Why is there almost no talk of Sanders trajectory, and trends?

[VivaRevolution]

Trajectory, trend, surge.

So just to be clear, I somehow imply 100% means trajectory, trends, and surge despite the fact that I clearly stated this was not the case, and that you repeated this position after I clarified right?

 

[VivaRevolution]

Also @HendoRuaGOAT , the thread name is the entire thing you just now say weren't trying to talk about.

Like I said, I will address your other points, when we can show some ability to find common debate grounds.

 

[Lead]

So just to be clear, I somehow imply 100% means trajectory, trends, and surge despite the fact that I clearly stated this was not the case, and that you repeated this position after I clarified right?

You stated you wanted to move on from a portion of the discussion when you really want to state you were right about it. I agreed with you to move on once you clarified. We have spent the last 10 posts trying to agree to move on so drop it and move on since I said agreed about five times now.

 

[Lead]

Like I said, I will address your other points, when we can show some ability to find common debate grounds.

New Hampshire is the ceiling. The thing I've always been talking from and the point you have now clarified you were talking about to.

 

[GSP in 2006]

Expectations were that he could perform well in NH and Iowa but the South would be a huge problem for him. His numbers with blacks are still terrible and he hasn't be able to turn that around yet despite some endorsements and pushing hard for narrowing it.

That pretty much sums it up. Most expect the Dem race to be over within the next month as the Southern states come up.

 

[VivaRevolution]

You stated you wanted to move on from a portion of the discussion when you really want to state you were right about it. I agreed with you to move on once you clarified. We have spent the last 10 posts trying to agree to move on so drop it and move on since I said agreed about five times now.

I want you to admit that I clarified this position, and that you repeated the 100% line after this.

It is OK, if you didn't catch this clarification, or made a slip in reference to it.

I don't see a point in debating with someone who can't omit an error, or give up claimed ground., when the ground is not solid.

 

[Lead]

I want you to admit that I clarified this position, and that you repeated the 100% line after this.

It is OK, if you didn't catch this clarification, or made a slip in reference to it.

I don't see a point in debating with someone who can't omit an error, or give up claimed ground., when the ground is not solid.

You made this post

Those coastal states are also full of progressives, and working class people who Bernie dominates with.

California Democratic Presidential Primary

Polling Data
Field 12/16 - 1/3 329 LV 5.6 46 35 1 Clinton +11
Field 9/17 - 10/4 391 LV 5.0 40 31 -- Clinton +9
LA Times/USC 8/29 - 9/8 819 RV 3.6 39 23 1 Clinton +16
Field 4/23 - 5/16 356 LV 5.5 53 5 0 Clinton +40
Field 1/26 - 2/16 425 LV -- 59 6 -- Clinton +42

All these numbers are prior to New Hampshire and Iowa.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...nia_democratic_presidential_primary-5321.html

See these are the trends I am referring to. What makes you think these trends aren't going to continue?

Clinton was +42, is now + 9 , or + 11. These trends are the same from New York to California.

Do you expect the E-mail info to stop trickling out?

Do you expect a Sanders scandal?

Why do you think these trends won't continue?

You then posted this

How about this Lead Salad, instead of discussing the narrative I hear over and over in the media, how about we discuss reasons you think Bernie's trajectory is going to stop?

So far, your position seems to be the black vote, and the south, as the firewall.

I don't think this is a real counter argument, but to each their own.

Would you like to add to these 2 reasons?

That may be the misunderstanding if you were no longer talking about the previous post of 30 and someone were talking about an entirely new reference point. Also keep in mind, we were quoting two separate strings of conversation at one point.


Clearly dwells back in on the 30 points and that's why I went back to it. You could've clarified before that but it doesn't mean you didn't then fall back into it and had me reply.

Also, keep in mind you entire thread title is what you're trying to pin on me while saying you never were talking about that.

 

[andnowweknow]

The "better" story is the Hillary aspect, not of the rise of Bernie. if that makes sense. The story is more about Hillary losing the lead instead of Bernie making up the lead. Like Trump, Hillary gets you ratings. Bernie doesn't. Bernies fans are not watching news programs, they are too busy being oppressed.

Bernie's friends aren't black according to the polls so welcome to wrong hoie.

 

[VivaRevolution]

You made this post



You then posted this



That may be the misunderstanding if you were no longer talking about the previous post of 30 and someone were talking about an entirely new reference point. Also keep in mind, we were quoting two separate strings of conversation at one point.


Clearly dwells back in on the 30 points and that's why I went back to it. You could've clarified before that but it doesn't mean you didn't then fall back into it and had me reply.

Also, keep in mind you entire thread title is what you're trying to pin on me while saying you never were talking about that.

I'm sorry, but I don't think we can find common ground here.

Just to be clear, here is my position. I used words like trajectory, and trends. You assumed this to mean unlimited trajectory and trends....no where did I explicitly state this.

I corrected this interpretation, by stating that New Hampshire was the ceiling, and I did not mean to imply unlimited trajectory to 100%.

