HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Favorability Ratings Show...

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 04:25 PM

Favorability Ratings Show Hillary Clinton Is Unelectable and Bernie Sanders Wins a General Election

Favorability Ratings Show Hillary Clinton Is Unelectable and Bernie Sanders Wins a General Election
10/26/2015


Democrats must win swing states in 2016 to prevent Trump or another Republican from sitting in the Oval Office. Since voters in general elections normally won't vote for a candidate they don't like or at least find trustworthy, it's imperative that a Democratic nominee hold positive favorability ratings going into Election Day.

...Regarding swing states in 2016, Quinnipiac University's July and August Swing State Polls highlight that voters in Colorado, Iowa, Virginia, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania don't find Hillary Clinton to be trustworthy:

...

A total of 95 electoral votes among these states could be lost...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/favorability-ratings-show-hillary-clinton-is-unelectable_b_8388316.html

I pulled the insert with the numbers and tidied up the formatting to enhance clarity:

Colorado
Colorado voters say
62% - 34% not honest and trustworthy;
52% - 46% has strong leadership qualities
57% - 39% does not care about their needs and problems

Iowa
59% - 33% not honest and trustworthy,
52% - 43% is a strong leader
55% - 39% does not care about their needs and problems

Virginia
55% - 39% is not honest and trustworthy
54% - 42% is a strong leader
50% - 45% does not care about their needs and problems

Florida
37% favorable - 55% unfavorable
64% - 32% not honest and trustworthy.

Ohio
36% favorable 54% unfavorable rating
60% - 34% is not honest and trustworthy.

Pennsylvania
38% favorable - 55% unfavorable rating
63% - 32% is not honest and trustworthy.

92 replies, 6947 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 92 replies Author Time Post
Reply Favorability Ratings Show Hillary Clinton Is Unelectable and Bernie Sanders Wins a General Election (Original post)
kristopher Oct 2015 OP
Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #1
kristopher Oct 2015 #2
Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #18
sabrina 1 Oct 2015 #59
brentspeak Oct 2015 #30
Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #35
DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #3
kristopher Oct 2015 #4
DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #8
kristopher Oct 2015 #13
DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #14
kristopher Oct 2015 #15
DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #17
kristopher Oct 2015 #23
DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #24
kristopher Oct 2015 #25
DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #28
kristopher Oct 2015 #32
DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #37
kristopher Oct 2015 #45
DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #46
kristopher Oct 2015 #47
DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #48
kristopher Oct 2015 #49
DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #51
kristopher Oct 2015 #55
DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #62
kristopher Oct 2015 #65
DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #69
kristopher Oct 2015 #70
DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #83
kristopher Oct 2015 #86
DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #87
oasis Oct 2015 #89
DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #90
oasis Oct 2015 #57
DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #63
kristopher Oct 2015 #66
oasis Oct 2015 #82
hootinholler Oct 2015 #19
DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #20
Name removed Oct 2015 #78
ColesCountyDem Oct 2015 #81
sabrina 1 Oct 2015 #5
DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #9
quickesst Oct 2015 #40
Fumesucker Oct 2015 #58
DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #60
MissDeeds Oct 2015 #10
6chars Oct 2015 #43
artislife Oct 2015 #53
oasis Oct 2015 #56
kristopher Oct 2015 #67
workinclasszero Oct 2015 #6
LexVegas Oct 2015 #7
pinebox Oct 2015 #11
kristopher Oct 2015 #16
Babel_17 Oct 2015 #21
pinebox Oct 2015 #22
kristopher Oct 2015 #29
Name removed Oct 2015 #12
HassleCat Oct 2015 #26
workinclasszero Oct 2015 #27
ucrdem Oct 2015 #31
kristopher Oct 2015 #33
ucrdem Oct 2015 #34
kristopher Oct 2015 #36
ucrdem Oct 2015 #38
MFM008 Oct 2015 #39
Lil Missy Oct 2015 #41
Corruption Inc Oct 2015 #61
NCTraveler Oct 2015 #79
NCTraveler Oct 2015 #80
Lil Missy Oct 2015 #91
Awsi Dooger Oct 2015 #42
artislife Oct 2015 #54
Recursion Oct 2015 #44
Persondem Oct 2015 #50
artislife Oct 2015 #52
Betty Karlson Oct 2015 #64
workinclasszero Oct 2015 #68
kristopher Oct 2015 #71
workinclasszero Oct 2015 #73
kristopher Oct 2015 #74
workinclasszero Oct 2015 #75
in_cog_ni_to Oct 2015 #72
bravenak Oct 2015 #76
Purveyor Oct 2015 #77
brooklynite Oct 2015 #85
brooklynite Oct 2015 #84
kristopher Oct 2015 #88
Name removed Jan 2016 #92

Response to kristopher (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 04:28 PM

1. H A Goodman, bad source, never correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #1)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 04:29 PM

2. Are those poll numbers correct?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #2)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 05:11 PM

18. I have not found his information to be correct in the past, this poll is not close to many other

Scientific polls taken in the same time frame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #18)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 05:00 AM

59. How long have been familiar with him? Are you disputing the evidene he provided, because it isn't

what He is saying, it is those polls we have been told are 'very scientific'. Now they are NOT scientific? He isn't a pollster, maybe you didn't know that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #1)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 11:25 PM

30. Considering you probably first heard of him 5 minutes ago

That's quite a conclusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #30)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 11:35 PM

35. No substance here. bye

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 04:30 PM

3. Res ipsa loquitur

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-26/the-most-likely-next-president-is-hillary-clinton


https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/10/26/morning-plum-republicans-are-in-denial-about-hillary-clinton/


http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hillary-clinton-will-be-our-next-president-you-can-bet-on-it-2015-10-26


http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016president



http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner

Does all that mean she will win? Of course not. Does that mean she is better positioned to win than all of her GOP and Democratic opponents? Of course.



The bank is open...DemocratSinceBirth is not in this for pecuniary gain or filthy lucre...If someone wants to wager I will bet $1,000.00 that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee... If I lose I will give the person the money to do as he or she pleases with it. If I win I will donate the $1,000.00 I won to charity...

I will also go double or nothing in the general. At that point I have no exposure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #3)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 04:36 PM

4. Do you concede the polling referenced in the OP is correct?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #4)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 04:52 PM

8. I stand by my assertions, all of them...

H.A. Goodman is a clown and a political dilettante who cherry picks polls, ignores the larger context of what elections entail, and basically couldn't find his ass with a map...

And my wager is there.... I don't want the money...I will give it away when I win...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #8)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 05:00 PM

13. Do you concede the polling referenced in the OP is correct?

It's a simple, direct question.

Yes or no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #13)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 05:02 PM

14. Only a simpleton or a slave answers with a yes or a no.

I guess you don't want to take my wager...I will give the money away and verify it...

We can even go double or nothing in the general...At that point I am playing with the house's money...


If you believe the polls are dispositive you should be happy to separate DemocratSinceBirth from his money.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #14)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 05:07 PM

15. So you think grandstanding on the internet will counteract voter preferences.

Those numbers are accurate. And further, unfavorability ratings have, over time, been shown to be the most reliable predictor of success/failure in elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #15)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 05:11 PM

17. The peer reviewed research

The peer reviewed research suggests that asking people who they think will win and predictions/betting markets are much better predictors of electoral success than isolated polls, ergo:


http://forecasters.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/gravity_forms/7-2a51b93047891f1ec3608bdbd77ca58d/2013/07/Graefe_vote_expectations_ISF.pdf


I don't blame you for demurring from my offer...Two thousands dollars is a lot of money! I sure wouldn't want to lose it to show I wasn't afraid to back up some silly talking points on a anonymous bulletin board...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #17)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 10:13 PM

23. Hillary's negatives aren't "an isolated poll"

They represent decades of public familiarity with her.

It's funny you wrote that though, considering the clamor about today's Iowa polls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #23)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 10:50 PM

24. The peer reviewed research

The peer reviewed research suggests the best predictor of electoral success is actually asking people who they think will win, ergo:

Simple surveys that ask people who they expect to win are among the most
accurate methods for forecasting U.S. presidential elections. Vote expectation surveys failed to
pick the winner in only 18 (8%) of 214 surveys conducted from 1932 to 2012. Across the seven
elections from 1988 to 2012, vote expectation surveys outperformed four established methods
(trial-heat polls, prediction markets, econometric models, and experts’ judgment) in predicting
election winners and vote shares. Vote expectation surveys are accurate, inexpensive, and easy to
conduct. They should be more strongly utilized by election observers as well as researchers.


pg. 1

http://tinyurl.com/p9rdflr


The peer reviewed research also suggests predictions/betting markets are also useful in predicting winners , though not as useful as asking people who they think will win, ergo:




Studies of prediction market accuracy for election forecasting commonly compare the
daily market forecasts to results from polls published the same day. These studies generally find
that prediction markets yield more accurate forecasts than single polls. For example, Berg,
Nelson, and Rietz (2008) compare the accuracy of IEM forecasts to results from nearly one
thousand polls across the five U.S. presidential elections from 1988 to 2004. The IEM forecasts
were more accurate than single polls 74% of the time. However, as outlined above, single polls
provide rather poor predictions and thus only serve as a weak benchmark. Erikson and Wlezien
(2008) account for this problem and compare the IEM forecasts to poll projections during the
same time period analyzed by Berg, Nelson, and Rietz (2008).


http://tinyurl.com/p9rdflr


pg.4



Nowhere in the peer reviewed research is there data that suggests a candidate's favorability ratings , thirteen months out from the election is dispositive, especially when his or her challenger is unknown...


If you have peer reviewed research that disproves what I cited and what I wrote please cite it. Respectfully, I couldn't care less what a random internet poster or H.A. Goodman thinks about anything...






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #24)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 11:12 PM

25. I'm familiar with that type of research.

It is far more relevant when the election is close to happening.

At this point in time, the unfavorable ratings are the best indicator of who, ultimately, will not win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #25)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 11:23 PM

28. If you have

At this point in time, the unfavorable ratings are the best indicator of who, ultimately, will not win.



If you have peer reviewed research that suggests a candidate's favorability rating , thirteen months out from the election and before his or her opponent is even announced is dispositive, please cite it.

Thank you in advance.


You obviously think I am wrong. I am begging you to make me give away my money, pretty please:

The bank is open...DemocratSinceBirth is not in this for pecuniary gain or filthy lucre...If someone wants to wager I will bet $1,000.00 that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee... If I lose I will give the person the money to do as he or she pleases with it. If I win I will donate the $1,000.00 I won to charity...

I will also go double or nothing in the general. At that point I have no exposure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #28)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 11:29 PM

32. Are the numbers cited in the OP accurate or not?

You can't engage in a polite exchange of ideas enough to answer that simple question and now you are demanding I do your research for you?

No, if you want to try and discredit it, by all means have at it. The number is a key element of tracking polls for a good reason. It's pretty obvious it causes you a great deal of cognitive dissonance, and if you want to disregard it by pretending it is irrelevant then have at it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251733980#post29

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #32)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 11:38 PM

37. BOOM

Simple surveys that ask people who they expect to win are among the most
accurate methods for forecasting U.S. presidential elections



pg. 1

http://tinyurl.com/p9rdflr




BOOM


Expectations are less settled for the general election in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates. In an open-ended question asking all Americans whom they expect to win the presidency in November 2016, 37 percent pick Clinton, more than name any other candidate; next is Donald Trump, tipped to win by 20 percent. Boosted by Clinton’s score, 48 percent pick any Democrat, while 37 percent pick one of nine Republicans.






http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-rebounds-democratic-race-gaining-sanders-biden-alike/story?id=34580456



Studies of prediction market accuracy for election forecasting commonly compare the
daily market forecasts to results from polls published the same day. These studies generally find
that prediction markets yield more accurate forecasts than single polls.


http://tinyurl.com/p9rdflr


BOOM


http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016president

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #37)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 06:44 PM

45. Not "boom" since Your source does not support Your conclusions

Your source has nothing to say about favorability or likability or trust - nothing at all. It wasn't even considered as a variable.

Your source also specifically discredits Your claim that predictive questions/responses have any validity more than a few months out from the actual election but that didn't stop You from acting as if more than a year out is was meaningful.

That You attempted to falsely frame their findings says a great deal about You, and those things aren't very flattering.

But this, yes indeed it is true:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #45)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 06:55 PM

46. Everything I said is 100% correct...

That You attempted to falsely frame their findings says a great deal about You, and those things aren't very flattering.



I couldn't care less what you think of me...



Oh:

If I was a Bernie Sanders supporter...... ....I would ignore, deflect, or run away from your challenge too. But, if I was a Bernie Sanders supporter who had real confidence, and actually believed he would win, I would be the first in line to accept your wager. I don't see anyone standing in line.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251733980#post40

-quickeest




This is Breeder's Cup week. Belief in Bernie's chances is like sticking the outrider horse in the gate. DemocratSinceBirth will absolutely rape anyone who takes that $1000 bet.


...

Those favorable ratings for Hillary are not cement. Americans love winners. Once Hillary wins the states on the way to the nomination, and the nomination itself, she earns positive mention. And she smiles a lot. Raises her hand in triumph. Magazine covers. Now we like her. At least more people will. Not here, the stubborn joint. Then the polling suggests she is the favorite. Now even more people set aside their dislike, wanting to be associated with the likely victor. Complicated stuff, I concede.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=736174


-Awsi Dooger




P.S. And as I said I will give my winnings away!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #46)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 11:04 PM

47. Nothing you wrote on the topic at hand (favorability) was correct.

Your posts were dishonest from beginning to end because you had to know that reference you quoted was cherry picked to misrepresent its relevance.

Your grandstanding changes nothing; if you want to make such a wager, there are several websites dedicated to betting on elections. Feel free to pay your money down. However, here on DU the medium of exchange is information, ideas, and integrity. You seem rather short on capital in all of those areas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #47)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 11:07 PM

48. And you seem ...

Your grandstanding changes nothing; if you want to make such a wager, there are several websites dedicated to betting on elections. Feel free to pay your money down. However, here on DU the medium of exchange is information, ideas, and integrity. You seem rather short on capital in all of those areas.

-kristopher



And you seem long on insults and short on conviction but we have already established that.


Why would I go to gambling sites when I have said, ad nauseum and ad infinitum, I am not interested in filthy lucre or pecuniary gain, ergo:



The bank is open...DemocratSinceBirth is not in this for pecuniary gain or filthy lucre...If someone wants to wager I will bet $1,000.00 that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee... If I lose I will give the person the money to do as he or she pleases with it. If I win I will donate the $1,000.00 I won to charity...

I will also go double or nothing in the general. At that point I have no exposure.



Oh, Awgi Dooser, explained better than I ever could why favorability ratings, thirteen months out from the election, before the candidates aren't even determined, isn't dispositive:


Those favorable ratings for Hillary are not cement. Americans love winners. Once Hillary wins the states on the way to the nomination, and the nomination itself, she earns positive mention. And she smiles a lot. Raises her hand in triumph. Magazine covers. Now we like her. At least more people will. Not here, the stubborn joint. Then the polling suggests she is the favorite. Now even more people set aside their dislike, wanting to be associated with the likely victor. Complicated stuff, I concede.

-Awsi Dooger


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=736174



Please keep bumping this thread...I check "My Posts" daily...I would literally rather have a cap busted in my ear than walk away from our tete a tete.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #48)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 11:27 PM

49. That's more of your poor analysis

Those favorable ratings for Hillary are not cement. Americans love winners. Once Hillary wins the states on the way to the nomination, and the nomination itself, she earns positive mention. And she smiles a lot. Raises her hand in triumph. Magazine covers. Now we like her. At least more people will. Not here, the stubborn joint. Then the polling suggests she is the favorite. Now even more people set aside their dislike, wanting to be associated with the likely victor. Complicated stuff, I concede.

-Awsi Dooger


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=736174


The difference between Hillary and most others is simple - she is a completely known commodity.
You might want to refresh your memory about the base of support Hillary is depending on.



Hillary Who?

I have NEVER heard that. I didn't hear it in 2007/08 and I haven't heard it yet in this election cycle. There are very few people in the US that don't know Hillary Clinton. She has a worldwide presence and is known by nearly everyone.

However, I've heard "Bernie who?" hundreds of times. I'll likely hear it thousands of times by the time the primaries come into full swing.

There is no plateau right now. The polls are essentially meaningless right now. Hillary has a set number of voters firmly in her camp and that's it. There are few if any undecideds for her to shift her way.

Bernie on the other hand has millions yet to get to know him. He has millions struggling day to day that need to hear his message and will embrace his platform as soon as they hear it.

We've just started this election. GOTV, get out the message, and stay positive.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/128067236

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #49)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 11:50 PM

51. Here is a link to her favorability ratings

That's more of your poor analysis


Yet the person with the poor analysis is willing to stand by his analysis while the perspicacious person with the stellar analysis who confuses insult for argument is unwilling to stand by his analysis. A paradox but I digress.

The difference between Hillary and most others is simple - she is a completely known commodity.



If her favorability is fixed*why has it been as high as 60% and as low as 40%?


http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating


Again, if I am the ignorant one with the poor analysis and you are the omniscient one with the stellar analysis then surely I should be separated from my money as that's the cost of my ignorance. As they say " a fool and his money is easily parted."

REDUX


The bank is open...DemocratSinceBirth is not in this for pecuniary gain or filthy lucre...If someone wants to wager I will bet $1,000.00 that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee... If I lose I will give the person the money to do as he or she pleases with it. If I win I will donate the $1,000.00 I won to charity...

I will also go double or nothing in the general. At that point I have no exposure.



You have chose the wrong interlocutor to verbally bully around. As I said I would literally rather have a cap busted in my ear than to walk away from our tete a tete.

Your turn.


*Fixed- not fluctuating or varying; definite


P.S. I will throw you a lifeline...Bookmark this post...I am so confident that Bernie Sanders will not win the nomination that if he does I will corner a rat, kill it with my bare hands, throw it on the grill, put some Sriracha sauce on it, eat it, and put it all on youtube.









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #51)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 01:40 AM

55. Verbally bully???

Not surprised you try to insert yet another false meme into the discussion; it's a strategy that looks to be your primary 'go to' approach for disrupting any real discussion.

The fact is you've rejected a widely accepted premise with claims that your out-of-context-quotes from the supporting documents applied to situation you were refuting.

That was untrue; and you knew it was untrue when you posted it.

Not only did you distort the timeframe of the researchers findings, you were citing a study that did not explore the role of trust, favorability and likability in forecasting.

This is where Hillary has hovered for probably 20 years. Cheerleaders like yourself have no valid rebuttal for this criticism; and the only actual attempt I've seen to rationalize it away is the (paraphrased) hope that "Everyone loves a winner so when they see Hillary on a roll they'll flock to her and she will win".

That is delusional given the solidity of public opinion surrounding her but at least it is a true opinion based on a (remote) possibility.

This is where Hillary stood in 2007. This is where she stands today in the key battleground states.
And this is almost certainly where she will stand if/when she faces the R candidate (Kasich?) next summer.

62% - 34% not honest and trustworthy;
52% - 46% has strong leadership qualities
57% - 39% does not care about their needs and problems

It's time for a change, and Hillary isn't it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #55)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 07:27 AM

62. The first thing I do when I log in is check "My Posts"

Last edited Thu Oct 29, 2015, 11:33 AM - Edit history (2)



Not surprised you try to insert yet another false meme into the discussion; it's a strategy that looks to be your primary 'go to' approach for disrupting any real discussion.

The fact is you've rejected a widely accepted premise with claims that your out-of-context-quotes from the supporting documents applied to situation you were refuting.

That was untrue; and you knew it was untrue when you posted it.
-kristopher






The first thing I do when I log in is check "My Posts". Seeing your inane and tendentious replies to my posts is ruining the DU experience for me. I suspect that's your intention.


You previously stated Hillary Clinton is a known commodity and perceptions of her are fixed:



The difference between Hillary and most others is simple - she is a completely known commodity.

-Kristopher



Please read this slowly...You have a rather nasty habit of responding to what you wanted me to say instead of what I actually said. If the perceptions of Hillary Clinton are fixed as you have suggested:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

why have her favorable ratings been as high as 60% and as low as 40%?

Thank you in advance.

As I have said repeatedly I don't know what the point of this exercise is. If you believe you can badger me into surrender you don't know the first thing about DemocratSinceBirth. I rather die than walk away from what I believe is the truth so if I don't respond to any of your barbs you will know I'm dead.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #62)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 11:45 AM

65. By ruining the DU experience for you...

you must mean posting about HRC's abysmal favorability polling. And apparently your idea of what DU is supposed to be is a place where no one can have a discussion on this topic without you entering to quash it using whatever false talking points you need to create:
Not surprised you try to insert yet another false meme into the discussion; it's a strategy that looks to be your primary 'go to' approach for disrupting any real discussion.

The fact is you've rejected a widely accepted premise with claims that your out-of-context-quotes from the supporting documents applied to situation you were refuting.

That was untrue; and you knew it was untrue when you posted it.

Not only did you distort the timeframe of the researchers findings, you were citing a study that did not explore the role of trust, favorability and likability in forecasting.

This is where Hillary has hovered for probably 20 years. Cheerleaders like yourself have no valid rebuttal for this criticism; and the only actual attempt I've seen to rationalize it away is the (paraphrased) hope that "Everyone loves a winner so when they see Hillary on a roll they'll flock to her and she will win".

That is delusional given the solidity of public opinion surrounding her but at least it is a true opinion based on a (remote) possibility.

This is where Hillary stood in 2007. This is where she stands today in the key battleground states.
And this is almost certainly where she will stand if/when she faces the R candidate (Kasich?) next summer.

62% - 34% not honest and trustworthy;
52% - 46% has strong leadership qualities
57% - 39% does not care about their needs and problems

It's time for a change, and Hillary isn't it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #65)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 12:14 PM

69. "Feels like de ja vu all over again"

The difference between Hillary and most others is simple - she is a completely known commodity.

-Kristopher


Please read this slowly. If Hillary Clinton's favorability ratings are fixed in cement why have they have been as high as 61.7% on January 10, 2011 and as low as 41% on October 19, 2015, ergo:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

Thank you in advance.

Perhaps you don't know what the meaning of "fixed" is so I will use it in a sentence:

The gas tank on a car holds a fixed amount of gas. If you pump more than the fixed amount of gas it will spill out.


This is where Hillary stood in 2007. This is where she stands today in the key battleground states.
And this is almost certainly where she will stand if/when she faces the R candidate (Kasich?) next summer


The Ohio governor will not be the GOP presidential nominee in 2016. If you like you can badger me over that.

Again, I have no plans to be the first to withdraw from our tete a tete...I will spare you and the readers all the things I would prefer to that fate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #69)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 01:11 PM

70. More of your distortion and disruption?

Is it possible for you to even once post without engaging via dishonest or misleading action?

As I wrote and you quoted
The difference between Hillary and most others is simple - she is a completely known commodity.

-Kristopher
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=740623

You decided to characterize this in YOUR post as my saying her numbers are "fixed" - so that is your word, not mine.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=740197

Since it can also mean, in this context, anchored in people's minds, I let it go. But you've decided to embellish your characterization of "a know commodity" and translate fixed from the impression in people's minds to specific polling numbers being "fixed". (Readers should note your use of quotation marks to create the impression it was my specific word you were using and challenging.)

You then play upon the fact that polling inevitably fluctuates within a narrow range to make up a point for you to harp about.

Your actions represent everything unsavory people associate with the way the Clinton campaign operates. You really are not doing yourself any favors in the area of persuasion or leading since the tactics you employ are so obvious; so that leads to the question of what you hope to accomplish with such overtly unethical engagement?

The only conclusion I can arrive at is disruption - you just want to stop people from engaging in discussion that reflects negatively on the candidate you are tasked with promoting.

It isn't going to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #70)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 04:40 PM

83. What part of

The only conclusion I can arrive at is disruption - you just want to stop people from engaging in discussion that reflects negatively on the candidate you are tasked with promoting.

It isn't going to happen.


What part of I would literally rather die than walk away from our tete a tete don't you understand?


Embodied in your statement that Hillary Clinton is a "complete known commodity" is the assertion that Hillary Clinton's favorability rating is fixed and can't move:

The difference between Hillary and most others is simple - she is a completely known commodity.

-Kristopher


Yet I have demonstrated it has moved some thirty five percent in the past four years:

Hillary Clinton's favorable ratings have been as high as 61.7% on January 10, 2011 and as low as 41% on October 19, 2015, ergo:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating


So I have a question and a request for you, kristopher:

1) Did I or did I not prove that Hillary Clinton's favorable ratings vary and have been as high as 61.7% on January 10, 2011 and as low as 41% on October 19,2015?

2) Please cite any research that indicates a candidate's favorable rating in three isolated state polls eighteen months out from the election are dispositive?

Thank you in advance.

Your actions represent everything unsavory people associate with the way the Clinton campaign operates. You really are not doing yourself any favors in the area of persuasion or leading since the tactics you employ are so obvious; so that leads to the question of what you hope to accomplish with such overtly unethical engagement?

-kristopher


I must say I have been insulted by better men...I would be hard pressed to say I have been insulted by lesser men.

As I have said, ad infitum and ad nauseum, I will not be bowed, I will not back down, I will not go away.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #83)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 05:03 PM

86. So now it's a straw man?

You falsely stated the content of your source.

You falsely characterized my statements.

Now you are trying to continue that tradition by pretending your false characterizations have some sort of validity that we should discuss.

They don't. So rinse lather and repeat post 55 above:
Not surprised you try to insert yet another false meme into the discussion; it's a strategy that looks to be your primary 'go to' approach for disrupting any real discussion.

The fact is you've rejected a widely accepted premise with claims that your out-of-context-quotes from the supporting documents applied to situation you were refuting.

That was untrue; and you knew it was untrue when you posted it.

Not only did you distort the timeframe of the researchers findings, you were citing a study that did not explore the role of trust, favorability and likability in forecasting.

This is where Hillary has hovered for probably 20 years. Cheerleaders like yourself have no valid rebuttal for this criticism; and the only actual attempt I've seen to rationalize it away is the (paraphrased) hope that "Everyone loves a winner so when they see Hillary on a roll they'll flock to her and she will win".

That is delusional given the solidity of public opinion surrounding her but at least it is a true opinion based on a (remote) possibility.

This is where Hillary stood in 2007. This is where she stands today in the key battleground states.
And this is almost certainly where she will stand if/when she faces the R candidate (Kasich?) next summer.

62% - 34% not honest and trustworthy;
52% - 46% has strong leadership qualities
57% - 39% does not care about their needs and problems

It's time for a change, and Hillary isn't it.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #86)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 05:05 PM

87. Please confine yourself to the discipline I have imposed

Please confine yourself to the discipline I have imposed:

1) Did I or did I not prove that Hillary Clinton's favorable ratings vary and have been as high as 61.7% on January 10, 2011 and as low as 41% on October 19,2015?

2) Please cite any research that indicates a candidate's favorable rating in three isolated state polls eighteen months out from the election are dispositive?

Thank you in advance.

Not going away!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #51)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 05:08 PM

89. You've put together a solid case but, as you know,

an irresistible force of facts means nothing in the DU arena.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #89)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 05:09 PM

90. "Speak a little truth and people lose their minds." -Ice Cube

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #48)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 03:44 AM

57. "And as I end my refrain......

thrust home".

Well done, mon ami.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #57)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 07:33 AM

63. Someone is taking a page out of the. Benghazi Committee playbook...

Someone is taking a page out of the Benghazi Committee playbook, believing you can compel somebody to stray from believing and asserting what they know to be true by browbeating them to death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #63)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 11:57 AM

66. Actually you are fulfilling the roll of the B Committee in this scenario

Like you, they were twisting and distorting in order to make an attack on someone they want to get rid of.

Not surprised you try to insert yet another false meme into the discussion; it's a strategy that looks to be your primary 'go to' approach for disrupting any real discussion.

The fact is you've rejected a widely accepted premise with claims that your out-of-context-quotes from the supporting documents applied to situation you were refuting.

That was untrue; and you knew it was untrue when you posted it.

Not only did you distort the timeframe of the researchers findings, you were citing a study that did not explore the role of trust, favorability and likability in forecasting.

This is where Hillary has hovered for probably 20 years. Cheerleaders like yourself have no valid rebuttal for this criticism; and the only actual attempt I've seen to rationalize it away is the (paraphrased) hope that "Everyone loves a winner so when they see Hillary on a roll they'll flock to her and she will win".

That is delusional given the solidity of public opinion surrounding her but at least it is a true opinion based on a (remote) possibility.

This is where Hillary stood in 2007. This is where she stands today in the key battleground states.
And this is almost certainly where she will stand if/when she faces the R candidate (Kasich?) next summer.

62% - 34% not honest and trustworthy;
52% - 46% has strong leadership qualities
57% - 39% does not care about their needs and problems

It's time for a change, and Hillary isn't it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #66)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 04:19 PM

82. "How am I driving? Call 1-800 555-5555". Trucks with those

bumper stickers are, in a sense, polling drivers on the highway. I'm willing to bet that a much higher percentage of the motorists who call will say something negative. Why, because it is the nature of our society to complain about permanent institutions.

Hillary has become an institution.

When she is the subject of favorability polling, you are likely to get a knee jerk negative response.

There's no doubt Hillary will get the votes she needs to win the GE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #14)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 05:37 PM

19. No

So which am I?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hootinholler (Reply #19)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 05:39 PM

20. I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me./nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #3)


Response to Name removed (Reply #78)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 02:14 PM

81. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 04:37 PM

5. Her favorability ratings are awful in almost every poll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #5)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 04:53 PM

9. Res ipsa loquitur (REDUX)

The bank is open...DemocratSinceBirth is not in this for pecuniary gain or filthy lucre...If someone wants to wager I will bet $1,000.00 that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee... If I lose I will give the person the money to do as he or she pleases with it. If I win I will donate the $1,000.00 I won to charity...

I will also go double or nothing in the general. At that point I have no exposure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #9)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 12:37 AM

40. If I was a Bernie Sanders supporter......

....I would ignore, deflect, or run away from your challenge too. But, if I was a Bernie Sanders supporter who had real confidence, and actually believed he would win, I would be the first in line to accept your wager. I don't see anyone standing in line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #9)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 04:47 AM

58. What charity did you send your $1,000 to in 2008?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #58)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 07:09 AM

60. I didn't wager because I didn't have the same level of confidence.

I wouldn't have made that wager because I didn't have the same level of confidence. What part of that assertion don't you understand?

And if you think the septuagenarian senator from Vermont is a proxy for the young, handsome, virile, and charismatic senator from the state of Illinois with the made for television life story and the telegenic young family there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion. It's akin to comparing Adam Sandler with Tom Hanks because they are both actors.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #5)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 04:53 PM

10. More people will come out to vote against her

 

than vote for her. Outside of my mother-in-law, who is a Republican, I know of no one who will vote for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MissDeeds (Reply #10)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 05:26 AM

43. Look for a record turnout of women

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 6chars (Reply #43)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 11:53 PM

53. Some women are her biggest haters. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 6chars (Reply #43)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 03:36 AM

56. Women will be the key in the GE.

Bless 'em all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 6chars (Reply #43)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 12:02 PM

67. I hope that's correct, not only for this election but all future elections

The more voices we have participating, the better the system will function.

With voter turnout as abysmally low as it is across the board we give our political system away to the oligarchs.

Personally I favor mandatory voting built on a system that is designed for universally easy access.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 04:40 PM

6. Bunk

 

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 04:41 PM

7. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 04:55 PM

11. Before Hillary supporters trash you

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinebox (Reply #11)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 05:10 PM

16. Thanks, that is good back-up.

I don't pay much mind to those engaged in shoot-the-messenger style self-denial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinebox (Reply #11)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 07:49 PM

21. Is that link free of cooties?

I'm not prone to allergies, but for those of us who are, and haven't had their shot ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Babel_17 (Reply #21)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 09:58 PM

22. lol I think The Hill is

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinebox (Reply #11)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 11:23 PM

29. Excerpt

...For some reason, when in talks with fellow Democrats about Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) I often hear something along the lines of "well, I would love to vote for Bernie, I agree with him on so much, but he is simply unelectable in a general election." If you, too, are a strong Bernie supporter then it is quite possible you have heard much of the same rhetoric. As Democrats we can all agree upon one unified goal—to get someone into the White House who shares our party’s core beliefs. Thus, it would seem to make sense that many pundits have been rallying behind Hillary Clinton as the so-called “inevitable bid,” an individual with a household name and well-established brand. Still, we should consider very carefully the following: Is Clinton, the presumptive nominee, even electable in a general election?

The former Secretary of State definitely has a notable advantage in terms of fundraising. Through her intricate network of financial support Clinton has the power to spawn millions of dollars, far outpacing the fundraising of any Republican candidates. Surely, in our current political climate Clinton's fundraising alone should qualify her for the party's nomination. Clinton also has the impressive ability to reel in endorsements from labor unions and politicians alike, far outpacing her Democratic challengers.

However, there is much more to the election process than big-names and bank accounts. A recent poll conducted by NBC asked supporters of both Clinton and Sanders in New Hampshire to rate their enthusiasm for their preferred candidate’s campaigns. The Sanders campaign boasts a rate of 78 percent of supporters who label themselves “enthusiastic,” as compared with a just 39 percent on the Clinton side. Supporters of Hillary Clinton are simply far less likely to be enthusiastic about their candidate’s campaign, a statistic that plays an important role in the vigor of grass-roots campaigning efforts (and eventual voter turnout). The more alarming statistic, however, was the polling breakdown among young voters. In the NBC poll, Sanders won the 18-29 category in both Iowa and New Hampshire by a more than three to one margin.

The success of the Democrats in a general election is built upon the party's ability to mobilize and organize grassroots volunteering efforts. With young people playing such an integral role in grassroots organizing and volunteering, how could Clinton run a successful presidential campaign without the support of the most enthusiastic block of voters?

Outside of the Democratic Party, Clinton still faces massive challenges appealing to general voters. The Huffpost pollster currently has Clinton with a massive unfavorability gap, with unfavorability exceeding favorability by more than 12 percent. In other polling, a significant majority of voters said that they did not trust Mrs. Clinton.

Some may argue that Hillary's negative polling is only a result of harsh public scrutiny...

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/257334-maybe-hillary-clinton-is-the-unelectable-candidate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Original post)


Response to kristopher (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 11:17 PM

26. I don't think so

 

The "trustworthy" rating is not the same as measuring or predicting who will voter for a candidate. I have voted for many politicians I didn't particularly trust, and I may do so again. I do think Bernie Sanders would do very well with independents and crossover voters, particularly if the Republicans nominate a total whacko.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 11:22 PM

27. Yawn...

 

You got nothing.

Nothing.

Hillary Clinton will win the democratic nomination easily now thanks in large part to Berniebros rude as hell behavior at the JJ dinner.

Oh and Bernie deciding to go negative and attack Hillary. Big mistake there.

Its all over cept the cryin for Berniebros, Hillary is 40 points ahead and pullin away!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 11:26 PM

31. Monmouth, today: Clinton has 88% favorable rating and 8% unfavorable

10:56 AM
Hillary Clinton Has 41-Point Lead Over Bernie Sanders in Iowa: Monmouth Poll

Hillary Clinton has support of 65% of likely Iowa Democratic caucus-goers, while Bernie Sanders has 24% and Martin O’Malley has 5%, according to first Monmouth University poll since Clinton’s House Benghazi panel appearance and Vice President Joe Biden’s decision not to run.

*Clinton’s lead over Sanders is strong among both male voters (55% to 33%) and female voters (73% to 16%)
*Clinton is second choice of 68% of Sanders supporters, while 19% say O’Malley would be their second choice
*“We now have a two-person race, but one of those competitors has just pulled very far ahead,” says Patrick Murray, director of Monmouth University Polling Institute in West Long Branch, N.J.
*Clinton has 88% favorable rating and 8% unfavorable
*Sanders has 77% favorable and 11% unfavorable, O’Malley has 50% favorable and 14% unfavorable
*Oct. 22-25 phone survey of 400 Iowa voters likely to attend Democratic caucuses has MOE of +/- 4.9 ppts


http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2015-10-27/clinton-has-41-point-lead-over-sanders-in-iowa-monmouth-poll

Success begets success I guess . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #31)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 11:31 PM

33. That poll has some severe problems, as does your interpretation.

The relevant number is among all voters, not Iowa Dem Caucus voters derived from skewed demographics.

But keep telling yourself it doesn't matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #33)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 11:33 PM

34. Bernie has to get to the general. Two paths: 1) Dem nomination, 2) 3rd party.

Either way his campaign is pretty much a dead letter at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #34)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 11:36 PM

36. If you say so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #36)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 11:43 PM

38. Doesn't mean he's going away.

You know what I noticed during the debate? Hillary genuinely seems to like him. And if she's looking for a Biden she coud do worse. So there's that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Original post)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 12:15 AM

39. sorry

everyone I know is voting for her, I just dont feel Sanders can win in purple states. I know people who wont vote for him because of the socialist thing, I even know a couple that will never vote for a non christian. Sad but true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Original post)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 02:15 AM

41. Yet Hillary is 30+ points over Sanders. To suggest Sanders will win is delusional. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lil Missy (Reply #41)


Response to Corruption Inc (Reply #61)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 02:13 PM

79. The ops whole premis is based on polls. lol. nt.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lil Missy (Reply #41)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 02:14 PM

80. The ops whole premis is based on polls.....

 

Yet you citing polls isn't rational. This place brings some great moments every now and then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #80)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 05:55 PM

91. Like I said, delusional. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Original post)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 03:30 AM

42. Some legit concern; this has become a sad site

 

The anti-Hillary crowd frankly got lucky in 2008 but doesn't seem to grasp how fortunate they were. Now they are desperately trying it again with Sanders, even though none of the variables that barely pushed Obama over the top are present this time.

Obama forged a mathematical path to the nomination via astute emphasis on the smaller primaries and caucus states. Hillary and her team were caught napping, following a traditional path and assuming margins in the major states would suffice. Full credit to Obama, his team, and supporters for the strategic victory.

But it's laughable to ignore the situational variables that tipped 2008 but have no relevance this time. When I visit this site nowadays it's like the world is in reverse. Bernie is dominating. Unskew the polls. Oh yes, I remember that wonderful exercise...99.99% pure.

Comedy, that is.

If the polling unskewers made the actual betting odds, work would be optional within a month. Wait a minute, it's already optional. Thanks to Apple stock and other matters. Never mind.

This is Breeder's Cup week. Belief in Bernie's chances is like sticking the outrider horse in the gate. DemocratSinceBirth will absolutely rape anyone who takes that $1000 bet.

Hillary should have been the 2008 nominee. Any Democrat cruises in that environment. Obama the more personally favorable chap would be sitting in the wings waiting to win semi handily this time. For one thing, Hillary wouldn't have forfeited the vital few percent among white working class men, like Obama has. She is actually damaged by his pathetic showing among that group.

Those favorable ratings for Hillary are not cement. Americans love winners. Once Hillary wins the states on the way to the nomination, and the nomination itself, she earns positive mention. And she smiles a lot. Raises her hand in triumph. Magazine covers. Now we like her. At least more people will. Not here, the stubborn joint. Then the polling suggests she is the favorite. Now even more people set aside their dislike, wanting to be associated with the likely victor. Complicated stuff, I concede.

I'm not fully confident in Hillary come November. She'll do great. The electorate might barely resist. I don't discount the fact she'll have a difficult time budging 50/50 favorable numbers in crucial states. Bernie would fare much worse, no matter how it looks today. The nation is 32% self identifying conservative and 21% self identifying liberal. He would be twisted like a Gumby doll by all that GOP cash. Hillary doesn't have great upside like 52% but could win a head bob, the Clinton specialty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Awsi Dooger (Reply #42)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 11:56 PM

54. hmm

 

The electorate might barely resist



I think H will have a very difficult time in the GE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Original post)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 07:28 AM

44. You seem to overestimate how much voters care about trustworthiness

For about 40 years now voters have been perfectly willing to vote for candidates they also say are not trustworthy. That's not snark about politicians; that's just what the polls and election results pretty explicitly say. Voters don't need to find their preferred candidate trustworthy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Original post)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 11:31 PM

50. You don't have to run faster than the bear, you just have to run faster

than the other guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Original post)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 11:52 PM

52. She is polarizing, no doubt. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Original post)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 07:39 AM

64. But but... it's her turn!

 

And the Bushes had two turns, so the Clintons are owed another one.

And TTIP is the new gold standard for international deals, unless she is against it for undiclosed reasons before she revives it.

And civil rights, much like that village that had to be distroyed in order to save it, will sometimes have to be compromised in order to prevent worse. But that's OK, because she is a real advocate for LGBT rights. Since 2013. Unless she evolves back.

And anyway, you shouldn't accuse her of shouting. Whatever the context, that accusation alone makes her qualified to be president.

Also: racial justice only comes from someone in favour of the death penalty. Because the death penalty absolutely doesn't strike a disproportionate number of PoC.

And Third Way says that Clinton will be unelectable if she verges any further into "economic populism". They fear a point of no return on their investments! Won't somebody think of the millions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Original post)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 12:10 PM

68. Lets take a break from your fantasy OP

 

Texas: Clinton 59% Sanders 10% O'Malley 3% Undecided 28%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110723972

Lone Star State Poll -Hillary Clinton 59% Bernie Sanders 10%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251736969

Palmetto State Poll-Clinton -43% Sanders 6% 0'Malley 3%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251734319

International Longshoremen's Association to endorse Hillary Clinton this Saturday
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251735010

Loras College Poll (IOWA) - Clinton 62% Bernie Sanders 24% Martin O'Malley 3%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251733510

Clinton is rising in North Carolina
PPP's new North Carolina poll finds Hillary Clinton with her largest lead in the state since May. 61% of Democrats in the state support Clinton to 24% for Bernie Sanders
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110723689

BREAKING: New Loras poll gives Hillary 38 point lead over Sanders in Iowa
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251732960

Two new polls give HRC huge leads in Iowa
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251732917

BREAKING: Senator Sherrod Brown Endorses Hillary Clinton for President.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251732053

Key Union Endorses Clinton - AFSCME
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110722738

Clinton Holds Massive Lead in Iowa
October 27, 2015By Taegan Goddard


A new Monmouth University Poll in Iowa finds Hillary Clinton with a huge lead over Bernie Sanders, 65% to 24%, with Martin O’Malley at 5% and Lawrence Lessig at 4%.

Key findings: “Clinton enjoys a large lead over Sanders among both male (55% to 33%) and female (73% to 16%) voters. She also has an edge across the ideological spectrum, leading among voters who are very liberal (57% to 34%), somewhat liberal (68% to 22%), and moderate (69% to 19%).”

A new Loras College poll finds Clinton leading Sanders, 65% to 24%, with O’Malley at 3%.

http://politicalwire.com/2015/10/27/clinton-holds-massive-lead-in-iowa/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to workinclasszero (Reply #68)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 01:25 PM

71. This thread isn't about support polling - it's about liking and trusting

I can understand your confusion, but it's easy to clear up by referring back to the 2007/8 primary campaign where the same type of head to head numbers were in place for Hillary and Obama at this point in the campaign.

The same aura of inevitability was manufactured by Clinton's supporters, and the same favorability, likability, and trust issues were also hovering in the background.

The influence of the negative perceptions and feeling about Hillary means that people who are polling as support are doing so because of what is basically name recognition. When they become aware of a different name that they associate with someone they do like and trust, then they abandon the name they don't like and don't trust.

Another DUer put it this way.
Hillary Who?

I have NEVER heard that. I didn't hear it in 2007/08 and I haven't heard it yet in this election cycle. There are very few people in the US that don't know Hillary Clinton. She has a worldwide presence and is known by nearly everyone.

However, I've heard "Bernie who?" hundreds of times. I'll likely hear it thousands of times by the time the primaries come into full swing.

There is no plateau right now. The polls are essentially meaningless right now. Hillary has a set number of voters firmly in her camp and that's it. There are few if any undecideds for her to shift her way.

Bernie on the other hand has millions yet to get to know him. He has millions struggling day to day that need to hear his message and will embrace his platform as soon as they hear it.

We've just started this election. GOTV, get out the message, and stay positive.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/128067236


Hope that helps you make sense of what you're seeing.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #71)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 01:35 PM

73. 2008?

 

Really?

Hate to break it to you but its 2015 and a whole other ballgame.

No wonder Bernie is doing so bad, hes still stuck in 2008!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to workinclasszero (Reply #73)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 01:42 PM

74. What's different?

Those negative perceptions are every bit as influential now as they were then, so what dynamic has changed? And before you say something indicating a cult of personality behind Obama's success, I'd point out that Sanders is actually doing better (polling and crowds) than Obama was at this point in the campaign.

So what dynamic is different this time around?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #74)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 01:44 PM

75. Bernie Sanders is not this guy....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Original post)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 01:29 PM

72. Kicking for more TRUTH! Recommended! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Original post)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 01:48 PM

76. Yeah right.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Original post)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 01:49 PM

77. One only has to watch her in action for about 4 minutes to come up with this conclusion. If she

 

is the nominee, the GOP will control DC for at least the next 4 years.

Prepare accordingly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #77)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 04:49 PM

85. Funny how most Democratic voters haven't, huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Original post)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 04:49 PM

84. Well then, let's welcome President Ben Carson...

...if that's all it takes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #84)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 05:07 PM

88. You still don't get a concept this simple?

Hillary's numbers are far more relevant than almost any one else because EVERYONE already knows her and has an opinion about her.
Hillary Who?

I have NEVER heard that. I didn't hear it in 2007/08 and I haven't heard it yet in this election cycle. There are very few people in the US that don't know Hillary Clinton. She has a worldwide presence and is known by nearly everyone.

However, I've heard "Bernie who?" hundreds of times. I'll likely hear it thousands of times by the time the primaries come into full swing.

There is no plateau right now. The polls are essentially meaningless right now. Hillary has a set number of voters firmly in her camp and that's it. There are few if any undecideds for her to shift her way.

Bernie on the other hand has millions yet to get to know him. He has millions struggling day to day that need to hear his message and will embrace his platform as soon as they hear it.

We've just started this election. GOTV, get out the message, and stay positive.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/128067236

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Original post)

Reply to this thread