US Presidential Election XII - Page 60 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-06-2016, 11:59 PM   #886
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,153
Local Time: 07:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
This is where the election will be won. Hillary can easily peel off the middle and even some right-leaning women. Bernie is enough out of the mainstream that he could easily cause some socially moderate supply siders -- terrified at the thought of higher taxes and socialized medicine -- to look at Trump and rationalize that "at least he'll surround himself with good people." And pull the lever.
But Bernie also gets the potential four million Stein voters in his column, so there's that. I think the idea of a centrist middle is kind of overblown. Between the third parties and the guaranteed 40% or so for Trump and Clinton each, they're really competing over a small sliver of non-partisan (or open-minded) Americans that make up about 10% of the electorate - essentially the "missing" group from the polls that lead these Clinton-Trump-Johnson-Stein matchups to only have about a 90% response rate.

I mean, for Clinton, it's the difference between losing the election or winning in a landslide, but you can't help but think having that 3% from the Stein column and a fair share from the 8% of the Johnson column would have come in handy. A Democratic nominee that didn't lead for so many to rebel against the party would already have this won without having to even try to appeal to that centrist sliver.
__________________

__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 09-07-2016, 12:32 AM   #887
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,065
Local Time: 07:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
centrist sliver.
Do you have numbers to back up the implication that centrists are a sliver compared to the Stein & Johnson voters?
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 09-07-2016, 01:53 AM   #888
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,153
Local Time: 07:54 PM
I'd argue that it's a sliver about the same size at the moment. I mean, you can just look at the polls.

Likewise, Trump and Clinton never really fall below 40% so most of that 80% share of the electorate pretty much made up their minds that they would support them in November once they became the nominee and the latest CNN poll attests to that as both have 90% of the support of people within their own party and that's a huge share of the electorate combined.

I think this election is really going to prove the ineffectiveness of television advertisement, especially in our polarized climate and with Trump barely spending a dime. You can't even reach a great deal of people with live television anymore, for starters, but even then you're competing for the small group of people who haven't made up their minds - many of them being extremely low information voters. So, Clinton spent $50 million after becoming the nominee with nothing to show for it all in the hopes of winning over the least informed voters in November - the people that don't have an opinion between right and left despite being adults. So, from my perspective and what I've seen elsewhere about the heavily polarization and shrinking center, it's a relatively small group that Clinton and Trump are playing for in terms of getting them on their side and eventually to the polls. The likely voter party faithful were on the wagon from Day One for each side.

As far as the comparison goes, the current polling when combining third party choices actually leaves you with an unaffiliated sliver that is much smaller since Trump and Clinton are now getting about 85% of the vote combined and Stein/Johnson are sitting about 9-11%...that leaves very few likely voters actually not having made up their minds although there's obviously going to be some shifting from one or the other as we near November and there's no accounting for just how big that stupid segment of the electorate happens to be (not to be confused with actual centrists).

I'll repost that CNN breakdown of their most recent poll since it has some startling numbers...even 11% of Clinton supporters think Trump is more honest and trustworthy.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/06/_polit...election-2016/
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 09-07-2016, 03:34 AM   #889
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,439
Local Time: 02:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axver View Post
To tell you the truth, I think Stein's figures are terrible. How the fuck is she only polling 3% in 2016? Especially if this apocalyptic unpopularity of Clinton is true?
Well, some argue that Stein is the Trump of the left. And one Trump is already enough.
ElectoralVote
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 09-07-2016, 04:40 AM   #890
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 11,638
Local Time: 08:54 PM
US Presidential Election XII

Re: a previous BMP post

Gary Johnson harms Trump, not Clinton. He's a former republican for a reason. The libertarian ticket typically tailors to republicans with a conscience. Plus, more republicans are in search for a second choice from Trump than democrats are. Libertarians feature a core idea of conservatism -- small government etc. there's a reason why almost every prominent politician who identifies as libertarian has at some point been a republican.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 09-07-2016, 05:30 AM   #891
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 07:54 PM
BMP, at it again.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 09-07-2016, 06:04 AM   #892
Vocal parasite
 
Axver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 1853
Posts: 149,411
Local Time: 10:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
Axver, regarding Stein, she has absolutely no money to compete with and absolutely zero media attention. The American system requires money in order to compete whereas elsewhere parties can emerge out of the woodwork in the UK and randomly start winning local and district elections, etc.
You fundamentally misunderstand other political systems, then. Yes, the US is the most awash in cash. But it's not as if you can turn up with only a few bucks and mount a campaign in other Western democracies. Every prominent third party or political insurgent has to have cash resources that are significant relative to the country's population and the general spend of major parties. They won't have the same financial clout but there won't be moths in their wallets either. Put it this way: the Greens down here didn't get where they are by being shit at fundraising.

Quote:
I generally think your assumption is wrong regarding it being normal for third party support to quickly grow to a sizable share of the electorate and I feel that this is just a unique case due to Trump and Clinton being so disliked.
Are you trying to deny that the rise of third parties is not a trend occurring across Western democracies? Because that's the sort of flat-earthism that has got a lot of established parties into the pickle they're in now.

I'm not denying that the race between Trump and Clinton has its own dynamic of disenchantment that is boosting the growth of third parties in the US at this election. But there is a much broader phenomenon of people growing disenchanted with their major parties, no matter how good or bad the candidate, and either one of the US's notable minor parties - i.e. the Greens and the Libertarians - would have serious questions to answer if they did not grow their vote by some amount at this election. That's all.
__________________
"Mediocrity is never so dangerous as when it is dressed up as sincerity." - Søren Kierkegaard

Ian McCulloch the U2 fan:
"Who buys U2 records anyway? It's just music for plumbers and bricklayers. Bono, what a slob. You'd think with all that climbing about he does, he'd look real fit and that. But he's real fat, y'know. Reminds me of a soddin' mountain goat."
"And as for Bono, he needs a colostomy bag for his mouth."

U2gigs: The most comprehensive U2 setlist database!
Gig pictures | Blog
Axver is offline  
Old 09-07-2016, 07:47 AM   #893
Blue Crack Addict
 
Vlad n U 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 27,779
Local Time: 10:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Popmartijn View Post
Well, some argue that Stein is the Trump of the left. And one Trump is already enough.
ElectoralVote
I thought that was supposed to be Sanders?
__________________
Vlad n U 2 is offline  
Old 09-07-2016, 08:52 AM   #894
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,234
Local Time: 10:54 AM
Everyone outside of the sensible centrist centre - whatever that is - is the Trump of the left. The Trump of the right is of course Trump, until he is seen off in due course, as he will be. After that we await the new demagogue.
__________________
Kieran McConville is online now  
Old 09-07-2016, 02:59 PM   #895
New Yorker
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 3,116
Local Time: 12:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
Hypothetically speaking...

Let's say the third party share of the vote stays about the same as what we've seen in polling, ending up being around 10-15% of the electorate and preventing Trump or Clinton from reaching 50% of the popular vote.

Are the Clinton backers from the primaries seriously going to suggest if she loses that she was the Democrats' best shot? Or that she would have been a stronger choice than Bernie or Biden?

And I'm not bringing this up to open a can of worms or compare her to other candidates, but when you have a nominee as historically unlikable as Trump, and who would have to win the election with under 50% of the vote, it's clear that the argument can't be made that he's some truly strong candidate.

In fact, FiveThirtyEight argued today that two separate models of the economy would give the Democrat or Republican a slight edge depending on the model. In other words, Trump is trailing a generic Republican that would be slightly leading or barely behind at this point (for example, a Marco Rubio that wins the primaries would surely be leading Clinton in the polls right now given what we saw earlier in the year).

So, taking all of that into consideration, you're looking at a very flawed candidate in Hillary Clinton. And no, I'm not referring to her stances, personable issues, etc. I'm talking about her electability which is clearly terrible if she's been losing ground for the last month to Donald Trump of all people in spite of her built-in demographic and financial advantage.

So, maybe, just maybe, next time when some condescending assholes act like they know a thing or two about who has the best chance of beating the Republican nominee despite all the polling saying otherwise, we can call them out on their bullshit without even a need for a discussion. If Hillary Clinton somehow loses to Donald fucking Trump, every single one of her primary voters owes the rest of America a big apology.

To start, this hypothetical is unknowable. But there are some things that we could logically deduce would be the reality if Sanders won the nomination.

1. He was inevitably more popular during the primary than he would have been in the general election. More far left people are engaged in the primaries, and more centrists in the general.

2. His favorability would have gone down like everyone else once they get in the real election game. He was at 53% I believe in the primaries. Right now, Clinton is -10 in her favorablity, I can see Sander slipping to 0 to -5 easily.

3. He would have had to release his tax returns. And any reasonable person knows there is something in those returns that is NOT good.

4. And this is the biggest one - Sanders can't expand the map like Clinton.
Berniebots always talk about how Sanders would be winning in a "landslide" right now if he were the candidate. But theres a problem with their logic.

Sure, Bernie might have a more significant national lead (although Hillary leading by 6 over the past month is near historic highs for August)
AND Bernie may have led by higher margins in traditional blue states.
BUT
If he wins blue states by 14 and Clinton wins them by 7 - THAT doesn't change anything. A win is a win.

In reality, Clinton is putting more states in play than ever imagined.
NC, SC, Georgia, possibly Utah, Virginia is a done deal, CO is a done deal, solid in Florida and PA, Missouri within 1 point, Survey Monkey just put her +1 in TEXAS, and down 2 in MISSISSIPPI!!!

on the other hand, Sanders would probably have flipped Utah, Missouri and possibly Kansas? Three tiny states. I also think he would lose Florida to Trump. Which would wipe out all 3 of those flipped states.

