it isn't my fault you just stopped reading the thread any further. Here is the post:
That is Your Entertainer's subjective experience I used as an example. Im out.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Poll: Sanders nearly tied with Clinton nationwide
- Thread starter Bel Marduk
- Start date
- Status
it isn't my fault you just stopped reading the thread any further. Here is the post:
That is Your Entertainer's subjective experience I used as an example. Im out.
Now, this is curious.
Dude Abides
Banned
That's not really accurate. The Dept. of Labor deals with internal union election and financial matters, but union-employer disputes are overseen by the NLRB. The DOL does enforce OSHA and minimum wage laws but I'm not aware of any major controversies on those, aside from the ergonomics initiative that died on the vine when Dubya was elected.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
It's worth noting that this poll has lots of different filter options. It's 48-45 among all registered voters (not just dems), it's 52-43 among registered Dems only, and 62-34 among likely democratic voters. Judging by their weekly updates on pollster.com, they use the registered Dem screen so it's likely their weekly release will be the 52-42 number.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Don't worry, that poll will be Hillsplained away shortly. Poor Clinton, she deserves a better class of followers.
Ryouji Gunblade
Member
Sanders needs to keep mentioning his anti-corruption stance. Almost everyone is Fed up with establishment politics.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
You of all should people understand what the hell I'm talking about.
Ah. That's a bother.
Why are the likely democratic voters so much more skewed to Hillary, one would think they would support the non-establishment contender.
Ziltoidia 9
Member
If warren came out for him and campaigned for him, he would get a huge ass bump too.
Its obvious that's who she prefers. I don't know why she is being coy about it. I guess she is just waiting for the right time.
Its obvious that's who she prefers. I don't know why she is being coy about it. I guess she is just waiting for the right time.
Yeah, those reuters polls are worthless until you look at the nitty-gritty. The actual numbers aren't that great for Bernie.
TheLaughingStock
Member
It will probably be substantially lower with Sanders too though.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Because on the presidential level, Obama is the establishment.
They like Obama, therefore the establishment isn't some evil that must be destroyed.
ChronotriggerJM
Member
This was definitely worth mentioning. I'm still not going to buy too heavily into national polls at this point, but I like that they provide the breakdowns.
Because likely a lot dem voters probably view Bernie as too much of a risk even I'd they like him more. Hopefully seeing his favorable polling with all registered voters well improve their view of his chances.
Prodigal Son
Member
Calling you out for making rude comments isn't the same as your generalization of Sander's supporters. People are individuals. Maybe Clinton supporters are a tad older and more experienced and consequently a tad more likely to present better arguments. In addition to this, on gaf and elsewhere Sanders supporters are in greater numbers online, so it stands to reason you'd encounter more of the worst of human nature in them. That doesn't make it okay to basically paint a broad brush and insult people for supporting a candidate. I'm glad you're 'out'.
This is a crazy idea to me. Lower than Obama? I can buy that (although the Iowa caucus's, unlike in 2008, took place before the college break which undoubtedly had an effect on turnout)
The minority vote is an important amount of the youth vote. That is the portion sanders may lose.
The reality is, however, that you're out of touch with young America if you think most blue state millennials don't currently lean Sanders.
Prodigal Son
Member
EDIT: Double. Sorry.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Ipsos-Reuters national
Hillary-48
Bernie-45
Not an outlier.
Hillary-48
Bernie-45
Not an outlier.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Posted up the page.
What you're currently posting is registered voters counting Reps. They break it down among registered Dems and likely Dems as well. Swaying further to Hillary in each.
In a closed caucus like Nevada that result is going to be dramatic.
Though still more favourable for Sanders than before, he seems to have an upwards trend still.
And_Gignac
Member
Ipsos polls are all over the place as they "lack" an official result. I dont know why they are using their "all registered voters" as their press released one.
But if we use the registered + dem filter, it shows a trend: +6 for Bernie, -5 for Clinton since Iowa. I once read an author at 538 calling the Quinnipiac poll a trend setter with the democrats, and it seems to be holding on to that status.
But if we use the registered + dem filter, it shows a trend: +6 for Bernie, -5 for Clinton since Iowa. I once read an author at 538 calling the Quinnipiac poll a trend setter with the democrats, and it seems to be holding on to that status.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
I just can't wait for the inevitable ads likening Sanders to Stalin and painting him as a Communist who's "too liberal for America." Scrumptious.
YF: Hillary Clintons real Wall Street problem -She could seriously use the money
So we will see if the Clinton's campaign really all its cracked up to be. If they allow her or Bill to go on fundraiser with Big Finance this election, things can get very interesting.
So we will see if the Clinton's campaign really all its cracked up to be. If they allow her or Bill to go on fundraiser with Big Finance this election, things can get very interesting.
CNN has an article up about how the Clinton's have earned 153 million from speaking fees since 2001.
Truly an advocate for regular folks.
Truly an advocate for regular folks.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Bernie supporters seriously need to find a new narrative. Being rich doesn't make you poor at governing. In fact, becoming rich after starting with nothing often shows good judgement.
Hell, some of the most popular Democratic Presidents of all time were extremely wealthy. If Kennedy and FDR can reach legendary status on the left, it would follow that it's not a damning statement to call out the Clintons on also being wealthy.
shoplifter
Member
Surely these huge banks and other firms paying these exorbitant speaking fees have no ulterior motives or expectations.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Uh huh. And surely you can back up the insinuation that their money has swayed Hillary's decision-making process at some point?
Are you seriously comparing FDR and JFK with HRC?
It's not about being wealthy it's about the system and being apart of it for me personally. If Sanders was running a negative campaign he could have really hit her hard. I think she would be weak on this in a GE and if it's Trump against her, he will use this as one of his attacks. She is extremely vulnerable on this topic and shouldn't have done the circuit after SoS if she was planning to run. I also think that her campaign didn't expect such questions to be raised this election. The worst thing about this, is that her campaign has known about the issue yet she seems completely oblivious on how to address it. It was also disingenuous to say in the debate that she has never been influenced by Wall Street considering the Warren comments on her position on bankruptcy legislation in 2004, just because she was personally not influenced doesn't mean that the bills they are voting for aren't. The bill in question was sponsored by the Credit Card companies, how many other legislation at all levels is being devised by outside interests. Whether it's true or not for Clinton personally it's obviously a big issue for people in this election and I think it's underestimated.
Neuromancer
Member
Also lets not forget Wall Street was attacked by terrorists on 9/11 and she also gets money from women.
Tesseract
Banned
so like obama
Coffee Dog
Banned
Are you unaware of how politics work in america?
Bel Marduk
Banned
Yeah
Its strange that there's some sort of ideological cohesion amongst Bernie supporters whereas Clinton's treat her like their favorite diva on PopGAF
As if PopGAFfers don't have ideological consistency. For shame.
Interesting that Bernie does better with mixed crowds than all-Dem crowds. Does that suggest he's not less electable?
eBay Huckster
Member
No, go ahead, take the 48-45 "all RVs" screen that literally includes 200 Republicans at face value.
Are you unaware of what the phrases "back up" and "Hillary's decision-making process" mean?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbWzE4JhQJY&feature=youtu.be...2004
It depends on who she considers her constituents.
excelsiorlef
Member
Just as possible the Republicans polled want him in for the same reason many want Trump on the Dem side, because they think he's the mist beatable. So it suggests nothing frankly.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
I believe anyone who receives such large donations/speaking&consulting fees/etc will be influenced in some way. Even a person who staunchly believes he/she is immune to such things will likely be affected, and even if they aren't, they should avoid such scenarios to avoid the perception that they have been bought/influenced. We've seen this over and over again.
I'm an objective scientist, so it doesn't matter if I know which group is the control and which is experimental. Oh wait, now we know it does -- even those with good intentions may unknowingly bias the results. I'm an ethical journalist, so it doesn't matter if I accept a flight, hotel room, and fancy dinner from the CEO I'm going to interview. Well, yeah, it does -- both for your objectivity and for the perception it gives to others. I'm a doctor who went through 4 years of medical school, 4 years of residency, and then completely 2 fellowships, so while you might be able to influence others by inviting them on an all-expenses paid cruise and regularly sending your sales reps to their offices to give up-to-date information the latest research on your drug, you won't affect me! Bring on the freebies! Except it does have an affect on them. And so on.
e: perhaps examples from the world ofp olitics would've been better lol
I'm an objective scientist, so it doesn't matter if I know which group is the control and which is experimental. Oh wait, now we know it does -- even those with good intentions may unknowingly bias the results. I'm an ethical journalist, so it doesn't matter if I accept a flight, hotel room, and fancy dinner from the CEO I'm going to interview. Well, yeah, it does -- both for your objectivity and for the perception it gives to others. I'm a doctor who went through 4 years of medical school, 4 years of residency, and then completely 2 fellowships, so while you might be able to influence others by inviting them on an all-expenses paid cruise and regularly sending your sales reps to their offices to give up-to-date information the latest research on your drug, you won't affect me! Bring on the freebies! Except it does have an affect on them. And so on.
e: perhaps examples from the world ofp olitics would've been better lol
BoboBrazil
Member
Yep, plus the Republican party has been spewing nothing but hatred at Hillary Clinton for years. Of course Bernie is favored over her with Republican voters now. What happens in the general when those attacks start against him? He tanks worse than Hillary.
Yeah I'd like to know what the argument is against that. Seems like he may get a little extra support from perhaps moderate Republicans?
Although I'm pretty sure the canned response there is that, as he's an unknown factor when the Republicans finally attack Sanders he'll do somehow worse than Clinton.
Edit: Beaten!! Yep, Sanders attacked for a couple months will have a worse effect than Clinton's decades of attacks, of course.
Neuromancer
Member
Clinton has been through the crucible for the last 20 years straight. Sanders on the other hand is a sweet summer child who will immediately buckle under the pressure.
ok dude.
Elfforkusu
Member
Bernie up 43-29 among registered independents, which seems interesting.
UltimaPooh
Member
Ooooh find a new narrative! Why? Probably because linking her to special interests makes perfect sense... Is she really out to help the middle class? Or is she just saying that so she can scratch the demographic off, while still getting the sweet sweet honey from Wall Street.
Being rich doesn't make you bad at governing. What does is where you get that money from.
False equivalency. The Kennedy's and Roosevelt's were already rich, they were born into their wealth and didn't need to take money from Wall Street to accrue such wealth.
Why? The last debate was amazing, he made Hillary look like an idiot on everything but foreign policy. The fact the he doesn't have a super pac sends a powerful message about his campaign as well.
Our ability to reform Americans politics have never been better and this is all possible with young people getting involved. Bernie just has to defeat Hillary and he very well may have the presidency. Though I a pessimist with the whole process, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a repeat of Bush vs Gore. We're undergoing a huge revolution in this country, many people are starting to realize and participate in voting.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
That participation didn't show in Iowa. Turnout was lower than 2008 by a very meaningful amount. In fact, I'm willing to bet this nomination process will have less votes than 2008 overall. The enthusiasm is just not the same.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked