Bernie

[tripod]

Now you're starting to behave like b.c. Let's move past the Chicken little "sky will fall and world will end" outbursts if the candidate you like isn't elected. Those tirades are not convincing arguments.

It's not a fucking tirade, it was filled with VERY important ideas, notions and facts. The POLLS support Bernie being the stronger candidate and there was a ton of substance in my post. You must just enjoy being ignorant.

And I don't think you seem to understand what political capital means. Having your base support you is not political capital. Political capital is currency you have to get other political groups who have competing or non-congruent interests to forgo their choice and support you.

Nonsense, you have your head stuck straight up your own ass. Political capital is the INFLUENCE A POLITICIAN HAS OVER THE PUBLIC. You think the PUBLIC = THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE AISLE which means that you are willfully ignorant simply because you like to fucking argue and make people think you are as intelligent as you think you are.

So, I'll ask - what evidence do you have to suggest that a candidate who has no down-ticket Democrats running with his endorsement will have the political capital to sway an obstructionist GOP congressional voting bloc into voting against their party philosophy?

You don't get it.

Hillary and Bernie will both have zero support with the GOP... and Bernie is still the stronger candidate against Trump.

BERNIE'S PROPOSALS WILL HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE INSTEAD OF THE SUPPORT OF WALL STREET AND THE INDUSTRIAL MILITARY COMPLEX. There is a big difference between offering up the people a working solution for the biggest problems that they face everyday and crafting legislation that doesn't actually benefit the people but puts wealth and power at the feet of Wall Street and the Industrial Military Complex.

As dumb as the average American is, they will realize when someone is actually trying to help them versus someone pandering just to get their vote. Bernie's proposals are sound ways of getting America back on track and preventing the middle class into sliding into obscurity.

The Democrats strategy of running Republican-Lite candidates is DESTROYING the Democrat party because the PEOPLE SIMPLY CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE and just don't vote.

You inspire people to vote by running candidates with progressive platforms... people want progress not back sliding or the status quo.

At some point... the CONGRESS WILL HAVE TO ANSWER TO THE PEOPLE. WHEN THE PEOPLE ARE GIVEN A CLEAR CHOICE, THEY WILL CHOOSE PROGRESS EVERY TIME. Bill Clinton's progress was lame, Barack Obama's progress was lame... nobody but partisan Democrats bought what they were selling.

The USA would have been NOTHING without the progressive policies of FDR. The economy would have collapsed into a dystopia long ago.

OUT COUNTRY NEEDS TO MOVE FORWARD, you do that by PROGRESSING.

 

[Boobalaa]

Read Between the Lines: The Case for Bernie Sanders Running as an Independent


Bernie Sanders could run as an independent and could win.

He already is an Independent. He has little or no loyalty to the Democratic National Committee (DNC). His Senate seat is safe. He has nothing to lose. He is in this race for one reason: to win.

In terms of media coverage, you have to run within the Democratic Party." This statement is far from loyal or adorning.

The structure of American politics today is such that I thought the right ethic was to run within the Democratic Party." There are two parties, and in order to receive attention, funding and support, one must play by these rules and be an active participant in the primary calendar. The real question is, but for how long?

Bernie Sanders sees himself as the best candidate to defeat Donald Trump, and the polls agree.


Unrest within the party, as seen at the Nevada convention, actually works in Sanders' favor. He is already preparing his escape. The establishment now fears Sanders and his movement. They have asked him to back down and to calm his energetic supporters, but he has instead dialed up his rhetoric. Here, he can stage his breakup from the party and leave even stronger. He has begun portraying the party as the enemy, and in this year of anti-establishment politics, voters will respond positively to this message. As Sanders stated at a rally in Carson, California, "At [the Nevada] convention, the Democratic leadership used its power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place."

If Sanders were to declare an independent bid without such unrest or speculation, he would come across as the villain. He would be the one fracturing the party and he would be to blame for a possible Trump presidency. But if Sanders can turn the rhetoric and debate onto the system, he can divert this negative attention.

Feel The Bern!!!

 

[keenobserver]

Read Between the Lines: The Case for Bernie Sanders Running as an Independent


Bernie Sanders could run as an independent and could win.

He already is an Independent. He has little or no loyalty to the Democratic National Committee (DNC). His Senate seat is safe. He has nothing to lose. He is in this race for one reason: to win.

In terms of media coverage, you have to run within the Democratic Party." This statement is far from loyal or adorning.

The structure of American politics today is such that I thought the right ethic was to run within the Democratic Party." There are two parties, and in order to receive attention, funding and support, one must play by these rules and be an active participant in the primary calendar. The real question is, but for how long?

Bernie Sanders sees himself as the best candidate to defeat Donald Trump, and the polls agree.


Unrest within the party, as seen at the Nevada convention, actually works in Sanders' favor. He is already preparing his escape. The establishment now fears Sanders and his movement. They have asked him to back down and to calm his energetic supporters, but he has instead dialed up his rhetoric. Here, he can stage his breakup from the party and leave even stronger. He has begun portraying the party as the enemy, and in this year of anti-establishment politics, voters will respond positively to this message. As Sanders stated at a rally in Carson, California, "At [the Nevada] convention, the Democratic leadership used its power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place."

If Sanders were to declare an independent bid without such unrest or speculation, he would come across as the villain. He would be the one fracturing the party and he would be to blame for a possible Trump presidency. But if Sanders can turn the rhetoric and debate onto the system, he can divert this negative attention.

Feel The Bern!!!

No independent candidate can win - not now, probably not ever. The numbers will not add for an independent.

 

[Crimsonlurker]

That sounds dead to me. If it is not habitable how is it alive?



The question is mankind doomed anyway and are robots and machines the only way some part of humanity can survive? If there was a way to transfer our consciousness into machine is that the way to everlasting "life"? That has been explored in science fiction too. The interesting thing is most of the sci-fi in movies and television predict bad outcomes when man attempts to live forever and/or has omnipotent powers.



And that is precisely what I find fascinating about the Borg. Whenever any Borg makes a mistake and adapts to that mistake instantly every Borg everywhere knows of that mistake and is incapable of repeating it. The "flaws" would evolve to the point they would no longer exist in a fraction of the time it would take humanity. For all of mankind's creativeness and abilities is it possible to compete against something that can only make a mistake once presuming it has adapted and learned from that mistake?

Guess we can chalk that up to another mistake on my part. Uninhabitable for human life. Even then i highly doubt all of humanity would be wiped out, we would still have to find another way to survive. And i think we would. The rich wouldn't allow humanity to completely evaporate. People like you and me on the other hand...

Would/could you really call that life though? I mean our brains are milky bits with electro stuff flowing through it but what would be the difference between an advanced human influenced program and a program that helps the human brain? If these programs are advanced enough to simulate human behavior and actually fool us into thinking they are in fact human then what would be the definition of life at that point. Would there even be a reason to define it? And if that's the case. Why have life at all if it can be created by something that doesn't have "life".

If the borg could exist without organic life...why wouldn't. We're talking way off and into the future but if humanity advanced enough to create something that can merge/mimic humanity to the point where we don't/can't notice it then humanity would of course have created energy sources good enough to power those things without the help of the environment. I mean that of course is an assumption but keep in mind that the planet is steadily becoming volatile to our vary existence. In my mind odds are good that we'd have to work towards power sources that don't take from the planet. Something renewable. Something which artificial life would have no problem recreating without us.

Meaning humanity would become the world's largest middle managers. Destined to be deemed obsolete by the very creations we created. It is possible that we could create something something to merge with but then it would just be a matter of time before someone created artificial intelligence. Then of course natural selection would run it's course against humanity. We would have built something so perfect that it would be intrinsically flawed. Or at least flawed to us because it would over take us.

