At 8/24/15 03:36 PM, EKublai wrote: Have you all heard about the 100,000 person march on Washington?

What is a march going to accomplish? Why do you support Bernie?

There's a guy called Jeremy Corbyn who is doing a similar thing to UK politics as this Sanders chap

At 8/24/15 05:15 PM, E-U-R-I-C wrote:

At 8/24/15 03:36 PM, EKublai wrote: Have you all heard about the 100,000 person march on Washington?

What is a march going to accomplish? Why do you support Bernie?

An actual show of popular opinion is still persuasive. It's no easy task to get people to move, let alone vote. It'll turn a spotlight on. Like Occupy except without the vandalism and shitting on Mcdonald's counters.

At 8/24/15 09:26 PM, EKublai wrote: An actual show of popular opinion is still persuasive. It's no easy task to get people to move, let alone vote. It'll turn a spotlight on. Like Occupy except without the vandalism and shitting on Mcdonald's counters.

I think you overestimate the attention span of the American voter, not to mention that no one in power are honestly going to lose sleep over a publicity stunt. (in fairness, all campaign rallies are publicity stunts by nature) they didn't exactly budge when Occupy Wall Street did their protests, probably because of how flimsy it turned out to be. Sure, they'll hop on the Bernie bandwagon now, but we'll see if they actually do vote for him and not just assume that Joe Blow will vote him as the nominee in 2016.

I saw somewhere that described exactly why I am wary of Bernie Sanders. It said "Sanders' base is deep but narrow." Where his base exists it fervent and large. However, outside of the areas where Bernie has a strong support, his support is nearly nonexistent.

On The West Coast and In the DC-Boston megalopolis you will see throngs of Sanders supporters, but outside of those areas you see little more than crickets and tumbleweed.

I'm a bit confused with you @Camarohusky. A part of you sounds like you want Bernie Sanders, but feels that you still want a Democrat in charge so you feel Hillary has the wider appeal and thus a better option in the long run.

At 8/24/15 11:51 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I saw somewhere that described exactly why I am wary of Bernie Sanders. It said "Sanders' base is deep but narrow." Where his base exists it fervent and large. However, outside of the areas where Bernie has a strong support, his support is nearly nonexistent.

On The West Coast and In the DC-Boston megalopolis you will see throngs of Sanders supporters, but outside of those areas you see little more than crickets and tumbleweed.

Does this matter? This is normal for being so early in the campaign season. Nearly every candidate has only local support somewhere and little nationally because the campaign primaries haven't heated up yet.

At 8/25/15 02:03 AM, The-Great-One wrote: I'm a bit confused with you @Camarohusky. A part of you sounds like you want Bernie Sanders, but feels that you still want a Democrat in charge so you feel Hillary has the wider appeal and thus a better option in the long run.

Pretty much. I find more important to keep the GOP candidates out than to get the best candidate in. A good candidate can do some good, but a GOP candidate will do a great deal of harm.

At 8/25/15 10:14 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Pretty much. I find more important to keep the GOP candidates out than to get the best candidate in. A good candidate can do some good, but a GOP candidate will do a great deal of harm.

Party loyalty does not paint anyone favorably. Although I do like Hilary Clinton to an extent and I will defend her to any rabid Republican within my own party. I still wouldn't like her as president. She's getting a big boom right now because there really isn't anyone to steal her thunder like Obama did. Bernie is starting to take her in the polls.

Bernie Sanders may seem un-electable, but a lot of people here were saying the same thing about Donald Trump and he's becoming quite popular among the Republican party. Anything can happen as the 2008 election showed - and as the 2000 election showed.

At 8/25/15 10:59 PM, The-Great-One wrote: Party loyalty does not paint anyone favorably.

My view is based more in fear. In fact, party loyalty is a big part of my fear. I fear the candidates of the GOP who must go through the "appeasing the far right base" primaries. I would not fear many of the "RINO" Republicans. However, the party loyalty with the power of the far right groups makes me concerned even about the RINO types doing what's right. I find too many parts of Republican platform scary to trust any cuurent Republican to choose country first.

Bernie Sanders may seem un-electable, but a lot of people here were saying the same thing about Donald Trump and he's becoming quite popular among the Republican party. Anything can happen as the 2008 election showed - and as the 2000 election showed.

I'll vote for him if he gets the nod, but I'm not confdent enough fence sitters will to put him over the mark.

