Print

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

[smirk]

Off from work! How'd the stand-down go?

Crazy on-the-edge Fry stuff

...oh. Well.

Looking forward to the thoughtful and in-depth discussion of these events at this Saturday's Republican debate. Or the next Dem debate. Or, you know, at all ever.

[SalmonGod]

That is definitely some shit.

If by "some shit" you mean "the system doing exactly what it said it would do".

Clinton represents the party much better then Sanders does.  She is more competative in a general.*  The party actors are doing exactly what they are supposed to do.

*if you say she isn't by citing head to head poll before the first attack add against Sanders then we have nothing to talk about.

Yeah, they're doing exactly what's stated in the fine print.  The problem is in typical American fashion, the fine print contradicts the projected spirit of the agreement, and unless we go out of our way to become experts on the agreement by reading that fine print, the spirit of the agreement is all that people are ever taught about voting.  I know that when the general election begins after Clinton is nominated, it's the spirit of that agreement which will be shoved down my throat every minute of every day to try and shame me out of voter apathy.

It's right there in your next statement.  Clinton represents the party.  But I'm not voting for a party.  I'm voting for an individual representative, and that individual is supposed to represent me, not a party.  Or so the bold print leads me to believe.

And the anarchist in me can't help but point out, I never agreed to these fucking terms.  Voting is the only form of negotiation I have with this fine print, and that fine print is written to limit the power of my vote.

[smjjames]

Pretty sure Clinton didn't have an almost 400 superdelegate lead on Obama back in 2008 before voting actually began, nevermind the fact that a lot of them jumped ship and started going for Obama after NH.

I get that it's supposed to prevent shenenighans like what happened in the 1968 dem convention, but this year probably resembles 2000 more than it does 1968.

On the being competitive, the thing is that we know Clinton is competive, hell she's battle scarred (not literally of course) and hardened, but not a whole lot is certain about Sanders competitiveness or electability.

If it comes down to Sanders vs Trump, all conventional widsom about electability and competitiveness should be thrown out the window.

*if you say she isn't by citing head to head poll before the first republican attack ads against Sanders then we have nothing to talk about.

Probably won't happen until they think he is actually a serious contender and likely nominee.

[mainiac]

The problem is that some, maybe most, certainly not all Bernie Sanders fans cant acknowledge that other people can have good reasons for their opinions.  Maybe they want to support the candidate that isn't a downticket liability.  Maybe they want to support the candidate whose budget numbers check out.

If it comes down to Sanders vs Trump, all conventional widsom about electability and competitiveness should be thrown out the window.

Not really.  The conventional wisdom would be pretty simple.  Sanders is at the edge of mainstream.  Trump is not mainstream.  Sanders hold some positions that have historically done poorly at the polls.  Trump holds some positions that historically have done extremely poorly at the polls.  The conventional wisdom would be a Sanders advantage.

[Flying Dice]

That is definitely some shit.

If by "some shit" you mean "the system doing exactly what it said it would do".

Clinton represents the party much better then Sanders does.  She is more competative in a general.*  The party actors are doing exactly what they are supposed to do.

*if you say she isn't by citing head to head poll before the first republican attack ads against Sanders then we have nothing to talk about.

How about averages from this January and February?

Clinton vs. Trump: Clinton +4
Sanders vs. Trump: Sanders +7.7

Clinton vs. Cruz: Cruz +1
Sanders vs. Cruz: Sanders +1.5

Clinton vs. Rubio: Rubio +5
Sanders vs. Rubio: Rubio +1.5

Clinton vs. Carson: Clinton +0.4
Sanders vs. Carson: Sanders +0.5

Clinton vs. Bush: Clinton +2.4
Sanders vs. Bush: Sanders +3.0

[TheBiggerFish]

FD, margins?

[mainiac]

Hey guys, someone remind me real quick.  Is time still linear?

[smjjames]

The problem is that some, maybe most, certainly not all Bernie Sanders fans cant acknowledge that other people can have good reasons for their opinions.  Maybe they want to support the candidate that isn't a downticket liability.  Maybe they want to support the candidate whose budget numbers check out.

FIFY

While I like Sanders and have my dislikes on Clinton, I haven't solidly decided for one or the other. So, I'd be more in the undecided category rather than a bernie fan, just saying.

[TheBiggerFish]

Hey guys, someone remind me real quick.  Is time still linear?

Huh?

[Spehss _]

Heard a radio ad for some guy running for some political position in Texas. Guy was basically running on a Trump platform. Against political correctness, experience as a businessman, against terrorism and "terrorist refugees" and wanting to increase border security and "get action back into politics".

Trumpism is spreading.

[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.

[mainiac]

FIFY

Quite right you are.

[Helgoland]

And the anarchist in me can't help but point out, I never agreed to these fucking terms.  Voting is the only form of negotiation I have with this fine print, and that fine print is written to limit the power of my vote.

You can still go ad start your own party.

*breaks down laughing*

[SalmonGod]

The problem is that Bernie Sanders fans cant acknowledge that other people can have good reasons for their opinions.  Maybe they want to support the candidate that isn't a downticket liability.  Maybe they want to support the candidate whose budget numbers check out.

My issue here has nothing to do with other people's opinions, or my reasons for supporting Sanders.

[mainiac]

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