I'm thinking the reason tv and movies predict that it will be bad is because sci fi tries to go as far as humanly possible in the future. We just now created programmable ants. On the god scale of creation it ain't bad but it at no ultron. That's the only way they can make it entertaining for the masses though. Also cause of humanity's sense of competition. Out doing each other means damned near everything escalates quickly. An not always in the right ways to produce actual innovation.

No it isn't possible to compete with that. Humanity would immediately be wiped out. If there were a real war against the likes of the borg. Though i'm beginning to doubt that would happen either. A war with a real version of the borg. I mean if it had elements of humanity in it then yeah but would a program deem the emotion's of human usable or effective in any way? When it comes to advancement, experimentation will always outdo any emotion available. Experimentation would probably be the programs number three or four priority. I mean what would stop the computer in the terminator movies from creating a power source separate from human beings and whatever they used then sending multiple t1000's or whatever back to lay waste to john conner? That of course would come from experimentation not emotion.

Oh and to add. Thanks for bringing this up. I'm having a blast.

 

[jaap_stam]

Full of ideas - I'll grant you that. Their importance...meh. Facts? None at all.

Bernie is losing to Hillary by over 3 million votes within the democratic party:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Bernie doesn't have any downticket Dems for whom he is helping fundraise. Hillary has the Victory fund, which fundraises for the Democratic party of virtually every single state. And Hillary has overwhelming support from Democratic officeholders over Sanders (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/). All of this demonstrates that Hillary has much more political capital among Democrats in Congress. This is not my endorsement of her over Bernie - as a foreign national, I cannot vote. Perhaps that allows me impartiality when evaluating the qualities of different candidates.

All of this is actual evidence - not hypothetical speculation about the "will of the people." Favorability polls and voter polls are notoriously unreliable. Ask Mitt Romney. All of the real facts point to the fact that Bernie does not have sufficient institutional support within his own party, much less across the political spectrum, to push a political agenda that is on the fringe of the national ideological sphere.

Further, the federal budget is passed by Congress, not by referendum. Federal legislation is passed by Congress, not by referendum. So this hypothetical consensus of the people is rather irrelevant to my original question.

Lastly, I think you vastly overestimate the self-evidence of your definition of "progress." I mean, Americans approve of gay marriage and legal abortion by a bare majority.

It's not a fucking tirade, it was filled with VERY important ideas, notions and facts. The POLLS support Bernie being the stronger candidate and there was a ton of substance in my post. You must just enjoy being ignorant.



Nonsense, you have your head stuck straight up your own ass. Political capital is the INFLUENCE A POLITICIAN HAS OVER THE PUBLIC. You think the PUBLIC = THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE AISLE which means that you are willfully ignorant simply because you like to fucking argue and make people think you are as intelligent as you think you are.



You don't get it.

Hillary and Bernie will both have zero support with the GOP... and Bernie is still the stronger candidate against Trump.

BERNIE'S PROPOSALS WILL HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE INSTEAD OF THE SUPPORT OF WALL STREET AND THE INDUSTRIAL MILITARY COMPLEX. There is a big difference between offering up the people a working solution for the biggest problems that they face everyday and crafting legislation that doesn't actually benefit the people but puts wealth and power at the feet of Wall Street and the Industrial Military Complex.

As dumb as the average American is, they will realize when someone is actually trying to help them versus someone pandering just to get their vote. Bernie's proposals are sound ways of getting America back on track and preventing the middle class into sliding into obscurity.

The Democrats strategy of running Republican-Lite candidates is DESTROYING the Democrat party because the PEOPLE SIMPLY CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE and just don't vote.

You inspire people to vote by running candidates with progressive platforms... people want progress not back sliding or the status quo.

At some point... the CONGRESS WILL HAVE TO ANSWER TO THE PEOPLE. WHEN THE PEOPLE ARE GIVEN A CLEAR CHOICE, THEY WILL CHOOSE PROGRESS EVERY TIME. Bill Clinton's progress was lame, Barack Obama's progress was lame... nobody but partisan Democrats bought what they were selling.

