New poll: Female voters flock to Bernie Sanders from Hillary Clinton

[Bubzer]

Source: Boston Herald

Bernie Sanders pulled within two points of Hillary Clinton in a stunning new national poll and brought his progressive message to the Vatican just hours after dominating a brawling Brooklyn debate.

Sanders closed a 13-point gap in a Fox News Channel poll last month to just two points, 48-46 percent. The boost came from female voters, a longtime Clinton stronghold. The former secretary of state’s support among women dropped by 11 points, while Sanders’ showing jumped by 9 points.

Read more: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2016/04/new_poll_female_voters_flock_to_bernie_sanders_from_hillary_clinton

---

Go Bernie!!!

[Lunabell]

1. Hillary wants to compromise on abortion

There is no compromise. My uterus belongs to me and no one else. A decision to have an abortion is between me and my doctor. End of story.

[Bubzer]

2. Damn right! A woman's body is her own, full stop!!!

[pnwmom]

3. oh, yeah. That must be why she has NARAL's enthusiastic endorsement.

They are just too stupid to understand her real positions.

[Lunabell]

12. Then explain this quote from Hillary:

"Again, I am where I have been, which is that if there's a way to structure some kind of constitutional restriction that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that. " http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/29/hillary_clinton_i_could_compromise_on_abortion_if_it_included_exceptions_for_mothers_health.html

[pnwmom]

36. This was referring to late term abortions -- ie., when the fetus is viable outside the womb --

and Roe v. Wade only allows them under certain conditions. Hillary and Bernie both support Roe v. Wade.

[Scootaloo]

57. Another case of "it's okay when a Clinton does it"

[pnwmom]

58. Do you ever make any sense about anything? This isn't an example. n/t

[Scootaloo]

59. I'm not sure why you're so easily confused.

Someone brought up the plain fact that clinton supports additional restrictions to abortion.
You respond with sneering mockery, denying that she would ever hold such a position.
The other person proves it.
You then proceed to excuse Hillary Clinton for having the position you had just previously argued that she didn't have, and try to claim it's the correct position to have.

You did a complete 180 - first, you clearly believe that restricting abortion is a terrible thing, and how dare anyone suggest your candidate have such a position. Then you find out she does, in fact, hold that position, so you change your own stance, to one that supports restricting abortion as well. You now admire a position you had just prior clearly found unappealing. The only change is that you found out that someone else holds that position.

I can't imagine abandoning my own principles, simply to conform to a candidate in some political race. None of them are worth that. I pity you.

[pnwmom]

69. Your confusion is you don't understand this basic FACT: both Hillary and Bernie support Roe v. Wade.

Period.

Full stop.

But I understand because it must be very disorienting to see Bernie become such a Pope-fan lately.

A lot like Chris Christie and the Bruce.

[A Simple Game]

82. This has nothing to do with Roe v. Wade.

Hillary is talking about amending the Constitution to allow some abortions, nice to know you are fine with that.

Perhaps you could learn about the candidates before you vote and not when it is too late.

[pnwmom]

83. No, she is NOT. She's talking about the same thing Bernie supports:

Roe V. Wade.

Under Roe V. Wade, when a fetus is far enough along to survive outside the womb, the state is allowed to regulate abortions, that is, to only allow them in certain situations.

Bernie is as much a firm supporter of Roe v. Wade as she is, and there is no indication that he supports infanticide.

[A Simple Game]

103. All I know is what she says. And I don't think Bernie has put the right to choose on the table.

I don't think Bernie is looking for "a way to structure some kind of constitutional restriction." I may be wrong, if I am please point me to a relevant quote from Bernie.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/29/hillary_clinton_i_could_compromise_on_abortion_if_it_included_exceptions_for_mothers_health.html

There is a video at the link but the pertinent part is right in the link itself: hillary clinton i could compromise on abortion if it included exceptions for mothers health. Compromise? Now what would the meaning of that word be?

HILLARY CLINTON: My husband vetoed a very restrictive legislation on late-term abortions and he vetoed it at an event in the White House where we invited a lot of women who had faced this very difficult decision, that ought to be made based on their own conscience, their family, their faith, in consultation with doctors. Those stories left a searing impression on me. Women who think their pregnancy is going well and then wake up and find some really terrible problem. Women whose life is threatened if they carry their child to term, and women who are told by doctors that the child they're carrying will not survive.

Again, I am where I have been, which is that if there's a way to structure some kind of constitutional restriction that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that. But I have yet to see the Republicans willing to actually do that, and that would be an area, where if they included health, you could see constitutional action.

[Hekate]

118. You survived an alert 0-7

I was juror #1.

On Sun Apr 17, 2016, 01:09 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

No, she is NOT. She's talking about the same thing Bernie supports:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1418525

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Referring to late term abortions as "infanticide" is over the top and doesn't belong on DU.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Apr 17, 2016, 01:23 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Another DU Disinformation pile-on. Pnwmom is in possession of the facts and is articulating them well. Others are distorting the facts. Both Democratic candidates are pro-choice, and both understand and support Roe v Wade, which allows states to determine increasing restrictions on abortion based on the viability of the fetus outside the womb.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: meh. consider the source.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Democrats are entitled to be opposed to abortion. If they believe late term abortion, or any abortion, is baby killing, they are entitled to say so.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Please stop this silliness everyone. Really one word out of the whole post -which is a fair and sound post - is cause for alerting. Honestly please STOP!
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[muriel_volestrangler]

122. No, it was about Roe. V. Wade. Here's the transcript:

CHUCK TODD: Are there reasonable restrictions that you would ever support on abortion?
HILLARY CLINTON: I've said that there were.
CHUCK TODD: What are they?
HILLARY CLINTON: And that's under Roe v. Wade, that there can be restrictions in the very end of, you know, the third trimester. But they have to take into account the life and health of the mother. I remember in '96, Chuck, my husband vetoed a very restrictive legislation on late-term abortions.

And he vetoed it at an event in the White House where we invited a lot of women who had faced this very difficult decision that ought to be made based on their own conscience, their family, their faith, in consultation with doctors. Those stories left a searing impression on me.

You know, women who think their pregnancy is going well and then wake up and find some really terrible problem, women whose life is threatened themselves if they carry their child to term, and women who are told by doctors that the child they're carrying will not survive.

And so, you know, again, I am where I have been, which is that, you know, if there is a way to structure some kind of constitutional restrictions that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that. But I have yet to see the Republicans willing to actually do that. And that would be an area, where if they included health, you could see constitutional actions.

https://www.nbcumv.com/news/hillary-clinton-tells-chuck-todd-her-organizing-principle-%E2%80%9Cdefend-our-security-our-interests

The point is that Roe v. Wade already allows restrictions on third trimester abortions.

[A Simple Game]

129. Thank you for making my point. You can make whatever excuse you want

for why she supports it but she says it in the first exchange.

CHUCK TODD: Are there reasonable restrictions that you would ever support on abortion?
HILLARY CLINTON: I've said that there were.

Bold is mine.

Thanks again.

[muriel_volestrangler]

131. Roe v. Wade allows restrictions on abortions

and she was talking about Roe v. Wade. Your 'point' was wrong.

[A Simple Game]

134. My point is that she would support exceptions to choice and she says so in her own words.

That you can't see she would compromise with Republicans to allow exceptions to choice is something I can't help you with.

They are her own words, not mine. And if you can't see she is talking about a constitutional amendment...

Try pretending she is a Republican and see how your thoughts about her stance change. It shouldn't be hard to do.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

85. Yup yup... you nailed it!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[katsy]

78. A uterus doesn't belong on the pages of the

Constitution. Period. Is assisted suicide given a constitutional amendment? No? Then there is no compromise here. None at all.

Our bodies are ours alone.

[pnwmom]

79. Both Bernie and Hillary support Roe v. Wade.

And Roe v. Wade and our whole system of law rests on the Constitution.

Period.

From BernieSanders.com

ONLY NOMINATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES WHO SUPPORT ROE V. WADE AND THE REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS OF WOMEN.

As president, Sen. Sanders will only nominate Supreme Court justices who understand that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and recognize the rights of women to have access to family planning services.

[katsy]

80. Yes Roe rests on the principles set forth in the

Constitution. As does our system of justice.

This goes far beyond Roe in a fucking insane vein. A constitutional RESTRICTION? Even murder doesn't have one of THOSE. Terrorist acts? Nope. there's no defense to this statement.

Along with the abolishment of slavery and enactment of the civil rights act... Here lies my uterus. Are you fucking kidding me?

"Again, I am where I have been, which is that if there's a way to structure some kind of constitutional restriction that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that. " http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/29/hillary_clinton_i_could_compromise_on_abortion_if_it_included_exceptions_for_mothers_health.html

[pnwmom]

81. Roe v. Wade allows restrictions once the fetus is VIABLE. Bernie supports Roe v. Wade.

Otherwise, there could be the risk of supporting infanticide.

[katsy]

84. You keep repeating the same thing over & over.

Why do you think we need a constitutional restriction when Roe suffices?

Murder is illegal. Infanticide is illegal. Terrorist acts are illegal. We aren't fucking stupid.

Why is HRC targeting my uterus for a special constitutional restriction?

[pnwmom]

87. I don't think we need a change in the Constitution and neither does Hillary or Bernie.

We all support Roe v. Wade AS IT IS. And as it is, Roe v. Wade allows states to enact laws covering abortions after a fetus is capable of life outside the womb.

Why do you persist with this made-up point?

[katsy]

88. Did I suddenly become famous and say this?

"Again, I am where I have been, which is that if there's a way to structure some kind of constitutional restriction that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that. " http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/29/hillary_clinton_i_could_compromise_on_abortion_if_it_included_exceptions_for_mothers_health.html



So I made that up? You're embarrassing yourself.

[pnwmom]

90. Here is where reading comprehension skills would come in handy.

"Some kind of constitutional restriction" does NOT mean "some kind of restriction on the Constitution" or "some kind of restriction of the Constitution."

It means "a restriction that is constitutional" or "a restriction that accords with the Constitution."

IOW, in the case of Roe v. Wade, a restriction that applies to fetuses after the point of viability but not before. THAT would be in keeping with Roe v. Wade and therefore Constitutional.

[katsy]

92. then why even go there.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/hillary-clinton-late-term-abortions

Read the last 2 paragraphs above.

Why pander? Why not just come out and say no further restrictions?

Roe is the law of the land. No further act of Congress necessary.

[pnwmom]

95. She went there because the question took her there. It asked her to discuss late-term abortions,

that is, abortions after the point of viability.

Would you be in favor of killing a 39 week old healthy fetus because a healthy mother decided to change her mind about having a baby? I doubt it. That means even you are in favor of SOME restriction on abortions after viability.

Roe v. Wade is the law of the land but it only applies without restriction to abortions BEFORE viability. Roe v. Wade says that after viability, certain restrictions might be Constitutional (leaving those restrictions up to future lawmakers and judges to decide).

Bernie and Hillary both support Roe v. Wade. Period.

But Roe v. Wade only applies to fetuses up to the point of viability -- not to fetuses that could live outside the womb. And THAT is the issue Hillary was asked to discuss in the debate.

[katsy]

101. See I don't want an act of congress deciding

Anything regarding abortion. Because murder is illegal and should not need act of congress, a congress that is republican to boot! Why do they want an act of congress here but not other matters like assisted suicide? What gives them the right to protect from infanticide but not, for the sake of argument, matricide or patricide?

NO. HRC should have said no. Full stop.

This is about keeping women as an underclass. My uterus has no business being legislated.

As to aborting a viable fetus, quite frankly, is not my business unless I'm contemplating terminating my pregnancy. State law kicks in. Any state laws that seeks to deny a woman the right to a legal late term abortion should be challenged.

Why make my uterus a constitutional matter subject to an act of congress? HRC is fucking crazy if she thinks congress will flip magically if she's elected. This matter has no fucking business in congress. If you do that then why not assisted suicide? For that matter, why aren't all laws subject to congressional approval? Because we have a judicial branch is why. Keep congress out of my uterus. I think congress is fucking psychotic. Period. Eom. Full stop.

[pnwmom]

102. Then you and Bernie don't share the same position. He fully supports Roe v. Wade and you don't.

You think Roe v. Wade should apply to 39 week fetuses but Bernie has NEVER called for such an extension.

[katsy]

104. I don't not define myself by the candidates I support.

I'm not monolithic and understand the nuanced positions of most politicians. There are things I won't condone at all. One being that unless you bring a guy's dick to be legislated upon in any manner you wish before CONGRESS, my uterus is not up for debate. Unless you coordinate assisted suicide laws in CONGRESS keep your fucking nose in your own business. In effect, I agree with one way of dealing with sensitive, private, personal health matters... The woman and her doctor. Like thousand of women are going to carry a fetus to term and just for fuckings kicks she's going to abort. P a n d e r i n g. It's bullshit. Roe is the law. No further legislation warranted in this congress.

There are laws dealing with late term abortion. Unconstitutional laws should stay in the judicial system purview. Not CONGRESS.

[pnwmom]

106. Roe v. Wade IS the law -- for non-viable fetuses.

And Bernie and Hillary have exactly the same position supporting Roe v. Wade.

[katsy]

107. Good. No further act of congress necessary.

So this bullshit should be retracted or forever ignored:



"Again, I am where I have been, which is that if there's a way to structure some kind of constitutional restriction that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that. " http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/29/hillary_clinton_i_could_compromise_on_abortion_if_it_included_exceptions_for_mothers_health.html

[pnwmom]

108. The issue is VIABLE fetuses. And Bernie and Hillary both understand that Roe v. Wade

doesn't apply in that case.

[katsy]

109. So do you & I

What you haven't acknowledged is that:

1. There are state laws already dealing with late term abortions

2. THIS congress. This REPUBLICANS congress has no fucking business discussing women's health issues at all and SBS and HRC, whoever is prez, should STFU and let the judicial system deal with these matters until such time as we have a majority house and senate. Look at the havoc congress created with PP!

3. Congressional acts are NOT necessary here unless you also deal with assisted suicide laws and other clever shit these fucking psychopaths want to throw in the mix... Bathroom laws, marriage laws, who the fuck knows what all laws these fuckwits can imagine. No. Just no. I trust the judicial system just a sliver more than congressfuckwits.

[katsy]

111. Btw.... This is another terry shiavo maneuver.

Acts of congress for what egregious act? None. Name 1 instance that requires an act of congress bcuz 1 woman wanted a "recreational" late term abortion. ZERO.

They'll throw so much shit on a woman's right to choose... Create loopholes everywhere and chip away at our rights.

I'm shocked this is even an issue here on DU

We have laws on the books. States must comply or be taken to task.

[rock]

98. Wait, I can answer that one, pnwmom!

BSers, do not care a twit for truth or facts. How'd I do?

[pnwmom]

99. Sometimes it seems so.

[katsy]

105. Wow your world is one dimensional.

Such a thoughtful comment.

Ignore.

[Duval]

133. +1

[noiretextatique]

119. And, your point? It is still something she's offered up

Needlessly, I might add.

[SunSeeker]

6. Wrong. It's Sanders who is the Pope's fanboy, literally.

It was Hillary, not Sanders, who brought up abortion rights at the last debate and objected to the issue being ignored by the moderators. We cannot trust Sanders to speak up for abortion rights and risk bumming out his "beautiful" (Sanders' words) Pope.

[Bubzer]

11. Did you know female voters are flocking to Bernie Sanders from Hillary Clinton?

It's in the OP! Cause, you know, that's the topic here, not the pope. Thanks!

[SunSeeker]

35. I knew about that Fox poll if that is what you mean. It is 2-day-old news.

It is an outlier poll that does not comport with other polls. Women are not "flocking" to Sanders. Birds maybe. But not women.


Seriously, Bubzer, how old are you?

[Bubzer]

39. Conflating the Boston Herald article as being a fox news article will never make it true.

But, by all means, keep trying.

[SunSeeker]

67. I didn't conflate the two, as I said re your OP, it is a Fox poll.

And even though it is an outlier and over two days old and already widely covered, the Republican paper of Boston, the Herald, breathlessly ran it as "news" claiming it shows women are flocking to Sanders. Women are not.

[Bubzer]

110. This might come as somthing of a shock, but most news organizations report released polls.

Breath! Breath! It's okay. It'll be alright! It's just a poll. It'll pass. See? Right as rain

[sheshe2]

150. Fox Snooze AND

The Boston Herald quoted polls in one OP .

Oh my, I am from Boston. No self respecting Dem would even lay down a dime to purchase their RW news.

Thank you sunseeker.

[Bubzer]

160. Comming from a hillarian, that means less than nothing.

[pnwmom]

54. Not according to any other poll. It's an outlier. n/t

[Lunabell]

13. Hillary will give away the right to chose if it is politically expedient for her

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/29/hillary_clinton_i_could_compromise_on_abortion_if_it_included_exceptions_for_mothers_health.html

[Bubzer]

23. +1

[ReRe]

31. As well as...

... Social Security and Medicare. That woman is twoooooooooooooooooooo faced! I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw her! She's in it for herself, not for the American people. Hey, I would love to have a woman president, but not at any cost for Pete's sake.

[Beaverhausen]

34. That's why Planned Parenthood Action endorsed her

My god, give it up!

[pinebox]

91. The CEO of PP kiddo works for the Clinton campaign

and did before they endorsed her.
Give it up? Yup Hillary should.

[roguevalley]

33. she said if there's rules for rape and death, she's good with limits on it. read the interview in

esquire. And the pope still sticks in your craw. Deal. He has said every time he's asked no matter where he is women have the right to choose, period. Lies are a sin.

[jillan]

65. Do you hear Donna Brazille on CNN question why Hillary brought that up? She said the reason why

NO ONE asks that question is because it is a dem debate! And Dems support a women's right to choose. There is no difference between the candidates. And she was right!

Donna Brazille. Superdelegate and Hill supporter saw right thru Hillary's poutrage. As did millions of Americans.

[SunSeeker]

66. The debates hit a lot of topics Dems agree on; the issue is what are the candidate's priorities.

Pope Francis thinks all abortion is evil and should not be allowed.

Here's how Sanders gushed about that man that would force women to give birth to their rapist's baby:

In an interview with ABC News after the meeting, Sanders called the pope "a beautiful man", adding "I am not a Catholic, but there is a radiance that comes from him."

http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/idINKCN0XD0A6?irpc=932

Tell that to the raped 11-year-old girl in Paraguay who was forced to give birth to her stepfather's baby thanks to the Catholic Church's teachings.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/11-year-old-rape-victim-forced-to-give-birth-to-rapists-baby-lives-through-delivery/

Latin America, where Francis hails from, generates one horror story after another like that. Just Google "Latin American girl forced to give birth." There is nothing "beautiful" or "radiant" about a man who pushes that doctrine, at least not if your priority is women's rights.

Sanders’s priority is apparently socialist revolution, not women's rights.

[Bubzer]

114. What garbage.

"Sanders’s priority is apparently socialist revolution, not women's rights." As if the two were not intertwined.

[SunSeeker]

117. Socialism and women's rights are not "intertwined."

Abortion is illegal in Evo Morales' socialist paradise of Bolivia. Evo is a Pope Francis fanboy, like Sanders. And like Sanders, it appears his priority is enforcing socialism, not women's rights.

[Bubzer]

121. "Socialism and women's rights are not "intertwined."" According to who? You?

Bernie Sanders has very much made women's rights an integral part of his platform. And, you know who doesn't get to dictate what is and is not part of his platform? You! Welcome to DEMOCRATIC Socialism... Have a great day!

[SunSeeker]

125. According to reality. The European democracies don't have socialist economies.

They are most emphatically market economies. They just have a very strong safety net, which some people, including Sanders, mistake for socialism.

The Danish prime minister has rebuked Sanders’s claims that the Nordic countries have socialist economies:

While speaking at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, the center-right Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said he was aware “that some people in the U.S.associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism.”

“Therefore,” he said, “I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”

Rasmussen acknowledged that “the Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens,” but he also noted that it is “a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish.”

http://www.investors.com/politics/capital-hill/denmark-tells-bernie-sanders-to-stop-calling-it-socialist/

[Bubzer]

130. Of COURSE it's not socialism. It's DEMOCRATIC socialism. I'd say nice try...but it really wasn't.

And really...after the enormous tirade you JUST went on about not citing right wing rags, you do the VERY THING you complained at me for? Hypocrite.

[SunSeeker]

132. No, it is not Democratic Socialism. It is simply well-functioning democracy.

They are market economies, with strong social safety nets. That is what they say they are and what they in fact are.

[Bubzer]

143. According to who? You? We've been down this road before. Here, let me spell this out for you...

Your voice carries no weight... except perhaps within the hillarian echo chamber of denial. Particularly with your hypocrisy of "right wing rags" mattering when they support your position... and that's setting aside your false characterization of a media source merely because you disagree with it. No, I do not recognize you as authority on democratic socialism... especially given the candidate you've chosen.

Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, with democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=democratic+socialism+definition

A well functioning democracy is a vital component of women's rights, and democracy is an intrinsic component of Democratic Socialism; ergo, you agree that Democratic Socialism does, in fact, hold women's rights as an intrinsic principle.

Thank you for finally agreeing with me on Democratic Socialism. I hope you have a wonderful day!

[SunSeeker]

148. Thank you for finally looking up the definition of Democratic Socialism.

Funny how Sanders has never been able to utter that definition. As you can see from that definition, Democratic Socialism is "political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production."

Scandinavian countries are political democracies alongside market economies, where the means of production are in private hands. They are not examples of Democratic Socialism. You don't have to believe me, listen to the Danish prime minister.

[Bubzer]

149. Hear that? It's the bullshit alarm going off...nope... not letting deflect or change the subject.

So, lets dispense with your bullshit argument:

Democratic socialism can mean Social democracy as in Sweden, Denmark and other Scandinavian countries and that works, Denmark is the happiest country in the world while Sweden, Norway and Finland are among the happiest.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=norwegian+countries+that+are+democratic+socialist

Look at that...you were wrong again. I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.

Now...you claimed women's rights was not part of Democratic Socialism. Explain yourself.

[SunSeeker]

154. The Danish prime minister emphatically states they do not have Democratic Socialism.

Sweden briefly tried Democratic Socialism but then their economy tanked. They are now a market economy as well. Finland is definitely a market economy now.

Democratic Socialism does not in and of itself guarantee women's rights, nor civil rights. This is plainly evident under the Democratic Socialism of Evo Morales in Bolivia, where abortion is illegal.

Economic systems do not in and of themselves address the effects of racism and sexism. Sanders either does not get that or does not care. That is why he is losing to Clinton with women and people of color. Women and people of color definitely get that.

You and your candidate's condescension and rudeness will not get him the women and people of color he needs for his glorious "revolution."

I've sincerely tried to explain all this to you, only to be rudely treated with condescension and insults. You've wasted enough of my time.


Good bye.

[azmom]

140. There are 1.2 billion Catholics in the world.

Bernie is not one of them.

[SunSeeker]

144. Jane is Catholic. And Bernie Sanders acts like a Pope Francis fanboy. nt

[Major Hogwash]

136. #WhichHillary?

Hillary is so phony it isn't even funny.
Even when she is trying to defend something as important as abortion, she has to make qualifying remarks with it.

People have had it with her pretzel logic and posturing.
She always has to draw circles around her main arguments, and in so doing, then she winds up agreeing with Republicans!

Not only on abortion, but also on foreign policy issues.
As well as issues of fracking, ISIS, TPP, free trade, offshore banking, tax issues, etc., etc.

[Fairgo]

28. I've always thought this was such an easy issue to resolve

just so.

[madokie]

153. This old man agrees with you

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

164. I've always wanted a republican to tell me whether I could or couldn't get a vasectomy.

I wonder why they don't harass men with their bullshit?

Could it be............ SATAN!!!????!!

[Democat]

4. This should be in the Primaries forum

Along with many other threads in LBN right now.

[Bubzer]

5. Nope. It's LBN.

[SunSeeker]

7. It's a Hillary hit piece/analysis by a right wing rag.

It doesn't even belong on DU, let alone LBN.

Check out the other articles in that issue.

[Bubzer]

8. "Other articles"? I dont care about "Other articles". Nothing presented in this article is untrue.

Nor is it analysis. Sorry, no, your wrong. This is a news piece and is right where it belongs.

[SunSeeker]

19. It's a right wing rag's analysis of a two-day-old poll.

This isn't even news. The Fox poll it is analyzing (and that is being generous) was released two days ago and already widely reported. http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2016/04/14/fox-news-poll-trump-widens-lead-in-gop-race-clinton-sanders-tightens.html


Aren't you embarrassed giving a right wing rag clicks by posting this crap in LBN? If you are so excited about that Fox poll, find a PROGRESSIVE source that talks about it and give it the clicks, but post it in GDP where this type of OP belongs.

[Bubzer]

22. I reject your notion that the Boston Herald is a right-wing rag.

You don't have to agree that this is LBN, but it is, and it abides the SOP...so you're just going to have to deal.

