Damn! That's just insane. Seriously, how can that possibly mean anything except, "don't trust me because I'm only going to say what you want to hear."

Can't help but wonder if it has anything to do with Clinton's much-vaunted "lead in the polls".

You're probably in to something there!

Doesn't she know what she thinks?

On a serious note, that represents college tuition for 10 young people -- and spent on polling.

What kind of values does that reflect?????

Don’t say this, don’t say that, you use the wrong word, you shouldn’t put a comma here.’

Bernie doesn't need someone to tell him what to say and not say - he's been on the same message his whole political career and that's refreshing.

About an opinion other than his own.

He's right and everyone else is wrong. Rather presumptuous and arrogant of him.

So did my 23 year old son who went to TWO Bernie rallies wanting to support him. I think people read way too much into his crowds. His demeanor is a turn off to many.

And so very far from the truth. He's my Senator. I've met him several times and attended town halls (always with great potlucks) where he's in attendance. My town is tiny so these town halls are usually no more than a hundred people. Bernie is neither arrogant or presumptuous. Politicians who are, don't do dozens of these a year. And it's not like he just makes an appearance and dashes off.

There's a reason why Bernie is overwhelmingly popular here.

In other words, your spin is a transparent failure.

Hillary is insecure about her values, thus she needs polls to tell her what values and opinions and stances she should present to the public.

This addiction to polling suggests that Hillary is a manufactured, phony candidate.

Ther reason the Republicans haven't paid for much polling is that Fox News and other organizations do the polling for them. All they have to do is read the talking points and watch Fox News for their cues.

Bernie is the real deal. It isn't a matter of being presumptions and arrogant. His speeches show that he is not. The audience reaction to his speeches show that he connects emotionally to his audiences.

Bernie speaks from his values and from his moral sense.

Hillary, well, Hillary supporters will have to explain to us why she needs so many polls, but it certainly shows she is insecure about her values and how well she connects with audiences.

Something is wrong with a candidate who pays that much for so many polls.

Is what we see what we will get?

Please, do tell...

nt

.... If they seek to figure out a) the actual concerns of people they seek to represent, and b) the best places to focus their campaigns. Including where to spend valuable resources.

This and her listening (rather than lecturing) tour is why her campaign has not been a one note Charlie campaign.

Got it.

Whereas Bernie's convictions are both authentic & consistent with his 25 record in public service.

Why are you trying to misrepresent what I posted?

to see why it didn't go over as well as you thought. Perhaps you will change your stance.

That and use language to obfuscate on a position rather than clarify. She's masterful at that.

I see more emphasis on specific issues.

Her strategy in terms of using polls is classic DLC......

Bill Clinton, former Chairman of the DLC is justifiably proud that
Hillary's positions have always perfectly tracked the polls.

This isn't actual leadership, though.

90% of DU told LGBT people to sit down and shut up in 2004 and then purged the ones who didn't. HRC didn't do that. In fact in her 2004 floor speech she spent the bulk of her time mocking the GOP who was advancing the legislation.

And she did not "support" the war. As her floor speech on that makes clear as well.

Furthermore, she's an influential person who chose not to lend her voice. And she sure as shit did support the war. There were only two reasons to vote for the IWR- and Hillary is not an idiot so that leaves voting for it for political reasons.

My basic problems with Hillary are twofold: She has displayed poor judgment repeatedly on issues large and small and she has an honesty deficit.

In other words, on some vital issues I don't trust her.

As for HRC, she was very much in touch with the message national LGBT orgs asked her to send. We knew she had to get re-elected to help us. And if I recall, she worked very hard to persuade other Dem senators to vote against the bill as well. I remember we had a huge white board where were counting votes (we needed 38) and she got us 8-9.

In fact, despite the media portrayal she and Elizabeth Edwards were very much present and helpful during that particular battle. I was there, so I would know.

as late as 2013. Facts are stubborn things.

in 2004 only 30% of the country supported marriage. In 1996 only a quarter of the population supported it.

to oppose equality in 2013, not a decade before.

Truth????

Videos are rather hard to remove from the internet.

