How Quickly the Tide Turns

Last week, Warren was riding high on the top of a wave, ballyhooed by many in the MSM as the new front-runner even though she was only a bit ahead in a few corporate polls while Biden has pretty much stayed seemingly comfortably atop the heap in aggregate polling. Of course, these corporate polls are essentially flawed because they can't seem to get a grip on independent and young voters, but we've discussed that quite a bit here.

This week following the debate, it seems like the MSM is launching a new wave of attacks on Warren, questioning her credibility and leadership abilities. Here's an editorial from Josh Rogin in WaPo to start:

Elizabeth Warren is failing the commander in chief test

It should be obvious this week that the United States needs a president who has the foreign policy chops to speak clearly about the United States’ role in the world and has a real plan to keep our country safe. Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) ascendance to pseudo-front-runner status compels us to examine if she is meeting that test — and based on her recent performance, she is failing.

And there's a bunch more new anti-Warren articles just in Wapo. . .

. . . . that I was going to include, but I just got kicked out coz of their paywall. Reminds me though, of when WaPo published umpteen negative articles about Bernie in 2016.

Alas, poor Lizzy, we knew her all too well.

Anyone come across a graphic with Mayor Pete's head on top of an ice cream cone? Coz it sure seems like he's the new flavor fave of the MSM season.

Share
up
31 users have voted.

Comments

and the CIA-supported WaPo really didn't like EW's response to Tulsi when she said she would remove all US troops from the ME.

I couldn't say to what extent she firmly believes this or would want to amend her statement with exceptions (neither EW nor Bernie stake out bold FP positions), but such a strong statement would certainly be enough to trigger the MIC forces embedded within our MSM and make her a media target.

Thus their search for a more reliably status quo neoconish candidate -- Buttigig or Klobuchar -- someone they hope will catch fire among the public, difficult as that will be.

Warren should wear any media hostility as a badge of honor. And progressives outside this site will note favorably how she seems to have caused some concern among TPTB.

up
12 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@wokkamile

When asked by TYT about her votes in support of and to increase Trump's military budget, she said something to the effect of "Sure, we need to cut the military budget."

Anything to curry favor with the Democratic Party powers-that-be, whether it's claiming to be Native American or now shockingly stating something about a need for the US to get out of the Middle East.

Of course, her statements are either soon retracted like the spurious Middle East claim or after being hounded by Trump (ie.: Pocahoantus) so that the media has to earnestly pick up on it or now her talking about looking for alternatives for Medicare for All:

And means testing? Really?

up
18 users have voted.
Unabashed Liberal's picture

@Wally

my understanding is that she's (supposedly) going to 'study' the funding sources suggested by Sanders' White Paper--and, possibly, some additional funding sources--and, formulate a plan for how she'd propose to finance UMFA.

Now, I don't particularly care for Warren (at all), and her voice/intonation drives me absolutely nuts, but, would definitely like to see a concrete funding proposal. (as opposed to just a list of 'possibilities' to consider)

How is that "looking for an alternative?"

Frankly, I'd welcome that clarification. From her, Bernie, and/or Jayapal.

As it is, the only way that we have been able to see how we (Mr M and I) will be affected, is to 'assume' that they'll levy a 4 percent UMFA income tax (to bump up to 5, I read in one article) - in place of our current Medicare/Medigap premiums.

Many 'seniors' could wind up paying more, since their public insurance (Medicare) premiums are already quite inexpensive/heavily subsidized. So, if Warren or Bernie don't plan to levy this additional tax, they would be smart (IMO) to make it known.

(If you notice, the example that's routinely invoked--regarding a 'savings'--is 'a Family of Four' in the individual insurance market. That's basically comparing apples to oranges.)

Anyhoo, if you hear anymore about this, would appreciate it if you'd post a link or blurb, please.

Have a good one.

Mollie

I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.
~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne

Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all others.
~~Cicero

The obstacle is the path.
~~Zen Proverb

up
7 users have voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@Wally

and have no idea why any person of conscience would believe it, much less repeat it.

God damn it, am I going to have to write an essay to point out the absolutely fucking obvious?

$720 billion a year for military and security spending. $720 billion. A trillion-dollar tax cut for the rich on top of the Bush/Obama tax cuts which have become a permanent part of the landscape. The fact that when Wall St was gasping, not only was it really easy to find over $600 billion to hand them, it was also really easy for the Fed to find 16 trillion.

And they ask how he's going to pay for it.

The fact is that his answer is clear--and he has a couple of avenues he hasn't even explored.

up
6 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Anja Geitz's picture

@wokkamile

"Outside this site" who repeatedly warned us that voting for Hillary was our only defense against the dangerous Trump option?

up
16 users have voted.

