I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
What math are you so worried about? The math some of us have talked about is delegate count. Delegate counts come from voter behavior. And statistics are used in polling. Statistics is math based, so I'm guessing that makes it suspect. But polling small groups is fine as long as it is a valid sample size. Properly sized statistical samples allow one to extrapolate data from the sample and make inferences about the population as a whole. It is scientific, it is math, it is used for all sorts of things (not just political polls) including scientific research. This isn't some corporate media generated voodoo. It is accepted reality.
Awesome post. You hit it directly. I was about to launch into 95/5/5, response distribution and MOE... and then dovetail into a Six Sigma conversation... but maybe that would be going too far.
Ha, yeah that might be a little too much math (or analysis) for today.
I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
What math are you so worried about? The math some of us have talked about is delegate count. Delegate counts come from voter behavior. And statistics are used in polling. Statistics is math based, so I'm guessing that makes it suspect. But polling small groups is fine as long as it is a valid sample size. Properly sized statistical samples allow one to extrapolate data from the sample and make inferences about the population as a whole. It is scientific, it is math, it is used for all sorts of things (not just political polls) including scientific research. This isn't some corporate media generated voodoo. It is accepted reality.
Poll outcomes released to the public and then used to manipulate voter behavior.
It is ridiculous how CNN presents exit polls with lightening quick precision. And they preface it by saying "again, these are early exit polls and too early too predict a winner" Tell me that doesn't influence others who have not voted yet. Good point Free.
After the 1980 election the media self imposed a rule to not release exit poll data until after the polls have closed. Tehy fucked that up in 2000 when they called FL before the Panhandle closed (it's an hour behind). If conducted properly, it should not have any influence since the calls are made after the polls close. The problem that manifested in AZ two week ago is two fold: 1. Maricopa was overcrowded and still in line and 2. People have smart phones which they did not in 2004.
The lightning precision is not an issue of accuracy. When they are calling victories as soon as the polls close, you'll notice they are never 2 point victories. They are blowouts. Otherwise it is 'too close to call'. To think it is the media trying to influence you with their calls is ridiculous. If they wanted to do that, why wouldn't they call the election at noon? 2PM? There's no law that governs exit polls.
I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
What math are you so worried about? The math some of us have talked about is delegate count. Delegate counts come from voter behavior. And statistics are used in polling. Statistics is math based, so I'm guessing that makes it suspect. But polling small groups is fine as long as it is a valid sample size. Properly sized statistical samples allow one to extrapolate data from the sample and make inferences about the population as a whole. It is scientific, it is math, it is used for all sorts of things (not just political polls) including scientific research. This isn't some corporate media generated voodoo. It is accepted reality.
Awesome post. You hit it directly. I was about to launch into 95/5/5, response distribution and MOE... and then dovetail into a Six Sigma conversation... but maybe that would be going too far.
Ha, yeah that might be a little too much math (or analysis) for today.
On a far more interesting note, how about Trump's horrible unforced error on abortion today? Think that might get some air time this fall?
What??? You don't think there has to be some form of punishment for women who have abortions? Man, he really stepped in it today.
It's quite interesting. He is able to 'speak the language' of one very specific group of voters. And he has been lauded as only offending the GOP establishment, bankers, elite, etc. But if you look, he really only has one tune and once he strays from that tune, that really important filter that prevents you from saying everything you think, malfunctions badly.
I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
What math are you so worried about? The math some of us have talked about is delegate count. Delegate counts come from voter behavior. And statistics are used in polling. Statistics is math based, so I'm guessing that makes it suspect. But polling small groups is fine as long as it is a valid sample size. Properly sized statistical samples allow one to extrapolate data from the sample and make inferences about the population as a whole. It is scientific, it is math, it is used for all sorts of things (not just political polls) including scientific research. This isn't some corporate media generated voodoo. It is accepted reality.
Poll outcomes released to the public and then used to manipulate voter behavior.
It is ridiculous how CNN presents exit polls with lightening quick precision. And they preface it by saying "again, these are early exit polls and too early too predict a winner" Tell me that doesn't influence others who have not voted yet. Good point Free.
Actually, This was meant to imply "poll outcome predictions" but it works both ways.
And when I say it works both ways, I mean that it manipulates viewers (voters) in its own subtle and not so subtle ways, to vote one way or another. And yeah, they've been known to skew results. It's all about the bias!
I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
What math are you so worried about? The math some of us have talked about is delegate count. Delegate counts come from voter behavior. And statistics are used in polling. Statistics is math based, so I'm guessing that makes it suspect. But polling small groups is fine as long as it is a valid sample size. Properly sized statistical samples allow one to extrapolate data from the sample and make inferences about the population as a whole. It is scientific, it is math, it is used for all sorts of things (not just political polls) including scientific research. This isn't some corporate media generated voodoo. It is accepted reality.
Poll outcomes released to the public and then used to manipulate voter behavior.
It is ridiculous how CNN presents exit polls with lightening quick precision. And they preface it by saying "again, these are early exit polls and too early too predict a winner" Tell me that doesn't influence others who have not voted yet. Good point Free.
After the 1980 election the media self imposed a rule to not release exit poll data until after the polls have closed. Tehy fucked that up in 2000 when they called FL before the Panhandle closed (it's an hour behind). If conducted properly, it should not have any influence since the calls are made after the polls close. The problem that manifested in AZ two week ago is two fold: 1. Maricopa was overcrowded and still in line and 2. People have smart phones which they did not in 2004.
The lightning precision is not an issue of accuracy. When they are calling victories as soon as the polls close, you'll notice they are never 2 point victories. They are blowouts. Otherwise it is 'too close to call'. To think it is the media trying to influence you with their calls is ridiculous. If they wanted to do that, why wouldn't they call the election at noon? 2PM? There's no law that governs exit polls.
They want to give time to the women lying in pain on a hospital bed to get out and vote against Trump. (If that's how the particular network swings)
or
If perhaps they want green grass and birds landing everywhere they will say that sanders is winning.
or
They just won't call anything because nobody really knows anything.
Also, instead of editing. Up here we lifted the blackout a few years ago. The west, or rest of Canada could not report the east results. Our country had to wait until all polls were closed.
I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
What math are you so worried about? The math some of us have talked about is delegate count. Delegate counts come from voter behavior. And statistics are used in polling. Statistics is math based, so I'm guessing that makes it suspect. But polling small groups is fine as long as it is a valid sample size. Properly sized statistical samples allow one to extrapolate data from the sample and make inferences about the population as a whole. It is scientific, it is math, it is used for all sorts of things (not just political polls) including scientific research. This isn't some corporate media generated voodoo. It is accepted reality.
Poll outcomes released to the public and then used to manipulate voter behavior.
It is ridiculous how CNN presents exit polls with lightening quick precision. And they preface it by saying "again, these are early exit polls and too early too predict a winner" Tell me that doesn't influence others who have not voted yet. Good point Free.
After the 1980 election the media self imposed a rule to not release exit poll data until after the polls have closed. Tehy fucked that up in 2000 when they called FL before the Panhandle closed (it's an hour behind). If conducted properly, it should not have any influence since the calls are made after the polls close. The problem that manifested in AZ two week ago is two fold: 1. Maricopa was overcrowded and still in line and 2. People have smart phones which they did not in 2004.
The lightning precision is not an issue of accuracy. When they are calling victories as soon as the polls close, you'll notice they are never 2 point victories. They are blowouts. Otherwise it is 'too close to call'. To think it is the media trying to influence you with their calls is ridiculous. If they wanted to do that, why wouldn't they call the election at noon? 2PM? There's no law that governs exit polls.
They want to give time to the women lying in pain on a hospital bed to get out and vote against Trump. (If that's how the particular network swings)
or
If perhaps they want green grass and birds landing everywhere they will say that sanders is winning.
or
They just won't call anything because nobody really knows anything.
I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
My point was that if you don't vote for Hilary if she gets the nom (by sticking with Bernie) you are effectively voting for the GOP non.
I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
My point was that if you don't vote for Hilary if she gets the nom (by sticking with Bernie) you are effectively voting for the GOP non.
I dabble in life a little and realize that some people can tell you the square root of a pickle jar but can't open it.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,075
I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
My point was that if you don't vote for Hilary if she gets the nom (by sticking with Bernie) you are effectively voting for the GOP non.
