Thwomp!

Not gonna "burst my bubble." I'm going to enjoy the ride and see where it goes. If it ends in disappointment, as it appears likely, well I'm used to that since I'm a Buffalo sports fan. I'm still going to watch "the game" and hope for the best. And in this "game" I could even make a little bit of a difference in the outcome. I'm not going to switch to what I consider inferior options in advance just to avoid potential disappointment.

Ok, I'm bringing this back from the dead. Does anyone think there's any chance that Murray pulls off a trade or two similar to what the Islanders did around this time last year? I think our team is similar to that Islanders team in that we could be really competitive with a quality, veteran D-man or two added to the roster. Even if we end up with "too many" D-men at times when guys come back from injuries, I think we're going to unfortunately deal with injuries to our defensemen all year based on the early indications. We have the need, the cap room, and the assets to pull it off, and the Islanders gave up very little. Anyone have any possibilities or likely candidates as all the teams head towards cuts and final rosters being established?

No, but you're the Joe that brought it up and used it to speculate about Bernie's viability, which you've done several times now.

And look at the Bills' GMs since Butler: Donahoe, Levy, Brandon, Nix :sick: It's going to take awhile to get that 12 years of mess cleaned up. Like I said earlier, Whaley is doing a great job considering how the the Bills have been handled since the turn of the millennium.

Whaley has made a believer out of me after a rocky start. Maybe that rocky start was just the process of getting away from Buddy Nix's esteemed tenure? I've been expecting them to be out all week, so I'm not surprised at all. It cuts down our offensive depth a lot this week. Less play makers against a team who can score worries me. Urbik should be fine for Miller, I'm hoping.

If Biden is looking at jumping in, it was a stupid move to basically say "I'm not going to listen to/advocate for the common voters'/citizens' views." Shouldn't all politicians want to be or present themselves as populists when they may be or are running for president? :blink: Merriam-Webster definition of populist: "a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people" Keep trying to bring Bernie down, pastajoe, it's very entertaining! :thumbsup: MORE GUNS!!! will solve everything.

Another great episode. I hope that girl in the wheelchair is able to see the special video that was done just for her. I would love to see a video of her watching it. What a heartwarming gesture. The way we treat these refugees, who are refugees due to US in a large part, is ######-up.

This is an overwhelmingly American phenomenon and societal sickness. The majority of Americans will be of the opinion that 1. more guns would solve the problem and/or 2. we couldn't have prevented/predicted this incident. Then the next incident occurs shortly afterward and it's the same cycle over and over. We tell ourselves what we want to hear to avoid any action or difficult choices or introspection. The Onion nails it again with this short article: http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131. It's telling and a shame that they can just update the same article repeatedly because nothing ever changes.

There's an app I downloaded for Android called "Pro Football Radio and Scores". It costs .99 but it has worked for listening to pro football games when I've used it. I used to use NFL mobile, but I had a lot of issues with it crashing and being slightly undependable. This year I didn't get automatically renewed for the NFL mobile radio service like previous years, (they never even contacted me) so I decided to look around and I'm glad I did.

I actually agree with much of what you're saying here, but our conclusions based on this information are different. I don't have time, nor am I able to make the time, to respond to the parts I don't agree with other than: 1. Hillary's favorables going from negative mid single digits ~-5-9% to now negative teens ~-11-15% (and trending lower) may be a small drop in number, but large in importance and I disagree it's temporary. She is a bad candidate. Can Bernie take advantage like Obama did? I hope so, but it's still going to be tough because of many reasons that have been pointed out. I still realize that he's likely to lose, but the door is open a crack. 2. Going from down by a 50% to close to/basically tied in Iowa with 4 months to go, I know which of the two candidates I'd rather be in that situation. Thanks for the debate, and I'll still chime in time to time, but I have alot going on over the next couple weeks, and would more like to spend my limited spare time on hockey, baseball, and football thoughts and conversations. Thanks for taking the time and effort to be the other side of the coin. It's good for me to see it even if I don't want to. :beer:

Everyone knows that Bernie is likely losing. Doesn't excuse the fact that your posts were full of inaccuracies, more pessimism than the realities warrant, and opinions presented as facts. All of which were what I was responding to. I'll say it again: Bernie is very likely losing, but he has more of a chance than you give him.

Your whole post, despite being presented as the unwavering truth, is in fact your opinion. You can not predict the future. Yes, you can use stats and analytics from the past to make statements of fact, but they're still just your projection and opinion because the event you're predicting has not occurred yet. I usually sympathize with the stats/analytics side of things, but I can also see how they can be used to stifle dissent from the status quo. Biden voters count until he is either firmly in or out of the race. Those votes will go where they go when Biden decides. Contrary to what you say, very much has changed since the summer. I am well aware that the states elect the candidate and national polls are flawed, but they are also somewhat useful. Hillary is trending down to the 40% range and Bernie is trending up close to 30% now. How is that not different than the summer when Hillary was at 60% and Bernie at 0%? Even if ex-Biden supporters bring her total to 50% she's not steady or improving, she's trending down. Either way the path forward has not changed for Bernie. He started down 60%-0%, and not only does he have to win voters, he has to change voters minds that have already chosen Hillary. Not easy to do, and it takes time, but he's on his way to doing it. It's a process. He entered the race April 30th, has been in it for 5 months now and has a large chunk of support already. The first votes in Iowa and New Hampshire aren't until February. It's always been an uphill battle, but there's still time. Oh yeah, let's look at that coveted state polling for the Iowa and New Hampshire. All candidates try to win these states to boost them for the rest of the process. Why is that any different for Bernie? New Hampshire matters and a good showing will certainly provide momentum and help change the "unelectable" mindset that you and others have. Bernie hasn't trailed in New Hampshire since July. Iowa is admittedly more difficult to judge, but 2 of the 3 latest polls have him winning there, and the caucuses certainly lend themselves to populist candidates. Once again, when you start down 60%-0% in a zero sum game you have your work cut out for you. Winning in Iowa and/or New Hampshire will provide a huge momentum boost in other states, just like has happened in the past. Politicians are going to be the last to come around to Bernie, if they ever do. With the current mindset of the voting public, I don't think that's necessarily a negative. Gee, the Dems don't want to lose their wall street/corporate big money supporters. Shocking! Sander's base of support is wider and obviously not as wealthy as Hillary's. Again, no surprise there. I and many voters have an issue with Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, etc. counting as "individuals". Sanders' supporters are true individuals as the word is defined by most everyone except the Supreme Court. And the lack of a Super PAC is by choice. It's a basic feature of his campaign. The money aspect of politics is ridiculous. I and many others are going to appreciate someone who refuses to run their campaign via the Super PAC route. Favorability: Sanders is positive and trending better with room to grow. Hillary is negative and trending worse with no room to grow. Big change since July. The race is completely different than where it was in July. And why "huge" in quotations? He is getting bigger crowds than any other candidate everywhere he goes. It's documented if you care to check. Hillary has already flopped. Voters don't like her and what we're witnessing is her long decent down the mountain again (see 2007-2008). I know he is highly unlikely to win, but he's got a much better chance than you give him. You prefer to look at the pessimistic side of the campaign, but the optimistic side is obviously there for those who want to see it. Apologies for the long post everyone, but (although I appreciate TrueBlue's postings generally) I was not able to let this post stand unchallenged. The "media" helping Bernie? Now you've really lost me. Certainly not the traditional media. Alternative and social media for sure. The traditional media barely acknowledges his existence if they do at all. This race is interesting to many people. It is epitome of people vs. the powers that be. It's certainly more interesting than the traditional media gives it credit for.

Ok, I see what you mean. It's easy to become over excited and too fervent. I say more popular because he's already broken the individual contributor records for this point in an election season, and I assume those previous numbers include Ron Paul's. No, just didn't want to be overbearing, annoying, or cult like (in a well meaning way, but maybe bad in the view of others).

He's already surpassed Ron Paul's popularity. Thanks for "cult like". I guess supporting a non-mainstream candidate is cult like :wallbash: It is upsetting when "electable" opinions are thrown out. It's up to each individual to decide whether someone is electable. We all have our vote. It's not up to someone else, the media, pundits, or various powers that be. When you start at the bottom and gain support inch by inch as a huge underdog it's going to take some time. This was the equivalent of starting a football game down 60-0. The trends look good and there are still debates and several months to go before the first vote is even cast. I'm going to stop posting my views on this. I've said enough.

I'm looking at it as the American people can't afford to screw this one up. We have a chance to elect a populist when he is most needed for our country. Socialist doesn't scare people when they actually listen to what Bernie says. The problem I see is will people actually listen? Americans are less and less informed and more lazy, so I don't have alot of confidence in the listening part. Nothing will change from what we have now with any of the other candidates. They all essentially have the same economic views. There are differing social views but they are less important in the grand scheme of things and are used as a distraction to divide and conquer us.

If he looked better to them? Yes I agree that he doesn't look good to the establishment. He looks good to voters which should be what counts, but unfortunately we know the state of politics in America. Ok, I see where we kind of disagree. I agree with the fact that the populist factions of the establishment are supportive. The political (DNC) and money factions of the establishment are not supportive and are actually doing everything they can to inhibit his progress and prop up his primary opponent. To me it still seems like the populists (people) vs. the establishment (money and politicians).

Why is Sanders not viable? Huge crowds everywhere he goes including deep red states, 1 million individual contributors already, huge money raiser with no corporate money or super PACs, winning in New Hampshire, and close or winning (depending on the poll) in Iowa. And 50% of people still don't know him. Huge room for growth in those numbers.

There is no moderating the Republicans. The essential platforms that Republicans support are not moderate, and these guys all have records (primary and prior political records). For example, if anyone actually researches Kasich, you will find that he is no moderate. That's only the label he's been given by the media because he's possibly slightly less crazy than his primary opponents. Unions represent workers and people. Individuals that have come together as a group for more influence. That is the voice of the average American. The top individual union donation to Bernie is around $100K. Citigroup and Goldman Sachs are Hillary's top contributors at ~$800K apiece. I know which side I prefer to be a part of.

This election is showing that there's a Democratic Party establishment (Thanks Blue for the assist! :beer:) Bernie would be looking much better if he had any establishment support, and he's still looking very good to voters on his own. Think about it: is the Dem establishment going to support someone who is showing that Democrats are the same corporate shills as the Republicans? The Dem establishment loves it's corporate money and doesn't want it to dry up. Just look at Hillary's top campaign contributors.

There it is again. There is already an "electable" option to Hillary. Did the WSJ look at Bernie's numbers vs. the Republicans? Or are they not taking him seriously yet? I'll have to agree to disagree with you on this. It's establishment vs. non-establishment voters. Hillary and Joe will split the establishment voters. I like Joe, but he's not an alternative to Bernie in his policy positions. Obama's presidency, with Joe as his sidekick, has been a disappointment on the "change" front, when it comes to the average American.

Can't read without a subscription.

Yes, and if Joe gets in, which I doubt, he predominantly takes votes from Hillary, not Bernie in the primary. The "establishment" votes. At least that's my view of it.

Keep banging that drum, Joe. Hillary's sinking poll numbers and Bernie's rising poll numbers and momentum prove you wrong. Besides, none of the potential competition (Republicans) are showing that they're electable in a general election. The more people learn about Bernie, the better his numbers get. He literally has a million different contributors to his campaign and has broken all of Obama's individual campaign contributors records (already!). The average donation is less than $50, and he has raised $15 million without using a Super PAC. Sounds electable to me.

Bought Mets tickets a while ago for the game vs. Cincinnati yesterday and thanks to great fortune, it happened to be the game they clinched the NL East. Great scene in Cincinnati. Many Mets fans made the trip and the Reds were gracious hosts. They congratulated the Mets on the scoreboards at the end of the game. The crowd was probably 35-40% Mets fans and many loud "Let's go Mets!" chants broke out throughout the game. The best sign I saw was "I was 12 the last time this happened!" Now on to the Dodgers in the NLDS. Tight race for home field as the Mets have a 1/2 game lead and the tie breaker. We'll see how the last week goes. Feels great to be in the playoffs again (finally) and have a reason to watch postseason baseball.

Books surpass TV for Game of Thrones too :ph34r: