Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

floriduck

(2,262 posts)
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 09:56 PM Jan 2016

Uh oh. This wasn't supposed to happen.

Sanders cracks Clinton's Nevada firewall

LAS VEGAS – Hillary Clinton has been on the ground in Nevada since last April. Bernie Sanders only began building up his organization here late in the fall.
But the state that’s been touted as Clinton’s firewall against the Vermont senator in the event he generates any momentum out of the whiter and more liberal states of Iowa and New Hampshire is suddenly looking like it’s in play, potentially opening another unexpected early state front.


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-nevada-217432#ixzz3wWFvXJyQ

92 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Uh oh. This wasn't supposed to happen. (Original Post) floriduck Jan 2016 OP
Sounds like Nevada has a lot of saltpoint Jan 2016 #1
+1. n/t bvf Jan 2016 #2
From the Morning Joe interview this morning... tex-wyo-dem Jan 2016 #27
It will keep the energy level saltpoint Jan 2016 #62
Nevada has suffered greatly at the hands of the 1%, banksters and such Proserpina Jan 2016 #31
Yep -- Nevada's getting it together saltpoint Jan 2016 #63
+2 Ivan Kaputski Jan 2016 #54
Bet you're right. Anyone out saltpoint Jan 2016 #61
K&R CharlotteVale Jan 2016 #3
Firewall Schmirewall! in_cog_ni_to Jan 2016 #4
What evidence?? The latest NV poll (Dec 28) had Hillary up 50-27 DCBob Jan 2016 #5
The article spoke of the way Sanders was making inroads into what should be a solid Clinton state. Gore1FL Jan 2016 #6
So no actual polling evidence. DCBob Jan 2016 #10
Very disappointing but no longer surprising. stevenleser Jan 2016 #12
You should really read the article. Gore1FL Jan 2016 #16
I think you misunderstood the the article and/or my post. Let me try to be clearer. Gore1FL Jan 2016 #15
I understood the article... DCBob Jan 2016 #19
Feeble? Baseless? chervilant Jan 2016 #21
It's a hit and run. But they missed and hit a wall. Gore1FL Jan 2016 #23
What's amusing are Bernie supporters like you.. DCBob Jan 2016 #34
Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2016 #39
I am guessing you read the title and not the article -- just like you did my posts. Gore1FL Jan 2016 #22
I read the article and re-read it looking for any substantial evidence.. didn't find it. DCBob Jan 2016 #33
Then you didn't understand it. Gore1FL Jan 2016 #41
It wasn't worth explaining in the first place. Blus4u Jan 2016 #56
Whistling past the graveyard Plucketeer Jan 2016 #72
No whistling here.. just commenting on a very ignorant article. DCBob Jan 2016 #74
Does the polling take into account... tex-wyo-dem Jan 2016 #28
Same day polling doesn't only benefit Sanders. DCBob Jan 2016 #36
Sanders biggest problem in Nevada is that there aren't enough white males.. DCBob Jan 2016 #35
I am sorry the article confuses you so. n/t Gore1FL Jan 2016 #42
LOL.. you appear to be the confused one... DCBob Jan 2016 #45
Says the personn who thought the article was about polling, lol n/t Gore1FL Jan 2016 #52
Without polling evidence to back up the article's claims, its meaningless. DCBob Jan 2016 #55
If it was about polling, you'd be right. It isn't. You' aren't. n/t Gore1FL Jan 2016 #57
If the article made any sense, you'd be right. It doesn't, so you aren't. DCBob Jan 2016 #65
When you try to perform hit and runs, you should be more effective at both. Gore1FL Jan 2016 #75
Whats odd is why your comments focus on me rather than the article. DCBob Jan 2016 #76
I explained the article several times. Gore1FL Jan 2016 #78
Hillary's biggest problem in Nevada is that she tried to disenfranchise Black voters in 2008. ieoeja Jan 2016 #47
