Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumBernie Knocks Chuck Todd Off His High Horse - Complete Interview
So sad that Chuck Todd... must've slept through this week while forming his questions bwahahahahaha
Faux pas
(14,680 posts)to the puny, insignificant, rethug cheerleader Phuck Wodd!
thereismore
(13,326 posts)wilsonbooks
(972 posts)Iwillnevergiveup
(9,298 posts)from that interview: the gross ineffectiveness of Todd and a good platform for Bernie reaching Rethugs and Independents who are snowed in watching the show.
Larkspur
(12,804 posts)Who ever is coaching Bernie on how to handle these kinds of interviews is doing a great job and Bernie is doing a good job.
The reparations question is a "Got you" type question. Todd did not ask it of Hillary, who also does not support paying reparations. He only asked Bernie, but Bernie did a excellent job framing his answer by saying that he agrees with President Obama and Sec. Clinton on this issue. It is a good parry of a question designed to send Bernie's campaign fighting fires he does not need to have happen.
While Todd et all ask "trap" questions that are designed to create controversy, it is really up to the candidate and his/her campaign to recognize them and frame his/her answer accordingly. I've been impressed with how Bernie is handling these kinds of question.
Gothmog
(145,241 posts)Here is a good thread talking about these polls http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511038010
The reliance on these polls by Sanders supporters amuse me. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/
Sanders supporters have to rely on these worthless polls because it is clear that Sanders is not viable in a general election where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend an additional billion dollars.
No one should rely on hypo match up type polls in selecting a nominee at this stage of the race.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)This:
That statement makes so much sense when polls are compared to the "Because I said so" method used by Hillary supporters when deciding who would win a hypothetical contest.
Gothmog
(145,241 posts)I and others have concerns that Sanders is not viable in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million, the RNC candidate may spend another billion dollars and now Bloomberg may spend another billion dollars. So far the only evidence of viability being provided has been worthless match up polls. If Sanders is viable, then provide some evidence that does not depend on these worthless match up polls
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)So you don't think there will be as large a Republican war chest if Hillary runs? Interesting to say the least.
They could use a large war chest to launch a different criticism or attack against Hillary every day. If they didn't bother to amass a large war chest against Hillary... that would be very interesting indeed, wouldn't it. They really only have one thing to use against Bernie and every time he is asked about being a socialist he gains more support with his explanation. The only people that still fear the "Socialism" are hard core Republicans and they won't vote for Bernie or Hillary. Say... You aren't still scared of the "Red Menace" are you?
But you and your straw men "others" are probably right, so I'll just take your word over that of all the people answering the polls.
Gothmog
(145,241 posts)These polls are worthless and Nate Silver and others have attacked the use of these match up polls. The media likes these polls to try to promote a horse race but such polls are worthless due (a) the high margin of error (you have in effect double the margin of error) and (b) the candidate in question has not been vested.
If a poll has a margin of error of 4%(many of these polls have far higher margins of error) then to account for such margin of error, one must assume that the Sanders results against a GOP candidate could be 4% lower and Clinton's results are actually 4% higher. One cannot compare results in two separate polls without adjusting for the margin of error in each poll.
These polls also assume that the candidate has been vetted and is a viable candidate (i.e., has adequate funding to run in the general election). According to the Sanders people he has not been given any media coverage and therefore he has not been vetted. The reason for that is that the media does not think that Sanders will be the nominee and vetting Sanders would hurt the narrative that there is a horse race. Sander has some vetting issues that will hurt him if he is the nominee and Sanders is also very vulnerable to negative ads. Hypothetical match up polls also assume that the candidate can run a viable and well financed campaign. That is not the case for Sanders who is very vulnerable to negative ads on the costs of his programs and his socialism
Nate Silver and others are very clear that these polls are worthless but you are welcome to rely on these polls if that is the only way that you can attempt to show that Sanders is electable
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)No, one could assume that the Sanders results could be 4% higher and Clinton's results are actually 4% lower. See, that works both ways.
Got anymore "assumptions" for us?
