What do Sanders numbers against Trump look like?NEW YORK, June 3 (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton has opened up a double-digit lead over Republican rival Donald Trump, regaining ground after the New York billionaire briefly tied her last month, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Friday.
The shift in support comes as Clinton steps up her attacks on the real estate mogul's policy positions, and as Trump fends off criticisms of his eponymous university and the pace at which he doled out money that he raised for U.S. veterans.
Some 46 percent of likely voters said they supported Clinton, while 35 percent said they supported Trump, and another 19 percent said they would not support either, according to the survey of 1,421 people conducted between May 30 and June 3
If you think this ends with Sanders' campaign, you're in for a big surpriseBernie gave it a good fight and brought some important issues to surface. Good job Bernie as you fade into the night
Irrelevant.What do Sanders numbers against Trump look like?
Sanders ran a wonderful campaign. He has a lot to be proud of. He kept Hillary on her toes and pulled her more to the left. Great job BernieIf you think this ends with Sanders' campaign, you're in for a big surprise
very irreverent, it also makes some sound like a coo-coo birdIrrelevant.
See your sig.Well, when you work its hard to stay up to speed on everything. Probably because of work.
Maybe if we were all unemployed, we'd all have more time to read up on things.
Maybe.
Double digit that quick?NEW YORK, June 3 (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton has opened up a double-digit lead over Republican rival Donald Trump, regaining ground after the New York billionaire briefly tied her last month, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Friday.
The shift in support comes as Clinton steps up her attacks on the real estate mogul's policy positions, and as Trump fends off criticisms of his eponymous university and the pace at which he doled out money that he raised for U.S. veterans.
Some 46 percent of likely voters said they supported Clinton, while 35 percent said they supported Trump, and another 19 percent said they would not support either, according to the survey of 1,421 people conducted between May 30 and June 3
It's not like she's under investigation from the FBI or anything either..Double digit that quick?
Clinton is not Mother Theresa.
You don't think Trump is going to keep quiet, do you?
And the beauty of that? people can vote for Jesus if they want to..it's THEIR vote!I bet Jesus's polling numbers against Trump are high double digits.
But guess what. He won't be on the ballot either
Intelligence?I addressed that. That's just your excuse to be intellectually lazy as fuck
I have more than a full time job, how is it that I can stay informed but you can't?
I could point out that he has highlighted some real issues. I am angry about money in politics, too. I believe that income inequality is a problem, too. I think the safety net needs strengthening, too.
I'm afraid Stromberg isn't the one who get's to decide who or what deserves a movement. Maybe he's confused, the rest of this article would seem to confirm that..But the truth is that Sanders does not deserve a movement, and his losing campaign does not deserve unusual deference and concessions. His tale about American oligarchy is simplistic, his policy proposals are shallow, his rejection of political reality is absurd, his self-righteousness and stubbornness are unbecoming. And, yes, he has lost. Here are some simple points worth repeating:
Stromberg doesn't seem to understand the fact that this movement he earlier brushed off as irrelevant and undeserving is bigger than Senator Sanders. Maybe he hasn't seen his campaign poster?• Sanders’s path to the Democratic presidential nomination is essentially nonexistent. His only hope rests on convincing Democratic “superdelegates,” nearly all of whom back Hillary Clinton, to swing his way. They will not do that. It is incoherent for Sanders to ask them to do so, given that he has attacked superdelegates as non-democratic actors in the nominating process and that Clinton will almost certainly end the cycle with more votes and more pledged delegates. It is also staggeringly arrogant that Sanders would think that superdelegates, the Democratic “establishment” sorts that he has spent the whole campaign cartoonishly attacking as tools of Wall Street, would be open to his entreaties.
Oh! Ha, I see! Stromberg can apparently tell the future! He knows what impression voters would have after the same old republican talking points that have already been aimed at Sanders this cycle... were aimed at Sanders this cycle, as if they already haven't been. Funny, that. What the hell is he doing working at the Washington Post? He should be buying winning lotto tickets and such with his amazing political clairvoyance!• It is politically reasonable for the superdelegates to stick with Clinton. The poll numbers Sanders cites to argue that he would be a stronger nominee do not reflect the impressions voters would have after the Republicans engaged in a sustained anti-Sanders assault — the sort of thing Clinton has endured for decades. Polling shows that Sanders does not, in fact, do unusually well among true independents and that many of these crucial swing voters have not formed an opinion of him.
Is Stromberg retarded or does he just believe his readers are retarded?• A Clinton nomination would be wholly legitimate. Sanders zealot Seth Abramson writes, “While not rigged, there is no question that the Democratic Party’s primary process — which uses superdelegates to create an appearance of pre-election electoral inevitability and closed primaries and onerous registration requirements to exclude many new, independent, and party-switching voters — has dramatically favored Mrs. Clinton.” This is nonsense, considering that Sanders has benefited from weird, anti-democratic quirks of the nominating process. FiveThirtyEight ran the numbers and found that “Clinton has been hurt at least as much by caucuses as Sanders has been hurt by closed primaries.”
That's cute, Stromberg cites his own article that references the TPCs analysis on Sanders universal healthcare plan that fails to take into account the benefits said plan would provide to American citizens, namely the additional $3,500 take home pay 95% of American households would enjoy, as Warren Gunnels explains;So, enough with the reality-denial. Enough with the sanctimony. Enough with the attitude that only Sanders’s agenda counts. Enough with the dream that his movement is broader and more powerful than it has proved to be at the ballot box. Enough with the paranoid conspiracy theorizing, the lazy attacks on the “establishment,” the platitudes about the right to health care and the right to free college without realistic plans to realize them, the delegitimization of those who disagree, the scorning of practicality, the outrageous negativity about the state of the country and the simplistic narrative of evil 1 percenters who are to blame for everything that is wrong. Enough with the excuses for half-baked policy proposals (It is the direction, not the specifics, that matter!). Enough with the “political revolution.”
Berners can accept reality or sink deeper into delusion. Only one of these options would be good for them and good for the country.
This post was great. Dang I wish a conservative could put together an organized set of ideas and discuss them as you did.This is the place where a policy-oriented Washington commentator like myself is supposed to offer Bernie Sanders supporters some sort of olive branch. For example, I could point out that he has highlighted some real issues. I am angry about money in politics, too. I believe that income inequality is a problem, too. I think the safety net needs strengthening, too. In other words, I am supposed to indicate that I get why Sanders has a movement.
But the truth is that Sanders does not deserve a movement, and his losing campaign does not deserve unusual deference and concessions. His tale about American oligarchy is simplistic, his policy proposals are shallow, his rejection of political reality is absurd, his self-righteousness and stubbornness are unbecoming. And, yes, he has lost. Here are some simple points worth repeating:
• Sanders’s path to the Democratic presidential nomination is essentially nonexistent. His only hope rests on convincing Democratic “superdelegates,” nearly all of whom back Hillary Clinton, to swing his way. They will not do that. It is incoherent for Sanders to ask them to do so, given that he has attacked superdelegates as non-democratic actors in the nominating process and that Clinton will almost certainly end the cycle with more votes and more pledged delegates. It is also staggeringly arrogant that Sanders would think that superdelegates, the Democratic “establishment” sorts that he has spent the whole campaign cartoonishly attacking as tools of Wall Street, would be open to his entreaties.
• It is politically reasonable for the superdelegates to stick with Clinton. The poll numbers Sanders cites to argue that he would be a stronger nominee do not reflect the impressions voters would have after the Republicans engaged in a sustained anti-Sanders assault — the sort of thing Clinton has endured for decades. Polling shows that Sanders does not, in fact, do unusually well among true independents and that many of these crucial swing voters have not formed an opinion of him.
• A Clinton nomination would be wholly legitimate. Sanders zealot Seth Abramson writes, “While not rigged, there is no question that the Democratic Party’s primary process — which uses superdelegates to create an appearance of pre-election electoral inevitability and closed primaries and onerous registration requirements to exclude many new, independent, and party-switching voters — has dramatically favored Mrs. Clinton.” This is nonsense, considering that Sanders has benefited from weird, anti-democratic quirks of the nominating process. FiveThirtyEight ran the numbers and found that “Clinton has been hurt at least as much by caucuses as Sanders has been hurt by closed primaries.”
So, enough with the reality-denial. Enough with the sanctimony. Enough with the attitude that only Sanders’s agenda counts. Enough with the dream that his movement is broader and more powerful than it has proved to be at the ballot box. Enough with the paranoid conspiracy theorizing, the lazy attacks on the “establishment,” the platitudes about the right to health care and the right to free college without realistic plans to realize them, the delegitimization of those who disagree, the scorning of practicality, the outrageous negativity about the state of the country and the simplistic narrative of evil 1 percenters who are to blame for everything that is wrong. Enough with the excuses for half-baked policy proposals (It is the direction, not the specifics, that matter!). Enough with the “political revolution.”
Berners can accept reality or sink deeper into delusion. Only one of these options would be good for them and good for the country.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/enough-with-bernie-sanders/ar-BBtK0XD
I didn't do that. Some guy named Stromberg did. I just happen to agree with a few points he made. He also lists his citations and heavily relies on 538 polling. I'm a big fan of Nate SilverThis post was great. Dang I wish a conservative could put together an organized set of ideas and discuss them as you did.
I think it overlooks the political background. Bernie is doing his bit to gain as much leverage in the Democratic Party congress as possible to prepare for a Hillary Clinton presidency. Right now, Bernie's interests are best served by holding a somewhat adversarial position to Hillary. I don't see the other stuff, such as sanctimony that you alude to. Right now, it looks to me that Bernie is setting up to be an influential senator during the first term of Hillary Clinton's presidency.