Support NeoGAF

[JesseEwiak]

I look to forward to Crab explaining to all of us how Hillary is doomed with her low favorables as she consistently leads Rubio by 3 or 4 points, after Team Hillary turns to painting Rubio as the actual right-winger he is, just like Team Obama turned Mitt into the asshole ubercapitalist he was in the spring and summer.

 

[Giant Panda]

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/

The cop replied "you pull out a gun you get shot" so I wonder what his thoughts are on the many white people who exercise the 2nd amendment openly and sometimes aggressively.

 

[PBY]

I actually like Bernie more than Hillary.

But acting like he has any shot at all is nuts. This is even with him taking Iowa and NH.

 

[NeoXChaos]

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

 

[Abinash117]

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

Because she doesn't generate the #hypetrain among young people on twitter and Reddit.

I think anything like that is overrated especially sometimes. Considering that Hillary had rough the same popular vote has Obama did*( Unless she is more boring now than she was in 2008 somehow), I say that any young vote turning out for him won't significant as a lot of people think. Plus voter resignation didn't even change much between jan to dec of last year in some states like Iowa.

I think some people might consider her boring is because she isn't has passionate to some people and she doesn't talk in such a matter about issues that some people might care more about. To me, I find Donald Trump to be boring and annoying when he speaks at rallies, but a lot finds him exciting. Although, I don't think that matters a lot as I don't see people suddenly " He/she is boring even though I like that candidate a lot and agree with their view, so I'm not going vote for him/her. " . Clearly the candidates that have high approval rating from people of their own party don't think they are boring enough to not vote for them.

 

[User 463088]

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.
.

However, a partisan candidate would prefer to be leading with members of the party than with Independents. Take a look at Fox News poll: 79% of Democrats say they Definitely will vote, 19% say probably. Among Independents it's 65/29. Further adding to that, AA and Women are more likely to vote than whites and men. In Fox's national poll. Hillary has a 30 point lead among women and a 51 point lead among non-white voters. She also has a 51 point lead among those over 45.

Bernie does well because he is popular among those who consider themselves independents. This group of voters, by their own admission, have shown that they are less likely to vote than registered Democrats. They're also younger (i.e. less likely to vote)

So, Bernie's support comes from people who are less likely to vote, less likely to be registered with the party (making them all but useless in a closed primary) and could decide to not vote for the Dem candidate at all. That's why a lot of the polls show that his support is far softer than Hillary's.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I look to forward to Crab explaining to all of us how Hillary is doomed with her low favorables as she consistently leads Rubio by 3 or 4 points, after Team Hillary turns to painting Rubio as the actual right-winger he is, just like Team Obama turned Mitt into the asshole ubercapitalist he was in the spring and summer.

I haven't ever said Clinton is doomed, but nice strawman. I just think her margin of victory will be narrow at best, and the Republicans will maintain the House and Senate. Team Hillary is not very good at painting her opponents; if she was Obama wouldn't be the president, she wouldn't have let a self-called Socialist take 38% of the Democratic vote, and she wouldn't be the second least popular presidential candidate of all time. Literally all of those things are true statements.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

However, a partisan candidate would prefer to be leading with members of the party than with Independents. Take a look at Fox News poll: 79% of Democrats say they Definitely will vote, 19% say probably. Among Independents it's 65/29. Further adding to that, AA and Women are more likely to vote than whites and men. In Fox's national poll. Hillary has a 30 point lead among women and a 51 point lead among non-white voters. She also has a 51 point lead among those over 45.

Bernie ONLY does well because he is popular among those who consider themselves independents. This group of voters, by their own admission, have shown that they are less likely to vote than registered Democrats. They're also younger (i.e. less likely to vote)

So, Bernie's support comes from people who are less likely to vote, less likely to be registered with the party (making them all but useless in a closed primary) and could decide to not vote for the Dem candidate at all. That's why a lot of the polls show that his support is far softer than Hillary's.

Yes, but these things are already taken into account. That's why pollsters weight their results according to likelihood to vote. 54-38 doesn't mean "Sanders is supported by 38% of people" - he's probably supported by more than that and Clinton by relatively less, precisely for the reasons you cite. It means "Sanders is supported by 38% of the people likely to vote" - as it says on the tables. Obviously pollsters filter out independents who say they'd vote Sanders in a closed primary - it doesn't take a Nate Silver to work out these people aren't likely voters.

EDIT: I mean for the record, if all states had open primaries and independents turned up at the same rate at Dems, then Sanders would be leading Clinton because he beats her so handily in independents, so you already know they're doing the adjustments.

Don't get me wrong, Clinton will win (both the primary and the presidential), but I think Iowa will be very tight either way, she'll lose NH guaranteed, and Nevada will be a lot closer than expected. Certainly enough to spook her before Super Tuesday settles everything down, and hopefully push her into being a less terrible candidate.

 

[JesseEwiak]

I haven't ever said Clinton is doomed, but nice strawman. I just think her margin of victory will be narrow at best, and the Republicans will maintain the House and Senate. Team Hillary is not very good at painting her opponents; if she was Obama wouldn't be the president, she wouldn't have let a self-called Socialist take 38% of the Democratic vote, and she wouldn't be the second least popular presidential candidate of all time. Literally all of those things are true statements.

Bernie Sanders ain't winning the House either. The Senate depends far more on candidate recruitment and who the GOP nominees more than who the Democratic nominee is. Even a Bernie nominee would be a likely difference between 47 and 50 Democratic Senator's.

Team Obama will be Team Hillary at this point when it comes to the campaign.

As for the second point, it's nice you know the vote totals in advance. Democratic nominee Howard Dean, President Michael Dukakis, and Republican nominee Newt Gingrich talk to you about polls months before any votes are counted.

With polarization, every candidate from now on will be the 2nd least popular presidential candidate of all time. Nobody is getting Clinton or Reagan approval numbers anymore.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Bernie Sanders ain't winning the House either. The Senate depends far more on candidate recruitment and who the GOP nominees more than who the Democratic nominee is. Even a Bernie nominee would be a likely difference between 47 and 50 Democratic Senator's.

Sanders would win the House.

Spoiler

Isn't nice when we both make unsubstantiated assertions?

Team Obama will be Team Hillary at this point when it comes to the campaign.

ok.gif

As for the second point, it's nice you know the vote totals in advance. Democratic nominee Howard Dean, President Michael Dukakis, and Republican nominee Newt Gingrich talk to you about polls months before any votes are counted.

Okay, at the moment 38% of likely Democratic voters intend to vote for a socialist over Clinton. Doesn't really sound that much better for her political adeptness.

With polarization, every candidate from now on will be the 2nd least popular presidential candidate of all time. Nobody is getting Clinton or Reagan approval numbers anymore.

I mean, aside from Obama, who had positive ratings in both '08 and '12, and Sanders, who has positive ratings now, and Rubio, who also has positive ratings, and fuck, even Carson manages to scrape over the 0 line. Meanwhile, Clinton, -13. Clinton is lucky the Democratic party is structurally advantaged because she is a hell of a millstone to drag.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Sanders would win the House.

Spoiler

Isn't nice when we both make unsubstantiated assertions?

ok.gif



Okay, at the moment 38% of likely Democratic voters intend to vote for a socialist over Clinton. Doesn't really sound that much better for her political adeptness.



I mean, aside from Obama, who had positive ratings in both '08 and '12, and Sanders, who has positive ratings now, and Rubio, who also has positive ratings, and fuck, even Carson manages to scrape over the 0 line. Meanwhile, Clinton, -13. Clinton is lucky the Democratic party is structurally advantaged because she is a hell of a millstone to drag.

Obama has hovered in the latter 40's for most of his presidency. Graphs exist on this. Sanders has not faced the onslaught of ads from the GOP machine which will change that number. Ditto with Carson, Rubio etc against Hillary. They will eventually fall in either scenarios. Not Hillary was going to get 30% of the regardless of him being a socialist, marxist etc. See Gore Vs Bradley in 2000.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Obama has hovered in the latter 40's for most of his presidency. Graphs exist on this. Sanders has not faced the onslaught of ads from the GOP machine which will change that number. Ditto with Carson, Rubio etc against Hillary. They will eventually fall in either scenarios. Not Hillary was going to get 30% of the regardless of him being a socialist, marxist etc. See Gore Vs Bradley in 2000.

Bingo. Bill Bradley, who makes Al Gore look like Obama in terms of charisma and such had polls with him getting 40% of the vote against the VP of the most successful Democratic President in a generation.

People don't like a coronation. Bernie's tapped into something, but there would've been an anti-Clinton no matter what. Maybe it would've been 30% instead of 35%.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'm not sure you want to be making the comparison between Al Gore and Clinton. :x

 

[NeoXChaos]

and to call Clinton a weak candidate is absurd. She chased out the sitting Vice President of the United States from running for his party's nomination.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

and to call Clinton a weak candidate is absurd. She chased out the sitting Vice President of the United States from running for his party's nomination.

Being a strong candidate with your own party is not the same as being a strong candidate with the general electorate. Given we literally just mentioned Al Gore a few posts up, I'm surprised that point is so easily forgotten.

 

[User 463088]

Yes, but these things are already taken into account. That's why pollsters weight their results according to likelihood to vote. 54-38 doesn't mean "Sanders is supported by 38% of people" - he's probably supported by more than that and Clinton by relatively less, precisely for the reasons you cite. It means "Sanders is supported by 38% of the people likely to vote" - as it says on the tables. Obviously pollsters filter out independents who say they'd vote Sanders in a closed primary - it doesn't take a Nate Silver to work out these people aren't likely voters.

EDIT: I mean for the record, if all states had open primaries and independents turned up at the same rate at Dems, then Sanders would be leading Clinton because he beats her so handily in independents, so you already know they're doing the adjustments.

Don't get me wrong, Clinton will win (both the primary and the presidential), but I think Iowa will be very tight either way, she'll lose NH guaranteed, and Nevada will be a lot closer than expected. Certainly enough to spook her before Super Tuesday settles everything down, and hopefully push her into being a less terrible candidate.

It depends on the screen. The Fox News National poll is among registered voters. All you have to do to take part is say that you're registered. Period. Other pollsters use a Likely Voter screen, which varies from pollster to pollster. Some ask if you voted in the last primary or last GE. Each pollster can make their own screen. The NH Poll is among LV, although I have no idea what their screen happens to be.

My point still stands, though. Bernie is leading among the groups that are least likely to vote, regardless of any screen a pollster puts on them. We have historical trends to back that up. Plus. Bernie's revolution is based on the idea that he's getting all these new people to the polls. Problem is, they're not registered. There has been little growth in registered Democrats or Independents in Iowa or New Hampshire.

So, he has to hope his people register, has to hope they show up, has to hope they don't decide to vote Trump for the lulz, and hope these first time people figure out how to caucus effectively.

Hillary won NH in 2008, even though Obama carried first time voters and those under 24 by similar margins to Bernie. Obama was able to keep her numbers among those over 45 in check. Bernie is not doing that. I still think NH is Bernie's to lose, though.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Being a strong candidate with your own party is not the same as being a strong candidate with the general electorate. Given we literally just mentioned Al Gore a few posts up, I'm surprised that point is so easily forgotten.

You mean the guy who actually won more votes despite the media basically being an arm of Dubya's campaign?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It depends on the screen. The Fox News National poll is among registered voters. All you have to do to take part is say that you're registered. Period. Other pollsters use a Likely Voter screen, which varies from pollster to pollster. Some ask if you voted in the last primary or last GE. Each pollster can make their own screen. The NH Poll is among LV, although I have no idea what their screen happens to be.

For 54-38, I was using the average of the two YouGOV polls, which are both Likely Voter (large sample sizes, too). As far as I can work out, Anderson and Shaw's national also uses Likely Voters *specifically* for the primary results - it just asks about a lot more than the primaries, and asks all those things from a pool of registered voters. Nevertheless, part of the feeder questions for the primary question are about likelihood to vote; see:

[IF CODE 1 OR 2 IN Q16]
17. Will you definitely [vote /caucus], probably [vote /caucus], or do you think you will probably not end up voting in the [primary/caucus]?

It would be surprising if they are not because of how similar their figures are to YouGOV's.

My point still stands, though. Bernie is leading among the groups that are least likely to vote, regardless of any screen a pollster puts on them. We have historical trends to back that up. Plus. Bernie's revolution is based on the idea that he's getting all these new people to the polls. Problem is, they're not registered. There has been little growth in registered Democrats or Independents in Iowa or New Hampshire.

Yes, but as above, these people's poor turnout is already accounted for. Like, you seem to be missing the point. I agree that Sanders' voting demographics are less likely to turn up on average than Clinton's. However, pollsters know that, and any Likely Voter poll is reporting what they think the result will be *given some groups are less likely to vote than others*. If you think Sanders will do worse than his current polling results, you're essentially saying you think that these groups will turn out *even less than pollsters think they will*, rather than even less in general. That's a reasonable argument to make (see: UK polling 2015), but you need to actually make that argument.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

You mean the guy who actually won more votes despite the media basically being an arm of Dubya's campaign?

If the bar you're setting for Clinton is Al Gore's result, you're even more pessimistic than I am. ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

 

[And_Gignac]

Hillary Clinton new ad.


Basically focused on "only I can stop the GOP, Bernie is not electable". Sadly, the polls disagree with her campaign, since Sanders does better than Clinton against the three GOP frontrunners.

