Considering the left has been moved to the right by the Clintons and Pelosi & Co. “extreme lefties” are just bog standard left from 30+ years ago.
Sorry, CarnalK, I was replying to post 367:
Yeah…god forbid the most popular senator in the US run for president!
Only a Clintonista like you would want to wreck things by being a fan of one of the least popular candidates in US history.
Let that sink in when you decide whose side you are on.
On the one hand, Biden does seem to respect Upton sincerely. OTOH, with the D-vs-R war at such a high pitch, is it appropriate to comfort the enemy?
“Destroy” as in make end up looking like how Rick Perry came off.
But no I don’t “dismiss him out of hand.” I do however think that his role is more spoiler than contender.
DrDeth’s point is valid btw and one can look no farther than this board to see it: Sanders is a divisive force. Bring him up and posters start insulting each other.
I don’t think Silver has any special wisdom when it comes to political analysis that is not the numbers but I still agree with his “5 Corners” bit. The winning candidate will need to prevail in at least three of those corners. Sanders’ strongest corner is of course “The Left” and last time he did well with “Millennials and Friends”. Two of those corners. Against someone who was very strong with “Party Loyalists” and okay with “Black voters” and “Hispanic/Asian” he lost. This time there is Warren (and to some degree possibly others) making a very solid play for “The Left” as well, and several who will be very appealing to “Millennials and Friends”. Lots with strength in those corners means less likelihood any one will be dominant in them, and more probable that winning means appealing more to some of the other corners too. Sanders won’t be able to do that. Warren might.
Yeah, someone linked that last page. It could be that Biden has discovered he likes cashing cheques more than playing politics. Early in the month he said he would announce his decision within a few weeks.
Since you are citing a Gallup poll this far before the primaries begin as evidence of how “popular” Sanders is let me refresh your memory of how Clinton was polling on Gallup early on: a bit better than Sanders does now. Only 14% of Ds viewed her unfavorable but many were still happy to find vote for someone who was new to them instead.
I wish he had thought more about the impact of possibly helping swing a possibly winnable seat, and been more partisan, but it is consistent with his pitch of not being hyperpartisan, and of being able to work across the aisle even in these times. His (honest) pitch is that Trump is evil not Republicans per se and that there are good people to work with to get things done who are on team R. That sort of message sells well in a general. Not so sure Democratic primary voters are going to be receptive to that messaging at this point in time though.
Declare himself to be one and register to vote as one. He hasn’t.
AIUI, in the US Senate, you have to get on the phone 70 hours a week to raise money for the committee instead of serving the people in your constitutional office.
Some reporting on the DNC rule, to get rid of the problem of a candidate running for the party’s nomination and support, while still thinking he’s just too good and pure to be part of it or work for its agenda. It essentially requires a public affirmation, in writing, of membership.
Ojeda resigned from his WV State Senate seat to focus on running for President and drops out less than two weeks later, allowing the Republican Governor to appoint a coal mining executive as Ojeda’s replacement. Idiot.
One has to wonder what happened to/with Ojeda. I did have him figured as “most likely to pull a Howard Dean” but his was a unique perspective and I’m kind of sorry to see him go this early.
This smells weird. Most people don’t give up their office to run for another unless it’s a legal requirement. However, the article I just read says this about the appointee:
Which is still messed up but not mining executive messed up. Of course, I wouldn’t be surprised if most of ther clients were mining firms.
You’ll note the title of that poll includes the word “maintains”. Sanders’ popularity in the graphic they provide goes back to September, 2016. So hardly a new thing for him.
Huh it goes back a bit over 2 years from this point in the cycle and you are impressed with Gallup’s headline about “maintains”.
Funny. Here’s their headline from 2/14, about the same point in last cycle:
You’ll note that the title of that poll includes the word “maintains”.
Her 59% viewed favorably was higher at that point in the cycle than Sanders’ (53%) is at the same point in this one except for her that was a drop off from the 60s she had been at for the past five years, also longer than the Sanders data, so was “hardly a new thing” for her. And oh, her unfavorable was about the same but a hair less than his.
If only polls at this point in the cycle actually had much predictive value or any real value at all. But if they have any value it is a very small amount.
A self-described Democrat who voted for Trump - yeah, that’s unique, I guess.
I have the feeling that the fight between Gillibrand, Warren, and Harris is going good for popcorn sales.
Oh goody. Hillary’s not ruling out a 2020 run. She just really, really wants to be president and is the world’s biggest masochist.
From the article:
At this point, there doesn’t seem to be any serious apparatus in place, so I’m not seeing any real intention here. My take is, even if she really wants to run again, who’s going to bankroll her?
It doesn’t matter if she’s ruling it out, because everyone else in the country has already ruled it out for her.