This blog is dedicated to the memory of David Weintraub, who took on insidious astroturfers and won.

Thursday, December 31, 2015

One example of why polls are obsolete

                                                   Bern in Portland

The most under-reported story in Amerikkka might be that polling has become obsolete. Otherwise, why do we keep hearing that Hillary has such a big lead?

I just checked on Massachusetts. There have only been two polls. The first one had Hillary ahead by 34 points. The more recent poll from over a month ago has her lead down to 25. I simply don't believe it and here's why.

Massachusetts has a closed primary system with the exception that the Independent/Unenrolled voter can pick which party he will cast his or her vote. They make up the biggest demographic in the country. They are neither Republican or Democrat. People need to check their local state requirements. The great thing about Sanders is that everyone who likes him is going to vote his way. They are going to show up, period.

Look at question #4. 14.23% of the respondents refused to answer the question of whether they will vote. My eye sight is not what it once was or I would totally devour this topic. I don't see or can't figure out how the poll has compensated for the landline phone issue or for people who refuse to participate. One may assume that probably doesn't make much of a difference. Such a person must be God or have some kind of super powers.

Young people don't do landlines. They might register their cell phones on do not call lists.

There are not that many polls being done because they are too expensive to do well. Why would you spend a lot of money on say your kid's clothes if he or she is going to outgrow them soon? It's the same with polls. Thus, they take a lot of shortcuts. It helps polling companies that the media is still in their back pocket. However, it doesn't help us know wtf is really going on.

Right there above the poll can be considered as garbage. Look at how few young people are included compared to older voter shut ins with landlines who probably answer these polls out of loneliness. I am just speculating, but the polls aren't even speculating. They are taking a highly skewed questionnaire and presenting it as being within a few points for a margin of error.

If you heard Bernie was down 24%, it'd be easy to think, ugh, even if the poll is a bit off, that is a big lead. But when you look more closely and consider the articles I have linked elsewhere proving that polling no longer works, it makes one realise what a waste of time election coverage dependent on polling truly is.

I just googled. Apparently in 2012 there were 4,111,128 registered voters.

But, but, but the HillaryBots claim H. is ahead in Massachusetts by big numbers. She got 129 votes to Bernie's 70. That comes out to a 25% insurmountable lead. I don't think so. That's them saying that.


donkeytale said...

Department of There's Nothing New Under the Sun

Have political opinion polls become obsolete?

Question: In the New Hampshire Primary, every single poll conducted by the so called experts were completely wrong. Incorrect information is not in great demand. Have the political pollsters become obsolete?
Created by: kdcvfr at 03:30:52 AM, Thursday, January 10, 2008 PST

donkeytale said...

And 80% of respondents agreed!

Trouble is Nate Silver (and other so-called experts) proved them wong in 2008, 2012 and 2014.

The real truthiness: don't bother with primary polls, especially this far out.

Zeitgeist Theory states: look at the ground games, ignore the polls:

With five weeks to go until the caucuses, the yeoman’s work of presidential politicking is now being undertaken in earnest. Most Iowans have yet to make up their minds about whom to support for president, so candidates and their state teams must now solidify their cases. But who has the best Iowa ground game?

Four metrics help get at that answer: field offices, paid staff, events held and time spent in the state (I made efforts to cross-check numbers with news reports and campaigns, though some declined to comment on their staffing and organization)

Martin O’Malley 5 40 50 137

Bernie Sanders 20 49 43 98

Hillary Clinton 19 114 33 63

But the numbers only take you so far in campaigning. It’s not just how many staff members you have, it’s what they’re doing.

Lenny Fritos said...

I imagine you are not much different from the media according to the interference run above. No, I won't be bile styled. If the media mostly reports what they want to and then only what the sheeple want covered if they hit the streets (e.g. Ferguson? Vietnam War?),then the same physics work on yourself. It is a matter of persistence. If folks say enough is enough enough, then the ptb's, in your case as supertroll elder, one will get some action, as Marcuse said would be the case.

Marcuse also said that is not enough because the status quo will win every time when placed side by side with leftier than thou truisms.

I would buy your argument that Nate Silver is off the hook if not for three reasons:

1) I can't afford the time it takes to cover every contrarian dusting of home plate.
2) Where is Nate's big coverage on polling sucks? I don't mean slip in a comment or two once in a while about negative feedback loops once it becomes clear the polls are failing us.
3) Harry. Enten.

This is not my scoop. I never claimed it to be. I never claimed Kimberlin was my scoop except for various tidbits from the cyber sleuth pu pu platter.

Ali didn't invent boxing.

Al Gore didn't invent the internet, but he may have helped pave the way for it. But I am going off on tangents that don't necessarily relate to this free flow of infotainment analysis. In a word, this is called a digression or digressions. But I digress.

People are starting to come around on Bernie. Someone I know is saying people are talking about Bernie's herstoric fundraising. They are wondering how if Bern has all these individual contributions, why does it seem like Hillary is trouncing him in the polls?

I'm saying we both have won the internet.

Everything you predicted in the best case scenario is coming to fruition.

If Bernie takes care of Iowa and NH, then all the blue states that lean leftier than thou may fall into place for Sanders. The problem with that is a lot of them come later in the process, like New York and especially California.

I know what you mean about Bernie not having to win Iowa but needing to outdo expectations. You are correct. This is a process with a running game and passing. They do not call things political footballs for nothing. They don't call it political basketballs, baseballs or pucks. I don't imagine this is a digression, but others may disagree.

I knew O'Malley and Bernie were going all out in Iowa. Marty is on his last legs. He recently challenged Bernie to a one on one debate. That's ridiculous. Hopefully he comes up with nothing on February 1st and drops out of the race. He didn't seem to think he had any chance at all in NH. The sooner O'Malley the distraction goes back to his obviously best state and city of Maryland and Baltimore,, the better. It's obvious he had to be the best mayor of all time. The cops there are sweet. Everyone has jobs. I am being sarcastic! Webb and even Chafee were better candidates than him. O'Malley is a form of Clinton. He has a schtick and sticks to it. Hillary is a fake progressive who gets things done. Martin is the well-kempt normal looking man and not a kook socialist who ran both city and state governments as the chief executive.

Bernie doesn't play any of those games. He's like if you agree, vote for me, if not, here's my business card and give me a call when and if you wtfu for the REVOLUTION! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!


Lenny Fritos said...

I think all two of us are in agreement and this is mostly about semantics. I hope you're not anti-semantic.

I don't think Jeanette is paid by Bernie. If she does get paid, she should admit it. I doubt it.

Bernie is kicking arse fundraising money and winning over people. I told you not to worry about his seemingly kissing Hillary's butt too much. He definitely doesn't like the Republicans. Of course it would be easier to force H. to go left, hold her feet to the fire, than fricken Trump or Cruz, whichever numbnut makes it out of that carnival show.

I disagree with Bernie. But I don't disagree with his political expediency. Elizabeth Warren is another matter. If she doesn't endorse Bernie soon, she will fall out of my favor. It would be extremely cowardly of her to not do so lest(er holt) Hillary wins and it hurts her political football standing.

I don't mention Lester Holt out of nowhere. He is the next debate's moderator.

You say the national polls don't matter, but I don't see the news people making that clear. It's been their excuse for non-stop Trump coverage.

I am saying no polls matter. The Iowa and NH polls do not matter. I do suppose they are more accurate than the national polls. And all these polls are a little different. The one common denominator seems to be their lack of intellectual honesty. It is not good enough to say such and such poll has been weighted for age, demographics, etc.. Show us the actual numbers. Tell us exactly what happened. Okay, so you contacted 2600 registered voters and only 800 responded. How many were cell phone contacts? This one Bloomberg poll on Iowa just gave the hard numbers. It didn't even try to break it down by age. Every poll that includes that info shows how skewed the polls are. One had no one under 50. Huh, wut? Get out of town!

I'm tired of the dumbing down of America. This Bernie Sanders run is working, nonetheless.

I do promise that in case things go wrong, I won't melt down. Life goes on. The struggle continues. You just know based on history that who is president does influence the nation's mental health. The Bernie or Bust movement is about taking things to the next level. It's not that people want to pull a Ralph Nader and let in some Bozo the Clown. Nothing personal to the real Bozo. Fake bozos, well, they made their fake bed to sleep in and are on their own.

It is a thought experiment. Would we better off long-term to take a fascist beating for four years or go with Hillary and she perhaps ruins the Democratic Party for good?

Bernie says enough is enough a lot, but I don't think he is ready to say enough is enough with the DNC in comparison to the GOP.

Obama signed a controversial executive order on gun control. I mention this because one of the best reasons to vote in Bernie is to keep Hillary's signature off of those. I don't get why those are allowed. Why did we fight the British if we're gonna let some King president sign laws anyway? That is a definite huh, wut.

