I wonder if we need more debates to pump up Hillary's numbers even higher?

And it's the reality of the corporate owned media that controls the message and you're buying it.

is a person who has not followed his decades-long career and is unfamiliar with the man.

Sam

But guess what? I'm not hearing Sanders people say that anymore. I wonder why?...

https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/more-debates

Sign the petition
We Need More Democratic Debates

I know, and you know, that the best chance for this country is discussing the issues that matter. Republicans aren’t going to do it, so we need more Democratic debates — more than the 4 scheduled by the DNC before the Iowa Caucuses.

And I know that if Secretary Clinton wants more debates, we’ll get them.

Sign my petition and tell Secretary Clinton to encourage the Democratic National Committee to schedule more debates before the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire primary in February and to allow important constituencies within the Democratic Party to host their own debates.

Sam

debates between the two parties' nominees are what we will need. There are lightyears between all of the dems currently running and sny of the Republicans.

hillary won...get used to it.

might get blocked by an HRC drone.

OT: Have you been watching the new series that started a few weeks ago?

Catching up wouldn't take that long on a binge even if you waited until after the start of the new year.

Sanders is much more trustworthy and I'm all for more debates.

I'll only vote for Hillary if I've only got RepubliCONS to choose from.

....in last week's debate many people think more debates will do more harm than good.

One observation is that when Clinton spent the spring meeting voters in small focus groups and town halls she was being criticized, they said she should do more rallies like Sanders had been doing.

Now, after the first debate and with the turn in the polls, Sanders has announced that he'll begin doing small focus groups and town hall meetings.

It's a microcosm of Sanders' legislative career - he's a follower, not a leader.

Hillary has done the small focus groups to hear what the people wanted. Now that she has listened to the people I think in a few months she will move into the big rallies.

GO HILLARY!

nt

Last edited Wed Oct 21, 2015, 01:08 AM - Edit history (1)

From "The Nation" 9/14/15

A cover article on Hillary Clinton. It starts off with a 1979 Television interview (that Buzzfeed recently uncovered) with Hillary Rodham (she didn't take the Clinton name until later, under pressure) who had just become the first lady of Arkansas.

[font color = red]ETA: The full interview (both text and video)[/font] is at http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/hillary-clinton-1979
The segment discussed above begins at 21:13

and as phony as a $3 bill.

At about 1:00 the nodding part is all over and they just blather on and on about politics (just plain old insipid blather) so no need to watch beyond 1:00. They claim it isn't doctored video (presumably meaning that its not on a loop and there isn't any repetition of segments, but that's just a guess on my part on what they mean. I haven't found any repeats, and neither has anyone else -- I've posted this about 3 times before).

Sanders leads by far.

I know this is purely anecdotal; but, while I, personally, know 50+ people that have worked with HRC, or encountered HRC in their work ... every one of them have positive things to say about her ... I only know two that have worked with Bernie ... neither one of them were particularly glowing in their assessment.

This is the message from corporate media, bought and paid for. The 1%. They give him no air time, and are going to try everything to stop him. This is kinda way below the belt, though.

Everyone knows he's the most trustworthy, and won the debate.

Personally, I expected this.

So this is really no big deal. His name is getting recognition, and there's still a long way to go.

He's been on Meet the Press and Face the Nation a zillion times; he's had 3 or 4 (positive) front-page stories in the New York Times (and others in the Washington Post and other places); his face was on the cover of Time magazine. He's mentioned every time there is discussion of the Democratic race on the nightly news. And anyone who has watched a late-night tv talk show or Saturday Night Live knows who he is.

This excuse is getting old. It's starting to sound at once whining and silly. And that doesn't help him.

I'm guessing no one is noticing the lack of coverage, but you and me.

I recently read an article on DU that really got into the detail about how CNN is hammering Bernie. They even shut down his Bernie2016Tv site.

"No air time" for Sanders? Other than his near-constant TV appearances, and cover stories in articles and newspapers?