Gothmog
(145,241 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Gothmog
(145,241 posts)These polls are totally worthless for that purpose in that with such high margins of error, a candidate that appears to stronger may actually be weaker. That is one of the reasons why Nate Silver and others think that these polls are worthless
Gothmog
(145,241 posts)While I still think that these polls are worthless, I am amused to see that Sanders was found to be misrepresenting these polls and that in fact his claim is not true http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/26/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-he-polls-better-against-gop-ca/
"Almost all of the polls that -- and polls are polls, they go up, they go down -- but almost all of the polls that have come out suggest that I am a much stronger candidate against the Republicans than is Hillary Clinton," he told voters during a Jan. 19 town hall meeting in Underwood, Iowa.
We took a look at the various national surveys, as compiled by RealClearPolitics and PollingReport.com to see how that assertion stacks up against the data.....
Our ruling
Sanders said, "Almost all of the polls that have come out suggest that I am a much stronger candidate against the Republicans than is Hillary Clinton."
The NBC News/Wall Street Journal national poll released before Sanders' statement supports his claim for Trump, but it has no data against Cruz or Rubio. Earlier polls say he doesn't outperform Clinton at all against Cruz, Rubio or Bush, and the narrow races combined with the margins of error make his contention even more dubious.
Beating Clinton in only two of eight hypothetical matchups is far from "almost all."
The statement is not accurate, so we rate it False.
Gothmog
(145,241 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 25, 2016, 03:55 PM - Edit history (1)
These polls are worthless because Sanders has not been vetted by the media http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-three-weeks-go-three-margin-error-races-n493946
These match up polls are not meaningful at this stage
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Nor are any polls that show Sanders' gaining on Clinton or Sanders as far more electable than Clinton meaningful.
Only polls from 6 months ago that showed Clinton the inevitable nominee are meaningful.
Gothmog
(145,241 posts)mhatrw
(10,786 posts)else's unsupported opinion that these polls are wrong. Even Lord Silver would have to agree with that.
Gothmog
(145,241 posts)We are in the primary process and please vote for the candidate of your choice but do not expect other people to listen to these worthless polls. Again, Sanders would be a much strong candidate if he could demonstrate that he is viable in the general election and these worthless polls are not good evidence of Sanders' viability
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)I said these electability polls are worth a lot more than your unsupported opinion that they will prove to be wrong in the future.
Do you agree or disagree with the bolded statement?
Gothmog
(145,241 posts)Electability is a key issue in the primary process and these worthless polls do not show that Sanders is electable. These polls in effect assume that Sanders is a fully vetted candidate and that he is able to run a well financed campaign. Neither of these facts are correct. It is Sanders supporters who keep on claiming that Sanders is not getting any media attention which means that Sanders is also not being vetted. The reason for the lack of vetting is that the media is not convinced that Sanders will be the nominee and the odds are strongly against this.
Sanders will likely lack the financial resources to run a viable general election campaign. Sanders will be facing the Kochs, the RNC candidate, numerous super pacs and possibly Bloomberg. Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads and to attacks on the cost of his wish list (over $15 trillion in new taxes that might be offset by cost savings).
Right now, Sanders is being supported by the GOP establishment because the Republicans know that Sanders is the weakest possible general election candidate. Why do you think that Karl Rove is running attack ads against Hillary Clinton?
Reliance on worthless match up polls is all that you can point to and that amuses me. No one who understands these polls will believe that Sanders is electable
Again, we are in the primary process and you are free to support the candidate of your choice for any reason you see fit. I and a great many others are also free to conclude that Sanders is not viable in the general election and support Hillary Clinton.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)I'll take the often unreliable early results from dozens of polls over your completely unsupported bodily waste.
It's hilarious. Your "argument" is that all the polls must be wrong because your personal crystal ball tells you they are.
Sorry, that's not how it works. The polls might be wrong, but they are a far more objective measurement than your doomsday scenario for Sanders.
To wit:
Electability is a key issue in the primary process and these worthless polls do not show that Clinton is electable. These polls in effect assume that Clinton is a fully vetted candidate and that she is able to run a well financed campaign. Neither of these facts are correct. Rampant Clinton Foundation corruption has not been investigated because Republican operatives are waiting for the general election to make this an issue. The ongoing FBI investigation into Clinton's emails is also being timed to trash Clinton's chances in the general election.
Clinton will likely lack the financial resources to run a viable general election campaign. All of her donors have maxed out their contributions fighting against Sanders, and she will have to rely on a very small number of fickle, top 0.1% SuperPAC donors who will likely jump ship to the Republican candidate once Clinton's obvious weaknesses are exposed. Clinton will be facing the Kochs, the RNC candidate, numerous super pacs and possibly Trump. Clinton is very vulnerable to negative ads and to attacks on her trustworthiness. Her unfavorable ratings among independents and Republicans are already through the roof.
Reliance on your own speculative excretions is all that you can point to and that amuses me. No one who understands unfavorable ratings thinks Clinton is electable.
Democrats could literally not field a worse candidate than Hillary Clinton in terms of riling up the Republican base to vote against her while leaving the Democratic base stone cold. Nor could the Democrats find a single worse individual to nominate in terms of the unfavorability ratings of independent voters.
Again, we are in the primary process and you are free to support the candidate of your choice for any reason you see fit. I and a great many others are also free to conclude that Clinton is not viable in the general election and to support Sanders.
Gothmog
(145,241 posts)Dana Milbank has some good comments on general election match up polls https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Watching Sanders at Monday nights Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump or another Republican nominee would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.
The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the socialist label and requested that Sanders define it so that it doesnt concern the rest of us citizens.
Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who dont want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top thats my definition of democratic socialism.
But thats not how Republicans will define socialism and theyll have the dictionary on their side. Theyll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. Theyll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldnt be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists dont win national elections in the United States .
Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases one of the biggest tax hikes in history, as moderator Chris Cuomo put it to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that hypothetically, youre going to pay $5,000 more in taxes, and declared, W e will raise taxes, yes we will. He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that its demagogic to say, oh, youre paying more in taxes.
Well, yes and Trump is a demagogue.
Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government bigger than ever, Sanders didnt quarrel, saying, P eople want to criticize me, okay, and F ine, if thats the criticism, I accept it.
Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.
Match up polls are worthless because these polls do not measure what would happen to Sanders in a general election where Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)under compared to countries in which healthcare is a right and citizens don't have to pay through the nose for doctors', Big Pharma's, hospitals' and insurers' profiteering?
Because Dana Drunktank says Republicans will successfully convince people the Sanders wants to nationalize major industries even though that has never been one of Sanders' beliefs or part of Sanders' agenda?
Because Dana Drunktank thinks Americans cannot figure out that they will save money overall if they pay a little more in taxes if they don't need to pay ridiculous health insurance rates?
Dana Drunktank says, "Democrats have to vote for Clinton because Americans are just too damn dumb to vote for their own interests!"
Gothmog
(145,241 posts)Duckfan
(1,268 posts)I would like to borrow that if I could because it accurately describes a corporate whore like him. What as ass.
I really, really would like to know if it is true that phuck wad threw a beer in a cops face and was arrested many years ago. Saw that in a critique of him a long time ago. I would really like to find that out if it is a fact. But Bernie did awesome job of not playing his BS corporate whore game. Can't be bought, can't be sucked into bullshit. My kind of candidate.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)As far as Bloomberg goes....hahahahaha I remember what he did to the #OWS kids alone. I bet folks from NYC would have a lot more to say.
It is truly amazing to watch the Billionaires panic like this. They are truly afraid to lose their grip, power, control and congress. This is what it looks like when the corrupted and greedy get desperate to Not allow Us into the political process. It's the train wreck I can't take my eyes off.
I wonder if they understand just how much they reveal about themselves.
Bloomberg....hahahahaha
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)after he finishes scratching someone else's ass...
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)at first I thought Chuck's brain must've frozen up with the snowstorm -- but it's so small and tucked away in side that girthy head of his that I'm surprised if it even dropped a degree through the night
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Todd, I mean.
He's a complete fake imo.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)pa28
(6,145 posts)Fun watching him take Chuck's repeated efforts to marginalize and turn them right back around into a favorable argument.
Overseas
(12,121 posts)zebonaut
(3,688 posts)mhatrw
(10,786 posts)LOL at Bernie's supposed "struggle" to handle Todd's bizarre half-hearted attempt at a "economic justice is not political justice" ambush.
If that is what the establishment thinks will keep Bernie on the defensive with minority voters, they sure have a low opinion of minority voters.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)has the topic of reparations ever come up on Meet the Press or any other Sunday pundit show?
I think there's a good chance that Bernie is the first person anyone has challenged on that issue, which would be absurd.