Clinton and Sanders in a virtual tie, nation wide.

[Barbella]

Not that I'm surprised. Sanders is promising more freebies, so the "gimme" generation is lining up behind him. Hillary also has an "honesty" problem... half of democrats don't trust her as far as they can throw her, not that I blame them...

So where does that leave demos? On the one hand, they have an old socialist who would increase taxes, increase the debt, increase government dependency, and further foster the attitude of many that the world "owes them".

On the other hand, there's Hillary Clinton, whose baggage is so heavy I'm surprised she can get out of bed in the morning.

What to do, what to do? If I were a democrat, I'd pull my hair out...

 

[Raptor]

"Progressives" are extremely bad for America. I wish the worst for those who are enemies of America.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

The Democrat party would have a lot of explaining to do if their nomination were Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist.

I'd expect them to wear their colors, and become the DSP - Democrat Socialist Party. However, even they know socialism is largely a dirty word, or simply an emotional one to younger, un-informed fluffy millennials.

 

[Arkady]

Not that I'm surprised. Sanders is promising more freebies, so the "gimme" generation is lining up behind him. Hillary also has an "honesty" problem... half of democrats don't trust her as far as they can throw her, not that I blame them...

So where does that leave demos? On the one hand, they have an old socialist who would increase taxes, increase the debt, increase government dependency, and further foster the attitude of many that the world "owes them".

On the other hand, there's Hillary Clinton, whose baggage is so heavy I'm surprised she can get out of bed in the morning.

What to do, what to do? If I were a democrat, I'd pull my hair out...

Out of curiosity, what poll are you relying on to say that? Quinnipiac? That had her ahead by only two points, so that's a dead heat. However, she's up by ten in NBC/SurveyMonkey and eight in Morning Consult, which is the newest major poll out. Ipsos/Reuters, which is a bit older, had her up by twelve. Overall it looks like about a seven to eight point lead, average, which isn't a virtual tie. It is awfully close and the momentum has been on Sanders's side, but still not a tie.

Here's my worry: Sanders is currently enjoying the New Hampshire bounce. The only way to keep that going, I think, is to win Nevada, too. That's within reach. But, if he doesn't, the bounce will partly dissolve, and then there will be a bunch of bad news in the coming results. The latest polls have Clinton with a big lead in SC. And then, on March 1, most of the delegates up for grabs are in states where Clinton has a clear polling lead. Sanders will get a landslide in Vermont, and maybe he can pull Massachusetts, but he has yet to show he can be competitive in a state with a larger black population.

I'm really excited by the way Sanders's unexpected success has demonstrated the existence of a sizable constituency demanding an alternative of the center-right/far-right dichotomy of the establishment Democrats and the loony Republicans. I'm hoping that, win or lose Sanders has rewritten the rules of what is possible in American politics. But I'm hesitant to let loose with the wishful thinking and expect him to actually take the nomination.

 

[Arkady]

The Democrat party would have a lot of explaining to do if their nomination were Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist.

I'd expect them to wear their colors, and become the DSP - Democrat Socialist Party. However, even they know socialism is largely a dirty word, or simply an emotional one to younger, un-informed fluffy millennials.

To informed people, the "socialist" label has never been a dirty word. We've seen how democratic socialists are a major factor in government in many of the world's nations that have the highest quality of life. But there are a lot of really provincial people in the US who have never set foot outside the US, unless it be to some American enclave like a military base or some tourist trap. For them, the word "socialism" has traditionally had a lot of emotional freight. Sanders's unexpectedly strong performance suggests there may be some maturation in the electorate going on, at least on the left.

 

[PhilFish]

To informed people, the "socialist" label has never been a dirty word. We've seen how democratic socialists are a major factor in government in many of the world's nations that have the highest quality of life. But there are a lot of really provincial people in the US who have never set foot outside the US, unless it be to some American enclave like a military base or some tourist trap. For them, the word "socialism" has traditionally had a lot of emotional freight. Sanders's unexpectedly strong performance suggests there may be some maturation in the electorate going on, at least on the left.

a fair assessment. methinks the term socialism by and large elicits visions of the Red Army, and Mein Kampf reading assignments amongst such persons..

 

[Mr. Friscus]

To informed people, the "socialist" label has never been a dirty word.

It is to families of people who have died at the hand of extremist socialist regimes. How insensitive of you.

Unless, those lives are to be gladly celebrated to, like Judge Scalia's.

We've seen how democratic socialists are a major factor in government in many of the world's nations that have the highest quality of life.

That rationale is foolish. Crime is a major factor in "the world's nations that have the highest quality of life", but I wouldn't support it just because it exists there.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

a fair assessment. methinks the term socialism by and large elicits visions of the Red Army, and Mein Kampf reading assignments amongst such persons..

Perhaps because they are so compatible in the grand scheme of things.

 

[PhilFish]

Perhaps because they are so compatible in the grand scheme of things.

you figure we'll go the route of conscription and the gulags?

 

[as seen on tv]

given bill and Hillary's deep ties to "established polling organizations", you have to wonder if it's actually that close, or they're just whistling past the graveyard

 

[SW48]

Out of curiosity, what poll are you relying on to say that? Quinnipiac? That had her ahead by only two points, so that's a dead heat. However, she's up by ten in NBC/SurveyMonkey and eight in Morning Consult, which is the newest major poll out. Ipsos/Reuters, which is a bit older, had her up by twelve. Overall it looks like about a seven to eight point lead, average, which isn't a virtual tie. It is awfully close and the momentum has been on Sanders's side, but still not a tie.

Here's my worry: Sanders is currently enjoying the New Hampshire bounce. The only way to keep that going, I think, is to win Nevada, too. That's within reach. But, if he doesn't, the bounce will partly dissolve, and then there will be a bunch of bad news in the coming results. The latest polls have Clinton with a big lead in SC. And then, on March 1, most of the delegates up for grabs are in states where Clinton has a clear polling lead. Sanders will get a landslide in Vermont, and maybe he can pull Massachusetts, but he has yet to show he can be competitive in a state with a larger black population.

I'm really excited by the way Sanders's unexpected success has demonstrated the existence of a sizable constituency demanding an alternative of the center-right/far-right dichotomy of the establishment Democrats and the loony Republicans. I'm hoping that, win or lose Sanders has rewritten the rules of what is possible in American politics. But I'm hesitant to let loose with the wishful thinking and expect him to actually take the nomination.

The winner take all states could sink Sanders and non-Trumpers I think. That is where (if they win) they separate and become uncatchable. But then both Hillary and Trump need to get x number of delegates.

This may be the one time where if Trump AND Sanders ran as independents there would be 4 legitimate candidates all with around 25% of the vote.

 

[Jen]

Not that I'm surprised. Sanders is promising more freebies, so the "gimme" generation is lining up behind him. Hillary also has an "honesty" problem... half of democrats don't trust her as far as they can throw her, not that I blame them...

So where does that leave demos? On the one hand, they have an old socialist who would increase taxes, increase the debt, increase government dependency, and further foster the attitude of many that the world "owes them".

On the other hand, there's Hillary Clinton, whose baggage is so heavy I'm surprised she can get out of bed in the morning.

What to do, what to do? If I were a democrat, I'd pull my hair out...

Sanders was supposed to be a placeholder so that it could look like Hillary had beat the odds and won the nomination instead of being paraded down the aisle like the heir apparent whose turn it was to hold the title.

I'm sure that the Democrat PTB (powers that be) are surprised that a shriveled old socialist could do so well. Never fear.............the fix is in.........Hillary will be the nominee unless she is taken suddenly by another stroke or some illness and has to step aside so that Old Joe Biden and Liz Warren can step in and go the rest of the way.

