FINALLY!! America's flagship newspaper acknowledges that Bernie is more electable than Hillary!!

[Green Forest]

"...Sanders, buoyed by the support of independent voters, outperforms Mrs. Clinton in hypothetical general-election matchups in both states among registered voters."

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/10/bernie-sanders-makes-strong-showing-in-new-polls/

I love it. The New York Times is sticking a fork in Hillary's and Bill's recent electability argument.

Some folks who make a habit of posting national election polls as if the primaries are all over would just love it if Bernie's supporters get disheartened enough to forget that it is independent voters who decide the general election.

Well, that ain't gonna happen! It has become clear even to the MSM's flagship establishment newspaper that Bernie Sanders is the most electable candidate in a general election matchup, not Hillary.

Most, if not all, IA and NH polls do not even take into account first-time voters so IMAGINE what is going to happen in Iowa and NH when millennial voters turn out as they did eight years ago for another Senator who was second place in the polls!

Looks like The People will vote for Change just as they did in 2008. Tomorrow, I am going to a Bernie campaign organizational meeting led by Zack Exley. I can't wait!

Definitely Feeling The Bern here in upstate NY... yep, I think another donation to Bernie is coming on... GO BERNIE!

[Paper Roses]

1. For Bernie, a win depends on his choice for VP. I hope he makes the right one. My opinion of course.

Elizabeth Warren, where are you? Mr. Sanders, are you looking in her direction? Please!

[CorporatistNation]

40. Could Not Agree More... K aAND R!

Total Winning Combo... Screw the Establishment including any fake progressive electeds as well...

[sabrina 1]

42. When asked about his choice of VP recently, Bernie spoke about Elizabeth Warren. He did not

specifically say she would be his VP, but he spoke about their friendship and how they would work together in the future.

So clearly he is looking in her direction.

Another great choice for VP would be Nina Turner should Warren not want the position. I could also see Warren as Sec. of the Treasury. Now that would scare Wall St to the core of their obscene offshore bank accounts.

[floriduck]

2. Nice change of pace

From the Hillbots following today's talking points about Bernie/McDonalds/guns. That garbage has come from so many directions, it's not a coincidence. Hill has sent out her subversives to cloud up the net waves. Just another reason to keep her far away from the White House.

As much as those clowns should be ashamed, they actually prefer to demonstrate how low they can stoop. Disgusting pigs.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Of whom do you speak?

" From the Hillbots following today's talking points about Bernie/McDonalds/guns ... much as those clowns should be ashamed, they actually prefer to demonstrate how low they can stoop. Disgusting pigs"

-floriduck

Of whom exactly do you speak?

Thank you in advance.

[Beacool]

7. Hillbots, clowns, pigs????

Where the hell do you think you are, on Free Republic?

If this is an example of a Sanders supporter, I'm glad I'm not one of them.

Disgusting.......

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. Please be careful how you respond to the various calumnies, lest you get a hide.

[Beacool]

9. So as long as the attack is against Hillary and her supporters anyone can say anything they please?

When has this place stopped being "Democratic Underground" to become "Sanders Underground".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. It is a indignity we must temporarily endure.

These invectives reveal more about those that hurl them than they can ever reveal about the target.

[Beacool]

15. Not me, the sun doesn't rise or set on this site alone.

There are plenty of other sites where our side is treated with respect to have to put up with uncivil discourse and utterly unacceptable bad manners.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. I have to be careful.

Because for better or worse I am a guy who ordinarily responds to attacks like a guy would and I have to use all my powers not to respond to these attacks like a guy would.

In a way it is a teachable experience for me.

[Beacool]

23. The sturm und drang will be over in a few months, but the bitter taste will remain.

Far too many rude and uncivil people have come out of the woodwork.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. I am no angel but it would take a lot for me to call a fellow DU member...

I am no angel but it would take a lot for me to call a fellow DU member a "clown" a "pig" or say he or she is "disgusting."

[sabrina 1]

43. I was reading comments to day from a Hillary supporter which made me literally shudder to think this

person is actually a Democrat. I won't repeat verbatim what she stated about Bernie Sanders, but NOTHING I see here or have seen comes close to what some Hillary supporters, Dems, have dredged from the gutter to hurl at Sen. Sanders.

However I tend to look at people individually and would never assume nor have I seen, most Hillary supporters call Sanders a sexual predator, eg, and that's mild, so I assume this individual speaks only for herself and most likely has some serious issues of her own.

People tend to become blind to what those on their own 'team' do while admonishing some individuals, rightly sometimes, on the other 'team' and then broadbrushing everyone with the 'crimes' of a few.