At 8/25/15 11:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote: My view is based more in fear. In fact, party loyalty is a big part of my fear. I fear the candidates of the GOP who must go through the "appeasing the far right base" primaries. I would not fear many of the "RINO" Republicans. However, the party loyalty with the power of the far right groups makes me concerned even about the RINO types doing what's right. I find too many parts of Republican platform scary to trust any cuurent Republican to choose country first.

I understand and can certainly respect that. I guess I could be classified as a RINO, but I know that this party has done some wonderful things. It is a shame that it has gone down this road of dismay. I understand your distrust as well, the last election I voted for Obama over Romney.

I'll vote for him if he gets the nod, but I'm not confdent enough fence sitters will to put him over the mark.

That's the terrifying yet beautiful thing about American politics.

At 8/25/15 10:59 PM, The-Great-One wrote: Bernie Sanders may seem un-electable, but a lot of people here were saying the same thing about Donald Trump and he's becoming quite popular among the Republican party.

Be careful with your phrasing -- Trump is becoming popular with a very loud segment of the base, not the party itself. He will very likely not secure even a single endorsement from any of the major players within the GOP. If anything, the GOP will do everything in its power to ensure he will not win a single primary state, let alone be the nominee.

At 8/25/15 11:43 PM, The-Great-One wrote: I guess I could be classified as a RINO,

Side note, I fucking hate term RINO. It's meant to slap down those Republicans who actually have a chane of restoring now injured GOP to its former power in glory. I'd actually say these "Republicans In Name Only" are far more pure Republican than those who have recently begun to kowtow to the Tea Party, the religious right, and Norquist.

At 8/26/15 12:32 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Side note, I fucking hate term RINO. It's meant to slap down those Republicans who actually have a chane of restoring now injured GOP to its former power in glory. I'd actually say these "Republicans In Name Only" are far more pure Republican than those who have recently begun to kowtow to the Tea Party, the religious right, and Norquist.

I didn't even know what that term was until you brought it up. It does sound quite silly. The Republican party was truly wonderful, with great ideas, able to work the economy very well. Then it all went down hill. Many Republicans say it started to turn after Reagan, but he wasn't that great, it started to turn after Eisenhower.

At 8/26/15 10:49 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 8/26/15 12:36 AM, The-Great-One wrote:

At 8/26/15 12:32 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

I don't know what good things you think the Republican party has done. If they've done anything recently (in the last 63 years), I missed it.

I think God him/herself just came down from the clouds and said, "Oh SNAP!"

At 8/28/15 11:52 AM, EKublai wrote:

At 8/26/15 10:49 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 8/26/15 12:36 AM, The-Great-One wrote:

At 8/26/15 12:32 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

I don't know what good things you think the Republican party has done. If they've done anything recently (in the last 63 years), I missed it.

I think God him/herself just came down from the clouds and said, "Oh SNAP!"

Definitely a very thorough post. Glad you brought up both the Southern Strategy and the exaggerated idolization of Reagan (who, as has been noted by many journalists and analysts, wouldn't stand a chance in the modern-day GOP for being far too liberal).

At 8/26/15 10:49 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: His very election was part of the american Hero-Worship that developed in the 80s. That superman-messiah complex that our society has built up.

Also, that reminded me of the Land of Confusion video, lol

At 8/26/15 10:49 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: I don't know what good things you think the Republican party has done. If they've done anything recently (in the last 63 years), I missed it.

The closest would be either Nixon or Ford. Nixon had actually a really good diplomatic approach at least with Kissinger. He opened up relations with China in order to deepen the Sino-Soviet divide. That was a really good move that would've ended any Democratic President today. Outside with Chile/Vietnam it wasn't so good, but overall it was largely an improvement over the previous policy of "fuck you you're Communist". He also did create many of the environmental controls we have today like the EPA or the Endangered Species Act (which in itself has caused alot of controversy).

If Obama were to present the policies Nixon had passed people would consider it a shift to the left.

At 8/28/15 05:51 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: - Trump is speaking the narrative that most appeals to Republicans, which is why he's doing the best. "America is under assault (nazis,hippies,black people,communists,muslims,obama); America is changing (true) in a way they don't like; I can make America great again"

I don't think so. Trump is doing the best because he's dominating the media coverage of the election cycle so far; his unavailability ratings are through the roof. Quinnipiac put his net favorability at -18 this past Thursday, including Republicans. In fact, 26 percent of registered Republicans said there was no way they would ever vote for him -- the highest of any candidate. John Sides over at the Monkey Cage explains the phenomenon better than anyone:

"Now, it’s tempting to think that each surge is somehow the result of each candidate’s idiosyncratic appeal to Republican voters. This is what commentators often assume about Trump.

But a simpler explanation is this: when a pollster interrupts people’s lives and asks them about a presidential primary that doesn’t formally begin for months, a significant number of people will mention whichever candidate happens to be in the news these days. It’s basically a version of what’s called the “availability heuristic.” And for any causal consumer of news, Trump is very available these days.

But, as Cohn noted (and see also Andrew Prokop), this discovery phase doesn’t last. It’s followed by what Vavreck and I call “scrutiny”—in particular, scrutiny from the news media, aided and abetted by the competing candidates. (Hillary Clinton knows all about this.) This scrutiny tends to produce much less favorable coverage and, for many candidates, a permanent decline in the candidate’s poll numbers. In the primary, this is often fatal for that candidate’s campaign."

He also just posted this article covering the same subject yesterday:

At 8/26/15 10:49 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: I don't know what good things you think the Republican party has done. If they've done anything recently (in the last 63 years), I missed it.

I know a lot of stuff you brought up. Remember as I said, after Eisenhower it started to turn for the Republican Party. The Southern Strategy was the beginning and we've been going down hill after that. The Republican party has done some good things within the past 60 years, but for every one step forward they took two steps back and now are refusing to walk with another person besides their own.

At 8/29/15 10:19 AM, The-Great-One wrote: I know a lot of stuff you brought up. Remember as I said, after Eisenhower it started to turn for the Republican Party. The Republican party has done some good things within the past 60 years, but for every one step forward they took two steps back and now are refusing to walk with another person besides their own.

It is easy to point out the GOP's issues and problems, but you can never count them out. In a two party system, they have about a 50/50 chance to win.

At 8/29/15 10:27 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: It is easy to point out the GOP's issues and problems, but you can never count them out. In a two party system, they have about a 50/50 chance to win.

This would be true if we determined the next president by flipping a coin, but that's not how it works.

At 8/29/15 10:27 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: It is easy to point out the GOP's issues and problems, but you can never count them out. In a two party system, they have about a 50/50 chance to win.

This is absolutely right. However if Donald Trump runs as a third party candidate, that instantly becomes a 50/25, with the Republican Party being the 25. Honestly if Donald Trump runs as a third party, I hope he names the party after himself. I feel we've gotten a bit off track here away from Bernie Sanders though.

I'm hoping he will shake up the status quo, but I wouldn't vote for him. I think it's dangerous to vote for a candidate because they are "different". In the end they are all politicians, and Washington outsiders can prove to be worse than Washington elites. At best, his ideas would spur some reform.

Great debate going. But to get back on track let's observe the latest poll out of Iowa.

oooh ah!

(via DesMoines Register)

Clinton: 37%
Sanders: 30%
Biden: 14%

MoE: +/- 4.9%

I can't say if it's been one thing in particular but Clinton has lost a third of her support in Iowa since June/July. The crowds I do think are having a cumulative effect of people stoping and saying, "What's going on, here?" One of Bernie's big problems has been simply name recognition. I think he can erase that pretty quick.

Does anyone else have some ideas to get the topic back on track (though GumonShoe I continue to be impressed with your writing on here, even if just reading on the surface level.)

At 8/31/15 11:51 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: @Feoric, I think you're missing a main point of the article I linked too, and some fundamentals of party ideology that go beyond who's going to win. I'm not saying Trump is going to win the election or even stay on top. Neither is what I linked, and I think it is inaccurate to say that "popular" people are [i]only[/i] popular because the media is talking about them. While he recognizes that he's pointing out a correlation, and that it's a strong correlation he fails to understand that that is not a causation. So, let's dive in a bit to what you quoted.

I actually didn't take any issue with the article you linked (it's a good read), I only took issue with a conclusion you made about Trump's position in the current polls: mainly, that I don't think Trump's narrative actually appeals to the broader Republican electorate. This is strongly supported by the polls as well, which is ironic considering his position in them. I also think you're misinterpreting the point John Sides is making in his article (incidentally, the link in my post got fucked up, so here's a fresh one). So let's dive right into this:

This is very true, but it's not clear if he's in the news because people like him or if he's liked because he's in the news. I think it's specious to claim he's liked because he's in the news. We can all name examples of people who were in the news who would not be liked or voted for for president even though there was name recognition.

Right off the bat I see a problem: you claim Trump is liked. Alright, but by who? The answer to that seems to be around 20-25 percent of voters, which is where current aggregates put him in the race against other GOP candidates. Notice how I said voters. Period. Not Republican primary voters. Not Tea Party primary voters. Not voters who identify as extremely conservative. Just voters. Everyone. Don't believe me? Take a look at this infographic from Nate Silver's 538 blog. The difference between Trump's support among Moderates/Liberals and the Tea Party is a mere 5%! That's within the margin of error! In short -- this is something you address later on in your post which I'll address now -- there's virtually no correlation between Trump's supporters and ideologies! This actually should make some sort of sense once you understand that Trump's platform trancsends ideology. Trump may or may not have personal convictions as expressed on his campaign trail, but what matters most is what the electorate makes of him. At the end of the day he's a transformative figure -- some see him as a circus show, while others see him as an actual prefered choice for the presidency, which is why the numbers are so consistent across the wide ideological spectrum. In short, Trump's appeal isn't so much about ideology, but more about personality. Incidentally, this is Trump's signature modus operandi -- style over substance.

That being said, there's very little reason to believe that the celing for Trump isn't roughly around, at best, that same 20-25 percent figure; literally everyone else outside that exclusive group don't like him. To bring it back to the Vox article you linked, Trump (and some of his supporters) exist within the crazy zone. This is why his unfavorability numbers are higher than any other candidate by far. Now, to seemingly argue against my own point, the last Iowa poll has partians and pundits alike very excited over the findings, mainly over Trump's aforementioned favorability numbers. Despite this, even if this improvement continued into a trend, I still wouldn't think it mattered much. Why? The answer to that question cuts directy into your correlation =/= causation argument.

The fact of the matter is that the correlation which exists between Trump's polling position and the amount of media coverage he has been recieving isn't just "merely" correlation. It's actually staggering. Sides just recently touched upon just how significant of a correlation we're talking about. For context: correlation is measured on a scale between -1.0 to +1.0. The correlation which exists between Trump's polling and media coverage is a 0.96! That is huge!

Another important point to consider -- the GOP field is extremely crowded and Trump is able to exploit these conditions. How can 16 different candidates break out of the pack? The short answer is they can't right now. The long answer is they can...once the field starts to narrow down -- here's a post I made a little while back which touches upon the subject with a bit more detail. There's very little reason to believe Trump will maintain these numbers past January.

You make perfectly rational arguments and come to rational conclusions, but the numbers just don't support what you're saying. Now, is it possible that this time really is different, and everything we know about politics goes out the window? Yes! That actually is a possibility! But the arguments for why that is not the case are, in my opinion, air tight, and the numbers to support that case are definitely sound.

This is absolutely right. However if Donald Trump runs as a third party candidate, that instantly becomes a 50/25, with the Republican Party being the 25. Honestly if Donald Trump runs as a third party, I hope he names the party after himself. I feel we've gotten a bit off track here away from Bernie Sanders though.

Or if the Republican party is a goat, there will be a 66% chance of Trump being a car.

There's one other line of popular thought that's being debunked by the polls (in particular the Iowa poll I just linked) -- 96% of Bernie's supporters say they like him for his ideas, while a mere 2% say they support him out of distaste for Hillary. The conventional wisdom which espouses the idea that Hillary is unpopular among progressive Democrats doesn't appear to be based in reality.

Oh, and here's a hint as to why there's not an even 50/50 shot at the presidency.

At 8/31/15 11:50 PM, Feoric wrote: There's one other line of popular thought that's being debunked by the polls (in particular the Iowa poll I just linked) -- 96% of Bernie's supporters say they like him for his ideas, while a mere 2% say they support him out of distaste for Hillary. The conventional wisdom which espouses the idea that Hillary is unpopular among progressive Democrats doesn't appear to be based in reality.

That number is a bit skewed, as it creates a dichotomy where there is none. I, for example, support Sanders because I like his ideas, but I also do not like the idea of Hillary for president. I'll vote for her if it's a choice between her and the Republicans, don't get me wrong, but I don't like her very much, either.

An opinion like mine would count as a part of the 96%, but in reality it SHOULD also count as a part of the 2%, which it can't, in something like that.