Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:58 AM
Douglas Carpenter (20,226 posts)
Warren, Sanders beat Hillary in poll of DFA membersLast edited Sat Nov 22, 2014, 04:29 PM - Edit history (1) by Alex Seitz-Wald
“If you only listened to Washington pundits, you’d wonder why Democrats are even bothering holding primaries and caucuses.” - Charles Chamberlain, Democracy for America The members of the progressive group that grew out of Howard Dean’s presidential campaign are not exactly ready for Hillary. Democracy for America (DFA) has been asking their roughly one million members whom the group should support in a hypothetical 2016 Democratic presidential primary. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren was the clear favorite, with support from 42% of respondents, according to results shared with msnbc ahead of their release later Thursday. In second place was Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is seriously considering a presidential bid as a Democrat, with 24%. Just one point behind was former secretary of State Hillary Clinton at 23%. From there, the numbers drop off significantly, with former Labor Secretary Robert Reich – who told msnbc he is not interested in running – capturing 3% of the vote, and Vice President Joe Biden getting just 2%. Former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, who announced an exploratory committee Thursday, received less than 1% of the vote. Warren has repeatedly said she is not running for president and there is no evidence thus far that she’s interested. Sanders is seriously considering a run, and recently hired a top Democratic strategist to help plan a bid. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/warren-sanders-beat-hillary-poll-liberal-groups-members?adbid=746970968691085&adbpl=fb&adbpr=114945745226947&cid=sm_m_lastword_4_20141121_35989557
|
392 replies, 14480 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
Douglas Carpenter | Nov 2014 | OP |
Tierra_y_Libertad | Nov 2014 | #1 | |
billhicks76 | Nov 2014 | #137 | |
TheBlackAdder | Nov 2014 | #287 | |
Warren DeMontague | Nov 2014 | #2 | |
woo me with science | Nov 2014 | #3 | |
arcane1 | Nov 2014 | #127 | |
Raul Hernandez | Nov 2014 | #177 | |
joshcryer | Nov 2014 | #4 | |
baldguy | Nov 2014 | #24 | |
Marr | Nov 2014 | #37 | |
baldguy | Nov 2014 | #74 | |
Voice for Peace | Nov 2014 | #80 | |
baldguy | Nov 2014 | #84 | |
Voice for Peace | Nov 2014 | #96 | |
Rex | Nov 2014 | #90 | |
noiretextatique | Nov 2014 | #190 | |
baldguy | Nov 2014 | #370 | |
2banon | Nov 2014 | #204 | |
Scootaloo | Nov 2014 | #89 | |
Rex | Nov 2014 | #92 | |
baldguy | Nov 2014 | #97 | |
Scootaloo | Nov 2014 | #99 | |
baldguy | Nov 2014 | #106 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #120 | |
billhicks76 | Nov 2014 | #138 | |
baldguy | Nov 2014 | #152 | |
RiverLover | Nov 2014 | #160 | |
baldguy | Nov 2014 | #169 | |
Aerows | Nov 2014 | #285 | |
billhicks76 | Nov 2014 | #365 | |
baldguy | Nov 2014 | #369 | |
billhicks76 | Dec 2014 | #388 | |
baldguy | Dec 2014 | #389 | |
billhicks76 | Dec 2014 | #390 | |
baldguy | Dec 2014 | #391 | |
billhicks76 | Dec 2014 | #392 | |
Raul Hernandez | Nov 2014 | #178 | |
baldguy | Nov 2014 | #367 | |
Raul Hernandez | Nov 2014 | #373 | |
baldguy | Nov 2014 | #374 | |
Raul Hernandez | Nov 2014 | #375 | |
baldguy | Nov 2014 | #376 | |
Raul Hernandez | Nov 2014 | #377 | |
baldguy | Nov 2014 | #378 | |
saintsebastian | Nov 2014 | #380 | |
baldguy | Nov 2014 | #381 | |
saintsebastian | Nov 2014 | #382 | |
baldguy | Nov 2014 | #383 | |
saintsebastian | Nov 2014 | #384 | |
baldguy | Nov 2014 | #385 | |
saintsebastian | Nov 2014 | #386 | |
Scootaloo | Nov 2014 | #366 | |
baldguy | Nov 2014 | #368 | |
Voice for Peace | Nov 2014 | #98 | |
baldguy | Nov 2014 | #102 | |
Voice for Peace | Nov 2014 | #110 | |
Raul Hernandez | Nov 2014 | #179 | |
Raul Hernandez | Nov 2014 | #180 | |
baldguy | Nov 2014 | #187 | |
Raul Hernandez | Nov 2014 | #191 | |
baldguy | Nov 2014 | #194 | |
Raul Hernandez | Nov 2014 | #207 | |
Aerows | Nov 2014 | #289 | |
arcane1 | Nov 2014 | #128 | |
baldguy | Nov 2014 | #130 | |
C Moon | Nov 2014 | #5 | |
TerrapinFlyer | Nov 2014 | #6 | |
Recursion | Nov 2014 | #7 | |
True Blue Door | Nov 2014 | #8 | |
RiverLover | Nov 2014 | #9 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #11 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #12 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #17 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #27 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #29 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #35 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #36 | |
RiverLover | Nov 2014 | #42 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #44 | |
SunSeeker | Nov 2014 | #145 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #149 | |
SunSeeker | Nov 2014 | #151 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #153 | |
SunSeeker | Nov 2014 | #157 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #45 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #46 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #49 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #52 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #69 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #91 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #105 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #107 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #115 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #119 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #122 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #124 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #125 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #126 | |
Raul Hernandez | Nov 2014 | #185 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #188 | |
ZombieHorde | Nov 2014 | #205 | |
LawDeeDah | Nov 2014 | #100 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #101 | |
LawDeeDah | Nov 2014 | #104 | |
RiverLover | Nov 2014 | #48 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #50 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #56 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #59 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #65 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #66 | |
tritsofme | Nov 2014 | #70 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #73 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #79 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #81 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #94 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #95 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #112 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #117 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #129 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #131 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #132 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #133 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #135 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #141 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #146 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #164 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #166 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #167 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #173 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #174 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #197 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #199 | |
Raul Hernandez | Nov 2014 | #192 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #195 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #201 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #203 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #215 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #217 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #225 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #227 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #229 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #230 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #232 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #234 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #241 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #242 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #245 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #246 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #249 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #250 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #252 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #253 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #258 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #259 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #261 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #262 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #265 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #266 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #269 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #270 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #272 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #273 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #278 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #280 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #277 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #279 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #281 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #282 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #283 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #284 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #286 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #290 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #291 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #294 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #297 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #299 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #301 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #302 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #304 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #309 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #288 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #292 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #293 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #296 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #334 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #260 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #263 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #264 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #267 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #268 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #256 | |
RiverLover | Nov 2014 | #58 | |
Raul Hernandez | Nov 2014 | #182 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #186 | |
Raul Hernandez | Nov 2014 | #196 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #198 | |
Raul Hernandez | Nov 2014 | #209 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #212 | |
Raul Hernandez | Nov 2014 | #213 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #216 | |
woo me with science | Nov 2014 | #13 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #18 | |
woo me with science | Nov 2014 | #63 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #77 | |
woo me with science | Nov 2014 | #113 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #114 | |
L0oniX | Nov 2014 | #355 | |
woo me with science | Nov 2014 | #360 | |
OilemFirchen | Nov 2014 | #14 | |
LawDeeDah | Nov 2014 | #103 | |
OilemFirchen | Nov 2014 | #134 | |
Kermitt Gribble | Nov 2014 | #19 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #20 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #30 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #32 | |
Kermitt Gribble | Nov 2014 | #33 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #34 | |
Kermitt Gribble | Nov 2014 | #41 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #43 | |
Kermitt Gribble | Nov 2014 | #62 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #71 | |
rhett o rick | Nov 2014 | #67 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #76 | |
JEB | Nov 2014 | #23 | |
woo me with science | Nov 2014 | #25 | |
Marr | Nov 2014 | #38 | |
Erich Bloodaxe BSN | Nov 2014 | #28 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #31 | |
Raul Hernandez | Nov 2014 | #181 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #184 | |
Raul Hernandez | Nov 2014 | #189 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #193 | |
Aerows | Nov 2014 | #298 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #300 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #303 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #307 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #311 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #313 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #316 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #318 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #319 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #320 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #322 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #324 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #329 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #332 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #338 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #340 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #345 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #346 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #347 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #348 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #349 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #350 | |
Aerows | Nov 2014 | #305 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #308 | |
Aerows | Nov 2014 | #310 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #312 | |
Aerows | Nov 2014 | #314 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #317 | |
Aerows | Nov 2014 | #321 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #323 | |
Aerows | Nov 2014 | #326 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #327 | |
Aerows | Nov 2014 | #328 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #330 | |
Aerows | Nov 2014 | #337 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #339 | |
Aerows | Nov 2014 | #341 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #343 | |
RBInMaine | Nov 2014 | #158 | |
Logical | Nov 2014 | #387 | |
Scuba | Nov 2014 | #10 | |
woo me with science | Nov 2014 | #15 | |
L0oniX | Nov 2014 | #356 | |
OilemFirchen | Nov 2014 | #16 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #21 | |
frazzled | Nov 2014 | #22 | |
billhicks76 | Nov 2014 | #139 | |
Erich Bloodaxe BSN | Nov 2014 | #26 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #39 | |
brooklynite | Nov 2014 | #40 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #51 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #54 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #64 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #68 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #82 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #85 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #116 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #118 | |
joshcryer | Nov 2014 | #144 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #147 | |
joshcryer | Nov 2014 | #155 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #159 | |
joshcryer | Nov 2014 | #162 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #163 | |
peacebird | Nov 2014 | #226 | |
marlakay | Nov 2014 | #295 | |
Spitfire of ATJ | Nov 2014 | #47 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #86 | |
Spitfire of ATJ | Nov 2014 | #88 | |
VanillaRhapsody | Nov 2014 | #53 | |
Marr | Nov 2014 | #60 | |
VanillaRhapsody | Nov 2014 | #61 | |
baldguy | Nov 2014 | #78 | |
Beacool | Nov 2014 | #379 | |
jwirr | Nov 2014 | #55 | |
Thinkingabout | Nov 2014 | #123 | |
jwirr | Nov 2014 | #351 | |
Thinkingabout | Nov 2014 | #352 | |
jwirr | Nov 2014 | #353 | |
Thinkingabout | Nov 2014 | #357 | |
Union Scribe | Nov 2014 | #57 | |
pa28 | Nov 2014 | #72 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #75 | |
baldguy | Nov 2014 | #87 | |
Raul Hernandez | Nov 2014 | #274 | |
maced666 | Nov 2014 | #83 | |
bluestateguy | Nov 2014 | #93 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #121 | |
frazzled | Nov 2014 | #142 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #148 | |
frazzled | Nov 2014 | #165 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #170 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #175 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #210 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #211 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #218 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #219 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #224 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #228 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #231 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #233 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #236 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #237 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #238 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #239 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #243 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #244 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #247 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #248 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #251 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #254 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #271 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #275 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #342 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #344 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #358 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #361 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #362 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #363 | |
JonLP24 | Nov 2014 | #108 | |
frazzled | Nov 2014 | #214 | |
JonLP24 | Nov 2014 | #257 | |
Thinkingabout | Nov 2014 | #109 | |
TheNutcracker | Nov 2014 | #111 | |
Fearless | Nov 2014 | #136 | |
Cal33 | Nov 2014 | #200 | |
sadoldgirl | Nov 2014 | #140 | |
MisterP | Nov 2014 | #143 | |
Odin2005 | Nov 2014 | #150 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #154 | |
Odin2005 | Nov 2014 | #156 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #161 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #168 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #171 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #172 | |
MannyGoldstein | Nov 2014 | #183 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #202 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #206 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #208 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #220 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #221 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #223 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #255 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #331 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #333 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #222 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #306 | |
aspirant | Nov 2014 | #335 | |
wyldwolf | Nov 2014 | #336 | |
Raul Hernandez | Nov 2014 | #176 | |
hrmjustin | Nov 2014 | #235 | |
L0oniX | Nov 2014 | #240 | |
brooklynite | Nov 2014 | #354 | |
baldguy | Nov 2014 | #371 | |
bigwillq | Nov 2014 | #276 | |
Aerows | Nov 2014 | #315 | |
Droning Predator | Nov 2014 | #325 | |
NCTraveler | Nov 2014 | #359 | |
NCTraveler | Nov 2014 | #364 | |
PowerToThePeople | Nov 2014 | #372 |
Response to Douglas Carpenter (Original post)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 04:11 AM
Tierra_y_Libertad (50,414 posts)
1. Sanders/Warren would make a nice ticket.
Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #1)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 10:57 PM
billhicks76 (5,082 posts)
137. I Saw This
The overly prolific commenters on DU trying to shove Hillary inevitability down our throats are going to have a meltdown over this. Hillary is horrible. Of rather have Liz regardless that she used to be a Republican. Hillary was President If The College Republicans.
|
Response to billhicks76 (Reply #137)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:28 PM
TheBlackAdder (26,045 posts)
287. Warren 2016 - I grew up in a GOP household. Now, none of them are Republican.
I have reservations with Hillary too.
If it came down to her or a GOPer like Christie/Ryan/other... I'd begrudgingly vote for her. |
Response to Douglas Carpenter (Original post)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 04:12 AM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
2. No one has told them she's inevitable, yet?
Get BUSY!!!!
|
Response to Douglas Carpenter (Original post)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 04:15 AM
woo me with science (32,139 posts)
3. Warren double digits over Hillary. Sanders came in second.
Third Way inevitable Hillary places THIRD right behind Sanders.
This THIRD place finish despite having been in the public eye for years and years as both First Lady *and* Secretary of State...while he is routinely ignored or dismissed/discounted by the MSM. ![]() And this is just the *beginning* of public familiarity with the policies of Warren and Sanders. Go away, Third Way Hillary. ![]() |
Response to woo me with science (Reply #3)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 06:33 PM
arcane1 (38,613 posts)
127. Sanders got the "Colbert Bump" this week, and the crowd already knew and loved him.
![]() |
Response to woo me with science (Reply #3)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 03:56 PM
Raul Hernandez (78 posts)
177. Yep. Exactly
Hillary is not a progressive at all. She will not be winning the '16 nomination because she's the same old, same old - nothing new and exciting about her. She has lips firmly planted on the corporatists ass, and her support will not endear any progressives.
|
Response to Douglas Carpenter (Original post)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 04:15 AM
joshcryer (62,168 posts)
4. Liberals need to get the ground campaign going.
I myself don't have the stomach for it. After being part of Draft Gore (larger than Ready for Warren by a mile), the Dean campaign, and basically fighting for the underdog, I can't and won't do it.
The 2016 election will be easily a $2 billion, more likely $6 billion campaign (thanks to Oligarchy United). It's going to be rough. |
Response to joshcryer (Reply #4)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 12:20 PM
baldguy (36,649 posts)
24. It should have been started 3 yrs ago.
The problem with people promoting Sanders and/or Warren is that they don't even understand or acknowledge the fact that elections aren't won on Election Day. Then, when their chosen savior loses, they give up, toss up their hands & say "They cheated! The game is rigged! The winner is no better than a Republican!", instead of buckling down and getting ready for the next campaign & the one after that.
|
Response to baldguy (Reply #24)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 01:08 PM
Marr (20,317 posts)
37. You could've saved time and just said "lazy hippies".
In my experience, by the way, the left wing of the party is a hell of a lot more involved, knowledgeable, and active in politics than the self-described "moderates", DLC/Third Way, Reagan Democrat types, who can't even be bothered to show up on election day half the time.
|
Response to Marr (Reply #37)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:10 PM
baldguy (36,649 posts)
74. Your comment proves you've never met a real hippie.
The people that went back to the land in the '60s & '70s - and are still doing it are some of the hardest working people I've ever met.
|
Response to baldguy (Reply #74)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:17 PM
Voice for Peace (13,141 posts)
80. i think you misread nt
Response to Voice for Peace (Reply #80)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:23 PM
baldguy (36,649 posts)
84. I didn't mention hippies in my post. Yet the poster felt to need to make il-informed assumptions
and cast aspersions on people whom I generally respect.
|
Response to baldguy (Reply #84)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:43 PM
Voice for Peace (13,141 posts)
96. you're correct and I am the one who misread
although I think it was you, not hippies, that was being cast upon.
|
Response to Marr (Reply #37)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:30 PM
Rex (65,616 posts)
90. What I don't get is why some supposed moderates are so anti-democratic.
They seem to hate the electoral process, which seems strange for self-proclaimed progressives.
|
Response to Rex (Reply #90)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:13 PM
noiretextatique (27,274 posts)
190. democrats against democracy
they made that pretty clear with Nader.
|
Response to noiretextatique (Reply #190)
Thu Nov 27, 2014, 10:01 AM
baldguy (36,649 posts)
370. As if Stalinist purges are in the Democratic Party tradition.
![]() |
Response to baldguy (Reply #24)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:30 PM
Scootaloo (25,699 posts)
89. You sure seem to have a lot of stored hatred for liberals, baldguy
Response to Scootaloo (Reply #89)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:31 PM
Rex (65,616 posts)
92. And for democracy as well.
Response to Scootaloo (Reply #89)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:43 PM
baldguy (36,649 posts)
97. Not at all. Just phonys who claim to be liberals.
They do more damage to the cause then Republicans ever could in their wildest dreams.
|
Response to baldguy (Reply #97)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:50 PM
Scootaloo (25,699 posts)
99. So... Anyone who doesn't share your candidate is a "phony liberal"?
Response to Scootaloo (Reply #99)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:59 PM
baldguy (36,649 posts)
106. A "phony liberal" is anyone who works to defeat the Dem nom even before they're nominated
And getting behind someone who isn't even running - and has publicly said she supports someone else on top of it - is a sure way to lose. America can't afford to have the Dems lose.
|
Response to baldguy (Reply #106)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 05:01 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
120. There's no dem nom until after the primary
Nobody is defeating anybody, they are freely choosing the candidate they want to support.
|
Response to baldguy (Reply #106)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 11:01 PM
billhicks76 (5,082 posts)
138. That's Stupid
Clinging to someone who moves the center further to the right is criminal. Why do you think we have crazy Tea Partiers in power now? Because of that...it's that simple. We have cultural divides in this country so people want to differentiate themselves from the opposition so when we keep acting like normal republicans then the real republicans have to go off the cliff to the right to separate themselves. Get a clue.
|
Response to billhicks76 (Reply #138)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 05:49 AM
baldguy (36,649 posts)
152. So, you're advocating the use of Tea Party tactics in the Democratic Party.
Purges, litmus tests & pogroms. That's one way to make sure nothing ever gets done & let the RW win by default.
|
Response to baldguy (Reply #152)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:06 AM
RiverLover (7,830 posts)
160. Its shining a light on the truth. Exposing, not purging. ~nt
Response to RiverLover (Reply #160)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 03:19 PM
baldguy (36,649 posts)
169. I'm sure that's how Stalin put it, too.
Response to baldguy (Reply #152)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:26 PM
Aerows (39,961 posts)
285. Pogrom?
For supporting someone other than Hillary????
That is so much hyperbole, it needs to be called supermegabole. Wow. Words have meaning, and I don't think you know what that word means. |
Response to baldguy (Reply #152)
Mon Nov 24, 2014, 09:43 PM
billhicks76 (5,082 posts)
365. Don't Put Words In My Mouth
We all know the money and power and media influence the Repubs have at their fingertips. We even see all their surrogates all over the web advocating for them and sometimes posing as someone they are not. It all gets exacerbated when we lose out way and move further right to please these jerks. All it does is push the center further to the right. If your suggesting Democrats should abandon their core principles and ignore what they stand for out of fear of alienating those scared of bogey-man litmus tests then you really are kidding yourself. We already list the Senate because if that ridiculous position.
|
Response to billhicks76 (Reply #365)
Thu Nov 27, 2014, 09:59 AM
baldguy (36,649 posts)
369. I'm not putting words in your mouth. You've got Karl Rove to do that.
Response to baldguy (Reply #369)
Thu Dec 4, 2014, 04:11 AM
billhicks76 (5,082 posts)
388. That Sounds Stupider Than Anything Ive Read Yet
I do think Karl is close with people like the Clintons....more than people are willing to accept.
|
Response to billhicks76 (Reply #388)
Thu Dec 4, 2014, 09:39 AM
baldguy (36,649 posts)
389. Except that Karl Rove was one of the people orchastrating the attacks on the Clintons
as he would for ANY Democrat.
And here you are following in his footsteps. |
Response to baldguy (Reply #389)
Fri Dec 5, 2014, 01:10 AM
billhicks76 (5,082 posts)
390. BS
It's all theater to divide us. He likes Hillary as she represents Wall St and is a Democrat In Name Only.
|
Response to billhicks76 (Reply #390)
Fri Dec 5, 2014, 07:55 AM
baldguy (36,649 posts)
391. It's all theater to divide us. You're a major performer in that theater. At least on DU.
And casting any center-left Dem as a DINO oligarch is a central plot point.
If the Democrats are divided, who do you think wins? How do you think the minority party has been able to maintain power for the last 45 yrs? |
Response to baldguy (Reply #391)
Fri Dec 5, 2014, 05:02 PM
billhicks76 (5,082 posts)
392. Good Luck With That Viewpoint
I've grown up. You should do the same. The game is rigged. Extreme measures and not playing footsie with power brokers needs to be taken. For some of us this is real life.
|
Response to baldguy (Reply #106)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 03:58 PM
Raul Hernandez (78 posts)
178. And you describe Hillary Clinton and her fans perfectly
A phony liberal.
Yep, that's exactly what she is. |
Response to Raul Hernandez (Reply #178)
Thu Nov 27, 2014, 09:27 AM
baldguy (36,649 posts)
367. Hillary's fans aren't the ones calling for purges. The phoney "liberals" are.
Response to baldguy (Reply #367)
Thu Nov 27, 2014, 11:03 AM
Raul Hernandez (78 posts)
373. It's the other way around.
May i remind you the same exact shit happened in 2008?
|
Response to Raul Hernandez (Reply #373)
Thu Nov 27, 2014, 11:16 AM
baldguy (36,649 posts)
374. Someone hasn't been paying attention.
(That's you BTW.)
The people explicitly calling for purges & litmus tests are supporters of Warren & Sanders who want to get rid of the Clinton supporters. Imagine what Warren & Sanders would have to say about that? |
Response to baldguy (Reply #374)
Thu Nov 27, 2014, 03:11 PM
Raul Hernandez (78 posts)
375. Thats because we do not consider Secretary Clinton a viable candidate
Therefore not purging her. Just dont need her drama and her baggage the size of Texas. Thanks, but no thanks. Therefore Hillary is not a viable candidate for the Democratic Party. Its called a process of elimination not purging.
Nice try. |
Response to Raul Hernandez (Reply #375)
Thu Nov 27, 2014, 06:49 PM
baldguy (36,649 posts)
376. Well, let's just have a few primaries & see.
And tell the purgies to fuck off.
|
Response to baldguy (Reply #376)
Thu Nov 27, 2014, 08:09 PM
Raul Hernandez (78 posts)
377. Fine, let's have a primary - I guarantee you this: Ms. Clinton will lose every caucus and primaries
because Americans are actually PISSED off at the idea of a "dynasty" and "same old shit".
Third Way Democrats are not true Democrats at all. They are Republicans in disguise, and they need to be thrown out. |
Response to Raul Hernandez (Reply #377)
Thu Nov 27, 2014, 10:57 PM
baldguy (36,649 posts)
378. If you believe that, then you've swallowed the RW Rovian lies hook, line & sinker.
Who's the real DINO here? You - a supporter of Stalinist purges who believes the very people who've been successful in getting Democrats elected "need to be thrown out" of the party? Or me? I have repeatedly stated the I will support the Democratic Party nominee for President in 2016. I doubt you can say the same.
|
Response to baldguy (Reply #378)
Thu Nov 27, 2014, 11:37 PM
saintsebastian (41 posts)
380. Purges
You talk a lot about purges, without really considering what or who is being purged. Is a purge necessarily bad if those that are being purged are pro-war corporatists? Is it automatically a bad thing to expel, say, fascists from your ranks simply because expelling them may be described as purging them? I get that "purge" is a buzzword among the establishment crowd, but I'm not buying the argument that being a "big tent party" at any cost is always, unquestionably and without caveat a good thing.
Hell, it may even be helpful to judge ourselves on who doesn't consider themselves welcome in our party. If the bankers, weapons manufacturers, torturers, war makers, etc. begin to feel that they have a foe in the Democratic Party, it may signal to us that we're finally doing something right. |
Response to saintsebastian (Reply #380)
Fri Nov 28, 2014, 08:27 AM
baldguy (36,649 posts)
381. "Liberals" advocating purges believe that they can't gain support in the party through other means.
They believe they can't successfully articulate their positions. They believe they can't win in an open debate. They believe they can't gather enough votes, either in the party or nationally. They believe their arguments are too weak & their support is too thin, so they need to summarily remove the competition.
Bernie Sanders doesn't believe that. Elizabeth Warren doesn't believe that. I don't believe that. So, who's the DINO here? |
Response to baldguy (Reply #381)
Fri Nov 28, 2014, 07:22 PM
saintsebastian (41 posts)
382. Did You Even Read My Post?
You failed completely to address the point I was attempting to make. Is a "big tent party" something you're striving for even if it means the inclusion of warmongering oligarchs?
In response to your reply: I'm not sure what you mean when you say that progressives "can't gather enough votes", and are therefore cleansing the party of those they're supposedly afraid of. Do you realize that any so-called purge would happen via the ballot box? Without a primary, this scary purge you speak of wouldn't even be possible. So, the idea that we're incapable of getting out the vote and so, by getting out the vote in a primary we're purging the party, doesn't make very much sense. Ironically, it seems to be the Ready for Hillary crowd who largely scoff at the of competition for the nomination. |
Response to saintsebastian (Reply #382)
Fri Nov 28, 2014, 07:46 PM
baldguy (36,649 posts)
383. Not liberals; but "liberals". Note the difference.
Liberals want actual progress, recognize that there are processes & procedures required to get there, understand that wishing dictatorial powers on one person is fantasy, but that it takes hard work by many dedicated individuals to achieve these ends, and while sometimes may be disappointed, are not disheartened in the quest to improve their lives & the lives of others.
OTOH, "liberals" only say they want progress, refuse to accept that simply wishing for something won't make it so, pout like spoiled children when they don't get their way, and - just like the fascists you accuse moderates of being, are likely to stab good Democrats in the back, and - just like fascists, have an authoritarian streak that demands purity, calling for purges and litmus tests, and - just like fascists, are happy to see the Democratic Party defeated. You don't seem to understand OR CARE that I DIDN'T PULL THE IDEA OF PURGES OUT OF MY ASS - IT CAME DIRECTLY FROM THESE SUPPOSED "LIBERALS" THAT YOU'RE DEFENDING!! So, again - who's the real DINO here? |
Response to baldguy (Reply #383)
Fri Nov 28, 2014, 08:28 PM
saintsebastian (41 posts)
384. Repeating Myself
Again, I am not doubting that a purge/litmus test mentality exists. It does. The question I'm raising, which you seem not to want to address, is whether or not purges and litmus tests are automatically and inherently bad. Surely there are some principles, whether or not they regard economics or war and peace, where a line should be drawn. Or do you think it is possible to be both the party of Wall Street fat cats and the working poor? Doesn't it sound like a better idea to be the party that pledges to put an end to perpetual bombing campaigns than it does to be the party whose slogan is "Eh the Other Guys Are (Slightly) Worse"?
And quit asking who is and isn't a DINO. I never called you a DINO. |
Response to saintsebastian (Reply #384)
Fri Nov 28, 2014, 09:45 PM
baldguy (36,649 posts)
385. You replied to my post, and you seem to taking an opposing side.
And you seem further to be an anti-Democratic Party line that been originated & promoted by RW Republicans. To wit: It's fucking obvious that purges & litmus tests are automatically and inherently bad. THEY'RE ANTI-DEMOCRATIC AND AUTHORITARIAN BY THEIR VERY NATURE!! If you weren't a DINO you'd understand that.
|
Response to baldguy (Reply #385)
Sat Nov 29, 2014, 12:16 AM
saintsebastian (41 posts)
386. Anti-Democratic?
It's rich, frankly, that you describe any potential expulsion of moderates as "anti-democratic" when it's through the ballot box and by voting that any "purge" would take place. Is voting suddenly anti-democratic when the votes are cast for progressive populists?
|
Response to baldguy (Reply #106)
Thu Nov 27, 2014, 06:02 AM
Scootaloo (25,699 posts)
366. So... yes, whoever doesn't fancy the candidate you favor is a "phony liberal"
Ironically, you're "de-liberaling" people for not agreeing with you, demanding the abandonment of debate and democratic process, and seeking an appointment of someone by overhead fiat... and you think people who like Sanders are the problem.
|
Response to Scootaloo (Reply #366)
Thu Nov 27, 2014, 09:55 AM
baldguy (36,649 posts)
368. What I favor is a Democratic victory. If Sanders joins the Party & wins the nom, I'll vote for him.
I've said it repeatedly: I will vote for the nominee of the Democratic Party for President in 2016. I just don't think it's going to be Sanders. Or Warren, for that matter. ITOH, the people explicitly calling for purges & litmus tests want to get rid of the Clinton supporters.
They want to bypass the democratic process. They want to weaken the party. They want to alienate the great majority of the electorate. And they want to ensure a Republican victory on 2016. Authoritarians do purges. Purists do litmus tests. Neither are in the Democratic Party tradition. The people shouting loudest against Clinton & for Warren & Sanders mistakenly see the Democratic Party as hopelessly corrupt & in the pocket of Wall Street. What they don't see & really can't answer honestly is: If the Democrats are so hopelessly corrupt, why did their "liberal savior" Elizabeth Warren join the Party? Why is old uncorruptible Sanders looking to run as a Democrat? I've never stated a preference for a candidate as yet. You can prop up you mistaken beliefs with unfounded assumptions based on your own biases & prejudices, but that won't change until we actually have some candidates. |
Response to baldguy (Reply #24)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:46 PM
Voice for Peace (13,141 posts)
98. I think it's always a good idea -- when casting generalized aspersions, and proclaiming
what others should be doing -- to set an inspiring example,
to encourage, instead of criticizing. So we didn't start three years ago, let's start today. Let us know what you are doing for the cause. |
Response to Voice for Peace (Reply #98)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:54 PM
baldguy (36,649 posts)
102. Hillary started running the day she resigned as Sec of State, and Warren isn't running at all.
Getting behind someone who isn't running is a sure way to lose.
Why don't we try not to lose for a start? |
Response to baldguy (Reply #102)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 04:13 PM
Voice for Peace (13,141 posts)
110. The odds are purportedly very good that almost any Dem can win in 2016
and I wish I could remember where I was reading about that,
it was pretty convincing and a somewhat technical explanation. Hillary started running for President when she ran for Senator. She has always been 'third way.' I have never liked her or Bill either for that matter. |
Response to baldguy (Reply #102)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:01 PM
Raul Hernandez (78 posts)
179. Uh. Exploratory group? Announcements to the link...
Right.. you have nothing at all, baldguy.
So shove your phony assumptions and accept that Hillary Clinton is not a nominee and will never be one. Even if she runs, she still has to get through the debates where she will be trounced by any true liberals. Her polls will drop and get beat again after her "inevitability" again, just like in '08. |
Response to baldguy (Reply #102)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:02 PM
Raul Hernandez (78 posts)
180. Link? Proof?
Please do provide the link, or stop your phony assertions.
|
Response to Raul Hernandez (Reply #180)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:11 PM
baldguy (36,649 posts)
187. Warren has stated repeatedly that she is not running for President.
Here for example: Elizabeth Warren: ‘I am not running for president’
And she has also said repeatedly that she wants Hillary to run: Elizabeth Warren: I hope Hillary Clinton runs for president The only "phony assertions" are those coming from the phony "progressives" who state categorically that they won't vote for anyone else. |
Response to baldguy (Reply #187)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:14 PM
Raul Hernandez (78 posts)
191. I *AM* not talking about Warren....
I am talking about Ms. Hillary Clinton.
