2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum4 Poll Numbers That Should Unnerve Hillary Clinton - WaPo
4 poll numbers that should unnerve Hillary ClintonBy Chris Cillizza - WaPo
July 27 at 10:51 AM
<snip>
Four poll numbers came out over the weekend that are decidedly sobering for Hillary Clinton's presidential prospects in 2016.
The first two come from NBC/Marist College polls conducted in Iowa and New Hampshire. In Iowa, 23 percent more people saw Clinton in an unfavorable light than a favorable one; in New Hampshire, that gap is 20 points.
Then there are these numbers from two national polls released over the weekend. Here's Clinton long-term favorable/unfavorable trend line in Gallup:
And here it is in CNN polling:
As Philip Bump noted in this space over the weekend, some of Clinton's poll erosion is to be expected. Clinton (and every politician) is always more popular when she is either out of politics or in a job (like secretary of state) that is regarded by many people as non-political. If you thought Hillary Clinton was going to have favorable ratings in the high 60s for the entirety of her 2016 presidential bid, then you know nothing about modern-day U.S. politics.
But, if Clinton's sinking poll numbers were to be expected as she re-entered the arena, the pace of their drop and the depths to which they have fallen are surprising. Looking at the national numbers, Clinton's favorable numbers have come close to collapsing over the past eight months or so; her unfavorable numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire are, without exaggeration, near Trump-ian levels -- and that's a very bad thing considering they are the first two states that will cast votes in the primaries and two key swing states in the general election.
So, what is going on here?
<snip>
More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/27/four-poll-numbers-to-make-hillary-clinton-sweat/
Raymond31
(11 posts)Do we know how Bernie Sanders is doing?
George II
(67,782 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)The ability to draw crowds is a leading indicator of approval
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)and do you understand that Bernie event attendees are not 100% of the people polled.
I understand your enthusiasm for the crowds, but it isn't a national snap shot of polls and ratings.
George II
(67,782 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)And they will continue to rise as more people get to know him.
Hillary's consistently falling, neither is 'mired' in anything, one is trending UP the other is trending DOWN.
Funny how the goal posts keep moving.
When Bernie's favorability rates were practically zero because no one knew who he was, predictions were 'he doesn't have a chance with fav. rates like that.
Lol!
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Hillary was projected the winner in the 2008
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)but i think the other thing going on is something mentioned in another thread. The more people see of Hillary, the less they like and trust her. So as she gets more exposure, I would expect her numbers to keep dropping. And once the debates happen, I think you.re going to see a nosedive. that is if Debbie ever gets around to scheduling them.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Yeah, because Sanders is a great debater, beating a bunch of hapless small time pols in a state the size of a congressional district....
By the time the debates start his acolytes will be convincing one another he's the second coming of Daniel Webster.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)he lays waste to every one of them. he will have no problem in the debates.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)yes, he refuses to get personal or let the msm try and goad him into personally attacking people. but he answers policy questions very well.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)jobs answer. Perhaps you do not listen to the many appearances on the talk shows but he skips out on answering the questions. When the debates it will probably be left to the moderator how well he is kept on subject.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and economic inequality are linked and are parallel issues but each has unique problems. i never see him skirt questions or truncate his answers. he is usually very thorough imo
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)statement he wants to present.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)it is looking less and less like aug/sept is going to happen
hmm. wonder why
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)which either speaks to DWS incompetence or her loyalty to Hillary. There's really no other option.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)number of debates by now last time vs this time. total # last time vs this time. dws allegience to hillary is public info. it is a pretty straight line.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)how many debates there were last election? (27) or that dws was hillary's campaign cochair? this is common knowledge. if you doubt it, you are free to look it up...
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)then they have a problem. The debates last time started before the first candidate ever declared this time, and they became totally boring before the end. There are going to be 6, if your candidate chooses not to participate because there are only 6 then this a decision the candidate makes. We do not have to run a comedy circus and try to out do the GOP. The debates will be televised, they can be recorded and viewed over and over. This is more an attack on DWS, this needs to stop. We are trying to get a DNC candidate elected president, all this other is clown car like.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)now there will be 6 for 5 contenders. this schedule only benefits one of them.
and we all know who that is.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)people can only absorb so much. i think somewhere between 6 and 27 is a good medium. i heard someone the other day mention 12. with 5 major candidates, that should provide plenty of time for each of them to be heard.
NYCButterfinger
(755 posts)Hillary Clinton can't coast to the nomination without debates.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)of the FACT, as Bernie has been pointing out repeatedly over the years, of the FACT that AA Youth Unemployment is over 50%?
Why do you object to Bernie Sanders TALKING about these egregious statistics, about the FACT that AAs have been DENIED economic justice?
I find this hard to absorb, the OBJECTIONS to a Candidate FINALLY drawing attention to an issue that is supposed to be IGNORED.
Money, is POWER. To deny that power ONLY to AAs is reprehensible, imo. To attempt to SILENCE any one from speaking about it, is reprensible imo.
To attack someone who IS speaking about it in an attempt to dismiss this huge and RACIST condition that has not changed in fact has worsened, is simply unbelievable.
Keep talking Bernie. The more they try to silence you, the more you NEED to speak about the gross Economic injustices perpetuated against AAs.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Lets take a look:
No wonder DWS is dragging her feet scheduling debates.
Too bad Obama "forgot" all about Raising-the-Cap once he sat down in the Oval Office.
THEN, it was all about us having to eat our peas.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Your compadre suggested Bernie beat that intellectual giant, Chuck Todd, in a debate so he will do just fine.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Toad has NOTHING to do with my post.
