2016 US Presidential Election Thread - VIII

[BigMacPhisto]

Polling is a science and the numbers have spoken for themselves for months now while Clinton has had the worst favorability rating outside of Trump and Sanders has enjoyed the highest of anyone from the two major parties. People like the guy and a huge reason for the gap in how Sanders and Clinton fare in the polls involves the millions of non-Democrats that have supported Sanders this year. Sanders brings them in, Clinton draws them away.

And what is there to vet? Sanders has been an open, transparent and steady political figure for decades. If there was anything to really attack, Clinton would have exploited it (her 2008 run should tell you enough about that).

I love a good horse race as much as the next guy, but it's a shame that the Democrats had to give Donald Trump a nice window to win it all by nominating such a poor candidate. Clinton supporters just don't understand the importance of this election and it's a real shame.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by BEAL

Once the dem side is sorted (meaning Bernie concedes), you'll start seeing Clinton's numbers rise as well.

That's wishful thinking given the FiveThirtyEight article I posted in here today. Her dislike amongst Sanders supporters has only risen sharply the less likely he has been to becoming the nominee. It will likely peak after he concedes.

For Clinton to get the rise she needs by winning over those voters, she'll need to make concessions to them in terms of the platform, etc. She should be good at that because you all bragged about her ability to compromise, right?

If she fails to win them over, then it shows that she's really too much of an ideologue and not willing to get out of her comfort zone.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Polling is a science and the numbers have spoken for themselves for months now while Clinton has had the worst favorability rating outside of Trump and Sanders has enjoyed the highest of anyone from the two major parties. People like the guy and a huge reason for the gap in how Sanders and Clinton fare in the polls involves the millions of non-Democrats that have supported Sanders this year. Sanders brings them in, Clinton draws them away.

And what is there to vet? Sanders has been an open, transparent and steady political figure for decades. If there was anything to really attack, Clinton would have exploited it (her 2008 run should tell you enough about that).

I love a good horse race as much as the next guy, but it's a shame that the Democrats had to give Donald Trump a nice window to win it all by nominating such a poor candidate. Clinton supporters just don't understand the importance of this election and it's a real shame.

While I share fears about Clinton being a less than optimal candidate, I do not think Bernie Sanders is Barack Obama. I think you are wrapped up in hero worship.

And remember, she has 3 million more primary votes than him. She's winning. By a lot.

Clearly, lots of people view her pretty favorably.

[BigMacPhisto]

I'd say Bernie is better than Barack Obama in 2008. Draws in more independent voters that felt left out of the system. Obama's results merely look like what you'd expect a Democrat to do in the middle of an economic collapse and a Republican President with an approval rating in the high 20s.

Clinton is winning by three million primary votes partly because caucuses aren't counted in those totals. That's not to mention that this race would surely have been a nail biter if every state had open primaries and caucuses as the closed ones favored her to a great degree.

Yes, she is viewed favorably within the party. Outside of that? Not so much.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Clinton is winning by three million primary votes partly because caucuses aren't counted in those totals. That's not to mention that this race would surely have been a nail biter if every state had open primaries and caucuses as the closed ones favored her to a great degree.

Yes, she is viewed favorably within the party. Outside of that? Not so much.

i see. so if the primary was completely different and structured in a manner to be most favorable to Sanders, then the primary would be much closer?

[deep]

Independents will break for Trump against insider crooked Hillary,
outsider, sincere Bernie wins the independents

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by deep

Independents will break for Trump against insider crooked Hillary,
outsider, sincere Bernie wins the independents

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i see. so if the primary was completely different and structured in a manner to be most favorable to Sanders, then the primary would be much closer?

What's there to discuss? He draws in a ton of non-Democrats, many of whom couldn't vote for him in their states because of closed primaries.

And would Barack Obama have pulled out victory had he been limited to a schedule of a half dozen debates? Doubtful. I don't even think there's Clinton supporters in this thread that feel the DNC hasn't been in lockstep with making Hillary the nominee throughout this process, nor would they say there isn't a conflict of interest with Debbie Wasserman Schultz being at the head of the table.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

What's there to discuss? He draws in a ton of non-Democrats, many of whom couldn't vote for him in their states because of closed primaries.

i agree, there's no discussion to be had. you think that if we had different rules that would be more favorable to Bernie then the primary would be closer. i agree. if it were totally different, we'd have a different result.

and despite all these people Bernie has supposedly drawn into the process, he's still behind by 3 million votes. that's not a small amount.

we could extrapolate further to say that the people we know will actually show up on election day -- the party faithful, black women -- are the ones voting for HRC. so while it might be closer had all the primaries been open (she's won a bunch of those as well), can we count on these people to show up in November? do you really believe that Bernie has such magnetism as to fundamentally alter the voting habits of the American public? can you point to anything beyond a hunch?

