Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Republican attack ads on Sanders have actually already begun: https://www.google.com/#safe=off&tbs=qdr:w&q=republican+attack+ad+bernie+sanders   https://www.google.com/#q=republican+attack+ad+bernie+sanders&safe=off&tbs=qdr:m&start=0 , they're just not at the same volume as it is between him and Clinton or among the Republicans. And apparently some of the attack ads are Republicans trying to help Sanders, so, it's not quite the standard attack ad I guess.

You know, I wonder if RedKing gets news overlap from SC?

[Loud Whispers]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Full disclosure: I feel weirdly defensive of GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush. I don’t know why. I just hate to see people being personally beaten on in the media and when it comes to Bush, that’s been happening with some frequency.

If the attacks were on Bush’s policy, they’d be fair. Sadly, they’re attacks on his meek nature and all the money he and his donors have sunk into this failing campaign.

The man’s character has been getting a whooping from Trump, sure, but has also been doing a decent job of embarrassing himself on his own. Remember when he asked a crowd gathered to hear him speak in New Hampshire to “please clap” when he finished talking? I was so worked up for him that my coworkers found my palpable distress amusing and now send me “please clap” memes all the time.

Remember when, in one of his recent interviews with his mother, Barbara Bush, he refuted her assertion that he’s too polite by saying, “I’ve gotten better at interrupting, Mom!”? Reader, it broke me.

This most recent example of Bush’s sad campaign ruined my entire night last night. I had to take some time to ruminate and practice a little self-care. I feel ready to share this video with you now. Know that it breaks my heart and that hugging Jeb Bush has now become the number-one goal on my bucket list.

Here is Bush being told by his hosts at a rotary club in New Hampshire that his speaking time had come to a complete end and he needed to get off the stage immediately:

Jeb Bush gets cut off by his own hosts, solidifies status as the saddest candidate in the election.

Posted by HuffPost Politics on Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Pay close attention to the old-timey comedic music and the disheartened look on the candidate’s face as he looks around and eventually just sits down in the crowd of people who were ostensibly gathered to see him. Click over to HuffPost Politics‘s page on Facebook and read the comments. One person describes Bush as “the Eeyore of this entire campaign season.”

Now that I’ve had to watch this again, I’m feeling sad once more. For neither the first nor last time, Bush’s pitiful pitfall has brought down my whole day.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/bush-is-silenced-by-his-own-hosts-during-speech-theyre-kicking-me-out-the-door/

Pretty much my views on Bush distilled to a T. The man was being pushed as a sacrificial lamb, I really just want him to do what's best for him, quit politics and look after his turtles. This savagery upon him is too much for a man so unarmed for politics. Usually when I fault a politician for not being compelled by civic duty it's because they're self-serving Kingmakers, for Jeb he's being forced into something he just doesn't want to do for no benefit of his own...

[mainiac]

I think it's more a self fulfilling prophecy then him being helpless.  His name killed him right out the gate.

[Loud Whispers]

When you see the man putting himself down on stage like an abused child who's convinced themself they're worthless I think it's more than the name, dude is broken

[mainiac]

What should he have done, knifed them?  I think the story doesn't matter so much as the way the media talked about the story.

[smjjames]

And his failed attempts to distance himself from his older brothers presidency didn't help either, tried to prove that he's his own man, but didn't really end up doing that.

I saw in one of the politico articles that SC is the Bush family's 'kill box' (for opponents I assume), which I guess could give him some hope.

[RedKing]

Republican attack ads on Sanders have actually already begun: https://www.google.com/#safe=off&tbs=qdr:w&q=republican+attack+ad+bernie+sanders   https://www.google.com/#q=republican+attack+ad+bernie+sanders&safe=off&tbs=qdr:m&start=0 , they're just not at the same volume as it is between him and Clinton or among the Republicans. And apparently some of the attack ads are Republicans trying to help Sanders, so, it's not quite the standard attack ad I guess.

You know, I wonder if RedKing gets news overlap from SC?

Not sure what you mean by news overlap. Do we get SC news up here? Not often, unless it's something they've done that we can laugh at them about or is something horrific enough to make national news.


Jeb Bush is the Rodney Dangerfield of the candidates.

