Comments

1
NO! We need Russ to beat Johnson in Wisconsin for the race for Senate. Don't take my Feingold Away. He is one of the only rasy of light we have in our state right now!.
2
For fuck's sake. Did you learn nothing from Nate Silver's coverage of the last 2 elections?

Clinton has an almost 20-point edge over Sanders nationally:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/elec…
3
Feingold? How about Kirsten Gillebrand?
4
Hey I'm sure name dropping smilin' Henry Kissinger last night will get the kids back on Hillary's side don't you worry.
5
If Bernie Sanders somehow is able to assemble a collection of wins in the primaries after NH, and the Republican Party continues with their nominees, I'd expect a centrist third party Michael Bloomberg to step in possibly even win. I get that for the nominations both parties need to hew to their base, but they're both giving the opposition a lot of ammo in the general election.

7
@6, I don't follow baseball.
8
@1, I Agree! Hard to believe the sleepy town of Janesville could produce a Paul Ryan AND a Russ Feingold.
I hope that Bernie's growing popularity is indicative of increasing awareness amongst the unhappy masses about why we are in the mess we are in (hint, it's not about Muslims OR Mexicans). I expect Hillary will still become the nominee, but Bernie is getting the word out about corporate greed, how the rich buy elections and about the huge and growing military-industrial complex, without being told that he's not a patriot because he doesn't support the status quo (ie, Dubya's administration). I feel like there is hope for us yet.
9
Oh yes, America is going to vote for a scruffy old white dude (borrowing guilt-ridden lib speak here) who talks in ideological generalities calling for a complete economic revolution. Same thing happened in 2008, but it was with a dapper young black dude.

Sanders is the icing, but Clinton is the cake I suppose, of the desert choices that the democrats serve every four years.
10
I am so conflicted with my vote this year. My heart says "feel the Bern," my soul says "not another fucking white old man, bitch is the new black, bitches get shit done, HILARY 2016," and I feel like things would be so much better if we could have President Hilary with First Lord Mr. President Bill and VP Bernie or Head of the Consumer Protection division Bernie....and somehow I wake up and Elizabeth Warren is in charge of the country and I feel relaxed and happy... Then I wake up to living in Wisconsin where that rat fink Scott Walker is in charge of my state...and I cry.
11
Hillary's Dream


Last night during the debate Hillary Clinton once again put forth the fiction that she is a "progressive" --- odd, since she has acted and behaved and voted as a republicon ALL her life?

Hubby, Bill Clinton, is leading her cheering section, so let us revisit a few things about him on the easy to remember list.

When President Obama was running for reelection and ran several adverts attacking Romney's business record, Billygoat Clinton came to Romney's defense, saying that Mitt Romney "had a sterling business career"!!!!

Hillary, a self-described "progressive," bragged about mass murderer Henry Kissinger praising her time as secretary of state. [To any hardcore bimbos out there who don't realize this, Henry Kissinger is not a progressive! Got that?????]

During the Clinton Administration it was forbidden, verboten, to utter the phrase --- corporate welfare --- in public, or termination of employment/appointment would result!

Just dwell on that one for a moment . . . .

HRC's professed dream is to be the first woman neocon president, but her secret dream has long been something even more bizarre:

To travel back in time during the sinking of the Titanic and to be in charge of the life preserver franchise aboard that fated vessel.

Tear down that wall of secrecy and opacity, Ms. Clinton, tear down that wall!

https://vimeo.com/152786370
13
@8

Didn't a Clinton supporter red-bait Sanders a week ago?
14
@10, bimbo Ameritard, please note . . .

HRC is a neocon, so you want a neocon for president? Someone who has long supported private prisons, one of whose major donors is Geo Group, one of the two major private prison corporations in America?

You want someone who supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Who has called Julian Assange a terrorist, and Edward Snowden a traitor?

Yes, Colin Powell, who once stood before the world at the United Nations and claimed that American hardware stores sold nuclear technology (holding up a pipe from a hardware store and claiming it was nuclear tech from Iraq) did publicly state that he read --- which is against security regs, BTW, someone needs to be immediately fired or arrested --- those top secret codeword and SCI emails regarding HRC, and claims that shouldn't be classified, but that dood has zero credibility, in case you haven't noticed of late?

Are you aware of the only two candidates on the republicon side who aren't in the pockets of the Koch brothers --- Donald Trump and that Kasech fellow?

And on the democratic side? Bernie Sanders!

You are really that godawful stoooooopid that you would support a neocon for prez simply because she claims to be a dem?

15
Only intelligent comment (and the best one) here today:

@4, dontrelle !!! 1,000 points upwards.
16
Only the most blithely ignorant would ever suggest such a candidate as the feckless Feingold --- there was a sound reason the vanilla-flavored centrist dem (which, given that the dems are rightwiners today, means he's no lib anymore) as a candidate --- trust Dano "let's invade Iraq" Savage to suggest such idiocy!

17
@13: I don't know if saying that a (Democratic) Socialist is going to be a tough sell in the General is "red-baiting". it's more like acknowledging Reality.

The GOP and their PACs won't leave the red-baiting in the drawer, they'll pull out the Communist Card ASAP. And then hope there are enough Americans left who remember the Soviet Union to care. 1989 was a long long time ago.
18
@2: If you're suggesting the "next primary state" polls are more relevant than you're correct. But those polls, just like the national polls, are going to shift dramatically as a result of Iowa. Hillary had been leading strongly in national polls. The shift in that poll is very likely to mirror a shift in the polls in the next primary states.

As someone familiar with Bernie before the election kicked off, I'm not surprised by this pattern. As people learn about Bernie, they move in his direction. His biggest challenge is getting the word out. And now that he's a serious challenger, the media will help him do it. Hillary is in serious trouble. She really needs to maintain her lead with older voters and minorities to hold off this challenge. She has no shot with younger voters.
19
@18, I'm talking about the average of the polls today, February 5, 2016. Things will most certainly change in the future, but today Clinton has, on average, an 18-point lead over Sanders nationally, ergo this single poll Dan refers to is an outlier.
20
@10 I'm with you. Elizabeth Warren would be wonderful; but I'll take Hillary Clinton - she can get things done.

Those of you supporting Sanders - I understand why, but he won't get shit done if he's president; the establishment is too against him. Yeah, that's a problem - but until we develop progressive representatives and senators, a progressive president can't do much.

And if Sanders is the nominee, the Repubs will then bring out the heavy artillery against him and chances are we'll end up with Pres. Cruz or Pres. Rubio. UGH. There goes the Supreme Court.
21
@16 dude, if you really like Sanders, please stop calling people "bimbos" and "Ameritards".
22
@19: Hillary's plummet is pretty much following the trend from 2008.
23
@22, Clinton didn’t “plummet” in 2008, at least not in a literal sense based on the data you’ve shown. Clinton polled fairly steady in 2008 and was eventually overtaken by Obama, who “spiked” or “surged” or [place antonym of plummet here] shortly after voting started. What is happening today is not following that same trend in any meaningful sense besides the direction of the momentum, but that is neither here nor there. I am referring to the contents of this post, titled "Clinton's Lead Over Sanders Is Gone," and provide data and context that show this is completely false. "In A Single Poll That Is An Outlier When Compared To The Mean, Clinton’s Lead Over Sanders Is Gone" would be correct, but it wouldn’t make for very interesting reading if you’re looking for a horse race.
24
@10: I too would love to see President Hillary/Veep Bernie. Having Joe Biden as the crazy fun uncle has worked pretty well thus far...
25
Blip, Sanders was supposed to be less relevant than O'Malley. He was supposed to be nothing. Just like Obama was some hippie that would only appeal to college students, remember?

@9, you get that Obama and Hillary are identical politically, right? And the only person who brought up Bernie's race and gender here is you.

We've been told for decades that Bernie's policies are political poison, that Democrats need to abandon the poor and middle class and blow Wall Street in order to be taken seriously. Now we're seeing very strongly that's NOT the case, and the two candidates that were supposed to be complete jokes are doing very well and causing both the GOP AND the Dem establishment to panic. That's good. Bernie should stay in the race as long as he can and force Hillary further and further to the left.

As for Bloomberg, the race will ultimately be Hillary vs some GOP establishment guy (it looks like Rubio) so there will be no need for Bloomberg. I wish he would run, though. He's like Hillary/the GOP economically, but is the only pol in America with actual balls on gun control. That's worth giving him a national platform.
26
News flash: Sanders will not win in a state that isn't essentially exclusively white.
27
@25, I'm talking about numbers. This is a post about numbers. They look like this: 53480934580934580345. N-U-M-B-E-R-ZZZZZZZZZZZ.

Clinton's national lead over sanders is not gone, based on all of the numbers, not just one small subset of those numbers that contradict what all of the numbers collectively say.
28
@14: Hey, do you call every woman you disagree with a "bimbo", or just the conventionally attractive ones? DO I NEED TO BRING UP YOUR HISTORY OF OVERT SEXISM?

No, I don't think it'll be necessary to do that. I'll just go about my busin--
O̻̺͢͟H̦͇͓̺̩͚̺ͅ ͏̢̥͙̪͍ͅN̨̫̲̘̱̝̠͢͝Ơ̝ ͉̹̳͙̭͈I͉͔̞̠̮͍̠Ṯ̹̗̟̥͘͞'̡̹͖̬͜͠S̲̗̤̰͔̩͢͠ ̬͟͞H̴͍͖̰̲̹͓̣͘Ą̥̦͓̯͉̹͉̕͡ͅP̪͉̼̟̬̳̭̼͠P̷̯͚̟̦̻̟̝̮̕E̯̺͉͍͕̳͞ͅͅN͇͢Į̴̵̻̬N̷̦̼͇̞̠͟G͏̤͓̲̻̱ ̢̨̦A̴̜͕G̴̜͓̩̪͈̙̗̖Ą̵̠̱̻̯͠I̴͔͙̤̱̳͖̗̝N̹͍̝̦̱͔
http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/20… http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/20… http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/20… http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/20…
29
I am continually surprised by the comments section on Slog being so Hillary-centric (with the exception of 3 or so awful & aggro Bernie Bros). I'm not surprised- everyone says Bernie will only get the white vote, but if you look at Hillary's polls, upper-middle class to wealthy women are the strong base for her (most of these women are white). If you haven't noticed, the world and the country has changed a lot in the last few years. Youth today have access to information and they are eager to learn and change the status quo (they are also a much more diverse generation). These young people are the ones fueling Bernie.

Bernie is absolutely correct in that fixing campaign financing is our only way to fix the country. Corporations hold no interest in our future, google Steve Jobs' conversation with Obama regarding keeping jobs in America. They'll jump ship if they have to. We have to fix the glaring problems here if we hope to remain relevant in the next 20 years, and the first step is getting corporate interests out of politics.

Hillary, unfortunately, is part of the problem. For an excellent example, watch Elizabeth Warren discussing Hillary changing a vote which is almost assuredly due to corporate interest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76…

Vote with your hearts, we can do it. I understand the fears about Bernie delivering, but the fact is, we need someone who even cares about delivering this on a gut level. Also, maybe do some research about all the ways that presidents can cause change that you aren't quite thinking of. The information is out there. Educate yourself... an informed opinion is not so far from the correct one in this case. I mean, even the head of Goldman Sachs is questioning capitalism now that the spotlight has been shone (though the source is a little strange for this talk): http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2…
30
also I just saw that the video I linked to was just posted, nm sorry y'all
31
@9: That's an awfully sarcastic and condescending tone to criticize others' judgment in successful candidates, given your past support of the Romney campaign.

@21: He only has three settings: strident, condescending, and paranoid. He's typically operating with at least two at all times.
32
That poll is an outlier, and national polls don't mean a whole lot, especially this far out from the general. But it has more bad news for Clinton: according to the one-on-one matchups, Clinton beats Trump, ties Cruz, and loses to Rubio by 6 points. In comparison, Sanders beats Cruz, ties Rubio, and beats Trump by 10 points, twice the margin Clinton has.

So much for Clinton as the most electable candidate.
34
Why bring up Feingold when Bernie is doing great? I don't understand since you said that you liked Sanders.
35
@23 -- Absolutely correct. Bernie has a long way to go before he comes close to the numbers that Obama had. That race settled in pretty quickly, with very little movement in the polls. It was a very close race, but also predictable. It didn't really go "back and forth", as each side won the contests they were expected to win (based on whether it was a caucus or primary as well as demographics). Right now, Hillary is way ahead in that regard. The demographics and structure favored Sanders in Iowa -- a very white state with a caucus -- yet he didn't win. That's not a good sign.

Of course things can change. But I doubt it will. You would need a gaff or surprise scandal to derail Hillary Clinton, and I just don't see that happening.
36
@32 -- I don't know who is more electable, but you have to take those head to head matchup polls with a big grain of salt. No one has really gone after Bernie, but they sure as hell have gone after Hillary. Republicans talk about her all the time. If Sanders gets nominated, he will have to define himself to the rest of the country (not just the enthusiastic young voters). That could easily lead to him being put in a box like Dukakis, although a better analogy is probably McGovern. Lots of support from folks under 25, but not much support from older folks and it becomes a complete ass whipping at the polls. Not that Dems would lose 49 states, but we could easily see a President Cruz, as swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania go his way.
37
@11
she has acted and behaved and voted as a republicon ALL her life

Bullshit. Total Bullshit. Yes, she grew up in a Republican household and was political at an early age. In college she started to switch. She supported Eugene McCarthy in 1968, and was very critical of Nixon. By 1972 she was campaigning for McGovern.

In the Senate, she was more liberal than 70% of the Democrats and 85% of all members (http://voteview.com/). This makes her just slightly more liberal than Obama. Her public statements are liberal -- almost as liberal as Bernie Sanders (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hilla…). To quote the article:

Sometimes I wonder whether people are confusing Clinton with her husband. Bill Clinton's statements have been far more moderate.
38
Three major national polls covering the period of February 2-4 give Clinton leads of 21, 18 and 2 points. But let's breathlessly seize upon the one poll with the dramatic result and assume it's true! That's the kind of political coverage we really need The Stranger for, because you'd never get this kind of analysis from the idiots on CNN or something.

This post may contain a clue to the mystery of why Dan Savage thinks paying Matt Baume cash money to write about politics is a good idea.
39
@36 "although a better analogy is probably McGovern"

A very poor analogy given that Democratic party doesn't exist anymore. Most conservative southern Democrats have by now moved over to the Republicans and there is no staunchly anticommunist, pro-war trade union leadership so Democratic party conservatives would find it very hard to betray the Democratic base to campaign for the equivalent of Nixon.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.