NOW, would you like to address the issue at hand,
or blindly go off on some irrelevant tangent again
(My guess, after reading your history posts here, would be to AVOID the issue,
and hide behind another irrelevant diversion.)
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)If you believe Bernie Sanders is the reincarnation of Daniel Webster there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion or maybe you believe this is going to be a reprise of the Kennedy-Nixon debate with Bernie playing the role of the vigorous and virile young senator and Hillary Clinton playing the role of the wan vice president with a sweaty upper lip.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)After all the time you have spent at DU,
you should know better than to post a ridiculous and embarrassing Strawman,
I mean REALLY embarrassing.
Please cite where I mentioned Daniel Webster, OR compared Bernie to Daniel Webster.
I'll wait.
Response to bvar22 (Reply #69)
DemocratSinceBirth This message was self-deleted by its author.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)You don't get to determine the parameters of the debate and the suggestion that Bernie Sanders is some debating maven and Hillary Clinton is some debating dilettante is patently absurd...
I watch the so called debates on this board where one gets suckered into debating an ill defined and amorphous proposition and the so called debates end up nowhere. I don't roll like that, at least if I can help it.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)The DNC does and they will try to favor HRC.
However, I still think Bernie is going to beat them at that game. That's why DWS hasn't scheduled any debates.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Unless we agree to operationalize our terms and submit our arguments and counterarguments to a neutral arbiter these internecine debates are liitle more than intellectual onanism.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)and I made them plain in the first post.
If you are not capable of staying reasonably within those parameters,
then:
1) Quit
2) Start your own thread
3) Tell us all about your visit to Disneyland,
because that makes as much sense as your last post,
and would add as much to the debate.....if anyone cares to listen to your bizarre non-sequiters.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)and I made them plain in the first post.
If you are not capable of staying reasonably within those parameters,
then:
1) Quit
2) Start your own thread
Maybe you boss people around in real life but I would bet my ear you don't boss people like me around in real life and you damn sure don't get to boss people like me around on the internet.
Oh, if you are going to make an ostentatious display of your alleged intellectual superiority it would behoove you to run your brickbats:
through spellcheck.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I'll put you down for:
1)"Unable to stay within the parameters of the debate"
2)Spinning your wheels throwing dust in the air desperately trying to avoid a direct response to Post #59. (Desperate Diversion)
BTW: in normal debate, it is a gentleman's agreement to stay on topic and respond directly to the issue raised. In Formal Debate, it is a hard and fast rule. The moderator would call you on it and deduct points for your wild diversions.
I wouldn't expect you to know anything about it.
Please tell us about your trip to Disneyland, or how hot it has been at your house
instead of responding to this video:
I'll keep posting this video, directing you BACK to the debate until you respond with a logical sentence referencing my post.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)I am not interested in one cherry picked answer from the dozens of debates Madame Secretary has engaged in as if that one answer is dispositive or indicative of her skills as a debater which takes me back to my seminal point that in the absence of operationalizing one's terms and establishing parameters these debates are little more than exercises in intellectual onanism.
rock
(13,218 posts)malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Is one really a Democrat Since Birth. I would think one should be at least 5 before they could determine political affiliation.
Those kind of forum names always make me think rw trollery. I am seldom disappointed.
The only reason we bother to read such drivel is because we need to have a good laugh once in a while. This one has been particularly amusing.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Those kind of forum names always make me think rw trollery. I am seldom disappointed.
The only reason we bother to read such drivel is because we need to have a good laugh once in a while. This one has been particularly amusing.
I have been a sustaining member since July 12, 2003 :
Account status: Active
Member since: Sat Jul 12, 2003, 04:35 PM
Number of posts, all time: 56,532
Number of posts, last 90 days: 4506
Favorite forum: General Discussion, 2922 posts in the last 90 days (65% of total posts)
Favorite group: African American, 178 posts in the last 90 days (4% of total posts)
Last post: Tue Jul 28, 2015, 01:50 PM
and amassed 56, 000 + posts... If I have espoused right wing causes evidence of such should be easy to find.
In the absence of evidence I would ask that you withdraw your calumny against me but that would require character and class so I won't hold my breath.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)is seen as trolling, something has gone seriously wrong.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)I would sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury that what I am about to say is true.
Unlike the supporters of a certain candidate:
-I didn't accuse African American members of this board of "race nagging" (that post was self deleted)
-I didn't use tired stereotypes about gay members of this board that they are obsessed with grooming and act flamboyantly (that post was allowed to stand}
-I didn't suggest a gay member of this board was a "sissypants". (that post was hidden)
-I didn't suggest a male member of this board was a female to diminish him
-I didn't post that "most blacks are killed by other blacks" in an attempt to denigrate Black Lives Matter (that post was hidden)
I am the same person in real life that I am here...I don't see color, religion, race, sexual orientation, et cetera, and I call out all forms of bigotry when I see it regardless of the personal cost...
I don't need to be lectured on what it means to be a liberal, a progressive, a Democrat, or just a decent person.
ismnotwasm
(42,008 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)you didn't condone them and weren't silently complicit in them.
Anyone looking for "trollery" can look to those posts for sterling examples.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)you certainly are beating those horses to death on here...
Are we never going to be able to move on from all this?
This OP was about polling, for Christ sake. Do we have to review the unfortunate remarks posted as the fallout from the BLM-Bernie-DU fiasco in every non-related thread from now on?
I take issue with your preamble "Unlike the supporters of a certain candidate",
which seems to set up a smear on a whole group,
based upon the actions of a few individual members.
That's "stereotyping", isn't it?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Those kind of forum names always make me think rw trollery. I am seldom disappointed.
The only reason we bother to read such drivel is because we need to have a good laugh once in a while. This one has been particularly amusing.
I will not be cowed. I will not stand down, not only for me, but for those whose causes are dear to me.
Oh, and three of the posts I cited were about homophobia, subtle and not so subtle, and had nothing to do with Black Lives Matter.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...but I guess if they can't find fault with the substance of your posts or your ideology, personal attacks are the next step. Appears to be an act of desperation.
ismnotwasm
(42,008 posts)Personal attacks are de jour among certain members. So sad to see.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)My other passion is sports... Back around 2000 I used to post on the Miami Herald Miami Dolphins board and my screen names were 100% Dolfan and Dolfan Since Birth.
George II
(67,782 posts)So, you were a football fan that young? I would have thought you wouldn't be old enough to know until you were five years old!
You can imagine how many times I've had to explain my screen name!
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)According to my interlocutor I chose that handle because I am really a Bulls fan who decided to be a provocateur on a Miami Dolphins board.
George II
(67,782 posts)malokvale77
(4,879 posts)"I responded to your poison missive so we litigate it here or in the thread."
I have one thing to say, outside my response to your PM, that I look forward to hearing from your attorney.
Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.
George II
(67,782 posts)malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Last time I posted about an unsolicited PM I was ostracized and had my OP hidden for refusing to post the contents.
Which is it?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...in consecutive posts. Wonder what his/her "last straw" will be!!
ismnotwasm
(42,008 posts)Unbelievable. Or not considering the source.
George II
(67,782 posts).....it's still almost than DOUBLE that of Sanders.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)I haven't seen Hillary debate a schmuck like Chuck Todd much less an intellectual giant like perhaps Bernie Sanders.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)She looked absolutely floored that Obama had the nerve to correct her in that debate. it'll be interesting to see and compare 2016 campaign debates.
madokie
(51,076 posts)its Bernie's message that resonates with us. Not his debating skills, nor his age, rather it's his message. Bernie is the real deal and will be our next President. Hide and watch.
Let me introduce to you President Bernie Sanders.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Acolyte LTH reporting for duty!
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)So she can wipe the floor with him..
or not...
George II
(67,782 posts).....are eager to tell that party what to do!
artislife
(9,497 posts)Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #41)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)That's the burden on plebeians like me but I survive.
If I could copy and paste I would copy and paste the post where my interlocutor claimed voters don't like and trust Hillary. That shows a great deal of disrespect for voters like me...and DemocratSinceBirth is no man's piñata.*
Perhaps it would behoove some of the denizens of this board to be less selective in their outrage.
* Los Angeles public libraries are the coolest. They even put the accent mark on piñata.
#lol@me
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Seeing her unfavorables at their highest while her favorables are at their lowest (at least going back to 2007; there's no data shown before that), that's noteworthy. And, as you pointed out, this is at a time when she's getting minimal exposure. No wonder the debates are still vague "sometime in August/September, don't know when/where/what" promises.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)would not be surprised to see ws try and hold off until late sept or maybe even later
Divernan
(15,480 posts)My campaign advice? HRC can take her triangulation and focus groups to the Clintons' $18 million summer vacation rental and drop them off the 200 ft cliff on top of which the property sits!
Property Value
The Clintons rental, reportedly worth around $18 million, leaves the Obamas in the dust. The Clintons are reportedly paying $100,000 for their month long (August) summer stay. The Clintons will enjoy a seven-bedroom, seven-and-a-half-bath home.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/battle-summer-vacation-homes-obamas-clintons/story?id=24934506
Pretty ritzy for a poor couple who were flat broke and in debt when leaving the White House! But they have to keep up with the One Percenters.
I mean, I thought she was actively running for President. Although, given her ambitions to be BFFs with the billionaire set, the Hamptons is a great place for fund-raising. She better get moving though. Jeb Bush just had a fund raiser in the Hamptons where the host and half the guests were rich Dems & they all wrote checks to Jeb! http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jeb-bush-snares-democratic-moneyman-090102593.html;_ylt=A0LEVvHxvLZVYUIAOXsnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0a
Jeb Bush Snares a Democratic Moneyman on Hamptons Tour
Bloomberg By Zachary Mider
14 hours ago
Behind a garden modeled on Monet's, Jeb Bush addressed a lawn-full of chief executives and hedge-fund managers at an East Hampton, New York, estate Saturday morning. While the candidate is no stranger to courting wealthy donors, this time was different: about half the attendees were Democrats.
This guy sells well," said Kenneth Lipper, the money manager and registered Democrat who hosted the event, after Bush left. Virtually the only one who left without writing a check, Lipper said, was a buck deer that wandered past the group assembled on the wooded grounds.
The wealthiest donors are playing an unprecedented role in the early stages of the 2016 race. For the first time ever, most candidates are raising more money through super-PACs, which can accept donations of up to $1 million or more, than through the traditional campaign accounts that are capped at $2,700 per donor.
No one has raised as much in this new environment as Bush, who had amassed about $103 million in his super-PAC and another $11 million for his campaign by the end of June. The Lipper event shows how widely Bush is ranging in his quest for donors.
The race for money adds to the importance of places like the Hamptons, Wall Street's oceanside playground, where Lipper remarked that it's become fashionable to spend more than $100 million on a vacation home. The entire annual income for the median U.S. household$50,000wouldnt cover more than 900 of the summer rentals here listed on one brokerage's website.
After answering questions for an hour at Lipper's event, Bush left for two more gatherings at a pair of mansions near the beach.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)endorsing Lieberman, endorsing Pubs in FL and NJ, throwing the vote rather than letting a challenger win a primary, praising Reagan, and passing GOP bills even against the mass of Dems has nothing to do with our poor performances: that's why DWS is still in because nothing's her fault
Nader Nader Nader
bvar22
(39,909 posts)In 2008 Debbie Wasserman Schultz refused to endorse these 3 Democrats
who had won their Primaries and had a chance to win Republican seats:
Miami-Dade Democratic Party Chair Joe Garcia
Former Hialeah Democratic Mayor Raul Martinez
Democratic businesswoman Annette Taddeo
All three had won their local Democratic Primaries, and were challenging Hard Core Republican incumbents with whom Wasserman-Schultz had become cozy.
Not only did the head of the DCCC Red to Blue Program REFUSE to endorse these Democratic challengers,
but she appeared in person at at least one (possibly more) Campaign/Fundraiser for their Republican opponents.
FL-18, FL-21, FL-25: Wasserman Schultz Wants Dem Challengers to Lose
by: James L.
Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 7:15 PM EDT
<snip>
Sensing a shift in the political climate of the traditionally solid-GOP turf of the Miami area, Democrats have lined up three strong challengers -- Miami-Dade Democratic Party chair Joe Garcia, former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez, and businesswoman Annette Taddeo to take on Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart, Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, respectively.
While there is an enormous sense of excitement and optimism surrounding these candidacies, some Democratic lawmakers, including Florida Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Kendrick Meek, are all too eager to kneecap these Democratic challengers right out of the starting gate in the spirit of "comity" and "bipartisan cooperation" with their Republican colleagues:
But as three Miami Democrats look to unseat three of her South Florida Republican colleagues, Wasserman Schultz is staying on the sidelines. So is Rep. Kendrick Meek, a Miami Democrat and loyal ally to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
This time around, Wasserman Schultz and Meek say their relationships with the Republican incumbents, Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and his brother Mario, and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, leave them little choice but to sit out the three races.
"At the end of the day, we need a member who isn't going to pull any punches, who isn't going to be hesitant," Wasserman Schultz said.
Now, you'd expect this kind of bullshit from a backbencher like Alcee Hastings, but you wouldn't expect this kind of behavior from the co-chair of the DCCC's Red to Blue program, which is the position that Wasserman Schultz currently holds. Apparently, Debbie did not get Rahm's memo about doing whatever it takes to win:
The national party, enthusiastic about the three Democratic challengers, has not yet selected Red to Blue participants. But Wasserman Schultz has already told the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that if any of the three make the cut, another Democrat should be assigned to the race.
http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1537
The bloggers also are furious with Rep. Kendrick B. Meek (D-Fla.), who similarly refuses to endorse the Democratic challengers to the three Cuban American Republicans.
They are calling for Wasserman Schultz to step down from her leadership role at the DCCC. And they're not letting up, even after one Florida liberal blogger reported that the congresswoman seemed "frustrated" by the blogs and had asked to "please help get them off my back."
This prompted even harsher reaction from perhaps the most influential of the progressive political bloggers, Markos Moulitsas, a.k.a. Kos, founder of Daily Kos, who wrote on his blog Wednesday: "On so many fronts, the Republicans are standing in the way of progress, on Iraq, SCHIP, health care, fiscal responsibility, corruption, civil liberties, and so on. Those three south Florida Republicans are part of that problem. And she's (Wasserman-Schultz) going to be 'frustrated' that people demand she do her job?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/19/AR2008031903410_3.html
Here are Kos comments on the Wasserman-Schultz betrayal of the Democratic Party:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/03/20/480511/-DCCC-Says-Uproar-Over-DWS-Recusal-Much-Ado-About-Nothing
A lot of time has passed since 2008, but I don't take these kinds of betrayals lightly.
bvar22
Cursed with a memory
With "partners" like this, we don't need Republicans!
MisterP
(23,730 posts)or local-level; nobody thinks past the next ballot
even worse than that is that the pressure heats up with a large majority to pass laws that the people want and need--which would in fact hit at the gravy train and force a progressive shift that'd strike at the party's "stakeholders"; a slender majority keeps liberals out of their hair since there's no chance at legislating now: Dean HAD to be punished for winning WH and Congress at once and candidates have constantly had to fight the top of the party
this little game lets them keep playing the brave resistance: you're there to help THEM, and if this attitude drives voters off it's easy to point the finger at the traitorous constituents; there's less work as a minority party
George II
(67,782 posts)....between Sanders' favorable/unfavorable is 1 point. We're not talking about a huge difference for each either way.
What should concern Sanders followers is that "Bernie Who?" number at 41 points!
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)"anybody but another Clinton" I hear daily!
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)It means that people aren't paying attention to the race yet, so he has plenty of room to get much higher.
Not so much for Hillary. Everyone already knows her.
George II
(67,782 posts)Sanders followers keep saying things like "people don't know him yet", like that's a bad thing (although you recognize it as good).
Wait until they DO get to know him, even if what is said about him is positive.
There's a certain (bigger than we'd like) percentage of the population who will believe what they're told, not what they see for themselves. Once the Sanders name gets more circulation we'll see his "favorability" dropping too - it happens to everyone in public life.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)And why might Independents be significant in the General Election, in case you have to ask?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)and those examples have been shown here on DU for everyone to see.
You can hope, you can assume, but a direct correlation is absolutely silly.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Or the evil corporate lockheed martin F-35 industry?
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-f-35-support-days-after-runway-explosion
2 evil corporations with more blood on their hands than anyone else.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Maybe the candidate you are alluding to believes guns that kill and planes that don't fly that cost us taxpayers tens and tens of billions is a public good.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)against the F35?
