2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part X - Page 17

dazzledbylight · 07-13-2016, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

Nahhhhhhh. It would just confirm how much our country is going to hell! A fucking commie is running for president! Dey tuk err jerbs!

dazzledbylight · 07-13-2016, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVS

Oh believe me, if you read a Breitbart article or listen to am radio they're still trying to attach this label to Obama and Hillary as much as they can.

Hoooo, boy, they never gave up on calling The Clintons some variant of socialists communists! since the 90's.

Let alone that Commie! FDR for Social Security etc

dazzledbylight · 07-13-2016, 12:47 PM

anitram.. guvmint

I hadn't seen that version of anti-government alternate spelling 1-word commentary like -
here in 'Merica.

thank oreg - I see my post was a bit unclear. Fixed

Oregoropa · 07-13-2016, 12:48 PM

Okie Doke

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

dazzledbylight · 07-13-2016, 01:29 PM

College debt relief is definity high on middle class families, or potential families list. Continuing to make health more afford, too. More decent paying job especially at the lower middle class level.

Yeah, I sure wish President Obama had left the public option on the table... but...

there still is a back door way to get to it.
Yes, it will take more time at first.. The ACA allows a state (along w other experiments in health care delivery/costs ) to try the Public Oppotion!

I believe Vermont is in the process of working this up. Bernie

It's a possibility because that's how it started in Canada; in one of it's Provinces!

When people started seeing g how good it was- dominoes falling on private health care.

BVS · 07-13-2016, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

Okie Doke

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

THIS actually existed...

BigMacPhisto · 07-13-2016, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVS

Oh this magic polling, that you've been asked to about and failed to produce everytime.

No, I was referring to the heads-up matchup polling that consistently showed Sanders doing much better against Republican candidates.

BVS · 07-13-2016, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

No, I was referring to the heads-up matchup polling that consistently showed Sanders doing much better against Republican candidates.

As we explained over and over, don't put too much stock in early polling that puts party vs party and the candidates haven't even been chosen. Sanders never truly got vetted. And saying that that polling shows a big swing left and that socialism is now acceptable is a huge leap.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Bluer White · 07-13-2016, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

No, I was referring to the heads-up matchup polling that consistently showed Sanders doing much better against Republican candidates.

Give credence to the polls that show your preferred remaining candidate doing well.

You can't put too much stock in those 'other' polls.

BVS · 07-13-2016, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluer White

Give credence to the polls that show your preferred remaining candidate doing well.

You can't put too much stock in those 'other' polls.

Come on now, I've been very consistent on my positions with polls and haven't posted any polls in here trying to backup any view.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

BigMacPhisto · 07-13-2016, 06:17 PM

You're only invalidating those polls because they don't fit your narrative of Clinton being the stronger candidate. That's it.

You can either accept polling as a science or ignore it all completely. You can't just pick and choose. The only information we have is the polling that says Sanders probably would have done better against Trump and there's no other evidence to say otherwise. Accept it and realize that the Democrats threw away a blowout victory in order to honor someone they've done so much for yet have received so little in return.

Irvine511 · 07-13-2016, 06:23 PM

Bernie couldn't even beat crooked, lyin', has-been Hillary. He wasn't even close. All he's ever had to do is convince a few white people in liberal Vermont to vote for him every 6 years after he fled Brooklyn.

How could he hope to take on the GOP?

BigMacPhisto · 07-13-2016, 06:25 PM

Stop with comparing the primaries to the general election. It's apple to oranges. You're automatically saying Trump is the best possible Republican candidate in the general election if that's your logic.

"How is Clinton supposed to win the Electoral College when she has no prayer to even win Washington state because Bernie crushed her there?"

See? It's fucking stupid.

BVS · 07-13-2016, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

You're only invalidating those polls because they don't fit your narrative of Clinton being the stronger candidate. That's it.

You can either accept polling as a science or ignore it all completely. You can't just pick and choose. The only information we have is the polling that says Sanders probably would have done better against Trump and there's no other evidence to say otherwise. Accept it and realize that the Democrats threw away a blowout victory in order to honor someone they've done so much for yet have received so little in return.

I've never played pick and choose with polls, that's my point.

You blindly pick the polls that feed your narrative, you never looked at the fact that he's an unknown compared to the rest of the field, that he was never really vetted by media or other candidates. In that same group of polling that you kept bragging about that showed Sanders doing better against Trump head to head also had Clinton beating Sanders when it was just them head to head, so explain that science...

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

BVS · 07-13-2016, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Stop with comparing the primaries to the general election. It's apple to oranges. You're automatically saying Trump is the best possible Republican candidate in the general election if that's your logic.

"How is Clinton supposed to win the Electoral College when she has no prayer to even win Washington state because Bernie crushed her there?"

See? It's fucking stupid.

Are you drunk posting again?

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

BigMacPhisto · 07-13-2016, 06:41 PM

What is there to explain? Clinton consistently fared better in the primary polls than Sanders and defeated him in the primaries as expected. What does that have to do with how they would fare in the general election?

It's rather disturbing just how many of you can't wrap your heads around the simple logic that a smaller group of voters in a given party's primary doesn't reflect what will happen on a national stage when far more are casting ballots.

BigMacPhisto · 07-13-2016, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVS

Are you drunk posting again?

We had people making those exact statements during the primary, such as Headache arguing that the Democrats would lose Florida if Bernie were the nominee because he lost badly there to Clinton.

BVS · 07-13-2016, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

What is there to explain? Clinton consistently fared better in the primary polls than Sanders and defeated him in the primaries as expected. What does that have to do with how they would fare in the general election?

It's rather disturbing just how many of you can't wrap your heads around the simple logic that a smaller group of voters in a given party's primary doesn't reflect what will happen on a national stage when far more are casting ballots.

Some of those discrepancies were within the same polls, same audience.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Oregoropa · 07-13-2016, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVS

Come on now, I've been very consistent on my positions with polls and haven't posted any polls in here trying to backup any view.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

BVS's real name is Nate Silver

DaveC · 07-13-2016, 08:33 PM

bernie being the candidate woulda meant 300 electoral votes instead of the 350 that hillary's gonna get.

07-13-2016, 08:33 PM	#340
DaveC Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: the teeth of the hydra Posts: 22,715 Local Time: 10:57 PM	bernie being the candidate woulda meant 300 electoral votes instead of the 350 that hillary's gonna get. __________________

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-13-2016, 12:47 PM	#323
dazzledbylight Blue Crack Supplier Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: in the sound dancing - w Bono & Edge :D Posts: 34,912 Local Time: 10:57 PM	anitram.. guvmint I hadn't seen that version of anti-government alternate spelling 1-word commentary like - here in 'Merica. thank oreg - I see my post was a bit unclear. Fixed

07-13-2016, 12:48 PM	#324
Oregoropa Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Polish-American Stronghold PA Posts: 4,144 Local Time: 09:57 PM	Okie Doke Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

07-13-2016, 01:29 PM	#325
dazzledbylight Blue Crack Supplier Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: in the sound dancing - w Bono & Edge :D Posts: 34,912 Local Time: 10:57 PM	College debt relief is definity high on middle class families, or potential families list. Continuing to make health more afford, too. More decent paying job especially at the lower middle class level. Yeah, I sure wish President Obama had left the public option on the table... but... there still is a back door way to get to it. Yes, it will take more time at first.. The ACA allows a state (along w other experiments in health care delivery/costs ) to try the Public Oppotion! I believe Vermont is in the process of working this up. Bernie It's a possibility because that's how it started in Canada; in one of it's Provinces! When people started seeing g how good it was- dominoes falling on private health care.

07-13-2016, 06:17 PM	#331
BigMacPhisto Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 6,351 Local Time: 09:57 PM	You're only invalidating those polls because they don't fit your narrative of Clinton being the stronger candidate. That's it. You can either accept polling as a science or ignore it all completely. You can't just pick and choose. The only information we have is the polling that says Sanders probably would have done better against Trump and there's no other evidence to say otherwise. Accept it and realize that the Democrats threw away a blowout victory in order to honor someone they've done so much for yet have received so little in return.

07-13-2016, 06:23 PM	#332
Irvine511 Blue Crack Supplier Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 34,114 Local Time: 10:57 PM	Bernie couldn't even beat crooked, lyin', has-been Hillary. He wasn't even close. All he's ever had to do is convince a few white people in liberal Vermont to vote for him every 6 years after he fled Brooklyn. How could he hope to take on the GOP?

07-13-2016, 06:25 PM	#333
BigMacPhisto Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 6,351 Local Time: 09:57 PM	Stop with comparing the primaries to the general election. It's apple to oranges. You're automatically saying Trump is the best possible Republican candidate in the general election if that's your logic. "How is Clinton supposed to win the Electoral College when she has no prayer to even win Washington state because Bernie crushed her there?" See? It's fucking stupid.

07-13-2016, 06:41 PM	#336
BigMacPhisto Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 6,351 Local Time: 09:57 PM	What is there to explain? Clinton consistently fared better in the primary polls than Sanders and defeated him in the primaries as expected. What does that have to do with how they would fare in the general election? It's rather disturbing just how many of you can't wrap your heads around the simple logic that a smaller group of voters in a given party's primary doesn't reflect what will happen on a national stage when far more are casting ballots.