If it comes down to this I am going to hang myself. Please check with my wife before clearing my shelves of my books and records and stuff. Thanks!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
My point was that if you don't vote for Hilary if she gets the nom (by sticking with Bernie) you are effectively voting for the GOP non.
If it comes down to this I am going to hang myself. Please check with my wife before clearing my shelves of my books and records and stuff. Thanks!
Don't forget to take a selfie with your belongings so there is no confusion.
Wow, I guess Trump figured this whole running for president thing was about attacking and belittling his opponents. He never thought he would be asked real questions. I predict that yesterday was the day where Trump's chance to become President died, if it were ever legit to begin with.
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
I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
My point was that if you don't vote for Hilary if she gets the nom (by sticking with Bernie) you are effectively voting for the GOP non.
If it comes down to this I am going to hang myself. Please check with my wife before clearing my shelves of my books and records and stuff. Thanks!
It is pretty dismal, but think of it this way; in the 60s you had a cultural revolution but progress wasn't obtained in government until the landmark years of the very end of the 60s into the early 70s...civil rights, clean air and water, workplace discrimination, end of the war... So now we have had 8 years of slow but steady political progress...same sex marriage, "no" war, climate change acceptance...that progress is preceding the cultural revolution that is occuring now in our youth, so it is easy to believe that we could still make great strides under Hilary.
They are already super rich, Bill's legacy is cemented, what Hilary stands most to gain is glour and legacy. Obama is a good President because he cares more about how his tenure will be measured by history than he cares about current, temporary power gains. If Hilary follows that track, she could be a great, very liberal president. It sounds weird, but wanting to be thought well of is one of the best motivations a president can have lol
^ You forgot Obamacare and the JPOA (Iran Deal). There have been some really BIG strides I would argue. The nation has changed significantly in the past 8 years. We haven't solved immigration and not enough has been done on climate change, but the march continues.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,075
We've made some progress but at a snails pace. Meanwhile, the rich are getting richer and the earth is getting the shaft from us humans. Progress? Yes, but not nearly enough.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
This is a fascinating article and analysis. Now don't misread anything here, it's not a pro-Hillary, anti-Hillary, anti-Bernie post. It's a "Pro-Reality" post regarding Defense contractor contributions. What the evidence shows is that contributions funnel towards likely winners. Hillary has the most, Bernie second of ALL candidates. And Trump is way....way at the bottom. Why? Because the employees are putting their money on the winners. And this is ordered by the people most likely to win.
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton has collected more money than any other candidate in the 2016 race from employees tied to the 50 largest contractors with the Department of Defense — at least $454,994 in campaign funds over a 14-month period ending in February. While Clinton’s haul is substantial, it is only one-third higher than the amount defense contractors gave to the campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s rival for the Democratic nomination. Despite advocating steep cuts in defense spending, Sanders’ campaign has accepted at least $310,055 in defense-related donations — more than any Republican presidential candidate — since the start of the 2016 campaign cycle.
This is a fascinating article and analysis. Now don't misread anything here, it's not a pro-Hillary, anti-Hillary, anti-Bernie post. It's a "Pro-Reality" post regarding Defense contractor contributions. What the evidence shows is that contributions funnel towards likely winners. Hillary has the most, Bernie second of ALL candidates. And Trump is way....way at the bottom. Why? Because the employees are putting their money on the winners. And this is ordered by the people most likely to win.
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton has collected more money than any other candidate in the 2016 race from employees tied to the 50 largest contractors with the Department of Defense — at least $454,994 in campaign funds over a 14-month period ending in February. While Clinton’s haul is substantial, it is only one-third higher than the amount defense contractors gave to the campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s rival for the Democratic nomination. Despite advocating steep cuts in defense spending, Sanders’ campaign has accepted at least $310,055 in defense-related donations — more than any Republican presidential candidate — since the start of the 2016 campaign cycle.
What better way to defeat your opponent or enemy than to have them give you their resources. Sounds like Bernie's people may be well versed in Sun Tzu.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
This is a fascinating article and analysis. Now don't misread anything here, it's not a pro-Hillary, anti-Hillary, anti-Bernie post. It's a "Pro-Reality" post regarding Defense contractor contributions. What the evidence shows is that contributions funnel towards likely winners. Hillary has the most, Bernie second of ALL candidates. And Trump is way....way at the bottom. Why? Because the employees are putting their money on the winners. And this is ordered by the people most likely to win.
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton has collected more money than any other candidate in the 2016 race from employees tied to the 50 largest contractors with the Department of Defense — at least $454,994 in campaign funds over a 14-month period ending in February. While Clinton’s haul is substantial, it is only one-third higher than the amount defense contractors gave to the campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s rival for the Democratic nomination. Despite advocating steep cuts in defense spending, Sanders’ campaign has accepted at least $310,055 in defense-related donations — more than any Republican presidential candidate — since the start of the 2016 campaign cycle.
What better way to defeat your opponent or enemy than to have them give you their resources. Sounds like Bernie's people may be well versed in Sun Tzu.
Really? That's what you took from this? Hillary and Bernie do the same thing... one is evil, the other is brilliant. C'mon.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,075
This is a fascinating article and analysis. Now don't misread anything here, it's not a pro-Hillary, anti-Hillary, anti-Bernie post. It's a "Pro-Reality" post regarding Defense contractor contributions. What the evidence shows is that contributions funnel towards likely winners. Hillary has the most, Bernie second of ALL candidates. And Trump is way....way at the bottom. Why? Because the employees are putting their money on the winners. And this is ordered by the people most likely to win.
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton has collected more money than any other candidate in the 2016 race from employees tied to the 50 largest contractors with the Department of Defense — at least $454,994 in campaign funds over a 14-month period ending in February. While Clinton’s haul is substantial, it is only one-third higher than the amount defense contractors gave to the campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s rival for the Democratic nomination. Despite advocating steep cuts in defense spending, Sanders’ campaign has accepted at least $310,055 in defense-related donations — more than any Republican presidential candidate — since the start of the 2016 campaign cycle.
What better way to defeat your opponent or enemy than to have them give you their resources. Sounds like Bernie's people may be well versed in Sun Tzu.
Really? That's what you took from this? Hillary and Bernie do the same thing... one is evil, the other is brilliant. C'mon.
Well, actually I'd have to look into this further to make sure this article is legit (I'm not that familiar with the source and I don't believe half of what I read these days) but if it is true, yeah, what I said would make sense to me. And besides, until we have leaders who's main focus is true sustainability and peace we're screwed anyway. Bernie is the closest we've got- far better than any other candidates in my opinion. Hillary is far more tied to corporations and is more likely to support wars. Bernie is far less tied to corporations, wants to help the average person, and shows greater commitment to work to lessen global warming. So no brainer, I'm backing Bernie for those reason. None of your arguments have come close to changing my mind that way.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I find this thread one of the most politically mature at the moment. And that is not a knock at any candidate's discussion. Coming from an independent voter who has voted for both Repub's and Dem's.
Just my two cents (a bit off topic). I find the Dem nomination process to be far more worth the time thus far - actually debating policy sometimes, versus not at all (aside from Kasich).
Specifically, the one area that worries me a bit about Sander's proposals is free college tuition. I believe the student debt issue is the #1 economic issue facing this country in the present and MOST CERTAINLY in the future. But I feel there could be a better way.
I guess my stance comes from the notion of "not wanting my tax dollars going towards someone's tuition whom I don't know".
Not sure if I'm alone.
1 week until the tour. Cheers and safe travels to you all!
Boston '06 Mansfield '08 Hartford '10 Worcester, Hartford '13 Global Citizen, NY '15
This is a fascinating article and analysis. Now don't misread anything here, it's not a pro-Hillary, anti-Hillary, anti-Bernie post. It's a "Pro-Reality" post regarding Defense contractor contributions. What the evidence shows is that contributions funnel towards likely winners. Hillary has the most, Bernie second of ALL candidates. And Trump is way....way at the bottom. Why? Because the employees are putting their money on the winners. And this is ordered by the people most likely to win.
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton has collected more money than any other candidate in the 2016 race from employees tied to the 50 largest contractors with the Department of Defense — at least $454,994 in campaign funds over a 14-month period ending in February. While Clinton’s haul is substantial, it is only one-third higher than the amount defense contractors gave to the campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s rival for the Democratic nomination. Despite advocating steep cuts in defense spending, Sanders’ campaign has accepted at least $310,055 in defense-related donations — more than any Republican presidential candidate — since the start of the 2016 campaign cycle.
What better way to defeat your opponent or enemy than to have them give you their resources. Sounds like Bernie's people may be well versed in Sun Tzu.
Really? That's what you took from this? Hillary and Bernie do the same thing... one is evil, the other is brilliant. C'mon.
Well, actually I'd have to look into this further to make sure this article is legit (I'm not that familiar with the source and I don't believe half of what I read these days) but if it is true, yeah, what I said would make sense to me. And besides, until we have leaders who's main focus is true sustainability and peace we're screwed anyway. Bernie is the closest we've got- far better than any other candidates in my opinion. Hillary is far more tied to corporations and is more likely to support wars. Bernie is far less tied to corporations, wants to help the average person, and shows greater commitment to work to lessen global warming. So no brainer, I'm backing Bernie for those reason. None of your arguments have come close to changing my mind that way.
Politico is a pretty reliable source. Everyone calls them unfair, which assuredly means they are probably fair. For the record, I'm not trying to convince people to vote for Hillary over Bernie. If you prefer his policy prescriptions, then he should be your candidate (if your primary hasn't happened). If it's happened, that's where my interest lies. For some (not all) Sanders supporters, there is a purity associated with him. My point on Ted Devine, Monsanto, Brady Bill, NRA and now Defense Contracting is that he is a politician like the others. So in the end, vote D in November. That's my point.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,075
This is a fascinating article and analysis. Now don't misread anything here, it's not a pro-Hillary, anti-Hillary, anti-Bernie post. It's a "Pro-Reality" post regarding Defense contractor contributions. What the evidence shows is that contributions funnel towards likely winners. Hillary has the most, Bernie second of ALL candidates. And Trump is way....way at the bottom. Why? Because the employees are putting their money on the winners. And this is ordered by the people most likely to win.
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton has collected more money than any other candidate in the 2016 race from employees tied to the 50 largest contractors with the Department of Defense — at least $454,994 in campaign funds over a 14-month period ending in February. While Clinton’s haul is substantial, it is only one-third higher than the amount defense contractors gave to the campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s rival for the Democratic nomination. Despite advocating steep cuts in defense spending, Sanders’ campaign has accepted at least $310,055 in defense-related donations — more than any Republican presidential candidate — since the start of the 2016 campaign cycle.
What better way to defeat your opponent or enemy than to have them give you their resources. Sounds like Bernie's people may be well versed in Sun Tzu.
Really? That's what you took from this? Hillary and Bernie do the same thing... one is evil, the other is brilliant. C'mon.
Well, actually I'd have to look into this further to make sure this article is legit (I'm not that familiar with the source and I don't believe half of what I read these days) but if it is true, yeah, what I said would make sense to me. And besides, until we have leaders who's main focus is true sustainability and peace we're screwed anyway. Bernie is the closest we've got- far better than any other candidates in my opinion. Hillary is far more tied to corporations and is more likely to support wars. Bernie is far less tied to corporations, wants to help the average person, and shows greater commitment to work to lessen global warming. So no brainer, I'm backing Bernie for those reason. None of your arguments have come close to changing my mind that way.
Politico is a pretty reliable source. Everyone calls them unfair, which assuredly means they are probably fair. For the record, I'm not trying to convince people to vote for Hillary over Bernie. If you prefer his policy prescriptions, then he should be your candidate (if your primary hasn't happened). If it's happened, that's where my interest lies. For some (not all) Sanders supporters, there is a purity associated with him. My point on Ted Devine, Monsanto, Brady Bill, NRA and now Defense Contracting is that he is a politician like the others. So in the end, vote D in November. That's my point.
Gore Vidal knew some of the presidents and many politicians quiet well. He said that when they get to that level they are bought, every one of them. Sanders is the first candidate to rise to this level to be as UNbought as he is. I think that alone is remarkable and worthy of considering him. Do I think he would make the best president? No, that would have to be someone like Elizabeth Warren or Jill Stein. Do I think Hillary would make a good president? Not really, but no worse than most we've had for quite a long time- just business as usual. If Bernie isn't nominated I won't have much care about this election as there are no republicans running who have a snowballs chance in hell of winning anyway. If Hillary beats out Bernie, we're stuck with another half-assed pseudo-liberal (but not really) president Clinton. But I still think Bernie can do it!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I find this thread one of the most politically mature at the moment. And that is not a knock at any candidate's discussion. Coming from an independent voter who has voted for both Repub's and Dem's.
Just my two cents (a bit off topic). I find the Dem nomination process to be far more worth the time thus far - actually debating policy sometimes, versus not at all (aside from Kasich).
Specifically, the one area that worries me a bit about Sander's proposals is free college tuition. I believe the student debt issue is the #1 economic issue facing this country in the present and MOST CERTAINLY in the future. But I feel there could be a better way.
I guess my stance comes from the notion of "not wanting my tax dollars going towards someone's tuition whom I don't know".
Not sure if I'm alone.
1 week until the tour. Cheers and safe travels to you all!
Why not? Your tax dollars already to go to tuition for children in elementary and high school who you don't know. Why do you draw the line right when school actually becomes most specific and useful to society?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
The lightning precision is not an issue of accuracy. When they are calling victories as soon as the polls close, you'll notice they are never 2 point victories. They are blowouts. Otherwise it is 'too close to call'. To think it is the media trying to influence you with their calls is ridiculous. If they wanted to do that, why wouldn't they call the election at noon? 2PM? There's no law that governs exit polls.
And when I say it works both ways, I mean that it manipulates viewers (voters) in its own subtle and not so subtle ways, to vote one way or another. And yeah, they've been known to skew results. It's all about the bias!
or
If perhaps they want green grass and birds landing everywhere they will say that sanders is winning.
or
They just won't call anything because nobody really knows anything.
Up here we lifted the blackout a few years ago.
The west, or rest of Canada could not report the east results.
Our country had to wait until all polls were closed.
I get that a lot.
Your take I guess.
My point was that if you don't vote for Hilary if she gets the nom (by sticking with Bernie) you are effectively voting for the GOP non.
I guess Trump figured this whole running for president thing was about attacking and belittling his opponents. He never thought he would be asked real questions. I predict that yesterday was the day where Trump's chance to become President died, if it were ever legit to begin with.
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
So now we have had 8 years of slow but steady political progress...same sex marriage, "no" war, climate change acceptance...that progress is preceding the cultural revolution that is occuring now in our youth, so it is easy to believe that we could still make great strides under Hilary.
They are already super rich, Bill's legacy is cemented, what Hilary stands most to gain is glour and legacy. Obama is a good President because he cares more about how his tenure will be measured by history than he cares about current, temporary power gains.
If Hilary follows that track, she could be a great, very liberal president.
It sounds weird, but wanting to be thought well of is one of the best motivations a president can have lol
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/bernie-sanders-march-fundraising-totals-221447
Trump made twice that from interest before you finished typing that post.
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton has collected more money than any other candidate in the 2016 race from employees tied to the 50 largest contractors with the Department of Defense — at least $454,994 in campaign funds over a 14-month period ending in February.
While Clinton’s haul is substantial, it is only one-third higher than the amount defense contractors gave to the campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s rival for the Democratic nomination. Despite advocating steep cuts in defense spending, Sanders’ campaign has accepted at least $310,055 in defense-related donations — more than any Republican presidential candidate — since the start of the 2016 campaign cycle.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/2016-election-defense-military-industry-contractors-donations-money-contributions-presidential-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-republican-ted-cruz-213783#ixzz44abAkUJd
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Just my two cents (a bit off topic). I find the Dem nomination process to be far more worth the time thus far - actually debating policy sometimes, versus not at all (aside from Kasich).
Specifically, the one area that worries me a bit about Sander's proposals is free college tuition. I believe the student debt issue is the #1 economic issue facing this country in the present and MOST CERTAINLY in the future. But I feel there could be a better way.
I guess my stance comes from the notion of "not wanting my tax dollars going towards someone's tuition whom I don't know".
Not sure if I'm alone.
1 week until the tour. Cheers and safe travels to you all!
Mansfield '08
Hartford '10
Worcester, Hartford '13
Global Citizen, NY '15