Thank you! |
Response to Raul Hernandez (Reply #191)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:18 PM
baldguy (36,649 posts)
194. Are you under the impression that Hillary isn't running?
Have you been living on Mars for the last decade?
![]() |
Response to baldguy (Reply #194)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:45 PM
Raul Hernandez (78 posts)
207. I am not under impression on anything. She hasn't announced her candidacy or formed an exploratory
group.
She isn't running as far as I know. You know that. If she declares her candidacy, fine, but she still won't get my vote. If she is the 2016 Democratic nominee, I'll vote for her, but I will not work or donate any money to her. She has tons of PACs and her 1% friends that she doesn't need me to give her any money. I want you to understand something: Pushing a person to vote for someone that they don't want makes voters sit at home. Think about it. |
Response to Raul Hernandez (Reply #207)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:29 PM
Aerows (39,961 posts)
289. You and I agree
completely. I'll vote for her if I have to, but I will do everything I possibly can to make sure she isn't the nominee, and I won't be donating or working for her.
|
Response to baldguy (Reply #24)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 06:35 PM
arcane1 (38,613 posts)
128. Three years ago we were trying to reelect Obama
![]() |
Response to arcane1 (Reply #128)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 07:27 PM
baldguy (36,649 posts)
130. The RW Republicans began looking for a populist conservative candidate in 1964.
They didn't succeed until Reagan in 1980. They didn't decline to put up a candidate during those years, but they didn't spot building their base either.
|
Response to Douglas Carpenter (Original post)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 05:58 AM
C Moon (11,370 posts)
5. Maybe Hillary can be Secretary of State. :)
Response to Douglas Carpenter (Original post)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 06:09 AM
TerrapinFlyer (277 posts)
6. I see this as good news.
The Democratic Party needs to start leaning more left.
|
Response to Douglas Carpenter (Original post)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 06:14 AM
Recursion (56,552 posts)
7. I'm fairly confident they'll win polls at DU and Kos, too
And, there are worse places to start from than that, in fairness.
|
Response to Douglas Carpenter (Original post)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 06:21 AM
True Blue Door (2,969 posts)
8. I seriously hope Jerry Brown runs.
Anyone else is likely to be a disaster, and Hillary would be a disgraceful disaster.
Of course, I'm always open to new candidates, or old candidates exceeding expectations. |
Response to Douglas Carpenter (Original post)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 07:41 AM
RiverLover (7,830 posts)
9. Finally, some reality in the press. We don't want Hillary!!!!!
Most of us anyways.
|
Response to RiverLover (Reply #9)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 10:41 AM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
11. This article is 'reality' insofar as it shows what a percentage of DFA members prefer.
It's certainly nice to hear good news about your candidate (or non-candidate in this case) but to think this reflects the reality of the Democratic Party at large is naive.
These are points that should also be considered from the linked article: DFA grew out of the 2004 presidential campaign of Howard Dean, who has said publicly that he’s supporting Hillary Clinton in 2016. The poll is not scientific and should be read with plenty of caveats, but offers the temperature of one group of committed progressive activists. For instance, Ready for Warren, a super PAC which is trying to draft the senator into the race, has been sending emails to supporters this week urging them to vote for Warren in the DFA poll. Larger public opinion surveys show Clinton in a dominant position in the likely 2016 Democratic presidential field, even among progressives ![]() Good luck to Elizabeth Warren. She's being rewarded for her loyalty to Clinton and the Democratic party. |
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #11)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 10:48 AM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
12. How are 'Public opinion surveys" scientically factual and not full of caveats?
Response to aspirant (Reply #12)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 11:34 AM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
17. Polling is done by a random sampling of registered and/or likely voters
This poll was little more than an online poll for DFA members only where people could tell others how to vote to sway the results. Very much like how people on DU 'DU' vote in online polls to sway the results.
|
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #17)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 12:26 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
27. Progressives speak.
This was a poll of national progressives, 1 million strong, and the results were enlightening. You accuse people in DFA of voter fraud,"tell others how to vote to sway the results" so present your factual info with names, dates and times. If you have accusations that are scientific bring them for all to see or understand this a valid indicator of a national group of progressives.
|
Response to aspirant (Reply #27)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 12:37 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
29. In a closed poll for members only
![]() This was a poll of national progressives, 1 million strong, 0ut of over 1,000,000 members, 164,733 (approximately 10%) voted online. Warren pulled 40% or so of that 10%. You accuse people in DFA of voter fraud, "tell others how to vote to sway the results" No, the OP's linked article does. Quote: Ready for Warren, a super PAC which is trying to draft the senator into the race, has been sending emails to supporters this week urging them to vote for Warren in the DFA poll. |
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #29)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 01:01 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
35. A poll is a poll is a poll.
Present the e-mail evidence so we can see just how threatening they were to DFA'ers. Then uncover and reveal which of those 164,733 were so intimidated by being TOLD they have no choice of their own in voting and must sway the election or else.
Was your poll a closed poll of Dems only or did it include Repubs and Independents? What percentage of progressive/millennials/conservaDems were represented in your cited poll? Also exactly how many responders were in your poll,1000 or 164,733? |
Response to aspirant (Reply #35)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 01:05 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
36. that is ridiculously naive
Present the e-mail evidence so we can see just how threatening they were to DFA'ers.
Who said anything about threatening? In a closed poll for members only who already lean a certain way, how else do you think the 'poll' will turn out. Rather like asking vegans what america's favorite food is then announcing meatless burgers are the most popular food. ![]() |
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #36)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 01:20 PM
RiverLover (7,830 posts)
42. Trying to figure out your skewed thinking reminds me of trying to figure out rethugs' thinking.
hmmm...
![]() They polled DEMOCRATS & Hillary wasn't the favorite. Deal with it. |
Response to RiverLover (Reply #42)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 01:24 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
44. They polled DFA members who happen to be Democrats (well, mostly I guess)
NO ONE is denying the polls results. What is being questioned is that results are consequential based on the leanings of those polled.
Like this one from DFA: ![]() |
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #44)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 03:56 AM
SunSeeker (49,097 posts)
145. The DFA poll is predictive. Ask President Kucinich.
![]() ![]() |
Response to SunSeeker (Reply #145)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 05:00 AM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
149. The 2008 polls predictive, ask President Hillary Clinton!
Response to aspirant (Reply #149)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 05:25 AM
SunSeeker (49,097 posts)
151. The "2008 polls" showed Obama beating McCain.
And if you're talking about the Dem primary polls, those showed Obama beating Hillary soon after the start of the primary season.
Do you really think this DFA poll is predictive of who the Dem nominee will be? |
Response to SunSeeker (Reply #151)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 06:46 AM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
153. Who can predict?
" after the start of the primary season" so you ignore all polls before the primary begins, right? That means all these Wall Street Hillary polls and the DFA polls should be ignored because the 2016 primary hasn't begun yet. Do you agree that if the DFA poll isn't predictive, then the Hillary polls aren't predictive either?
|
Response to aspirant (Reply #153)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:10 AM
SunSeeker (49,097 posts)
157. Tell that to the OP. nt
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #36)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 01:32 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
45. This is ridiculously evasive!
When you tell someone how to vote, your NOT suggesting, recommending, begging, asking, kindly hinting or any other gentle nudging.
Answer my questions on your cited poll or we will all know how sciencitifically ridiculous your position is. |
Response to aspirant (Reply #45)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 01:34 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
46. How did I evade? It is a FACT Warren supporters contacted DFA members...
... and suggested they vote for Warren. Is that not a fact?
Answer my questions on your cited poll or we will all know how sciencitifically ridiculous your position is. What poll did I cite? Oh, here's one: ![]() WOW! Eerily accurate. |
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #46)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 02:06 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
49. Poof, it's gone
"Suggested they vote for Warren" and in post #17 "people could TELL others how to vote" so now when you're pushed into a corner you change your words hoping none of us will notice. This is ridiculously naive.
"What poll did I cite"? Let's go to post #11, "larger public opinion surveys show Clinton in a dominant position in the likely 2016 Presidential field". Then when I ask for facts on these 2016 polls you present a 2008 poll and pretend again your previous words are forgotten or never existed. I stand by ridiculous evasions. |
Response to aspirant (Reply #49)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 02:20 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
52. Go to McDonalds and get me an egg mcmuffin... better yet...
DU this poll:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3275746 DU this poll: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025071034 DU this poll: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251141861 DU this poll: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x365690 See? You've just been told to do things under no threat. ![]() |
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #52)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:06 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
69. No on the egg sandwich and no on swaying my vote, which you implied they did.
Response to aspirant (Reply #69)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:31 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
91. that's what the OP said they did.
And regardless of your answer, I TOLD you to do things without threatening you.
|
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #91)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:59 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
105. But you didn't sway my vote
"People could tell others how to vote to sway the results" is your statement. If you told me to do something and I didn't then how could you sway my vote or any DFA voter to alter the poll and skew the results? This is an untainted poll and it's results should be understood. Hillary is in third place and falling.
|
Response to aspirant (Reply #105)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 04:02 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
107. So? You equated "telling" with "threatening"
I just proved the two aren't the same.
Warren isn't running. I'll bet Sanders won't either. And if they did, they'd go the way of DFA's last pulse poll winner. |
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #107)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 04:39 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
115. Third place and falling.
No, you suggested that e-mails were telling people how to vote to screw up the results. I pointed out that telling people was a lot stronger then suggesting, but suggesting wasn't as believable as telling when you implied their votes were swayed. With Hillary sitting in an embarrassing third place, how can this poll be right? Now you persistently point to a 2008 DFA poll as your basis of disputing this recent poll. I cite the 2008 Presidential Primary where Hillary is a proven loser.
|
Response to aspirant (Reply #115)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 05:00 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
119. aspirant: Last place and desperate
you suggested that e-mails were telling people how to vote to screw up the results.
Quote me where I suggested that. |
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #119)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 06:05 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
122. Wolfie desparately hanging on to a loser
Post # 17 "people could tell others how to vote to sway the results"
Post# 31 " were encouraged to vote one way by another progressive group and in no way represents the democratic electorate at large". Now don't get evasive on me again. I'm having patience with you because I know your memory is fading and I have to keep pointing to your posts. I remind you again of the 2016 Clinton presidential polls and the questions I had for you. How am I in last place when I'm not running for anything or maybe you have forgotten again? |
Response to aspirant (Reply #122)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 06:16 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
124. That's what the OP states, Sherlock
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #124)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 06:31 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
125. Which OP states are democratic?
The OP has many words, those are the ones you chose to represent your views. Now I know its only been a few minutes but have you forgotten again to answer my questions on the 2016 Clinton polls. I first asked a few hours ago but that's probably forever lost in your short-term memory.It's been interesting with you always suggesting to "look over there, not here, over there". Wolfie, you have to remember here has value too.
|
Response to aspirant (Reply #125)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 06:32 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
126. The OP states what you are so mad at me for repeating LOL
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #107)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:10 PM
Raul Hernandez (78 posts)
185. Sanders is already in exploration mode.
And he has hired a really good Democratic strategist.
He's in for '16, and he'll get my vote unless there are more attractive potential candidates who is left of Obama and Clinton that has closely matched my ideals and policies. |
Response to Raul Hernandez (Reply #185)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:11 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
188. Ok well good for you.
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #52)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:33 PM
ZombieHorde (29,047 posts)
205. I love Egg McMuffins.
I'm glad they stop selling them early, or I would eat them several times a week. So yummy.
|
Response to aspirant (Reply #49)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:50 PM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
100. No polls are valid unless The Inevitable is leading by 124%! and is the most progressive in history!
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #100)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:53 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
101. ok, right.
![]() |
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #101)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:57 PM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
104. I know, it's hilarious and I've been seeing that here a lot lately.
Watchout Busters, she's Gonna Graph Ya!
or Achtung Baby, a weighted Hillary Poll is About to Drop on Your Head! ![]() |
Response to aspirant (Reply #45)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 01:45 PM
RiverLover (7,830 posts)
48. This poll doesn't exist on the Democracy for America website. I found it attributed to them elsewhe
I think its BS.
Give us a link from their website, and then I'll believe you. |
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #50)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 02:26 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
56. The 2016 polls!
Response to aspirant (Reply #56)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 02:27 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
59. So your denying the 2016 poll results?
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #59)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 02:59 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
65. Nice try,you cited them now support them with the info requested.
Response to aspirant (Reply #65)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:02 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
66. I cited the 2016 DFA poll results? WTF are you asking?
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #66)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:07 PM
tritsofme (15,777 posts)
70. You are a saint.
This is one of the most bizarre exchanges I have seen on DU in some time.
|
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #66)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:15 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
79. Post #11 Clinton 2016 presidental polls (my edit)
Response to aspirant (Reply #79)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:18 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
81. What, exactly, are you disputing from post 17?
I made two claims:
1. Polling is done by a random sampling of registered and/or likely voters 2. The online poll for DFA members allowed people to tell others how to vote to sway the results. Very much like how people on DU 'DU' vote in online polls to sway the results. Which one isn't true? |
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #81)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:35 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
94. Evade to invade.
Why are you so ridiculously evasive. What claims, scientific claims, how can you do that when your so evasive. Isn't it true you are evasive and the issue I'm questioning about,you are evading. Evasion can be harmful when coupled with memory loss. Is evasion a positive trait? If it is should we teach this in our schools?
|
Response to aspirant (Reply #94)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:37 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
95. Tell me exactly what you are disputing if you want an answer.
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #95)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 04:18 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
112. My post #35 second section and post #79 should solve your evasions
Response to aspirant (Reply #112)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 04:58 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
117. Your post #35 second section and #79
Was your poll a closed poll of Dems only or did it include Repubs and Independents? What percentage of progressive/millennials/conservaDems were represented in your cited poll? Also exactly how many responders were in your poll,1000 or 164,733?
Again, I ask what poll you are referring to?? Quote me the post where I cited a poll. Post #17 Clinton 2016 presidental polls
In post 17 I didn't cite Clinton 2016 polls. Here is the EXACT wording of post #17: Polling is done by a random sampling of registered and/or likely voters. This poll was little more than an online poll for DFA members only where people could tell others how to vote to sway the results. Very much like how people on DU 'DU' vote in online polls to sway the results. So what are disputing? Do you deny polling is done by a random sampling of registered and/or likely voters? All public opinion polling is a social science with strict rules about sample size, random selection of participants and margins of error. Do you deny the DFA poll quoted in the OP was an online poll for DFA members? Do you deny the PAC 'Ready For Warren' emailed DFA members telling them to vote for Warren? ![]() Just what the fuck are you denying?? Democratic primary polls are ALWAYS from registered voters who are Democrats or lean Democratic. And to your obvious chagrin, Hillary leads among liberals. All of the most recent data suggests that Clinton doesn't have any real problems on her left flank. Indeed, she's actually stronger with liberals than she is with more moderate Democrats. And very, very few liberals have anything but nice things to say about her. To wit: * A new CNN/Opinion Research poll shows that when voters are asked whether they would prefer Clinton, a more liberal alternative or a more conservative one, about twice as many non-Clinton voters say they prefer the more conservative one (20 percent) to the more liberal one (11 percent). * A Washington Post/ABC News poll this month showed Clinton taking a bigger share of the vote in the 2016 primary among self-described liberals (72 percent) than among moderate and conservative Democrats (60 percent). * The same poll shows 18 percent of moderate Democrats don't want Clinton to run. Just 6 percent of liberal Democrats agree. ![]() * The WaPo-ABC poll also shows liberal Democrats approve of Clinton's tenure at the State Department by a margin of 96-1, while moderate Democrats approve of it 84-12. Sixty-seven percent of liberals strongly approve of Clinton's performance, nearly 9 in 10 say she is a strong leader, and only slightly fewer say she's honest and trustworthy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/16/hillary-clinton-doesnt-have-a-problem-with-liberals-not-hardly/ And, she leads among millennials: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/10/hillary-clinton-millennials-poll http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/poll-hillary-clinton-millenials-111723.html http://reason.com/poll/2014/07/17/millennials-plan-to-vote-for-hillary-cli ![]() |
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #117)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 07:06 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
129. My mistake post #17 is post#11 and was posted on #49 earlier.
Response to aspirant (Reply #129)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 07:31 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
131. So, again, what are you denying?
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #117)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 08:25 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
132. Will the honest pollsters stand-up
I'm going thru each of your polls. Preliminary results;
1) Your Millennials polls are from 2 sources, Fusion TV and Reason-Rube polling a) Fusion tv is a 1 YEAR OLD COMPANY catering to the English speaking Hispanics, doesn't sound like an all-encompassing TV poll to me, more like DFA. DfA had 164,733 voters, how many did Fusion have? b)Reason-rube is a self-defined right wing libertarian group. I give about as much credence to that poll as Fox News polls. "A social science with strict rules about sample size, random selection of participates and margins of error" Did you forget the variability in polls? How can 4 polls on the same issue has different results and still be called a science. The Turtle's national polling was too close to call on Nov 3 and turned out to be a 15% blowout. If the national polls are so precise, why do lots of politicians waste their money on secret internal polls? Could how the questions are asked play any role in the outcome? Now to denying. "online poll for DFA members" stated plainly in my posts." e-mailed DfA members telling them to vote for Warren"; I used that in my arguments. "Hillary leads among Liberals" ;not in the DFA poll. |
Response to aspirant (Reply #132)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 08:33 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
133. So you're going to attack the pollsters because it's the only thing you have left
That's something that Republicans usually do. Not that I haven't seen it on left leaning sources.
|
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #133)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 09:54 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
135. Would you risk your life on a poll?
Last edited Sat Nov 22, 2014, 11:13 PM - Edit history (1) This is great. You make statements and I counter and you have no rebuttal. You attack the DFA poll and then say I have nothing when I attack your poll results.Time to re-think that one. Now you accuse me of being a repub and left-leaning sources too. What a stretch, the repub that is.
On to your polls; !) CNN/ORC ;respondents 306 dems 175 independents : poll taken in JUNE 2014 5 months before the mid-terms. Poll was between Hillary and no names (ghosts), they didn't even put in Bernie's name. Hillary as nominee 42% satisfied but not enthusiastic 41% enthusiastic, no landslide here. Methodology;" Subgroups with a sampling error of 8.5% or larger are not displayed and instead are denoted with an N/A,is this poll all-inclusive? 2) Wash.Post/ABC News, another May/June poll ; Again Clinton vs generic liberals(ghosts). The article says " things can always change and the Clintons can indeed be tied to the 1% pretty easily", can that be the resounding affirmation we look for in a poll? See how easy it is for non-evasion. |
Response to aspirant (Reply #135)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 11:46 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
141. Do you make a habit out of...
Denying reality? Trying to find every little out to the point you look desperate just to prove an internet poll means something?
Face it, every scientifically conducted poll has Clinton ahead. One internet poll where members of a left leaning group votes by clicking a button is your one little ray of faux hope. Sad, really. |
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #141)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:36 AM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
146. Trolling down the avenue.
I've already answered your denying questions. Why are you so desperately trying to prove a ! year old company's TV poll as having meaning? Again no rebuttals to your unscientific polls, just want us to fall inline behind Wall Street Hillary. Hillary leading a little known ghost is not science. Voting by clicking a button is so passe and must be outlawed in your strict rules. It' sad isn't it that progressives have a way to have their voice heard in this Hillary dictatorship. Now it's time to get to the heart of the issue, WILL YOU RISK YOUR LIFE ON A POLL? We both know what a sane person's answer is!
"one little ray of faux hope" does that mean your an Obama hater too? |
Response to aspirant (Reply #146)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 09:45 AM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
164. I've been here for over 10 years you need to look up the definition of troll
You've not answered anything you just made excuses. You sound like people trying to spin their way out of global warming because they find one or two scientists they can convince to say it's not true.
It's the mark of a true progressive to deny spin and insult. congratulations |
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #164)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 02:43 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
166. Poll that
Now you accuse me of being a global warming denier, talk about grabbing for straws. Is that all you got? You could be here for a 1000 years, it's my right to define it as I see it.Excuses, no I've just presented the other side, the argument that 500 people could never define 360 million people. If you think human beings are that simple, then it's time to elect a monkey.Your unscientific science is a joke, plain and simple.National polls are nothing but brainwashing propaganda to guide the masses in the direction our corp. masters want. I've answered every question you asked, that's why you have no questions in your post. I will present my unanswered question for a third time, WILL YOU RISK YOUR LIFE ON A POLL? Now answer the question.It's the mark of a true repub to accuse others of the things they are doing, trying to turn their weaknesses into strengths. I hope all my progressive brothers/sisters read this to see your true colors or probably they already know. Just move on to the repub party where you belong because your insults(progressive trait) aren't cutting the mustard.
|
Response to aspirant (Reply #166)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 02:54 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
167. Why? You'd just deny the results
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #167)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 03:45 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
173. What's the probability you will answer the question?
Wolfie you're being evasive again. "Deny the results" of a 1 person probability poll, no I would weigh the results. Any poll has a probability of truth no matter the size.
|
Response to aspirant (Reply #173)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 03:48 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
174. Why do you deny science?
Science denier
|
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #174)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:20 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
197. The science of statistics is probability, guesses at best
Poll denier, it's time you go back to your Republican home, they've missed you.
|
Response to aspirant (Reply #197)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:22 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
199. Why do you continue to deny science?
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #81)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:16 PM
Raul Hernandez (78 posts)
192. Graded: 50%
F.
You are assuming #2. I was not influenced in any way when I voted in that poll. No-one told me how to vote. |
Response to Raul Hernandez (Reply #192)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:18 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
195. Graded: 0%
Since no one was talking to you.
|
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #195)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:30 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
201. Wolfie why are you so angry? Calm down remember the big tent.
Response to aspirant (Reply #201)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:31 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
203. Aspy, why do you deny science?
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #203)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:52 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
215. Wolfie,will you risk your life on a poll?
Response to aspirant (Reply #215)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:53 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
217. Aspy why do you deny science?
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #217)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 05:14 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
225. Wolfie is your life more important than a poll?
Response to aspirant (Reply #225)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 05:17 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
227. You can't pick and choose science out of conveniece
Stop doing it
|
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #227)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 05:27 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
229. Will you risk your life on probable guesses?
Response to aspirant (Reply #229)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 05:29 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
230. Did you go to a Bible college? Sounds like it
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #230)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 05:33 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
232. Will you risk your life on probable guesses?
Response to aspirant (Reply #232)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 05:34 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
234. What was the name of your bible college?
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #234)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 05:57 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
241. Wolfie World. Will you risk your life on probable guesses?
Response to aspirant (Reply #241)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 06:00 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
242. Pat Robertson?? Spare us!
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #242)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 06:06 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
245. Will you risk your life on probable guesses?
Response to aspirant (Reply #245)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 06:09 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
246. Why are you a science denier?
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #246)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 06:19 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
249. Science of comedy,is your life more important than probable guesses?
Response to aspirant (Reply #249)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 06:20 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
250. You've denied global warming and evolution
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #250)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 06:24 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
252. Science of plumbing will you risk your life on probable guesses?
Response to aspirant (Reply #252)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 06:26 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
253. You believe global warming is the science of plumbing?
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #253)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 06:32 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
258. Are all sciences the same?Will you risk your life on guesses?
Response to aspirant (Reply #258)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 06:33 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
259. why are you on DU if you don't believe in global warming?
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #259)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 06:36 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
261. Science of evasion is your life more important than guesses?
Response to aspirant (Reply #261)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 06:37 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
262. Why do you keep evading my questions?
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #262)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 06:40 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
265. The science of the game, will you risk your life on guesses?
Response to aspirant (Reply #265)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 06:43 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
266. The science behind vaccinations is solid.
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #266)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 06:49 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
269. science of solidity, will you risk your life on guesses?
Response to aspirant (Reply #269)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 06:50 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
270. But you keep denying it and evading my questions
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #270)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 06:55 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
272. science of questioning, will you risk youer life on guesses?
Response to aspirant (Reply #272)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 06:57 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
273. You're not even questioning you're evading
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #273)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:00 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
278. Science of you, will you risk your life on guesses
Response to aspirant (Reply #278)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:05 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
280. More evasion
Response to aspirant (Reply #269)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 06:59 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
277. Nothing solid from where you stand it's all evasive
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #277)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:02 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
279. Science of nothingness? is your life more important than guesses?
Response to aspirant (Reply #279)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:05 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
281. Nothingness yes a very good description of your non-answers
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #281)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:11 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
282. science of good vs bad, will you risk your lfe on guesses?
Response to aspirant (Reply #282)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:20 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
283. Why are you a science denier?
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #283)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:23 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
284. science of science, will you risk your life on guesses?
Response to aspirant (Reply #284)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:28 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
286. And you deny it all
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #286)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:30 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
290. Science of all there is, will you risk your life on guesses
Response to aspirant (Reply #290)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:32 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
291. why are you on DU if you don't believe in global warming?
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #291)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:36 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
294. Science of DU, willyou risk your life on guesses?
Response to aspirant (Reply #294)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:39 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
297. why are you on DU if you don't believe in global warming?
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #297)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:41 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
299. science of believing in polls, is your life more important than guesses?
Response to aspirant (Reply #299)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:43 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
301. why are you on DU if you don't believe in global warming?
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #301)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:47 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
302. Science of believing in polls,Will you risk your life for guesses?
Response to aspirant (Reply #302)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:50 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
304. why are you on DU if you don't believe in global warming?
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #304)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:54 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
309. science of hot and cold, is your life more important than guesses?
Response to aspirant (Reply #282)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:28 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
288. More evasion
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #288)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:32 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
292. Science of more or less, is your life more important than guesses?
Response to aspirant (Reply #292)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:35 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
293. why are you on DU if you don't believe in global warming?
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #293)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:39 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
296. Science of believing in polls,Will you risk your life on guesses?
Response to aspirant (Reply #252)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:35 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
334. why are you on DU if you don't believe in global warming?
Response to aspirant (Reply #241)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 06:34 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
260. Why are you ducking my questions on science?
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #260)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 06:38 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
263. The science of debate, will you risk your life on guesses?
Response to aspirant (Reply #263)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 06:38 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
264. Why do you keep evading my questions?
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #264)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 06:43 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
267. The science of questioning,will you risk your life on guesses
Response to aspirant (Reply #267)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 06:44 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
268. You question global warming really??
Response to aspirant (Reply #215)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 06:28 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
256. Debate 101 at the Crystal Cathedral from Aspy
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #29)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:06 PM
Raul Hernandez (78 posts)
182. So you're pissed that you didn't sign up for DFA?
Ok. your loss.
I am a DFA member, and I appreciate that they asked me who I would prefer in '16. |
Response to Raul Hernandez (Reply #182)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:10 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
186. What makes you think that?
I signed up for DFA ages ago. And OFA and Moveon and ... and...
|
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #186)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:19 PM
Raul Hernandez (78 posts)
196. So did you vote on that poll or not?
If you didn't, kwitcherbitchin.
You sat out on that poll, didn't you? |
Response to Raul Hernandez (Reply #196)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:21 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
198. Makes no difference
And kindly point out where I've been 'bitchin.'
![]() |
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #198)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:46 PM
Raul Hernandez (78 posts)
209. You're whining about the fact that Ms. Clinton came on third
on the DFA poll.
"It makes no difference' - it means you sat out on that poll and have no right to whine about it. I did, and I have the right to discuss it. You don't. You sat out the vote. End of story. |
Response to Raul Hernandez (Reply #209)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:49 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
212. Quote me. Link or slink.
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #212)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:51 PM
Raul Hernandez (78 posts)
213. No need to. The avatar of yours says it all.
Have a nice day. If you want, Google yourself and Clinton on that search bar top right of your screen..
I had more than enough to know what your loyalties are. Typical Third Way behavior. You have been accused of evading several questions. And your credibility isn't a very good one when it comes to Clinton. |
Response to Raul Hernandez (Reply #213)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:52 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
216. Another amazing display of your psychic ability
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #11)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 10:57 AM
woo me with science (32,139 posts)
13. Savoring the "whoosh" of goalposts moving.
A few months ago, we were lectured that somewhere around a million percent of "liberal Democrats" preferred Hillary Goldman-Sachs:
This is just the beginning of the implosion of corporate Turd Way PR... Wait 'til Sanders and/or Warren are actually talking to the electorate. |
Response to woo me with science (Reply #13)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 11:38 AM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
18. The article linked in the OP says the very thing you are denying.
Larger public opinion surveys show Clinton in a dominant position in the likely 2016 Democratic presidential field, even among progressives.
So we should believe the reported DFA results but not THAT part? ![]() |
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #18)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 02:50 PM
woo me with science (32,139 posts)
63. You must get so dizzy from all that spinning.
Of *course* she started out ahead, professor! She was First Lady and Sec. of State!
But now she's fighting at third in this major poll of over a *million,* and her numbers have also been falling steadily in the polls of the total electorate. Yeah, people are starting to pay attention... This whole thread is a comedy of tortured Third Way spin...but *particularly* interesting for how ostentatious the flailing is. Honestly, I find that as fascinating as the corporate Third Way's "Accept Doom" email campaigns right before the midterms... http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5824859 |
Response to woo me with science (Reply #63)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:13 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
77. So quoting the article is "spin?" LOL
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #77)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 04:25 PM
woo me with science (32,139 posts)
113. No, but pretending to miss the point is. Pretending Post 63 was anything but straightforward is.
What a base occupation. And a fascinating performance, from the perspective of motives.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5824859 |
Response to woo me with science (Reply #113)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 04:27 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
114. What point did I pretend to miss?
Last edited Sat Nov 22, 2014, 05:19 PM - Edit history (1) Vagueness is your strong suit.
Of *course* she started out ahead, professor! She was First Lady and Sec. of State!
Where have I ever said she started out ahead? Not that she didn't, but where did I say it? But now she's fighting at third in this major poll of over a *million,* and her numbers have also been falling steadily in the polls of the total electorate. Yeah, people are starting to pay attention...
You think this DFA poll is a 'major' poll? ![]() |
Response to woo me with science (Reply #13)
Mon Nov 24, 2014, 11:55 AM
L0oniX (31,493 posts)
355. LOL ...those goal posts are on castors.
Response to L0oniX (Reply #355)
Mon Nov 24, 2014, 01:17 PM
woo me with science (32,139 posts)
360. Roller skates, baby!
Downhill all the way!
![]() ![]() |
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #11)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 11:03 AM
OilemFirchen (6,909 posts)
14. In fact...
she's specifically being rewarded for her fealty to Obama, without whom she would remain an unknown.
|
Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #14)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:55 PM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
103. you mean Warren? if you do you think Hillary Rodham would be a 'known' without Bill
If you want to play that game.
Warren became a senator on her own steam and she owes no one her successes. She supported Obama and he her, that is what adults do for common causes. No one can say that about Hillary and her political 'successes'. So if you meant Warren, there ya go. |
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #103)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 08:37 PM
OilemFirchen (6,909 posts)
134. Correct on both assumptions.
Warren gained recognition as a result of serving in Obama's cabinet, and prominence due to Obama's desire to see her as head of his Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Clinton's notoriety is a direct result of her stint as First Lady. Would either or both of these women be national figures without those relationships? Perhaps. But we have no way of knowing. Nonetheless, we do know how they did achieve their current stature. ETA: I presume that your inference about Clinton is as I described it. Reviewing your question, however, I'm not sure as it makes no sense whatsoever. I don't even know if it was a question. Was it? |
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #11)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 11:52 AM
Kermitt Gribble (1,855 posts)
19. My take from this poll
is that politically informed Democrats prefer anyone but Hillary. Hanging your hat on support from low-information voters, who most likely go by name recognition, does not say a lot about your preferred candidate. It does, however, speak volumes about the propaganda machine in this country.
|
Response to Kermitt Gribble (Reply #19)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 11:56 AM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
20. So unless you're a DFA member, you're politically uninformed?
The article essentially states it was a popularity contest for DFA members.
