So you have nothing but false assertions to contribute to the thread? Okay.
Giving up evening electronics for Lent. Going to go do something worthwhile. Have a great evening, Snowboarder.
Which makes you a Millennial.
GREAT way to crystallize it. The impression given is “Castro and the Sandinistas had the right idea, but made some mistakes, so I will fine-tune their approach, avoid making some of the same mistakes they did.” And in fact this is exactly what his most hardcore supporters want! But it’s not what the majority of Americans want, to put it mildly.
Looks like you need to work on your analogies. This is what I wrote about Buttigieg last March, and I never became more favorable toward him:
Note that I didn’t say he was a bad candidate because his position on this or that was wrong. I think that’s a naive way to look at politics, beyond the broad scope of choosing one party or the other based on which one has policies you like better. Once you do that, you look for the ones you can most easily market to the low-information chumps who swing back and forth from election to election based on anything but a deep, sober, evaluation of the issues.
You’re just wrong. You can go all the way back to the Nineties, when I adored Bill Clinton because he was so good at snowing the rubes. You could see that Republicans knew he was full of shit, but they couldn’t convince swing voters of it, and it drove the GOP up the wall with frustration. I loved it!
To sum up: you are vastly underestimating my cynicism about politics. But it’s not a bitter cynicism, at least not when the Democrats are being smart politically: it’s a gleeful, opportunistic cynicism. (When they give in to idealistic naivete, it does shift to frustration and bitterness.)
Your particular individual strain of this disease is immaterial to the point I was making.
Not when you say “Slacker-analog”. And I believe you are overestimating the degree to which other pragmatic center-left Dems idealistically swoon over their preferred candidates. They may resist articulating it quite as nakedly as I do, but fundamentally they are looking for a showhorse who will win the competition, not a workhorse who will be best at the job.
OK
FWIW, I’m not underestimating your cynical appreciation for opportunistic disingenuousness. I think it’s a pretty important thing for everyone to remember when they read your posts.
You, on the other hand, are vastly overestimating the relevance of your opinions. Your calls for Obama to be a savior are, as I stated earlier, difficult to satirize.
Magical indeed!
Bloomberg might have what it takes, but he might not have the time to evolve.
I think Bloomberg might have what it takes, as far as his GOTV, ground game and general organization go. I’m not writing him off til I see his Tuesday numbers. He’s built a lot of city level associations that he might have set to surprise his polling numbers next week.
Would be fun to see Bloomberg come out on top or No. 2 after Super Tuesday, yup.
I do too, and I actually appreciate this even though I know you think it’s a subtle way to snarkily throw shade. 
And while Obama may not be coming to save us, Clyburn has given us a pretty good start and I love him for it.
CBS News did some post-debate polling and found that more viewers thought Sanders made the best case that he could beat Trump.
Here’s the two most important (IMO) polls they did:
Who impressed you in the debate?
45% Sanders
43% Biden
40% Warren
38% Buttigieg
31% Klobuchar
25% Bloomberg
24% Steyer
Who made the best case that they could beat Trump?
26% Sanders
21% Biden
12% Warren
11% Bloomberg
8% Buttigieg
6% Klobuchar
2% Steyer
Bloomberg, you better drop another hundred million in S.C. in the next 24 hours.
This info tells us absolutely nothing about whether Bernie can win in November. Absolutely nothing. For pete’s sake, 74% of the people who watched this debate (presumable semi-engaged Democrats) don’t even think Bernie made the best case to beat Trump. What in the hell is so important about this?
I re-read my post that you quoted and I didn’t see anywhere that I indicated that the poll told us whether or not Bernie can win in November, nor did I see where I indicated that I thought the poll was of supreme importance. Could you point those out?
:dubious:
:rolleyes:
You mentioned that those were “important.” (I never claimed anything about “supreme” importance, but way to sneak that goalpost in there.) Still, I don’t see how in the hell they are even remotely important, since the only important thing is beating Trump.
:dubious::rolleyes: right back atchya.
So as **Happy **said, 74% believe the current national frontrunner did NOT make the best case that he could beat Trump. :dubious:
CNN’s John Avlon made a great quip on the Forecast Fest podcast about Bernie’s Cuba defense: “It’s like being accused of being a communist, and objecting that you’re not a Stalinist, you’re a Trotskyite!”
One thing they said that does concern me: they said there’s a coordinated South Carolina GOP campaign to get their voters (who don’t have a primary) to go vote for Bernie.
I’m not seeing it - Warren had no problem blasting Bernie directly in the S.C. debate over his stance on DNC superdelegates.
Context is everything but apparently not your thing. I said they were the important polls of the ones posted at the link I gave. I made no claim that they were important in and of themselves, just that I thought they had more relevance than the others posted at the link. YMMV, obviously.