Hillary's lead over Bernie evaporating

[SP33Demon]

Maybe Hillary should follow suit and stop debating Sanders because recent polling shows her lead is now slashed from 25 points to 14 after losing the debate to him last night. Shit is getting real for her, not only does she have a likability problem but Bernie is polling better against Trump. Ruh roh.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/25/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-poll/

 

[woolfe9998]

These polls will not reflect the actual outcome. Fringey candidates, which Sanders is, always do better in polls than in actual elections, particularly primaries. This is also true of third party candidates. This is because lots of people say they will vote for who they truly want but when it comes to election day they vote for who they think can win.

Just like in 2008 and 2012 when farther right candidates led in GOP primary polls at various times, they nominated McCain and Romney instead.

Regardless of polls, Clinton will win this primary. Mark my words.

 

[Moonbeam]

Only a revolution of the people can restore democracy to them. Only Sanders is saying that fact.

 

[woolfe9998]

That may be Moonbeam, but he's not going to get the nom.

 

[Jhhnn]

These polls will not reflect the actual outcome. Fringey candidates, which Sanders is, always do better in polls than in actual elections, particularly primaries. This is also true of third party candidates. This is because lots of people say they will vote for who they truly want but when it comes to election day they vote for who they think can win.

Just like in 2008 and 2012 when farther right candidates led in GOP primary polls at various times, they nominated McCain and Romney instead.

Regardless of polls, Clinton will win this primary. Mark my words.

Agreed. What we're seeing is a lot of Repub trolling in an attempt to convince Dems to nominate a candidate more likely to lose in the general election than Hillary.

The OP probably wouldn't vote for a Dem with a gun held to his head but he'll tell us which Dem we should vote for. There's a lot of that bullshit going around.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

That may be Moonbeam, but he's not going to get the nom.

Why because people like you keep saying it's impossible? The moment I heard Bernie was entering, I knew he would be a contender. This is back even when the progressive media outlets, not corporate media, were saying he had no chance. Imagine where he would be, if it weren't for people like yourself continually fueling the misconception that Hillary is more electable?

Agreed. What we're seeing is a lot of Repub trolling in an attempt to convince Dems to nominate a candidate more likely to lose in the general election than Hillary.

The OP probably wouldn't vote for a Dem with a gun held to his head but he'll tell us which Dem we should vote for. There's a lot of that bullshit going around.

So your ENTIRE argument is that some Republican likes him, thus he must be bad!

Yah, that's logical...

So, what if we were picking between Stalin and the fictional character Jesus Christ, and the Republicans were telling you to nominate Jesus? By your logic, you would therefore nominate Stalin over Jesus.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why because people like you keep saying it's impossible? The moment I heard Bernie was entering, I knew he would be a contender. This is back even when the progressive media outlets, not corporate media, were saying he had no chance. Imagine where he would be, if it weren't for people like yourself continually fueling the misconception that Hillary is more electable?


So your ENTIRE argument is that some Republican likes him, thus he must be bad!

Yah, that's logical...

So, what if we were picking between Stalin and the fictional character Jesus Christ, and the Republicans were telling you to nominate Jesus? By your logic, you would therefore nominate Stalin over Jesus.

Needs more straw man. Your poor fucking scarecrow is just some old clothes hanging on a couple of boards.

Repubs don't like Bernie. He's just the guy they'd like to run against.

 

[Spungo]

I really wish Hillary were a man. As a woman, it's a given that some women will vote for her just because she would be the first female president. If Hillary were a man, Hillary's record would ensure that she gets thrown under the bus like any other dirtbag that is sucking the establishment cock. There's really not much difference between Hillary and McCain, or between Hillary and Kerry, or between Hillary and Bush. They all work for the same banks, the same oil companies, the same insurance companies.

 

[glenn1]

I really wish Hillary were a man. As a woman, it's a given that some women will vote for her just because she would be the first female president. If Hillary were a man, Hillary's record would ensure that she gets thrown under the bus like any other dirtbag that is sucking the establishment cock. There's really not much difference between Hillary and McCain, or between Hillary and Kerry, or between Hillary and Bush. They all work for the same banks, the same oil companies, the same insurance companies.

But while she works in the interests pf those corporations she'll sometimes remember she needs to pretend she shares the same concerns as her base even if she never plans to act on them in anything but a token manner. So from time to time she'll make some public complaints about them not paying "living wages" or begging them to have greater "hiring diversity." Gotta keep the small dollar donations and volunteer hours from the "regular people" coming in to support her campaign.

 

[fskimospy]

I really wish Hillary were a man. As a woman, it's a given that some women will vote for her just because she would be the first female president. If Hillary were a man, Hillary's record would ensure that she gets thrown under the bus like any other dirtbag that is sucking the establishment cock. There's really not much difference between Hillary and McCain, or between Hillary and Kerry, or between Hillary and Bush. They all work for the same banks, the same oil companies, the same insurance companies.

Yes, clearly being a woman is a huge advantage in running for president. That's why we have had so many of them in the past.

 

[Strk]

Yes, clearly being a woman is a huge advantage in running for president. That's why we have had so many of them in the past.

That is clearly not what Spungo is saying. The truth is that some people are going to vote for Clinton over Sanders purely because of her gender. Clinton's record is a lousy one. Vote for Iraq? Check. Vote for PATRIOT act? Check. Support spying on Americans? Check. Major support and millions in personal bank accounts from Wall street? Many checks. Flip-flops for political convenience? Check. She was even called out on that one during the nomination in 2008.

 

[fskimospy]

That is clearly not what Spungo is saying. The truth is that some people are going to vote for Clinton over Sanders purely because of her gender. Clinton's record is a lousy one. Vote for Iraq? Check. Vote for PATRIOT act? Check. Support spying on Americans? Check. Major support and millions in personal bank accounts from Wall street? Many checks. Flip-flops for political convenience? Check. She was even called out on that one during the nomination in 2008.

And clearly some people are going to vote against Clinton because of her gender, so what's his point? (this number is almost certainly larger than people voting for her because of her gender) I remember hearing the same nonsense about Obama, that it was an advantage to be black. What a joke.

Clinton's record is just fine and she's a better general election candidate than Sanders is. I find Sanders' supporters to be acting a lot like Ron Paul supporters here. I mean you're welcome to value ideological purity over winning, but nominating Sanders would be another McGovern nomination. Terrible idea.

Hillary Clinton's most recent first dimension DW-NOMINATE score was -.381, while Sanders' was -.523. A score of -.523 makes him one of the most liberal senators in the entire party and would easily make him one of the most liberal major party nominees in US history. It's unlikely that someone that far out of the mainstream from a policy perspective will win. That's really the beginning and end of it for me.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Yes, clearly being a woman is a huge advantage in running for president. That's why we have had so many of them in the past.

That's WHY it's an advantage...... If we had already had 10, no one care about her wrinkly stinking vagina.

That is clearly not what Spungo is saying. The truth is that some people are going to vote for Clinton over Sanders purely because of her gender. Clinton's record is a lousy one. Vote for Iraq? Check. Vote for PATRIOT act? Check. Support spying on Americans? Check. Major support and millions in personal bank accounts from Wall street? Many checks. Flip-flops for political convenience? Check. She was even called out on that one during the nomination in 2008.

There was a question asked by a woman in the last town hall where a woman asked Bernie about how he could compare with Hillary on women's issues, because she had a vagina. Then after he answers the question, the damn moderator comes back and tells Bernie that he isn't a woman.

As I recall, Hillary said like 60% of her supporters were women as well.

Men are way more skeptical of her,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/182081/hillary-clinton-retains-strong-appeal-american-women.aspx

 

[fskimospy]

That's WHY it's an advantage......

That's a novel take on things. Are you under a similar delusion that Obama being black was an asset and not a liability?

If we had already had 10, no one care about her wrinkly stinking vagina.

What the hell is wrong with you.

 

[Jhhnn]

And clearly some people are going to vote against Clinton because of her gender, so what's his point? (this number is almost certainly larger than people voting for her because of her gender) I remember hearing the same nonsense about Obama, that it was an advantage to be black. What a joke.

Clinton's record is just fine and she's a better general election candidate than Sanders is. I find Sanders' supporters to be acting a lot like Ron Paul supporters here. I mean you're welcome to value ideological purity over winning, but nominating Sanders would be another McGovern nomination. Terrible idea.

Hillary Clinton's most recent first dimension DW-NOMINATE score was -.381, while Sanders' was -.523. A score of -.523 makes him one of the most liberal senators in the entire party and would easily make him one of the most liberal major party nominees in US history. It's unlikely that someone that far out of the mainstream from a policy perspective will win. That's really the beginning and end of it for me.

Shorter- Repubs want to run against Bernie for the obvious reasons you point out.

They're trolling us hard trying to make it that way.

Bernie's real supporters in the Democratic Party are building him up, not tearing Hillary down.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

That's a novel take on things. Are you under a similar delusion that Obama being black was an asset and not a liability?



What the hell is wrong with you.

That's not the same, as blacks almost exclusively vote democratic. It might have earned him a couple additional % pts though.


They are called facts....


Men are way more skeptical of her,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/182081/hi...can-women.aspx

If she wins the primary, it will be in large part because of that smelly vagina I was referencing.

 

[fskimospy]

That's not the same, as blacks almost exclusively vote democratic. It might have earned him a couple additional % pts though.

They are called facts....

Yes except the opposite actually. Here's some research for you on the subject:

http://internationalpsychoanalysis....cialAnimusAndVotingSethStephensDavidowitz.pdf

Racially charged search, in contrast, is a robust negative predictor of
Obama’s vote share. My estimates imply that continuing racial animus in the United
States cost Obama 3 to 5 percentage points of the national popular vote in 2008, yielding
his opponent the equivalent of a home-state advantage country-wide.

Men are way more skeptical of her,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/182081/hi...can-women.aspx

If she wins the primary, it will be in large part because she is a woman.

This is a bafflingly irrational statement. Because women view Clinton more favorably than men you are saying this represents a positive advantage to her because she's a woman. What if her being a woman makes men like her less? How did you establish causality other than just making up whatever sounded convenient to you in your head?

So please, provide me with even a single piece of evidence that being a woman is an advantage for her.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Yes except the opposite actually. Here's some research for you on the subject:

http://internationalpsychoanalysis....cialAnimusAndVotingSethStephensDavidowitz.pdf





This is a bafflingly irrational statement. Because women view Clinton more favorably than men you are saying this represents a positive advantage to her because she's a woman. What if her being a woman makes men like her less? How did you establish causality other than just making up whatever sounded convenient to you in your head?

So please, provide me with even a single piece of evidence that being a woman is an advantage for her.

Except, I said "MIGHT HAVE"..... The fact of the matter is blacks overwhelmingly vote democrat, which I also already said. Which, means any difference would comfortably fall within the margin of error on any such study. Meaning it's basically fucking worthless.

The better question is do you think being Black yielded a net loss in black votes for Obama? If you say anything other than no, then you are full of shit.


Unfavorability Rating 18-49 (Older people tend to be more Republican)
Men = 41%
Women = 25%


Unfavorability Rating 18-49 (Older people tend to be more Republican)
Men = 44%
Women = 59%

The difference between women and men voting Democrat or Republican is usually within a few points. This is a huge margin though.


This isn't a Bernie vs Hillary poll, but I think it's safe to use this as a good measure.


This leaves us with only a few possibilities....

Women are voting for a women, because they want a woman as 1st POTUS.
or
Men don't want women presidents.
or
Women are less informed about politics, and are thus voting on name recognition.

You might argue there are indeed men that would vote against Hillary for being a woman. I would agree, but there are also men that would vote her for merely being a woman.

I imagine you don't like the 3rd choice, though I wouldn't completely rule it out.

The answer is likely a mixture of all of the above, but the most likely suspect for the bulk of the difference is women are voting for the first woman president. At least for right now, perhaps if they get more informed about Bernie, she might lose some ground, and it would be within a margin of error.

 

[fskimospy]

Except, I said "MIGHT HAVE"..... The fact of the matter blacks overwhelmingly vote democrat, which I also already said. Which, means any difference would comfortably fall within the margin of error on any such study. Meaning it's basically fucking worthless.

Uhmm, no. Look who didn't even bother to read the paper. The t value for racially charged searches was -7.36, which is statistically significant, big time. Don't criticize things you didn't even bother to read.

Unfavorability Rating 18-49 (Older people tend to be more Republican)
Men = 41%
Women = 25%


Unfavorability Rating 18-49 (Older people tend to be more Republican)
Men = 44%
Women = 59%

The difference between women and men voting Democrat or Republican is usually within a few points. This is a huge margin though.

This isn't a Bernie vs Hillary poll, but I think it's safe to use this as a good measure.

This leaves us with only a few possibilities....

Women are voting for a women, because they want a woman as 1st POTUS.
or
Men don't want women presidents.
or
Women are less informed about politics, and are thus voting on name recognition.

You might argue there are indeed men that would vote against Hillary for being a woman. I would agree, but there are also men that would vote her for merely being a woman.

I imagine you don't like the 3rd choice, though I wouldn't completely rule it out.

The answer is likely a mixture of all of the above, but the most likely suspect for the bulk of the difference is women are voting for the first woman president. At least for right now, perhaps if they get more informed about Bernie, she might lose some ground.

You 'most likely suspect' based on nothing more than speculation. Speaking of 'basically fucking worthless'...

 

[BoberFett]

Agreed. What we're seeing is a lot of Repub trolling in an attempt to convince Dems to nominate a candidate more likely to lose in the general election than Hillary.

The OP probably wouldn't vote for a Dem with a gun held to his head but he'll tell us which Dem we should vote for. There's a lot of that bullshit going around.

You're a horrible human being.

 

[BoberFett]

I really wish Hillary were a man. As a woman, it's a given that some women will vote for her just because she would be the first female president. If Hillary were a man, Hillary's record would ensure that she gets thrown under the bus like any other dirtbag that is sucking the establishment cock. There's really not much difference between Hillary and McCain, or between Hillary and Kerry, or between Hillary and Bush. They all work for the same banks, the same oil companies, the same insurance companies.

Hell, Hillary's record practically makes her a Republican. But useful idiots like Jghghhjqwbnnn will vote her. Because reasons.

 

[MongGrel]

You're a horrible human being.

Why is it almost everything you post is negative to begin with ?

You say you are a libertarian just so you can attempt to stand to the side and post snarky remarks most of the time is all I can figure out.

 

[MongGrel]

Hell, Hillary's record practically makes her a Republican. But useful idiots like Jghghhjqwbnnn will vote her. Because reasons.

Just like the one right after that.

 

[Indus]

Aren't libertarians anarchists honestly?

Just think about it..

 

[fskimospy]

Hell, Hillary's record practically makes her a Republican. But useful idiots like Jghghhjqwbnnn will vote her. Because reasons.

Again, Hillary's DW-NOMINATE score is about -.350. The mean Republican senator's DW-NOMINATE score is +.492. She is about +.170 more conservative than Sanders while the mean Republican senator is about +.842 more conservative than she is. That is not even remotely close.

Lots of people try and claim that either both parties are the same, or that Hillary is basically a Republican, etc, etc. You'll notice they always cherry pick specific votes or just make blanket pronouncements about things. You'll never see any real analysis of it because it's laughably wrong.

Looks like Jhnnnn is a lot more informed about her relative ideology than you are, so who's really the useful idiot?