Bernie Sanders. (photo: Rick Wilking/Reuters)
06 March 16
ernie won Super Tuesday! Let me explain why.
Going into tonight it was unclear what was going to
happen because the polling was so shoddy in some states, especially
Colorado and Minnesota. Those two states are so important because of
what they mean for the future.
It turns out that Hillary Clinton won all of the
states she was supposed to win -- and a narrow victory in Massachusetts
(remember she won Mass. by 15 points against Obama and still lost the
primary in 2008). But Bernie Sanders had resounding wins in CO & MN.
Those two states are much more indicative of the states that are coming
in the rest of the primary schedule.
All of these Southern states were Hillary Clinton's
best states (by the way, also irrelevant places to have strength in for
the general election). She's used up most of her ammo and doesn't even
know what kind of trouble she's in. Right before the voting, she pivoted
toward the right again in anticipation of the general election. Big
mistake. She can't help herself; she lives and breaths arrogance.
Tonight could have been the knock out punch if Clinton
had won CO & MN. But she didn't! She lost them big. Now, he has a
$40 million war chest and favorable map in front of him. Feel the Bern!
Time is on Bernie's side. The more he runs, the more
people find out about him. Everyone already knows Clinton. She's gaining
no new voters. Every day he gains ground. So, now he lives to fight
many other days. She is in a race against time and she didn't close the
door tonight. Tick, tock. Tick, tock!
March 8th is huge because whoever wins Michigan has
momentum going into March 15th -- the real Super Tuesday (FL, OH, IL, NC
and MO). That's Colossal Tuesday. And maybe the Ides of March for
Hillary Clinton.
+35
#
2016-03-06 15:59
.
Also,
Glen Ford, in a Black Agenda Report on TRNN:
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=15771
"A new Reuters poll ... shows Bernie Sanders 6 points ahead in popularity among Democrats. And two other polls show Sanders 2 points ahead of Hillary Clinton."
Hillary Clinton did amass wide-margins of victory throughout most of the south, minus Oklahoma -- and now Louisiana.
However, if one extrapolates from polling showing Sanders leading nationally by 2 or 6 points:
Every "wide-margin" of victory for Hillary Clinton -- applied to individual states that have already concluded Primary Elections or Caucuses -- disproportionally decreases Clintons' national pool against national totals for Sanders, which are disproportionally improved, nationally, because Hillary Clinton's support-strength is isolated to the South.
If Sanders is leading nationally, losing the South -- especially by large margins -- is actually a statistically good indicator for Sanders; remaining distributions of voters should be greater for Sanders, nationally, than for Clinton, thereby improving Sanders remaining state-by-state opportunities.
Advantage Sanders?
Also,
Glen Ford, in a Black Agenda Report on TRNN:
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=15771
"A new Reuters poll ... shows Bernie Sanders 6 points ahead in popularity among Democrats. And two other polls show Sanders 2 points ahead of Hillary Clinton."
Hillary Clinton did amass wide-margins of victory throughout most of the south, minus Oklahoma -- and now Louisiana.
However, if one extrapolates from polling showing Sanders leading nationally by 2 or 6 points:
Every "wide-margin" of victory for Hillary Clinton -- applied to individual states that have already concluded Primary Elections or Caucuses -- disproportionally decreases Clintons' national pool against national totals for Sanders, which are disproportionally improved, nationally, because Hillary Clinton's support-strength is isolated to the South.
If Sanders is leading nationally, losing the South -- especially by large margins -- is actually a statistically good indicator for Sanders; remaining distributions of voters should be greater for Sanders, nationally, than for Clinton, thereby improving Sanders remaining state-by-state opportunities.
Advantage Sanders?
+15
#
2016-03-06 16:18
.
TYT: Cenk Uygur, Jimmy Dore, John Iadarola:
March 5th, 2016 -- election-night coverage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4xvE6Cl5yw
.
Interesting discussion...
Somewhere in that election-night discussion was a good segment on Superdelegates.
That discussion needs to continue.
TYT: Cenk Uygur, Jimmy Dore, John Iadarola:
March 5th, 2016 -- election-night coverage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4xvE6Cl5yw
.
Interesting discussion...
Somewhere in that election-night discussion was a good segment on Superdelegates.
That discussion needs to continue.
+8
#
2016-03-06 16:30
.
TYT: "Why President Obama Is Supporting Hillary Clinton Over Bernie Sanders"
https://youtu.be/hSK2cDUWfMA
TYT: "Why President Obama Is Supporting Hillary Clinton Over Bernie Sanders"
https://youtu.be/hSK2cDUWfMA
+37
#
2016-03-06 20:53
Hillary winning all
these southern states on super Tuesday does not mean much; any democrat
is not going to win those states and the electoral votes anyway.
The important states to win are the purple ones, like Colorado, and Bernie won that one. Going to show his ability to win in November if he gets more purple ones.
The important states to win are the purple ones, like Colorado, and Bernie won that one. Going to show his ability to win in November if he gets more purple ones.
-44
#
2016-03-07 00:47
Hills will win plenty
of blue states. The ones with more diverse populations anyway, like
California (lots of delegates). Also Florida has a lot of delegates.