I think the polling indicates that most Black folks are over 2008 ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2016 #48
I will address both your points DemocratSinceBirth Jan 2016 #51
Lol, they talked to a few folks who said they were voting Bernie. stevenleser Jan 2016 #11
No - it's because even polling companies admit polls are faulty these days. Fawke Em Jan 2016 #14
What polls are you talking about? The subject matter of the article isnt polling Gore1FL Jan 2016 #17
Oh, Bob.... Elmer S. E. Dump Jan 2016 #60
Bernin' down the firewall!! AzDar Jan 2016 #7
Set to Pink Floyd's 'The Wall' of course. greiner3 Jan 2016 #68
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Jan 2016 #8
K&R!!!! Phlem Jan 2016 #9
My favorite part of the article. Bleacher Creature Jan 2016 #13
I lived in northern Nevada underthematrix Jan 2016 #18
The article didn't suggest otherwise. Gore1FL Jan 2016 #24
HRC has LV and Reno and the itty bitty towns underthematrix Jan 2016 #25
Again, that isn't in dispute. Gore1FL Jan 2016 #26
Politico again. murielm99 Jan 2016 #20
Wow, Bernie got support from a PUMA jfern Jan 2016 #29
So did he vote for McCain in November, 2008? RandySF Jan 2016 #32
Hillary is up 50-27. Sanders cracking firewalls again? Alfresco Jan 2016 #30
Indeed.. what's up with the "cracking firewalls"? DCBob Jan 2016 #37
"Cracking a firewall" may not be the best chosen words in light of the data breach. randome Jan 2016 #38
I'm wondering if that was intentional nxylas Jan 2016 #43
LOL ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2016 #49
50%-27%. Clinton sits pretty comfortably. seabeyond Jan 2016 #40
yes, but 50% doesn't a firewall make Gore1FL Jan 2016 #53
Meh. A win is... the win. game over. seabeyond Jan 2016 #69
I heard that same thing in 2008 Gore1FL Jan 2016 #77
I do not see this momentum. I see stalled. IF Sanders wins, I vote for him. Life goes on. seabeyond Jan 2016 #79
If you read the article it would be much easier. Gore1FL Jan 2016 #80
We can tell ourselves whatever stories we want for the future. Merely story telling. I do not live seabeyond Jan 2016 #83
Just read the fucking article. If you want to discuss it, please make your post pertain to it. Gore1FL Jan 2016 #84
No, no. Really. 50 to 27. Watch out, Clinton. SC, 67-31. Momentum. seabeyond Jan 2016 #85
If you are only interested in trolling, find another bridge. Gore1FL Jan 2016 #86
To disagree is to troll? seabeyond Jan 2016 #87
No disagreeing is fine. Gore1FL Jan 2016 #88
Only.... In your opinion, after all. seabeyond Jan 2016 #89
It's more of a scientific theory at this point. Gore1FL Jan 2016 #90
Ha. Lol. The data has been strongly on my side. Which has been my point. Yours? Hope. seabeyond Jan 2016 #91
This is my favorite quote hueymahl Jan 2016 #44
Matter of time. dpatbrown Jan 2016 #46
Firewallls that don't work seem to be a problem with the Clinton Campaign. bvar22 Jan 2016 #50
Yea, because the other side likes to steal things leftofcool Jan 2016 #58
Help me out here...how does someone steal a Firewall? libdem4life Jan 2016 #70
The progressive movement must be a reality-based movement. CSStrowbridge Jan 2016 #59
Fools miss the point of the article. floriduck Jan 2016 #64
Calling fellow Democrats fools is not going to help your cause. DCBob Jan 2016 #66
The term fool came from the guy above me. floriduck Jan 2016 #67
No one should be calling anyone a fool here. DCBob Jan 2016 #71
He only reads titles. n/t Gore1FL Jan 2016 #82
+1 Gore1FL Jan 2016 #81
I read the article. CSStrowbridge Jan 2016 #92
Huh, I wonder if there's a correlation as to how people get their news? Babel_17 Jan 2016 #73

saltpoint

(50,986 posts)
1. Sounds like Nevada has a lot of
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 10:01 PM
Jan 2016

engaged Democratic volunteers in it at the moment.