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Not a corporation, but they sure are evil, and have blood in their hands
artislife
(9,497 posts)You know, H's friends.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)death and destruction in my community then any firearms.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Sounds like a great and emotional sound bite, very narrowly tailored to a couple of dozen houses. I thought we were talking nation elections and nationl impact. Can you back it up on a national scale?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)but you already did.
the tire old worn out meme is getting disappointing in it's lack of accuracy and lack or originality.
uponit7771
(90,363 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
okasha
(11,573 posts)What good is "income equality" to an 18 year old gunned down by a white cop for breathing while Black/Hispanic/Native?
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
okasha
(11,573 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)candidate? A good reason to go for the better candidate Hillary, Go Hillary Go.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)with corporate lobbyists from the banking, tobacco and energy corporations. Guess Bernie is controlled by corporations also.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 5, 2015, 08:06 PM - Edit history (1)
"Everyday Americans" Hillary And Bill Clinton Report $140 Million In Taxable Income Since 2007
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-03/everyday-americans-hillary-and-bill-clinton-report-140-million-income-2007
Ever since Mitt Romney's tax disclosure fiasco in which allegations of tax avoidance and usage of offshore tax shelters played a major part in the democrat counter campaign, there has been great interest in the Adjusted Gross Income reported by presidential candidates. Which is why to avoid any surprises on the primary circuit, Hillary Clinton released the full data of her and Bill's tax income going back to 2007.
So without further ado, here is the Clinton family's adjusted gross income since 2007. The summary: $139.1 million in income since 2007, most of it thanks to speeches starting at $225,000 and going much higher.
And that is your "everyday Americans."
Snip ...
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)She will solve her favorability problems in the general election after she summarily dispatches of Bernie Sanders.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Bernie is ascending, Hillary is descending. More people across the spectrum are feeling the Bern!
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)She has lost one point in two and one half years:
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary
At this rate Bernie will catch her sometime in 2055.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)AllFieldsRequired
(489 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)And so graciously.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)I believe your candidate has lost several so this one will come naturally.
As for losing gracefully, Madame Secretary could not be more gracious:
She's an exemplar to the world. I am privileged to share an epoch with her.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Some people really care about the environment
Some people care about Big Donors.
It was Obama, he asked us to cough up money to pay the small businesses that got stiffed by her campaign.
I know, because I got the email.
I trashed it.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Res ipsa loquitur
Sanders began his political career in 1971 as a member of the Liberty Union Party, which originated in the anti-war and people's party movement. He ran as the Liberty Union candidate for governor in 1972 and 1976 and as a candidate for senator in 1972 and 1974. In the 1974 race, Sanders finished third (5,901; 4.1%) behind the victor, 33-year-old Chittenden County State's Attorney Patrick Leahy (D, VI; 70,629; 49.4%), and two-term incumbent U.S. Representative Dick Mallary (R; 66,223; 46.3%).
In 1988, incumbent Republican Congressman Jim Jeffords decided to run for the U.S. Senate, vacating Vermont's at-large congressional district. Republican Lieutenant Governor Peter Smith won the House election with a plurality of 41% of the vote. Sanders, who ran as an independent, placed second with 38% of the vote, while Democratic State Representative Paul N. Poirier placed third with 19% of the vote.
artislife
(9,497 posts)She just lost the bid to represent the party on a national level.
got it.
Some donors are worth getting your wellies dirty for....
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)As supporters Of Madame Secretary we have been appointed to be exemplars to the world:
artislife
(9,497 posts)Make sure he helps you over this puddle
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)If I was a smaller man I would take umbrage at you suggesting I was a deaf woman and insinuating something about me as you insinuated about a gay member of this board and his nasal grooming in a previous thread but since we have been appointed exemplars to the world I won't..
artislife
(9,497 posts)I didn't know he was gay and he forgave me. I thought he was dramatic, I don't assign that to a group of people--Like the majority of this board is pretty dramatic. Political junkies.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=446156
Now read his response
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=446165
No harm done to me. I am very tired as you can imagine after this long thread.
I am really worn down after this thread and defending myself.
Enjoy the site and no harm done.
If you dare. Didn't think you would so I thought I would put it here.
And why deaf? That is a stick for the blind..I mean, it is your photo..
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Mea culpa, like justin I am tired too... It is indeed a young African American man helping a blind white woman cross the street which I used as a metaphor for being helpful. I will leave it up to the readers to divine why you suggested I was the blind white woman and just what point you were trying to make in light of your previous comments about justin.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)On April 28, 1967, boxing champion Muhammad Ali refuses to be inducted into the U.S. Army and is immediately stripped of his heavyweight title. Ali, a Muslim, cited religious reasons for his decision to forgo military service.
Born Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr., in Louisville, Kentucky, on January 14, 1942, the future three-time world champ changed his name to Muhammad Ali in 1964 after converting to Islam. He scored a gold medal at the 1960 Olympic Games in Rome and made his professional boxing debut against Tunney Husaker on October 29, 1960, winning the bout in six rounds. On February 25, 1964, he defeated the heavily favored bruiser Sonny Liston in six rounds to become heavyweight champ.
On April 28, 1967, with the United States at war in Vietnam, Ali refused to be inducted into the armed forces, saying I aint got no quarrel with those Vietcong. On June 20, 1967, Ali was convicted of draft evasion, sentenced to five years in prison, fined $10,000 and banned from boxing for three years. He stayed out of prison as his case was appealed and returned to the ring on October 26, 1970, knocking out Jerry Quarry in Atlanta in the third round. On March 8, 1971, Ali fought Joe Frazier in the Fight of the Century and lost after 15 rounds, the first loss of his professional boxing career. On June 28 of that same year, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned his conviction for evading the draft.
At a January 24, 1974, rematch at New York Citys Madison Square Garden, Ali defeated Frazier by decision in 12 rounds. On October 30 of that same year, an underdog Ali bested George Forman and reclaimed his heavyweight champion belt at the hugely hyped Rumble in the Jungle in Kinshasa, Zaire, with a knockout in the eighth round. On October 1, 1975, Ali met Joe Frazier for a third time at the Thrilla in Manila in the Philippines and defeated him in 14 rounds. On February 15, 1978, Ali lost the title to Leon Spinks in a 15-round split decision. However, seven months later, on September 15, Ali won it back. In June 1979, Ali announced he was retiring from boxing. He returned to the ring on October 2, 1980, and fought heavyweight champ Larry Holmes, who knocked him out in the 11th round. After losing to Trevor Berbick on December 11, 1981, Ali left the ring for the final time, with a 56-5 record. He is the only fighter to be heavyweight champion three times. In 1984, it was revealed Ali had Parkinsons disease.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/muhammad-ali-refuses-army-induction
When it counted, he put his life on the line, standing up for what was right.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Here is another photo from that era when he met with other black athletes to discuss his opposition to the draft and his plans to refuse to be inducted:
freshwest
(53,661 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Twice for Governor
Once of Senator
He then settled for Mayor of a town of about 40,000 people.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Obama looks like he his fighting vomit there.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Yeah... good luck with that. Let's compare notes a year form now.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)And we don't elect candidates nationally. We elect them state by state.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Let's compare notes in a year.
George II
(67,782 posts)....nearly identical demographics of ~95% white, rural population and a more than 200 mile common border (river).
If we're looking at early states, he's still about 30 points behind in Iowa and even more in some very important states, e.g., Florida - 62/17 Clinton/Sanders, and nationally about 40 points - 57/19 Clinton/Sanders.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster
George II
(67,782 posts)Sorry to say, the "Bernie surge" is over. Now he's picking up incremental points as people sort out which of the also-rans they'll follow.
No doubt after we see the so-called "Summer of Sanders" it will be followed by the "Fall of Sanders".
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)That's kind of remarkable.
George II
(67,782 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)If you look at the polling in toto, with Biden and sans Biden, and not this or that cherry picked poll the lion's share of his support is coming from Hillary Clinton.
okasha
(11,573 posts)ismnotwasm
(42,008 posts)Misquote: Lead on, Macduff
Actual Quote: Lay on, Macduff, and damned be him who first cries Hold! enough!
http://listverse.com/2008/09/15/top-10-shakespeare-misquotes/
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)My question is unfavorable running against who?If it's Christie as the nominee it's not even close
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)At this point she's running against herself...She's getting poo slung at her and there is not one opponent she can sling it back at.
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)The press is beating up Trump too but since he is appealing to such a small slice of the electorate. It doesn't matter. She'll be fine...
And don't forget Lichtman's Keys To The Presidency. She will be running during a time when the economy is improving.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)ismnotwasm
(42,008 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...in perspective, Clinton's favorability number is DOUBLE Sanders' favorability number (45-23).
So, Sanders' followers can crow about her numbers, but his are just about as bad as hers.
And how about the 41% who said "Bernie Who?"
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It is not against anyone. It is entirely about her. "Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion about _______?"
The point of this question is not to judge who would win in a head-to-head match-up. Those are covered by other questions. Instead, this question gives pollsters an idea about how fluid the answers to the other questions are, and how solid a candidate's support is in those match-ups.
If a candidate has high disapproval, that means they will have a lot more trouble convincing more people to vote for them. If they have high approval, they will have an easier time. If they have a high "don't know", then you know to take any head-to-head match-up with a GIANT grain of salt. Because that indicates people just don't know much about the candidate, so the head-to-head answers are very unreliable.
Clinton's very low "don't know" means she won't be changing a large block of voters minds about her. Her slightly-underwater favorable/unfavorable means she probably won't be convincing more voters to turn to her, but she also has not driven more voters away.
The concerning part is she has no space to "turn" voters towards her. But she also hasn't driven people away from her.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)America won't vote you through if you aren't likable enough.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Having their intended effect?
Remember when this place used to abhor the corporate media?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)That was then and this is now.
moobu2
(4,822 posts)and a lot of praise from the Republicans or his numbers wouldn't be that great either. When they turn on Bernie his polls numbers will drop like a led rock.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Let's see how popular he is in the G E when Madame Secretary tattooes those incendiary remarks on his forehead.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)But therein is the problem.
Can you imagine a contest more likely to depress enthusiasm more than Clinton vs Bush. There could be some cute time machine joke commercials cooked up that could get some people a little excited I suppose. But it is going to make the cynical more cynical and the disenfranchised feel more disenfranchised. It could be an election with the lowest turn out in history.
Also, it is practically an engraved invitation to every third party candidate to show up and play spoiler.
If we put up Bernie then we capture all the populist energy and really shake things up!
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)If anybody will depress turnout it is Senator Sanders as he has shown no ability to engage African Americans and Latinos without whose enthusiastic support a Democrat can not be elected president given the fact the last Democrat to win a majority of white vote was Lyndon Baines Johnson.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Well so much for this discussion.
Never mind, clearly you already have your mind made up.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)You suggested the candidate I support is a general election loser. How would you want/expect me to respond?
If you want me to make the affirmative case I will...
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I am telling you that a Bush vs Clinton matchup is going to turn people off on democracy in general. It is going to make a lot of people feel that nothing will change.
I cannot put myself in the shoes of people that are choosing their candidates on "optics" and name recognition without considering the stated positions and policy that a candidate supports. The real problem is that I cannot think of a single reason to support Hillary as anything but an absolute last resort in order to keep the republicans out of the White House.
That does not suggest excitement or enthusiasm and I cannot pretend otherwise.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)She will win by reassembling the Obama Coalition; millennials, glbtq folks, African Americans, Latinos, Asians, and left of center whites...
