Support NeoGAF

[cpp_is_king]

Trump isn't going to win because Democratic voters were complacent. Because they aren't. Most Democrats would be happy with either Sanders or Clinton. So turn out is down.

Most GOP primary voters would not be happy with at least one of the three front runners, whichever one that is for that individual.

When the race is Clinton vs Trump, Democrats will show up to vote in close to record numbers if not in record numbers. Trump wins this by winning moderates or Reagan democrats. Not by complacent Democrats staying home.

When the GE happens, and they poll Trump supporters and ask "Why did you vote for Trump?" I honestly hope one of the choices is "For the lulz". I just want to see the number.

 

[pigeon]

I think the general idea is that now the southern states are out of the way, many of the remaining contests are generally more winnable for Sanders, where the demographics aren't as unfavorable. He's got a lot of money now after raising 40 million in February, so he could concevably start to win quite a few states if the ground game is strong enough.

Hillary still has a big lead on him, though its being blown out of proportion due to the superdelegate totals. The big question is whether or not these superdelegates would feel the pressure to switch if he does start winning more states. My guess would be no, since the DNC seems committed to ensuring she is the nominee.

If Sanders put together a significant lead in regular delegates, the superdelegates would be unlikely to tilt it the other way.

But it is hard to imagine that happening, even if Sanders starts winning states, because he'd have to not just win but dominate them in order to overcome Clinton's lead.

 

[phanphare]

Bernie da gawd

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlxzmJBa-Pc&ebc

 

[Matt]

That seems like a mighty big coincidence that exactly the same number of people would no-show on one side as show for the first time on the other side.

Is there any hard evidence to suggest that's what happened, as opposed to 3 million Demoncrats shifting Republican? As unlikely as that sounds, I just find it strange that the numbers match up so perfectly.

The fact that the country is roughly split between the two parties means that low and high turnout primaries should look similar numbers-wise.

 

[breakYODAy]

If Sanders put together a significant lead in regular delegates, the superdelegates would be unlikely to tilt it the other way.

But it is hard to imagine that happening, even if Sanders starts winning states, because he'd have to not just win but dominate them in order to overcome Clinton's lead.

I agree, he's a big underdog at this point, and has to leave March with some big wins under his belt if he's got any shot.

 

[boiled goose]

I think the general idea is that now the southern states are out of the way, many of the remaining contests are generally more winnable for Sanders, where the demographics aren't as unfavorable. He's got a lot of money now after raising 40 million in February, so he could concevably start to win quite a few states if the ground game is strong enough.

Hillary still has a big lead on him, though its being blown out of proportion due to the superdelegate totals. The big question is whether or not these superdelegates would feel the pressure to switch if he does start winning more states. My guess would be no, since the DNC seems committed to ensuring she is the nominee.

I get the idea, but I am looking at the polls and the math and for Sanders to win he would need huge swings in these states from recent polls that while 2 weeks old, are not 2 months old. It's not like Clinton is being extra popular, it is just that he is not energizing people to come vote for him in high enough numbers.

We did not see a surge in Iowa or MA. We did not see dents to Hillary's leads in the South. in fact, she did better than expected.

I get the idea of the article, but I look at the polls, and the math and it seems unrealistic to me that Sanders can big win in those states on March 15.

It's delusion. Almost everywhere is calling it a loss for Sanders. He's completely ignoring that Clinton did better than she needed to yesterday delegate wise, making things even harder for Sanders down the line... and he totally downplays Clinton winning MA.

Oh she only won all the states she was expected to. And MA, but she won that in 2008, which sort of sounds like a valid point until you realise that she lost 2008 because she lost the minority vote, and MA is a very white state.

Sanders is beatable in states he should win. Clinton isn't so far.

I agree with everything except I really wouldn't put too much stock on the bolded. "almost everyone" has been calling it a coronation and a sweep for a while now and the facts don't show that either. The delusion on the Pro Hillary side, even sadly here on GAF is surprising and frustrating.

 

[titiklabingapat]

Just because there is no enthusiasm with Hillary on reddit or dailykos doesn't mean that Democrats aren't excited to vote for her. Young white liberals aren't too enthused with her but (older) women and minorities (especially Latinos and blacks) certainly are, and these are the demos she needs to win in the general. Everything else is literally icing on the cake. I'm not worried especially if it's versus Trump.

This fantasy that Bernie is better in the general need to stahp, especially when there are no indications that he can broaden his appeal beyond young white liberals. Especially in the face of him not even being subjected to the united Reoublican general election venom that always come anyin Democratic nominee's way.

 

[plagiarize]

If Sanders put together a significant lead in regular delegates, the superdelegates would be unlikely to tilt it the other way.

But it is hard to imagine that happening, even if Sanders starts winning states, because he'd have to not just win but dominate them in order to overcome Clinton's lead.

Exactly. Before he can start catching up, he needs to start out performing his delegate targets. He manages that in a couple of staxes yesterday, but fell far behind them overall.

538 peg it as being akin to a 16 point lead nationally based on the demographics at play. And here is the issue. Say he starts gaining on Clinton again, by the time he's made up those 16 points, in all that time between now and then, Clinton has continued to win more delegates than estimates predict she has to.

Missing your targets by smaller amounts, should it happen, is still losing ground... and the longer it takes you to gain those 16 points the more ground you have lost and the less opportunity you have to make it back up.

Things need to turn around, and turn around a lot before Sanders can even start eating away at Clinton's lead.

 

[plagiarize]

I agree with everything except I really wouldn't put too much stock on the bolded. "almost everyone" has been calling it a coronation and a sweep for a while now and the facts don't show that either. The delusion on the Pro Hillary side, even sadly here on GAF is surprising and frustrating.

The only stock I put in it here is to show how much of an outlier the perception that Sanders had some huge victory yesterday is. You know, outside of whatever reddit may believe. And I don't care to check.

 

[boiled goose]

Just because there is no enthusiasm with Hillary on reddit or dailykos doesn't mean that Democrats aren't excited to vote for her. Young white liberals aren't too enthused with her but (older) women and minorities (especially Latinos and blacks) certainly are, and these are the demos she needs to win in the general. Everything else is literally icing on the cake. I'm not worried especially if it's versus Trump.

This fantasy that Bernie is better in the general need to stahp, especially when there are no indications that he can broaden his appeal beyond young white liberals. Especially in the face of him not even being subjected to the united Reoublican general election venom that always come any Democratic nominee's way.

I do hope there is enthusiasm for Clinton. I like seeing people cheer at her rallies because she does nothing for me with her speeches so I do like that it resonates with some folks.

The breadth of Bernie's appeal is a concern, but calling it a fantasy is going to far.
Polling in head to head matchups has him winning. Minorities are not going to switch republican because of him and he does well with independents. Also, the southern states are pretty much guaranteed to go republican anyway. It is a fair challenge, and a good discussion, but again "fantasy" is unfair. There are arguments.

The only stock I put in it here is to show how much of an outlier the perception that Sanders had some huge victory yesterday is. You know, outside of whatever reddit may believe. And I don't care to check.

Fair. I am not on Reddit and honestly am not interested in joining. GAF is my virtual home for now.

 

[CDX]

I think the general idea is that now the southern states are out of the way, many of the remaining contests are generally more winnable for Sanders, where the demographics aren't as unfavorable. He's got a lot of money now after raising 40 million in February, so he could concevably start to win quite a few states if the ground game is strong enough.

Hillary still has a big lead on him, though its being blown out of proportion due to the superdelegate totals. The big question is whether or not these superdelegates would feel the pressure to switch if he does start winning more states. My guess would be no, since the DNC seems committed to ensuring she is the nominee.

Without Super Delegates, a 200 delegate lead against Sanders is not being blown out of proportion.

