Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 231381]

I agree Clinton is a weak candidate. At her current rate of change, she will be the most unpopular presidential candidate in postwar history. However, I think that's unlikely to lead to a Democratic defeat because structurally the Democrats are just in a better place for presidential victories, and Clinton's drag won't overcome that. Clinton will eke a narrow victory, but the real loss will be in Congress.

 

[bishoptl]

Goddamn dramatis. Those posts, smh. I can tolerate Bernie but some of his supporters, Jesus.

Welcome to my 2015.

 

[dramatis]

I don't even have any jam, what is there to be pleased about. ;_;

You don't have scones, you don't have butter, you don't have jam

Are you even living in civilization right now

 

[disastermouse]

I agree Clinton is a weak candidate. At her current rate of change, she will be the most unpopular presidential candidate in postwar history. However, I think that's unlikely to lead to a Democratic defeat because structurally the Democrats are just in a better place for presidential victories, and Clinton's drag won't overcome that. Clinton will eke a narrow victory, but the real loss will be in Congress.

I don't see it. Obama mobilized formerly disaffected blacks to boost turnout. The ladies have already been kicking the shit out of us menfolk regarding voter turnout for years. There aren't enough previously nonvoting women to have the same effect, and I'm telling you, you're going to lose Bernie voters, especially the young voters that turned out for Obama and are backing Bernie.

All you need is low voter turnout. Obama, false though it was, brought energy, hope, and idealism to young voters who needed it. Clinton won't do that - that's just not where her strengths lie.

The kids are confused. I've got them liking my Socialism Facebook posts and they're posting Libertarian and conservative anti-Hillary shit.

 

[QuiteWhittle]

I agree Clinton is a weak candidate. At her current rate of change, she will be the most unpopular presidential candidate in postwar history.

I highly doubt that.

 

[disastermouse]

I highly doubt that.

Tell us why.

Besides Carter, obviously.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

You don't have scones, you don't have butter, you don't have jam

Are you even living in civilization right now

In Wales, so not really.

I highly doubt that.

She's already joint fourth worst at -9 (with 1964 Goldwater); only 2012 Romney, 1996 Dole, and 1992 Bush were lower. That's not even opinion, that's just fact. She's also dropped by about 30 points since the start of 2015, she only needs -7 more to overtake 1992 Bush and officially claim "least favourable presidential nominee of the postwar era".

 

[sc0la]

Did someone put something in the water in this thread overnight?

Some of our regular weirdos got banned so there are new weirdos filling their space.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Some of our regular weirdos got banned so there are new weirdos filling their space.

I laughed.

 

[disastermouse]

In Wales, so not really.



She's already joint fourth worst at -9 (with 1964 Goldwater); only 2012 Romney, 1996 Dole, and 1992 Bush were lower. That's not even opinion, that's just fact.

If you think they were rabidly anti-black with Obama, just wait and see how sexist they'll be with Hillary. The only good part of that is that it'll effectively kill the Repiblican party in the end because women are the voting majority and they just tend not to be as batshit even when they are batshit.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

If you think they were rabidly anti-black with Obama, just wait and see how sexist they'll be with Hillary. The only good part of that is that it'll effectively kill the Repiblican party in the end because women are the voting majority and they just tend not to be as batshit even when they are batshit.

This is why I think the Democrats are okay. They don't need an inspiring candidate when the opposition is so terrifying. You may not be hyped about Clinton but the sheer dread at the prospect of a Cruz presidency will overcome that.

 

[disastermouse]

This is why I think the Democrats are okay. They don't need an inspiring candidate when the opposition is so terrifying. You may not be hyped about Clinton but the sheer dread at the prospect of a Cruz presidency will overcome that.

What if it's Trump?


(It's gonna be Trump)

Don't underestimate American banality.

 

[BSsBrolly]

This is why I think the Democrats are okay. They don't need an inspiring candidate when the opposition is so terrifying. You may not be hyped about Clinton but the sheer dread at the prospect of a Cruz presidency will overcome that.

I wouldn't count on that. Something, something, elections are not won when you run on voting against a candidate. I.e. Bush v Kerry.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I wouldn't count on that. Something, something, elections are not won when you run on voting against a candidate. I.e. Bush v Kerry.

Bush was actually quite popular in 2004, though, as difficult as it is to believe now. Kerry didn't actually do that badly to my mind, given he was running against a rather popular incumbent president.

 

[And_Gignac]

Fox Nationwide for Dems:

Clinton 54%
Sanders 39%

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh16dem.htm

dsljfdslfdsa this is the first time he is that close to 40%. Imagine if he wins Iowa and NH kjfdshsdkjfsd

no wonder they are getting harsher in their attacks against each other.

 

[disastermouse]

I wouldn't count on that. Something, something, elections are not won when you run on voting against a candidate. I.e. Bush v Kerry.

Nader was still an active third party in '04 general. Not as big as '00, but not irrelevant either, if I remember correctly.

I also think that, weak as she is, as soulless as she's perceived to be, she's not as ineffective as Kerry. Even if she was, it wouldn't cost her as much as it did Kerry. Kerry was emasculated and the unconscious dread and repulsion of an emasculated man is enormous among the straight male population. (It's not particularly attractive to the straight female population either.)

The worst they can do is say that she's a bitch and that her existence emasculates them. They'll fear that, but they won't project their own shadow onto her. It won't fit. Plus, it's already in the mix. It won't effect her ceiling at all.

Her ceiling is already in place. It's been cemented there by years and years of Fox and Right radio. The problem is turnout (and electoral theft in Ohio). Fear can cause action, but it can also push people into avoidant behavior, and it's easy to rationalize in today's political and economic climate. Fear will drive minorities, maybe, because Trump and Cruz are blatantly attacking them. Still, hopelessness in those communities will be a factor if/when Clinton sinks, causing her to sink further and further.

 

[Foffy]

Buddha knows that PoliGAF leads to selective tone policing, which leads to childish bickering, which leads to suffering, therefore he's all

Maybe it's a lesson to be learned. Flow like the drink down your throat; don't be rigid.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Fox Nationwide for Dems:

Clinton 54%
Sanders 39%

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh16dem.htm

dsljfdslfdsa this is the first time he is that close to 40%. Imagine if he wins Iowa and NH kjfdshsdkjfsd

no wonder they are getting harsher in their attacks against each other.

If he had the same trend between Iowa caucus and now as he did between now and the last Fox national poll, he'd be at 52-44 nationally on the day of the Iowa caucus. That'd be pretty good going. Obviously unlikely, both because a) I suspect that poll is skewing towards the margin of error and b) making converts gets progressively harder as there are less and less easy targets, so to speak. Still, I think we'll see a national poll with Sanders above 40 before Iowa.

 

[Retromelon]

Where the hell is daniel b, on one of 8 mile sojourns to the grocery store?

Post something you bernie loving fuck

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Where the hell is daniel b, on one of 8 mile sojourns to the grocery store?

Post something you bernie loving fuck

 

[QuiteWhittle]

Tell us why.

Besides Carter, obviously.

In Wales, so not really.



She's already joint fourth worst at -9 (with 1964 Goldwater); only 2012 Romney, 1996 Dole, and 1992 Bush were lower. That's not even opinion, that's just fact. She's also dropped by about 30 points since the start of 2015, she only needs -7 more to overtake 1992 Bush and officially claim "least favourable presidential nominee of the postwar era".

Honestly I'm just shocked she's had such a precipitous drop in favorability. All her 'peers' were running against popular incumbents or had fatal flaws or made fatal mistakes. Clinton is still the same Clinton she was when she was the most popular politician in the country, it all just seems sudden.

 

[pigeon]

This is why I think the Democrats are okay. They don't need an inspiring candidate when the opposition is so terrifying. You may not be hyped about Clinton but the sheer dread at the prospect of a Cruz presidency will overcome that.

Yeah. Negative polarization is the hot new theory people are throwing around. Basically, hatred of the other party's candidates and ideas is at an all-time high. So there's motivation to vote even if you're not enthusiastic about your candidate.

Of course, this negative polarization (driven by closed information loops) is also probably related to the nihilistic attitude among people who hate everybody's candidates and ideas, and we can see that on the rise as well. So that could be better. But I don't think the Dems will lose Obama millenials, for example. As the DNC told me thirty-five times last year, the stakes are too high.

Honestly I'm just shocked she's had such a precipitous drop in favorability. All her 'peers' were running against popular incumbents or had fatal flaws or made fatal mistakes. Clinton is still the same Clinton she was when she was the most popular politician in the country, it all just seems sudden.

Nah, it's mostly to be expected. At the beginning of 2015 Hillary wasn't running for office, so Republicans were free to like her a little or at least express no opinion. As soon as she started running her numbers started collapsing, because she became a partisan figure again.

 

[Holmes]

Where the hell is daniel b, on one of 8 mile sojourns to the grocery store?

Post something you bernie loving fuck

DONT SUMMON HIM

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Honestly I'm just shocked she's had such a precipitous drop in favorability. All her 'peers' were running against popular incumbents or had fatal flaws or made fatal mistakes. Clinton is still the same Clinton she was when she was the most popular politician in the country, it all just seems sudden.

I actually feel slightly sorry for Clinton on this point, because I don't think it has to do much with definitive policy decisions of the like - it can't be, because she's not had much of a chance to do anything in terms of policy decisions and even she did, most of her positions I think are so-so rather than terrible - and I'm a critic, even. Frankly, I think the root cause is just that she's just not particularly charismatic, and she tries to hard to be. It's the cumulative of things like asking people to tweet about debt in three emojis, or comparing herself to your abuela, the fact that she peppers her speech with phrases that are really obviously focus-group tested to the max, and the like.

She came so well out of the Benghazi hearings because she just dropped that. There was no pandering, she just answered all of the questions to the best of her abilities - it was an excellent display of competence. I genuinely think Clinton would do better if she just dropped the act and embraced the fact she's a policy wonk; it serves her much better than the status quo. As it is, normally, the more people see of Clinton the *less* they like her - and this is a really, really bad trait for a presidential candidate to have! In a political time when people are striking out against establishment figures, fulfilling the stereotype of establishment figures being insincere is not a good look.

 

[CCS]

Got back from the rugby, made me think:

Democrats v Republicans rugby match, winner takes the presidency. Who do you pick?

I reckon Biden would be pretty handy.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Got back from the rugby, made me think:

Democrats v Republicans rugby match, winner takes the presidency. Who do you pick?

I reckon Biden would be pretty handy.

This is America, there is no rugby here. May as well ask who'd win a nice match of cricket.

NB: Americans, do not import cricket, it is the most boring sport in the world after golf and darts.

 

[CCS]

This is America, there is no rugby here. May as well ask who'd win a nice match of cricket.

NB: Americans, do not import cricket, it is the most boring sport in the world after golf and darts.

YOU TAKE THAT BACK!

Cricket is a great sport. Any sport where you stop for tea, sandwiches and cakes in the middle is GOAT

 

[B-Dubs]

Honestly I'm just shocked she's had such a precipitous drop in favorability. All her 'peers' were running against popular incumbents or had fatal flaws or made fatal mistakes. Clinton is still the same Clinton she was when she was the most popular politician in the country, it all just seems sudden.

It's because she's letting everyone hit her without hitting back. You saw a bounce in her popularity when she came out of exile and beat down the GOP Benghazi hearing members. A drop in popularity is to be expected when you're more or less out of the public eye, she hasn't held a news cycle since those hearings ended, and you let your opponents wail on you without throwing a punch. She'll bounce back once she starts fighting back.

 

[FloydtheFathead]

This is America, there is no rugby here. May as well ask who'd win a nice match of cricket.

NB: Americans, do not import cricket, it is the most boring sport in the world after golf and darts.

Why do we need cricket when we have baseball?

 

[pigeon]

YOU TAKE THAT BACK!

Cricket is a great sport. Any sport where you stop for tea, sandwiches and cakes in the middle is GOAT

You don't just stop for the tea interval, you stop to go to bed and have a normal life because it takes FIVE DAYS TO PLAY A MATCH.

 

[VendettaRed07]

Not sure why people think Hillary is a weak democratic candidate or too uninteresting/boring.

She is way better than the store bought mannequins that were Al Gore and John Kerry.

Hearing them talk was about as interesting as watching the instructional video DVD that would come with a set of tools you bought at Sears

 

[Deleted member 231381]

You don't just stop for the tea interval, you stop to go to bed and have a normal life because it takes FIVE DAYS TO PLAY A MATCH.

This man speaks the truth.

 

[Futurematic]

Personally I think America basically delayed everything you're getting now in watered down form, albeit inadvertently, when Carter beat Ford. If Ford had won there would have been a proper Liberal (Udall or Church in a perfect world, but Carey or Mondale or what not would work) in 1980 to crush Reagan. You'd be looking at a ~65-35 Senate, an 8 point win after 12 years of Republicans and crippling inflation, and most American politicians (unlike Carter) know how to work DC.

Healthcare and no talk radio plus stronger unions (Bumpers can't fuck it all up by himself like he did when Carter was Pres), equal time protection, proper tax rates, AIDS treatment, (reduced) War on Drugs, Reagan's money pit of defence spending used elsewhere… yeah Carter getting elected was one of the worst turning points in modern American history.

Point? No point, Bernie and Hillary are boring and the Republicans are terrifying. Counterfactuals are fun! 😃

 

[NeoXChaos]

Personally I think America basically delayed everything you're getting now in watered down form, albeit inadvertently, when Carter beat Ford. If Ford had won there would have been a proper Liberal (Udall or Church in a perfect world, but Carey or Mondale or what not would work) in 1980 to crush Reagan. You'd be looking at a ~65-35 Senate, an 8 point win after 12 years of Republicans and crippling inflation, and most American politicians (unlike Carter) know how to work DC.

Healthcare and no talk radio plus stronger unions (Bumpers can't fuck it all up by himself like he did when Carter was Pres), equal time protection, proper tax rates, AIDS treatment, (reduced) War on Drugs, Reagan's money pit of defence spending used elsewhere… yeah Carter getting elected was one of the worst turning points in modern American history.

Point? No point, Bernie and Hillary are boring and the Republicans are terrifying. Counterfactuals are fun! 😃

Church from Utah from the 70's? Utah had Democrats as Senators? That's a new one

 

[ErasureAcer]

Do The Bernie Bongo everyone.

 

[SL128]

ICE CREAM WITH BERNIE SANDERS FLAVOR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrRSWitxeJo

 

[Veritigo_X]

Do The Bernie Bongo everyone.

Nothing beats the original Bernie bongo video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzmVSGFW5HY

 

[Jack Remington]

Won't lie, the Rubio +9 in a matchup with Clinton in that Fox News poll kind of troubles me.

 

[CCS]

You don't just stop for the tea interval, you stop to go to bed and have a normal life because it takes FIVE DAYS TO PLAY A MATCH.

Exactly. Now that's what I call a civilised game.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Won't lie, the Rubio +9 in a matchup with Clinton in that Fox News poll kind of troubles me.

It's not too late. Sanderistas are welcoming people. We have both ice cream and great parties.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Won't lie, the Rubio +9 in a matchup with Clinton in that Fox News poll kind of troubles me.

That pollster is full of extreme swings and is clearly an outlier when you look at the Trump matchup alone going from +5 to -11 to +3. What should concern you is the routine number of polls that show Rubio +1-3.

 

[Holmes]

New Economist/YouGov polls.

Republicans:

Trump 36%
Cruz 19%
Rubio 13%
Carson 6%
Paul 5%
Bush 4%
Christie 4%
Kasich 4%
Fiorina 3%

Democrats:

Clinton 61%
Sanders 31%
O'Malley 3%

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It's interesting the differences between methodologies at the moment. You can't explain the difference between Anderson and Shaw's mixed landline/cell and YouGOV's internet sample as simply having fallen on two opposite ends of the margin of error - they're too far apart for that to be the case. At least one of them is simply wrong. I wonder which method will prove more accurate. It's frustrating because it means you can't really just average different polls to produce an accurate answer, because they're using fundamentally incompatible assumptions about sampling. If one poll shows Sanders at 39 and one at 31, that doesn't mean he's at 35, it means he's at either 39 or 31 and someone done fuck up.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Am I looking at the wrong tables or have you quoted the wrong poll? Economist/YouGov's weekly is showing 54 Clinton 37 Sanders for me, here.

EDIT: it's 61-31 among Democrats, Holmes, which isn't the same as likely Democratic voters.

That explains the gap, then.

EDIT: That's +1 for Clinton and -2 for Sanders since the last Economist/YouGOV poll. They're fortnightly and that gap was over the Christmas break, so I'm fairly sure that's just variation in the margin of error because nothing has really happened to do anything else. Going off both Fox and YouGOV, I think we can be fairly confident that 54-38 is probably an accurate representation of the state of the race right now.

EDIT: Sanders' favourables are +18 very favourable, +25 somewhat favourable, -16 somewhat unfavourable, -23 unfavourable, for net +4. Lower than he's usually had from these things, he's normally at around +8. Clinton's are +21 very favourable, +20 somewhat favourable, -12 somewhat unfavourable, -42 very unfavourable for net -13. Again, lower than her normal -8. Probably a slightly more Republican sample than normal given it affected both of them, but still...

...she overtook Romney and Bob Dole for least liked presidential candidate of the postwar era! Only 1992 Bush to go. #Queen.

 

[Holmes]

MY SOURCES HAVE BETRAYED ME

 

[Black Republican]

Won't lie, the Rubio +9 in a matchup with Clinton in that Fox News poll kind of troubles me.

Rubio on the comeup

 

[Deleted member 231381]

1 in 4 minority voters still don't know who Sanders is. ;_; He has 74% favorability among black voters who know who he is, compared to Clinton's 70% favorability among black voters who know who she is. Man, things could really shift if he takes Iowa and gets those headlines.

EDIT: Also, Bernie really does not have a women problem. The difference between women's support for him and Clinton is just not that large - he has slightly more male supporters, but if he had the same support with women he did with men, it'd only make things 51-40 (i.e., -3 from Clinton and +3 to Sanders). 53% of Sanders' supporters are male and 47% are female - so much for BernieBros. His two big problems are a) old people and b) minorities. Particularly minorities; the fact he's down 24 to 59 against Clinton with black voters is killing him. If he even halved that gap that Clinton has over him with minorities in general, they'd be essentially neck and neck.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

"Tamir rices momma just want money. Lets make the proper changes……raise your kids not to play with fake guns stupid bitch. All this media because the are notgetting what they want…… Again pleeeeze anyone who does not like what I post…..unfriendly me or block me your not worth my time"



Cicero responded to a Facebook friend who said the child didn’t deserve to die for simply playing with a toy by saying, “You pull out a gun you get shot. I don’t have time to ask questions and coddle kids that wave guns around.”

From a cop that patrolled Tamir Rice's school.

Note: They're mostly bad apples:

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/cle...-kids-not-to-play-with-fake-guns-stupid-btch/

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Absolutely disgusting. That should be sufficient cause for dismissal at a minimum in any just world.

 

[theprodigy]

So, which states have closed primaries/caucuses and which states have open primaries/caucuses?