And that's a real good thing.

tex-wyo-dem

(3,190 posts)
27. From the Morning Joe interview this morning...
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 02:33 AM
Jan 2016

Sanders said that they were heading to NV right after the interview.

Seems his campaign feels they are making headway in the state!

saltpoint

(50,986 posts)
62. It will keep the energy level
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 07:29 PM
Jan 2016

high and voter interest even higher.

Could be a real good barometer for the general, too.

 

Proserpina

(2,352 posts)
31. Nevada has suffered greatly at the hands of the 1%, banksters and such
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 04:22 AM
Jan 2016

They may be crazy down there, but they aren't stupid.

saltpoint

(50,986 posts)
63. Yep -- Nevada's getting it together
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 07:30 PM
Jan 2016

big time.

'Would like to see a long-term blue streak at all levels of government in Nevada.

And for a very long time to come.

 

Ivan Kaputski

(528 posts)
54. +2
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 03:30 PM
Jan 2016

Volunteers are a good sign for the Democratic party. I'll bet that the volunteer stats for the repugs are not near as good.

saltpoint

(50,986 posts)
61. Bet you're right. Anyone out
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 07:28 PM
Jan 2016

volunteering for the current GOP candidates should probably be locked up in a basement.

I think the blue team has the vibe for 2016.

Gore1FL

(20,993 posts)
6. The article spoke of the way Sanders was making inroads into what should be a solid Clinton state.
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 11:02 PM
Jan 2016

From the article:

<snip>

In recent days, Sanders has won over some of Clinton's most stalwart supporters in the state. Erin Bilbray, a member of the Democratic National Committee from Nevada who was so loyal to Clinton in 2008 that she refused to support Obama at the convention, has endorsed the Vermont senator.

<snip>

There are several factors suggesting an opening for Sanders to mount a strong challenge to the Democratic frontrunner – if he plays his ground game right.
The powerful Culinary Union that represents 60,000 members, multiple sources said, is expected to remain neutral and offer no endorsement until after the caucuses. In 2008, the union backed Obama about three weeks before the caucuses.
Same day registration for Democrats here also means more non-traditional voters can participate in the process if Sanders campaign manages to turn them out on caucus day. To that effect, National Nurses United launched a "Bernie Bus" on Wednesday, making multiple stops in Las Vegas to rally supporters ahead of the Democratic dinner. The bus made stops in front of the Tropicana Las Vegas and the MGM Grand Conference Center to turn out Nevada registered nurses for Sanders.

<snip>
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-nevada-217432#ixzz3wWVIQQIy

Clinton's current dominance in the polls wasn't the focus of the article. The point was that things are falling in such a way that Sanders could neutralize NV as a Clinton firewall, should Clinton actually need NV as a firewall. If Clinton does well enough in IA and NH and SC, she won't need one.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
12. Very disappointing but no longer surprising.
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 11:47 PM
Jan 2016

Long gone are the days where DU was demanding of actual evidence for contentions.

Wishful thinking rules the day.

Gore1FL

(20,993 posts)
15. I think you misunderstood the the article and/or my post. Let me try to be clearer.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 12:28 AM
Jan 2016

This has nothing to do with polling. This has to do with with important and influential supporters in NV (expected to be in Clinton's camp) throwing their support to Sanders. In a Caucus state, that can matter quite a lot.

Sanders isn't required to win NV in order to stop it from being a Clinton firewall. Clinton not winning big is required to stop it from being a firewall. Sanders is making inroads with important support within that state that Clinton thought she could count on. It's likely not enough to stop her from winning the state. But it may stop the win from being the momentum stopper they planned on that state to be.

The whole point may be moot by then, anyway. Clinton may not need a firewall. A prerequisite for this to even matter in the slightest is Sanders having momentum. If she does, NV may not be enough to do what they once thought it could do. That might not matter either.


DCBob

(24,689 posts)
19. I understood the article...
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 12:38 AM
Jan 2016

Its a feeble baseless attempt to persuade readers Bernie is competitive in Nevada.

chervilant

(8,267 posts)
21. Feeble? Baseless?
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 12:48 AM
Jan 2016

If so, then HRC and her supporters have absolutely nothing about which to worry, no?


(Forgive me if I find your trenchant condescension rather amusing...)

Gore1FL

(20,993 posts)
23. It's a hit and run. But they missed and hit a wall.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 12:53 AM
Jan 2016

The interest is not the content of the article (which they didn't read), but to instead deny what they think the article is about based on the headline.

For them to even care about NV as a firewall means at some level they believe Sanders may well have a lot of momentum heading into the NV Caucus in the first place.

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
34. What's amusing are Bernie supporters like you..
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 09:31 AM
Jan 2016

who are quick to dismiss real evidence favorable to Hillary but believe fantasy stories like this one.

Response to DCBob (Reply #34)

Gore1FL

(20,993 posts)
22. I am guessing you read the title and not the article -- just like you did my posts.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 12:49 AM
Jan 2016

If I knew you really didn't want to discuss what the article actually said, I wouldn't have wasted my time corrected what I thought at first was an innocent straw man.

Have a great night.

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
33. I read the article and re-read it looking for any substantial evidence.. didn't find it.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 09:28 AM
Jan 2016

The only thing I see is one former Hillary supporter switched to Bernie and Bernie's campaign is hiring people and opening some offices. That doesn't mean Bernie is suddenly competitive there. Feeble and baseless as I said before.

Gore1FL

(20,993 posts)
41. Then you didn't understand it.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:32 AM
Jan 2016

I've explained it multiple times. It's really not worth trying to again.

TTFN

 

Plucketeer

(12,882 posts)
72. Whistling past the graveyard
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 09:21 PM
Jan 2016

is what your off-hand dismissal is called. That's cool. We understand.

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
74. No whistling here.. just commenting on a very ignorant article.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:22 PM
Jan 2016

For one thing Nevada is not necessarily a prime Hillary state. The states where Hillary will do best are those with high percentage of African American voters which are mostly in the south. Nevada has a relatively low percent of AA voters as compared to the deep south states.

And the idea that Bernie is gaining traction there isn't supported by anything of significance. One Hillary supporter changed to Bernie; Bernie's campaign hired some folks and opened some offices; and a union hasn't decided to support anyone yet.. How has any of that changed the dynamics there?? I suspect the next round of polls will still show Hillary way ahead.

tex-wyo-dem

(3,190 posts)
28. Does the polling take into account...
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 02:42 AM
Jan 2016

Same day registration in the state, or are they polling just registered Democrats and "likely" voters? If so, me thinks they could have some major blind spots in their polling data.

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
35. Sanders biggest problem in Nevada is that there aren't enough white males..
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 09:50 AM
Jan 2016

Also from the article..

Sanders’ appeal to Latinos remains a question mark — at a rally here after the first Democratic debate, the crowd that came out to support Sanders was noticeably white for a diverse state, as was the senator’s pre-dinner rally Wednesday.


DCBob

(24,689 posts)
55. Without polling evidence to back up the article's claims, its meaningless.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 03:50 PM
Jan 2016

There is nothing in that article that supports "cracking a firewall" in Nevada or anywhere else. Its nonsense.

Gore1FL

(20,993 posts)
75. When you try to perform hit and runs, you should be more effective at both.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:55 PM
Jan 2016

The fact that you keep prolonging this is odd, but if you'd like to keep kicking the thread, I am happy to reply.

