2016 US Presidential Election Thread IX

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, the big news over the last couple days is that Clinton thinks Sanders should run for as long as possible and is totally open to listening to him and agreeing to concessions when he feels the time is right to have a meeting. Meanwhile, a report from insiders doing negotiations between Sanders and the Democrats suggests that he wants changes to how the primaries are run, a $15 minimum wage and support for Palestine.

The latter is rather interesting as his support of Israel was seen as his Achilles heal months back for those on the far left, yet he passionately argued for a more evenhanded approach to the Israel situation in that one debate despite there not being much upside and Clinton trying to use it against him, probably the most disgusting attack she's made on him in my opinion - as if it's somehow unreasonable to stop the genocide going on over there and our country's near complete support of that lunatic state.
 
Hillary doesn't really excite many in her party, she'll be the practical vote, but she does excite the right.

Yes, because the "practical vote" is to choose someone who currently has unfavorability ratings as high as Trump in the latest polls compared to the one person out of the 23 that ran from the two major parties to actually have a positive rating with the American people, draws in millions of Independents into the fold, raises far more money, has no real personal or shady political baggage, secures the support of the young voters that can be members of the party for another six decades before they die, and handily out-duels Trump in general election polls by a wider margin - giving you not only a better chance of winning the Presidency but performing better in down ballot races.

And the upside to Clinton is that Fox News commentators won't be able to point and yell "Socialist!"...even though they still might for her given that they already did the same to Obama. What a positive!

Honestly, I don't even get the logic to why anybody thinks Sanders would perform worse. Democratic party voters are going to vote for the Democratic nominee and Sanders also brings in millions of independents (as without those millions just in the primaries, he'd have been an afterthought rather than a contender). Democrats plus those independents = more votes. Clinton will get fewer of those independents, so fewer votes.

The only way you could possibly think Clinton fares better is if you think the Socialist label would somehow cripple his chances even though it's 2016 and they already used that tactic against Obama to no avail. As an excellent article in Rolling Stone pointed out, modern elections are just based on a bullshit referendum of the white man feeling that they've been left behind, depending entirely on turnout. There's no more "middle" or large swathe of undecided. Just partisan voters on both sides and the rest of the country that feels left out but has leanings one way or another. If Sanders can draw millions upon millions of non-Democrats into the primaries alone, who is to say he can't draw millions and millions more in a general election with far more people voting? To me, it really would be a frickin' landslide for Sanders just as these polls keep reiterating over and over.
 
Last edited:
I'll be honest, I've been totally out of the loop these last few weeks. Been trying to avoid politics for a while besides casual checking here and there. Can Sanders mathematically win the nomination? Or does Hillary essentially have it locked up?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'll be honest, I've been totally out of the loop these last few weeks. Been trying to avoid politics for a while besides casual checking here and there. Can Sanders mathematically win the nomination? Or does Hillary essentially have it locked up?

New York state was the end of the line for Sanders. The loss there proved he wouldn't do all that well in the rest of the North Eastern states and therefore would only lose more ground to Clinton. That was the turning point from slim chance to no chance and Sanders' own campaign started laying people off not long after.

Even barely winning New York wouldn't have been enough as it would mean there would still have been a ton of pressure for a big win in California and that he wouldn't really knock it out of the park in the rest of those North Eastern states.

The rest of this race is for him to earn more delegates and have more power to affect the platform at the convention (and have a really good argument to be the nominee if Clinton were to croak or some major scandal to emerge).
 
Last edited:
Yes, because the "practical vote" is to choose someone who currently has unfavorability ratings as high as Trump in the latest polls compared to the one person out of the 23 that ran from the two major parties to actually have a positive rating with the American people, draws in millions of Independents into the fold, raises far more money, has no real personal or shady political baggage, secures the support of the young voters that can be members of the party for another six decades before they die, and handily out-duels Trump in general election polls by a wider margin - giving you not only a better chance of winning the Presidency but performing better in down ballot races.