What set me against Hillary is a video of her after Code Pink informed her that they had been to Iraq and that the Iraq War was wrong and how hungry people were in Iraq.

Hillary's haughty response completely turned me off to her.

I could never, ever vote for Hillary.

I want a president who feels the compassion he/she talks about.

Sorry, MaggieD, but I have to trust my own eyes. Hillary is not the candidate we need to present to the American voters in 2016.

I'm sure you know her and care for her, and that is great, but she will not be good for America, and I don't think she can be elected. She has done some great things for women and children, but she should not be the candidate. We cannot afford to lose in 2016. The future of the environment, of the world depends on Democrats winning in 2016.

The stakes have never been this high, not in my lifetime, and I am 72 (and a woman) with wonderful children and grandchildren.

Hillary is not the person we should present as our candidate in 2016.

between a man and a woman.

Could you provide a video that supports your assertion that Hillary mocked the constitutional amendment? I haven't seen any such thing.

Could you provide a series of videos across time that show Hillary's support of LGBT marriage through the years.

We have a record of Bernie's support of LGBT marriage through the years.

Doesn't have to be videos. News reports that are dated back then. Articles she wrote. Any evidence that she really did support LGBT marriage rights and when she began to support them.

Thanks.

Bernie had the courage to vote against the Iraq War Resolution.

Hillary did not.

Saying that she gave a nice speech does not bring back the shame of that war for which she voted. It does not bring the sons and daughters who died in that counterfeit war back to their parents. It does not restore the limbs lost, the trauma experienced, the eyes blinded, the minds numbed by the IEDs and weapons of the "enemy" in the Iraq War.

And it did not end the war on terrorism.

It heated it up if anything.

Hillary should be less worried about poll results and more worried about whether, based on her many mistakes and those of Bill Clinton, based on their coming down on what turned out to be the wrong side of so many issues, she really belongs in the White House.

I honestly do not think so.

On the other hand, Bernie has voted his own wise counsel over and over yet still compromised when necessary.

A candidate has to sell him/herself to a lot of rich people to raise the money to pay for that much polling. So what will be expected of Hillary, what compensation will she be expected to provide to all those donors if she is elected?

The amount spend on polling is just one more sign that she is bought by very rich people.

Who needs all that polling? Someone who should not be running in the first place. That's who.

On focus groups. Got it.

since he started in politics.

Hillary -- not so much.

I question the sincerity of Hillary's statements because she does such an outrageous amount of polling. She has already spent enough money on polls to put 10 American kids through college.

That's extreme. It is either a waste of money, or Hillary is very insecure about what she should say to voters.

This makes her look more like a machine than a person.

Good heavens.

Bernie doesn't need any of that. He hits issue after issue that goes right to the hearts of voters.

Sorry. But I don't think Hillary could win the general election if nominated.

She does not come across as sincere. I watched her talk with the BLM group, the part that her supporters boasted about on DU. She appeared uncomfortable, impatient and stiff to me. It's in the eye of the beholder, I will be the first to admit.

I would so like to be able to vote for a woman for president once in my life. But Hillary is not the one. I say that with genuine sadness.

I remember sitting with a group of women talking to my representative about how we would like to see a woman for president. But Hillary is not the candidate we need. It's very sad, but she just isn't.

should think twice. Can we believe anyone who says things because that is what the polls want?

democratic voters down to the street they live on.

I've done a ton of doorbelling supporting Dems and the list of doors to knock is always generated with polling and other data, right down to the precinct level. Obama did the same. It's how you win.

We don't do that in California. We don't need to.

it's how they go about trying to win, that is revealing.

used extensive polling,every single one. This trumped up outrage about polling is beyond silly.

It's just taking note of how candidates arrive at the positions they take on
public policy issues.

A finger in the wind, or from authentic conviction?

I'm not outraged about Hillary's army of pollsters, but it's just revealing.

That is all.

ever read any post election articles or books on how elections are won and lost in this country,you would know that.

It's mainly about where to spend resources most effectively. Has very little to do with policy positions other than to understand what the most important issues are (and those don't change weekly or even monthly within a region).

to know how to spend her resources most effectively?

Hmmm. Food for thought.

It's like buying a million dollars worth of Rice Krispies for . . . . what could the real reason be?

How much of her polling is negative campaigning?

Push-polls instead of blatant negative ads?

Is that the game?

I don't know, and I am not accusing. I'm just trying to figure out how someone could spend so much money on polls so early in the campaign. Push-polling strikes me as more likely than trying to save money.

And push-polling would be the only way to get negative campaigning in against a candidate who refuses to say anything bad about you.

You could hire a polling company that uses its own name to call likely voters, feed them questions that cause them to think negative thoughts about your opponent. The polling company uses its own name. Your name never occurs to the ordinary, unsophisticated voter.

Hmmmmmm!

Diabolical.

I shall assume and hope that Hillary is too decent a person to do that. But I know it has been done.

If I get any negative push-polling on my phone, I will know who is spending the money on polls. Bernie Sanders certainly doesn't waste his campaign money hiring polling companies for push-polls.

Feel the Bern!

That's what winning campaigns do.

Polling now to get a voter list for the campaign is like buying a million dollars of Rice Krispies.

That does not make sense. Not now.

So I asked whether she might be push-polling, negative polling. She faces a candidate who dose not use negative campaigning. I can imagine that very ambitious advisers might suggest that she do push-polling. Polls appear to be anonymous. It would be the way that an unscrupulous campaign with a candidate who doesn't have the ease of manner to communicate well on YouTube might try to catch up with a very strongl candidate whose mastery of the issues and natural personability is catching on via social media and YouTube.

And you said Yes. So I am asking whether you said yes the money for polls is being spent on push-polls.

None of which has a thing to do with "push polling."

You mean like all your "Hmmmmm!" and "Is it's" and suppositions....sorry...."hypotheticals."

It's like FOX..."What if?", "Do you think?", "Is it possible?"
...
"Oh, but I never SAID it was true....I was just hypothesizing."

I'm not singling you out for any reason other than I just finally reached
peak annoyance with the negative talking point equivocating. That's
"The B(u)rn," obnoxious beating around the bush, insinuations, and
hedging of unsavory negative attacks.

I was just posting about the negative attitudes of Hillary supporters toward Benie's many very positive proposals such as universal single-payer healthcare.

When we Bernie supporters talk about the positive initiatives that Bernie is proposing, we are repeatedly chastised by Hillary supporters that our ideas and proposals are unrealistic.

THAT is negativity.

And the excessive polling of the Hillary campaign is either due to a spendthrift nature or to a fear, a terrible fear that is essentially negative.

I like the fact that Bernie, with almost no money compared to other candidates, dared to start his campaign. That's faith. That's trust. That's belief in the American people and in America.

I am astounded by the positivity that marks the Bernie campaign, Bernie supporters and Bernie himself.

We know what we need to do. Bernie knows what we need to do.

We just have to have the positive spirit that unleashes American creativity and energy to achieve what we want and need as a nation.

Hillary's poll-taking, her obsession with her listening tour, is all the result of a sort of inertial, a depression. Bernie knows what to do. Hillary has to conduct polls to find out whether what she thinks is the right thing to do is acceptable or not.

It's a no-brainer. I will go with Bernie's positive, creative approach any day.

Polls??? A MILLION DOLLARS on polls already??? What a waste.

I really don't want Hillary in charge of spending American tax money.

That much for polls, more than any other candidate is either a waste or maybe, just maybe she is paying for push-polling.

And my hmmms and questions don't cost me anything. Her polls cost her and her donors a lot. What a wasteful thing, all those polls.

Sign me, one who lives within her modest means.

("you" in this reply is directed to all whom it applies. If it doesn't, go in peace.)

I do feel that way
...and the continuous suppositions, insinuations, and hypothesized conspiracies is
negative campaigning in my book. I guess (some) of Sanders supporters are the
ones doing the heavy lifting in that arena.
Rarely do I see anything directed at Bernie that approaches the brand or fervor
of the attacks (spurious or otherwise).

