Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fudbucker said:
Quinnipiac has Hillary tied with trump in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-clinton-florida-ohio-pennsylvania-222994

You can only blame the polling organizations for so long...

If the next CNN poll has it within the margin (or Hillary losing), will you admit that it very troubling?
Click to expand...
Now you're jumping to single state polls? Do you realize that to win, Trump will need to win all three of those states, but Clinton will not?
 
wareyin said:
Now you're jumping to single state polls? Do you realize that to win, Trump will need to win all three of those states, but Clinton will not?
Click to expand...

I'm showing a different polling outfit that shows a similar horrible result for Clinton: SHE SHOULD NOT BE TIED WITH TRUMP IN ANY OF THOSE STATES!

She is. It's not good news.
 
Fudbucker said:
I'm showing a different polling outfit that shows a similar horrible result for Clinton: SHE SHOULD NOT BE TIED WITH TRUMP IN ANY OF THOSE STATES!

She is. It's not good news.
Click to expand...
That is not horrible news for Clinton, for the reason I already gave you. Being tied in a few states this early in the game is not the same as nationwide polls, and fox and Rasmussen always skew very heavily right. I get that some want to run around screaming that the sky is falling for Clinton, but given you were making similar claims about Clinton vs Sanders, I'll take them with a large amount of salt.
 
Fudbucker said:
Oh, and Rasmussen had Romney up by 1 before the election, which wasn't exactly a "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment.

Fox had it tied.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Even if you give Fox and Rasummessen a 4 point "right wing" hedge, they still show the race as within the margin of error between Clinton and Trump.

WHY is Clinton not cleaning Trump's clock? Because she's a horrible candidate.
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton Polls: Donald Trump’s Post-Nomination Bump Could Be Over As Clinton Back On Top In The Polls
Trump suddenly and unexpectedly brought an end to the Republican primary earlier this month after winning the Indiana primary. To that point, both Ted Cruz and John Kasich appeared committed to fighting Trump all the way to the Republican National Convention, attempting to wrestle away the nomination if Trump failed to reach the threshold for an automatic win, but the Indiana primary led both Cruz and Kasich to drop out.
With his long battle now over, Trump has enjoyed nearly three weeks of mending fences within the party and focusing his attention solely on Hillary Clinton, and that showed this week with a series of polls that had him either statistically tied with Clinton or with a slight lead....
Click to expand...

You really need to do more to do more to investigate the significance of evidence before you draw your conclusions.
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
That is not horrible news for Clinton, for the reason I already gave you. Being tied in a few states this early in the game is not the same as nationwide polls, and fox and Rasmussen always skew very heavily right. I get that some want to run around screaming that the sky is falling for Clinton, but given you were making similar claims about Clinton vs Sanders, I'll take them with a large amount of salt.
Click to expand...

Proof for these claims? I claimed Clinton is a horrible candidate who shouldn't have lost multiple states to Bernie. This is true.

Where did I claim "the sky is falling" with regards to Clinton vs Sanders? Post the link or retract your claim.
 
wareyin said:
That is not horrible news for Clinton, for the reason I already gave you. Being tied in a few states this early in the game is not the same as nationwide polls, and fox and Rasmussen always skew very heavily right. I get that some want to run around screaming that the sky is falling for Clinton, but given you were making similar claims about Clinton vs Sanders, I'll take them with a large amount of salt.
Click to expand...

You're also dealing with polling while Bernie Sanders is staying around as "candidate." Obama had a similar problem with national polls when Hillary was still around as a "candidate" in 2008 against McCain.
 
Fudbucker said:
Proof for these claims? I claimed Clinton is a horrible candidate who shouldn't have lost multiple states to Bernie. This is true.

Where did I claim "the sky is falling" with regards to Clinton vs Sanders? Post the link or retract your claim.
Click to expand...
I did not put "the sky is falling" in quotes. You have gone on and on about what a terrible candidate Clinton is, yet she is doing better than any other candidate has in over a decade. Now that she's put Sanders away, you've switched to how horrible she is vs Trump. When she beats Trump, I have no doubt that you will continue to talk about how easily she can be beat. As I said, given your history of accuracy, I'm not getting worried.
 
wareyin said:
I did not put "the sky is falling" in quotes. You have gone on and on about what a terrible candidate Clinton is, yet she is doing better than any other candidate has in over a decade. Now that she's put Sanders away, you've switched to how horrible she is vs Trump. When she beats Trump, I have no doubt that you will continue to talk about how easily she can be beat. As I said, given your history of accuracy, I'm not getting worried.
Click to expand...

You should because my accuracy is spot on: she continues to lose states to Bernie, she still isn't the presumptive nominee, and now Trump is beating her in two national polls, and tied with her in three critical battleground states that Obama carried.

If she were a good candidate, none of the above would be true. Since it's all true, she's not a good candidate.
 
Fudbucker said:
You should because my accuracy is spot on: she continues to lose states to Bernie, she still isn't the presumptive nominee, and now Trump is beating her in two national polls, and tied with her in three critical battleground states that Obama carried.

If she were a good candidate, none of the above would be true. Since it's all true, she's not a good candidate.
Click to expand...
Whatever helps you sleep at night. I'm not worried about Trump, and Bernie is done.
 
Fudbucker said:
You should because my accuracy is spot on: she continues to lose states to Bernie, she still isn't the presumptive nominee, and now Trump is beating her in two national polls, and tied with her in three critical battleground states that Obama carried.

If she were a good candidate, none of the above would be true. Since it's all true, she's not a good candidate.
Click to expand...
According to whom?

Where are you getting your facts from? There are over 900 delegates left, she needs 90. There is zero movement of her superdelegates to Sanders' side.

Clinton herself, most people that are not fantasizing that Sanders can do it, and I, all award her the status of presumptive nominee.

The news media keeps trying to keep the story alive saying that "she just can't put Sanders away". :rolleyes:

Yes, she can and has.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
According to whom?

Where are you getting your facts from? There are over 900 delegates left, she needs 90. There is zero movement of her superdelegates to Sanders' side.

Clinton herself, most people that are not fantasizing that Sanders can do it, and I, all award her the status of presumptive nominee.

The news media keeps trying to keep the story alive saying that "she just can't put Sanders away". :rolleyes:

Yes, she can and has.
Click to expand...

According to the DNC. Has the DNC announced Clinton is the presumptive nominee, like the GOP did with Trump after Indiana? No? Then she's not the presumptive nominee.
 
Fudbucker said:
If she were a good candidate, none of the above would be true. Since it's all true, she's not a good candidate.
Click to expand...

I guess then Obama was an even worse candidate since at this point in 2008 he was behind in the popular vote, was losing States to Hillary, and was only about 100 Delegates ahead, and on top of that he didn't have a massive day in Jun with California and New Jersey and over 900 delegates still to be determined.
 
PhantomWolf said:
I guess then Obama was an even worse candidate since at this point in 2008 he was behind in the popular vote, was losing States to Hillary, and was only about 100 Delegates ahead, and on top of that he didn't have a massive day in Jun with California and New Jersey and over 900 delegates still to be determined.
Click to expand...

So your defense of Hillary is to point out she lost to Obama?
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
Let me ask you something, guys: I see a lot of threads like "Hillary is done", "Sanders is done", "Trump is done" etc, in all of them, posters very passionately trying to put the final verdict on who's gonna win and who's gonna lose.... Now I'm no expert on this subject but wouldn't you say that, with still 6 more months left with this whole race, that maybe it's a bit early to make any final verdicts?
Click to expand...

You're familiar with gold bugs and stock pumpers? The "coming financial meltdown" preachers? It's a combination of all.

They're pimping their position in some cases, hoping that their meme will catch on. In others, like this thread (and like the "Buy My Book To Prepare For the Coming Financial Meltdown) they're going to claim that regardless of the fact that they've made this prediction week after week after week for a decade, the clocks still running. When Hillary retires in 2035 and finally passes away peacefully in her sleep, 16.5 will be here to claim victory.

In defense of sanity, I'll say that we have at least one thread where we call ourselves and our erroneous (Trump Will Never Be Nominated) prognostications. Those threads are few and far between. The politics sub-forums are where skepticism goes to die. It's all partisanship and posturing and based on opinions and taste. Check your critical thinking at the door.
 
Fudbucker said:
Oh, and Rasmussen had Romney up by 1 before the election, which wasn't exactly a "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment.

Fox had it tied.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Even if you give Fox and Rasummessen a 4 point "right wing" hedge, they still show the race as within the margin of error between Clinton and Trump.

WHY is Clinton not cleaning Trump's clock? Because she's a horrible candidate.
Click to expand...

Ah, the cleansing effect. Follow Rasmussen and Fox polls for the months before the election in 2012. They adjust their last poll before the election so that it's closer to reality, but for months ahead, while the DNC in-house polls and Silver had it pretty accurate, Fox had the GOP talking to their designers for outfits to wear to the inaugural ball. Mitt was shopping for a formal-ware dog cage to put on top of the presidential limo.

Remember Karl's meltdown over the final count in Ohio (after his twitches and grimaces as he'd seen PA, FL, VA go against their figures)? It was due to taking polling info from their echo chamber.

And, as I've mentioned elsewhere, candidates get "bumps". One such is when the nomination is assured and people who were previously fighting the newly anointed close ranks for their party. Trump got that bump. Hillary is still in a mock battle. In April, anti-Trump Republicans would be answering a Trump vs Hillary with a "No Opinion" or even a "Hillary". They're all wrapped up in the current battle, and just like Sanders supporters, the emotions at the time are "Hell, I'd vote for Mr. Ed before I'd vote for that evil scumbag who's beating my beloved candidate."

The other two momentary bumps will come at the conventions. Both candidates get them in the polls in the week after the four-day love fests.
 
Fudbucker said:
According to the DNC. Has the DNC announced Clinton is the presumptive nominee, like the GOP did with Trump after Indiana? No? Then she's not the presumptive nominee.
Click to expand...
So in addition to not understanding the predictive value of national polls 6 month out, you also don't know the definition of presumptive nominee.

Presumptive Nominee
In United States presidential elections, the presumptive nominee is a presidential candidate who is assured of his or her party's nomination, but has not yet been formally nominated by his or her political party at the party's nominating convention.[3][4] Ordinarily, a candidate becomes the presumptive nominee of his or her party when his or her "last serious challenger drops out" or when he or she "mathematically clinches—whichever comes first.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom