Sanders trailed Hillary by 41pts in May. Now within 7.

[Diamond Jim]

According to the Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics poll, Clinton leads with 37% but with Sanders close behind at 30%. The same poll in May had Clinton at 57% with Sanders at 16%.

"It looks like what people call the era of inevitability is over," J. Ann Selzer, president of West Des Moines, Iowa-based Selzer & CO., which conducted the poll, told Bloomberg. "She has lost a third of the support that she had in May, so any time you lose that much that quickly, it's a wakeup call."

Full Results:
Clinton 37%
Sanders 30%
Biden 14%
O'Malley 3%
Webb 2%
Chafee 1%

"Bernie Sanders is building an Obama '08 coalition in Iowa (new, young & liberal voters)." Mark Halperin, Bloomberg Politics.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...ers-surges-to-within-reach-of-clinton-in-iowa

 

[bad seed]

GOP needs to win all 9 swing states to win and thats nearly impossible; and as the debate revealed, none of their candidates have any merit. Hillary is the only obstacle, but we can do it.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

She's a terrible candidate and she doesn't run a good campaign.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

#berndownforwhat

 

[theBLADE1]

I love it! We still have a long way to go but this is definitely a good thing.

 

[Jack V Savage]

How about taking the office of POTUS more seriously than suggesting rotating non-whites and woman out of some ridiculous sense of fairness. I'm more comfortable with the best candidate for America holding that office regardless of race, gender, or creed.

Wow. We've had exactly one president in our entire history that wasn't a white male, and he happens to be one of the best presidents we've ever had, and retards are already whining about how it's not fair to white males.

 

[Forkfoot]

Iowa too now?? Hot damn!

 

[Madmick]

The Graphic in question:

Here you go again spewing these OUTRIGHT LIES!

I fail to see where Anung has quoted bold, "outright lies". He linked a Politifact article which elaborated, point by point, on all of those issues in the JPEG/Graphic.

That stupid gif/list has BEEN disproven as complete bullsh#t propaganda by radical sanderites.

1) Also breaking up the big banks= Stupid idea
2) Not doing the bailouts= Stupid idea and would of destroyed America financially and turned all the wealth over to the rich.

Nobody cares what you think. That doesn't speak to the veracity of these claims. Graphic is accurate.

3) Bernie Sanders supported elements of TARP. AND he voted for Economic stimulus!

Uh, first, the economic stimulus didn't have anything to do with TARP. It was also the most leftist thing Bush W. ever did, and it was a resounding success. Second, supporting "elements of TARP" isn't tantamount to supporting the bill. As mentioned in that Politifact article Bernie quite eloquently put it, recently, "If an institution is too big to fail, then it is too big to exist." Coupled with his voting record and what he has said on the floor itself I'm not sure what is confusing you. Graphic is accurate.

4) Supporting the death penalty does NOT make you somehow "unliberal" nor should the death penalty be an issue that voters decide on who should be president.

Liberals are far less likely to support capital punishment. I actually support capital punishment, but you're wrong that this issue hasn't become politicized. It has. The graphic is meant to inform voters who might otherwise not know that about Hillary. Graphic is true.

5) Clinton is against senseless foreign military interventions

The adjective "senseless" is subjective here, but concerning military intervention, her record indicates quite the opposite. She supports them all the time. This one isn't cut and dry, so the graphic is misleading, but it isn't dishonest to characterize Hillary as more hawkish than Bernie. Graphic oversimplifies, but is spiritually true.

6) Clinton does NOT support Keystone pipeline

Sure. Hillary has no position. Hillary, as usual, is waiting to see what's popular. She's doesn't have the balls to lead on this issue. The fact that she doesn't have a position is worse than the one falsely attributed to her based on her service as Secretary of State. Graphic is false for Hillary.

7) Clinton does NOT support offshore drilling

She sure did in the Gulf. Not Alaska. Graphic is true.

8) 6/10 Clinton donors are NOT banks (get your facts straight)

She is the establishment candidate. Her donors have deep pockets. Bernie is all grassroots. Graphic is true, true, true, true.

9) Net worth is the STUPIDEST reason to judge a politician.

Perhaps, but liberals like Clinton are often all too eager to jump on the business records of conservative candidates like Romney. The Democrats in general ridicule conservatives all the time for "being out of touch" because of their deep pockets. Well, it turns out she's quite a businesswoman herself. She's just a less successful one. Sort of an issue where the hens come home to roost. Maybe irrelevant, but graphic is true.

10) Clinton like Biden and most of all of Congress was lied to and duped by President George W Bush into voting for the Iraq war.

Then it's her fault for being dumb enough to be bamboozled when Bernie was not. Graphic is true.

 

[punky brewster]

He'll never be elected president. Bottom line.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Nobody cares what you think. That doesn't speak to the veracity of these claims. Graphic is accurate.

If you read the text of the piece Anung cited, "sort of defensible" is a better description than "accurate." There are a lot of positions that Clinton hasn't taken a firm stand on, and the graphic creator decided to invent one for her. Politifact doesn't want to say it's wrong because of that, but it's certainly misleading.

Anyway, I would hope that voters would be sophisticated enough not to take their cues from propaganda posters.

"Hey, Hillary, what is your take on Karen Hudes' claims that the U.S. gives all tax revenue to the Vatican and U.K. bankers (who then give it to the Vatican)?"

"OK, I'm going to mark you down as pro giving all our money to the Vatican."

 

[speakhandsforme]

 

[chardog]

The Graphic in question:

If the graphic is true, I just lost a lot of respect for the guy, net worth 330K? holy fuck, how on earth does a politician his age have such a low worth? I really question his finances. All the other stuff is great, and pretty much a reason NOT to support hillary, but doesnt help sanders much with horrific net worth for a 100 year old man.

 

[LiLoMMA]

I'm not ready for a women president not named Palin. Preferrably Briston *wink*

 

[Madmick]

If you read the text of the piece Anung cited, "sort of defensible" is a better description than "accurate." There are a lot of positions that Clinton hasn't taken a firm stand on, and the graphic creator decided to invent one for her. Politifact doesn't want to say it's wrong because of that, but it's certainly misleading.

Anyway, I would hope that voters would be sophisticated enough not to take their cues from propaganda posters.

"Hey, Hillary, what is your take on Karen Hudes' claims that the U.S. gives all tax revenue to the Vatican and U.K. bankers (who then give it to the Vatican)?"

"OK, I'm going to mark you down as pro giving all our money to the Vatican."

It's not misleading; or, better put, I find the graphic far less misleading and dishonest than the Clintonites who seek to assert that it is misleading and dishonest. It contains a remarkable amount of truth, and a remarkably high incidence of truth, to suffer the characterization as a "propaganda poster".

 

[Forkfoot]

He'll never be elected president. Bottom line.

There is no longer any legitimate reason to believe this is true. It clearly is possible for him to win.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's not misleading; or, better put, I find the graphic far less misleading and dishonest than the Clintonites who seek to assert that it is misleading and dishonest.

"Clintonites" is a cheap rhetorical trick designed to promote epistemic closure (the biggest flaw in the discourse here). Read the Politifact link. What's Clinton's position on the TPP? She was advocating for it while helping to negotiate it. It's not finalized now, and understandably she doesn't have a position, other than that she wants some kind of deal and opposes certain controversial elements of it. All that is propagandistically condensed into "supports." Likewise for many of the subjects. So, yes, of course it's misleading and dishonest. That's what propaganda posters are, generally, even if they have a grain of truth. Serious people don't take them seriously, and even the general public is more sophisticated than that.

It contains a remarkable amount of truth, and a remarkably high incidence of truth, to suffer the characterization as a "propaganda poster".

That is, factually, what it is. In any primary, the mission of candidates is to draw a contrast. Yes, yes, we're both Xes, but we're actually really different because X,Y,Z. It's standard stuff, but those of us with no stake in the thing shouldn't play along.

 

[Quipling]

Worth noting that this is Iowa. Just as with NH, Clinton is expected to present the strongest challenge in the less-white states

 

[BVG]

If the graphic is true, I just lost a lot of respect for the guy, net worth 330K? holy fuck, how on earth does a politician his age have such a low worth? I really question his finances. All the other stuff is great, and pretty much a reason NOT to support hillary, but doesnt help sanders much with horrific net worth for a 100 year old man.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest it's because his entire political career he's never "played the game" that makes you a bajillionaire.

It's actually a good thing. Means he's legit.

 

[theBLADE1]

He'll never be elected president. Bottom line.

You mad!!!!!

 

[MoparOrNoCar]

While I mostly agree, we can't ban lobbying because that would be unconstitutional. We do have to make enforceable protocols to limit the bribery that goes on. I'm not sure how we can do that.

I'm not sure on this but wasn't lobbying constitutionalized to allow the common man to tell their congressman what they needed for a better way of life?

I don't think the forefathers placed it into the constitution to allow massive corporations to bribe all of our politicians and judges into voting/ruling for their best interests. I feel like it's been completely bastardized from it's original meaning.

 

[theBLADE1]

I honestly think once the debates kick off you're going to see those numbers SKYROCKET past Hillary.

 

[BVG]

I'm not sure on this but wasn't lobbying constitutionalized to allow the common man to tell their congressman what they needed for a better way of life?

I don't think the forefathers placed it into the constitution to allow massive corporations to bribe all of our politicians and judges into voting/ruling for their best interests. I feel like it's been completely bastardized from it's original meaning.

yeah it's become bastardized.

 

[punky brewster]

You mad!!!!!

Not mad at all. More like amused. Just know a little more about politics than you.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest it's because his entire political career he's never "played the game" that makes you a bajillionaire.

It's actually a good thing. Means he's legit.

Exactly.

It means he's lived off his salary and that's it. Hasn't gotten any kickbacks from companies or other groups. And if he's received donations from unions and others, he's spent it on what needs to be spent- his campaigns. Not his wallet.

Bizarre that anyone would view this as a negative.

 

[Jack V Savage]

She's a terrible candidate and she doesn't run a good campaign.

Weird comment to make about a candidate that is the clear betting favorite in the race and probably the best-qualified candidate (doesn't mean the subjective favorite of anyone). I mean, what would you call someone like Cruz?

It's like saying that MM sucks. Maybe he doesn't meet your standards, but what about the rest of the division? Maybe you just don't like MMA.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest it's because his entire political career he's never "played the game" that makes you a bajillionaire.

It's actually a good thing. Means he's legit.

Well, he's been making $174K a year for seven years, and in that general ballpark since 1991. He also has a small pension from his time as mayor and collects SS. So it wouldn't require "playing the game"--whatever the heck that means--for him to acquire a lot more net worth. Just buying index funds with whatever extra he has and a house would make him a multimillionaire by his age living something like a normal life. But maybe he's just a big spender. He doesn't need to save much because as a long-time representative and then senator, he'll have a pretty decent pension. Probably end up getting about $80K a year when he retires, plus about $40K in SS and then like $6K from being mayor. That's the equivalent of having around $3M.

Exactly.

It means he's lived off his salary and that's it. Hasn't gotten any kickbacks from companies or other groups. And if he's received donations from unions and others, he's spent it on what needs to be spent- his campaigns. Not his wallet.

Bizarre that anyone would view this as a negative.

I think the guy saw it as a negative because it means he's not investing well or at all, really. I don't see that as a negative, as I mentioned, because he's doing fine anyway, and it's his money.

 

[theBLADE1]

Not mad at all. More like amused. Just know a little more about politics than you.

I'm sure you do. If it were normal politicians running a normal political campaign then you would be right.

Like it or not, Sanders has turned the game on its head and every day it's looking more and more like he will be the Democratic nominee.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

I think the guy saw it as a negative because it means he's not investing well or at all, really. I don't see that as a negative, as I mentioned, because he's doing fine anyway, and it's his money.

Yeah, I'm not Bernie's wife to give a damn about his investment skill. Plus, he's not running to be my financial adviser. I mean, if he was in the red and was living in a rented apartment because he threw his money away gambling or something, then yeah, it might be a bit worrying.

But he's a public servant living off his modest salary. That's exactly what all people should go into politics for, isn't it?

 

[theBLADE1]

Weird comment to make about a candidate that is the clear betting favorite in the race and probably the best-qualified candidate (doesn't mean the subjective favorite of anyone). I mean, what would you call someone like Cruz?

Do you think she is the betting favorite because she is running a good campaign? Or is it more likely because she is a Democrat and has been in the public eye for the past 20 something years?

 

[BVG]

Yeah, I'm not Bernie's wife to give a damn about his investment skill. Plus, he's not running to be my financial adviser. I mean, if he was in the red and was living in a rented apartment because he threw his money away gambling or something, then yeah, it might be a bit worrying.

But he's a public servant living off his modest salary. That's exactly what all people should go into politics for, isn't it?

Never mind the fact that Bush Jr didn't exactly have a bad financial portfolio and he left office with the country in one of the worst recessions ever...because of bank deregulation.

So I wouldn't put too much faith in personal net worth.

Bernie sitting that low says to me he's not some corporate shill.

 

[The ScorpioN]

I'd love a Trump Sanders general election.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Wow. We've had exactly one president in our entire history that wasn't a white male, and he happens to be one of the best presidents we've ever had, and retards are already whining about how it's not fair to white males.

Wow. Why do you hate Jews so much? I think it's time we had a Jewish POTUS, but apparent anti Semites like yourself can't deal with the idea.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Do you think she is the betting favorite because she is running a good campaign? Or is it more likely because she is a Democrat and has been in the public eye for the past 20 something years?

Yes. I would say by definition, the best mix of candidate and campaign quality is the person who is most likely to win (and after the fact, the one who did win). Again, one might not like it. I think that Bush was a terrible choice for president and Kerry would have been good, for example, but it would be wrong of me to say that he ran a worse campaign and/or was a worse candidate than Kerry. Inga's just showing that she lets her personal opinions cloud her objective judgments.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Wow. Why do you hate Jews so much? I think it's time we had a Jewish POTUS, but apparent anti Semites like yourself can't deal with the idea.

Yeah, I figured you'd duck that. Stay classy, Anung.

 

[speakhandsforme]

I honestly think once the debates kick off you're going to see those numbers SKYROCKET past Hillary.

Hillary is a much more polished speaker and I imagine she'll have a considerable technical advantage over Bernie.

The DNC is suppressing the debates to keep Bernie from getting exposure in itself, not because they think he'll beat up Hillary in the debates.

Weird comment to make about a candidate that is the clear betting favorite in the race and probably the best-qualified candidate (doesn't mean the subjective favorite of anyone). I mean, what would you call someone like Cruz?

It's like saying that MM sucks. Maybe he doesn't meet your standards, but what about the rest of the division? Maybe you just don't like MMA.

Cruz is one of the most skilled politicians in America today. I hate him more than anyone else (save maybe Louie Gohmert or Bruce Rauner), but it's undeniable.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Hardly anything. They are nearly identical except that Hillary is more of a realist when it comes to the economy. She is a realist when it comes to economic, social, cultural and global problems were as Sanders is a populist.

Sanders and Clinton had very similar voting records, though the disagreements weren't trivial. While the positions they're taking now are quite similar, much of that has likely been because Clinton has had to tack left given the pull Sanders has had. For an example of this effect, Romney had to voice a much more conservative set of views during the primaries for 2012 than he likely believed and than he voiced during the general.

If Clinton wins the nomination she will revert back to her more centrist views. Whether that's good or bad is a separate issue but personally I've seen little to suggest that Clinton takes any positions out of thoughtful consideration.

 

[theBLADE1]

Hillary is a much more polished speaker and I imagine she'll have a considerable technical advantage over Bernie.

The DNC is suppressing the debates to keep Bernie from getting exposure in itself, not because they think he'll beat up Hillary in the debates.

I feel this campaign will be won and lost on issues. Once people start to hear the exact positions that they both hold it will be pretty clear who the more progressive candidate is. Even if she is a better speaker she is not better on the issues. Even women are starting to poll really well with Bernie.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

#berndownforwhat

#Bernindownthehouse

 

[theBLADE1]

Yes. I would say by definition, the best mix of candidate and campaign quality is the person who is most likely to win (and after the fact, the one who did win). Again, one might not like it. I think that Bush was a terrible choice for president and Kerry would have been good, for example, but it would be wrong of me to say that he ran a worse campaign and/or was a worse candidate than Kerry. Inga's just showing that she lets her personal opinions cloud her objective judgments.

I think the power of her name value is undeniable. Her campaign clearly isn't doing something right as every week there is a new post saying she is losing ground in key battleground states. It's almost disrespectful how much she's underestimating Bernie.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Sanders and Clinton had very similar voting records, though the disagreements weren't trivial. While the positions they're taking now are quite similar, much of that has likely been because Clinton has had to tack left given the pull Sanders has had. For an example of this effect, Romney had to voice a much more conservative set of views during the primaries for 2012 than he likely believed and than he voiced during the general.

I'd think it's kind of the opposite. When Clinton first became a politician, she took positions in order to convince people that she wasn't as radical as they thought and now she's reverting back to her more heartfelt positions.