Which is why he could be stopped by a court if it came to that. Saying we have civil rights is not to say they are never violated. In some instances these protections are very slow moving. In the American South for example, it took almost 100 years to free blacks from slavery. Ultimately what gave that effort teeth was the constitution. Civil rights are the protections against tyranny of the majority.

Yes, he's less insane politically. And with his mouth, as he generally avoids making ridiculous, offensive statements.

The fact that he's closer to the center than loons like Cruz doesn't mean he's all that close to it.

I'm just going by what I see on google and the major networks. Hillary's delegate count always includes the super delegates. There might or not be some text somewhere explaining the real breakdown, but at a glance one would come away with the impression that her lead is more than twice what it actually is. It's shameless thought control, as were incidents where online polls about who won a debate being removed and reversed in Clinton's favor in the reporting. Sanders has been dogged across the media the entire time and the intentional misrepresenting the delegate count is just a piece of that attack by the corporate media. This is all obvious. The question is why a sucker a like you would defend it.


Is the primary system in Canada tax payer funded? The system is designed to allow elites to choose a candidate far in advance and suppress the votes for challengers. Why should they receive tax payer funding for this? Say I don't like either of the parties. Then one day close to the election I hear something about a candidate in one of the parties that makes me want to vote for them. I shouldn't be able to make up my mind close to an election when the platforms are being most heavily discussed in the media? That practice is too antidemocratic to earn taxpayer funding.

No one said anything contrary to that. So what are you ridiculing?

Leave it to JJ to pre-categorize "any argument". lol. Bernie has been rising in national polls. One recent poll had him ahead.

There are possible strong arguments. Consider a sports analogy. Which football team is favored to win the superbowl: one that is 15-1 and has barely beaten weak competition in its last 5 games or one that is 12-4 but has improved dramatically after a slow start and beaten top teams by a wide margin its last 5 games? Hillary is losing ground despite benefiting from a range of unfair advantages, including near blackouts of the Sanders campaign in the media early on.

You have no way of knowing that and you do nothing to give support to that. Common sense would suggest you are wrong since progressive policies are actually the most popular. This is why Hillary has continually co-opted Bernie's progressive positions, even making reversals which would deeply embarrass anyone with a sense of integrity. But Hillary let that go a long time ago if she ever had any.

You are saying that as voters got to know the positions of someone in more agreement with them they would turn away, even as the primary and polling indicate that as more people know Sanders the more the his support broadens. That's why you will always be a stupid sheeple, JJ. You just can't think. You can only follow.

Why would you think the actual lead would have to exclude the super-delegates? It seems like you're just declaring that your preferred framing (i.e., which candidate has more popular support among the primary voters) is the only legitimate way of looking at it. To the extent that what you're saying is true, it's obvious that the media's framing is different - which candidate is going to win the nomination? In this case, it would be silly to exclude super-delegates, since they're just trying to predict what's actually going to happen at the convention.

Obviously as a Sanders supporter, you prefer the framing that makes the race look closer, but which framing do you think most casual "at-a-glace" news consumers are more interested in? No "corporate media" conspiracy is required. I know, I know, I'm just a sheeple who's not able to see through the corporate media thought control like you are.

I'll give you this one. 538 and realclearpolitics show pledged delegates most prominently. But CNN and MSNBC show pledged+super most prominently.


Parties are given tax payer money. There's no primary system per se. Parties choose their leaders on their own time frame, not on the election time frame.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tion-3824.html

He's been falling behind for almost the last month. I'm not sure which poll had him ahead, because I don't consider end of March/start of April recent.

Except she's not?


I have as much way of knowing that as you have of knowing what you were saying.


You realize there are a whole bunch of voters that aren't paying attention at all to the Democratic nomination, right? And that would absolutely not support the majority of Sander's platform.


Hah, you used sheeple non-ironically. Nice.

I'll assume this is as good of a read as when you said something like I'd never take risks in my life and always work for a big corporate company.

Pledged delegates a super delegate intentions are very qualitatively different. The media I referred to presents them as qualitatively the same. That is a propaganda technique, plain and simple.

It's not a question of "framing" either. When you conflate the questions of who is ahead at the moment with the question of who will win you are being dishonest, not framing. It is an attempt to discourage would-be Bernie voters and portray the contest as out of reach for Bernie. It is also using a technique from advertising called the band wagon effect.

If I was going to assert that I know your mind it would be that you think I am right about this particular issue. I mean, you can't be that stupid to not realize that the corporate sector desperately prefers Hillary over Bernie and to not see through the simplest of its tricks once it is pointed out to you and explained in detail. You could be that dishonest to pretend otherwise though.

He just won Indiana. He won West Virginia by a large margin and he is going to win Oregon. The vote in NY was plagued with irregularities favoring Hillary- lawsuits are progressing.

What's stranger is she's not winning. She's not finishing. People don't really want to get behind her. Jon Stewart suggested she isn't a real human. Maybe that is because she is about tied with Trump nationally at the moment. Critically, among independent voters, Bernie is beating Trump among independent voters by 22 points while she is losing by 2 points. Bernie is beating Trump in the major battleground states while she is tied. She is tied with one of the most unpopular people to ever win a major party nomination. Around 40 percent of Bernie supporters will not vote for her and frankly I am skeptical of that number which I think is low. I think many Sanders supporters will stay home in many scenarios.



Did I say "Bernie will beat Trump in the general election" the way you said "Bernie's policies have gotten almost no coverage aside from very broad strokes. If he were actually the nominee and got known better by the general electorate his polling against Trump goes way down." which is ridiculous by the way? And whatever you do don't address my other arguments against your assertion.

I am referencing national polling of likely voters. Sander's platform has never been the issue, only the single word "socialism". But that word seems to have lost its bite and that was always a manufactured issue. On which issues do you think Sanders holds unpopular opinions?

That's a word I learned ITT that seems to fit you. At first, because I am part livestock myself, I was hesitant to use that word straight-up, knowing that wasn't the norm here. Then I thought about it and came to the conclusion that it is cleverly descriptive of a particular set of precepts that is somewhat common, so why not use it as intended?

No, that former read was far more ambitious. You're a sheeple to me because you seem to come to your beliefs not by reason as much as passive absorption of media. I mean, right in this thread you have put forth that if more people knew of Bernie's agenda more people would disfavor him. You have no theoretical or empirical support for this belief (that I know of). So where does it come from? Well, it's found suggested by the propaganda spouted by elites who have been against Bernie and those like him for a long time; I have to assume that's where you get it. I give you counter arguments which are simple and strong and it is as though you stay purposefully blind to them, not substantively retorting despite having the free time and inclination to engage in this forum. In this way you unthinkingly move with the herd, like a sheep.

This might be a confusing and distressing time for you, the herd not quite herding like it has in the past.

Deuces, I just read the first part.

You were talking national polls. Were you lying, wrong, or are there polls that aren't listed at the link I posted.

I know saying things as fact and just ignoring when people prove you wrong is your 'thing', so I'll let you focus on just this simple reply before addressing the rest of your post.

Again, you're just declaring this. It's not dishonest to accurately give the delegate counts. What would be dishonest would be to pretend the super-delegates don't count and present the race as closer than it actually is. The contest is out of reach for Bernie. I hate to break it to you, but it's reality has an anti-Bernie bias, not the media.
Of course, anybody who doesn't share your views must be stupid and/or lying. You're no different than the "liberal media bias" idiots on the right. Next thing you know, you'll be "unskewing" the polls to show how far ahead Bernie really is.

That is kind of my point. It takes direct, non democratic, layers of government to protect citizens from the tyranny of the majority.

There must be polls that aren't listed in the link you posted. Bernie referenced the poll in a recent speech. It's not that strong of a point that I am going to try to dig up the referent poll just so you can ignore it.

