Almalieque wrote:
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.
So observation absent formally collated data is acceptable when claiming that the conservative pundits and campaign spokespeople do this, but not when someone merely says "both sides do that". Is that really where you want to go on this one? You've apparently forgotten that all I said was that democrats do this too. I'll note that you have not demanded that anyone show data proving that conservatives do, which was what I originally responded to. Strange bit of one-sidedness you've got going on there.
Quote:
You dismiss a snapshot of a poll on MSNBC, but promote a poll from last year (outside of the campaign).
It's a poll from a time period when those polling thought Warren might run (and thus polling agencies were actually doing polls on it). I'm not sure what the problem is. Again though, I was just making a joke. I thought it was additionally funny that when looking at polls prior to Warren formally dropping out (technically, formally not dropping in), she not only polled higher than Clinton (well, among liberal democrats at least), but that Sanders polled better among that group than Clinton. That does somewhat step all over your whole "Sanders voters are Warren voters" counter.
But, as I've pointed out several times, I was just making a joke.
Quote:
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.
You're mixing up cause and effect again. I'm saying that some sort of deal was struck well before this election season in which the DNC (and all serious candidates who want DNC support for their campaigns in the future) would support Clinton as their chosen candidate from day one. We can speculate about what sort of deal making occurred behind the scenes, but it's becoming abundantly obvious that a deal was made well before the opinions of potential primary voters were weighed. Polls after that point, where Clinton is presented to those being polled as the only viable Democrat candidate are somewhat meaningless in terms of determining whether Clinton is actually the best candidate for Dem voters to support. She's
the only candidate. By design.
Quote:
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.
The other candidates that are running. That's the key point you keep ignoring. She's weak because the only reason she's polling as well as she is is because there are no other strong candidates with even a chance of winning the general in the race. I keep explaining this to you, and you keep not getting it. The Dems have rigged the primary to ensure that Clinton gets the nomination. We can speculate about what sorts of favor swapping occurred behind the scenes to make this happen, but it's pretty obvious that the powers-that-be have declared that Clinton shall be the nominee.
I suspect they're starting to regret this. I also suspect that this is at least partly behind Trumps rise. But that's an even more speculative proposition.
Quote:
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?
Again. Why don't you link the source for this? I assumed you were talking about in the general, not in the primary. Um... But even in a primary, that makes no sense (and also does not indicate a "strong" candidate). Primaries are not winner take all propositions (like most state general elections are). If 23% wont show up to vote because "she can't win", then those are a ton of delegates she wont get from that state, which may very well (will very well) hurt her in the quest for the nomination.
I'm still scratching my head about this data. It makes no sense, but no matter how I look at it, it does not indicate a strong candidate, and nothing you've said has clarified the matter.
Quote:
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.
You're... kidding, right? Let me suggest again that you maybe get your head out of whatever liberal echo chamber it's in. The GOP candidates are hardly expending any energy at all attacking Clinton. The media and other sources have, but they'd do that regardless of what's going on with the GOP candidates, and certainly regardless of how many GOP candidates there are in the race.
Excepting Trump is a total cop-out. He's the front runner. Of course he's going to get most of the attacks from the rest of the field. And of course, he's going to spend most of his energy responding to (and dishing out his own) attacks. That's my point though. The net effect of this is that all the GOP candidates are going to have higher negative numbers during this process. It's an unfortunate side effect of an open primary field. I'll also point out that this is almost certainly why the Dems have chosen to run Clinton more or less unopposed.
Quote:
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.
Stop flipping back and forth between primary and general polls. You're talking about primary polling in your post, but linked to a source that includes general polling. Those are not the same thing. But here's the thing, if we were to take general election poll numbers as an indication of who might be a better candidate to nominate, the page you linked shows Biden only a small amount below Clinton. Certainly close enough that you'd expect him to be in the race, right?
The problem is that those are not good sources. As I've mentioned a few times, polling on the general election while still in the relatively early stages of the primary is iffy at best. Doubly so when there is only one serious candidate actually in the primary on one side. When Clinton is the only real choice on the Dem side of such a poll, all Democrats polled are going to tend to poll for her. But when there are other GOP candidates in the race, Republican who are polled may tend to poll as undecided in a match up between Clinton any any GOP candidate who is not their preferred candidate. Not all of them will do this, but enough of a percentage to skew the results a bit.
You don't think this is true? But look at what you just did. You are trying to use relative general election poll match ups to show that Clinton is a stronger candidate than say Biden, Warren, or Sanders. Get it? Your argument is that since Clinton matches up better against <insert GOP candidate here> than Warren does, then Clinton is a stronger primary candidate. But the same works on the other side, right? If I'm a GOP voter, and I'm taking a poll matching up GOP candidates against Dem candidates, while the primary is still going, I'm motivated to make my preferred candidate look the strongest, right? As long as anyone looks at these general election match ups as a way of determining relative strength of primary candidates, we must also allow for the fact that this will influence the match ups themselves with an eye towards helping each persons candidate of choice in the primary.
How big is that factor? No way to be sure. But there's no way it *isn't* a factor. As I said above, the very fact that *you* place weight on such general match ups to determine primary strength means that others must as well.
Quote:
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.
Ok. Then why aren't there any strong opponents in the Dem primary? You say "it's the Democrats", but who you you mean by this? Democrat voters? Perhaps. The DNC? They may be influenced by other factors. It's this very lack of real opposition that is driving many (like myself) to believe that some sort of deal was made to have Clinton run unopposed. Because you are correct, normally you want a field of strong candidates, so you can properly prepare whomever comes out of the process as the nominee. The $64k question is "why are there no strong candidates opposing Clinton in the primary?"
You've basically got two likely answers:
1. There just aren't any other strong Democrats available (which I find hard to believe).
2. Some sort of deal was struck that is keeping strong candidates out of the race so that Clinton gets to run unopposed.
If you think there's some other likely reason, by all means post it.