New poll shows Sanders ahead of Clinton in New Hampshire

speakhandsforme said:
I'm not familiar with this term.
Click to expand...

It looks good, but then you take a bite, and there's no meat between the buns.

Denter said:
I mean, the Democrats have a pretty strong structural advantage. Why do they need to run the safe candidate this time?
Click to expand...

I don't think people are generally that calculating. Clinton has strong support because a lot of Democrats genuinely think she's the best candidate. Remember that the candidates that are more popular among WR types aren't necessarily well-known to the general electorate. I mean, I like O'Malley (he'd be behind Biden for me but ahead of Clinton and Sanders), but what percentage of primary voters even knows enough to have an opinion on him? Chafee is even worse (and he sucks).
 
Jack V Savage said:
It looks good, but then you take a bite, and there's no meat between the buns.
Click to expand...

Can you explain that? Seems incredibly speculative and pessimistic as fuck. The data is there that we spend exponentially more on federal election campaign finance, even by capita, than others who have different campaign regulations.

Maybe I'm just not looking deep enough..?
 
Awesome! Who'd of thought he'd do that well so far from his home. I think this really means something!
 
Capt Lunatic said:
Awesome! Who'd of thought he'd do that well so far from his home. I think this really means something!
Click to expand...

Are you attempting to communicate using sarcasm the idea that this is insignificant because New Hampshire is geographically adjacent to Vermont? Or that this is insignificant because it's geographically kind of close to New York? Either way, that sounds pretty silly. Care to make an argument of substance for that position, or were you just planning on sniping and running away?
 
speakhandsforme said:
Can you explain that? Seems incredibly speculative and pessimistic as fuck. The data is there that we spend exponentially more on federal election campaign finance, even by capita, than others who have different campaign regulations.

Maybe I'm just not looking deep enough..?
Click to expand...

I think it's realistic, though I guess all pessimists would say that. Historically, campaign finance reforms have an absolutely horrible track record (for example, the reason we have these big-money interest groups and exploding campaign costs today is the limitation of direct contributions to candidates). And it's very hard to craft a solution that will deny that kinds of things we don't like while allowing things that we do. And even if elections have public funding, are we going to say that private citizens or interest groups can't buy ads promoting their views? I just think it's a complete dead end.

If we want to democratize the process, there are a lot better ways. For example, we can pay people to vote (I've yet to see any intelligent argument against that) and make it easier or we can change the way districting is done.
 
Jack V Savage said:
If we want to democratize the process, there are a lot better ways. For example, we can pay people to vote (I've yet to see any intelligent argument against that) and make it easier or we can change the way districting is done.
Click to expand...

There are no practical arguments against paying people to vote but there are certainly principled arguments against it.

They're not going to be persuasive unless you share those principles but that doesn't make them unintelligent.
 
Last edited:
Obama survived the S word because he was black. I dont see how any politician can survive the S word and get anywhere in US politics. Its shame because he seems like a serious guy. But Trump would beat him easily
 
panamaican said:
There are no practical arguments against paying people to vote but there are certainly principled arguments against it.

They're not going to be persuasive unless you share those principles but that doesn't make them unintelligent.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Gervinho said:
Obama survived the S word because he was black. I dont see how any politician can survive the S word and get anywhere in US politics. Its shame because he seems like a serious guy. But Trump would beat him easily
Click to expand...

Man, you got me baffled. What is the "S word"?
 
Socialist.

Except for the part where Obama is not one, and Bernie is....
 
SidJustice said:
Socialist.

Except for the part where Obama is not one, and Bernie is....
Click to expand...

Oh. Yeah, Obama never called himself a socialist, and right-wingers call everyone who isn't totally batshit crazy a socialist.
 
Jack V Savage said:
Oh. Yeah, Obama never called himself a socialist, and right-wingers call everyone who isn't totally batshit crazy a socialist.
Click to expand...

Someone needs to post the Inigo Montoya meme every time they do that.
 
Forkfoot said:
Are you attempting to communicate using sarcasm the idea that this is insignificant because New Hampshire is geographically adjacent to Vermont? Or that this is insignificant because it's geographically kind of close to New York? Either way, that sounds pretty silly. Care to make an argument of substance for that position, or were you just planning on sniping and running away?
Click to expand...

Jeez you're a suspicious guy...always looking for snark and sarcasm(the blight of our generation btw), taking nothing at face value....I feel like this type of "thinking" is what will hurt Mr.Sanders campaign the most and result is his ultimate defeat.
 
Capt Lunatic said:
Jeez you're a suspicious guy...always looking for snark and sarcasm(the blight of our generation btw), taking nothing at face value....I feel like this type of "thinking" is what will hurt Mr.Sanders campaign the most and result is his ultimate defeat.
Click to expand...

Snipe and run then, gotcha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,864
Messages
55,451,026
Members
174,783
Latest member
notnormal

Share this page

Back
Top