I was "proved wrong" over a polling issue concerning Bernie and Trump in the Trump thread. I had linked to or referenced a chart that was errant on Daily Kos. I acknowledged the correction, like I would in any such case:
This is always what I do when it is shown to me that I got something wrong, and I am one of the few posters here that ever admits when they are wrong. It just so happens that you and Duker have never caught me riding dirty, try as you might. Yet no doubt, despite me showing you this exchange, you will persist in saying that I ignore it or deny it when people prove me wrong.

It's like you think in memes that are connected to some wishful version of reality, memes that just so happen to fit a propaganda narrative. With me, you really think I am an insane dishonest person or something like that because my views challenge the establishment. This is what propaganda tells you to think of people like me, but it's not connected to anything real.

Lol, too perfect.



I proved you wrong just up thread. I linked to a list of national polls that directly contradict your two claims that:

1. Bernie is catching up to Hillary
2. There was a recent poll showing he's ahead.

And you didn't admit you were wrong. You instead just made another unsubstantiated claim.


Hah, you're such an establishment challenger! So much so that instead of believing an independent source listing a diverse group of recent polls you just take a candidate's word about how they're doing. Deuces, you're literally making statements of fact ITT based off of nothing but the word of a man who is clearly not going to tell you the unbiased truth.

Like even you have to see the hilariousness of what you're writing here.

You keep putting the word "actual" in bold which I find strange because a focus on that word should have brightened things for you by now. There is actuality and potentiality. The pledged delegates are actual votes. The super delegates are only potential votes. Counting potential votes as if they are the same as actual votes is blatantly dishonest. It is exactly as if you took a poll way before the election and reported the results as if they were actual votes. The propaganda practice, implemented this campaign season across corporate owned media, is a plain attempt to deceive voters into thinking the race is not winnable for Bernie, making it look as though Hillary's lead is insurmountable and that she is more popular than among voters than she really is.

After the Nevada campaign Bernie and Hillary were tied but the media was reporting it as like 500 to 70 and emphasizing Clinton's insurmountable lead. Actual pledged delegates were tied IIRC. After he beat her in NH Bernie was ahead in pledge delegates but all over the media the score was reported as like 300something to like 40.

There are petitions all over to try to get this stopped. My view is that the campaign should sue ALL the outlets participating in the fraud. The NYT has actually stopped reporting it that way (now that Clinton has nearly won).

Like I said before (to which you had no reply), pledged delegates are qualitatively different than super delegates. Therefore counting them as if they are the same is dishonest. I have explained how they are different above. My opinion is that the comparison is easy to make, and if you can't evaluate it you are, in fact, stupid.

Let me ask you another question which I also think marks people as either stupid of lying if they disagree with me. Did payments of millions of dollars to Hillary by banks for 40 minute speeches represent one piece of a quid pro quo? If you don't believe they do so represent, you are either lying or stupid. I don't think disagreement always means the other party is either stupid or lying, but some do.

If you want to do your semantic nitpicking that's fine, but if you want me to respond you have to use my exact quotes, not **** you make up. That's only fair.

He used your quotes in post 37...

Just because I've got a bit of time right now.


And survey says...



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...824.html#polls


See Deuces, the above is while you'll always be a stupid sheeple. You pick your side and then believe everything you're told from that side without doing any sort of basic fact checking. Your whole life is a deluded little lie.

But at least you're entertaining!

I'm waiting for him to admit he was wrong like he is known to do... (eye-roll, double face palm)

Do you understand what the word "pledged" means? Are you familiar with the phrase "a distinction without a difference"? I mean, I understand your argument, you don't need to keep repeating it. I just don't agree. You think pretending super-delegates don't exist would be more accurate than acknowledging that they will, in fact, vote at the convention. Imagine the poor media consumer who's told that Bernie is "winning" all the way up to the convention only to have Hillary win in a blowout when all those "potential" votes go "actual". Why would you do that to him? Anyway, good luck with your lawsuits.

No, you just haven't.

That this could happen is a true fact. It is a possible outcome. I am not lying here in any way shape or form.