Obama in 2008 never had a lead so high, and Hillary was never able to catch up. Obama's wasn't NEARLY as high. His peak was like 100 or so. So even if the polls that are predicting Hillary's delegate lead will only increase by March 15th are wrong. Which I have no reason to believe they are wrong, her lead is still extremely significant.

A 200 delegate lead in the democratic primaries, is basically an insurmountable lead. And Super Delegates have nothing to do with her lead. The crazy scenarios needed to imagine overcoming that kind of lead are just not rational imo.

Pretty soon, mathematically, Bernie would have to win basically every state left, by nearly blowout proportions to even tie Hillary's delegates.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

I really don't think that turnout number will mean fuck all for the general, and you have to remember, it's still super early, Trump is still unpopular overall, and there's still ton left to be done and said. I definitely think he's gonna end up even more polarizing the further we get into this.

 

[Miles X]

Are there any reliable polls for the rest of March? All I can see is Hillary storming Louisiana and doing well in Kansas.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Exactly. Before he can start catching up, he needs to start out performing his delegate targets. He manages that in a couple of staxes yesterday, but fell far behind them overall.

538 peg it as being akin to a 16 point lead nationally based on the demographics at play. And here is the issue. Say he starts gaining on Clinton again, by the time he's made up those 16 points, in all that time between now and then, Clinton has continued to win more delegates than estimates predict she has to.

Missing your targets by smaller amounts, should it happen, is still losing ground... and the longer it takes you to gain those 16 points the more ground you have lost and the less opportunity you have to make it back up.

Things need to turn around, and turn around a lot before Sanders can even start eating away at Clinton's lead.

He was at +9% from the projected overall

But he would have had a net of maybe 1 or 2 points or even had lost, had it not been for Oklahoma. And that big 10% extra win in Oklahoma? Netted him 4 more delegates than Clinton.

Clinton took out that +9 overall in one state alone and ended up at like a +31% overall from projected

He made a huge mistake not trying to stay at least competitive in the South

 

[blackw0lf]

I don't want to go down this tired track again but here goes. So Bill and Hillary Clinton have received millions in speaking fees and donations from Wall Street/big banking. For instance, here is a list of Hillary's top donors. It takes an extreme naivete to believe that investors and bankers donating large sums of money do so without any expectation of a return on that investment. On the other hand, does that mean she will always side with the big banks? No, I don't believe that. But it's worrying nonetheless when you consider how this may influence her policy as president.

That's career. This is for 2016 though.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000019&type=f

None of the major wall street players are in the top 20

 

[titiklabingapat]

I do hope there is enthusiasm for Clinton. I like seeing people cheer at her rallies because she does nothing for me with her speeches so I do like that it resonates with some folks.

The breadth of Bernie's appeal is a concern, but calling it a fantasy is going to far.
Polling in head to head matchups has him winning. Minorities are not going to switch republican because of him and he does well with independents. Also, the southern states are pretty much guaranteed to go republican anyway. It is a fair challenge, and a good discussion, but again "fantasy" is unfair. There are arguments.



Fair. I am not on Reddit and honestly am not interested in joining. GAF is my virtual home for now.

Every single primary results so far have shown that the vast majority of actual Democrats (75% to 85%) like her and excited to vote for her in the General.

General election polling this early has no meaning. Bernie has never been subjected to a national smearing campaign that every presidential nominee that wins their nomination goes through. His favorability is guaranteed to go down in the hypothetical world where he becomes the prime target of the GOP and GOP leaning groups. As an example of this: Herman Cain was leading Obama at this point in time in 2012.

There is a reason why all the Republican nominees are attacking Hillary now. They want Bernie to be as undamaged as possible so they can nuke him during this summer and deal the fatal blow. Clinton is already a known quantity and this is the lowest she'll ever go.

 

[Tesseract]

Shit.

The refugee crises, the terrorist attacks, a quickly crumbling labor class, so on. Trump was powerful, smart, funny. He had an everyman vocabulary and a hypnotic oratorical style. He rekt the media, rekt expectations, rekt the Republican party forever.

At the very least, punished Trump deserves a golden blunt award for rekting the GOP. One man did this, that's some Batman shit. Trump debated like he made deals. He's a winner, he's tremendously exciting. Aight that's all.

~ President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camach, 3279

 

[excelsiorlef]

Also to touch on that image of turn out last night between GOP and Dem, it definitely says nothing about the GE but I think it says a lot about the fact that Sanders' revolution isn't a thing and that despite the meme's and the internet buzz he's not turning it into real world results. He's just not getting people out.


I'd almost call him the Snakes on a Plane of Presidential candidates. Huge on the net with not much real world results.

 

[boiled goose]

Every single primary results so far have shown that the vast majority of actual Democrats (75% to 85%) like her and excited to vote for her in the General.

General election polling this early has no meaning. Bernie has never been subjected to a national smearing campaign that every presidential nominee that wins their nomination goes through. His favorability is guaranteed to go down in the hypothetical world where he becomes the prime target of the GOP and GOP leaning groups. As an example of this: Herman Cain was leading Obama at this point in time in 2012.

These are arguments, but I am not completely convinced. His support among independents is solid. His policies are policies are popular. The election has a strong anti establishment sentiment which neutralizes some weaknesses Hillary would have against Trump and Cruz.

I'm saying it is a fact, he is stronger than Hillary in the general. I am saying that calling it a fantasy is unfair at this point. There are arguments to both sides and one side has polls (early, but better than feelings)

 

[bangbang i'm a timpani]

Shit.

The refugee crises, the terrorist attacks, a quickly crumbling labor class, so on. Trump was powerful, smart, funny. He had an everyman vocabulary and a hypnotic oratorical style. He rekt the media, rekt expectations, rekt the Republican party forever.

At the very least, punished Trump deserves a golden blunt award for rekting the GOP. One man did this, that's some Batman shit. Trump debated like he made deals. He's a winner, he's tremendously exciting. Aight that's all.

~ President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camach, 3279

i don't know whats happening but thats pretty funny

 

[Effect]

i don't know whats happening but thats pretty funny

You've never seen the movie Idiocracy? The name of the quote is President of the United States in the film. That's pretty much the direction Trump is pushing things toward. The movie is both funny and terrifying once you start noticing the beginning of it today when you look around.

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

You've never seen the movie Idiocracy? That's pretty much the direction Trump is pushing things toward. It's both funny and terrifying once you start seeing the beginning of it today.

It's basically a documentary now.

 

[Melkezadek]

It's really frustrating to see people think this situation is at all funny. Especially when those whose only crime is existing, are going to be affected profoundly.

This isn't a game.

 

[titiklabingapat]

These are arguments, but I am not completely convinced. His support among independents is solid. His policies are policies are popular. The election has a strong anti establishment sentiment which neutralizes some weaknesses Hillary would have against Trump and Cruz.

I'm saying it is a fact, he is stronger than Hillary in the general. I am saying that calling it a fantasy is unfair at this point. There are arguments to both sides and one side has polls (early, but better than feelings)

These are not arguments but historical precedence. This is my fourth presidential cycle and I know full well what's to come. I still remember the swiftboating of Kerry quite clearly. If you think that's brutal, then you have no idea what's coming for Bernie.

 

[boiled goose]

Also to touch on that image of turn out last night between GOP and Dem, it definitely says nothing about the GE but I think it says a lot about the fact that Sanders' revolution isn't a thing and that despite the meme's and the internet buzz he's not turning it into real world results. He's just not getting people out.


I'd almost call him the Snakes on a Plane of Presidential candidates. Huge on the net with not much real world results.

It really shows how special Obama's campaign was.
Not much real results might be a bit too dismissive. Here we have a self-declared democratic socialist talking about the corruption in DC completely candidly that is going to end up with 30-50% of the democratic vote. That is real. His support is heavily millennial. Change is coming, it might not happen in 2016, but young people are quite a bit more liberal and consume news and facts differently from previous generations.

These are not arguments but historical precedence. This is my fourth presidential cycle and I know full well what's to come. I still remember the swiftboating of Kerry quite clearly. If you think that's brutal, then you have no idea what's coming for Bernie.

I'm sure you predicted quite well how relatively decently Bernie and strongly Trump would do in their primaries? Conventional thinking has been largely off the mark.

If you don't see the differences between Kerry and Bernie, or between the state of politics in 2004 and 2016 then you don't know much about politics at all. The simple existence of a thing called the internet has changed the game drastically.

 

[Ekdrm2d1]

Any talk about the black woman being pushed around at the Trump lady?

 

[Sushi Nao]

This guy in my neighborhood has displayed a sign in his tree that says "Socialist preach failure & abortion" It has been there for 15 years.

Today, about 8 houses down, in the middle of the median I found another one! It reads "Socialist teach subject/verb agreement"

What does that mean? I googled for 30 seconds and I only saw grammar and English help. About verbs.

That's a pretty high-brow troll. I approve

 

[Fenderputty]

That's a pretty high-brow troll. I approve

It's fucking hilarious. Ekd should put another sign up that says "socialists teach humor"

 

[silvermember]

It really shows how special Obama's campaign was.
Not much real results might be a bit too dismissive. Here we have a self-declared democratic socialist talking about the corruption in DC completely candidly that is going to end up with 30-50% of the democratic vote. That is real. His support is heavily millennial. Change is coming, it might not happen in 2016, but young people are quite a bit more liberal and consume news and facts differently from previous generations.

Young people as they grow older see the value of voting. However, the new generation of young people generally do not until they get older. I really doubt THIS time, it will be any different. The 60s were full of hippies, but ultimately no real change amounted to that.

 

[TyrantII]

Holy shit!

That is amazing. Thanks EskimoJoe and DMB4237

That's no Socialist...

It's a Grammar Nazi!

 

[ampere]

Just because there is no enthusiasm with Hillary on reddit or dailykos doesn't mean that Democrats aren't excited to vote for her. Young white liberals aren't too enthused with her but (older) women and minorities (especially Latinos and blacks) certainly are, and these are the demos she needs to win in the general. Everything else is literally icing on the cake. I'm not worried especially if it's versus Trump.

This fantasy that Bernie is better in the general need to stahp, especially when there are no indications that he can broaden his appeal beyond young white liberals. Especially in the face of him not even being subjected to the united Reoublican general election venom that always come anyin Democratic nominee's way.

Young white liberals don't vote anyway! They just make social media posts

 

[Prodigal Son]

Shit.

The refugee crises, the terrorist attacks, a quickly crumbling labor class, so on. Trump was powerful, smart, funny. He had an everyman vocabulary and a hypnotic oratorical style. He rekt the media, rekt expectations, rekt the Republican party forever.

At the very least, punished Trump deserves a golden blunt award for rekting the GOP. One man did this, that's some Batman shit. Trump debated like he made deals. He's a winner, he's tremendously exciting. Aight that's all.

~ President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camach, 3279

Man, you're a great poster.

 

[phanphare]

That's no Socialist...

It's a Grammar Nazi!

ahahaha!

well played

 

[Tranqueris]

Bernie has to win big March 15. Polling is more sparse in these states, but still have projected to sweep all those states using polls that are a few weeks old.

I honestly don't understand some of the optimism from the Bernie camp.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/why-bernie-sanders-won-su_b_9363416.html
Is this delusion?
I generally trust some of TYT's political analysis. What am I missing??

The polls are not looking good for these March 15 states. Bernie momentum is not obvious to me.

Cenk is pretty much drowning himself in the Bernie Sanders kool aid at this point. Kept tuning in and out but their coverage but I think I heard him say "we're the only place left for progressives!"

 

[excelsiorlef]

It really shows how special Obama's campaign was.
Not much real results might be a bit too dismissive. Here we have a self-declared democratic socialist talking about the corruption in DC completely candidly that is going to end up with 30-50% of the democratic vote. That is real. His support is heavily millennial. Change is coming, it might not happen in 2016, but young people are quite a bit more liberal and consume news and facts differently from previous generations.

Yeah but those young people aren't voting...

Only history will tell if this is a long lasting thing.

Btw if you wanna see how people can get tanked and tanked fast, read up on what happened to Mondale and Dukakais.

That said Sanders is a better candidate than either of those two..

 

[excelsiorlef]

Cenk is pretty much drowning himself in the Bernie Sanders kool aid at this point. Kept tuning in and out but their coverage but I think I heard him say "we're the only place left for progressives!"

Makes sense really, when you're trying to stand out from the crowd in the world of the media, why not unabashedly pander for the Sanders youth demographic viewers.

Sell yourself as the guy who won't fall into the "media narrative"

It's transparent as fuck and anti-intellectual but hey.

 

[boiled goose]

Yeah but those young people aren't voting...

Only history will tell if this is a long lasting thing.

Btw if you wanna see how people can get tanked and tanked fast, read up on what happened to Mondale and Dukakais.

That said Sanders is a better candidate than either of those two..

Young people as they grow older see the value of voting. However, the new generation of young people generally do not until they get older. I really doubt THIS time, it will be any different. The 60s were full of hippies, but ultimately no real change amounted to that.

I know. I just mean these young people will get old and eventually (hopefully) vote too. We make progress as new generations enter the voting population and old ones with outdated world views die off.

Makes sense really, when you're trying to stand out from the crowd in the world of the media, why not unabashedly pander for the Sanders youth demographic viewers.

Sell yourself as the guy who won't fall into the "media narrative"
It's transparent as fuck and anti-intellectual but hey.

It is actually a smart strategy. Your argument then is not delusion, but deliberate pandering.
Again, I generally trust their views because their perspective even when skewed is very transparent.

Cenk's "telling it like it is" or "keeping it real" personal is not matching with my own (albeit less experienced) analysis in this case.

 

[SlimySnake]

, but young people are quite a bit more liberal and consume news and facts differently from previous generations.

If this primary has shown anything, it's that they consume facts incorrectly. they have an aversion to facts, stats, polls and maths.

if anything, the way they consume news is not much different than how the republicans get their news from Fox News. From sources that feed them exactly what they want to hear. TYT is the perfect example. They are in denial at the moment and so are most Bernie supporters.

 

[Prodigal Son]

If this primary has shown anything, it's that they consume facts incorrectly. they have an aversion to facts, stats, polls and maths.

if anything, the way they consume news is not much different than how the republicans get their news from Fox News. From sources that feed them exactly what they want to hear. TYT is the perfect example. They are in denial at the moment and so are most Bernie supporters.

Few Bernie supporters are saying he's likely to get the nom. Quite the opposite. Many are just relieved that there's still a slither of a chance.

 

[Tesseract]

If this primary has shown anything, it's that they consume facts incorrectly. they have an aversion to facts, stats, polls and maths.

if anything, the way they consume news is not much different than how the republicans get their news from Fox News. From sources that feed them exactly what they want to hear. TYT is the perfect example. They are in denial at the moment and so are most Bernie supporters.

That's one hell of a something, can you expand these declarations. We're relieved he's still competitive, among other things.

 

[B-Dubs]

That's one hell of a something, can you expand these declarations. We're relieved he's still competitive, among other things.

Well, go back in the more recent (in the last month or so) Bernie/Hillary thread and look at how often junk sources like the Washington Free Beacon, the Washington Times, the Blaze, Breitbart, and other bullshit junk news sources are quoted to attack her. It shouldn't happen at all, people should know better than to use shit sources, and yet...