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
76. Whats odd is why your comments focus on me rather than the article.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:06 PM
Jan 2016

I assume that means you have nothing of substance to offer.

Gore1FL

(20,993 posts)
78. I explained the article several times.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:19 PM
Jan 2016

You didn't read them any more that you read the article.

What's left to discuss?

 

ieoeja

(9,748 posts)
47. Hillary's biggest problem in Nevada is that she tried to disenfranchise Black voters in 2008.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 12:31 PM
Jan 2016

Not to mention her generally overall racist campaign that year.

Her second biggest problem is that Nevada is largely rural, and she does extremely poorly in rural regions. Obama swept all but the most populated county in 2008. Good chance Bernie could do so again.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,702 posts)
51. I will address both your points
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 02:31 PM
Jan 2016
Hillary's biggest problem in Nevada is that she tried to disenfranchise Black voters in 2008.
View profile

Not to mention her generally overall racist campaign that year


-ieoeja





Here are her Congressional endorsements. Highlighted are her endorsements from the Congressional Black Caucus. Seventy five percent of Caucus members have endorsed her. They seem to have forgiven her:


Current[edit]
Pete Aguilar, CA[93]
Brad Ashford, NE[94]
Karen Bass, CA[95]
Joyce Beatty, OH[96]
Xavier Becerra, CA[22]
Ami Bera, CA[70]
Don Beyer, VA[97]
Suzanne Bonamici, OR[98]
Cory Booker
Madeleine Bordallo, GU Del.[99]
Corrine Brown, FL[100]
Julia Brownley, CA[93]
Cheri Bustos, IL[101]
GK Butterfiled- Chairman
Lois Capps, CA[102]
Michael Capuano, MA[103]
Tony Cardenas, CA[104]
John Carney, DE[61]
André Carson, IN[105]
Matt Cartwright, PA[106]
Kathy Castor, FL[22]
Joaquín Castro, TX[107]
Judy Chu, CA[108]
David Cicilline, RI[109]
Katherine Clark, MA[110]
Yvette Clark, NY[111]
William Lacy Clay, Jr., MO[112]
Emanuel Cleaver, MO[57]
Steve Cohen, TN[113]
Gerry Connolly, VA[114]
John Conyers, MI[115]
Jim Cooper, TN[116]
Joe Courtney, CT[117]
Joseph Crowley, NY[118]
Henry Cuellar, TX[57]
Elijah Cummings, MD[119]
Danny Davis, IL[57]
Diana DeGette, CO[120]
John Delaney, MD[57]
Rosa DeLauro, CT[121]
Suzan DelBene, WA[25]
Ted Deutch, FL[57]
Debbie Dingell, MI[57]
Tammy Duckworth, IL[57]
Donna Edwards, MD[87]
Eliot Engel, NY[122]
Anna Eshoo, CA[93]
Elizabeth Esty, CT[123]
Bill Foster, IL[57]
Lois Frankel, FL[57]
Marcia Fudge, OH[124]
Ruben Gallego, AZ[125]
John Garamendi, CA[126]
Gene Green, TX[57]
Luis Gutiérrez, IL[127]
Janice Hahn, CA[57]
Alcee Hastings, FL[128]
Denny Heck, WA[25]
Brian Higgins, NY[22]
Rubén Hinojosa. TX[22]
Jim Himes, CT[129]
Eleanor Holmes Norton, DC Del.[130]
Mike Honda, CA[131]
Steny Hoyer, Min. Whip, MD[132]
Jared Huffman, CA[133]
Steve Israel, NY[57]
Sheila Jackson Lee, TX[57]
Hakeem Jeffries, NY[134]
Eddie Bernice Johnson, TX[57]
Hank Johnson, GA[135]
Bill Keating, MA[136]
Robin Kelly, IL[137]
Joseph P. Kennedy III, MA[138]
Dan Kildee, MI[57]
Derek Kilmer, WA[57]
Ann Kirkpatrick, AZ[139]
Ann Kuster, NH[140]
Jim Langevin, RI[141]
Rick Larsen, WA[57]
John B. Larson, CT[123]
Brenda Lawrence, MI[142]
Sandy Levin, MI[57]
John Lewis, GA[57]
Ted Lieu, CA[99]
Dave Loebsack, IA[143]
Zoe Lofgren, CA[144]
Nita Lowey, NY[57]
Michelle Lujan Grisham, NM[57]
Stephen F. Lynch, MA[145]
Carolyn Maloney, NY[146]
Sean Patrick Maloney, NY[57]
Doris Matsui, CA[57]
Betty McCollum, MN[147]
Jim McDermott, WA[57]
Jim McGovern, MA[148]
Jerry McNerney, CA[93]
Gregory W. Meeks, NY[149]
Grace Meng, NY[150]
Gwen Moore, WI[151]
Seth Moulton, MA[152]
Patrick Murphy, FL[153]
Jerrold Nadler, NY[154]
Grace Napolitano, CA[155]
Richard Neal, MA[156]
Rick Nolan, MN[157]
Bill Pascrell, NJ[158]
Donald Payne, Jr., NJ[159]
Ed Perlmutter, CO[57]
Scott Peters, CA[22]
Pedro Pierluisi, PR Res. Comm.[160]
Chellie Pingree, ME[57]
Jared Polis, CO[57]
Lucille Roybal-Allard, CA[155]
Charles Rangel, NY[57]
Kathleen Rice, NY[57]
Cedric Richmond, LA[57]
Raul Ruiz, CA[160]
Dutch Ruppersberger, MD[87]
Tim Ryan, OH[57]
Linda Sánchez, CA[161]
Loretta Sanchez, CA[155]
John Sarbanes, MD[87]
Jan Schakowsky, IL[57]
Adam Schiff, CA[57]
Kurt Schrader, OR[116]
Bobby Scott, VA[162]
David Scott, GA[22]

José E. Serrano, NY[163]
Terri Sewell, AL[22]
Brad Sherman, CA[164]
Louise Slaughter, NY[165]
Adam Smith, WA[166]
Jackie Speier, CA[93]
Mark Takai, HI[82]
Mark Takano, CA[70]
Bennie Thompson, MS[167]
Mike Thompson, CA[22]
Dina Titus, NV[168]
Paul Tonko, NY[122]
Niki Tsongas, MA[145]
Chris Van Hollen, MD[169]
Marc Veasey, TX[57]
Nydia Velázquez, NY[57]
Filemon Vela, Jr., TX[170]
Maxine Waters, CA[171]
Bonnie Watson Coleman, NJ[159]
Tim Walz, MN[172]
Frederica Wilson, FL[173]
John Yarmuth, KY[174]


Also, in a recent poll she was leading among African Americans 73-12%:




http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/clinton-maintains-lead-over-sanders-heading-primaries-n490131



Her second biggest problem is that Nevada is largely rural, and she does extremely poorly in rural regions.


Nearly two thirds of Nevada's population lives in the Las Vegas Metropolitan Statistical Area, ergo:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas%E2%80%93Paradise,_NV_MSA



 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
11. Lol, they talked to a few folks who said they were voting Bernie.
Wed Jan 6, 2016, 11:46 PM
Jan 2016

Again, we're in Unskewed polls territory.

As far as Bernistas are concerned:

Scientific polls=bad

Anecdotal experience with Joe from around the block=definitive!

Gore1FL

(20,993 posts)
17. What polls are you talking about? The subject matter of the article isnt polling
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 12:32 AM
Jan 2016

It has to do with infrastructure and notable supporters that Clinton thought she had in her corner appear to be endorsing Sanders.

If you are going to ridicule people over a posted article, at least have the common decency to read it past the headline.

Bleacher Creature

(11,230 posts)
13. My favorite part of the article.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 12:02 AM
Jan 2016

<snip>

There are several factors suggesting an opening for Sanders to mount a strong challenge to the Democratic frontrunner – if he plays his ground game right.

The powerful Culinary Union that represents 60,000 members, multiple sources said, is expected to remain neutral and offer no endorsement until after the caucuses. In 2008, the union backed Obama about three weeks before the caucuses.

<snip>

That sounds to me like the union is taking a more favorable approach to HRC than it did eight years ago. How exactly does that "suggest an opening" for Sanders?

So Clinton still maintains a huge lead in the polls, but because some random super delegate likes Sanders, and because he's expending some actual resources in the state - poof! She's in trouble!

Gore1FL

(20,993 posts)
24. The article didn't suggest otherwise.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 01:00 AM
Jan 2016

It simply said she may not win it big enough for it to be a firewall based on a shift of support from Clinton to Sanders as well as increased infrastructure spending. Being a Caucus state, the right support and the right infrastructure can make a big enough difference to take it from strategic to marginal victory. That's how Obama managed to neutralize the Clinton win there in 2008.

If Clinton needs a firewall when NV rolls around, that implies Sanders momentum. If Sanders doesn't have momentum, the whole firewall exercise is unnecessary.

Gore1FL

(20,993 posts)
26. Again, that isn't in dispute.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 01:37 AM
Jan 2016

But if she needs a firewall, it may not serve as one because she has to meet or exceed expectations if it is to be one. In the face of the Sanders momentum (that is required for this discussion to even be worth having) she would be fighting that and the erosion and possible erosion of her support that the article describes. Her winning is not the same as the state acting as a political firewall in the face of early Sanders momentum which there may or may not be.



jfern

(5,204 posts)
29. Wow, Bernie got support from a PUMA
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 03:05 AM
Jan 2016

"Erin Bilbray, a member of the Democratic National Committee from Nevada who was so loyal to Clinton in 2008 that she refused to support Obama at the convention, has endorsed the Vermont senator"

Just LOL

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
37. Indeed.. what's up with the "cracking firewalls"?
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:18 AM
Jan 2016

All I see as evidence is Bernie is getting serious about trying to win in Nevada and one former Hillary supporter switched to Bernie. Not exactly "cracking firewall" type stuff to me. I dont get it.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
38. "Cracking a firewall" may not be the best chosen words in light of the data breach.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:21 AM
Jan 2016

Just sayin'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"
[/center][/font][hr]

nxylas

(6,440 posts)
43. I'm wondering if that was intentional
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:33 AM
Jan 2016

A subtle way of pushing the Clinton narrative under the guise of a positive Sanders story.

Gore1FL

(20,993 posts)
53. yes, but 50% doesn't a firewall make
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 03:19 PM
Jan 2016

The article isn't about Sanders winning NV. The article is about inroads being made so that she might not have as big of a win as necessary to stop the Sanders momentum.

If Sanders has no momentum, a firewall is not needed. If he does have momentum, the way things are playing out in NV at the moment indicate that Clinton might not win it by enough to stop said momentum should it exist.

Did anyone read the article or are we just debating headlines now?

Gore1FL

(20,993 posts)
77. I heard that same thing in 2008
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:14 PM
Jan 2016

Chances are, based on most polling, Hillary won't need a firewall, so it's probably moot. However, a win isn't just a win. Hillary won in 2008. She did so barely. Despite winning she was unable to stop Obama's momentum.

That's what the article is about. Hence, you aren't debunking anything, you are simply demonstrating that you couldn't be bothered to read anything past the headline. You might find it would be less embarrassing to actually read the posts and linked articles before trying to argue against their content.

Seriously...



Gore1FL

(20,993 posts)
80. If you read the article it would be much easier.
Fri Jan 8, 2016, 12:57 AM
Jan 2016

The entire reason for a firewall would presupposes the momentum. It's like insurance.