The statement that Bernie has been rising in national polls is undeniably true. I put no time frame on that. If you go back to December and look at the graph you posted you will see the trend I am referencing, a trend that would stick out to any even slightly objective observer. Going back further the trend is even more pronounced. The progress made by Bernie against the preordained, presumptive, consensus winner has been amazing. And all the while this has happened through virtual media blackouts. If you don't want to see the trend of Bernie rising the you are only demonstrating your blindness, once again. Of course there is variance but less recently than in the past. The overall trend is so stark I just can't conceive of how you can look at it, post it, and deny it. Your fidelity to propaganda is extraordinary.

On the claim that one recent poll showed him ahead, I told you that was from Bernie himself in a speech. I might dig that up later. In the mean time why wouldn't these pools do?

This was posted on truthdig on April 18th.

This is my opinion, obviously not presented as a "fact". I am perhaps more involved in this election than you. I think about an array of factors, not just national polling. The mere losing of Indiana and West Virginia are reasons to say Hillary is losing ground. But I was also aware of her negatives rising. She is also losing ground relative to Trump. Biden is going around saying he would have been the best president. The FBI is asserting that their investigation is going forward. So I have a lot supporting my opinion that Hillary is losing ground.

You point to a recent short term downward trend of Sanders (per your graph) going from 45.8 nationally against Hillary to 44.5 nationally. That is a legit point to support your counter argument. I consider it pretty weak because the change is very small, but it is an argument supporting your opinion on the question of whether Hillary is losing ground. You seemed to have narrowed that question to national polling, and within that rubric, to very recent small changes being decisive. That's just arbitrary and myopic at that.

Sorry if I belabored the point. I was just trying to help you understand. I explained the difference as simply as I could. In the past you have culled posting statistics here and made some summaries. I thought you might be interested in understanding some very elementary measurement and visualization principles given your effort there. If you go around presenting projections as actuals you will be seen as an idiot or trying to intentionally mislead people.

You present a false dichotomy which, at this point, isn't surprising.

It is fine to talk about super delegates but do so honestly and accurately, not deceitfully. Super delegates can and do change. In fact it is obvious that pledged delegates have an effect on super delegates. When Obama starting pulling away in pledged delegates the super delegates, who were overwhelmingly for Clinton at the outset, starting switching sides. In that election, the NYT reported the delegates honestly, per policy. This time out they think it is their right and responsibility to mislead the sheeple like you into thinking Bernie has no shot.

LOL @ "virtual media blackouts" of the Sanders campaign. I guess we all just see what we want to see.

Showing super delegates in counts - totally dishonest bull****. Claiming that Bernie is rising in polls after he's dropped 5 points in the last month by cherry picking some random date 5 months ago - totally legitimate!!!

As for those three polls, they're included in the realclearpolitics list I posted above. They don't count because they're from March and there's 8 more recent polls since then. I even posted the screenshot so you wouldn't have to click a link!

You're still belaboring the point. Let me know when Bernie starts "pulling away in pledged delegates". I'll be just as happy as you to see supers switch for Bernie. But wishing don't make it so.

You should read some of my posts to Duker. Or, you know, don't bother on second thought.

This is why I ask you to quote me, because otherwise you just respond to what you wish I said. I said Hillary is losing ground and I later explained why I thought that. Those polls are not the determinant of that question. As to the question of whether Bernie is rising in the polls, this is the same chart you posted, but not truncated in the way you presented it:



Only a deluded person would look at this and deny the trend of Hillary losing ground and Bernie gaining. You see the brown line? That's Bernie. Bernie line go up.

I believe they are from April, not March. And anyway you don't decide for everyone that they "don't count" because that isn't your arbitrary definition of recent.

If you are going to skip over opponent's strong points and nit pick where you think there is an opening, at least be right once in awhile.

You are aware Hillary is under investigation by the FBI, right? There are some exogenous forces at play here. And physicists are saying we create our own reality so please, join me in wishing.