2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part X

[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.

 

[Irvine511]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Axver]

I'm at a loss to understand the thought processes that suggest Candidate A performing much better than Candidate B in the primaries means that Candidate A will perform worse than Candidate B in a general election.

And I am closer to Sanders in ideology than I am to Clinton.

 

[BVS]

BVS's real name is Nate Silver

Isn't he still a firm believer in polls?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Clearly the candidate who was too far left for the Democratic party, and got destroyed by Clinton, was going to do better in the general, guys. Polls taken before anyone actually vetted the guy said so.

If you believe otherwise you're just a Clinton fucking sheeple fan boy.

God jeez why is this so hard to understand?

 

[Dfit00]

Poor Bernie Sanders, everyone pictured him like a wannabee nordic european savior with his socialist ideals. Pity the guy big time in the 21st century.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Clearly the candidate who was too far left for the Democratic party, and got destroyed by Clinton, was going to do better in the general, guys. Polls taken before anyone actually vetted the guy said so.

If you believe otherwise you're just a Clinton fucking sheeple fan boy.

God jeez why is this so hard to understand?

I'm no "sheeple fan boy" but I think you are underestimating the amount of people who inevitably are jumping ship from Sanders to Trump.

Additionally, there's also the chance that Clinton supporters are far more likely to show up and vote for Sanders, whereas Sanders supporters are more likely to cross their arms and not show up at all, or vote for Jill Stein or whatever.

I think it's a bit more complex than the way you're painting it. Not saying Clinton won't do better than Sanders would've, but I just don't know if we could ever truly know.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I'm no "sheeple fan boy" but I think you are underestimating the amount of people who inevitably are jumping ship from Sanders to Trump.

Additionally, there's also the chance that Clinton supporters are far more likely to show up and vote for Sanders, whereas Sanders supporters are more likely to cross their arms and not show up at all, or vote for Jill Stein or whatever.

I think it's a bit more complex than the way you're painting it. Not saying Clinton won't do better than Sanders would've, but I just don't know if we could ever truly know.

I fully understand that this is an election that is turning conventional wisdom on its head, at least on the GOP side, and that anything can happen.

My issue is with the great polling numbers of Sanders against the GOP, and how he'd do so much better. They're bullshit numbers. They were taken way too far out to matter, and they were taken before anyone ever really started ripping him apart on a national level. The GOP were hands off because, frankly, they knew he had no chance. And yea, Clinton couldn't rip him apart as much as she could because yes, she needs a lot of his supporters.

Could those poll numbers hold up through a brutal campaign, when Bernie is finally vetted for truly the first time? Would the young voter have finally shown up this time? Conventional wisdom says no, but in this year, anything is possible.

I just can't see a socialist who's spent his entire career catering to the whitest state in the country surviving a brutal vetting without Hillary around to deflect.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I cannot understand the mindset of Sanders supporters who've now decided to go for Trump. I can understand wanting to look for a candidate on the left who's still in the running and who they feel fits their ideals better than Clinton does.

But going from Sanders to Trump makes absolutely no sense to me at all, aside from, I suppose, the "not part of the establishment/shakes up the system" mentality. Except that Trump would shake it up in a bad way.

I've seen a few Sanders supporters, whether voting for Trump or not, say they want Trump to win as a wake up call for the Democratic Party to move farther to the left. I don't argue that the party does need some changes in its own ranks, too, of course it does...

...but is it really worth risking putting our country through four years of Trump to make that happen? A lot of people really cannot afford to sit through four years of a Trump presidency, and I think some of the angry/unhappy Sanders supporters out there are forgetting that.

There's also the fact that we could have the most progressive, left-wing president imaginable in office, but so long as we have the Congress we do, they're going to have one hell of an uphill battle getting anything done. That would be true regardless of whether Sanders, or Clinton, or Jill Stein, or whatever other left-wing politician you can think of became president. So instead of sitting there ranting on about Clinton and being upset that Sanders dared to support her and griping about poll results and so on, maybe the focus should start being on figuring out how to deal with the stalemate that is Congress so that the Democrats could actually get shit done.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I'm not defending Sanders-->Trump voters by any stretch of the imagination. But, I mean, I think it makes a lot of sense.

Clinton is a woman. That's a big deal.
Clinton is equally as polarizing for controversy as Sanders is for being socialist. A lot of people care about that note, without even considering the views.

But above all of that, I think people fail to understand the common voter, red or blue. You better bet your ass tons of people voted for Obama just because having a black president would be cool, and don't know a damn thing he said otherwise, aside from the slogans and catch phrases. Or those who voted Romney because he was simply the anti Obama for someone's underlying racism. Or for McCain, "because he served our country." Or for Al Gore, because he looked the part. Or for Dubya... well don't ask me on that one. Point is, I'm coming up with a ton of superficial things that the common voter probably makes their initial decision on, jumps on the bandwagon, and adopts a few of the campaign views. Clinton's voice could subconsciously be costing her thousands of votes.

I know that all seems totally absurd to say, but my point is that you're surrounded by this bubble that each and every one of us is on this forum. Even posters you might not see as very smart are probably several steps more intellectually fit to vote than the average voter. Or perhaps not the average voter, but a significant amount of voters that can make a difference.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I'm not defending Sanders-->Trump voters by any stretch of the imagination. But, I mean, I think it makes a lot of sense.

Clinton is a woman. That's a big deal.
Clinton is equally as polarizing for controversy as Sanders is for being socialist. A lot of people care about that note, without even considering the views.

But above all of that, I think people fail to understand the common voter, red or blue. You better bet your ass tons of people voted for Obama just because having a black president would be cool, and don't know a damn thing he said otherwise, aside from the slogans and catch phrases. Or those who voted Romney because he was simply the anti Obama for someone's underlying racism. Or for McCain, "because he served our country." Or for Al Gore, because he looked the part. Or for Dubya... well don't ask me on that one. Point is, I'm coming up with a ton of superficial things that the common voter probably makes their initial decision on, jumps on the bandwagon, and adopts a few of the campaign views. Clinton's voice could subconsciously be costing her thousands of votes.

I know that all seems totally absurd to say, but my point is that you're surrounded by this bubble that each and every one of us is on this forum. Even posters you might not see as very smart are probably several steps more intellectually fit to vote than the average voter. Or perhaps not the average voter, but a significant amount of voters that can make a difference.

Nobody is denying that people are inevitably stupid. That's why Trump being the nominee alone is frightening, no matter what the polls say.

Which again goes back to the point, that holding early polls as scripture is just plain dumb

 

[Salome]

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.

This is actually not true.
The only information we have is that the polls showed is that at that specific moment in time Sanders would have outperformed Clinton against Trump with primary voters.

If you feel you have the insight to extrapolate that through space & time, then by all means. But it is not what we learned from the polls.

 

[Hewson]

IOr for Dubya... well don't ask me on that one.

Cause he was "folksy" was the term I recall being thrown around at the time.

 

[BVS]

The Republican platform hates gays, puts women back in the kitchen, and insists on religious law

Will they ever learn? Seems like the answer is no. Double downing on everything that's making your party shrivel currently.

I like how they added 'porn as a public health issue' yet they have a nominee that's been associated with strip clubs and been on Playboy.

It's like a long running cartoon.

 

[Irvine511]

Trump/Pence.

 

[Oregoropa]

Could ye spare a Trumppence for an old scallywag?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[dazzledbylight]

This is actually not true.
The only information we have is that the polls showed is that at that specific moment in time Sanders would have outperformed Clinton against Trump with primary voters.

If you feel you have the insight to extrapolate that through space & time, then by all means. But it is not what we learned from the polls.

Most pollsters ( having heard them interviewed) will tell you - this is a snaphot of the current moment.

 

[dazzledbylight]

I cannot understand the mindset of Sanders supporters who've now decided to go for Trump. I can understand wanting to look for a candidate on the left who's still in the running and who they feel fits their ideals better than Clinton does.

But going from Sanders to Trump makes absolutely no sense to me at all, aside from, I suppose, the "not part of the establishment/shakes up the system" mentality. Except that Trump would shake it up in a bad way.

I've seen a few Sanders supporters, whether voting for Trump or not, say they want Trump to win as a wake up call for the Democratic Party to move farther to the left. I don't argue that the party does need some changes in its own ranks, too, of course it does...

...but is it really worth risking putting our country through four years of Trump to make that happen? A lot of people really cannot afford to sit through four years of a Trump presidency, and I think some of the angry/unhappy Sanders supporters out there are forgetting that.

There's also the fact that we could have the most progressive, left-wing president imaginable in office, but so long as we have the Congress we do, they're going to have one hell of an uphill battle getting anything done. That would be true regardless of whether Sanders, or Clinton, or Jill Stein, or whatever other left-wing politician you can think of became president. So instead of sitting there ranting on about Clinton and being upset that Sanders dared to support her and griping about poll results and so on, maybe the focus should start being on figuring out how to deal with the stalemate that is Congress so that the Democrats could actually get shit done.

thank you for also saying what I have been saying on how many people's health & well-being would be at stake if he wins.

Like pushing a boulder up a hill; we've got to turn the House and Senate back to the Democrats control.

There are dedicated groups on-line trying to do that with fundraising for Democrats running for Congress, along w each separate candidates campaign

 

[iron yuppie]

The Republican platform hates gays, puts women back in the kitchen, and insists on religious law

Will they ever learn? Seems like the answer is no. Double downing on everything that's making your party shrivel currently.

I like how they added 'porn as a public health issue' yet they have a nominee that's been associated with strip clubs and been on Playboy.

It's like a long running cartoon.

Porn as a public health issue is one of the more comical things I've heard in a while.

With this kind of platform the old school Republicans are all but handing the next two elections (at least) to the Democrats. During that time I think we will see a surge in Libertarian philosophy that will start to transform the Republican Party - young(er) people who are generally socially tolerant but are mired in debt and so are attracted to fiscal austerity.

 

[dazzledbylight]

Libertarians..

Ugh in two major ways (now I just went over to read Cato Institute's page to make sure I was getting things right)

Limited government & the very least government interference in business.

With that you have ended up with voracious corporations. , cutting food & workplace safety, environmental regulations, regulations on building structures well etc, and the shredding of the safety net.
Screw that.

 

[dazzledbylight]

Also Irving, oreg

 

[BVS]

During that time I think we will see a surge in Libertarian philosophy that will start to transform the Republican Party - young(er) people who are generally socially tolerant but are mired in debt and so are attracted to fiscal austerity.

Personally I really hope so. I've been saying for years they need to stay away from social issues or they will die out. They can accept science but still use a libertarian approach. Stop demonizing education. And grow a backbone and stand up to the NRA. If they could do this they would actually start winning.