Emphasis mine.
Wow. Were these same people DESIRING A BALANCE for 200+ years? No? Ok, then.
Let's call it what it is, sexism/misogyny.
2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part X
- Thread starter DaveC
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
Emphasis mine.
Wow. Were these same people DESIRING A BALANCE for 200+ years? No? Ok, then.
Let's call it what it is, sexism/misogyny.
womanfish
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I definitely see your point here. And most interestingly, the hesitation I've see about an all female ticket, has largely been from women! Not that they wouldn't support it, but they voice that same concern, that the country may not be ready for it.
I still think its worth the risk. She brings not only the Bernie supporters, but the excitement, the passion and the proven firepower against Trump that i think Clinton needs. Along with even more women voters.
Also, the last NBC poll showed Donald dropping in support from white men by 10% since last month.
I think Trump is such an anomaly, that he will either attract or repel certain groups of voters all on his own. If Clinton and Warren are a cohesive, competent, strong alternative - they will pick up the voters he has repelled without much effort I would think.
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Exactly.
womanfish
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Very true.
I think once people see them together like they just did in Ohio a couple days ago, where they just knocked it out of the park, this will be a non-issue for any voter that isn't strictly a misogynistic dillhole.
Oregoropa
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Yes it is sexism, misogyny. I would vote for a Marsha Blackburn-Nikki Haley ticket. As far as balance I was referencing the ticket. Presidential nominees often try to balance or offset their own flaws with a strategic ticket.
There are people voting against Hillary based on gender. Sadly, we have to acknowledge they exist. Hillary could make the brave choice and pick Warren. This may doubly amplify the sexist electorate. Might get people jazzed up in New England and the Cosmopolitan metros of the country. Does she risk poking the hetero-dad-bear in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Midwest.
To echo what Womanfish said. There is opposition to Hillary not just amongst men but Women too. I haven't dug into the polling to deeply but I would venture to cite history that the democratic ticket gets more support from single women than married women. Clinton already has the support of single women. I can't speak for a heterosexual married woman. Would they understand gender balance in a close relationship more because of their lifestyle?
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
well, we know that children do best when raised by two women -- maybe Clinton/Warren are the lesbian moms we need?
womanfish
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Yes, i believe Clinton is currently behind with married white women. And this is a coveted demo for her. She regularly crushed Sanders in this portion of the Dem electorate, but will need to work for it in the general.
As for the all woman ticket, I do think that there will be a portion of the electorate that will feel "too manly" to vote for them. But I kinda think they would have felt that way with just Clinton, and probably are the type that would be Trump supporters anyway. I don't think she would shed that many votes by picking Warren. I see mostly upside.
womanfish
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Woohoo!
538 just posted the General Election polling page. It's quite comprehensive and will be fun to follow, especially looking at the swing states, as the election moves forward.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
538 just posted the General Election polling page. It's quite comprehensive and will be fun to follow, especially looking at the swing states, as the election moves forward.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
trojanchick99
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
I will be checking that constantly until November. He's been right on the money the past 2 General Elections and also quite accurate with the midterm Senate/Rep elections.
Will Dean Chambers be updating "Unskewed Polls"?
Will Dean Chambers be updating "Unskewed Polls"?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
80%? So you're saying there's a chance?
Gee, could you imagine if it were Sanders? It'd be like 95%
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Gee, could you imagine if it were Sanders? It'd be like 95%
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
This one is 100% with her. Have been for years.
Oregoropa
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
FiveThirtyEight has had to each so much Crow over the past year. I don't put much stock in Mr. Silver.
To counter FiveThirtyEight. The new Quinnipiac poll has Trump with 33% Latino support. Higher than Romney's 27%. It's all still fluid.
OP
OP
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
oh look, here's one statistic to counter about 50 of them. that settles it.
Hewson
Blue Crack Supplier
You know I'm perfectly fine with it if the gals wanna run for office.
Guys ISIS knows how to use the internet better than we do. Some orange oompa loompa on the TV said so.
Alright, I'll bite, against my better judgment.
FiveThirtyEight screwed up this year because its commentators acted like pundits in absence of data, but that does not really invalidate this forecast. FiveThirtyEight screwed up by disguising punditry as data journalism, but these models are the real deal.
They saw Trump and, to a lesser degree, Sanders, and they acted extremely dismissive, because they were college-educated politically mainstream semi-elites. They screwed up and used their status as "data journalists" to make the public feel like what they were saying had more value than punditry, when it really was just punditry.
BUT, when FiveThirtyEight had data to work with, they did quite well. No, they weren't 100% correct, but they were about as correct as they claimed to be (e.g. they mispredicted things that they thought were 90% certain about 10% of the time). Their data-based predictions did not underestimate Sanders or Trump, even as the pundits writing about them did.
There is no real reason to expect that their general election models will struggle this year more than in years past, when they were obviously highly successful. I'm not at all saying that this model will be 100% right. I'm saying that the punditry of Nate Silver et al. doesn't invalidate them. Will Arizona go to Clinton? Maybe, but even if she has a 52% chance of winning Arizona, I'd hardly be surprised to see it go the other way. Even this model gives Trump a 20% chance of winning. That's obviously a significant disadvantage, but it's not like the model is saying that Trump *couldn't* win. But it's a useful guide to show that Clinton is in a really good position relative to almost anyone running for POTUS at this stage. And I have no real reason to put Trump's chances at the 50% that some would like to delude themselves into believing.
And everyone knows that Quinnipiac consistently makes overly right-leaning polls. Next time you use them I'll counter with a poll done by MSNBC and MoveOn.Org.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Mack_Again
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
they should certainly know how to "shut off part of the Internet"
BigMacPhisto
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
- Messages
- 6,351
A lot of Trump's 20% chances of winning have to do with the fact that there's so much time left before the election. If we were a few weeks out from Election Day with his current numbers, he would be pretty much screwed. He's trailing by about the same margin as loser Romney was going into Election Day and I can't see how it won't get much worse given that
1) There's still plenty of Democrats and Independents that will eventually coalesce around Clinton.
2) Trump is outnumbered financially by a jaw dropping ratio.
3) He's only likely going to look worse when the debates roll around as only his supporters really thought he "won" them against his Republican opponents earlier this year.
I do think the idea about Bernie having much better chances in the FiveThirtyEight model would be true at this point given how much more successful he was in the polling. Perhaps that would change in the voting booth or perhaps it would not have. Would Trump's shoe-string budget and the ability to yell "Socialist" at him really make much of a difference? Doubtful. I'm still convinced the Democrats may have gone with the absolute worst major party figure (Governor, Congress member, etc.) to be their nominee as I can't think of anyone else with more baggage and less personal likability among the broader electorate.
This will eventually be a slam dunk and a pretty big win, but choosing Clinton made things harder than they needed to be. Only question now is how quick she shifts to the right once she realizes she needs to make no more concessions to the left. Sure, there could be some political triangulation involved, but in this day and age, there's nobody Clinton can really win over by picking a more Centrist VP or shifting the platform in that direction. If she does it, it's because it's what she wants which should surprise nobody at the end of the day. I think Warren's chances either increase or decrease based on how far away Clinton pulls from Trump in the polling.
1) There's still plenty of Democrats and Independents that will eventually coalesce around Clinton.
2) Trump is outnumbered financially by a jaw dropping ratio.
3) He's only likely going to look worse when the debates roll around as only his supporters really thought he "won" them against his Republican opponents earlier this year.
I do think the idea about Bernie having much better chances in the FiveThirtyEight model would be true at this point given how much more successful he was in the polling. Perhaps that would change in the voting booth or perhaps it would not have. Would Trump's shoe-string budget and the ability to yell "Socialist" at him really make much of a difference? Doubtful. I'm still convinced the Democrats may have gone with the absolute worst major party figure (Governor, Congress member, etc.) to be their nominee as I can't think of anyone else with more baggage and less personal likability among the broader electorate.
This will eventually be a slam dunk and a pretty big win, but choosing Clinton made things harder than they needed to be. Only question now is how quick she shifts to the right once she realizes she needs to make no more concessions to the left. Sure, there could be some political triangulation involved, but in this day and age, there's nobody Clinton can really win over by picking a more Centrist VP or shifting the platform in that direction. If she does it, it's because it's what she wants which should surprise nobody at the end of the day. I think Warren's chances either increase or decrease based on how far away Clinton pulls from Trump in the polling.
BigMacPhisto
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
- Messages
- 6,351
Here we go again...polls are meaningless because they don't say what you want them to say.
Of course, it's funny how so many in this thread are quick to hop on Nate Silver's polling based model to predict the election, yet were quick to dismiss the pile of polling evidence showing Sanders to be the stronger nominee. Guess people in either party's bubble just want their reality to be reflected to them.
BigMacPhisto
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
- Messages
- 6,351
Eh, I think it's really just Clinton supporters wanting to pretend like it would be such a bold risk to have two women on the ticket. It's 2016. Nobody cares. They did in 2008, but there was absolutely no palpable excitement coming from electing the first female President this time around.
Same thing with the black guy in 2008 and all the fretting over him being looked over by the general electorate. It's just not a factor. I think having something historic like that actually gives a bit of a push to the Democrats at times (see: Black voters becoming the most involved thanks to Obama running). But there's nobody on the sidelines who is really going to say no to a Clinton ticket because there's another woman on it.
Trump is so far behind because we're so far out and numbers can change, but Sanders should have been the nominee because his numbers against Trump this far out were just so damn good.
BigMacPhisto
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
- Messages
- 6,351
Except I would argue that Trump is only going to do worse as this thing goes on...it's not like there's a huge subset of the public still waiting to make up their mind about Donald Friggin' Trump.
But of course the polling has merit and the results it showed us throughout most of the 2008 and 2012 season ended up being near what we saw in November. Clinton will win by at least her current polling advantage by the end of all of this.
Would Sanders have performed better than Clinton by the same margin he performed better than her in these Vs. Trump polls? Maybe not. But there's no doubt in my mind that he'd have ended up doing better overall. When you get the same result dozens and dozens of times, it's certainly telling you something. That's dozens to hundreds of extra people saying they'd vote for Sanders over Trump but not Clinton every time they conducted these nationwide polls.
But of course the polling has merit and the results it showed us throughout most of the 2008 and 2012 season ended up being near what we saw in November. Clinton will win by at least her current polling advantage by the end of all of this.
Would Sanders have performed better than Clinton by the same margin he performed better than her in these Vs. Trump polls? Maybe not. But there's no doubt in my mind that he'd have ended up doing better overall. When you get the same result dozens and dozens of times, it's certainly telling you something. That's dozens to hundreds of extra people saying they'd vote for Sanders over Trump but not Clinton every time they conducted these nationwide polls.
Mack_Again
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Yet somehow he got his ass handed to him.
It's a riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a shit sandwich.
BigMacPhisto
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
- Messages
- 6,351
Or it's just simple math and the thirty million that voted in the Democratic primary aren't representative of the broader one hundred and thirty million that will likely vote in November's election.
Not to mention that she beat him by about 3.7 million voters and we can expect, again, 130 million in the actual election. I don't know why this theory about primary success having anything to do with the general keeps getting idiotically floated around here. You wouldn't say Trump is the strongest GOP candidate just because he won the primaries. And why not? Polls. But there's definitely a double standard when Sanders enters the race because the party faithful had checked off "And then I elect a woman in 2016" on their bucket list back when Clinton was hired as Secretary of State.
Not to mention that she beat him by about 3.7 million voters and we can expect, again, 130 million in the actual election. I don't know why this theory about primary success having anything to do with the general keeps getting idiotically floated around here. You wouldn't say Trump is the strongest GOP candidate just because he won the primaries. And why not? Polls. But there's definitely a double standard when Sanders enters the race because the party faithful had checked off "And then I elect a woman in 2016" on their bucket list back when Clinton was hired as Secretary of State.
Last edited:
I think that's mostly true about primaries not really representing the majority of the country. Except it's not in the direction you're implying above.
There is a reason why in the primaries, the candidates tend to talk a little more to the fringe elements of their base. Because to be honest, to actually get involved in a primary vote, you probably are a bit more in tune with politics than the average American. Candidates are talking to the more "die hard" voters. The GOP tends to go after the religious pandering very, very hard in the primaries. It also helps that the first state that kicks off the season is Iowa, and to win Iowa, you gotta talk the crazy.
What we have seen time and time again though, is when the candidates come out of the primaries, they move to the center. They have to or they will lose badly. The GOP still clings onto the Religious vote, which is dying out (and may have been put to rest with Trump) and is not sustainable. They also don't show the willingness to address immigration other than to demonize illegals as the worst thing ever.
We'll never know this, but I feel Sanders talk would need to be tempered a bit in order to gain those 130 million voters who decided not to join the primaries. His talk of free college, Health Care, and min wage may not resonate as well. Or maybe it would. We'll never know this go around as he didn't win.
But the point still stands. In order to win a general election, the candidates have to pull back a bit from the Right or Left to appeal to the masses and Independents.
There is a reason why in the primaries, the candidates tend to talk a little more to the fringe elements of their base. Because to be honest, to actually get involved in a primary vote, you probably are a bit more in tune with politics than the average American. Candidates are talking to the more "die hard" voters. The GOP tends to go after the religious pandering very, very hard in the primaries. It also helps that the first state that kicks off the season is Iowa, and to win Iowa, you gotta talk the crazy.
What we have seen time and time again though, is when the candidates come out of the primaries, they move to the center. They have to or they will lose badly. The GOP still clings onto the Religious vote, which is dying out (and may have been put to rest with Trump) and is not sustainable. They also don't show the willingness to address immigration other than to demonize illegals as the worst thing ever.
We'll never know this, but I feel Sanders talk would need to be tempered a bit in order to gain those 130 million voters who decided not to join the primaries. His talk of free college, Health Care, and min wage may not resonate as well. Or maybe it would. We'll never know this go around as he didn't win.
But the point still stands. In order to win a general election, the candidates have to pull back a bit from the Right or Left to appeal to the masses and Independents.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
