It really is amazing - the lengths The New York Times will go to in it's attempts to undermine Bernie Sanders and support their choice, Hillary Clinton. In my experience, they do not post the readers' supportive comments about Sanders (ones I have posted anyway). Sanders is almost invisible on it's pages, while Hillary is discussed in article after article, every day. Now, the paper is making an effort to delegitimize the polls that indicate support for Sanders. Not very subtle.
44
Good assessment, anyone drawing conclusions from either data sets are just projecting. Without a popular vote count and popular vote by demographic, no one has any idea.
5
Some Bernie-bashers claim to spot hypocrisy in anyone who's been in government for 36 years and yet denies he's part of the establishment.
Bernie is NOT part of the establishment – never has been, never will be. It's entirely possible for someone to be in government for 36 years -- even longer -- and not become part of the establishment. The establishment didn't elect Bernie Sanders, after all. Vermont voters sent him to Washington, whether the establishment wanted him there or not.
Hillary, by contrast, more or less picked a state at random to run from: New York (not Arkansas, not Illinois, not Pennsylvania, not Massachusetts – with all of which she had some prior connection), got elected, went to Washington, and became (or remained) part of the establishment.
But did being part of the establishment enable Hillary to get anything done in Congress? Not that I've noticed.
Neither Bernie nor Hillary has got anything done in Washington. Bernie attributes that, fairly, to sticking to his principles. Hillary doesn't really offer any reason for that – indeed, ironically, even though she's never actually got anything done, she claims to be someone who "gets things done."
Bernie is NOT part of the establishment – never has been, never will be. It's entirely possible for someone to be in government for 36 years -- even longer -- and not become part of the establishment. The establishment didn't elect Bernie Sanders, after all. Vermont voters sent him to Washington, whether the establishment wanted him there or not.
Hillary, by contrast, more or less picked a state at random to run from: New York (not Arkansas, not Illinois, not Pennsylvania, not Massachusetts – with all of which she had some prior connection), got elected, went to Washington, and became (or remained) part of the establishment.
But did being part of the establishment enable Hillary to get anything done in Congress? Not that I've noticed.
Neither Bernie nor Hillary has got anything done in Washington. Bernie attributes that, fairly, to sticking to his principles. Hillary doesn't really offer any reason for that – indeed, ironically, even though she's never actually got anything done, she claims to be someone who "gets things done."
19
@MyTwoCents, Naw, the establishment didn't elect Bernie. He didn't actually run for office. He's been in elective office, as a career politician, for 36 years, but isn't actually part of (gasp!) "the establishment," you see, because that would be…immoral. Y'know, like Planned Parenthood is (as he has told us, more than once) part of "the establishment." It's ironically amusing that you say Bernie hasn't accomplished anything in Washington because he has stuck with his principles. Sounds like a great reason to make him President. "Elect me, and I will accomplish…nothing, because I will stick with my principles." A bit long for a bumper sticker, perhaps, but perhaps you can tweak it.
18
One Hillary supporter took a break from bashing Bernie supporters long enough to bash Elizabeth Warren – for having accomplished nothing in Congress.
I actually agree with that. But I don't think that distinguishes Warren from either Hillary or Bernie. Did Hillary get some major legislation passed while she was in Congress that I somehow missed?
As best I can recall, Hillary's only involvement with meaningful legislation was her disastrous health-care bill in 1994, over 2,000 pages of legislation that she'd ginned up without any significant Congressional involvement and then dropped on Congress' desks with a terse demand that it be adopted forthwith. Needless to say, it wasn't, and the Democrats' atrocious performance in the 1994 mid-term elections has been blamed principally on that disaster.
Has Hillary done more than this? Neither Bernie nor Elizabeth Warren has accomplished any more in Congress, of course, but that's because each of them is a rebel. Hillary always claims NOT to be a rebel, but rather to be someone who knows how to "get things done."
Then why hasn't Hillary ever got anything done?
I actually agree with that. But I don't think that distinguishes Warren from either Hillary or Bernie. Did Hillary get some major legislation passed while she was in Congress that I somehow missed?
As best I can recall, Hillary's only involvement with meaningful legislation was her disastrous health-care bill in 1994, over 2,000 pages of legislation that she'd ginned up without any significant Congressional involvement and then dropped on Congress' desks with a terse demand that it be adopted forthwith. Needless to say, it wasn't, and the Democrats' atrocious performance in the 1994 mid-term elections has been blamed principally on that disaster.
Has Hillary done more than this? Neither Bernie nor Elizabeth Warren has accomplished any more in Congress, of course, but that's because each of them is a rebel. Hillary always claims NOT to be a rebel, but rather to be someone who knows how to "get things done."
Then why hasn't Hillary ever got anything done?
18
TwoCents,
Thank you for saying this out loud...that is a question we ask here all the time.
We share your recollections and view on all three and why.
Thank you for saying this out loud...that is a question we ask here all the time.
We share your recollections and view on all three and why.
8
Look up the ChIP program if you want to learn about a major program benefiting poor children for which Hillary Clinton should be credited.
20
Do any of Bernie's supporters find it curious that a man who has been a career politician for the past 36 years is running against "the establishment"? Did it take him this long - at the age of 74 - to figure it all out? Does and will he turn down all those government perks? Just wondering.
16
So if u run against the establishment and want to change things and consistently criticize it and consistently have been a minority progressive voice in plitics, you are a phony? How else does real change happen to change the establishment without ever joining it to try changing it? Isnt it worse when people just talk and criticize the establishment and about change but never actually do anything and be so stubbornly unrealistic to never dare making strides in the system by not joining it? And isnt a woman that rides her husbands cottails and whose successes are a result of privileged wealth, position, resources, and connections handed to her worse than gaining political successes as a middle class antiestablishment underdog progressive?
9
You forgot to mention that Sanders did not have a steady job until he was 40 years old when he was elected mayor of Burlington, VT. For 17 years after graduating for college he had no steady job! He did odd jobs and collected unemployment. Is that the lesson we want to teach young people today?
8
He is running against the big banks, and big pharma who lobby politicians.
2
Mikenh, Yeah, the Sanders folks should just lay back and take it. Chill or you'll sound like Republicans. Insurgencies, like this one can rarely afford to be laid back. The obstacles are immense. But the stakes are high, Mike, if you are a low income worker, or if you are buried in college debt, or if you are out of college and find there are no jobs for young people, or if you have someone you love in jail after 30 years of mass incarceration, or if you are sick of the notion of constant war and the hyper-security state. Or, maybe you just get the feeling that the game is so rigged that even the party of the little man is owned by the fat cats. Strident, outraged, maybe there is a good reason not to be chilling. I hope things continue to work out for you and yours though.
13
Joe Penny,
Acting "outraged" is what the Occupy Wall Street types did several years ago - and look how that "outrage" got them.
Gadfly do-nothing outsiders, like Bernie Sanders, who has accomplished nothing of note in his nearly three decades in congress, is not going to right the wrongs in the world with angry speeches to crowds that have shown us that they will show up at a political rally, but will consistently demonstrated they have no use for the polling booth.
And if you need an example of how how ineffective relying on speeches alone can be, may I suggest you take a look at our "hope and change" president and ask yourself, what have those flowery speeches by Mr. Obama really accomplished?
Acting "outraged" is what the Occupy Wall Street types did several years ago - and look how that "outrage" got them.
Gadfly do-nothing outsiders, like Bernie Sanders, who has accomplished nothing of note in his nearly three decades in congress, is not going to right the wrongs in the world with angry speeches to crowds that have shown us that they will show up at a political rally, but will consistently demonstrated they have no use for the polling booth.
And if you need an example of how how ineffective relying on speeches alone can be, may I suggest you take a look at our "hope and change" president and ask yourself, what have those flowery speeches by Mr. Obama really accomplished?
10
Exactly those who have and are suffering mean it when they say Enough is enough!
This is serious for so many people, we need a political overhaul not a crowning of the prom queen.
This moment has come...now WE hear the message why and what he has been fighting for years. So many many have been hurt they are waking up.
Huge profound change not the status quo.
Americans are finally waking up to the truth of how corrupt our system is...Enough!
This is serious for so many people, we need a political overhaul not a crowning of the prom queen.
This moment has come...now WE hear the message why and what he has been fighting for years. So many many have been hurt they are waking up.
Huge profound change not the status quo.
Americans are finally waking up to the truth of how corrupt our system is...Enough!
5
Well, if Nate Cohn's article has had no other effect, at least it's drawn some quite bitter criticism by Hillary supporters (who apparently find Mr. Cohn's analysis quite persuasive) of Bernie supporters (who – well, not so much).
2
It seems most of the outrage is coming from Sanders supporters and Republican readers who are happy to denigrate Hillary Clinton.
18
@MyTwoCents, you keep trying to promote a point that exists only in your mind. It's not the Hillary supporters who are doing the complaining. You seem to be having as much difficulty discerning whence comes the vast bulk of the vitriol in this comments section as many of Bernie's supporters are having understanding Mr. Cohn's analysis. Or perhaps they are just unwilling to let the facts get in the way of their opinions. The only bitterness I feel towards any of Bernie's supporters are those who are out-and-out vicious, of whom there are regrettably more than a few, and those who state they would stay home on Election Day, or vote for Trump, rather than vote for Hillary, about whom please don't get me started.
12
Are Hillary supporters making much too big a deal out of Nevada?
After all, she got roughly 6,000 votes total – a large number of them from the deal brokered by Harry Reid and union leaders under which Las Vegas casino workers were paid to participate in the caucus. Without that deal (targeted at voters that Hillary's pollsters had told her would support her), would she still have beaten Bernie?
After all, she got roughly 6,000 votes total – a large number of them from the deal brokered by Harry Reid and union leaders under which Las Vegas casino workers were paid to participate in the caucus. Without that deal (targeted at voters that Hillary's pollsters had told her would support her), would she still have beaten Bernie?
12
Deal brokered by Harry Reid and the union leaders?
And who said fact-less conspiracy theories could be found from far-right, GOP supporters....
And who said fact-less conspiracy theories could be found from far-right, GOP supporters....
15
No, she got about 55,000 votes total but why let an 8x error in your calculation get in the way of berniephilia?
18
Hillary wouldn't have a chance if it were left in the hands of the people.
2
Reading the outrage from Bernie Sanders supporters should remind all moderate, open-minded people that it would be a mistake to think the the GOP is the only place that is populated by irrational supporters who are unwilling to hear the harsh truth about their candidates.
All of which makes it especially important that moderates, like you and me, make every effort to vote, because it is becoming more clear by the day that Bernie Sanders supporters are simply the flip side of their GOP counterparts who also worship at the altars of "no compromise" demagogues.
Because, if this nation has any chance of moving forward we need to send a message to all "no compromise" types everywhere that we are sick and tired of the ideological gridlock that has has hijacked our government and political discourse and want something very basic - a functioning government that works for the people and not for the "no compromise,' "do nothing" demagogues.
All of which makes it especially important that moderates, like you and me, make every effort to vote, because it is becoming more clear by the day that Bernie Sanders supporters are simply the flip side of their GOP counterparts who also worship at the altars of "no compromise" demagogues.
Because, if this nation has any chance of moving forward we need to send a message to all "no compromise" types everywhere that we are sick and tired of the ideological gridlock that has has hijacked our government and political discourse and want something very basic - a functioning government that works for the people and not for the "no compromise,' "do nothing" demagogues.
46
Amen to that.
8
The recent surge in Hillary-supporter attacks on Bernie-supporters focuses on the impossibility of Bernie accomplishing what he promises. I don't think what Hillary promises can be accomplished either. Neither one would get any support from the Republican-controlled Congress and thus would have to accomplish things, if at all, by issuing executive orders and simply exercising the considerable influence of the office. Bernie can do that just as well as Hillary -- probably a lot better, in fact. Why elect someone with old and worn-out ideas that won't ever get accomplished anyway?
8
@MyTwoCents,
"The recent surge in Hillary-supporter attacks on Bernie-supporters..."
Funny, we must be reading two different comments sections.
"The recent surge in Hillary-supporter attacks on Bernie-supporters..."
Funny, we must be reading two different comments sections.
15
And what exactly is the "promise" that Bernie Sanders is "accomplishing"?
The last I looked I do not see any piece of notable legislation with his name on it, which for the vast majority of us is the REAL meaning of accomplishment in Washington or any level of government.
The last I looked I do not see any piece of notable legislation with his name on it, which for the vast majority of us is the REAL meaning of accomplishment in Washington or any level of government.
14
PW,
Granted, we might be interpreting comments differently, but it's hard not to interpret many comments as sharply critical of Bernie Sanders supporters. I've not seen that until the last week, and it's more pronounced in these comments than I've ever seen before.
Let's get real here: the Times is so heavily biased in favor of Hillary Clinton that it amazes me to read Hillary supporters even contesting the point. As other commenters have pointed out, what is passed off as "reporting" on the Hillary/Bernie contest often belongs on the editorial pages.
Granted, we might be interpreting comments differently, but it's hard not to interpret many comments as sharply critical of Bernie Sanders supporters. I've not seen that until the last week, and it's more pronounced in these comments than I've ever seen before.
Let's get real here: the Times is so heavily biased in favor of Hillary Clinton that it amazes me to read Hillary supporters even contesting the point. As other commenters have pointed out, what is passed off as "reporting" on the Hillary/Bernie contest often belongs on the editorial pages.
10
Just to be realistic, the data I was shown indicated 11,827 democrats voted. The exit poll included just 1024 respondents and 213 Hispanics. For one thing, this would indicate a 21% Hispanic vote which is high by census standards. To assume a more realistic 17% Hispanic distribution gives a 2011 number of Hispanics. My point is, it is crumby statistics to project such a definitive answer with such a dearth of data! It seems that someone was pushing a point?
7
Dear Mr. Cohn, I no longer need to read your byline to know that an article has been written by you. This is not because of some slight tell-tale lyrical tone, or sparse, crystalline sentence structure. No, that a piece of "news" writing is yours, has become frighteningly obvious by your shameless, agenda driven, drivel. It is far and away, the most obviously manipulative and biased work that I have encountered while reading this newspaper. I can't speak for it's efficacy, and I am willing to bet that with your armchair laptop reading of data, you shouldn't be either. Your conventional wisdom certainly belongs elsewhere. Fox news comes to mind.
14
Other than offensive name-calling, why not take issue with some specific point made by Mr. Cohn in his analysis?
19
The DNC has a corrupt system with super-delegates that vote according to how the party wants rather than what the voters want, and a caucus system with caucus leaders designated by the party to collect the votes and "insulate" the voters from the nomination, it is a fixed scam to the democratic process.
16
It seems to me that Hillary Clinton supporters who comment in the NY Times like to characterize Bernie Sanders supporters as:
1. Whiny.
2. Angry, like those who purportedly support Trump.
3. Anti-Obama.
4. Misogynistic.
5. Fanatical cult followers.
6. Willing to vote for a Republican over Hillary.
For those commenters, please consider the following possibilities about Sander supporters:
1. They aren't whining, but they do note that the NY Times spin which overwhelmingly favors Clinton is disappointing, to say the least.
2. They aren't angry as are Trump supporters, but many of them do believe that campaign finance reform and income inequality need to be addressed with more than just lip-service.
3. Many voted for President Obama twice. That means at least once they voted for him over Clinton. Many of us believe he's done a great job, and think that Sanders is the candidate to move President Obama's agenda forward.
4. Many would love to see a woman become President. Please let us know when and if Elizabeth Warren plans to run. But don't tell us that we have to vote for Hillary.
5. They aren't cult followers; rather, they are educated about politics. Personally, I can tell you that the two candidates that I've been most enthusiastic about supporting are Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders.
6. There is no way in hell that the majority of us would vote for ANY Republican. If Hillary beats Bernie, then she'll definitely get my vote. I just won't be excited about it.
1. Whiny.
2. Angry, like those who purportedly support Trump.
3. Anti-Obama.
4. Misogynistic.
5. Fanatical cult followers.
6. Willing to vote for a Republican over Hillary.
For those commenters, please consider the following possibilities about Sander supporters:
1. They aren't whining, but they do note that the NY Times spin which overwhelmingly favors Clinton is disappointing, to say the least.
2. They aren't angry as are Trump supporters, but many of them do believe that campaign finance reform and income inequality need to be addressed with more than just lip-service.
3. Many voted for President Obama twice. That means at least once they voted for him over Clinton. Many of us believe he's done a great job, and think that Sanders is the candidate to move President Obama's agenda forward.
4. Many would love to see a woman become President. Please let us know when and if Elizabeth Warren plans to run. But don't tell us that we have to vote for Hillary.
5. They aren't cult followers; rather, they are educated about politics. Personally, I can tell you that the two candidates that I've been most enthusiastic about supporting are Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders.
6. There is no way in hell that the majority of us would vote for ANY Republican. If Hillary beats Bernie, then she'll definitely get my vote. I just won't be excited about it.
32
Yes, the Hillary supporters online are in general insulting, condescending, and rude. Then the Times complains for them about "Bernie Bros" and gins up a big public smear attack on Sanders supporters.
5
Fair enough. Can we agree that the name-calling is counter-productive and uncivil?
4
It's striking that you comment on an article attempting to explain the difficulties and inaccuracies inherent in projecting conclusions from a small-nonrandom sample.
Your small, non-random sample is likewise prone to inaccuracies.
Clearly you learned NOTHING by reading this article.
Your small, non-random sample is likewise prone to inaccuracies.
Clearly you learned NOTHING by reading this article.
11
Some people seem to have a misunderstanding about how many people voted in the Nevada caucus, it was about 100,000 not 10,000 as claimed very authoritatively by several posters here!
Many of the posters by the Bernie lovers are quite hilarious - no laughing matter I can assure you if delusional states like Salem 1692 prevail and come November Bernie wins one state - Vermont!
Maybe, I have low standards but HRC has overall lived a very honorable life mostly fighting for the right side and has accomplished much by her general impact (like Eleanor Roosevelt) and specific direct accomplishments when she had an executive role.
Contrast this with Bernie 'no accomplishments' Sanders over his lifetime!
The venom directed at Upshot! Hilarious as well - it's simply a finely nuanced analysis. Get over it, Bernie "no accomplishments" lost, HRC won with a margin of 5.5% - I'll take that margin when it's Trump v HRC November 2016.
Remember, the pre-eminent consideration November 2016 is who will nominate the next 3-5 justices of the Supreme Court. With Congress paralyzed. all the big decisions now are made by SCOTUS.
Many of the posters by the Bernie lovers are quite hilarious - no laughing matter I can assure you if delusional states like Salem 1692 prevail and come November Bernie wins one state - Vermont!
Maybe, I have low standards but HRC has overall lived a very honorable life mostly fighting for the right side and has accomplished much by her general impact (like Eleanor Roosevelt) and specific direct accomplishments when she had an executive role.
Contrast this with Bernie 'no accomplishments' Sanders over his lifetime!
The venom directed at Upshot! Hilarious as well - it's simply a finely nuanced analysis. Get over it, Bernie "no accomplishments" lost, HRC won with a margin of 5.5% - I'll take that margin when it's Trump v HRC November 2016.
Remember, the pre-eminent consideration November 2016 is who will nominate the next 3-5 justices of the Supreme Court. With Congress paralyzed. all the big decisions now are made by SCOTUS.
23
To all the Sanders supporters and Republicans who continuously harp on Hillary's honesty. Please read the article in the New York Times
"All Politicians Lie. Some Lie More Than Others: by the political fact checker By ANGIE DROBNIC HOLAN DEC. 11, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians...
The author fact checked statements since 2007 by most of the candidates and he found the following rate of false statements by them. Yet Hilary is the only one attacked by one and all. Let's get real please:
Carson 84% MOSTLY FALSE or WORSE
Trump 76% "
Cruz 66% "
Rubio 40% "
Hillary 28% "
Sanders 28% "
"All Politicians Lie. Some Lie More Than Others: by the political fact checker By ANGIE DROBNIC HOLAN DEC. 11, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians...
The author fact checked statements since 2007 by most of the candidates and he found the following rate of false statements by them. Yet Hilary is the only one attacked by one and all. Let's get real please:
Carson 84% MOSTLY FALSE or WORSE
Trump 76% "
Cruz 66% "
Rubio 40% "
Hillary 28% "
Sanders 28% "
24
Why would I read a New York Times article that pretends to adjudicate Hillary Clinton of the atrocious dishonesty she exhibits constantly? If Hillary Clinton turned out to be Jack the Ripper, Andrew Rosenthal, The Upshot, Paul Krugman, and the Editorial Board would all author 6 months of non-stop "news' and opinion pieces about how Hillary only murdered the prostitutes because of the male pressure on her, and the Republicans murder more prostitutes, and other Democrats murder prostitutes, and Sanders just isn't "plausible".
5
Good link! Of course, or at least for me, more consequential is the nature and impact and consequences of lies.
The Gulf of Tonkin, Reagan lying about the vast Soviet conspiracy in Central America, Iraq (trillions, thousands killed, how many Iraqis - maybe, a million and of course, it's still in progress, four million refugees, the ending of Christianity after nearly two thousand years) - lies with consequence.
HRC and sniper fire in the Baltics - sorry, I must have low standards contrasted with Bernie, Donald, Mario supporters - doesn't bother me much at all!
The Gulf of Tonkin, Reagan lying about the vast Soviet conspiracy in Central America, Iraq (trillions, thousands killed, how many Iraqis - maybe, a million and of course, it's still in progress, four million refugees, the ending of Christianity after nearly two thousand years) - lies with consequence.
HRC and sniper fire in the Baltics - sorry, I must have low standards contrasted with Bernie, Donald, Mario supporters - doesn't bother me much at all!
4
The opinion article appeared in the NY TIMES but it was written by someone outside the Times" Angie Drobnic Holan
PolitiFact Editor
Angie Drobnic Holan is the editor of PolitiFact. She previously was deputy editor, and before that a reporter for PolitiFact, helping launch the site in 2007. She was a member of the PolitiFact team that won the Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of the 2008 election. She has been with the Tampa Bay Times since 2005 and previously worked at newspapers in Florida, Alabama, Louisiana and New Mexico.
She holds a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia University and a master’s of library science from the University of South Florida. Her undergraduate degree is from the Plan II liberal arts program at the University of Texas at Austin. She is a native of Louisiana and attended the Louisiana School for Math, Science and the Arts.
PolitiFact Editor
Angie Drobnic Holan is the editor of PolitiFact. She previously was deputy editor, and before that a reporter for PolitiFact, helping launch the site in 2007. She was a member of the PolitiFact team that won the Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of the 2008 election. She has been with the Tampa Bay Times since 2005 and previously worked at newspapers in Florida, Alabama, Louisiana and New Mexico.
She holds a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia University and a master’s of library science from the University of South Florida. Her undergraduate degree is from the Plan II liberal arts program at the University of Texas at Austin. She is a native of Louisiana and attended the Louisiana School for Math, Science and the Arts.
12
Reading the comments, I'm seeing the 5-stages of grief by Senator Sanders supporters with a fair smattering of GOP negativity thrown in.
Nate Cohn has an excellent record of political analysis and has forecasted presidential elections with exceptional accuracy.
But some people attack the messenger when they don't like the message.
The GOP ignored Mr. Cohn in 2012 and told Mitt Romney he would in a tsunami wave over President Obama.
Romney was stunned by his loss because he, like his supporters, lived in a fact-free bubble.
Secretary Clinton is simply the most qualified candidate running from either party.
When the most qualified candidate for office (or work) is a woman, she usually has to be better than her peers to get the position.
Senator Sanders engaged in a constructive political debate with Secretary Clinton while Republicans have just tried to attack HRC and each other personally.
Democrats need to focus on issues over personalities, on qualifications over rhetoric, and keep in mind the importance of the Supreme Court and the frightening prospect of a President Trump or Cruz.
Nate Cohn has an excellent record of political analysis and has forecasted presidential elections with exceptional accuracy.
But some people attack the messenger when they don't like the message.
The GOP ignored Mr. Cohn in 2012 and told Mitt Romney he would in a tsunami wave over President Obama.
Romney was stunned by his loss because he, like his supporters, lived in a fact-free bubble.
Secretary Clinton is simply the most qualified candidate running from either party.
When the most qualified candidate for office (or work) is a woman, she usually has to be better than her peers to get the position.
Senator Sanders engaged in a constructive political debate with Secretary Clinton while Republicans have just tried to attack HRC and each other personally.
Democrats need to focus on issues over personalities, on qualifications over rhetoric, and keep in mind the importance of the Supreme Court and the frightening prospect of a President Trump or Cruz.
26
"Secretary Clinton is simply the most qualified candidate running from either party. "
Skip the elections and give her the crown she so deserves. End of discussion.
Skip the elections and give her the crown she so deserves. End of discussion.
1
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/32000.html
Now this may be just me but Sanders doesn't even get within 5% of Clinton if he didn't at least pull even with Latinos. if all accounts are correct Clinton cleaned up with black voters. If she won Latinos by 10% then Bernie would have had to slaughter her with whites.
I'm not buying it. More likely they split with a slight edge to one or the other. Basically black voters are what is keeping Hillary ahead and will continue to do so unless something changes.
That and the Hillary team seems better at taking advantage of the weird quirky caucus rules so far.
Now this may be just me but Sanders doesn't even get within 5% of Clinton if he didn't at least pull even with Latinos. if all accounts are correct Clinton cleaned up with black voters. If she won Latinos by 10% then Bernie would have had to slaughter her with whites.
I'm not buying it. More likely they split with a slight edge to one or the other. Basically black voters are what is keeping Hillary ahead and will continue to do so unless something changes.
That and the Hillary team seems better at taking advantage of the weird quirky caucus rules so far.
Daolong,
Nate is a statistician and he analyzes data for a living. So I'll take his scientific analysis over your skepticism.
FYI - I am white and Hispanic, so they are not mutually exclusive
Nate is a statistician and he analyzes data for a living. So I'll take his scientific analysis over your skepticism.
FYI - I am white and Hispanic, so they are not mutually exclusive
14
The unions that supposedly supported Clinton did not allow their members to vote. Those that did allow their members to vote, voted for Sanders.
In addition, there were once again attempts to rig the caucus. They really should do away with this antiquated thing. The nurses union who put a tremendous amount of work into this event and were ubiquitous in their red tshirts suddenly found themselves flooded with Hillary people wearing red tshirts saying "Ask me about the Caucus" or something similar. Of course some said this is over the top and the color red isn't a trademark. HOWEVER, they were caught red-handed - or red tshirted, they were caught switching from blue shirts to red. Pictures exist of this.
The Clinton machine, no different from the Republicans, will stop at nothing to win this election. Including bribes. $100,000 went from the Clinton Family Foundation to Dolores Huelga who loudly maligned Bernie and his supporters. She did, by the way, the same thing in 2008 against Obama.
Needless to say, my comment will never see the light of day in this paper.
In addition, there were once again attempts to rig the caucus. They really should do away with this antiquated thing. The nurses union who put a tremendous amount of work into this event and were ubiquitous in their red tshirts suddenly found themselves flooded with Hillary people wearing red tshirts saying "Ask me about the Caucus" or something similar. Of course some said this is over the top and the color red isn't a trademark. HOWEVER, they were caught red-handed - or red tshirted, they were caught switching from blue shirts to red. Pictures exist of this.
The Clinton machine, no different from the Republicans, will stop at nothing to win this election. Including bribes. $100,000 went from the Clinton Family Foundation to Dolores Huelga who loudly maligned Bernie and his supporters. She did, by the way, the same thing in 2008 against Obama.
Needless to say, my comment will never see the light of day in this paper.
22
thank you
4
The Clintons are running an odious campaign.
4
Southern state primaries are coming. Hillary will roll. What will be the excuse then? Is there any Hillary victory you will accept? Is absolutely everything rigged? Every high profile supporter is bought off? Isn't it just possible the majority freely cast their vote for her, with no foul play? Isn't it possible those who endorse Hillary know her work and admire her track record and talent? We get it, Sanders supporters, you don't like her. But enough with the conspiracy theories.
18
It is also a big question about how to count white Hispanics, who make up the overwhelming majority of Hispanics in the country. Are they white or are they Hispanic?
3
Less than 12,000 people living in the state of Nevada bothered to vote and Secretary Clinton won by a mire 700 votes. Yes, a win is certainly a win, but when pundits mishandle polling data to make assumptions it fries my bacon.
4
I heard the moon is made of cheese. Pass it on, John Thomas Ellis!
11
This reminds me of the spin the NYT put on the campaign of another old gray lady, Betsy Gotbaum, who ran for NYC Public Advocate against a field of about half a dozen extremely more qualified candidates in 2001, including a good woman whose excellent public service recor they disparaged in their zeal for the Establishment candidate.
Gotbaum, a hack if there was ever one but possessing the WASPy, Upper East Side, Women-Who-Lunch credentials that the Times wannabes strive for.
Needless to say, everyone agrees Betsy Gotbaum was the most feckless and incompetent person ever to hold the office of public advocate.
Poor Hillary. With supporters like the NYT , she don't need enemies.
Gotbaum, a hack if there was ever one but possessing the WASPy, Upper East Side, Women-Who-Lunch credentials that the Times wannabes strive for.
Needless to say, everyone agrees Betsy Gotbaum was the most feckless and incompetent person ever to hold the office of public advocate.
Poor Hillary. With supporters like the NYT , she don't need enemies.
8
Demographics have shown twice that without the Hispanic and black votes no candidate stand a chance of becoming POTUS. The mormon fellow got 90%, not just 30%, of the rural, illiterate, and angry white vote....to no avail.
7
Hillary has sites like Blue Nation Review that print one sided slander pieces against Sanders, some may know about this, some may not. The current owner of BNR purchased it in Dec 2015 and was previously one of Hillary's campaign managers/allies in her last election run. I am not sure how many sites are out there running dedicated slander pieces but that is one of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhI6bMbhsDE
I know there is another short video that someone took at the Nevada caucus of HRC voters not registering claiming they would register afterwards, meanwhile Sanders voters are registering and less get in to vote
before the doors close.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ug9hHe_iZg
That along with the video I posted above, demonstrates that even Hillary's direct supporters are manipulating the caucus environment, in order to inflate her imagine and reduce Sanders credibility. So I propose we need
more people participating in the caucus's.
Don't just go to vote, show up earlier, take video's of Hillary campaigner exploits that they are doing, what
laws they are breaking if we put an excessive amount of hard evidence out there instead of just a single video
or two, the media will not be able to ignore it, most certainly if you get it out to some of the more honest news outlets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTwXvRt6tyM&app=desktop
Noticed here by ANOTHER source, the voters who didn't register.
This situation needs more attention on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhI6bMbhsDE
I know there is another short video that someone took at the Nevada caucus of HRC voters not registering claiming they would register afterwards, meanwhile Sanders voters are registering and less get in to vote
before the doors close.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ug9hHe_iZg
That along with the video I posted above, demonstrates that even Hillary's direct supporters are manipulating the caucus environment, in order to inflate her imagine and reduce Sanders credibility. So I propose we need
more people participating in the caucus's.
Don't just go to vote, show up earlier, take video's of Hillary campaigner exploits that they are doing, what
laws they are breaking if we put an excessive amount of hard evidence out there instead of just a single video
or two, the media will not be able to ignore it, most certainly if you get it out to some of the more honest news outlets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTwXvRt6tyM&app=desktop
Noticed here by ANOTHER source, the voters who didn't register.
This situation needs more attention on it.
15
I'm noticing a lot more friction between Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters in these comments. If history is any guide, that means the Hillary supporter are getting very worried.
17
First they laugh, then they fight, etc ...
10
Or vice versa.
10
"First they laugh, then they fight, etc ..."
Even before they laugh, they ignore. That happened too. But we're past the first two phases -- ignoring and laughing. Now they're fighting. No more Mr. Nice Gal, it appears.
Even before they laugh, they ignore. That happened too. But we're past the first two phases -- ignoring and laughing. Now they're fighting. No more Mr. Nice Gal, it appears.
4
I've just realized, viscerally, something that other commenters have been saying for a while. Because of the NYT's pro-Clinton bias in reporting, I can no longer trust what I read here to be factually accurate. I don't think the NYT will actually distort numbers, but I do believe the articles and opinions may omit salient facts that would alter the conclusions a reader might draw. That, apart from the slavish spin on presentation means that I'm obliged to pay more than occasional visits to other news sources to create a composite of the truth. I hadn't realized until now that my faith in the NYT was as deep as it is, but recognizing the effect the bias can have on content reliability is a bit sick-making.
28
Penn -
Exactly. Exactly. They are so incredibly biased that they simply cannot be believed anymore. If what they are printing is true, it probably be the *whole* truth, just what is convenient according to Brian Fallon or whichever campaign spokesweasel they are taking their messaging from. If it's the whole truth, then they've left out 5 other articles on different topics that weren't good messaging, according to the Times' parent organization, the Hillary Campaign.
They're a propaganda organ at this point. And we're paying them for access!
Exactly. Exactly. They are so incredibly biased that they simply cannot be believed anymore. If what they are printing is true, it probably be the *whole* truth, just what is convenient according to Brian Fallon or whichever campaign spokesweasel they are taking their messaging from. If it's the whole truth, then they've left out 5 other articles on different topics that weren't good messaging, according to the Times' parent organization, the Hillary Campaign.
They're a propaganda organ at this point. And we're paying them for access!
14
Bias,,,,,,of course not
How about the bias against Conservatives for the last 50 years?
How about the bias against Conservatives for the last 50 years?
5
What, specifically, do you fault in the reporting of the piece to which you'receive responding?
10
It's so gratifying to see that so many other commenters here agree that the NYT is desperately trying to pump life into a struggling Hillary.
I'll believe an entrance/exit poll any day before I'll believe the opinion of a paid reporter working for a newspaper whose agenda is clearly to defeat populist candidates.
She's not called the Old Gray Lady for nothing.
I'll believe an entrance/exit poll any day before I'll believe the opinion of a paid reporter working for a newspaper whose agenda is clearly to defeat populist candidates.
She's not called the Old Gray Lady for nothing.
15
A struggling Hillary? Um, it appears that you and your fellow commenters haven't thought through the implications of Bernie's loss in Nevada - the first contested state so far that actually represents the national demographics fairly well (except that the are actually proportionally more African-Americans in the US than in Nevada, which makes for an even bigger advantage for Hillary in the remaining states). Every published analysis I've seen supports this assessment. So what was that about a struggling Hillary?
6
Her countless struggles with telling the truth, perhaps?
Maureen Dowd pegged her- Richard Nixon in a pantsuit.
Maureen Dowd pegged her- Richard Nixon in a pantsuit.
2
It's helpful to have confirmation that entry polls are as idiotic as they first seemed. Can we have an election news network that doesn't treat creating raw content, no matter how useless (at best) and inane, as its first priority? I know the answer is "no," but one can dream.
7
Such blatant and shameful bashing of SEN. Sanders by Cohn and NYT...this is NOT journalism.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/21/sanders-we-have-enormous-mom...
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/21/sanders-we-have-enormous-mom...
17
What in Mr. Cohn's piece constitutes "bashing"?
10
Bernie Sanders who’s that? Not so long ago and still there among the less interested in politics and then they hear him and he address what has happened to America in the last 40 years income distribution, employment at middle class wages and benefits, public educations expenditures and quality of facilities, war making without consideration of cause and result; you pick the topic and he draws along side of the chosen one by the established powers. That has to be impressive. He swallow the Clinton lead in NV; yes in the last mouth he outspent her on advertising using his 30-50 dollars donations wisely: I am Sanders and this is what I believe!
For fun imagine the debate between Trump and Sanders Queens vs. Brooklyn who is going to carry the day? Trump vs. Clinton that also will be a show but interesting? Go Bernie get your message out win or lose you are changing the story line significantly.
For fun imagine the debate between Trump and Sanders Queens vs. Brooklyn who is going to carry the day? Trump vs. Clinton that also will be a show but interesting? Go Bernie get your message out win or lose you are changing the story line significantly.
11
Indeed!!!
1
Et Tu, Nate Cohn ?
You start with a conclusion and elasticize the data to fit what you want it to say. But you are preaching to the wrong audience - NYT readers are too smart for that. Why don't you take your ball and go to Fox News?
You start with a conclusion and elasticize the data to fit what you want it to say. But you are preaching to the wrong audience - NYT readers are too smart for that. Why don't you take your ball and go to Fox News?
13
When a staff write for the New Republic with close ties to the Clintons, what else would a person to expect....
10
The unions manage their members as gracelessly as Wall St. Manages congress. You can't infer a bloc from Nevada results.
6
The problem with Bernie Sanders relying on young people is that young people are incredibly unreliable. Just look at the voter turnout, it was 118,000 in 2008 and about 80,000 this year in Nevada. That should be concerning for both candidates.
8
Who cares, its not like Hillary supporters care about being honest...
12
I am not even sure the typical Hillary supporter has enough information to know what she is lying to them about ...
9
Do you really think it's OK to label Clinton supporters dishonest? I don't think this kind of disrespectful rhetoric is helpful. If you're a Sanders supporter, you're not representing your candidate very well.
22
@NER
I would like your views on this:
http://usuncut.com/politics/the-nevada-caucus-is-a-complete-fiasco/
I would like your views on this:
http://usuncut.com/politics/the-nevada-caucus-is-a-complete-fiasco/
4
When you are negotiating, you always ask for more than you think you can get, so that you arrive somewhere in the middle. Bernie Sanders is asking for a lot because that's what this country needs. We need to ask for single payer healthcare, for cheaper education, for cutting the insane military budget, for a few examples, so that we can at least have something to aim for. Hillary Clinton isn't really suggesting anything except that she is qualified to continue what we have now. That's a terrible position, and the American voters know it and she will lose by a landslide if it ends up being her vs. Trump. The NYTimes constantly reads like a Hillary endorsement (today's page is dictatorship-esque in its coronation) and will be partially responsible when we inaugurate 'President Trump'. Say those two words to yourself a few times because it is a very very real possibility.
25
Thank you. President Trump. President Trump. President Trump! Please, NYT, this could actually happen. Bernie gives us hope, inspires us to believe this vastly rigged society can
actually change for the better. Maybe not easily, the entrenched have the power. But let's at least put someone in who understands what we of the middle class are going through.
actually change for the better. Maybe not easily, the entrenched have the power. But let's at least put someone in who understands what we of the middle class are going through.
5
I am somewhat gratified to see that thanks to the authority and journalistic integrity that the NYT brings to the issue, as sure as Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, Hillary will be our next President.
25
Yes, I agree. I am bracing myself for the moment, one of these days, when the NYT will bring in Judith Miller, of the WMD notoriety, back from the dead, in order to add more "prestige" to the NYT "Hillary-all-the-way" juggernaut.
16
They still have Thomas Friedman on the payroll, who else do you need to spread this mass hysteria?
10
Clinton just needs "six more months"/one more Friedman Unit to wrap things up. ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_Unit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_Unit
4
Several pro-Hillary commenters have criticized Bernie supporters for not sucking it up and facing reality: Hillary is going to get the nomination.
Hillary will get it but, if she has to, she'll use the back-door methods she's planned to use from Day One. I was surprised that so many Sanders supporters seemed oblivious to how "super-delegates" work until the Times published an article on that last week. Hillary has been rounding up super-delegates for a very long time -- starting well before she announced her candidacy. Did Sanders supporters really not understand this? The Democratic Party put the "super-delegates" arrangement in place because they realized that too much emphasis on primaries might again yield dead-bang loser nominees like McGovern (whom I voted for) and Mondale. I've never had any doubt they'd use it this time to keep Sanders from getting the nomination. They'd prefer not to, of course, since it looks very bad if they exploit it in the face of strong support for a rival candidate. Hillary did the same thing in 2008, for example, but Obama's support proved to be so overwhelming that Hillary's super-delegates just couldn't bring themselves to stab him in the back. Bernie's support so far, however, is nowhere near what Obama's was 8 years ago, and so I doubt Hillary would hesitate for a moment to stab him in the back. She'd prefer not to have too, but if that's what it takes ...
Hillary will get it but, if she has to, she'll use the back-door methods she's planned to use from Day One. I was surprised that so many Sanders supporters seemed oblivious to how "super-delegates" work until the Times published an article on that last week. Hillary has been rounding up super-delegates for a very long time -- starting well before she announced her candidacy. Did Sanders supporters really not understand this? The Democratic Party put the "super-delegates" arrangement in place because they realized that too much emphasis on primaries might again yield dead-bang loser nominees like McGovern (whom I voted for) and Mondale. I've never had any doubt they'd use it this time to keep Sanders from getting the nomination. They'd prefer not to, of course, since it looks very bad if they exploit it in the face of strong support for a rival candidate. Hillary did the same thing in 2008, for example, but Obama's support proved to be so overwhelming that Hillary's super-delegates just couldn't bring themselves to stab him in the back. Bernie's support so far, however, is nowhere near what Obama's was 8 years ago, and so I doubt Hillary would hesitate for a moment to stab him in the back. She'd prefer not to have too, but if that's what it takes ...
7
It is amazing to see how the Establishment Dems are coalescing around hrc. Educated guesses might reveal they are scared of what Bernie might do or say should he get the nomination and worse yet if he were to win the general election. The hrc spin machine is in full gear, with distortions, outright lies, mistruths, character assassinations...you know the usual. Funny how the NYT has left it's supposed "neutral" position and along with other clinton cronies, is doing their dirty work...Maybe they are fooling some of the people, but poll after poll reveals she will say anything to anyone that might get their vote and then do what will benefit her and her cabal...while throwing a few crumbs to the masses...
Oh...got to love politics...where the little man gets the shaft and learns to love it!
Oh...got to love politics...where the little man gets the shaft and learns to love it!
25
All these pro-Bernie commenters sound like sour grapes to me--and more than a little misogynistic. They'd rather vote for ANY man, even a 74-year-old rabble-rousing socialist with only three pieces of sponsored legislation to his name over 35 years in the Senate, than ANY woman--even the super-progressive Elizabeth Warren!
If she had run, Bernie fans would accuse her of deceit, as she lied that she was one-eighth Iroquois on a university application.
Decades will pass before ANY woman wins the Democratic or (even less likely) the Republican presidential nomination and before ANY woman is elected president.
Yes, there are women in Congress and statehouses, but considering that women make up over half the U.S. population, only 20 women now serve in that law-making body.
So it seems that, like many right-wing Republicans, Bernie fans would prefer that women stay home in nightgowns and barefoot.
Women have gotten the shaft in U.S. politics, having the right to vote only since 1920. My grandmother could not vote until she was 30!
On another note, Team Obama were quite anxious that Bernie would make good on his promise to "primary" Obama in 2012. Thank goodness Sanders didn't!
If she had run, Bernie fans would accuse her of deceit, as she lied that she was one-eighth Iroquois on a university application.
Decades will pass before ANY woman wins the Democratic or (even less likely) the Republican presidential nomination and before ANY woman is elected president.
Yes, there are women in Congress and statehouses, but considering that women make up over half the U.S. population, only 20 women now serve in that law-making body.
So it seems that, like many right-wing Republicans, Bernie fans would prefer that women stay home in nightgowns and barefoot.
Women have gotten the shaft in U.S. politics, having the right to vote only since 1920. My grandmother could not vote until she was 30!
On another note, Team Obama were quite anxious that Bernie would make good on his promise to "primary" Obama in 2012. Thank goodness Sanders didn't!
16
@Lee—you are correct about Warren. And if she were running the far left would crucify her for being a Republican until the 90's. Yes indeed she was. A self admitted Reagan Republican. This is why purity tests that Sander's and his followers adhere to is insane.
3
"sour grapes"
"misogynistic"
"They'd rather vote for ANY man"
---
Name-calling will never win you votes.
Insulting a needed prospect is poor sales technique - but that's all many Clinton supporters have.
If democrats had a real slate, as in 2008, a conservative from the past (the DLC) would have as much chance as ¡JEB! had.
Look: The GOP says if Trump gets nominated, they will support him.
Only a strong candidate will beat him.
And an old Jewish man most voters never heard of is NECK AND NECK with a former presumptive nominee. That means something.
Hillary supporters best start explaining WHY democrats should nominate a conservative or we'll have Trump or Rubio or, yes, Cruz.
You've done a really, really bad job at recruiting.
----
As to no legislative accomplishments, look into Sanders Amendment King:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record...
Try convincing, not insulting. You will need it.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
"misogynistic"
"They'd rather vote for ANY man"
---
Name-calling will never win you votes.
Insulting a needed prospect is poor sales technique - but that's all many Clinton supporters have.
If democrats had a real slate, as in 2008, a conservative from the past (the DLC) would have as much chance as ¡JEB! had.
Look: The GOP says if Trump gets nominated, they will support him.
Only a strong candidate will beat him.
And an old Jewish man most voters never heard of is NECK AND NECK with a former presumptive nominee. That means something.
Hillary supporters best start explaining WHY democrats should nominate a conservative or we'll have Trump or Rubio or, yes, Cruz.
You've done a really, really bad job at recruiting.
----
As to no legislative accomplishments, look into Sanders Amendment King:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record...
Try convincing, not insulting. You will need it.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
13
"They'd rather ..."
Is this based on any element of fact or evidence? Or just a random, deeply offensive hunch?
Is this based on any element of fact or evidence? Or just a random, deeply offensive hunch?
7
That sigh of relief you heard after the Nevada vote was announced came form Wall Street.
Clinton-Goldman Sachs 2016.
Clinton-Goldman Sachs 2016.
32
Wrong! Her running mate is the FBI!
7
True, Republicans DO spend too much time talking about Hillary's problems – the emails, Benghazi, etc. But honesty DOES matter. Even if one thinks the email issue has been exaggerated in importance (I do), and even if one thinks Hillary deserves little or no blame for Benghazi (I believe that), she's still got a serious "honesty" problem. What's always bothered me most is her claim, later retracted, that she and Chelsea were shot at by snipers while she was First Lady and their plane had just landed in Bosnia for a good-will ceremony.
I just can't imagine I'd not remember whether or not I'd been shot at by snipers. Simply to apologize for her misstatement has always struck me as inadequate.
I just can't imagine I'd not remember whether or not I'd been shot at by snipers. Simply to apologize for her misstatement has always struck me as inadequate.
11
She never apologized for the sniper whopper. Mrs. Clinton later claimed she was "sleep deprived" when she said it.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
7
@MyTwoCents -- Which candidates on the GOP side, beginning with their front-runner, Donald Trump, do you think does not have a problem with "honesty" (quoted because it seems to mean different things to different people).
More to the point is this: Does your tired line about Hillary, started by the late William Safire when he penned an oped piece that'd called her a "congenital liar", have anything to do with which Democratic candidate is most qualified to be POTUS and win this most consequential election?"
Like all Sanders' supporters, you are very fluent at telling us what's wrong with Hillary, and at regurgitating his fantastically promises, but very short on arguing for the feasibility of these promises. Do you believe that (a) his purported "political revolution" could ever materialize or that (b) a GOP-controlled house led by Paul Ryan would ever pass a package of free tuition and medicare for all that requires raising taxes on both the wealthy and the middle class? Please do not cite (a) as the answer for (b) because it would be illogically circular since the plausibility of each needs to be established empirically.
More to the point is this: Does your tired line about Hillary, started by the late William Safire when he penned an oped piece that'd called her a "congenital liar", have anything to do with which Democratic candidate is most qualified to be POTUS and win this most consequential election?"
Like all Sanders' supporters, you are very fluent at telling us what's wrong with Hillary, and at regurgitating his fantastically promises, but very short on arguing for the feasibility of these promises. Do you believe that (a) his purported "political revolution" could ever materialize or that (b) a GOP-controlled house led by Paul Ryan would ever pass a package of free tuition and medicare for all that requires raising taxes on both the wealthy and the middle class? Please do not cite (a) as the answer for (b) because it would be illogically circular since the plausibility of each needs to be established empirically.
14
FYI, Safire died quite some time ago. I don't recall him ever writing anything about Hillary's "sniper incident." Nor did I call Hillary a "congenital liar." All I wrote is that it concerned me that someone would make up a story about having been shot at by snipers.
Frankly, it bothers me even more that you would ask whether this has "anything to do with which Democratic candidate is most qualified to be POTUS and win this most consequential election?" Of course it matters. I really don't want a President who would make up a story like that, and I'll wager that most Americans agree and that they'd be upset to learn that seems to matter so little to Hillary's supporters (or at least to you).
Frankly, it bothers me even more that you would ask whether this has "anything to do with which Democratic candidate is most qualified to be POTUS and win this most consequential election?" Of course it matters. I really don't want a President who would make up a story like that, and I'll wager that most Americans agree and that they'd be upset to learn that seems to matter so little to Hillary's supporters (or at least to you).
1
Mr. Cohn, the writer of this article, is well qualified for writing a demographic analysis of voters' motivations. I question his objectivity, however, and I suspect he favors Hillary Clinton. Another NY Times article by him dated February 21 includes this text:
"Hillary Clinton’s victory in the Nevada caucus on Saturday suggests that her national advantage, although diminished, has survived a big loss in New Hampshire and a tight race in Iowa.
Nevada is fairly representative of the national electorate, and it’s a state where Bernie Sanders would be expected to fare slightly better than he would elsewhere. (The Nevada Democratic electorate is about as white as the national average, with a slightly smaller share of the black vote than the national average.)"
I'm a scientist that follows the Democratic presidential contest pretty closely, and I feel that such comments are unsupported and probably wrong. He states that Hillary's "national advantage" has "survived" but surely he knows that her "advantage" (which some polls now call into question) is a moving target. Bernie has made HUGE (pronounced "euge" gains over the past month, even over the past 2 weeks. Finally, saying that Nevada is "a state where Bernie Sanders would be expected to fare slightly better than he would elsewhere" shows confusion. Bernie just lost in Nevada by about 4-5 percentage points. In recent National polls, he sometimes polls BETTER than Hillary. So obviously Nevada is NOT representative.
"Hillary Clinton’s victory in the Nevada caucus on Saturday suggests that her national advantage, although diminished, has survived a big loss in New Hampshire and a tight race in Iowa.
Nevada is fairly representative of the national electorate, and it’s a state where Bernie Sanders would be expected to fare slightly better than he would elsewhere. (The Nevada Democratic electorate is about as white as the national average, with a slightly smaller share of the black vote than the national average.)"
I'm a scientist that follows the Democratic presidential contest pretty closely, and I feel that such comments are unsupported and probably wrong. He states that Hillary's "national advantage" has "survived" but surely he knows that her "advantage" (which some polls now call into question) is a moving target. Bernie has made HUGE (pronounced "euge" gains over the past month, even over the past 2 weeks. Finally, saying that Nevada is "a state where Bernie Sanders would be expected to fare slightly better than he would elsewhere" shows confusion. Bernie just lost in Nevada by about 4-5 percentage points. In recent National polls, he sometimes polls BETTER than Hillary. So obviously Nevada is NOT representative.
14
Why does Bernie get a free ride everywhere? And yet Hillary is always being questioned. I knew sexism against her would be bad but I really had no idea.
32
Hillary is "questioned" because she often doesn't tell the truth. Bernie is questioned less often because he tells the truth. Simple as that -- not sexism at all.
14
Cry "Sexism" when no other argument works!!
7
In terms of the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, the Times has used every opportunity to turn its news pages into editorial endorsements. Shame!
36
What I think the NYT consistently misses is that this isn't like a normal primary, neither is it shaping up to be a normal general election. It becomes more and more obvious to me, and the polling backs it up, that Secretary Clinton has become a terrible candidate for the Democratic party. And she still has transcripts to release, and three governmental investigations involving her, her subordinates, and even husband Bill by way of The Clinton Foundation investigation.
She'd kill us down ticket as Republicans will rise from the grave to vote against her, and younger Democrats will stay home. Even if elected she'll likely still be under investigation, imo.
Who's left to carry water for the Clintons?
She'd kill us down ticket as Republicans will rise from the grave to vote against her, and younger Democrats will stay home. Even if elected she'll likely still be under investigation, imo.
Who's left to carry water for the Clintons?
23
We are only talking about a total of 10,000 votes! Let's stay calm and see what happens. Nevada doesn't explain the future.
10
The 10,000 is delegates, the votes were in the 100,000's.
8
That's not true. It was approximately 80,000.
1
Would Hillary have won Nevada if she hadn't sent out Harry Reid to cut a deal with the casinos and the casino workers' union to allow union workers to get paid for voting in the caucus? If she only won by a handful of votes even so, Bernie probably would have won but for that last-minute arrangement.
16
Are you in favor of voter disenfranchisement? If not, then what is the problem of ensuring that casino workers, who tend to be low paid, people of color, do not have to lose wages in order to be able to vote?
7
No problem, except that the privilege is not extended to anyone else who has to work on Saturdays. I'm all for the Strip caucuses, and for Strip workers being allowed time to go do it, but as someone who had to work on Saturday and could not caucus in my neighborhood, I would love to have had some way to cast my vote.
4
Many other people in Nevada are "low paid" too, but Hillary and Harry Reid exhibited concern only for those low-paid workers who worked in Las Vegas casinos -- because, I'll wager, her pollsters told her those low-paid workers would vote heavily in her favor.
5
The posts here by Berniephiles are quite hilarious!
The hilarity is matched by the venom directed at Upshot who gives a finely nuanced commentary on the exit polls.
I'm not sure if there is an element of misogyny or simply envy for this great lady but the pattern of postings related to HRC are eerily reminiscent the way Christine Quinn was eviscerated in the internet universe in Quinn v ei Blasio.
Oh, btw, she won Nevada by seven percentage points - which is the only measure that matters!
The hilarity is matched by the venom directed at Upshot who gives a finely nuanced commentary on the exit polls.
I'm not sure if there is an element of misogyny or simply envy for this great lady but the pattern of postings related to HRC are eerily reminiscent the way Christine Quinn was eviscerated in the internet universe in Quinn v ei Blasio.
Oh, btw, she won Nevada by seven percentage points - which is the only measure that matters!
38
Nonsense. This has nothing to do with sexism. I would love to see a woman President.
But Hillary? Not so much. She's corporate. As Secretary of State she bungled opportunities to stabilize the Middle East. She tried to sneak the Keystone Pipeline in under the public's radar. She's beholden to Wall Street. She's rich, which makes it hard for her to be in touch with ordinary people. She's still married to Bill, which beings her self-respect into question. And finally, she's scripted.
Show us a woman who has a genuine concern for progressive values such as protecting and expanding Social Security, taking on the drug companies, taking on Wall Street and so on, and that woman will have the enthusiastic support of the progressive wing of the Democratic party.
But Hillary? Not so much. She's corporate. As Secretary of State she bungled opportunities to stabilize the Middle East. She tried to sneak the Keystone Pipeline in under the public's radar. She's beholden to Wall Street. She's rich, which makes it hard for her to be in touch with ordinary people. She's still married to Bill, which beings her self-respect into question. And finally, she's scripted.
Show us a woman who has a genuine concern for progressive values such as protecting and expanding Social Security, taking on the drug companies, taking on Wall Street and so on, and that woman will have the enthusiastic support of the progressive wing of the Democratic party.
1
Not you and the reasonable points you make but there is intense misogyny and envy in the hatred directed at HRC.
HRC overall has lived a very very honorable life for the most part always on the right side (i.e., my political view). She has fought the good fight-I would rate her well with Mother Jones, Eleanor Roosevelt..When she had executive position, her record is good, when she was only advocate I rate her well with Eleanor Roosevelt.
"As Secretary of State she bungled opportunities to stabilize the Middle East" - with a Congress that welcomes Netanyahu with 29 standing ovations even as he consolidates Israel as an apartheid racist state (yesterday, a mainstream Israeli director receiving a major prize in Berlin for Junction 48 described the regime as fascist) - she didn't bungle anything.
Keystone - bad odor but she came out against it. Lincoln took a while on some things!
"She's rich" - both Bill, HRC lived a very modest life - they had no home of their own until ?40s - I am not aware of any radical change in her views with wealth.
"She's still married to Bill..." - wow, you guys, women, have some brass neck to opine on a personal life or the reasons people who loved each other stay together. Erase this from your critique please.
HRC overall has lived a very very honorable life for the most part always on the right side (i.e., my political view). She has fought the good fight-I would rate her well with Mother Jones, Eleanor Roosevelt..When she had executive position, her record is good, when she was only advocate I rate her well with Eleanor Roosevelt.
"As Secretary of State she bungled opportunities to stabilize the Middle East" - with a Congress that welcomes Netanyahu with 29 standing ovations even as he consolidates Israel as an apartheid racist state (yesterday, a mainstream Israeli director receiving a major prize in Berlin for Junction 48 described the regime as fascist) - she didn't bungle anything.
Keystone - bad odor but she came out against it. Lincoln took a while on some things!
"She's rich" - both Bill, HRC lived a very modest life - they had no home of their own until ?40s - I am not aware of any radical change in her views with wealth.
"She's still married to Bill..." - wow, you guys, women, have some brass neck to opine on a personal life or the reasons people who loved each other stay together. Erase this from your critique please.
5
Senator Sanders had a chance to upset the race in Nevada, but that didn't happen.
Realists should consider that it looks increasingly apparent that Secretary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee.
That is a good thing for the country because she is also the most qualified candidate running from either party.
But I'm happy that Senator Sanders ran an issues oriented campaign that highlighted critical issues of importance to the country.
Republicans want to make the political debate about emails, character assassination, and Benghazi.
They want to talk about everything but the issues.
After the clown show antics going on with the Republican party, it is refreshing to see adults talking substantively about issues on the Democratic side.
Realists should consider that it looks increasingly apparent that Secretary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee.
That is a good thing for the country because she is also the most qualified candidate running from either party.
But I'm happy that Senator Sanders ran an issues oriented campaign that highlighted critical issues of importance to the country.
Republicans want to make the political debate about emails, character assassination, and Benghazi.
They want to talk about everything but the issues.
After the clown show antics going on with the Republican party, it is refreshing to see adults talking substantively about issues on the Democratic side.
43
Obama lost Nevada by a bigger margin! And he was a two term president!
Get real yourself!
Get real yourself!
14
Pray Trump doesn't win. He will eat Hillary's lunch. Jeb! was an appetizer.
7
JoePenny,
Trump has only so many uneducated, gullible Americans to draw from.
As it is, he only has about a third of Republicans, so don't start the Trump 2016 party just yet.
Trump has only so many uneducated, gullible Americans to draw from.
As it is, he only has about a third of Republicans, so don't start the Trump 2016 party just yet.
10
For reasons best known to the Times, it doesn't show the number of votes in Democratic caucuses or primaries, though it does for Republican races. My understanding is that the total vote in Nevada's Democratic caucus was minuscule -- maybe 2,000 total. If that report is accurate, it's hardly surprising that entrance-exit polls would be unreliable. The sample size would have to have been very small.
I'd be curious to hear some turnout figures for the Nevada Democratic caucus, and how those turnout figures compare to, say, 2008. I'd like to see the same thing for Iowa and New Hampshire. My impression is that turnout is far lower this year than in 2008 and, probably needless to say, is going mostly for Bernie, not Hillary.
I'd be curious to hear some turnout figures for the Nevada Democratic caucus, and how those turnout figures compare to, say, 2008. I'd like to see the same thing for Iowa and New Hampshire. My impression is that turnout is far lower this year than in 2008 and, probably needless to say, is going mostly for Bernie, not Hillary.
4
About 80,000 people voted in the Nevada caucuses on Saturday.
4
so Hillary Clinton won the Hispanic vote, she won the black vote 76-22.
How come she only won by 5%?
How come she only won by 5%?
8
Give the minutest detail pro-Hillary spin and put it on the front page. Pulling out all the stops for their gal
34
Partly in B&H handling of the country during their term in the WH is the reason our great president Obama has had to dig us out of a hole. Bill was asleep at the wheel with ML, welfare reform and de-regulation of Wall Street. They are a sloppy couple, more like organized crime couple than care takers of this country. They have the media in their pocket and they are why so many Americans and other people from other countries are opposed to them...they represent the establishment. I was so discouraged for years until Obama and now the are TBT for the establishment...I won't vote for HRC.
7
Very informative piece. The disconnect between the average white Sanders supporter and the average black and Hispanic voter is quite obvious to me, if not to Sanders voters. (The average Asian-American voter seems to be ignored by everyone, as usual.) One need not look further than the Sanders supporters Susan Sarandon and Gaby Hoffman - the epitome of NYC Sanders votersy
- and their Twitter reactions to the 80-year-old Hispanic activist Dolores Huerta and her very reasonable concerns in Vegas yesterday. Condescending doesn't even begin to describe it. I now am convinced that the condescension commonly shown by Sanders voters is a reflection of the man himself. I think others are realizing it too, thus the cool reception Sanders has been getting lately as he crosses the US outside the East Coast. Sanders voters are sometimes the white liberals who refuse to see their own prejudices. They don't seem to realize some of us have seen this story play out before, and so aren't interested in supporting that particular narrative in a presidential election.
- and their Twitter reactions to the 80-year-old Hispanic activist Dolores Huerta and her very reasonable concerns in Vegas yesterday. Condescending doesn't even begin to describe it. I now am convinced that the condescension commonly shown by Sanders voters is a reflection of the man himself. I think others are realizing it too, thus the cool reception Sanders has been getting lately as he crosses the US outside the East Coast. Sanders voters are sometimes the white liberals who refuse to see their own prejudices. They don't seem to realize some of us have seen this story play out before, and so aren't interested in supporting that particular narrative in a presidential election.
32
"and their Twitter reactions to the 80-year-old Hispanic activist Dolores Huerta and her very reasonable concerns in Vegas yesterday"
Dolores Huerta received $100,000 from the Clinton Family Foundation, you can see it here on a CFF tax filing (page 33):
http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/300/300048438/3000484...
Her "very reasonable concerns" were quite well paid for, as was her phony claims about "only English"
You mentioned Susan Sarandon, she has a video of the entire event pinned on her twitter feed. The MODERATOR asked for someone neutral to translate, not a well paid, self proclaimed Clinton supporter (Huerta) wearing a Clinton t-shirt
Dolores Huerta received $100,000 from the Clinton Family Foundation, you can see it here on a CFF tax filing (page 33):
http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/300/300048438/3000484...
Her "very reasonable concerns" were quite well paid for, as was her phony claims about "only English"
You mentioned Susan Sarandon, she has a video of the entire event pinned on her twitter feed. The MODERATOR asked for someone neutral to translate, not a well paid, self proclaimed Clinton supporter (Huerta) wearing a Clinton t-shirt
26
I'm a POC supporting Sanders and I see no disconnect. Sanders is against privatized prisons, Hillary takes their money. Sanders was getting arrested protesting segregation, Hillary was campaigning for a segregationist. Sanders voted against an immigration reform bill that with a terrible provision, Hillary returned migrant children to Central America to send a "message." Not all Sanders supporters are white liberals.
1
Bernie Sanders had to win Nevada. He raised much more money than Hillary Clinton in January and he considerably reduced the huge advantage that Clinton had over him. Yet, Clinton took Nevada with about 5% over Sanders, more than what polls showed and a lot more than during the Iowa caucus.
Knowing that Hillary has a 20% lead over Bernie, it tells me is that Sanders' message is not getting through within minorities. The true test will be during Super Tuesday where Bernie Sanders MUST win more states than Clinton to still have a shot at the nomination. If he doesn't succeed, then his days are numbered.
Knowing that Hillary has a 20% lead over Bernie, it tells me is that Sanders' message is not getting through within minorities. The true test will be during Super Tuesday where Bernie Sanders MUST win more states than Clinton to still have a shot at the nomination. If he doesn't succeed, then his days are numbered.
15
The name "Nate" doth not a prognosticator make.
1
Hillary Clinton won heavily within Latino voters where Latino workers were bullied and intimidated by Hillary-pressure-groups. This was no fair election at all.
5
Please don't insult us. We are not stupid. I was at the rally for Hillary in Houston last ight right after her win in NV.
Lots of brown and black faces. We know exactly why we are supporting her. She has been a life long supporter of Hispanic causes. She came to South Texas in 1972 to register Hispanics to vote.
She voted FOR immigration reform in 2007 unlike Sanders. Yes, Sanders has made inroads. Good for him. But overall Hispanics know Hillary has stood with our community for decades.
Lots of brown and black faces. We know exactly why we are supporting her. She has been a life long supporter of Hispanic causes. She came to South Texas in 1972 to register Hispanics to vote.
She voted FOR immigration reform in 2007 unlike Sanders. Yes, Sanders has made inroads. Good for him. But overall Hispanics know Hillary has stood with our community for decades.
23
Of course...it is the Bill and Hillary way.
1
Nicely put, Mr. Medina. Very paternalistic for Sanders supporters to assume that people of color who do not support Mr. Sanders do not know their own minds.
7
The Upshot: So Pro-Hillary that they ignore the statistical probabilities of polling.
13
I can not understand why the black community coalesces around the clinton machine. Her "stand by her man " husband destroyed more blue collar jobs with his forceful implementation of nafta, than any two republican presidents. The clinton machine spins and spins and spins. What did hillary give harry reid for working the culinary union towards her camp? If any one tells me that with clinton there is no quid pro quo I would tell them that they are absolutely delusional.
17
Thank you...a lot of people can't connect the dots.
8
All of the old, experienced hands who write so dismissively about the naiveté and clueless of Senator Sanders's supporters may be right, the big money, the experienced operatives, the tweaked messaging and the machinery will grind away and maybe win the nomination. That doesn't mean HRC can win the generals. Look at the last 40 years, the only time Democrats have won the presidency without a democratic incumbent was when they have presented the newer, more-forward thinking candidate. Democrats with great resumes and long histories have done miserably. Think Humphrey, Dukakis, Mondale, Kerry, Gore. Great resumes, safe bets, historical chumps. Juxtapose this with Kennedy, Carter, Clinton and Obama, all promising the public something new, positive and exciting. Hillary is all history and resume, is grandpa's dependable Buick; the shills have put on a new set of tires and a paint job. They are telling the rubes that Shaq drives a Buick and that it is a really new model. No one outside the bubble is buying.
20
What a great and insightful comment Joe Penny.
5
The constant name-calling by Sanders supporters ("shill," for example) is unhelpful and tedious.
17
Well said, Joe.
3
Wow! The Times is really getting desperate. Bernie beats Hillary by eight points (not one or two, but eight points) among Hispanics, and suddenly polls are no longer valid. What if Hillary had beaten Bernie by eight points. I wonder if numbers twister, uh, cruncher Cohn would be talking about how unreliable polls are in that case. (And we do wonder if the Times or Mr. Cohn, with their newfound concern about accuracy in polling, have called for a recount of the Iowa caucus vote as did the Des Moines Register.)
I think what the Times really fears is that Bernie's momentum has not been slowed. "CLINTON WINS NEVADA!" blares the big headline. Yeah, by 400 votes. A few months ago she was up by 40 points, and just last week her campaign declared she was up by 25 points. She gets what, 19 delegates to Bernie's 14? Big deal. Sounds like a Sander's victory to me.
If this continues — If Sanders continues to collect just under half of the total delegate vote — not counting the pre-pocketed "super delegate" friends of the Clintons — we could be headed for a brokered convention. Hillary would still probably get the nomination, but she would have to make some concessions that the 1%, including the folks who own the Times, wouldn't approve of.
Higher taxes on the rich? A 1% tax on Wall Street transactions? Out of the question. Better make it look like Hillary's everybody's favorite, and only the far left "tea party" can't see it. Marginalize them.
Yuck and Yawn, NYTimes.
I think what the Times really fears is that Bernie's momentum has not been slowed. "CLINTON WINS NEVADA!" blares the big headline. Yeah, by 400 votes. A few months ago she was up by 40 points, and just last week her campaign declared she was up by 25 points. She gets what, 19 delegates to Bernie's 14? Big deal. Sounds like a Sander's victory to me.
If this continues — If Sanders continues to collect just under half of the total delegate vote — not counting the pre-pocketed "super delegate" friends of the Clintons — we could be headed for a brokered convention. Hillary would still probably get the nomination, but she would have to make some concessions that the 1%, including the folks who own the Times, wouldn't approve of.
Higher taxes on the rich? A 1% tax on Wall Street transactions? Out of the question. Better make it look like Hillary's everybody's favorite, and only the far left "tea party" can't see it. Marginalize them.
Yuck and Yawn, NYTimes.
44
Thank you! So great to know other critical thinkers are out there.
12
Since when do we need a Jewish guy from New York to tell us about Hispanics in Nevada? If any of his analysis is true, how does he explain the results of the African American vote that came in at 13%, down from 15%, and reportedly 72% voted for Clinton. No one is raising hell about that smaller sample. While the New York Times may not like it, the reality is that it knows nothing about Latinos in America, and it should not pretend it does. This is a disservice to your readers.
4
This is exactly the racism and tribalisam Bernie is fighting against. He wants to bring people together, not deepen the divisions between men and women, black - white - latino - native american, jewish - roman chatholc - protestant, gay - strait...
20
Funny, when you mentioned the Jewish guy from New York who doesn't know anything about Hispanics in Nevada, I thought you were referring to Bernie, until I realized you were just throwing nasty snark against a guy whose knowledge of statistics and demographic analysis might just be a tad better than yours.
12
More propaganda from the NYTnpro Clinton campaign. They have all but ignored that her came from 25 points back a month ago to 5 points down yesterday. It was a nice victory for Clinton, but a loss would have been a disaster. The demographic groups she won were blacks and older voters. But look at her losses. Whites, men younger voters of sexes, and independents. And according to entrance and exit polls, she lost Hispanics. But whether she won it or lost it by a few points, how can such a close result with a demographic that knows her so well and hardly knows her opponent be considered a victory?
36
Thank you!
4
The many points down narrative is misleading. If you look at fivethirtyeight.com figures, the reason Sanders was so far down was because there were so many undecideds. In mid-July Clinton was polling at 55% and Sanders at 17%. A big gap, but mostly because of so many undecideds, and frankly, if you are undecided about politician as well known as Clinton you are probably looking for someone else. From the mid-July polling to the actual Nevada caucuses Sanders picked up the undecideds, but only took 2% from Clinton. This is despite all his momentum, feeling the Bern and a resounding victory in New Hampshire. I find that narrative a lot less compelling.
1
Actually it is stunning that someone as well known as HRC, in the public eye for a quarter of a century still has this many people who dislike her. People can make all kinds of excuses for her but ask yourself why is she having such a fight against Sanders? She has been the anointed nominee for a decade. She has nearly complete support from her party, the NYTs and Morgan Freeman. Why does she lose anything or come with a few points of losing? Do you know the answer?
The problem with HRC is her. It is not because she is a woman. It is because she is Hillary and many, many people simply have a visceral dislike of her. Bill, the softer and more congenial side of the couple is no longer a picnic either. Instead of her becoming more like him, he has become more like her.
The problem with HRC is her. It is not because she is a woman. It is because she is Hillary and many, many people simply have a visceral dislike of her. Bill, the softer and more congenial side of the couple is no longer a picnic either. Instead of her becoming more like him, he has become more like her.
1
I simply don't trust the Times reporting because of their pro-Hillary bias. The fact is Hillary is facing a candidate who is a self-proclaimed socialist, doesn't appear to have much of a record in the Senate and appears to me already too old so she should be running away with the nomination. The fact that she isn't speaks rather poorly of her as a candidate.
14
Clinton won the support of voters who believe that honesty is not the best policy.
14
She's the "No Integrity" ticket.
13
Clinton: I Always Try To Tell The Truth; 2-18-2016 - YouTube
She has to make an effort to tell the truth! Not her nature, she admits?
She has to make an effort to tell the truth! Not her nature, she admits?
10
Jck—we are electing a president not a pope. These purity tests by Sander's is absurd. Anybody who claims that they are as pure as the driven snow most certainly is not. Be careful what you wish for.
6
Nate Cohn is a 26 Year-old-dude who is high on his data driven celebrity. There is nothing insightful or worth reading in this piece. Listen, 88,000 people voted in the Nevada Caucus. The state has a population of 3 Million. Take that data and do something with it. The NYT really is intent on losing subscribers.
15
Personal insults to Nate Cohn? Really?
19
Yes! Really! And I and others agree with them.
4
The number and individual differences of voting types in our country are more difficult to understand than integral or differential calculus or nuclear physics, which is why so many of us ordinary Americans don't understand why a "victory" in a state in which only 2% of the people voted seems so significant.
There is only one fair way to make sure that as many voters who are eligible to vote actually do so. We must make voting required for all citizens, as is stated in question #49 of the test for U.S citizenship.
Those who don't vote because their employers refuse to give them time off should have their employers fined for being anti-American, or should themselves be fined if they deliberately don't vote.
If immigrants who are trying to become citizens are told that voting is a requirement for citizenship, then it should be required for all Americans.
There is only one fair way to make sure that as many voters who are eligible to vote actually do so. We must make voting required for all citizens, as is stated in question #49 of the test for U.S citizenship.
Those who don't vote because their employers refuse to give them time off should have their employers fined for being anti-American, or should themselves be fined if they deliberately don't vote.
If immigrants who are trying to become citizens are told that voting is a requirement for citizenship, then it should be required for all Americans.
1
Enough with the ethnic-baiting, NYT
Besides, these democrat caucus wins have been about as genuine as WWF outcomes
All we need is - at the next debate - for the candidates to engage in a faux-brawl, hitting each other with folding chairs
Besides, these democrat caucus wins have been about as genuine as WWF outcomes
All we need is - at the next debate - for the candidates to engage in a faux-brawl, hitting each other with folding chairs
8
The CNN poll was obviously bogus but made the rounds out of the white male pundits fast, almost like it was pre-planned? I believe it was knowingly set up to capture the data that the pundits salivated for, fired out to the white guys, and in the press in a flash, uniformly reported without quoting a source usually. If not, why stop at 200 latinos? Beware of lots of nasty tricks by the white male punditry looking for another non-uterus in the White House. And after the horrid display of white supremacy by the Sanders brigade in a LV caucus where they shouted down a latino civil rights leader, Dolores Huerta, with "English only", they will grow even more pure and into even bigger losers. Reap what you sow Sanders' bigot boys. The Obama coalition held for Secretary Clinton: women and people of color. Rain down whatever insults you want angry white guys, we got this.
13
Well, now that we know what you think of the situation, we can move on to a serious discussion.
3
I was early Obama supporter (first 15k) fought fiercely he won despite same negative spin from Clinton camp mediad etc.
Then Obama sold out too to same super pacs that own Clintons for decades.
He let us down.
I was for Bernie BEFORE he helped Obama win!
Hillary wanted him gone ...watch old campaign footage.
I am with you millennials! I see the truth and the only True change like Obama promised but didn't deliver when he supported TARP, Bernie only one not a hypocrite has spent his life fighting for real change!
Then Obama sold out too to same super pacs that own Clintons for decades.
He let us down.
I was for Bernie BEFORE he helped Obama win!
Hillary wanted him gone ...watch old campaign footage.
I am with you millennials! I see the truth and the only True change like Obama promised but didn't deliver when he supported TARP, Bernie only one not a hypocrite has spent his life fighting for real change!
8
"And after the horrid display of white supremacy by the Sanders brigade in a LV caucus where they shouted down a latino civil rights leader, Dolores Huerta, with "English only", ...."
Except they didn't. They didn't expect a Hillary surrogate to be a reliable translator. And so asked for someone else. The chairman then decided to continue with English only. Check the video.
Except they didn't. They didn't expect a Hillary surrogate to be a reliable translator. And so asked for someone else. The chairman then decided to continue with English only. Check the video.
8
I wish NYT wrote headlines that betray a bit less of its singular desire for Hillary to win. I don't disagree but I don't want to read what circulates in the partisan echo chamber that is the NYT.
Why not admit that Hillary should panic that her "firewall" of these recent states turned out to be more a Gulf state levee - works adequately but not reliably or without problems. Clearly Bernie has been gaining share by leaps and bounds in the minority demo. Hillary's momentum on the whole needs a booster shot.
Why not admit that Hillary should panic that her "firewall" of these recent states turned out to be more a Gulf state levee - works adequately but not reliably or without problems. Clearly Bernie has been gaining share by leaps and bounds in the minority demo. Hillary's momentum on the whole needs a booster shot.
31
Thank you C!
3
If Nate wants to talk about important numbers in determining the outcome in Nevada, he needs to start talking about voter turnout. Nevada's caucus had very low voter turnout, and Hillary Clinton wins when voter turnout is low.
12
Then it means that Bernie Sanders' message didn't go through to mobilize his base to come out in big numbers to vote for him.
13
What if they called for a radical revolution and nobody came.
One observation: The caucus was on a Saturday morning at 11 am. Most college boys and girls were probably sleeping in late after late night Friday frat partying.
One observation: The caucus was on a Saturday morning at 11 am. Most college boys and girls were probably sleeping in late after late night Friday frat partying.
11
I wonder why his message didn't get through. Might have somethng to do with the media blackout. One of the major networks featured Trump for approx 120 minutes during the first six months of the campaign. Bernie got 20 seconds. The other networks performed similarly. In spite of the censorship, the message has resonated well enougn to earn Bernie far more individual campaign contributions than any other presidential candidate in history. I think that trend alone indicates that this race isn't quite over yet.
4
For those of you Bernie supporters who say that Clinton's win wasn't by a substantial enough margin, what will you say after the SC primary where Hillary will likely win by 20 points? A win is a win. Some contests are close some are not. And it doesn't matter where you start the race from numbers wise, it's where you finish. Some of you seem to think just because Bernie was way behind in the polls that he wins as long as he loses by a small margin. Sorry but this isn't "everybody gets a ribbon" and an A for effort kind of thing. You win when you get more votes period. Not trying to be sarcastic but is this a Millennial thing?
30
I will say this:
Why on Earth does anyone care what South Carolina votes for in the nomination? Why does a state that *hasn't gone for a Democrat in the general since Jimmy Carter* get such an oversized impact early on in the primary?
That's Hillary's "firewall": states where she wins any election that Republicans aren't allowed to vote in. I'm sure she'll win in Texas, too. So who cares? Texas will never go to a Democrat.
That's what I have to say about South Carolina - its a state that doesn't matter but gets treated as if it does. Consequently, other realities emerge, not the least of which is that *the entire West Coast of the United States doesn't get much of a say at all in the nomination* because of all these red states that get to go first.
Why on Earth does anyone care what South Carolina votes for in the nomination? Why does a state that *hasn't gone for a Democrat in the general since Jimmy Carter* get such an oversized impact early on in the primary?
That's Hillary's "firewall": states where she wins any election that Republicans aren't allowed to vote in. I'm sure she'll win in Texas, too. So who cares? Texas will never go to a Democrat.
That's what I have to say about South Carolina - its a state that doesn't matter but gets treated as if it does. Consequently, other realities emerge, not the least of which is that *the entire West Coast of the United States doesn't get much of a say at all in the nomination* because of all these red states that get to go first.
9
A reminder about polls. This one from Iowa
Poll Date Sample MoE Clinton Sanders O'Malley Spread
Gravis 1/26 - 1/27 810 LV 3.0 53 42 5 Clinton +11
I know this one was an anomaly, but remember that a poll is not a election.
Poll Date Sample MoE Clinton Sanders O'Malley Spread
Gravis 1/26 - 1/27 810 LV 3.0 53 42 5 Clinton +11
I know this one was an anomaly, but remember that a poll is not a election.
A very good point. Sort of like a Olympic class sprinter competing in the senior Olympics. You win, but so what?
1
Where there were independent democratic party organizations not beholden to corporate style labor or democratic party machines, Sanders did very well such as Carson City and other communities which large hispanic populations. In 2008, when Obama also lost by 5% in the Nevada primary, the same type of voting happened between the Clark and Nye counties political machines and the more independent areas from Reno north and other to Elko, towns that have significant hispanic populations and without the big boss looking down people's throats in Vegas and especially the casinos. Between the corporate machines of the democrats and republicans, the 2016 elections will just enforce the same weakening of our nation's democratic tradition and I say this as a Jill Stein Green Party supporter who admires anyone willing to challenge either of these parties!
9
There is an unhappy numerical relationship between the excellence of Senator Sander's policy positions and the insufferable nature of many (most?) of his followers.
30
One problem with this kind of precinct-level analysis is that you simply cannot know for sure what percentage of voters in a particular precinct are Hispanic. Even if the black population makes up a relatively small percentage in a particular precinct, they are more likely to be citizens than Hispanics, and thus may have disproportionately participated in the caucus. Clinton won black voters by a landslide, so this would severely skew the results. An entrance poll certainly has flaws, but I would trust it more than precinct-level results, simply because an entrance poll can at least isolate Hispanic voters. In addition, the entrance poll covers precincts spread throughout the state, while you are simply focusing on one area of Las Vegas. As you acknowledge, Hispanic voters in east Las Vegas may not perfectly represent Hispanic voters in all of Nevada.
1
It's time for Bernie and feel the Bern fashionistas to face the reality. Good old Bernie never was a viable candidate.Perhaps, in his old age, he suddenly though that Hillary Clinton was a ripe fruit to pick and decided to run against her. Very bad calculation. There are in the United States some of us who have been following Hillary Rodham ( Clinton) from decades and know she is a woman, a human being, of spectacular potential, a person that can accomplish immeasurable good for this country and around the world. There are many of us who are happy to respect and honor this woman, and who hope with all their hearts that she will eventually occupy the Oval Office here in this country that needs to equal countries in Europe, Asia, Latin American, Africa and elsewhere that have chosen women to lead the destines of their nations.
28
Never a viable candidate?
The two candidates are tied in terms of pledged delegates. What planet do you live on where a tie three states into a 50+ string of elections have voted is sudden evidence that someone is "not viable".
The two candidates are tied in terms of pledged delegates. What planet do you live on where a tie three states into a 50+ string of elections have voted is sudden evidence that someone is "not viable".
15
The game isn't over until the proverbial fat lady sings. There are plenty of cards on the table yet to be played. For months the pundits have been predicting the fall of Trump. Last week there was gnashing of teeth that Hillary would go down just like 2008. So let's put this in perspective. Everything is still in play.
You don't quit a ballgame after the first inning. We aren't quitting Bernie, either. For once, there is someone running who is honest, compassionate, and has the best interest of the people as the top priority. Unfortunately, that person is not Ms. Clinton. Bernie's greatest weakness as a candidate springs from his greatest strength: he doesn't play dirty, and he is in the sandbox with those who do. Clinton has Kissinger, who barely escaped Paris before a warrent for his arrest as war criminal was issued, as one advisor (is that why she lead the charge in to Libya?). Another advisor is David Brock, the GOP operative who slimed her during her husband's presidency. Some friends! Given that her canpaign may well do some very dirty tricks.
Bernie supporters, send him money. He will need it against .
You don't quit a ballgame after the first inning. We aren't quitting Bernie, either. For once, there is someone running who is honest, compassionate, and has the best interest of the people as the top priority. Unfortunately, that person is not Ms. Clinton. Bernie's greatest weakness as a candidate springs from his greatest strength: he doesn't play dirty, and he is in the sandbox with those who do. Clinton has Kissinger, who barely escaped Paris before a warrent for his arrest as war criminal was issued, as one advisor (is that why she lead the charge in to Libya?). Another advisor is David Brock, the GOP operative who slimed her during her husband's presidency. Some friends! Given that her canpaign may well do some very dirty tricks.
Bernie supporters, send him money. He will need it against .
12
Henry Kissinger is not advising the Clinton campaign and didn't shape her foreign policy decisions. Clinton cited him as someone who complimented her on how she ran the State Department. And as Clinton herself said, she believes she can learn from people with whom she disagrees. That's to her credit.
Yours is honestly a completely bogus charge.
Yours is honestly a completely bogus charge.
22
She said he was her mentor in her book NER.
7
*Not* bogus. Maybe you'd better read what Hillary said about Kissinger and their long-time history before she started getting defensive of late. She left out a few things:
"Kissinger? Kissinger Who?"
(http://fair.org/home/kissinger-kissinger-who/)
"Kissinger? Kissinger Who?"
(http://fair.org/home/kissinger-kissinger-who/)
3
It is kind of sad to read the comments from Bernie's supporters claiming that actually when he lost he really won.
One writes that the numbers of voters is not much more than a small city when it comes to the Nevada caucuses where Bernie wasn't even close.
But when he won in New Hampshire, a tiny state if there ever was one, they sing a different tune.
Grow up, kids.
Those of us who have been around a while, realize that Bernie has great ideas ( with a few glaring examples like terrorism is due to climate change - Google the Democratic debate for that mondo bizarro one), he is absolutely so far out in left field, virtually on another planet, that few Americans would ever vote for him for president of anything.
This is not Vermont we are talking about.
Nevada just goes to prove that outside of the tiny world in the utopia of his followers ( Berkeley, Portland, Vermont, etc.) he is a political non-entity.
This will become abundantly clear as the days and weeks pass.
However, it has been good that Hillary, whom I despise but will eventually vote for, didn't get the instant coronation that she and her ever so slick band of Establishment cronies had in mind.
One writes that the numbers of voters is not much more than a small city when it comes to the Nevada caucuses where Bernie wasn't even close.
But when he won in New Hampshire, a tiny state if there ever was one, they sing a different tune.
Grow up, kids.
Those of us who have been around a while, realize that Bernie has great ideas ( with a few glaring examples like terrorism is due to climate change - Google the Democratic debate for that mondo bizarro one), he is absolutely so far out in left field, virtually on another planet, that few Americans would ever vote for him for president of anything.
This is not Vermont we are talking about.
Nevada just goes to prove that outside of the tiny world in the utopia of his followers ( Berkeley, Portland, Vermont, etc.) he is a political non-entity.
This will become abundantly clear as the days and weeks pass.
However, it has been good that Hillary, whom I despise but will eventually vote for, didn't get the instant coronation that she and her ever so slick band of Establishment cronies had in mind.
11
Just wait until Donald Trump is president thanks to the smarmy actions of the DNC. What will become abundantly clear is that we will all be in trouble. Low voter turnout is not good. NH is not a tiny state: more people voted for Bernie in NH than the entire turnout in Nevada. Make sense of that.
8
@JAP, yeah, the DNC will responsible for Trump's election because hissy-fits like you don't show up to vote.
Wow. The level of logic and maturity on display from Bernie Sanders's supporters is embarrassing.
Wow. The level of logic and maturity on display from Bernie Sanders's supporters is embarrassing.
6
I'm rooting for Bernie, but I am fine with the way the NY Times is reporting stuff. You guys pounding on the Times so much need to go out and pound on others to get the vote out if you really want to make a difference.
27
I participated in the Nevada Democratic caucus. I live in the northwest portion of Las Vegas in a large-scale master-planned community known as Summerlin. I was caucus chair for Bernie & in that precinct (3373)tHillary supporters had 70% of the 80 voters and won 7 of the 10 delegates. I went to some of the other precincts that were from Sun City a retirement community where Hilary's support was so great that the Bernie votes were deemed non viable( less than 15% of those present) so Bernie received no delegates at all. Older people were strongly for Hilary. I was surprised that Bernie did as well overall as he did. Our upper middle class neighborhood apparently didn't like him either. Hilary volunteers were all over too.
Overall the caucus had many well meaning people involved but the Democratic Party handled it poorly. It took so long to process voters that many left before being counted. My sense is that it must have been the young and working class who weren't black and probably not Hispanic who were Bernie's people.
Overall the caucus had many well meaning people involved but the Democratic Party handled it poorly. It took so long to process voters that many left before being counted. My sense is that it must have been the young and working class who weren't black and probably not Hispanic who were Bernie's people.
11
Most people vote according their pocketbooks. Those with higher incomes are afraid they will have to pay more in taxes under Bernie. Hillary is all about maintaining the status quo, so what you describe makes perfect sense. Hillary is a progressive on issues that don't matter to corporate America, like abortion. But wherever big money is involved, ( health care, Wall Street, foreign wars) she's gonna act just like every other Republican and protect the health insurance industry, Big Pharma and the military industrial complex. Shes a progressive that sold out to big money long long ago. Thanks for posting that info about the Nevada precincts. Feel the Bern.
4
Yet more Hillary propaganda in the Hillary Times.
37
How is it "propaganda" to analyze polling data at a granular level? The analysis is based on logical and statistical considerations that help the reader understand the challenge of interpreting information that is unavoidably incomplete. I fail to understand the backlash from Sanders supporters here.
32
If it isn't what they want to hear, it's "propaganda" - oh, the irony.
16
Because polling data is just that, polling data. Do you understand the part about margin of error?
1
Earlier, someone said they would vote for Trump over Hillary. I failed to really make the connection to the fact that Bernie and Trump address the same primarl feelings of hate (whether it be Muslims or the "Establishment." All the accusations from Bernie supporters about bias due to the rich folk with excessive influence just shows that angry people now have a focus for their anger.
I want Bernie supporters to know that ordinary people just like them minus the anger support Hillary.
I want Bernie supporters to know that ordinary people just like them minus the anger support Hillary.
30
Yet why can't HRC walk to the nomination that has been in the works for a decade? She has enormous institutional backing from the party and she is still fighting for every vote except in the African American community which makes little sense.
People are enthusiastic about outsiders because the establishment has failed. It failed to halt the financial crisis or put anyone in jail afterwards. It failed to rein in health care costs and now it seems not to care much. It failed to do anything significant about climate change and, I will bet, it is too late now.
People are angry because we should be angry at establishment failures and HRC has been part of the establishment for more than a quarter of a century. She and her ilk have failed. Why wouldn't we want something new?
People are enthusiastic about outsiders because the establishment has failed. It failed to halt the financial crisis or put anyone in jail afterwards. It failed to rein in health care costs and now it seems not to care much. It failed to do anything significant about climate change and, I will bet, it is too late now.
People are angry because we should be angry at establishment failures and HRC has been part of the establishment for more than a quarter of a century. She and her ilk have failed. Why wouldn't we want something new?
1
Has anyone noticed how some Sanders supporters/commenters have an eerie similarity to Republican climate change deniers and birthers?
28
I haven't noticed that. I write a newspaper column on the environment, have been a strong advocate of climate science for several years, and taken quite a bit of flack about it from climate change deniers.
And I'm very much a Bernie supporter and very rational in my arguments. Did you know that it was friends of Hillary's who were trying to sneak the Keystone pipeline through the State department under the public's radar? What will she do about the climate? (Nada.) Do you believe Hillary would think twice about repaying her Wall Street financiers if Bernie hadn't brought the subject before the public?
You want more U.S. involvement in the Middle East (and more money in the hands of the military industrial complex)? Vote for Hillary.
You want to protect and expand Social Security, reduce income inequality, expand medicare and lower college tuition and indebtedness? Vote for Bernie.
And I'm very much a Bernie supporter and very rational in my arguments. Did you know that it was friends of Hillary's who were trying to sneak the Keystone pipeline through the State department under the public's radar? What will she do about the climate? (Nada.) Do you believe Hillary would think twice about repaying her Wall Street financiers if Bernie hadn't brought the subject before the public?
You want more U.S. involvement in the Middle East (and more money in the hands of the military industrial complex)? Vote for Hillary.
You want to protect and expand Social Security, reduce income inequality, expand medicare and lower college tuition and indebtedness? Vote for Bernie.
16
Has anyone noticed how the HRC supporters always need to find some outside conspiracy to excuse the failings of their Saint? It's never that she lied, is unethical, voted for the war, or did anything. It's always the vast right wing conspiracy, birthers, trolls, misogynists, whatever -- never Hillary's fault.
4
I usually like news analysis, but this was a torturous read. Makes me wonder about the truth of the headline when the text is so inscrutible.
22
The rage, whining, excuses, and accusations of fraud and bias coming from Bernie's supporters just never stop. It really is getting tiresome. Can't you just support your candidate, however vigorously, without feeling the need to tear down everybody who you perceive as standing in your way - particularly Hillary and the news media (including the NY Times which I suspect many of you used to admire). It is getting increasingly difficult to distinguish the tone coming from these folks from that of Trump's supporters, and that is saying something, I wonder if they even have the self-awareness to recognize that sad fact.
33
@PW, I am convinced that a lot of Trump supporters are signing on as Sanders supporters to make both Hillary and Sanders look foolish. There is no other explanation for the silliness and paranoia I am seeing in the pro-Bernie comments here. It's really quite mind-boggling.
I think that some aspiring reporter should explore this further...
I think that some aspiring reporter should explore this further...
5
@ whatever, I hope you're right that most of the vitriol against HRC here is coming from Trumpies masquerading as Bernie fans. But the more I read, the more I believe that many if not most are actually embittered Feelers. The most frightening aspect of this is that quite a few are expressing the idea that they would sit out the general election rather than vote for Hillary Clinton, should she be the Democratic nominee. So when these petulant, self-righteous "progressives" throw the election to one or the other of the right-wing xenophobies from the other party, we will know exactly who is directly responsible for the outcome. The outcome, of course, will include a reactionary Supreme Court for the next few scads. But no matter. They Feel the Bern and will have made their point. Of course, they will blame the "establishment" (of which Mr. Sanders himself has of course been an integral part since 1980, but I digress). I hope they grow up in time to help save our country from self-destruction.
4
Wow, Nate. You are the premier Hillary apologist.
29
Hispanic/Latino describes ethnicity, not race. Almost half of Hispanic/Latinos self-identify as white.
A sample of 200 should raise eyebrows. So should Cohn's method.
Clinton won the caucuses by approximately five points. That's a small win, but a clear win, and a win in a state that may vote for a Democrat in November.
Given her support among blacks, she may win by a larger margin in South Carolina — the right to work state where the Civil War started, and which has voted for only one Democrat (Jimmy Carter) since 1960.
A sample of 200 should raise eyebrows. So should Cohn's method.
Clinton won the caucuses by approximately five points. That's a small win, but a clear win, and a win in a state that may vote for a Democrat in November.
Given her support among blacks, she may win by a larger margin in South Carolina — the right to work state where the Civil War started, and which has voted for only one Democrat (Jimmy Carter) since 1960.
5
We readers would like the New York Times to stop its Entertainment Tonight news and opinion about our coming election, all Trump and horserace.
Instead, report on what Americans need to know and think about: our issue priorities and candidates' merits in focusing on them. That would require an end to the NYT blackout of Bernie. For examples, read messages from readers in their Comments corner.
But regarding your horserace, I like this reporting from the New Yorker:
"At the start of the race, the gap between Sanders and Hillary Clinton when it came to name recognition, elite Party support, polling, and fund-raising was nearly as wide as it could possibly be between two candidates vying for the nomination.
"And yet his campaign against Hillary Clinton has defied all expectations. Iowa was essentially a tie, and in New Hampshire he defeated her by twenty-two points. Saturday in Nevada, he kept the race close, losing by just five points in a state where he started behind by fifty-four points in the state’s first poll last year.
"While raw vote totals have not been reported for Iowa and Nevada, which hold caucuses, it’s certain that if the first three states were combined, Sanders has won many more votes than Clinton has so far in 2016.
Instead, report on what Americans need to know and think about: our issue priorities and candidates' merits in focusing on them. That would require an end to the NYT blackout of Bernie. For examples, read messages from readers in their Comments corner.
But regarding your horserace, I like this reporting from the New Yorker:
"At the start of the race, the gap between Sanders and Hillary Clinton when it came to name recognition, elite Party support, polling, and fund-raising was nearly as wide as it could possibly be between two candidates vying for the nomination.
"And yet his campaign against Hillary Clinton has defied all expectations. Iowa was essentially a tie, and in New Hampshire he defeated her by twenty-two points. Saturday in Nevada, he kept the race close, losing by just five points in a state where he started behind by fifty-four points in the state’s first poll last year.
"While raw vote totals have not been reported for Iowa and Nevada, which hold caucuses, it’s certain that if the first three states were combined, Sanders has won many more votes than Clinton has so far in 2016.
95
Thank you Dick!
I so agree!
I so agree!
7
Dick,
Why don't you speak for yourself instead of all NYT readers?
I don't agree with your views. Nate Cohn has an excellent record analyzing presidential elections.
I care what he has to say, but if you don't care to read his analysis, don't read it.
Why don't you speak for yourself instead of all NYT readers?
I don't agree with your views. Nate Cohn has an excellent record analyzing presidential elections.
I care what he has to say, but if you don't care to read his analysis, don't read it.
7
Thank you for the New Yorker quote!
2
I wonder if the NYT will rush to defend Hillary when she continues to escalate our war footprint in the Middle East? Make no bones about it- HRC is as hawkish as Lindsey Graham and will not hesitate to keep the war machine cranking. At least Trump and Bernie have said they want to limit our exposure over there.
