Support NeoGAF

[brainchild]

Well, I believe that we're at the point in the race where it's statistically improbable that Bernie can come back from this. The trends aren't in his favor, March 8th and 15th will be hell, and the national numbers are trending towards Hillary. There's nothing wrong with fighting, but there is bad strategy in forcing an issue that only has the chance to hurt the presumptive nominee. (And I'm not calling her that yet, because I don't believe in counting all of my chickens before they hatch.)

The polls show us that Hillary's support is more firm than Bernie's. He's free to attack her if he wants. That doesn't mean that I think it's a good idea. The demos that Bernie would have needed to improve with I don't see being swayed by this, if they haven't already been swayed by the plethora of times he's shouted Millionaires! Billionaires! Wall Street!

This attack is weak to me because it doesn't expand the conversation. It's a weak character attack from an angle Sanders has already been driving into the ground with Thor's mighty hammer. I see no one for whom this issue would be a motivator who isn't already in the Bernie camp. Even if there are huge groups of undecideds, there aren't enough to sway states like Ohio, Michigan and Florida to Bernie. He needed another line of attack and he needed it about two months ago.

So this is all predicated on the notion that no one will be persuaded by these attacks except for staunch Bernie supporters.

Well, you can believe or not believe whatever you want, but your opinion isn't fact, and as long as it's possible for him to change minds, I think he should try.

 

[smokeymicpot]

Lady on CNN saying the media is also responsible for Trump's rise because they didn't really challenge him or treat him not like a joke.

Edit; SE Cupp looks miserable. Internally she is preparing herself to vote Clinton in the general.

They are part of the problem too. Everyone did think it was a joke at one point but it is now real.

 

[danm999]

Should have Kansas results for the Dem side soon. Win for Bernie is my guess.

 

[Russ T]

trump or cruz, we still lose

):

 

[Damaniel]

Should have Kansas results for the Dem side soon. Win for Bernie is my guess.

Easily, and certainly by double digits.

 

[Matt]

You're right.

He said it doesn't prove Sanders is the more electable. It arguably doesn't, which was his point.

I misinterpreted his post entirely. My bad.

No worries.

Thanks to everyone who tried to explain my position.

 

[TyrantII]

I agree, but how pathetic is that. Telling someone to calm down at a debate is all that it takes to rally the troops.

These cacus States are heavily Evangelical in their GOP primary. Cruz getting them, even after super tuesday, isn't a huge surprise. Cruz is the candidate of the Jesus wing more so than Trump.

 

[User 463088]

So this is all predicated on the notion that no one will be persuaded by these attacks except for staunch Bernie supporters.

Well, you can believe or not believe whatever you want, but your opinion isn't fact, and as long as it's possible for him to change minds, I think he should try.

I never said my opinion was fact. I was simply stating that I don't believe this is a winning line of attack. It's an artful smear, as Hillary called it, but I cannot see it making the in roads he needs to. There are other things that I think could be more effective.

 

[danm999]

Easily, and certainly by double digits.

Yeah I expect it to look something like Colorado or Minnesota.

 

[Boke1879]

Lady on CNN saying the media is also responsible for Trump's rise because they didn't really challenge him or treat him not like a joke.

Edit; SE Cupp looks miserable. Internally she is preparing herself to vote Clinton in the general.

SE knows what this means for the party. She's legit disgusted.

 

[User 463088]

Yeah I expect it to look something like Colorado or Minnesota.

Anything under 25 points would be a good one for Hillary as far as delegate allocations go. Anything below 30 would be fine. If he gets a 30+ margin that's best case scenario for him.

 

[royalan]

After Americans see that Bernie tax chart from yesterday? Not a chance.

Yep.

Hopefully that tax thread was an eye opener for anyone thinking that Republicans haven't been attacking Sanders because they can't.

 

[TyrantII]

SE knows what this means for the party. She's legit disgusted.

Poor SE. Got in too late to the game to make her money on dog whistles and hate.

Yeah, not really feeling sorry for her. Her and her ilk caused this. She might be GOP pundit light, but she was a late to the party enabler just like the rest. Hopefully she learns the lessons and funds feeting.

 

[Prodigal Son]

Yep.

Hopefully that tax thread was an eye opener for anyone thinking that Republicans haven't been attacking Sanders because they can't.

Was that tax chart really from yesterday? Didn't he release his tax plan a while back? I assumed it was just getting GAF-attention because the Vox thread was popular.