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@wokkamile

Warren monopolized most of the time on stage, speaking nearly 23 minutes, according to The New York Times. Gabbard, on the other hand, was nearly dead last with speaking time, only allowed about eight and a half minutes.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-cnn-cuts-off-tulsi-pressing-warren-...

I wouldn't use the word "monopolized" since it isn't actually Warren, or any candidate, that effectively chooses how much time is given to any candidate, but rather the fucking corporate media that decides everything to do with the debates apart from the actual words that come out of the candidates' mouths when they actually get to speak.

Yet it's interesting that they gave her all that time, and even, I think it's fair to say, actually shielded her from Tulsi Gabbard:

During Tuesday night’s CNN/New York Times Democratic presidential primary debate, Representative Tulsi Gabbard was cut off by a moderator as she was attempting to press Senator Elizabeth Warren on her fitness for office.

“I’d like to ask our other candidates this question; I’d like to start with Senator Warren –,” started Gabbard.

“I’m sorry. Congresswoman, I’m sorry,” CNN’s host and debate moderator Erin Burnett interrupted.

Gabbard continued, “What experience and background do you have to serve as commander-in-chief?”

“I’m sorry, thank you. We’re gonna take another break now,” Burnett said before throwing to commercial.

By the way, Erin Burnett is a poisonous little fascist. Ask me sometime about her interview a few years ago with Pete Petersen.

But anyway, it sure seems like the media were gung-ho for Warren and have been brought up short by something. Could it be that they didn't vet her as thoroughly as they thought? Did she surprise them with something she said? Much like their masters, the corporate press doesn't like surprises.

up
21 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@wokkamile

Are not going to "catch fire" with the public, though, to my amazement, my mother and her friends seem certain that Putty-Judge is on the side of the angels because he's civil. "The only one who wasn't going after all the others," was how they put it, and said he put things on a higher level.

So maybe Pete is going to catch fire. He certainly has enough billionaires on board with him.

up
12 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Wally's picture

Meanwhile, I know Bernie voted the opposite way. And that as president, I'm confident he'll fight the MIC like no other president we've ever had. I'm think I'm left of him on foreign policy, but I realize the chances of anybody like me getting elected are pretty, pretty damn slim. Besides, I have a feeling that Bernie will surprise a lot of folks on that score if he actually gets elected.
In any event, as you've correctly noted on many occasions, the majority of the American electorate simply doesn't rank foreign policy as one of their top concerns.

And lest I forget to mention . . . unlike so many other Democratic congresspeople, Bernie voted against intervention in Iraq which was pretty damn bold and against the grain of most Democrats.

So please stop trying to equate Bernie and Warren re. foreign policy.

And while I'm thankful Tulsi has questioned regime change wars, I'm not so sure what kind of "anti-jihadist" military adventures she will or will not support.

.,jgvioy4wioicfavn

up
15 users have voted.

@Wally simply that "neither EW nor Bernie stake out bold FP positions", not that they are equal in all important aspects of the FP area.

On the Iraq vote, credit to House member Bernie, but let's not overcredit. Was there even a split of opinion in the tiny liberal state of VT about how he should vote? I don't recall it. He had no political pressure to go along with Junior and Cheeney. Both VT senators opposed it. So did several moderate D senators, including Bobby Byrd and Kent Conrad.

up
5 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@wokkamile

. . . who has a chance of winning the nomination, especially re. foreign policy.

I hate to think what will happen if we don't pull it together in support of the chance of our lifetime.

Unfortunately, it's in the forefront of my thoughts.

So it goes.

up
17 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@Wally

who says that Trump is an existential threat, the worst president ever, a danger to our democracy, possibly compromised by a foreign power, etc.--who also gives him a standing ovation because he likes capitalism.

For me, there's something horribly revealing about that. And I'm not just talking about Warren here. A whole lot of Democrats were on their feet cheering Donald Trump, who most of the time they consider an Axis of Evil all by himself, because they're all in the same happy capitalist club.

So I guess that whenever anything to do with capitalism comes up, these implacable enemies are the best of friends?

up
20 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal more than just one election cycle to nudge most people away from the capitalist model toward the socialist one, after two centuries of capitalism reining supreme in this country. Still too politically dicey for progressives to fully embrace the socialist label. Even Bernie the democratic socialist rarely if ever openly uses the term in his public appearances. He's not exactly out there proudly and loudly taking ownership of the label.

People like Bernie and AOC and one or two others are beginning the long process of offering a different political pov from the left, but this will take time. Meanwhile, it's far safer politically to avoid the socialist self-description. Heck, the MSM doesn't even hire or present real progressives -- just predictably safe centrists and weak kinda sorta liberals who can be relied on not to rock the boat too much.

up
2 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@wokkamile

Still too politically dicey for progressives to fully embrace the socialist label. Even Bernie the democratic socialist rarely if ever openly uses the term in his public appearances. He's not exactly out there proudly and loudly taking ownership of the label.

