajah said:
I don't think Trump is too worried about appealing to common sense lol.
Click to expand...

I said in a general though. He can appeal to his base like that, but if we're talking about the overall voting bloc, he will get absolutely crushed by Bernie even more than Hillary, and the numbers say so as well.
 
A Human Becoming said:
Five Thirty Eight disagrees.

Iowa polling is a crap shoot because of the caucus format, but it's still nice to hear from another reliable pollster (the first being Monmouth).
Click to expand...

538 does disagree because PPP and Nate Silver are in a spat because Nate Silver asked for their methodology and they gave it to them technically what he asked for with withholding some information, and it became a thing where Silver accused them of skewing their own results (something that has no evidence to the fact beyond Nate's gut).
 
Mengy said:
Just the opposite IMHO. Trump doesn't have a lot of ammo to work with on Sanders, where as with Hillary his gameplan is obvious and "compelling". Sanders would pretty much deprive Trump of all of his positives in a debate.
Click to expand...

You mean aise from the "Hes a socialist and a commie hurr durr".
Also Trump can make him look like an old angry man yelling at clouds. I don't have confidence that AMericans will pick a selfdescribed democratic socialist over even a blowhard like Trump really. Nor do I think the election is a shoe-in for the democrats if Trump gets the nom.
I just feel that Bernie will be have a bad matchup with Trump in any debate,
not only because of his views, but mainly in how they noth conduct themselves.
Bernie already was seen as being a bit angry in one of the democratic debates, let alone how Trump would portray him.

And I'm saying all this as a european who aligns perfectly with Bernie's views. Maybe it's just my cynicism when it comes to the american voterbase.
 
ivysaur12 said:
Democrats had a much more favorable map in 2008 than they do now in 2016 for the House. It would be almost impossible for them to take the House no matter what. They will probably flip the Senate, but it will be a slim majority regardless.
Click to expand...
I'm going to go with the Senate coming up one seat short. Because there's going to be a horrific candidate picked.

Martha Coakley running in Florida or something.
 
spock said:
This is something that is true to a degree and folks keep mentioning. But as someone who was in the Trump or Sanders camp (leaned Sanders though) and someone watching things on the ground here in NH especially in regards to Trump support.

The point of people showing support to someone like Trump or Sanders as president for a large group of people is the message it will send to congress, the senate and the political system as a whole. There is a growing under current of people who are just tiered of traditional politicians. Picking a non traditional politician is there primary voting driver. Even if its repercussions could be problematic. They're voting (like most) on a little bit of logic (within there framework that also has personal appeal) and a whole lot of emotion.
Click to expand...
True but unfortunately we got less than desirable results. The reaction to Obama in Congress was to be the most difficult and uncompromising in recent history.

The reaction from the right was the Tea Party. Which we're still paying for.
 
ivysaur12 said:
Democrats had a much more favorable map in 2008 than they do now in 2016 for the House. It would be almost impossible for them to take the House no matter what. They will probably flip the Senate, but it will be a slim majority regardless.
Click to expand...

If the Democrats can't get anything done due to the House, then I see no reason why not to support the more leftist of the two candidates to fight from the bully pulpit just to, at the very least, try to push the overton window rather than "compromise" with the GOP.
 
Inuhanyou said:
I said in a general though. He can appeal to his base like that, but if we're talking about the overall voting bloc, he will get absolutely crushed by Bernie even more than Hillary, and the numbers say so as well.
Click to expand...

Just curious as to your source on how Bernie will fare against Trump?
 
gutter_trash said:
comparing '08 Obama to '16 Bernie is disingenuous since Obama was always loyal to the party and and was handpicked to deliver a keynote address in `04. Obama had the blessing from the establishment.

Bernie made a career being critical of the Democratic Party all his life. Now he is using the party's primiariis as a vehicle to propel him

Establishment folks have not chosen him and know that he is not a Democrat.

This is why 2016 is very different from 2008.

Obama was the golden child and rising star +loyal to the party. Bernie isn't
Click to expand...

Counter argument, opinion seems to be more and more anti establishment on both sides of the aisle. Sanders being a political outlier may actually play into that sentiment. I could point to Trump but he's got a lot more going for him than just being anti establishment considering the current sorry state of the GOP
 
benjipwns said:
I'm going to go with the Senate coming up one seat short. Because there's going to be a horrific candidate picked.

Martha Coakley running in Florida or something.
Click to expand...

There really are very few contentious primaries on the Democratic side, except in Maryland where that's the real election anyway.

Wisconsin and Illinois look like they will flip regardless, so the Dems are already at 48. Grayson's campaign is sort of imploding, so Murphy will probably be the nominee in Florida and the Republican race is literally anyone's game.

New Hampshire and Ohio will close, but New Hampshire is a shade more blue than the rest of the country and the two best politicians in New Hampshire are running against each other, so I don't know.

The only fuck up the Dems really have, primary wise, is in Pennsylvania, with McGinty v. Toomey.

sphagnum said:
If the Democrats can't get anything done due to the House, then I see no reason why not to support the more leftist of the two candidates to fight from the bully pulpit just to, at the very least, try to push the overton window rather than "compromise" with the GOP.
Click to expand...

Conversely, I think it's better to nominate whoever can maximize the most seats, thus at least giving those people incumbency advantage into 2018 and refilling the depleted Dem bench in many purple and barely-red states.

I don't know who that candidate is yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Vogue boss 'concerned' by return to skinny models (surge of ozempic)
2
61
4K
GymWolf replied
Careless Whisper has the best intro / lead-in to any song, ever.
2
64
3K
WhamBamThankYouMaam replied
20 years on GAF better late than ever!?
22
1K
Days like these... replied
Steven Soderbergh Sounds Alarm On Mid-Budget Films After ‘Black Bag’ Underperforms
2
52
400
Mr Reasonable replied
One Battle After Another | Official Trailer | Leonardo DiCaprio | Benicio Del Toro
7
641
Ikutachi replied
Top Bottom