General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 50

I'll let Khalek answer your question generally. I and others have answered this question on a personal level in this thread already, so if that's what you're looking for you can look back a couple pages as it gets discussed frequently.

 

Absolutely! It's outrageous that he's been raising funds primarily himself for a couple of months since it's been clear he can't win the race. He can stay in as long as he wants, but he could have been actively fundraising to create a congress of like minded individuals to clear a path for the next Democratic Socialist to run to become president. Why didn't he do that?

 

Bernie is beating trump by 10% in tracking polls. Clinton is up 3%. So there certainly seem to be a lot of people who currently are saying they'd vote for Bernie but not Clinton, and it quite possibly could swing the election. I don't have the numbers on hand, but I remember seeing polling yesterday where Sanders was beating Trump in Georgia, but Trump was beating Clinton.

But hey, might as well start sinking into personal attacks against people you don't agree with!

 

calling your argument nonsense is not a personal attack, ya dink. calling you a dink is a personal attack, but thats fair because that's what youre being.

anyway, this thread has now closely examined the claims that "bernie or bust" will sink her, and you are attributing margins to bernie supporters without actually providing evidence that trump in those polls isn't buoyed by anti-hillary sentiment or that republicans/independents who might vote for bernie over trump would not vote for hillary. you threw random numbers out without actual evidence or nuance and they are therefore meaningless.

also, favorability numbers, which i assume is what youre referring to, are the only thing remotely acceptable to use at this point, arent the same as likely voters or actual votes. if those numbers you dropped aren't favorables, then i have no idea what to tell you because you're talking about things that are completely abstract and meaningless.

have fun throwing a tantrum anytime someone says anything negative about hillary and making audacious, unprovable claims about bernie based on unsubstantiated evidence and anecdotal feelings!

 

These polls don't matter when the GOP hasn't attacked Bernie anywhere near the level they've attacked Hillary, and with Bernie still attacking Hillary

 

and if the beef is "bernie does better against trump than clinton!" maybe that should tell you that the democrats are nominating the wrong candidate?

 

Repeating this over and over again doesn't make it more true.

 

Except it is, and the fact that Bernie and his supporters cling to them do (and again as a repetition), nothing but help Trump.

 

Ahahahahah

 

damn remember when hillary stayed in the primaries after running a racist campaign until like mid june in 2008? THAT DID NOTHING BUT HELP MCCAIN!!!

 

I have serious doubts about the proposal that Sanders is costing Clinton votes. I believe the portion of his supporters who are #neverhillary were probably people she could not reliably count on having in her corner in the first place. So I think the argument that he could wind up costing her the election is shaky at best.

 

A lot of moderate liberals apparently need a narrative that blames pretty much everyone but themselves though, unfortunately. Essentially the same patterns and processes have been underway here - there's so many takes on why people have flocked to "fringe" candidates with literally no introspection whatsoever, that usually come down to "everyone is a total rube except for me".

 

I'm referring to actual H2H polls not favorably numbers. But yeah, if you want to keep your head buried in the sand and spread unbased bullshit like "the bernie or bust crowd is insignificant" and then run away when presented with actual numbers be my guest.

Oh I totally agree. I was just pointing out that there is currently a large section of people who, according to polling, are supporting sanders but not clinton, i.e. the "bernie or bust" crowd.

Remember when Obama won handily, in part because after she was beaten Clinton came out to support Obama instead of complaining that the system was rigged against her?

 

Did you miss the part where head to head numbers are fucking useless at this point? Or when I ran through the actual poll numbers of Bernie voters who said they wouldn't support her? When have I ignored numbers?

We haven't even finished the primaries yet. How do you know he won't support her? And how much did her support really mean after her racist, nasty campaign?

 

Ah I see, the "create a scenario where no one can use any evidence against my claim because my gut feeling matters the most" approach. Classic

How much I or anyone likes hillary is relevant only to whether or not she is worse than Trump. Trumps campaign tactics this year had been far more racist, sexist, xenophobic and all around hateful than Clinton in 08 and the comparison in policy positions is even worse.

 

Not that much considering 16% of McCain voters were Clinton supporters in '08.

 

What the fuck are you talking about? Someone posted actual poll numbers about bernie supporters who said they wouldn't support hillary. I responded to those, in depth, because they are worth considering. Head to head poll numbers in May are not worth shit, as any pollster worth their salt will tell you. They won't be worth shit for months. The person who is refusing to budge from their gut feeling is you.

I don't give a shit about how much you like Hillary. I am responding to your repeated, unsubstantiated claims of this mythical massive Bernie bloc that will swing the election. Without state-by-state polling of Bernie voters to determine who won't support her and where, it's fucking impossible to make the claims you have made over and over again. If 25% of Bernie supporters won't come out in Colorado, that is much different than 25% of them not showing up for her in New York. That 25% posted earlier is pretty much the closest thing we have to an actual measurement of whether Bernie supporters will show up for Hillary, and it's still untrustworthy because of the timing of it. Polling them in the middle of an acrimonious primary campaign is not the same as polling them in September, after the memories have faded and she is locking horns with Trump one on one. And their numbers still aren't large enough to be a deciding factor unless she totally fucking botches her campaign against an open bigot. If you don't understand these differences, I suggest you take your political opinions back to Facebook, where you can talk to people who deal in the same amount of nuance as you.

 

The Hidden Importance Of The Sanders Voter

"The good news for Clinton is that she has the opportunity to gain ground among Sanders voters if and when she officially wraps up the nomination, just as Trump did among Republicans. Although many Sanders supporters will start the general election campaign with a negative view of Clinton, they aren’t necessarily eager to vote for Trump. In the YouGov poll, just 55 percent of Sanders supporters said they’d vote for Clinton over Trump in November. However, only 15 percent said they’d vote for Trump. That leaves 30 percent of Sanders voters who say they are undecided, would vote for a third-party candidate or would sit out the election.

There’s a key twist, though, in tracking how Sanders voters are affecting Clinton’s general election prospects. Unless you break out the numbers for Sanders voters specifically, as YouGov does, you may miss their importance.

That’s because a lot of Sanders voters don’t identify as Democrats. Exit polls have been conducted in 27 primary and caucus states so far, and Clinton has won among voters who identify as Democrats in all but Vermont, New Hampshire and Wisconsin (where she tied Sanders). But she’s won self-identified independents only in Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi. (I keep using that term “self-identified” because the exit poll asks voters how they “usually think of” themselves — Democrat, Republican or independent. A voter’s self-identification may differ from her party registration, and some states do not have party registration at all.)"

 

I give up. You literally have evidence staring at you in the face that there is a large block of voters who would support Sanders but not Clinton, but you are ignoring them because you'd rather reach your own conclusions about whether or not your "bernie or bust" temper tantrum could actually effect the election by picking and choosing whatever evidence you like best.

 

you are a moron lol

 

oh look more personal attacks

 

would you like to respond to the multiple posts about the 25% of bernie supporters who explicitly won't support hillary or would you like to continue to accuse me of cherry picking while offering no actual resources backing your numbers or what is causing the differences between hillary v trump/bernie v trump scenarios? i already posted a 538 link from today that actually might help your argument, but you're too dense to read anything other than these numbers that you pulled from nowhere and then accused me of ignoring.

 

"Picking and choosing what evidence you like best" = "ignoring historically useless data"

 

So not wanting to support Clinton is a "temper tantrum"? And you probably wonder why people have a distaste for that brand of politics.

 

Wait, which one is it, does polling show that Sanders would destroy Trump in the GE and the democrats are making a mistake by nominating Hillary because she might lose; or is the block of people who would vote Sanders but not Hillary too small to swing the election the polling that suggests otherwise "historically useless"?

Being upset that your candidate lost that you're willing to let a far worse candidate into office seems pretty temper tantrumy to me.