The USA would have been NOTHING without the progressive policies of FDR. The economy would have collapsed into a dystopia long ago.

OUT COUNTRY NEEDS TO MOVE FORWARD, you do that by PROGRESSING.

 

[Boobalaa]

First of all..look at the more important graphics from realclearpolitics that show how much Trump has caught up to her!!!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

You are just fishing in a barrel man..Its all about who can beat the opponent in the other party.. When/If Hillary survives, she will be even more unpopular than she is now..but it's her turn and she deserves to be President, hunh?
Her and her husband's history will be splashed all over every network in Trumpesque fashion..Clintons will lash out and do the same to Trump. By the time November rolls around, if anybody still wants to vote, they will be able to..

Opinions
Jeffrey Sachs: Bernie Sanders easily wins the policy debate

Mainstream U.S. economists have criticized Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’s proposals as unworkable, but these economists betray the status quo bias of their economic models and professional experience.

In fact, Sanders’s recipes are supported by overwhelming evidence — notably from countries that already follow the policies he advocates. On health care, growth and income inequality, Sanders wins the policy debate hands down.

The United States unleashed the power of CEOs to enrich themselves with mega-salaries, weakened trade unions and gave massive tax breaks to the super-rich. Sanders’s policies would go after all of these unconscionable moves, bringing the United States back into line with the rest of the high-income world. He would, in short, end the age of impunity in which the rich and the powerful get their way, while the rest suffer. Sanders’s policies include higher taxes on the rich, strengthening unions, raising the minimum wage, supporting families, providing free tuition at public universities and cracking down on financial crimes.

Mainstream economists long ago lost the melody line. Their models are oriented to the status quo and underemphasize the benefits of public investment. They take America’s bloated health-care costs as a given, not as the result of the influence of the U.S. private health lobby. They treat low growth as natural (“secular stagnation”) rather than as the result of chronic underinvestment. They have come to accept cruelly rising income inequality and rampant impunity for financial crimes. Sanders knows better, based on worldwide experience, an abiding sense of decency and a strong and accurate vision for a brighter economic future.


FEEL THE BERN!!!!!

 

[StormfrontFL]

Full of ideas - I'll grant you that. Their importance...meh. Facts? None at all.

Bernie is losing to Hillary by over 3 million votes within the democratic party:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Bernie doesn't have any downticket Dems for whom he is helping fundraise. Hillary has the Victory fund, which fundraises for the Democratic party of virtually every single state. And Hillary has overwhelming support from Democratic officeholders over Sanders (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/). All of this demonstrates that Hillary has much more political capital among Democrats in Congress. This is not my endorsement of her over Bernie - as a foreign national, I cannot vote. Perhaps that allows me impartiality when evaluating the qualities of different candidates.

All of this is actual evidence - not hypothetical speculation about the "will of the people." Favorability polls and voter polls are notoriously unreliable. Ask Mitt Romney. All of the real facts point to the fact that Bernie does not have sufficient institutional support within his own party, much less across the political spectrum, to push a political agenda that is on the fringe of the national ideological sphere.

Further, the federal budget is passed by Congress, not by referendum. Federal legislation is passed by Congress, not by referendum. So this hypothetical consensus of the people is rather irrelevant to my original question.

Lastly, I think you vastly overestimate the self-evidence of your definition of "progress." I mean, Americans approve of gay marriage and legal abortion by a bare majority.

Thank you for your statement. We are supposed to believe polls that say Bernie is stronger against tRump than Hillary but polls also said Romney was going to win easily.

 

[jaap_stam]

If you were responding to me, my only response is to not read too much into the polls at this stage.

Hillary literally owns the democratic party - not just the DNC, but at the state and local levels too. Her fund gives money to people across the country in the party. She has an advantage in political capital that after Nevada, should be extremely obvious at this point. Pretending that doesn't matter, and obsessing about the high road of "the people's will" (conveniently abstract and impossible to truly define) or polling data for hypothetical situations is a recipe for disappointment.

As for electability: A person who is good at talking up how good their blowjobs are isn't necessarily the person who gives the best blowjobs.

First of all..look at the more important graphics from realclearpolitics that show how much Trump has caught up to her!!!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

You are just fishing in a barrel man..Its all about who can beat the opponent in the other party.. When/If Hillary survives, she will be even more unpopular than she is now..but it's her turn and she deserves to be President, hunh?
Her and her husband's history will be splashed all over every network in Trumpesque fashion..Clintons will lash out and do the same to Trump. By the time November rolls around, if anybody still wants to vote, they will be able to..

Opinions
Jeffrey Sachs: Bernie Sanders easily wins the policy debate

Mainstream U.S. economists have criticized Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’s proposals as unworkable, but these economists betray the status quo bias of their economic models and professional experience.

In fact, Sanders’s recipes are supported by overwhelming evidence — notably from countries that already follow the policies he advocates. On health care, growth and income inequality, Sanders wins the policy debate hands down.

The United States unleashed the power of CEOs to enrich themselves with mega-salaries, weakened trade unions and gave massive tax breaks to the super-rich. Sanders’s policies would go after all of these unconscionable moves, bringing the United States back into line with the rest of the high-income world. He would, in short, end the age of impunity in which the rich and the powerful get their way, while the rest suffer. Sanders’s policies include higher taxes on the rich, strengthening unions, raising the minimum wage, supporting families, providing free tuition at public universities and cracking down on financial crimes.

Mainstream economists long ago lost the melody line. Their models are oriented to the status quo and underemphasize the benefits of public investment. They take America’s bloated health-care costs as a given, not as the result of the influence of the U.S. private health lobby. They treat low growth as natural (“secular stagnation”) rather than as the result of chronic underinvestment. They have come to accept cruelly rising income inequality and rampant impunity for financial crimes. Sanders knows better, based on worldwide experience, an abiding sense of decency and a strong and accurate vision for a brighter economic future.


FEEL THE BERN!!!!!

 

[StormfrontFL]

If you were responding to me, my only response is to not read too much into the polls at this stage.

Hillary literally owns the democratic party - not just the DNC, but at the state and local levels too. Her fund gives money to people across the country in the party. She has an advantage in political capital that after Nevada, should be extremely obvious at this point. Pretending that doesn't matter, and obsessing about the high road of "the people's will" (conveniently abstract and impossible to truly define) or polling data for hypothetical situations is a recipe for disappointment.

As for electability: A person who is good at talking up how good their blowjobs are isn't necessarily the person who gives the best blowjobs.

Yes I was responding to you. I agree that it is illogical to put too much faith in polls.

 

[Boobalaa]

So in other words, when you post a link to a poll, you want to make a point, but when another link to another poll is posted, we should not put too much faith in polls because it is illogical.
Uh, What?!...faith?, hunh..Romney?, hunh?.. Are you comparing different poll results from different populations in different years, what!? Shit Fire! Save the matches..

 

[StormfrontFL]

So in other words, when you post a link to a poll, you want to make a point, but when another link to another poll is posted, we should not put too much faith in polls because it is illogical.
Uh, What?!...faith?, hunh..Romney?, hunh?.. Are you comparing different poll results from different populations in different years, what!? Shit Fire! Save the matches..

After this post feel free to do what you do best, namely rant about how others aren't as socially mature and enlightened as you

Polls that express what you want to believe are held up as proof that polls are accurate. If polls are so all fired accurate then why wasn't Romney elected in a landslide in 2012? Would you be shouting how right polls are if they proclaimed Hillary way better than Bernie?

 

[jaap_stam]

So in other words, when you post a link to a poll, you want to make a point, but when another link to another poll is posted, we should not put too much faith in polls because it is illogical.
Uh, What?!...faith?, hunh..Romney?, hunh?.. Are you comparing different poll results from different populations in different years, what!? Shit Fire! Save the matches..

