Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ustrello wrote:

That is legitimately the first time I have seen anyone defend CU, maybe this isn't the real whembly and is instead of corporation super computer meant to sow discord.

I remember when he agreed that it was a bad ruling.

 whembly wrote:


Now, will this tactic hurt the GOP? We will see...

I remember shutting down the government was the clarion call for the end of the GOP... do you?

Didn't happen.

I would argue that it has, indeed, happened. The GOP that gave us Reagan and McCain is dead. Your new leaders are Trump and Cruz.

And just for a change of pace, four former Democratic chairs of the Council of Economic Advisors have come out to pretty much openly condemn the economic figures behind Sanders' policies. Now, chair of the CEA is a political appointment so I'm sure people who want to can just claim it's a political attack, but it is a technical position, all four people are highly credentialed economics, and just holy crap Sanders is predicting 5.3% growth. Right now 2% is a good year, because that's it works with an aging population. But somehow free education and single payer will more than double growth, because it's fun to make up numbers.

It's actually more ridiculous than some of the claim put up by Republicans. People had a field day when Jeb Bush said he could achieve 4% growth, and here's Sanders' promising 5.3%. If reality matters when we review and ultimately reject Republican candidates, it should matter when we review Democrats as well.

https://lettertosanders.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/open-letter-to-senator-sanders-and-professor-gerald-friedman-from-past-cea-chairs/

 d-usa wrote:
It got lost in the shuffle, but there were reports that he was attending the hunting trip at no cost as the guest of someone that benefited from a SCOTUS decision last year.

I did see that, and obviously, for someone such as myself who leans away from Scalia's tendencies, that merely adds fuel to what was initially thought.

 whembly wrote:
sebster... here's why the Republicans are denying this.

Republicans can be bullied... just imagine the outcry if they did go through the committee hearing and refusing to floor the vote. Or, even the vote is a 'No'. It's essentially fueling the fire.

They want to take the oxygen out of this and exercise they're Constitutional ability to simply not go thru this dog & pony.

Heh, this'd be the first time in my short life I've seen someone argue that inventing an entirely new process and opposing anything the other side did was a way of depoliticizing an issue.

Now, will this tactic hurt the GOP? We will see...

I remember shutting down the government was the clarion call for the end of the GOP... do you?

Didn't happen.

Just because an extreme course of action only slightly blew up in your face, it doesn't mean it is sensible to try a new extreme course of action down the track.

 sebster wrote:
And just for a change of pace, four former Democratic chairs of the Council of Economic Advisors have come out to pretty much openly condemn the economic figures behind Sanders' policies. Now, chair of the CEA is a political appointment so I'm sure people who want to can just claim it's a political attack, but it is a technical position, all four people are highly credentialed economics, and just holy crap Sanders is predicting 5.3% growth. Right now 2% is a good year, because that's it works with an aging population. But somehow free education and single payer will more than double growth, because it's fun to make up numbers.

It's actually more ridiculous than some of the claim put up by Republicans. People had a field day when Jeb Bush said he could achieve 4% growth, and here's Sanders' promising 5.3%. If reality matters when we review and ultimately reject Republican candidates, it should matter when we review Democrats as well.

https://lettertosanders.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/open-letter-to-senator-sanders-and-professor-gerald-friedman-from-past-cea-chairs/

I have a class right now covering social movements in the US during the 20th Century.

Just last week we read a book about two men; Huey Long and Father Charles Coughlin, two populist figures in the 1930's. Pretty much my entire class was in agreement that these guys reminded us a great deal of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders (respectively). The funnist part is that Father Coughlin's undoing was that he increasingly identified himself as a Fascist, because that's what critics called him (remind you of anyone? )

I'm honestly surprised Bernie hasn't drawn more flak. What criticism he has gotten has been focused mostly on his 'I'm a socialist' stuff, with little actually paid to how silly his policy proposals are.

I suspect someone will write a book about it someday

 d-usa wrote:
The GOP leadership just sucks at playing poker and they got caught up in their own reactionary tendencies. Everybody knows that the GOP would try to use this to try and hold out on approving a replacement and try to force Obama to pick somebody as moderate as they can get while scoring whatever political points they could in the process, and nobody would be surprised and everybody would expect the Democrats to do anything different. The Republicans have a crappy poker hand, but everybody would expect them to bluff and try to take the pot anyway.

But then they did the stupid thing and before the first two cards of the Judicial Texas-Hold-'Em game were even dealt, they declared "ALL IN" and put their tiny stack of leverage chips in the middle of the table.

They have a crappy hand, a horrible tell, and the strategy of a 6 year old playing his first game of poker.

You've given a great analogy of the situation, and also a really good explanation of why I'm so bad at poker.

 Ustrello wrote:
It doesn't matter what it is about, it is about the consequences and they have been massive.

I think you're mixing things up.

CU is about free speech as the Citizen United group made a movie highly critical movie called "Hillary: The Movie" during an election season.

It was taken to court to prevent this group from even advertising this movie.

During the case arguments, the government even argued that it had the power under the Constitution to ban publication of books and movies if they were made or sold by corporations.

Just wrap your head around that.

What you're looking for, is probably BCRA (McCain-Feingold Act or maybe the 'Buckley v. Valeo' ruling) that needs further adjustment to regulate money in politics.

 LordofHats wrote:
I think there's an argument that the politicization of court nominations was inevitable following the Warren court. The Warren court was very active in trying to set forth a new vision of judicial review, one where rather than simply affirming the law the court would actively question the law and its ramifications in a real world context. That shift in focus was brought about by the Warren court and they followed it with some serious cases; Brown v Board, Miranda, Gideon v Wainwright, etc. Then came Roe and Doe under the Burger court, which continued that vision set by Warren. Once that was done, Republican or Democrat, either way the position of Justice of the Supreme Court became an overtly political matter.

In this sense I would argue the Supreme Court itself put itself out in the spotlight and politicized its appointments (more so than previously anyway), and that really it had nothing to do with either political party.

That said, it's still stupid to say we shouldn't even have hearings on nominees for nearly a year. That's just bonkers.

Yeah, I' was only vaguely aware of the more general political trends, so thanks for the extra detail.

By and large, I'd say one of the biggest problems in Congress today is that both parties push issues back and back with the presumption that they'll be a better position next election to get their agenda running. Thus nothing ever gets done and you end up with a Congress with 12% approval, and a populace that is more willing to accept Executive Orders as a means of getting done things that need to get done. It's not a very nice cycle to be trapped in.

Interesting point. I'll think on that some more. Thanks.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Now, will this tactic hurt the GOP? We will see...

I remember shutting down the government was the clarion call for the end of the GOP... do you?

Didn't happen.

I would argue that it has, indeed, happened. The GOP that gave us Reagan and McCain is dead. Your new leaders are Trump and Cruz.

touche... it took awhile... but touche man.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
And just for a change of pace, four former Democratic chairs of the Council of Economic Advisors have come out to pretty much openly condemn the economic figures behind Sanders' policies. Now, chair of the CEA is a political appointment so I'm sure people who want to can just claim it's a political attack, but it is a technical position, all four people are highly credentialed economics, and just holy crap Sanders is predicting 5.3% growth. Right now 2% is a good year, because that's it works with an aging population. But somehow free education and single payer will more than double growth, because it's fun to make up numbers.

It's actually more ridiculous than some of the claim put up by Republicans. People had a field day when Jeb Bush said he could achieve 4% growth, and here's Sanders' promising 5.3%. If reality matters when we review and ultimately reject Republican candidates, it should matter when we review Democrats as well.

https://lettertosanders.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/open-letter-to-senator-sanders-and-professor-gerald-friedman-from-past-cea-chairs/

I just find it interesting that Presidents really have that much of an effect on the economy.

Here's the thing, he can only propose most of the things and maybe Congress will deliberate and pass it.

Maybe...

*shrugs*

 sebster wrote:
And just for a change of pace, four former Democratic chairs of the Council of Economic Advisors have come out to pretty much openly condemn the economic figures behind Sanders' policies. Now, chair of the CEA is a political appointment so I'm sure people who want to can just claim it's a political attack, but it is a technical position, all four people are highly credentialed economics, and just holy crap Sanders is predicting 5.3% growth. Right now 2% is a good year, because that's it works with an aging population. But somehow free education and single payer will more than double growth, because it's fun to make up numbers.

It's actually more ridiculous than some of the claim put up by Republicans. People had a field day when Jeb Bush said he could achieve 4% growth, and here's Sanders' promising 5.3%. If reality matters when we review and ultimately reject Republican candidates, it should matter when we review Democrats as well.

I do recall an article citing Trump as saying 6% annual growth, that the economy would be, "like a rocket ship." So by THAT measure, 5.3% isn't astronomically high.... Sure, it's much higher than these economic minds are saying it should be. I don't discount that. What I think we all need to keep in mind is that, for MOST Americans, 4%, 5.3%, 6%, etc. all sound like ridiculously low numbers. As you point out, reality is that 2% growth is a good year. With all three of these numbers (from Bush, Trump, and Sanders) I personally would chalk it up to campaigning and a bit of grandstanding. It's what pretty much every presidential candidate has done since Thomas Jefferson, right? Obviously, I am less than pleased at this new information... but I think that as long as we view it as the campaign trail grandstanding that nearly everyone does, there isn't much of a problem with it. The big reason why I personally "call out" the Bush and Trump plans, is because trickle down has been shown to be Snake Oil for the economy. Certainly, there's a good chance that if Sanders' is elected, IF he were able to get the majority of those things he's been campaigning on, we may see "good" growth... but we may also see a dip. IF Trump or one of the trickle down supporters gets elected, there's a chance for an increase (that organizations like the IMF don't deny happen under T-D, but do show them to be extremely volatile) in the economy, but more than likely there'll be a lull or worse.

Now, personally, I would argue that some of the things that Sanders wants to do, the Universal Healthcare, "Universal" Public colleges, etc. are still good things because they are the right thing to do. Most of the rest of the industrialized world has shown us that the world will not collapse with socialized medicine and colleges. Union membership doesn't necessarily mean the utter collapse of all industry. Of course, we can look at examples of where unions have gone wrong *cough*Detroit*cough* but on the whole they have done a number of good things for the people who have embraced them.

 LordofHats wrote:
I'm honestly surprised Bernie hasn't drawn more flak. What criticism he has gotten has been focused mostly on his 'I'm a socialist' stuff, with little actually paid to how silly his policy proposals are.

I suspect someone will write a book about it someday

I think it's a bit like Trump. The Republican field held back on attacking Trump, because each of the candidates expected him to implode sooner or later, and wanted to be in a position to pick up his voters when he did. Similarly, Clinton won't go hard on the attack, because she doesn't want to piss off Sanders voters she'll need in the general.

And you don't see any meaningful attacks from people who aren't aligned to one candidate or another, because non-partisan voices are almost entirely cut out of the system.

I think Ensis has a fair point. While many of Bernie's ideas are wholly preposterous, he has taken several positions that I think many people, especially young Americans really want to see happen.

Among advocates of healthcare reform, my understanding is that there's universal agreement that single payer would have been better than the half (quarter?) measure we got. The Citizen's United case, while legally understandable and even necessary I think, highlights the twistedness of our electoral process and the overwhelming influence of campaign funding and lobbying in policy making. Bernie is seen as a boon to these things, and those positions are a fair bit less... insane, than Trump's.

 LordofHats wrote:
and those positions are a fair bit less... insane, than Trump's.

To be fair, almost any position is a fair bit less insane than Trump's

True dat

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The big reason why I personally "call out" the Bush and Trump plans, is because trickle down has been shown to be Snake Oil for the economy. Certainly, there's a good chance that if Sanders' is elected, IF he were able to get the majority of those things he's been campaigning on, we may see "good" growth... but we may also see a dip. IF Trump or one of the trickle down supporters gets elected, there's a chance for an increase (that organizations like the IMF don't deny happen under T-D, but do show them to be extremely volatile) in the economy, but more than likely there'll be a lull or worse.

Any plan that is only considered in the light of fantastical growth numbers is snake oil.

Now, personally, I would argue that some of the things that Sanders wants to do, the Universal Healthcare, "Universal" Public colleges, etc. are still good things because they are the right thing to do. Most of the rest of the industrialized world has shown us that the world will not collapse with socialized medicine and colleges. Union membership doesn't necessarily mean the utter collapse of all industry.