And would Barack Obama had pulled out victory had he been limited to a schedule of a half dozen debates? Doubtful. I don't even think there's Clinton supporters in this thread that feel the DNC hasn't been in lockstep with making Hillary the nominee throughout this process, nor would they say there isn't a conflict of interest with Debbie Wasserman Schultz being at the head of the table.

generally, i think more debates would have been good for both the candidates because the Democratic race has, until now, been totally overshadowed by the GOP circus (despite the millions and millions of people who have never voted before or ever will in the future who evidently materialized for Sanders in open caucus states). i think she's been the presumptive nominee for 8 years and most people assumed that she'd be the nominee. boring. Sanders did very little to stir broad excitement in the race, up until now. there's such a thing as "earned media" -- no bias, no conspiracy, no plotting ... it's something all campaigns work to achieve.

i'm sure the DNC wanted to pave an easy road for Hillary, not at the personal expense of Bernie Sanders, but because they've been working under the assumption that she was the de facto VP running for a third Obama term. they didn't want what they have now: party infighting. Clinton will become much stronger when she's able to focus fully on the general and cut a sharp contrast with Trump rather than fight a two-front war. this is where complaints of selfishness and self-interest about Sanders have some merit. again, i don't think he should drop out, but he's changed quite a bit these past couple of weeks.

in retrospect, i think they would have done things differently, and i think it's a great lesson for the future. many debates make for better debaters, and campaigns need to work relentlessly to get better. stasis is the enemy. by June 2008, both HRC and BHO were superb candidates and either would have beaten McCain, though i don't think HRC would have flipped IN an NC or even VA.

[Popmartijn]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Meanwhile, rules changes. No more superdelegates.

It's funny to hear Democrats talk about this wish, whereas the Republican party wants to maybe introduce superdelegates. I guess it depends how you look at it depending on where in the political spectrum you are.

Open primaries in every state so that you can actually draw in millions who aren't Democrats into the process.

While I can understand that Sanders wants to have this, it doesn't feel right with me. This is the Democratic primary, where the Democratic Party chooses its presidential candidate. Why are non-Democrats then allowed to vote for one of these candidates? If they want to have a say in the candidate of the Democratic Party, why aren't they members of the party then?

After the success Sanders had running a far-left campaign, you can believe that someone running in 2024 will try and emulate that...and therefore we need to make sure that the party apparatus isn't doing everything in its power to block that

Well, I'd guess the Democratic Party has a different look at it. They want to stay in the center (right) so as to be most electable for the general public. They don't want to make a huge swing to the left, 'scaring away' millions of voters who are then turned off by a far-left candidate.
You just have to look at the Republican Party what would happen in such a situation. Hard right, far right and extreme right all competing for the nomination, in the process killing off any possible candidate who is moderately right. Would any of those had/far/extreme right candidates have presented an viable candidate for the general election? Or even one which would've been a comfortable alternative for those voting for another candidate in the general election?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Polling is a science and the numbers have spoken

No thinking logical person believes this in 2016. I guess you believed Trump's infamous poll that that the majority of American Muslims sympathized with jihadists?

Yes, Sanders is likeable, probably moreso than any other 2016 candidate, but it takes more. Many of us liked him and his message but didn't believe him that he had a true plan in place.

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

And what is there to vet? Sanders has been an open, transparent and steady political figure for decades. If there was anything to really attack, Clinton would have exploited it (her 2008 run should tell you enough about that).

Oh, you are cute.

Running for presidency changes everything when it comes to vetting. Is this the first election you've followed? Look at Palin or Ron Paul, no one really vets you until you run for president or vp.

What is there to vet? Well how about his finances to begin with. He stated he's only worth 500,000 or so, where has his money gone? We know what kind of salary he's making, has he squandered it all, is he bad with money, donated(to who); that's a big question I would have wanted answered before I left him in charge.



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Popmartijn]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Yes, she is viewed favorably within the party. Outside of that? Not so much.

So? She's campaigning to the the presidential candidate for the Democratic Party. Then it's OK if that party likes her.

If you want non-party members to also vote now, why have primaries? Why not immediately go for a general election, when everyone can vote already?

[Irvine511]

this is from 5/12/16, so it's a bit dated, but it should help us dispense with the notion that Bernie does better in open primaries:




Bernie does best in closed caucus states with large white populations.

[BEAL]

So going by the polls shared on here.

Georgia

Bernie projects to beat Trump

But when Georgia voted, in an open primary;

Clinton won 71% of the vote. More than doubled Sanders in vote count

Now I don't expect Clinton to win Georgia in the General, but I think she's proven with the actual votes and primary wins that she is the best choice we have


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Oregoropa]

Originally Posted by deep

Independents will break for Trump against insider crooked Hillary,
outsider, sincere Bernie wins the independents

Rasmussen has trump up 5.

Inside the poll independents break 46-30 split in Trumps favor.

Trump is leading with men by 22

Trump leads with white women


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

Trump leads with white women


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Does Trump have that 'whiter-than-white' Susan Sarandon yet ?

[deep]

Rendell has an interesting poll of his own.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

Does Trump have that 'whiter-than-white' Susan Sarandon yet ?

Only if evil Hillary -- destroyer of worlds, clubber of baby seals -- is the nominee.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

Rasmussen has trump up 5.

Inside the poll independents break 46-30 split in Trumps favor.

Trump is leading with men by 22

Trump leads with white women


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Right leaning Rasmussen, which has been found to be the least accurate since 2010 has recently reported a FOX NEWS poll that says Trump leads with white women.

Shock and awe

He also has 25% of the African American vote too, right?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I really think Justin Trudeau would have had an excellent shot at the presidency if only Canadians weren't unfairly left out of the election process.