Elections Clinton vs Trump Polls thread (Clinton's Bounce Larger than Trump's)

[VivaRevolution]

Sanders just conceded. Stein will surge into the high single digits most likely.

Saw that her fundraising has spiked by a 1000% in the last few weeks.

 

[Lead]

Saw that her fundraising has spiked by a 1000% in the last few weeks.

Considering her previous fundraising could've been in the 10s of dollars, that might not be impressive. As a Bernie supporter, do you side with Johnson or Stein more? I know you support trump or Clinton at this point but want to know the alternative options

 

[VivaRevolution]

Considering her previous fundraising could've been in the 10s of dollars, that might not be impressive. As a Bernie supporter, do you side with Johnson or Stein more? I know you support trump or Clinton at this point but want to know the alternative options

I lean towards Johnson for his governing experience, and lack of partisanship he displays. I prefer Stein's economics.

I'm actually so up in the air right now, it is somewhat comical.

I haven't voted for a R or D, at the local, state, or national level since 2008. As I am fond of saying, a pox on both their houses.

 

[liljoe]

If anyone in the justice department had any balls to do what they needed to do this wouldn't even be a race. She's dirty as fuck and people know it.

Thing is, Trump is probably worse. At least she has been in public office and has worked for the interest of people. Trump has never cared about anyone but himself.
That is why he is such a terrible candidate. The dems nominate such a disliked person as Hillary and their response is someone who is hated more than her?
Insane.

 

[Lead]

I lean towards Johnson for his governing experience, and lack of partisanship he displays. I prefer Stein's economics.

I'm actually so up in the air right now, it is somewhat comical.

I haven't voted for a R or D, at the local, state, or national level since 2008. As I am fond of saying, a pox on both their houses.

I'm sure stein and Johnson economic policies must be complete ends of the spectrum. What is steins background even? I never looked into her but this election third parties definitely could be playing spoiler

 

[Trotsky]

If your second choice after Sanders is anyone but Stein, you weren't a very substantive supporter to begin with.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If your second choice after Sanders is anyone but Stein, you weren't a very substantive supporter to begin with.

If it's Clinton, that makes perfect sense. That's who Bernie is backing, he influenced the platform, she's likely to win, etc. That's the natural move for Bernie supporters, and where most of them who were supporting him based on policy will go (people who liked him for his image might go to Stein).

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

If your second choice after Sanders is anyone but Stein, you weren't a very substantive supporter to begin with.

Says the guy with Trotsky as his name. Trotsky was scum.

 

[ncordless]

I think William Wallace's words apply here.

"We won at Stirling, and still you quibble. We won at York and you would not support us. If you will not stand up with us now then I say you're a coward. And if you are Scotsmen, I am ashamed to call myself one."

Yeah... Think about it.

okay, I thought about it.
Didn't he end up hung, drawn, and quartered? How'd that Scottish independence end up?

 

[VivaRevolution]

I'm sure stein and Johnson economic policies must be complete ends of the spectrum. What is steins background even? I never looked into her but this election third parties definitely could be playing spoiler

She is a Doctor and a activist, and has ran for quite a few offices, never winning an election.

Not exactly a politician, but that is a selling point in today's environment I think.

 

[VivaRevolution]

If your second choice after Sanders is anyone but Stein, you weren't a very substantive supporter to begin with.

I disagree with this. It is hard for me to take any environmentalist seriously that doesn't talk about shipping being the #1 driver of carbon, and cows coming in at #3. Seems every Climate alarmist I talk with, knows about as much about carbon generation, as climate deniers know about it.

Her platform on climate change is 100% renewable, and anyone that thinks that is realistic, has no idea how much energy we actually consume. Real solutions to this, have to include nuclear as a transition until we get to fusion or hydrogen.


I understand your point however, in that she talks about people power, and uses much of the same rhetoric as Bernie on other issues, but for me, if you are running for the green party, you should probably actually know what you are talking about as far as carbon and sustainable energy goes.

 

[carlos cadona]

These polls are fucking mental today, all over the map, I assume this is because some were taken after the email announcments and some were taken after Bernie Endorsed her but don't quote me on that.
Polls Clinton leads
+14 GE
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN0ZS2MO
Pen +9, Ohio +3, Iowa +3,
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/polls-clinton-ahead-or-even-midwest-battlegrounds-n608651
Virginia +7
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/int...6-clinton-tops-trump-by-7-points-in-virginia/
Colorado +9
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/int...-poll-71316-trump-trails-clinton-in-colorado/
Wisconsin +4
http://fox6now.com/2016/07/13/marqu...ary-clinton-maintains-lead-over-donald-trump/
Polls led by Trump:
Florida +3, Pen +2, Ohio +1/tie
http://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/q...ing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2365
http://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/q...ing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2365
This Shit is starting to get fucking crazy, it's so exciting!

 

[VivaRevolution]

Says the guy with Trotsky as his name. Trotsky was scum.

Stalin fan huh?

 

[TheBlondBomber]

okay, I thought about it.
Didn't he end up hung, drawn, and quartered? How'd that Scottish independence end up?

It worked out pretty good for a little bit.

 

[Trotsky]

Says the guy with Trotsky as his name. Trotsky was scum.

I assume that you think every revolutionary throughout history (that didn't win) was scum, given that that is the disposition of simpletons.

Trotsky was a great man. I was just to his home in Mexico last month.

If it's Clinton, that makes perfect sense. That's who Bernie is backing, he influenced the platform, she's likely to win, etc. That's the natural move for Bernie supporters, and where most of them who were supporting him based on policy will go (people who liked him for his image might go to Stein).

No matter how much Sanders purports to influence Clinton's platform, she'll still be a warmongering neoliberal that is subservient to the same private capital that has commandeered the States' direction for the past 40 years. A large chunk of his supporters, especially those who were at the ground floor, will not vote for a Clinton.

Stein and Sanders already were nearly identical with regard to policy. Sanders supporters who jump to Clinton didn't support him on a policy basis, most likely: or they did, but take a Chomskian view on voting re: lesser evilism. I do not. I have no idea what you are trying to suggest with the "image" comment, but I'll assume it's nonsense.

 

[Trotsky]

I disagree with this. It is hard for me to take any environmentalist seriously that doesn't talk about shipping being the #1 driver of carbon, and cows coming in at #3. Seems every Climate alarmist I talk with, knows about as much about carbon generation, as climate deniers know about it.

Her platform on climate change is 100% renewable, and anyone that thinks that is realistic, has no idea how much energy we actually consume. Real solutions to this, have to include nuclear as a transition until we get to fusion or hydrogen.


I understand your point however, in that she talks about people power, and uses much of the same rhetoric as Bernie on other issues, but for me, if you are running for the green party, you should probably actually know what you are talking about as far as carbon and sustainable energy goes.

She is not perfect, but she does not pretend to be a pragmatist with regard to environmental policy: you can advocate a great change without proposing methods to arrive upon it from step 1. One can also advocate for a massive demilitarization to some large nominal degree (50%, etc.) knowing that it is logistically impossible, but knowing that it is a long-term advocacy and a matter of bargaining. Frankly, that was how the Fight for 15 was framed by many as well, myself included (and given our capitalist system, incremental change, or, more appropriately, change adjusted for variables beyond state, would have been preferable in some ways).

 

[Jack V Savage]

No matter how much Sanders purports to influence Clinton's platform, she'll still be a warmongering neoliberal that is subservient to the same private capital that has commandeered the States' direction for the past 40 years. A large chunk of his supporters, especially those who were at the ground floor, will not vote for a Clinton.

I understand that you personally have an aversion to Clinton, likely influenced by decades of right-wing propaganda. But I was responding to a specific point, which was that Sanders supporters who move on to Clinton weren't "substantive" supporters. Not so. Clinton is the natural choice for Sanders supporters who want results in line with what Sanders wanted. Voting for Stein won't do anything for anyone, except maybe help elect Trump, which would certainly kill any hope for advancement along progressive lines for at least a generation (because of the change in the SCOTUS and the likely huge deficits brought about by his and his party's proposed tax cuts for the rich).

Stein and Sanders already were nearly identical with regard to policy. Sanders supporters who jump to Clinton didn't support him on a policy basis, most likely: or they did, but take a Chomskian view on voting re: lesser evilism. I do not. I have no idea what you are trying to suggest with the "image" comment, but I'll assume it's nonsense.

See above. If you want to advance Sanders' policy goals, Clinton is the choice. If you want to maintain your left-wing hipster cred and make a statement about your personal style, Stein works better.

 

[Trotsky]

I understand that you personally have an aversion to Clinton, likely influenced by decades of right-wing propaganda.

You can keep saying that to deflect actual criticism of Clinton, but it won't make it true. Persons under 40, especially persons of color, have never been influenced by private media in the way that you apparently were. They didn't grow up reading excerpts from Republicans or laying prey to their media hounds. Nothing for which the left criticizes Clinton has anything to do with "right-wing propaganda;" that's why you don't see the left harping on Benghazi, Bill's infidelity, or these stupid emails. But keep trying to undermine substantive criticisms and marginalize them into your favorite partisan framework if it makes you feel better

But I was responding to a specific point, which was that Sanders supporters who move on to Clinton weren't "substantive" supporters. Not so. Clinton is the natural choice for Sanders supporters who want results in line with what Sanders wanted. Voting for Stein won't do anything for anyone, except maybe help elect Trump, which would certainly kill any hope for advancement along progressive lines for at least a generation (because of the change in the SCOTUS and the likely huge deficits brought about by his and his party's proposed tax cuts for the rich).

We've already been through this on the topic of lesser evilism and its historical inefficacy. I don't care to go through it again.

Also, a Trump presidency does not scare me, and bringing the Green Party to the national forefront while simultaneously having the Democrats lose the executive while winning the legislature is the optimal outcome: losing to Trump would force them to reorganize around the "Bernie-crat" insurgency, root out the rampant party corruption, and move to the left to accommodate the Green wave. Meanwhile, Trump would be largely neutralized by the impending Democratic Senate and the GOP would be forced to embrace the Trump platform, plunging the party into further ineptitude for another decade.

See above. If you want to advance Sanders' policy goals, Clinton is the choice. If you want to maintain your left-wing hipster cred and make a statement about your personal style, Stein works better.

More ad homs and attempts to discredit. Your style is boring and no one here respects it. (EDIT: Or at least I presume, perhaps naively)

 

[Jack V Savage]

You can keep saying that to deflect actual criticism of Clinton, but it won't make it true.

No, I'm saying it because it's true.

Persons under 40, especially persons of color, have never been influenced by private media in the way that you apparently were.

You say that, and yet here we are.

We've already been through this on the topic of lesser evilism and its historical inefficacy. I don't care to go through it again.

Um, OK, but did you get the point? How does voting for Stein help anyone in the real world? If you're a Sanders supporter who wants what Sanders wants, you are going to vote for Clinton.

Also, a Trump presidency does not scare me, and bringing the Green Party to the national forefront while simultaneously having the Democrats lose the executive while winning the legislature is the optimal outcome:

That's fine, but obviously not realistic.

More ad homs and attempts to discredit. Your style is boring and no one here respects it.

I think you put a period where you meant to put a colon, chief.

 

[CrazyN8]

Im not surprised motherfu**ers. Listen to her speak..she sounds like a badly programmed robot who doesn't grasp simple language cues and tones. Like others have said..wait for the debates.