Let me dislike the video.

 

[User 463088]

Yes, but as above, these people's poor turnout is already accounted for. Like, you seem to be missing the point. I agree that Sanders' voting demographics are less likely to turn up on average than Clinton's. However, pollsters know that, and any Likely Voter poll is reporting what they think the result will be *given some groups are less likely to vote than others*. If you think Sanders will do worse than his current polling results, you're essentially saying you think that these groups will turn out *even less than pollsters think they will*, rather than even less in general. That's a reasonable argument to make (see: UK polling 2015), but you need to actually make that argument.

I do not believe that Bernie will do as well as the polls are saying at the national level, no. After mid-March, the contest will probably be over. We'll have a repeat of 2000's Dem Primary. Bradley was polling in the mid to upper 30s nationally, and ended up with 20% of the national vote after all was said and done. He will definitely win Vermont, regardless, and he will probably win NH.

In fact, this race is very, very similar to 2000. Bradley was polling well against Gore in Iowa, but his lack of support among the establishment allowed Gore to out perform his polling numbers. I feel the same will happen here.

What I have to base my belief on is that candidates have tried Bernie's strategy before. It has never, ever worked. Ever. And before someone brings up Obama, at this point in 2008, Obama had managed to consolidate the youth vote, he had consolidated the AA vote, was only losing women by 12-14 points, and was only losing registered Dem voters by 10. He was also running ahead of Hillary consistently in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Bernie needed movement about a month or two ago if he had any real shot at this. He didn't get it.

Edit: Also, people forget that Hillary has already won more primary votes than any other person in herstory. (See what I did there?) That's a built in advantage regardless of how you look at it. A large group of us have already pulled the lever for her. Asking us to do it again is way easier than asking us to suddenly switch to another candidate.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I do not believe that Bernie will do as well as the polls are saying at the national level, no. After mid-March, the contest will probably be over. We'll have a repeat of 2000's Dem Primary. Bradley was polling in the mid to upper 30s nationally, and ended up with 20% of the national vote after all was said and done. He will definitely win Vermont, regardless, and he will probably win NH.

Oh, in that sense I agree. He'll probably pull out not long into March, so he obviously won't have the opportunity to collect the votes in line with his opinion polling. I was more talking specific to Iowa / New Hampshire; I don't expect the better pollsters there, Selzer particularly, to be far off the mark.

EDIT: Hillary only won the most votes because a) Obama did better in caucus states which aren't tallied in the same way, and b) she competed in one states Obama did not out of protest. Even taking away b) is enough to have Obama with more votes. Come on, that's being deliberately misleading. Bluntly speaking, she's also a weaker candidate than in '08; nobody likes yesterday's leftovers.

 

[User 463088]

Hillary Clinton new ad.


Basically focused on "only I can stop the GOP, Bernie is not electable". Sadly, the polls disagree with her campaign, since Sanders does better than Clinton against the three GOP frontrunners.

Let me dislike the video.

Freep those videos. The only metric that really matters.

I mean, you want a candidate to say "Hell, anyone could beat these assholes?" I mean, come on. This is politics.

 

[Holmes]

Hillary Clinton new ad.


Basically focused on "only I can stop the GOP, Bernie is not electable". Sadly, the polls disagree with her campaign, since Sanders does better than Clinton against the three GOP frontrunners.

Let me dislike the video.

Stay pressT!

 

[User 463088]

Oh, in that sense I agree. He'll probably pull out not long into March, so he obviously won't have the opportunity to collect the votes in line with his opinion polling. I was more talking specific to Iowa / New Hampshire.

EDIT: Hillary only won the most votes because a) Obama did better in caucus states which aren't tallied in the same way, and b) she competed in one states Obama did not out of protest. Even taking away b) is enough to have Obama with more votes. Come on, that's being deliberately misleading.

Fine, she has the 2nd most when we remove the voters that don't count. That's not the point. The point is, 17 million people have already voted for her once. (Kerry had 9m, Gore 10m, Bill 10m, Dukakakis 10m, Carter in 80 had 10m). I know that it's because it was a contested primary, but it is still a huge advantage. Bernie was going to have to convince those who voted for Hillary last time that they were wrong to do so. He's not doing that.

You are absolutely wrong in that she is weaker than in 2008. That is pure fiction. Her support is way, way stronger now than it was in 2008 by any appreciable metric you can come up with.

As to your first point, this may sound silly, but I think it depends on the margins going into Iowa. Caucus states require a good ground game. Hillary's is good. Way better than 2008, and she has all of the local party support sewn up. Bernie will do well in Polk County, for example. Does he really have the people to get delegates out of Lyon or Osceola County? These smaller counties can be won by having locals on the ground and local party support. These are things Bernie just doesn't have. A well meaning volunteer is simply not interchangeable with a person who has caucused for 20 years and knows how to get the votes. So, I do think Hillary will over perform her poll numbers in Iowa, simply because of her local organization. Add to this the fact that there is no evidence his campaign is registering these new people....I think he could under perform, yes. I want to see more polling, especially from Selitzer before I decide definitively, though.

As to NH, I think Bernie should be further ahead than he is, considering NE candidates tend to do well in NH. I still think he will win NH. I don't think he will overpower his polling, unless something drastically changes.

 

[Diablos]

Rubio up double digits on Clinton is scary. Even if it's a Fox poll.

I'm telling you, she's not as invincible as people make her out to be.

Candidly, I'm turned off that there are really not that many other viable candidates in the democratic side besides Bernie. Well there could be but they all rolled over because who's going to stop the inevitability of Hillary?

Really wish Biden made up his mind sooner and decided to go for it.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Hillary Clinton new ad.


Basically focused on "only I can stop the GOP, Bernie is not electable". Sadly, the polls disagree with her campaign, since Sanders does better than Clinton against the three GOP frontrunners.

Let me dislike the video.

Not really comparable considering most pollsters don't even bother polling Sanders GE matchups since the Dem primary is all but over. The Fox poll alone skews your entire argument into being completely invalid. Are you really that oblivious?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Fine, she has the 2nd most when we remove the voters that don't count. That's not the point. The point is, 17 million people have already voted for her once. (Kerry had 9m, Gore 10m, Bill 10m, Dukakakis 10m, Carter in 80 had 10m). I know that it's because it was a contested primary, but it is still a huge advantage. Bernie was going to have to convince those who voted for Hillary last time that they were wrong to do so. He's not doing that.

We have no idea if that's true or not because we don't have any crossbreaks for current voting intention based on 2008's voting intention. Either way, though, as I've said, I don't think Sanders is going to win. I just think that Iowa will be close.

You are absolutely wrong in that she is weaker than in 2008. That is pure fiction. Her support is way, way stronger now than it was in 2008 by any appreciable metric you can come up with.

Again, talking about presidential, not primary. Her metrics as a presidential candidate are much weaker now - lower favorability than '08, personal traits all down, and so on.

As to your first point, this may sound silly, but I think it depends on the margins going into Iowa. Caucus states require a good ground game. Hillary's is good. Way better than 2008, and she has all of the local party support sewn up. Bernie will do well in Polk County, for example. Does he really have the people to get delegates out of Lyon or Osceola County? These smaller counties can be won by having locals on the ground and local party support. These are things Bernie just doesn't have. A well meaning volunteer is simply not interchangeable with a person who has caucused for 20 years and knows how to get the votes. So, I do think Hillary will over perform her poll numbers in Iowa, simply because of her local organization. Add to this the fact that there is no evidence his campaign is registering these new people....I think he could under perform, yes. I want to see more polling, especially from Selitzer before I decide definitively, though.

Yeah, we'll have to see. I understand that Selzer is conducting a poll from the 28th-30th to be released on the 31st. They got '08 spot on and even captured the last minute Obama bounce that everyone else more or less missed, so looking forward to that one. I'm unconvinced Clinton's Iowa ground-game is that good, though. Sanders has spent more time in Iowa than her, attended a significant number more Iowan events (103 to 80), has more full-time staffers there (100 in December to 78 in December), has more field offices (24 to 21), Sanders has a volunteer leader in every single precinct which Clinton doesn't as far as I am aware, and has more volunteers overall. Clinton's advantages are that her staff have more experience and she's had this stuff in place longer, whereas Sanders has only overtaken her on most of these metrics quite recently, but Sanders is winning in terms of time, money, and manpower; it's actually quite difficult to say which will prove stronger.

 

[disastermouse]

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.

She's going to get the nomination, there's no doubt. It's in the tank. She's too strong to lose the primary.

And she's too weak to win the general. McCain was a weak candidate. Romney was a weak candidate. Both Trump and Cruz are practiced demagogues. She will trounce Trump in the debates, but this is a year where it won't matter. She'll tie Cruz in the debates because he's actually a decent debater. Against Rubio or any of the formerly mainstream Republicans, she'd trounce them, but it won't be Rubio or a mainstream Republican.