And the upside to Clinton is that Fox News commentators won't be able to point and yell "Socialist!"...even though they still might for her given that they already did the same to Obama. What a positive!


That's how unelectable or shitty the other two remaining candidates are.

You can lean on your polls all you want, but they don't mean shit right now. Sanders hasn't even had a sneeze of an attack yet, there hasn't even been a lukewarm ember placed under his feet, your reliance on polls is pure bs right now.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
New York state was the end of the line for Sanders. The loss there proved he wouldn't do all that well in the rest of the North Eastern states and therefore would only lose more ground to Clinton. That was the turning point from slim chance to no chance and Sanders' own campaign started laying people off not long after.

Even barely winning New York wouldn't have been enough as it would mean there would still have been a ton of pressure for a big win in California and that he wouldn't really knock it out of the park in the rest of those North Eastern states.

The rest of this race is for him to earn more delegates and have more power to affect the platform at the convention (and have a really good argument to be the nominee if Clinton were to croak or some major scandal to emerge).



Thanks.
New York was when I stopped following the DEM nomination and assumed Hillary had it locked up. Still just a matter of time I guess....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm sorry, but I don't see the kid-glove approach actually existing from Clinton. Yes, she's not going to try to be too hard on Sanders because she wants those votes (particularly the Independents that aren't locks to vote for a D in November), but given the tactics she used against Obama last time, there's no way her and her team wouldn't have gone full throttle with personal and sharp political attacks if they really had anything on the guy. It's not like she was going to avoid doing that and risk losing the primary. He's clean and the best political attack she's been able to lob is over the tricky situation involving the ability to sue gun store owners and manufacturers.
 
I'm sorry, but I don't see the kid-glove approach actually existing from Clinton. Yes, she's not going to try to be too hard on Sanders because she wants those votes (particularly the Independents that aren't locks to vote for a D in November), but given the tactics she used against Obama last time, there's no way her and her team wouldn't have gone full throttle with personal and sharp political attacks if they really had anything on the guy. It's not like she was going to avoid doing that and risk losing the primary. He's clean and the best political attack she's been able to lob is over the tricky situation involving the ability to sue gun store owners and manufacturers.




I don't think it's so much that Sanders has skeletons in his closet and more that the issues that make him near and dear to the Dem base would, under scrutiny, make him unpopular to the general electorate.
 
The gender issue makes me question whether or not Clinton is so gung ho about the military because she feels that anything else will make her look weak because she's a woman. But that doesn't make me feel any better about her foreign policy, just sadder about sexism and the state of things.

Maybe, but even if you think she is overcompensating and that thought may be rooted in structural sexism, that's not really related to whether she is a likeable individual.
 
I'm sorry, but I don't see the kid-glove approach actually existing from Clinton. Yes, she's not going to try to be too hard on Sanders because she wants those votes (particularly the Independents that aren't locks to vote for a D in November), but given the tactics she used against Obama last time, there's no way her and her team wouldn't have gone full throttle with personal and sharp political attacks if they really had anything on the guy. It's not like she was going to avoid doing that and risk losing the primary. He's clean and the best political attack she's been able to lob is over the tricky situation involving the ability to sue gun store owners and manufacturers.


Who said anything about personal attacks? Although I'm glad you believe he's clean.

But his lack of specifics and plan would be easy to wipe the floor with him, but she's not who you have to worry about, the right would have had a field day with him. You're convinced everyone would be enamored by his messiahship and just fall to their knees and watch America change overnight, but reality says otherwise. And there's no poll needed to understand that.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
From early May 2008... good thing for President John McCain that the Dems went with Obama instead of Clinton. Clinton was so much further ahead of McCain than Obama. We should have known better and ignored the will of the Democratic voters and selected the candidate who polled better against the Republican candidate.




AP says its latest survey shows that as of now, Clinton has a 50%-41% advantage over McCain. That's a wider lead than she had the last time AP-Ipsos did such a survey. Three weeks ago, she led 48%-45%, according to Pollster.com's archive of recent polls.

Meanwhile, AP says Obama has a 46%-44% advantage over McCain -- vs. their 45%-45% tie three weeks ago.

The wire service hasn't yet released details on the size of its survey or the margins of error.
 
Who said anything about personal attacks? Although I'm glad you believe he's clean.

But his lack of specifics and plan would be easy to wipe the floor with him, but she's not who you have to worry about, the right would have had a field day with him. You're convinced everyone would be enamored by his messiahship and just fall to their knees and watch America change overnight, but reality says otherwise. And there's no poll needed to understand that.

Anyway, you slice it, it's just an opinion. You have no evidence that you are correct either.

But if all we have to go on our the polls, that's at least something in favor of my opinion compared to nothing in favor of yours.
 
Anyway, you slice it, it's just an opinion. You have no evidence that you are correct either.

But if all we have to go on our the polls, that's at least something in favor of my opinion compared to nothing in favor of yours.
How about the fact that the second place candidate was way ahead of the first place candidate vs the GOP candidate in 2008 at this same point, and that those polls ended up being absolutely meaningless?

Nah? Oh alright.
 
How is Clinton faring better against McCain in polling meaningless? Are you saying those polls were wrong? You will never know that because Clinton vs. McCain never happened.

Likewise, a poll showing Romney in the lead is similar to polls currently showing Trump closing the gap. What does that even remotely have to do with Sanders and Clinton? The key point is that Sanders always outperforms Clinton in the polls against Trump, not that Trump is currently faring quite well in polls (which most are considering an outlier anyway given the polling firms involved and the current environment). You don't just invalidate one Democrat consistently outperforming the other just because polls are currently showing Trump doing better than expected against the Democrats. Apples and oranges.

It's like if I'm comparing two types of laundry detergent to remove a stain and one consistently fares better than the other. The stain suddenly being worse in another round of the experiment says nothing about the laundry detergents.

Furthermore, just because somebody wins their respective primary, it doesn't make them the best candidate in the general election. That's terrible logic, yet you've used it to cite "Sanders having no chance in Florida in the general because Clinton trumped him there" and others have made that same mistake around here. By that logic, Clinton doesn't have a prayer of winning Vermont or Washington this November. A marginal amount of voters compared to the general election whole says nothing, especially when most of those primary voters plan on voting for the Democrat regardless.

These polls aren't meaningless. They're asking thousands of people who they would vote for just like any other poll. Sure, months out it's near useless in terms of getting the correct percentages compared to what the November totals will actually be, but these people are choosing by a wide margin to vote for Sanders over Trump, but not Clinton over Trump and it's appearing consistently in poll after poll.
 
Last edited:
How is Clinton faring better against McCain in polling meaningless? Are you saying those polls were wrong? You will never know that because Clinton vs. McCain never happened.

Likewise, a poll showing Romney in the lead is similar to polls currently showing Trump closing the gap. What does that even remotely have to do with Sanders and Clinton? The key point is that Sanders always outperforms Clinton in the polls against Trump, not that Trump is currently faring quite well in polls which most are considering an outlier. You don't just invalidate one Democrat consistently outperforming the other just because polls are currently showing Trump doing better than expected against the Democrats. Apples and oranges.

It's like if I'm comparing two types of laundry detergent to remove a stain and one consistently fares better than the other. The stain suddenly being worse in another round of the experiment says nothing about the laundry detergents.
You're arguing that Sanders should be the candidate because of how much better be polls vs Trump compared to Clinton...

Obama polled poorly at this point against McCain but ended winning soundly, which shows that polls this far out should be taken with a giant grain of salt...

But i suppose it should only matter when your Lord and Savior Bernie is involved.
 
Anyway, you slice it, it's just an opinion. You have no evidence that you are correct either.

But if all we have to go on our the polls, that's at least something in favor of my opinion compared to nothing in favor of yours.

Take a look at your minimum salary theory; it got ripped to shreds within minutes. The math didn't work and the theory as to where the money came from you had to backtrack on within the first post. This is what Sanders' platform would look like on day one in the general. Back away from the polling groupthink mentality for a second, that will get you nowhere.
 
You're stating things you have no evidence for as facts. You can't say something will happen that won't happen in the first place because Sanders isn't the nominee. That's the same condescending tone from Clinton supporters that has been so annoying for the past few months, making an assumption for something we can never know the outcome of...basically, your equation happens to be...

Sanders + Socialist label = Crushing defeat!!

With all of the other scientific data saying the exact opposite.




I've continually said my notion that Sanders would win and that he would perform better than Clinton is my opinion as it's not something I have any real information on, nor will I ever. You saying it's a guaranteed fact that he would lose or do worse is just you stating your opinion in a condescending tone.

So, all of the available evidence against you (the scant polling evidence that there is) and merely your opinion to rely on. It's the same logic believers use in saying there's a God as if it's a fact.
 
Last edited:
Take a look at your minimum salary theory; it got ripped to shreds within minutes. The math didn't work and the theory as to where the money came from you had to backtrack on within the first post.

I talked about minimum income and threw out a random number ($1,000) and people started acting like it was some policy proposal. Posters were considering guesses from my part as me actually saying it would work with those numbers and then used their own opinions to "rip it to shreds"...unsurprisingly the loudest voices being the same people that support Clinton and her lower minimum wage.
 
Last edited:
Glad to see we're back to the 'one Bernie fan vs. the Hillary diehards' shitfight. Diemen's call for peace has ceased prematurely. :sad:
 
You're stating things you have no evidence for as facts. You can't say something will happen that won't happen in the first place because Sanders isn't the nominee. That's the same condescending tone from Clinton supporters that has been so annoying for the past few months, making an assumption for something we can never know the outcome of...basically, your equation happens to be...

Sanders + Socialist label = Crushing defeat!!

With all of the other scientific data saying the exact opposite.

I can apply logic based on past events.



As far as your "scientific data"; I can make a poll that says American Muslims sympathize with jihad, climate change is a hoax, black people are inferior, or Sanders supporters have an IQ less than the average American. All of which have been done in recent years. It all depends on how you ask the question, who you ask the question of, and by which means.

Do you really want to keep calling this 'science'? Even Bernie would be embarrassed.
 
I liked Sanders until I saw what his tax plan would do to my family's financial situation... and then I didn't.

Because you don't support progressive taxation and therefore aren't really a liberal and I doubt you would classify yourself as one either.

I honestly don't have much beef with people whose ideas align with Clinton's policy proposals. Fair enough.



Just wanting to elect a woman for tokenism so you can tell your kids you elected a black guy and a woman president, voting for Clinton merely because she "has a better chance of winning" despite all the evidence to the contrary and voting for her because she's "Obama's third-term" and/or due to name recognition, well, that's the sort of stuff that truly annoys me. Unfortunately, there's a hell of a lot of Clinton supporters that fall under these areas particularly the last section that I bolded.
 
I talked about minimum income and through out a random number ($1,000) and people started acting like it was some policy proposal. Those ripping it to shreds were taken guesses from my part as me actually saying it would work with those numbers and then used their own opinions to "rip it to shreds"...with unsurprisingly the loudest voices being the same people that support Clinton and her lower minimum wage.



Kind of like Bernie.
 
It all depends on how you ask the question, who you ask the question of, and by which means.

Do you really want to keep calling this 'science'? Even Bernie would be embarrassed.

1) Polling is a science.

2) They ask if you would rather vote for Sanders or Trump. They also ask if you would rather vote for Clinton or Trump. Sorry, but there's basically nothing about that where the outcome can change much based on how the question was worded, hence why Sanders consistently does better in every single poll that I've seen. It's like asking if you'd rather have beef or steak and then asking if you'd rather have pork or steak. Simple.
 
Glad to see we're back to the 'one Bernie fan vs. the Hillary diehards' shitfight. Diemen's call for peace has ceased prematurely. :sad:



Diehards? Please.

Everyone EVERYONE has reservations and concerns about Hillary. But simply because one looks at information and concludes that one candidate is better than the other does not a diehard make.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom