Biden's not wrong; Clinton has only been in political office for eight years. It's not like she's a rookie but she has nothing on Bernie's experience in the Senate and back into state government and local government in Vermont.

@ora ... if it came down to Trump and Hillary, lots would vote Trump. It would be a fuck-you to the establishment crowd that thinks that we can fix things by staying the same. It would make them look at their own bloody hands and acknowledge whose blood they're spilling by continuing things as they are.

This is from a friend of mine, Kip Robisch. Cool guy, he wrote a book about wolves. Go read it.

"If Hillary Clinton, her puppet Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and the US media machine are simply going to roll over to corporate interests and sell out the nation quietly anyway, then why not just let the four-year-old pretending to be a success hop, foot in mouth, across the foreign conference tables of the world and ruin America? Then all the hayseeds and Aryans--and even, sadly, the Clinton supporters who see only Hillary Clinton's experience and not her capitulation and dishonesty--might wake up to the plutocratic oligarchy they will cooperate as strange bedfellows in creating. They won't get to watch a diplomat and stateswoman lead us further into corporate servitude and pretend not to do so. They'll watch a real expert at prostitution, outsourcing, mafia politics, and 1%er priorities take it all for himself, laugh his way to the bank, and leave us with no middle class.

Maybe the fatalistic presuppositions that Sanders can't win should result in people learning a lesson about doing the right thing simply because it's the right thing--voting for the best candidate simply because there is no one as ethical or with as clear a working-class orientation and sensible platform.

This guy (Bernie Sanders) needs to be president. There will be obstructionism. You bet. He will need the people of this nation to help him shut it down. If we aren't too lazy to let our Congressional whores have it when they try to get paid by their pimps, then we might just get back to a real democratic republic again. Clinton is, at best, business as usual. Trump is accelerated decline. Maybe this is how we lose our century, just as Great Britain lost its when its chickens came home to roost. If we fail to elect the most ethical candidate in the running with the best plan for the most people in the nation, then why not just sell the nation to the highest bidder and get our extended twentieth century over with?"

It's an interesting stance to take. There's definitely a shortfall to it (i.e. Donald Trump becoming president) but it has merit too.

This is an "outsiders" POTUS cycle. Hillary Clinton is the consummate insider of all candidates from any party. If she faces a non-establishment Republican, she could easily lose.

The hard numbers of polls will be very inaccurate, but trends and momentum for candidates in polls over time is more legitimate.

Out of curiosity, why?

Because the elections aren't today, they're in November.

Maybe Steephie misunderstood the use of the word "polls" here.

@steephie: y2k didn't mean the final national election result, when the country "goes to the polls". By "polls" he was referring to the survey polls that gauge public opinion on candidates in the running -- these polls usually have a very small sample size and people don't always answer accurately to what they might actually do in the voting both on polling day; so for these primary reasons the survey polls during election races should always be taken with a grain/pinch of salt.*

*grain (AE usage)/pinch (BE usage)

I understood that correctly. I just don't really see why inaccurate polls would show accurate trends and momentum.

I think y2k meant that for him the numbers won't be perfectly accurate but the longer-term trends of the polls will help generate a useful picture to gauge the public.

Ah, I see what he meant now.

Together we will solve all the riddles, Steephie.

I think Sanders has a 40% chance of winning the nomination. If he starts to win the majority of states, which is pretty easy to envision, the superdelegates that have pledged HRC may break ranks, because getting her the nomination with a minority of voters supporting her could very likely cause a split in the Democratic party and destroy it.

I know for myself that I will vote for Sanders - he is just palatable enough to vote for, and perhaps most importantly has a level of integrity I have not ever seen in a politician in my memory. If he is knocked out, I'll sit out the November election. I get a sense that I'm not the only one. I think if HRC was nominated, she would probably lose. I vote on the principle of my vote being earned, and if it is not earned, it is not cast. I've been impugned here before for that, but that's where it is. You don't get my vote because of the letter after your name - that means fuck-all.

I like Bernie Sanders but I doubt his chances being that high.

I don't see him winning Iowa or New Hampshire; and a strong start for Hillary will surely make her much harder to knock down.

Bernie will crush Hillary in NH. Iowa? Who knows.

Doesn't matter. Sanders won't win the nomination. He's just in it to move things to the left, which is fine by me, as long as he doesn't pull a Nader. F-ing Nader. Still pisses me off.

I don't think it'll be a "crush". Nothing yet indicates that, even if a few polls for NH have double-digit leads for Bernie. It'll probably be close and I'd bet on Hillary taking NH again.

F-ing Nader? Nah. More Democrats voted for Republicans than the entirety of votes that Ralph got in Florida.

Sanders is in it to win it. He has a decent shot, though Hillz is the heavy favorite for the time being.

"Together we will solve all the riddles"
I wonder how that would do as an election slogan.

Bernie won't run third party if he loses the Democratic nomination, he would just accept staying in the Senate. He wouldn't throw the election to the Republicans like that, he's not an idiot.

https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders/photos/a.324119347643076.89553.124955570892789/961117337276604/?type=3&theater

I don't pay too much attention to American politics, but I have a thought that interests me and I wonder what you guys think.

Hypothetically, if Sanders promises to go third party if he loses the primaries, the de facto translation would be: "I'm throwing the election to the republicans if I lose the primaries".
Wouldn't this mean Democrats either have to pick between supporting Sanders and supporting someone else, knowing the president will be a Republican in the last case?

As such, wouldn't Sanders make sure that every smart Democrat who wants the Democrats to rule would vote Sanders in the primaries by saying that?

No, they're not going to vote for someone who threatens to throw an election, and Sanders wouldn't make the threat because he doesn't want a Republican in office. He wouldn't try it, and a large enough portion of Democrats know that.

Electoral brinksmanship isn't impossible, but it's very un-Sanders, and if he tried it, it'd sink his campaign.

Trump, on the other hand...

steephie, Bernie needs Democrats more than they need him.

Leth, yeah, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Trump tried a stunt like that.

Sanders has never been the type to try and hold people hostage to his ideas, so it would not only be shocking, but very disappointing.

Threats only ever work if they're credible, and Sanders would be unable to convince people he would take the independent path as it goes against his entire campaign narrative. As such it isn't an option for him. Trump's campaign narrative has no such restrictions. He doesn't even have to make the threat as others will suggest it for him.

When Sanders was an independent, he caucused with Democrats. For decades. He has built up a level of trust that he wouldn't run as independent.

Trump has no track record of working well with anyone except Trump. Nobody in the political world trusts him.