Sid

It's beyond any doubt. For nearly a month the Republicans helped Sanders build a from-scratch foreign affairs entry for his resume. Sanders isn't on any foreign relations committees. Democratic senators who are have been speaking out and writing bills aimed at stopping the Trump/Republican.-supported carnage in the Middle East, but the Republican leadership bypassed all of them to push Sanders in front of the media with Sen. Mike Lee.

I didn't say Russia was promoting Sanders in the title only because, although the Mueller investigation reports Sanders was used by Russia to defeat Democrats, at this point I'm just assuming that, like the Republicans, they're also pursuing exactly the same winning tactic. AGAIN.

Oh, we do know, though, that Repub-Russia have been stomping Elizabeth Warren in every medium. One guess who of the two they're afraid of who they're not.

I share your







Sid

Kewt Kitten on the Keys!

Sick to death of the (non-Democrat) Bernie promotions. As far as I’m concerned, he and people like Nina Turner were a large part of the 2016 problem. I could never support him.

and I suspect once the media starts the "horse race, lead of the week" reporting this will change multiple times.

Week 1: Sanders Is Up, Oh, No he wore a red tie with a blue shirt and voters are aghast.

Week 2: Biden is up, Oh, No he mispronounced the name of a community in which he was speaking and voters are aghast.

Week 3: Warren is up, Oh, No someone noted that she has new glasses and voters are aghast.

Week 4: Harris is up, Oh, No she tripped a bit on a wire coming to the podium to speak and voters are aghast.

Rinse, Repeat, Rinse, Repeat............

approved Democrat emerges stronger after defeat...”

This again?!

edit: Go Beto!

and people, stop re-running the 2016 election

movement that's sweeping this country, Bernie has no equal. You don't even need polls like this to tell you that!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

After all, the only possible reasons for their voting against the most qualified candidate in history were that they were purists and/or misogynists. About 90% of them then voted for her in the general election, but no matter, let's purge them. We can win without them. We'll just spot the Republicans more than 10 million votes and win anyway.

SMH

the now proven facts that lying about Democrats is what got us here, and if calling out liars is “purging”, then there is more to be gained than lost. Look how you ignore that it only took 70,000 people nation-wide to believe the lies about Hillary, it wasn’t 13 million like you are falsely conflating... SMH

they are the most progressive candidate... that's how the majority of voters align themselves on the issues. Bernie would set a very high bar, though I would expect many others to follow his lead.

objectively. And the fact that he only gets about a third of the progressives in this poll is not a great sign for his candidacy.

....conducted by an organization based in Burlington Vermont!

I wish they could publish the IP addresses of the respondents.

With Gabbard moving into a relatively close 4th.

The poll offers this tool:

"Curious how the final results might look with or without specific candidates included in various primary scenarios? Just click on any candidate to remove (or add) them to the results."

Last edited Tue Dec 18, 2018, 03:11 PM - Edit history (1)

...Gillibrad, Abrams, Holder, Merkley, Castro, Landrieu, Murphy, Steyer, Gillum, Patrick, Waters, Garcetti, Delaney, Gutierrez, and "Other"...guess who would be in the lead?

You can click on any candidate and see the impact on the results.

I am not sure how useful it is to remove that many of the candidates. I think they included the tool so that you could see what the results were with one or two candidates not included.

With Sanders out, the results are as indicated above.

Removing other individual candidates does not seem to have as dramatic an impact.

Thanks for the

....the list in the results) I hope your laugh isn't because of some of my idiotic typos, now corrected (funniest to me was "Jerkley" instead of "Merkley"!!)

guess who would still be in the lead!

Jerkley isn't a bad one for anyone who happens not to like him.

It would have been cool had they asked second, third choice ...-- like some Iowa caucus polls near the caucus time have done in the past. Then, as someone removes a candidate, his/her counts could be realocated. Something like that would be even more useful in a poll that is targeted to a broader part of the Democratic party.

That does not seem to be the case.

....quelle surprise.

It's a predictable and meaningless "poll". Little more than a reinforcing daily affirmation among like-minded individuals.