Again with your promotion of Obama, wow. The dude has done as much damage to civil liberties as Bush/Cheney did. He is solidifying Big Brother. That is another issue Bernie is on the correct side. Obama bailed out banks.

If you want to keep things political, fine, but the majority of Americans are saying enough is enough with both parties.

And that's another reason why myself and H.A. Goodman are duking it out to see who is the most dedicated and prescient BernBot.


Lenny Fritos said...

As for your boxing comments, I did read those and they were quite good. They were airtight. They were rationed out wisdom nuggets that will survive centuries. You cut to the chase. Bing, bam, x beats y. Y beats zed. Zed somehow beats X.

It's not five weeks to go, however. In under nine hours, we will be four weeks away. The next debate is in a couple weeks.

I guess it may boil down to how much money is enough? Bernie seems to have the volunteers, staff, and money to fight in all 50 states. I thought it was quite telling how Hillary recently asked folks to chip in a dollar. The letter says she might not win Iowa and NH and she needs more money. Nope. Bernie is kicking her arse for individual contributions. She wants to pad her stats to compete with his populist schtick.

I also notice that a lot of people are willing to hold their nose and vote for Bernie over all the rest. It has something to do with his authenticity. This would include independents who are anti-socialism, etc.. It is fascinating. Some even yourself want Bernie to attack Hillary more. It's just not his style. And he's proven his style works. He is fricken beloved in Vermont. Bernie doesn't have to go negative in terms of naming names and calling H. a capitalist pig, the stuff we do, because the negative feedback loop takes care of that.

You must think most people are brain dead and can't pick up on Bernie being completely different than Hillary. He's been attacking her. He just doesn't do it in the traditional Morton Downey Jr. style. And like you say, there are the Jeanette's and myself making sure people are more aware of how evil Hillary is.

Those were very interesting comments you made on the last thread. The only thing we are missing is a last comment like Marisacat did it that this thread is over and we are continuing on this one. We don't do that. We organically move onto the next one without the captain obvious we are moving forward to the next one announcement.

Yes on Sugar Ray. He was a little fella who moved up in weight. And definitely yes on Holyfield. His second fight with Tyson was outstanding. He clocked him 20 straight times until the ref said enough is enough. Or was that a legit ten count? I forget. I did see it on replay. Tyson got demolished.

Tyson had bad luck. He didn't have good support in place. That Tokyo fight was interesting. Buster Douglas kicked his arse. Tyson might have been able to win, but the corner guys had no treatment juice for swelling other than balloons or wtf.

But yes, younger Ali destroys Prime Tyson and Tyson destroys second and third Ali phases.

Styles make the fight. It took the U.S. government to put a stop to Muhammad Ali's reign of terror. He could've kept on winning and maybe as he started to fade, he would have retired much earlier undefeated or whatnot. It seemed that once Ali was no longer a shoo-in, he got fixated on taking back the belt. Maybe Ali went against his own health interests because he wanted to make up for the time stolen. It was unfortunate for both himself and society. If Ali didn't get all that damage, imagine how influential he would've been politically the last twenty to thirty years. He'd have been on t.v. all the time. Bill Russell was too shy a kid to have ever become a big time media man.

So instead of having Ali as the big African American voice, we got Charles Barkley.

I am now exhausted. It's not that I ignore your points or your posts. Writing can be very draining.

All of this was just spit out, like most of my junk, and I'm not going to proofread it. It is what it is?

(No Más)

donkeytale said...

My political comments were even more astute. I said Tyson beats third stage (aged, I called him) Ali. First stage Ali wins. Second stage, the Frazier era?

That would be a great fight. I'm an Ali homer so I say he finds a way to win it.

And this:
"You say the national polls don't matter, but I don't see the news people making that clear. It's been their excuse for non-stop Trump coverage."

Well, that's not what I said, although it is true national polls don't matter but I was talking both national and early statewide primary polls both...and in fact the news people are also making it quite clear that national polls and early state primary polls don't matter in the primary season. But guess what, bernie has his own polls and he is using them anyway, because its all we have at this stage to base strategy.

As I stated at least thrice now, this polling sucks argument is an argument you are having solely with yourself. I say you getting into it on Twitter with some polling guy about how landlines are obsolete and so on, and his response was that he polls cell phones too. LOL. Many of them do. I think I linked you to Silver's polling compendium. I understand not letting facts get in the way of a good diatribe but dude, that is tin foil theory, not zeigeist theory when you go overgeneralizing and ignoring the known-knowns. Just saying.

And I also provided analysis (but couldn't find the link) that Trump gets non-stop coverage because he gets the most buzz from the sheeple on social media.

So yes, this comment here is mailed in by your self and not up to earlier comments.

The thing about letting the big banks go under is a great campaign schtick but when one is in the white house one probably realizes one doesn't have a magic wand to simply overhaul the banking system overnight, especially in depths of the greatest recession since the great depression. You probably dont remember that in teh Great Depression the banks were allowed to close and stay shut. This made the downturn even worse. Something similar would happen if you closed the too big too fail banks. You would also have massive lay offs. No, the time to revolutionize the banking system is now when things are going good relatively speaking, or better I should say than they were in 2009.

We'll see what Presidit Bernie actually does with the banks once he's elected.

And you are worried about Obama getting blowback for executive order gun control? LOL. Let's see the sheeple's response when Bernie nationalizes the banking system by executive order.

Jeanette probably isn't paid because she is getting into it too much with non BernBots and being accused of posting Breitbart-style cut and pasted videos that leave out some facts. Now, before you go off on me, I said she is accused and I havent watched the videos. But I'm pretty sure Bernie doesn't want his paid operatives to go that dark. It is a dumb strategy for his ultimate prospects will require moderate and older Hillary voters to beat the GOP.

Also, I read where Bernie campaign insiders themselves were displeased about the unnamed source Yahoo News "leak." For exactly the reasons I indicate: it directly connects the campaign to tin foil and the blame would be on them anyway for stupidly allowing themselves to be played by a DNC plant. It's in a story about Weaver, the campaign manager. I'll do a quick google later if I get a chance.

Finally, yes, ground game is all and yes Bernie is following my advice and beefing it up in Iowa. the big Butt here is that when it comes to ground game quality is everything and the results are all that matters. Getting your caucus goers to the polls. Pyrrhiod. This won't be known until the day after. But it will be known.

donkeytale said...

And before you go off, yes I realize many cell phone users block unwanted calls. But many also don't.When you see the pollster having too little valid data you see thye margin of error increases for that poll. Generally, a very wide margin at this stage, which means the wider the MoE the more useless the poll is.

And I agree (along with everyone including the media and Silver--which is why you're having a fake argument with yourself) that polling is becoming more difficult and maybe obsolete. In the US it hasn't proven to be obsolete through 2014 but we shall see. Your precience is on the line here...and so is Nate Silver.

This trend in polls is actually what puts Silver in business, his ability to separate the wheat from the chaff and zero in on the the GENERAL ELECTION. Primaries are much harder to ascertain especially because there are so many different rules state by staten which effect outcome. You saw in NH 2008 Hillary won the popular vote but Obama won the delegate totals 13-9. So, yes, primary polling is a form of infotainment except Bernie is using it too to deploy strategery.

donkeytale said...

And more recently, an unidentified Sanders campaign adviser told Yahoo News that the Sanders campaign’s fired data director had actually been recommended by the party committee, suggesting that raised more questions about what had gone wrong and how it was that Mrs. Clinton’s data was visible by the Sanders team.

Some of Mr. Sanders’ campaign aides were troubled by the claim, and felt it reflected a misstep by the top advisers. Mr. Sanders at times has urged a few top aides to tone down their language, but he also believes that the campaign is being treated unfairly by the media.

donkeytale said...

Take that Ron!

You may recall the great fake film critic debate Ron and I held on these very pages a couple years ago regarding Django Unchained. My take was that Tarantino's work had fallen on hard times since his first, classic genre films Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. Don't recall but it was in a dairy thread. But it was around Christmas 2012, I believe. My how time flies when you're Superfly.

Here is some blather about the current Tarantino nonsense "The Hateful Eight" that seems to concur with my take:

Maybe QT should put his money where his mouth is and come up with anti-cop cop flick?

Lenny Fritos said...

If you want to chat with Ron, please do so on Twitter or on his blog. One rule I definitely enforce is the refusal to publish verbal abuse on home turf. Ron is a special example. I do not necessarily have a propensity for getting me panties caught in a bunch. Occasionally, I might overreact with some bile. With RonBryn, I have enough evidence providing a mandate to enforce a permanent ban and the scrubbing of any new Ron comments on sight.

"... and in fact the news people are also making it quite clear that national polls and early state primary polls don't matter in the primary season."

I disagree. You admit to not watching television news. Believe you me, except for the rare disclaimer, polls are driving the "news" coverage.