I like the fact that Trump has the courage to ask the Gulf States to start paying for our protection. I've been screaming about that for 20 years, finally somebody who gets it! When you think about it- all the U.S. knows how to do well is fight. There is no reason why we shouldn't be compensated for our services. I would even go as far as having Saudi Arabia pay for U.S. wounded veterans healthcare. If we are shameless enough to put our soldiers in harms way; in the midst of a religious war, certainly there is no additional shame in asking the Arab states to pay for their sacrifices. I'm a lifelong Democrat and I am voting for TRUMP!
I like the fact that Trump has the courage to ask the Gulf States to start paying for our protection. I've been screaming about that for 20 years, finally somebody who gets it! When you think about it- all the U.S. knows how to do well is fight. There is no reason why we shouldn't be compensated for our services. I would even go as far as having Saudi Arabia pay for U.S. wounded veterans healthcare. If we are shameless enough to put our soldiers in harms way; in the midst of a religious war, certainly there is no additional shame in asking the Arab states to pay for their sacrifices. I'm a lifelong Democrat and I am voting for TRUMP!
16
If I support Hillary, then:
* My participation in the Seattle WTO protest meant nothing.
* My opposition to the Iraq War meant nothing.
* My opposition to the criminal Netanyahu regime meant nothing.
* My opposition to the brutal Egyptian regime meant nothing.
* My opposition to the ongoing US Crusade in the Middle East meant nothing.
* My opposition to the cynical destruction of Libya, which caused a profound humanitarian crisis, meant nothing.
* My opposition to the new Cold War with Russia meant nothing.
* My opposition to the crooks on Wall Street meant nothing.
* My opposition to economic injustice in general, meant nothing.
* My personal belief that the head of state should not have a putrid level of personal corruption and dishonesty meant nothing.
* My participation in the Seattle WTO protest meant nothing.
* My opposition to the Iraq War meant nothing.
* My opposition to the criminal Netanyahu regime meant nothing.
* My opposition to the brutal Egyptian regime meant nothing.
* My opposition to the ongoing US Crusade in the Middle East meant nothing.
* My opposition to the cynical destruction of Libya, which caused a profound humanitarian crisis, meant nothing.
* My opposition to the new Cold War with Russia meant nothing.
* My opposition to the crooks on Wall Street meant nothing.
* My opposition to economic injustice in general, meant nothing.
* My personal belief that the head of state should not have a putrid level of personal corruption and dishonesty meant nothing.
7
I agree with you Aaron.
Its Bernie or Trump.
In fact for pushing out Bush dynasty Trump is an American hero to me!
It's about dis-corrupting our entire government...we tried so hard with Obama to get that but he too sold his soul to same superpacs that own Clintons.
Sadly those who really get this and understand this Process is exactly what founders had in mind so family dynasties cannot rule truly are blind.
I prefer Bernie but will vote for Trump (he is far more moderate than he is letting on to be.)
HRC they will come out biggest. Turnout because they hate her, then they will impeach her, she will get nothing done! They won't work with her they hate her more than Obama,they always have. Do we have repeat history?
Its Bernie or Trump.
In fact for pushing out Bush dynasty Trump is an American hero to me!
It's about dis-corrupting our entire government...we tried so hard with Obama to get that but he too sold his soul to same superpacs that own Clintons.
Sadly those who really get this and understand this Process is exactly what founders had in mind so family dynasties cannot rule truly are blind.
I prefer Bernie but will vote for Trump (he is far more moderate than he is letting on to be.)
HRC they will come out biggest. Turnout because they hate her, then they will impeach her, she will get nothing done! They won't work with her they hate her more than Obama,they always have. Do we have repeat history?
8
Jeez, what aren't you opposed to?
2
Man, all these sour grapes gonna give you Bernie folks a massive hangover. Let's stick together. I'm for Hillary, but if Bernie's the nominee, I'm sending money his way. There's a Supreme Court vacancy in case you haven't heard.
67
I'm for Bernie and I echo your sentiments. Why on earth would supporters of either of them even think of not supporting the other in the general election?
8
"Why on earth would supporters of either of them even think of not supporting the other in the general election?"
Because I, for one, never vote for conservatives.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
Because I, for one, never vote for conservatives.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
6
Thank you, mancuroc. It's nice to see a glimmer of reasonableness coming from at least one of Bernie's supporters. It is in such short supply around here.
4
For the past few weeks I've been reviewing the quality of analysis from the NYT as compared to other major newspapers and various media sites, and it's clear in specific instances that the NYT adheres to only soft pretensions to fair, and balanced reporting when it comes to assessing the two Democrats vying for the presidential nomination. The pattern of biased, and deliberately misleading information is more properly identified as propaganda than principled journalism. You do your readers a grave disservice, and your paper is complicit in the deliberate thwarting of a true democratic process by doing so. Can we expect anything else when a newspaper endorses any political candidate? I would encourage readers to take the time to read other sources, if for no other reason than to become aware of how skewed some of the reporting by the NYT really is. Can a genuinely democratic process present such threat that established institutions like the NYT feels compelled to conduct itself in such an unprincipled manner? I am old enough to remember the ethics of journalists like Walter Cronkite. What happened to the journalistic standards that fostered that kind of reporting?
82
Thank you!
That is the Times I used to love too.
That is the Times I used to love too.
4
I assume that you ae saying that the NYT favors Hillary. To that I say, that if Bernie were winning you wouldn't care.
16
Molly, do you understand the flaw in your line of reasoning?
3
What is obvious is the bias the NYT has towards promoting Clinton. How about a story about how much the owner of the NYT has contributed to the Clinton camp? Carlos Slim is the top she holder of the NYT and has contributed directly or indirectly tens of millions. But like Hillary the NYT is deadly silent about the money just floating around.
82
Thank you Jim!
So happy so many others see the bias and censorship too.
So happy so many others see the bias and censorship too.
7
I am getting a little tired of people slamming Hillary voters who are over 65, as if we are stupid.
I am 74, the same age as Bernie, and maybe I know a little something about how "old age" can slow a person down. A daily nap rejuvenates me; but, if I were president, I might miss out on that important 3:00 a.m. phone call.
I am 74, the same age as Bernie, and maybe I know a little something about how "old age" can slow a person down. A daily nap rejuvenates me; but, if I were president, I might miss out on that important 3:00 a.m. phone call.
33
Hillary is 67. Isn't she slowing down, too?
2
HRC is Old too!
It's the person that matters do not be an ageist!
It's the person that matters do not be an ageist!
5
There is yuuuuge difference between 67 and 74. Basically Hillary would just be a year older than Bernie now at the end of her second term. Bernie would be 82. Sorry that is a significant difference when you look at life stages and biological reality.
16
It is truly disheartening to see my favorite newspaper so egregiously in one Democratic candidate's camp that it continues to highlight the gains of one over the other. Every article seems to project a halo around Hillary. Every reporter or opinion writer seems determined to make sure Hillary is first in the title and is talked about in glowing terms as if she is somehow the heir apparent to the throne. And this whole thing about pragmatist vs a dreamer is so obviously manipulation of minds. I'm not a youngster. I'm a senior. I love the youth rising up in this presidential election year and seeing what needs to be changed and working their hearts out to make it happen. The US is in a mess as far as the ordinary man and woman and family are concerned. Write about this, NY TIMES! Open your eyes and hearts to the VISION of hope that Bernie Sanders is presenting. Recognize and talk about his fight for the middle class and his fight for what is right. Uncover the past of the Clintons so that people can see and know what is in their background. Don't keep it covered up because of fear that Bernie can't win the presidency. Don't let other newspapers and magazines do the hard job of bringing to the American electorate what they should know. Honesty is power! Bernie has that quality in spades. It is imperative and so needed in this race. Value it and report on it fairly!
50
Thank you Mary Jo!
I have been writing the same for weeks...
I have been writing the same for weeks...
8
Thank you. I have been explaining to my Hillary friends just what a great hold Bernie has on me. I am in my eighth decade and absolutely thrilled with the response toward this candidate and send him $ monthly. As I read headlines re Hillary I am reminded of my same disappointment in the NYT in the runup to the Iraq war. Please, NYT, give Bernie your consideration. And understand for whom he provides the voice. US!
1
If it isn't clear to all and sundry by now that
polls aren't worth much, why are we still subjected
to this kind of pseudo-analysis? I suggest we stop
paying attention to this claptrap and insist that these pundits find work that contributes to the welfare of society.
polls aren't worth much, why are we still subjected
to this kind of pseudo-analysis? I suggest we stop
paying attention to this claptrap and insist that these pundits find work that contributes to the welfare of society.
9
Numbers that aren't opaque.
Democratic national convention delegates won to date via caucuses and primaries:
Clinton: 51
Sanders: 51
Democratic turnout needs to turn up soon to build confidence of winning in November.
Democratic national convention delegates won to date via caucuses and primaries:
Clinton: 51
Sanders: 51
Democratic turnout needs to turn up soon to build confidence of winning in November.
16
Exactly , some of us are engineers and we know how to do the math.
The New York Times is so obvious.
The New York Times is so obvious.
19
Oh, so you think Bernie and Hillary are tied for convention delegates?
Perhaps you have overlooked the superdelegates.
When they are added in, the totals are very different than your attempt to make them equal.
Clinton 481
Sanders 55
As one superdelegate who is getting bombarded by the Sanders people put it in an AP piece,
"I'm sick and tired of them," Cordelia Lewis-Burks, a superdelegate from Indiana, said of the Sanders backers. "It's very aggravating to be bashed on my own computer by these people who it's probably the first time they've ever voted. I've been in the trenches since I was 20."
Bernie's people find it hard to believe that Americans just won't vote for him.
Perhaps you have overlooked the superdelegates.
When they are added in, the totals are very different than your attempt to make them equal.
Clinton 481
Sanders 55
As one superdelegate who is getting bombarded by the Sanders people put it in an AP piece,
"I'm sick and tired of them," Cordelia Lewis-Burks, a superdelegate from Indiana, said of the Sanders backers. "It's very aggravating to be bashed on my own computer by these people who it's probably the first time they've ever voted. I've been in the trenches since I was 20."
Bernie's people find it hard to believe that Americans just won't vote for him.
17
So you think it is good, then, that the vice chair of the Indiana Democratic Party gets to personally overrule the will of the public?
Now *that's* democracy, ain't it!
Now *that's* democracy, ain't it!
10
No, the Clinton win was not a landslide. In fact, many people are questioning whether she even won at all. Videos posted on line show caucus goers (presumably from out of state) being ushered in by Hillary's campaign workers WITHOUT first registering to vote. Caucus observers were told that the caucus goers would be registered AFTER voting. It's all on tape and the Nevada attorney general is investigating.
64
And this is normal politics for the Clintons...there is nothing they would not do to gain retain protect their power, we have watched the whole show for decades.
8
Didn't Donald Trump say that there was cheating in Iowa when he lost. Bernie equals Trump. His supporters are just like Trump supporters, full of anger and hate.
12
What is the source of these videos and information about the Nevada attorney general's investigation?
2
To give some perspective on Hillary's 'Big Win', according to Politico only 11,827 Democrats cast their votes in Nevada. That number is equivalent to the population of one very small city.
Of those, 6240 voted for Hillary. That is roughly the size of a small town.
Hillary beat Bernie by 649 votes. Some people have more Facebook friends than that!
That doesn't sound like such an impressive win to me, despite the media and campaign spin. Let's get real.
Of those, 6240 voted for Hillary. That is roughly the size of a small town.
Hillary beat Bernie by 649 votes. Some people have more Facebook friends than that!
That doesn't sound like such an impressive win to me, despite the media and campaign spin. Let's get real.
61
Actually, the numbers you cite are the number of county convention delegates won by each candidate, not the total number of votes.
21
The Hillary Times is just taking its marching orders from her campaign HQ over in Brooklyn. I suppose that Team Clinton has decided to try to message the public that she is popular with Hispanic people because the best evidence is that in a Latino-heavy election, she lost the Latino vote, and that isn't good for her image. So the Times opens up The Upshot to Nate for some talking points.
7
Yeah, you're right. let's say 5000 stayed home yesterday, Bernie only needed about 57% of those who stayed home to win, that's likely given he got 47%!
1
The Berning Man trolls are, as usual, out in force commenting on any story that suggests feet of any substance than gold for their hero, and using the number of their comments as evidence that the true metal is their true belief.
Unfortunately for them, their hero is wiser than they are. Candidate Sanders, following the Nevada caucus where his operatives were out in force and spent furiously, noted that he was not able to get people out in the numbers that he would have preferred. And the Sanders revolution is predicated upon the uprising at the polls. Bernie's objectives are truly wonderful. However, absent the fairy dust needed to overcome unreality, it ain't gonna happen.
Unfortunately for them, their hero is wiser than they are. Candidate Sanders, following the Nevada caucus where his operatives were out in force and spent furiously, noted that he was not able to get people out in the numbers that he would have preferred. And the Sanders revolution is predicated upon the uprising at the polls. Bernie's objectives are truly wonderful. However, absent the fairy dust needed to overcome unreality, it ain't gonna happen.
31
Yet another comment that will cause zero enthusiasm for HRC should she win the nomination.
"Bernie's objectives are truly wonderful. However, absent the fairy dust needed to overcome unreality, it ain't gonna happen."
Now there's a winner's attitude if I ever heard one. Let's give up on truly wonderful objectives before we even try to achieve any of them.
Eeyore.
Now there's a winner's attitude if I ever heard one. Let's give up on truly wonderful objectives before we even try to achieve any of them.
Eeyore.
And please note, in 2008 Mrs. Clinton beat Mr. Obama by 6 points (twice her margin over Sanders) and that victory propelled her straight to... a 3rd place finish.
We had 8 candidates in 2008. The DNC sure fixed that "mistake." We were not even meant to have any primaries at all till public outrage "drafted" Sanders. That makes a big difference.
More than a candidacy, Sanders represents a movement. A Democratic Party movement away from Clintonian/DLC conservatism. Just as the Republicans have abandoned Bushes.
The times (if not the NY Times) they are a-changing...
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
We had 8 candidates in 2008. The DNC sure fixed that "mistake." We were not even meant to have any primaries at all till public outrage "drafted" Sanders. That makes a big difference.
More than a candidacy, Sanders represents a movement. A Democratic Party movement away from Clintonian/DLC conservatism. Just as the Republicans have abandoned Bushes.
The times (if not the NY Times) they are a-changing...
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
80
Thank you are REV.!
That's right we did it before we can do it again.
That's right we did it before we can do it again.
9
So much attention being paid, by readers, to the fact that Hillary's victories are slim, unconvincing, and that Bernie is the right candidate for the Democrats.
How about we all focus more on helping *whichever* candidate represents the Dems in November? If it's Bernie, he's got my vote. If it's Hillary, she's got my vote.
Save your venom for the crazies on the right. Have you looked across the aisle lately?
How about we all focus more on helping *whichever* candidate represents the Dems in November? If it's Bernie, he's got my vote. If it's Hillary, she's got my vote.
Save your venom for the crazies on the right. Have you looked across the aisle lately?
73
Guitar man,
Hillary is a part of that political corrupt system she is owned by the super packs the oligarchs she is an oligarch , she will shift your position again once in office republican light.
Hillary is a part of that political corrupt system she is owned by the super packs the oligarchs she is an oligarch , she will shift your position again once in office republican light.
18
Grumpy Old White Woman,
Fair enough. Let's say Hillary's the one on 11/8/16. You prefer Ted, Marco, or Donald instead?
Fair enough. Let's say Hillary's the one on 11/8/16. You prefer Ted, Marco, or Donald instead?
10
AND, as "wmoore" noted above, there's a Supreme Court vacancy, if you haven't heard. Save the venom for the GOP.
12
Stop editorializing in your news stories. It is disgusting. As you can tell if you read comments, Sanders is very popular among your readers. Not surprising given that he is the only progressive running. (Clinton stole the word from him. She is really, as has been oft noted in these comments, Republican lite.
118
This piece took a careful, nuanced look at the numbers. Your use of the word "disgusting," on the other hand, is an emotional response to information that doesn't support your political preferences.
Please consider a less heated approach, especially looking ahead to a general election where much is at stake.
Please consider a less heated approach, especially looking ahead to a general election where much is at stake.
13
Progressive is hardly the only word she has stolen from Bernie. Did she ever say the economy is "rigged" until recently? "I" has been her favorite word, but this week she learned to say the word "we". My, my, is our little girl growng up?
She takes so liberally - as it were - from Bernie I half expect to see her in white hair soon.
She takes so liberally - as it were - from Bernie I half expect to see her in white hair soon.
21
Why is it you only object to such editorializing when the victim is a Democrat? You do realize that every story about Republicans contains similar slant.
If it is unfair for Sanders it is unfair for all.
If it is unfair for Sanders it is unfair for all.
4
There are a lot of reasons to question the NV caucuses when only a virtual handful of people turned out – all of 8200 in Clark county, the most populous. Print those absolute numbers instead of the near meaningless % with such a tiny turnout.
More NYT spin & lying, you'd think it was the Iraq invasion all over again.
C'mon, moderator, print these dissents to NYT spin.
More NYT spin & lying, you'd think it was the Iraq invasion all over again.
C'mon, moderator, print these dissents to NYT spin.
58
There you go again. No problems when Bernie wins, but oh my, when he loses the whiners brigade starts. Get over it, because you have to get over the losses. If you think Nevada is hard, wait until Super Tuesday.
19
what don't you get about % mathematics that is troubling you? 4%-5% is not that small. Obama won the 2012 general election by less, thankfully! Quit complaining and be thankful we have two decent nominees to choose from.
3
We're canceling our subscription. There is too little news in the New York Times, and too much selling of a bankrupt corporatist politics. Our meager funds will go to other media in the future.
116
Thank you. I'm not paying $800 a year for People Magazine. I expect my mind and soul to be fed with a full course real meal and not just skittles!
9
I cancelled my subscription this week too for the same reasons. Disappointing.
7
It is pretty obvious that the establishment is shaking in their boots from the voter sentiments of this election. Most media, being for profit corporations, are part of the establishment.
Journalists, being employed by these corporations, make their biased "editorials" just to keep their jobs.
Whether Sanders or Trump will succeed is immaterial. Voters are flocking to the candidates who do not take money from wealthy donors - that, my friend, is the only thing in common between Sanders and Trump.
Tell it as it is, or find another line of work - it is a matter of time we the people take our country back.
And "That, is the way it is" my friend.
Journalists, being employed by these corporations, make their biased "editorials" just to keep their jobs.
Whether Sanders or Trump will succeed is immaterial. Voters are flocking to the candidates who do not take money from wealthy donors - that, my friend, is the only thing in common between Sanders and Trump.
Tell it as it is, or find another line of work - it is a matter of time we the people take our country back.
And "That, is the way it is" my friend.
39
Actually I think people flock to Sanders and Trump because they preach hatred and give people something (Muslims, immigrants, "establishment," rich people) to blame for their problems. The level of venom coming out in the comments from Bernie's supporters rivals the hatred that Trump supporter espouse.
19
Trump definitely preys on fear and hatred. Sanders looks at the numbers, sees the reality of life in these united states and says, this is not right let us make them right.
What is the same with Trump and Sanders supporters is that everyone is completely fed up with the status quo. What, exactly, was Bush saying he would do that would improve the life of anyone but himself? What, exactly, is HRC saying she will do to improve the life of anyone but herself? The Clintons and the Bushes are very close and indistinguishable except at the margins.
What, HRC supporters is she going to do for anyone? Please tell.
What is the same with Trump and Sanders supporters is that everyone is completely fed up with the status quo. What, exactly, was Bush saying he would do that would improve the life of anyone but himself? What, exactly, is HRC saying she will do to improve the life of anyone but herself? The Clintons and the Bushes are very close and indistinguishable except at the margins.
What, HRC supporters is she going to do for anyone? Please tell.
Bernie is a good man, but he can't win the general election. Moderate Republicans and moderate Dems won't vote for him. His platform sounds good, but ask yourself what he's been able to put in place in New Hampshire, population 1.3 million. The answer is none. Better a moderate you don't love than a progressive who can't win.
29
You do realise two things, right? First, Bernie is a senator representing Vermont, not New Hampshire. Second, he is not in the state government. Those are the people responsable for running the state.
15
Before you offer your expert opinion, check your facts: see Nora01's comment.
4
Marusa, every poll I've seen of matchups between HRC and Bernie and the Republican contenders shows Bernie winning the Republican contests, where HRC loses. A 2/18 Quinnipiac poll showed Bernie winning against Trump by 6 points, Cruz by 10, Rubio by 6, and Kasich by 4. Hillary does win against Trump, but by just 1 point, and loses to Cruz by 3, Rubio by 7, and Kasich by 8.
This is no anomaly, these polls have run this way for weeks now. They make it clear that when it comes to the general election, Bernie's the guy to back. HRC will lose to the Republicans.
This is no anomaly, these polls have run this way for weeks now. They make it clear that when it comes to the general election, Bernie's the guy to back. HRC will lose to the Republicans.
9
Before Las Vegas was developed into a casino city Nevada was just a desert. Currently its major source of income is from casinos and gambling. Why so much importance to Las Vegas and why so much spin by left wing journalists? Bernie Sanders is still a formidable candidate with his close second in Iowa and his large margin win in NH and a small margin loss in Nevada. With polls showing Trump would beat Hillary Clinton in the national elections, democrats may want to think twice before deciding which one of 2 is th the best foot forward.
19
Wow! What a surprise!
Why, if you and your paper don't have an obvious HRC bias, don't you write a column about how she didn't REALLY win Iowa, along with clear critical commentary regarding the Iowa Democratic party refusing to release the raw vote totals for each candidate after having done so in the 2008 Obama/Clinton caucus?
And, just, maybe how flawed the caucus criteria are for apportioning delegates. Does ANY state with a Democratic caucus do what Republicans do - minus the secrecy of a written ballot - and just count the number of supporters for each candidate and apportion the delegates solely on that basis.
If not, WHY NOT?
Why, if you and your paper don't have an obvious HRC bias, don't you write a column about how she didn't REALLY win Iowa, along with clear critical commentary regarding the Iowa Democratic party refusing to release the raw vote totals for each candidate after having done so in the 2008 Obama/Clinton caucus?
And, just, maybe how flawed the caucus criteria are for apportioning delegates. Does ANY state with a Democratic caucus do what Republicans do - minus the secrecy of a written ballot - and just count the number of supporters for each candidate and apportion the delegates solely on that basis.
If not, WHY NOT?
406
I'm losing my faith in the power of people's votes to apportion delegates (New Hampshire, where preordained votes by super delegates changed the outcome from a Bernie landslide to even steven with Clinton)).
I'm losing my faith in the power of people's votes to influence NY Times' writers. And sad that the NYT scales are so unfairly weighted for Hillary.
How about
I'm losing my faith in the power of people's votes to influence NY Times' writers. And sad that the NYT scales are so unfairly weighted for Hillary.
How about
21
Because flipping coins and cutting decks of cards is so much more fun!
8
Reality check the primary is going as plan ,most people so discourged by media no one will probly go out to vote in coming election
4
Does this mean there will no longer be any Larry David/Bernie Sanders SNL skits in the future?
23
No comment on that last minute call from Harry Reid to the Las Vegas based union bosses? Without that call Sanders won in a landslide.
282
Are you suggesting it would have been a more fair outcome if Sanders won because Hillary supporters could not get out to vote because they were working?? Really?
16
Politics is a dirty business, I am beginning to think.
3
It is a dirty business--which is why we need dirty candidates, who can manipulate and work the system. The end justifies the means.
Less than 12,000 people voted. How can you analyze those results with anything more than desperation?
228
About 80,000 voters showed up to vote on about 12,000 delegates
21
The 12,000 people are county delegates. Statewide there were approximately 80,000 people voting in the caucus.
18
And if you have ever been in Nevada, you know that's a big percentage. Northern Nevada phone book is about 3/4 inch thick.
6
it would help too for NYT to begin explaining the role and numbers and faces of the superdelegates in the Dem party.
it appears this is why Bernie got a landslide in NH and half the delegates.
please 'splain to all your readers this wondrous dynamic clogging up the wheels of democracy
it appears this is why Bernie got a landslide in NH and half the delegates.
please 'splain to all your readers this wondrous dynamic clogging up the wheels of democracy
228
There should be another name for the superdelegates who are overturning
the mere voters' wishes....."oligarchs" perhaps?
the mere voters' wishes....."oligarchs" perhaps?
12
The New York Times does not want its readers understanding that, for example in New Hampshire:
* All 6 superdelegates are registered lobbyists, mainly for big corporate interests.
* Fully 3 of the superdelegates have had paid positions for the Hillary Campaign.
Perhaps Amy Chozick could ask Her Royal Highness "Your Majesty, do you believe it is a good thing, that your campaign is paying superdelegates who will overrule the popular vote for you?"
* All 6 superdelegates are registered lobbyists, mainly for big corporate interests.
* Fully 3 of the superdelegates have had paid positions for the Hillary Campaign.
Perhaps Amy Chozick could ask Her Royal Highness "Your Majesty, do you believe it is a good thing, that your campaign is paying superdelegates who will overrule the popular vote for you?"
12
You see, something Bernie supporters forget is that Bernie is not a Democrat. Duh, he is a democratic socialist. He never played nice with the Democrats, or with anybody for that matter. So, is it a surprise the party doesn't want him. Hey he wants to be a member of a club that he doesn't want to be a member of. He is only running as a Democrat because it's the easiest way to get on the ticket. Well maybe not. Not everyone is full of hate and anger and buys hook line and sinker the snake oil he is trying to sell.
7
Bernie won just about everything BUT Clark County in Nevada. Thanks to Harry Reid who evidently doesn't have much influence in rural Nevada.
Or so it appears at this instant.
Or so it appears at this instant.
249
Remember, most of the people live in Clark County. Nevada is an empty desert. Reno and Las Vegas have people, the rest of Nevada is pretty empty.
9
Thanks for clarifying the math and the weaknesses of the entrance and exit polls. A useful piece.
81
Hispanics might favor someone, but that doesn't mean they're going to vote for them or anyone in a primary , especially a caucus type primary. Caucus primaries are the nastiest form of voter suppression, and Hillary Clinton was the beneficiary in Nevada.
141
What evidence can you provide for the voter suppression you claim? Have you ever attended a caucus? I have attended many, and I assure you they can be inspiring examples of participatory democracy. I never witnessed anything remotely like nastiness.
I'm sorry the Nevada caucuses didn't yield the results you wanted, but that doesn't invalidate their validity, absent evidence of malfeasance.
I'm sorry the Nevada caucuses didn't yield the results you wanted, but that doesn't invalidate their validity, absent evidence of malfeasance.
7
One factor that you are discounting is that there isn’t a secret ballot, which always disadvantages an upstart when there are establishment types taking names. The process is also subject to manipulation since there are headcounts rather than ballots, so there’s no way to audit the count if it is questioned.
It’s the same reason unions want card check rather than a secret ballot to authorize a union, the opportunity for coercion.
The Republicans voted at their caucus in a secret ballot, since Republicans prefer honest elections instead of Boss Tweed backroom deals
It’s the same reason unions want card check rather than a secret ballot to authorize a union, the opportunity for coercion.
The Republicans voted at their caucus in a secret ballot, since Republicans prefer honest elections instead of Boss Tweed backroom deals
1
Trump faired better in majority-black districts in SC. Does that mean he appealed more to black voters?
Ecological fallacies are at least as dangerous as underpowered polling. In the absence of evidence otherwise, it seems plausible to assume that the exit poll error is large, but not necessarily biased. In that case, you have a huge lift to argue that it was not just in error, but greatly biased against Clinton. A few back-of-the-envelope demographic arguments is really not sufficient to overturn a real poll, even an underpowered one, assuming it isn't severely biased. To argue that there's not just uncertainty, but that Clinton probably actually won the hispanic vote, in the face of the only actual evidence which is contrary to that, is I think an argument no respectable statistician or pollster should be making.
Ecological fallacies are at least as dangerous as underpowered polling. In the absence of evidence otherwise, it seems plausible to assume that the exit poll error is large, but not necessarily biased. In that case, you have a huge lift to argue that it was not just in error, but greatly biased against Clinton. A few back-of-the-envelope demographic arguments is really not sufficient to overturn a real poll, even an underpowered one, assuming it isn't severely biased. To argue that there's not just uncertainty, but that Clinton probably actually won the hispanic vote, in the face of the only actual evidence which is contrary to that, is I think an argument no respectable statistician or pollster should be making.
146
The media is so in the bag for Sanders and Trump that it was barely reported that Hillary even won last night.
Some outlets went as far to skip the Hillary won story and went right to the "Bernie surprises in Nevada, maintains momentum"
And now this.
Bush, Sanders, Rubio, and Cruz all got more press in losing than Hillary did in winning.
Some outlets went as far to skip the Hillary won story and went right to the "Bernie surprises in Nevada, maintains momentum"
And now this.
Bush, Sanders, Rubio, and Cruz all got more press in losing than Hillary did in winning.
134
I appreciate your sarcasm!
6
Who are you kidding? The headlines are Hillary won and now has momentum, despite the fact that a month ago she had a 20% lead and two months ago she had a 30% lead and she won by 5%. The exit polls indicate Hillary lost the Hispanic vote in Nevada to Sanders. Now we have an article that questions whether the polls are accurate.
The NYT and the liberal media are absolutely in the tank for Hillary over Sanders. They would love to see Trump get the Republican nomination instead of an actual Republican. They are being as manipulative as possible to keep Hillary the establishment anointed one.
The NYT and the liberal media are absolutely in the tank for Hillary over Sanders. They would love to see Trump get the Republican nomination instead of an actual Republican. They are being as manipulative as possible to keep Hillary the establishment anointed one.
2
Sanders deserves the ink. Everybody expected Clinton to win…and win big. The polls had her up 40 points a couple of months ago, and her internal poll had her up 25 points a week ago. She won by 400 votes. Big deal.
If you've ever studied journalism you'd know that dog bites man isn't a story worth printing; but man bites dog is. Clinton squeaking by sort of redefine's the meaning of "win," while Sanders almost closing the gap is newsworthy.
If you've ever studied journalism you'd know that dog bites man isn't a story worth printing; but man bites dog is. Clinton squeaking by sort of redefine's the meaning of "win," while Sanders almost closing the gap is newsworthy.
1
But there are a lot of reasons to question the findings from the polls.
And the biggest one might be NYT's determination to coronate the candidate not named Bernie Sanders.
And the biggest one might be NYT's determination to coronate the candidate not named Bernie Sanders.
401
Kind of surprising that a Honduran - quoted by the NYT - would praise the Secretary of State when she overruled objections by the U.N., the OAS, the European Union and 15 House Democrats to endorse regime change (a military coup) in Tegucigalpa in 2009. She may be "a mujer" but more importantly, is Ms. Clinton taking responsibility for the mess she helped to create?
1
A fairly complicated read. But also important regarding the limits of survey, exit/entrance polling methodology, and the impacts of using different sampling units. Kudos.
78
Clinton seems to have two constituencies: african americans and people over 65 (suspect her african american supporters are largely over 50). So when we talk electability, maybe we should be asking if she has the support she will need in the general election? Is democratic establishment is so blind in their determination hand her the nomination at all costs that they are willing to alienate a majority of their party's supporters?
265
It's not clear that the majority of democratic voters support Sanders. He will have to prove it to me at the polls. If he proves it with a delegate count. If voters fail to cast a ballot because Senator Sanders does not win the nomination, then they deserve what we all get. By the way, I'm not African-American, and I am not 65 or over. I am a woman though, and women make up a very large voting group. You seem to have forgotten about us.
105
That's exactly the support she needs in the general election.
Maybe you should start asking why the Republicans are trashing Clinton and have the kid gloves on for Sanders. Its clearly not because they're salivating at the prospect of McGovern Part II to rescue them from their debacle of a primary right?
Maybe you should start asking why the Republicans are trashing Clinton and have the kid gloves on for Sanders. Its clearly not because they're salivating at the prospect of McGovern Part II to rescue them from their debacle of a primary right?
33
No one under age 60 knows who McGovern was. Just as no one younger than fifty can really remember the Cold War.
5
The New York Times may as well resign itself to the fact that the race between Clinton and Sanders is going to be a close one - all the way to the end.
279
So far, after three States, delegate count from voters, excluding super delegates, is Sanders 51, HRC 51. If super delegates override the voter at the end, it will be extremely interesting at the very least!
5
Keep a dem in the White House and back the one who wins the nomination people.