Elections Democrat 2016 Primary Thread: V2 It's Still Hillary Edition

[Lead]

polls do not show that to be the case.

That she is the best chance to keep the White House. Bernie polls better against the GOP than she does.

That's a bit of a stretch. I took the RCP average of Clinton and Bernie vs. Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Fiorina, and Bush (the others either didn't have polls for both and actually would've brought Clintons average up) and I found we are talking about Clinton with a +0.62 average and Bernie with +1.70. We are talking margin of error with that kind of difference. Also factor in many of those numbers are based on 2-3 polls over the past 6 months and the data just isn't reliable to make such a statement.

Beyond the data, you also have to look at the type of poll. A national poll isn't necessarily reflective of how the map would go in a GE. Toss up states like Iowa, NH, Virgina, Colorado, Florida, and Ohio would be where it would matter a lot. My guess is also the fact that many GE voters aren't even paying attention right now shows the polls likely are little to useless for this kind of comparison too.

 

[Lead]

You might not say surging but others would. It is certainly not impossible for Sanders to win in Iowa and if he does then all bets are off. People pretending that he doesn't have a chance are fooling themselves.

May I ask who you're voting for lead?

I'm saying it from what the polls are showing. Obviously the article is mentioning more factors then that but I can't speak on ground games and stuff like that.

Do you mean if I were to vote in the Democratic primary or the GE?

 

[theBLADE1]

I'm saying it from what the polls are showing. Obviously the article is mentioning more factors then that but I can't speak on ground games and stuff like that.

Do you mean if I were to vote in the Democratic primary or the GE?

Both the Democratic primary and general election.

 

[Lead]

He's not even surging anymore.
http://i.imgur.com/fWzmkgT.png

Yea, the 50, 37 poll was the big one I mentioned in NH. That's the only argument I could see in polls that he is surging. I don't think he is. That was my point.

 

[theBLADE1]

Yea, the 50, 37 poll was the big one I mentioned in NH. That's the only argument I could see in polls that he is surging. I don't think he is. That was my point.

Sooooo who do you plan on voting for?

 

[Lead]

Both the Democratic primary and general election.

Democratic I would lean to Bernie for the fact I think he only cares about domestic issues and I think he largely would be hands off on FP compared to every candidate in 2016 aside from Paul and Carson maybe. He also has a stance I agree with on the banking system in which they need broken down to ensure to big to fail doesn't continue to happen and we don't over regulate to the point where we choke out smaller banks which is what's happening right now. The cons I have with him obviously are on his spending and level of taxation. Obviously he wouldn't get near the amount that he's proposing through Congress so I wouldn't be too concerned. I do wish he would propose different spending projects than healthcare and education. I truly believe I could get behind the right type of Democratic candidate that focused on infrastructure for all new government revenue hikes.

With all that said, I'm in PA so my vote wouldn't matter. Plus, you need to be registered with the party to vote in their primary here so I couldn't vote for Bernie

For the GE, I may not vote but I was interested early on with Rubio or Kasich. They both have shown they are going to do the same neo-con policies and boost military spending without regard to how much it would affect the budget. I also have server reservations with Rubio on the NSA issue but find that it's going to be very unlikely to find an anti-NSA candidate in the GE. I guess it depends on the match up but for now, Rubio and Kasich are ranking the highest with me and I'm still not completely optimistic on them. I'd say if the GE is Hillary v. Bush, Cruz, or Trump I likely won't vote.

 

[Lead]

I thought I made the polls in here so we could view the results. Must've pressed the wrong option

EDIT- you can press on the numbers to the right in the polls and see who voted for what.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Jack is Hillary Clinton antiestablishment?
Did Hillary Clinton advocate for TPP 45 times?
Did Hillary Clinton lie about landing under sniper fire?
Did Hillary Clinton vote against gay marriage?
Did Hillary Clinton vote for the Iraq War?
Did Hillary Clinton vote for the Bankruptcy Reform Act?
Did Hillary Clinton support NAFTA?
Did Hillary Clinton champion the "touch on crime" crusade?
Is Hillary Clinton leading all candidates with donations from Pharma?
Is Hillary Clinton leading all candidates with donations from Wall Street?
Is Hillary Clinton leading all candidates with donations from the MIC?
Is Hillary Clinton leading all but 2 candidates with donations from Big Oil?

The answer to those in some cases is no, and they're all irrelevant and basically just indicate that Clinton has been on the scene a long time (plus you seem to take for granted that the left doesn't like the TPP, when it's actually a matter of controversy). That's long been a fundamental difference in our approaches--I'm more policy-focused and you're more identity focused. I understand where you're coming from (on that), though I disagree, but you can't seem to understand my position.

Does that sound like a progressive to you?

You can spin or cherry pick as you much as you want, but any realistic, broad look shows that, yes, of course she's a progressive.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/

Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. Her 2008 rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama, was nearby with a record more liberal than 82 percent of all members — he was not more liberal than Clinton.

Clinton also has a history of very liberal public statements. Clinton rates as a “hard core liberal” per the OnTheIssues.org scale. She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders. And while Obama is also a “hard core liberal,” Clinton again was rated as more liberal than Obama.

How can you question the intellectual honestly of anybody who feels she is a phony?

I question *your* (that is, you in particular) intellectual honesty because of the way you argue. The anti-establishment thing is a great example. She's clearly supported by her party and rich and well-connected but her platform and voting record are clearly anti-establishment. But you try to present me as arguing the first point and not the second. That's not honest.

How can you defend her for infinity without conceding to any of these facts and call others "fake lefties"?

Unless you're a Clinton shill and an absolute phony?

Again, you're a fake lefty. You supported an extreme right-wing candidate in 2012, and you said that your second choice this time is another extreme right-wing candidate. It's great that you suddenly started caring about the poor and middle class a little, but don't act like you're a real lefty. And I don't "defend her to infinity." I dispute claims I think are false or badly argued.

And the shill thing is so stupid. You realize that Clinton has extremely high favorables among liberals and is much the preferred candidate among Democratic primary voters at this time, right? And yet you seem to be unable to grasp that others don't blindly hate her the way you do.

 

[theBLADE1]

I thought I made the polls in here so we could view the results. Must've pressed the wrong option

EDIT- you can press on the numbers to the right in the polls and see who voted for what.

How do you vote twice?

 

[theBLADE1]

Yea, the 50, 37 poll was the big one I mentioned in NH. That's the only argument I could see in polls that he is surging. I don't think he is. That was my point.

Also I guess you can define surging however you would like but it is doing better nationally then Obama was on January 9, 2008

http://www.ouramazingworld.org/poli...than-president-obama-was-in-2008-at-this-time

Obama was a 30% nationally and Sanders currently stands at 39%.

 

[Lead]

How do you vote twice?

I have options for who you want and who you think will win. You just click two options and press vote?

 

[theBLADE1]

I have options for who you want and who you think will win. You just click two options and press vote?

I fucked up and voted for one of them. Oh well

 

[Lead]

Also I guess you can define surging however you would like but it is doing better nationally then Obama was on January 9, 2008

http://www.ouramazingworld.org/poli...than-president-obama-was-in-2008-at-this-time

Obama was a 30% nationally and Sanders currently stands at 39%.

Yea but look at those numbers

54-37 Hillary

One show that's only 67% of people have picked a person with the other one third undecided. The second one shows over half of voters picked Hillary and only 6% (3% picked O'Malley) undecided. Those aren't good numbers for Bernie and actually don't compare the two well.

 

[Lead]

I fucked up and voted for one of them. Oh well

Just changed it so you can click "change vote". Poll closes in March though where you will no longer be able to.

 

[theBLADE1]

Yea but look at those numbers

54-37 Hillary

One show that's only 67% of people have picked a person with the other one third undecided. The second one shows over half of voters picked Hillary and only 6% (3% picked O'Malley) undecided. Those aren't good numbers for Bernie and actually don't compare the two well.

Yeah I get it. He's still got ground to make up I'm just saying it's not a nail in his coffin. I also found this saying that mathematically Sanders still has a chance in Iowa dated yesterday.

http://time.com/4172793/hillary-clinton-iowa-caucus-bernie-sanders/

Just changed it so you can click "change vote". Poll closes in March though where you will no longer be able to.

Thanks man.

 

[Lead]

Yeah I get it. He's still got ground to make up I'm just saying it's not a nail in his coffin. I also found this saying that mathematically Sanders still has a chance in Iowa dated yesterday.

http://time.com/4172793/hillary-clinton-iowa-caucus-bernie-sanders/



Thanks man.

That's some ground because he need's to get all of the undecideds, O;Malley and turn some of Hillary's support. In states after NH and Iowa, the numbers are going to look just as bad. The only thing I can really see getting him the nod is a scandle that sticks with Hillary but Bernie won't even address stuff like her emails at debates so I don't think that even could win him it. He made noise though. I don't think he ever expected the amount of impact he was going to make in the primaries.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Lol Jack. Talk about being intellectually dishonest. You are being disgustingly dishonest and a hypocrite to boot, with this portrayal of my support for Paul and Johnson. And I've explained my position to you dozens of times.
I supported Ron Paul for his progressive positions on empire and civil liberties, positions that are to the left of Obama and Clinton. His FP is even to the left of Bernie. I supported him because these are important issues and he had the integrity to move on these issues if elected.

I support Bernie for the same reason: integrity and the willingness to address real issues. I actually disagree with Bernie on a few things just like I disagree with Paul and Johnson. I have the integrity to say that.

And I've always cared about poor people. I help poor people every day. How is supporting Paul or Johnson any more anti-poor than voting for Clinton, Obama, or Clinton? America has only slipped further into oligarchy under their reigns and there is no reason to suspect they won't continue the war on the middle class. At least Paul and Johnson would have made an attempt to bring their progressive agendas to fruition.

But hey thanks for appreciating my concern for poor people. Maybe you should join me and support Bernie Sanders rather than that corporate democrat Clinton. While you're at it try to stop hating brown people by supporting somebody who supported the sanctions on Iraq, the Iraq War, drone striking arbitrary groups of brown men, the mass incarceration of minorities and the War in Drugs you racist.

Why would somebody vote for Hillary when she has only proven to be dishonest, ineffective, shifty, and loathed by all but her die hard supporters? She's not going to get anything done. She's not even going to try. The establishment (pharma, oil, Wall Street, MIC) isn't donating millions of dollars to her campaign because they like the cut of her jib. America will be less safe due to her war mongering AND slip further into oligarchy. At least Johnson will be less imperious and address civil liberties (like trying to reverse that racist crime bill she supported).

As stark contrast, you have admitted just today that you feel Clinton is antiestablishment. Only then do you try to defend it with caveats etc. She is the antithesis of antiestablishment.

 

[theBLADE1]

That's some ground because he need's to get all of the undecideds, O;Malley and turn some of Hillary's support. In states after NH and Iowa, the numbers are going to look just as bad. The only thing I can really see getting him the nod is a scandle that sticks with Hillary but Bernie won't even address stuff like her emails at debates so I don't think that even could win him it. He made noise though. I don't think he ever expected the amount of impact he was going to make in the primaries.

When you say they're going to be just as bad, What's that based off of? Just current polling numbers? I feel like the numbers in those polls don't really matter until early to mid February Because history shows us this.

He is also making strides in other states as well

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-nevada-217432

I'm not delusional. I know he has an uphill climb I'm just saying it's not as impossible as I feel you're making it out to be.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

She is too much of a leader and intellectual for average people to understand.

The delusion is strong with this one.

Plead your case. Exactly what individual accomplishments has she had?

And intellectual? Sure, most recent example of that is she said sexual assault victims have the right to be believed, not realising how obvious that was going to be turned around on her, in reguards to her husband's accusers.

 

[Lead]

When you say they're going to be just as bad, What's that based off of? Just current polling numbers? I feel like the numbers in those polls don't really matter until early to mid February Because history shows us this.

He is also making strides in other states as well

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-nevada-217432

I'm not delusional. I know he has an uphill climb I'm just saying it's not as impossible as I feel you're making it out to be.

I've mentioned before Bernie does terrible with Black voters compared to Clinton. The only fact that he is still in the race is because the first two states are predominantly white. Once we get to places like SC and a decent majority of the map, he is going to have a lot of trouble unless he manages to change their views. Doesn't seem like he has much a chance of doing that with the way the debates were scheduled (just a few and on saturday nights) and he doesn't have persona advantages like other candidates would in identifying with them (Obama was black).