I'm a man who, if polled, would disapprove of Clinton. But I'm still voting for her in the general (assuming she's the nominee). I imagine that's the case with a lot of her disapproval in general. I'm not as worried about favorable numbers translating to republican votes as i am about turnout being depressed as a result. Especially if someone perceived as a "moderate" is nominated on the republican side and Clinton struggles to scare people to the polls to vote for her.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
Aaron Strife
Banned
That Quinnipiac poll is junk if they included more Republicans than Democrats. When was the last time that was the case in a presidential election?
And 75% white. Ok
And 75% white. Ok
PhoenixDark
Banned
I eagerly look forward to the inevitable "democrats are unskewing polls now" article from someone. Jennifer Rubin perhaps.
I think Hillary is in trouble but is still the favorite.
...she is?
I don't like looking at Party ID for a poll, but those numbers for race are a bit suspect.
But that's why we have many polls!
And yet Clinton on loses to Bush by 1% and beats Walker by 1% with these flawed metrics. Somewhat good news as far as I'm concerned considering the last Quinnipiac poll from CO, VA, and IA had her down some 5% points each (albeit with the same flawed sample).
I have a gut feeling that once the GOP field starts to narrow and there is more media coverage for both sides, that Clinton's favorability numbers will increase slightly. That definitely won't be very high, but I don't think they will stay fully depressed throughout the general.
Fenderputty
Banned
I never get polled. lol
Abinash117
Member
If the favorably ratings is done through Republicans, Independents, and Democrats then it shouldn't be surprising that it is low. If it is high among dem voters then that's what matters a lot in the end.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Its so transparent the anti-abortion movement is about punishing sex
Aaron Strife
Banned
"Noted liberal nazi Aaron Strife has been unskewing the polls in favor of Hillary Clinton"
The difference btw between questioning a poll and unskewing it is whether I draw the conclusion that Hillary is actually up 10 according to these polls. If a poll is junk it's junk.
Yeah, throughout her career.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31967516
She's in it for herself (and women in general), which most politicians are but she makes it seem so obvious.
BertramCooper
Banned
Can we get a shutdown threat over NPR funding, too?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I didn't realize the contraception = poison was an actual thing on the right
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...on-brewing-on-birth-control-usage-in-the-u.s/
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...on-brewing-on-birth-control-usage-in-the-u.s/
While I don't think there's anything wrong with her talking about making history with her presidency, and I don't think she's making it a center piece to her campaign like you seemed to suggest(?), who cares?
With favorables like these, who needs enemies?
BertramCooper
Banned
"Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut, which said laws making contraception illegal were unconstitutional, the use of birth control among Americans has become an epidemic: More than 90% of the adult population uses some form of birth control, a figure that includes most self-described Catholics."
Yeah, that harrowing epidemic of responsible fucking.
Nah she is. She may not talk about it all the time, but knowing her through the years this may be her most important priority. She's already been to multiple women empowerment conferences this year. Her comments after she lost to Obama in 2008 sounded like she lost to him because of that "ceiling", and not because people thought she was the wrong person for the job.
I only mentioned this as one of the aspects that made me have an unfavorable opinion of her. Others include she sucked as SoS (Kerry has done much more than her), her changing of accents and other touchless pandering depending on who she is speaking too, and the fact that she lacks true convictions asides from women issues and just goes with whatever is politically expedient.
How do you expect them to lord moral superiority over poors and minority's if they don't have babies they can't support?
Let's just say Hillary is actually making women's issues the center of campaign (which she isn't, but I'm humoring you).
So what's actually wrong with that?
Also, what's wrong with changing accents when you live in one place for many years...and then another place surrounded by people talking a different way for many years? Is this something to be looked unfavorably upon?
Aaron Strife
Banned
Yeah this is anecdotal but my mom spent a lot of time growing up in both Minnesota and Arkansas and lived in Kentucky for a while during early adulthood. Whenever we go down south the accent comes back out in full force while she has a fairly standard Midwestern accent up here. While a politician is probably more conscious of these things it's totally something that happens.
Fenderputty
Banned
I'm wondering the same thing.
Because to me, she seems more bent in making history / becoming the first woman President than actually governing. Also, I genrally mistrust those that focus in one segment or aspect. I prefer candidates who try to be as inclusive as possible.
And the way she changes accents is not by accident, it's a conscious effort to appeal to people. Seems disingenuous, also.
And the way she changes accents is not by accident, it's a conscious effort to appeal to people. Seems disingenuous, also.
Do you honestly think Hillary isn't trying to be inclusive in her message? You seem to see her as the "woman candidate focusing on women's issues." Have you heard her speak on race in America? She said some very powerful things that were, in some ways, more stark than what Obama has said. She has also talked a lot about economic issues facing young Americans and more.
Of course, she wants to win after all. I can't trust her character or intentions though. Sorry.
You don't have to trust her but winning is the ultimate goal. Despite what the polls say she still has the best chance to win the nomination and general. She still has majority support in the Democratic Primary. Republicans are going to be from now till election day in the 90% camp against her. Independents are either going to be left leaning or right leaning. Very few swing voters left but probably 3-5%.
As long as Obama is above or near 50% and her favoriblity is at 48% or above, she should be fine heading into election day. She is going to be spending most of her time destroying the favoribility ratings of her opponent anyway and viceversa so its not the end of the world if she is down right now or next year by a little. Turnout is the ultimate focus and polls are going to either overstate or understate the electorate.
Obama's team knew this.
Frank the Great
Banned
At the end of the day Hillary is the candidate who is most likely to succeed and get some liberal justices appointed. She can be as ruthless and disingenuous as she likes, doesn't bother me one bit.
Never understood the importance some voters place on liking a candidate on a personal level.
Never understood the importance some voters place on liking a candidate on a personal level.
That got us George W Bush. "I like to have a beer with that guy".
BertramCooper
Banned
"I'd like to have a beer with that teetotalling former alcoholic."
You don't have to trust her. I don't trust her either. But if you know how campaigns go then you know that candidates promise about 10 big agenda issues and only ever actually seek to accomplish maybe 5 of them and only succeed on about 2 or 3 in a real big way. Obama has been more successful than most modern presidents in terms of being a part of major successes relating to his campaign promises and a lot of that has been due to other factors. For Hillary, for example, we can pretty much dismiss her "tough on wall street" talk as nothing but campaign rhetoric.
True, but see post below yours. appealing to people is important in poltics, always has been. I would imagine people that think like you do are a minority.
Bottom line: Hillary is ahead, as of now, but she has issues in the way she's perceived by a large sector of the population and that is reflected in the polls.
Yes, but that isn't going to matter much in the general when Walker, Bush, or even Trump start talking about forcible rape or whatever the insane meme is going to be this time.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Eh...the funding is not going to be completely cut. Republicans won't win that govt shutdown bet...they've never won one.
I'm fine with an investigation happening, clearly some people need to be purged. The bad thing is that we know republicans will go overboard with the bullshit.
BertramCooper
Banned
eBay Huckster
Member
don't have the Quinnipiac crosstabs in front of me on account of I'm not a masochist, but the PPP poll with -10 net favorables has her at 77-17 with Dems
Aaron Strife
Banned
Rasmussen: Republican primary
Donald Trump - 26%
Scott Walker - 14%
Jeb Bush - 10%
Nothing stops this train
Donald Trump - 26%
Scott Walker - 14%
Jeb Bush - 10%
Nothing stops this train
PhoenixDark
Banned
Scott Walker will when he wins Iowa.
RustyNails
Member
Hoping he runs so he gets beaten again.
Well the proposal she's "backing" is Patty Murray's and it starts at $12 with increases tied to the inflation index. It's not a bad idea, its just one that starts from a position of compromise which is sometimes a bit of a meh tactic.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Just like Santorum did.
Oh, wait.
Iowa means nowhere near what it used to. Back in the day, Iowa basically told everyone else what to think. In the days of the internet and neverending TV coverage, we now have access to information about the candidates at any time. In fact, I don't think there's anything more overstated than the influence Iowa has on the eventual candidate.
The issue with the house is that no compromise interests them. They are against raising the minimum wage flat out and many are against the existence of the minimum wage at all. I'm not down on Murray's proposal but I would rather Hillary be for $15 like virtually every democrat is, instead of compromising from the start.
There should be atleast 30-50 Republicans willing to pass it with whatever number of Democrats are left come 2017. There are atleast 229 of them pre-2010 still serving that were not a part of the tea party wave willing to compromise.
The problem is Boehner or McCarthy will likely prevent it from reaching the floor. Immigration Reform is the same scenario. The bill from the Senate passed in Summer 2013 probably had the necessary number of R's siding with the D's to pass it but Boehner has refused to bring it up.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I'm not too sure about Walker winning Iowa. He's in Trump's crosshairs.
This is the year the GOP voters go full-on insane.
This is the year the GOP voters go full-on insane.
It just seemed to me like they are already negotiating from a weak position. The 15 dollar minimum wage has 63% support and it's what the protesters were asking for. Her statements sounds more like she'll pass any minimum wage increase (regardles of the number) and that she didn't want to actually say what specific figure she would prefer. I would think most republicans in congress don't want a federal minimum wage anyway or at least don't care to raise it-- so lowering your goals and undermining what people are asking for, for practical reasons doesn't seem like the best option.
Black Republican
Member
them cuts, they needed it, too much bloat. Al Sharpton is a legend but a terrible host, i heard he has strong clout over there though. Anyways bring Keith back please
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked