HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Garrett78 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Wed Aug 19, 2015, 04:47 AM
Number of posts: 10,721

Journal Archives

It's backed up by some polls.

Just as some polls show Clinton beating Trump and others show her losing to Trump. And I don't give a rip about any of them, no matter who they have in the lead--all are worthless.

All cherry picking aside, the overarching point stands. Hypothetical general election match-up polls are historically misleading...to put it mildly.

McCain beats Clinton by 1 and Obama by 5:


Dukakis vs. Bush:



Kerry led Dubya in a majority of polls up until September:


Dubya led Gore in polls right up until election day.

George H.W. Bush had big leads over Clinton in early polling of '92. It wasn't until July that Clinton first took a lead in polls.

Even Bob Dole led Bill Clinton in polls...though, in that case, I'm referring to polls taken more than a year before the election. Throughout '96, there wasn't ever much doubt that Clinton would win re-election.

Early polling had Carter defeating Reagan. Actually, late polling did, as well. But times were different. There was only 1 debate between the 2, and that was a week before the election (Reagan got a big bump following that debate).

This isn't about how I feel. This is about reality.

While I'm not a Clinton fan, I am a fan of reality-based thinking. From my experience, reality-based thinking is a rare thing on DU.

When it comes to the supposed value of hypothetical general election match-up polls at this juncture (Remember President Dukakis? Me neither.).

When it comes to who independents are: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512026152

When it comes to which candidate has done best in the 'reddest' parts of the US (Sanders).

When it comes to the so-called reliability of exit poll data (historically untrustworthy for numerous reasons).

When it comes to primary turnout supposedly correlating to general election turnout (historically, there's no correlation).

When it comes to thinking losing a state in the primary means that person will lose that state in the general.

When it comes to who has won more open primaries (Clinton).

When it comes to a basic understanding of demographic and mathematical realities.

Reality simply doesn't jibe with what so many on DU believe, or wish to believe.

Hypothetical GE match-up polling is meaningless at this juncture.

You'll notice that Dukakis did not become POTUS (not even close). You'll notice that McCain did not become POTUS (not even close). A general election campaign is a different dynamic. The polls at this point, which so many on DU love to mention, are worthless.

And, as the Washington Post pointed out, the Democratic candidate has a much easier path to the nomination given today's demographics. The Democratic candidate has won 19 states (plus DC) in 6 consecutive presidential elections for a total of 242 electoral college votes. Just 28 more and it's a done deal.

There's a reason oddsmakers heavily favor Clinton to become the next POTUS. The vocal majority at DU contradicts the general consensus.

"Most independents are just partisans who are turned off by partisanship."

For your reading pleasure: http://www.thenation.com/article/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-independent-voters/

An excerpt:

While around four-in-10 voters say they’re independents, very few are actually swing voters. In fact, according to an analysis of voting patterns conducted by Michigan State University political scientist Corwin Smidt, those who identify as independents today are more stable in their support for one or the other party than were “strong partisans” back in the 1970s. According to Dan Hopkins, a professor of government at the University of Pennsylvania, “independents who lean toward the Democrats are less likely to back GOP candidates than are weak Democrats.”

While most independents vote like partisans, on average they’re slightly more likely to just stay home in November. “Typically independents are less active and less engaged in politics than are strong partisans,” says Smidt.

Rising polarization—and the increasingly personal and nasty nature of our politics—has had a paradoxical effect on the American electorate. On one hand, the growing distance between the two major parties has contributed to a dramatic decrease in the number of true swing voters. Smidt found that low-information voters today are as aware that there are significant differences between the two major parties as well-informed people were in the 1970s, and people who are aware of those differences tend to have more consistent views of the parties’ candidates. At the same time, says Smidt, many people who vote consistently for one party say they’re independents because they “view partisanship as bad” and see claiming allegiance to a party “as socially unacceptable.”

Clinton has been relying on the Obama Coalition throughout this campaign.

I keep seeing people point out that Clinton won such and such state in '08 but lost it this year. While true, it doesn't prove the point they seem to think it proves.

Surely people aren't just now realizing that Sanders is doing well where Clinton did well in '08. Clinton not doing as well in Kentucky (or Indiana or Oklahoma or Massachusetts, etc.) this year as she did in '08 is not a surprise, nor is it really meaningful. It follows a well-established pattern. If anything, it's surprising that she did as well as she did in some of those states.

