2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Why should we vote for a candidate with LESS of a chance to win the GE? [View all]DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)The predictions markets, the gaming markets, and the voters themselves suggest Clinton is the stronger candidate:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251945331#post49
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251945331#post70
One candidate has a 59% chance of winning the general election , the other candidate has a 2% chance of winning the general election. That's not a close difference. It is a huge one.
You seem to be arguing that the polls show Senator Sanders to be a stronger candidate against the Republicans than Secretary Clinton when the data is mixed at best. The Law Of Large Numbers suggest the best way to understand a political race is to average all the polls and not try to eliminate this poll or that poll from the average because the poll we dislike might very well be right. In fact the data suggests they are both running about the same against the GOP, the differences are well within the margin of error:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
To recap evidence from the predictions markets, the gaming markets, and the voters themselves suggest Hillary Clinton is the stronger general election candidate. Those are empirical observations and not normative ones. I can elaborate on why that is the case if you want.
I hope you are having a terrific Christmas day.
P.S. Please attribute my tardiness in responding to you to Christmas drama which has been successfully resolved.