He's done pretty much everything short of running onto the debate stage with a red flag and holding up and quoting The Communist Manifesto.

There's one really, really big reason that socialism is widely being discussed today even in the MSM and that's Bernie.

And this past week, he clearly diffrentiated himself from "capitalist to the bone" Warren.

Click here for dozens, maybe hundreds, of videos of him discussing socialism.

And as much as you and Warren would like to see her equated with Bernie, nah. As this article clearly delineates their positions and history, just nah, no way, never.

up
11 users have voted.

@Wally his mention of the label in his recent debate appearances, and this is something more about my memory and perception. I can maybe dimly recall maybe once in the four debates, perhaps after the term was used by a mod directed at Bernie?

Perhaps you have a cite from one of the four recent debates where he has embraced the label/explained it -- even more persuasive, more than one time. May have happened, just saying I don't recall many times in his most public appearances with the largest by far audiences -- the debates.

Again, I have no problem with the label -- I'm probably more in that camp than not. On a few issues like the US military footprint across the globe and Pentagon budget, and on the environment, I would probably be considered off-the-charts ultra-radical and beyond labels -- probably could out-lefty and out-radical most of you here.

But politically, I'm just offering that's it's still too early to highlight this description for others in the field of hopefuls, and only a tiny few elected pols have so far embraced it, so it's in its infancy as far as being a positive factor on the political landscape. My perception is that Bernie neither runs away from it nor highlights it in his campaign.

up
2 users have voted.
Anja Geitz's picture

@wokkamile

I'm probably more in that camp than not

up
3 users have voted.

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@wokkamile @wokkamile

is not an excuse for giving Trump a standing ovation for being capitalist.

In fact, that moment is the perfect opportunity to advocate for socialism, or at least democratic socialism. Stay seated and afterwards talk about how bad Trump and capitalism are. If you're too scared to adopt the socialist moniker, or think "the people aren't ready" (though I have no idea how you would know that), talk about how you like FDR's version of capitalism better than Trump's. For maximum impact, talk about how you like FDR's version of capitalism better than Trump's, Clinton's, or Bush's.

If you want to make it even better, talk about how FDR's version of capitalism IS democratic socialism.

up
9 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Cassiodorus's picture

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal to compare him with James Buchanan or Warren Harding. The problem with such people is that they rate America's Presidents too highly when a lot of them have, well, sucked.

up
7 users have voted.

"I was Zuckerberging people before Zuckerberg's balls dropped." -- the Devil, on "Rick and Morty"

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@Cassiodorus

Or are we admitting he was never actually President?

up
8 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Cassiodorus's picture

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal @Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal between "ordinary bad" Presidents and "exceptionally bad" Presidents. Buchanan and Harding were exceptionally bad -- maybe also Dubs and the Donald too. At any rate, some Presidents who were also thrown into the mix were:

1) Barack Obama, whose capitulation to the Republicans did for them and their lust for power what Dubs could not do. And he was the guy who put together a milk-and-water bailout for the Great Recession and a "health insurance bill" written by a former staffer from Wellpoint.

2) practically every President from Martin van Buren through Millard Fillmore, and every President from Andrew Johnson through Grover Cleveland, which is why so many of those two groups show up on this list. The first group, the antebellum Presidents, were inept slaveholder butt-kissers, the second group (outside of Andrew Johnson, who belonged in the first group) corrupt fools available to the highest bidders, all meriting criticism in Matthew Josephson's The Politicos.

3) principled ideologue and all-around nice guy Herbert Hoover, who did very little of consequence while unemployment reached 25% and millions of Americans starved

4) virulent racist and violent anti-communist and anti-anarchist Woodrow Wilson

5) Ronald Reagan the Alzheimer's President, whose first-term cabinet thought a nuclear war was winnable

& so you see that the Donald has a lot of competition, and may have to try harder to be worse if he is to earn the title of Worst President Ever.

up
7 users have voted.

"I was Zuckerberging people before Zuckerberg's balls dropped." -- the Devil, on "Rick and Morty"

Anja Geitz's picture

@Cassiodorus

In an unctuous sort of way, but in preparation for a Civil War, it seems beyond the definition of being merely treasonous.

"Floyd, the Secretary of War, scattered the army so that much of it could be captured when hostilities should commence, and distributed the cannon and small arms from Northern arsenals throughout the South so as to be on hand when treason wanted them," Ulysses S. Grant wrote in his memoirs.

Floyd eventually resigned and became a Confederate general

up
5 users have voted.