 

[brainchild]

I never said my opinion was fact. I was simply stating that I don't believe this is a winning line of attack. It's an artful smear, as Hillary called it, but I cannot see it making the in roads he needs to. There are other things that I think could be more effective.

And as I said, if it's not a fact that people won't be persuaded, then it's worth a shot.

I make the same argument for both Hillary and Bernie going on the FOX town hall meeting. Sure, lots of people won't be switching over after hearing what they have to say, but SOME likely will. No reason to leave that support on the table. It's not like it's the only thing they're focusing on right now.

 

[User 463088]

Was that tax chart really from yesterday? Didn't he release his tax plan a while back? I assumed it was just getting GAF-attention because the Vox thread was popular.

I think the chart was released because Hillary's numbers had been studied at this point. We were able to compare the two head to head for the first time.

 

[strikeselect]

RIP Rubio-Bot

 

[User 463088]

And as I said, if it's not a fact that people won't be persuaded, then it's worth a shot.

I make the same argument for both Hillary and Bernie going on the FOX town hall meeting. Sure, lots of people won't be switching over after hearing what they have to say, but SOME likely will. No reason to leave that support on the table. It's not like it's the only thing they're focusing on right now.

That's chill. I wasn't trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking.

My issues with the Fox town hall thing are not about winning potential voters, it's about mitigating potential harm. Not just for Hillary but for the party as well. Fox will do anything it can to make it into a clusterfuck.

 

[thepotatoman]

It's the former. Factually.

I could've swown actual research hosted on JSTOR explicitly looking at the predictive power of head-to-head polls based on the time of their release, and finding that they have generally tended toward being wildly off base, proves that early head to head polls don't matter (short of a different comprehensive analysis showing a different result!)

Trends change. I feel like people have taken way more interest in presidential politics earlier now compared to 2004 and earlier. It also probably helps that things have gotten way more polarized since 2004, so there are even more voters you know will never change their minds.

So the sample size is basically 2 elections when you look at it like that, and both were generally fairly stable.

 

[ampere]

So this is all predicated on the notion that no one will be persuaded by these attacks except for staunch Bernie supporters.

Well, you can believe or not believe whatever you want, but your opinion isn't fact, and as long as it's possible for him to change minds, I think he should try.

I mean, it's my main criticism of Hillary, that she's beholden to the money of Wall Street, but at the same time, maybe you have to be to win against another Super PAC? I voted for Bernie, but the topic is one I'm conflicted on. I absolutely want Citizen's United gone, but until it's gone is it better to just roll with it and have a PAC?

I'm sure this is an important topic for many, but I don't think it's a new topic for most people, so I'm not sure Bernie bringing it up again helps much at this point.

 

[Dr. Benton Quest]

Cuomo is only an anchor because of his family right? This guy is continuously tone deaf and cringe worthy.

Constantly looking like he has no idea what he's talking about.

Don Lemon is better than this guy.

 

[TyrantII]

After Americans see that Bernie tax chart from yesterday? Not a chance.

Not with the current state of the MSM and the low numbers Bernie is bringing out.

It's not a bad plan. But in the current reality and political structure it is DOA. Hell be hammer from the GOP and MSM without being allowed to get his message out over their shrieks and Democrats will run for fucking cover.

Then we'll have Trump and SCOTUS nominee Cruz.

A revolution need to be a wave, and he hasn't provided it. Otherwise, you need systematic, boring, incramemtalism.

 

[Boke1879]

Poor SE. Got in too late to the game to make her money on dog whistles and hate.

Yeah, not really feeling sorry for her. Her and her ilk caused this. She might be GOP pundit light, but she was a late to the party enabler just like the rest. Hopefully she learns the lessons and funds feeting.

Lol I'm not feeling for her. Your right she comes off as "the cool conservative" but really she's not. I just find it funny how disgusted she is with this whole Trump thing haha.

 

[danm999]

Chris Cuomo

"This is a really sloppy process"

Politifact rates this true.

 

[noshten]

I think the chart was released because Hillary's numbers had been studied at this point. We were able to compare the two head to head for the first time.

It's like comparing apples and oranges, Hillary's tax hike isn't going to lift private insurance burden from people and companies, they aren't financing Sander's healthcare, paternity leave, education and infrastructure plans.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Rubio is the Cuban Rick Perry

 

[royalan]

And as I said, if it's not a fact that people won't be persuaded, then it's worth a shot.

I make the same argument for both Hillary and Bernie going on the FOX town hall meeting. Sure, lots of people won't be switching over after hearing what they have to say, but SOME likely will. No reason to leave that support on the table. It's not like it's the only thing they're focusing on right now.

There is evidence that it's not a winning line of attack though.

He's been ringing this bell since the beginning, and what has it gotten him? A larger delegate deficit than Hillary had against Obama in 08.

 

[brainchild]

It's like comparing apples and oranges, Hillary's tax hike isn't going to lift private insurance burden from people and companies, they aren't financing Sander's healthcare, paternity leave, education and infrastructure plans.

I think the argument is that people aren't going to consider the context; they'll just focus on the numbers. I think it's a valid point, as unfortunate as it may be.

 

[User 463088]

Chris Cuomo

"This is a really sloppy process"

Politifact rates this true.

It's a big fat mess. :AIRHORN:

It's like comparing apples and oranges, Hillary's tax hike isn't going to lift private insurance burden from people and companies, they aren't financing Sander's healthcare, paternity leave, education and infrastructure plans.

And Republican tax cuts don't put money in lower income earners pockets, but they're still popular. People will not vote for a candidate who is saying "I'm going to raise all of your taxes." It's, for better or worse, poison in a general election.

 

[Matt]

Trends change. I feel like people have taken way more interest in presidential politics earlier now compared to 2004 and earlier. It also probably helps that things have gotten way more polarized since 2004, so there are even more voters you know will never change their minds.

So the sample size is basically 2 elections when you look at it like that, and both were generally fairly stable.

Reality doesn't change because you feel it has changed.

 

[Kyosaiga]

If Hillary will be tough on Wallstreet, why are they funding her?
If you think she will be tough, that means that Sanders will be tougher at least right?
What's the right level of toughness? The one that is supported by Wallstreet donations or the one not supported by Wallstreet donations?

EVEN IF politicians are not affected by who donates to them (hahaha anyone believe this for a second???) do you think big money should be allow to rig our elections? Because this point is completely undeniable. Should corporations and people with more money be allowed to skew results by funding adds and campaign expenses?

If Hillary needs big money to win an election, she will need it to win a reelection. Will these same donors be there next time if she doesnt do their bidding?

The corrupting influence of money in politics is not only APPARENT, it is INEVITABLE given the way the system works.

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

Look at this list of donors. Unions, Charitable Foundations, and the like and they outnumber her financial donors by a ridiculous margin. Like it's not even halfway, close.

This whole narrative around Wall Street is inconsistent considering the entertainment industry has given her a shit ton of money, yet you've never EVER see any argument that Clinton and the DNC is in the pocket of Hollywood.

Also, consider the fact that she's routinely pissed off her Wall Street donors numerous times throughout her career as shown in this article from the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/hillary-clinton-wall-street-ties.html?_r=0

In other words, Clinton was ahead of the curve, in 2007, a full goddamn year before the crash.

So, tell me again, how Clinton, who's repeatedly demonstrated she gives zero fucks about pissing Wall Street off (and is savvy enough to STILL keep them donating to her) is not gonna crack down on Wall Street, which by all objective measures, her plan is more nuanced than Sanders is.

 

[shinra-bansho]

If Hillary needs big money to win an election

Everyone needs big money to win elections.

Two billion dollars was spent in the 2012 race. This largely isn't counting down-ticket spending.

That isn't to say that the small donor efforts by Obama, and by Sanders this round weren't or aren't impressive.

But that also doesn't mean that the well-heeled and willing to support liberal causes have become entirely obsolete. Unless the latter's 4 million donor base is willing to up its average contribution from circa $27 to more like ~$150-200 for the Presidential race, and also donate to DNC, and to congressional campaigns and gubernatorial elections.

 

[Kibbles]

Little Marco seems much more likeable (relatively) than Lyin Ted, I can't believe people vote for that guy. Big Don gotta pull through Maine

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Little Rubio seems much more likeable than Lyin Ted, I can't believe people vote for that guy. Big Don gotta pull through Maine

People want a strongman in these troubling times. Hence the votes for Big Donald and not Little Marco.

 

[TyrantII]

I mean, it's my main criticism of Hillary, that she's beholden to the money of Wall Street, but at the same time, maybe you have to be to win against another Super PAC? I voted for Bernie, but the topic is one I'm conflicted on. I absolutely want Citizen's United gone, but until it's gone is it better to just roll with it and have a PAC?

I'm sure this is an important topic for many, but I don't think it's a new topic for most people, so I'm not sure Bernie bringing it up again helps much at this point.