....with 93% of the votes. That 7% is one cousin who has been estranged from the family for 20 years.

Buckle up Beto, Bernie, et. al.

This isn't a matter of opinion. Your post is simply not truthful, as the briefest bit of research reveals.

Here's the opening paragraph of the "Democracy for America" article on Wikipedia (my emphasis):

They WERE a surrogate for Sanders in 2016, soliciting funds for him using a "BernieSanders" email address using their "dfa" domain. I wish I'd saved some of the emails.

As far as can be discerned from your post, your reasoning is:
1. I don't like Bernie Sanders.
2. My opposition to Bernie Sanders is so manifestly correct that no reasonable person making an independent judgment could possibly disagree with me.
3. DFA disagreed with me.
4. Therefore, DFA did not make an independent judgment, but must have somehow become Bernie Sanders's own surrogate organization.

You are attacking a progressive organization with a million members. If you have any actual support for your "surrogate organization" charge, feel free to present it. Otherwise, I for one will continue to disagree with you, based on my disagreement with premise (2) above.

So I'm now at the point of drawing inferences from your failure to do so.

Is that proof that Dean didn’t like Sanders? What is that “proof” of?? These proof expeditions are just a diversion.

I can certainly understand your reliance on brief searches though. It's much more convenient than in-depth research.

NT

Damn that Bernie Sanders tricking Howard Dean in to creating DFA in his own home state!

But, can he turn into a Democrat?! Sure votes like one!!

The anti-Bernie zealotry is leading to a Trumpian disregard for facts. I know those are harsh words but if the shoe fits....

As your excerpt states, NNU -- like many labor unions, corporations, and NGOs -- has a PAC. That doesn't mean that it is a PAC, still less that it's a "Sanders PAC" (or that it's a Sanders "surrogate organization", to put it in the context of this subthread).

You could have found the information in the very article you link, if you had begun at the beginning instead of just cherry-picking for any mention of Bernie Sanders. Right at the top, your own source states:

NT

...and is no longer associated with DFA at all.

....under the democracyforamerica.com domain?

Maybe you could ask the staff at Democracy for America.

https://www.democracyforamerica.com/site/staff

....in December 2015, the day after Sanders' IT people accessed the DNC database, pleading for money.

I wonder where they got my email address? Certainly not from me!

to tell them to Get Lost.

....they started the day after the DNC breach, first one or two a day, increasing to three, four, and more in the spring, and stopped toward the end of July 2016.

Very curious timing from beginning to end.

...rendering it virtually useless.

Link to tweet

run NON-Democrat Bernie Sanders. Good gawd people. Do you EVER learn?

I'd be very surprised if he gets the nomination. But I'd be even more surprised if, once nominated, he lost to Trump. Match up polls had him at 10%-15% ahead of Trump quite consistently (the same polls always put Clinton at 3-5% ahead of Trump). Bernie's not changed much since then (the duration of his political consistency is one of his strongest points). And a lot of what he warned us about has since come true.

California. Two election cycles now, he and his groups have lost here. If you can’t win California, then nationally is impossible. We need to quit spreading these falsehoods.

Winning in California among exclusively Democratic voters is not comparable to running nationwide among the general populace. It's drawing from two radically different population profiles.

Like, you understand that Democratic voters are not a representative sample of general election voters, right?

Just so we can get back to discussing facts, here's how the Trump v. Sanders match up looked in the summer of 2016

(Sanders +10.4)-RCP Average - 5/6 - 6/5 -.- -- - - - Sanders - 49.7 - Trump - 39.3
(Sanders +10) -. IBD/TIPP - - - -. 5/31- 6/5 .- - -- - - Sanders - 49 - - Trump - 39
(Sanders +09) -. Quinnipiac - 5/24-5/30 - - - - - - - - - Sanders - 48 - - Trump - 39
(Sanders +15) -. NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl- 5/15-5/19 - - Sanders - 54 - - Trump - 39
(Sanders +13) -. CBS News/NY Times- 5/13-5/17 - - - Sanders - 51 - - Trump - 38
(Sanders +04) -. FOX News - - - - 5/14-5/17 - - - -- - Sanders - 46 - - Trump - 42
(Sanders +11) -. PPP (D) - - - - - - 5/6 - 5/9 - - - - - - Sanders - 50 - - Trump - 39