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

edg's picture

Netanyahoo in Israel, that is. And Israel in general, of course. The Washington Post viciously attacks anyone that threatens to derail the gravy train to Israel or remove our troops from Israel's MidEast machinations. And Sen. Warren had the temerity to suggest removing all American troops. So it should surprise no one that WP has turned on her.

up
17 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@edg

Especially vis-a-vis Israel?

She's been one of Israel's stauchest defenders of some of their worst repressive, exploitative, and even murderous policies.

Seems to me, she was just trying to curry favor with the left, and then her campaign jumped right in during the debate no less, to elaborate/modify/change her stated position.

I think WaPo is responding to pressure more so from Obama/Biden than to Israel or alphabet people.

up
14 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@Wally

is, at this point, not the issue.

You're not supposed to say what she said--because you're not supposed to acknowledge the existence of other points of view. You're supposed to pretend that our foreign policy, esp. with regard to Israel and the Middle East, is as inevitable as gravity.

Actually, no--you're supposed to pretend that all our crappy policy is as inevitable as gravity.

That's why they've made politics about personality and etiquette.

up
14 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Shahryar's picture

thus "Mayor Pete and Kolubchar had a big night".

RealClear has the averages thusly (with amount of time they were given to speak):
1. Biden 29.4 (16:27 - 2nd)
2. Warren 23.4 (22:58 - 1st)
3. Bernie 15.4 (13:04 - 5th)
4. Buttigieg 5.6 (12:57 - 6th)
5. Harris 5.2 (12:24 - 7th)
6. O'Rourke 2.8 (13:13 - 4th)
7. Yang 2.2 (9:37 - 9th)
8. Klobuchar 1.8 (13:14 - 3rd!)

up
13 users have voted.

@Shahryar

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/15/politics/dem-debate-speaking-time/index.html

Warren
Senator from MA
22:58
Biden
Former Vice President
16:27
Klobuchar
Senator from MN
13:14
O'Rourke
Former rep. from TX
13:13
Sanders
Senator from VT
13:04
Buttigieg
Mayor of South Bend, IN
12:57
Harris
Senator from CA
12:24
Booker
Senator from NJ
11:45
Yang
Businessman
09:37
Castro
Former HUD secretary
08:25
Gabbard
Congresswoman from HI
08:21
Steyer
Businessman
07:12

up
12 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@irishking

Pretty much like their polls.

up
9 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@irishking

than Beto O'Roarke?

Jesus.

Of course the entirety of the Democratic debates is a fucking farce. Nobody who wanted an actual debate would construct one like this and no one who took our country and its problems seriously would give so little time to each one, turning the debates into a cross between the NFL playoffs and a reality tv show.

up
16 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Wally's picture

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

Lots less time than the waffling centrists on stage but more to the point:

Here it is.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/dj5ykp/everything_...

up
8 users have voted.

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal these debates are a bit of a farce -- that's all too easy to see. All sorts of problems -- too many candidates on stage, too many RW-framed questions from the same narrow crop of corp media moderators, no questions from a progressive pov, not enough or even any discussion of some crucial issues like climate change.

Any solutions? How would you narrow the field of 15-20 candidates -- what are the criteria by which some would be invited to debate and others excluded? What sort of format for the debates? Who sets the rules?

up
4 users have voted.

@Shahryar

up
9 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

up
9 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Raggedy Ann's picture

poll where Bernie drops to 13% but is the only one who can beat Herr Drumpf. WTF???

up
15 users have voted.

“The trouble [with injustice] is that once you see it, you can’t unsee it. And once you’ve seen it, keeping quiet, saying nothing, becomes as political an act as speaking out. There is no innocence. Either way, you’re accountable.”
-- Arundhati Roy

Wally's picture

@Raggedy Ann

It's concerning insofar as it's a state poll and it's Iowa we're looking at, the first results that will come in come February 2.

But again, all polls have their problems with independent and younger voters, which is Bernie's strength.

And I've noticed that Emerson national polling has oscillated quite a bit. A coupla months ago, Bernie's percentage plummented and then by the latter part of September it was right up there again in a statistical tie with Biden and Warren: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democrat...!

Meanwhile, Buttigieg Denounced for Spouting 'Pack of Lies' About Medicare for All While Swimming in Insurance Industry Cash:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/10/16/buttigieg-denounced-spoutin...

up
12 users have voted.

@Wally the radar for me, but earlier in the year (and possibly much earlier than that) Mayor Pete clearly supported M4A.

In one on-camera interview I saw today, he talks about how in recent times the conversation on health care has been distorted by the Right, but that he feels real M4A is actually the centrist position.

Then came the health care industry donations. And Mayor Pete probably doesn't decline large contributions from health care industry execs.

up
10 users have voted.
OzoneTom's picture

@wokkamile
Traditional big donor "fund-raising" income is proportional to the amount of betrayal of the public trust a candidate is able to deliver.

up
5 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@OzoneTom

up
7 users have voted.

