Voting for the candidate that doesn’t represent your ideology out of promoted fear of some other candidate is now the preferred deathmarch of democracy. You drummer boy you.
I just wish he’d fucking die, already. Mind you, Jerry Hall, rich old dude. Might not be long…
Yes, and if she wins she’ll have to be at least as tough on the .1% and the financial fraudsters as Obama has been.
So with no data, and disregarding the data present, you’re only really referencing your bias.
BTW I’m a member of DA too, and I cancel out your vote for corporatism with my vote for people.
There isn’t a one to one correlation between chance (odds) of getting the nomination and polling percentage. Wouldn’t it be best described as something or a log or exponential nature?
The more abstract example: O’Malley may be polling 2-3% but the odds of him getting the nomination are a hair above 0. And a realistic example: in the general election, look at examples like 1988, etc (disclaimer: I’m looking up examples as writing this, it is not just rolling off the top of my head). Bush only took about 53.5% of the votes, but took home 80% of the EC.
So, in November, when the polling was running at about 55-30, Sanders really had a sliver above 0% chance of taking the nomination based on the current environment at that time.
There are some remarkable trends in the polling percentages though, yeah?
I wonder why you have nay to say about those?
and also the odds that you give him, 30%, got that.
I think there are additional facts to consider, lately. I hope news travels faster than your vote.
Apologies if it’s already been posted, but The Nation magazine just endorsed Bernie – only the third time they’ve ever endorsed any candidate at all in 150 years.
Well, yeah, I said from the outset that it’s my opinion!
With Obama, I think he regrets letting the hostage takers off the hook, but he did (mistakenly) believe that the other party would act like grownups instead of throwing a tantrum.
Forecasting election and primary winners is a tricky business and few people have shown to be good at it long term. Someone who has succeeded pretty well at this is over the past couple US elections is Nate Silver. His website, 538.com currently gives Sanders a 34% chance of winning the Iowa primary based on state polls alone - however, he makes a range of predictions and 50% falls within the range of possible outcomes. The most likely number drops to 18% though if he includes national polls and endorsements in the models. Apparently endorsements are a good predictor, and Clinton is way ahead in this department. What is clear is that Sanders is gaining. People can argue through the night over whether it will be enough.
I didn’t say anything about trends, nor did I voice anything about my thoughts on what fnordius said.
I was specifically making a comment about how an aspect like 40% polling for Bernie really means that if those polls indicated results today, then 40% is a losing amount of the vote, 100% of the time (in a case where you have 2 candidates).
Based on trends, yes I think Bernie has momentum which is very important and could very well continue to carry though.
Now I’m a math person here, and if offered [legal] odds 30% vs 70%, meaning that a $100 wager would pay out $333 (my initial $100 plus the other person’s input) then I’d be thinking pretty hard right now about it. If I was an online gambling person, and the spread was a lot closer, I’d be considering because apparently it is running above that (Bernie at +400).
The only way this happens is if there is a sign that the left wing of the Democratic Party will just stay home on election night and let the republican nominee/republican congressional candidates walk to victory. It’s democracy’s infernal problem - somebody has to win all the marbles, so there is centre-ward pressure and that distorts the actual diversity of opinion. Sanders supporters face the choice of supporting someone they dislike (Clinton) vs. someone they really dislike (any Republican).
This just happened in Canada, where it is arguable that people who generally sit on the left of the spectrum voted for the traditionally centrist Liberal Party in droves, simply because they didn’t want to see the Conservatives and Stephen Harper win (although it’s also arguable that the Liberals out-flanked the traditionally socialist NDP on the left).
None of the polls in Iowa have Sanders over 50%… Quinnipac is the closest at 49%.
I’m interested to hear your logic as to why Rubio or Trump would be a better president than Clinton if Sanders doesn’t win the Democratic nomination? Or are you saying you just wouldn’t vote?
You do make good points, so I will elaborate in that I think one trend that will continue is one we saw in the debates, where Sanders and Clinton just as much emphasised how alike they were and how much they would support the other, that my thought was that Ms. Clinton would extend a hand to Sanders delegates before the convention. Assuming she wins, that is, which I do.
I think yours is a really good point, but I’m not sure it applies here.
I don’t think @fnordius is saying that people should vote Clinton in the primaries because s/he doesn’t think Sanders could beat the Republican candidate.
You are correct there. I am stating my own hunch that Clinton will win the candidacy, not that people should vote for her. It’s my hunch, since I like her better and I know other Democratic primary voters who prefer her.
Both democratic candidates (sorry, Martin!) are excellent candidates for POTUS. I just like Clinton a wee bit better. (EDIT: my Sanders supporting friends are of a similar sentiment, that they like Sanders better, but think Hillary is also a good candidate)
Could you clarify (or maybe summarize) why you feel that way? Is it just because you think she has a better chance than Sanders does of beating a Republican, or ?
She supports foreign wars, drone assassinations, and Gitmo, along with being in the pocket of corporate interests…
Should I be getting warm fuzzies over Clinton’s corporatist choices?
I’m not supporting either. I’m not voting for Clinton and I reject that idea that this means I’m supporting the GOP. That’s bullshit.
No, it’s in there, couched in the divisive & pervasive language of fear. Here we see that if you care about what Sanders supports you’ll vote Clinton or you may end up with The Other Guy. Settle or Bedeviled, in short.
Status Quo supporters are some of the best at telling you to be reasonable, or you’ll get what you’ve got coming.