I’m in the Bernie camp, however, many others and myself don’t fit into your little paradigm.
I look at the methodologies of polls and apply critical thinking and further research from there.
I’ve seen plenty of polls showing favorable results for Hillary that I agreed with and some polls with questionable methodologies and dynamics that I thought were off-base.
I know far more Bernie supporters than the average person due to the fact I attend rallies and numerous meetings. The majority of those I talk to aren’t the irrational dolts you portend us to be and realize not all polls and demographical dynamics are created equal.
The polls showing Bernie with a solid lead against Trump make sense once one accounts for nationwide, Independent voters being able to vote in the general.
If there’s solid evidence to refute that supposition, I’d sincerely like to see it.
Me, among others. I mailed in my ballot for Sanders yesterday (I live in Oregon), but I would support Trump over Clinton, although a third party vote is still a possibility too.
Clinton - as par for the course - sorely underestimates how appealing “Screw the system” is to her fellow Americans. I wonder if it’s just a Hillary thing - she’s been so effing of the system for her entire life that the fact that the people who are outside the system just don’t register as serious people with a strong platform in her mind.
That could very well be her - and through her, the nation’s - undoing this autumn.
Bernie has not been subjected to a serious attack in the national media, Clinton can’t attack him because she alienates the left of her own party and even Trump is being nice to him because he wants Bernie to keep going after Clinton.
Every politician starts out favourable because people want change and a new politician is a blank slate people can project onto, they only start getting unfavourable once the attack machine starts digging up attacks.
In fact just now I thought to myself how I would attack Sanders if I were a Republican, literally the first thought I had is “hmm, he’s claimed to be a socialist, I wonder if he’s ever said nice things about Castro”.
Do you imagine those poll respondents would be unaware if Clinton had said something similar? Do you think those favourability numbers would be as high if the respondents had seen a few weeks of Sanders saying nice things about Castro?
Sanders gave Castro credit for the good things his government has accomplished while also acknowledging that Cuba is an authoritarian, undemocratic society. Anyone who can’t fathom that isn’t going to vote for someone who calls himself a “Democratic Socialist” anyway.
I think the right has played the “OMG SOCIALISM” thing for so long that the label has finally started to lose its sting for moderate voters.
That’s categorically false and an outright laughable assertion.
Ironically, that’s also a myth perpetuated by the national media itself. When the corporate media isn’t busy ignoring Sanders and his events and speeches, they spend a lot of effort discounting him personally along with his plans, campaign and supporters with despicable, dismissive half-truths and outright lies.
A recent bullshit report came out with completely false numbers against Bernie’s single payer plan and it was plastered all over the place with extremely negative headlines.
This type of behavior has been par for the course for the corporate media for quite some time now if one is to seriously study such things.
Apples and oranges. You’re looking at two different races basically; with different, separate bodies of voters. Trump got 40% of one group, and Sanders 53% of an entirely different group with zero cross over. In absolute terms Trump took 156,245 votes. Sanders took 123,860. If you’re using their performance here to determine who “won” an imaginary contest Sanders lost. Not just in WV, but nation wide, in nearly every contest Trump has more actual votes than Sanders. More than anyone except Hillary (who it should be pointed out actually does have more votes than Sanders in contests where this sort of argument would make sense).
I wouldn’t expect too many people who are anti-political-establishment to have much of a position on the connection between the Church of England and the Monarchy.
There’s actually been a lot of coverage on just that lately. Largely prompted by Sander’s repeated claims that the polling that’s out there now proves he would out perform Trump. As well as the fact that he sincerely hasn’t been fully vetted or broadly attacked yet. Here’s one:
He’s got some dodgy shit in his background. Including some weird statements and writing about sex and kids, and some seriously misogynistic writing from his younger days. I don’t think any of it is as bad as it neccisarily sounds, and its from a long time ago. But its pretty fertile ground for attacks. But there’s more substansive stuff. Like the fact that Bernie actually voted in favor of the crime bill he’s attacked Hillary over, and made some statements in favor of it that sound damn near identical to the ones he was attacking Hillary for.
Actually its not. Hillary hasn’t run a single negative commercial about the guy, and there’s been very little of that from the PACs and what have. Attacks from Hillary herself and surrogates (in not commercial form) have largely been about policies, his record and experience in government (or lack there of), and similar topics. Rather than personal or ideological attacks and muck raking through his past. Most of the criticism/attacks on Bernie have, as you pointed out come from the media. But typically ideologically left wing outlets that aren’t buying what he’s selling. Rather than national level, “mainstream” and supposedly unbiased venues. Frankly its a bit disingenuous to argue that the media is constantly attacking him, while several moments later claiming the media is ignoring him. I realize I haven’t seen you do that, so not an accusation, but its something I see fairly constantly from Bernie’s supporters lately.
Sorry to look like I’m piling on you. But the more I’ve learned about Sanders the more he looks like a hypocrite and political opportunist. He’s building his campaign on moral grandstanding but his background is as full of nonsense as Hillary’s, and is largely built around keeping his head down and minimizing the risk to his senate seat. I find it frustrating and distasteful.