@Wally for highlighting the embarrassing Pete love from fanboy Van Jones of CNN, rah-rahing that I noted here the day after the debate (does Krystal read here??).

"Pistol Pete" -- if only!! The real one was no moderate on the court, a dazzling, bold creator and hardwood artist who wasn't afraid to push the limits, a far cry from Lets Set Some Realistic Limits and Go Slowly Buttigeig. The Pete Maravich estate oughtta sue Jones and CNN for libel a/o appropriating Pete's nickname w/o authorization.

And as KB alludes to, it is odd that the only black commenter on the CNN post-game panel would want to favorably tout a potential Pete vs Warren Dem Finals matchup -- neither candidate holding a large amount of black support currently, and his boy Pete likely never to grab much beyond 1% of that group. At least Liz is actively courting their vote and is making gains.

up
6 users have voted.
Lily O Lady's picture

@Raggedy Ann

I agree with Wally that Bernie is our last hope, but that is why TPTB want him gone. I hope all the organizing that Bernie and Our Revolution have been doing can overcome the powerful few.

up
29 users have voted.

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@Lily O Lady

up
11 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

@Raggedy Ann and a small one, with large MOE, but Emerson is a legit one, and it was taken partly after the last debate.

If another post-debate poll comes out showing Bernie falling behind Pete, or lagging well behind Liz, then things become interesting.

IA would seem an important contest for Sanders, especially since he will be expected to do well in NH, the tiny state bordering his home state.

Looks like his supporters should consider focusing their fire on bought-and-paid Pete. There would be no dishonor is losing there to the well-liked Senator Warren. But losing to a very young, néophyte small-town Indiana mayor ...

up
6 users have voted.

@wokkamile
practically all polls are rigged?
Maybe the parallel universe I find myself in is different,
but nobody I talk to agrees with published polls.
Masses are taught to converse in headlines and trending twits.
Sensibilities, unlike guns, are checked at the door.

up
16 users have voted.

May we be united and strong -- laurel

@QMS Imperfect, yes.

Of course, when a poll comes out favoring one's preferred candidate, then it's funny how polls don't seem so bad...

up
3 users have voted.

@wokkamile
May not, as you surmise, be rigged.
Point is, no one I know agrees with the opinionators
AKA pollsters. Funny that.
Same as it ever was.

up
10 users have voted.

May we be united and strong -- laurel

Wally's picture

@wokkamile

That way voters (and non-voters) actually get to decide. When someone sees their preferred candidate losing, they may be inclined not to bother voting. That's a form of voter suppression as CSTMM has noted.

Actually, I'd be happier without polls, especially polls sponsored by corporate media or financed by corporate money in any way -- which as far as I know is all of them. Let pollsters do private polling for the candidates and that's it. Dere aughta be a law!

up
11 users have voted.

@Wally without interminably long campaign cycles too. But I suppose polls provide some of us hopeless political junkies with something to chat about and nitpick over while we watch the clock tick down to the first voting, if ever, supposedly in some smallish white folks state in the midwest where hogs outnumber people by a sizable amount.

But while we're law making here: 3 month election cycle, no polling or campaign ads until the starter's gun goes off. Month 1: parties pick their nominee in a national primary or series of weekly regional primaries. Month 2: party conventions. Month 3: general election. 3 televised debates run by League of Women Voters or their successors in interest as the case may be.

Voting starts on Saturday and ends at midnight Tuesday in all states. Registration can be done online or at any DMV or post office. Heavy criminal penalties for voter suppression, enforced by a beefed up FEC.

Some suggestions. Not exhaustive.

up
10 users have voted.
Pluto's Republic's picture

@Wally

Either all polls were bullshit.

Or most Americans lied to the pollsters.

I now lean toward the bullshit solution.

up
19 users have voted.

The purpose of a writer is to keep civilization from destroying itself.
– Albert Camus

@Pluto's Republic
i'm sure both played a role.

up
5 users have voted.

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

@Pluto's Republic I would not say "all polls" failed, they pretty accurately predicted the national popular vote.

up
3 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@Vex

And that's about as big an understatement as you'll ever hear from me.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/09/why-were-the-p...

up
3 users have voted.
Pluto's Republic's picture

@Vex

The popular vote was predicted. Toward the end, even the polls thought that meant the Presidency. But it was one of those rare Electoral elections.

There was still something way off about the national polls. Hillary's three million votes. Didn't they all come from California? I think their were signals in the noise that deserved less projection and more attention.

In any event, I was curious to see how the revisionist narrative was shaping up so I cruised through Wikipedia. The 2016 election page looks good but backstage, in Revision History, it is still a hot mess of bitter conflict and revisionism, which has turned the public page into a total immersion of anti-Russian propaganda and evidence-free assertions. The CIA has been busy. The editors made a small efffort to address polling issues:

For the 2016 election, there were many competing election forecast approaches including Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight, The Upshot at The New York Times, Daily Kos, Princeton Election Consortium, Cook Political Report, Rothenberg and Gonzales, PollyVote, Sabato's Crystal Ball and Electoral-Vote. These models mostly showed a Democratic advantage since the nominees were confirmed, and were supported by pundits and statisticians, including Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, Nate Cohn at The New York Times, and Larry Sabato from the Crystal Ball newsletter, who predicted a Democratic victory in competitive presidential races and projected consistent leads in several battleground states around the country.

The near-unanimity of forecasters in predicting a Clinton victory may have been the result of groupthink. However, FiveThirtyEight's model pointed to the possibility of an Electoral College-popular vote split widening in the final weeks based on Trump's improvement in swing states like Florida or Pennsylvania. This was due to the demographics targeted by Trump's campaign which lived in big numbers there, in addition to Clinton's poor performance in several of those swing states in comparison with Obama's performance in 2012, as well as having a big number of her potential voters in very populated traditionally 'blue' states, but also in some very populated states traditionally 'red', like Texas, which were projected safe for Trump.

Early exit polls generally favored Clinton. After the polls closed and some of the results came in, the forecasts were found to be inaccurate, as Trump performed better in the competitive Midwestern states, such as Iowa, Ohio, and Minnesota, than expected.

sigh

up
4 users have voted.

The purpose of a writer is to keep civilization from destroying itself.
– Albert Camus
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@wokkamile

There's no way anybody would rig a poll in favor of Bernie Sanders. There is no doubt of how the establishment regards him: the media establishment, the political establishment, the business establishment, the financial establishment, and the military and military intelligence establishment. None of them likes him, and that's putting it mildly. Most of them have done their best to silence him and his movement, or, failing that, discredit them.

After what we've seen over the past three and a half years, which amounts to the most blatant suppression of a political candidate in my lifetime, the idea that a positive Bernie Sanders poll could be fabricated is just silly. It's not like polls are done by the Independent Zapatista Student Brigade.

Also, given the ugliness and pervasiveness of the suppression efforts over the last three and a half years, it's hardly surprising that Sanders supporters have doubts every time a bad poll comes up, particularly since those bad poll results are coupled with the biggest fundraising and the most numerous donors of any Democratic candidate. He has raised the most money--yet he is doing terribly. More people have sent him money than any other candidate--yet he is not popular. That's what we're being led to believe.

Meanwhile, Biden constantly sails comfortably above all opponents in the polls, no matter what he does.

Gee, why would we think that Bernie sagging in the polls might be a fabricated result?

up
23 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Unabashed Liberal's picture

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

to favor Bernie.

Having said that, I don't think that the Dem Party Political Establishment is at all in opposition to him running, in that they very much want to win over (for whomever the eventual Dem nominee will be) the main cohort that he most often courts--millennials, especially college bound ones.

(Two Dem strategists on CNN said he conducted only one campaign rally in 2016 that was not in a college town/on a campus. That's his lane, IMO. And, that's a demographic that Dems will have to depend upon, if they hope to take the WH in 2020.)

Remember, like Biden and Warren, Bernie met with 'O' to get his blessing, before declaring his 2020 run.

(And, like Warren, he's a member of the DP Leadership team.)

Here's a blurb from the write-up,

What it means that Bernie Sanders met with Barack Obama about 2020 run

Bernie Sanders was among a slate of 2020 presidential hopeful seeking the blessing of President Barack Obama, according to several reports published earlier this week.

In online reports from Politico, CNN and Salon, Sanders is named along with former Vice President Joe Biden and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren as among those who might seek the Democratic nomination and have met with Obama.

Axios, which boils down news and analysis into concise takes, explains why this matters: “A meeting with Obama is an easy way for 2020 contenders to gain legitimacy and presidential wisdom — and, most importantly, a foothold with the man still largely considered to be the Democratic Party's figurehead.”

Citing “multiple people who have been briefed on the secretive sit-downs,” Politico’s Edward-Isaac Dovere reports that Sanders met with Obama in mid-March at the senator’s request.

Dovere writes, “They talked about the future of the party and their different roles in it. They talked about what the party should be focused on, and what would be distractions. Obama discussed his views on the differences between idealism and practicality, and Sanders responded with his."

“They did not get into a specific discussion about whether Sanders would run again for president in 2020.”

. . . “That Obama is taking meetings with presidential aspirants at all belies the idea prevalent in some Democratic circles that he had little interest in shaping the party -- and, potentially, the presidency -- going forward. Obama is clearly interested. We just don't know yet in whom.”

It's always been my opinion that one of his goals is to help with the Party GOTV efforts by appealing to the 3 demographics that he's constantly referencing - working people, young people (college students) and poor people. Again, though--college students are the cohort that's his main target.