I too have had to hold back what my normal reaction would be to some of what I have seen aimed at Sanders right here on DU.

Some things though will leave a bad taste in the mouths of many Democrats for a long time to come.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. The remarks your interlocutor derided weren't directed at a public figure.

The remarks your interlocutor derided weren't directed at a public figure. They were directed at other denizens of this board, ergo:

" From the Hillbots following today's talking points about Bernie/McDonalds/guns ... much as those clowns should be ashamed, they actually prefer to demonstrate how low they can stoop. Disgusting pigs"

I am sure you will join me in emphatically stating such intemperate remarks have no place on our august board.

Thank you in advance.

[sabrina 1]

119. I do not engage in that kind of rhetoric and abhor any level of discourse that engages in

rhetoric that contributes nothing other than divisiveness. THAT imo, is the goal of those who would control this country, to keep the people divided so I am suspicious of those who contribute to that divisiveness.

I prefer Sanders inclusiveness to the Third Way divisiveness. To Rahm's attack on progressives eg 'your ideas are retarded' and to those who attempted to portray Sanders as a racist or a sexist, falsely of course.

That those attempts failed, doesn't mean people will forget, we won't.

I look forward to your condemnation of such despicable and false attacks on a man, even if he is not your preferred candidate, who has an exemplarly, progressive record throughout his political career.

[floriduck]

93. Sabrina, you are correct.

After reading what looked like a concerted effort to compare Bernie to guns and burgers, I got carried away. I apologize to the Bernie supporters for not representing them properly. And I know Bernie would not like what I wrote either. I don't really care about the Hill people any more than they would care about me.

I see a lot of attacks on this site that may not be vicious, but they are lies or a stubborn refusal to look at facts. And I have no use for those posters.

I will not delete my post because I wrote it and now own it.

[Jenny_92808]

127. Excellent posts

DemocratSinceBirth. I like your style.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

128. Thank you for your kind words. I am much obliged, Jenny.

I am in the 91367. We are almost neighbors.

[Jenny_92808]

125. How do I

vote to "hide" someone?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

126. By putting them on "ignore"

But if somebody "breaks the rules" you can alert on their post and if the jury agrees with you their post will be hidden.

[Jenny_92808]

129. Thank you

That is what I was confused about.

[bvf]

32. I'm sure you'll find much worse around DU.

Spare everyone your selective indignation, won't you?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. Can you please cite an instance...

I'm sure you'll find much worse around DU. Spare everyone your selective indignation, won't you.

Can you please cite an instance where one poster here suggested another poster was a "clown" or a "disgusting pig" ?

Thank you in advance.

[bvf]

50. I said "much worse."

Put down the stupid thesaurus and learn to read.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. Better yet, sir.

I said "much worse." Put down the stupid thesaurus and learn to read.

-bvf

Can you please cite an instance where a poster on our august board called another poster something "much worse" than a "clown" or a "disgusting pig" ?

Thank you in advance.


Respectfully,
DSB

[bvf]

53. It boggles the mind.

"I'm sure you'll find much worse around DU."

What part of that don't you understand?

Read it carefully.

/TTAR

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. "/TTAR". I am not familiar with the acronym, sir.

/TTAR

I am not familiar with the acronym, sir. Could you please be kind enough to share the definition with me.


Let's see if we can find an area of agreement here, sir.

Suggesting other posters are "clowns" and "disgusting pigs" on an anonymous internet board is certainly the top of invective people of good will should eschew, can we agree?

Thank you in advance.

Respectfully,
DSB

[BlueCaliDem]

101. As expected, he can't. Just a lot of HOT AIR with nothing to back it up.

Much like their preferred candidate.

Those posters sicken me.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

102. I suspect it wasn't nice but who knows?

I am doing my best to fend off these attacks with equanimity as I am a servant to a higher purpose.

[BlueCaliDem]

103. True. Always take the high ground...it's what Hillary Clinton supporters have been consistently

doing. It reflects well on our candidate just as their behavior reflects badly on theirs.

[ronnykmarshall]

13. Hillbots? Disgusting pigs?

you are repulsive.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Please don't take the bait.

DSB

[ronnykmarshall]

39. Fuck 'em ...

I don't care anymore.

[Quayblue]

41. Jury Results

And you shouldn't. Thank you.


On Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:11 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Fuck 'em ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=992878

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"Fuck 'em"? That's in addition to directly calling a user "repulsive" in the same thread.
Purely abusive and uncalled for.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:18 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Context matters. Leave It..
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: LEAVE IT!!!! This place is out of control with the alerts!
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. What do people expect from those whose necks have had heels put into them ?

DSB

[one_voice]

49. I've about had it with this place...

I'm not even a Hillary supporter. I'm sick of a certain group of people saying shit like this and it's fine. They want this place to be an echo chamber they can have it.

This gets hidden http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=992747 <<<----that is in no way worse. The juries are stacked 6-1 against anyone that isn't a bernie supporter so if you're not bowing at the alter you're always on thin ice.

Seems admin doesn't care much, so they can have the nasty, rude, vindictiveness. There are other sites where anti choice, anti women source are rec'd out the ass and praised & calling people disgusting pigs isn't ok.

I've not said a foul word about any of the candidates. Posted nothing but positive things about all of them...and that's still not good enough.

[ronnykmarshall]

92. I wonder where the alert came from

[Gothmog]

26. I would not place too much reliance on hypothetical match up polls

Here are some warnings from Nate Silver. Warning number three is very relevant

[bvf]

35. Stop ascribing that to Nate Silver, already.

You've already posted this a couple of times with the same misattribution.

Yes, it's via FiveThirtyEight. No, it's not from Nate Silver.

[Gothmog]

37. It is from his website and reflects his views

Silver is not very high on Sanders having a path to the nomination

[bvf]

38. That's entirely beside the point. It's misattribution,

and it's pretty clear why you persist in doing it.

[Gothmog]

68. You are wrong

[bvf]

71. Great argument.

It's misattribution.

Saying, "You are wrong," doesn't change that.

[Gothmog]

108. This is from Nate Silver's website

These polls are worthless and I am very amused that the Sanders supporters are forced to cite these polls because they can show how Sanders would be viable in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend another billion dollars.

[bvf]

110. Why do you continue to misattribute this to

Nate Silver?

I suppose you'll have no problem with someone choosing any old DUer, and attributing his/her remarks to Gothmog, because, you know, same website.

Let me know if you have any problem with that. I assume from your remarks and behavior that you don't.

[Gothmog]

117. Why are you objecting to Nate Silver's site?

I know that 538 and Nate are not predicting that Sanders will do well

[bvf]

120. I'm not. Why are you misattributing quotes

to Nate Silver?

[Gothmog]

122. This is directly from Nate

Your attacks on attributions were silly but this will settle the issue http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/

Head-to-head polls of hypothetical general election matchups have almost no predictive power at this stage of the campaign, but for what it’s worth, Trump tends to fare relatively poorly in those too. On average,2 in polls since Nov. 1, Trump trails Clinton by 5 percentage points, while Clinton and Marco Rubio are tied.

Read the byline.

The above information was from Nate's site and Nate approved of this methodology and cites it.

[bvf]

130. You misattributed the words in a graphic lifted

from FiveThirtyEight to Nate Silver. At least you're no longer denying it, but desperate misdirection isn't much of an improvement.

Call the charge "silly" all you like. The charge is true, and will remain so until you correct the misattribution, which, for some reason (a pretty clear one), you childishly refuse to do.

Why is that?

[Gothmog]

143. I am amused by your fear of the facts here

Nate Silver and the 538 website are very clear that hypothetical match up polls are worthless

[bvf]

145. I am amused by your continued denial

that you have deliberately and repeatedly misattributed quotes.

Although it's really more sad than amusing, but it is entertaining to see you duck and weave as you do.

[Gothmog]

107. First Read -Are Sanders' general-election numbers fool's gold

These polls are worthless because Sanders has not been vetted by the media http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-three-weeks-go-three-margin-error-races-n493946

Not surprisingly, Sanders' campaign is touting those general-election numbers. "There was fresh evidence on Sunday that confirms Bernie Sanders would be the most electable Democratic Party nominee for president because he performs much better than Hillary Clinton," the campaign blasted out to reporters yesterday. But here is a legitimate question to ask: Outside of maybe New Hampshire (where Sanders enjoys a geographic advantage), are Sanders' general-election numbers fool's gold? When is the last time you've seen national Republicans issue even a press release on Sanders? Given the back-and-forth over Bill Clinton's past -- and given Sanders calling Bill Clinton's behavior "disgraceful" -- when is the last time anyone has brought up the candidate's 1972 essay about a woman fantasizing about "being raped by three men simultaneously"? Bottom line: It's always instructive to take general-election polling with a grain of salt, especially 300 days before the general election. And that's particularly true for a candidate who hasn't actually gone through the same wringer the other candidates have.

These match up polls are not meaningful at this stage

[bvf]

111. Hey, look at this.

The following is being deliberately misattributed to Nate Silver. He didn't write it, and the user who's doing this has been made aware of it.

[Gothmog]

116. So 538 is not Nate Silver's site?

Does Nate know this?

[bvf]

118. Nice try.

I clearly acknowledged earlier that the graphic was from FiveThirtyEight, when I first pointed out your misattribution. You have yet to acknowledge the error, which at this point has taken the force of a deliberate lie.

[Gothmog]

123. From Nate Silver directly

Your attacks on attributions were silly but this will settle the issue http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/

Head-to-head polls of hypothetical general election matchups have almost no predictive power at this stage of the campaign, but for what it’s worth, Trump tends to fare relatively poorly in those too. On average,2 in polls since Nov. 1, Trump trails Clinton by 5 percentage points, while Clinton and Marco Rubio are tied.

Read the byline.

The above information was from Nate's site and Nate approved of this methodology and cites it.

[bvf]

131. It settles nothing.

See #130.

Copy and paste all you want. Better to spam than admit an obvious, deliberate error, eh?

[Gothmog]

134. Again, Nate Silver is very clear that Sanders can not use these match up polls to show electability

Without these match up polls, Sanders has no proof that he is electable

[bvf]

136. Correct your misattribution.

It's unethical of you to pretend it didn't happen. All the deflection you can muster won't change that.

[Gothmog]

137. No you are wrong-Nate Silver approved of this language when first used and has cited it since

Your analysis is simply wrong. Nate Silver owns the site and it is clear that he approved of all of the material being posted including the warnings about these worthless match up polls.. These match up hypothetical polls are totally worthless and it is sad that these polls are being used to try to make Sanders look electable. The analysis from Nate Silver and his website shows why these polls are worthless. Sanders has not been vetted by the press and these polls assume that Sander can run a well financed campaign that will be able to counter the massive amount of negative ads that will be run against Sanders on such things as Sanders' socialism and the $15 trillion in taxes he wants to levy to pay for his health care plan. The only polls for a general election that matter are the polls after the candidate has been selected and properly vetted.

I really believe that Sanders is not viable in that he will not be able to raise the funds necessary to counter the negative ads from the Kochs and the GOP candidate.

[bvf]

139. You misattributed someone else's words

to Nate Silver. That's extremely unethical, and merely saying, "No you are wrong," only makes you look worse.

[Gothmog]

124. From Nate Silver directly

Your attacks on attributions were silly but this will settle the issue http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/

Head-to-head polls of hypothetical general election matchups have almost no predictive power at this stage of the campaign, but for what it’s worth, Trump tends to fare relatively poorly in those too. On average,2 in polls since Nov. 1, Trump trails Clinton by 5 percentage points, while Clinton and Marco Rubio are tied.

Read the byline.

The above information was from Nate's site and Nate approved of this methodology and cites it.

[bvf]

132. See #130.

If you have any sense of ethics, you'll correct your misattribution.

[Gothmog]

133. I am very ethical and the attribution is correct

Nate Silver and his site have destroyed the rather weak claim that Sanders is electable due to match up polls. The reliance of such polls to show electablity ignores the fact that Sanders will not be able to compete in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend another billion dollars. Sanders is not vetted and will not be able to counter several hundred millions of negative advertising using the term $15 trillion in new taxes and the terms "socialist" and "socialism."

[bvf]

135. It is unethical of you to misattribute

original work as you have--repeatedly, and ever more so to refuse to correct yourself.

[Gothmog]

138. Read the article from Nate

[bvf]

140. Correct your misattribution.

To let it stand, knowing as you do that you were in error, makes you untrustworthy.

[Gothmog]

141. You are wrong-Again read the article from Nate

[bvf]

142. No.

The words you kept posting earlier were not written by Nate Silver. You misattributed them, and even now continue to insist that you didn't. That's extremely dishonest of you.

[Gothmog]

144. And you are are still wrong

Your fear of the fact that Nate Silver and the 538 website (owned by and edited by Silver) are clear that these polls are worthless is sad

[one_voice]

46. What the fuck?

floriduck
2. Nice change of pace

View profile
From the Hillbots following today's talking points about Bernie/McDonalds/guns. That garbage has come from so many directions, it's not a coincidence. Hill has sent out her subversives to cloud up the net waves. Just another reason to keep her far away from the White House.

As much as those clowns should be ashamed, they actually prefer to demonstrate how low they can stoop. Disgusting pigs.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. It seems we have been instructed such discourse is perfectly acceptable here.

