Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumjillan
(39,451 posts)Can you imagine if she is the nominee & Cruz beats her?
daleanime
(17,796 posts)I shudder to think about the out-come if she fails to lose the primary. The republicans would have an unnecessary veto proof congress.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)rocktivity
(44,577 posts)Sexist or partisan Republicans, that's who!
rocktivity
thereismore
(13,326 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)Gregorian
(23,867 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)All numbers regarding Dem vs Rep match ups have nothing to do with reality or as some put it, are completely meaningless.
So I guess it does not matter
I disagree, but they are all very serious experts on all such election matters, whereas we only dream about unicorns and rainbows and have no idea how elections even work, so I guess we should just ignore all this because they say they know for a certainty, that Hillary is more electable in every way, and such poll numbers mean nothing if they concern electability in a GE.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)gives me a headache.
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)Of course if those same numbers showed Hillary beating all the Republicans they would walk around with them stuck to their foreheads so everyone could see. The blind support in this race is not for Bernie but for Hillary.
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)It boggles the mind that people would actually say Clinton is more electable.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)a lot of conservatives are saying they'd vote for Bernie because they want to get him as the nominee, because they think he can be beat more easily.
I don't know how true either of those ideas is, actually. I don't think Bernie would be a pushover in a GE, but I think ultimately Dems have to vote their conscience in the primary and not worry about who is more electable.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Republican is more beatable by your preferred candidate, and you're asked which one you'd vote for in the head to head match up, you'd say you'd vote for the Republican because you want him as their nominee?
There might be a tiny minority of those polled who would respond that way, but I really doubt it.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)that Republicans are lying to the pollsters? Saying they'd vote for Bernie because they really would vote for whoever the Republican nominee is? That involves a level of sophisticated thinking most people aren't really capable of, and I sincerely doubt it's happening that way.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)trying to rationalize the results.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)And it's my personal opinion that there wouldn't be enough people answering the polling questions in such a backwards way as to actually make a difference.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)and imo, unsurprisingly so.
But these kinda polls allegedly don't mean anything this far out from the general election and can't reasonably be used to either support or to dispute an "electability" argument.
If HC was running unopposed and similarly situated with them, they would of course be cause for celebration and confidence in a favorable/preferred 2016 outcome.
OhZone
(3,212 posts)in a couple of weeks.
:/
daleanime
(17,796 posts)mistaking them for Bernie supporters isn't a common mistake. But don't worry about, if your right you'll get your wish. A solidly republican government. Something really worth working for. Have a lovely day.
OhZone
(3,212 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)are different times?
OhZone
(3,212 posts)That this far out, the polls are not really meaningful.
The truth is much of the country is right and far right, and even center low information voters are not ready for what they will soon learn about Bernie.
"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."
Oh well.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)which is why you want to continue down this path we're on?
The polls have as much meaning as your assurance the Bernie is un-electable. But if Hillary fails to lose the primary, good luck to you. You'll need it.
OhZone
(3,212 posts)Good luck to you too.
longship
(40,416 posts)Which is a rather mind numbing pronouncement. No! History does not repeat itself! And likewise, anybody who would trot out Santayana merely to make a political point should know better, and should be ridiculed.
Sheesh!
OhZone
(3,212 posts)The 90s under Clinton were the best times economically! OHYEAH!
longship
(40,416 posts)That should be enough to falsify any such claim.
Read The Big Short to witness the utter Hell which the repeal of that 1930's act hath wrought.
Here: learn!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Legislation
OhZone
(3,212 posts)with a VETO PROOF majority with a GOP congress.
Stop blaming Demcrats for GOP evil.
longship
(40,416 posts)Let me remind you.
Here's Hillary actually defending that odious event:
And veto proof? That is no excuse when Bill so cheerfully signed it.
You are oh so busted on this.
One hopes that your naive platitudes on history are just that. That way few others would plunge down that odious hole that so many others have fallen.
My regards.
OhZone
(3,212 posts)But she's right Bush and the GOP never addressed the issues that sprang up from the bill.
And that lead to the crash in 2008 under Bush.
Thank God we got a Democrat back in the White House and legislation to address some of the issues.
More needs to be done. Sure.
And Hillary's plan is a good one.
longship
(40,416 posts)If so, she definitively does not have a good plan. And she apparently still does.
In fact, I can state straight out that it is my opinion that she has no plan whatsoever, other than excuses about why Bernie's plan is unrealistic. Well, that and more wars and an adherence to status quo, both which are apparently not working very well for her in many places.
Sure she might very well win the nomination -- it's her turn (haven't we been here before?) -- but I have some visceral dislike for political dynasties. Being the spouse of an office holder in no way qualifies one to be an office holder. That is true no matter the gender. And political office in the USA is not an inherited position, passed down to other family members. I think we fought a revolution to eliminate such things -- that would be an appropriate citation of Santayana.
You have nothing here. Nada!
The extent that Secy Clinton still defends that vote is the extent that I cannot vote for her in the primary. And it is the extent that I will oppose her for the nomination. Don't get me started about her equivocation and triangulation on her Iraq vote.
I will support and vote for her in the GE, but god help us all if she gets the nod at the convention.
OhZone
(3,212 posts)You can't live in the past and want 100% perfection from people. Sorry.
longship
(40,416 posts)Quoting "The Goon Show", Hercules Grypt-Pipe-Thynne, played by PeterSellers. (Oppsie! A better one.)
My fondest regards, at least you have a sense of humor. I am all over that in spite of differences of opinion.
My best to you, my good friend. I however very respectfully disagree with both your history and your politics. That does not mean I cannot call you a friend.
longship
(40,416 posts)That is why The Young Turks are so popular. And why Cenk Uygur is a steely-eyed missile man.
And the seemingly sole argument the Clinton supporters have is that a guy who has caucused with the Democratic Party all his political life is somehow not a Democrat. That is weak sauce, at best. My advice, stick to the issues. That is the only sauce that matters. (Not to stretch a culinary metaphor too far.)
R&
daleanime
(17,796 posts)maybe it's time for a nice pasta dinner.
longship
(40,416 posts)My regards. I think I'll do linguine with clam sauce tonight. (White, not red.)
daleanime
(17,796 posts)That sounds good too, I'll be going red. I make a nice spicy veggie marina sauce, unfortunately no alcohol allowed so it will be grape juice for the drink.