Update: I stand by this post. He DID win. They just rigged the machines. #ExitPollGate
In response to:
TLDW: Guy gives 30% chance of Bernie victory.
TLDR: I’m giving 100% chance of Bernie victory.
O.o 30%? You yourself did a video before western Saturday saying all he had to do was perform as he had previously and he’d win. Does Bernie EVER LOSE a supporter? Has that ever happened even once?
Now he massively over performs his polling, only loses once due to clear election failure, and you’re still saying 30%?
Here, I’ll go ahead and prove I get it better than Kyle: I predict Bernie will win the nomination. It’s called. It’s done. All we have to do is keep doing what we’re doing.
(Like I actually did on July 1, but my predicted path to his victory was wrong, as I mistakenly assumed the AA vote would like the guy cloning MLK’s platform, marched with MLK, and got arrested on the right side of the civil rights movement. http://underlore.com/batman-feels-the-bern/)
Kyle is clearly consumed with the argument to moderation. He believes the middle path and cynicism are more truthful by default. Reality isn’t like that. Truth is truth and it can be anything. It can be the middle or an extreme or even knowable. It can be eternal or fluid. Truth just doesn’t give a fuck.
It’s possible to over compensate and be wrong in the other direction. Being honest doesn’t just mean defending an assertion that you find unfavorable. It also means being clear about conditions that are favorable.
He has this problem in common with Cenk.
But hey, I view these people like Wikipedia. I can listen critically just as well as I can read critically and no human source of data is infallible. Nor do I need them to be.
It’s funny, Him and Cenk go on and on about how bias the media is, they themselves work in alternative media, they complain that the media isn’t giving him credit for his wins, and then they say that the msm is a massive roadblock. There’s a contradiction. If the MSM is such a massive roadblock, then where are his wins coming from? At what point do you take away the msm’s credit for the ability to influence votes?
People whine about money in politics, but the major spending target of that money is TV advertising. So if we let TV ads pick for us, is that money’s fault or ours? And really DO we let TV pick for us? Money didn’t help Jeb.
Bernie is proving with his rallies and wins and donations and volunteers, that msms bias isn’t the hurdle they’re constantly saying it is.
How’s that for facts?
Here’s another one, Kyle STILL hasn’t done the homework on WHY the primaries are southern fried.
Cenk himself is already fond of saying during election coverage that it’s not like a race, the elections have already happened it’s just when counts come in. That’s true now to a large extent.
There are two polls that already determined this election in advance. The rest is expensive red tape and information distribution.
1. Which candidate is most favorable? 2. Which platform is most in-line with the majority’s desires? Bernie and Bernie’s. We already share Bernie’s positions, we just have to A. Be informed he exists, and B. be informed of his character. As that information and ONLY that information spreads, he already wins elections in its wake.
He’s already won, like I said in July. I was just wrong about the demographics of how. It’s like how the world changed the very second fire was discovered. It just took time for the effect to ripple out. Clockwork.
“All these roadblocks” boiled down to one that isn’t even a block, as proven by his landslide wins. He’d have landslid Arizona also And all the states with closed primaries and voter suppression had those two policies been reversed.
There’s no new media. Guy has 300,000 subscribers, it’s already impossible to get a response out of him.
Writing this comment is literally like talking to the TV. Mainly the only people that hear it are the other people in the room.
Kyle’s right about one thing. There is no choice. http://underlore.com/bernie-or-bust/
Best I ever got as a response out of these people was a like on my tweet from Jimmy D. and Ana K.
Not so fast! As noted first in this piece on Medium (“Proof That the New York Times Isn’t Feeling the Bern“), the paper swiftly made a series of significant corrections online. A new version of the piece came out later the same day, and in my mind, the corrections changed the overall message of the article.
In the first few weeks of my stay in Washington, Sanders introduced and passed, against very long odds, three important amendments. A fourth very nearly made it and would have passed had it gone to a vote. During this time, Sanders took on powerful adversaries, including Lockheed Martin, Westinghouse, the Export-Import Bank and the Bush administration. And by using the basic tools of democracy — floor votes on clearly posed questions, with the aid of painstakingly built coalitions of allies from both sides of the aisle — he, a lone Independent, beat them all.
These past few days, we saw an escalation in the building of Donald Trump’s authoritarian campaign for president. After winning big at the polls despite having refused to disavow the KKK, Trump appeared on the debate stage noticeably subdued, and everyone assumed that he had turned over a new leaf. But it was not to be. Last week, his rallies took yet another dark turn with the typical ugly rhetoric beginning to be matched by some very ugly violence.
As Donald Trump’s campaign predictably moves from toxic rhetoric targeting the most marginalized minorities to threats and use of violence, there is a growing sense that American institutions have been too lax about resisting it.
Hillary Clinton actually loses in a head-to-head matchup against Donald Trump, while Bernie Sanders beats him easily. Trump is winning against Hillary Clinton. He wins by 1.5% (37.8 to 36.3%).
By freezing Sanders and his platform out of the Democratic Party altogether, it ensures that not only will Clinton lose many Sanders supporters — which will already happen pursuant to step #5 of the Democrats plan to lose the White House — but also that she will lose most or all of the independent voters that Sanders has thus far been winning over her by 30 to 40 points.
Outside those “Old South” states, 12 other states also have voted. Bernie Sanders has won nine of those races, Hillary Clinton has won only two, and there has been one tie (Iowa). The average result in those 12 states has been a Sanders win by just under 20 points.
The net effect of this (Hillary winning the “Old South” by 43 points, Bernie winning everywhere else by 20 points) is a Clinton lead among pledged delegates of 223 (specifically, 775 to 552).
That’s right — in each state, most of the early primary voting occurs before the candidates have aired any commercials or held any campaign events. For Bernie Sanders, this means that early voting happens, pretty much everywhere, before anyone knows who he is. Certainly, early voting occurs in each state before voters have developed a sufficient level of familiarity and comfort with Sanders to vote for him. But on Election Day — among voters who’ve been present and attentive for each candidate’s commercials, local news coverage, and live events — Sanders tends to tie or beat Clinton.
Clinton’s strong states are almost all behind her. Sanders has the advantage in the vast majority of those that remain; and in many cases, that advantage is huge. If Sanders keeps pace with his victories outside the deep south, he will take 60 percent of the remaining vote. This is no pipe dream; this is math. That is more than enough to propel him to victory.
As I type this, President Obama is about to appoint a center-right moderate to the Supreme Court. I don’t need to pretend that I know anything about legal records of justices I’d never heard of until Scalia died. It’s just a fact, Obama will appoint a center-right justice. That’s where he governs from; and the truth of the matter is, whenever the extreme-right throws one of their little hissy fits, establishment Democrats give into them, continuously moving the nation to the right of center.
Introducing President Bernie Sanders Western Illinois University, the only entity that’s predicted every single presidential election with 100 percent accuracy since 1975, just announced that its mock election sent Sen. Sanders and Martin O’Malley (D-Md.) to the White House in 2016 as President and Vice President, respectively.
What all this means is that Bernie Sanders is still well within striking distance of the nomination as more Sanders-friendly states take to the polls throughout the Spring. The primary season is only halfway over, and the remaining states are overwhelmingly favorable to Sanders in that they’re blue states with large populations of Democratic-leaning independents and voters under 45.
Regardless of where the Democratic race goes from here, Bernie won’t drop out. He’ll take his delegates and his political revolution all the way to the convention.
A new Quinnipiac University poll has found that not only would Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio beat Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, now, even Republican underdog John Kasich would defeat the establishment candidate. The same poll found that Sanders is virtually untouchable by the GOP array. Confirming earlier polls, Quinnipiac says that Sanders is well ahead of all Republican candidates.
Bernie Sanders is the only Democratic candidate capable of winning the White House in 2016. Please name the last person to win the presidency alongside an ongoing FBI investigation, negative favorability ratings, questions about character linked to continual flip-flops, a dubious money trail of donors, and the genuine contempt of the rival political party. In reality, Clinton is a liability to Democrats…
Shh… I have a secret, that the mainstream media won’t tell you. Bernie Sanders was the big winner yesterday. See, when it comes to winning the general election what matters more than anything is how Blue states and Swing states are going to vote.
No one, with the exception of maybe the Vermont Senator himself, expected Bernie Sanders to win the Michigan primary last night. Talking heads on every major station assured a landslide victory for the Clinton camp. So did her operation’s staff, who failed to set up enough campaign offices across the state. Even some democratic voters, convinced that Hillary had the win wrapped up, reportedly switched sides to vote against Trump in the GOP contest. Now pundits are scrambling to account for what happened…
Democratic Party leaders still insist Hillary Clinton is the pragmatic choice to beat Republicans and bring effective leadership and change—if incremental—to Washington. Clinton and her supporters frame the race, and her appeal, as a matter of “ready on day one” leadership and “get things done” practicality. But what does the record show, and what do leadership and pragmatism really mean?
To watch cable news, one would think that Bernie Sanders is still in the Democratic primary race simply to send a message to Washington, be a thorn in Hillary Clinton’s side, play trainer to her Rocky, or some combination of all of these. Bogus super-delegate totals have been presented to the public as though these were votes either of the two candidates can count upon — the mass exodus of super-delegates away from Hillary Clinton in the early summer of 2008 notwithstanding. The reality, of course, is far more complicated.
Unless the Democrats Run Sanders, A Trump Nomination Means a Trump Presidency Democrats need to seriously and pragmatically assess their strategy for defeating Trump. A Clinton run would be disastrous; Bernie Sanders is their only hope. With Donald Trump looking increasingly likely to actually be the Republican nominee for President, it’s long past time for the Democrats to start working on a pragmatic strategy to defeat him.
Clinton is the political embodiment of the establishment. And that spells serious trouble for her, because the American people are in an insurgent mood, fueled by the holes in their bank accounts, all those jobs Bill Clinton sent overseas with his support of NAFTA, and the rifts in what we once called the common culture. It spreads across class lines like fire in a dry riverbed. It won’t stop until the weeds are gone.
In all cases the enemy you can see is preferable to a traitor you cannot. And Hillary would get the Obama treatment and thus the country would further drag to the right anyway, but without meaningful resistance.
