Why should we vote for a candidate with LESS of a chance to win the GE?

[Bonobo]

I have seen consistent polling that demonstrates that Hillary is less trustworthy, less liked and less capable of winning in the General Election against the Republican frontrunner.

Furthermore, it is widely agreed by any serious person that Sanders is the more Progressive candidate. Additionally, no one would argue with the statement that Hillary is more of a war hawk and thus more likely to see the US engaged in military activities with a higher military budget. She is for the Death Penalty, the list goes on and on.

So what are the remaining arguments for her anyway?

[Kalidurga]

1. Hold on I am still thinking...

...nope I got nothing.

[Furrfu]

2. It's her turn!

She's a woman, there ought to be the first female President.

She is not Bill/She is Bill (Co-Presidents)

Take your pick

[redstateblues]

3. Posting this over and over is persuading

no one. Once the opposition research got ahold of Bernie his numbers would plummet.

[Bonobo]

8. And yet Hillary's alleged ability to win the GE is touted as her strength.

All AVAILABLE evidence suggests Sanders is more likely to win it.

So while you may argue and state your unsupported "belief" that this evidence will change, based on the currently available evidence we have to accept otherwise to be the case.

Now, to the point, Hillary's political strength has been given quite often here as the reason to support her in the Primary because it sure as shit isn't because she's the more Progressive candidate... so with all evidence pointing elsewhere, why support her?

[BeanMusical]

28. "All AVAILABLE evidence suggests Sanders is more likely to win it."

You got that right.

[JonLeibowitz]

9. The incessant posting of polling is not either.

[Bonobo]

13. Actually I find that to be rather disgusting with the goal of depressing turnout.

If the goal of posting polls showing Sanders behind but hanging in there or gaining on a huge lead is to inspire hope among supporters, what is the possible purpose of constantly posting polls showing Hillary with an "insurmountable" lead if not to say "Give up, suckers!"

[JonLeibowitz]

16. That is exactly correct. The media loves talking polls concerning Bernie because if people believe

the narrative, then the corporations and moneyed interests win.

[chervilant]

24. Really?

I see Bernie's numbers increasing every day.

(If he were "not electable," constant vigilance by the HRC supporters would be unnecessary.)

[99th_Monkey]

39. +100 -nt-

[elleng]

4. Polling is virtually worthless at this point,

and only sightly moreso as time goes on.

Fortunately we'll ACTUALLY be voting not now but in the MONTHS ahead, and I plan to vote for the candidate I think best addresses the issues of the day.

I support Martin O'Malley, who

1. Ended death penalty in Maryland
2. Prevented fracking in Maryland and put regulations in the way to prevent next GOP Gov Hogan fom easily allowing fracking.
3. Provided health insurance for 380,000
4. Reduced infant mortality to an all time low.
5. Provided meals to thousands of hungry children and moved toward a goal for eradicating childhood hunger.
6. Enacted a $10.10 living wage and a $11. minimum wage for State workers.
7. Supporter the Dream Act
8. Cut income taxes for 86% of Marylanders (raised taxes on the rich).
9. Reformed Maryland’s tax code to make it more progressive.
10. Enacted some of the nation’s most comprehensive reforms to protect homeowners from foreclosure

Mother Jones magazine called him the best candidate on environmental issues.
Article here:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/12/martin-omalley-longshot-presidential-candidate-and-real-climate-hawk

His PLANS:

15 Goals to Rebuild the American Dream
https://martinomalley.com/category/15-goals/

Addiction treatment and prevention
https://martinomalley.com/policy/addiction-treatment-and-prevention/

Criminal Justice Reform
https://martinomalley.com/policy/criminal-justice/

Making College Debt Free for all Americans
https://martinomalley.com/policy/make-college-debt-free/

Holding Wall Street Accountable
https://14d2r744okfe40r1ug1oqm6y-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/OMalley-Wall-Street-Reform.pdf

Expanding Social Security
https://martinomalley.com/the-latest/expanding-social-security/

Homeland Security
https://martinomalley.com/vision/homeland-security/

Immigration
https://martinomalley.com/the-latest/immigration/

National Service
https://martinomalley.com/national-service/

Environment
https://martinomalley.com/climate/iowa/
https://martinomalley.com/climate/
https://martinomalley.com/climate/agenda/

Foreign Policy
https://martinomalley.com/policy/truman-national-security/

Gun Reform
https://martinomalley.com/policy/preventing-and-reducing-gun-violence/

Trade Policy
https://martinomalley.com/policy/trade-policy/

Campaign Finance Reform (Restoring our American Democracy)
https://martinomalley.com/the-latest/restoring-our-american-democracy/

Why We Need a Constitutional Amendment to Secure the Right to Vote:
https://martinomalley.com/the-latest/news/right-to-vote/

Veterans and Military Families
https://martinomalley.com/policy/veterans/

[Bonobo]

5. Sounds like an excellent candidate. He would have my full support as well.

In fact, I would love to see an Sanders/O'Malley ticket

[HoneychildMooseMoss]

7. Sanders/O'Malley sounds like a good ticket

[Ken Burch]

15. I could live with that.

Sanders/John Lewis or Sanders/Clyburn would also be interesting, as would Sanders/Ellison, or Sanders/Obama(Michelle, that is).

[99th_Monkey]

40. I'm holding out for Sanders/Warren as my first choice

But I'd be nearly as excited by Sanders/O'Malley, in that it would give
O'Malley time to mature in his DC chops for 4-8 years.

[JustAnotherGen]

53. +1 and

Underdogs can succeed. He is the true underdog in this race.

[Doctor_J]

63. but the hillarians post dozens of them every week

[libdem4life]

6. Political Imprinting. More known ... personality/gender/time in the public eye. Habit, IMO.

Could be some are unaccepting of an Independent coming into the Democratic Party, even though he works with them in Congress.

As far as I'm concerned, he represents the values of the Democratic Party...and he's not liberal. He's an old-fashioned Democrat. It's what we used to be about, what brought me into this party decades ago, and I'm proud to help bring it back.

I do agree, however, that her negatives do not bode well and will probably outweigh the "Socialist!" panic. When people learn that we already have a fair dose of socialism, thanks to FDR et al, I think that will settle in. The older folk will at least remember about FDR and the younger ones are mostly behind Bernie because he reaching out to them politically and personally.

[99th_Monkey]

41. Well said. nt

[libdem4life]

58. ....

[Vincardog]

10. Because she is a woman?

[840high]

11. You beat me to it. Merry Xmas

[Vincardog]

14. Uer welcome. Happy X mass

[Doctor_J]

67. a white male with her baggage and voting record would have no chance in the democratic primary

Absolutely zero. So you have hit the nail squarely on the head

[Ken Burch]

12. ...well, she did buy all those pantsuits...

[Enthusiast]

22. She could donate them to charity.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Divernan]

30. They'd make good rags-you know, to wipe things!

Remember that prison-orange colored one - talk about a clueless choice re image. Whatever happened to her DU supporter who had a montage of HRC in 7 or 8 different loudly colored pantsuits as his/her sig line? At least when she was in her pants suit phase, she'd occasionally be spotted wearing the same outfit more than once. Now that she's matched her public to her private persona and evolved into wearing designer clothing, I haven't seen photos or video of her in the same clothing twice. What a scandalous waste of money - and likely charged up as campaign expenses.

As a long time feminist myself (even taught Intro to Women's Studies back in the '70's at one point) I don't think female candidates of any political persuasion, but especially Democrats, should buy into any notion that they must be clothes horses or slaves to fashion. Or wear elaborate makeup or distracting costume jewelry. Or have entire elite beauty salons closed to other customers for hours while they have a $1200 haircut & dye job.

When I taught trial advocacy classes at a law school (Hey! I'm old! I have a long and varied employment background!), I told my male and female students that when it came to courtroom attire, they should look serious and business-like, and their appearance in general and their clothing in particular should in no way EVER distract from their message, i.e., the evidence they were presenting or the legal arguments they were making to a judge or jury.

HRC's personal shoppers and campaign advisers obviously don't agree with me.

[Enthusiast]

35. Thanks. What a great post!

You are a fun person. You taught Intro to Women's Studies back in the '70's so you are a little older than I am. I would have been a student in 1970. We have observed some crazy changes in the world around us. These most recent changes have me a bit nervous.

[Divernan]

36. You are most welcome. Merry Christmas/Joyous Festivus, etc.

The most recent changes, in particular the thought of Trump or Hillary in the Oval Office, scare the shit out of me! Who can predict what madness Trump would introduce, and with Hill it will be an extension of the U.S. endless war policy, slickly merged in with acting on her Enemies List. No defense contract for you - if you didn't contribute to that scam-a-percentage-off-the-top Clinton Family Foundation. The Clinton campaign theme song should be "Master of the House" from Les Miserables.

Master of the house, doling out the charm
Ready with a handshake and an open palm
Tells a saucy tale, Makes a little stir
Customers appreciate a bon-viveur
Glad to do a friend a favor, doesn't cost me to be nice
But nothing gets you nothing - everything has got a little price!

Residents are more than welcome -Bridal suite is occupied
Reasonable charges, Plus some little extras on the side!
Charge 'em for the lice, Extra for the mice
Two percent for looking in the mirror twice
Here a little slice. There a little cut
Three percent for sleeping with the window shut.
When it comes to fixing prices, there are a lot of tricks he knows
How it all increases
All those bits and pieces
Jesus! It's amazing how it grows!

[Enthusiast]

42. I have the same exact impression.

I think there's a bunch of us.

[murielm99]

17. You are trying to persuade yourself and other bernistas

that your guy has a chance to win the GE. The rest of us know better. Not gonna happen. He won't win more than a couple of state primaries.

Nobody widely agrees that he is more progressive. Nobody widely agrees she will get us into more "military activities," whatever THOSE are. Whatever list you think goes on and on, it doesn't. Hillary has more support. She will be the nominee and the next President.

You are persuading no one.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

20. Republicans will bombard her and have the FBI go after her

they won't let up on their Benghazis and emails. I think it isn't a good idea that she is the nominee

[JDPriestly]

21. Have you seen this? Seymour Hersh's article about our providing arms via Turkey to the

rebels including the extremists in Syria?

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

[Spitfire of ATJ]

27. Confidence isn't everything....

[artislife]

31. We may not be, but Bernie sure is.

He is persuading a lot of people.

[murielm99]

33. Not according to every reputable poll. n/t

[artislife]

34. Those archaic things? pfft. nt

[JunkyardAngel83]

37. Yeah, online polls are totally more reputable than

those ~archaic~ scientific polls.

[img][/img]

[artislife]

51. Just hours old and already a cynic on this board...

Why do I feel we have met before?

[99th_Monkey]

44. Cherry picking polls much?

I'm betting you don't dismiss polls showing Hills running ahead of Bernie. so how do you
manage to dismiss out-of-hand polls showing Bernie running stronger in the GE against the
GOP? .. and not get a massive migraine from the cognitive dissonance?

[murielm99]

59. No, actually, I am having a merry Christmas.

You have one, too.

[99th_Monkey]

61. Thank you. Back at you

with happy holiday wishes.

[H2O Man]

18. Recommended.

Well said.

[Hoyt]

19. George McGovern redux.

[hedda_foil]

23. Well see, that's why she'll need a billion or two "donated" to her campaign.

That's what PACs are for anyway.

[Dustlawyer]

25. The people I think, are fed up enough with the corruption to finally want to do

something about it. Trump recognized it with Bernie and that is why he started out so hot. He said all Washington politicians are corrupt, but I am rich and don't need their money (he still takes it of course). That is one of the smart things he did to establish himself is go populist on the Republican side. They too are fed up with the corruption which they think has prevented Obamacare from being thrown out along with a host of Republican issues their politicians have been promising and not delivering on.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

26. Because it makes the DC Villagers happy.

[Doctor_J]

66. And wall street

[pnwmom]

29. You can't have it both ways. People say Bernie hasn't had media attention,

and that explains why his numbers are low.

But IF he hasn't had media attention, that means he hasn't yet been subjected to the kind of public smears that Hillary has withstood for decades.

We know what her perceived negatives are, but the Rethugs have been withholding attacks against Bernie. They will go at him with all the innuendo and lies at their disposal if he does become the nominee.

And that will lower his current favorability numbers.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Can someone please provide the empirical evidence for this observation in light of this:

All AVAILABLE evidence suggests Sanders is more likely to win it.

So while you may argue and state your unsupported "belief" that this evidence will change, based on the currently available evidence we have to accept otherwise to be the case.

-Bonobo

Can someone please provide the empirical evidence for this observation in light of this:



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-winner/

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Thank you in advance.
Happy holidays

[Bonobo]

38. Have you seen the polls showing Sanders does better VS Trump?

There have been many.

Just Google it and have a great Christmas!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. I supplied aggregate polling:

I supplied aggregate polling:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

The aggregate polling:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

The predictive markets:

http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-winner/

Thr gaming markets:

http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-winner/


The nation's premier statstician:

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

and the voters:




contradict your observation:

"...All AVAILABLE evidence suggests Sanders is more likely to win it."

Based on the above can you please cite the "ALL (the) AVAILABLE evidence" to support your conclusion.

Thank you in advance and have a "Great Christmas!"

[Bonobo]

45. The tremendous outlier in your "aggregate" is oddly FOX poll.

It has a very weird looking number showing Hillary beating Trump by something like 10 points whereas the same FOX poll shows a tright race between Sanders and Trump. That data throws your aggregate way out of whack.

I don't want to sound suspicious, far from me to cast aspersions on such a reliable source, but the fact is that the FOX results stand out like a sore thumb in their oddness. One would ALMOST get the idea that the FOX and Repubs want Hillary to be the candidate.

Isn't the weird?

Sorry, though, rather than this aggregate, which includes the suspicious FOX news poll, I think I would go with the more believable sources.

Furthermore, your aggregate includes polling that puts Clinton VS> Trump but does not include Sanders VS. Trump. IOW, you are comparing apples and oranges. Let's look at the 3 polls which include both candidates.

Quinnipiac
FOX News
PPP (D)

In the Quinnipiac, it shows Hillary beating Trump by 47 to 40 and Sanders beating him by 51 to 38. The PPP shows Hillary beating Trump by 3 and Sanders losing to Trump by 2, probably both very much in the MOE. The Fox News Poll alone is the outlier showing winning by 11 and Sanders losing by 5. With a margin like that, and the source, I think you would be reasonable if you agreed that it probably represents some nefarious agenda.


Sorry, a bit busy right now roasting chicken and those were my initial observations after looking at the details of your aggregate.

Once again, merry christmas.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. The whole purpose of aggregate polling...

The whole purpose of aggregate polling is to eliminate the cherry picking of polling to provide an average of all the polls. Would you agree that is a sound principle based on Bayesian probabilities?


Would you agree that the predictive markets:


http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-winner/

contradict your observation that ""...All AVAILABLE evidence suggests Sanders is more likely to win it." ?

Would you agree that the gaming markets:


http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner


contradict your observation that ""...All AVAILABLE evidence suggests Sanders is more likely to win it." ?


Would you agree that the one of the nation's premier statisticians:

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor


contradict your observation that ""...All AVAILABLE evidence suggests Sanders is more likely to win it." ?


Would you agree that the voters themselves;





contradict your observation that ""...All AVAILABLE evidence suggests Sanders is more likely to win it." ?


Thank you in advance for answering all my question. I am certain you will provide data to support all your conclusions.


"Once again, merry christmas." to you.

[Bonobo]

47. Apologies, I updated my post while you were writing.

In light of your evidence, I certainly must soften my statement that all evidence shows Sanders beats Trump more convincingly than Hillary does. Thank you.

However, I must reiterate and underscore my objection to the AMOUNT that the FOX News poll skews the results of the aggregate. Yes, in theory the purpose of an aggregate poll is to do what you say, to avoid cherry picking.

But there is another commonly used method to avoid outliers skewing the results and that is to throw out the outliers. In this case, I believe you would probablly agree with me that the FOX NEWS POLL which sticks out like a sore thumb with its weird numbers, should be tossed out.

That would place the results in a much more favorable light for Mr. Sanders.

On edit: As I said, I am cooking at the moment and apologize if I do not meet all your questions to your satisfaction.

On edit 2: Quinnipiac VS. FOX NEWS POLL is a no-brainer wrt which to believe.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. If you throw out the FOX polls

If you throw out the FOX polls then you are left with two candidates , according to the aggregate, running about the same against their GOP opponents. That is a little bit different than your original argument:

"All AVAILABLE evidence suggests Sanders is more likely to win it."

I would suggest as a tie breaker we look at predictive markets:

http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-winner/

gaming markets:

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner

the nation's premier statistician:

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor


and the voters themselves:




Would you or would you not agree that looking at "ALL (the) available evidence" could lead one to a different conclusion than the one you have drawn?

Thank you in advance.

Happy Holidays
DSB

[Bonobo]

49. DSB, you have made a good point. The results are rather less clear than I claimed.

Once again, I will add that the Quinnipiac poll is a far more reliable measure of the state of things than the FOX NEWS POLL that you included in your aggregate.

The Quinnipiac shows Sanders beating Trump by a larger margin than does Hillary. Perhaps I will leave it at that.

What I would like to say, instead of my overly exuberant OP is that there can be no argument that Hillary fares BETTER than Sanders in a GE against Trump?

Can we agree to that?

Looking forward to your reasonable reply.

[Bonobo]

57. DSB = no response.

I guess I was foolish to expect a "reasonable reply".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. The predictions markets, the gaming markets, and the voters themselves suggest Clinton is...

The predictions markets, the gaming markets, and the voters themselves suggest Clinton is the stronger candidate:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251945331#post49

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251945331#post70

One candidate has a 59% chance of winning the general election , the other candidate has a 2% chance of winning the general election. That's not a close difference. It is a huge one.



You seem to be arguing that the polls show Senator Sanders to be a stronger candidate against the Republicans than Secretary Clinton when the data is mixed at best. The Law Of Large Numbers suggest the best way to understand a political race is to average all the polls and not try to eliminate this poll or that poll from the average because the poll we dislike might very well be right. In fact the data suggests they are both running about the same against the GOP, the differences are well within the margin of error:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html


To recap evidence from the predictions markets, the gaming markets, and the voters themselves suggest Hillary Clinton is the stronger general election candidate. Those are empirical observations and not normative ones. I can elaborate on why that is the case if you want.

I hope you are having a terrific Christmas day.

P.S. Please attribute my tardiness in responding to you to Christmas drama which has been successfully resolved.

[rjsquirrel]

50. Because those polls are meaningless

Why should we vote for a candidate who is 10-20 points behind his primary opponent in national polls?

Funny how people choose which polls they believe based on what they want to be the outcome.

[firebrand80]

52. Well, that's just like, your opinion man. nt

[Mike Nelson]

54. On your first point...

...I disagree. Hillary's negatives have been established by the (lol) liberal media and Republicans. If Bernie should win the nomination, expect a massive smear campaign. The Republicans are going to throw every bit of excrement at the Democratic nominee.

Your second is absolutely Bernie's strength among us, but will probably hurt him in the general. However, the above Republican response will take over. Any Democrat will be portrayed as weak on "Terror".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. FIXED

Any Democrat but Hillary will be portrayed as weak on "Terror"

When voters look at equally experienced male and female politicians, “the man will still be seen as more capable on issues of national security and defense,” Meredith Conroy, a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, wrote me in response to my inquiry about the current election. But “Hillary is able to overcome this and other gender stereotypes. She turns much of the scholarship on voter perceptions of Democratic candidates, and furthermore female politicians, on its head.”

...


According to the transcript, the 12 women and 12 men — a mix of Democrats, Republicans and independents — variously described their impression of Bush’s spine as made of “marshmallow,” “styrofoam,” “Jell-O,” “play dough,” “pillow,” “papier-mâché” and “chalk.”

In contrast, participants described Hillary Clinton’s backbone as made of “titanium,” “steel,” “ice” and “cement.”



...

Some of the comments made during the focus group sessions indicated that the Benghazi Committee created by House Republicans in May 2014 to damage Clinton’s presidential prospects had backfired. Referring in part to Clinton’s performance during an 11 hour interrogation by the committee, a participant identified as Thomas noted:

Her ability to walk through what she’s had thrown at her just in the last six months should give you an idea that the woman has definitely got some strength. She’s there. I don’t necessarily agree with where she’s coming from, but still, you cannot knock what that woman is like.

Alan, another participant, added:

I don’t necessarily agree with her positions, but she is definitely strong. For lack of a better term, she’s got some ----, you know. She stands up and stands firm.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/opinion/campaign-stops/hillary-clintons-toughness.html?_r=0

[DanTex]

55. Good question. I support Hillary, who obviously has better chances in the GE.

I guess Sanders supporters think that the differences between Sanders and Clinton are big enough to warrant risking the catastrophe that would ensue if the GOP won the White House. Not me.

[onenote]

60. because general election polls this far out are worthless?

[Andy823]

62. I agree

You can find that candidate, and what he stands for here:

https://martinomalley.com

[Vinca]

64. I'll tell you how this is going to play out.

Hillary is going to be the nominee one way or the other . . . the powers that be have already chosen her. She will then go on to lose the general election because she hasn't generated any excitement, at which time all of us who supported Bernie will be blamed whether we ended up voting for Hillary or not. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm not. At least Trump will keep SNL in material for the next 4 years.

[Doctor_J]

65. there aren't any valid arguments for her over Sanders

Unless you are a republican.

[brooklynite]

69. Or one of the 60% of Democrats who support her?

[Doctor_J]

70. DINOS, people desperate to vote for a woman, and those who have given up trying to save

the party and the country. And I guess many who believe she will somehow win a ge landslide while Sanders is "unelectable". Not valid reasons IMO.

[snot]

68. PS: nice gif!