[Illuyankas]

On a side note after some reading, I think the two reasons HClinton lost in '08 are Candidate Obama was great with a great team; and Mark Penn.

e: if you wondering why I keep writing HClinton, it's to differentiate between Bill and Hillary and because calling her by her first name (same as Bernie) seems weirdly dismissive for some reason, copyright brand name be damned

This post has been edited by Illuyankas: 16 March 2016 - 08:13 PM

[Terez]

Illuyankas, on 16 March 2016 - 07:48 PM, said:

Quick replies:

Yeah Hillary's a lot less popular than when I last summed the polls so even with how (very, very) inaccurate they've been recently that is some cause for concern.

Most of the polls have been accurate; Michigan was an outlier. Favorability tracking polls have better sample sizes and are conducted by polling organizations with better track records. They're about as accurate as polls get.

Illuyankas, on 16 March 2016 - 07:48 PM, said:

"Those facts aren't relevant, here's me telling you what I think she'll """probably""" do and also she's literally a glove puppet of Big Finance and the MIC and has no will of her own"

Not sure where this comes from, but I never said she didn't have a will of her own. I'm talking about her record here, perhaps best exemplified by her push to award deals to Clinton Foundation donors, but that's just a small part of the overall picture. It makes her happy to do these things because it benefits her and those she considers to be her friends. Just like she'll appoint financiers and corporate to administration posts because she truly believes they're the best-qualified people for the jobs.

Illuyankas, on 16 March 2016 - 07:48 PM, said:

Projection that the majority of HClinton voters are doing so because they're idiots ('against all evidence')...

I'm talking about electability in the general. All of the evidence points to Hillary being a weaker candidate in the general than Bernie. People still believe she's more electable.

Illuyankas, on 16 March 2016 - 07:48 PM, said:

wait a minute here, conspiracy theories??? "And that's probably why Bill Clinton encouraged Trump to run," what the fuck is this, going from calling Trump dishonest to believing an obvious lie only spread by his camp purely because it has a Clinton doing a Bad Thing?

It's not a conspiracy theory; both camps acknowledged that the conversation took place. The hedging is typical and doesn't mean much.

Illuyankas, on 16 March 2016 - 07:48 PM, said:

I will be blaming America as a whole if he wins, don't worry.

Blame whoever you like.

Illuyankas, on 16 March 2016 - 07:48 PM, said:

I wouldn't pick Jill Stein with all that alternative medicine and shit stuff not being removed from the Greens

The only way to influence a party platform is from within the party.

Illuyankas, on 16 March 2016 - 07:48 PM, said:

Questionwise, how well do you think Sanders would be polling if he'd had HClinton's levels of Republican attacks and smears over the last 30 years?

He has the benefit of decades of Republican red-baiting already. But this notion that Hillary's negatives are somehow baked in is silly. They haven't even gotten started on her; now we can look forward to months of ads and stump speeches on Bill's rape allegations, Hillary's relationship with the Saudis, Clinton Foundation corruption, and various other things that haven't gotten much national discussion, on top of the things that have, like Benghazi and the emails.

[Terez]

Illuyankas, on 16 March 2016 - 08:12 PM, said:

On a side note after some reading, I think the two reasons HClinton lost in '08 are Candidate Obama was great with a great team; and Mark Penn.

He did have a good team, and it was a close race, but Obama's original base of voters was primarily composed of people who wanted an alternative to Hillary, who was the prohibitive establishment favorite, and even the favorite among black voters in the beginning. He overcame a number of negatives to win, primarily his lack of experience. He was never a great speaker; he was inspiring mostly because he was likable.


Bottom line: it's very unusual for a candidate to be as unpopular as Hillary is within her own party. Even people who lose usually aren't that unpopular within the party.

[Tiste Simeon]

Here is an increbily well written and researched piece on Reddit about why Trump is not the alternative to Sanders. Truly excellent. Won't really change any minds as I think a lot of hardcore Repuiblicans have proved they don't care about silly things like facts, but it is good to see them all laid out like that!

[Nevyn]

Tiste Simeon, on 16 March 2016 - 08:27 PM, said:

Here is an increbily well written and researched piece on Reddit about why Trump is not the alternative to Sanders. Truly excellent. Won't really change any minds as I think a lot of hardcore Repuiblicans have proved they don't care about silly things like facts, but it is good to see them all laid out like that!

