Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Sanders More Pragmatic than Clinton

EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 1:11:38 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 12:52:38 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/17/2016 12:48:10 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Seems that pie-in-the-sky is edible after all.

http://www.theatlantic.com...

http://www.usatoday.com...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Be afraid Clinton. Be very afraid.

I'm fairly certain she is.
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 1:13:03 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 12:48:10 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Seems that pie-in-the-sky is edible after all.

http://www.theatlantic.com...

"While Clinton might gain more moderate Independents (particularly against a polarizing Republican nominee), Sanders can inspire massive Democratic and liberal Independent turnout and likely win over many white working-class swing voters."

It openly suggests Sanders's biggest flaw, dismisses it right away, and then jumps to a completely different conclusion without evidence

http://www.usatoday.com...

This is pretty much a blog post by a person

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

This is literally just a list of things Sanders gave a speech about when campaigning in Michigan....

If youre going to (ridiculously) claim that Sanders is more pragmatic than clinton, then pick more than a few sources which barely prop up your argument.... I can find 5 times the number of sources showing the impossibility that Sanders's tax plan will fund his programs, along with how impossible it would be to get these plans through a divided congress, along with how unlikely Sanders could win a general election in the first place.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 1:19:20 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 1:13:03 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/17/2016 12:48:10 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Seems that pie-in-the-sky is edible after all.

http://www.theatlantic.com...

"While Clinton might gain more moderate Independents (particularly against a polarizing Republican nominee), Sanders can inspire massive Democratic and liberal Independent turnout and likely win over many white working-class swing voters."

It openly suggests Sanders's biggest flaw, dismisses it right away, and then jumps to a completely different conclusion without evidence

Too bad Sanders is more popular among independents. Guess that's not his biggest problem after all.

http://abcnews.go.com...
http://www.inquisitr.com...

http://www.usatoday.com...

This is pretty much a blog post by a person

Who uses quite a bit of substance.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

This is literally just a list of things Sanders gave a speech about when campaigning in Michigan....

Many of which reference his actual plans and further establish Clinton's reprehensibility for lying to the voters about his being a single-issue candidate.

If youre going to (ridiculously) claim that Sanders is more pragmatic than clinton, then pick more than a few sources which barely prop up your argument.... I can find 5 times the number of sources showing the impossibility that Sanders's tax plan will fund his programs, along with how impossible it would be to get these plans through a divided congress, along with how unlikely Sanders could win a general election in the first place.

The title is click-bait, lol.
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 1:30:58 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 1:19:20 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/17/2016 1:13:03 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/17/2016 12:48:10 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Seems that pie-in-the-sky is edible after all.

http://www.theatlantic.com...

"While Clinton might gain more moderate Independents (particularly against a polarizing Republican nominee), Sanders can inspire massive Democratic and liberal Independent turnout and likely win over many white working-class swing voters."

It openly suggests Sanders's biggest flaw, dismisses it right away, and then jumps to a completely different conclusion without evidence

Too bad Sanders is more popular among independents. Guess that's not his biggest problem after all.

http://abcnews.go.com...

"In a persistent weakness, Sanders has just a 7-point net positive rating among nonwhites, 34-27 percent, compared with Clinton"s overwhelming 74-21 percent in this group"

You know, it doesnt help your case when in denying one weakness your source goes on to mention 4 other ones....

http://www.usatoday.com...

This is pretty much a blog post by a person

Who uses quite a bit of substance.

You have a tremendous inability to tell apart substance from strawmanning and personal bias....

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

This is literally just a list of things Sanders gave a speech about when campaigning in Michigan....

Many of which reference his actual plans and further establish Clinton's reprehensibility for lying to the voters about his being a single-issue candidate.

The title of the thread is regarding Sanders' pragmatism, aka this source doesnt even relate to what you are trying to prove

If youre going to (ridiculously) claim that Sanders is more pragmatic than clinton, then pick more than a few sources which barely prop up your argument.... I can find 5 times the number of sources showing the impossibility that Sanders's tax plan will fund his programs, along with how impossible it would be to get these plans through a divided congress, along with how unlikely Sanders could win a general election in the first place.

The title is click-bait, lol.

Its also blatantly false
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 1:34:42 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 1:30:58 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/17/2016 1:19:20 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/17/2016 1:13:03 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/17/2016 12:48:10 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Seems that pie-in-the-sky is edible after all.

http://www.theatlantic.com...

"While Clinton might gain more moderate Independents (particularly against a polarizing Republican nominee), Sanders can inspire massive Democratic and liberal Independent turnout and likely win over many white working-class swing voters."

It openly suggests Sanders's biggest flaw, dismisses it right away, and then jumps to a completely different conclusion without evidence

Too bad Sanders is more popular among independents. Guess that's not his biggest problem after all.

http://abcnews.go.com...

"In a persistent weakness, Sanders has just a 7-point net positive rating among nonwhites, 34-27 percent, compared with Clinton"s overwhelming 74-21 percent in this group"

You know, it doesnt help your case when in denying one weakness your source goes on to mention 4 other ones....

You called it his biggest. I took issue with that. That's all.

http://www.usatoday.com...

This is pretty much a blog post by a person

Who uses quite a bit of substance.

You have a tremendous inability to tell apart substance from strawmanning and personal bias....

I somehow doubt that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

This is literally just a list of things Sanders gave a speech about when campaigning in Michigan....

Many of which reference his actual plans and further establish Clinton's reprehensibility for lying to the voters about his being a single-issue candidate.

The title of the thread is regarding Sanders' pragmatism, aka this source doesnt even relate to what you are trying to prove

If youre going to (ridiculously) claim that Sanders is more pragmatic than clinton, then pick more than a few sources which barely prop up your argument.... I can find 5 times the number of sources showing the impossibility that Sanders's tax plan will fund his programs, along with how impossible it would be to get these plans through a divided congress, along with how unlikely Sanders could win a general election in the first place.

The title is click-bait, lol.

Its also blatantly false

Kay. Keep riding with Clinton to end all racism and sexism.
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 1:39:27 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 1:34:42 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/17/2016 1:30:58 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/17/2016 1:19:20 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/17/2016 1:13:03 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/17/2016 12:48:10 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Seems that pie-in-the-sky is edible after all.

http://www.theatlantic.com...

"While Clinton might gain more moderate Independents (particularly against a polarizing Republican nominee), Sanders can inspire massive Democratic and liberal Independent turnout and likely win over many white working-class swing voters."

It openly suggests Sanders's biggest flaw, dismisses it right away, and then jumps to a completely different conclusion without evidence

Too bad Sanders is more popular among independents. Guess that's not his biggest problem after all.

http://abcnews.go.com...

"In a persistent weakness, Sanders has just a 7-point net positive rating among nonwhites, 34-27 percent, compared with Clinton"s overwhelming 74-21 percent in this group"

You know, it doesnt help your case when in denying one weakness your source goes on to mention 4 other ones....

You called it his biggest. I took issue with that. That's all.

Fine, I misspoke. Thank you though for revealing the several other shortfalls to Sanders which indicate I am still right regarding getting voters. It actually helps my case even further

http://www.usatoday.com...

This is pretty much a blog post by a person

Who uses quite a bit of substance.

You have a tremendous inability to tell apart substance from strawmanning and personal bias....

I somehow doubt that.

Its clear that the writer of the article has a bias against Hillary. If you cant see that then you shouldnt be qualified to vote in the first place

The title is click-bait, lol.

Its also blatantly false

Kay. Keep riding with Clinton to end all racism and sexism.

^ Putting words in other people's mouths. Typical tactics by Sanders supporters.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 1:42:51 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 1:39:27 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/17/2016 1:34:42 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/17/2016 1:30:58 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/17/2016 1:19:20 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/17/2016 1:13:03 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/17/2016 12:48:10 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Seems that pie-in-the-sky is edible after all.

http://www.theatlantic.com...

"While Clinton might gain more moderate Independents (particularly against a polarizing Republican nominee), Sanders can inspire massive Democratic and liberal Independent turnout and likely win over many white working-class swing voters."

It openly suggests Sanders's biggest flaw, dismisses it right away, and then jumps to a completely different conclusion without evidence

Too bad Sanders is more popular among independents. Guess that's not his biggest problem after all.

http://abcnews.go.com...

"In a persistent weakness, Sanders has just a 7-point net positive rating among nonwhites, 34-27 percent, compared with Clinton"s overwhelming 74-21 percent in this group"

You know, it doesnt help your case when in denying one weakness your source goes on to mention 4 other ones....

You called it his biggest. I took issue with that. That's all.

Fine, I misspoke. Thank you though for revealing the several other shortfalls to Sanders which indicate I am still right regarding getting voters. It actually helps my case even further

http://www.usatoday.com...

This is pretty much a blog post by a person

Who uses quite a bit of substance.

You have a tremendous inability to tell apart substance from strawmanning and personal bias....

I somehow doubt that.

Its clear that the writer of the article has a bias against Hillary. If you cant see that then you shouldnt be qualified to vote in the first place

Never said she wasn't biased.

The title is click-bait, lol.

Its also blatantly false

Kay. Keep riding with Clinton to end all racism and sexism.

^ Putting words in other people's mouths. Typical tactics by Sanders supporters.

She's quoted saying nearly as much in the article. The implication is clear. She said none of Sanders' polices would end racism, sexism, or discrimination. That is explicit. What is implicit is the "but I can." Otherwise this wouldn't be an attack at all.
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 1:58:07 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 1:42:51 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/17/2016 1:39:27 AM, imabench wrote:

Its clear that the writer of the article has a bias against Hillary. If you cant see that then you shouldnt be qualified to vote in the first place

Never said she wasn't biased.

You know a source is biased yet you cite it anyways to push an agenda. How very Fox-Newsy of you

The title is click-bait, lol.

Its also blatantly false

Kay. Keep riding with Clinton to end all racism and sexism.

^ Putting words in other people's mouths. Typical tactics by Sanders supporters.

She's quoted saying nearly as much in the article. The implication is clear. She said none of Sanders' polices would end racism, sexism, or discrimination. That is explicit.

Except it isnt. She's clearly referring to the breaking up the big banks policy.

"If we broke up the big banks tomorrow would that end racism? Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the L.G.B.T. community?"

You cant just delete the part of the sentence you dont like in order to step up a counter-attack for your own side.

What is implicit is the "but I can." Otherwise this wouldn't be an attack at all.

Except it is an attack, because if someone is a one trick pony then pointing out how breaking up the big banks wont solve all the problems America faces is a legitimate attack.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 9:31:28 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 1:58:07 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/17/2016 1:42:51 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/17/2016 1:39:27 AM, imabench wrote:

Its clear that the writer of the article has a bias against Hillary. If you cant see that then you shouldnt be qualified to vote in the first place

Never said she wasn't biased.

You know a source is biased yet you cite it anyways to push an agenda. How very Fox-Newsy of you

Unbiased sources don't exist.

The title is click-bait, lol.

Its also blatantly false

Kay. Keep riding with Clinton to end all racism and sexism.

^ Putting words in other people's mouths. Typical tactics by Sanders supporters.

She's quoted saying nearly as much in the article. The implication is clear. She said none of Sanders' polices would end racism, sexism, or discrimination. That is explicit.

Except it isnt. She's clearly referring to the breaking up the big banks policy.

"If we broke up the big banks tomorrow would that end racism? Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the L.G.B.T. community?"

You cant just delete the part of the sentence you dont like in order to step up a counter-attack for your own side.

It doesn't change what I said at all. Here's what Clinton's saying. If we follow Sanders' policies, can we do these things? No. But if we follow mine....

What is implicit is the "but I can." Otherwise this wouldn't be an attack at all.

Except it is an attack, because if someone is a one trick pony then pointing out how breaking up the big banks wont solve all the problems America faces is a legitimate attack.

Except, as has already been proven, he's not a one trick pony. That's just another Clinton lie.
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 7:38:50 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 9:31:28 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:

Unbiased sources don't exist.

https://vincentpaone.files.wordpress.com...
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 8:10:56 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
The evidence is just not there. You can't take the aggregate of a bunch of polls as a strong indication of anything, particularly when the individual polls being aggregated are all over the place. I mean look at this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

The spread on some of the polls is 16 freaking points. You need to correct for polls' past performance (some polls routinely fail miserably yet still get included), which RCP has not done, as well as ensure that the people being polled are representative of the country as a whole. That's especially important in a race where one candidates does particularly well among minorities, while the other does terribly. There's no reason to think that the more extreme of two candidates has a better chance of winning. Pretty much everyone who would vote for Bernie Sanders would vote for Hillary Clinton in an election, while not everyone who would vote for Hillary Clinton would vote for Bernie Sanders if it was between Sanders and a Republican. I guess you could argue that Bernie Sanders might get more liberals to come out to vote, but it's unlikely that this would be enough to offset Sanders' disadvantage with respect to moderates and minorities.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 8:14:55 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 8:10:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The evidence is just not there. You can't take the aggregate of a bunch of polls as a strong indication of anything, particularly when the individual polls being aggregated are all over the place. I mean look at this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

The spread on some of the polls is 16 freaking points. You need to correct for polls' past performance (some polls routinely fail miserably yet still get included), which RCP has not done, as well as ensure that the people being polled are representative of the country as a whole. That's especially important in a race where one candidates does particularly well among minorities, while the other does terribly.

Sanders has been closing the gap among minorities.

There's no reason to think that the more extreme of two candidates has a better chance of winning.

Why?

Pretty much everyone who would vote for Bernie Sanders would vote for Hillary Clinton in an election, while not everyone who would vote for Hillary Clinton would vote for Bernie Sanders if it was between Sanders and a Republican.

Evidence?

I guess you could argue that Bernie Sanders might get more liberals to come out to vote, but it's unlikely that this would be enough to offset Sanders' disadvantage with respect to moderates and minorities.

Evidence?
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 10:29:39 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 8:14:55 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 2/17/2016 8:10:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The evidence is just not there. You can't take the aggregate of a bunch of polls as a strong indication of anything, particularly when the individual polls being aggregated are all over the place. I mean look at this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

The spread on some of the polls is 16 freaking points. You need to correct for polls' past performance (some polls routinely fail miserably yet still get included), which RCP has not done, as well as ensure that the people being polled are representative of the country as a whole. That's especially important in a race where one candidates does particularly well among minorities, while the other does terribly.

Sanders has been closing the gap among minorities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

He's still down by 40 points at a time when the primaries are about to kick into full swing. He has pretty much run out of time to strike even with Hillary.

There's no reason to think that the more extreme of two candidates has a better chance of winning.

Why?

Cause anyone who knows the meaning of the word 'extreme' knows that a more extreme pick is off-putting towards those who do not lean that way

Pretty much everyone who would vote for Bernie Sanders would vote for Hillary Clinton in an election, while not everyone who would vote for Hillary Clinton would vote for Bernie Sanders if it was between Sanders and a Republican.

Evidence?

*raises hand as an example of someone who would vote for Hillary but not Bernie*

I guess you could argue that Bernie Sanders might get more liberals to come out to vote, but it's unlikely that this would be enough to offset Sanders' disadvantage with respect to moderates and minorities.

Evidence?

# of hardcore liberals < # moderates + # of minorities
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 10:52:11 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 10:29:39 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/17/2016 8:14:55 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 2/17/2016 8:10:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The evidence is just not there. You can't take the aggregate of a bunch of polls as a strong indication of anything, particularly when the individual polls being aggregated are all over the place. I mean look at this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

The spread on some of the polls is 16 freaking points. You need to correct for polls' past performance (some polls routinely fail miserably yet still get included), which RCP has not done, as well as ensure that the people being polled are representative of the country as a whole. That's especially important in a race where one candidates does particularly well among minorities, while the other does terribly.

Sanders has been closing the gap among minorities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

He's still down by 40 points at a time when the primaries are about to kick into full swing. He has pretty much run out of time to strike even with Hillary.

There's no reason to think that the more extreme of two candidates has a better chance of winning.

Why?

Cause anyone who knows the meaning of the word 'extreme' knows that a more extreme pick is off-putting towards those who do not lean that way

Oh, I see. In that case, he's not extreme.

Pretty much everyone who would vote for Bernie Sanders would vote for Hillary Clinton in an election, while not everyone who would vote for Hillary Clinton would vote for Bernie Sanders if it was between Sanders and a Republican.

Evidence?

*raises hand as an example of someone who would vote for Hillary but not Bernie*

Count me in as someone who won't be voting for her if she wins the nomination.

I guess you could argue that Bernie Sanders might get more liberals to come out to vote, but it's unlikely that this would be enough to offset Sanders' disadvantage with respect to moderates and minorities.

Evidence?

# of hardcore liberals < # moderates + # of minorities

You're pulling that "math" out of your rear. Bernie does much better with Independents and Republicans than Hillary. He has consistently been doing a lot better against the Republican candidates than Hillary.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 11:01:56 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 10:29:39 PM, imabench wrote:
He's still down by 40 points at a time when the primaries are about to kick into full swing. He has pretty much run out of time to strike even with Hillary.

You know that they're in a dead heat in Nevada right? If he manages to score a win there, he'll gain on Hillary in SC. He's been closing the gap with blacks in SC. Young black voters favor Bernie, that's a fact. The majority of the black voters in SC are middle aged and older women. That's the reason he's had some trouble. Also, the primary is in 10 days. My guess is, he'll either tie in Nevada or lose by a single digit margin.
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 1:46:45 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 10:52:11 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 2/17/2016 10:29:39 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/17/2016 8:14:55 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 2/17/2016 8:10:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The evidence is just not there. You can't take the aggregate of a bunch of polls as a strong indication of anything, particularly when the individual polls being aggregated are all over the place. I mean look at this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

The spread on some of the polls is 16 freaking points. You need to correct for polls' past performance (some polls routinely fail miserably yet still get included), which RCP has not done, as well as ensure that the people being polled are representative of the country as a whole. That's especially important in a race where one candidates does particularly well among minorities, while the other does terribly.

Sanders has been closing the gap among minorities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

He's still down by 40 points at a time when the primaries are about to kick into full swing. He has pretty much run out of time to strike even with Hillary.

There's no reason to think that the more extreme of two candidates has a better chance of winning.

Why?

Cause anyone who knows the meaning of the word 'extreme' knows that a more extreme pick is off-putting towards those who do not lean that way

Oh, I see. In that case, he's not extreme.

It must be fun living in an alternate reality....

Pretty much everyone who would vote for Bernie Sanders would vote for Hillary Clinton in an election, while not everyone who would vote for Hillary Clinton would vote for Bernie Sanders if it was between Sanders and a Republican.

Evidence?

*raises hand as an example of someone who would vote for Hillary but not Bernie*

Count me in as someone who won't be voting for her if she wins the nomination.

I guess you could argue that Bernie Sanders might get more liberals to come out to vote, but it's unlikely that this would be enough to offset Sanders' disadvantage with respect to moderates and minorities.

Evidence?

# of hardcore liberals < # moderates + # of minorities

You're pulling that "math" out of your rear. Bernie does much better with Independents and Republicans than Hillary. He has consistently been doing a lot better against the Republican candidates than Hillary.

Are you unable to understand the meaning of words? That's not at all what I said
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 6:51:33 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 1:46:45 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/17/2016 10:52:11 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 2/17/2016 10:29:39 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/17/2016 8:14:55 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 2/17/2016 8:10:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The evidence is just not there. You can't take the aggregate of a bunch of polls as a strong indication of anything, particularly when the individual polls being aggregated are all over the place. I mean look at this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

The spread on some of the polls is 16 freaking points. You need to correct for polls' past performance (some polls routinely fail miserably yet still get included), which RCP has not done, as well as ensure that the people being polled are representative of the country as a whole. That's especially important in a race where one candidates does particularly well among minorities, while the other does terribly.

Sanders has been closing the gap among minorities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

He's still down by 40 points at a time when the primaries are about to kick into full swing. He has pretty much run out of time to strike even with Hillary.

There's no reason to think that the more extreme of two candidates has a better chance of winning.

Why?

Cause anyone who knows the meaning of the word 'extreme' knows that a more extreme pick is off-putting towards those who do not lean that way

Oh, I see. In that case, he's not extreme.

It must be fun living in an alternate reality....

Uhh... I'm not the one voting for a corrupt politician and a criminal. Remember that when you enter the voting booth.

Pretty much everyone who would vote for Bernie Sanders would vote for Hillary Clinton in an election, while not everyone who would vote for Hillary Clinton would vote for Bernie Sanders if it was between Sanders and a Republican.

Evidence?

*raises hand as an example of someone who would vote for Hillary but not Bernie*

Count me in as someone who won't be voting for her if she wins the nomination.

I guess you could argue that Bernie Sanders might get more liberals to come out to vote, but it's unlikely that this would be enough to offset Sanders' disadvantage with respect to moderates and minorities.

Evidence?

# of hardcore liberals < # moderates + # of minorities

You're pulling that "math" out of your rear. Bernie does much better with Independents and Republicans than Hillary. He has consistently been doing a lot better against the Republican candidates than Hillary.

Are you unable to understand the meaning of words? That's not at all what I said

Are you even paying attention at this point? Read what dylancatlow wrote. There's no question that in states where the majority of democratic voters are minorities, Sanders would need to do a lot better in order to win. But to suggest that it is only liberals, moderates, and minorities who are voting is preposterous. And to suggest that the disadvantage would be enormous is also ludicrious. Current polling in SC shows him behind mostly because many blacks don't know much about him. The more they hear his message the more they like what they hear and the more black Hillary supporters go to Bernie. He has been closing the gap with her for some time now.

If you're living in some fantasy where you think Hillary's got this wrapped up, especially considering the fact that she hasn't had a decisive win as of yet, only Bernie has that, you're delusional beyond belief. No surprise really because I seriously can't for the life of me understand how anyone who is well informed could possibly endorse a corrupt politician only out for herself and her billionaire friends, not to mention she's under ongoing FBI investigation and will very likely be indicted and prosecuted as more and more evidence is coming in that she broke federal law. I'm so baffled by the fervent support for Hillary that the only explanation that seems to make a lick of sense is that her hardcore supporters are missing half a brain. I understand if someone does not follow politics and is not informed on the candidate's policy positions and background. But when you are someone who actually is informed and you still choose to support her, what does that say about you? Do Hillary supporters actually believe she's going to look out for them? Must be nice to live in that fantasy.