Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Ginger said:
There's nothing special about Clinton's numbers falling and Sanders' rising unless you can show that the trend is continuing, which it isn't.
Click to expand...


In fact, it's to be expected. Clinton's name recognition couldn't have started any higher and the other contenders could barely have started lower. As name recognition caught up, it took votes from Clinton and distributed them (mostly to Sanders). That effect ended.

The next phase is when undecided voters start to commit. Everyone's numbers should improve and, in fact, Clinton and Sanders have been improving about evenly.

At some point, you achieve information saturation. There are no new votes to get. You might try to rally non-likely-voters, but there's not much chance of them coming out for an election they think has already been decided. Polls will move around a few points, but they won't really change.

And that's exactly what the Democratic polls show. Clinton lost points to Sanders for a bit, then both candidates improved, soon (if not already) everything will flatten out. This RealClearPolitics tracking of averages of 5 national polls tells the same story. The name-recognition effect lasted until late September. Information Saturation was reached on November 4 when about 10% of Democratic voters made up their minds over a 48-hour period for some damn reason. Since then, Clinton and Sanders have stayed evenly apart (Sanders appears to recently have lost a few points to O'Malley but he'll get those back).

Are there any long-term trending polls that show otherwise?
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
I'm sorry, are you seeing something in that link that suggests Sanders' is steadily closing the gap with Clinton?
Click to expand...

nothing but the data.

Skeptic Ginger said:
There's nothing special about Clinton's numbers falling and Sanders' rising unless you can show that the trend is continuing, which it isn't.
Click to expand...

Sander's overall trend is upwards, Hillary still hasn't met or exceeded the numbers she was at when Sanders announced his candidacy, the initial gap has been closing since he entered the primary.
 
Loss Leader said:
In fact, it's to be expected. Clinton's name recognition couldn't have started any higher and the other contenders could barely have started lower. As name recognition caught up, it took votes from Clinton and distributed them (mostly to Sanders). That effect ended...
Click to expand...

Data suggests that name recognition is still not equal, though it has improved since May. I suspect that it will not reach full equity during this election cycle. The real question, however, is whether or not it can reach the point where the Sanders campaign can pull enough of the traditional voters and supporters that when combined with enough of the new voters and supporters he is bringing back into the system, it will give him a strong enough constituency to control his own future. I'm estimating that tipping point number of traditional voters to be around 40-45% of those that show up in most democratic polling data as likely voters.

If he gets it by the time the primaries actually start it becomes a race, if he doesn't, I suggest you will see a gradually increasing disinterest among most progressives until next November
 
Trakar said:
Now what story is that Conservative organization's selected poll averages telling? ...
Click to expand...

BenBurch said:
We rave about them because we know there is a systematic bias on these results.

You are doing nowhere near as well as you believe.

And you candidate is alienating progressives and liberals daily.
Click to expand...
Gentlemen, it's my sense that you are engaging in wishful thinking of a high order.

Despite their political leanings, I see no reason to distrust RCP's poll aggregation. But what the heck, let's see what experts have to say, like Nate Silver. (And Clinton has trended up since this article.) Hate to burst your bubble.
 
BenBurch said:
Enjoy the surprise you have coming.
Click to expand...

Which is what ? Sanders winning the nomination ?

Honestly, I'd be fine with that, and I have seen others with similar sentiments. Just don't think it's going to happen. At all. *shrugs*
 
BenBurch said:
Winning it by a large margin, what's more.
Click to expand...


I agree with the King of Rock and Roll. There is absolutely no indication that Sanders is going to gain much more support from Democratic voters. There's no indication that Sanders is going to pull in some large group of new voters to the primary who haven't been counted in polls. Sanders may win the straw polls and maybe even New Hampshire, but there's no path for him that leads to a primary victory.

However:

As TheL8Elvis said, I wouldn't mind very much if Sanders won the nomination. I wouldn't have minded if Clinton beat Obama in '08. Both Clinton and Sanders would be fine nominees.
 
varwoche said:
Gentlemen, it's my sense that you are engaging in wishful thinking of a high order.

Despite their political leanings, I see no reason to distrust RCP's poll aggregation. But what the heck, let's see what experts have to say, like Nate Silver. (And Clinton has trended up since this article.) Hate to burst your bubble.
Click to expand...

You could have at least made an effort to find a neutral or balanced example, instead you leapt from establishment conservative (RCP) to establishment conservative-lite (establishment Clinton),...not that this is terribly surprising from a Hillary supporter, but when that is your world view what else is to be expected?

As to the rest, time will tell.

If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, I will have to spend some time trying to figure out if there is anyone worth an effort to support at the top of the ticket, but most of my down ticket choices are already set. I'll have a lot more time to devote to other things as I won't have to do all the local meets, neighborhood position canvassing and voter registration/get-out-the-vote organizing that is currently filling my 2016 schedule.
 
16.5 said:
Yes, we will all stop pointing out facts that show that the 9/11 attack profiteer is completely unelectable.

Hillary 2016
Click to expand...

Is that what's happening here? Apparently the American public disagrees with you because her polling numbers still have her sitting on the top of the heap. I don't think you're mission is going very well.
 
Trakar said:
You could have at least made an effort to find a neutral or balanced example, instead you leapt from establishment conservative (RCP) to establishment conservative-lite (establishment Clinton),...not that this is terribly surprising from a Hillary supporter, but when that is your world view what else is to be expected?
Click to expand...


That's a heck of an accusation to make of Nate Silver. Republicans in '12 disregarded polls or "corrected" them with unfounded assumptions about Obama supporters being over-represented or some fantasy uncounted voters who were all going to show up from the ether for Romney on election day. Then, when the election turned out exactly as Silver called it, they were all shocked that their internal polling was worse than his methods.

Silver aggregates polls and then weights each with a fairly complex formula that includes, most tellingly, how well that poll has performed in the past. Do you have any information that shows that Silver is somehow disregarding pro-Sanders polls? If so, what polls are they?

Silver was perfect in 2012 and 50 for 51 in 2008. It's hard to look at that kind of record and find bias.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The 9/11 profiteer?

Can't posts be moved to the CT forum? Or need it be whole threads only?
Click to expand...

"Well, why do they make millions of dollars of campaign contributions?" Sen Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) asked. "They expect to get something. Everybody knows that."

Clinton responded:

CLINTON: So I represented New York, and I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked. Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy, and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country.
Click to expand...

and it was good for Hillary! Mo' money! Idiotic response to a simple question, tho.

No conspiracy, she is just a complete *********** dope

If someone asks you why you took a ton of money from Wall Street Banks, the single worst possible answer is: Because 9/11.
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
You could have at least made an effort to find a neutral or balanced example, instead you leapt from establishment conservative (RCP) to establishment conservative-lite (establishment Clinton),...not that this is terribly surprising from a Hillary supporter, but when that is your world view what else is to be expected?
Click to expand...
You're making some nightly long leaps here.

First off, I have no clue as the particulars of Silver's leanings. (I'm under the impression he's a leftie. Today was the first time I visited his site iirc.) Also, your uncharitable interpretation of my post overlooks that Silver has a good track record. That's a pretty good reason to cite him... obviously.

Second, I'm undecided who I will vote for, and I'd prefer not to be called a Hillary supporter. I wish zealous partisans (such as you) wouldn't jump to this sort of conclusion.

Third, I reject your ad hom arguments. Sharpen your pencil.
 
varwoche said:
You're making some nightly long leaps here.

First off, I have no clue as the particulars of Silver's leanings. (I'm under the impression he's a leftie. Today was the first time I visited his site iirc.) Also, your uncharitable interpretation of my post overlooks that Silver has a good track record. That's a pretty good reason to cite him... obviously...
Click to expand...

Actually, I suspect that Nate is more interested in sports statistics than political statistics, but this doesn't mean that he can't or doesn't choose preferred favorites be it the Patriots or HRC. By the nature of the beast, since I consider Hillary's public policy preferences to be conservative lite, anyone supporting her is supporting a conservative-lite perspective.

varwoche said:
Second, I'm undecided who I will vote for, and I'd prefer not to be called a Hillary supporter. I wish zealous partisans (such as you) wouldn't jump to this sort of conclusion.
Click to expand...

If you don't wish to be described as a person who supports Hillary Clinton, don't defend and support Hillary Clinton. It is curious that you seem to want to make such defenses and offer such support, yet you get offended at the idea that you are defending and supporting Hillary Clinton?

I am zealous (having or showing zeal - great energy or enthusiasm in pursuit of a cause or an objective) and am ideologically committed to Progressivism. That said I don't much care which party such progressivism arises within. I don't dislike the Democratic or Republican voters or public officials, but I have little patience for regressive conservatism.

varwoche said:
Third, I reject your ad hom arguments. Sharpen your pencil.
Click to expand...

There is too much name-calling and not enough discussion in politics as it is, I agree with you that all involved should strive to minimize and eliminate such occurrences. I will work harder to adhere to higher standards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom