Forum Klix.ba

Gdje je jez?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... &smtyp=cur

daddy-kool wrote: ↑14/02/2020 19:34

Zna tacno sta radi...

Trololo virtuoso.

GandalfSivi wrote: ↑14/02/2020 19:20 Gdje je jez?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... &smtyp=cur

Sega sto kazu komplikovana matematika. E jes komplikovano sabrat, podjelit, pomnozit par brojeva u pm. Al dobro, ipak znamo kakvi su Ameri s matematikom, a i vidio si kako izgleda i ko vodi proces.

Nije sporno da gresaka ima. Naravno da ima kad je onakav proces. Sporno je ono sto si ti ranije postavljao, a sto ukazuje samo na greske kontra Sandersa, sto dalje implicira da je neko to radio namjerno, jer kao postoji neki pattern.
Kao sto vidis iz prilozenog clanka, gresaka je bilo u korist i kontra sviju. Clanak ni na koji nacin ne tvrdi da je neko sistematski zakinut.

Iowa ima caucus zato sto zele da budu prvi. New Hampshire isto zeli biti prvi, ali oni su to zakonski ozvanicili (kao prvi primary). Zbog toga je Iowi jedini nacin da budu prije NH tako sto odrzavaju caucus (znaci ne primary). Skoro sve druge drzave su odustale od ovog procesa, osim Nevade i Wyominga, tako da ne bi trebalo biti puno problema. Caucusi su u svakom slucaju do sad isli u korist dobro organizovane kampanje na terenu, davajuci prednost glasnoj manjini. (pogledati mape predizbora 2016-e i 2008-e, vidjeces da su u caucus states cezce pobjedjivali Sanders i Obama, a u primary states Clinton.

Sad je malo drukcije jer ima ovoliko kandidata.

Vidi im ba listica i matematike

I sad vi ocekujete da se od ovakvih govana u DNC pravi pita? Ne ide.
Sto Sandersa nece izmjeniti ovaj IMT mentalitet, a big government vlada bi samo iznjedrila jos gomilu ovakvih uhljupa a la Tom Perez.
Trenutno su dva vodeca kandidata Demokrata u anketama 2 covjeka koji u stvarnosti nisu u DNC.

Cak bih ako mogu dodati rekao da je lijevi centar u Americi u slicnom kurcu kao u ostatku Zapada. Vidimo ko iz tog svega obicno izlazi kao pobjednik, samo hoce li vidjeti obicni glasac pitanje je.

Trump se 2015/16 dobro potrudio da pobijedi dok ovaj ulaze samo novac u kampanju a i slab je govornik. Previse providan lik. Mogu zamisliti da je tim milijarderima krivo sto nisu na Trumpovom mjestu.

Interesantan citat iz Obamine knjige, Audacity of Hope:

I can’t assume that the money chase didn’t alter me in some ways.

Increasingly I found myself spending time with people of means — law firm partners and investment bankers, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists. As a rule, they were smart, interesting people, knowledgeable about public policy, liberal in their politics, expecting nothing more than a hearing of their opinions in exchange for their checks. But they reflected, almost uniformly, the perspectives of their class: the top 1 percent or so of the income scale that can afford to write a $2,000 check to a political candidate. They believed in the free market and an educational meritocracy; they found it hard to imagine that there might be any social ill that could not be cured by a high SAT score. They had no patience with protectionism, found unions troublesome, and were not particularly sympathetic to those whose lives were upended by the movements of global capital. Most were adamantly prochoice and antigun and were vaguely suspicious of deep religious sentiment.

And although my own worldview and theirs corresponded in many ways — I had gone to the same schools, after all, had read the same books, and worried about my kids in many of the same ways — I found myself avoiding certain topics during conversations with them, papering over possible differences, anticipating their expectations. On core issues I was candid; I had no problem telling well-heeled supporters that the tax cuts they’d received from George Bush should be reversed. Whenever I could, I would try to share with them some of the perspectives I was hearing from other portions of the electorate: the legitimate role of faith in politics, say, or the deep cultural meaning of guns in rural parts of the state.