This isn't a normal election cycle. Bernie should have been toast months ago and Trump should have been relegated to vanity candidate status long ago too. Conventional wisdom has been wrong at every turn this time. In this political climate, all of Clinton's strengths are weaknesses. If any of the conventional political strengths were valid this year, Bernie wouldn't have gotten this far on the left and Trump and Cruz wouldn't have gotten this far on the right.

 

[User 463088]

Rubio up double digits on Clinton is scary. Even if it's a Fox poll.

I'm telling you, she's not as invincible as people make her out to be.

The Fox Polls are insane. Look at the party break down. They have it 40/40/17. No GE electorate looks like that.


Also, Hillary just got another Union endorsement.

SIU Endorses Hillary for President

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

If you're going to get concerned, you should get concerned over 10 polls in a row showing Rubio leading by 1 to 3 points. Not the one wacky poll. As people who follow politics, you should know better than to get distracted by the shiny object.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The Fox Polls are insane. Look at the party break down. They have it 40/40/17. No GE electorate looks like that.

I don't see the 40/40/17? What page is that?

 

[shinra-bansho]

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.

I'd agree that she comes across better in my view when she simply presents herself as the nerd she is. But I don't know if it would necessarily mean that the amorphous blob that is "the public" would like her if she was. Because she'd probably end up turning off as many people as she brings on board in doing so.

But this is a catch 22 type situation and the problem with "authenticity" and "likability" in that the qualities we categorise as part of these descriptions wouldn't necessarily be displayed. She could be true to her wonk self, and still perhaps be perceived as "inauthentic" and most certainly still be seen as unlikable. There are character/personality traits people expect in leaders that simply may not be a fit for her as a person.

The reality is that everything about Clinton, and really women in positions of power in general, is a balancing act. If she raises her voice, she'll be called shrill or cast as the overbearing woman. If she speaks too softly she will be seen as weak and ineffectual. Show too much emotion or too little emotion and you're either a robot or a hysteric. And this lends to the narrative of calculation and excessive ambition.

 

[NeoXChaos]

If you're going to get concerned, you should get concerned over 10 polls in a row showing Rubio leading by 1 to 3 points. Not the one wacky poll. As people who follow politics, you should know better than to get distracted by the shiny object.

I have no reason to be concerned at this point. Even if we were in October and Rubio was up by 3 I would not be shocked. Its going to be a nail biter election.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'd agree that she comes across better in my view when she simply presents herself as the nerd she is. But I don't know if it would necessarily mean that the amorphous blob that is "the public" would like her if she was. Because she'd probably end up turning off as many people as she brings on board in doing so.

But this is a catch 22 type situation and the problem with "authenticity" and "likability" in that the qualities we categorise as part of these descriptions wouldn't necessarily be displayed. She could be true to her wonk self, and still perhaps be perceived as "inauthentic" and most certainly still be seen as unlikable.

The reality is that everything about Clinton, and really women in positions of power in general, is a balancing act. If she raises her voice, she'll be called shrill or cast as the overbearing woman. If she speaks too softly she will be seen as weak and ineffectual. Show too much emotion or too little emotion and you're either a robot or a hysteric. And this lends to the narrative of calculation and excessive ambition.

I don't think this is true because there are plenty of outspoken women politicians who are deeply liked. Or rather, I do think it's true that generally women politicians face more obstacles, but I don't think this is the majority of Clinton's problem. She's less favourable than Fiorina or Warren, to pick two women from completely opposite sides of the political spectrum. I think Clinton genuinely just does have a bad case of charisn'tma.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I'd agree that she comes across better in my view when she simply presents herself as the nerd she is. But I don't know if it would necessarily mean that the amorphous blob that is "the public" would like her if she was. Because she'd probably end up turning off as many people as she brings on board in doing so.

But this is a catch 22 type situation and the problem with "authenticity" and "likability" in that the qualities we categorise as part of these descriptions wouldn't necessarily be displayed. She could be true to her wonk self, and still perhaps be perceived as "inauthentic" and most certainly still be seen as unlikable. There are character/personality traits people expect in leaders that simply may not be a fit for her as a person.

The reality is that everything about Clinton, and really women in positions of power in general, is a balancing act. If she raises her voice, she'll be called shrill or cast as the overbearing woman. If she speaks too softly she will be seen as weak and ineffectual. Show too much emotion or too little emotion and you're either a robot or a hysteric. And this lends to the narrative of calculation and excessive ambition.

I agree.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=175647357&postcount=208

Okay, so, I'm not the biggest Hillary fan. I'm supporting Sanders in the primary. BUT.

You know who thought they deserved to be president? Barack Obama. Also Mitt Romney. Also John McCain. Also John Kerry. Also George W. Bush. Also Al Gore. Also Bob Dole. Also Bill Clinton. And so on. And so on.

All of these people -- all of them -- thought they deserved to be president over their opponent. They wanted to win. And why shouldn't they? I don't want a president who doesn't think they should be the one in the driver's seat.

The idea that Hillary Clinton is some power hungry bitch who has the audacity to think she should be president is this weird myth about her character that we've ascribed to her based on... what? That she ran for president twice? So did a lot of people. That she wants to win? So does everyone. Why is it different for Hillary Clinton to want to be president than anyone else who wants to be president?

 

[ivysaur12]

She's going to get the nomination, there's no doubt. It's in the tank. She's too strong to lose the primary.

And she's too weak to win the general. McCain was a weak candidate. Romney was a weak candidate. Both Trump and Cruz are practiced demagogues. She will trounce Trump in the debates, but this is a year where it won't matter. She'll tie Cruz in the debates because he's actually a decent debater. Against Rubio or any of the formerly mainstream Republicans, she'd trounce them, but it won't be Rubio or a mainstream Republican.

This isn't a normal election cycle. Bernie should have been toast months ago and Trump should have been relegated to vanity candidate status long ago too. Conventional wisdom has been wrong at every turn this time. In this political climate, all of Clinton's strengths are weaknesses. If any of the conventional political strengths were valid this year, Bernie wouldn't have gotten this far on the left and Trump and Cruz wouldn't have gotten this far on the right.

Why should Sanders have been toast months ago? There are only two real candidates in the race, making him the de facto NotClinton, and he represents a part of the Democratic coalition that is always competitive in the primaries.

There are also progressive candidates who could've been much more competitive in the primary like Brown or Warren, but chose not to run because of the strengths of Clinton as a candidate.

I also fundamentally don't see a large enough coalition of Trump or Cruz supporters who can beat Clinton in the general. Suburban voters aren't going to vote for Trump, and Cruz's appeal is limited.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'm still disappointed Warren didn't run, don't remind me. ;_;

 

[JesseEwiak]

I don't think this is true because there are plenty of outspoken women politicians who are deeply liked. Or rather, I do think it's true that generally women politicians face more obstacles, but I don't think this is the majority of Clinton's problem. She's less favourable than Fiorina or Warren, to pick two women from completely opposite sides of the political spectrum. I think Clinton genuinely just does have a bad case of charisn'tma.

Can you point me to the female politician whose been public enemy #2 of the other side, until they laid off for a few years because there was an uppity negro to take down?

 

[Daniel B·]

Wow, this thread has gone gangbusters!

I'm shattered, as I had been preparing, all week, for our Bernie storefront opening (as far as I know, the first in Virginia), which we had this morning, and was a great success (for a Saturday morning political event; 75 signees). We had excellent live music (talented country strings), an unlimited supply of homemade baked goodies, and beverages (coffee / tea etc), plus a great atmosphere (also tons of Bernie campaign essentials, such as yard signs) .

Despite how the majority of PoliGAF posters would depict the attendees (mainly young white doods), we had a very wide demographic (granted, not racially, but it's early days, in sub-urban VA), with more women, than men!

Out of my "baked goodies", I think my "whole wheat" banana breed (I made two loaves) was well received (made with 3 large organic bananas and just 1/3 cup organic sugar), but overall, I think I went overboard with my "healthy" (high fibre / low sugar) recipes (image link):

Back on politics, I see that Bernie has NH on lockdown (if you rightly disregard polls from Pretty, Pretty, Please and Arg (who?)), and he's gaining nationally too .

That Bernie MSNBC Morning Joe interview, the other day, was awesome, from a mainstream TV media source, and they continue to be a real ally to Bernie's campaign.

P.S. I have been loosely following GAF and the news, but If I've missed something that's possibly comment-worthy, please let me know.

 

[User 463088]

Yeah, we'll have to see. I understand that Selzer is conducting a poll from the 28th-30th to be released on the 31st. They got '08 spot on and even captured the last minute Obama bounce that everyone else more or less missed, so looking forward to that one. I'm unconvinced Clinton's Iowa ground-game is that good, though. Sanders has spent more time in Iowa than her, attended a significant number more Iowan events (103 to 80), has more full-time staffers there (100 in December to 78 in December), has more field offices (24 to 21), Sanders has a volunteer leader in every single precinct which Clinton doesn't as far as I am aware, and has more volunteers overall. Clinton's advantages are that her staff have more experience and she's had this stuff in place longer, whereas Sanders has only overtaken her on most of these metrics quite recently, but Sanders is winning in terms of time, money, and manpower; it's actually quite difficult to say which will prove stronger.

They each have 26 field offices, and they each have precinct captains in each precinct. In fact, Hillary had them in place before Bernie did, or at least, I heard about her's first. As to headlining fewer events, Hillary has more surrogates. She has Vilsack's network (as well as historical Dem supporters) that no amount of Feelin' the Bern can overcome. In a caucus state experience matters. She learned from 2008. She will not repeat the same mistakes she made then. She has Obama's ground game in place. She didn't have to build it from the ground up. She took the best of hers and the best of us. Bernie had to do it all from scratch.

Bernie is so lucky that the two earliest states play to his strengths.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I don't think this is true because there are plenty of outspoken women politicians who are deeply liked. Or rather, I do think it's true that generally women politicians face more obstacles, but I don't think this is the majority of Clinton's problem. She's less favourable than Fiorina or Warren, to pick two women from completely opposite sides of the political spectrum. I think Clinton genuinely just does have a bad case of charisn'tma.

I don't know if I'd say it's the majority of her problem, or if it came across that way, I think it's something that probably exacerbates the disparities between her natural wonkish personality and the expectations people have of leaders, politicians, presidential candidates. Everything that she does is viewed through a different lens; while stereotypically gendered personality traits still often conflict with "leadership traits", an unfortunate but still present reality.

EDIT: Fiorina, horrible person that she is, probably has a personality that lends itself better to the traditional "politician." I don't know if I'd say the same for Warren. I don't know if either would be considered deeply liked by "the public" and not just a devoted fanbase, or that they would still be so if they are currently, after 20 years of scrutiny.

 

[ivysaur12]

I'm still disappointed Warren didn't run, don't remind me. ;_;

I find her much less charismatic than Hillary tbh. I don't think she'd be a good nominee, policy aside.

 

[Third Strike]

I'm still disappointed Warren didn't run, don't remind me. ;_;

Do you think she would have made it further than Sanders?

 

[And_Gignac]

Freep those videos. The only metric that really matters.

I mean, you want a candidate to say "Hell, anyone could beat these assholes?" I mean, come on. This is politics.

Clinton is trying it with Sanders. She knows she is losing the spotlight. Basically this:

But he is already dragging back! And he has the receipts!

Not really comparable considering most pollsters don't even bother polling Sanders GE matchups since the Dem primary is all but over. The Fox poll alone skews your entire argument into being completely invalid. Are you really that oblivious?

The averages dont lie, and they are all based on the last three polls conducted by reputable pollsters. Argue with the numbers!

 

[User 463088]

I don't see the 40/40/17? What page is that?

Page 17.

 

[ivysaur12]

There's been so little state polling in the GE, so talking about hypothetical national numbers is a bit silly.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Do you think she would have made it further than Sanders?

Yes, I think so. She'd have had less pull with independents but much more pull from within the Democratic base because of her longer history with the party. She also makes one of Clinton's better calling cards, the historic nature of a potential Clinton presidency, irrelevant. I'm fairly confident Warren would have beaten Clinton if she had decided to run. Heck, when IIRC CBS News polled for what the race would look like nationally if Sanders selected Warren as his VP, it narrowed to only Clinton +6.

 

[disastermouse]

Obama has hovered in the latter 40's for most of his presidency. Graphs exist on this. Sanders has not faced the onslaught of ads from the GOP machine which will change that number. Ditto with Carson, Rubio etc against Hillary. They will eventually fall in either scenarios. Not Hillary was going to get 30% of the regardless of him being a socialist, marxist etc. See Gore Vs Bradley in 2000.

He's harder to attack than Hillary. In a normal year, sure, but this is so not a normal year. He's an outsider and he doesn't talk crazy or stupid and he doesn't equivocate or position himself very apparently. Insiders are toast this cycle thanks to Obama's perceived ineffectiveness and Republicans obvious ineffectiveness.

 

[User 463088]

I think Warren would have done better than Bernie, yes.She's a far more effective and important senator than he is. Hell, I'd have taken a second look at Warren because I also like her. I phone banked out of Ohio for her. Her natural base would have been Bernie's, outside that VERY VERY SMALL group of "Not a woman" voters who may be supporting Bernie and/or O'Malley simply because they don't want a woman on the ticket. (I'd like to think this is a small group, and I'm sure it is. However, I do believe even our party has some sexist asshats in it.)