SIGH

[Kentonio]

56. Just alert it for goodness sake, you know perfectly well it'll be hidden.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. I truly don't believe it will be hidden

I truly don't believe it will be hidden and unless and until it is I will continue to believe I am correct.

If I am wrong then I will have learned a lesson.

[Kentonio]

58. Have you alerted it?

[treestar]

59. You could alert on it

unless you don't find it to be uncivil, or don't care because of which side it is directed at.

[Kentonio]

64. I want to know why DemocratSinceBirth is so reticent to do so.

He has absolutely nothing to lose, its clearly a hide worthy post.

[1StrongBlackMan]

81. I am not one to alert; but, there are good reasons to not alert ...

Alerting on a post that goes 0-7 to hide, suspends one's alerting privileges and (if I'm not mistaken) locks the failed alerter out of the thread.

And, with the partisan skew of DU, there is good reason to believe that such an alert will 0-7.

Further, even if the alert goes 3-4 to hide, the post surviving will, as we have seen time and time again, embolden that kind of post, as the community has validated the tone, if not content.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. No. I did not alert on it.

As I said I don't believe it will be hidden because an out of favor group is the target but talk is cheap. I am willing to wager it won't be hidden for the reasons I cited. If i discover it is hidden I will make a small donation to DU. How can others check my veracity? You will have a star.

[Kentonio]

65. Ok, let's see. I'd still like to know why you refused to alert yourself however.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

66. More candor.

Because if I alerted on it and it wasn't hidden I would feel bad. It would offend my sense of right and wrong.

As I said up thread I am far from an angel but I want everyone to be judged by the same standards.

[Kentonio]

69. I'm embarrased to say I must apologize. You were correct and I was wrong.

Nice change of pace
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=992110

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

I'm a Bernie supporter, but calling other Democrats disgusting pigs is not acceptable. I understand the anger, but we don't win any general election without coming together as a party. Please hide.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Jan 11, 2016, 01:53 PM, and voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Shame on you. Do you really have to stoop to such a level to support your candidate?
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I'm with the alerter. I love Bernie but will hold my nose and vote for HRC. This goes much too far and is disgusting.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: yeh this one is easy hide it

Thank you.

[treestar]

72. Not one LEAVER gave an explanation

which is pretty telling.

[bvf]

75. Yeah.

It probably means they were too annoyed by having to adjudicate a stupid alert to bother wasting their time in the face of the obvious.

[treestar]

76. you think that post is OK

to that degree? Wow.

No they just didn't put their real reason because they knew it looked bad - they were being partisan.

You'd vote to hide any post that said Bernie's supporters were "pigs" I have no doubt. Yet it's OK for Hillary supporters to be called that.

[bvf]

79. That's an ignorant thing to say.

You have no clue what I'd do.

[treestar]

94. So anyone can call the Bernie supporters pigs and not get a hide vote ?

And you are OK with calling Hillary supporters that, since above you claimed the alert was lame.

[bvf]

95. Given your stated assumption about me

I hardly owe you a response, but FWIW, here goes.

I've sat on a DU jury about 40-50 times. I've voted to hide maybe four or five of those times, all for reasons that had zip to do with politics. Most were posts that seemed to slip by MIRT. (That's not a slap at MIRT--they do a fantastic job, IMO).

Generally, I think people should be able to handle schoolyard taunts (yes, with swear words, even!) without running to Mother Law.

I understand the value of civility, but again:

Don't like someone's potty mouth? Nobody forces you to read posts by that user. Have issues with your self-control? There's the "ignore" button.

I grew up on Usenet. A lot of what I remember of it (yes, I know it still lives, but haven't partaken in years) would have the usual suspects heading for the fainting couch.

[treestar]

96. well so you are OK with calling other DUers things like that

Civility was the standard, not the "ability to handle schoolyard taunts." I would think we could be above making schoolyard taunts.

[bvf]

98. I'll add that I'm also OK with *being called*

things like that. I can turn away and seek out more civil DUers to interact with (which I would), or go for the ignore (which I probably wouldn't, unless a user were an invariable asshole with never anything worthwhile to say).*

Standards of behavior are one thing. Of course civility should be the norm. But you can also be expected to handle the occasional foul-mouthed eight-year-old around here the same way you would IRL.










*Now that you've had your little joke, we can continue.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

89. I have been here for nearly thirteen years.

I have never seen other posters referred to as "disgusting pigs" or "clowns".

[bvf]

73. Good of you to do that, Kentonio.

Truly sorry about DSB's sense of right and wrong, though. It must have taken a real hit.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

74. Well

I'm embarrased to say I must apologize. You were correct and I was wrong.

Nice change of pace

We are dealing with three things here: facts, opinions, and predictions. The former and latter can be independently verified. My opinion was that post wouldn't be hidden. It has now become a fact. I assume you are referring to my predictions. They will be proven to be true or not in the fullness of time, when the former occurs, my predictions will become facts as my opinion has.

[Kentonio]

77. 'Nice change of pace' was the first line of the post being alerted on

It wasn't snark from me.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

78. My bad. I am sorry.

The results of the alert are disappointing to me but not remotely surprising.

[cwydro]

70. Most posters on DU are able to discuss their choice of candidates in a civil manner.

Perhaps you could learn from them.

Name-calling is simply childish.

[redwitch]

4. Hey there fellow upstater!

Nice to meet ya!

[Green Forest]

100. Thank you, redwitch!

Nice to meet you, too! Where do you hail from?

[redwitch]

113. Near Saratoga.

Cold and snowing here just now, winter finally got to us.

[Green Forest]

114. Hey neighbor!

I live 30 minutes from downtown Saratoga Springs.

[redwitch]

115. Hey back atcha!

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. So now ...

the MSM's flagship establishment newspaper is to be believed?

The back and forth gets so confusing. When are we supposed to believe that the MSM isn't doing the establishment's bidding?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Are you suggesting that some of our friends betray a peculiar flexibility when it comes to sourcing?

DSB

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. It seems that way ...

"Polling is B.S." ... "Hey ... Look at this poll!"

"Endorsements are B.S." ... "Hey ... Look at this endorsement!"

"Symbolic votes are important" ... "But not that symbolic vote!"

All of these displays of "flexibility" can be found, on DU today!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. None of us are perfect but a modicum of self awareness should be some kind of baseline./nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. "Self awareness"?!!!? ... This is primary season!!!!! eom.

[HerbChestnut]

17. The OP only has (as of now) 54 posts. Let's tone it down.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. Yeah, but the post has 13 recs ... in less than an hour! ...

[HerbChestnut]

20. Make it 14 then.

[1StrongBlackMan]

22. Okay. I pose the question to you, then ...

assuming you are the 14th rec.

[cwydro]

85. It appears to be a hit and run.

Go figure.

[1StrongBlackMan]

86. And 58 recs ... Go figure, Go figure. eom.

[cwydro]

88. And the poster of post #2, seems to have vanished as well.

Perhaps gone to make ugly comments on some other thread.

[dlwickham]

28. I know huh

we're supposed to believe the MSM when they say something good about Sanders and something bad about Hillary and only then

[treestar]

60. Exactly. I thought the oligarchs owned the mainstream press

and the oligarchs are afraid of Bernie. He's going to bring them down. So why are they helping him even a little now?

[firebrand80]

19. That article says no such thing

For one, a Hypothetical matchup while a primary is going on is different from what a real race between two candidates is going to look like in the GE.

Also, those hypothetical matchups are only for those two states not the entire country.

Finally, you have a sampling issue. The people in those polls are likely primary voters. The GE is going to be a larger group of people.

The article makes no comment whatsoever on who is "more electable" in the GE, that's your own commentary.

[Gothmog]

25. According to Nate Silver, these polls mean nothing right now

The reliance on these polls by Sanders supporters amuse me. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/

Ignore hypothetical matchups in primary season – they also measure nothing. General election polls before and during the primary season have a very wide margin of error. That’s especially the case for candidates who aren’t even in the race and therefore haven’t been treated to the onslaught of skeptical media coverage usually associated with being the candidate.

Sanders supporters have to rely on these worthless polls because it is clear that Sanders is not viable in a general election where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend an additional billion dollars.

No one should rely on hypo match up type polls in selecting a nominee at this stage of the race.

[Ken Burch]

30. You wouldn't be saying that if those polls showed HRC running better than Bernie in the fall.

With you, it's always "nothing counts unless it looks better for HRC than Bernie.

[Gothmog]

36. Hillary Clinton's electablity does not depend on worthless match up polls

Hillary Clinton has the best resume of all of the candidates (republican or democratic) and is the most qualified person to be POTUS. Sanders has no chance of being the nominee even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire due to his lack of support from Latino and African American voters. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-new-hampshire/

So why do I still think Sanders is a factional candidate? He hasn’t made any inroads with non-white voters — in particular black voters, a crucial wing of the Democratic coalition and whose support was a big part of President Obama’s toppling of Clinton in the 2008 primary. Not only are African-Americans the majority of Democratic voters in the South Carolina primary (a crucial early contest), they make up somewhere between 19 percent and 24 percent of Democrats nationwide. In the past two YouGov polls, Sanders has averaged just 5 percent with black voters. Ipsos’s weekly tracking poll has him at an average of only 7 percent over the past two weeks. Fox News (the only live-interview pollster to publish results among non-white voters in July and August) had Clinton leading Sanders 62-10 among non-white Democrats in mid-July and 65-14 in mid-August. Clinton’s edge with non-whites held even as Sanders cut her overall lead from 40 percentage points to 19.,,,,

But even if you put aside those metrics, Sanders is running into the problem that other insurgent Democrats have in past election cycles. You can win Iowa relying mostly on white liberals. You can win New Hampshire. But as Gary Hart and Bill Bradley learned, you can’t win a Democratic nomination without substantial support from African-Americans.

Sanders supporters only have the silly hypo polls to show electablity because they can not explain how Sanders is viable in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend another billion dollars.

Vote for the candidate of your choice but do not expect anyone to change their votes on the basis of worthless hypothetical match up polls

[Gothmog]

106. First Read -Are Sanders' general-election numbers fool's gold

These polls are worthless because Sanders has not been vetted by the media http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-three-weeks-go-three-margin-error-races-n493946

Not surprisingly, Sanders' campaign is touting those general-election numbers. "There was fresh evidence on Sunday that confirms Bernie Sanders would be the most electable Democratic Party nominee for president because he performs much better than Hillary Clinton," the campaign blasted out to reporters yesterday. But here is a legitimate question to ask: Outside of maybe New Hampshire (where Sanders enjoys a geographic advantage), are Sanders' general-election numbers fool's gold? When is the last time you've seen national Republicans issue even a press release on Sanders? Given the back-and-forth over Bill Clinton's past -- and given Sanders calling Bill Clinton's behavior "disgraceful" -- when is the last time anyone has brought up the candidate's 1972 essay about a woman fantasizing about "being raped by three men simultaneously"? Bottom line: It's always instructive to take general-election polling with a grain of salt, especially 300 days before the general election. And that's particularly true for a candidate who hasn't actually gone through the same wringer the other candidates have.

These match up polls are not meaningful at this stage

[dlwickham]

27. so we're trusting the main stream media now?

[bvf]

31. More like understanding that

most people IRL still rely on it, and applauding it when it gets something right.

Any reference that pokes a hole in Clinton's ridiculous claims to superior electability is welcome, and a hopeful sign.

You won't have any trouble finding examples of MSM-bashing among Clinton supporters who nonetheless celebrate any pro-Clinton mention coming from it, I'll bet.

[Amimnoch]

63. Oh? Do show the "MSM-bashing" among Clinton supporters.

I'm curious.

[bvf]

67. Yes, you are.

You won't have any trouble finding examples of MSM-bashing among Clinton supporters who nonetheless celebrate any pro-Clinton mention coming from it, I'll bet.

Read that again, or as many times as needed to make it sink in. Try not to move your lips.

[Amimnoch]

80. ahh I get it. You have nothing

Thanks.

I'm not going to provide evidence to make your point. That's on you love.

[bvf]

90. Nobody asked you to, did they?

[Amimnoch]

62. Isn't it funny how that works.

The numbers, or stories don't fit what they like to hear, it's a bought and paid for MSM.

Their candidate actually becomes somewhat newsworthy for a change, the NYT does what a news network does and reports the story, and everything is suddenly different.

I'm sticking with the phrase Hyperbolic hypocritical selectivity.

I'd noticed that interesting trend when a certain someone goes up in the real, established, and scientific polls it's great and it's showing the decline of Hillary, but when they are down those polls aren't accurate, right, or also "bought and paid for".

It'd be humorous if it wasn't so absurd.

[1StrongBlackMan]

82. The mentality goes well beyond the media and polling ...

it applies to just about EVERYTHING.

Union endorses HRC ... Endorsements don't matter/the union leadership is corrupt.
Union endorses Bernie ... Endorsements matter/the union leadership are paragons of democracy

Celebrity endorses HRC ... Endorsements don't matter/the endorser is a two-bit, 1%er, nobody.
Celebrity endorses Bernie ... Endorsements matter/the endorser is a spokesman for an entire community of color, if not, generation.

Bernie's campaign gets caught with its hand in the Data Jar ... DWS/DNC made them do it/He was a DNC plant/back to DWS/DNC blaming.
HRC's campaign doesn't get caught with its hand in the Data Jar ... Well, she might have, which of course becomes she did.

It'd be humorous if it wasn't so absurd.

You're right ... and this is coming from someone that does not support HRC in the primaries.

{"Yes you REALLY DO support HRC, in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...}

[Amimnoch]

83. Heh, that's deserving of its own OP.

imo.

[1StrongBlackMan]

84. It would be hidden ...

approximately 14 second after I hit the "Post my Reply" button.

[Amimnoch]

87. Yeah. You're likely right.

6-1 .

[FSogol]

91. +1. Well said. n/t

[sadoldgirl]

29. I would hardly call the NYT a flagship paper anymore.

Its collaboration with the Bush administration about
the Iraq war ruined that reputation.

However, they have rarely mentioned SBS, and that
has to be recognized.

I think that most of the media are somewhat scizzo.
They pursue the Clintons for e-mails or other nonsensical
stuff, otoh they prefer HRC to Bernie at all costs.

Thus (preferring any repug imo) they don't rally know
how to handle the present situation.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

33. Berns has 40 years of elected experience

Hillary has 8 and Trump has 0

[Uncle Joe]

34. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Green Forest.

[artislife]

52. Kick.

Just so some more heads explode....

[Katashi_itto]

55. K&R

[Sheepshank]

97. The article says it's about 2 (both) states...not the whole GE

your bolded quotes are merely your personal (unfounded) opinion.

Desperate times calls for hyperbolic interpretation of mediocre news. Congrats...you did it!!!!

[Green Forest]

99. My opinions are right on. Bernie Sanders is more likeable, more trustworthy and more electable than Hillary.

Joe Biden would agree, I am sure.

[Sheepshank]

105. of course you entitled to an opinon. But you used a false premis...it is a lie

you attempt to reinterpret the article as speaking for all 50 states...it is isn 't.

[Green Forest]

109. No, you are the one who is twisting my clear message of HOPE. It is sad that Hillary supporters are so desperate.

The MSM is Feeling The Bern! 2016 will be 2008 redux. Nothing you say will CHANGE what is going to happen to Hillary "Sniper Fire" Clinton.

- Proud Obama Mama since 2007 and Woman For Bernie since 2015

[Orsino]

104. Sanders is not Obama.

And thank goodness. Sanders' message will catch on, if it does, because of its content rather than because of a charismatic candidate.

I'd love to believe that inertia can be overcome again, but it's still touch and go, I think.

[Green Forest]

112. President Barack Hussein Obama is the best President in my lifetime. I supported him by early 2007.

I supported Bernie before he jumped into the race. Both men are similar in so many ways but Bernie is benefitting from what Barack achieved (just a small example: his signage is identical, as is his anti-establishment message). Now those of us who saw it happen before BELIEVE it will happen because it has already happened with a far more improbable candidate than Bernie.

[Orsino]

121. Obama has been a better president than the nation probably deserved...

...but he isn't the president we need to lead us though multiple looming crises. I hope Sanders can pull off a victory, and mean to volunteer for him, too.

[Gothmog]

146. Democrats would be insane to nominate Bernie Sanders

Dana Milbank has some good comments on general election match up polls https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Sanders and his supporters boast of polls showing him, on average, matching up slightly better against Trump than Clinton does. But those matchups are misleading: Opponents have been attacking and defining Clinton for a quarter- century, but nobody has really gone to work yet on demonizing Sanders.

Watching Sanders at Monday night’s Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump — or another Republican nominee — would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.

The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the “socialist” label and requested that Sanders define it “so that it doesn’t concern the rest of us citizens.”

Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who don’t want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: “Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top — that’s my definition of democratic socialism.”

But that’s not how Republicans will define socialism — and they’ll have the dictionary on their side. They’ll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. They’ll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldn’t be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists don’t win national elections in the United States .

Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases — “one of the biggest tax hikes in history,” as moderator Chris Cuomo put it — to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that “hypothetically, you’re going to pay $5,000 more in taxes,” and declared, “W e will raise taxes, yes we will.” He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that “it’s demagogic to say, oh, you’re paying more in taxes.”

Well, yes — and Trump is a demagogue.

Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government “bigger than ever,” Sanders didn’t quarrel, saying, “P eople want to criticize me, okay,” and “F ine, if that’s the criticism, I accept it.”

Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.

Match up polls are worthless because these polls do not measure what would happen to Sanders in a general election where Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads.