Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 13, 2016, 02:29:10 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 96
51  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: CBS/NYT: Clinton 48 Sanders 41 on: January 12, 2016, 07:54:42 pm
How has Clinton run a "truly awful campaign"? From what I have seen, she has made no major errors and has performed well in all of the debates.

She hasn't been inspiring, and hasn't made any news worthy proposals. In an environment like this, that's a poor performance.
52  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: CBS/NYT: Clinton 48 Sanders 41 on: January 12, 2016, 07:41:45 pm
Democrats truly are specialists in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, it seems. TRUMP will be absolutely thrilled!

Especially if we nominate someone as unelectable as Hillary!

Hillary has serious issues no doubt, and she has run a truly awful campaign. However, Trump would eat Sanders alive. Bernie is way too passive, and is frankly nowhere near as intelligent or pragmatic as Trump.
53  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: Sanders leads in IA by Quinnipiac on: January 12, 2016, 05:21:23 pm
Black voters don't tend to change their support due to who has the momentum. They are in fact the most inelastic group.

Hillary was winning black voters through most of 2007 (maybe until Obama won Iowa?). Also, you yourself suggested black voters were bitter about Hillary.

Single white women, 49-55% of young white voters (if Rand isn't running), Hispanics, non-bitter Blacks.

There was a 10% drop in support from Biden to Hillary among African-Americans in SUSA'S latest FL poll. Statistical noise? I think not.

But now their loyalty to her shows how inflexible they are?

Obviously, Sanders wouldn't excite black voters the way Obama did but there's also no particular reason to think he couldn't win many over once they got familiar with him. Likewise with other minorities.

As to the explanation for this, it's just people paying more attention, but presumably less anti-Hillary than pro-Bernie.


Yes, they have been very supportive of Hillary throughout her career. They only began to support Obama when they realized it was possible that he could win, this was talked about a lot in the media at the time. Then in mid-January the racial issues started coming up and she collapsed with them. Sanders doesn't have the same draw as Obama among blacks, for obvious reasons.

Yes, I suggested that, and have been proven wrong by her near unanimous support from them in polls.
54  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: Sanders leads in IA by Quinnipiac on: January 12, 2016, 02:40:53 pm
I have the same question to do. It's pretty strange that while the race was stable after October suddenly during the Christmas vacation, when literally nothing happened, Sanders started to surge.
Can someone give a SERIOUS, non-hackish explanation about that?
Thanks.

Yes:

People are starting to pay attention more, and are realizing that Clinton is an untrustworthy flip-flopper who has no real convictions, feels entitled to the office, and doesn't care about the needs and wants of commoners.

The Obama-coalition that once defeated Hillary is now reassembling just at the right time to re-defeat her and STOP her from grabbing power. That is what happens.

He said non-hackish...

Reality is not hackish.

Tender, you're a good guy. Don't be a jackass like jfern.

Looks like someone got proven wrong. It's what we have been saying for months now that Clinton is not enevitible and it is looking worse everyday for her.

Until Sanders starts improving with minorities, Hillary is inevitable. Remember, it's not just the south that Hillary's black support wins for her, it also wins her the big states like OH, PA, IL & MI.

Oh stop you know this is a tossup now. If she loses the first few states say goodbye to her leads everywhere else in this country. Clinton is smart enough to know this that's why she has gone on the attack....but when your opponent is so well liked it's hard to get results out of that.

Black voters don't tend to change their support due to who has the momentum. They are in fact the most inelastic group.

I love how you generalize black voters. Oh well you will figure it out sooner or later your just in the denial stage.

Look at past statistics. If you rule out any "generalizing", then you can't do any reasonable analysis and/or predictions.
55  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: Sanders leads in IA by Quinnipiac on: January 12, 2016, 02:25:59 pm
I have the same question to do. It's pretty strange that while the race was stable after October suddenly during the Christmas vacation, when literally nothing happened, Sanders started to surge.
Can someone give a SERIOUS, non-hackish explanation about that?
Thanks.

Yes:

People are starting to pay attention more, and are realizing that Clinton is an untrustworthy flip-flopper who has no real convictions, feels entitled to the office, and doesn't care about the needs and wants of commoners.

The Obama-coalition that once defeated Hillary is now reassembling just at the right time to re-defeat her and STOP her from grabbing power. That is what happens.

He said non-hackish...

Reality is not hackish.

Tender, you're a good guy. Don't be a jackass like jfern.

Looks like someone got proven wrong. It's what we have been saying for months now that Clinton is not enevitible and it is looking worse everyday for her.

Until Sanders starts improving with minorities, Hillary is inevitable. Remember, it's not just the south that Hillary's black support wins for her, it also wins her the big states like OH, PA, IL & MI.

Oh stop you know this is a tossup now. If she loses the first few states say goodbye to her leads everywhere else in this country. Clinton is smart enough to know this that's why she has gone on the attack....but when your opponent is so well liked it's hard to get results out of that.

Black voters don't tend to change their support due to who has the momentum. They are in fact the most inelastic group.
56  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: Sanders leads in IA by Quinnipiac on: January 12, 2016, 02:06:31 pm
I have the same question to do. It's pretty strange that while the race was stable after October suddenly during the Christmas vacation, when literally nothing happened, Sanders started to surge.
Can someone give a SERIOUS, non-hackish explanation about that?
Thanks.

Yes:

People are starting to pay attention more, and are realizing that Clinton is an untrustworthy flip-flopper who has no real convictions, feels entitled to the office, and doesn't care about the needs and wants of commoners.

The Obama-coalition that once defeated Hillary is now reassembling just at the right time to re-defeat her and STOP her from grabbing power. That is what happens.

He said non-hackish...

Reality is not hackish.

Tender, you're a good guy. Don't be a jackass like jfern.

Looks like someone got proven wrong. It's what we have been saying for months now that Clinton is not enevitible and it is looking worse everyday for her.

Until Sanders starts improving with minorities, Hillary is inevitable. Remember, it's not just the south that Hillary's black support wins for her, it also wins her the big states like OH, PA, IL & MI.
57  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: IA-PPP: Bernie outperforms Hillary against GOP on: January 12, 2016, 02:04:35 pm
Trump isn't doing well in IA. 42% against either candidate, and 40% in the other IA poll.
58  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls / Re: Sanders leads in IA by Quinnipiac on: January 12, 2016, 01:21:51 pm
The size of this surge is so YUGE, that one has to wonder what the hell happened?

The Obama-coalition that once defeated Hillary is now reassembling just at the right time to re-defeat her and STOP her from grabbing power. That is what happens.

Yes, but that only works in a places like Iowa and NH.  In states which a large AA voting bloc in the Dem primary, a major part of the Obama coalition of 2008 will go with Hillary.  I do not see how they will swing behind Sanders even if he sweeps Iowa and NH.

If Bernie wins IA and NH - everything is possible.

Even Blaxicasians will realize that backing a fraud like Hillary won't do them any favour and switch over to the man of the working people.

There's no indication that will happen. Just wishful thinking on your part.
59  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sanders: Clinton 'in serious trouble' on: January 12, 2016, 12:01:53 pm
Sanders will never get the minority vote, so it doesn't matter if he wins the early states. Not only will he be slaughtered in the south, he has no chance at states like PA, OH, MI & IL.
60  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What does the establishment need to do? on: January 11, 2016, 06:54:11 pm
This is stuff that won't play much outside of the Republican base, in my view. Normal voters are going to be terrified of the idea that someone like Trump, who knows exceptionally little about public policy, could become President.

I wish people would snap out of their Trump crush and realize this. The only people he is doing fantastic with is white working class conservative-leaning voters. He's completely alienated non-white voters, or in other words, a projected 30% of 2016's voters. The whole time he has been doing his barking, he has only really made decent inroads with that one part of the Republican base. So he's not well positioned to win, at all.