The Clinton's were big supports of campaign finance reforms in the 90s, but ultimately (like a lot of their policy initiatives) failed due to blow back. Then they turned to the third way as a way of getting policy passed in hostile times and salvaging some of the thing they wanted to get done.

I don't necessarily think taking money from people employed by Wallstreet is terrible. NYC supports liberals and she was their senator. She's supported Warrans reforms and Frank Dodd.

Actions and voting over what ifs is my concern.

I also think to how critical I was of Wheeler as FCC chair, appointed by Obama. And how well he's actually done there, even after being high in the telecom industry for ages.

 

[noshten]

And Republican tax cuts don't put money in lower income earners pockets, but they're still popular. People will not vote for a candidate who is saying "I'm going to raise all of your taxes." It's, for better or worse, poison in a general election.

We shall see - I doubt people who have had 30 years of trickle down economics are going to believe Trump/Cruz idea of taxing rich people less.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Trends change. I feel like people have taken way more interest in presidential politics earlier now compared to 2004 and earlier. It also probably helps that things have gotten way more polarized since 2004, so there are even more voters you know will never change their minds.

So the sample size is basically 2 elections when you look at it like that, and both were generally fairly stable.

I'm more convinced on the polarization point - lowering the amount of potential variance in general election polling would mean the findings aren't as clear-cut of a point - than I am on the "earlier interest" point. If only because you can directly measure the latter via participation in primaries and caucuses - and 2008 aside, nothing looks so abnormally high on that front that it would flip 60 years of consistent findings on their head.

 

[Y2Kev]

Rubio is falling off a cliff...

 

[mo60]

Little Rubio seems much more likeable (relatively) than Lyin Ted, I can't believe people vote for that guy. Big Don gotta pull through Maine

Big Don will win Kentucky and Louisana so it does not really matter. Trump's delegate lead will shrink slightly today.

 

[Dr. Benton Quest]

Rubio is falling off a cliff...

Yeah he's done. Even being beaten by Kasich is some.

Pathetic little Rubio.

 

[danm999]

Rubio is falling off a cliff...

I don't know what idiot told him to make a dick joke.

A dick joke that wasn't even that funny at that.

 

[Pryce]

Lmao. Rubio's going to be dead before Florida.

 

[brainchild]

There is evidence that it's not a winning line of attack though.

He's been ringing this bell since the beginning, and what has it gotten him? A larger delegate deficit than Hillary had against Obama in 08.

I didn't argue otherwise. In fact, I'd agree that it hasn't been helping him WIN, but I wasn't arguing against that point. I was saying that it's impossible to conclude that it wouldn't persuade anyone besides strong Bernie supporters to vote for him, and he needn't be winning in order for that statement to remain true.

 

[CharminUltra]

Super-ish Saturday

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

Cruz getting at least two states is HUGE


Happy to see the end of Rubio at least

 

[User 463088]

We shall see - I doubt people who have had 30 years of trickle down economics are going to believe Trump/Cruz idea of taxing rich people less.

Well, no, we won't see because it's highly doubtful Bernie's going to make it to the General. But, we don't even have to look outside the Democratic primary. In nearly every state, Hillary's won the question on who can best handle health care. (She's also won the economy one too, I believe, although don't quote me on that because I've not gone through all the exit polls right now.)

People are stupid. You have candidate A saying "I'm going to cut your taxes" or candidate B saying "I'm going to raise your taxes....BUT..." they're going to tune out. When you have to explain something, you're losing. Things need to be simple.

 

[danm999]

Is Cruz's lead in Maine holding or is Maine just awful at counting for some reason.

 

[BrutishMrFish]

I never said my opinion was fact. I was simply stating that I don't believe this is a winning line of attack. It's an artful smear, as Hillary called it, but I cannot see it making the in roads he needs to. There are other things that I think could be more effective.

If he wanted to get an advantage, he should have gone after the email scandal from the beginning and added on to that by talking about the speeches. His relative consistency is one of the strengths that he plays to best, but this line of attack simply doesn't work because he waved the emails away. Not that I think the emails or the speeches are very scandalous, but Bernie clearly missed his chance, and his current efforts aren't going to do half as much as they could have.

 

[Macho Madness]

My god the shade: https://twitter.com/KansasDems/status/706243621943529472

 

[Rafa=FedKilla]

Is Cruz's lead in Maine holding or is Maine just awful at counting for some reason.

Rince's check cleared.