 

[boiled goose]

If this primary has shown anything, it's that they consume facts incorrectly. they have an aversion to facts, stats, polls and maths.

if anything, the way they consume news is not much different than how the republicans get their news from Fox News. From sources that feed them exactly what they want to hear. TYT is the perfect example. They are in denial at the moment and so are most Bernie supporters.

I agree the math is looking rough, but the incorrect facts consumption sweeping statement is a bit too much of a generality.

The mental gymnastics and rationalizations I've seen from hillary supporters on this board and in this very thread is honestly worse than anything I've seen from the Bernie supporters (on GAF specifically). I have no idea what is happening in Reddit.

I am curious about TYT. I guess I have a disagreement with their perspective at the moment. The only way to find out is to see what happen on 3/15, which to be fair, was the date that Cenk said we would be very confident of who would win the primary. Looking at the math, polls, and recent results I don't agree with his current view that it is 50/50 at the moment. I don't think even Bernie feels that way. We shall see.

Well, go back in the more recent (in the last month or so) Bernie/Hillary thread and look at how often junk sources like the Washington Free Beacon, the Washington Times, the Blaze, Breitbart, and other bullshit junk news sources are quoted to attack her. It shouldn't happen at all, people should know better than to use shit sources, and yet...

Meh. I'd have to see what the actual accusations are to make a determination on their validity. What is a "reputable" source these days? CNN? MSNBC?

I do think regurgitating lines and talking points without thinking is silly. "Hillary is just like a republican" for example is silly, inaccurate, and stupid.

 

[brainchild]

If this primary has shown anything, it's that they consume facts incorrectly. they have an aversion to facts, stats, polls and maths.

if anything, the way they consume news is not much different than how the republicans get their news from Fox News. From sources that feed them exactly what they want to hear. TYT is the perfect example. They are in denial at the moment and so are most Bernie supporters.

That brush. You sure like painting us with it, don't you?

 

[Valhelm]

Yeah but those young people aren't voting...

Only history will tell if this is a long lasting thing.

Btw if you wanna see how people can get tanked and tanked fast, read up on what happened to Mondale and Dukakais.

That said Sanders is a better candidate than either of those two..

I fear that a Sanders candidacy could go the way of McGovern.

 

[ampere]

If this primary has shown anything, it's that they consume facts incorrectly. they have an aversion to facts, stats, polls and maths.

if anything, the way they consume news is not much different than how the republicans get their news from Fox News. From sources that feed them exactly what they want to hear. TYT is the perfect example. They are in denial at the moment and so are most Bernie supporters.

I want to say it's a vocal minority that behaves the way you talk about. I think there are a lot of Bernie supporters like myself, who are fully aware of the tiny % chance he has time win, but think the work he's done moving the conversations to the left have been phenomenal.

Not enough young people are voting though. Need to get that turnout higher, even in the primaries.

 

[Downhome]

I just saw the latest video from these guys and this made me chuckle...

 

[excelsiorlef]

I know. I just mean these young people will get old and eventually (hopefully) vote too. We make progress as new generations enter the voting population and old ones with outdated world views die off.



It is actually a smart strategy. Your argument then is not delusion, but deliberate pandering.
Again, I generally trust their views because their perspective even when skewed is very transparent.

Cenk's "telling it like it is" or "keeping it real" personal is not matching with my own (albeit less experienced) analysis in this case.

It's a and b, they are both delusional and pandering.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I fear that a Sanders candidacy could go the way of McGovern.

Oh another good example.

I mean who knows... but that's the thing, who knows.

 

[Bishman]

I tweeted Cenk to don't turn into the progressive version of Fox News. It is really pathetic.

 

[Ronin]

If this primary has shown anything, it's that they consume facts incorrectly. they have an aversion to facts, stats, polls and maths.

if anything, the way they consume news is not much different than how the republicans get their news from Fox News. From sources that feed them exactly what they want to hear. TYT is the perfect example. They are in denial at the moment and so are most Bernie supporters.

My Facebook feed is full of this right now. I'm just holding my tongue.