"As I stated at least thrice now, this polling sucks argument is an argument you are having solely with yourself. I say you getting into it on Twitter with some polling guy about how landlines are obsolete and so on, and his response was that he polls cell phones too. LOL."

I also asked him for an age breakdown. It's funny to see you supporting some fake journo hack whose response was basically, trust us.

It's not that I am having a debate with myself, it's that your medium is the conspiracy schtick could be tainted beyond repair in regards to your own capitulation to what cults of personality offer. Make up your mind. There is no debate that polls suck? Or the polls are what they are and let's believe the fake journo's "trust me" schtick?

"And I agree (along with everyone including the media and Silver--which is why you're having a fake argument with yourself) that polling is becoming more difficult and maybe obsolete. In the US it hasn't proven to be obsolete through 2014 but we shall see. Your precience is on the line here...and so is Nate Silver.

This trend in polls is actually what puts Silver in business, his ability to separate the wheat from the chaff and zero in on the the GENERAL ELECTION. Primaries are much harder to ascertain especially because there are so many different rules state by staten which effect outcome. You saw in NH 2008 Hillary won the popular vote but Obama won the delegate totals 13-9. So, yes, primary polling is a form of infotainment except Bernie is using it too to deploy strategery."

Aaaah, so Nate Silver is good to go for only a few days every four years?

And what about Harry Enten? Nate Silver owns everything that dipwad has been posting.

Nate Silver is greatness? God bless him for devoting so much time to forecasting future NBA projections? There's the fricken lol or IDGAF, period.

Look at you bending over backwards to protect the media! Look at how you always go out of your way to present the status quo narrative.

At some point you always seem to get bored with a topic and then give up.

Plus, you are locked in with portraying yourself as the "sane" and "pragmatic" leftier than thou. You want everyone to think of fake leftist conspiracy kooks like fairleft, e.g. in regards to the media conspiracy.

You're that guy who writes movie reviews at IMDB where in the first paragraph you admit you only sat through the first twenty minutes. Or give us a book review on something you haven't read. I'm sure there is plenty of info in the Cliff Notes or go to wikipedia apparently your go to url.

Anyway, I think the true debate going on with one person is with you and it is against my zeitgeist sniffing analysis. I don't have to read Cliff Notes or google Ezra Klein. I am a free thinker.

Lenny Fritos said...

I am interested in the state by state analysis. That is your best point, that there are both 50 ways to leave your lover and how delegates are awarded.

I have never followed any of this in the way I have. You did in 2008. I am not sure what you mean about NH. Hillary won more NH votes but lost in delegates? Or do you mean she won the popular vote across the country and lost the nomination?

I found this. It is too long to read, but it shows what I personally have to look forward to. Instead of Obama versus Hillary, I finally have a candidate who is close to my definition of pure leftism.

I am not a DINO. You and Bernie are also not DINO's. But of the three, I am the only one willing to say enough is enough with the DNC.

I also note that you went nowhere near my thought experiment. Would we be better off long-term with a fascist Republican instead of a fake p.o.s. in Hillary?

Lenny Fritos said...

I wonder what is up with offshoot websites that use the same software as Democratic Underground. I understand how that worked off of Daily Kos, so maybe I am being suspicious over nothing.

I found some more referral links to DFQ2. There was something I linked to in a previous thread. They liked my 2010 or wtf expose on Democratic Underground where I directly tied them to the then DLC.

Yes, it turned out they were neither democratic nor underground. There might be a scoop or two in there or I got it off of someone else at the time, I think it was that Bev Harris pit bull, but it might have been Joe Cannon or some other moron.

Anyway, there was a method to my madness and a lot of the junk on this website is exclusive.

This is the link. I use a proxy for any websites I don't know or trust.

There was some other clown using a donotlink link to this website. It was probably Rauhauser or Osborne or some other paid fake. I notice that those links rarely brink in much traffic. The d___h___s think they are hruting the stats here or expect me to notice them, which I do when randomly checking out who is linking to us. I have no fricken clue who the Russians are. I assume that is some form of spam, yet they are not showing up in the referral info.

Some jackass over Reddit also linked to us and it was to my masterpiece on Theresa Duncan. The loser said I am way out there, but even this kook myself felt the "conspiracy theory" surrounding their deaths was bogus.

I checked out the idiots Reddit comments to confirm it is some random triple F. It seems to be interested in unsolved mysteries. He is basically a wanker and tosser, the kind of chumps we were when first entering society as now defined by social medium.

It might also be a paid fake. In one comment he attacked someone for describing Symone Sanders as articulate, as in, you are racist to call a Black person articulate, as if it is some rare event.

I have to side with Nate Silver on this one. Many things in life are non-linear. Stats don't mean much. How can one quantify a great idea or scoop? It can't be done. It's obvious I made a huge impact with Kimberlin. It took a while and it even took some crazy horseshit following the true story that forced folks to take a second look at the little fella. What did the little fella do? Why is the little fella stabbing the wingnuts in their backs?

The bottom line is most people lurk. Just because there is no boatload of comments in support for the little fella, the truth wills out.

No one gives an F about Rauhauser or Osborne. No one with any awareness would link to Media Matters or Democratic Underground or much of anything in a knee-jerk attempt to feel alive in a BubbleBoy freak society way.

We should probably move on. We are probably talking over one other, though not to an extent where we don't connect on some junk while this other stuff is veering towards meaninglessness.

Lenny Fritos said...

You are right about Draymond Green. He is a winner. I am not sure if it is the system or the players. San Antonio has had a very good run. It's not because Duncan went from pt. A to point Z of a career in historic Shaq, Bird, Magic, Jordan get out of my way fashion. Avery Bradley is turning into a phenom as he approaches his prime. The system Stevens has can produce stars or borderline stars. He just needs more talent to mold.

If the Celtics had Noel from the Sixers, maybe he wouldn't be falling down the projection leader board for future greatness. Philly has the worst system imaginable. Other teams are not so much better than them. There is also the question of how corrupt and/or incompetent the NBA refs are. It totally distorts the truth.

We agree Ali's career trajectory was forever perverted. I think Prime Tyson beats middle or last phase Ali. The latter he would do so 10 out of ten times. While middle phase Ali was still good and I even called him the best, I don't imagine he faced anyone close to Prime Tyson. You said Frazier for all his heavyweight grit should have actually been a weight class below.

We both seem to agree that Prime Tyson is heavily underrated.

Nonetheless, middle phase Ali would have crushed every mediocre Tyson phase.

I wonder how the 70's Ali would have done against an in his prime Buster Douglas, the one who upset Tyson.

And yeah, Holyfield in his prime versus the 70's Ali might be a pick 'em.

donkeytale said...

You make many good points. The main one is that you are talking about TV and I'm talkin print. That could account for our differences in perspective. TV assumes you the viewer (royal you, not you poisonally) either don't have the time to care, or don't care enough to care to delve into polling meta. TV is on that hourly cycle. Nothing much is covered in depth. Basically, TV news is about headlines.

The flip side is I think you are overrating how much influence polls have before the first contests. You are assuming people care enough to care. Let me tell you one thing: they don't care.

And the sheeple can also backlash the vote if they perceive a HRC cakewalk so there is also the law of unintended consequences. Placing too much emphasis on polls is a sideshow and a distraction at this stage.

That is, if anyone outside of the 2% who are political junkies care.

Weight classes are very important considerations in boxing. Hagler was the only pure middleweight in that group. All the other greats were welterweights moving up. Advantage Hagler. The guys not fighting at their natural weights all loose something in the process, a bit of their speed/quickness mostly.

Lenny Fritos said...

You supply many great points. Cable news has distinguished itself from print media a bad way.

All folks need to do if they don't agree with us is compare CNN and MSNBC to let's say BBC News or PBS' News Hour.

That would be step one. Then they can take the same looksie critical approach to newspapers and the new forms of media which have emerged.

Daily Mail and Yahoo are becoming very similar. They are news aggregators. They are like the Drudge Report (which I never read) or the kind of websites which emerged in the early 2000's while the internet still hadn't jumped the shark.

I do pilfer through Daily Mail and Yahoo for leads. I try my best to not link to them, a form of "donotlink" philosophy.

The internet ended up mirroring the medium power structure which preceded it. There are always going to be openings for interesting, well-researched, well-written, perhaps even infotaining websites to hit a groove and amass page clicks.Unfortunately you are correct that except for the web savvy, most people do not even care about caring.

So there are these spaces and those closest to mainstream perception of social reality tend to make a huge dent for so-called popularity. We are basically herded, one of your concepts. Such and such outlets develop their posses. Another way to phrase it is to ask who are these outlets' people? Moses said let my people go. It is a very old as dirt concept. Who are my people? Who are your people?

As the DLC/DNC ascended to power with Obama's 2008 victory, they were given a mandate. Fake leftists have risen to executive power based on the fact that Republicans are deranged. This is good cop/bad cop 101.

No one except overt racists would argue that a Black man winning the presidency was a bad thing. No one would say it about a woman winning. Thankfully we have the lesson of Margaret Thatcher. It is not good enough that someone is a Black or female DINO. I understand Thatcher was a right wing lunatic in the Reagan mold. The only thing keeping Hillary afloat is that she's a DINO, not a RINO, to go with polls seemingly saying Amerikkka is "ready for H."

I was one of those who didn't care enough to care about Obama versus Hillary. I act like a Bernie Sanders know-it-all, but I didn't really know much about him until this last year. It'll be a year once we hit the late Spring since Bernie entered the race.

There is something about the dynamics of this specific cycle which forces true leftists to care.

I suppose I'm fairly predictable. My panties tend to get bunched up when I feel I've been let down or if it seems something I believed was wrong and I don't feel it's my fault.

Early in the process I found a rare state poll not from Iowa or New Hampshire. It was probably Oregon and at the time I also saw one from California. This blog entry points to two Massachusetts polls.


Lenny Fritos said...

Bernie was within five points of Hillary in Oregon or Washington State. He was within twelve points in California. This was very early in the Summer. It had to be right before the BLM stuff emerged as a political factor.

I tweeted to someone about the Pacific Northwest poll which made it seem Bern was well on his way to becoming a real threat to the coronation.

I said, "All we have to go on are the polls."

When the polls stopped working in my BernBot fashion, I felt abused, that I had become the proverbial useful idiot.

There is one specific video at Youtube of Marshall McLuhan. Somehow he is in a chair which slowly rotates in a circular motion as he is able to pan the audience. It is remarkable. There was a spiritual component to what McLuhan was on about. The rarity of McLuhan is that he held his ground as an academic. He didn't let his hair grow out. He didn't join a commune. He wasn't an Alan Watts, someone also with some academic gravitas, who went full-fledged with a hippie-buddhist schtick.

There are the Robert Reich's and even this Bernie Sanders fella who speak our language but without the supertroll element. I imagine they are our people. And this type of thing is transcending race. Symone Sanders, Ben Dixon, and Nina Turner are a million times more presentable than ourselves. But that's okay. It takes all kinds of people to make the world go around. They can be themselves, as they should, while climbing up the zeitgeist influence charts.

There will also be room for blokes like us who through persistence get our messages across too. It's all about the medium.

Polls are not all we have to go on. There is History and Philosophy. There are ethics. There is caring for human beings, animals, and the planet.

Yeah, we have come a long way from Black people outright being treated like dirt. And women. But we have to get beyond that. It is not good enough to elect a woman or Black man or any other superficial reason. It is not good enough to go for the lesser of two evils. I imagine Bernie is the true front runner for every reason other than the polling controversy. Though you are correct there can be a backlash with a coronation angle. The Mavericks did embarrass Miami after LeBron and Wade started to get a little bit too full of themselves in the early part of their Finals' matchup. Scott Brown seems to have won Ted Kennedy's seat because voters were fed up with the DLC/DNC shoving fake leftists such as Martha Coakley down our throats.

When Sgt. Schultz took away Bernie's data, that was a form of crossing the line. And Dick Morris I think also predicted that things could get very messy down the line if Bernie/Hillary is close, but she can steal it with super delegates.

I imagine too many people do not even care enough to care. They couldn't care less and that sentiment emerges in the fact that the vast majority doesn't vote.

Yes, Nate Silver made his name by separating the wheat from the chaff. That's excellent imagery.

We will take this one step at a time.

By the way, the next debate is being put on by the Congressional Black Caucus Institute and NBC in SC. Ugh, I see that I got confused. PBS then has the February debate in Wisconsin.

Lenny Fritos said...

Weight classes do matter. Somehow the best boxers were within twenty pounds of each other. You are correct that might not seem a lot, but to lose or gain that weight does have an impact.

It's probably a similar dilemma posed to young NBA players. Does want wish to bulk up? What is their end game? Dwight Powell is the perfect example. He's obviously better at hoops than 99.99% of the world. But that doesn't mean he will make it. Crowder's emergence is forcing Dallas to develop Powell or forever lose face for the trade. No one wants to look like a fool. Maybe the lesson is it's better to look like a fool than to remove any doubt.

So if Powell bulks up, does he lose what made him have a chance in the first place? Sullinger on Boston is another example. He is huge. He is a tweener. He is not tall enough to be a starting center. He is strong enough, however, to play center minutes.

He needs to get into shape immediately. I think he needs to roll the dice and get over his eating addiction. He is a power forward, period, if he is to make it long-term.

Kelly Olynyk has bulked up. Maybe it has made him a bit less effective at shooting. It is hard to tell. But he had to do it. He was getting pushed around too often. He came into the league almost as weak as Powell.

I don't have much faith in toothpick styled NBA players. Maybe it worked with Reggie Miller and some others. I think that's the exception to the rule. Marcus Smart is very strong. Bradley is the toothpick kind of guy, but he is in the back court, as I think Miller was a shooting guard.

It's the difference between Paul Pierce and Evan Turner. Pierce was built like a tank. Turner is more of a girly-man and doesn't provide much defense for small forward. Turner is 6-7 and so is Pierce. I think Sullinger is shorter than them or the same height. I think Barkley was only 6-4.

I guess each player must be evaluated on a person by person basis. Though that is difficult because it is a team sport and all these players are dependent on one another for success.

That is Stevens' balancing act, to have all 15 guys trying their best while accepting they must root for and help those they are in direct competition with.

The C's had a good game yesterday. Stevens finally benched David Lee who is done, imho.

Marcus Smart is greatness. He has the intangibles that don't show up in stats. He is starting to get back into NBA regular guy seasonal shape. These guys are the best of the best. I mean every player in the league except for probably some or a lot of the 76er's roster are amazing.

But there is so much to basketball. To be the best of the best or to be so-called good rotation players on good teams, these guys need to develop total games or are easily exposed as proverbial scrubs.


Lenny Fritos said...

It's no surprise that a lot of those scrubs end up dominating lesser leagues. The development league must be a joke. They are the NBA's form of polls. They provide a lot of stats. Young guys dominate that league. Then when there is an injury or the pro team wants to give someone else some minutes, those Development League stats get thrown out the window and it's back to a deer in the headlights situation.

Avery Bradley was awful his first year. He had deer in the headlights syndrome, one of the worst cases ever documented. Now when he shoots, one expects them to go in. He doesn't put up Curry stats, but he does put up quite better than average offense to go with stellar defense.

The Celtics are at a crossroads. They either have to bundle guys/picks and trade for a star or they have to go the slow percolating, development route.

The NBA equivalent of Iowa/NH is the trading deadline. Once that is completed, things will truly become an is what it is. Plus injuries. Golden State might appear to be an automatic repeat team, but one never knows. One of those last Pierce/KG years, the C's somehow slithered into a chance to upset LeBron. It was only because Rose got injured. Philly almost beat the C's in the playoffs. They had upset the Bulls.

The Celtics as dinosaurs were no easy out for the Heat and who knows what would have happened if Wade hadn't broken Rondo's elbow.

The Celtics with KG/Pierce those last years was like a middle and later phase Ali. You could still see the shadow of greatness they once were, but it was definitely quite the crap shoot for them to win their last game of the playoffs. 2010 came close. The C's almost upset the Lakers. Perk got injured. Rasheed Wallace played well, but I think his back gave out in game seven.

Celtics fans are very lucky. Danny Ainge is very lucky. Take away that KG/Pierce Brooklyn trade and the post Big Three Celtics might have been looking at a ten year drought.

The Celtics might be only one player away. They would still need a lot of luck, but the East is weak except for Cleveland, and then there is only Golden State, San Antonio, and perhaps Oklahoma to worry about. And they'd only have to beat one of them.

If Danny does well for trades this trading season before the deadline, I will immediately up the C's chances of winning the title from 1% to perhaps 10-20% depending on who we get and who we get rid of. There can be addition by addition or addition by subtraction. I doubt the C's will be able to trade David Lee unless it is some for of blockbuster and Lee's inflated contract makes the numbers work.

Brad seemed to not want to step on Lee's toes and went a little bit too long in giving him good chunks of minutes. Stevens is not perfect. No one is.

Lenny Fritos said...

*some form of blockbuster

Sorry for typos and any undeveloped or unclear thoughts.

Lenny Fritos said...

I need to clarify. Apparently Obama's executive order is common sense and a good one. I have no clue. I can't know everything and some things I am too lazy to care. I could care less, but me bones need resting.

It's the executive order in general which makes no legal sense, nor tons of stuff going on.

CNN is weird. Marc Lamont Hill gets stoned or he says it's allergies making him cry on t.v.. Poppy fainted on camera. And our good friend Don Lemon, the expert on all issues pertaining to Black people, he got a bit too tipsy on national television.

It's unimportant stuff, but at least the first two I took a look and even the Don Lemon I took a peek. And OJ, I mean Cosby got arrested. That is bizarre. Poor Camille. She's finally saying enough is enough. I see Bill Clinton gets accused of Cosby type allegations. But it's the wingnuts which form a somewhat effective strawman for all forms of Clinton corruption and DINO logic.

There's not much going on. February 2nd should be a lively day, knock on wood and godspeed for the greatness which is Bernie "Fricken bern a fattie" Sanders.

Lenny Fritos said...

Because I hate Doc Rivers and the Clippers, I am going to reverse jinx them and say don't fall asleep on that great, stacked roster.

donkeytale said...

If there was a Nobel Prize handed out for blog commentary this series of comments by you would be a definite contender. Being a great amateur like Bobby Jones or Jean Paul Sartre or Barack Obama I am sure that you would return the prize money or donate it to the Bern.

Talk about touching all the bases. Your +/- is +23. You are the Stephan Curry of the whiteysphere, an unbelievable talent for the ages developing right before our eyes.

We are not worthy

donkeytale said...

I mean, Sgt Shultz and Dick Morris in the same paragraph! Sheer brilliance in name dropping.

I also chuckled when you gave me props over the wheat/chaff comment.

Yes, my ability to string clichés is unrivaled. Van Morrison actually gets credit as a songwriter for the way he weaves 60s soul clichés into his song lyrics.

He pulls it off because of his singing ability. Van is sorta like me, a troubled soul uncomfortably afloat in a postmodern dreamscape still clinging fiercely to the old days as his frame of reference. Some say he is underrated. Many think he's overrated or just plain sucks.

His live performances tend to be erratic. If he's into it he's fantastic. If not he's mostly mumbling into his microphone.

I'd like to see Van duet with Tony Bennett.

donkeytale said...

Al polling aside, I think Bernie is in a good spot. He is the Trump of the left, a completely different un-politically correct politician doing it his way.

Luckily, his way is more polished and sincere than Trump and every word out of his mouth is solid gold. He makes no slip ups and he takes few chances.

Actually, I like that he stayed the domestic policy course instead of veering off into foreign policy in a forced manner even as I criticize it. I grok it on the eftier than thou level but as a pundit I am compelled to keep the conversation lively or we may loose the Russian.

Except I'm pretty sure your schtick above grabbed the Russians by their vodka soaked scrotums.

We will always have the Russians. God bless the Russians.

I'm pretty sure they resurrected my Church masterpiece back onto the charts.

They love literature, those Russians.

donkeytale said...

Obama gets slammed a lot and some of it is of course deserved.

It comes with the territory. Overall, he's been pretty good. Yes, he's DLC. People forget that he ran more from the center. If anything, the solid obstruction from the GOP allowed him to be a bit more lefty in his later years.

He had to deal with a functionally insane GOP majority Congress and for the most part has acquitted himself.

The Executive Order thing is troubling and so is the amount of filibustering in the Senate. The only antidote for these moves is to win baby. C'mon Bernie, and more importantly Bernie staffers in Iowa and NH.

Pry those lazy millennials away from their smart phones long enough and get them to the polls/caucuses on time.

donkeytale said...

I don't know what to say about the Clippers. They knocked off SA last year only to be upset by Hou.

Don't get them at all and I think their dysfunction pre-dates Doc. They always seem to have talent but they choke. I confess to not caring enough to analyze their situation. At this stage it is all I can do to keep up with GS and BOS from time to time.

BOS is clearly on the rise. They are GS about 3 years ago. You can see they are up and coming but who will be their Curry who steps it up to the next level? Curry has been living on his own planet in fact but BOS needs someone not necessarily up there but they need a leader for sure. Pierce was just a great baller all around. Many many observers in DAL were disappointed that Cubes passed on Pierce to get to Dirk, although in the end it worked out about same. 1 title for each plus a number of contending years near the top of the league. Very good record but not great.

Boston needs a Pierce type to emerge or come from somewhere else. Leadership, fire and step up big game ability. Maybe they need a Pierce and a Garnett. I know this waiting game is frustrating for Celtics homers and Ainge needs to step up the talent level on this team like he did with 2008 team. Or through the draft, one way or other.

donkeytale said...

If you look at details, nitty gritty, you will see Obama moved the pile left of the Bill Clinton years. This is of course inch by inch progress that you hate me to mention but it is what it is.

It is Amerikkka. The door is now open for Bernie to take the cheezewizz and run with it.

Whereas Obama is the Nixon of the left (IE the change in direction to the right started under Nixon) Bernie could be the Reagan of the left who puts the ball across the leftier than thou goal line.

Both are geriatrics running for office, committed idealogues with a certain flair.

Reagan captured the momentum of the yuppie times. Bernie can capture the momentum of these leftier than thou times of pronounced inequality and social degradation wrought by too many years of stupid rightwing/DLC policy triangulation.

donkeytale said...

Yes, I am feeling the bern this morning.

Spicy Asian food for dinner last night.

I also have little to say on the Cosby story. It is sad for him, his wife and his alleged victims all the same.

As a life long horn dog I must say that I never stooped to knock out sex. I mean for me the greatest part is knowing that she is into it at east as much as I am.

I would have a hard time (irony alert) believing she was very much into me when she's unconscious.

There is also the statute of limitations thingie which quite frankly I do not think should be loosened for any laws, rape or other. It leads to a slippery slope and we see how demented prosecutors will exploit any situation to railroad innocent people to prison.

Lenny Fritos said...

We are showing there is a fourth way. Maybe it is a fifth way. Philosopher Roderick Serling spoke of entering new dimensions.

[editor's note: Serling's real first name was Rodman, as in Dennis Rodman. DFQ2 apologises for the incorrect info that was originally stated above]

[editor's second note: There is no DFQ2 editor. It's me. I should have just changed Roderick to Rodman and left out this not funny, gratuitous editor's schtick.]

It is a mystery whether the Russians are spam bots or somewhere out there a Russian website, perhaps a parallel dimension to ours, linked to us. Yes, they are very literary. The Ruskies are vastly underrated for historic greatness as thinkers and writers.

We are paving the way for how future literary correspondence will play out. You start with a compliment. Tell the other guy he is greatness. While that bloke one is in direct competition with to be perceived as most prescient has been unarmed, throw in the proverbial that being said.

The person will be left with nowhere to go. That's what Bernie is doing to Hillary. He doesn't call her an outright wench like I do. Like with the damned emails. It backfired on Bernie because the moment got shaped into something other than it meant. It was a classic that being said. He just never had the chance on that night to get to the not being said part. Hillary could not be contained. She had brilliant timing. She said, "Thanks, Bernie!"

I haven't seen that kind of brilliance in timing since Trump's, "Rosie. O'Donnell," or go further back to the dude who played Michael J. Fox's pops on Family Ties.

But then we are forced to return to Hagler-Sugar Ray. It is not good enough that Sugar Ray effectively came up with a schtick to fool the refs. It was akin to the Valerie Plame thingie when the prosecutor Fitzhughes, Fitzgibbons, I forget his name exactly. Maybe we can stick to his nickname of fritzy or what he's called. The main point is that someone covered home plate with dirt. Maybe it was Earl Weaver. Or Dennis Weaver as McCloud.

Bernie wasn't saying everyone lay the F off of my good, dear friend H.. He meant I am no lawyer and have no inside FBI knowledge of whether H. is in legal hot water. Bernie is the McLuhan of politicians. He realises that it is the average numbnut who decides whether he wins an office or snot.


Lenny Fritos said...

I think we get frustrated at times because of the molasses factor. You called it. It is a silly season. We have been given too much time to overthink.

There may be other times our confidence is broken. Say Bernie gets his arse whupped by S. Carolina. I didn't follow Obama versus Hillary except for noticing there was a strange HillaryBot versus ObamaBot thingie.

So I am following an election for the first time in that I will scour the stats and blurbs after each caucus/primary.

Massachusetts is March 1st. I think half the states that Super Tuesday are typical Bernie home courts, such as Minnesota. Let me check..... Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Minnesota play that day. Play. Politics as sports is all we have to go on?

Vermont won't matter probably because it is a given Bernie wins it. That being said, I recall Gore lost his home state of Tennessee. That being said, it appears to be apples and oranges. Bernie and Al Gore runs probably have little in common. Perhaps Gore compared to Hillary can be done. He was trying to win Clinton's third term. That being said, you pointed out that Al Gore didn't want anything to do with Bill Clinton. I think you said that. That being said, you definitely said above that there could be historic activity lining up with the cosmos to give a Sanders type candidate a better than usual chance. Like I pointed out, no one had the balls or ovaries to even enter the race. It is a little bit bizarre that not one regular guy/gal DINO entered the race. It is the kind of bizarre development that created the space for a Bernie type political insurgency. No Biden. No Warren.

If Biden, Warren, and a few other old-school Democrats had run for the White House, I'm not sure Bernie would have had any chance at all. If Warren had run, say she had announced her run well in advance, say around this time last year or earlier, would Bernie have run? I doubt it. If he is unwilling to throw H. completely under the bus in Nader style, I doubt he'd have been stupid enough to dilute the left of DINO vote with Lizzie.

Some guys seem to run out of ego. Trump. Maybe Ben Carson never felt he had a real chance and just wanted to become famous to hawk books. Otherwise, I doubt he would have made up such stupid lies about his personal history.

Some tinfoil suggests Trump is running in cahoots with the Clintons, that he is a deliberately made straw man. I have no clue. It's possible. Will Hillary be charged by the FBI over the emails? There are rumors, but it seems impossible to separate the wingnut chaff from the real life judicial system wheaties.

Styles make the fight.

Bernie looks kooky on the surface. The H. facade presents itself as practical progressivism which gets things done.

Nate came through in the clutch with his phrase negative feedback loops. He could have easily doubled down and drank some gin saying Hillary looks strong with so many establishment endorsements. Is ginning it up not some form of swilling gin?

By the way, I watched Bill give a short stump speech in NH on behalf of Hillary. He's looking like W.C. Fritos or Shemp at the end. He's got that drunken nose schtick going. His speech is slurred. If Bill Clinton is Hillary's secret weapon, I say bring it on. Let's roll. Let's do a roll call to see who agrees that enough is enough.

Word play, schmord schplay? And what about a name like Schmidt? How the flim-flam is one to pig latinise that word? Or maybe I am confusing Pig Latin with some kind of word schlossing. Flossing schmossing? Schtick Chiclets?

Lenny Fritos said...

There was this color man for the Boston Bruins games who literally provided color. Or is it spelled colour? Vinnie Barbarino used to get so confused. Sometimes I do too. It's said when in Rome, do as the Romans. Rome is not the end game. Rome is generic for wherever thou shalt hang one's noggin on a pillow. Hillary understands half of this specific "We are all Romans" schtick. She has been so busted faking various accents. I think the hidden story is how overrated she is. You get that scoop. (See waiting to happen, a loss.)

Nina Turner has confirmed my greatness. She loves Bernie because he has won her vote. She specifically said, to paraphrase from my intuition of her true meaning, that Black people wanted to pick their choice and not have it rammed down their throats by well-meaning, pasty whites.

I picked up an Irish brogue from living in Ireland for five years. It just happens. That's the difference between myself and H. She is basically an actress who learned accents for roles. I picked one up by social osmosis. It's gone now, but I do like to mention by background every once in a while. And you are proof one needn't move to Europe to change zeds into esses.

Zeds are very harsh, imho. We as a new country are not as well-known in a herstoric, literary sense. America can be defined as part and parcel of modernity.

Like a Stephen Curry. There was the NBA before him. There was a world before America and Youtube. Now there is a new NBA world and Curry is the new history being made in real time.

Caring enough to care. That may be the greatest idea you have ever suggested. People become jaded. Maybe that is a variation on my opus dissecting the true meaning of couldn't care less versus could care less.

And this brings us full circle back to zeitgeist sniffing theory. Perhaps Nate Silver got half of the analysis correct. Sure, there are negative feedback loops. But what about positive feedback loops?

Yes, Obama never made himself out to be more than a Robert Redford styled The Candidate. I do remember his gbcw at Daily Kos. Yes, not only did Olbermann give DKos some gravitas with his presence, Obama was also a Daily Kos forum member. I mention this because I agree Obama is still young and not too jaded that he will simply ride out into the sunset. I think he will go the Jimmy Carter route but from more of a blogger's mentality. I do think Obama will evolve as a human being. I think perhaps he might be a bit verklempt that he couldn't have run in the time period Bernie is trying to shake things up. Everyone becomes jaded. Malcolm X became jaded to the point that he didn't even try to protect himself.

Bill said, "Don't stop thinking about tomorrow." Obama seemed to also have a hope schtick which propelled him to victory. Or that was Fleetwood Mac and he co-opted the tune. The true battle is perhaps to destroy that feeling of being jaded. Charlie Brown never got jaded and he'd probably not have the back problems he does if he could have been a bit more cynical about Lucy's true intentions with the football.

So we hear a lot about the ptb's will never allow anyone but H. to win. Yesterday I put up a self-deprecating tweet about us BernBots and Bern being greatness.

Someone to the left of me, a concept which is difficult to grok as I have personally redefined the word authenticity, this social justice warrior said even if Bernie wins, all a president has the power to do is start wars. Being jaded goes both ways. It is good in that it is a defense against becoming a perpetual chump. On the other hand, it leads to apathy which allows no opportunity ever for positive social change.


Lenny Fritos said...

And in this respect I totally grok why you were upset with the leftist purity milieu which would rather give up than seize the opportunity to take at least one hack at the inequality tree. No one is saying if Bernie gets elected that everything becomes wicked awesome. Bernie even says it. But we must at least try. Wicked awesome is the Boston vernacular for hunky-dory with a kicker of goodness.

People say look at what happened to Howard Dean and Ron Paul. I say enough is enough with being jaded. If Bernie loses to Hillary, we'll have plenty of time at that point to go on a deep bender or get baked close to the point of a coma. But why expect the worst? No one has a clue how this will turn out, like Ali versus Foreman. People can rewrite history later on and say yeah, I had Ali winning that one. Very few people are prescient. Sometimes the most prescient people in the world will say, "I just don't know."

The better way to put that might be, "We shall see."

It could be the difference between "I'm done" and "No Más."

Or maybe not. I'm done and No Más seem to be identical. But in general I don't believe in scrubbing. A sentence shown is a sentence played. It's called integrity or authenticity.

And you are correct Bernie has created or co-opted a movement. Semantics. But that it is on the masses of people he has inspired to make sure Bernie has a running game. I want Bernie to take care of himself and not overdo it. The heavy lifting has been done. What looked like a somewhat rigged leftier than thou sheepherding game has turnered into a real fight.

It just gets a bit daunting or one has a proclivity towards jadedness and cynicism to think of states such as Oklahoma and Utah, Florida, Ohio.....

If every state gave the feeling one gets from hearing Minnesota, Vermont, Massachusetts, Oregon, New York and California, then Bernie might be in the driver's seat.

It will be extremely interesting. There are going to be 50 separate games. If we were really on our games, we'd find out how many delegates are awarded to each state. We'd keep track of the delegate scorecard. We'd prognosticate rather than procrastinate with our political coverage.

We basically need to find out how states like Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Colorado vote. If Bernie can't win the states that on paper he needs as a prerequisite for having beyond a sheepherder role, then yes, there will be a coronation.

The general election polls are meaningless because that is putting the cart ahead of the horse. This is about Bernie versus Hillary, period. Depending on who comes out of the GOP conference, then the Finals can be prognosticated. If it's Bernie, then I will care. If it's Hillary, I will probably retreat to jadedness and old movies.

Lenny Fritos said...

Derek Sanderson did colour for the Bruins. He said something about the puck hitting a player in the face knocking out a chiclet. Sorry for any confusion. That being said, if there is still some confusion, I guess you had to be there.

Lenny Fritos said...

For our Russian readers.... From Amerikkka with love:

Lenny Fritos said...

I'm not saying Georgia is Bernie home court or at least not compared to typical Northern territory. I am interested in the Black vote, as a lot of people have been wondering about it. Georgia or I suppose Atlanta to be specific should give us a better indicator of where the Black man and woman stand with Mr. Sanders. I'm not grokking that S. Carolina is anything other than a numbnut state. There, I said it with no that being said?

Lenny Fritos said...

The Charlie Brown reference falls under the tag of that being said. Sorry for any confusion.

Sometimes it is good, in fact imperative, to be jaded.

The prof who spoke of Kant, Hume, and Descartes said we have two choices, either to develop a debilitating cynicism or a healthy skepticism.

There is context. There are nuances and subtleties. Sometimes there are subtitles.

Lenny Fritos said...

Hillary must be an idiot who thinks most people are idiots. She probably didn't realise like say, uhm, us too and everyone else, except McLuhan, that this internet age/youtube society would take on a life of its own. There is no escape, period. You're born. You log on. You are infotained, period. Context no longer matters. McLuhan said that. He was a prophet and God-Like, same as Watts. We are talkking about prophetic greatness. Malcolm X. He was fricken insanely talented and people can listen to and see him. He was a funny man, and that's why it is a small possibility he is currently Chris Rock. But that's the incarnation schtick. We have reached the point of this day where I am saying enough is enough with my eccentric time wasting.

Hillary Clinton's accent evolution (1983–2015)

Lenny Fritos said...

If there's any confusion, that's Georgia, United States not Georgia in Eastern Europe.

donkeytale said...

The Candidate was a great movie. I am old enough to have seen it in first run. My god how much better the average Hollywood schticks were in those days. Also I recall from that time an underrated pre-Godfather Coppola flick called "The Conversation".

There is no question the Presidtizy is a form of schticking. What in life isn't after all?

In fact, Bernie is not schticking. He is a solid, a zen master. Every word from him rings true. He is the Steph Curry of the political zeitgeist, living on his own planet compared to the rest of th league.

donkeytale said...

Actually, the Conversation was post-Godfather. Take a look at the list of films for 1972. More classics in that one year than Hollywood has managed this century to date.

It is not even close.

Lenny Fritos said...

Another thing to consider is Bernie's 74. That's not too old in this day and age, but it is still remarkable.

The more I hear him, especially on the interview shows, the more normal he seems. Matthews asked H. on Hardball what to her is the difference between socialist and a democrat. She first started out with you'd have to ask him, as in Bernie. She may or may not then said something about being a progressive getting things done.

I notice things.

I think Bernie played it smart not to start out on the offensive or be too crass in speaking truth to neoliberal.

Otherwise, there would have been a lot more craziness on the internet just like happened in 2008.

The meaning of the no one gives a shite about the damn emails was let's talk about the issues.

The Conversation was good. Censorship ended by the late 60's. Some of those early flicks went over the top. They had too much freedom, too soon. But others hit the sweet part of the bat for a cinematic home run. I was just thinking today, not making it up, how the 70's were the best decade. At least it seems that way. The 60's would be the one that gets overrated. That one had to be torture.

Of course all this depends on racism, class conflict, etc. The 20's looked like a smoking good time, but it's never been before now this possible for great social change. The police thing is still up in the air. But that topic is not going away. I imagine Bernie could get a lot more done as President than perhaps first thought of in terms of jadedness.

I saw that Qaddafi (sp?) asked Tony Blair if he wanted to support Al Quaeda. (sp?) I believe Hillary's fingerprints are all over that mess too. And Syria? Bernie mentioned these things in the debate. He fingered her as a Wall Street sycophant in the NY Times.

donkeytale said...

The 60s v the 70s is a tough call from a movie standpoint. Probably the earlier to mid 70s was the pinnacle of Hollywood auteurism, but the late 60s had its share of classics too. You would have to go back and look. It is amazing that Coppola released Godfather, Godfather Part II and the Conversation in like two year period, from 72-74.

Polanski's Chinatown also from that era was an astonishing movie in its time, particularly because it was all about the historic corrupt rise of LA.

But from an overall social theory standpoint it is not even close. The late 60s was a moment in time that will stand apart forever. It was the cultural change of direction that still animates todaze Amerikkka.

1968 is to the US of A-holes what 1848 was to the Euros.

The power didn't change hands exactly but the future course of herstory changed forever. The 70s was the beginning of the slide down the shitter that led fairly quickly to the bottoming out of the social zeitgeist of the 80s-00s.

I believe we're witnessing a new era evolving now, not in quite so dramatic fashion as the 60s but hopefully one that is more enduringly humanist and socialist (Public Library version).

I am hopeful, never jaded. Bitterness is my schtick as an old person but TBH I was much more jaded and bitter as kid when the 60s aura slipped away and I was cast adrift into the really lousy times of the 70s-80s.

I experienced something of a personal renaissance in the 90s, took another dip in the 00s and am now finding a new groove in the teens.

It's all good. I'm feeling the Bern but it isn't about the man himself. It is the movement of the sheeple as Bob Marley sang in a different, biblical context. If this lives and dies with Bernie alone like with Obama then it's already over.

Yes, I remember Sanderson and chicklets both. Don't forget I lived in BOS from the mid 70s to the mid 80s. Of course, it was Bobby Orr who made the hockey world go round. There was also a definite racist tinge to white people and hockey vs black people in basketball. Boston was and maybe still is a very racist town.

The Irish and Italian working class ethnics among whom I lived and worked in the earlier years were incredibly racist. Coming from SoCal where the racial vibes were always pretty cool among the proletarians it was a shock to my system.

Hopefully, the provincialism of Boston has receded some in the glow of the world wide web. I haven't been back since the mid-90s. I have been in NYC and it has changed exponentially since the 70s and now just seems like any other big city with a Starbucks on every corner. I assume Boston has changed and similarly homogenized from a cultural standpoint. Which of course id both good in some respects and bad in others.

This may in fact be

donkeytale said...

This may in fact be.....that I'm no mas. At least for now.

Lenny Fritos said...

I meant the 60's as a whole could not have been much fun with all those great people being assassinated and there being so much blood spilled, oppression, etc..

Movies are a different flavor of tea.

They might be apples and oranges.

Everyone likes to say Boston is racist, and of course it was with some folks and busing. Some even mention the Bird Celtics as in look how racist that was, all those white guys on one team.

It doesn't matter what the truth is to those people. They live in a world of stereotypes.

The only thing worse than a moron is one who thinks he knows what he's talking about.

No, Boston isn't racist or not racist in the way it's spun.

Where do folks think the abolitionist movement came from?

Of course I look kind of dumb using 1794-1850 or wtf as a point of reference.

I was up late last night. I was listening to tunes. The best one is Under Pressure by Bowie and Mercury. The video they made for it is excellent. It's very dramatic, just like a good movie knows which of our buttons to push.

One thing I only figured out much later in life was how huge Boston is.

It's about yin-yang. The song is about pressure and Wall Street. Then when all seems lost, Bowie with some doom and gloom, Freddie starts belting out, "Why can't we give love one more chance?" There are hippies and babies. That to me is the 70's.

The 60's didn't really kick in until it was too late. Look at who got killed. JFK. RFK. MLK. Malcom X. And others. Maybe JFK was overrated, but I doubt the other three were.

All knocked off.

The 60's were let's lose our minds, man. The 70's were still groovy, but it was more like let's have a good breakfast and enjoy the scenery. Let's not get so blasted out of our minds?

Subversion. Agitation. Rebellion. Societal strife. It doesn't matter. Those contexts have no more relevance. This is our last chance just like Under Pressure prophesied.

Bernie could be the last stop for the hope train.

Robert Reich speaks of sooner or later if Bernie doesn't win someone like him will win in 2020 or 2024 or whenever.

But that it will happen.

The great thing about Bernie is he's not a fake leftist like the Greeks who say one thing, then make austerity deals anyway.

Bernie says we all deserve a dignified life.

This is a litmus test, period, and for a lot of people, not just Black people.

It would be outrageous if Black folks were the #1 reason Hillary is coronated. I have trouble believing it's true.

People are people, so it's not out of the realm of possibility Black folks do tank a better world by proverbially voting against their own interests.

It's a weird situation. It definitely boils down to the polling.

If the polls are at all accurate, this country sucks and only a moron wouldn't be jaded or bitter.

I just found out something new about Hillary. She fake cried in NH after losing Iowa to Obama.

Our schools suck. The media sucks. Nearly everything and everyone sucks.... according to the medium. Well, the medium loves everything and mustn't present any critical commentary. I am talking about real life. I am putting the eccentric digression schtick and attempting to cut the chase off at the real stuff.

This is a litmus test, period. Bernie versus Hillary.

Iowa and NH are up first. People will either vote for Sanders or they are part and parcel of steaming piles of dogshite.

I will consider Massachusetts despicable and not to be trusted if it votes for Hillary.

It is a little late in the game to be pussyfooting around. All garbage must be identified and exposed.


Lenny Fritos said...

Dude, I told you to give it time and trust that Bernie is not some 20 y.o. with one year of college hoops on his resume, that he is pretty much a flash in the pan Kucinich or Howie Dean.

Or Jesse Jackson? He won 20% of the Democratic Party vote?

That is a good number, but it was nothing more than a sheep herding capacity.

Young people are more in tuned with Bernie's vision because they are at the coming of age portion of their present incarnation. They can't risk moving the pile a few inches or act so tewwified about the repubwicans.

The conspiracy is real. For those of us smart enough to recognise it, a big chunk of people mind you, it is extremely frustrating to co-exist with garbage.

Why should I let my beautiful mind worry about paid fakes, morons, and other forms of human garbage?

True justice requires that the Clintons metaphorically are destroyed. It is a deal breaker. I especially hate the DINO's. I've always wanted to be a hippie and go with a kumbaya schtick, but the anger is real. Stupid, selfish assholes deserve to be ripped apart.

This is an element of social reality. New elements are being found in Chemistry. For the social sciences, we are trying to figure out how to shatter old forms of thinking and oppression and not have them merely updated. e.g. outright slavery became economic shackles....

I'm still waking up. Heck yeah, I am extremely angry at the Democratic Party. I'm not sure what else Bernie can do to win the nomination. If he doesn't, we suck, period, and those who didn't vote for Bernie are the personification of garbage.

If Hillary wins the nomination, I want her to lose the general. I think I've made up my mind on that. I was looking for your feedback on that question. Granted, when I say Bernie or bust, I mean for the election cycle. I will be Charlie Brown and take one more chance at kicking the football.

I became a supertroll for Bernie because like you fear, if we keep pussyfooting and falling for the same old, same old gridlock, good cop/bad cop shell game, this planet will truly be f***ed beyond any repair. Our society as constituted is a beat up car bordering on being totaled. A Hillary presidency will not lead to a leftier than thou mandate. It will just cement the image of Democrats as full of shite posers tapping into the gravy train.

We need to find out where things truly stand. The Millennials do anyway. At least the young people must be starting to realise that social justice transcends age. If they want to stop the cycle, they are going to have to push historic truths that transcend Bernie Sanders as an individual.

We will find out about polls.

There's a lot going on. What used to take 20 years for awareness to make a difference needs to be accelerated.

New, damaging info has come out of the recent batch of Hillary emails in regards to Libya. Does the internet medium enable us to speed up that process? We're going to find out.

Bernie needs to kick arse. The DNC is giving Hillary a big delegate lead non-dependent on what voters want. We are seeing exactly how the U.S.A. is equivalent to fascism. I want this one so bad. Black people were probably so elated with goosebumps when Obama won. I got some too for the sheer fact a Black man was elected President. No one could have predicted that happening. It was going to be the first woman or first Black person as president. That wasn't enough for me to differentiate which person to root for.

It might have if say Obama's chief rival was a white male. Then I might have thought yes, we need some affirmative action.But give me the first woman or first Black, and that would satisfy. We have to get beyond the beyond to the actual issues. A cult of personality is not enough to change things. Ironically, it will take a village, an idea Hillary co-opted.

Lenny Fritos said...

That wasn't my best post. Sometimes I feel a need to feed the blog. This is worse than waiting two weeks for the Super Bowl. We still have three weeks and three days to go of hype bread and circuses in the form of infotainment. I just co-opted your ideas. I should also reiterate the importance of herding, another key donkeytale theoretical discovery.

Hillary thought all she had to do was move a little left, make it seem there's really not much difference between herself and Bern.

If Bernie wins, a lot of credit will have to go to the internet. It is one thing for a truism to reach mass consciousness levels, e.g. Hillary is cold and calculating.

But we need hard data as in actual votes. This may be something other than a silly season. It might be akin to a heat wave that never ends, and the power is out or one can't afford air conditioning.

Everyone is churning and boiling inside. This is not hmmm, should I vote for the first Black or female. This is about everything.

I decided early in this process that Bernie was the truth as much as Paul Pierce.

I was forced to investigate the polls, the media, this Democratic Party primary/caucus thingie.

The problem is speculation can only take us so far. I think as two acquaintances coming from two different life experiences have shown that misunderstanding others is a human trait. But we worked through it. We just have to get through three more weeks. We have a team in contention. We are not disinterested observers. Unlike Chris Hedges, we are able to transcend our own mundane existences, i.e. our false egos, and see that the moment is now for action.

That's why I got perturbed at Hedges and the magazine Counterpunch. The personal is political. People do have a responsibility to inform their vote. So much is not showing up in polls or on social media. Real life is not the internet.

We are the dudes who follow basketball teams and make blowhard comments without ever watching the team practice or be a fly on the wall for GM-Coach strategy meetings.

I tried to bring in a couple random friends of mine, to share their evolving as random numbnuts.

Their examples are not ever going to show up in a collective consciousness data study.

What is trending and doesn't show up much anywhere? The real life moments. Say when individuals interact with other individuals with not a word uploaded to the NSA/FBI database.


Lenny Fritos said...

Best case scenario: Bernie nails Iowa. Say he wins big. It's an expectations game, perhaps, this early in the 50 state process. But I am going to assume there must be merit to the idea that Iowa/NH have been given a special place in that process.

Perception has Hillary up ten there. The perception has Bernie up 5-14 points in NH or that they are tied. What about that? How can one poll have Bernie up 14 points in NH and another has them as a toss up?

Bernie without a doubt has to win NH. He kind of also needs to win Iowa, imho.

There seems to be no middle ground. One of the two is going to come out Iowa/NH looking good long-term.

Of course if Bernie does smash expectations, the polls will get clobbered and the DINO astroturf will retreat back to the lily-white state script being outliers. I see a lot of numbnuts mentioning Bill Bradley. I have done the same before. I wondered how McCain and Bradley fell off the map for what on paper should have been true challenges to coronation politics.

I'm not supporting McCain. I'm just saying he was okay for a wingnut when compared to the alternative. Bradley also seemed like a pretty good alternative.

Harry Enten has already started the moving of field goalpost strategy. Now he is claiming Bernie could win Iowa. His caveat is that it still won't matter. He is what you warn about if one uses poll results only when they support one's predictions. Next to the definition of the word mess should be a photo of Harry. We joke about ourselves mailing in commentary, but that dude takes it to a whole other level.

I should track down one of those countdown clocks Rauhauser used for the Kookpocalypse. It should go on the DFQ2 front page. I need to come up with a good blog entry. We both should try to come up with at least one good one each month to go with the countdown clock. With hard wort we may be able to get our stats to over one million served. That will give us gravitas to have an even greater influence in the 2020 election.

But seriously, I wish we could fast forward three weeks and the three days. I think all votes have already been decided. I don't mean that absolutely, so continue with the ground game. I mean in general people are either going to vote for Hillary or Bernie. We can speculate until the cows start mooing, but we need more data. Or else we run the same risk of becoming irrelevant like Enten with too much blah, blah blah, blah blah blah, blah.

No one knows if this is Ali (Bernie) against Liston (Hillary).

In a perfect world, on February 2nd the BernBots will be delarious with enthusiasm copying and pasting Bernie:

I'm a bad man. I shook up the Iowa! I shook up the world!

donkeytale said...

The 60s were the Classical Period. the 70s were Rococco. In the 60s a few people were smoking and getting high. In the 70s everybody was smoking and nobody was getting high.

I think Lennon wrote that one. Nobody told me there's be days like this.

Jagger was the 60s. Bowie was the 70s.

Both good in their own way but Bowie started out in Jagger's fan club. He was derivative not original.

Everything in the 70s that was good derived from the 60s.

Everything that sucked in the 70s also derived from the 60s too but in a bad way.

donkeytale said...

Little know factoid, Freddie Mercury was a Zoroastrian from a Middle Eastern heritage.

Although I was not a fan. Technically a great singer just never really into their tunes after Bohemian Rhapsody. But I understand the huge popularity. Same with Bowie. I liked some of his schtick but not all.

Led Zeppelin ditto.

donkeytale said...

In Iowa most people don't decide until the last week.

In NH they don't decide until after Iowa.

Dude. I posted all this many times. You are frustrating yourself with this weird polling obsession. Relax. There is little can be done except fighting the good fight on Twitter or wtf. Arguing w paid fakes and useful idiots.

Dean had it locked in the polls too then lost it in the end. Happens all the time. This bodes well for Bernie. He needs a strong showing in Iowa. A win would be huge of course but even a respectable showing establishes his credibility and make NH a win, possibly a big win.

Lenny Fritos said...

More so-called terrorists have been arrested via the internet. Maybe I should go back to the Hal Turner schtick. It's all up in the air like this election.

My panties are in a bunch because I have to stew for three weeks before finding out if I am prescient or must do a mea culpa.

I wasn't a big fan of Queen either. That one song, however, was perfection. I didn't like all of Bowie, but some of it one must pay him his due, like a Roger Waters.

The derivative theory is important. I tip my hat to you in a cheese and wine sort of way.

That's why I mentioned the twenties.

I think the Republican-Democratic divide farce is coming to a climax. We will find out if OWS/Anon, BLM, you name the activist group, is coalescing around voting for Bernie as part of a protest act, one that could bring leftier than thou's to the fricken presidency. That is what is at stake. Bernie is not perfect, but with BLM he has shown he is ready to listen to all constituents.

I read somewhere that he may be planning to go nuts with the executive order to reel in the 1%. This is fairly intense stuff.

Anonymous is a toughie. There has been too much cointelpro infiltration, but the concept in principle is sound.

donkeytale said...

You owe nobody a mea culpa. Fuck that. If Bernie takes a second there within 10 points (AKA a "strong showing")or less that is momentous. If not, it is a failure of the sheeple not the pontificator. This sounds more like call for a rant rather than a mea culpa.

You are bullet proof my friend.