Bernie Sanders to Announce Presidential Bid
TylerDurden said:
Perhaps. But her campaign could write it off as there are no serious challengers for the nomination. Judging from history, the media will totally back her up.
I seriously disagree. Rachel Maddow, for one, may insist on hosting Sanders v. Clinton.
Do you understand how The Iowa Caucuses work? They are broadcast on C-Span. If an interest group in Iowa decides to host a Clinton v. Sanders Debate and Clinton blows it off it will reverberate at the Caucuses. Remember the Iowa Democratic Party skews Left which is why Obama's opposition to and Clinton's support for the invasion of Iraq proved crucial in 2008.
Then on to New Hampshire the adjacent State to the one Bernie has represented in Congress since 1991
Primary debates are arranged in all kinds of ways and there is no rules like there are for general election presidential debates. Candidates can and do choose to not attend some (or all)
LOST said:
Do you understand how The Iowa Caucuses work?
I sure as hell don't. Looking from outside of Iowa they seem to be the most unfair way to decide which way the wind is blowing across the fields. Good for Iowa, perhaps. Bad for everybody, except perhaps the candidates, who get to focus on one state. But inertia will keep everybody making the pilgrimage. The primary system throughout this country is a crock, foisted upon us by the party bosses who know it's the best way to give the semblance of democracy.
I'm well aware that Iowa frequently doesn't end up picking the winner. I'd feel the same way if it was New Jersey. Or Louisiana. The state by state phased rollout just boggles my mind, and I don't know why we assume this is how it has to be.
I'm not convinced that lack of opposing Democratic candidates is beneficial to Hillary (or anyone else) in the long run. I also believe that Bernie Sanders would prefer to see Hillary become president than any of the GOP contenders. Maybe I'm wrong about either or both of these statements but I'm seeing this as a positive development even though (sadly) I do not believe that he has a chance of actually becoming president.
Nothing like hearing a real liberal talk to realize that Hilary is center right. I think it will help her with the independents who will have a choice between the center right and the crazy right. The lefties will vote for her either way if she becomes the democratic candidate (worse of two evils type thing).
LOST said:
TylerDurden said:
Perhaps. But her campaign could write it off as there are no serious challengers for the nomination. Judging from history, the media will totally back her up.
I seriously disagree. Rachel Maddow, for one, may insist on hosting Sanders v. Clinton.
Do you understand how The Iowa Caucuses work? They are broadcast on C-Span. If an interest group in Iowa decides to host a Clinton v. Sanders Debate and Clinton blows it off it will reverberate at the Caucuses. Remember the Iowa Democratic Party skews Left which is why Obama's opposition to and Clinton's support for the invasion of Iraq proved crucial in 2008.
Who is Rachel Maddow to insist anything? Rachel Maddow is a two-bit propagandist. Why do you think she wields such power? Is it her collapsing ratings?
I highly doubt Hillary resisting a debate in the Iowa caucuses would cost her the state against Sanders. She is going to have a lot of people on the ground because she will have way more $$ than Sanders will have. It will only matter to people like you. +90% of Democrats are not going to give a rats patootie.
SouthernBaron said:
LOST said:
Do you understand how The Iowa Caucuses work?
I sure as hell don't. Looking from outside of Iowa they seem to be the most unfair way to decide which way the wind is blowing across the fields. Good for Iowa, perhaps. Bad for everybody, except perhaps the candidates, who get to focus on one state. But inertia will keep everybody making the pilgrimage. The primary system throughout this country is a crock, foisted upon us by the party bosses who know it's the best way to give the semblance of democracy.
I'm well aware that Iowa frequently doesn't end up picking the winner. I'd feel the same way if it was New Jersey. Or Louisiana. The state by state phased rollout just boggles my mind, and I don't know why we assume this is how it has to be.
I was talking about the mechanics of those Caucuses not their significance. I agree that the system is silly but it's difficult to change. Each State guards its prerogatives.
BTW the Primary System was put into place by Reformers to limit the power of the Party Bosses who used to just pick the candidates with no voter input.
Sigh, yes, that's true. But now we're stuck with only a partial fix that has been exploited in other ways.
Tyler,
I disagree. If the "Liberal Media", that is, MSNBC decides to host a Democratic Primary Debate it will matter to the activists in the Democratic Party who vote in the Primaries.
As to the Iowa Caucuses any registered voter can show up and participate and the Cacuses are very local affairs. As I said if Hillary blows off a debate with Sanders lots of rank and file left-leaning Dems will want to go to the Caucuses to oppose her.
It would be like JEB Bush refusing to debate a Tea Party favorite.
Bernie Sanders has been in Congress since before Bill Clinton was President. He is not some sort of fringe figure. If you think Hillary can ignore him, wait and see.
Ron Paul had been in Congress a long time, had raised quite a sum of $$, and they were able to keep him out. I believe the same thing happened to Gary Johnson.
I'm not sure longevity gets it done. Sanders has been around a long time. And for a long time he's been an outsider. Again, I really hope I'm wrong about this. But, I wouldn't get my hopes up too high.
Good for you Paul. It seems obvious to me why you would support Sanders. But, it highlights a very powerful interest that will oppose his candidacy. The Military Industrial Complex.
I do wish Sanders well on his campaign...as I would any outsider who decides to run.
Rachel Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar with a giant brain, warm and personable presentations, and sound, well-conceived ideas. Compare to other talking heads.
Ah the elite who want to control all their "inferiors". For their own good of course.
With Bernie in the race ( and I will vote for him) and Hillary's 'baggage' piling up as her ratings drop, it will be interesting to see where she will stand a month from now. The 'coronation' may have to be put on hold.
GL2 said:
Rachel Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar with a giant brain, warm and personable presentations, and sound, well-conceived ideas. Compare to other talking heads.
And yet her ratings are routinely trounced by reruns of ... just about anything.
Don't get me wrong. I agree Maddow is very smart and seems like a nice person. Being smart and personable is great. But it doesn't let you "demand" anything.
ParticleMan said:
GL2 said:
Rachel Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar with a giant brain, warm and personable presentations, and sound, well-conceived ideas. Compare to other talking heads.
And yet her ratings are routinely trounced by reruns of ... just about anything.
Don't get me wrong. I agree Maddow is very smart and seems like a nice person. Being smart and personable is great. But it doesn't let you "demand" anything.
Hardly an indication of anything other than America's poor taste that an intelligent and insightful person is not popular on the TV. What do the high ratings of the execrable Bill O'Reilly tell us?
drummerboy said:
ParticleMan said:
GL2 said:
Rachel Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar with a giant brain, warm and personable presentations, and sound, well-conceived ideas. Compare to other talking heads.
And yet her ratings are routinely trounced by reruns of ... just about anything.
Don't get me wrong. I agree Maddow is very smart and seems like a nice person. Being smart and personable is great. But it doesn't let you "demand" anything.
Hardly an indication of anything other than America's poor taste that an intelligent and insightful person is not popular on the TV. What do the high ratings of the execrable Bill O'Reilly tell us?
That people like to watch drivel, particularly if it's shouted loudly and with anger.
The point is that a TV personality doesn't get to demand people debate on their show.
ParticleMan said:
drummerboy said:
ParticleMan said:
GL2 said:
Rachel Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar with a giant brain, warm and personable presentations, and sound, well-conceived ideas. Compare to other talking heads.
And yet her ratings are routinely trounced by reruns of ... just about anything.
Don't get me wrong. I agree Maddow is very smart and seems like a nice person. Being smart and personable is great. But it doesn't let you "demand" anything.
Hardly an indication of anything other than America's poor taste that an intelligent and insightful person is not popular on the TV. What do the high ratings of the execrable Bill O'Reilly tell us?
That people like to watch drivel, particularly if it's shouted loudly and with anger.
The point is that a TV personality doesn't get to demand people debate on their show.
oh, yes. Agree on the demand thing. Not sure there's anyone on TV that has the weight to pull that off.
Rachel Maddow is entertaining and I tend to agree with her views. I dont get to watch her show often enough.
I hope Bernie gets the nomination but I fear if he does he will lose.
ParticleMan said:
GL2 said:
Rachel Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar with a giant brain, warm and personable presentations, and sound, well-conceived ideas. Compare to other talking heads.
And yet her ratings are routinely trounced by reruns of ... just about anything.
Don't get me wrong. I agree Maddow is very smart and seems like a nice person. Being smart and personable is great. But it doesn't let you "demand" anything.
So, being smart and informative does not get ratings.
Imagine my surprise.
TylerDurden said:
Ron Paul had been in Congress a long time, had raised quite a sum of $$, and they were able to keep him out. I believe the same thing happened to Gary Johnson.
I'm not sure longevity gets it done. Sanders has been around a long time. And for a long time he's been an outsider. Again, I really hope I'm wrong about this. But, I wouldn't get my hopes up too high.
Ron Paul was included in the Republican Primary Debates.
Are you confusing the Primaries and the General? Perhaps when he ran as an independent he was not at the General Election Debates.
ParticleMan said:
The point is that a TV personality doesn't get to demand people debate on their show.
If one of the Sunday AM shows invites a candidate and he or she refuses to appear it reflects negatively. That might also be true of FOX on the Right and MSNBC on the Left. I do not know what elections all of you have been watching.
If the only Democratic Primary candidates are Clinton and Sanders there will be a televised "debate" between them.
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/integrity-disqualifies-sanders-white-house
nohero said:
ParticleMan said:
GL2 said:
Rachel Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar with a giant brain, warm and personable presentations, and sound, well-conceived ideas. Compare to other talking heads.
And yet her ratings are routinely trounced by reruns of ... just about anything.
Don't get me wrong. I agree Maddow is very smart and seems like a nice person. Being smart and personable is great. But it doesn't let you "demand" anything.
So, being smart and informative does not get ratings.
Imagine my surprise.
Have you heard of PBS? ;-)
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Perhaps. But her campaign could write it off as there are no serious challengers for the nomination. Judging from history, the media will totally back her up.