And you'll notice that's significantly different than how the Trump v. Clinton preference looked at the same time

Clinton +1.7 -RCP Average - 5/6 - 6/5 - - - - - - Clinton - 43.8 - - Trump - 42.1
Clinton +3 - Economist/YouGov 6/2 - 6/5 - - - - - - Clinton - 44 - - Trump - 41
Clinton +5 - IBD/TIPP 5/31 - 6/5 - - - - - - - - - - - Clinton - 45 - - Trump - 40
Clinton +1 - Rasmussen Reports - 5/31 - 6/1 - -- - Clinton - 39 - - Trump - 38
Clinton +4 - Quinnipiac - 5/24 - 5/30 - - - - - - -- - Clinton - 45 - - Trump - 41
Clinton +1 - Rasmussen Reports - 5/23 - 5/24 - - - Clinton - 40 - - Trump - 39
Trump. +2 - ABC News/Wash Post - 5/16 - 5/19 - - Clinton - 44 - - Trump - 46
Clinton +3 - NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl - 5/15 - 5/19 - Clinton - 46 - - Trump - 43
Trump. +5 - Rasmussen Reports - 5/17 - 5/18 - - - Clinton - 37 - - Trump - 42
Trump. +3 - FOX News - 5/14 - 5/17 - - - - - - - - - Clinton - 42 - - Trump - 45
Clinton +6 - CBS News/NY Times - 5/13 - 5/17 -- - Clinton - 47 - - Trump - 41
Clinton +2 - Gravis* - - - - 5/10 - 5/10 - - - -- - - - Clinton - 50 - - Trump - 48
Clinton +6 - PPP (D) - - - - 5/6 - 5/9 - - - - - - - - - Clinton - 47 - - Trump - 41

.
So your argument isn't with me. You're arguing against the facts

He lost in the most progressive state. Twice now.

In what other year did Bernie lose California? He only lost it once, 2016. What else are you thinking of?

With all due respect, when you say "polls aren't facts", you're just making stuff up. Everyone looks at polls. They're pretty accurate predictors of electoral performance. Candidates spend millions of dollars on them because they are pretty accurate. Good pollsters use scientific rigorous research methodologies to get their results.

Trust me, if the polls supported your arguments, you'd be glad to cite them. And that'd be effective argumentation because polling is a science and I take facts seriously. I'm sad that you don't.

Vermont doesn’t have anything in his platform/- single payer, free college, $15/min wage , etc etc. Vermont has about 300,000 active voters, a total population of about 600,000. It is obviously not the most progressive state. California has literally tens of millions of voters— Bernie lost here.

His groups tried to oust Feinstein and lost. Too bad. Some old polls do not take precedence over actual votes. He didn’t even win in California, the most progressive state.

How are you unable to see your own logical fallacy? Let me introduce you to more facts.

Clinton lost Oregon & Washington in the primaries, but won them in the general election

(both states are more progressive than California, by the way)

votes. If he couldn’t even convince very progressive voters in the must progressive state, then your old polls don’t matter. C’mon now!

edit, not to mention the obvious and very very very old old old news that those polls were bogus because Bernie had not been vetted. Old old very outdated talking point there.

edit: lol at the caucus states and you misstated Washington, which Clinton won with actual votes, not caucus shenanigans. I won’t bother with the rest ...

Oh yes, maybe cause you're arguing against facts.

Go by your own logic. If Clinton won the Florida primary, why didn't she win Florida in November? If she won the Pennsylvania primary, why didn't she win Pennsylvania? Hell, going by the argument you make, why didn't she win Texas if she won that primary?

I know you're wanting to ignore the truth shown by the polling data... that many of the same people who would've voted for Sanders ended up not voting for Clinton (and some may have even voted for Trump!). The problem is that Clinton didn't expand out of the Democratic base. We see clear evidence that Bernie did draw from a significantly larger base than Clinton.

And at least I got you to drop your ignorant argument about how a party votes in the primary has nothing to do with how it votes in the general election. So at least I taught you something.

