Hillary Clinton is Done

[Skeptic Ginger]

Weren't you talking about Clinton losing points in the polls earlier?

Yep, can't link on Tapatalk, but I found it.* Odd, how the polls don't matter when Clinton is increasing her substantial lead over the closest rival, but they are something to point out when her substantial lead over Sanders gets smaller.


*eta: at post 1115

Post #1115

Its not so much the current stat, as it is the trend.

"Poll: Virginia Democrats considering alternatives to Hillary Clinton"
http://www.13newsnow.com/story/news...dering-alternatives-hillary-clinton/73825080/


She's lost 40 points over the last 6 months, another 40 over the next 6 months would be just about right.

Just as I thought.

 

[Trakar]

Post #1115
Just as I thought.

Two wildly divergent data points over the same time frame do not establish or support a trend, we'll see if the next 6 months continue the trend of the last 6 months, or not. HRC would be better than any left on the Republican side of the aisle,...at least marginally, but not enough to get me to vote for her.

 

[Trakar]

Weren't you talking about Clinton losing points in the polls earlier?
*eta: at post 1115

No, I was talking about Clinton trending downward in the polls for the last 6 months. A couple of short term wiggles in the polling over a week do not establish a new, or reverse an existing, trend. You sound like a Senator trying to dismiss climate change by throwing a snowball from the podium

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sanders peaked two months ago and has only moved up and down small amounts since. Clinton has been moving up in the poll averages since her lowest point a month ago.

Considering she's never been below 40% and Sanders has never been above 30% in national poll averages, I think it has at least some meaning.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep..._democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I know this is more or less a conversation killer and full of logic but unless Bernie Sanders pulls a huge upset the only time Hillary can be done is if her campaign utterly collapses from a real indictment that hasn't happened yet or if she flops in the general elections.

Her competition in the primaries is literally so weak at this point that she's almost identifiable as the nominee with or without her existing scandals... which kills all the suspense. Seeing the democratic debates pretty well sat that feeling in. Bernie Sanders has an uphill fight on his hands and these guys have not run attacks ads on each other yet either.

My "realist" view is that even if she "finishes" at the GE's, it could still be a squeaker.
So I really hate being a party pooper but maybe someone should find the last iteration of this thread from 2008 to find all the "done" remarks when Hillary pushed her campaign so brutally and so far before she conceded to Obama's nomination... One thing I could remark about her last campaign is that she's not a quitter

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I know this is more or less a conversation killer and full of logic but unless Bernie Sanders pulls a huge upset the only time Hillary can be done is if her campaign utterly collapses from a real indictment that hasn't happened yet or if she flops in the general elections.

Her competition in the primaries is literally so weak at this point that she's almost identifiable as the nominee with or without her existing scandals... which kills all the suspense. Seeing the democratic debates pretty well sat that feeling in. Bernie Sanders has an uphill fight on his hands and these guys have not run attacks ads on each other yet either.

My "realist" view is that even if she "finishes" at the GE's, it could still be a squeaker.
So I really hate being a party pooper but maybe someone should find the last iteration of this thread from 2008 to find all the "done" remarks when Hillary pushed her campaign so brutally and so far before she conceded to Obama's nomination... One thing I could remark about her last campaign is that she's not a quitter

Sir, Barack Obama served as President. I saw Barack Obama. He was a good President. Sir, Bernie Sanders is no Barack Obama.

Sanders and Obama are simply not comparable.


My realist POV is that the general public and even the Democratic Party are not going to buy the major changes all at once that a Socialist Sanders is selling. It's like Trump, there is a very enthusiastic core, but there is not the necessary growing movement.

 

[Trakar]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html[/url]

According to your reference, Hillary reached her peak a couple of weeks (May 12th) after she announced her Whitehouse bid for 2016 when she hit 64.2% and is currently at 47%. Sanders started out with his presidential announcement on May 26 (coincidentally when Hillary start steadily heading downward in her polls) on RCPs averaged polls at 12.8% and has since risen to 25.4%. He did poll his highest peak yet about 2 weeks ago 2.2% points higher than his current rate of 25.4% - coincidentally, at about the same time that Hillary reached her lowest trough yet at 40.5%

What I'm looking at, is that though Hillary was the anointed one back in Jan., since Bernie announced his candidacy, she has lost about 27% of her support. Over the same time frame, Senator Sanders' support has increased by 98%. If both of these trends continue the two candidates should reach parity round the end of December to the middle of January (provided there are not major surprises on either side).

But, only time will tell, and how well Hillary does, or does not do, doesn't really interest me one way or another, because the only one of the two I will ever vote for (Primary or General), out of those two, is Bernie Sanders.

 

[BenBurch]

My prediction; this quarter, Sanders will raise MORE money than Clinton.

 

[Trakar]

My prediction; this quarter, Sanders will raise MORE money than Clinton.

Sounds like a safe bet! The vast majority of the people who have already donated to Sanders, can repeat the donations they've already made many, many times. And his number of like donors is still rapidly increasing There are a lot more people who can and will donate $30-40 several times, than there are individuals who will give $2,700 one time. Of course, there are SuperPACs (for now) for those very few who feel that a few million here and there is a good investment in Tat, and think a weekend in the Lincoln Bedroom would be an interesting lark

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

According to your reference, Hillary reached her peak a couple of weeks (May 12th) after she announced her Whitehouse bid for 2016 when she hit 64.2% and is currently at 47%. Sanders started out with his presidential announcement on May 26 (coincidentally when Hillary start steadily heading downward in her polls) on RCPs averaged polls at 12.8% and has since risen to 25.4%. He did poll his highest peak yet about 2 weeks ago 2.2% points higher than his current rate of 25.4% - coincidentally, at about the same time that Hillary reached her lowest trough yet at 40.5%

What I'm looking at, is that though Hillary was the anointed one back in Jan., since Bernie announced his candidacy, she has lost about 27% of her support. Over the same time frame, Senator Sanders' support has increased by 98%. If both of these trends continue the two candidates should reach parity round the end of December to the middle of January (provided there are not major surprises on either side).

But, only time will tell, and how well Hillary does, or does not do, doesn't really interest me one way or another, because the only one of the two I will ever vote for (Primary or General), out of those two, is Bernie Sanders.

We all know the game of making statistics support variable conclusions.

You are comparing apples to oranges. You said it yourself, Clinton was anointed. So you have to look at the natural course of events when someone starts out as the darling and the press starts looking more closely. That is no doubt going to happen to Carson. He might keep his Evangelical base, but when the press starts focusing more on his stranger side he won't look so good.

I'm not going to argue with you. You're a Sanders; fan and I'm a Clinton realist.

Time will settle this.

 

[Foolmewunz]

We all know the game of making statistics support variable conclusions.

You are comparing apples to oranges. You said it yourself, Clinton was anointed. So you have to look at the natural course of events when someone starts out as the darling and the press starts looking more closely. That is no doubt going to happen to Carson. He might keep his Evangelical base, but when the press starts focusing more on his stranger side he won't look so good.

I'm not going to argue with you. You're a Sanders; fan and I'm a Clinton realist. Time will settle this.

Hilited: Isn't it possible to be both? I'm going to support Sanders' run until he's done. I want the debate within the party and a re-centering of the leaders a bit farther to the left. But the realist will support Clinton's ultimate candidacy because the Republicans are evil and dangerous. The least or best of them is still beholden to the GOP and it's the party that's become dangerous, not just the occasional whack-job... they're pretty much all whack-jobs.

 

[Trakar]

Hilited: Isn't it possible to be both? I'm going to support Sanders' run until he's done. I want the debate within the party and a re-centering of the leaders a bit farther to the left. But the realist will support Clinton's ultimate candidacy because the Republicans are evil and dangerous. The least or best of them is still beholden to the GOP and it's the party that's become dangerous, not just the occasional whack-job... they're pretty much all whack-jobs.

I don't dispute your points, but my consideration is different because I don't feel that I can trust anything HRC says, other than that she wants to be president and will do whatever she thinks she can, and needs to do, to achieve that end. Voting on that basis primarily, that is a bar I refuse to lower myself to, ever again. She may be better on some issues than the best of the GOP candidates, but I don't feel that I can believe much of anything she says, so I don't know even that, for sure.

Even in her pandering, she doesn't meet my standards of minimally necessary Progressivism to lead the nation in the proper direction. I had much the same problem with Obama, which was the reason I supported Hillary in the Dem Primaries in the '08 campaign (at least she was a better choice than Obama - never again, that was the last time I waste my vote on either face of the corporatist monopoly party, I'd rather waste it on what I believe in, than anything that I am fundamentally against---or anything I can't trust to not represent things I am fundamentally against)....[/soapbox]

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hilited: Isn't it possible to be both? I'm going to support Sanders' run until he's done. I want the debate within the party and a re-centering of the leaders a bit farther to the left. But the realist will support Clinton's ultimate candidacy because the Republicans are evil and dangerous. The least or best of them is still beholden to the GOP and it's the party that's become dangerous, not just the occasional whack-job... they're pretty much all whack-jobs.

At first I thought about voting for Sanders to promote the issue of the problematic growing rich/poor divide. But the more I saw of Sanders the more his ideas didn't sound realistic. I've been around long enough, I've seen movements, real ones. I saw what people saw in Obama. It's not there with Sanders. This country is not going to suddenly become Sweden or even the EU.

