Hillary vs. Trump, regardless of VP candidates, will have me looking at 3rd party options.
EDIT:
Either that or I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary. For all her red flags and warts she is a better choice than Donald. As was Gore over Bush and I can't make the Nader mistake again. But I won't feel good about it either way.
Hillary vs. Trump, regardless of VP candidates, will have me looking at 3rd party options.
EDIT:
Either that or I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary. For all her red flags and warts she is a better choice than Donald. As was Gore over Bush and I can't make the Nader mistake again. But I won't feel good about it either way.
Funny that you mentioned that because to me this is like 2000 over again. With Donald and Hillary being so outright FAKE that I couldn't vote for either. I know I will get a lot of shit from my dem friends but I can't do it. She better put Bernie on the ticket or she will lose a lot of the young people's support. btw: I don't consider myself a young person.
2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN
2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA
2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)
2006- Cincinnati, OH
2008- Columbia, SC
2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Vedder- Atlanta, GA x 2
2010- Bristow, VA
2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Vedder- Chicago, IL
2012- Atlanta, GA
2013- Charlotte, NC
2014- Cincinnati, OH
2015- New York, NY
2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Raleigh, NC : Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA
Nate Silver was a Jedi in 2012. Correctly predicted the outcome in every swing state. His website, fivethirtyeight.com, currently gives Secretary Clinton a 60% chance of winning here in Massachusetts.
Ha, was just about to post this. He gives Sanders a 66% chance of winning in his polls-only forecast, but Clinton gets the 60% chance of winning in his polls-plus forecast, which includes polls and endorsements. Again, the superdelegates make it so that Sanders can't win.
All hearsay. You guys believe all the hearsay you here?
Nate Silver was a Jedi in 2012. Correctly predicted the outcome in every swing state. His website, fivethirtyeight.com, currently gives Secretary Clinton a 60% chance of winning here in Massachusetts.
Ha, was just about to post this. He gives Sanders a 66% chance of winning in his polls-only forecast, but Clinton gets the 60% chance of winning in his polls-plus forecast, which includes polls and endorsements. Again, the superdelegates make it so that Sanders can't win.
All hearsay. You guys believe all the hearsay you here?
No. I believe people with a proven track record of being correct.
at this point Sanders only has a chance to win Massachusetts....and Hillary is still favored there
Vermont too. But other than that? Being blown out in South Carolina and then being blown out across the South on Super Tuesday...I don't see the case for claiming this is still a competive race. Which is a shame.
A depressing thought, JimmyV. If Sanders gets blown off, the one thing we would do well to remember is that this is a growing movement in today's youth and if so, I hope the younger generations don't flake out like boomers did.
Which might make Clinton need Sanders as VP...to unite the clans
Agreed. If there was ever a year for a "unity" ticket this might be it.
It'll never happen. Obama was good to Hillary. Hillary will not be good to Sanders. She's angry.
Nate Silver was a Jedi in 2012. Correctly predicted the outcome in every swing state. His website, fivethirtyeight.com, currently gives Secretary Clinton a 60% chance of winning here in Massachusetts.
Ha, was just about to post this. He gives Sanders a 66% chance of winning in his polls-only forecast, but Clinton gets the 60% chance of winning in his polls-plus forecast, which includes polls and endorsements. Again, the superdelegates make it so that Sanders can't win.
All hearsay. You guys believe all the hearsay you here?
No. I believe people with a proven track record of being correct.
So you believe some guy who tells his opinion. Real smart.
How about we just wait and see what happens instead of taking someone else's word for it. Kill your TV and go vote.
Remember how surprised the Fox News/Karl Rove crew was when the networks called the 2012 election for Obama so early?
That voting group has only gotten stronger. Trump does not stand a chance against Clinton or Sanders.
Maybe. Maybe not. Trump is breaking the mold by bringing in new voters. No one really thought the GOP was capable of doing that heading into this cycle. That combined with traditional Republicans coming out in droves to vote against Hillary Clinton could lead to record turnouts. That wasn't something we saw on the Republican side in 2008 or 2012 and no model predicted it for 2016. This could be a lot closer than many are predicting.
Remember how surprised the Fox News/Karl Rove crew was when the networks called the 2012 election for Obama so early?
That voting group has only gotten stronger. Trump does not stand a chance against Clinton or Sanders.
Maybe. Maybe not. Trump is breaking the mold by bringing in new voters. No one really thought the GOP was capable of doing that heading into this cycle. That combined with traditional Republicans coming out in droves to vote against Hillary Clinton could lead to record turnouts. That wasn't something we saw on the Republican side in 2008 or 2012 and no model predicted it for 2016. This could be a lot closer than many are predicting.
You don't think they came out in droves to vote for Romney or McCain?
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Nate Silver was a Jedi in 2012. Correctly predicted the outcome in every swing state. His website, fivethirtyeight.com, currently gives Secretary Clinton a 60% chance of winning here in Massachusetts.
Ha, was just about to post this. He gives Sanders a 66% chance of winning in his polls-only forecast, but Clinton gets the 60% chance of winning in his polls-plus forecast, which includes polls and endorsements. Again, the superdelegates make it so that Sanders can't win.
All hearsay. You guys believe all the hearsay you here?
No. I believe people with a proven track record of being correct.
So you believe some guy who tells his opinion. Real smart.
How about we just wait and see what happens instead of taking someone else's word for it. Kill your TV and go vote.
It isn't a TV, it is a website where polls and other data are analysed and odds are given. It is OK if you either don't understand how odds are made or distrust a guy who has shown incredible accuracy in the past. You don't have to agree with it or like it. But don't pretend to be more enlightened than those of us who are interested in numbers and analysis. Are you saying that you don't believe any of the polling numbers, endorsements, or math? Are you saying that you believe Sanders is immune to math, and will win due to some miracle or divine intervention? I guess I tend to look more at numbers and less at voodoo, but we will all have to wait until the convention to know for sure who gets the nod. I admire the dedication and devotion of some of you Sanders supporters even if I don't understand the willful ignorance of data.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Nate Silver was a Jedi in 2012. Correctly predicted the outcome in every swing state. His website, fivethirtyeight.com, currently gives Secretary Clinton a 60% chance of winning here in Massachusetts.
Ha, was just about to post this. He gives Sanders a 66% chance of winning in his polls-only forecast, but Clinton gets the 60% chance of winning in his polls-plus forecast, which includes polls and endorsements. Again, the superdelegates make it so that Sanders can't win.
All hearsay. You guys believe all the hearsay you here?
No. I believe people with a proven track record of being correct.
So you believe some guy who tells his opinion. Real smart.
How about we just wait and see what happens instead of taking someone else's word for it. Kill your TV and go vote.
This is a discussion board. People are going to have discussions.
Remember how surprised the Fox News/Karl Rove crew was when the networks called the 2012 election for Obama so early?
That voting group has only gotten stronger. Trump does not stand a chance against Clinton or Sanders.
Maybe. Maybe not. Trump is breaking the mold by bringing in new voters. No one really thought the GOP was capable of doing that heading into this cycle. That combined with traditional Republicans coming out in droves to vote against Hillary Clinton could lead to record turnouts. That wasn't something we saw on the Republican side in 2008 or 2012 and no model predicted it for 2016. This could be a lot closer than many are predicting.
You don't think they came out in droves to vote for Romney or McCain?
I don't have the numbers off hand but I don't believe they did. Particularly in 2008 when there was such Bush fatigue.
Nate Silver was a Jedi in 2012. Correctly predicted the outcome in every swing state. His website, fivethirtyeight.com, currently gives Secretary Clinton a 60% chance of winning here in Massachusetts.
Ha, was just about to post this. He gives Sanders a 66% chance of winning in his polls-only forecast, but Clinton gets the 60% chance of winning in his polls-plus forecast, which includes polls and endorsements. Again, the superdelegates make it so that Sanders can't win.
All hearsay. You guys believe all the hearsay you here?
No. I believe people with a proven track record of being correct.
So you believe some guy who tells his opinion. Real smart.
How about we just wait and see what happens instead of taking someone else's word for it. Kill your TV and go vote.
It isn't a TV, it is a website where polls and other data are analysed and odds are given. It is OK if you either don't understand how odds are made or distrust a guy who has shown incredible accuracy in the past. You don't have to agree with it or like it. But don't pretend to be more enlightened than those of us who are interested in numbers and analysis. Are you saying that you don't believe any of the polling numbers, endorsements, or math? Are you saying that you believe Sanders is immune to math, and will win due to some miracle or divine intervention? I guess I tend to look more at numbers and less at voodoo, but we will all have to wait until the convention to know for sure who gets the nod. I admire the dedication and devotion of some of you Sanders supporters even if I don't understand the willful ignorance of data.
Nate Silver was a Jedi in 2012. Correctly predicted the outcome in every swing state. His website, fivethirtyeight.com, currently gives Secretary Clinton a 60% chance of winning here in Massachusetts.
Ha, was just about to post this. He gives Sanders a 66% chance of winning in his polls-only forecast, but Clinton gets the 60% chance of winning in his polls-plus forecast, which includes polls and endorsements. Again, the superdelegates make it so that Sanders can't win.
All hearsay. You guys believe all the hearsay you here?
No. I believe people with a proven track record of being correct.
So you believe some guy who tells his opinion. Real smart.
How about we just wait and see what happens instead of taking someone else's word for it. Kill your TV and go vote.
It isn't a TV, it is a website where polls and other data are analysed and odds are given. It is OK if you either don't understand how odds are made or distrust a guy who has shown incredible accuracy in the past. You don't have to agree with it or like it. But don't pretend to be more enlightened than those of us who are interested in numbers and analysis. Are you saying that you don't believe any of the polling numbers, endorsements, or math? Are you saying that you believe Sanders is immune to math, and will win due to some miracle or divine intervention? I guess I tend to look more at numbers and less at voodoo, but we will all have to wait until the convention to know for sure who gets the nod. I admire the dedication and devotion of some of you Sanders supporters even if I don't understand the willful ignorance of data.
And I'll say it again. Polls mean absolutely nothing. Nothing more than media manipulation of the public. Manipulation at its finest. You let the media dictate the next POTUS or do you want to think for yourself? Again, friend, forget studying numbers and just. go. vote.
And I'll say it again. Polls mean absolutely nothing. Nothing more than media manipulation of the public. Manipulation at its finest. You let the media dictate the next POTUS or do you want to think for yourself? Again, friend, forget studying numbers and just. go. vote.
Do you really think someone interested enough to research the data is going to forget to vote? Why the condescension? It seems like you are very sensitive and defensive about the thought of Bernie losing, but that's no reason to talk down to people who have, frankly, more pertinent information on the subject than you do.
Polls shouldn't be trusted too deeply, but the suggestion that they mean absolutely nothing is both naive and demonstrably false. Nate Silver's accuracy is not some improbable run of luck, he analyzes the metrics properly and makes predictions that are very accurate. Discount it if you will, but don't act so haughty about it.
Not meant to condescend, just to inform. I worked in media a long time ago, I know how it works.
Take note of all the ups and downs with the polls over the last 6 months. Oh the drama! Bush, then Trump, then Carson, nope, then Trump, then Rubio, now Kasik, and Trump. Come on man. It's all about the drama and swaying tha public into thinking it's NOT a circus.
Not meant to condescend, just to inform. I worked in media a long time ago, I know how it works.
Even if the media manipulates the public, it works. They do it, they win. Either way the polls are significant of taken with the proper amount of skepticism.
It only works on the sheep. Don't question, just believe and obey. Don't be a sheep. Think critically and look outside the little US media bubble. Please, for the love of God, give it a thought.
Polls mean NOTHING. Especially when the media don't want to include Sanders and his insane growing number of supporters.
Not meant to condescend, just to inform. I worked in media a long time ago, I know how it works.
Even if the media manipulates the public, it works. They do it, they win. Either way the polls are significant of taken with the proper amount of skepticism.
Has anyone ever done a study on the effect polls have on discouraging people to vote for their candidate because they don't think he/she has a chance to win?
I trust my eyes and ears. I see A LOT of people at the Bernie rallies. I feel like the media doesn't have a way to actively gauge the intentions of the younger generation. I would say 90% or more have cell phones. I have never got a polling cold call on my cell phone. use to get them all the time on landline. just one man's opinion.... we shall see if I am right or wrong....
2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN
2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA
2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)
2006- Cincinnati, OH
2008- Columbia, SC
2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Vedder- Atlanta, GA x 2
2010- Bristow, VA
2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Vedder- Chicago, IL
2012- Atlanta, GA
2013- Charlotte, NC
2014- Cincinnati, OH
2015- New York, NY
2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Raleigh, NC : Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA
Not meant to condescend, just to inform. I worked in media a long time ago, I know how it works.
Even if the media manipulates the public, it works. They do it, they win. Either way the polls are significant of taken with the proper amount of skepticism.
Has anyone ever done a study on the effect polls have on discouraging people to vote for their candidate because they don't think he/she has a chance to win?
I trust my eyes and ears. I see A LOT of people at the Bernie rallies. I feel like the media doesn't have a way to actively gauge the intentions of the younger generation. I would say 90% or more have cell phones. I have never got a polling cold call on my cell phone. use to get them all the time on landline. just one man's opinion.... we shall see if I am right or wrong....
And the media hates Bernie. Because he doesn't represent corporate interests. Why? Because the media is owned and controlled by 6 corporations. I laugh whenever I watch NBC news. Because it's full of lies and made up garbage, for your viewing pleasure. Especially when it comes to the presidential election. Anything to preserve corporate America.
Social media is a godsend to those of us living in under the US mainstream media bubble. There are so many people out for Bernie, yet, if we "watch the news" they say that he's losing. Numbers? He's got 51 delegates, Hillary 52. FAR from losing. As far as people showing up for rallies? Those numbers showing up for him beat every other candidate by far.
Nate Silver was a Jedi in 2012. Correctly predicted the outcome in every swing state. His website, fivethirtyeight.com, currently gives Secretary Clinton a 60% chance of winning here in Massachusetts.
Ha, was just about to post this. He gives Sanders a 66% chance of winning in his polls-only forecast, but Clinton gets the 60% chance of winning in his polls-plus forecast, which includes polls and endorsements. Again, the superdelegates make it so that Sanders can't win.
All hearsay. You guys believe all the hearsay you here?
No. I believe people with a proven track record of being correct.
So you believe some guy who tells his opinion. Real smart.
How about we just wait and see what happens instead of taking someone else's word for it. Kill your TV and go vote.
It isn't a TV, it is a website where polls and other data are analysed and odds are given. It is OK if you either don't understand how odds are made or distrust a guy who has shown incredible accuracy in the past. You don't have to agree with it or like it. But don't pretend to be more enlightened than those of us who are interested in numbers and analysis. Are you saying that you don't believe any of the polling numbers, endorsements, or math? Are you saying that you believe Sanders is immune to math, and will win due to some miracle or divine intervention? I guess I tend to look more at numbers and less at voodoo, but we will all have to wait until the convention to know for sure who gets the nod. I admire the dedication and devotion of some of you Sanders supporters even if I don't understand the willful ignorance of data.
Did studying data help Obama win?
I'm sure some studying of some data did in fact help him win twice, but I have no idea what that has to do with the previous post.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
It only works on the sheep. Don't question, just believe and obey. Don't be a sheep. Think critically and look outside the little US media bubble. Please, for the love of God, give it a thought.
Polls mean NOTHING. Especially when the media don't want to include Sanders and his insane growing number of supporters.
Wtf? That is what everybody in this thread is doing, and you're acting like the exact opposite is true. FYI, people here are pretty intelligent and I think most of them can manage to decipher fact from fiction perfectly well, and understand how the media functions during an election, without a lecture from you about it. Nothing wrong with discussing the issue you're bringing up - it's an important one - but I don't see why you seem to think you're schooling everyone. Just because someone is talking about media coverage and polling numbers it doesn't mean they are blind to reality.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Polls: When Measuring Is Manipulating By Norman Solomon Before decisions get made in Washington — and even before most politicians open their mouths about key issues — there are polls. Lots of them. Whether splashed across front pages or commissioned by candidates for private analysis, the statistical sampling of public opinion is a constant in political life. We may believe that polls tell us what Americans are thinking. But polls also gauge the effectiveness of media spin — and contribute to it. Opinion polls don’t just measure; they also manipulate, helping to shape thoughts and tilting our perceptions of how most people think. Polls routinely invite the respondents to choose from choices that have already been prepared for them. Results hinge on the exact phrasing of questions and the array of multiple-choice answers, as candid players in the polling biz readily acknowledge. "Slight differences in question wording, or in the placement of the questions in the interview, can have profound consequences," Gallup executive David Moore wrote a few years ago in his book "The Superpollsters." He observed that poll outcomes "are very much influenced by the polling process itself." And in turn, whatever their quality, polling numbers "influence perceptions, attitudes and decisions at every level of our society." In the process, opinions are narrowed into a few pre-fabricated slots. The result is likely to be mental constriction in the guise of illumination. "Opinion-polling as practiced in the United States … presents itself as a means of registering opinions and expressing choices," media critic Herbert Schiller noted three decades ago. His assessment of polling remains cogent today: "It is a choice-restricting mechanism. Because ordinary polls reduce, and sometimes eliminate entirely, the … true spectrum of possible options, the possibilities and preferences they express are better viewed as ‘guided’ choices." Mainstream polls are so much a part of the media wallpaper that we’re apt to miss how arbitrarily they limit people’s sense of wider possibilities. And we may forget that those who pay the pollsters commonly influence the scope of ideas and attitudes deemed worthy of consideration. In his book "The Mind Managers," Schiller pointed out: "Those who dominate governmental decision-making and private economic activity are the main supports of the pollsters. The vital needs of these groups determine, intentionally or not, the parameters within which polls are formulated." When the U.S. government takes military action, instant polls help to propel the rapid-fire cycles of spin. After top officials in Washington have engaged in a well-coordinated media blitz during the crucial first hours of warfare, the TV networks tell us that most Americans approve — and the quick poll results may seem to legitimize and justify the decision to begin the bloodshed. In the case of the Bush administration’s plans to launch an all-out attack on Iraq, the U.S. military build-up in the Persian Gulf region has run parallel to a sustained propaganda campaign on the home front during the past several months. Even so, the extent of public support is foggy. At the end of September, a murky picture emerged from an article in the Washington Post by the director of the big-bucks Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. "Almost all national surveys this year," Andrew Kohut wrote, "have found a broad base of potential support for using military force to rid the world of Saddam Hussein." Yet such generalities can be deceiving. Kohut reported that the Pew Center’s latest poll "found that 64 percent generally favor military action against Iraq, but that withers to 33 percent if our allies do not join us." According to a recent CBS News poll, 51 percent of Americans say that Hussein was involved in the 9-11 attacks. But there’s no evidence for that assertion. So, as in countless other cases, the failures of news media to clearly convey pivotal matters of fact — and the unwillingness of journalists to challenge deceptive claims from the White House — boost the poll numbers for beliefs that lack a factual basis. Polls may seem to provide clarity in a confusing world. But all too often they amount to snapshots taken from slanted angles.
stranger things have happened. obama is experienced. he is still very popular. he said that his political career is not going to be over, and he knows how to make the gop look very, very foolish.
i would say he is qualified for the gig, for sure.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
stranger things have happened. obama is experienced. he is still very popular. he said that his political career is not going to be over, and he knows how to make the gop look very, very foolish.
i would say he is qualified for the gig, for sure.
stranger things have happened. obama is experienced. he is still very popular. he said that his political career is not going to be over, and he knows how to make the gop look very, very foolish.
i would say he is qualified for the gig, for sure.
Wow, that's a great thought!
you want an unstoppable ticket, there it is right there.
i still plan to vote for bernie in the primary, but looking at the math he doesn't have it.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
a cautionary word to those bernie supporters threatening to stay home and not vote for clinton, remember, a democrat staying home on election day is a vote for the gop.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Comments
EDIT:
Either that or I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary. For all her red flags and warts she is a better choice than Donald. As was Gore over Bush and I can't make the Nader mistake again. But I won't feel good about it either way.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
With Donald and Hillary being so outright FAKE that I couldn't vote for either.
I know I will get a lot of shit from my dem friends but I can't do it.
She better put Bernie on the ticket or she will lose a lot of the young people's support.
btw: I don't consider myself a young person.
livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=446
1995- New Orleans, LA : New Orleans, LA
1996- Charleston, SC
1998- Atlanta, GA: Birmingham, AL: Greenville, SC: Knoxville, TN
2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN
2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA
2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)
2006- Cincinnati, OH
2008- Columbia, SC
2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Vedder- Atlanta, GA x 2
2010- Bristow, VA
2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Vedder- Chicago, IL
2012- Atlanta, GA
2013- Charlotte, NC
2014- Cincinnati, OH
2015- New York, NY
2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Raleigh, NC : Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA
2017- ED VED- Louisville, KY
2018- Chicago, IL x2, Boston, MA x2
2020- Nashville, TN
2022- Smashville
2023- Austin, TX x2
2024- Baltimore
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
How about we just wait and see what happens instead of taking someone else's word for it. Kill your TV and go vote.
That voting group has only gotten stronger. Trump does not stand a chance against Clinton or Sanders.
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Polls shouldn't be trusted too deeply, but the suggestion that they mean absolutely nothing is both naive and demonstrably false.
Nate Silver's accuracy is not some improbable run of luck, he analyzes the metrics properly and makes predictions that are very accurate. Discount it if you will, but don't act so haughty about it.
Take note of all the ups and downs with the polls over the last 6 months. Oh the drama! Bush, then Trump, then Carson, nope, then Trump, then Rubio, now Kasik, and Trump. Come on man. It's all about the drama and swaying tha public into thinking it's NOT a circus.
Polls mean NOTHING. Especially when the media don't want to include Sanders and his insane growing number of supporters.
I trust my eyes and ears. I see A LOT of people at the Bernie rallies. I feel like the media doesn't have a way to actively gauge the intentions of the younger generation. I would say 90% or more have cell phones. I have never got a polling cold call on my cell phone. use to get them all the time on landline. just one man's opinion.... we shall see if I am right or wrong....
livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=446
1995- New Orleans, LA : New Orleans, LA
1996- Charleston, SC
1998- Atlanta, GA: Birmingham, AL: Greenville, SC: Knoxville, TN
2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN
2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA
2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)
2006- Cincinnati, OH
2008- Columbia, SC
2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Vedder- Atlanta, GA x 2
2010- Bristow, VA
2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Vedder- Chicago, IL
2012- Atlanta, GA
2013- Charlotte, NC
2014- Cincinnati, OH
2015- New York, NY
2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Raleigh, NC : Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA
2017- ED VED- Louisville, KY
2018- Chicago, IL x2, Boston, MA x2
2020- Nashville, TN
2022- Smashville
2023- Austin, TX x2
2024- Baltimore
Social media is a godsend to those of us living in under the US mainstream media bubble. There are so many people out for Bernie, yet, if we "watch the news" they say that he's losing. Numbers? He's got 51 delegates, Hillary 52. FAR from losing. As far as people showing up for rallies? Those numbers showing up for him beat every other candidate by far.
http://fair.org/media-beat-column/polls-when-measuring-is-manipulating/
stranger things have happened. obama is experienced. he is still very popular. he said that his political career is not going to be over, and he knows how to make the gop look very, very foolish.
i would say he is qualified for the gig, for sure.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
i still plan to vote for bernie in the primary, but looking at the math he doesn't have it.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."