(Seriously, what was the relevance of that red herring? Were you going to suggest Sanders would have lost California to Trump? At least you figure out that that would be ridiculous.)


By the way, what's you source on saying "Clinton won Washington with actual votes, not caucus shenanigans"?
The caucus results were Bernie Sanders - 72.7% vs Hillary Clinton - 27.1%

Are you telling me that she got a clean majority in the headcount, but still managed to lose 3-to-1 in the final outcome that mattered?
Gee, that sounds familiar. You'll have to show me where you get these "facts" cause they sound like the same horse pucky you've been flinging all thread long.

of time to trot out old old old and inconsequential polls that mean absolutely nothing. They mean nothing, they were shown to be about a time when Sanders was not vetted and I see you ignore the facts about that.

You are also skipping over entirely the sabotage done to Clinton by the Russian hacking, which is actual news now , and instead cling to some bogus polls. Watch the current news and then you’ll see why your comparisons are not up to speed with the facts we now know about the Russian interference.

And I haven’t changed or dropped anything, lol. What a bizarre statement. How absurd. If you can’t win in California, then claiming you can win nationwide is ridiculous.

Of course, given Bernie's energy level, he would cross-cross the country non-stop and wouldn't take any states for granted.

Divide and conquer!! That's what RUSSIA wants AGAIN!! Common people only a DEMOCRAT keep saying this!! only a DEMOCRAT!!! THAT is the ONLY way we win in 2020!!!

....on Russian interference.

I wonder how many respondents to this online poll have St. Petersburg IP addresses?

It's him that insists on not being a Democrat any other time.

He has made that very clear.

No one said anything about him running as a 3rd party candidate.

Many of us think it's bad taste and bad manners to only join the party when he needs their infrastructure, money and media machines.

Seem to remember him promising that once upon a time.

But yes, if he does not wish to be a Democrat he should not run as a Democrat.

Pretty fucking simple.

Sanders is not a threat as a third party candidate and he knows it or he would fucking do it.

blame Jill Stein for Clinton's loss, and you think Sanders wouldn't split the progressive and democratic vote more than Stein? Please don't be so intentionally obtuse.

I know what they do. But he doesn't stand a chance to win 3rd party and he knows it. Otherwise he would do it. He has no problem playing the spoiler.

commenting as if you refuse to accept the realities of what was done to harm our candidate and it does sound intentional at this point. It’s all over the news —again—all over the news. Your commitment to intentionally disregard what is common knowledge is rather curious.

that people need to prove to you when they are already known and are current huge news/common knowledge. It’s Flynn day today. A judge just about called him a traitor and you are still asking for proof of harm done. Unreal!

It is obviously a distraction. We already know what harm was done to Hillary by three opposition campaigns that were helped by Russia.

It’s Flynn sentencing day today. All over the news.

There are two years of news articles about the Mueller indictments and the harm done to our Democratic candidate. You asking for a sentence is absurd, but so is the insistence that none of this is happening when it’s all over the news.

to Sanders campaign from Russia never happened. We know from the Mueller indictments that 3 opposition campaigns were helped by Russia because of the attacks on Hillary. People are indicted/going to jail.

You should read the indictments instead of pretending that nothing happened and continually trying to undercut facts. We know it only took about 75,000 nationally to influence against Hillary. Your post 104 is asking for proof of that which we already have -/ read the Mueller indictments.

This is not about your obvious and stubborn refusal to accept the facts that are known to us all now. They helped Sanders because it helped damage Clinton. What ridiculous semantics. Three opposition campaigns against Hillary were helped — there was just yet another big juicy article about that yesterday on this website.

Your distractions are only proof that this denial is intentional and it really is not working. Read the Mueller indictments.

Edit: and look at your DNC diversion, as that had been found to be yet another head fake.

that their negative attitude could result in a third-party run. That would be a disaster for our eventual nominee!!

DFA solicited respondents via twitter (I posted that tweet elsewhere here). We don't even know if all of those who voted were even Americans or how many respondents voted more than once.

It serves no purpose whatsoever in the real world.