If you don't like hearing about policy issue and feasibility, that's fine. You can
ignore it or respond in kind. All that "conspiracy-esque crap, all that "bought and
paid for" crap, all that stuff IS negative. And maybe that's just fine, but this
"positive campaign" refrain rings a bit hollow in light of...pretty much any thread that
is about the primaries. Hell, not even the Hillary protected group is free from that.
Supporters don't even have that minuscule corner of DU as a token safe haven
free from the constant "feel the bern!!11!."

Personally, I'm astounded by the (very selective) blindness towards the negativity
that most certainly is shown by some Bernie supporters. Bernie may be positive,
but a "campaign" is a movement (a "revolution" as you all so often remind us) and
is not one individual. Within that movement is a very vocal, dismissive, and negative
group which has done nothing positive for the campaign itself. You personally, I would
not group with those individuals, (you're quite civil, and I don't intend to come off
as much worse) however there are many such individuals dictating how the primaries
are playing out here on DU, and in the primary more generally.

Though, I'm going to call you once again on the insinuations and point out that "hmms"
and questions so often brought up against Hillary seem to serve little purpose besides
sowing the very same type of distrust and negativity a push-poll is designed to evoke.

Also, of course, it would seem Obama spent many millions on polling throughout his 2012
and 2008 campaigns.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/expenditures.php
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/expend.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
...tens of millions.
I've only found conservative outlets that took issue with the spending then.

In regards to the idea of polling, that is, the idea that the polling is to test waters.
It may be nice to caricature both Bernie and Hillary (Bernie as uncompromising
and Hillary as kowtowing to poll results), and I admit, there's some to be admired
in Bernie for that, and some to question in Hillary (if, indeed...either of those
caricatures are true. I doubt they are entirely). However, I personally find the
idea of an uncompromising president as distasteful as one with few convictions
(again, both caricatures are very suspect...I don't think either is true).

Signed me, who has far fewer means than any candidate in the race.

There should be a rule against that sort of thing.

Winning campaigns use good pollsters.

nt

Real campaigns are expensive and have things like grass roots organization in caucus states like Iowa and real campaigns who want to win spend money on polling

but deceit can only fool people for so long.

The two main reasons I'm reluctant to support Clinton are her close ties to Wall Street and the sense that everything she says has been run through focus groups and polling stats. When caught off-guard and asked difficult questions that haven't been meticulously researched for the appropriate answer, Clinton fumbles. She either brushes aside the question or bristles that someone dared bring it up.

This lack of spontaneity gives the appearance of lack of sincerity. At the very least, it speaks to a lack of flexibility that could be a hindrance if she were president. Every POTUS is constantly facing new situations, unexpected and unpleasant surprises; there is no way to script reality and often there won't be time to check focus group reactions before reaching a decision on issues of critical importance.

I'd like to see some sign that Clinton can operate outside her comfort zone and just wing it every now and then.

It has helped him so much although at times he has been flexible to a fault.

But in terms of getting at least some health insurance reform through, insufficient as it is, Obama's flexibility has been an asset. Also true in his decisions on foreign policy. The Iran deal is a good example as was his dealing with Osama Bin Laden.

Flexibility has been Obama's strong point. Very interesting post.

The problem Hillary has with a rigid manner strikes me as, again, a basic insecurity, a fear of embarrassment at being wrong. That can be the burden of the A student, the valedictorian, the one who is valued so much for being so smart that it is hard to accept when he/she has to admit he/she is wrong.

That was a very insightful comment about why Hillary is so rigid.

Sanders is not building a real campaign organization and would not be viable in a general eleciton contest where the Koch brothers are spending $887 million and the RNC candidate will be spending another billion dollars. Modern poltical campaigns cost money and that includes polling.

But I prefer a real candidate who's positions & priorities are based squarely on
real convictions, not based on what the latest poll says voters want to hear.

Hillary is spending an obscene amount on polling services -- more than ALL other
candidates in BOTH parties combined


This suggests the opposite of "real" IMHO.

I live in the real world where real campaigns use things like tv advertising and polls. You are welcome to believe that the normal rules of political campaigns do not apply to Sanders and that he does not need money to run a viable campagin

What I don't believe, is how slavishly some Democratic candidates are
chasing big corporate donors -- who ALWAYS want something in return,
special favors, corporate tax breaks, etc. that are poisonous to the
public welfare -- and think nothing of it, because they call that "real
politics". <-- this is where Citizen's United has gotten us, begging
billionaires for bribes, and it's sicking.

Sanders may or may not win, but either way, he's running a new (or is it
old fashioned?) kind of campaign based on what's good for the general
public's well-being. <-- this is a campaign i can enthusiastically support.

The enthusiasm of his supporters, of all incomes, makes up for a lot
of his "short-fall" in corporate bribes. a bizillion small donors makes up
the rest.

Will it work? We don't know yet, but we're finding out soon enough.

I keep asking the same question and keep getting really weak answers as to how Sanders will be viable in the general election. Unless Sanders and his supporters come up with a good answer to this question, then I doubt that Sanders will be the nominee.

Nate Silver does not rate Sanderss as having a good chance. Sanders is not building a field organization in Iowa and I know that Sanders will not play well in Texas (he has to get 15% of the vote to get any delegates). Even if Hillary Clinton's campaign has a meltdown or implosing, Biden can step in and be the nominee.

If Sanders wants to break out and get votes from members of the Democratic base other than the narrow segment currently supporting Sanders, then please explain to members of the Democratic party how Sanders would be viable in the general election. Such explanation should probably not include the concept that the Democratic Blue Wall is magical or that twitter and social media are also magic and eliminate for an adequatedly finance campaign. The concept that saving money on polling will probably not work in that most Democrats understand how modern campaigns operate.

As is the Anybody-but-Bernie desperation behind Biden "stepping in" to be the
"obvious" Dem nominee once Clintons eventually melts-down.

For Sanders to get the nomination, he will need to convince people outside a very narrow segment of the Democratic base that he is viable. Unless a satisfactory answer to this question is given at some point, you can not expect all groups in the base to support Sanders. Again, I like Sanders and according to that online quiz/test, he is closer to my positions than Clinton but I can not buy into magical thinking about Sanders being viable. The Democratic Blue Wall is not magic and neither twitter nor social media will over come the lack of financial resources that a Sander general election campaign would appear to be facing.

As for Biden, read Nate Silver's analysis. Biden is far more likely to be able to raise the financial resources needed to run in a general election campaign than Sanders. If Sanders can convince people that he is viable in the general election, then Biden would be a less attractive option. Right now, I am not worried about the e-mail non-scandal and I am comfortable supporting Hillary Clinton. I personally doubt that Biden will ultimately get into the race unless there is some real implosion or meltdown in the Clinton campaign.

Again, this is a chicken and the egg situation. For Sander to get the Democratic nomination, he will have to convince people that he is viable and that they are not backing another George McGovern. If Sanders can show viablity, then he will have an easier time getting the nomination and I doubt that Biden would even get into the race if there was an implosion in the Clinton campaign.

Viability is a valid criterion to base one's support on and many segments of the Democratic base will need to see some evidence of real viability before they support Sanders.

This question of "Bernie's viability" however is based on a number of suppositions which I'll attempt to summarize briefly:

Supposition #1 - that any candidate worthy of being 'taken seriously' must have the primary election already locked-up this early in the campaign -- by "normal rules of political campaigns" -- when there are still candidates (see Biden, Warren, Gore) who may yet announce they're running.

Supposition #2 - That Nate Silver is pretty-much omniscient, so much so, that we shouldn't have to waste any more money on elections, when the FEC could simply ask Nate Silver who's going to win. Easy peasy.

Supposition #3 - That a candidate's seeming "viability", this early-on, should be a voters primary (if not only) reason for deciding whether to support them or not.

I don't buy into any these suppositions. I think Bernie's 2015 trend lines are similar enough to Obama's in 2008 at the same point in the primary process, to qualify him as (if not viable) a serious contender. I don't buy into Nate-knows-all school of thought, .. and among others, even Nate agrees with me on this:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/what-we-got-wrong-in-our-2015-uk-general-election-model/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/what-i-got-wrong-in-2014/

As for Supposition #3, I submit the following cartoon, for your consideration:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251533639

Right now, I am deciding who I will contribute to. I will probably donate a meaningful amount to Clinton before year end for the primary process. That decision will be based on two factors (a) the EMILY principle (early money is like yeast, it makes the dought rise), and (b) my assessment of the viabilty of each candidate. According to the online quiz/test, I am closer in my political views to Sanders than Clinton by a narrow margin but my main concern is not wanting to throw my money away. At this point I do not believe that sanders is viable and threads that try to make it a virtue that Sanders is not polling or attending fund raisers do not inspire confidence.

I am in a Super Tuesday primary state and I will be making a decision by March 1. Right now, I do not think that Sanders is viable in the general election and I do not see that it is a good thing that he is not building a campaign structure or spending money on polling.

As for Nate, I am an numbers geek. Nate can be wrong but he will correct himself if his numbers start to be out of whack. There are some things that Nate has discussed that should concern Sanders supporters but that is your issue and not mine.

I am serious in that I would love to see an intelligent explanation as to how Sanders is viable in the general election. I suspect that the lack of such an explanation would affect the decisions of many members of the Democratic base as to who they should support.

Finally as to trend lines, here is something that I saw today on DK
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/26/1415688/-Hillary-Clinton-s-poll-numbers-haven-t-dropped-at-all-and-this-one-chart-proves-it I do not see a trend line there that helps Sanders be the nominee

She has some really ugly videos of her talking down to people on the internet or listening with a stiffness that suggests that what she is hearing makes her angry.

Bernie on the other hand is not just a good talker. He is a good listener. And in the end that can win.

If Hillary tries to buy her nomination with all her money, she is likely to lose in the general election -- to apathy if nothing else.

This is not your usual presidential election.

People in America are angry. We are angry about trade agreements that have ruined our economy. We are angry about a war machine that sucks up so much money we can't afford to educate our children so that they can compete and succeed in the world. We are angry about our own student debt and the terrible bind that people in their 50s and 60s find themselves in when their jobs are lost, maybe their career choice just doesn't exist anymore, and they have to go into massive debt to retrain, re-educate, restart their lives.

It is easy to be a big TV commentator or a political "expert," or adviser and talk glibly about the importance of spending money on a campaign. In those positions, a person has an interest in getting lots of money spent by the candidates because some of the money goes into the person's own pocket.

But for us out here, over a million spent on polls this early in the game???? Looks very strange. Very strange. Raises lots of questions as you see from this thread.

Bernie appeals to people without wasting all that money.

It's hard to predict how the election will turn out in the end. Hillary has a huge load of baggage to carry around. And that baggage will be turned inside out by her opponents before the election is over. Bernie will point to her questionable stances on the issues. The Republicans and news media will not be so kind.

We shall see. Every once in a while something very surprising happens.

History proves that. Anything is possible.

As for baggage, Sanders' socialism tag will hurt him in many states and his lack of support from his fellow members of congress is not a good sign. I am glad that you have a candidate that you believe in and if you are willing to buy into magical thinking about money does not matter in today's political environment and that twitter can overcome negative ads, that is your right.

I have repeatedly asked for the Sanders supporters to explain viability of a Sanders general election campaign and no one wants to provide such an explanation. The inability to demonstrate to the members of the Democratic base that they are not throwing their vote away by supporting a general election candidate who needs twitter to be magical and social media to over come negative ads will limit Sanders appeal. Again, the best thing that the Sanders supporters can do is to come up with some realistic and non-magical explanation as to how Sanders is viable if they want Sanders to be the nominee.

She doesn't do well on YouTube, and that is the medium of the day.

Bernie does.

I have talked to a number of people (and we volunteers are just getting started), told them I'm voting for Bernie and just to watch him on YouTube.

They all love him.

Hillary doesn't have that kind of ease with today's media.

Sorry. But just lots of money doesn't make you a winner. You've got to look good and sound good and make other people believe in you and trust you on YouTube. Them's the breaks.

It's a new era.

Bill Clinton had that kind of appeal that would have gone over on YouTube. Hillary doesn't.

You are welcome to support the candidate of your choice but I was not aware that youtube was magic and has replaced TV and tv ads. I will be meeting with some of the political directors of the state party next week and will ask them if they knew that youtube was magic and had replaced tv and TV ads.

I am not worried as to the viability of the Clinton campaign. Have fun supporting your candidate and I will support my candidate. I will let you know what the messaging experts at the state party say about youtube replacing TV and TV advertising.

about you?

I don't know that Hillary is doing that, but the amount of money she is spending on polls? I have to ask. It certainly isn't opinion polling. She can get those numbers for free and it is too early to be identifying likely supporters.

Also, polling to know where to use campaign resources???? She has nearly unlimited resources compared to her opponents in the primaries. I could believe that if we were closer to the general election.

The amount of money she is spending on polling compared to other Koch-backed candidates raises q lot of questions.

Bernie refuses to use negative advertising.

Pollsters present themselves as unaffiliated with a candidate. How do you defeat a candidate who has a powerful message and refuses to engage in negative campaigning when you yourself have a far less powerful message?

Hillary's quandry.

I do not know that she is doing negative push-polling. I certainly hope not.

Let's have a clean campaign for once. Thanks.

right up to the minute when it becomes clear that she can't beat Bernie in the primaries.

Super Tuesday - March 1.

Alabama
Arkansas
Colorado caucuses
Georgia
Massachusetts
Minnesota caucuses
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia

12 States in play on the same day. Texas alone has about 2 M Democratic voters spread over 268,000 sq miles. How do you decide where to visit? Where to focus your GOTV efforts? Where to place your available staff? Or do you still imagine that all Sanders has to do is keep making speeches and the votes will appear on their own?

Hillary does not come across well on YouTube. Big problem for her.

...and then go out and vote? So Sanders doesn't need to put Staff anywhere? Or even go out and campaign (because if he does, how does he decide WHERE to go?)

I noticed at the meeting of Bernie's volunteers that a lot of the people there were very well organized professionals and the like. It may be that Bernie's volunteers will do a lot of the work. He attracts a lot of very good, articulate people. I think you can see that on DU.

I worked on the Obama campaign in 2012 especially. It was hard getting people to really do the work, to show up and get out there and register voters on a regular basis, talk to voters, etc.

I don't know for sure how it will be on the Bernie campaign, but i am excited about it. I don't need much instruction or organization myself because I have a lot of grass-roots campaign experience. We shall see.

Sometimes history works out in such strange ways. I am just following my conscience. That's how I live my life. I think Bernie does the same thing.

I don't watch TV. Neither do my children. A lot of Americans are fed up with TV.

I am glad that magic works and that the Sanders campaign will rely on this magical youtube instead of ads

It's a critical element in resource allocation.

And, as I pointed out, it can also be a means to do push-polling.

A million dollars spent already on polls????

Why is that necessary? Is Hilary that out of touch with the American people?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

more time in.

Of course I have no doubt that some on DU will find something sinister in it

No actual leadership is shown. She waited until SSM had majority support to endorse it.

That she has to rely on a vast network of well-paid professional pollsters and PR firms,
1) to tell her what positions to take, and then
2) to sell that image of her to the voting public.

No surprise.

Oh and I know ... "all the winners do it"; but I'm wanting a different kind of winner, one who
goes to We the People directly, experiences what we are experiencing and wanting for our nation,
and who then fights for that with integrity and honesty ..

It sounds like she wants to win in the general election

Last edited Wed Aug 26, 2015, 04:06 PM - Edit history (2)

because he continuously makes an ass of himself.

Hey, wouldn't these be great qualities in a president??

convince some voters they need to ditch a sinking ship and switch their support to her. Not going to happen with me. I'm with Bernie all the way.

Or maybe they are doing more than other companies in terms of analysis.