Still, I know that as a consequence of my fund-raising I became more like the wealthy donors I met, in the very particular sense that I spent more and more of my time above the fray, outside the world of immediate hunger, disappointment, fear, irrationality, and frequent hardship of the other 99 percent of the population — that is, the people that I’d entered public life to serve. And in one fashion or another, I suspect this is true for every senator: The longer you are a senator, the narrower the scope of your interactions. You may fight it, with town hall meetings and listening tours and stops by the old neighborhood. But your schedule dictates that you move in a different orbit from most of the people you represent.

And perhaps as the next race approaches, a voice within tells you that you don’t want to have to go through all the misery of raising all that money in small increments all over again. You realize that you no longer have the cachet you did as the upstart, the fresh face; you haven’t changed Washington, and you’ve made a lot of people unhappy with difficult votes. The path of least resistance — of fund-raisers organized by the special interests, the corporate PACs, and the top lobbying shops — starts to look awfully tempting, and if the opinions of these insiders don’t quite jibe with those you once held, you learn to rationalize the changes as a matter of realism, of compromise, of learning the ropes. The problems of ordinary people, the voices of the Rust Belt town or the dwindling heartland, become a distant echo rather than a palpable reality, abstractions to be managed rather than battles to be fought.

jeza u ledja wrote: ↑17/02/2020 04:41

I sad vi ocekujete da se od ovakvih govana u DNC pravi pita? Ne ide.
Sto Sandersa nece izmjeniti ovaj IMT mentalitet, a big government vlada bi samo iznjedrila jos gomilu ovakvih uhljupa a la Tom Perez.
Trenutno su dva vodeca kandidata Demokrata u anketama 2 covjeka koji u stvarnosti nisu u DNC.

Cak bih ako mogu dodati rekao da je lijevi centar u Americi u slicnom kurcu kao u ostatku Zapada. Vidimo ko iz tog svega obicno izlazi kao pobjednik, samo hoce li vidjeti obicni glasac pitanje je.

Pa da ponovim jos jednom da je za demokrate jedina stvar gora od republikanaca demokrate (DNC). Toliko stvari je problematicno ovdje. Prvo, sto samo Tom Perez? Sto vise niko ne spominje Keith Ellisona, ako se dobro sjecam nakon izbora za chairmana stranke, Perez je ponudio (a Ellison prihvatio) da obojica budu co-chairs, zarad ujedinjenja progresivnog i centrog dijela stranke. I onda nestade lik.

Dalje, normalno da ce promijeniti pravila, lik pola njih u dzepu drzi. Nakon ovo malo drame sa stop and frisk, gledas crne kongresmane i senatore kako se trkaju ko ce ga prije odbraniti, pokupovao lik i jednu i drugu partiju. Pazi sada cirkusa. Gledam neki dan kongresmana Gregory Meeksa na CNN-u. I lik izjavljuje da podrzava Bloomberga. I pitaju ga u fazonu sto njega, kaze lik pa koga cu drugog, ne mogu Sandersa sigurno, on do neki dan nije ni bio u demokratskoj stranci, on je nazavisan, trebao bi ici kao nezavisni kandidat, a ne kao demokrata. U istom jebenom segmentu gdje lik daje endorsement Bloombergu i da ga niko ne pita a u kojoj je stranci Bloomberg do prije par godina bio? Zato ponavljam uporno, najvaznija stvar u americkoj politici je take out big money out of politics, tu je pocetak i kraj svega.

Mada opet, mislim da se zajebao Bloomberg sa ovim. Ima sasvim dovoljno prisustva u medijima, reklame nisu problem, ima se para, moze cijelo vrijeme slati odabrane poruke i nastaviti se dizati. Zbog egoa i zelje da nastupi u debatama samo moze sam sebi nastediti. Zato sam i rekao, zavisno od debata, ako njih dobro prodje, ne vidim ko mu stoji na putu sa ovim parama i u ovakvom americkom drustvu.

O Chuck Toddu i skidanju rukavica se ne isplati ni pricati.

Mozes ti rec take out big money out of politics al to se nece desiti da se na glavu nasadis.

A za Bloomberga, ma sumnjam i ja al sve je moguce. Sanders bi nakon 3. marta mogao biti jednom nogom preko finish line. Ako sam dobro vidio negdje Nate Silver predvidja Sandersovu pobjedu u svim drzavama Super Tuesday osim dvije. A to je trecina ukupnih glasova.

Jedino ako svi ostali odustanu nakon toga pa bude neka luda trka.


A vidis gore kako MSNBC izvjestava o DNC i o Bloombergu. Pogotovo kao ga Ari Melber nalijepi. Keith Ellison, to onaj brat musliman iz Chicaga? Znam da je bio kandidat, ne znam dalje pricu. Ma meni je sve to ista bagra.

jeza u ledja wrote: ↑17/02/2020 17:00 Mozes ti rec take out big money out of politics al to se nece desiti da se na glavu nasadis.

A za Bloomberga, ma sumnjam i ja al sve je moguce. Sanders bi nakon 3. marta mogao biti jednom nogom preko finish line. Ako sam dobro vidio negdje Nate Silver predvidja Sandersovu pobjedu u svim drzavama Super Tuesday osim dvije. A to je trecina ukupnih glasova.

Jedino ako svi ostali odustanu nakon toga pa bude neka luda trka.


A vidis gore kako MSNBC izvjestava o DNC i o Bloombergu. Pogotovo kao ga Ari Melber nalijepi. Keith Ellison, to onaj brat musliman iz Chicaga? Znam da je bio kandidat, ne znam dalje pricu. Ma meni je sve to ista bagra.

To za pare je konacni cilj, nece se desiti u jednom ili dva ciklusa, ali bi se barem mogao ograniciti uticaj dark money-a preko super PAC-ova. Za treci mart ni ti ni ja pojma nemamo, samo znam da ce to vece biti dernek zesci. To je moj Super Bowl Samo zamisljam depresiju uzivo ako pomete Sanders, ali naci ce se vec nacin da se to umanji. Hocemo se kladiti da ako Sanders uzme vecinu kandidata na Super Tuesday da ce se poceti pricati o Super delegatima i drugom krugu glasanja, sto bi definitivno zacementiralo Trumpovu pobjedu i to oni svi znaju.

Sto se tice izvjestavanja, fokusiras se na segmente, dok big picture pokazuje da ubjedljivo jos uvijek svi najvise napadaju progresivce (u ovom slucaju vecinom Sandersa).

Keith Ellison je brat po svim stajalistima, pa po i tom Bio drugi po poretku u glasanju, Perez rekao nije problem, hajmo podijeliti vlast, da bi spasili partiju. Fino to sve proslo, prespavalo se i ukinuse lika, nema ga ni na mapi...

Ja sto vise gledam demokratsku stranku sve vise me podsjeca na prosle izbore.
Nije Trump pobjedio Hilary, DNC je porazio sam sebe.
Ako nastave da mjenjaju pravila samo da bi udovoljili Bloombergu vratic ce im se kao sto se vratilo na proslim izborima.

GandalfSivi wrote: ↑17/02/2020 17:21
To za pare je konacni cilj, nece se desiti u jednom ili dva ciklusa, ali bi se barem mogao ograniciti uticaj dark money-a preko super PAC-ova. Za treci mart ni ti ni ja pojma nemamo, samo znam da ce to vece biti dernek zesci. To je moj Super Bowl Samo zamisljam depresiju uzivo ako pomete Sanders, ali naci ce se vec nacin da se to umanji. Hocemo se kladiti da ako Sanders uzme vecinu kandidata na Super Tuesday da ce se poceti pricati o Super delegatima i drugom krugu glasanja, sto bi definitivno zacementiralo Trumpovu pobjedu i to oni svi znaju.

Pa bice svakako frka jer se dovodis u situaciju da ko god bude izabran nece imati podrsku jednog dijela elektorata.

Pogotovo ce biti interesantno kad i ako pocnu veci kandidati ispadati. A superdelegati....pa i AOC je superdelegat.

Strasno kakve su ankete izasle jutros. Sanders 12 boba na nacionalnom nivou, 19 u Nevadi i izjednacio se u Virginiji. Malo mi previse, ali ako bude i upola, eto revolucije, barem u demokratskoj stranci...

GandalfSivi wrote: ↑18/02/2020 14:34 Strasno kakve su ankete izasle jutros. Sanders 12 boba na nacionalnom nivou, 19 u Nevadi i izjednacio se u Virginiji. Malo mi previse, ali ako bude i upola, eto revolucije, barem u demokratskoj stranci...

Ista ta anketa u decembru (NPR/PBS/Marist) je bila Sanders 22+Warren 17+Yang 5+Gabbard 1 = 45%

Danas je Sanders 31 + Warren 12 + Yang 0 + Gabbard 0 = 43%

Kao sto rekoh nakon Iowe i NH, Sanders je u vodecoj poziciji - zbog rezultata u IA i NH, gdje su Buttigieg i Klobuchar uletili umjesto Bidena, u situaciji u kojoj Biden i dalje ocekuje dobar rezultat u SC i sto je najvaznije u kojoj Bloomberg ulijece svojim parama. Plus Sanders lagano pojede Warrenovu, koja je po meni glavni kandidat za ispadanje, od pobrojanih.
Ironija cijele price je da ulijetanjem sa svojim milionima, bivsi Republikanac, Mr. Stop and Frisk, pomaze Sandersu da pobijedi.

Mislim da trenutne prognoze treba donositi na osnovu toga ko ima najvise sansi da ispadne od danas pa do Super Tuesday. Pored Warren, tu su Koobuchar i Biden. Biden ako zatrokira i u SC on ce sigurno odustati. Klobuchar, kao i Warren, ako ne bude medju prva 4 u ovim drzavama ne vidim smisla da dalje nastavlja. Ili ce javno odustati, ili ce postati toliko nebitni da ce malo ko za njih vise glasati. (jer izgleda mnogi glasaju na osnovu toga koji kandidat je popularan). Ako Warrenova ne odustaje, to naravno kvari sanse Sandersu.
No jedno je sigurno - jedan na jedan sa bilo kojim od ovih kandidata udesno Sandersu bi bilo gutavo.

jeza u ledja wrote: ↑18/02/2020 16:17

GandalfSivi wrote: ↑18/02/2020 14:34 Strasno kakve su ankete izasle jutros. Sanders 12 boba na nacionalnom nivou, 19 u Nevadi i izjednacio se u Virginiji. Malo mi previse, ali ako bude i upola, eto revolucije, barem u demokratskoj stranci...

Ista ta anketa u decembru (NPR/PBS/Marist) je bila Sanders 22+Warren 17+Yang 5+Gabbard 1 = 45%

Danas je Sanders 31 + Warren 12 + Yang 0 + Gabbard 0 = 43%

Kao sto rekoh nakon Iowe i NH, Sanders je u vodecoj poziciji - zbog rezultata u IA i NH, gdje su Buttigieg i Klobuchar uletili umjesto Bidena, u situaciji u kojoj Biden i dalje ocekuje dobar rezultat u SC i sto je najvaznije u kojoj Bloomberg ulijece svojim parama. Plus Sanders lagano pojede Warrenovu, koja je po meni glavni kandidat za ispadanje, od pobrojanih.
Ironija cijele price je da ulijetanjem sa svojim milionima, bivsi Republikanac, Mr. Stop and Frisk, pomaze Sandersu da pobijedi.

Mislim da trenutne prognoze treba donositi na osnovu toga ko ima najvise sansi da ispadne od danas pa do Super Tuesday. Pored Warren, tu su Koobuchar i Biden. Biden ako zatrokira i u SC on ce sigurno odustati. Klobuchar, kao i Warren, ako ne bude medju prva 4 u ovim drzavama ne vidim smisla da dalje nastavlja. Ili ce javno odustati, ili ce postati toliko nebitni da ce malo ko za njih vise glasati. (jer izgleda mnogi glasaju na osnovu toga koji kandidat je popularan). Ako Warrenova ne odustaje, to naravno kvari sanse Sandersu.
No jedno je sigurno - jedan na jedan sa bilo kojim od ovih kandidata udesno Sandersu bi bilo gutavo.

Opet ti kazem, pojednostavljujes to previse. Recimo, ako Klobuchar odustane, dosta njenih glasova bi otislo Warren (mozes vidjeti da je njen rast direktno proporcionalan sa Warrenovim padom). Isto vazi i za Pete-a, koji jeste poceo kao progresivac, dok se donatori nisu umjesali. Cak bi i Sanders sigurno dobio dobar dio tih glasova (barem LGBTQ populacija). Imamo isto i Steyera, koji definitivno naginje proglesivnom krilu (bez obzira na pare koje ima) i koji po anketama stoji dvocifreno u Nevadi i Juznoj Karolini.

However, par stvari je sigurno. Sanders, Bloomberg, Pete, a vjerovatno i Warren nece odustati prije Super utorka. Isto tako, Biden ce dobiti vise glasova i od Pete-a i od Klobucar, tako da ni on ne igdje nikada. Poslije Super utorka bi mogao biti game over. Previse varijabli da se ovo svede i na sta sem naglabanja, ali poprilicno sam siguran da ce Klobucar odustati prije Warren, cak i ne zbog rezultata u sljedece dvije drzave, nego sto Warren ima vec izgradjenu infrastrukturu za Super utorak, dok Klobucar nema.

Rast Sandersa je obrnuto proporcionalan padu Warrenove. To je najbolja paralela koja se ovdje moze postaviti. A ne paralela Klobuchar - Warren.

Sto se tice Buttigiega, njegov rast u zadnjih par mjeseci su vjerovatno uglavnom umjereni glasaci, ne progresivni. Klobuchar i on su uglavnom hajrovali od prebjeglica iz Bidenovog tabora.

A naravno da je to sve pojednostavljeno.

Mozda si u pravu da bi Klobuk odustala prije Warren, ali za razliku od Klobuchar koja je u porastu, Warren je u sve vecem padu.

Biden isto tako mislim da bi mogao odustati u slucaju da ne pobijedi u SC (gdje je cijelo vrijeme, a i sad, vodi).

jeza u ledja wrote: ↑18/02/2020 16:53 Rast Sandersa je obrnuto proporcionalan padu Warrenove. To je najbolja paralela koja se ovdje moze postaviti. A ne paralela Klobuchar - Warren.

Ja pricam o konkretnim rezultatima (NH) a ne o nestabilnim anketama. Sanders nije ostvario bolje rezultate od predvidjenih, dok Klobucar jeste, vjerovatno na racun Warrenove...

Evo sada ozbiljno pitanje. Fakat ne razumijem kako caucuses mogu imati early voting? Na glavu sam se nasadio i opet ne kontam...

GandalfSivi wrote: ↑18/02/2020 16:58

jeza u ledja wrote: ↑18/02/2020 16:53 Rast Sandersa je obrnuto proporcionalan padu Warrenove. To je najbolja paralela koja se ovdje moze postaviti. A ne paralela Klobuchar - Warren.

Ja pricam o konkretnim rezultatima (NH) a ne o nestabilnim anketama. Sanders nije ostvario bolje rezultate od predvidjenih, dok Klobucar jeste, vjerovatno na racun Warrenove...

Konkretno u NH Warren je podbacila za samo 1.8%, a Klobuchar je nadmasila za cak 8.1%. Kako je Klobuchar onda dobila tolike glasove od Warrenovih navijaca?

GandalfSivi wrote: ↑18/02/2020 17:13 Evo sada ozbiljno pitanje. Fakat ne razumijem kako caucuses mogu imati early voting? Na glavu sam se nasadio i opet ne kontam...

Sta ja znam, mozda tamo napisu ko im je second choice, ili se first choice automatski racuna kao final choice.

Regular Democrats Just Aren’t Worried About Bernie

Many in the party elite remain deeply skeptical of the Vermont senator, but rank-and-file voters do not share that hesitation.

Judging by media coverage and the comments of party luminaries, you might think Democrats are bitterly polarized over Bernie Sanders’s presidential bid. Last month, Hillary Clinton declared that “nobody likes” the Vermont senator. Last week, James Carville, who ran Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, said he was “scared to death” of the Sanders campaign, which he likened to “a cult.” Since the beginning of the year, news organization after news organization has speculated that Sanders’s success may set off a Democratic “civil war.”

But polls of Democratic voters show nothing of the sort. Among ordinary Democrats, Sanders is strikingly popular, even with voters who favor his rivals. He sparks less opposition—in some cases far less—than his major competitors. On paper, he appears well positioned to unify the party should he win its presidential nomination.

So why all the talk of civil war? Because Sanders is far more divisive among Democratic elites—who prize institutional loyalty and ideological moderation—than Democratic voters. The danger is that by projecting their own anxieties onto rank-and-file Democrats, party insiders are exaggerating the risk of a schism if Sanders wins the nomination, and overlooking the greater risk that the party could fracture if they engineer his defeat.

Strange as it sounds, Sanders may be the least polarizing candidate in the presidential field, at least according to surveys of ordinary Democrats. A Monmouth University poll last week found not only that Sanders’s favorability rating among Democrats nationally—71 percent—was higher than his five top rivals’, but also that his unfavorability rating—19 percent—was tied for second lowest. Sanders’s net favorability rating was six points higher than Elizabeth Warren’s, 16 points higher than Joe Biden’s, 18 points higher than Pete Buttigieg’s, 23 points higher than Amy Klobuchar’s, and a whopping 40 points higher than that of Michael Bloomberg, whom more than a third of Democratic voters viewed unfavorably. (By contrast, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn—whom Sanders’s critics often cite as a cautionary tale—enjoyed the support of only 56 percent of his own party members in the months leading up to December’s British election.)

A Quinnipiac poll earlier this month found similarly favorable results for Sanders. Among Democrats nationally, only Warren enjoyed higher net favorability ratings; on that measure, Sanders outpaced Biden, Buttigieg, and Bloomberg. (The pollsters didn’t ask about Klobuchar.) And according to a recent USA Today/IPSOS survey, Sanders is the candidate who Democrats say best shares their values.

Although political handicappers sometimes presume that centrist Democrats are hostile to Sanders, the Quinnipiac poll suggests that Sanders enjoys widespread affection even outside his ideological lane. Among self-described moderate or conservative Democrats, Sanders boasts a net favorability rating of 43 points—far higher than Biden or Bloomberg fares among the “very liberal” Democrats who compose Sanders’s ideological base. Ninety-eight percent of Warren supporters, 97 percent of Buttigieg supporters and 92 percent of Biden supporters say they would back Sanders against Donald Trump. Only among Bloomberg supporters does that number dip to 83 percent. Overall, Sanders voters are significantly more likely to say that they won’t back one of his rivals in the general election than the other way around. Sanders’s critics within the party may resent his supporters for threatening to stay home in November. But most Democratic voters, including most centrist ones, have little problem with Sanders himself.

None of this means Sanders would necessarily beat Trump. His ultra-progressive policies and socialist self-identification could energize Trump’s base and alienate the independents and Republican moderates who backed Democratic candidates in 2018. But the evidence does suggest that, if Democratic elites let him, he’s capable of unifying his party’s rank and file behind his campaign. He’s far better positioned than Trump was at this point in 2016, when his net favorability rating among Republicans was almost 20 points lower than Sanders’s is among Democrats today.


But many Democratic insiders remain deeply skeptical. Sanders’s support among party elites dramatically lags his support among Democratic voters. According to FiveThirtyEight’s Endorsement Tracker, which awards candidates points when party officials endorse them, Sanders ranks fourth in endorsement points, behind Bloomberg and Warren and far behind Biden. While ordinary voters don’t exhibit much hostility toward Sanders, party leaders do. When Seth Masket of the University of Denver interviewed Democratic activists in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, and Washington, D.C., this month, he found that almost two-thirds said they feared a Sanders nomination. The only candidate who elicited a more negative response was Tulsi Gabbard, the representative from Hawaii who some Democrats fear will run a spoiler third-party campaign against the eventual nominee.

This animosity seeps into the mainstream media, where Democratic strategists often express their opinions, and inform the opinions of journalists who cover the presidential race. According to an In These Times study of MSNBC’s prime-time coverage, in August and September of last year, Sanders received less coverage than Biden and Warren, and the coverage he did receive was more negative. “The media keep falling in love,” the Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan noted last week, “with anybody but Bernie Sanders.”

Democratic insiders tend to be institutionalists. They are more likely than ordinary voters to care about the fact that Sanders hasn’t always been a registered Democrat, that he often criticizes party officials, and that he didn’t do more to help Clinton in 2016. Masket told me that many of the party bigwigs he interviewed resented Sanders for “being a spoiler for 2016” by supposedly undermining Clinton, and for “sticking his finger in the eye of the Democratic establishment.”

The other reason Democratic insiders disproportionately oppose Sanders is that party elites and the journalists with whom they interact tend to distrust radicals of any stripe. “A quarter-century covering national politics has convinced me that the more pervasive force shaping coverage of Washington and elections is what might be thought of as centrist bias, flowing from reporters and sources alike,” the former Politico editor John Harris recently observed. “This bias is marked by an instinctual suspicion of anything suggesting ideological zealotry, an admiration for difference-splitting.” Pundits may not always express this fear of extremism as openly as MSNBC’s Chris Matthews did earlier this month, when his discussion of Sanders’s candidacy morphed into a broader indictment of socialism and of unspecified people who, Matthews said, would have cheered on “executions in Central Park” had “the Reds had won the Cold War.” But the centrist bias that Harris describes skews elite perceptions of public opinion. It keeps party and media insiders from recognizing that Bloomberg, a former Republican now running as a centrist, is a far more divisive figure among ordinary Democrats than the putatively radical Sanders.

The greatest danger to Democratic unity is that, once primary voting is done, Sanders receives only a plurality of delegates—an outcome that the forecasters at FiveThirtyEight view as a strong possibility—yet party elites try to steer the nomination to Bloomberg or another moderate. They could do so through the roughly 770 superdelegates, politicians and party officials who, although now barred from voting on the first ballot at the convention, could vote on the second ballot if no candidate receives an initial majority. According to the Monmouth poll, Bloomberg enjoys a net favorability rating among Democrats of only 14 points. If he polarizes Democrats now, imagine how polarizing he’ll be if he wins the nomination because party insiders subvert the will of Democratic voters and pick him over Sanders.

Across the ideological spectrum, ordinary Democrats like Bernie Sanders. That doesn’t mean he’ll beat Donald Trump. But his nomination won’t tear the party apart. Denying him the nomination just might.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ie/606688/

To je to. Potpisujem od pocetka do kraja...