YOU'RE FIRED!Follow

Did you intend to support my argument? According to the document, there mere speculation of a Biden run dropped Clinton down 10%, but during the same time period Sanders increased by 4%. Again, this is less about other candidates being strong, as Clinton being incredibly weak.

How exactly do you propose I do this? Barring some site out there actually tracking the total number of statements made by campaign managers, staff, and supporting pundits and presenting this in tabular form and comparing the exact number of such statements made about each opposing candidate, there's no single source I could use for this. The evidence is that most of the talk from the Left is about Trump (and is overwhelmingly negative). Same as it is on this forum. What the public is talking about is an echo of what the campaigns are talking about. Which one is leading the other isn't important.

For me to be wrong about this would require that everyone else *but* folks involved in Dem campaigns are spending more time talking about Trump than other GOP candidates. Which seems unlikely.



So? Here's a poll taken last year. Here's the funny thing:



Heck. I was joking, but you're right. Maybe it's not actually a joke. Lol!



She's probably going to win the nomination, not because she's strong, but because, as I've said repeatedly she's the only serious candidate in the race. What part of that is not sinking into your skull? And no, she's not going to start over in the general with all kinds of support she never had. She's the only person in the race. She currently has "all the support" she's likely to get. While Sanders is polling well, he's got next to zero support from the party, or the PACs, or basically anyone. Clinton is seen (and has been for some time) as the inevitable candidate for the Democrats. Barring someone like Obama showing up (or, I suppose, Clinton actually getting indicted), that's not likely to change. And Bernie Sanders is no Obama.


Once again, you are confusing the current state of the Dem primary with the normal state of a political primary (especially the current GOP primary). Normally, you have a bunch of people running, any one of whom may come out on top (usually there's 3-4 that are considered serious contenders, but sometimes it's more open), and lots of people sit on the sidelines and wait to pledge support. This Dem primary is *not* like that. As I think I mentioned earlier (can't remember which thread), it's becoming apparent that some kind of backroom deal was made to ensure Clinton got a clean run this time around, and it looks like the Democrats are holding to that agreement for some reason. Either that, or they really do just not have anything remotely resembling a healthy stable of potential candidates to go out there.

Sanders getting in is basically a "***** you guys, I'm going to do what I want". He's the crazy uncle at the holiday dinner and just doesn't care. But his action has pointed out just how weak Clinton really is. And I suspect that the party isn't sure how to handlle that.



Can you link to the poll then? Because I'm not sure what it's trying to measure here. It's a pretty silly premise since you can never know for sure if a candidate can't win. To me, this is probably measuring the degree to which those taking the poll believe whatever is telling them their candidate can't win. So 23% would continue to support Clinton even if they were told (again, it's unclear how this is presented to the people taking this poll) that she had no chance to win. 23% would not bother to show up. To me, those are bad numbers. If you strongly support a candidate, you'd vote for that candidate no matter what external polling data suggested. What is the alternative? Vote for the other party? If she's really going to lose either way, then it doesn't matter how you vote.

I'm not sure why you'd think this means she's strong. Do you have data on other candidates polled in the same way so we can compare? Right now, all I see is data with no context.



It's MSNBC. And yes, Clinton has the DNC on her side. That's the point I was making earlier. She's only doing well because the party had decided that she was to be their candidate well before anyone ran. And because of that, no one else (other than the crazy uncle and a couple issues guys) has opposed her. And because of that, she kinda has to have high support among Dems because she's the only one in the race. I keep saying this, and you keep not getting what this means.



Sigh. The total number of funding and support for a given party as a whole is pretty fixed at any given point in the election process. The total amount spent on attack ads against Clinton would be the same whether there were 18 people in the GOP primary, or 5. And frankly, the GOP candidates aren't focused on attacking Clinton yet. They're focused on trying to win the primary. They are spending their personal campaign time/effort/money attacking the other 17 GOP primary candidates. What little is being spent attacking Clinton is coming from various interest groups, GOP PACs, and the RNC. Again, they'd do that to the same degree regardless of how many GOP candidates there are in the primary race.

This is why negatives are higher among a party based on how many are in the primary race. When you've got 18 people in the race, that means you're facing attacks from 17 other candidates (most of it focused on the frontrunners). When you're the only person in the race, you face very little. The problem for Clinton is how poorly she's faring against the relatively small amount of "attacks" coming from the GOP right now. As the GOP field trims down, more attention will be paid to her by the GOP itself. And, of course, once a nominee arises, all of it will be. Right now, her negatives are largely just because of her own past. And she's struggling against just that.



Surely you can see how polling numbers after that has happened are going to be the result of those other candidates not entering the race. Saying "she's polling at X number among Dem voters" is meaningless when she's essentially the only viable choice for them to pick. As I pointed out earlier, just last year, with Warren and Sanders in the race, Clinton polled third. She isn't the only person in the race because she had such high polling numbers, so no one else should bother,, but because the party powers-that-be decided that she would be the only person in the race and that she would get the full support of the party regardless of who else ran. That drove away other candidates, who, out of party loyalty, have held back to give her the shot. Well, except for crazy uncle Sanders, of course.

I'm talking about her polling numbers now. You were the one talking about how high her support was among Dem primary voters (the screen shot from MSNBC was from late August, right?). My counter is that she's the only serious candidate for them to poll for, which is why her numbers appear to be high (especially compared to the GOP candidates). That's an effect of her being the only candidate in the race, not the cause her being the only candidate in the race. Effect can't come before cause.




Who's "they"? And again, I suspect you don't understand why the opposition might do this. The GOP would love for more serious contenders to appear in the Dem primary, if for no other reason than it would force Clinton to spend more time/money defending herself. It also produces this lovely effect where primary opponents often raise concerns that the opposition party can then use later in the general, and when countered on partisan grounds, can simply quote the primary candidate saying the same thing. Hey look! We're not just saying this because we're Republicans, because <insert Democrat primary candidate here> said the same thing about Clinton a few months ago!

Which, btw, is exactly why the Democratic Party has set this primary up for Clinton to be (relatively) unopposed. They hope that the lack of true opposition in the primary will result in less problems for Clinton in the general election. It's not a bad strategy, but the problem is that primaries exist for a reason. They help weed out candidates who can't win by revealing their weaknesses prior to nomination. It's about finding the strongest candidate to represent the party. And while it's possible to find that strongest candidate by executive decision, it's just as likely (more likely in all probability) that you'll pick someone who is a disaster and not realize it until too late.

The danger with their approach is that it's very hard to know if this is happening precisely because polling will still appear to be "good", because she's the only serious candidate in the race. That's what I'm trying to get you to understand. For an "inevitable" candidate, she's not doing very well.

It's a rhetorical question. The point is that we *are* talking about him more than the other candidates. The media is covering him far far more than the other candidates as well. Everyone is talking about him more than the other candidates. Everyone presumably includes Dem political operatives too.

Okay, he's gotta be trolling us.

Oh, **** you, Google prissy pants.

Here's the link, just take the space out of the OH DEAR GOD offending word: http://www.avclub.com/article/now-rem-pis sed-donald-trump-using-its-end-world-225128





Edited, Sep 10th 2015 10:01am by Samira

Well, I was more talking about associating one's campaign with a song called "It's the End of the World as We Know It".

Well cankles sure isn't exciting anyone that's for sure.

Especially love old Hillary bashing barry.

Because Hillary's a really disgusting individual and you'd rather pretend she's not. Best way to do that is to just ignore her until you head to the voting booth.

Hooray!

Bobby Jindal is risking his 0.5% [Edit: My mistake: 0.3% according to RCP] in the polls to attack Trump!


Edited, Sep 10th 2015 3:07pm by Jophiel

While wedding DJs may not need to license, I would be surprised if your larger event halls didn't have their own blanket license in place as they may host public events (bridal shows, charity auctions, etc).

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

How exactly do you propose I do this?

I don't know, you tell me since you're the one claiming that they're doing it. I'm merely pointing out that they are not doing that and you're just making stuff up.

Spoiler

gbaji wrote:

Heck. I was joking, but you're right. Maybe it's not actually a joke. Lol!

You dismiss a snapshot of a poll on MSNBC, but promote a poll from last year (outside of the campaign).

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

She's probably going to win the nomination, not because she's strong, but because, as I've said repeatedly she's the only serious candidate in the race. What part of that is not sinking into your skull?

Gbaji wrote:

It's MSNBC. And yes, Clinton has the DNC on her side. That's the point I was making earlier. She's only doing well because the party had decided that she was to be their candidate well before anyone ran. And because of that, no one else (other than the crazy uncle and a couple issues guys) has opposed her. And because of that, she kinda has to have high support among Dems because she's the only one in the race. I keep saying this, and you keep not getting what this means.

I'm not "getting it" because it doesn't make sense. According to your logic, the DNC drew names and Clinton's name so happen to come up, but they would have just as equally support Chaffee or O'Malley. They are behind her because she is obviously the best (i.e., strongest) candidate that the party has.

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

And no, she's not going to start over in the general with all kinds of support she never had. She's the only person in the race. She currently has "all the support" she's likely to get. While Sanders is polling well, he's got next to zero support from the party, or the PACs, or basically anyone. Clinton is seen (and has been for some time) as the inevitable candidate for the Democrats. Barring someone like Obama showing up (or, I suppose, Clinton actually getting indicted), that's not likely to change. And Bernie Sanders is no Obama.


Once again, you are confusing the current state of the Dem primary with the normal state of a political primary (especially the current GOP primary). Normally, you have a bunch of people running, any one of whom may come out on top (usually there's 3-4 that are considered serious contenders, but sometimes it's more open), and lots of people sit on the sidelines and wait to pledge support. This Dem primary is *not* like that. As I think I mentioned earlier (can't remember which thread), it's becoming apparent that some kind of backroom deal was made to ensure Clinton got a clean run this time around, and it looks like the Democrats are holding to that agreement for some reason. Either that, or they really do just not have anything remotely resembling a healthy stable of potential candidates to go out there.

Sanders getting in is basically a "***** you guys, I'm going to do what I want". He's the crazy uncle at the holiday dinner and just doesn't care. But his action has pointed out just how weak Clinton really is. And I suspect that the party isn't sure how to handlle that.

Once again, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that she is so weak that she would place at least third in a Democratic race with another strong candidate running WHILE at the same time arguing that the other candidates won't garner enough support to make a difference in the general election if they chose not to support Clinton.

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

Can you link to the poll then? Because I'm not sure what it's trying to measure here. It's a pretty silly premise since you can never know for sure if a candidate can't win. To me, this is probably measuring the degree to which those taking the poll believe whatever is telling them their candidate can't win. So 23% would continue to support Clinton even if they were told (again, it's unclear how this is presented to the people taking this poll) that she had no chance to win. 23% would not bother to show up. To me, those are bad numbers. If you strongly support a candidate, you'd vote for that candidate no matter what external polling data suggested. What is the alternative? Vote for the other party? If she's really going to lose either way, then it doesn't matter how you vote.

I'm not sure why you'd think this means she's strong. Do you have data on other candidates polled in the same way so we can compare? Right now, all I see is data with no context.

Let's assume you are supporting Walker. Walker and JEB appears to be the two front runners that will take it to the end. Let's say that Walker is polling near zero in Flordia but JEB is within the margin of error with Rubio. Who do you vote for?

