2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
KikiDaKats said:
I am a lurker here but will have to break my silence, just like Americano forced me to a while back.
The fact most tend to ignore when making such assertions is Hillary beat him when she was supposed to be very unpopular among democrats. So tell us who was more trusted at the time (according to votes)?
Was that survey not about the individual instead of in comparison to the other? How would Sanders being added affect the survey when it's not a choice pick between the two?
It's like saying Paul Ryan added to that list would have had an effect on Trump's favourability, considering the only sensible policies he has are adopted from Ryan. That's why he can't go into details because he has no idea what's in them ie the health care bill, the judges, education, his gradual change in stance on immigration,etc.
As a liberal socialist myself, I accept Sanders has made an exception contribution to the political arena at grassroots levels but for now that's the only area it should effect for it to hold ground going forward. Hopefully it will yield the right results in house races for us to see how well it's been received. If the house doesn't get flipped this year, it'll be obviously his message is not as popular as most are trying to ram down our throat.
Click to expand...

If you only win win by slightly over 50% in a 2 horse race it certainly means you have a divided party and need to build bridges afterwards. A lot of people were/Are anti Hillary due her connections to wall street and a large number of voters are tired of the establishment. She did win the majority of the votes which i never denied. But if she had gone into the election with Trump with an nearly even divided party it would have given Trump an advantage, if hes opponents fought against each other as well as him. There is a major reason why both the democrats and republicans call for unity after the primaries because the chance of winning the main election while having to deal with an civil war is slim. The poll is about 2 sides with 4 people on both sides so certainly not about individuality.

Sanders generally have an appeal to both set of voters ( republicans and democrats ) which means if you include him a fair amount of people would give him good ratings and less so Hillary as a lot support him and not her specifically and this would lover the positive out look in the statistics for Hillary. Also it looks better for her when there is no other direct political rival to measure against her in the poll. They are near even in popularity within the democratic party but if you add in hes cross party appeal he is more likely to be more popular generally. It isn´t good to look as a weaker candidate of the two in polls even though you won the internal party vote. How you are perceived matters a lot in politics.


The difference here is Paul Ryan never ran the presidency this election unlike Bernie Sanders. If he had chosen to run for the Oval office and got nearly 50% like Sanders he would be in the position to threaten Trumps campaign due the amount of voters behind him. This give him a lot of influence on Trumps campaign. Imagine if just 50% of the republican voters that back Ryan refusing to support Trump ? thats nearly 25% of your own party not supporting the final party candidate. I agree with you with that Trump and political policies are each others nemesis but oddly enough that dosn´t seem to have been that damaging to him this election strangely enough but also the scandals/lies he does seems to drag him down.


Well Sanders got almost the same amount of contributions as Clintion during the primaries, which means he generally does connect with a lot of voters and this should not be underestimated. The big difference is super pack contributions which he did not want to take as he did not want to owe big corporations anything if he got elected or be influenced by them. I think its fair to say he did a great job on the grassroots level but it needs more work before you can build an entire party on it though. The Greens are not ready for this yet in my opinion.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html
 
Last edited:
Hillary's favourability rating on that AP poll would be totally unaffected if Sanders was included on the list. Not including him on it is in no way misleading. Strange argument.
 
sullydnl said:
Hillary's favourability rating on that AP poll would be totally unaffected if Sanders was included on the list. Not including him on it is in no way misleading. Strange argument.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it wasn't a comparison. It's quite clear that the question was about the candidate, their VP, and their spouse...with the incumbent and his spouse thrown in for good measure.

It'd only be misleading if Sanders had been excluded with the likes of Cruz, Rubio etc being included.
 
I am in agreement with those who say this Sanders argument is strange. I would consider an unnecessary skewing if there were no similar Trump counter-balance added to the poll. Why not chuck Ted Cruz into it for the hell of it then, he got 25% of the vote.

ted_cruz.png
 
Also, a small point, but Bernie got closer to 40% of the vote than he did to 50%. Really. It was 43%. Enough of the "nearly 50%", making it sound closer than it was.