Trump only needs about 65% of whites to win by a Bush 2004 margin.

And that is going to be very hard to do when lots of more-educated white voters flee the Republican Party in horror due to the nomination of an anti-intellectual like Trump.

Edit: I think that would be a larger share of the white vote than even Reagan won in 1984 against one of the most unwise choices of nominee the Democratic Party has ever made.

Many more working class whites will jump ship for Trump. Where do you think Trump's 20% Democratic support is coming from?
61  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What does the establishment need to do? on: January 11, 2016, 06:46:02 pm
This is stuff that won't play much outside of the Republican base, in my view. Normal voters are going to be terrified of the idea that someone like Trump, who knows exceptionally little about public policy, could become President.

I wish people would snap out of their Trump crush and realize this. The only people he is doing fantastic with is white working class conservative-leaning voters. He's completely alienated non-white voters, or in other words, a projected 30% of 2016's voters. The whole time he has been doing his barking, he has only really made decent inroads with that one part of the Republican base. So he's not well positioned to win, at all.



Trump only needs about 65% of whites to win by a Bush 2004 margin.
62  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What does the establishment need to do? on: January 11, 2016, 06:14:47 pm
I'd first try to get Bush, Christie, and Kasich to drop out. Rubio is the only one that has a chance of winning at this point. The establishment needs to get behind one candidate.

Also, start thinking of good candidates for 2020. The nominee most likely going to be Cruz or Trump, and they'd both lose to Hillary by a pretty large margin. The election is over and Hillary has already won.




What are you talking about? The latest national poll has Trump leading 47-44%.

Nearly every single poll (with the exception of a few outliers like the one you've mentioned) shows Hillary leading Trump by a pretty large margin. Trump consistently does worse than every other Republican

No. It was FOX News that released the 49-38 lead for Clinton last month, and it's FOX that just released the 47-44 poll in favor of Trump. CNN has it at 49-47 Clinton, hardly a large margin.
63  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What does the establishment need to do? on: January 11, 2016, 04:52:35 pm
I'd first try to get Bush, Christie, and Kasich to drop out. Rubio is the only one that has a chance of winning at this point. The establishment needs to get behind one candidate.

Also, start thinking of good candidates for 2020. The nominee most likely going to be Cruz or Trump, and they'd both lose to Hillary by a pretty large margin. The election is over and Hillary has already won.




What are you talking about? The latest national poll has Trump leading 47-44%.
64  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 2016 Election Poll on: January 10, 2016, 03:54:57 pm
Clinton. Libertarians and their 'fend for yourself' economic policies are too extreme.
65  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: IA/NH - NBC/WSJ/Marist: Sanders strongly outperforms Clinton against GOP on: January 10, 2016, 02:37:05 pm
Sanders outperforming Clinton in matchups is no different than Carson outperforming Bush in matchups. It wouldn't go down that way.
66  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sanders vs Trump on: January 10, 2016, 12:21:13 pm
Sanders isn't a "fighter" like Trump. He'd get buried in the onslaught of insults. Can you imagine the debates? Trump would just call him a Communist (which would stick on a self described socialist) and use subtle anti-semitism to destroy Sanders.
67  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: IA/NH - NBC/WSJ/Marist: Sanders strongly outperforms Clinton against GOP on: January 10, 2016, 12:05:27 pm
Bernie hasn't faced the attacks the other candidates have, so his name recognition means nothing. If he made it to the general, Trump would go all out on him, calling him a communist, not to mention using subtle, (or even blatant) anti-semitic rhetoric. He would be destroyed.
68  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: NH-PPP: Dems up on: January 08, 2016, 09:06:37 pm
Carson's low numbers may be an unfortunate result of racial tension in the Boston suburbs.
Or he's not a good fit for secular moderates? Where did you get the idea of racial tensions there?

Is it not common knowledge that Boston has the most racial tension in the northeast?
69  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Donald Trump must be destroyed on: January 08, 2016, 06:48:40 pm
Trump is racing toward the nomination. In the process the chance for a Republican victory is in decline. That pretty much sums up where we are now. It could be Sanders or Clinton vs Trump at this point. Both of them have a significant lead. Unless he comes up with a better schtick he is doomed in the general. It's beginning to look a lot like 2008, if no Republican can stop him.
At 42% in the polls he probably now has at least a 50% chance of winning the nomination, but only a 25% chance, at best, of winning the election.

Trump is at 47% in the general, and probably around 50% adding in Shy Trump effect.
70  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: NH-PPP: Dems up on: January 08, 2016, 04:09:06 pm
Carson's low numbers may be an unfortunate result of racial tension in the Boston suburbs.
71  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Cologne: Up to 1,000 men of Arab and North African origin sexually assault women on: January 06, 2016, 05:24:43 pm
At least!

Well, as I said, they need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but in addition to that, they also need to be taught the meaning and value of consent, and if they're repeat offenders, need to face serious charges.


How about just not letting them in the country in the first place?

I thought conservatives were against cloistering oneself in a "self space" where you can ignore reality?

Reality? Reality is that women are being assaulted by immigrants, immigrants that never should have been let in because of their violent culture.
72  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Cologne: Up to 1,000 men of Arab and North African origin sexually assault women on: January 06, 2016, 04:36:46 pm
At least!

Well, as I said, they need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but in addition to that, they also need to be taught the meaning and value of consent, and if they're repeat offenders, need to face serious charges.

How about just not letting them in the country in the first place?
73  General Politics / International General Discussion / North Korea says it successfully tested Hydrogen bomb on: January 05, 2016, 11:05:07 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/asia/north-korea-seismic-event/index.html

Quote
North Korea says it has successfully carried out a hydrogen bomb test in a region of the country where it conducted three previous nuclear tests.

If the claim is verified, a hydrogen bomb test will be a significant advancement for the country's military ambitions: the device is more powerful than plutonium weapons, which is what North Korea has previously tested

"If there's no invasion on our sovereignty we will not use nuclear weapon," the North Korean state news agency said. "This H-bomb test brings us to a higher level of nuclear power."

The test took place at 10 a.m. local time, the regime said in a televised statement.

The seismic event, which measured the event at a magnitude of 5.1, occurred 19 kilometers (12 miles) east-northeast of Sungjibaegam, the United States Geological Survey said.
74  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Putin Names the United States as a Major Threat to Russia on: January 03, 2016, 07:43:06 pm
If they had not joined NATO they likely would have been invaded by now.  Of course you'd spin that too.  

"Putin was backed into corner, they were going to move a statue!  He had no choice but to invade."

Has Putin invaded Belarus? Has he invaded western Ukraine? It was the West that instigated the Ukraine revolution, and Putin took action to protect the Russian people of Crimea. It is the West that is pulling countries together in an anti-Russian coalition, which they were doing even when Russia was "friendly" (Yeltsin era).

No, it was the Ukrainian people who instigated the revolution, and the West who funded things after it got started. It was Russia that reacted in a land-grabbing way. And yes, Russia invaded eastern Ukraine, and they invaded Crimea as well.

And Putin hasn't needed to invade Belarus, because its dictator has been friendly to him.

"Friendly", as in refusing to join the West in an anti-Russian alliance?
75  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Putin Names the United States as a Major Threat to Russia on: January 03, 2016, 06:49:50 pm
If they had not joined NATO they likely would have been invaded by now.  Of course you'd spin that too. 

"Putin was backed into corner, they were going to move a statue!  He had no choice but to invade."

Has Putin invaded Belarus? Has he invaded western Ukraine? It was the West that instigated the Ukraine revolution, and Putin took action to protect the Russian people of Crimea. It is the West that is pulling countries together in an anti-Russian coalition, which they were doing even when Russia was "friendly" (Yeltsin era).
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 96


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines