i'm not interested in your personal opinions on these matters because you're a moron. don't quote me any more.
Essential "The Real Truth Is Wall Street Regulates Congress": The Offical Bernie Sanders CircleJerk Thread
i'm not interested in your personal opinions on these matters because you're a moron. don't quote me any more.
i'm not interested in your personal opinions on these matters because you're a moron. don't quote me any more.
Dont quote you because you think she ethered Cavuto that badly??
Like I said, all bluster, no facts which is typical of these #newblacks
Sounds like you should be voting for Sanders
Why so? Is he promising subsidized housing for all too? How lovely. Because we all know how well the government runs housing in this city
Original ass interview. Ain't gonna see a Clinton interview like this. I almost wish it was longer.
Last edited:
Cave Savage
Feminist
His rallies seem to be pretty diverse, just look at footage from the one he had in the BronxLet's just say the Park represented its surrounding inhabitants
I'm trying to move into the Park slope south area tho before that shyt becomes way too outrageous
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
Maybe Bernie will win
MrSinnister
Delete account when possible.
Clinton Delegate Lead Down to 194, Even as Dramatic Miscounting of Delegates by Media Continues
THE BLOG
Clinton Delegate Lead Down to 194, Even as Dramatic Miscounting of Delegates by Media Continues
9 hours ago
SPENCER PLATT VIA GETTY IMAGES
1,299 to 1,105.
That’s the “insurmountable” delegate lead Hillary Clinton has over Bernie Sanders.
And there are still 1,674 pledged delegates yet to be awarded in twenty primaries and caucuses to be held over the next two months; scores of up-for-grabs delegates yet to be decided via state and county Democratic conventions; and hundreds and hundreds of super-delegates to be wooed by both candidates in Philadelphia this summer — with not a single one of them having officially committed themselves to anybody.
Advertisement
That’s the cold, hard truth — the indisputable numeric data of the current election cycle — but it’s not the story Americans are being told.
Why?
Well, put it this way: say what you will about Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight.com — for instance, that its projections for Bernie Sanders in primaries and caucuses have routinely been low, a fact which sits uncomfortably beside its penchant for publishing articles marginalizing Sanders and his supporters as quixotic — but they’ve consistently had the most accurate delegate counts for the Democratic Primary race.
And even they can’t keep up with Sanders.
In just the past week, Sanders has cut Clinton’s delegate lead by 20 — by 12 in Colorado (Sanders +6, Clinton -6) and by four each in Nevada and Missouri (Sanders +2, Clinton -2) — without a single statewide primary or caucus being held, and even Nate Silver and his crew haven’t been able to amend their usually accurate delegate tallies fast enough. That’s understandable; it’s easy to fall behind in reporting on a candidate who’s beaten Hillary Clinton eight Election Days in a row — President Obama having never lost more than two in a row in 2008 — when you also have to publish esoterically misleading stories like “Clinton Is Winning the States That Look Like the Democratic Party” and “Bernie Sanders Is Even Less Competitive Than He Appears”.
Sanders supporters understand: burying a candidate is hard work.
But on the assumption Silver, who’s actually a pollster and not an editorialist, will get back to doing what he’s known for, he’ll notice that not only is Sanders way ahead of Clinton in favorability polling, head-to-head national polling against GOP candidates, head-to-head battleground-state polling against GOP candidates, and also, in many of the recent national polls, head-to-head polling against Clinton herself, but he’s also cutting into her pledged delegate lead near-daily without having to lift a finger.
So it bears repeating: after recent second- and third-stage successes in Missouri, Nevada, and Colorado — that is, after continuing to compete in the second and third stages of delegate selection in these three states, in a way both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have either declined or been unable to do — Sanders has gained 20 net delegates on his Democratic opponent in just the last week, only a fraction of which are reflected in the current delegate count at FiveThirtyEight.com.
This comes after gaining four net delegates in Arizona the week before that.
This means that Clinton’s delegate lead has dropped by 24 in just the last two weeks, and in events barely covered by the media in four of the nation’s fifty states. If similar events were to occur at even a handful of the other 46 state party conventions, Clinton’s lead, even outside any remaining primaries and caucuses, could be greatly imperiled.
Seems newsworthy, doesn’t it? Cutting 24 delegates off Clinton’s 200-plus delegate lead in just four states and 14 days, with two months left in the primary season, twenty primaries and caucuses left, and many states that have already held primaries and caucuses still planning to hold precisely the sort of county conventions that have already netted Sanders so many new delegates in so little time?
Apparently not.
So what’s that new delegate count again?
1,299 to 1,105.
That’s right: with 1,674 delegates left to be awarded, and possibly dozens of delegates left to be “re-awarded” following county- and state-level Democratic conventions across the nation, Clinton’s delegate lead — so insurmountable it’s really only spoken of these days in euphemistic superlatives — is no more than 1,299 to 1,105.
To put it in perspective, given the number of total pledged delegates on the Republican side (2,474) as compared to the Democratic side (4,051), Clinton’s lead on Sanders is the equivalent of Donald Trump having a 118-delegate lead on Ted Cruz.
Trump’s actual current lead over Cruz?
Not 118, but nearly twice that — 215.
So why are most American news-watchers under the distinct impression that Ted Cruz has a much better chance of catching Trump in pledged delegates than Sanders does of catching Clinton?
I don’t know — ask Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight.com.
Or ask any of the other major mainstream-media institutions, who, instead of reporting that Clinton leads Sanders by only 194 delegates, have done the Secretary the enormous favor of making it look like she leads by 25 percent more than that — having already done her the favor of reporting misleading super-delegate tallies for months, thereby falsely inflating Clinton’s lead by hundreds of unpledged delegates.
Here’s how big a favor the media is presently doing Mrs. Clinton — who, again, leads Senator Sanders by just 194 delegates:
False Delegate Counts, By Media Institution
(from most inaccurate delegate count to least inaccurate count)
CBS: 695 *
Politico: 672 *
NBC: 664 *
ABC: 244
Fox News: 244
RealClearPolitics: 244
CNN: 229
New York Times: 220
FiveThirtyEight: 206
* Network falsely includes super-delegates in delegate count, against the express demand of the Democratic National Committee.
So, as New York residents prepare to head to the polls on Tuesday, with many of them — particularly Sanders supporters — wondering how much of a difference their vote can really make, the answer is: a very, very great deal.
For as we’ve already seen over the past two weeks, delegate leads can evaporate far faster than the even the media intelligentsia can track. The actual delegate count is 1,299 to 1,105 today, but who knows what it’ll be by mid-week, if Sanders supporters ignore the mainstream media’s computational disabilities and turn out to vote?
Seth Abramson is the Series Editor for Best American Experimental Writing (Wesleyan University) and the author, most recently, of DATA (BlazeVOX, 2016).
Not so inevitable after all. Bernie has a much better chance of catching Hillary than Cruz does to Trump. This is after the media trying it's damnedest to try to call the race in February. I keep saying that the momentum is real, and the people can't be easily fooled anymore.
THE BLOG
Clinton Delegate Lead Down to 194, Even as Dramatic Miscounting of Delegates by Media Continues
9 hours ago
Seth Abramson Assistant Professor of English at University of New Hampshire; Series Co-Editor, Best American Experimental Writing
SPENCER PLATT VIA GETTY IMAGES
1,299 to 1,105.
That’s the “insurmountable” delegate lead Hillary Clinton has over Bernie Sanders.
And there are still 1,674 pledged delegates yet to be awarded in twenty primaries and caucuses to be held over the next two months; scores of up-for-grabs delegates yet to be decided via state and county Democratic conventions; and hundreds and hundreds of super-delegates to be wooed by both candidates in Philadelphia this summer — with not a single one of them having officially committed themselves to anybody.
Advertisement
That’s the cold, hard truth — the indisputable numeric data of the current election cycle — but it’s not the story Americans are being told.
Why?
Well, put it this way: say what you will about Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight.com — for instance, that its projections for Bernie Sanders in primaries and caucuses have routinely been low, a fact which sits uncomfortably beside its penchant for publishing articles marginalizing Sanders and his supporters as quixotic — but they’ve consistently had the most accurate delegate counts for the Democratic Primary race.
And even they can’t keep up with Sanders.
In just the past week, Sanders has cut Clinton’s delegate lead by 20 — by 12 in Colorado (Sanders +6, Clinton -6) and by four each in Nevada and Missouri (Sanders +2, Clinton -2) — without a single statewide primary or caucus being held, and even Nate Silver and his crew haven’t been able to amend their usually accurate delegate tallies fast enough. That’s understandable; it’s easy to fall behind in reporting on a candidate who’s beaten Hillary Clinton eight Election Days in a row — President Obama having never lost more than two in a row in 2008 — when you also have to publish esoterically misleading stories like “Clinton Is Winning the States That Look Like the Democratic Party” and “Bernie Sanders Is Even Less Competitive Than He Appears”.
Sanders supporters understand: burying a candidate is hard work.
But on the assumption Silver, who’s actually a pollster and not an editorialist, will get back to doing what he’s known for, he’ll notice that not only is Sanders way ahead of Clinton in favorability polling, head-to-head national polling against GOP candidates, head-to-head battleground-state polling against GOP candidates, and also, in many of the recent national polls, head-to-head polling against Clinton herself, but he’s also cutting into her pledged delegate lead near-daily without having to lift a finger.
So it bears repeating: after recent second- and third-stage successes in Missouri, Nevada, and Colorado — that is, after continuing to compete in the second and third stages of delegate selection in these three states, in a way both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have either declined or been unable to do — Sanders has gained 20 net delegates on his Democratic opponent in just the last week, only a fraction of which are reflected in the current delegate count at FiveThirtyEight.com.
This comes after gaining four net delegates in Arizona the week before that.
This means that Clinton’s delegate lead has dropped by 24 in just the last two weeks, and in events barely covered by the media in four of the nation’s fifty states. If similar events were to occur at even a handful of the other 46 state party conventions, Clinton’s lead, even outside any remaining primaries and caucuses, could be greatly imperiled.
Seems newsworthy, doesn’t it? Cutting 24 delegates off Clinton’s 200-plus delegate lead in just four states and 14 days, with two months left in the primary season, twenty primaries and caucuses left, and many states that have already held primaries and caucuses still planning to hold precisely the sort of county conventions that have already netted Sanders so many new delegates in so little time?
Apparently not.
So what’s that new delegate count again?
1,299 to 1,105.
That’s right: with 1,674 delegates left to be awarded, and possibly dozens of delegates left to be “re-awarded” following county- and state-level Democratic conventions across the nation, Clinton’s delegate lead — so insurmountable it’s really only spoken of these days in euphemistic superlatives — is no more than 1,299 to 1,105.
To put it in perspective, given the number of total pledged delegates on the Republican side (2,474) as compared to the Democratic side (4,051), Clinton’s lead on Sanders is the equivalent of Donald Trump having a 118-delegate lead on Ted Cruz.
Trump’s actual current lead over Cruz?
Not 118, but nearly twice that — 215.
So why are most American news-watchers under the distinct impression that Ted Cruz has a much better chance of catching Trump in pledged delegates than Sanders does of catching Clinton?
I don’t know — ask Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight.com.
Or ask any of the other major mainstream-media institutions, who, instead of reporting that Clinton leads Sanders by only 194 delegates, have done the Secretary the enormous favor of making it look like she leads by 25 percent more than that — having already done her the favor of reporting misleading super-delegate tallies for months, thereby falsely inflating Clinton’s lead by hundreds of unpledged delegates.
Here’s how big a favor the media is presently doing Mrs. Clinton — who, again, leads Senator Sanders by just 194 delegates:
False Delegate Counts, By Media Institution
(from most inaccurate delegate count to least inaccurate count)
CBS: 695 *
Politico: 672 *
NBC: 664 *
ABC: 244
Fox News: 244
RealClearPolitics: 244
CNN: 229
New York Times: 220
FiveThirtyEight: 206
* Network falsely includes super-delegates in delegate count, against the express demand of the Democratic National Committee.
So, as New York residents prepare to head to the polls on Tuesday, with many of them — particularly Sanders supporters — wondering how much of a difference their vote can really make, the answer is: a very, very great deal.
For as we’ve already seen over the past two weeks, delegate leads can evaporate far faster than the even the media intelligentsia can track. The actual delegate count is 1,299 to 1,105 today, but who knows what it’ll be by mid-week, if Sanders supporters ignore the mainstream media’s computational disabilities and turn out to vote?
Seth Abramson is the Series Editor for Best American Experimental Writing (Wesleyan University) and the author, most recently, of DATA (BlazeVOX, 2016).
Not so inevitable after all. Bernie has a much better chance of catching Hillary than Cruz does to Trump. This is after the media trying it's damnedest to try to call the race in February. I keep saying that the momentum is real, and the people can't be easily fooled anymore.
mbewane
Knicks: 93 til infinity
Really? I've never heard that. Pretty sure Germany has a net increase in population linked to immigration, and never once have I heard that educated Germans are leaving the country to seek better opportunities elsewhere.
What does the "combined" refer to?
And quality > quantity
MrSinnister
Delete account when possible.
Gravis New York Poll Shows Sanders Within Six: 53% - 47% Among Likely Democratic Voters
Log In
Daily Kos
COMMUNITY
Gravis New York Poll Shows Sanders Within Six: 53% - 47% Among Likely Democratic Voters
Apr 17, 2016 3:47pm CDT by lonesomerobot
23360
This is an interesting one, but I’m adding it to the mix because it hasn’t been reported on yet. The polling happened April 5-6, which obviously predates all of the crazy things that have happened since then: “unqualified,” the Pope trip, the huge Washington Square rally, and the debate. And only one day would include the reaction to the April 5 Wisconsin primary.
As I said, interesting numbers; not sure what to make of them. Huffington Post and Real Clear Politics have included other polls by Gravis, so at the very least this isn’t one to completely ignore; I guess it will show up on those sites by tomorrow.
Here are the details of the poll, from One America News Network:
One America News Network and Gravis Marketing, a nonpartisan research firm, conducted a random survey of 857 likely Republican Primary voters and 1,134 likely Democratic Primary voters. The poll has a margin of error of ± 3.3% for Republicans and ± 2.9% for Democrats, all at the 95% confidence level. The poll was conducted on April 5th and 6th. The total may not round to 100% because of rounding. The polls were conducted using automated telephone calls (IVR technology), with the results weighted by relevant voting demographics.
So it’s an automated telephone (landlines? mobiles?) poll from a C-rated pollster (per 538, not that they’re infallible). That’s a decent sample size of 1134 likely Democratic voters, though. Not sure how to read this one, and it appears the first in the field published poll for New York from this pollster, so we don’t even have anything prior for comparison. Just another poll to throw on the pile, I guess.
Log In
Daily Kos
COMMUNITY
Gravis New York Poll Shows Sanders Within Six: 53% - 47% Among Likely Democratic Voters
Apr 17, 2016 3:47pm CDT by lonesomerobot
This is an interesting one, but I’m adding it to the mix because it hasn’t been reported on yet. The polling happened April 5-6, which obviously predates all of the crazy things that have happened since then: “unqualified,” the Pope trip, the huge Washington Square rally, and the debate. And only one day would include the reaction to the April 5 Wisconsin primary.
As I said, interesting numbers; not sure what to make of them. Huffington Post and Real Clear Politics have included other polls by Gravis, so at the very least this isn’t one to completely ignore; I guess it will show up on those sites by tomorrow.
Here are the details of the poll, from One America News Network:
One America News Network and Gravis Marketing, a nonpartisan research firm, conducted a random survey of 857 likely Republican Primary voters and 1,134 likely Democratic Primary voters. The poll has a margin of error of ± 3.3% for Republicans and ± 2.9% for Democrats, all at the 95% confidence level. The poll was conducted on April 5th and 6th. The total may not round to 100% because of rounding. The polls were conducted using automated telephone calls (IVR technology), with the results weighted by relevant voting demographics.
So it’s an automated telephone (landlines? mobiles?) poll from a C-rated pollster (per 538, not that they’re infallible). That’s a decent sample size of 1134 likely Democratic voters, though. Not sure how to read this one, and it appears the first in the field published poll for New York from this pollster, so we don’t even have anything prior for comparison. Just another poll to throw on the pile, I guess.
mbewane
Knicks: 93 til infinity
dbl
Last edited:
↓R↑LYB
I trained Sheng Long and Shonuff
The only thing that prevents ANYONE from going to college in this day in age in America is not having a high school diploma..And unfortunately alot of black kids, especially males, dont graduate with a high school diploma at the same rate as their white counterparts..How do these socialist propose to fix that problem?@JahFocus CS @Swavy Karl Marx I need answers crehs
That's not true. Having a felony conviction on your record also stops you from going to college because it makes you ineligible for student aid.
1. Yes. Germany is having a massive brain drain and along with the rest of Europe, a population crisis. What's happening to their MD's is serious.
2. You can't talk about quality when most people don't go to quality schools. Colleges have sprung up to meet a variety of choices, good or bad, right or wrong.
man I'd hate to have that girl as a girlfriend... LOL
But this quickly became a debate about war spending before education, which is needed.
but it has to be a war debate first.
Also, she said tax the Rothschild? Man that is NOT going to happen!
But this quickly became a debate about war spending before education, which is needed.
but it has to be a war debate first.
Also, she said tax the Rothschild? Man that is NOT going to happen!
Sounds like you should be voting for Sanders
the rent is too damn high!