Ted Cruz got only 18% less support than Bernie. Clinton won by 12% in a 2-horse race.
 
In discussing Hillary v Bernie, I do wonder if without the early big lead given to her by the super delegates would the election have played our differently? A much tighter delegate race changes the narrative. Maybe even builds more momentum for Bernie. Changes the way Hillary and her campaign get viewed by the press. She probably still wins but we don't really know how a different delegate battle might have swayed voters.
 
Red Viking said:
Yes on 8 fixed people! you cant add anyone to the list but only vote for those decided by the pollsters which is the problem here! :

But lets stop this as it dosn´t contribute to the over all discussions and no need to get worked up about it :)
Click to expand...



This is where you're wrong. You aren't picking between the options the list (making a 'vertical' choice on their table) but looking at each row (or candidate/person) independent of the others.

Having Bernie there would not have any effect on Clinton's numbers. She'd still be ahead of all others bar Barack. The only difference a Sanders inclusion might make would be he could have higher favourability than the numbers Hillary got, which would mean her results are the same but he'd be listed above her, like Obama.

Adding more options to the table would add more information, but it wouldn't change the numbers for each person. Clinton would still be below Obama and above Trump, Pence, Kaine, her husband, Melania and Michelle.


Also, saying things like:

Well on higher educational places like Universities you learn how to gather information
Click to expand...

Again, not my fault you don´t understand how statistics work.
Click to expand...

...makes you sound like a tool. And you aren't the only person in this thread who went to university or studied statistics (if you did) :lol:
But i guess i can´t explain it well enough on an online forum.
Click to expand...

This is your own shortcoming. Many things are explained on the internet, and on RedCafe in particular.


A table comparing Sanders/Cruz/Clinton/Obama/Trump may well be more useful for certain issues. However, this is not the aim of this table. It is to compare the incumbent president, those on the ticket for the Dems and Reps, and the current/potential first lady/gentleman. Including Sanders would be interesting to see his relative popularity, but that would be it: it would have had more purpose 10 months ago as a comparison between potential candidates-2 weeks before the election it's a smaller group who's relevant. Because those are the people who are or will be in the White House.

If you were to really suggest someone should be included, based on who is in there, it would be Joe Biden, as a comparison to Pence and Kaine.
 
JustAFan said:
In discussing Hillary v Bernie, I do wonder if without the early big lead given to her by the super delegates would the election have played our differently? A much tighter delegate race changes the narrative. Maybe even builds more momentum for Bernie. Changes the way Hillary and her campaign get viewed by the press. She probably still wins but we don't really know how a different delegate battle might have swayed voters.
Click to expand...

I think the super-delegates definitely impact the narrative of the primary and that's the point of having the super-delegates. It's a way for the establishment to ensure that a candidate they feel is qualified to be their candidate is preferentially selected. The extremes on the right and left will hate such an approach (and it can be a roadblock to progressive change unless there is widespread push from the electorate) but if the Republicans had the same mechanism, Trump would not have been the nominee.
 
Charlie Foley said:
This is where you're wrong. You aren't picking between the options the list (making a 'vertical' choice on their table) but looking at each row (or candidate/person) independent of the others.

Having Bernie there would not have any effect on Clinton's numbers. She'd still be ahead of all others bar Barack. The only difference a Sanders inclusion might make would be he could have higher favourability than the numbers Hillary got, which would mean her results are the same but he'd be listed above her, like Obama.

Adding more options to the table would add more information, but it wouldn't change the numbers for each person. Clinton would still be below Obama and above Trump, Pence, Kaine, her husband, Melania and Michelle.


Also, saying things like:





...makes you sound like a tool. And you aren't the only person in this thread who went to university or studied statistics (if you did) :lol:


This is your own shortcoming. Many things are explained on the internet, and on RedCafe in particular.


A table comparing Sanders/Cruz/Clinton/Obama/Trump may well be more useful for certain issues. However, this is not the aim of this table. It is to compare the incumbent president, those on the ticket for the Dems and Reps, and the current/potential first lady/gentleman. Including Sanders would be interesting to see his relative popularity, but that would be it: it would have had more purpose 10 months ago as a comparison between potential candidates-2 weeks before the election it's a smaller group who's relevant. Because those are the people who are or will be in the White House.

If you were to really suggest someone should be included, based on who is in there, it would be Joe Biden, as a comparison to Pence and Kaine.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing what he's aiming to say is that having Bernie in the poll would make people re-appraise Hillary and therefore give her a lower favourability due to direct comparison. It's a false equivalence/premise.
 
JustAFan said:
In discussing Hillary v Bernie, I do wonder if without the early big lead given to her by the super delegates would the election have played our differently? A much tighter delegate race changes the narrative. Maybe even builds more momentum for Bernie. Changes the way Hillary and her campaign get viewed by the press. She probably still wins but we don't really know how a different delegate battle might have swayed voters.
Click to expand...
Don't think it really changes the underlying factor of the race, that being Clinton's overwhelming strength with black voters.
 
unchanged_lineup said:
I'm guessing what he's aiming to say is that having Bernie in the poll would make people re-appraise Hillary and therefore give her a lower favourability due to direct comparison. It's a false equivalence/premise.
Click to expand...
That's the best I could think of. By the same logic though Obama's presence hinders Clinton.

It's not exactly what he's saying though.

Also, favouring Hillary 'because Bernie said to' is still favouring Hillary.

All this as someone who voted for Sanders.
 
Ubik said:
Don't think it really changes the underlying factor of the race, that being Clinton's overwhelming strength with black voters.
Click to expand...

That's an advantage for Clinton but considering Trump's unpopularity with them as well, I think Sanders would've been fine in garnering their support.
 
Cheesy said:
That's an advantage for Clinton but considering Trump's unpopularity with them as well, I think Sanders would've been fine in garnering their support.
Click to expand...
In a general election, of course, but my comment was aimed at the nomination race. She started and finished with similarly daunting levels of support, and I don't think they stayed with her due to delegate math.
 
Red Viking said:
If you only win win by slightly over 50% in a 2 horse race it certainly means you have a divided party and need to build bridges afterwards. A lot of people were/Are anti Hillary due her connections to wall street and a large number of voters are tired of the establishment. She did win the majority of the votes which i never denied. But if she had gone into the election with Trump with an nearly even divided party it would have given Trump an advantage, if hes opponents fought against each other as well as him. There is a major reason why both the democrats and republicans call for unity after the primaries because the chance of winning the main election while having to deal with an civil war is slim. The poll is about 2 sides with 4 people on both sides so certainly not about individuality.

Sanders generally have an appeal to both set of voters ( republicans and democrats ) which means if you include him a fair amount of people would give him good ratings and less so Hillary as a lot support him and not her specifically and this would lover the positive out look in the statistics for Hillary. Also it looks better for her when there is no other direct political rival to measure against her in the poll. They are near even in popularity within the democratic party but if you add in hes cross party appeal he is more likely to be more popular generally. It isn´t good to look as a weaker candidate of the two in polls even though you won the internal party vote. How you are perceived matters a lot in politics.


The difference here is Paul Ryan never ran the presidency this election unlike Bernie Sanders. If he had chosen to run for the Oval office and got nearly 50% like Sanders he would be in the position to threaten Trumps campaign due the amount of voters behind him. This give him a lot of influence on Trumps campaign. Imagine if just 50% of the republican voters that back Ryan refusing to support Trump ? thats nearly 25% of your own party not supporting the final party candidate. I agree with you with that Trump and political policies are each others nemesis but oddly enough that dosn´t seem to have been that damaging to him this election strangely enough but also the scandals/lies he does seems to drag him down.


Well Sanders got almost the same amount of contributions as Clintion during the primaries, which means he generally does connect with a lot of voters and this should not be underestimated. The big difference is super pack contributions which he did not want to take as he did not want to owe big corporations anything if he got elected or be influenced by them. I think its fair to say he did a great job on the grassroots level but it needs more work before you can build an entire party on it though. The Greens are not ready for this yet in my opinion.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html
Click to expand...
Haha.. I know am uninformed but your argument is really iffy and should have never been used. It's like me saying Hillary was more popular than Obama in 08.
Also, when talking about Bernie's appeal to republicans remember he is a socialist. No chance he is more appealing to republicans than Hillary, not this year/cycle.
In relation to Paul Ryan, he is a bigger factor in this election than all the others that were in the race with Trump. If Ryan unendorses Trump today this whole scam will be on its knees.
 
Charlie Foley said:
This is where you're wrong. You aren't picking between the options the list (making a 'vertical' choice on their table) but looking at each row (or candidate/person) independent of the others.

Having Bernie there would not have any effect on Clinton's numbers. She'd still be ahead of all others bar Barack. The only difference a Sanders inclusion might make would be he could have higher favourability than the numbers Hillary got, which would mean her results are the same but he'd be listed above her, like Obama.

Adding more options to the table would add more information, but it wouldn't change the numbers for each person. Clinton would still be below Obama and above Trump, Pence, Kaine, her husband, Melania and Michelle.


Also, saying things like:





...makes you sound like a tool. And you aren't the only person in this thread who went to university or studied statistics (if you did) :lol:


This is your own shortcoming. Many things are explained on the internet, and on RedCafe in particular.


A table comparing Sanders/Cruz/Clinton/Obama/Trump may well be more useful for certain issues. However, this is not the aim of this table. It is to compare the incumbent president, those on the ticket for the Dems and Reps, and the current/potential first lady/gentleman. Including Sanders would be interesting to see his relative popularity, but that would be it: it would have had more purpose 10 months ago as a comparison between potential candidates-2 weeks before the election it's a smaller group who's relevant. Because those are the people who are or will be in the White House.

If you were to really suggest someone should be included, based on who is in there, it would be Joe Biden, as a comparison to Pence and Kaine.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I thought I was losing my mind earlier with his stubborn refusal to budge from that nonsensical argument.
 
Michael Moore on The Kelly File a minute ago, came across quite well I thought and he was given a fair shout by Megyn too. I find it hilarious that both Drumpf and Drumpf Jr, have both tweeted for people to watch Moore's new film, that is really a massive feck you to Trump and very pro Hillary. :lol: Apparently the sales have rocketed since those buffoons tweeted to watch it :lol: Unbelievable how dim they are.
 
langster said:
Michael Moore on The Kelly File a minute ago, came across quite well I thought and he was given a fair shout by Megyn too. I find it hilarious that both Drumpf and Drumpf Jr, have both tweeted for people to watch Moore's new film, that is really a massive feck you to Trump and very pro Hillary. :lol: Apparently the sales have rocketed since those buffoons tweeted to watch it :lol: Unbelievable how dim they are.
Click to expand...
Has she admitted she's voting for Hillary yet?
 
Ubik said:
Has she admitted she's voting for Hillary yet?
Click to expand...

No not yet. Krauthammer was just on though and discussing where Trump goes after the election, win or lose and it's all a scary proposition to be honest. For one thing, he's not going anywhere out of the spotlight because he loves it so much. Bannon and one of Trumps other campaign men have been recorded saying that basically they now control the Republican party and the future of it, it's all going to get very, very ugly as far as the Republican party is concerned. I just hope that Hillary wins, because the alternative is even more frightening now. However, on top of that, the amount of people on Twitter talking about rising up and grabbing their guns if Trump loses is unbelievable, it's some scary shit. And if that wasn't enough all this shit about the vote flipping in Texas and Trump tweeting about it and causing absolute mayhem, well the woman who it involved has admitted that she probably entered Hillary by accident, so Trump yet again stirring more shit up over nothing.
 
Every fecking page there's someone talking about Bernie. fecking fanbois. It's as if the man had no flaws.

Anywho, that bird Gesiotto, astonishing she's a conservative commentator. I presume the main qualification for network reporting these days is looks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.