Why is Clinton not polling in the upper double digits against trump?

[werepossum]

Well I sure don't see things the way you do in any number of ways, yet I agree with a bit of it. In essence, I've never ever liked Hillary simply because she's just not the kind of person I could have a beer with, like I could with Bush 43, or Bernie Sanders for example. Hell I'd even toss back a few with Trump because he's a really good entertainer.

Yet, Hillary touts the flag of the party that represents my economic interests, whereas the Repub Party regrettably, does not.

Just as you side with Trump because he represents your interests and the party of your choice, should Hillary win the nom, I'll be compelled to hold my nose and breath when I enter that hallowed voting booth and vote for my interests, as I'm sure you will too.

edit - It seems to me that it really doesn't matter if Trump or Hillary wins, as both will end up being mostly middle of the road presidents, pulling more in favor of the very wealthy while tossing scraps to the middle class and the poor. The only way that could change is if Sanders wins.

I agree that it doesn't much matter if Trump or Hillary wins. But as far as she bearing the flag of the party that represents my economic interests, it's worth pointing out that those evil rich are very much convinced that she represents their economic interests. And they are putting their millions where their mouths are.

 

[SP33Demon]

I always find the biggest douchenozzles continue to reference the overplayed oliver piece...

whats funny is that the predictions had the republican convention being a shit show and the dems running a lean machine...whereas what we actually see is the Donald has locked this thing up and the Dems are headed into a mess.

Yep, using "drumpf" is an obvious tell of the gullible sheeple fanboys. Love it

Everyone underestimated the Donald and now he's about to scalp his 18th victim. Poetry in motion.

 

[SP33Demon]

There are a lot of crazy ideas enshrined in right-wing mythology, but this is always one of the nuttiest. Just like any large business, government is a complex endeavor. Being effective in it requires skills and experience, just like any other field. Having good private sector experience is certainly valuable, but it's not enough. Government and business are intrinsically different in major ways. They require different skill sets. It is just as reckless to insist POTUS is a great spot for a government novice as it would be to suggest your local DMV clerk should head General Motors. "Hey, he's got experience with cars. That's exactly what we need at GM." No.

You mean like Bill Clinton being appointed to fix our economy? The Peter Principle works more often than not and it applies well to Trump. Voters are tired of establishment candidate, they want butter pecan ice cream this time not the tired flavors vanilla/strawberry/chocolate.

 

[PokerGuy]

Having someone who understands how government works is not a minus.

I agree, understanding how government works is not necessarily a minus. It can be a minus, but it can also be a plus. I just scoff at the notion that it's a requirement for someone to be an effective leader.

If Trump somehow became president it's likely he would struggle with this lack of experience at least initially.

He'd have to surround himself with those who understand the workings of government and actually listen to them. Whether he's capable of setting aside his ego and actually do that remains to be seen.....

I would say that this works both ways though, as I also find success as a businessman to have no bearing on success as a politician or president.

Agreed, success in business does not mean someone will be a successful president etc, although I think great leaders can adapt to any situation and lead. They adapt their leadership style to the situation and lead.

 

[trenchfoot]

I agree that it doesn't much matter if Trump or Hillary wins. But as far as she bearing the flag of the party that represents my economic interests, it's worth pointing out that those evil rich are very much convinced that she represents their economic interests. And they are putting their millions where their mouths are.

Agreed. Ergo, my comment about both of them favoring the wealthy while tossing scraps at the middle class and the poor. For me, it's come down to which one will allow me to earn/benefit from a bit more scrap than the other.

 

[jackstar7]

What I like about false equivalencies is how they're just as valid as all other comparisons.

The sad part is that Trump is elevated when people say "They're both so awful!"

 

[jackstar7]

Yep, using "drumpf" is an obvious tell of the gullible sheeple fanboys. Love it

Everyone underestimated the Donald and now he's about to scalp his 18th victim. Poetry in motion.

Criticizing "drumpf" and using "the Donald".

Troll of the year nomination incoming.

 

[blankslate]

Because as good as she does with women and minorities she does about equally as bad with men as a whole.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36372929

Minorities and women are overwhelming supporting Mrs Clinton. Right now that's being balanced out by whites and men who are backing Mr Trump in large numbers.

Exactly how big are these gaps? According to the Washington Post poll, 57% of whites and men support Mr Trump. Mrs Clinton can count on the backing of 69% of non-whites, and leads Mr Trump 52% to 38% among women.

Among whites without a college degree, 65% support Mr Trump versus only 25% for Mrs Clinton.

Meanwhile, many independents are keeping their powder dry. Although their role is often overstated - they usually end up as reliable partisans when all is said and done - there is a small segment of US voters who are truly free agents. And right now many seem to be balking.

According to the Washington Post poll, 48% of self-professed independents are backing Mr Trump, while only 35% support Mrs Clinton. The remaining 18% either want someone else or no one.
The YouGov poll paints a slightly different picture, with Mrs Clinton up 41% to 34% over Mr Trump, but the number not ready to back either - 24% - is equally sizeable.

Some people are saying that it's too early in the polling I hope they are right... but banking on Trump being such an obnoxious candidate that he'd be easily beaten has seemingly been shown to be a laughably complacent strategy seeing that Trump has closed the gap rather significantly.

In other words, polls this far out from election day - particularly when one of the primary races is settled and the other isn't - aren't particularly good indicators of election-day outcomes.
If Mrs Clinton can consolidate her base - and the key is if - then the current Democratic teeth-gnashing may be overblown.
Mr Trump could be at his polling high-water mark only to see demographics, such as his low standing with women and minorities, and the realities of the state-by-state electoral landscape catch up with him.

But here's where we cut-and-paste those words of caution in every Trump polling story published since last autumn. The normal political rules don't seem to apply to the man. Just because things have happened one way in the past doesn't mean they will play out that way this time.

If admonitions that it's too far out to put much faith in polling sound familiar, it's the same thing people were saying last summer, when surveys had Mr Trump on top in key primary states and nationally.

The only thing we know right now is that, at this moment, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are essentially in a dead heat. And Mr Trump has made a lot of pundits and prognosticators look foolish over the past year.

I look forward to the rationalizations of people who say that this isn't such a different election cycle... I can only say that I hope they are right.


________________

 

[zinfamous]

Wow, it's early in the morning and you already are the leader in the clubhouse for dumbest post of the day. The number of candidates does not change the number of overall votes. What it does is affect the number of votes cast per candidate.

Sure it does. If Trump claims he is bringing in new (Read: unique) voters, then his mere presence says that there are more total voters. Whether it is 17 or 16 voters, it is the individual that is bringing in those specific votes.

That has been in this long-running question this season: Do people actually want to come out and vote for these specific people? The premise of this question relies on the fact that people come out to vote for their candidate to a degree beyond simply voting for their party.

With two highly unpopular people, there is this notion that plenty will simply sit out and not vote. You don't go into any election with a guaranteed pool of voters. That has never been true. There are always straight party-line voters, but also voters that actually have principles. Remember the "Reagan democrats"? What if there wasn't a candidate like Reagan that they felt they could support? They would have probably just sat out, right? Therefore, you assume that total number changes based on who is running.

You pick candidates hoping that they will attract voters and expect them to get to work bringing those voters to the polls. When you have 17 people running, well, you add your partyline voters, + whatever voters that each candidate will bring that are voting simply because they support that candidate.

The number of candidates absolutely does effect the total number of votes.

 

[kage69]

Criticizing "drumpf" and using "the Donald".

Troll of the year nomination incoming.

Yeah that was pretty special. I mean in addition to the whole 'people on the right bitching about names and monikers' notion.

Hildabeast's daughter Chelsea is the White House dog! Hurr hurr derp derp!

Jesus. Take a shower ladies, that sand should come right out.

 

[kage69]

What I like about false equivalencies is how they're just as valid as all other comparisons.

The sad part is that Trump is elevated when people say "They're both so awful!"

Reminds me how in 2004 the GOP was able to make a softheaded AWOL offender look like the choice for CiC, while they tore down the guy who went and fought the enemy, who also saved at least one comrade.


Remember, honor those who serve!

...unless they vote (D), are muslim, or need money for cancer when there are foreign companies to give tax breaks and subsidies to.

 

[hal2kilo]

The pollsters seem to think things aren't as tight as they appear to be. Others have explained a lot the reasons above. This article brings it all together.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...have-skeptics-pollsters/ar-BBtyYOx?li=BBnb7Kz

 

[buckshot24]

Sure it does. If Trump claims he is bringing in new (Read: unique) voters, then his mere presence says that there are more total voters. Whether it is 17 or 16 voters, it is the individual that is bringing in those specific votes.

That has been in this long-running question this season: Do people actually want to come out and vote for these specific people? The premise of this question relies on the fact that people come out to vote for their candidate to a degree beyond simply voting for their party.

With two highly unpopular people, there is this notion that plenty will simply sit out and not vote. You don't go into any election with a guaranteed pool of voters. That has never been true. There are always straight party-line voters, but also voters that actually have principles. Remember the "Reagan democrats"? What if there wasn't a candidate like Reagan that they felt they could support? They would have probably just sat out, right? Therefore, you assume that total number changes based on who is running.

You pick candidates hoping that they will attract voters and expect them to get to work bringing those voters to the polls. When you have 17 people running, well, you add your partyline voters, + whatever voters that each candidate will bring that are voting simply because they support that candidate.

The number of candidates absolutely does effect the total number of votes.

Do you have any data for these assertions? Such as graphs of number of candidates vs number of total votes cast in primaries?

 

[buckshot24]

The pollsters seem to think things aren't as tight as they appear to be. Others have explained a lot the reasons above. This article brings it all together.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...have-skeptics-pollsters/ar-BBtyYOx?li=BBnb7Kz

The problem is that Hillary already has more support with dems vs Trump with GOP.

One poll has her at 86% Dem support where Obama only got 89% of the Dem vote in 2008. There is also a far greater difference between Hillary and Sanders over Hillary and Obama.

This looks like wishful thinking.

 

[zanejohnson]

because it goes against the American two party illusion M.O.

Trump will win. that's just the way it works.

the word is RIGGED.