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.

For a guy who is, let's be honest, not that exciting, he does excite people a lot. The question is, does that excitement turn into votes?

 Grey Templar wrote:

Spoiler:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
And the HRC email saga gets worst:

Email from Hillary to staff over then-classified document "Just send it!" pic.twitter.com/O813ioq10t

— THE Chris (@Coondawg68) September 1, 2015

And this is embarrassing:

2010 email: @HillaryClinton sent "confidential" David Brock memo about "impeaching" #SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas pic.twitter.com/zrbOgd0ma6

— Dave Levinthal (@davelevinthal) September 1, 2015

Keep in mind... these are printed emails (w/o metadata) that she actually sent to the States Department. NOT the ones she deleted.

For that first one, it still falls on the person who sent the material to her. I can tell you to go rob a bank, but you're the one who goes to jail if you actually do so. Now, an argument can be made if she used her authority to coerce someone ("send it to me or I fire you"), but that doesn't absolve the person who sent it to her.

IDK, receiving classified information you aren't supposed to and storing it improperly could definitely be a crime.

If I receive an email containing material of a sexual nature that involves a minor its not a crime necessarily, but if I keep it it is a crime. Similarly here, if you receive classified documents you shouldn't have its a crime if you continue to keep these documents and store them in an improper fashion. And I think in this case "I didn't know" isn't a good enough excuse, we are dealing with national security after all.

That's the point I already made many pages ago in this thread. The simple act of receiving classified material does not fall on her (as she can't control what pops into her inbox); it falls on the person who sent it. Failing to remove the classified material from an unapproved storage device and failing to to report it and taking corrective action to prevent future instances of it, that falls on her.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
For a guy who is, let's be honest, not that exciting, he does excite people a lot. The question is, does that excitement turn into votes?

The box office results of "Snakes on a Plane" seem to indicate not.

 sebster wrote:

 shasolenzabi wrote:
Wel,, when you look at the much higher than 2k attending voters per meet you see the usual politics as usual has lost it's appeal to a great many, especially when Sanders goes and gets thousands in "red" states like SC or AZ or even TX, as he seeks to show the other states he has not given up on them the way the DNC seems to have by not having candidates stump in them, or totally disavowing that they may have democratic voters registered who might be sparked to enthusiasm by getting visitors. I think that at the end, Bernie becoming the Presidential Candidate will show an upset in the way the usual political thinking has slipped up for the DNC, and that their reliance on the usual corporate news types and such failed.

No, seriously I'll just say it again - getting a few thousand people to turn up for a speach is nice, and looks great on camera, but it doesn't actually mean anything when a winning electoral count will be in excess of 60 million votes.

The ability to enthuse one wing of your party is nice, but it doesn't actually mean you have any real mainstream support.

If you want to understand Sanders’ real chances of winning the primary, let alone the general, ask yourself who’s bothered to attack him? The guy is vulnerable in all kinds of places, but neither Clinton nor the Republicans have spent any of their time trying to bring him down. Because they know what his real chances are.

What I was speaking of is what the Mainstream Media are not catching on the social networks, the underground below the radar stuff of the Sanders movement. I guess we will find out once the primaries are over, though, Hilary has masses of Money from some of her alleged targets for her "reforms" so I doubt those will suffer too much as she owes them for the cash. Bernie does not, and he has actually gained numbers lately, as well as that he gets them in allegedly hostile to Democrats states he has visited.

The DNC has even done some sniping at him for Hilary, the top person, Wasserman, and another senator went for the "He's a socialist" attack to discredit him among "mainstream" democrats who do not get that voting based on party "frontrunner" that is being crammed by the media and others down our throats before the first of a mere 6 democratic debates has taken place seems like "King fixing" to myself and many others who do see Bernie having a chance as folks are fed up with things as they have been. Hilary would be similar to Obama, while he did get some things done, he also has shown he is party to the corporate types.

So, one merely needs to stop relying on just the news of his speeches gaining thousands, and also look online at the following he has gained so far. Also, Bernie makes it less "fun" to attack as he stays on cue for his platform and will not allow himself to be shifted to join the usual reindeer games of mud slinging, or baiting, name calling and other stupidity that the news feels makes for a political race in this country.

Issues matter more than party lines or circular rhetoric as Hilary gave to the guy from BLM who asked her some very on target, relevant questions.

Hilary is establishment, and politics as usual, her left sounding platform is because Bernie forced her to sound that way. the other Dem hopefuls also are parroting Bernie to try and get votes.

 shasolenzabi wrote:

What I was speaking of is what the Mainstream Media are not catching on the social networks, the underground below the radar stuff of the Sanders movement.

Lets not pretend that the Mainstream Media exists in a vacuum, its journalists and researchers all have social media accounts and access to social network trend pages. Indeed, every Mainstream Media outlet I know of has an active social network presence, and its own trend page. What goes on within social networks is not missed, it is deemed to be unworthy of a great deal of attention. There is a reason for this, and that reason is Ron Paul. The guy made all kinds of noise across multiple social networks, when social networks were filled with significantly less noise, but he wasn't able to convert it into real world success.

This is not dissimilar to what goes on within the DNC. I can tell you from personal experience that it does pay attention to what goes on within social networks, because it employs analysis firms to do exactly that. The reality is that it simply doesn't matter enough to make it a viable thing for the Party itself to be concerned about, as it isn't likely to do anything beyond tipping a close Primary; something which is primarily up to a given candidate's campaign.

 shasolenzabi wrote:

The DNC has even done some sniping at him for Hilary, the top person, Wasserman, and another senator went for the "He's a socialist" attack...

He is a socialist, by his own admission.

 dogma wrote:

 shasolenzabi wrote:

What I was speaking of is what the Mainstream Media are not catching on the social networks, the underground below the radar stuff of the Sanders movement.

Lets not pretend that the Mainstream Media exists in a vacuum, its journalists and researchers all have social media accounts and access to social network trend pages. Indeed, every Mainstream Media outlet I know of has an active social network presence, and its own trend page. What goes on within social networks is not missed, it is deemed to be unworthy of a great deal of attention. There is a reason for this, and that reason is Ron Paul. The guy made all kinds of noise across multiple social networks, when social networks were filled with significantly less noise, but he wasn't able to convert it into real world success.

This is not dissimilar to what goes on within the DNC. I can tell you from personal experience that it does pay attention to what goes on within social networks, because it employs analysis firms to do exactly that. The reality is that it simply doesn't matter enough to make it a viable thing for the Party itself to be concerned about, as it isn't likely to do anything beyond tipping a close Primary; something which is primarily up to a given candidate's campaign.

 shasolenzabi wrote:

The DNC has even done some sniping at him for Hilary, the top person, Wasserman, and another senator went for the "He's a socialist" attack...

He is a socialist, by his own admission.

The Mainstream media still seem invested in dismissing or even downplaying Sanders' chances, unlike Paul there is a disgust with Politics as usual. But they have to if they are paying attention, realize that trying to cram circular-lawyerese speaking Hilary down the throats may also not work. I suspect the Milennials may for once act and make a mockery of the tried and relied on "wisdom"

Well, he is if you listen less a true socialist, more Social Democrat, pr was it Democratic Socialist? either one is a big difference from the mis-perceived notion most Americans have of the equating Socialist with Communists, but there have been attempts to make him seem part of the later, so as to scare the majority, even though we need an actual slight dose of more socialism here to counter the rampant for decade oligarchialismn we have suffered under.

America has worked more smoothly with the right balance of socialism/capitalism/federalism. Now we have corporatism and oligarchialism making things so bad and misinforming people so they vote against their own best interests.

 shasolenzabi wrote:

The Mainstream media still seem invested in dismissing or even downplaying Sanders' chances, unlike Paul there is a disgust with Politics as usual. But they have to if they are paying attention, realize that trying to cram circular-lawyerese speaking Hilary down the throats may also not work. I suspect the Milennials may for once act and make a mockery of the tried and relied on "wisdom"

Actually, a lot of the support for Paul was the result of a disgust for "politics as usual", because the disgust for "politics as usual" is ultimately just a sense of disgust for the positions espoused by the dominant Parties.

At any rate, large media corporations don't pick and choose the stories they feature on a whim. You'll probably argue that they do so as a result of some political agenda, and that's partially true, but this is the age of the internet. All major media organizations have access to mountains of data telling them exactly what sort of stories people are interested in, and a very clear financial incentive to feature those stories. If stories claiming that candidates like Sanders have a strong chance at being nominated aren't being featured, there's a good chance that there just aren't that many people interested in them.

And let's be honest, any consideration of recent history indicates that Sanders doesn't have a strong chance at being nominated. To say as much isn't to down play anything, it is simply to state a fact.

 shasolenzabi wrote:

Well, he is if you listen less a true socialist, more Social Democrat, pr was it Democratic Socialist? either one is a big difference from the mis-perceived notion most Americans have of the equating Socialist with Communists, but there have been attempts to make him seem part of the later, so as to scare the majority, even though we need an actual slight dose of more socialism here to counter the rampant for decade oligarchialismn we have suffered under.

Democratic Socialist, which is a type of Socialism. If the guy can't get past being called a socialist in the Democratic Primary he will never make it through the General.

 shasolenzabi wrote:
Hilary is establishment, and politics as usual, her left sounding platform is because Bernie forced her to sound that way. the other Dem hopefuls also are parroting Bernie to try and get votes.

No, seriously, understand that being in the middle of an active on-line movement, or in the middle of a crowd of thousands can feel like it's this amazing groundswell of people, but it doesn't actually work that way. Every election has a candidate or three with really excited fans who think they're in the middle of an amazing groundswell, only to get a nasty shock when they crash in to the reality of how many people you actually need to win an election in a country of 300 million people.

And it's the same every time, the candidate says exactly what one specific group of voters wants to hear, gets them extremely enthusiastic, but then never expands his appeal outside that group. You can't win an election appealing to just one group, even if that group really loves you. Ron Paul had three groups - libertarians, goldbugs and crypto-racists, and he never even came close.

Don't get me wrong. I like Sanders, I've liked Sanders for a long time. I think he's saying things that need to be said, and I hope he gets more exposure, to drag the conversation towards more worthwhile issues, especially equality. And the longer he stays in the race, the more he'll be able to get her to address that issue.

But he isn't going to win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
Actually, a lot of the support for Paul was the result of a disgust for "politics as usual", because the disgust for "politics as usual" is ultimately just a sense of disgust for the positions espoused by the dominant Parties.

It seems every election cycle is the election where people aren't going to take it anymore.

Guardian newspaper in the UK reporting that Obama has secured enough support in the Senate to stop the Republicans in Congress from causing mischief over the Iran nuclear deal.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/02/iran-nuclear-deal-congress-34th-senator

Of course, the key question is what will happen if the Republicans win in 2016?

Interesting times ahead.

Even if the GOP retook the white house - which seems unlikely with the clown car they have lined up, but who knows - I sort of doubt they would revisit the issue once it's no longer useful for political point scoring. I suspect once they saw the reality; that this actually is the best deal we're going to get and not such a bad one at that - that they'll quietly let the issue drop.

 Ouze wrote:
Even if the GOP retook the white house - which seems unlikely with the clown car they have lined up, but who knows - I sort of doubt they would revisit the issue once it's no longer useful for political point scoring. I suspect once they saw the reality; that this actually is the best deal we're going to get and not such a bad one at that - that they'll quietly let the issue drop.

It seems more folks than just the Rs do not like the deal:

Survey: 2/3 of Natsec Pros Give Iran Deal Thumbs Down

And kind of a counterpoint, some responses to criticism of the deal.

It will be like Obamacare. Everyone hates it, it will be horrible, people will die in the streets because we can't process them through the death panels fast enough. Oh wait, it wasn't so bad? That isn't happening? There is room for improvement without scrapping the whole thing? I guess we can work on that.

People won't be idiotic enough to just gak on an international agreement once it is approved and implemented.

 d-usa wrote:
It will be like Obamacare. Everyone hates it, it will be horrible, people will die in the streets because we can't process them through the death panels fast enough. Oh wait, it wasn't so bad? That isn't happening? There is room for improvement without scrapping the whole thing? I guess we can work on that.

People won't be idiotic enough to just gak on an international agreement once it is approved and implemented.

There are people in the USA who think the UN is going to come and take away their guns

As things stand, the UN would struggle to shut down a hot dog stand in America, never mind disarm a nation with an abundance of handguns and rifles for every citizen.

I wouldn't be too confident about people not acting like idiots.

Well, to those who are skeptical of Bernie getting in, I leave this, A) it appears as though the Republicans are throwing this race
B) Clinton is looking less favorable, and there is a report in a mainstream article

http://observer.com/2015/09/bernie-sanders-secret-weapon/

As I have repeatedly written the Sanders campaign is empowered and driven by communications through social media that are under the radar and beyond the vision of old style pundits, old style media, and old style politicians and old style journalists who report about them.