Sure, there's a lot to like in Sanders policies. But the thing is that every plan has winners and losers. College that is free for the student will mean a bigger tab for government, and that tab will be picked up by tax payers. Public healthcare will mean reduced services and longer waiting times for people who currently have really good healthcare plans.

This doesn't mean those things aren't still good ideas, it's still more than likely that the overall gain will be vastly greater than the losses. But in order to properly assess the gains against the losses, you need to model it in a realistic economic environment. 5% growth swamps any negative impact - who cares if your taxes are higher when your income is growing 5% year on year?

So in the same way that Republicans hide the massive impacts on the poor and middle class of their tax plans by predicting stupid levels of growth, Sanders is doing the same thing. It doesn't mean the policies are bad, but it does mean there's a lot of snake oil being poured over the top.

And I think there is still a big distinction between the Republican candidates and Sanders. The Republicans are attempting an economic con job, one repeating over and over again, cycle after cycle. Whereas Sanders, I think, is kind of making things up as he goes, he never expected to get this far, and so his policies and their impacts are showing loose thinking, driven more by optimism than anything else.

Damn Seb... that was a good post/response, have an exalt.


Maybe Sanders does get caught out making things up due to his lack of expectations of being here... but I think you did hit something about right: there is a seemingly pervasive sense of optimism around the guy (hell, I am a supporter of his as well, I guess I "feel the Bern" lol), but I think that could say something about where people in America are, especially his supporters: I think a lot of people are getting tired of the doom and gloom style politics we've been hearing about for the past I-don't-know-how-long.

I wonder if part of his appeal is that even though he has some grand policy ideas (free education, universal healthcare, etc), his basic message is more of a "we are going to be okay" message.

Trump and many others are running with the "everything is going to be great, everybody will be rich, greatness for everyone" message, which we have all heard before time after time. Compared to that, the "everybody will be able to make it" just seems refreshing and realistic (even if his big policy plans aren't) and believable.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Damn Seb... that was a good post/response, have an exalt.


Maybe Sanders does get caught out making things up due to his lack of expectations of being here... but I think you did hit something about right: there is a seemingly pervasive sense of optimism around the guy (hell, I am a supporter of his as well, I guess I "feel the Bern" lol), but I think that could say something about where people in America are, especially his supporters: I think a lot of people are getting tired of the doom and gloom style politics we've been hearing about for the past I-don't-know-how-long.

It's really easy to be optimistic when you ignore reality.

 d-usa wrote:
I wonder if part of his appeal is that even though he has some grand policy ideas (free education, universal healthcare, etc), his basic message is more of a "we are going to be okay" message.

Trump and many others are running with the "everything is going to be great, everybody will be rich, greatness for everyone" message, which we have all heard before time after time. Compared to that, the "everybody will be able to make it" just seems refreshing and realistic (even if his big policy plans aren't) and believable.

I think there's something also to be said for who is targeted as the "bad guy" in each candidate's narrative...

Sander's goes after the top 1% wealthiest class... the corporations who pay virtually no taxes, and in many cases receive so many tax breaks that they are effectively paid for their practices.
Trump's message is sure "greatness for everyone," but I think we need to add in the things he comes under fire for, "once we get rid of the Mexicans and Muslims"


I suppose you could argue that from certain points of view, both of these guys are going after "low hanging fruit." I personally think it comes down to personal views, and how acceptable a person finds xenophobia and racism.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

I think there's something also to be said for who is targeted as the "bad guy" in each candidate's narrative...

Sander's goes after the top 1% wealthiest class... the corporations who pay virtually no taxes, and in many cases receive so many tax breaks that they are effectively paid for their practices.
Trump's message is sure "greatness for everyone," but I think we need to add in the things he comes under fire for, "once we get rid of the Mexicans and Muslims"


I suppose you could argue that from certain points of view, both of these guys are going after "low hanging fruit." I personally think it comes down to personal views, and how acceptable a person finds xenophobia and racism.

A lot of Bernie's rhetoric focuses on the 1%, but keep in mind his plan calls for raising everybody's taxes, not just theirs.

Seaward wrote:

A lot of Bernie's rhetoric focuses on the 1%, but keep in mind his plan calls for raising everybody's taxes, not just theirs.

I know his one example is that a $500/year increase in taxes, but substantially lower healthcare costs, equals a net increase in "pocket cash." And he's not wrong there.... Think about it. when I left the army at 28, I did a health insurance quote for myself. for just myself, not my wife or kids, I was looking at a minimum 450/month. $5400/year is, quite obviously, more expensive than $500/year. Even if we assume a nationalized system where an individual pays 20% of "current" rates, I'd have been looking at $90/month, or $1080/yr.... still... $5400 is more expensive than $1580/year.


Even with all that hazy "beer math," 500 bucks doesn't really make much of a difference on my tax returns each year.

 whembly wrote:

The framers left it to the Senate to determine what it means.

Which Framers? As I already said, "advice and consent" was a compromise.

 whembly wrote:

Don't like it... gin up support to amend it. The mechanism is there.

By stating that the US Constitution is poorly written I am calling attention to that fact, this is the first step in building support for an Amendment.

 whembly wrote:

Nah, however unlikely he'd do that, the Senate would jump over all that in a heartbeat.

The Senate Majority Leader openly stated that he would not allow a hearing on an Obama Justice nomination, he did this without knowing who Obama would nominate. I can't really imagine he would recant given that a larger number of Republicans are lining up behind him.

 whembly wrote:

See what I posted to feeder above...

GWB got Roberts through twice, and Alito once. In both instances the Democratically controlled Senate held hearings.

New poll. TLDR: Trump beats everybody head to head.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Seaward wrote:

A lot of Bernie's rhetoric focuses on the 1%, but keep in mind his plan calls for raising everybody's taxes, not just theirs.

I know his one example is that a $500/year increase in taxes, but substantially lower healthcare costs, equals a net increase in "pocket cash." And he's not wrong there.... Think about it. when I left the army at 28, I did a health insurance quote for myself. for just myself, not my wife or kids, I was looking at a minimum 450/month. $5400/year is, quite obviously, more expensive than $500/year. Even if we assume a nationalized system where an individual pays 20% of "current" rates, I'd have been looking at $90/month, or $1080/yr.... still... $5400 is more expensive than $1580/year.


Even with all that hazy "beer math," 500 bucks doesn't really make much of a difference on my tax returns each year.

That's if the absurd 5.3% growth pipe dream sebster pointed out earlier pans out. Spoiler: it won't.

So, what do we do then? Raise taxes more to actually be able to pay for all the 'free' stuff he'll be providing, or start building industrial furnaces to burn money, since we'd wind up losing it slower that way than funding everything Sanders wants?

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Look at it this way, we all know that it isn't likely at all that the Senate would Confirm anybody...

And we should, of course, believe that to be fething disgraceful, and refuse to vote for any party that considered such an action.

But we only have two political parties of note and they both would consider such action in a heartbeat. Refusing to vote really isn't an option if you care about the direction the country is headed.

Seaward wrote:
New poll.

I think polls as news is little better than what you see on the gossip page. Jeb Bush's twitter stunt backfiring and Ben Carson's campaign melting down are more relevant right now than some hypothetical post-nomination match-up.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Damn Seb... that was a good post/response, have an exalt.

Cheers

Maybe Sanders does get caught out making things up due to his lack of expectations of being here... but I think you did hit something about right: there is a seemingly pervasive sense of optimism around the guy (hell, I am a supporter of his as well, I guess I "feel the Bern" lol), but I think that could say something about where people in America are, especially his supporters: I think a lot of people are getting tired of the doom and gloom style politics we've been hearing about for the past I-don't-know-how-long.

Yeah, it's been welcome and long overdue. Similarly, about the only thing keeping Kasich going is his positivity relative to the rest of the field.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:
It's really easy to be optimistic when you ignore reality.

Funnily enough, most of the Republican field finds it easy to be pessimistic by ignoring reality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
But we only have two political parties of note and they both would consider such action in a heartbeat. Refusing to vote really isn't an option if you care about the direction the country is headed.

Your argument is that it's okay for Republicans to do any kind of horrible thing, because you believe, without evidence, that Democrats would be equally awful in the same situation. It's a blank cheque for Republican bad behaviour. Just hypothetically, is their a point that Republicans could stoop to, something so far beyond accepted norms, that you'd consider switching votes to just see if Democrats are as gakky?

I think polls as news is little better than what you see on the gossip page. Jeb Bush's twitter stunt backfiring and Ben Carson's campaign melting down are more relevant right now than some hypothetical post-nomination match-up.

Polls get to be extremely powerful predictors of the election, eventually. Once we've actually got two candidates, both have been attacked and defended, and (perhaps most importantly) we have hundreds of polls to combine to produce a reasonable aggregated number.

As long as we agree they're all ignoring reality.

Seaward wrote:
New poll. TLDR: Trump beats everybody head to head.

Here is the actual press release from the survey:

(not a dig against Seaward, I just like seeing the actual polls with the questions and such)

Clinton leads Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders 50 percent to 40 percent among Democrats and Democratic leaning-voters, with 10 percent still undecided. This is a significant change from a Suffolk University/USA TODAY poll taken two months ago, when Clinton led Sanders by 27 points (56 percent to 29 percent).

On the Republican side, Trump (35 percent) holds a solid lead over Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (20 percent) and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (17 percent). Trailing behind are Ohio Gov. John Kasich (7 percent), former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (6 percent), and neurosurgeon Ben Carson (4 percent), with 12 percent undecided.
...
The national matchups show prospects for a nail-biter in November. Hypothetical contests showed Rubio (48 percent) over Clinton (42 percent) and Kasich (49 percent) leading Clinton (38 percent). Like her matchup with Rubio, Clinton’s theoretical races against Cruz and Trump are within the margin of error, with Cruz leading 45 percent to Clinton’s 44 percent and Trump ahead 45 percent to 43 percent.

Sanders fares slightly better against the four Republican frontrunners in hypothetical matchups—all well within the margin of error. Sanders (44 percent) leads Cruz (42 percent) but lags behind Rubio, 46 percent to Sanders’ 42 percent; Kasich 44 percent to 41 percent; and Trump 44 percent to 43 percent.
...
The margin of error is +/-3 percentage points at a 95 percent level of confidence

I guess "it's a statistical tie" isn't as exciting of a headline

 sebster wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
But we only have two political parties of note and they both would consider such action in a heartbeat. Refusing to vote really isn't an option if you care about the direction the country is headed.

Your argument is that it's okay for Republicans to do any kind of horrible thing, because you believe, without evidence, that Democrats would be equally awful in the same situation.

You so frequently and deliberately misconstrue people's comments and insert your own pejoratives. Do you really love your straw man arguments that much?

 sebster wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
I think polls as news is little better than what you see on the gossip page. Jeb Bush's twitter stunt backfiring and Ben Carson's campaign melting down are more relevant right now than some hypothetical post-nomination match-up.

Polls get to be extremely powerful predictors of the election, eventually. Once we've actually got two candidates, both have been attacked and defended, and (perhaps most importantly) we have hundreds of polls to combine to produce a reasonable aggregated number.

In September or October, maybe. In February, not so much.

 Breotan wrote:
You so frequently and deliberately misconstrue people's comments and insert your own pejoratives. Do you really love your straw man arguments that much?

Well I'm sorry if that's what I've done. I've read it again and can't figure out what I've assumed or inserted. My reading is that I said the Republican strategy for this SC nomination is disgraceful and people should refuse to vote for them as long as they continue it, to which you replied that there's only two major parties and they'd both do that (you said 'consider it', but I can't see a meaningful difference given your overall position).

In September or October, maybe. In February, not so much.

Yeah, polls will get more meaningful as we move along. Right now, well they can be useful for primaries, if you take any result with a heaping dose of salt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:
As long as we agree they're all ignoring reality.

Well, there's one lady who's policy positions are built on sensible numbers.

This doesn't mean people have to vote for Clinton obviously. There's plenty of perfectly good reasons not to, but when it comes to working within economic realities, she's actually very good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
I guess "it's a statistical tie" isn't as exciting of a headline

Below is a chart of surveymonkey's polls. NBC News reported that as "Clinton Maintains National Lead Over Sanders". Politico used the exact same set of numbers to declare "National poll: Sanders closing the gap with Clinton".