Because in one case, I used the poll to humorously refute the argument that Trump is a shill for Hillary. In the second case I suggest that a single poll with Bernie beating Trump head to head is not evidence of or even relevant to a discussion of Bernie's (nonexistent) political capital in Congress. Surely you're not so emotionally committed to your support of Bernie that you can see the difference?

Again, feel free to actually provide evidence to refute the facts that I've presented around Bernie's utter lack of real political capital to be an effective president within the American political system. I'm open to being persuaded.

 

[tripod]

Polls that express what you want to believe are held up as proof that polls are accurate. If polls are so all fired accurate then why wasn't Romney elected in a landslide in 2012? Would you be shouting how right polls are if they proclaimed Hillary way better than Bernie?

Polls are the ONLY metric. You can't throw out the only metric because the results are convenient.

Actually there were no credible polls that showed Romney beating Obama.

A Romney victory was predicted by partisan Republican-paid-talking heads.

• Dick Morris: "Prediction: Romney 325, Obama 213"

• Glenn Beck: "321-217 victory for Romney in the electoral college."

• Rush Limbaugh: "Everything -- Except the Polls -- Points to a Romney Landslide"

• Michael Barone: "Romney Beats Obama, Handily"

• George Will: Romney 321, Obama 217

• Newsmax: "Expect a Mitt Romney Landslide"

• Larry Kudlow: "I am now predicting a 330 vote electoral landslide."

Those were numbers they pulled right out of their asses... they weren't based on any data. these guys and an army of their friends and cronies took to the internet and print publications begging for citizens to NOT believe the polls.

I think Gallup had a one point lead for Romney the day or two before the election... that seems like a margin of error to me. Gallup consistently turned up polls suggesting a Romney lead but they were a member of a handful of pro-Romney polls that seemed to indicate that there was some sort of pro-Romney bias within the those polling organizations.

The real story of the 2012 polls and how they did not predict a Romney win.

The problem is that as people get to know Hillary more and more over time, they like and trust her less. She is inauthentic, stiff and patronizing. Look for her big lead to be early on BEFORE Trump starts to rip her to shreds with shit like drudging up Vince Foster.

She can't even manage a big early lead before the general election... that should be a BIG red flag to her supporters.

 

[tripod]

Again, feel free to actually provide evidence to refute the facts that I've presented around Bernie's utter lack of real political capital to be an effective president within the American political system. I'm open to being persuaded.

You are ignorant to the fact that Bernie Sanders has come close to beating Hillary Clinton primarily using political capital.

1). Bernie Sanders has ZERO support from the DNC, in fact, they are actively opposing him.

2). Bernie Sanders has waged most of his campaign while suffering through a corporate media blackout.

3). Bernie Sanders has financed his campaign through small personal donations and NEVER had to resort to tricks like selling stickers for a $1 to drive down the average donation number like Hilary did.

4). Bernie has refused to take money from Wall Street and has declined to start a SuperPAC.

Despite this, he has won numerous states and been an effective campaigner while his opponent has had: the advantage of being 100% supported by the DNC, enjoyed a friendly liberal corporate media where MSNBC, PBS and NPR were fervently pro-Hillary and anti-Bernie, enjoyed massive donations from Wall Street and various multinational corporations and benefitted from her SuperPAC(s).

He has done as well as he has fighting through numerous handicaps and roadblocks that were deliberately set in front of him...

... all by using his ENORMOUS political capital. His political capital is ted to his TRUSTWORTHY rating and his LIKE-ABILITY rating.

those numbers are not in dispute.

Political capital is ephemeral... you can't put it in a bucket, draw it on paper, hold it on your hand, find it in a library or link to it on the internet. There is no "political capital" rating for American candidates... maybe there is in other countries but in the USA, it's based on "trustworthiness" and "like-ability", of which Sanders has in spades.

The DNC can provide more congressional approval by running strong progressive candidates instead of Republican-Lite candidates for starters... A Bernie Sanders victory would inspire Americans who have never voted to come out and start supporting progressive candidates who have solid platforms that provide clear benefits to the American people while simultaneously providing a clear distinction from the callous policies of the GOP.

Bernie's excellent performance in this election cycle despite sheer unapologetic opposition from the media and DNC is indicative of the depth of his political capital.

Hillary's trustworthy and like-able rating are horrible... this means that she has very little political capital.

Hillary has a severe political capital handicap compared to Bernie... I find it ridiculous that this is where you've chosen to stand your ground. Bernie is fresh and ready to run the race yet Hillary has a cast on her foot... despite this, you are asking me to show proof that Bernie can run a mile in under 4 minutes... SHE HAS A FUCKING CAST ON. Why should Bernie prove that he is as fast as Roger Bannister in order for you to stop dogging him and talking shit? HE CAN WIN and with supreme court justice nominations on the line and the threat of a Trump presidency... winning is sooooooo fucking important.

 

[HippyHollowAustin]

"Actually there were no credible polls that showed Romney beating Obama.
Those were numbers they pulled right out of their asses... they weren't based on any data. these guys and an army of their friends and cronies took to the internet and print publications begging for citizens to NOT believe the polls.
I think Gallup had a one point lead for Romney the day or two before the election."

The final Gallup poll was the one point lead, but earlier polls showed a larger Romney lead (+7). Pew showed a three point Romney lead among likely voters.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/264683-gallup-romney-extends-lead-over-obama-nationally
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gallup-poll-romney-leads/2012/10/21/id/460837/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...tates-poll-women-voters-romney-obama/1634791/

and not a poll, but:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tt-Romney-ahead-Barack-Obama-early-votes.html

 

[tripod]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/264683-gallup-romney-extends-lead-over-obama-nationally
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gallup-poll-romney-leads/2012/10/21/id/460837/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...tates-poll-women-voters-romney-obama/1634791/

and not a poll, but:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2225226/US-Presidential-election-Mitt-Romney-ahead-Barack-Obama-early-votes.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-ahead-Barack-Obama-early-votes.html[/QUOTE]

Those aren't credible sources except maybe for "The Hill" which is just talking about the same gallup polls I previously mentioned.

USA Today masquerades as a newspaper but it is filled with garbage and doesn't even have the integrity of the "National Enquirer".

I would say "Nice try" but it wasn't.

 

[jaap_stam]

Political capital is not "ephemeral".

Here is a very stark example of Hillary's political capital:
https://www.opensecrets.org/jfc/summary.php?id=C00586537

That's a list of all of the Democratic committees that have taken money from Hillary's Victory Fund. Money that is used to finance local campaigns. Local campaigns are the backbone of actual day-to-day exertion of control over American life, as local politics have a bigger impact on daily life than national politics. How many other Dems running for office has Bernie leveraged his large fundraising to help?

Here's a visual of the difference in endorsements between the two among active officeholders:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/

If you can get past the persecution complex, perhaps you'll realize that the very reason why Sanders (who only started caucusing with the Dems in what, 2015?) has had so many roadblocks is precisely because of the fact that he lacks political capital within the party. This is politics, and Bernie is a newcomer who politically hasn't paid his dues, and has no coalition whatsoever within the actual party leadership. To expect 0 institutional resistance within the party is just nonsense.

Political capital is just like liquid capital (cash). It can be created, destroyed, and exchanged. Needless to say, political capital from someone like you or me is worth far less than political capital in the form of an endorsement from a sitting governor. Getting a few million broke college kids or middle class Americans to give you money isn't worth as much political capital as you seem to think it is.

I keep asking you for tangible evidence of Bernie's political capital, because I want to give you a reasonable chance of demonstrating that you actually understand how a major American political party works, from a power brokering perspective. You can't create a revolution only on paper, which is what all of the appeals of "Bernie has the will of the people" really amount to. The dude is 3 million votes behind, which amounts to a double digit deficit.

There is no "mandate of the people" behind Bernie. As usual, it's a very vocal minority claiming that its political views are representative of everyone else's.

You are ignorant to the fact that Bernie Sanders has come close to beating Hillary Clinton primarily using political capital.

1). Bernie Sanders has ZERO support from the DNC, in fact, they are actively opposing him.

2). Bernie Sanders has waged most of his campaign while suffering through a corporate media blackout.

3). Bernie Sanders has financed his campaign through small personal donations and NEVER had to resort to tricks like selling stickers for a $1 to drive down the average donation number like Hilary did.

4). Bernie has refused to take money from Wall Street and has declined to start a SuperPAC.

Despite this, he has won numerous states and been an effective campaigner while his opponent has had: the advantage of being 100% supported by the DNC, enjoyed a friendly liberal corporate media where MSNBC, PBS and NPR were fervently pro-Hillary and anti-Bernie, enjoyed massive donations from Wall Street and various multinational corporations and benefitted from her SuperPAC(s).

He has done as well as he has fighting through numerous handicaps and roadblocks that were deliberately set in front of him...

... all by using his ENORMOUS political capital. His political capital is ted to his TRUSTWORTHY rating and his LIKE-ABILITY rating.

those numbers are not in dispute.

Political capital is ephemeral... you can't put it in a bucket, draw it on paper, hold it on your hand, find it in a library or link to it on the internet. There is no "political capital" rating for American candidates... maybe there is in other countries but in the USA, it's based on "trustworthiness" and "like-ability", of which Sanders has in spades.

The DNC can provide more congressional approval by running strong progressive candidates instead of Republican-Lite candidates for starters... A Bernie Sanders victory would inspire Americans who have never voted to come out and start supporting progressive candidates who have solid platforms that provide clear benefits to the American people while simultaneously providing a clear distinction from the callous policies of the GOP.

Bernie's excellent performance in this election cycle despite sheer unapologetic opposition from the media and DNC is indicative of the depth of his political capital.

Hillary's trustworthy and like-able rating are horrible... this means that she has very little political capital.

Hillary has a severe political capital handicap compared to Bernie... I find it ridiculous that this is where you've chosen to stand your ground. Bernie is fresh and ready to run the race yet Hillary has a cast on her foot... despite this, you are asking me to show proof that Bernie can run a mile in under 4 minutes... SHE HAS A FUCKING CAST ON. Why should Bernie prove that he is as fast as Roger Bannister in order for you to stop dogging him and talking shit? HE CAN WIN and with supreme court justice nominations on the line and the threat of a Trump presidency... winning is sooooooo fucking important.

 

[Boobalaa]

After this post feel free to do what you do best, namely rant about how others aren't as socially mature and enlightened as you

Polls that express what you want to believe are held up as proof that polls are accurate. If polls are so all fired accurate then why wasn't Romney elected in a landslide in 2012? Would you be shouting how right polls are if they proclaimed Hillary way better than Bernie?

Again, I don't have the foggiest idea, what I would be doing if..

 

[Boobalaa]

Because in one case, I used the poll to humorously refute the argument that Trump is a shill for Hillary. In the second case I suggest that a single poll with Bernie beating Trump head to head is not evidence of or even relevant to a discussion of Bernie's (nonexistent) political capital in Congress. Surely you're not so emotionally committed to your support of Bernie that you can see the difference?

Again, feel free to actually provide evidence to refute the facts that I've presented around Bernie's utter lack of real political capital to be an effective president within the American political system. I'm open to being persuaded.

Oh , so you were just joking and first, but then you were serious and then , heaven forbid, how you say..smug?

 

[StormfrontFL]

Again, I don't have the foggiest idea, what I would be doing if..

Are you just pretending to be clueless or is it Alzheimer's?