Oh, she speaks and speaks constantly to the issues most dear to my heart:
-Immigration reform
-Protecting and expanding the Affordable Care Act with it concomitant expansion of Medicaid for indigent and working class single adults
-Paid family leave
-Criminal justice reform
-Gun control
-glbtq rights
-affirmative action
-increased minimum wage
-appointing left of center jurists to the bench
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)#lol@me
freshwest
(53,661 posts)They went GOP for Nixon and then more became Reagan Democrats. I thought they had learned something by that, but these days I'm not so sure.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)A Bernie surge would have a better chance of changing the political landscape.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Wall street would be happy with either Clinton or Bush.
Bernie Sanders would put a crimp in their plans.
The establishment does not want a populist energy to shake things up.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 27, 2015, 08:06 PM - Edit history (1)
"Bernie's getting a free pass."
Here's the rest of Claire's talking points (video below). She is complaining that Bernie is TOO LIBERAL because:
1) He wants Medicare for All.
2) He wants to expand "entitlements." (Ugh! I hate when so-called Democrats refer to the social safety net as "entitlements."
3) He "hates trade" (he opposes the TPP).
edited for correct video:
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Do all of Hilary Clinton's detractors try to find the most unflattering photographs of woman of a certain age that they can find? If they could be a guy and hear what other guys say about women of a certain age they would never do it again.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)And otherwise stop trying to chip at reality around the edges. I have never before seen such a swarm of people trying to de-legitimize ANYTHING construed as negative toward Hillary.
These are Claire's words. Deal with it and stop the subterfuge. It does nothing for your case and just makes you look desperate to cover up facts that you just don't want to hear or see or even think about.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)I can find unflattering images of anyone. I just don't post em.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Nor do I claim that mantel but I reserve the right to shine a lantern on latent and not so latent misogyny and other forms of unacceptable behavior when I see it.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)The prima facie evidence of misogyny can literally be found in this thread.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)How pathetic.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)How pathetic.
I am sure Al Capone thought Eliot Ness was "pathetic" but I suspect Elliot never wavered from his righteous cause and investigation.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)ismnotwasm
(42,008 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)But you have to live with yourself and your really low-down attack dog tactics.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)eom
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)And I stand by my comment no matter how much you demand, implicitly or explicitly, I stand beside it.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Not a very good one, either.
On closer inspection, it's really a crude and amateur job. Guy doesn't know the program well at all.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)They are of a REAL person who holds PUBLIC OFFICE (yes, I capitalized that to make sure you actually read it). These weren't doctored photographs of Senator McCaskill, they were video that was shown on TV. In fact the person you replied to even went back to find better links to try to appease you because you falsely tossed accusations of misogyny at the person. How about owning up to that shitty behavior and apologizing to the person. If you want to sit here and make things up out of false air, be my guest. But when I see bullshit I call people on it. I highly doubt you are big enough of a person to apologize for the false accusation, but then again I challenge you to prove me wrong.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)And I would literally rather have a cap busted in my ear than apologize for something I didn't do. That's not how DemocratSinceBirth rolls. If you are looking for a pliable interlocutor you best look elsewhere.
Thank you in advance.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)The video looked to me like one of McCaskil.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Lookism is one of those subtle forms of prejudice that rubs me the wrong way, especially when used to denigrate women as they age. Men are much more rarely the target. When a man gets lined and wrinkled society says he looks distinguished. What does society say about a woman as she gets lined and wrinkled?
Here is a link of images of Senator McCaskill:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=claire+mccaskill+images
Almost all of them are more flattering than the photo that was photoshopped onto the video we are discussing.
If a person thinks Claire McCaskill is a shill that's their right. I just took umbrage at the fact the person calling her a shill wan't content to leave it that and had to choose the most unflattering photo of her available because it disparages all women of a certain age.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)You totally ignored the talking points being discussed in favor of complaining about a photograph! Awesome job at spin! You are such a pro!
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Now if you want to try to rob me of my agency I humbly suggest you retire from your job or take a sabbatical and raise an army because that is what it is going to take to shut me up.
Thank you in advance.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)I might be embarrassed if I was you but alas I am not, and I have God and my parents to thank for that.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Because that is exactly what I was saying.
My calling you out for spinning is exactly the same as my trying to deprive you of free speech.
Hyperbole much?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)I merely took umbrage at a photoshopped woman of a certain age to portray her in a unflattering light. For that I am willing to take the opprobrium, it's actually a minuscule sacrifice.
ismnotwasm
(42,008 posts)I didn't listen to her the first time, and I ignore it when it's trotted out here over and over ad nausuem at some sort of 'gotcha' moment.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I'm going to explain this is rather simple terms, but there is a great deal of social science literature on this topic ... see anything and everything written by Fishbein and Ajzen, a good reference list can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_reasoned_action
I first encountered their research as a PhD student in the late 80s. Since then, there work has grown and expanded. Teh crux of their research started because ...
The problem ... I've placed in bold above.
Usually, when you ask people about their attitudes, you do so because you want to predict their future behavior. And what social scientists had found was that their surveys failed to provide results that effectively predicted behavior. Fishbein and Ajzen wanted to figure out why. So they conducted a wide array of meta-analysis. Basically, they studied the studies.
What they found was that surveys that ask abstract questions fail to be good predictors of future behavior. And their research has been so prolific, that it can be applied to any number of situations.
So let's say you have a new grocery item. You let people try it, and then you ask them "On a scale of X-Y, how much do you like it?". Then, you watch these people over the next month, and check to see if the people who said they like it more, are more likely to buy it then those who said they did not. You will end with a very weak correlation.
Now, you repeat the exact same thing, but you ask a different question. You ask the people "How likely are you purchase this product within the next month?" And again, you watch the people over the next month. The observed correlation will be much higher.
Why? Basically, if you want to accurately predict future behavior, you have to ask people about their attitude towards performing that specific behavior.
So surveys about "Satisfaction", or "Favorability" don't tell you much. And they don't predict behavior.
The best surveys, the ones that will predict behavior effectively, ask questions about a person's attitude towards performing a specific behavior.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)At one point he was really underwater , much worse than Hillary Clinton, but at the end of the race he ended up in positive territory because as the literature you cited suggests, approximately half of the general electorate agreed with him.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... favorability questions don't measure agreement either. Agreement questions measure agreement.
I think their research tells us, ask the exact question you want people to answer.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)No, they don't predict election day. Instead, they help predict how accurate the answers to the more direct questions are.
A candidate with a high "don't know" on favorability means you can't really trust head-to-head questions.
A candidate with a high negative is less likely to get the "undecideds" in the head-to-head questions. High positive, and they are more likely to get undecideds.
It's sort of like a second derivative question.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)And the reason they don't is because they do not touch the question on behavior.
The most accurate representation of the direct questions are the direct questions themselves. What you called derivative questions, are inherently less useful because they introduce more variance into the resulting data.
The way you determine the accuracy of the direct questions is by repeating them with different samples over and over.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)That assumes no opinions change. Which is obviously false.
If you repeat with different samples and you don't know if your poll was inaccurate or opinions changed. Favorability gives you a hint about if it's changing opinions or inaccurate polling.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... and if opinions are changing, you can actually see it happening in real time.
The game being played with "favorability" polls, and abstract polls of that nature, is that you are trying to influence people. You are trying to get them to believe that other people disapprove of their attitude. Its an attempt to find some alternative "score" that you can use to pressure people who may act counter to your views.
You see this with abortion. The RW works very hard to make getting a abortion a very "unfavorable" position to hold publicly. Their hope is that through such pressure, and even intimidation, people who would perform this behavior will end up not doing it, even though it is what they really want to do.
One of the elements in the Fishbein and Azjen model (its a very detailed model) includes elements such as the social acceptance of holding a positive or negative attitude about performing some behavior ... and about whether you will voice that view or not when asked.
So when the polls about performing the actual behavior don't fit what you want, you turn to abstract polls, which might. Then claim those are better predictors of behavior, when in fact they are not.
I'll go farther .... a key problem with abstract positions like favorability is that you can't tell what drives the answer.
So for instance, Republicans who hold an unfavorable view of Clinton, probably won't vote for her under any circumstances. Liberals who hold a similarly unfavorable view of her will be more likely to vote for her once their alternative becomes clear. This is exactly why attitudinal studies tended to show weak correlations. Here you have two people who give the exact same "unfavorable" score, and yet their actual behavior is going to be totally different. That create significant variability in your data, and you are not controlling for it, and your ability to predict, decreases as a result.
Now ask them how likely each is to vote for Hillary, and suddenly the correlations increase. Republican says never, Liberals say, something other than never.
If you want to know if people's opinion about voting for Hillary is changing, you have to ask them how likely they are to vote for Hillary, and you have to keep asking.
CountAllVotes
(20,878 posts)Metric System
(6,048 posts)effort, time, miles and money. In other words, she's not sitting back waiting to be ushered to her coronation.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Coroneted because she is deserving. Hillary has always worked hard for everything, she isn't stopping now.
FloridaBlues
(4,008 posts)But doesn't take time to realistically say how "magically " Wall Street will be different or how we pay for free college and a plethora of issues he rapidly talks about.
If elected all this magically happens and congress hands him the silver platter!!
he needs to get into realistic solutions than skimming the top of issues .
840high
(17,196 posts)CountAllVotes
(20,878 posts)A cartoon for f's sake!
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)k&r
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)And she can't be trusted. She makes vague "progressive" platitudes from the side of her mouth, all the while taking corporate dollars. A republican in sheeps clothing. Those unhappy with Obama's "I'm an 80's Republican" policies are going to be furious with Hilley's pro-corporate agenda....TPP, Keystone XL, fracking, drilling, privatization, wars.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)the incumbent party's approval ratings. If Obama is in the 45-50% range, tossup, above 50% (and consistently) she wins, if below 45% (and consistently) she's fucked. (in the absence of a Lewinsky-type "scandal" or Gore/Kerry gaffes, or rigged election)
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)eom
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)She polls 483% among blind partisans so everything's OK.
And Bernie is a gun nut and hates Black people.
Read it right here on the DU.
(Christ, did I just channel TWM?)
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Beacool
(30,251 posts)Is he polling better than Hillary?
William769
(55,147 posts)Since you like to play with polling numbers.
Cha
(297,645 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Or, so we're told ... right before someone post an "OMG!!! HRC had better be a'shakin' in her boots" post ... showing, in reality, that she is ahead!
William769
(55,147 posts)And I'm not talking about the candidate.
What a glorious day it is going to be.
I will admit though there are some good one's that will be caught in the crossfire.
sheshe2
(83,898 posts)Thank you, William!
William769
(55,147 posts)You aim too oh wait.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)6chars
(3,967 posts)That chart only goes back 8 years. Go back 25 years, and her favorables and unfavorables go up and down and up and down like the tides. She is used to it.
ismnotwasm
(42,008 posts)I don't think so.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)instead of the constant bashing of first Obama and now Hillary.
I'd bet you get positively giddy over finding a chart that you thought to interpret to say something it doesn't say. FWIW These favorability charts do not equal electability.
Boy, did you try so very hard.
fbc
(1,668 posts)moobu2
(4,822 posts)No matter how much he panders.