In the event of Sanders success in the early primaries, NV is supposed to be the Clinton firewall--that is, the place she stops that momentum and turns everything around. As it turns out some support that she thought was squarely in her corner either a> is not, or b> has yet to commit. That makes NV less of a momentum stopper.

The article documents verifiable NV erosion, identifies possible future events, and suggest a larger ground game from Sanders than originally expected. It does not suggest there will be Sanders momentum. It suggests that, if there is, the NV caucuses may not be where it's stopped, if it is stopped.

I really don't know how to explain this any better. Why don't you read the article rather than arguing what you think the title means? Wouldn't that really just be the easier way to go about this?





 

seabeyond

(110,159 posts)
83. We can tell ourselves whatever stories we want for the future. Merely story telling. I do not live
Fri Jan 8, 2016, 01:12 AM
Jan 2016

or argue in that manner.

Clinton has done the work to build a strong foundation.

We will see how successful she is.

That is about as far as I go with future story telling.

Right here. Right now. Clinton sits at 50% to Sanders what? 27%?

Watching the polls thru out the primary, she has held strong and Sanders has stalled, Imo.

We can create whatever story. I will wait to watch things unfold.

Gore1FL

(20,993 posts)
84. Just read the fucking article. If you want to discuss it, please make your post pertain to it.
Fri Jan 8, 2016, 01:18 AM
Jan 2016

Otherwise you are wasting my time and inconveniencing large quantities of electrons in doing so.

Have a great night.

Gore1FL

(20,993 posts)
86. If you are only interested in trolling, find another bridge.
Fri Jan 8, 2016, 09:46 AM
Jan 2016

I'm here for thoughtful discussion of the article.

Gore1FL

(20,993 posts)
90. It's more of a scientific theory at this point.
Fri Jan 8, 2016, 09:45 PM
Jan 2016

So far, out of an abundance of data, none has contradicted the hypothesis.

hueymahl

(2,403 posts)
44. This is my favorite quote
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:42 AM
Jan 2016

The speaker originally endorsed Clinton but switched here endorsement to Sanders:

“When I hosted Bernie at my house last week, I called friends who I was positive were Clinton supporters only to find out they liked Bernie, but just didn’t think he had a chance to win,” Bilbray said. “Here in Nevada, I think I gave people permission to support what they cared about.”
 

dpatbrown

(368 posts)
46. Matter of time.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 11:18 AM
Jan 2016

It's only a matter of time until Sanders is in play in EVERY states. Voters are catching on fast and they like what they are hearing from Sanders. Sanders has only one way to go, as he gets more exposure, and that's up. Unfortunately for Clinton, she has only one way to go, and that's down.

The Clinton campaign and her supporters are very concerned. People are so tired of Wall Street and the banks screwing them. So tired.

CSStrowbridge

(267 posts)
59. The progressive movement must be a reality-based movement.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 06:37 PM
Jan 2016

http://www.scribd.com/doc/294241032/Nevada-Poll-December-28-2015-3

Look at the polling data before saying a state is in play.

If you don't, you look like a fool.
 

floriduck

(2,262 posts)
64. Fools miss the point of the article.
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 07:57 PM
Jan 2016

No one mentioned polling. Re-read the damn article or try reading it once.

CSStrowbridge

(267 posts)
92. I read the article.
Sat Jan 9, 2016, 02:22 AM
Jan 2016

I read the article. It claims Nevada is in play. It backs that claim up with no evidence. I gave evidence that contradicts the claim in the article.

Babel_17

(5,400 posts)
73. Huh, I wonder if there's a correlation as to how people get their news?
Thu Jan 7, 2016, 10:15 PM
Jan 2016

Smaller communities, smaller media markets, = less messaging from mass media, and more input from more intimate sources? Just thinking out loud here.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Uh oh. This wasn't suppo...