Clinton is focused on winning the way Obama won. Naturally, this means her opponent (Sanders) is going to do well in places where Clinton did well against Obama in '08--when her target demographic was much different.

Again, this should be obvious and something everyone recognized months ago. Clinton does best in delegate-rich, diverse states. Sanders does best in less diverse and typically smaller states. That pattern was established more than 2 months ago. With there being no reason to believe that pattern would suddenly get flipped upside down, it's not hard to understand why many said Clinton had the nomination sewn up by mid-March.

Not to mention that at this stage in the game, the Clinton campaign is just going through the motions and waiting for the inevitable to become official. As was the case with Obama in '08 when he lost a majority of the primaries down the stretch, knowing that it didn't really matter. It's mere formalities going forward. Whether the convention is contested or not, it won't be brokered. The candidate with a clear majority of pledged delegates will reach 2383 (and then some) on the first vote. A mere formality whether Sanders concedes or not.

What would happen if Sanders ran as a 3rd Party candidate?

Some have suggested that Sanders might win, meaning he'd reach 270 electoral college votes. I think there's virtually no chance that would happen. Keep in mind where Sanders performs best (smaller, less diverse states). In my opinion, each of the following scenarios are all far more likely:

1) Trump reaching 270 with the help of Sanders splitting the vote with Clinton in traditionally 'blue' states (like those in New England and the Pacific NW)

2) Nobody reaching 270, leaving it up to the House of Representative to select the next POTUS

3) Clinton reaching 270 anyway, as enough people in swing states and traditionally 'blue' states recognize the risk of voting for Sanders

Perot did amazingly well in '92, by 3rd Party standards. Bill Clinton still won 370 electoral college votes.

The #1 key to the Democratic candidate winning in November is...

...having POC and women solidly behind the candidate. Like it or not, the candidate who fits that description is Clinton. As unpopular as Trump is, I would worry about Democratic turnout if Sanders were to be nominated. That's why I had started the following thread in spite of not being a big fan of Clinton: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511829582.

That's the base. Those are the folks who must buy in, so to speak. Those who are most often mistreated in our society can ill afford to take a chance on a relative unknown.

And for all the talk about "independents," they're a mixed bag. Some who self-identify as 'independents' are vehemently opposed to others who self-identify that way. About half of Tea Party members, for instance, choose to call themselves "independent." Obama lost the overall independent vote in 2012 and even lost the independent vote in nearly every swing state, yet won in an electoral college landslide. Why? I refer you back to the start of this thread.

People can point to hypothetical GE match-up polls all they want, but they are historically misleading. At this juncture, they're basically meaningless, especially when you're talking about a candidate who is - again - relatively unknown (most folks don't follow politics super closely and Sanders is not someone who has been in the spotlight for all that long). If hypothetical GE match-up polls were even remotely reliable, Dukakis would have become POTUS. A GE campaign completely changes the dynamic.

Nate Silver isn't the only one who writes for 538.

Whenever someone posts an article from FiveThirtyEight, numerous people immediately attack Nate Silver. Guess what, folks, most of the articles posted were not written by Nate Silver. Perhaps if people would actually read the articles they would realize this. Just a thought.

What's amazing is how attached people get to their conspiracy theories.

Even in the face of overwhelming evidence that contradicts their theories. Google "Sanders wins Indiana" and you get more than 9 *million* hits.

Go to the sites for every major newspaper and television news channel and you'll find a headline about Sanders winning Indiana. Go to HuffPo. Go to MoveOn. Go to Daily Kos. Go to Yahoo. Go to Politico. Every single one has an article about Sanders's win in Indiana.

Sure, Trump Mania has gotten more media coverage throughout this campaign (and Cruz dropping out is legitimately big news) than the Democratic race has gotten, but it's crazy to suggest there aren't headlines all over the web about Sanders winning Indiana.

The Indiana result represents a continuation of the pattern.

Indiana, like a majority of the remaining states, matches the profile of a Sanders state. Neither glee nor panic seem like appropriate responses to something that merely follows suit.

That said, I suppose there is something to the idea that more delegates for Sanders means more influence on the Democratic Party platform. But platforms and governance are 2 different things, and systemic change will require a sustained, mass movement long after this nomination process is complete. It's safe to say a Clinton Administration will govern very much like the Obama Administration has. If you aren't satisfied with that, influencing the party platform (words on a page) won't get the results you seek.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 Next »