You then stated again that I meant unlimited trajectory.

I took issue with this, and put the debate on hold to address this.

We have now been debating whether you repeated this after I clarified my position, and as far as I can tell your position seems to be that I inferred unlimited trajectory, by using the phrase surge, trajectory, or trend again.

Would you like to take exception to my description here?

 

[Lead]

I'm sorry, but I don't think we can find common ground here.

Just to be clear, here is my position. I used words like trajectory, and trends. You assumed this to mean unlimited trajectory and trends....no where did I explicitly state this.

I corrected this interpretation, by stating that New Hampshire was the ceiling, and I did not mean to imply unlimited trajectory to 100%.

You then stated again that I meant unlimited trajectory.

I took issue with this, and put the debate on hold to address this.

We have now been debating whether you repeated this after I clarified my position, and as far as I can tell your position seems to be that I inferred unlimited trajectory, by using the phrase surge, trajectory, or trend again.

Would you like to take exception to my description here?

You clarified you didn't mean it and then did a post right after showing the 30% surge and asking me to give reasons why this surge (you said trajectory but it was in reference to the previous post sowing the 30% jump) will stop.

Also, I have said multiple times now that we should agree to argue from New Hampshire and you've chosen to loop on whether we are agreeing while asking me to say I'm wrong for dismissing each time you brought up the 30% claim.

You already said you now are talking from New Hampshire and that's what I want to talk about. If you make the next post about whether you somehow weren't acknowledged for changing to NH fast enough, I'm done with playing this game. I largely think you're looping because you know I've already argued the point from NH's perspective and you really have nothing to answer for it other than trustworthiness polling thus far.

....

Okay, lets start with this. If by trajectory/trend, you didn't mean the surge of 30% which you did reference twice and clarified by now that wasn't what you meant, what are you referring to when you say these terms in reference to NH? Cause I don't see any upward trends since NH and you haven't presented any in your arguments. Are you saying Bernie already now has the support he needs to win from what we've seen in New Hampshire?

 

[SODACKER]

Bernie's lackies not looking great in this thread.

 

[VivaRevolution]

You clarified you didn't mean it and then did a post right after showing the 30% surge and asking me to give reasons why this surge (you said trajectory but it was in reference to the previous post sowing the 30% jump) will stop.

Also, I have said multiple times now that we should agree to argue from New Hampshire and you've chosen to loop on whether we are agreeing while asking me to say I'm wrong for dismissing each time you brought up the 30% claim.

You already said you now are talking from New Hampshire and that's what I want to talk about. If you make the next post about whether you somehow weren't acknowledged for changing to NH fast enough, I'm done with playing this game. I largely think you're looping because you know I've already argued the point from NH's perspective and you really have nothing to answer for it other than trustworthiness polling thus far.

....

Okay, lets start with this. If by trajectory/trend, you didn't mean the surge of 30% which you did reference twice and clarified by now that wasn't what you meant, what are you referring to when you say these terms in reference to NH? Cause I don't see any upward trends since NH and you haven't presented any in your arguments. Are you saying Bernie already now has the support he needs to win from what we've seen in New Hampshire?

See this is my problem. I brought up the point that the coasts pick the D nominee. You challenged the idea that bernie is showing the same trajectory on the coasts as he has nationally, and in the contests already. I then provided a poll from California showing the same surge as he has shown just about everywhere else.

You then claimed unlimited trajectory here.

The point for me is not to win this argument, it is to make sure that once I have established solid ground, that you don't later go back and force me to defend it again.

I am sure we will have further interactions on here lead salad, and I know you bring actual substance to this board, and I would like to benefit from that.

With that said, to me you displayed multiple debate techniques in here I find questionable. You questioned trustworthiness as if this is a new polling question, and somehow someone's race is legit to poll for, but not people that vote based on whether they trust a candidate.

I believe you created a strawman, when you inferred that looking at any polling trends, means that those trends must be unlimited.

I honestly hope I am wrong, and concede that this is quite possible.

Please prove me wrong in the future lead salad.

This thread is officially derailed, and I am leaving it to its own death.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Bernie's lackies not looking great in this thread.

Wanna debate me kid?

Cuz the only bernie lacky in here is me, and you are no lead salad.

 

[Renard]

Bernie's lackies not looking great in this thread.

Lackeys*

Maybe you need some of Bernie's free education.

 

[BVG]

Question, why is there almost no talk of Bernie Sanders trajectory in polling, and trends?

Sanders has went from 2% nationally to 43%, he closed a 50% gap in Iowa, and 55% gap in New Hampshire, he is now tied in Nevada, and has closed the gap to 19% in South Carolina.

He has massive leads with young voters, Independents, likeability, and trustworthiness.

The trajectory, and trends of polling are strongly in favor of Sanders.

What is the argument against these trends continuing, and Sanders running away with the nomination?

He's threatened to break up the 6 major news organizations...

 

[Dolomite]

Shit.

I'll vote for the guy - just for kicks - but the Establishment has already made their POTUS selection (years ago).

It's in the bag for her.