Bern can't win unless the state is as white as long grain rice.
-59
#
2016-03-06 22:41
I have NO idea who
will win MI, beyond. But in tonight's debate Sen Sanders seemed
stressed, hostile, almost a little desperate. Sec. Clinton seemed so
confident as to be actually holding back. Reminding AAs of the 1990s may
not be the best strategy for BS; it was probably the best economic
decade in history for black Americans in general. Also, some benefits
from the Civil Rights Movement, Era, were consolidated in the 1990s. We
may know a LOT more Tues.
+32
#
2016-03-07 00:06
She looked tired and defeated to me. Confident? No way. You watched a different speech tonight than I did then.
-16
#
2016-03-07 05:38
Quoting fletch1165:
Wishful thinking?She looked tired and defeated to me. Confident? No way. You watched a different speech tonight than I did then.
+54
#
2016-03-07 00:17
The Clintons' 1990s are important because of, among others, these notable policy initiatives:
1. Welfare reform
2. Bankruptcy reform
3. Criminal sentencing reform
3. Glass-Steagall repeal
5. Financial derivatives deregulation
As Bernie in tonight's debate clearly and eloquently pointed out these policy actions do not exist in a vacuum -- they have implications through time, and in that respect have a direct causal link with the ensuing social stress, financial catastrophe, and declining economic status of the working class. As they say, it's not rocket science, and anyone can connect these dots, including the voters. And the voters' growing awareness of Bernie's dedicated fight against these unwise and greedy policies will prove to be his greatest strength
in the coming primaries.
1. Welfare reform
2. Bankruptcy reform
3. Criminal sentencing reform
3. Glass-Steagall repeal
5. Financial derivatives deregulation
As Bernie in tonight's debate clearly and eloquently pointed out these policy actions do not exist in a vacuum -- they have implications through time, and in that respect have a direct causal link with the ensuing social stress, financial catastrophe, and declining economic status of the working class. As they say, it's not rocket science, and anyone can connect these dots, including the voters. And the voters' growing awareness of Bernie's dedicated fight against these unwise and greedy policies will prove to be his greatest strength
in the coming primaries.
-34
#
2016-03-07 00:51
Wait, was Hillary
preznit back then? I seem to remember her as a senator and SOS. Some
bunny oughtta tell her she can't run again if she was already preznit.
+36
#
2016-03-07 02:38
Hillary's advisors
are the same ones used by her husband including his and Obama's economic
team. Same wall st chums and foreign policy Warhawks.
+15
#
2016-03-07 04:52
Well we can see the
outcome right here with your uneducated remark. The total collapse of
the educational system. Cute works on the street but that's the only
place.
+15
#
2016-03-07 00:17
Yeah but that was
when we had cheap access to oil. Those days are long gone. Our economy
right now is oil based you know? And the War in the Balkans set the
stage for Bush and his antics really. It was another bad war. They ended
up doing an air campaign bombing the same people the Luftwaffe bombed,
our allies, to get at the thugs. But in the end they just surrounded
Garajda and Shrevenitza and allowed the ethnic cleansing to go unabated.
It wasn't until well after that Milosovich and Arkan's Tigers were held
accountable.
And their Secretary of State, madeleine Albright starved 500,000 children to death during the Iraqi sanctions between Gulf War I and II. Later she said "It was worth it." Those are your 90's. African Americans can understand facts as well as anyone. Sure it was peachier for us back then too when the oil was flowing cheap and easy to find. ITS GONE NOW. Why do you think WAR runs the economy now almost solely?
And their Secretary of State, madeleine Albright starved 500,000 children to death during the Iraqi sanctions between Gulf War I and II. Later she said "It was worth it." Those are your 90's. African Americans can understand facts as well as anyone. Sure it was peachier for us back then too when the oil was flowing cheap and easy to find. ITS GONE NOW. Why do you think WAR runs the economy now almost solely?
+14
#
2016-03-07 07:11
Wow, dunno what you
were watching. I thought Sanders looked more rested than in a while, and
was really on point (though the gun control bits were murky, on both
sides).
I thought Clinton seemed the most off I have *ever* seen her.
I thought Clinton seemed the most off I have *ever* seen her.
+1
#
2016-03-07 13:02
She began every response or statement with a "well,' which is a pause creator, rather than jumping right in with her response -
+62
#
2016-03-06 23:00
If the media had
given Bernie one tenth as much coverage as Trump or half of what Hillary
Clinton received he would be so far ahead that everyone would already
agree that he will be the nominee.
I totally agree that the more that people learn about him the more voters flock to his side.
Bernie can and WILL win!
I totally agree that the more that people learn about him the more voters flock to his side.
Bernie can and WILL win!
+13
#
2016-03-07 09:03
That is huge. It
would seem to me that an old socialist drawing tens of thousands of
people would be news and that Donald Trump is an off the chain a-hole is
not news. The MSM and the Democratic Party have done everything they
can to stifle him. It's very impressive he's doing as well as he is. I
hope that stifling doesn't turn out to be a huge strategic mistake in
the general election.
