Bernie Sanders SURGES Past Hillary Clinton In Iowa, Maintains +14 Point Lead In New Hampshire... -

Bernie Sanders SURGES Past Hillary Clinton In Iowa, Maintains +14 Point Lead In New Hampshire...

New polling results released on (1/12/16) show Bernie Sanders with a +5 point lead now in Iowa (Quinnipiac) and a comfortable +14 lead in New Hampshire (Monmouth). Bernie Sanders seems to be surging at just the right time with the Iowa Caucus being right around the corner... The Iowa Caucus is the first election being held for the Democratic Nomination and will be held on February 1st with New Hampshire's election being the following week on February 9th.

It's interesting to note that Bernie Sanders surging in Iowa and New Hampshire parallels what you are also seeing in the national polls. The latest national polling results released by IBD/TIPP show that this is the closest that the Democratic Nomination has been yet, with Hillary only holding a 4% lead over Sanders. Hillary Clinton, who at one time held a lead over Sanders by 60 points in a poll released by NBC in June, finds herself in a very vulnerable position with roughly 3 weeks to go before the election officially kicks off in Iowa.

Will Bernie Sanders overcome Hillary Clinton in the race for the 2016 Democratic Nomination? Nobody can say for sure, but it's interesting to note that Bernie Sanders has a lot higher favorability ranking than Clinton with all Americans, regardless of party affiliation.  (Trump too!)




- See more at: http://www.ouramazingworld.org/politics/bernie-sanders-surges-past-hillary-clinton-in-iowa-maintains-14-point-lead-in-new-hampshire#sthash.FPXXqVOL.dpuf


Interesting

Sanders is certainly an enigma. I like some of what he says, although he just seems to be a narrow-issue candidate. Either he or Hilary would be miles ahead of the Republican alternatives.

But, he has to sell himself as more than just anti-Wall St. Although, as I say, I like the message.

I never thought Sanders would do this well, it's really encouraging to see. I only wish he was 10 years younger.

What has his age got do with anything?

Ageist

I am sure if he thought he was told old or unfit he would not be running

Didge wrote:What has his age got do with anything?

Ageist

I am sure if he thought he was told old or unfit he would not be running

Age of the candidates has been a consideration in every election, at least since Reagan went senile in office.

As to why Sanders is running, I don't think he thought he would have a chance at winning. Many presidential candidates run just to get certain messages and ideas into the public spotlight.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:What has his age got do with anything?

Ageist

I am sure if he thought he was told old or unfit he would not be running

Age of the candidates has been a consideration in every election, at least since Reagan went senile in office.

As to why Sanders is running, I don't think he thought he would have a chance at winning. Many presidential candidates run just to get certain messages and ideas into the public spotlight.

But again you are being ageist, if he was at all concerned with his age, do you not think that is his choice and not yours? People are living far longer these days and good luck to him at this time in his life he has the support.
How on earth do you know if he thought he had any chance of winning, that is just absurd, as everyone thinks they have a chance no matter how small, otherwise they would not bothering entering

Didge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:What has his age got do with anything?

Ageist

I am sure if he thought he was told old or unfit he would not be running

Age of the candidates has been a consideration in every election, at least since Reagan went senile in office.

As to why Sanders is running, I don't think he thought he would have a chance at winning. Many presidential candidates run just to get certain messages and ideas into the public spotlight.

But again you are being ageist, if he was at all concerned with his age, do you not think that is his choice and not yours? People are living far longer these days and good luck to him at this time in his life he has the support.
How on earth do you know if he thought he had any chance of winning, that is just absurd, as everyone thinks they have a chance no matter how small, otherwise they would not bothering entering

Do you understand how democratic elections work? I can vote against Sanders if I don't like his face. I can vote against Sanders if I think he's a reptilian alien Illuminati member.

That said, I'm not voting against Sanders -- I just wish he was younger, because that will be an issue in the election.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


But again you are being ageist, if he was at all concerned with his age, do you not think that is his choice and not yours? People are living far longer these days and good luck to him at this time in his life he has the support.
How on earth do you know if he thought he had any chance of winning, that is just absurd, as everyone thinks they have a chance no matter how small, otherwise they would not bothering entering

Do you understand how democratic elections work? I can vote against Sanders if I don't like his face. I can vote against Sanders if I think he's a reptilian alien Illuminati member.

That said, I'm not voting against Sanders -- I just wish he was younger, because that will be an issue in the election.

Which means you are ageist Ben, its as simple as that.
Never said who you should vote for but I take issue with someone saying someone should be younger.

It doesn't mean Ben is an ageist.  It means he is a realist.

People will vote against Sanders because of age.  That's not his fault, and it's not Ben's fault.

Original Quill wrote:It doesn't mean Ben is an ageist.  It means he is a realist.

People will vote against Sanders because of age.  That's not his fault, and it's not Ben's fault.

Yep. I think Sanders could be a revolutionary president, but his age is going to come up, I promise. That is, if he gets the nomination (we're a bit ahead of ourselves).

Original Quill wrote:It doesn't mean Ben is an ageist.  It means he is a realist.

People will vote against Sanders because of age.  That's not his fault, and it's not Ben's fault.

No fundementally ageist, as why should his age matter?
It does not, if people vote because of his age, that is also ageist and shows what is wrong with how some people look at those older

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:It doesn't mean Ben is an ageist.  It means he is a realist.

People will vote against Sanders because of age.  That's not his fault, and it's not Ben's fault.

No fundementally ageist, as why should his age matter?
It does not, if people vote because of his age, that is also ageist and shows what is wrong with how some people look at those older

I don't have a problem with Bernie Sanders' age, full stop. However, he's 74 and that's going to come up in the primaries and, if he wins the nomination, the general election.

That's not me -- that's reality.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


No fundementally ageist, as why should his age matter?
It does not, if people vote because of his age, that is also ageist and shows what is wrong with how some people look at those older

I don't have a problem with Bernie Sanders' age, full stop. However, he's 74 and that's going to come up in the primaries and, if he wins the nomination, the general election.

That's not me -- that's reality.

That is still being ageist.

Age discrimination refers to the actions taken to deny or limit opportunities to people on the basis of age. These are usually actions taken as a result of one's ageist beliefs and attitudes. Age discrimination occurs on both a personal and institutional level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism

Didge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


No fundementally ageist, as why should his age matter?
It does not, if people vote because of his age, that is also ageist and shows what is wrong with how some people look at those older

I don't have a problem with Bernie Sanders' age, full stop. However, he's 74 and that's going to come up in the primaries and, if he wins the nomination, the general election.

That's not me -- that's reality.

That is still being ageist.

Age discrimination refers to the actions taken to deny or limit opportunities to people on the basis of age. These are usually actions taken as a result of one's ageist beliefs and attitudes. Age discrimination occurs on both a personal and institutional level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism

That's them being ageist, Didge. I don't need you to define it for me.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


That is still being ageist.

Age discrimination refers to the actions taken to deny or limit opportunities to people on the basis of age. These are usually actions taken as a result of one's ageist beliefs and attitudes. Age discrimination occurs on both a personal and institutional level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism

That's them being ageist, Didge. I don't need you to define it for me.

I am defining you and for you to say for him to be younger is fundementally agesit and to be honest i find it very disappointing. To be honest I would rather have someone older and wiser leading than someone in midlife who is yet to still see so much. That is why I find your views prejudice here as again his age should not matter

Didge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


That is still being ageist.

Age discrimination refers to the actions taken to deny or limit opportunities to people on the basis of age. These are usually actions taken as a result of one's ageist beliefs and attitudes. Age discrimination occurs on both a personal and institutional level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism

That's them being ageist, Didge. I don't need you to define it for me.

I am defining you and for you to say for him to be younger is fundementally agesit and to be honest i find it very disappointing. To be honest I would rather have someone older and wiser leading than someone in midlife who is yet to still see so much. That is why I find your views prejudice here as again his age should not matter

Could you please stop pretending not to understand my point in order to be outraged at it? Fucking TIRESOME!

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:What has his age got do with anything?

Ageist

I am sure if he thought he was told old or unfit he would not be running

Age of the candidates has been a consideration in every election, at least since Reagan went senile in office.

As to why Sanders is running, I don't think he thought he would have a chance at winning. Many presidential candidates run just to get certain messages and ideas into the public spotlight.

To be fair, Reagan was absolutely bonkers before he even went into office!

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:What has his age got do with anything?

Ageist

I am sure if he thought he was told old or unfit he would not be running

Age of the candidates has been a consideration in every election, at least since Reagan went senile in office.

As to why Sanders is running, I don't think he thought he would have a chance at winning. Many presidential candidates run just to get certain messages and ideas into the public spotlight.

To be fair, Reagan was absolutely bonkers before he even went into office!

+1,000,000

In an alternative universe, Barack Obama sold weapons to Iran and used it to fund South American terrorists who dropped nuns out of airplanes ... guess what they did to him?

They named airports after him, of course.

Bernie appears to huge support, which is very encouraging.  After all, he's the nearest America is going to get to a Socialist lol

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


I am defining you and for you to say for him to be younger is fundementally agesit and to be honest i find it very disappointing. To be honest I would rather have someone older and wiser leading than someone in midlife who is yet to still see so much. That is why I find your views prejudice here as again his age should not matter

Could you please stop pretending not to understand my point in order to be outraged at it? Fucking TIRESOME!

Sorry but my view is you are being ageist and I find it appalling.
Go and wash your potty mouth out, did wish someone younger is being against their present age runnjing for office

That is ageist

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Age of the candidates has been a consideration in every election, at least since Reagan went senile in office.

As to why Sanders is running, I don't think he thought he would have a chance at winning. Many presidential candidates run just to get certain messages and ideas into the public spotlight.

To be fair, Reagan was absolutely bonkers before he even went into office!

I don't think it's appropriate to refer to people with dementia as "bonkers".

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:What has his age got do with anything?

Ageist

I am sure if he thought he was told old or unfit he would not be running

Age of the candidates has been a consideration in every election, at least since Reagan went senile in office.

As to why Sanders is running, I don't think he thought he would have a chance at winning. Many presidential candidates run just to get certain messages and ideas into the public spotlight.

To be fair, Reagan was absolutely bonkers before he even went into office!

+1,000,000

In an alternative universe, Barack Obama sold weapons to Iran and used it to fund South American terrorists who dropped nuns out of airplanes ... guess what they did to him?

They named airports after him, of course.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Age of the candidates has been a consideration in every election, at least since Reagan went senile in office.

As to why Sanders is running, I don't think he thought he would have a chance at winning. Many presidential candidates run just to get certain messages and ideas into the public spotlight.

To be fair, Reagan was absolutely bonkers before he even went into office!

I don't think it's appropriate to refer to people with dementia as "bonkers".

He was bonkers then got dementia
That's what I meant entirely

And tbh, if I want to say my nan was bonkers when she she got dementia, then I'll say it and not be offended.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think it's appropriate to refer to people with dementia as "bonkers".

He was bonkers then got dementia
That's what I meant entirely

And tbh, if I want to say my nan was bonkers when she she got dementia, then I'll say it and not be offended.

You can say what you like about your nan, but some people might find your comment insensitive.

Yes they might, but I said he was bonkers before he went into office and bonkers means mad or crazy - not used in terms of people with dementia.

Let's not split hairs here rags, you've used the word "mad" and "crazy" when you've talked of others.
We all know how it's meant

eddie wrote:Yes they might, but I said he was bonkers before he went into office and bonkers means mad or crazy - not used in terms of people with dementia.

Let's not split hairs here rags, you've used the word "mad" and "crazy" when you've talked of others.
We all know how it's meant

You were replying to Ben who mentioned Reagan going "senile" - which means he had dementia. If he hadn't mentioned that, it would have been different. I don't refer to people with dementia as "mad" or "crazy".

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Yes they might, but I said he was bonkers before he went into office and bonkers means mad or crazy - not used in terms of people with dementia.

Let's not split hairs here rags, you've used the word "mad" and "crazy" when you've talked of others.
We all know how it's meant

You were replying to Ben who mentioned Reagan going "senile" - which means he had dementia. If he hadn't mentioned that, it would have been different. I don't refer to people with dementia as "mad" or "crazy".

Nope. Neither do I.
Can't explain it any better than I have rags. You'll either have to re read my posts and see what I've meant or choose to not see what I've meant.

Can't do any better than that as I can't keep repeating myself.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Yes they might, but I said he was bonkers before he went into office and bonkers means mad or crazy - not used in terms of people with dementia.

Let's not split hairs here rags, you've used the word "mad" and "crazy" when you've talked of others.
We all know how it's meant

You were replying to Ben who mentioned Reagan going "senile" - which means he had dementia. If he hadn't mentioned that, it would have been different. I don't refer to people with dementia as "mad" or "crazy".

Nope. Neither do I.
Can't explain it any better than I have rags. You'll either have to re read my posts and see what I've meant or choose to not see what I've meant.

Can't do any better than that as I can't keep repeating myself.

Some people are just determined to be offended ...