Doesn't really need a well researched piece.

First, hardcore Republicans are not supporting Sanders, thus not relevant.

The thinking of Sanders people backing Trump, is that those would be those voters who are simply angry and looking for disruptive change to the establishment. That could be wrong or right, but in that scenario, part of the assumption is that the supporters who would seek out Trump are people that don't really know/care about the policies or platforms of either.

Trump is not a serious alternative to anybody. But that hasn't stopped him so far.

[Terez]

This is interesting. The darkest red areas are where greater than 10% of those voting in the Dem primary voted for neither Bernie nor Hillary. Apologies if the image doesn't work; my power went out and I'm on my phone. I don't remember what image codes this forum uses.

This post has been edited by Terez: 16 March 2016 - 10:44 PM

[Terez]

RodeoRanch, on 23 February 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

Santorum as a serious contender for the nomination is mind-blowing.

Memries!

[Tiste Simeon]

Change the = to a ] and get rid of the ] after the word large...

[Terez]

That didn't work because it says I'm not allowed to use that image extension. I tried deleting the url extensions one by one and that didn't work either. Oh well. I'll fix it later.

This post has been edited by Terez: 16 March 2016 - 09:47 PM

[Illuyankas]

I uploaded it to imgur for you, it's a decent host if you never read the comments ever

Also I went from reading about Mark Penn and how terrible he was and then straight to how HClinton is still taking advice from him, so at this point she's sabotaging her own campaign for whatever reason, oh well

I did want to point out a couple things, first off I highly doubt Donald Trump's team was telling the truth with their and his track record so unless you have some proof I couldn't find I'm going to take Bill Clinton at his word that he did not push for Trump to run; the other is that I absolutely refute that they haven't started in on Hillary yet. Absolutely calling that an incorrect statement. There's a motion picture about it, for god's sake. Not only has no one* cared about Sanders on a national stage until 2015, they're already approaching Peak Outrage on Hill-dawg and the rate of return on further trumped up outrages is costing more support then it's winning them. Now, I doubt the attempts to cry socialism will be nearly as effective as intended, but there will be some, and that's just the actual things that exist and have happened that can be used, let alone the lies and fabrications. So you can see why I'm interested in how he'll handle it, cause he's been fully beneath the radar til now.

*I was just being hyperbolic but holy shit his google trends graph is hilarious

[Terez]

Illuyankas, on 16 March 2016 - 10:58 PM, said:

I uploaded it to imgur for you, it's a decent host if you never read the comments ever

Thanks, but my power came back on about 15 minutes ago and I already fixed it.

Illuyankas, on 16 March 2016 - 10:58 PM, said:

I absolutely refute that they haven't started in on Hillary yet. Absolutely calling that an incorrect statement. There's a motion picture about it, for god's sake.

I'm talking about the campaign. Trump makes a jab at Hillary every now and then but he's mostly been focused on his GOP opponents. They've got PACs lined up that have explicitly been waiting for Hillary to win the nomination before they start attacking her, including one that's focused on Bill's rape and harassment accusers (and Hillary's efforts to discredit and silence these women). This subject has barely gotten a blip since Monica Lewinsky. There is a crowd of political active Hillary-haters who probably watched the movie (whatever it was; I'm not familiar with it) and know all the scandals but there's a much larger crowd of people who have yet to be exposed to these lines of attack. The mainstream has been focused on Benghazi and the emails.

[Grief]

Terez, on 16 March 2016 - 08:13 PM, said:

I'm talking about electability in the general. All of the evidence points to Hillary being a weaker candidate in the general than Bernie. People still believe she's more electable.

I've seen a lot of criticism of head-to-head polling being treated as if it's reliable indicator for the general at this stage; is that something you generally disagree with?

I have similar misgivings to QT about calling the person winning the primaries the less popular candidate. I get that the primaries don't necessarily reflect the population at large, but surely they're an important indication, and being more popular with your own base (and thus getting more of them to come out and vote for you) seems more important than being more popular with people who aren't going to vote for your party in the first place. Though I've seen it suggested Bernie is more popular with undecided voters, but I've not seen anything to back it up currently.

[Terez]

Grief, on 16 March 2016 - 11:36 PM, said:

Terez, on 16 March 2016 - 08:13 PM, said:

I'm talking about electability in the general. All of the evidence points to Hillary being a weaker candidate in the general than Bernie. People still believe she's more electable.

I've seen a lot of criticism of head-to-head polling being treated as if it's reliable indicator for the general at this stage; is that something you generally disagree with?

Not necessarily; polling is always subject to change based on ongoing events. But it's basically the only hard data we have aside from favorability numbers, which tell the same story, and those who think Hillary would be the stronger general election candidate are relying on assumptions. IMO those assumptions are rooted in the fact that the Clintons are such an institution in the Democratic party. She seems like a strong candidate to Democrats; a lot of people can't really wrap their heads around the idea of her being a weaker candidate than Bernie Sanders because they can't see past her résumé. And they think any Dem candidate would be equally hated by the right. (Even Obama is not nearly as hated as Hillary.)

Grief, on 16 March 2016 - 11:36 PM, said:

I have similar misgivings to QT about calling the person winning the primaries the less popular candidate. I get that the primaries don't necessarily reflect the population at large, but surely they're an important indication, and being more popular with your own base (and thus getting more of them to come out and vote for you) seems more important than being more popular with people who aren't going to vote for your party in the first place.

The thing is, the base of the party is likely to show up and vote for whoever the nominee happens to be. And again, Hillary isn't necessarily popular with all the people who voted for her. Her favorability numbers speak to that, but there has also been a lot of anecdotal reporting from the various news orgs at the polls to the effect that people don't really like or trust Hillary, but they voted for her because they think she has a better chance of beating Trump.

Grief, on 16 March 2016 - 11:36 PM, said:

Though I've seen it suggested Bernie is more popular with undecided voters, but I've not seen anything to back it up currently.

The exit polls show Bernie winning independent voters by wide margins, and he also does better in states with open primaries. The regular polling backs up the exit poll numbers. It's hard to find all this data in one place, but here's an example:

http://www.cnn.com/2...olls/index.html

Quote

Clinton won among registered Democrats Tuesday, including 56% in Missouri and Illinois. But Bernie Sanders continued his pattern of winning strong support among independents who voted Democratic Tuesday -- 65% in Missouri and 71% in Illinois.

[Grief]

Tiste Simeon, on 16 March 2016 - 08:27 PM, said:

Here is an increbily well written and researched piece on Reddit about why Trump is not the alternative to Sanders. Truly excellent. Won't really change any minds as I think a lot of hardcore Repuiblicans have proved they don't care about silly things like facts, but it is good to see them all laid out like that!

Honestly, I'm not really worried about the (mostly online/especially Reddit afaics) phenomenon of this voter whose first choice is a progressive reformist and whose second is Donald Trump.

To me, this just seems like a manifestation of something that always happens -- people getting divisive during the primaries and claiming they won't vote the winning candidate if their preferred candidate loses -- mixed with the particular sort of dialogue that happens in certain online areas (typified by the Reddit style echo-chamber full of pseudo-momentous rhetoric where everything is a last stand and the world can burn if they don't get their own way). Personally I think it's unlikely to be a hugely significant factor come the general election; I think (and hope) it's mostly posturing that will fade as the pragmatism of the options available becomes clear. Frankly it strikes me as the typical Reddit demographic screaming about how they'll throw their toys out of the pram in the face of what was always the most likely outcome becoming reality. It's good that people are passionate about major issues like financial reform, but I tend to feel that the rhetorical stance that paints a Hillary presidency as essentially the same as a Trump one belies a lot of naivete and the privilege not to really be affected by certain things.

[Terez]

Grief, on 16 March 2016 - 11:57 PM, said:

Tiste Simeon, on 16 March 2016 - 08:27 PM, said:

Here is an increbily well written and researched piece on Reddit about why Trump is not the alternative to Sanders. Truly excellent. Won't really change any minds as I think a lot of hardcore Repuiblicans have proved they don't care about silly things like facts, but it is good to see them all laid out like that!

Honestly, I'm not really worried about the (mostly online/especially Reddit afaics) phenomenon of this voter whose first choice is a progressive reformist and whose second is Donald Trump.