But the means of communications—Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, emails, text messages and web sites whose organizing political power most insider politicians and reporters still fail to understand—provide only half the story. The other half, which gives the technology of media whatever power it may possess, is people and it is the people who support him who are the secret weapon of Bernie Sanders.

He says he has written about this multiple times. Now if it turns out that we inaugurate Sanders 1/2017, how will you guys react?

The people who support these causes create the people power that can transform our politics. They are fed up with being told what to think, fed up with forces on the right who want to dictate to them how they should live and love, and fed up with the powers who dominate finance who want to keep them down and rip them off to make a buck for themselves.

That may be far stronger than the same-old-same-old we have been dealing with, that some of the posters here are so steadfast to stay on that tired old road which has sank us deeper into the crapper, I ask why would you NOT want to get out of this mess?



Anyway looks like we have to wait and see how this truly goes.

If Sanders did win the election, he would probably be a 1 term president who wouldn't accomplish much while in office. Unless he also miraculously got a congress stacked with like-minded people. A very unlikely result.

That said, a race between him and Trump could be very interesting.

As much as I wish it was not the case, Sanders will never get elected. If the emails sink Clinton, expect Biden to be your next President.

 jasper76 wrote:
As much as I wish it was not the case, Sanders will never get elected. If the emails sink Clinton, expect Biden to be your next President.

Biden would be running on a 3rd Obama-term.

Not happening.

Elizabeth Warren or Martin O'Malley? Now, there's something there.

Indeed. I feel that if Clinton sinks, which actually seems like a more and more likely event, we'd see Biden be the nominee. And he'd almost certainly lose the general election.

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
As much as I wish it was not the case, Sanders will never get elected. If the emails sink Clinton, expect Biden to be your next President.

Biden would be running on a 3rd Obama-term.

Not happening.

Elizabeth Warren or Martin O'Malley? Now, there's something there.

As someone from Maryland, let me assure you that Martin O'Malley is a dufus.

One thing Obama haters fail to come to terms with is that if Obama could run again, he'd win a third election.

Biden has higher favorability ratingns than any candidate from either party, and outs up better numbers against the GOP contenders than Clinton does. Biden would just inherit Obama's electoral map, and likely add to it, while Clinton would have to work hard to win the purple states like VA, OH, and FL.

It will go like this: Sanders will win or come close in Iowa and NH and the media will glom onto the story. "Can Sanders really win?" The answer is no. Then he will hit a brick wall called SC and not win another primary from there. The fact that he is polling at around 7% among minorities (Clinton is over 80%), a group that makes up roughly 27% of the Dems' base tells you all you need to know about his chances. He can do well in Iowa and NH because the primary voters there are disproportionately white. And I really like the guy and think he is really contributing something important to the debate.

I'm actually starting to believable Biden presidency is the most likely outcome, unless Clinton can spin her gak into gold, which she has shown a penchant for achieving. The GOP field is hopeless. Trump has all but destroyed the already tarnished national brand.

 jasper76 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
As much as I wish it was not the case, Sanders will never get elected. If the emails sink Clinton, expect Biden to be your next President.

Biden would be running on a 3rd Obama-term.

Not happening.

Elizabeth Warren or Martin O'Malley? Now, there's something there.

As someone from Maryland, let me assure you that Martin O'Malley is a dufus.

One thing Obama haters fail to come to terms with is that if Obama could run again, he'd win a third election.

Biden has higher favorability ratingns than any candidate from either party, and outs up better numbers against the GOP contenders than Clinton does. Biden would just inherit Obama's electoral map, and likely add to it, while Clinton would have to work hard to win the purple states like VA, OH, and FL.

I seriously doubt Obama could win a 3rd term. What is your basis for that?

 Grey Templar wrote:


I seriously doubt Obama could win a 3rd term. What is your basis for that?

Because most of the country doesn't descend into irrational Obama bashing on a monthly basis

Just last week, Gallup put his approval rating at 47%. And that's just the people who bother answering Gallup. In a general election, compared to anyone else available right now, Obama would probably be a safe bet to win a 3rd term if he were allowed to run again (granted, imo I think that has less to do with Obama himself and more the current Republican field, which is markedly uninspiring).

@Grey Templars: The electoral map basically did not change from Obamas first election to his second one, and demographic shifts are now even more favorable to Democrats than they were in the last 2 cycles.

Couple that with the GOPs alienation of Hispanic voters, which is probably the only area where a party beholden to religious consrvarives could have gained any real ground, and the GOP is likely to do worse than they did in 2008.

Elections favor incumbants.

The GOP has doubled down on its bizarre obsession with women's reproductive decisions.

I could go on...

No need, I will. His favor ability numbers now are actually a point or two above where he was at this time last general election cycle. Look how well that worked. Also, he is a known quantity. In a time of distress.(which many view us in right now), people go with the known outcome, even if they don't particularly like it. Finally, name any other politician right now who is better than Obama (arguably Billy Clinton was-- one could absolutely hate the man's politics, yet still like him somehow). Like Obama or not, he knows how to hire people to run his elections and he gives a damn fine speech when he needs to. Finally, finally, his election apparatus (voter emails, locations, button issues, etc.) was the finest we have seen in many years and he understood (or at least his advisors did) the value of social media that candidates are still wrestling with.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


I seriously doubt Obama could win a 3rd term. What is your basis for that?

Because most of the country doesn't descend into irrational Obama bashing on a monthly basis

Just last week, Gallup put his approval rating at 47%. And that's just the people who bother answering Gallup. In a general election, compared to anyone else available right now, Obama would probably be a safe bet to win a 3rd term if he were allowed to run again (granted, imo I think that has less to do with Obama himself and more the current Republican field, which is markedly uninspiring).

I'm pro-Obama and I think that the GOP lost 2012 more than Obama won it, and I can see them doing the same in 2016.

 d-usa wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


I seriously doubt Obama could win a 3rd term. What is your basis for that?

Because most of the country doesn't descend into irrational Obama bashing on a monthly basis

Just last week, Gallup put his approval rating at 47%. And that's just the people who bother answering Gallup. In a general election, compared to anyone else available right now, Obama would probably be a safe bet to win a 3rd term if he were allowed to run again (granted, imo I think that has less to do with Obama himself and more the current Republican field, which is markedly uninspiring).

I'm pro-Obama and I think that the GOP lost 2012 more than Obama won it, and I can see them doing the same in 2016.

Yup... especially if HRC skates the her current email/TS saga...

Unless, Carly Fiorina is the R's nominee. All bets are off then!

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


I seriously doubt Obama could win a 3rd term. What is your basis for that?

Because most of the country doesn't descend into irrational Obama bashing on a monthly basis

Just last week, Gallup put his approval rating at 47%. And that's just the people who bother answering Gallup. In a general election, compared to anyone else available right now, Obama would probably be a safe bet to win a 3rd term if he were allowed to run again (granted, imo I think that has less to do with Obama himself and more the current Republican field, which is markedly uninspiring).

I'm pro-Obama and I think that the GOP lost 2012 more than Obama won it, and I can see them doing the same in 2016.

Yup... especially if HRC skates the her current email/TS saga...

Unless, Carly Fiorina is the R's nominee. All bets are off then!

I wouldn't be surprised if Fiorina made it on as a VP candidate, but I couldn't possibly see Fiorina making it on the ticket otherwise.

Meh, she speaks a good game (that is to say, a baseline republican game), but she has no experience.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


I seriously doubt Obama could win a 3rd term. What is your basis for that?

Because most of the country doesn't descend into irrational Obama bashing on a monthly basis

Just last week, Gallup put his approval rating at 47%. And that's just the people who bother answering Gallup. In a general election, compared to anyone else available right now, Obama would probably be a safe bet to win a 3rd term if he were allowed to run again (granted, imo I think that has less to do with Obama himself and more the current Republican field, which is markedly uninspiring).

I'm pro-Obama and I think that the GOP lost 2012 more than Obama won it, and I can see them doing the same in 2016.

Yup... especially if HRC skates the her current email/TS saga...

Unless, Carly Fiorina is the R's nominee. All bets are off then!

No way. The one shot the GOP has is Kasich. Possibly, possibly Rubio (though he would be a better VP pick at this point). Other than that, good luck getting any swing voters or any sort of enthusiasm voters.

Take off your personal like/dislike blinders for a minute and look at the landscape as it really is.