![]() It's the 'smarter than thou' attitude that keeps 'progressives' in a corner. Or as Michael Moore once said, 'this is why people don't like you, you're so far up on your high horse.' |
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #20)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 12:40 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
30. Where does it "essentially states" this?
Calling this a "popularity contest" after you have already called it a "online poll" is revealing the weakness of your agreement. Now who is trying to be "smarter than thou" by lecturing us on a nationa, 1 million strong progressive poll?
|
Response to aspirant (Reply #30)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 12:42 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
32. This is really easy to understand
1. The poll was only open for DFA members.
2. Out of over 1,000,000 members, only 10% voted. 3. An outside group emailed DFA members to encourage them to vote for someone that isn't even running. ![]() |
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #20)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 12:57 PM
Kermitt Gribble (1,855 posts)
33. I didn't say that.
My point is that mainstream polls are taken from the general populace, which is largely uninformed, politically.
|
Response to Kermitt Gribble (Reply #33)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 01:01 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
34. it's the same thing
The uninformed general populace vs. the informed 'progressives.'
|
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #34)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 01:18 PM
Kermitt Gribble (1,855 posts)
41. No, it's not.
If there is any "us vs them" it is Progressives vs the corporate media machine, who bear the responsibility for the "uniformed general populace". Are you denying that the general populace is largely uninformed or misinformed, politically?
|
Response to Kermitt Gribble (Reply #41)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 01:22 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
43. here are your words:
politically informed Democrats prefer anyone but Hillary.
The opposite is politically uninformed people prefer Hillary. mainstream polls are taken from the general populace, which is largely uninformed, politically. The opposite of which is closed members-only polls are taken from largely informed people. ![]() |
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #43)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 02:45 PM
Kermitt Gribble (1,855 posts)
62. Sorry, I'm not seeing the "gotcha" here.
Do you not agree that most US citizens are uninformed or misinformed? Do you not agree that people who participate in political groups or discussion boards are more politically informed than the general populace?
|
Response to Kermitt Gribble (Reply #62)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:08 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
71. There's no 'gotcha' here.
Do you not agree that most US citizens are uninformed or misinformed?
Not necessarily. Do you not agree that people who participate in political groups or discussion boards are more politically informed than the general populace? Not necessarily. In this thread alone there are people claiming the DFA poll is scientific. WOW! That's informed - NOT. DU is full of historical revisionism and political ignorance. At the same time, the brightest political people I know never read the netroots. |
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #34)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:03 PM
rhett o rick (55,981 posts)
67. In general polls people can claim to be whatever they want. A lot of HRC supporters claim to be
progressive but they are fooling themselves. Do you consider yourself a progressive?
DFA is made up mostly of progressives and they don't choose HRC. Most HRC supporters wouldn't have anything to do with DFA. While the Clintons and Obama are socially progressive, they are strongly conservative on foreign policy, economy and civil rights. To me favoring same sex marriage and also supporting the oligarchy does not make you a progressive. A vote for HRC is a vote for 8 more years of Conservative ideology. |
Response to rhett o rick (Reply #67)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:13 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
76. Anyone can join DFA to vote in their polls, too.
Response to Kermitt Gribble (Reply #19)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 12:11 PM
JEB (4,748 posts)
23. Bingo. Exactly correct.
Response to Kermitt Gribble (Reply #19)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 12:22 PM
woo me with science (32,139 posts)
25. Yep. Exactly.
And the trajectory is down, down, down as people learn more. These poll results would have been unheard of six months ago.
And Democrats had better pay attention, because the fall in her numbers is happening not just among liberals, but in the electorate as a whole: http://presidentialpolls.com/carriere/hillary-clintons-lead-continues-to-dwindle-as-elections-approach/ Of course, that may be the entire point of running her...for the corporate/infiltrating/Third Way faction of our party: I believe it is wholly deliberate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5824859 We misunderstand politics and our politicians in 2014 when we assume their goal is always to win. That was the old system, democracy. In oligarchy, the goal is using the two parties you own in whichever way best furthers the corporate agenda of the oligarchy. This is not a problem of bad strategy in a functioning democratic contest. This is oligarchy pretending to be democracy. Corporate Democrats did everything possible to depress turnout in the midterms, from their utter lack of a positive agenda, to the outright campaign to demoralize and insult the base online, to the "Accept Doom" DCCC email campaign: DCCC email campaign: "Accept defeat" I believe the PTB have decided it's time for a Republican figurehead next time. The illusion of democracy is nearly dead, and will continue to die as all the elements of fascism continue to be put into place by our bipartisan, purchased cabal of a government. But putting a Republican in next time will at least offer a boost to the propaganda machine, as all the Third Way corporate shills and mouthpieces online will be able to put on their liberal costumes again and pretend to wail alongside the rest of us as the last vestiges of the democratic nation we once knew are drowned in the toilet, this time by Republicans. Of course, all that "opposition" will be carefully and mysteriously futile in terms of policy. But the important thing is that Dems will be consistently SAYING the right things again, and looking like the firebrand populist party we need them to be. And the people will be reassured that we really do still have a democracy, we can stop all this silly talk about oligarchy and needing fundamental change and such, and we can all go home and watch "Hunger Games" and grouse because our only problem will be that Republicans are in office for a little while and we need to get them out and the Third Way Democrats back in. ![]() |
Response to Kermitt Gribble (Reply #19)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 01:12 PM
Marr (20,317 posts)
38. +1 Well said. I'm with you there. /nt
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #11)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 12:29 PM
Erich Bloodaxe BSN (14,733 posts)
28. This is a caveat?
"but offers the temperature of one group of committed progressive activists." Those are the people who do the groundwork in getting voters ready to vote. Having the 'committed activists' on your side is a big plus, not a 'caveat'.
|
Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #28)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 12:40 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
31. of course it is
About 10% of DFA members voted, were encouraged to vote one way by another 'progressive' group, and in no way represent the Democratic electorate at large.
|
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #11)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:05 PM
Raul Hernandez (78 posts)
181. Howard Dean, yes, he is supporting Clinton
But remember, he can change his support anytime.
Right now, there's no-one running for President for 2016. Just a bunch of people "exploring" their presidential aspirations. I know Dean wants someone more left of Clinton. |
Response to Raul Hernandez (Reply #181)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:07 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
184. How do you know that about Dean?
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #184)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:13 PM
Raul Hernandez (78 posts)
189. I will leave that for you to figure that out.
since I already know Dr. Dean is ready for another change - he wants to re-implement his 50 state strategy that has worked wonders in '06 and '08.
DWS is an idiot and has lost Democrats because there is no messaging, and no unity around the President. |
Response to Raul Hernandez (Reply #189)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:17 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
193. Oh, another psychic deaniac with a mental connection
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #11)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:39 PM
Aerows (39,961 posts)
298. Even if Warren supporters "ordered" DFA members
to vote for her ... that should tell you she has some pretty damn staunch supporters. I've seen a fairly tepid response to Hillary in many Democratic spheres. The most enthusiastic supporters of Hillary are 1%-ers who believe (and rightly so) that they will benefit tremendously by supporting her if she is elected.
99%-ers? Not so much, and certainly not among the younger demographics. If you will recall, in 2008, that's exactly who didn't vote for her in the primaries, either. No Dem is going to win without young voters, and Hillary is about as appealing to that demographic as a bag of turds. |
Response to Aerows (Reply #298)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:43 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
300. Who are you quoting with "ordered?"
She has staunch supporters, sure. Who's denied that?
|
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #300)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:49 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
303. Science of quotations. will you risk your life on guesses?
Response to aspirant (Reply #303)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:51 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
307. why are you on DU if you don't believe in global warming?
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #307)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:57 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
311. Science of DU, will you risk your life on guesses?
Response to aspirant (Reply #311)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:02 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
313. why are you on DU if you don't believe in global warming?
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #313)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:08 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
316. science of repitition, will you risk your life on guesses?
Response to aspirant (Reply #316)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:09 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
318. Why do you keep repeating yourself?
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #318)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:13 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
319. science of the self, is your life more important than guesses?
Response to aspirant (Reply #319)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:14 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
320. why are you on DU if you don't believe in global warming?
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #320)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:18 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
322. Science of dos and don'ts, will you risk your life on guesses?
Response to aspirant (Reply #322)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:19 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
324. why are you on DU if you don't believe in global warming?
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #324)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:30 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
329. Science of all Wolfie has left or right, is your life worth more than a guess?
Response to aspirant (Reply #329)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:33 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
332. Aspirant aspires to nothing but science denial
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #332)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:41 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
338. science of aspirations, are you worth more than a guess?
Response to aspirant (Reply #338)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:42 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
340. why are you on DU if you don't believe in global warming?
Response to aspirant (Reply #345)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:53 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
346. Science. You don't have to like it.
But it's a fact.
|
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #346)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:55 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
347. It's a guess, last word
Response to aspirant (Reply #347)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:59 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
348. Science. You don't have to like it.
But it's a fact.
|
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #348)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 09:02 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
349. The science of statistics is probability, guesses at best, last word
Response to aspirant (Reply #349)
Mon Nov 24, 2014, 06:30 AM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
350. why are you on DU if you don't believe in global warming?
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #300)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:50 PM
Aerows (39,961 posts)
305. Yes, she has staunch supporters
Glad you recognize that.
A Democratic candidate isn't going to win without the youth vote. As I stated, that is exactly who didn't vote for her in 2008. |
Response to Aerows (Reply #305)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:52 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
308. yes, President Kucinich won this same poll in 2008
And Hillary has no issues with the youth vote.
|
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #308)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:55 PM
Aerows (39,961 posts)
310. Pardon me
I forgot that she has been nominated and elected President twice in a row.
|
Response to Aerows (Reply #310)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:01 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
312. We're discussing a very specific poll
One that Warren supporters are claiming has national implications. President Kucinich won this poll in 2008.
Is it your contention this poll means Warren is the front runner and all other polls are wrong? |
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #312)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:02 PM
Aerows (39,961 posts)
314. I'm discussing reality
Let's discuss the reality of who got the youth vote in 2008 - I mean, aren't you the one that is insistent about discussing "reality"?
Let's start with some reality. Here are some hard numbers, in case you forgot. http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/02/11/young-voters-in-the-2008-presidential-primaries/ |
Response to Aerows (Reply #314)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:08 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
317. This poll doesn't mention youth vote
![]() If your point is Obama got the youth vote in the 2008 election, who has denied that? If your point is the winner of DFA's pulse poll in 2008 got the youth vote, that would be false. Either way, DFA's pulse poll doesn't predict the youth vote. There are plenty of live threads on DU discussing the youth vote if that is what you have the hankering to discuss. But people are not obligated to engage you in discussion when you change the thread subject. |
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #317)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:14 PM
Aerows (39,961 posts)
321. People aren't obligated to engage you
in discussion on how realistic one politicians chances are because of your specific opinion, either, but here we all are.
So you can ignore reality or you can think about what happened in 2008. Clinton and Clinton supporters can choose to forget it, but it certainly doesn't change what happened. For a collection of folks that insist on discussing reality, when it gets pointed out that Clinton didn't do well with the youth vote, all of the sudden, it's not a topic said folks want to discuss. |
Response to Aerows (Reply #321)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:19 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
323. It isn't my opinion that DFA's pulse poll...
.. is nothing but an indicator of how DFA members WOULD vote if their candidate of choice was even running.
|
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #323)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:23 PM
Aerows (39,961 posts)
326. Considering the responses you have offered in this thread
You *ARE* of the opinion that nobody but Hillary should even consider running and that anyone who is looking at other candidates is unrealistic. I just decided to interject some facts into that narrative.
I find it interesting that suddenly the last thing you want to discuss is the reality of 2008. And by interesting, I really mean hilarious because I derailed your train with the reality you have so ardently argued for. |
Response to Aerows (Reply #326)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:25 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
327. Quote me. Provide quotes and links
Link or slink.
|
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #327)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:28 PM
Aerows (39,961 posts)
328. A link?
![]() ![]() ![]() Is someone else posting in this thread under the name "Wyldwolf" that isn't you and you've suddenly entered the conversation? ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Response to Aerows (Reply #328)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:31 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
330. That's what I thought
You can claim something but can't back it up.
|
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #330)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:40 PM
Aerows (39,961 posts)
337. Your opinions
have been upfront and plain in this whole thread (and many others, I might add).
I made my claim, that Hillary didn't get the youth vote when you said she has no problem with the youth vote, backed it up, and now you are attempting to pretend you aren't an ardent proponent of the "Hillary is inevitable" and "Hillary is the only one that can win" doctrine. Oops, it is shown that maybe Hillary isn't inevitable, and maybe that Hillary isn't the only one that can win, and suddenly, you want to question my ability to *read* and *reason* to change the subject. Hopefully you can find yourself marginally mollified in the notion that someone, somewhere thinks you've scored a point. |
Response to Aerows (Reply #337)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:42 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
339. Quote me to prove your point.
Just one quote. Go ahead.
|
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #339)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:45 PM
Aerows (39,961 posts)
341. Wyldwolf
You get the last word. As I said, I hope you feel mollified that you have convinced yourself you've scored a point.
You GOT THE LAST WORD! That's what COUNTS! Feel free to go nya-nya-nya-nya at me. |
Response to Aerows (Reply #341)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:49 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
343. Link or slink. I guess you slink.
I mean, with all the time you spent dancing around, you could have given one little link out all the ones you claimed to have seen.
|
Response to RiverLover (Reply #9)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:13 AM
RBInMaine (13,570 posts)
158. It's ridiculous to write off Hilllary. Warren is not running. Sanders can't win. Find reality.
Response to RBInMaine (Reply #158)
Sat Nov 29, 2014, 12:26 AM
Logical (22,457 posts)
387. The reality is Hillary lost a 30 point lead to Obama. Sound like a winner to you? Nt
Response to Douglas Carpenter (Original post)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 10:19 AM
Scuba (53,475 posts)
10. Yes, but a poll of Wall Street hedge fund managers had Hillary running away with it.
Response to Scuba (Reply #10)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 11:05 AM
woo me with science (32,139 posts)
15. +1
And that's no joke!
|
Response to Douglas Carpenter (Original post)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 11:10 AM
OilemFirchen (6,909 posts)
16. In other news...
78% of the Water Is Wet Institution (WIWI) agree that water is wet, with 14% voting that water is sometimes wet. The other 8% were too parched to respond.
|
Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #16)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 11:58 AM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
21. 70% of vegans polled prove meatless burgers are America's favorite food.
Response to Douglas Carpenter (Original post)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 12:08 PM
frazzled (18,389 posts)
22. And Ben Carson won the CPAC straw poll
while Ted Cruz won the Value Voters Summit (Family Research Council) straw poll for the Republican 2016 race.
Neither one of those guys is going to be the Republican nominee. Just saying: Interest group straw polls are not indicative of anything. |
Response to frazzled (Reply #22)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 11:06 PM
billhicks76 (5,082 posts)
139. Good Point
Although the sample size is much bigger here. And if your Progressive base doesn't like the candidate then it's best to scrap them. Hillary Goldman-Sachs is not who should be representing us.
|
Response to Douglas Carpenter (Original post)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 12:24 PM
Erich Bloodaxe BSN (14,733 posts)
26. I seem to recall in the early days of that poll, the pro-Hillary folks were posting
how Hillary had a commanding lead among DFA types, and Warren and Sanders were far below.
Looks like things turned around quite a bit. (Edit: Hmm, or was it an OFA poll in which Hillary had a commanding lead? Now that I think about it, it could be a different poll.) |
Response to Douglas Carpenter (Original post)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 01:15 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
39. DFA's pulse poll has always been deadly accurate
![]() |
Response to Douglas Carpenter (Original post)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 01:16 PM
brooklynite (85,477 posts)
40. Indeed they do but...
....DFA are supposed to be liberal activists. Why would nearly as many members support Hillary as Bernie. Could she be more popular across a broader spectrum of Democrats than DU thinks?
|
Response to brooklynite (Reply #40)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 02:19 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
51. Let's poll Democratic Millennials and see?
Response to aspirant (Reply #51)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 02:22 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
54. which would give the results of DU Democratic Millennials who participate in the poll
![]() NOT Millennials and not Democrats but DU Democratic Millennials who participate in the poll. |
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #54)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 02:55 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
64. DU counts too.
Brooklynite stated "broader spectrum of democrats, then Du thinks. If we want a broader spectrum of dems we must go beyond DU, but you knew that. So you are saying DU Millennials don't count? Let's poll DU Millennials to see where they stand. Since your an active member I'm sure this info is important to you.
|
Response to aspirant (Reply #64)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:04 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
68. Sure they do. DU occupies an itty bitty place in the Dem electorate
DU millennialists - even smaller.
|
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #68)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:21 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
82. If this is such an itty bitty insignificant place,what are you doing here?
Response to aspirant (Reply #82)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:24 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
85. There's a quaint little restaurant up the street I frequent often
I enjoy the food and entertainment.
|
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #85)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 04:46 PM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
116. You mean the restaurant with the itty-bitty food and the insignificant sitting
Response to aspirant (Reply #116)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 04:58 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
118. yep, that one
Response to aspirant (Reply #51)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 02:03 AM
joshcryer (62,168 posts)
144. Boomers will decide 2016. They have a higher registration rate.
And they come out and vote.
Women boomers especially will be who Clinton will be targeting. And Clinton can say she would never put SS cuts on the table, unlike Obama who campaigned on doing just that. |
Response to joshcryer (Reply #144)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 04:44 AM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
147. If boomers always come out and vote, what happenned in 2014?
Talk is cheap,but if her Wall Street masters want to put their grubby, dirty, little fingers on those trillions of SS money, we both know what Hillary-Sachs will do.
|
Response to aspirant (Reply #147)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 06:53 AM
joshcryer (62,168 posts)
155. Boomers voted.
There's no proof that Boomers are liberal or progressive.
Winning the Presidency is about getting the votes. Clinton will do that. And it is objective fact that Clinton was opposed to Obama's position to "put everything on the table." She can point to that in 2008 and pull a "lockbox" maneuver, and it would be impossible to disprove. |
Response to joshcryer (Reply #155)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:04 AM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
159. Do objects have facts?
I don't care who the boomers are, they didn't win the 2014 elections, period.You state the boomers will win the 2016 election because all the boomers vote so where are all the extra boomers coming from? Clinton can't win, she's just not electable. Hello President Bernie.
|
Response to aspirant (Reply #159)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:16 AM
joshcryer (62,168 posts)
162. Good luck with that.
Look at the data, Boomers overwhelmingly showed up in 2008, 2012, 2014, and they will in 2016.
If you hinge the vote on Millennials, you're going to have a really hard time. They haven't shown up since 2008. And they didn't show up in the primaries, btw. It was a literal coin toss, with Obama edging out Clinton in caucuses which are undemocratic. Clinton got more votes in 2008, her ground game and PR failed her. The media didn't help. |
Response to joshcryer (Reply #162)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 08:38 AM
aspirant (3,533 posts)
163. Onward and upward
"Boomers overwhelming showed up in ...2014" and we lost. Then you say boomers will overwhelmingly show up in 2016 and we will win. How does that add up? Don't give me millennials and change the subject, just how are the boomers becoming the life savers in 2016?
Poor Hillary, she lost because of the Communist Iowa caucuses. Those dirty media crooks favored Barack Hussein Obama, the black muslim, anti-American(Jeremy Wright), terrorist(Bill Ayers) born in Kenya. Hillary's ground game and PR was under her leadership, so does that make her a failure too. Hillary-Sachs can't win, onward with President Bernie. |
Response to joshcryer (Reply #144)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 05:15 PM
peacebird (14,195 posts)
226. I'm a woman boomer, and no way will I vote for HRC
Response to peacebird (Reply #226)
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 07:38 PM
marlakay (10,529 posts)
295. I don't like her either...please give me a choice! Nt
Response to Douglas Carpenter (Original post)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 01:39 PM
Spitfire of ATJ (32,723 posts)
47. The Pundits claimed the '08 election was going to be Hillary versus Rudy.
Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #47)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:26 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
86. DFA in '08 picked Dennis Kucinich to be the Dem nominee
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #86)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:27 PM
Spitfire of ATJ (32,723 posts)
88. That was my vote in the primary.
Response to Douglas Carpenter (Original post)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 02:21 PM
VanillaRhapsody (21,115 posts)
53. and here is the poll that matters..
Ohio: Christie vs. Clinton FOX News Clinton 46, Christie 39 Clinton +7
Ohio: Paul vs. Clinton FOX News Clinton 49, Paul 40 Clinton +9 Ohio: Bush vs. Clinton FOX News Clinton 48, Bush 38 Clinton +10 Ohio: Perry vs. Clinton FOX News Clinton 49, Perry 39 Clinton +10 Ohio: Kasich vs. Clinton FOX News Clinton 47, Kasich 43 Clinton +4 |
Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #53)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 02:37 PM
Marr (20,317 posts)
60. She won't be running against Christie and Paul in the primary.
We're talking about name recognition and low-info voters there, and that's it. We've seen how popular pro-working class rhetoric can be when it's used by someone who can do so legitimately (or at least, without a decades-long monkey on their back singing a different tune). Obama won big by giving the impression that he'd put Main Street's interests ahead of Wall Street. Hillary Clinton can't do that without inspiring laughter.
|
Response to Marr (Reply #60)
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 02:38 PM
VanillaRhapsody (21,115 posts)
61. but whoever WINS that Primary will...what are THEIR stats against the competition?
I vote for who will WIN....not just who I think is the best dressed Democrat.
|