I don't get why they don't have a rough estimate at least to spit out.
Bad answer. I don't really see it as a "gotcha" that will be a big issue - I mean, he hasn't been able to give a concrete answer before this. Curious about the reasons for not having an answer.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I don't get why they don't have a rough estimate at least to spit out.
Bad answer. I don't really see it as a "gotcha" that will be a big issue - I mean, he hasn't been able to give a concrete answer before this. Curious about the reasons for not having an answer.
Honestly I’m really surprised he doesn’t have an answer. He’s been spitting out numbers and %’s for what...4-5years on the national stage? It’s like a Bloomberg moment, he had to know he’d be asked right? Does he think people don’t care? Very strange.
"final forecast, issued early Tuesday evening, had Trump with a 29 percent chance of winning the Electoral College."
Why do I care what they show for polling, now?
You don’t have to care, but you could at least try to understand. If I were to say, this baseball player is batting .300, so there’s a 70% chance he doesn’t get a hit here, I’m not *wrong* if he gets a hit.
"final forecast, issued early Tuesday evening, had Trump with a 29 percent chance of winning the Electoral College."
Why do I care what they show for polling, now?
You don’t have to care, but you could at least try to understand. If I were to say, this baseball player is batting .300, so there’s a 70% chance he doesn’t get a hit here, I’m not *wrong* if he gets a hit.
Thank you, I did take a course on Statistics & Probability...but it was so terribly long ago.
Forget everything that they covered.
I still don't care about 538 and their current polling. I disagree and hope that I am incorrect. As much as I dislike what Sanders will try to bring to bear in our country I do think it is better than what Trump already did.
It's definitely something the others are going to bring up at tomorrow's debate. It's not a "gotcha" type of thing like Amy not knowing the Mexican President's name. Medicare for all and free college tuition are the two centerpieces of Sanders' campaign. If he can't explain it, who can?
He should have just said Mexico is going to pay for it, and that he'll talk to President-What's-His-Name about it. It's worked before I guess.
It's definitely something the others are going to bring up at tomorrow's debate. It's not a "gotcha" type of thing like Amy not knowing the Mexican President's name. Medicare for all and free college tuition are the two centerpieces of Sanders' campaign. If he can't explain it, who can?
He should have just said Mexico is going to pay for it, and that he'll talk to President-What's-His-Name about it. It's worked before I guess.
The explanation is simple: tax the rich as much as it takes.
So South Carolina is on Saturday. Wasn't there suppose to be a debate before that too?
It's tomorrow night.
No pods needed to be lined up for work on Wednesday then. Cool.
STEYER IS BACK!
You're wise to be excited about that. Any of these "no chance in hell" candidates that stick around probably benefit your boy Bernie by taking votes away from the likes of Biden and Bloomberg.
You should be happy. It will make you win in November.
I'm not even running.
And I don't have a boy.
But by saying "it will make you win in November," you're suggesting that I'm a Trump fan, which I'm not. You very, very much seem to be a big fan of Bernie Sanders, as evidenced by all your posts over the past few pages. That's why I referred to him as your boy, as in someone you're a fan of and/or admire.
Your buddy Bernie will crush Trump in November. Because empathy and common sense will prevail.
Well I don’t know about that but I am one of the people that think Sanders could possibly beat Trump. Too many people think he’s hopeless and think Bloomberg would have a better chance. Neither would have a good chance in my opinion. But at least some people (like you!) are excited about Sanders. Not much excitement surrounding the other Dems.
Bloomberg won't get people excited. Biden won't either. Just some tired relief. And I think that tiredness will affect turnout,
I think: Sanders, Warren and Pete are the ones that will have a running hype start if they are the winner
I think the whole "moderates will stay home if Sanders THE COMMIE is elected" is more wrong than right.
And I'm an expert on US politics.
Pete and Warren don't stand a chance of being the nominee (both could be good VPs though, Pete kinda looks like VP). Neither will ever get as many delegates as Sanders, and if it goes to a brokered convention, neither would get the nod by the superdelegates over Biden or Bloomberg. Because THEY, the DNC are the TRUE experts on U.S. politics.
One problem with Sanders (or strength, depending on your point of view) is he seems a bit unwilling to compromise. These are his views, they've been his views for decades, he's sticking by them. That's commendable to a degree, from a morality standpoint. But in a general election, a candidate has to move a bit to the middle for the undecided or independent voters. Every candidate. Obama, who was considered far-left at the time, had to do it just like all the others. Will Sanders (if he's the nominee) be willing to do that? Trump vs. Sanders can't be perceived as capitalism vs. socialism because Sanders wouldn't have a chance. But if it's perceived as Trump vs. Sanders as people, and as leaders, maybe Bernie could pull it off. Maybe....
Yeah. That is def one of Sanders problems. There is an old-man stubbornness there. And i get his frustration, living in a very walled of country while he has peeked over that wall and see that social democracy is "better" (I put that in quotation marks to not come of as stubborn) and a given.
But I also think that is a brand issue for his advisers etc - Let Bernie be Bernie with the shown strengths it has or risk to have him wimper away if he suddenly start to become something not-Bernie.
I would be very curious to see Bernies VP pick. If it would be a moderate to cover new voting-ground or a close ally -a mirror of the boy himself.
Yeah that's probably true. "Bernie being Bernie" is what got him this far in the first place.
I know it sounds strange because he's already served the position, but Biden would be the perfect running-mate for Sanders, for many of the same reasons that he was perfect running-mate for Obama: just a moderate politician that's been around forever and has shown an ability to work with both democrats and republicans.
But another Biden for VP run seems unrealistic. One thing for Buttigieg, I contend he just LOOKS like a vice-president. If you time-warped 1989 Dan Quayle to the present, stood him beside Buttigieg, and asked someone who wasn't familiar with either of them "Which one of these two do you think is the Vice-President?," I think you'd get varying answers.
As for the other Dems that are still in the race, I think Warren is too close to him politically, I'm not sure Pete would move the needle much, and I doubt Klobuchar would move the needle at all. Maybe Cory Booker would be a good option? I don't know, it's tough to forecast.
What about Kirsten Gillibrand?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
It's definitely something the others are going to bring up at tomorrow's debate. It's not a "gotcha" type of thing like Amy not knowing the Mexican President's name. Medicare for all and free college tuition are the two centerpieces of Sanders' campaign. If he can't explain it, who can?
He should have just said Mexico is going to pay for it, and that he'll talk to President-What's-His-Name about it. It's worked before I guess.
The explanation is simple: tax the rich as much as it takes.
Well he did actually say "We pay for that through a modest tax on Wall Street speculation."
My assumed response from Wall Street: Define "modest."
It's definitely something the others are going to bring up at tomorrow's debate. It's not a "gotcha" type of thing like Amy not knowing the Mexican President's name. Medicare for all and free college tuition are the two centerpieces of Sanders' campaign. If he can't explain it, who can?
He should have just said Mexico is going to pay for it, and that he'll talk to President-What's-His-Name about it. It's worked before I guess.
The explanation is simple: tax the rich as much as it takes.
Well he did actually say "We pay for that through a modest tax on Wall Street speculation."
My assumed response from Wall Street: Define "modest."
Just checked in and looking at the gorgeous capital of our mixed economy, here in the Financial District. Granted it's not as pretty as Stalingrad, as I don't see any trains to Siberia filled with dissidents, but one can hope one day we'll achieve the Marxist dream that is so successful.
Just checked in and looking at the gorgeous capital of our mixed economy, here in the Financial District. Granted it's not as pretty as Stalingrad, as I don't see any trains to Siberia filled with dissidents, but one can hope one day we'll achieve the Marxist dream that is so successful.
We watched miracle in class today. I swear all the Russian hickey players were probably killed after that olympics. Can’t bekieve it was forty years ago yesterday.
Just checked in and looking at the gorgeous capital of our mixed economy, here in the Financial District. Granted it's not as pretty as Stalingrad, as I don't see any trains to Siberia filled with dissidents, but one can hope one day we'll achieve the Marxist dream that is so successful.
In what way is that (from that view) gorgeous...
... find a better spot
Also, you are mentioning "mixed economy" a lot lately. Sounding like some campaign adviser told to you push that. never seen it before from you. I take it you can't deny the superiority of Social Democracy anymore and have to move towards shining a bit of that light on the US in your rhetoric.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
My predictions -- and I HAVE BEEN SO DAMN CORRECT LATELY IN THIS THREAD.
Elisabeth Warren will keep stealing the spotlight in the SC debate. Biden will in his live-or-die position perform really good. He will be on fire. Both taking support from Bernie.
Biden will overperform in SC. Bernie will underperform. And it will be the start of Bernie falling and Warren rising up again, and Biden taking back his no 1 spot in polls.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Just checked in and looking at the gorgeous capital of our mixed economy, here in the Financial District. Granted it's not as pretty as Stalingrad, as I don't see any trains to Siberia filled with dissidents, but one can hope one day we'll achieve the Marxist dream that is so successful.
In what way is that (from that view) gorgeous...
... find a better spot
Also, you are mentioning "mixed economy" a lot lately. Sounding like some campaign adviser told to you push that. never seen it before from you. I take it you can't deny the superiority of Social Democracy anymore and have to move towards shining a bit of that light on the US in your rhetoric.
We aren't laissez faire, so Im being precise with the language that describes our economy. And unfortunately, the campaign advisers don't call or email me with social media strategies. I think they've figured out this is the extent of my media presence.
Just checked in and looking at the gorgeous capital of our mixed economy, here in the Financial District. Granted it's not as pretty as Stalingrad, as I don't see any trains to Siberia filled with dissidents, but one can hope one day we'll achieve the Marxist dream that is so successful.
We watched miracle in class today. I swear all the Russian hickey players were probably killed after that olympics. Can’t bekieve it was forty years ago yesterday.
Greatest sports moment in US history. It's also my earliest Olympic memory. I was 7 and my dad yanked me off the bus to watch it. It was played on delay the next day. I remember it clearly.
Comments
Looks to me like they did....
What is proxy-endorsing?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/24/politics/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-2020/index.html
It was as low as 64% the week of the election and the national average must be considered with their state averages to get a clearer understanding.
538 had the 3 tipping point states at 1% in 2016.
Bad answer. I don't really see it as a "gotcha" that will be a big issue - I mean, he hasn't been able to give a concrete answer before this. Curious about the reasons for not having an answer.
Sorry Bernie, even on a left leaning forum, you have zero chance.
He should have just said Mexico is going to pay for it, and that he'll talk to President-What's-His-Name about it. It's worked before I guess.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
My assumed response from Wall Street: Define "modest."
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
... find a better spot
Also, you are mentioning "mixed economy" a lot lately. Sounding like some campaign adviser told to you push that. never seen it before from you. I take it you can't deny the superiority of Social Democracy anymore and have to move towards shining a bit of that light on the US in your rhetoric.
Elisabeth Warren will keep stealing the spotlight in the SC debate. Biden will in his live-or-die position perform really good. He will be on fire. Both taking support from Bernie.
Biden will overperform in SC. Bernie will underperform. And it will be the start of Bernie falling and Warren rising up again, and Biden taking back his no 1 spot in polls.