Wow, a Facebook comments thread!
It’s over. Give it up, Hillary.
:rolleyes:
THat reminds me of the time I endorsed Harold Ford for Senate on my blog and a Harold Ford fan site actually touted my endorsement as a sign that Ford was surging.
You can stop being rude any time, you know.
Go right on dismissing Sanders with your snarkiness like you did Obama in 2007/2008 and see where that gets you.
What sort of response do you expect from *anyone *here when you try to use *a bombed Facebook page *as a cite? 
I didn’t use it as a cite, I merely shared it with the observation that I’m sure the response was unexpected.
Anything more I have to say to you about intentionally misrepresenting my posts isn’t allowed here, but don’t do it again.
Cite or not, that Facebook link was ridiculous. This is The Dope. Act like it.
Agreed. Shayna, next time throw in some sort of reference to your own poop, a Joss Weadon reference, something about how chain restaurants are bad and you could make your own food cheaper at home, a pointless spelling nitpick, and possibly a three-year-old meme presented as current. Remember this is The Dope. Act like it
I don’t really give a shit if you thought it was ridiculous.
Yeah, what the hell was I thinking. By the way, it feels really weird to be in such strong agreement with you. Kind of nice for a change.
ENOUGH!
Take all the personal comments (and comments on such comments) to The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
I for one was impressed by the depth and consistency of pro-Sanders sentiment. I think I read two pages and saw one pro-Hillary comment. So…yeah, there’s definitely something here.
Is it a lethal split in the Democratic Party that gives the other guys a chance? Eh, maybe.
Is it an opportunity for someone who’s a registered Democrat not named Clinton? Ding ding ding!
Yes, but do YOU want to live at the Naval Observatory?
Interestingly, Hillary’s favorability among Democrats has gone slightly up over the summer.
If I wanted Republicans to win, I’d be rooting for Clinton to be the nominee. What I actually want is two good choices. But Clinton’s favorability increasing among Democrats while plunging among everyone else is great news for Republicans. It shows that Democrats are living in their own bubble.
I don’t find that WaPo article very convincing. Biden has obviously increased in stature after being VP for 7 years so I don’t think his 2008 bid is particularly relevant.
The article mentions a Ryan Lizza tweet with the question: What is the case for Biden over HRC?
It’s pretty simple: Biden has a better chance of winning the general. Hillary is now at -8 in her national favorability ; a poor number for a candidate as well-known as her. Biden is +3. She scores around -20 on honesty and trustworthiness, a truly terrible number. Biden is more than +20. She is struggling to handle the e-mail issue which is not even that big a scandal. What would happen if something genuinely serious turns up, say linked to the Clinton Foundation?
One issue I’m surprised no liberal writers ever bring up is that Biden has advantages in both experience and honesty. the argument that there’s no case for Biden over Clinton basically boils down to “they are in the same space ideologically so what’s the point?” As if ideology should be the primary concern for electing a President. When did competence and honesty stop being important to Democrats?
When did you stop beating your wife?
You mean like that? Or did you not mean to ask a loaded question?
I think it’s entirely reasonable to ask why every liberal writer who has addressed the rationale for a Biden run act as if the only important difference between them is gender. The honesty difference is HUGE in terms of public perception, yet even Nate Silver’s group miss it completely in their analysis. Their own polling shows that voters demand honesty this time around, yet they act as if the Democratic primary comes entirely down to ideology. They are making the same mistake with Sanders. It’s true that Sanders can’t win if he only gets the votes of progressives. But I don’t think Sanders’ appeal is limited to progressives in this cycle the way it would have been had he run in 2004 or 2008. When you come down to it, there isn’t any difference between Sanders and Kucinich other than timing.
Biden’s +3 is an anomaly, a sympathy bounce: he’s generally run solidly negative, averaging about -6.
You go on in putting down Silver’s analysis; I’m sure this will go well for you.
There is a difference between Sanders and Kucinich, though, at least in my view: Sanders does not appear to be an ego-driven weirdo.