"I looked up my family tree, and three dogs were using it."
"I could tell that parents hated me. My bath toys were a toaster and a radio."
"I met the Surgeon General, and he offered me a cigarette."

Jeb just needs an awkwardly-fitting tie that he can adjust while he talks.

[Flying Dice]

When are these attack ads you're talking about aired? Because if it's recent enough to post-date polls from last week, you're literally arguing "Sanders has been a preferable candidate to Clinton in head-to-head polls against the Republican field for the whole campaign, but that's definitely changed because of these new attack ads, even though no new poll results have been released!"

FD, margins?

Most of them are ~3.0 points MoE.

Not that that's very relevant in this sort of comparative head-to-head, especially given that Sanders has >1 avg. MoE over Clinton versus each of the likely Republican nominees.

Um, what? He's saying that there are no attack ads which is what makes the head-to-head polling unreliable.

Ah, I gotcha. Except that, as smjjames noted, there are. Additionally, Sanders has made little effort to sell himself (rather than his policy positions), is a socialist running for office in the US, and doesn't have anything like Clinton does for the Right to bulldog on. If we're talking about nebulous difficult-to-quantify effects, he's already outperforming her despite those disadvantages and doesn't have much unique material to target (aside from the general anti-Left stuff), barring any future gaffes or scandals.

I mean, there's plenty to be said about Clinton vs. Sanders, but claiming that she performs better against the GOP field isn't supported by the evidence.

[mainiac]

He's basically in Sanders position but without the popularity.  He needs to win strong quickly to have a chance because time isn't on his side.

[mainiac]

I mean, there's plenty to be said about Clinton vs. Sanders, but claiming that she performs better against the GOP field isn't supported by the evidence.

Gotcha, Nate Silver, Sam Wang, 95% of the democratic leadership and the republican superPacs are all going without evidence.

[SalmonGod]

Yes, I was generalizing from a specific thing to the group.  It was wrong.

I car far less about the generalization than I do being left to wonder if it was even meant to address my last post on the subject of superdelegates?  It felt very non-sequiter...

[mainiac]

It's not non-sequitor.  The superdelegates exist for a reason.  If you are going to bitch about the superdelegates then pointing out why they exist is very on topic.

[smjjames]

When are these attack ads you're talking about aired? Because if it's recent enough to post-date polls from last week, you're literally arguing "Sanders has been a preferable candidate to Clinton in head-to-head polls against the Republican field for the whole campaign, but that's definitely changed because of these new attack ads, even though no new poll results have been released!"

FD, margins?

Most of them are ~3.0 points MoE.

Not that that's very relevant in this sort of comparative head-to-head, especially given that Sanders has >1 avg. MoE over Clinton versus each of the likely Republican nominees.

Um, what? He's saying that there are no attack ads which is what makes the head-to-head polling unreliable.

Ah, I gotcha. Except that, as smjjames noted, there are. Additionally, Sanders has made little effort to sell himself (rather than his policy positions), is a socialist running for office in the US, and doesn't have anything like Clinton does for the Right to bulldog on.

While it's true that Sanders doesn't have anything like emailgate or benghazi to latch onto, he does have the socialist label to latch onto. Only thing though is that the word socialism doesn't have the same baggage as it did in say, 1988 or 1996, so, even that is only going to have limited effect, plus the fact that they keep calling Obama and Hillary socialist/communist which further dillutes the meaning.

re: Superdelegates: If we're going to talk about why they exist, then we're going to have to first look at the aftermath of the 1968 democratic convention because we have to take into context what they were meant to do.

[SalmonGod]

It's not non-sequitor.  The superdelegates exist for a reason.  If you are going to bitch about the superdelegates then pointing out why they exist is very on topic.

You didn't point out why they exist.  Your statement was that Sanders supporters can't acknowledge that others have good reasons for their opinions.  I'm totally at a loss here.

[smjjames]

It's not non-sequitor.  The superdelegates exist for a reason.  If you are going to bitch about the superdelegates then pointing out why they exist is very on topic.

You didn't point out why they exist.  Your statement was that Sanders supporters can't acknowledge that others have good reasons for their opinions.  I'm totally at a loss here.

The statement you're referencing was in response to my post, not yours. Actually, I think it was both to me and you.