May 23, 2016

Know Clinton, No Clinton. Know Trump, No Trump. Know Bernie=NO Clinton, NO Trump!

May 23, 2016

The Hillary Camp is incorrect to insist that *72% of Sanders supporters will vote for Hillary*

To be fair, they were relying on a statement made in a CBS News article that played fast and loose with a statistic culled from their own polling survey. The CBS News/New York Times survey in question was taken between May 13th and 17th. In the survey made available to the public, some of the questions viewable are too imprecise to draw accurate conclusions from. In addition, some of the survey questions were withheld from the public. Also, the results of survey questions that were withheld, while reported on in the article, weren't clearly presented. And the totals of respondents who were supporters of each candidate weren't made available to the public. All of this added to the confusion and may have contributed to the misleading 72% figure making the rounds lately.

That 72% figure is misleading for several reasons. Firstly, the CBS News article that reported the results of that survey made it clear that, when not restricted to a choice of voting ONLY for Clinton or Trump, 8 out of 10 of ALL Sanders supporters surveyed who were registered voters (not just those who were allowed to/participated in the Democratic Primary) wanted to be able to choose another option (write-in, not vote, or vote 3rd party/Independent candidate)! Surprisingly, a majority of both Democrats and Independents also did not want to be limited to voting only for either Clinton or Trump!

Secondly, since the actual questions were withheld from the published survey, it wasn't immediately obvious to whom that 72% figure referred. Here is the wording from the CBS News' article:



So, based on the presentation of the Republican response that appears just before it, the reference to Sanders supporters on the "Democratic side" probably pertains only to his supporters who voted in the Democratic Primary. Left out of that 72% figure, then, are the Sanders supporters who either weren't allowed to vote in closed primaries or who simply didn't vote in the primaries. They would be enumerated in the survey category labeled "Registered Voter-Independents" (calculated total=359*). We know that during this campaign season, that has been a significant amount of his supporters who are registered to vote, and their frustrations over that may partially influence what they choose to do with their vote in the GE.

A New York Times article I found is more clear about from whom the responses to that question were gathered:



Thirdly, the number of respondents broken down by which candidate they supported was withheld from the survey presented to the public. So, the total number of Sanders supporters, as well as the number of Sanders supporters broken down by party (Democratic, Independent, Republican) is unclear. It makes a difference whether the poll is referring to 72% of 200 Sanders supporters or 72% of just 10 Sanders supporters.

*


Lastly, that 72% of his supporters who voted in the Democratic primaries and indicated that they would vote for Hillary, if the only choice they were allowed was to either vote for her or for Trump, has probably decreased significantly in this last week. The survey for this poll began May 13th, the day before the contentious Nevada State Democratic Convention, and ended May 17th, while the Hillary campaign was falsely maligning Sanders supporters with allegation of violence at the convention, but before the those allegations were debunked as lies. Negative impressions of the Democratic party by Sanders supporters have soared since then and previous intentions by some of his supporters to resignedly vote for the Democratic nominee have undoubtedly hardened into resolve to not only NOT EVER vote for Hillary, but to now leave the Democratic party.

May 22, 2016

Yes!

May 19, 2016

People are Teabaggers because they hold extreme RW views. Sanders supporters are NOT Teabaggers

and neither are Clinton supporters. Stop your extreme hyperbolic nonsense. It really is unbecoming on posters here.

Under your definition, all the Clinton DUers who have been lying about violence occurring at the Nevada Convention on Saturday (totally debunked lie) are now Teabaggers because they:

1. repeated the lie,
2. at high volumes
3. and insisted that made it true.

See how that works.

May 19, 2016

They are extremely irritated, but not scared, as far as the outcome of the primaries go.

I believe they ARE scared, and rightfully so, about the effect Bernie may be having on her GE numbers within the Dem party and among liberal Independents, the perception that she is a weak candidate due to her inability to close the deal, the public's negative perception of her, and the impact all of that could have on her GE war chest. Those fears are undoubtedly tempered by their need to use Bernie as a buffer for the next 2 months.

Quite a conundrum for Clinton. You can see the Weathervane camp is all over the map trying to figure out an answer to the Bernie problem.

May 18, 2016

Arcane, it means the support for a Progressive Movement is STRONG!

So strong that all the people, all the money, all the resources the Clinton Dynasty has invested in her coronation can not stop it now.

The 'who' in your question has been rendered ineffectual and so the answer to your question isn't worth knowing, wouldn't you say?

May 18, 2016

In a CLOSED primary, HALF the Democratic base went for Sanders. This. late. in. the. race!

In the face of almost zero positive mentions of Sanders for weeks by the media.

And with Lange, Reid, and Clinton manufacturing claims of violence conducted by Sanders' supporters at the NV Convention.

Sanders pulled in HALF of the Kentucky Democratic Base! Woo hoo!

May 17, 2016

Shots were fired into Bernie Sander's Nevada Campaign Office - staff living quarters were ransacked.

Now that is REAL violence, and backed up by real evidence, unlike Jon Ralston's circulated rumors of.. wait for it... Chair Throwing!

May 17, 2016

They will have to draft him via a write in campaign then, because

barring a really egregious action, I doubt that Sanders would run as a 3rd party candidate.

And a draft campaign for president has not worked yet, but then there has never before been such an admired, trustworthy, genuine and knowledgeable people's candidate as Bernie Sanders. He actually has a decent possibility of winning as a draftee and I doubt he would turn down such a win.

May 16, 2016

The corruption is voiced in detail by Roberta Lange in video after video

of the Nevada State Convention. They are all available on Youtube now.

The most egregiously corrupt part of that whole convention was when the Chair created a "temporary" rule to make the results of all the delegate voting at the County Convention level in NV null and void because it didn't favor the chair's candidate.

That "temporary" rule is very reminiscent of the Bush v Gore SCOTUS decision in 4 ways:

1. The court, like the Chair above made the ruling to "elect" their candidate;
2. The two rulings were deemed "temporary" and not to be used in any other decision;
3. The corrupt decisions were openly displayed to the whole world in all their naked guile and
4. Both are unprecedented in the history of the US.

Unprecedented.

No other State Dem Party has ever declared the legitimately arrived at delegate counts of their 2nd tier convention to be null and void and to instead use the delegate count from the caucuses because it favored their candidate.