[sheshe2]

151. I reject your notion that it is NOT a RW rag.

We in Boston know.

[Bubzer]

155. Oh look, another opinion. I'll be sure to place that next to all the other hillarian opinions...

in the trash. Bye!

[vkkv]

10. Since when is reporting polls an "opinion piece".. sheesh...

Hillary fans are a nervous bunch.. IN MY HUMBLE OPINION !!!

See the difference?

[SunSeeker]

18. It is analyzing a two-day-old poll.

This isn't even news. It is analysis by a right wing rag of a Fox poll that was released two days ago and already widely reported. http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2016/04/14/fox-news-poll-trump-widens-lead-in-gop-race-clinton-sanders-tightens.html

[vkkv]

20. Info that was analyzed and published days later, yes? We call your comment

"clutching at straws".. It is something that HRC campaign staff are getting very familiar with.

[SunSeeker]

30. No, "clutching at straws" is resorting to right wing rags to prop up your candidate. nt

[Bubzer]

44. Synopsis of your comment; It's a right wing rag cause it attacks my candidate... # 2

[pinebox]

93. It's a poll, I'm sure you can handle it

God forbid that someone posts a pic of the Simpson's because you know, that's FOX too.
Which reminds me of something rather fitting....

[Bubzer]

21. Analysis requires extrapolation. That's not happening here. The article was posted TODAY... thanks.

It doesn't talk about trump widening his lead...it talks about women leaving HRC for Bernie in DROVES... HUGE difference!

[SunSeeker]

27. The article was posted today, but it is talking about two day old news.

It is rehashing an outlier two day old Fox news poll to claim that women are leaving Hillary for Bernie.

[Bubzer]

43. So you claim. Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, you wont become more right about it.

[vkkv]

24. Sorry..the Boston Herald is reporting it as news on Sat. April 16th..

So.. you really should be complaining to the Boston Herald, right?

New poll: Female voters flock to Bernie Sanders from Hillary Clinton
Chris Cassidy Saturday, April 16, 2016

[SunSeeker]

26. That is because it is a right wing rag that likes to beat up on Clinton with old news.

Just like it beat up on Martha Coakley and wrote glowingly about that idiot Scott Brown.

Globe and Herald Differences in the Tone of Candidate Coverage

But nowhere were the differences between the two papers more evident than in the tone of coverage toward the candidates, something that emerged in the primaries but became even clearer in the final two weeks of the general election.

From January 6-19, the Herald’s coverage was much more positive for Brown than it was for Coakley. For Brown, 43% of the stories were positive, 17% negative and 40% neutral, compared with 14% positive for Coakley, 63% negative and 24% neutral.

http://www.journalism.org/2010/04/20/herald-vs-globe/

[Bubzer]

41. Synopsis of your comment; It's a right wing rag cause it attacks my candidate.

You'll forgive me if I'm unmoved by your claim.

[SunSeeker]

45. It does not belong in LBN because it is old news.

If you want to cite Republican newspaper articles discussing old news, please take it to GDP. You are violating the SOP for this forum.

[Bubzer]

50. Synopsis of your comment; It's a right wing rag cause it attacks my candidate #4

[greymouse]

63. any media outlet that reports something unfavorable to Her Excellency is

apparently by definition a right wing rag.

[libdem4life]

96. This ^^^^^

[still_one]

61. It is a national poll, and it means zilch. They can blow it up all they want, but the facts are

states determine who the nominee is, not national polls

The MSM has been pushing these national polls lately as though they actually determine the nominee, which they don't

DEMOCRATS determine who their nominee is, and interestingly the state polls do NOT correlate with the national polls.

As far as I am concerned, after Tuesday, and the states that follow in April, we will see how all these hyping talking points go.

The only thing the MSM is concerned about is trying to attract viewers, and by making it a horse race, it helps that effort, it doesn't matter if the analysis is valid or not.

As the head of CBS said, Trump has been great for business. That in itself speaks volumes. It is no surprise that the two candidates getting the most media coverage by the MSM are Trump and Sanders.

[Ed Suspicious]

74. Even before a single state voted I used this exact argument. I, and many others

were mocked and taunted mercilessly for it. Hill-people trotted out every national poll, and all of them told the same story. Hillary had a big lead on Bernie. That is no longer the case, and now you want to reverse field? Laughable.

[Bubzer]

113. And terribly sad... it reveals a very strong double standard. Not very democratic.

[still_one]

127. It doesn't represent the true situation. States determine the nominee, and who will be

President. Not the national polls.

You are not pleased with that, then you need to change the system for how delegates are chosen, and getting rid of the electoral college, which is not going to happen unless the Constitution is amended

[still_one]

126. I am not reversing anything. What someone else says is their view not mine. I have never

been a advocator of national polls suggesting who would or would not win. Too many variables are not accounted for in national polls.

I also am not a fan of hypothetical match ups, such as the prospective Democratic candidates, against the prospective republican candidates, even at a state level, because they represent a hypothetical

Same reason I was not a fan of adding Biden and Elizabeth Warren to the mix once prospective candidates announced they were running. That is when it becomes real

[Democat]

9. It's from Fox News and says "dominating a brawling Brooklyn debate"

It's not news.

I am happy to support Sanders or Clinton, but there are a number of threads in LBN right now that are not news. These threads are encouraging fighting between Clinton and Sanders supporters. Anything that brings out trolls in large numbers should be moved to the Primaries forum so that they can be ignored by those who are focused on beating Republicans.

[Bubzer]

15. "It's not news" Why? Because you say so?

If you don't like the SOP of LBN then petition to have it changed.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

165. Because he is part of the Hillary mafia.

[vkkv]

16. Please, clearly explain your definition of "trolls" ?

Come on, dude,,, you have the nerve to say " ignored by those who are focused on beating Republicans." as though THAT is fact?

Gimme a friggin' break..

[SunSeeker]

37. Thank you. nt

[SunSeeker]

14. This is not LBN and should not be on the front page.

This isn't even news. It is analysis by a right wing rag of a Fox poll that was released two days ago and already widely reported. http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2016/04/14/fox-news-poll-trump-widens-lead-in-gop-race-clinton-sanders-tightens.html


Hellllooooo? Are there any forum hosts out there?

[Bubzer]

17. Wrong. It's the BOSTON HERALD... that wrote the article...your reading comprehension is failing you.

[SunSeeker]

25. Oh good God. The Herald is the Republican paper in Boston.

The Boston GLOBE is the "liberal" paper in Boston--well, liberal compared to the Herald anyway.

This has actually been studied, for example:

Globe and Herald Differences in the Tone of Candidate Coverage

But nowhere were the differences between the two papers more evident than in the tone of coverage toward the candidates, something that emerged in the primaries but became even clearer in the final two weeks of the general election.

From January 6-19, the Herald’s coverage was much more positive for Brown than it was for Coakley. For Brown, 43% of the stories were positive, 17% negative and 40% neutral, compared with 14% positive for Coakley, 63% negative and 24% neutral.

http://www.journalism.org/2010/04/20/herald-vs-globe/

[vkkv]

29. Ok Sunseek, you just suggested that Fox News was legitimate, but the right Boston Herald is not.

I think you have some explaining to do.

Sunseeker wrote """This isn't even news. The Fox poll it is analyzing (and that is being generous) was released TWO DAYS AGO and already widely reported. http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2016/04/14/fox-news-poll-trump-widens-lead-in-gop-race-clinton-sanders-tightens.html
"""

and now the right-wing Boston Herald published the poll as news today, Sat., 4/16 - and because according to you, the B.H. is "right-wing" it is not news..

I call that 'Hillary logic'.. works for her.. works for you.. but not for most of us.

[SunSeeker]

40. No I did not say Fox News was legitimate, I said that Fox poll was widely reported, so not LBN.

Since it was a Fox poll, it was first reported by Fox, as the link I provided shows. And it was reported over two days ago, as the link I provided shows.

It is you and the OP who is giving legitimacy to an outlier poll by Fox News, not me.

[vkkv]

46. Your initial complaint was that it is not news, your de-legitimizing of the Herald came after

legitimizing Fox as news... "widely reported"...

I missed it by the way, so it is still news to me AND THE BOSTON HERALD.

I'm done, my guess is you've already taken it up with a moderator, if you haven't, then please bother them about it.

[SunSeeker]

47. It isn't LBN. It's analyzing a 2-day-old poll. Analysis is not news.

And on top of all that, the Herald is a Republican paper.

Just because you never heard about that Fox poll does not make it LBN. Maybe you should read more.

[Bubzer]

49. Synopsis of your comment; It's a right wing rag cause it attacks my candidate #3

[sheshe2]

152. Wrong. It is indeed a RW rag.

[Bubzer]

156. According to you. I'm sure you're non biased about it... the way hillary is honest and forthright.

In other words, not at all.

[sheshe2]

157. You are a Massite?

[Bubzer]

158. Are you Brock?

[sheshe2]

159. Lol~

Do you know what a Massite is?

Question? DO YOU LIVE IN MASS? Do you read the paper and know the crap they spew?

[Bubzer]

161. Do you know who Brock is?

Question? ARE YOU A HILLY TROLL? Do you simply regurgitate whatever crap they spew?

[Bubzer]

32. Oh please. I can find plenty of articles that show the Globe is conservative...

And that the Herald is liberal.
From your own link:

The Herald, for instance, would end up endorsing Michael Capuano in the Democratic primary, and his overall coverage in the paper was noticeably less negative than in the Globe, and more neutral.

[SunSeeker]

42. I said the Globe was liberal compared to the Herald.

It is. It is a fact. The objective study at the link I provided proved it.

[Bubzer]

48. ROTFL. So now its a "By comparison" thing? Stop being disingenous.

I wont tolerate stupid little games like that. Your "fact" isn't. The objective study you posted doesn't show what you think it does... you need to vet your sources a little more thoroughly before you use them. Enjoy the rest of your evening... oh, and, enjoy the article!

[SunSeeker]

51. I am not the one being disingenuous here. nt

[Bubzer]

52. Yes you are. So long.

[Marrah_G]

72. OFFS

The Globe is more liberal and the Herald is more conservative. That's just the fucking truth. Anyone from new England will tell you that.

[Marrah_G]

71. You know the Herald is a conservative paper, right?

[Bubzer]

115. According to who? You?

[kwassa]

135. according to anyone with the faintest awareness of national media.

Globe is the liberal paper, Herald the conservative paper.

[Marrah_G]

138. I now think he is being intentionally dense.

[Bubzer]

147. Nope... just not taking the word of somone supporting a consumate liar and cheater.

[kwassa]

163. It's not intentional.

[Bubzer]

146. Ahhh... you too eh? Well I'll happily repeat my response for you as well:

"according to anyone with the faintest awareness of national media"
Ahh...so, then not you. Thanks for that clarification. Here's a hint; You're not an authority... on this subject or any other that I'll recognize. So long!

[Marrah_G]

137. According to anyone who lives here

It is not a big fucking secret.

[Bubzer]

141. Ahh...so, then not you. Thanks for that clarification. Here's a hint; You're not an authority...

on this subject or any other that I'll recognize. Please try again.

[Marrah_G]

142. You do not want to know the truth

Bye

[Bubzer]

145. So says somone supporting a consumate liar and cheater.

Bye.

[BeanMusical]

38. Kick and R

[RandySF]

53. Last month?

And a Fox News poll to boot?

[Eric J in MN]

55. Which candidate is likeable?

Trump - 41%
Cruz - 52%
Clinton - 52%
Sanders - 71%

PDF:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/04/14/fox-news-poll-national-release-april-14-2016/

[crim son]

56. Imagine that.

Better late than never.

[yuiyoshida]

60. I never flocked.

I was always there.

[Bubzer]

116. That's cause you're awesome yuiyoshida!

[yuiyoshida]

120. Thank You...a song for you!

[Bubzer]

123. Awesome!

[yuiyoshida]

124. one more!!

[Eric J in MN]

62. The current percentages

Democratic Primary Voters, nationally

57% of men support Bernie Sanders
56% of women support Hillary Clinton



page 18 of this PDF:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/04/14/fox-news-poll-national-release-april-14-2016/

[mhatrw]

64. I guess women don't like corporate gigolos.

[Helen Borg]

68. In short: Hillary is toast!

[pampango]

70. It's a "Fox News Channel poll" published in a RW rag. I would love for the poll to be accurate but

will wait for confirmation from a more reliable source.

[Scharlui]

73. Clintons and Scientology

As a Swiss inhabitant I wonder why the Scientology-sympathies of the Clintons are not discussed.
10 years ago Hillary signed a paper
https://de.scribd.com/doc/212629153/Daily-Report-von-OSA-Invest-re-David-Touretzky-Hillary-Clinton-u-a

taken from

http://www.wilfriedhandl.com/blog/tag/hillary-clinton/

[LiberalElite]

75. It's news to me here in the USA nt

[zazen]

76. Nooooooooo---I don't even want to click on it. I don't care for her but she's not THAT stupid.

No no no no no.

I thought she had some weird "Family" like interpretation of Christianity (weird to me, anyway). But NOT scientology? They're friggin authoritarian idiots and L. Ron Hubbard was a manic-depressive huckster. No no no no no.

Okay. I'll click on it.

[zazen]

77. ok, so that sounds like a Scientologist donor got her to do an unethical favor

Which is bad, but it doesn't look from this like she actually believes this tripe.

Or did I miss something on the link?

CMU is Carnegie Mellon, I presume?

[pinebox]

94. You need to post this in GD-P.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

166. Yes, they NEED to!

You see, in GDP, any and all tin foil wild speculation is allowed to stand as truth.

WOO WOO WOO.

[Sunlei]

86. fox poll, everyone knows fox is an arm of the republican party..so agenda is always anti-clinton.

On the positive side for D party primary, Republicans have a Huge ongoing Disaster with their Primary.
Republicans are currently being Bagger-Trumped

We Ds are fortunate to have two excellent contenders.

[apnu]

89. "...in a Fox News Channel poll..."

Have a grain of salt with that.

[beastie boy]

97. Thanks for the article

Sanders still trails Clinton by ranges of 10 to 15 points in the polls in New York. And although the latest polls don’t factor in any gains from Thursday’s debate, Sanders faces an uphill battle to score big in the Empire State. But analysts say the Vermont U.S. senator can spin the primary into a victory if he closes the gap, but he would still face a daunting delegate deficit.

“At a minimum, he would have to get it down to single digits,” said Chris Galdieri, a political science professor at St. Anselm College.

“Even then ... Clinton increases her lead and because New York has so many delegates, it’ll basically probably wipe out whatever ground Sanders gained in recent wins,” Galdieri said.

It was most informative.

[CharlotteVale]

100. Keep playing that woman card, Hill!

[wisteria]

112. LOL, Republican rag paper.

Really???

[MattSh]

128. Beware female defectors...

There's a special place in hell for you. It's called the Madeleine Albright room.

[Baobab]

139. She's a heartless mean spirited person

When we pick a woman President, she needs to be somebody other than Hillary.

Elizabeth Warren would be a much better President.

We really do not want somebody who admires mass murderer Henry Kissinger to be President.