Bernie Polls Better Against Trump Than Does Hillary
Well, all MOL works to keep deep-sixing this, but here it is again. And no, it is not too early to look at this, This is exactly when Obama started taking off, against all odds, in 2008.
Springgreen2,
You are nuts and deluded if you think people don't care about this election.
I have also noticed that every time you post, 3 would-be Sanders supporters switch to Clinton and 2 undecided voters switch to Trump.
springgreen2 said:
Well, all MOL works to keep deep-sixing this, but here it is again. And no, it is not too early to look at this, This is exactly when Obama started taking off, against all odds, in 2008.
It's really not. Obama was never this far behind at any point. He was also 100 pledged delegates ahead of her at this point in the race (same amount of pledged delegates left to vote on). And really, the time it was closest was during Super Tuesday of 2008 which is when the two biggest remaining 2016 states voted; California and New Jersey both went to Clinton.
Spring is not the only one.
Some of these Sanders social sites a loaded with wacky conspiracy posts. I'm concerned that this poison spread by Sanders acolytes will have an adverse effect during the general election.
Also, Clinton is spending money dealing with Sanders. Money that could have been used against Trump.
The lasting power of the senator from Vermont has triggered concern among some Clinton allies that it will weaken her — not only because she must spend precious dollars competing against him, but also because he is criticizing her in ways that could dampen enthusiasm for her in the fall. But others note that Sanders’s success has helped keep the Clinton campaign at a full tilt when fundraising otherwise might have lessened.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-keeps-raising-money--and-spending-it-a-potential-problem-for-clinton/2016/03/05/a8d6d43c-e2eb-11e5-8d98-4b3d9215ade1_story.html
Sanders Campaign Has Spent 50 Percent More Than Clinton In 2016
http://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/476047822/sanders-campaign-has-spent-50-percent-more-than-clinton-in-2016
BG9,
One of the posters on MOL who supports Sanders is vicious in her attacks on Clinton. You, while not engaging in similar hyperbole and vitriol have nevertheless repeatedly attacked Bernie Sanders in every way.
He has every right to run for the Democratic Nomination up to and until the vote is actually taken. His policies and views are consistent with the historic positions of the Democratic Party and a majority of Democrats. His campaign counters the Republican mantra that Clinton's nomination is a "coronation".
Hillary Clinton's candidacy has been strengthend by having to compete against Sanders.
mikescott said:
I wonder if Springgreen is married to Bramzoinks.
Maybe they are the same person. Have you ever seen them together?
BG9 said:
Spring is not the only one.
Some of these Sanders social sites a loaded with wacky conspiracy posts. I'm concerned that this poison spread by Sanders acolytes will have an adverse effect during the general election.
Also, Clinton is spending money dealing with Sanders. Money that could have been used against Trump.
The lasting power of the senator from Vermont has triggered concern among some Clinton allies that it will weaken her — not only because she must spend precious dollars competing against him, but also because he is criticizing her in ways that could dampen enthusiasm for her in the fall. But others note that Sanders’s success has helped keep the Clinton campaign at a full tilt when fundraising otherwise might have lessened.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-keeps-raising-money--and-spending-it-a-potential-problem-for-clinton/2016/03/05/a8d6d43c-e2eb-11e5-8d98-4b3d9215ade1_story.html
Sanders Campaign Has Spent 50 Percent More Than Clinton In 2016
http://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/476047822/sanders-campaign-has-spent-50-percent-more-than-clinton-in-2016
Bernie has to spend more to offset Hillary's support of almost the entire Democratic establishment -- including almost all state and local officials and the local Democratic party machines -- and a biased corporate media. Bernie's is a true people's campaign and his advertising is funded by the people.
LOST said:
BG9,
One of the posters on MOL who supports Sanders is vicious in her attacks on Clinton. You, while not engaging in similar hyperbole and vitriol have nevertheless repeatedly attacked Bernie Sanders in every way.
He has every right to run for the Democratic Nomination up to and until the vote is actually taken. His policies and views are consistent with the historic positions of the Democratic Party and a majority of Democrats. His campaign counters the Republican mantra that Clinton's nomination is a "coronation".
Hillary Clinton's candidacy has been strengthend by having to compete against Sanders.
I never said he did not have the right to run. And I've said some good things about Sanders' position.
I'm pointing out the effect this may have on the general election. If that reality disturbs you, so be it. It is what it is. Don't be crying later if Sanders has poisoned the well as Nader did in 2000.
Don't be fooled for one minute that the Republican party leadership is really against Trump once he is nominated. The fact is they are united in deferring and holding up Obama's presidential political power, shifting that power to their prospective nominee Trump.
We elected our president to fulfill his obligation to fill vacancies with the expectation the senate would approve or disapprove. Yet, the Republicans in the senate are holding up Obama's presidential nominations so that the nomination will redone by their prospective president Trump. If, as they claim, many really despise Trump then why are they deferring to Trump what they should be doing now with Obama?
Their caterwauling over Trump is mostly an act. They're worried about their own jobs. Their distancing is to get the middle of the road voters to vote for their senate and house candidates. If Trump is elected they'll have no problem working with him.
Here's a recent story from a retired Federal judge on the current sad state of judicial nominations:
THE outcry over the Senate’s failure to hold hearings on Judge
Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court is fully
justified. But that isn’t the only judiciary scandal on Capitol
Hill. Even as the spotlight shines on the high court, the Senate has
refused to confirm dozens of uncontroversial nominees to fill
vacancies in the federal trial courts.
Such obstructionism has become an everyday occurrence. Just last week, Senate Republicans refused to vote on 11 federal district court nominees whom the Judiciary Committee had already approved — even those who were supported by Republicans in their home states. During President George W. Bush’s last two years in office, the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed
about 57 district court judges. Since Republicans took power in 2014,
the Senate has confirmed only 15 of President Obama’s trial court
nominees.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/07/opinion/americas-trial-court-judges-our-front-line-for-justice.html
paulsurovell said:
BG9 said:
Spring is not the only one.
Some of these Sanders social sites a loaded with wacky conspiracy posts. I'm concerned that this poison spread by Sanders acolytes will have an adverse effect during the general election.
Also, Clinton is spending money dealing with Sanders. Money that could have been used against Trump.
The lasting power of the senator from Vermont has triggered concern among some Clinton allies that it will weaken her — not only because she must spend precious dollars competing against him, but also because he is criticizing her in ways that could dampen enthusiasm for her in the fall. But others note that Sanders’s success has helped keep the Clinton campaign at a full tilt when fundraising otherwise might have lessened.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-keeps-raising-money--and-spending-it-a-potential-problem-for-clinton/2016/03/05/a8d6d43c-e2eb-11e5-8d98-4b3d9215ade1_story.html
Sanders Campaign Has Spent 50 Percent More Than Clinton In 2016
http://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/476047822/sanders-campaign-has-spent-50-percent-more-than-clinton-in-2016
Bernie has to spend more to offset Hillary's support of almost the entire Democratic establishment -- including almost all state and local officials and the local Democratic party machines -- and a biased corporate media. Bernie's is a true people's campaign and his advertising is funded by the people.
So was Nader. That worked out well for us.
Ralph Nader did not run for the Democratic nomination. He ran as a Third-Party Candidate, a role Sanders has specifically rejected. I think Nader has criticized Sanders for that. I'll look for it.
I was wrong.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/25/ralph-nader-why-bernie-sanders-was-right-to-run-as-a-democrat/
And again...