Oh wow… the arguments against Sanders and minimum wage hikes are… uh, stunning…
After first complaining that minimum wage was killing jobs in Washington, I responded:
I suppose I should learn the new field of time travel economics?
March 2014: Highest Minimum-Wage State Washington Beats U.S. in Job Creation
July 2014: Washington State’s First Legal Marijuana Shops Set to Open
[quote=“Aloisius, post:83, topic:59394”]
I don’t think he’ll win, but he’s pushing Hillary to the left.
[/quote]I was wondering if your opinion has evolved on that yet?
" … latest polling results indicate a sharply diminished outlook for Clinton. For the first time, she is trailing her top GOP rivals in the critical swing states of Colorado, Iowa and Virginia. And her honesty and trustworthy ratings are in free fall. "
Hillary is the one who may very well ending up blowing it with Republicans. Her Republican-lite brand is fading fast under increasing scrutiny. Hillary’s perpetual pandering and flip-flopping is exposing her as disingenuous and untrustworthy to the electorate at large. And, frankly, if anyone looks at her record alongside her current pandering today, she completely deserves that status.
We’re destroying Clinton in Colorado as time goes on. Other critical states are as well.
Bernie Sanders most certainly can win. Why take a chance on someone like Hillary Clinton who may actually end up losing to an unexpectedly strong Republican candidate?
I also would add that I think Clinton would be more likely to energize the right-wing base and help with their get-out-the-vote efforts, compared to other Dem contenders,. Rush, Fox, etc., have been demonizing her for decades, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the anti-Clinton vote would be significant.
From an article Cory linked:
Like a fixed-gear bike or a collection of vinyl, Sanders is trendily analog and impractical. Says Eprile: "I do hear a lot of people say, ‘Oh, he’s so cool.’ "
Precisely what I would fear in a Clinton ticket. Poster hates her so much they’d be for
God, that wikipedia page looks like a bingo card of Homophobic, Racist, or Ethics Violation.
Hillary could strangle a puppy on live TV, and she’d still get a majority of Democrats to vote for her… proud to do it… convinced the puppy brought it on herself.
[quote=“wynn_james, post:209, topic:59394”]
Hillary could strangle a puppy on live TV, and she’d still get a majority of Democrats to vote for her.
[/quote]That’s untrue. If that was the case, she would have won against Obama.
As time and knowledge of Sanders and his solid record goes on, he is gaining. As time and increased knowledge of Clinton’s flip-flopping and pandering goes on, she is waning. People don’t trust Hillary Clinton for many clear, easy to understand reasons.
Also, please keep in mind that mainstream polls (such as Gallup) are often skewed towards Hillary Clinton and do NOT reflect reality. This is also giving Hillary Clinton and some of her more ardent supporters too much hubris and a false sense of security.
Sanders Surges, Clinton Sags in U.S. Favorability
Sanders is surging higher than that poll implies due to a terribly flawed methodology that doesn’t work properly in 2015.
Their sampling is 50% cellphone and 50% landline respondents. The problem is the electorate isn’t broken up in that manner.
50% of the data is skewed to eliminate many of Sanders most ardent supporters who rent within cities and elsewhere, are lower income and/or are young, etc.
Most adults of voting age who rent apartments/homes do not have a landline. Most adults of voting age who are lower income do not have a landline. There are entire regions of the country where a huge percentage of the population are cellphone only. Most Millennials, by far, do not have a landline, period. This situation is only increasing over time.
Sanders’ surge in these polls this early in race (before we’ve even had any debates) is already impressive, however, it’s even larger than these flawed polls are telling us.
Before I spend time watching a video… what’s your point?
It explains how the electorial college is broken, and how a person with a stupidly low amount of public support can become president because of how the votes work. Not 49% more like… 29%.
Latest national poll shows Bernie Sanders beating Scott Walker, Donald Trump and Jeb Bush
Also FTA:
…Polling out last week shows [Sanders is] the only candidate from either side who has a net favorability rating.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is increasingly becoming a liability. The “he can’t win” meme against Sanders is looking increasingly ridiculous.
And, if the status quo thinks that’s bad for them… They’re in for a goddam hell ride after July 29th.
Meanwhile, the staff at Boing Boing seems really, really focused on Don Tramp and other gimmicks.
UPDATE: Good morning. As of 10:22 AM Colorado time we are now up to 100,196 people. Yes, that’s over one hundred thousand people.
Wallace made a difference, Perot and Nader didn’t much (no matter how much people like to blame him for 2000).
Okay,
Why is the first thing I notice about that map the rather unusually placed event in… Calgary?
Did the Canadians give Alberta to the USA when I wasn’t looking? I could totally understand if they did, because, well, Stephen Harper.
They lost a lot of credibility with me after the climate change denial fiasco. Plus, they’ve been consistently wrong on Sanders over time. I think they embrace conventions too much and aren’t as open to broader dynamics as they should be.
That’s not to say I discount everything they say. They obviously have a good track record (depending upon the issue), but I take a lot of their opinions with a huge grain of salt.
All that said, I think it’s already conventional wisdom that Doneld Tramp (His name is parroted quite enough already on Boing Boing) could hurt Republicans with a third party run.
[quote=“Purplecat, post:218, topic:59394”]
Why is the first thing I notice about that map the rather unusually placed event in… Calgary?
[/quote]Random. It’s been expanded worldwide by popular request for Americans who are currently located overseas. You can click on it and talk to the organizer(s) themselves, if you’d like. It’s very transparent since this is a grassroots movement as apposed to Hillary’s opaque, gimmicky astroturf campaign.
Because he’s an amusing and sad clown who thinks he’s a contender to be president?
[quote=“albill, post:220, topic:59394”]
Because he’s an amusing and sad clown who thinks he’s a contender to be president?
[/quote]My point is that Boing Boing focuses so much on him, but hardly gives someone like Bernie Sanders the time of day. There’s no balance there. It’s sad to see Boing Boing act like other mainstream media outlets instead of something more evolved. I expected better.
I suggest you bring it up with the editors that actually participate in these forums.