 

[marvin martian]

Sanders was supposed to be a placeholder so that it could look like Hillary had beat the odds and won the nomination instead of being paraded down the aisle like the heir apparent whose turn it was to hold the title.

I'm sure that the Democrat PTB (powers that be) are surprised that a shriveled old socialist could do so well. Never fear.............the fix is in.........Hillary will be the nominee unless she is taken suddenly by another stroke or some illness and has to step aside so that Old Joe Biden and Liz Warren can step in and go the rest of the way.

Initially it seemed odd that the DNC would let the socialist Sanders run as a Democrat. Then, two things happened.

First, the chairperson of the DNC was unable to distinguish between the DNC platform and the Socialist platform on national television.

Then, second, Sanders turned out not to just be a fall guy set up to give the appearance that Clinton had any competition.

If the Dems had just been true to themselves and skipped the charade altogether, achieving their long-sought goal of a primary ballot with one name on it, this wouldn't have happened at all...

 

[Dawg]

given bill and Hillary's deep ties to "established polling organizations", you have to wonder if it's actually that close, or they're just whistling past the graveyard

Hill and Bill don't care what Polls say..............Super Delegates they already have according to Schultz, all they doing now is going through the actions, they know she is the nom regardless of votes.

Maybe this book when scare SD's......doubtful

http://conservativetribune.com/clinton-ex-hillary-clinton/?

 

[Dawg]

The winner take all states could sink Sanders and non-Trumpers I think. That is where (if they win) they separate and become uncatchable. But then both Hillary and Trump need to get x number of delegates.

This may be the one time where if Trump AND Sanders ran as independents there would be 4 legitimate candidates all with around 25% of the vote.

Hillary already has Super Delegates locked up.................Schultz said that on TV.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bar...uperdelegates-make-sure-party-leaders-elected

 

[Arkady]

Sanders was supposed to be a placeholder so that it could look like Hillary had beat the odds and won the nomination instead of being paraded down the aisle like the heir apparent whose turn it was to hold the title.

I'm sure that the Democrat PTB (powers that be) are surprised that a shriveled old socialist could do so well. Never fear.............the fix is in.........Hillary will be the nominee unless she is taken suddenly by another stroke or some illness and has to step aside so that Old Joe Biden and Liz Warren can step in and go the rest of the way.

What you're seeing on the Democratic side is how primaries are supposed to work. You had a bunch of candidates at first, including several with ample experience and expertise. Eventually, it got boiled down to just two serious contenders, each representing a different vision of the party -- one represents the triangulation strategy and an attention to identity politics, the other represents an appeal to the base and an attention to economic justice. Each is running a strong, substantive, and smart campaign, with only garden-variety nastiness between them, as most of the debates and speeches focus on their different visions for the party's direction. It's nice to see grown-ups engaging with politics in such a productive way. It's such a difference from the GOP, where a bunch of nincompoop are trying outasshole a braying imbecile who has never held political office in his life.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

you figure we'll go the route of conscription and the gulags?

Not in the near future, and certainly I hope not overall.

However, the thought process behind a Bernie Sanders has historically led inevitably to oppressive, strong-armed militant government regimes that have abused their own people to no end.

Who knows, maybe we are "special", but I'll side with history.

 

[Charcat]

Not that I'm surprised. Sanders is promising more freebies, so the "gimme" generation is lining up behind him. Hillary also has an "honesty" problem... half of democrats don't trust her as far as they can throw her, not that I blame them...

So where does that leave demos? On the one hand, they have an old socialist who would increase taxes, increase the debt, increase government dependency, and further foster the attitude of many that the world "owes them".

On the other hand, there's Hillary Clinton, whose baggage is so heavy I'm surprised she can get out of bed in the morning.

What to do, what to do? If I were a democrat, I'd pull my hair out...

My thoughts exactly!

 

[RickWA]

a fair assessment. methinks the term socialism by and large elicits visions of the Red Army, and Mein Kampf reading assignments amongst such persons..

Good grief.

 

[PhilFish]

Good grief.

gads