Bernie is getting more air time. Webb nailed it. It's all about the unfair air time, Hilliary vs all of them. The debates proved it.

Last edited Tue Oct 20, 2015, 11:24 PM - Edit history (1)

Bif, Pow, Ouch,

Here's the video itself
Oh, start at about 3:00. But the goody above starts at 3:42.

Type in sniper fire and Hillary. I will still vote for her if she is the ONLY choice come November 2016, but she is not trustworthy IMO. Bernie tells it like it is, and I find this poll to be ridiculous. One can't help but think of lies when talking about the Clintons.

but I don't personally don't find her trustworthy, either.

One is, even though the poll shows them about equally trustrorthy among Dems (within MOE), as the article indicates, HRC has a bigger trustworthy issue with the voting population at large than with Dems (as to be expected), BS would probably do better there. It might seem that that's moot at the primary level, but many states do have open primaries, so a poll of Dems doesn't necessarily include everyone who will be voting in the Dem primaries.

Also, if this is like another poll discussed recently, they may not have factored in that BS is still unknown or not well known by a good percentage of Dems (I know, it seems impossible to believe to people on forums like this)... 20-something percent. I can't tell from the article, but unless they asked the trustworthy question only to people who said they were familiar with both candidates, then the fact that many Dems have yet to form much of an opinion about BS would skew the results more toward HRC.

She's not honest at all, and that's a fact.

Here's the actual poll:
http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1172a2TheDemocraticContest.pdf

Missing from the coverage: Any hard numbers beyond overall number of respondents (1001) and the number that "lean Democratic". No need to actually find out how many are actually registered Democratic and thus can vote in most primaries/caucuses.

Age breakdown? You don't need to know. Over 50 or under 50 is all you need. It's not like there's a massive difference in support by age group. They didn't even bother providing the percentage of land line versus cell phone, much less number.

It's Number 1 thing they have all said...they do not trust her.

You'd think people would wise up after the Iraq War and the revelations this week based on Hillary's e-mails that Blair and Bush conspired to organize the selling of that sick and illegal war just over a year after Bush took office.

Our press does not dare tell Americans the truth, that is the whole story about what is going on.

What a dirty, lying bunch.

Hillary is very good at talking out of both sides of her mouth. She has a large staff that prepares her speeches for her -- which she reads word by word.

Bernie talks from notes and from his heart. But the press grinds and pastes Bernie's words to make them into something they are not.

Bernie will win, however, because the Clintons are profoundly dishonest and deeply disinterested in solving the problems of the American people. They prefer to hob-nob with the wealthiest in our country, the oligarchs. It's just a matter of time until the American people realize that if they want a fair deal in life, it's Bernie or nothing.

Hillary is Republican lite. She thinks that the wealthiest, most greedy people in our country will suddenly be saved and start sharing their wealth with the American people. That's not how it will work.

We the people have to impose taxes on the wealthy if we want our children to graduate from college without mountains of death, if we want to lift the cap to better fund Social Security and if we want all the other policies we need to make our country a fair place to live.

Any who supports her is going to say they "trust" her more. Duh!

can fall for BS too it seems. Our goddess will save us! Where is HRC on Israel/Palestine anyway? Social Security? She is a corporate hack. Money from prison lobbyists? Citi? Please. She represents the 1%

because he has almost no track record of doing so in Congress. He had a chance to lead on the Vermont single payer and shrunk away and disappeared while it died on the vine.

I trust Hillary to deliver more of her proposals.

Yes, I know ... Bernie is the "Amendment King" (i.e., takes a bad bill, that is bound to pass, and makes it marginally better); but, I cannot ignore that EVERYTHING that he bases his campaign on, either came about, or got worse, during his tenure in Congress.

2005 from the Rolling Stone.

Bernie took a Rolling Stone reporter on a tour of Congress.

It's an amazing, fascinating article. It's what we are up against.

It describes how Congress works.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-horror-show-that-is-congress-20050825?page=6

Congress is basically a Hell-hole of corruption.

You have to read the article to understand why I say that.

Enjoy.

Last edited Wed Oct 21, 2015, 02:13 AM - Edit history (1)

I can't think of more disastrous years in the last 100 years or so other than the Great Depression - WW II, and the other major war years: WWI, Korean War, and Vietnam War.

A really quick search revealed that she sponsor and got passed:

and,



and,



and,



Please post a list, quick searched or otherwise, of the legislation Bernie sponsored and got passed during his congressional tenure ... you know ... because the post I was responding to said:

I have been hearing she's such a warmonger.

and very few other spaces.

Bernie is an honest man, and a clean player. He is not about amassing personal wealth, and he did not come to Congress a wealthy man or the husband of a wealthy woman.

He walks the narrow path between the corruption that is the rule in Congress and all of our government and getting done what is possible. Remember, this is the Congress that is now completely absorbed in defunding Planned Parenthood and holding our government hostage to the effort if all else fails. Remember, Congress voted for the Iraq War Resolution while Bernie and a few other less gullible, more idealistic members refused to go along to get along. In the extremely corrupt Congress that we now have, Bernie has managed to achieve some pretty remarkable and very difficult things.

Bernie Sanders, the wide-eyed socialist running for president in 2016, just happened to produce one of the few -- and perhaps the largest -- bipartisan legislative breakthroughs in the last Congress.

"I'm a pragmatist," Sanders said in an interview with The Huffington Post. "If I was a writer or paid to go around giving speeches, then that is something I could do. But I was elected by the people of Vermont to be their elected representative in Washington. And that requires me to shape and pass legislation.”

Few people think of Sanders this way. His reputation -- reinforced by his firebrand speeches, rumpled suits and Dr. Emmett Brown hair -- is that of an uncompromising ideologue. And he often plays the part. He's been virulently opposed to Trade Promotion Authority for years and has an unbending view of Social Security: it should be expanded, not cut. This past week, he indicated on "Meet The Press" that he'd support a bill reforming the NSA's bulk data collection program, even if he thought it didn't go far enough. Days later, he voted against it.

But those who work with him in Congress see Sanders differently. Miller called him a "realist" whose inability to play coy was refreshing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/04/bernie-sanders-2016_n_7514328.html

Some of Bernie's accomplishments. Finally, with John McCain, getting a reorganization of the underfunded, hated-because-it-is-socialist-and-provides-little-profit-to-for-profit-insurance-companies Veterans' Administration, a reorganization that, while not perfect, is making the Veterans' Hospitals more responsive to veterans. My husband is a veteran so I know that the hospitals are working hard to improve their game. It isn't easy because the budget is limited.

Bernie proposes amendments and gets some of them passed. Bernie is not to blame for Congress' terrible amount of corruption and the failure to do the right things
Here is an article on how Congress works.

Our Congress is probably one of the most corrupt places on earth.

The idea of hiring Bernie as our president is to, hopefully, at least alert the public to the extent of the corruption. I want Bernie to appoint our next attorney general and our next Supreme Court justices. We need a strong contingent in D.C. that will fight this ongoing corruption.

(So that you understand the context of the following article, you need to know that the author of this article refers to Bernie as "the amendment king.&quot

You really must read the 2005 article I quote form below. It may open your eyes as to how Congress and our government work. It's pretty sickening, and Hillary will not change it. She cannot change it. She is part of it.

The article describes the process that has led to so much waste of money, the outsourcing of American jobs and the corporate-governed country that we live in.

Please read this in its entirety. It is very well written and should hold your attention.

. . . .

Sanders seems to take it strangely in stride. After a month of watching him and other members. I get the strong impression that even the idealists in Congress have learned to accept the body on its own terms. Congress isn't the steady assembly line of consensus policy ideas it's sold as, but a kind of permanent emergency in which a majority of members work day and night to burgle the national treasure and burn the Constitution. A largely castrated minority tries, Alamo-style, to slow them down – but in the end spends most of its time beating calculated retreats and making loose plans to fight another day.

Taken all together, the whole thing is an ingenious system for inhibiting progress and the popular will. The deck is stacked just enough to make sure that nothing ever changes. But just enough is left to chance to make sure that hope never completely dies out. And who knows, maybe it evolved that way for a reason.

"It's funny," Sanders says. "When I first came to Congress, I'd been mayor of Burlington, Vermont – a professional politician. And I didn't know any of this. I assumed that if you get majorities in both houses, you win. I figured, it's democracy, right?"

Well, that's what they call it, anyway.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-horror-show-that-is-congress-20050825?page=6

Thanks for giving me the chance to show you what we are up against, what Bernie is up against and why the statement you make is irrelevant to the real problems we are up against.

What good is it to put a person in the White House who can "get things done" if those things that can be gotten done in the D.C. culture of utter corruption are not worth doing.

Hillary thinks she can somehow do good things in that putrid culture. She can't. No one can't. We have to clean it up. The first step is to get money and corporations out of Congress and our government. Only after we have done that can anyone get the things done that need to be done for the American people.

The stupid is strong. Geezuz.

Last edited Wed Oct 21, 2015, 02:27 AM - Edit history (1)

of the likely voters

Do Washington Post and ABC have a history of bad polling?

SMH.

One thing that comes to mind is that perhaps Bernie supporters are notably more likely to be cell-phone-only people, and thus significantly less accessible to pollsters.

Is here!

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2274

or was the chump. Do you really need a poll to figure out if someone is honest, like lets talk in the terms of personally.

Senators Sanders only real problem is that not that many people know who or what he stands for and that many others would like to keep it that way.

And then another way it seems that people like to look at it is " Better the Devil you know than the one you don't "

The headline:

"Democrats think Hillary Clinton is more trustworthy than Bernie Sanders"

Then, in the article:

"It's certainly within the margin of error, mind you, meaning that it's probably safer to say that the two are viewed as about equally trustworthy."

I guess "Democrats think Clinton and Sanders are equally trustworthy" just isn't a catchy headline.

Then there is this:

"Some number of Democrats think Sanders is more trustworthy, but still plan to vote for Clinton."

I just don't get that.

Million fewer of them, thanks to Hillary. So there's that.

Note if TWO questions were asked - Do you think HRC is trustworthy AND Do you think Sanders is trustworthy -- you could get a different picture (as happens in MANY polls that are done this way.) Because those polls are asked to chose between them, they can not say both are trustworthy. I assume, human nature being what it is, NO ONE already committed to either selected the other. It really is not an objective (or arguably even a subjective) measurement of relative honesty.

that leaves who? ..

If voters in this poll love Hillary, Goldman Sachs, et. al. they certainly don't need to hear from a Democrat like me ...

But both are at about 40%.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484

The difference is that people know Hillary. A lot of people don't know who Bernie is. Hard to "trust" an unknown.

Hillary and Sanders want to get elected. Both are politicians. Most of what they say they either don't plan to do or don't have the power to do. This is true of every politician in U.S. elections.

I think Hillary has a better chance, though. It's better than a Republican getting in by a long shot.

And that includes Bill Clinton, and Barrack Obama.

Hilary changes positions faster than anyone I've ever seen running for office.

I thought so a year ago and I still think so now. Unlike many here who spend a considerable amount of time bashing Hillary, I don't think poorly of Sanders. I just think that he's too Left leaning to win in a general election and, frankly, too old. He will be 75 years old on election day. That's far too old to start a presidency. I even think that Hillary is pushing it at 69 (on election day), but that was also Reagan's age when he got elected. So she can squeak through the age thing.

Sanders is a decent man, but I don't see him being the nominee anymore than I see the Republicans nominating a Tea Party candidate.