-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Who are these people supporting Hillary?
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Oh you foolish little Dems. The mean old republican tricked you into voting for the war. I guess you are too ignorant and pathetic to think for yourselves. You are a bunch of cry babies.
I am not for the war and never have been. I knew the dumb terrorists would never let us just inhabit a muslim country. I was not born yesterday. This has been going on since the days before Carter.
I am not for the war and never have been. I knew the dumb terrorists would never let us just inhabit a muslim country. I was not born yesterday. This has been going on since the days before Carter.
dmcowen674
No Lifer
You shouldn't be "amazed" any longer.
We see the support of those lies still today right here in this forum.
blackangst1
Lifer
Not to mention Congress, the UN, and our allies. Wow. An idiot sold his plan to all those people! Amazing! I guess congress, the American people, the UN, and our allies are ALLLLL stupider than he is!
Amazing isnt it?
blackangst1
Lifer
That, to mee, is friggin amazing. GWB is a friggin genius then.
Oh..one critical moment lasted months! Amazing Bush did that! Maybe they were in a trance?
QFT. The media is the one who has bought her "frontrunner" status and continues to cast her in a positive glow on a daily basis.
As for OP, I agree. I don't know a single person (personally) who has said they'd vote for her. Frankly I'm surprised by the results of the poll thus far as well.
techs
Lifer
Hilary has been painted as the boogeyman by the right wing propaganda machine.
I personally have heard people first qualify their support for her by saying things like 'I know a lot of people don't like her but....'
Of course a LOT of people do like her. But the propaganda makes it hard for people to admit it. Which is why I think she will do better in the election than she does in the polls.
I personally have heard people first qualify their support for her by saying things like 'I know a lot of people don't like her but....'
Of course a LOT of people do like her. But the propaganda makes it hard for people to admit it. Which is why I think she will do better in the election than she does in the polls.
jonks
Lifer
So the media calls her the frontrunner because they bought into her scam and not because she wins every poll conducted and is leading in the nationals by 25 points :roll:
As to the moths, let me get this straight. If someone votes for Hillary, it's based on name recognition, and if someone votes for another candidate it's because that person is educated on the issues and therefore knows better. Also makes sense.
blackangst1
Lifer
you are correct. And polls? ROFL are you kidding? Everyone loves polls when they support their beliefs. But when they disagree they find all kinds of reasons to discredit them.
I know you are at least smart enough to understand polling is VERY manipulated and subjective. Hell you could post a Hillary poll in both the Democratic camp and the GOP and get opposite results. Are either of them wrong? Not necessarily. Are either one of them representative of America? Well, depends on who you ask.
The 25 point spread is smoke.
What the hell are you talking about? They are scientific polls. Please tell me how you would discredit them. Is their sample not representitive? If not, why? Is their methodology wrong? If so, why? Are the questions biased? If so, how should they be asking them? Since the margin of error in these polls hovers somewhere around 4% usually, you are correct, her lead could be as little as about 17 points, but it could also be as high as 33 points. (counting both her and Obama's results)
You would get different results in the Democratic camp vs. the GOP camp precisely because the polls are accurate. The polls that show Hillary leading Obama by 25 points are polls done of Democrats, not of the electorate as a whole... because polling the electorate as a whole about how they are going to vote in a primary that fully half of them can't vote in would be stupid.
theeedude
Lifer
Hillary will emasculate the right. Not that the right isn't screwed either way. Their only hope is if Hillary gets elected and screws up big time.
You know what's worse for the right than an NY liberal Democrat getting elected president? NY liberal Republican getting elected president. Because at least if Hillary is president, the right can fight for their ideas and benefit from her failures, if Rudy is president, the right will be held accountable for things Rudy does that they don't even believe in.
You know what's worse for the right than an NY liberal Democrat getting elected president? NY liberal Republican getting elected president. Because at least if Hillary is president, the right can fight for their ideas and benefit from her failures, if Rudy is president, the right will be held accountable for things Rudy does that they don't even believe in.
Lemon law
Lifer
The righties seem to delight in running these threads, one after another after another. Somehow seeking to put all the flaws of the democratic candidates under some sort of spot lit microscope. While trying to kill any threads examining republicans candidates with all their warts and flaws.
The delusion is that its going to do anything. I may be left of center, I know quite a few centrists, and there is not a single GOP presidential candidate thats remotely resembling
acceptable.
Hillary is not my first choice, nor is she my second, but she is acceptable, at least to me, and infinitely better than anyone the GOP is putting up. If the GOP had run someone like Hagel, I might be hard pressed to decide between a Hillary and a Hagel in the general election, but given a Hillary vs. anyone the GOP now has, its a no brainer for Hillary
or anyone else on the democratic side.
I remember agonizing on the question of voting for either Gore or Nadar in 2000. I may have preferred Nadar but ended up holding my nose and voting for Gore. Us dimocrats will not make the mistake of splitting our vote again. And ironically, in the case of accidental Florida ballet construction, even the presence of Pat Buchanan's name on the ballot ended up swinging the election GWB's way.
Maybe its better to be lucky than good, but its going to take a complete miracle or Diebolt to have any GOP candidate win the Presidency in 11/2008.
Now in the interests of equal time, lets have a poll. Do any of you know anyone who supports any Republican candidates for President in 2008? Or should I say, would you want to know such a person and include them in your circle of friends? I know a few people who voted for GWB in 2000, but they run around hanging their heads and regretting their foolishness.
Elections end up being either or questions and we vote for the lesser of two and even sometimes three or four evils. I happen to believe the national polls that show Hillary is now leading the democratic field. There is now zero evidence to show these type polls are biased or manipulated by the media. And the onus of proof is on the OP to show that they are or this thread is a waste of time. Hillary may later self destruct like Dean did, but the democrats have a big pile of excellent candidates to fill the void.
The delusion is that its going to do anything. I may be left of center, I know quite a few centrists, and there is not a single GOP presidential candidate thats remotely resembling
acceptable.
Hillary is not my first choice, nor is she my second, but she is acceptable, at least to me, and infinitely better than anyone the GOP is putting up. If the GOP had run someone like Hagel, I might be hard pressed to decide between a Hillary and a Hagel in the general election, but given a Hillary vs. anyone the GOP now has, its a no brainer for Hillary
or anyone else on the democratic side.
I remember agonizing on the question of voting for either Gore or Nadar in 2000. I may have preferred Nadar but ended up holding my nose and voting for Gore. Us dimocrats will not make the mistake of splitting our vote again. And ironically, in the case of accidental Florida ballet construction, even the presence of Pat Buchanan's name on the ballot ended up swinging the election GWB's way.
Maybe its better to be lucky than good, but its going to take a complete miracle or Diebolt to have any GOP candidate win the Presidency in 11/2008.
Now in the interests of equal time, lets have a poll. Do any of you know anyone who supports any Republican candidates for President in 2008? Or should I say, would you want to know such a person and include them in your circle of friends? I know a few people who voted for GWB in 2000, but they run around hanging their heads and regretting their foolishness.
Elections end up being either or questions and we vote for the lesser of two and even sometimes three or four evils. I happen to believe the national polls that show Hillary is now leading the democratic field. There is now zero evidence to show these type polls are biased or manipulated by the media. And the onus of proof is on the OP to show that they are or this thread is a waste of time. Hillary may later self destruct like Dean did, but the democrats have a big pile of excellent candidates to fill the void.
blackangst1
Lifer
geez man you made my point. Scientific? Who cares? As you have acknowledged, your results will differ with different polling audience.
Anyway, thanks
First
Lifer
He was pointing out that you're disagreeing based on spurious reaction and not actual content. If the loads of scientific polls conducted over the last year showing Hillary with a lead over Obama across the board (or Guiliani over whoever) don't satisfy because "they are subjective", you'll have to support your position. Good polls, and there are a lot of them, take large sample sizes of a population representative of the target population, and calculate the statistic from there. Basic stat 101. There are tons of polls that make this irrefutable. See here and here for individual and aggregate totals. They all paint the same picture.
blackangst1
Lifer
Im not saying all polls or even most are inaccurate. Im saying they are accurate based on the target audience. Thats all.
First
Lifer
Assuming you meant target population, and not target auidience, then that supports his point. If the elections were held today, there would be an extremely small chance of anyone but Clinton or Guiliani getting their parties' nominations. The good polls are representative of the target population; the people who will actually vote in the 08 election.
FlashG
Platinum Member
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