Yet somehow, she's this disastrous candidate???

People get SO worked up by the media bullshit, where Clinton is persecuted for weeks about 1 faulty article that brought up questions of wrong-doing with the Foundation, yet admitted, nothing shows anything wrong actually happened.
But lets discuss for 5 weeks about what it LOOKS like, what COULD have happened, etc...

On the other hand - Trump Chickens out while talking to the Mexican Pres. Gets called out as a liar by Mexican Pres., Talks about how horrible black communities are to another all white audience in WA, Has a leaked memo showing that his trip to the black church has all the questions AND answers provided to him beforehand. He proceeds to address the congregation reading off a paper like a kidnapping victim reading a ransom note.
And to top it off, his Foundation is found to have made actual illegal contributions to the Florida AG (possibly others) to bribe her to drop a lawsuit against his fraudulent University.

And guess what - the media claims it's Trump that's had the GREAT WEEK!!

You can not make this shit up.
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 09-07-2016, 03:06 PM   #896
New Yorker
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 3,116
Local Time: 12:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
I'd argue that it's a sliver about the same size at the moment. I mean, you can just look at the polls.

Likewise, Trump and Clinton never really fall below 40% so most of that 80% share of the electorate pretty much made up their minds that they would support them in November once they became the nominee and the latest CNN poll attests to that as both have 90% of the support of people within their own party and that's a huge share of the electorate combined.

I think this election is really going to prove the ineffectiveness of television advertisement, especially in our polarized climate and with Trump barely spending a dime. You can't even reach a great deal of people with live television anymore, for starters, but even then you're competing for the small group of people who haven't made up their minds - many of them being extremely low information voters. So, Clinton spent $50 million after becoming the nominee with nothing to show for it all in the hopes of winning over the least informed voters in November - the people that don't have an opinion between right and left despite being adults. So, from my perspective and what I've seen elsewhere about the heavily polarization and shrinking center, it's a relatively small group that Clinton and Trump are playing for in terms of getting them on their side and eventually to the polls. The likely voter party faithful were on the wagon from Day One for each side.

As far as the comparison goes, the current polling when combining third party choices actually leaves you with an unaffiliated sliver that is much smaller since Trump and Clinton are now getting about 85% of the vote combined and Stein/Johnson are sitting about 9-11%...that leaves very few likely voters actually not having made up their minds although there's obviously going to be some shifting from one or the other as we near November and there's no accounting for just how big that stupid segment of the electorate happens to be (not to be confused with actual centrists).

I'll repost that CNN breakdown of their most recent poll since it has some startling numbers...even 11% of Clinton supporters think Trump is more honest and trustworthy.

Presidential poll: Donald Trump pulls ahead of Hillary Clinton - CNN.com

Just a side note. The CNN poll has been ripped to shreds for it's terrible representation of respondents as compared to the actual make up of the electorate. Even centrist Chuck Todd was shocked by it and said it actually would have been Clinton +4 (a five point swing from the reported number)
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 09-07-2016, 03:12 PM   #897
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 54,164
Local Time: 08:54 PM
Why are we still acknowledging this idiocy?

Sanders was never vetted nationally. The Republican candidates never attacked him for a reason... he was never going to win, so make nice and hope he damages Hillary enough to help in the general.

The idea that once Sanders was the only candidate that he would swoop in and swallow up all the centrist swing voters is just plain laughable. The idea that he wouldn't be facing attack after attack over his socialist stances, being labeled a communist even, is equally laughable.

Oh, and the youth vote? They never turn out. Never.

If Trump is capable of beating Hillary, he'd have beaten Sanders as well.

But he's still trailing by large margins in the state by state polling, and if the election were held today he'd be creamed in the electoral college, so why in the fuck are we talking about this again?

For fake spaghetti monster in the sky's sake, leave a fucking dead horse be.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 09-07-2016, 03:39 PM   #898
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,203
Local Time: 08:54 PM
if HRC is so weak, makes you wonder how she clobbered Bernie in the primaries, especially in a year when "the Left" is so energized and inspired and she's a candidate with so many, many problems.

and unlikeable. don't forget that. SO unlikeable.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-07-2016, 04:36 PM   #899
New Yorker
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,121
Local Time: 12:54 AM
Because the Clinton Machine and DNC conspired against Bernie from the start.

Voter Fraud
Emails
MURDER!!!!
__________________
BEAL is online now  
Old 09-07-2016, 05:27 PM   #900
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 39,788
Local Time: 07:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEAL View Post
Because the Clinton Machine and DNC conspired against Bernie from the start.

Voter Fraud
Emails
MURDER!!!!

Benghazi and coughing. You forgot that she's dying, but it's ok, we have flashlights on standby.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com