2016 US Presidential Election Thread IX - Page 9 - 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 05-23-2016, 11:15 PM   #161
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,143
Local Time: 09:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
I'm sure a 1%er like you already has lots of guns.
I keep them all in the back of my Rolls Royce pickup truck.
__________________

Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 05-23-2016, 11:23 PM   #162
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,313
Local Time: 09:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Don't be that guy who is still in high school and telling everyone they aren't goth enough, jock enough, or gay enough. Be an adult.
I already stated that wasn't my intention yet you'll find any excuse to try and tear into me.

Clinton's positions are not equivalent to the left or what has defined liberalism for decades, nor have a lot of Democrats fit that banner over the years (although it's becoming a lot more common given the party's leftward shift).
__________________

BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 11:32 PM   #163
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
Nate Silver and the like would disagree with your assessments, especially when they argue correctly that polling has only become more and more exact over recent decades.

Meanwhile, he made the argument recently that the general election polls this far out from the election that you're declaring meaningless as being far more relevant to how the Electoral College plays out in November than individual state polls.

And the pollsters adjust for the landline issues and call people with cellphones and the like. These are mathematicians and statistics nerds running these things, even if some of them have their own house effects or problems. Otherwise, if they truly were only calling landlines, Clinton would be winning the nationwide primary about 95 to 5% at this point.

Also, variances in polling such as Rasmussen or Fox News leaning one way and some leaning the other is entirely because of having to estimate the individual turnout from each side come November. They're getting better and better at it, but it's still not the easiest thing in the world to do and polling tends to be way off whenever turnout is super low (mid-term and offseason elections, etc.)

Funny enough, I think it's actually pretty easy to predict Republican turnout in a Presidential year and it's exactly why Sanders and Clinton would both beat this guy with ease (and perhaps why they were so deadly accurate with Romney vs. Obama). The share of the white vote has dropped by the same amount (it's like 2.5% of the entire voting body) with every single Presidential election. The expected share for 2012 was right on the money and now it's only going to be even worse for Trump. That means an extra 2.5% of the vote total is going to be made up of the same Latinos, Blacks and Asians that he has offended.

Nate Silver got it completely wrong with Trump. He gave him a 2% chance.

Those who opt to receive polling questions on their "cells" already have an active political leaning. The average Joe won't bother. Website polling is a fucking joke, there is no mathematical variance built-in to bias of the site or multiple voting.

The last time I was polled was 98. I have no landline and I don't bother with online polls.

But society loves it's groupthink, they need something else to reward their opinion. They need a review to tell them the music they listen to is good, they need a poll to reinforce their political view, or they need a celebrity to endorse their thought.
BVS is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 11:38 PM   #164
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,313
Local Time: 09:39 AM
Nate Silver's Trump stuff was arbitrary guessing based on how Trump would fare as the cycle progressed. It had absolutely nothing to do with polling and the chances they assigned the candidates was completely subjective.

Also, you don't opt to receive polling questions. I get called from polling firms on my cellphone and I didn't opt in.

Your argument basically boils down to "polls are meaningless because Clinton surely would do better than Sanders in the general election." You would be citing those same polls as evidence of Clinton's strength were they showing a different outcome.

Why not for a second entertain the notion, that maybe, just maybe, the country prefers him to Clinton? Are the favorability ratings also nonsense in your mind too, even though the 50% cutoff tends to determine if a President is re-elected or not?


And again, he has had millions of people not affiliated with either party vote for him in open primaries or register as a Democrat for closed ones. Millions of people that have no intention, at least at this point, of voting for Clinton. Don't you think the person that can bring in a few extra million along with the guaranteed 60 million or so votes for the Democratic nominee in November would fare better than the one who can't? Clinton's supporters in the primary are virtually all lifelong Democrats that aren't going to say no to Bernie if he's the nominee (and they generally like him given his high favorables within party polling). In other words, she brings in nobody new and Sanders does, hence Sanders doing better in all of these polls. I don't know what's so hard to understand about it and it's those same non-Democrats that she is now targeting and those are the same voters that analysis sites like FiveThirtyEight are referring to as ones she'll want to pick up that aren't guaranteed to vote for her.




The simple equation for the umpteenth time:

Every registered Democrat that votes in the fall votes for Clinton (x) and she gets x amount of votes.

Every registered Democrat that votes in the fall votes for nominee Sanders (x) along with the millions of independent voters that supported him in the primaries (y). He gets x + y amount of votes.



The rest of the news media, pollsters and analysts have no problem seeing that and realizing why it explains Sanders faring better in these head-to-head polls. It's just people in this thread that can't see it.

Fair enough to make the argument that things would change if Sanders were the nominee because he could get attacked a certain way (keep in mind, an opinion rather than a fact). But as it stands right at this very moment, the above line of reasoning is pretty much on the nose. Democrats will vote for a Democrat (and Sanders even has a higher favorable rating within his own party than Clinton...) and Sanders also gets a bunch of non-democrats. Fact.
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 11:52 PM   #165
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post

Also, you don't opt to receive polling questions. I get called from polling firms on my cellphone and I didn't opt in.

Your argument basically boils down to "polls are meaningless because Clinton surely would do better than Sanders in the general election." You would be citing those same polls as evidence of Clinton's strength were they showing a different outcome.

Why not for a second entertain the notion, that maybe, just maybe, the country prefers him to Clinton? Are the favorability ratings also nonsense in your mind too, even though the 50% cutoff tends to determine if a President is re-elected or not?

Yes, you opted in at some point, maybe you didn't read the fine print, but you opted in.

No, I've been talking about the meaninglessness of polls for a loooooong time in FYM. You'd be hard pressed to find me citing a poll in here.

Favorability is a real thing, but it only takes you so far. And it's a hard variable to determine how much it will win you over in the long run.
BVS is offline  
Old 05-24-2016, 12:05 AM   #166
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,461
Local Time: 10:39 AM
2016 US Presidential Election Thread IX

Why is Hillary so soundly beating Sanders if there are all these millions and millions of people who have never voted before but are now voting for him? Shouldn't he be doing better? Why isn't he winning the primary -- especially a Dem primary with a much more liberal electorate -- if he beats Trump by so much? You've walked away from your earlier assertions about how he does better in open primaries (he doesn't). What about these assertions you're making? Where are the numbers? Why can't he come as close to her as she did to Obama in 08? Isn't the only real question why isn't she beating him by even more?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-24-2016, 12:17 AM   #167
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,313
Local Time: 09:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Why is Hillary so soundly beating Sanders if there are all these millions and millions of people who have never voted before but are now voting for him? Shouldn't he be doing better? Why isn't he winning the primary -- especially a Dem primary with a much more liberal electorate -- if he beats Trump by so much? You've walked away from your earlier assertions about how he does better in open primaries (he doesn't). What about these assertions you're making? Where are the numbers? Why can't he come as close to her as she did to Obama in 08? Isn't the only real question why isn't she beating him by even more?

I'm not sure what's so hard to figure out about the math. But I'll illustrate it for you.

Let's say Clinton gets 70% of Democrats and basically nobody else.

Let's say Sanders gets 30% of Democrats and the rest of his votes come from these millions of independent voters.

Clinton absolutely slays Sanders with lifelong Democrats and it's enough to win the primary. But who actually brought new voters into the fold? Sanders.

General election comes around and basically every Democrat that planned on voting in November no matter what goes and votes for Sanders and he also gets those extra non-Democrats.

I really don't see what you're not getting. Likewise, John Kasich and Marco Rubio, for example, fared far better than Trump in these polls because they would do better with the sliver of non-Republicans than Trump would (along with Trump actually losing lifelong Republican votes). Trump won the primary, but he's the weaker candidate.


To illustrate this again, let's say we're going to have a game against each other where we see who can make a bigger baseball team. You manage to assemble 13 of our usual players out of 20 and I get the other 7. I also manage to bring in 3 people that have never played baseball before. At the end of the day, you still have 13 potential players and I have 10. You have me beat in terms of recruiting players.

Then we try to beat the guy across town at this game. He brings his 20, but we, together, now have 23 because those 3 newbies decided to stick with me. We win. Get it now?

If you just go with the mathematically wrong logic of "primary winner equals best general election candidate" than it would entail that someone that earned a whopping 1,000 more votes in a primary that 20,000,000 voted in would automatically be the better of the two candidates with the general population. At the same time, the loser could have a more substantial percentage of their supporters coming from independents outside the party that won't vote for the person who won the primary and who has been associated with that same party for their entire political life. I certainly know which one I would prefer to have as the nominee.

Likewise, that hypothetical primary winner could be hated by everyone who didn't vote for them in the primary. That would be a very shitty candidate indeed, but by the logic of a lot of people in here, they would be the best simply because they won their party's primary even if the other roughly 3/4 of the nation thinks they are garbage.
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-24-2016, 12:27 AM   #168
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,461
Local Time: 10:39 AM
2016 US Presidential Election Thread IX

No. It doesn't make any sense. If Sanders were the revolutionary figure you claim he is, the one bringing millions of new voters into the process, HE'D BE TRUMP. He isn't. And as you say, Trump is the weakest general candidate of the bunch.

You are vastly overestimating Bernie's appeal based on really fuzzy logic and assumptions. Most Sanders voters are going to vote for Clinton. There simply aren't these "millions and millions" of non-political people out there. The Clinton campaign is not worried about winning enough of the Bernie vote. They will get enough of it. What they want to focus on is peeling off right leaning white women in the suburbs.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-24-2016, 12:30 AM   #169
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,313
Local Time: 09:39 AM
No, you're just making assertions without any real logic. Sanders isn't a big revolutionary figure because he failed to win his own primary. Absolutely. That doesn't mean he is the weaker general election candidate.

I don't get why you are pointing it out as black-and-white where Sanders has to bring in enough independents to win the primary for it to mean that he actually brought people into the primary. That makes zero sense.
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-24-2016, 12:31 AM   #170
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,313
Local Time: 09:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
You are vastly overestimating Bernie's appeal based on really fuzzy logic and assumptions.
Or the mountain of general election and favorability polling compared to the fuzzy logic and assumptions made by everyone else in here. Some evidence is better than no evidence.
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-24-2016, 12:31 AM   #171
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,461
Local Time: 10:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
No, you're just making assertions without any real logic. Sanders isn't a big revolutionary figure because he failed to win his own primary. Absolutely. That doesn't mean he is the weaker general election candidate.

I don't get why you are pointing it out as black-and-white where Sanders has to bring in enough independents to win the primary for it to mean that he actually brought people into the primary. That makes zero sense.


You don't have any math. You have no numbers to back up your claims.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-24-2016, 12:35 AM   #172
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,461
Local Time: 10:39 AM
2016 US Presidential Election Thread IX

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
No, you're just making assertions without any real logic. Sanders isn't a big revolutionary figure because he failed to win his own primary. Absolutely. That doesn't mean he is the weaker general election candidate.

I don't get why you are pointing it out as black-and-white where Sanders has to bring in enough independents to win the primary for it to mean that he actually brought people into the primary. That makes zero sense.


If you support Sanders because of his platform and ideas, that's great.

The argument that he is more likely to win the general isn't a great argument. Not least because you're unable to make it beyond citing polls done in May that everyone agrees are worthless. Not had he brought these "millions and millions" of voters out to the polls. Turnout is down. He isn't winning open primaries. His rallies are smaller than Obama's. He's transformative when you want him to be?

When asked why minorities don't like Bernie, your response is that the aren't sophisticated enough to see beyond name recognition.

Isn't that what's happening in these early polls? Name recognition?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-24-2016, 12:43 AM   #173
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,313
Local Time: 09:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
You don't have any math. You have no numbers to back up your claims.
Except the exit polling showing how huge chunks of independents voted for Sanders in states like Michigan, propelling him to victory in states where he got clobbered by Clinton with registered Democrats. And the general election polling now.

You have nothing. Just your own opinion reiterated over and over like it's fact.


There's literally millions of non-Democrats that have voted for Sanders in the primaries and nobody else in this thread but you is arguing against that. And they're exactly the sort of votes that aren't in-the-bag for the fall and why Clinton is so keen to win them over. Do you really think she would be agreeing to make concessions when neither of the major parties has really done so unless it's actually a contested convention? She wants to woo them over because they aren't guaranteed votes. In the past, neither of the major parties really let the losing candidates have a say at the convention - no matter how many delegates they happened to receive. This situation is different precisely because there's millions of voters in the balance that aren't ones you can just ignore because they're going to coalesce behind the nominee regardless. Had Sanders been the nominee, the Democrats get their first Presidential vote from me and a happy "why not?" when I'd check the rest of the down ballot boxes next to the D. There's millions like me that Clinton wants to woo over. Not that she can do it with everybody, mind you.

It's really not lifelong Democrats saying "Sanders or bust" as it's the people that aren't members of the party (or are newly registered) which happens to be a considerable amount of Sanders supporters. The actual Democrats will have no problem checking off any Democrat's name in November.
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-24-2016, 12:54 AM   #174
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,313
Local Time: 09:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Not had he brought these "millions and millions" of voters out to the polls. Turnout is down. He isn't winning open primaries. His rallies are smaller than Obama's. He's transformative when you want him to be?

When asked why minorities don't like Bernie, your response is that the aren't sophisticated enough to see beyond name recognition.

Isn't that what's happening in these early polls? Name recognition?
This is just entirely nonsense and you really don't understand math. Turnout can be down with tons of new voters entering the fold just as they have for Sanders.

Let's say 20,000,000 voted for Clinton vs. Obama. Let's say only 10,000,000 of them vote in Clinton vs. Sanders. But Sanders also brings in 4,000,000 new voters.

Clinton gets 8,000,000 of the people that voted in the previous election while Sanders gets 2,000,000 plus his new 4,000,000. Sanders loses by 2,000,000 votes. Not surpassing record turnout in Obama vs. Clinton doesn't mean a certain candidate isn't drawing in new voters, especially when that candidate is drawing in independents and is an independent himself. Seriously, you would fail any critical thinking class with your grasp on logic and math.



Secondly, you're just saying nonsense about minorities not liking Sanders. He has the higher approval rating within the party, even. Just because someone votes for Clinton it doesn't mean they dislike Sanders and vice-versa. That's beyond the fact that you're statement is blunt in itself.

And your business about name recognition makes zero sense. So you're saying Bernie is doing better because he's recognized more in polls by people than Clinton? I'm sure that has never, ever happened. He technically would start any general election poll at a disadvantage to where Clinton starts because he's less of a known quantity (although at this point, practically everyone but the lowest information voters know who he is and what he stands for). My point is that plenty of voters cast ballots by mail in states before they even knew who Sanders was and the remark of "I don't know him" is even hilariously repeated in quite a few articles concerning black voters in South Carolina despite the fact that Sanders had been campaigning and debating there for weeks, even. Plenty of states had hundreds of thousands of ballots come in before Sanders ever even stepped a foot in them or aired a single advertisement (not to mention the over a dozen states where his campaign did nothing, most of them in the South).

And it's not about sophistication or anything when it comes to black voters. Clinton embodies the third term for Obama as she's his choice and served in his administration. They adore Obama and want to continue his legacy. Case in point, when Biden was entered into polls, the black voted actually shifted quite a bit as it leads to confusion over just which candidate carries that mantle.
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-24-2016, 12:56 AM   #175
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,461
Local Time: 10:39 AM
Using Michigan as your only example -- a state arguably hurt most by NAFTA, and where Bernie has his strongest support with white voters left behind by free trade -- is a bad way to judge the general. You also have no evidence that these people:

1. Had never voted before
2. Won't vote for Clinton in the general (they will, mostly)
3. Won't vote for Trump in the general (they could)
4. Weren't Republicans
5. Were more than Democrats voting in the GOP race to stop Trump

Furthermore, he has not repeated this in other states.

He also won by a small margin -- 1.5% -- in a state that goes blue.

If you're Bernie outlook is based on Michigan, I can see how you'd have this misunderstanding of the general.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-24-2016, 01:02 AM   #176
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,461
Local Time: 10:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
Except the exit polling showing how huge chunks of independents voted for Sanders in states like Michigan, propelling him to victory in states where he got clobbered by Clinton with registered Democrats. And the general election polling now.

You have nothing. Just your own opinion reiterated over and over like it's fact.


There's literally millions of non-Democrats that have voted for Sanders in the primaries and nobody else in this thread but you is arguing against that. And they're exactly the sort of votes that aren't in-the-bag for the fall and why Clinton is so keen to win them over. Do you really think she would be agreeing to make concessions when neither of the major parties has really done so unless it's actually a contested convention? She wants to woo them over because they aren't guaranteed votes. In the past, neither of the major parties really let the losing candidates have a say at the convention - no matter how many delegates they happened to receive. This situation is different precisely because there's millions of voters in the balance that aren't ones you can just ignore because they're going to coalesce behind the nominee regardless. Had Sanders been the nominee, the Democrats get their first Presidential vote from me and a happy "why not?" when I'd check the rest of the down ballot boxes next to the D. There's millions like me that Clinton wants to woo over. Not that she can do it with everybody, mind you.

It's really not lifelong Democrats saying "Sanders or bust" as it's the people that aren't members of the party (or are newly registered) which happens to be a considerable amount of Sanders supporters. The actual Democrats will have no problem checking off any Democrat's name in November.



I'm on a phone and it's impossible for me at this hour to respond point by point, but a lot of this is nonsense.

The "Bernie or Bust" folk are a tiny percentage of the electorate. Tiny. Most Sanders voters will vote for Clinton. I understand at tempting to think of ourselves as more representative than we actually are of an electorate, but there you have it. There aren't these "millions and millions" of voters out there like you claim. You still have no evidence.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-24-2016, 01:08 AM   #177
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,461
Local Time: 10:39 AM
2016 US Presidential Election Thread IX

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
This is just entirely nonsense and you really don't understand math. Turnout can be down with tons of new voters entering the fold just as they have for Sanders.

Let's say 20,000,000 voted for Clinton vs. Obama. Let's say only 10,000,000 of them vote in Clinton vs. Sanders. But Sanders also brings in 4,000,000 new voters.

Clinton gets 8,000,000 of the people that voted in the previous election while Sanders gets 2,000,000 plus his new 4,000,000. Sanders loses by 2,000,000 votes. Not surpassing record turnout in Obama vs. Clinton doesn't mean a certain candidate isn't drawing in new voters, especially when that candidate is drawing in independents and is an independent himself. Seriously, you would fail any critical thinking class with your grasp on logic and math.



Secondly, you're just saying nonsense about minorities not liking Sanders. He has the higher approval rating within the party, even. Just because someone votes for Clinton it doesn't mean they dislike Sanders and vice-versa. That's beyond the fact that you're statement is blunt in itself.

And your business about name recognition makes zero sense. So you're saying Bernie is doing better because he's recognized more in polls by people than Clinton? I'm sure that has never, ever happened. He technically would start any general election poll at a disadvantage to where Clinton starts because he's less of a known quantity (although at this point, practically everyone but the lowest information voters know who he is and what he stands for). My point is that plenty of voters cast ballots by mail in states before they even knew who Sanders was and the remark of "I don't know him" is even hilariously repeated in quite a few articles concerning black voters in South Carolina despite the fact that Sanders had been campaigning and debating there for weeks, even. Plenty of states had hundreds of thousands of ballots come in before Sanders ever even stepped a foot in them or aired a single advertisement (not to mention the over a dozen states where his campaign did nothing, most of them in the South).

And it's not about sophistication or anything when it comes to black voters. Clinton embodies the third term for Obama as she's his choice and served in his administration. They adore Obama and want to continue his legacy. Case in point, when Biden was entered into polls, the black voted actually shifted quite a bit as it leads to confusion over just which candidate carries that mantle.



1. Again, you have no math. You have weird hypotheticals. Show me the new voters. I can show you the numbers that say that 86% of Bernie voters will support HRC in the general. 10% will go for Trump. I guess you're in that remaining "Bernienor Bust" 4%?

2. You are the one who argued name recognition for why Hillary does better among minority voters. That same high name recognition works *against* her in the general whereas Sanders, at the moment, may sound fresh and new.

From the NYT today:

Quote:
One is that Bernie Sanders’s supporters are a big reason Clinton is doing worse in her polling against Trump. In the recent YouGov poll, Clinton had just a 40-point lead against Trump among Sanders voters, while Sanders had a 70-point lead. Trump was getting virtually the same share of the vote against both candidates — 40 percent against Clinton, 39 percent against Sanders. Presumably most Sanders supporters will ultimately get behind Clinton, and, on the flip side, Clinton supporters would have been much more negative on Sanders if he had posed a more serious threat to her victory.

The second thing is that Sanders just hasn’t faced any major attacks on his record. The Republicans have cheered him on against Clinton, whom they realize they’re inevitably going to face. Clinton never really attacked him, either — no big negative television ad buys, for example — in no small part because she didn’t want to alienate his supporters.

So Sanders is set to lose, but in a way that leaves him unscathed and therefore appearing very strong in the general. There was something similar with John Kasich. Maybe Sanders really would have survived all of the attacks from Clinton that would have come if he had been a bigger threat to win the nomination. But as it is, it’s just a question mark.

You can choose not to believe this anti-Bernie rag, but there you have it.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-24-2016, 06:57 AM   #178
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,143
Local Time: 09:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
1. Again, you have no math. You have weird hypotheticals. Show me the new voters. I can show you the numbers that say that 86% of Bernie voters will support HRC in the general. 10% will go for Trump. I guess you're in that remaining "Bernienor Bust" 4%?

2. You are the one who argued name recognition for why Hillary does better among minority voters. That same high name recognition works *against* her in the general whereas Sanders, at the moment, may sound fresh and new.

From the NYT today:




You can choose not to believe this anti-Bernie rag, but there you have it.
You just don't understand math.
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 05-24-2016, 07:53 AM   #179
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,143
Local Time: 09:39 AM
If there are so many independents just jonesing to Feel The Bern, how has Hillary won more open primaries?

Logic would tell you that if there are so many independent BernieBros just comping at the bit to cast their vote that he'd dominate any open primary.

I guess I just don't understand math.
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 05-24-2016, 08:12 AM   #180
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,461
Local Time: 10:39 AM
Trump is talking about Vince Foster and murder.

That sounds like the shakeup of the system the Trumpsters say they want!
__________________

Irvine511 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 09:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×