For that matter, I can't remember a debate that Bernie doesn't make a full bore GOTV pitch. See below from the debate transcript:

SANDERS: . . .

The way you win an election in this time in history is not the same old, same old. You have to inspire people. You have to excite people. You've got to bring working people and young people and poor people into the political process...

IOW, one of his primary missions is to expand the Base, by, at he puts it, "inspiring and exciting people." Which he does very well.

And, I believe that the reason that he was rewarded with a Leadership position, was in recognition of his value to the DP, including, the DP Leadership.

To a lesser extent, the same could probably be said of Warren. After all, she was elevated to a Leadership position when she was at the height of popularity with the Progressive Base (2014) (prior to this run), when she was being drafted/encouraged to make a 2016 run, by MoveOn, etc.

Bernie's promotion came after he set same Base on fire during his 2016 run. Hard to imagine that those two promotions had nothing to do with their respective value to the DP Leadership, and, the Party as a whole.

Also, it's reported that Warren and Bernie have a pact not to attack one another. So far, they appear to be honoring that deal. Sorta strikes me that they're conducting themselves as two people who have the 'greater good' of the Party on their minds; perhaps, more than any individual and/or personal Presidential ambitions.)

But, just my 2 cents. No doubt, though--time will tell.

Hey, hope Kate is doing better. Please keep folks posted on her progress.

Pleasantry

Take care.

Mollie

I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.
~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne

Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all others.
~~Cicero

The obstacle is the path.
~~Zen Proverb

up
12 users have voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

@Unabashed Liberal a literal non-aggression pact, they sure do act as if one exists.

But with or without, it makes sense for them to stay friendly, at this point at least, as they are both ideologically fairly close and Bernie, should he be the nominee, would obviously have Liz in mind as his VP.

Who else would come close for a VP pick for him? She would help placate the Obama/Clinton establishment wing of the party while still keeping the progressive wing energized. Who else does that bridging of the two wings of the party so well?

up
2 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@wokkamile

There was a flurry of MS M articles about it a few weeks ago. Some Obama folks consider her sanctimonious and a condescending narcissist. I don't think they'd want her on a Bernie ticket. Bernie will be bad enough in their eyes.

See: https://www.businessinsider.com/obama-aides-called-elizabeth-warren-sanc...

up
2 users have voted.

@Wally re the inside story from 2009 and Obama stubbornly not naming her to head her CFPB? I seem to recall those characterizations of her being made by Obama loyalists. One condescendingly told her maybe she could just go out and be the Cheerleader for the new CFPB while someone else actually heads the org. Not even subtle sexism. That piece and another I saw didn't reflect well on Obama and his admin, and so frankly, who cares what those sexists think about her?

So, yes, there was that kerfuffle from a decade ago. Otoh, it was a decade ago. And inside tussles happen in politics. Mostly they are overcome.

I don't think there's a shadow of a chance that Obama and his loyalists would have any influence over Bernie's pick, including Liz, and they would just be shooting themselves in the foot if word ever got out that they were opposed to her.

Meantime I just don't see anyone out there nearly as good a fit for his VP, if it comes to that, and he's already on record as saying he would choose a woman.

I notice my bud Jordan Chariton -- very strong for Bernie- - in sync with me about the race coming down fairly soon to essentially a 2-person race, Bernie v Liz, with Boota and Yang yipping at their heels, from well behind, and Biden continuing to fade as his signs of mental decline and lack of enthusiastic support become obvious.

up
0 users have voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

@Unabashed Liberal College for All -- which would explain the college-town rallies...

up
3 users have voted.

"I was Zuckerberging people before Zuckerberg's balls dropped." -- the Devil, on "Rick and Morty"

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@Unabashed Liberal

wish I'd found your comment sooner.

I haven't slept much at all in two nights, so I gotta go take a nap--but let's pick this up later, maybe in a new essay.

up
4 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Anja Geitz's picture

@wokkamile

I look at the crosstabs to see how the sampling was put together to judge if a poll was credible, regardless if "my team" came out ahead.

up
12 users have voted.

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@wokkamile

who Bernie loses to, or "loses" to.

If it's a Warren vs Trump race, I not only won't vote--I won't even take notice.

That's not because I hate Warren in particular. Any contest other than Gabbard vs Trump or Sanders vs Trump is a pointless exercise unless your biggest issue is civility.

up
22 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Pluto's Republic's picture

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

...feel the same. They have nothing left to lose. I think it's clear that Bernie has nothing left to lose.

Excellent logic here, as well:

There's no way anybody would rig a poll in favor of Bernie Sanders.

Iowa and New Hampshire together will tell the only truth about voters, as of February 2020. Everything else is meaningless. Between now and February, Democratic candidates will either be backing Medicare for All unconditionally, because 500 thousand medical bankruptcies per year are 500 thousand too many. And 30,000 deaths due to medical neglect each year are 30,000 too many. Or, they will be backing as far away from M4A as they dare. Meanwhile, Republicans will be braying about Socialism to the denial-goons that listen to them.

That is not to say that Iowa was not rigged in 2016, because it was. But in 2020 it may be more difficult to corrupt the vote count.

Some good news about the neocon-based impeachment is:

1. It will throw the Republicans off balance and perhaps prevent some of the most heinous legislation that will harm the lives of the Americans People that they have planned to pass during 2020.

2. Trump may get smart and release the damning evidence in his possession that will steamroll the Democratic Party and expose their corruption to the world.

Trump's problem is that the only journalists willing to tell the truth for him are on the far Left, and he doesn't have a clue who they are. His bubble is so tight, I am amazed he can breathe at all.

up
11 users have voted.

The purpose of a writer is to keep civilization from destroying itself.
– Albert Camus
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@Pluto's Republic @Pluto's Republic

it's always nice to hear your thoughts, even on the occasions we disagree (not that we're disagreeing now).

We see the same bedrock political reality, and a lot of people don't.

Thank you for continuing to post here.

As for Bernie, I hope he feels he has nothing left to lose, but I'm not sure he does.

I keep feeling like Aragorn.

"Are you frightened?"
"Yes."
"Not frightened enough. I know what hunts you."

up
5 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal notice a number of you here are Bernie or Busters (less than a handful are similar Tulsi or Busters). A few say they will vote Green Howie. Yes, 20 or so here say they won't vote or will vote Howie. That combined with a matching 20 or so voters outside this board spread out across the land, and there will be enough for a decent hard-lefty dinner party at my house.

BYOB. Use of herbal jazz cigarettes outside only please.

up
1 user has voted.
Anja Geitz's picture

@wokkamile

Actual wit has truth to it. Even if you underlined your attempt at sarcasm about "hard-leftys" it still wouldn't be funny because you'd first have to explain what would compel any "hard-lefty" to have dinner at your house.

up
6 users have voted.

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@wokkamile

or a Tulsi or Buster, you are misinterpreting my comment.

It has nothing to do with liking Bernie or Tulsi, though I do. It has everything to do with the fact that none of the other candidates has a chance in hell of making, or trying to make, any of the policy changes I want.

I don't give a damn if the candidate is named Joe Smith from Arkansas, if he shares at least some of my policy views and has the courage, and the willingness to sacrifice, necessary to implement them.

That last is why none of the other candidates is worth spit. Most of them don't support the same policies I do; none of them has the guts to do battle with monsters. And that is what is required to institute the policy changes I want: the ability to fight monsters--and not just Republican ones. The days when you could accomplish meaningful, qualitative policy change via discussion and negotiation are long gone. Those currently in power do not negotiate because they see no reason to--they hold all the cards. Discussions with them are pointless theatrics geared to instill various emotional reactions in the public. The only way to win is a very serious fight. If you want change, there is no point in electing anyone who is not up to that fight.

Even Bernie, for all his selflessness and courage, seems trammeled on this issue, no doubt by John fucking Podesta's "leverage;" possibly he is also restraining himself due to some misguided wish to support Democrats against Republicans. He has a strong enough, consistent enough history of fighting the good fight that I'm still willing to take a risk on him, despite his complete unwillingness to confront the way he was defrauded last time. Tulsi shares fewer of my policy goals but has the willingness to fight, risk, and sacrifice in spades. Mike Gravel would have also received my support==I couldn't do better than the man who read the Pentagon Papers into the public record.

The rest of them have shown much more propensity to play the game of presenting an appealing face to the public while making nice with the monsters behind the scenes than they have shown a willingness to fight, risk, and sacrifice.

You can't make nice with established power if you want change.

You either stand a union man or thug for J.H. Blair.

up
11 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Anja Geitz's picture

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

Which side are you on. Epic.

up
4 users have voted.

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Wally's picture

I watched some online MSM news this morning and it seems Warren is getting heavily battered from all the centrist candidates for her statement at the debate that she wants our troops out of the Middle East.

I had a feeling that her continuously lying (in this case only to curry favor with the left when she saw Bernie was having a great night) would catch up with her. Biden is really blasting her with obvious contempt for her lack of foreign policy savvy, like he is going in for the kill. Klobuchar also seems particularly savage. So much for women's solidarity.

And it seems that Warren's gaffe benefited Klobuchar in that the latter actually considerably outraised Warren in campaign donations. So did Mayor Pete. Bernie raised $620,000 during the debate but hasn't yet released his total for the 24 hour period during and after the debate.

up
12 users have voted.