Then it started to bother me more and more that from my POV, just like there was/is an undercurrent of racism expressed by some (not all, but some) people toward Obama, there's sexism that is affecting how some, not all, people perceive Clinton. And that matters to me as well.

So are we going to address the shrinking middle class with a candidate that is not going to accomplish it even if he won the primary? Heck, I don't see Sanders accomplishing anything even if he's elected President. If there's going to be movement, and I hope there is, then we should see evidence of it in the Congressional elections. If you don't see it there, it ain't gonna happen with Sanders at the top.

But the sexism, that is going to be affected by a Clinton Presidency. I see an impact on women that might even ripple around the world. And I don't see her caving completely to the 1%. Bill Clinton caved some, Obama caved some, but both Presidencies were so much better than the Republicans that held the office before and after them respectively.

And there's one more big thing that I think matters. The world is a mess. Russia, Iran, ISIS, Syria, hundreds of thousands of refugees marching on the EU, idiot ideologues who think random acts of mass murder will get them 72 virgins in paradise, Israel that still thinks bulldozing houses is effective (you'd think they'd figure it out it isn't helping their cause), and closer to home, crime syndicates in Mexico and Central America (though I'm not happy how Clinton addressed the Honduras crisis)... anyway you get the picture. This is no time to put a one trick pony in the office of President.

So, I'm supporting Clinton all the way. I so do agree with Sanders' philosophy and with his solutions. I hope Elizabeth Warren continues to be very effective in the Senate.

But this is a time we need a competent President. There are mothers' sons dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. My son is 26. He's not about to enlist and I don't want him to. My brother's stepson was in the military and now he's working with military contractors. My brother disapproved that I didn't want my son to enlist. My stupid brother has the values that we should lose our kids because it's their duty. Screw that. But at the same time, I don't want other kids being sacrificed in the name of duty to country. Need I ask if you'd send Marcello off to do his duty if he might die in a war?

So as much as Sanders is addressing an incredibly important cause, what about the mess the rest of the world is experiencing? I would love to be in Canada right now, Trudeau simply saying, we're out of there. I don't know if that's the right answer for us. Bush screwed the world up, bad.

I think that sums my position up. Yes, Sanders has a point. But there is so much more at stake.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't dispute your points, but my consideration is different because I don't feel that I can trust anything HRC says, other than that she wants to be president and will do whatever she thinks she can, and needs to do, to achieve that end. Voting on that basis primarily, that is a bar I refuse to lower myself to, ever again. She may be better on some issues than the best of the GOP candidates, but I don't feel that I can believe much of anything she says, so I don't know even that, for sure.

Even in her pandering, she doesn't meet my standards of minimally necessary Progressivism to lead the nation in the proper direction. I had much the same problem with Obama, which was the reason I supported Hillary in the Dem Primaries in the '08 campaign (at least she was a better choice than Obama - never again, that was the last time I waste my vote on either face of the corporatist monopoly party, I'd rather waste it on what I believe in, than anything that I am fundamentally against---or anything I can't trust to not represent things I am fundamentally against)....[/soapbox]

And just what horror do you think said untrustworthy Clinton is going to do?

 

[Trakar]

...But this is a time we need a competent President. There are mothers' sons dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. My son is 26. He's not about to enlist and I don't want him to. My brother's stepson was in the military and now he's working with military contractors. My brother disapproved that I didn't want my son to enlist. My stupid brother has the values that we should lose our kids because it's their duty. Screw that. But at the same time, I don't want other kids being sacrificed in the name of duty to country. Need I ask if you'd send Marcello off to do his duty if he might die in a war?...

Military service is a personal choice, not one that others can generally make for you, one way or the other. it is good that you support your son's choice, but I find it curious that you seem to find disgust in your nephew's choice to enlist.

I agree completely with Sanders that war, should always be the last option and choice, and generally only used when left with no other choice. Soldiers do not mind risking their lives to protect their nation, but most get pretty pissed off when they are asked to die for partisan ideological whims and fancies.

 

[Trakar]

And just what horror do you think said untrustworthy Clinton is going to do?

I'm more concerned about what she won't do with regards to corporatism run wild, the planet wide disasters of human forced climate change, wealth and racial inequality, and the list continues to grow...

 

[Foolmewunz]

At first I thought about voting for Sanders to promote the issue of the problematic growing rich/poor divide. But the more I saw of Sanders the more his ideas didn't sound realistic. I've been around long enough, I've seen movements, real ones. I saw what people saw in Obama. It's not there with Sanders. This country is not going to suddenly become Sweden or even the EU.

Then it started to bother me more and more that from my POV, just like there was/is an undercurrent of racism expressed by some (not all, but some) people toward Obama, there's sexism that is affecting how some, not all, people perceive Clinton. And that matters to me as well.

So are we going to address the shrinking middle class with a candidate that is not going to accomplish it even if he won the primary? Heck, I don't see Sanders accomplishing anything even if he's elected President. If there's going to be movement, and I hope there is, then we should see evidence of it in the Congressional elections. If you don't see it there, it ain't gonna happen with Sanders at the top.

But the sexism, that is going to be affected by a Clinton Presidency. I see an impact on women that might even ripple around the world. And I don't see her caving completely to the 1%. Bill Clinton caved some, Obama caved some, but both Presidencies were so much better than the Republicans that held the office before and after them respectively.

And there's one more big thing that I think matters. The world is a mess. Russia, Iran, ISIS, Syria, hundreds of thousands of refugees marching on the EU, idiot ideologues who think random acts of mass murder will get them 72 virgins in paradise, Israel that still thinks bulldozing houses is effective (you'd think they'd figure it out it isn't helping their cause), and closer to home, crime syndicates in Mexico and Central America (though I'm not happy how Clinton addressed the Honduras crisis)... anyway you get the picture. This is no time to put a one trick pony in the office of President.

So, I'm supporting Clinton all the way. I so do agree with Sanders' philosophy and with his solutions. I hope Elizabeth Warren continues to be very effective in the Senate.

But this is a time we need a competent President. There are mothers' sons dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. My son is 26. He's not about to enlist and I don't want him to. My brother's stepson was in the military and now he's working with military contractors. My brother disapproved that I didn't want my son to enlist. My stupid brother has the values that we should lose our kids because it's their duty. Screw that. But at the same time, I don't want other kids being sacrificed in the name of duty to country. Need I ask if you'd send Marcello off to do his duty if he might die in a war?

So as much as Sanders is addressing an incredibly important cause, what about the mess the rest of the world is experiencing? I would love to be in Canada right now, Trudeau simply saying, we're out of there. I don't know if that's the right answer for us. Bush screwed the world up, bad.

I think that sums my position up. Yes, Sanders has a point. But there is so much more at stake.

I don't disagree with much you say, except the opening and closing. I don't think it's going to come down to "voting" for Sanders... I think he'll have conceded by the New York primary in mid-April. But I'll support him in posts and verbally among friends, because he's closer to my own beliefs.

And as to what the country needs? Yes, we need a strong leader but not so strong as to one who doesn't listen. I like Hillary's evolution on various topics. It's an old argument: Which is better, a politician with a vision who will follow that vision regardless or a politician who actually moves with changing times even if it means seeming to contradict a former position? But for the future of the country, I personally feel that it's equally important the the Democratic Party stop trying to sell itself as Republican Lite and get back to its populist basis. Reclaim the reasonable middle and left-of-middle. When the oppositions biggest insult is "LOL! Libruls!", the answer should be "Yep, and damned proud of it!" Posters on these boards are not the general population of Dems running for office. Most of them, as you know, spend a lot of money showing just how Not Liberal they are. Obama showed that there's a motivated and dedicated liberal/progressive bloc out there. They need to move towards it. I think Sanders' candidacy helps and I want to see him in the race long enough to keep that discussion going. If it forces Billary to the left? Good! I'll take it because I think she's going to win, anyway. Reminding her (as it took ten year to remind Obama) of that constituency is important.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I'm more concerned about what she won't do with regards to corporatism run wild, the planet wide disasters of human forced climate change, wealth and racial inequality, and the list continues to grow...

I'm concerned about the Clinton/Obama cozy relationship with Wall Street and the money brokers. I think this is as much a party problem as anything else, though. That's why I'm a supporter of Sanders, of sorts. I agree with SG that he has too many perceived negatives (which the GOP will exploit horrifically) for most of the country and cannot win the General Election. So I'm behind him for the positions and because he's giving voice to a large segment of the electorate who get ignored, even in the Democratic Party.

But reality is that I think the bigger picture is stopping the GOP, the modern version of which is very worrisome to me.

 

[The Big Dog]

So, I'm supporting Clinton all the way. I so do agree with Sanders' philosophy and with his solutions. I hope Elizabeth Warren continues to be very effective in the Senate.

But this is a time we need a competent President. There are mothers' sons dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. My son is 26. He's not about to enlist and I don't want him to. My brother's stepson was in the military and now he's working with military contractors. My brother disapproved that I didn't want my son to enlist. My stupid brother has the values that we should lose our kids because it's their duty. Screw that. But at the same time, I don't want other kids being sacrificed in the name of duty to country. .

Wait, you know Hillary voted for the Iraq War Authorization, right?

You know she and her top adviser Sid Blumenthal were advocating regime change throughout the Middle East, right?

By the way, spectacular appeal to emotion, there.

 

[BenBurch]

Trouble is that this isn't binary. Sanders has support from people who do not consider themselves Democrats and who would not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. You cannot get their votes by appealing to Democrat Solidarity.