Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 09 Feb 2016, 2:58 pm

Congrats to the bdog.

Alleluia! The wicked witch is dead!!

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wizard+of+oz+the+witch+is+dead
Last edited by dag hammarsjkold on 10 Feb 2016, 12:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 10 Feb 2016, 8:01 am

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Congrats to the bdog.

Alleluia! The wicked witch is dead!!

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wizard+of+oz+the+witch+is+dead


She's only mostly dead.

If Sanders wins in South Carolina, I'll be convinced. On the other hand, let's say Clinton wins by 20. Then what?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 10 Feb 2016, 8:59 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
dag hammarsjkold wrote:Congrats to the bdog.

Alleluia! The wicked witch is dead!!

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wizard+of+oz+the+witch+is+dead


She's only mostly dead.

If Sanders wins in South Carolina, I'll be convinced. On the other hand, let's say Clinton wins by 20. Then what?


Then it's going to be a long slog.

Bernie's got work to do with Black folks, for sure. But have you seen his interview with Killer Mike? Bernie's authenticity can make connections if people give him a chance.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/watch-killer-mikes-six-part-interview-with-bernie-sanders-20151215
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 10 Feb 2016, 10:14 am

The one thing that is not being emphasized is that Clinton and Sanders did about the same among Democrats. Also, I think DF mentioned this already, but she is trying to go left to appeal to Sander's voters . Not going to work. I also think the Clinton camp was concerned about alienating voters who liked Sanders . Well, that's a little arrogant-- first, you have to win the nomination. There are a number of reasons not to make too much of New Hampshire, though (1) the aforementioned fact that Hillary and Sanders tied among Democrats; 39% of voters were independents in the New Hampshire primary, much more than most states and they gave Sanders the big win, (2) up to now Sanders has not really clicked with black and Latino voters and New Hampshire and Iowa are mostly white whereas most states are much more diverse, and (3) Hillary has really not attacked Sanders yet--expect that to change.

The one thing discussed a lot on MSNBC was Clinton's lack of a reason that could be defined in a small number of words as to why she wanted to be president. She was criticized for just trying to sell herself as being the competent and experienced candidate. She needs a message. I watched her speech. Too many "I's" in her speeches. Needs to be "we", as we're part of a movement, a cause. If she keeps saying "I" while Sanders says "we", she is going to lose.

Of course, Sanders has good deal of momentum so that can change things. But I suspect she bounces back in South Carolina and Nevada. She definitely needs to or else Sanders may be on a roll that can't be stopped.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 11 Feb 2016, 5:40 pm

Question is, a more relevant one I think, will Sanders be able to beat the GOP nominee whoever that is?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 12 Feb 2016, 2:35 pm

JimHackerMP wrote:Question is, a more relevant one I think, will Sanders be able to beat the GOP nominee whoever that is?

I think a lot would depend on who it is. In the latest head-to-head polling, Sanders is about 9 points ahead of Trump, 3 ahead of Cruz, but 2 behind Rubio.

RCP is not showing other Sanders v # match ups.

There is a long way to go, and if Sanders wins against Hillary he will probably have had to get through a lot of thrown mud (such as the recent attempts to suggest he did little for Civil Rights), which could either stick, or make him look more of a "normal guy up against the establishment".

But clearly at the moment he would seem to have a chance.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 12 Feb 2016, 3:35 pm

Aren't both Sanders and Hillary "establishment"?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 12 Feb 2016, 4:27 pm

JimHackerMP wrote:Aren't both Sanders and Hillary "establishment"?
Not really.

While Sanders has been involved in politics all his life, it has always been as an outsider to the two-party hegemony. He's had executive experience as a mayor, but has not been part of the Federal Administration at all, and has done little at the Vermont State house. While he's been in Congress for a long time, and caucuses with the Democrats, he has hardly been part of the establishment there.

What makes you think he can be consisdered "establishment"?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 12 Feb 2016, 4:34 pm

While he's been in Congress for a long time, and caucuses with the Democrats,


Precisely that. But then again it depends how you define "establishment". If you mean a Washington insider, I'd say precisely that.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 12 Feb 2016, 5:02 pm

JimHackerMP wrote:
While he's been in Congress for a long time, and caucuses with the Democrats,


Precisely that. But then again it depends how you define "establishment". If you mean a Washington insider, I'd say precisely that.
Well, an "insider" suggests to me more of an "operator" than the guy standing around opposing most of what the system does.

He caucuses with the Democrats for convenience - basically because the rules of Congress and the conventions are now all about parties. That is perhaps a bit cynical, but the other side of it is whether the electors of Vermont are better served by a Representative or Senator who is totally locked out of the process.

Even if he were a Democrat he'd be on their fringe though.

Just as Ron Paul was in Congress for a total of 22 years and didn't just caucus with the Republicans, he was elected as one, but he's not exactly "establishment" either.

The other side to it is that in the Democratic Primary context he is clearly the outsider compared to Hillary, who has the DNC on her side, as well as much of the hierarchy of the Party.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 28 Feb 2016, 6:26 pm

Nearly a month ago, some guy who goes by Dag Hammarsjkold wrote:

Congrats to the bdog.

Alleluia! The wicked witch is dead!!


Boy, I bet he is biting his nails and regretting ever counting those chickens.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Feb 2016, 9:50 pm

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Nearly a month ago, some guy who goes by Dag Hammarsjkold wrote:

Congrats to the bdog.

Alleluia! The wicked witch is dead!!


Boy, I bet he is biting his nails and regretting ever counting those chickens.

You need Miracle Max.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 27 Mar 2016, 11:01 am

Good results for Bernie yesterday - all three states and by good margins. Excluding the superdelegates (some of whom could switch if the primaries go against Hillary), the margin is now about 230 delegates.

There's still a big hill for him to climb, though. And I see things are getting a bit nasty.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 28 Mar 2016, 11:45 am

Go Bernie! I hate that we have super delegates; their only purpose is to thwart the will of the people.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 28 Mar 2016, 1:17 pm

freeman3 wrote:Go Bernie! I hate that we have super delegates; their only purpose is to thwart the will of the people.


Yes, interesting that the Dems do it more than the Reps.

Bernie does better than Hillary on the 1 to 1 match ups against each of the 3 remaining Republican candidates.