There are a good number of people who have legitimately been undecided between Bernie and Trump since the beginning of this campaign cycle. Journalists have been continually surprised by how common these people are. Not everyone has priorities that we would find rational or logical; we shouldn't expect voters to behave in a way that makes sense to us. Low-information voters are a real thing. Protest voters are a real thing.

[Grief]

Terez, on 16 March 2016 - 11:56 PM, said:

The thing is, the base of the party is likely to show up and vote for whoever the nominee happens to be.

[...]

The exit polls show Bernie winning independent voters by wide margins, and he also does better in states with open primaries.

To me, this seems a bit speculative though. Basically, it seems to assume that the people voting Clinton will all (or mostly) switch to Sanders, but not vice-versa.

Does simply counting as an independent really mean that someone whose first choice is Sanders isn't going to show up to vote Clinton (or simply "not-Trump")? And can we really just say that everyone voting democrat will show up on the day to vote democrat regardless of the candidate? To me, it seems like this is mostly just based on certain assumptions; that the democrat base will show up to vote democrat in equal numbers for each candidate, and that by merit of being "independent" people voting Sanders won't (or are significantly less likely to) switch. I'm not really sure either of these assumptions are that justified. Independents preferring Sanders doesn't necessarily mean they aren't going to vote Clinton in the general.

[Grief]

Terez, on 17 March 2016 - 12:20 AM, said:

Grief, on 16 March 2016 - 11:57 PM, said:

Tiste Simeon, on 16 March 2016 - 08:27 PM, said:

Here is an increbily well written and researched piece on Reddit about why Trump is not the alternative to Sanders. Truly excellent. Won't really change any minds as I think a lot of hardcore Repuiblicans have proved they don't care about silly things like facts, but it is good to see them all laid out like that!

Honestly, I'm not really worried about the (mostly online/especially Reddit afaics) phenomenon of this voter whose first choice is a progressive reformist and whose second is Donald Trump.

There are a good number of people who have legitimately been undecided between Bernie and Trump since the beginning of this campaign cycle. Journalists have been continually surprised by how common these people are. Not everyone has priorities that we would find rational or logical; we shouldn't expect voters to behave in a way that makes sense to us. Low-information voters are a real thing. Protest voters are a real thing.

Sure, but they exist is other elections as well; the question is if they're likely to have a significant impact in this specific manner. I just think it's something that's been overblown (especially on Reddit, which Tiste mentioned), and mostly it's struck me as bitter posturing/scaremongering when I've seen it. Though I can't say I've seen much in the way of actual figures about the number of Bernie supporters who legitimately view Trump as the next best option (nor how this stacks up to Clinton supporters who would vote Republican rather than Sanders, which it would need to be weighed against) and I don't think that people being independents necessarily informs us much in this regard.

[worry]

Grief, on 16 March 2016 - 11:57 PM, said:

It's good that people are passionate about major issues like financial reform, but I tend to feel that the rhetorical stance that paints a Hillary presidency as essentially the same as a Trump one belies a lot of naivete and the privilege not to really be affected by certain things.

Agreed. In part because (as I've said) I think Trump is disinterested in the vast majority of presidential duties and will be a pushover for his staff and Congressional Republicans, and also because the country at large is less conservative than it was when Bill Clinton was president, and so Hillary's anxious politicking can take something of a break. I agree w/ Terez on the corporatist element, but I still think there will be a measurable difference between her and Trump (who will be, without doubt, convinced into austerity -- regardless of what he's saying about SS and Medicare right now). I think her foreign policy would be bad as well, in the same way Obama's is. To be frank, they are both mass murderers, numbered in the high thousands. Not hypothetically. But I have no doubt whatsoever Trump would let whole continents die without a rise in blood pressure.

On a whole host of other issues, she's better than him without question (whether it's a matter of personal principle or just pleasing her constituency -- her constituency is nowhere near as earth-endingly nihilist as his). The next president is still very likely going to be appointing SCOTUS justices -- Scalia was a shock, but his tenure's damage to the country is going to have be reversed. The threat to vulnerable people in American isn't academic. The domestic human toll alone under Trump will be stunning.

[worry]

Has Trump forgotten that he's been filmed saying stupid stuff constantly for the last 4 decades?

Or that she could just counter with this:

[Terez]

He posted that video on his Instagram, where she won't have an opportunity to counter.