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

Sigh. The total number of funding and support for a given party as a whole is pretty fixed at any given point in the election process. The total amount spent on attack ads against Clinton would be the same whether there were 18 people in the GOP primary, or 5. And frankly, the GOP candidates aren't focused on attacking Clinton yet. They're focused on trying to win the primary. They are spending their personal campaign time/effort/money attacking the other 17 GOP primary candidates. What little is being spent attacking Clinton is coming from various interest groups, GOP PACs, and the RNC. Again, they'd do that to the same degree regardless of how many GOP candidates there are in the primary race.

This is why negatives are higher among a party based on how many are in the primary race. When you've got 18 people in the race, that means you're facing attacks from 17 other candidates (most of it focused on the frontrunners). When you're the only person in the race, you face very little. The problem for Clinton is how poorly she's faring against the relatively small amount of "attacks" coming from the GOP right now. As the GOP field trims down, more attention will be paid to her by the GOP itself. And, of course, once a nominee arises, all of it will be. Right now, her negatives are largely just because of her own past. And she's struggling against just that.

For the exception of Trump, those candidates are not attacking each other, they are all attacking HRC. They even held rallies together to support MS Kentucky Bigot lady and to oppose the Iran nuclear deal. Ben Carson and Rick Perry even fought to get Carla in the CNN debate. I'm not sure what primary you're watching, but most of the hostility has been towards HRC. You can live in denial all you want, but it's a huge difference when you have 18 people, plus Congress attacking you vs one person.

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

Surely you can see how polling numbers after that has happened are going to be the result of those other candidates not entering the race. Saying "she's polling at X number among Dem voters" is meaningless when she's essentially the only viable choice for them to pick. As I pointed out earlier, just last year, with Warren and Sanders in the race, Clinton polled third. She isn't the only person in the race because she had such high polling numbers, so no one else should bother,, but because the party powers-that-be decided that she would be the only person in the race and that she would get the full support of the party regardless of who else ran. That drove away other candidates, who, out of party loyalty, have held back to give her the shot. Well, except for crazy uncle Sanders, of course.

I'm talking about her polling numbers now. You were the one talking about how high her support was among Dem primary voters (the screen shot from MSNBC was from late August, right?). My counter is that she's the only serious candidate for them to poll for, which is why her numbers appear to be high (especially compared to the GOP candidates). That's an effect of her being the only candidate in the race, not the cause her being the only candidate in the race. Effect can't come before cause.

Since, I literally binge watch the news, I can tell you that poll was an outlier. Every single poll until recently has had HRC on top. You're telling me that if Biden were polling 50% in the polls, that he wouldn't be running now? Biden, Warren and Sanders were all averaging under 20. Look at the aggregate of polls, even with all of the baggage that HRC has, she still overwhelmingly wins the vast of the polls.

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

Who's "they"? And again, I suspect you don't understand why the opposition might do this. The GOP would love for more serious contenders to appear in the Dem primary, if for no other reason than it would force Clinton to spend more time/money defending herself. It also produces this lovely effect where primary opponents often raise concerns that the opposition party can then use later in the general, and when countered on partisan grounds, can simply quote the primary candidate saying the same thing. Hey look! We're not just saying this because we're Republicans, because <insert Democrat primary candidate here> said the same thing about Clinton a few months ago!

Which, btw, is exactly why the Democratic Party has set this primary up for Clinton to be (relatively) unopposed. They hope that the lack of true opposition in the primary will result in less problems for Clinton in the general election. It's not a bad strategy, but the problem is that primaries exist for a reason. They help weed out candidates who can't win by revealing their weaknesses prior to nomination. It's about finding the strongest candidate to represent the party. And while it's possible to find that strongest candidate by executive decision, it's just as likely (more likely in all probability) that you'll pick someone who is a disaster and not realize it until too late.

The danger with their approach is that it's very hard to know if this is happening precisely because polling will still appear to be "good", because she's the only serious candidate in the race. That's what I'm trying to get you to understand. For an "inevitable" candidate, she's not doing very well.

You win the award of creating the largest crock of crap out of anything. If anyone wants HRC to have a strong opponent, it's the Democrats. They want her prepared when she faces the GOP candidate who fought out 17 people.