2016 American Presidential Campaign

[Bardeaux]

^ I think this has to do with the type of supporters Bernie has (i.e. vocal ones). I too was initially skeptical but think that the analysts did get it right now that more scientific polls are coming out.

Personally, who do you think provided the strongest case in the first debate? I feel like Hilary served up a lot of non answers while relying on her prerehearsed talking points and usage of the gender card.

Scientifically, what brings forward Clinton as the victor?

 

[adultswimbumpwatch]

Yeah but I'm pretty sure when people were punching holes in chads in 2008 or whatever bizarre thing it is you lot do they thought they were voting for a black guy.

Obviously we all know now he's a white Muslim.

So are you ready for Hillary or what?

Dude shut up lol

 

[cashfl0w_d0nkey]

Personally, who do you think provided the strongest case in the first debate? I feel like Hilary served up a lot of non answers while relying on her prerehearsed talking points and usage of the gender card.

Personally, the debate just reinforced what I thought previously. Clinton is a shape-shifting politician with no clear drive other than getting in power. Sanders is well-intentioned and says things that I generally like, however, his appeal is lacking to the older, more established generation. Most older people shut down when they hear someone try to explain the nuances of democratic socialism vs. socialism. They have it ingrained in their heads that socialism is radical and that Bernie Sanders is unelectable.

Scientifically, what brings forward Clinton as the victor?

The polls that determined Clinton to be the winner were the only ones using valid statistical analysis. I think it makes sense that the online polls would over-represent the Sanders vote, given the demographic that is passionately supporting him.

 

[Bardeaux]

Personally, the debate just reinforced what I thought previously. Clinton is a shape-shifting politician with no clear drive other than getting in power. Sanders is well-intentioned and says things that I generally like, however, his appeal is lacking to the older, more established generation. Most older people shut down when they hear someone try to explain the nuances of democratic socialism vs. socialism. They have it ingrained in their heads that socialism is radical and that Bernie Sanders is unelectable.

I think he's doing well in describing his platform without using the S word. It will surely be a weak spot for attack by the Republicans (remember that communist obama? 8( ), but he spells out his ideas pretty well, I think. Many of which are of great benefit to the older generation anyway. It's important to remember that the "older generation" came to fruition in the 1960s, many of whom were conscientious objectors, social activists, environmentalists, etc. He might not scare off all of the older crowd.

The polls that determined Clinton to be the winner were the only ones using valid statistical analysis. I think it makes sense that the online polls would over-represent the Sanders vote, given the demographic that is passionately supporting him.

Eh, I don't see it, really. Clinton offered up a lot of deferments, non-answers, and clearly polished and rehearsed rhetoric. Plus, these polls happen to give everyone besides Clinton and Sanders a statistical zero. How reliable can those be?

 

[cashfl0w_d0nkey]

Eh, I don't see it, really. Clinton offered up a lot of deferments, non-answers, and clearly polished and rehearsed rhetoric. Plus, these polls happen to give everyone besides Clinton and Sanders a statistical zero. How reliable can those be?

Which polls are you referring to? I was referring specifically to the NBC/Survey Monkey post-debate interview (seemingly the most robust of the bunch)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/285352517/NBC-SurveyMonkey-methodology

 

[cashfl0w_d0nkey]

I did notice a snag in the above methodology after all... Namely, with question 16-- the people that were asked who won the debate were not just those who responded in question 15 that they watched the debate live... They were also those who responded that they didn't watch the debate but followed coverage of the debate (60% of respondents actually were in this category). That's a major issue as the polling happened all the way until October 15th, long after news outlets were declaring Hillary the winner (debate was the night of the 13th). So yeah... I retract everything I said about the legitimacy of this poll.

Point me to the pitchforks?

 

[noone1]

WTF was up with andersoon cooper saying sanders "honeymooned in russia" with the first question? Its technically true I guess but they make it sound like he was there by choice. I can see why people where saying CNN gave an unfair advantage to Hillary.

I only caught half the debate but it didn't look like anybody won. I'll have to watch the rest.

 

[Bardeaux]

Which polls are you referring to? I was referring specifically to the NBC/Survey Monkey post-debate interview (seemingly the most robust of the bunch)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/285352517/NBC-SurveyMonkey-methodology

This one, I suppose ;P

I noticed this as well. Only 24% actually watched the debate as it happened. The post-debate coverage was heavily in favor of Clinton over Sanders, perhaps this could explain the vast difference between the viewer poll (taken less than an hour after the debate had ended) and this survey

Another question that caught my eye was this one:
6. Thinking about the 2016 election, if a candidate for president supports increasing federal government spending in order to offer free tuition at public universities,
would that make you more likely to vote for him or her, less likely, or wouldn’t it
make much difference to your vote?

Much More Likely to vote for:

Less likely to vote for:​

35%​

42%

Question 10 is perhaps one of the most important:

10. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Candidates who receive most of their campaign funding from large donors, corporations, or political action committees (PACs) are more influenced by special interest groups than candidates who raise most of their campaign funding from small donors

Strongly Agree:

Somewhat Agree​

55%

32%​

Sanders doesn't even have a superPAC and is notorious for raising money from small donors.

It's also important to note that 27% of those who took part in this survey considered themselves to be Republicans.

Infact, more leaned toward "Republican" than "Democrat". At the Democratic debate.....


Last but not least, this contradiction.....

16. From what you have heard and read, who do you think won or did the best job in the Democratic debate?

Clinton - 37
Sanders - 28

17. From what you have heard and read, who do you think did the worst job in the Democratic debate?

Clinton- 15
Sanders - 5

8(

Again, it seems like even in this survey, people identify more with Sanders in a blind taste test than Clinton. It's not until the labels are revealed that minds begin to change.

In closing, Coke is better than Pepsi, even if you believe you're drinking Pepsi when you're really drinking Coke ;P

 

[spacejunk]

Interesting analysis, Bardeaux.
I think the eventual outcome of this campaign (and election) will tell us some very interesting things about the political process.
At this point i'll hold off on speculating what I think those might be.

 

[manboychef]

When I think about how I felt when I was a kid about being an american I few thoughts come specifically to mind.

"I am glad I was born in America instead of Lebanon, most of Africa, or the poorer parts of China."

"We are the greatest nation on earth."

How wrong I was, and this field of candidates and the Bush II through this current presidency, as well as the presidency to follow are further cementing in my mind that I was extremely idealistic as a child.

If we elect GOP president, it is like loading an extra bullet in the gun America is playing russian roulette with (senate majority republican....evangelical politics based on morality, and contributions from special interest groups being the other bullets).

On the other hand, if we elect Hillary Clinton, which seems like its the way its going, we are voting for someone that has enough blind political ambition to constantly butt heads with the conservative majority in the senate. This will waste time and money, two things we don't have.

Since I have been eighteen and registered to vote, everytime I walk into that booth I feel like I am trying to do some complex equation in my head that will solve the problem of deciding who will least fuck up this country even more. Our government is like a bloated whale that has beached itself. It does nothing, and serves no purpose other than to take up time and money fixing it. We spent 4.7million on the benghazi hearings. What was figured out? Nothing except who has the better partisan rhetoric, however the problem is not the rhetoric. The problem is the people that are willing to swallow it. We have gone from a nation that rebelled against a tyrannical government in order to obtain sovereignty only to allow our own government to become even more bloated and corrupt than the government we left. We are a young nation, but we have been around long enough to have worked the kinks out, yet we still have a small group of hard line conservatives (the freedom caucus) willing to shut down the government in order to defund planned parenthood....which is based on Roe v Wade. We have already hashed this out.....more time and money wasted.

I am going to move to Canada...I wonder if they will accept a chef.

 

[Droppersneck]

Seems like Bernie has really run out of steam? Do you all think he was a one trick pony with the cermudgeon tirade?

 

[Bardeaux]

You have to camouflage your bait better, man

 

[CFC]

It's been good fun watching Carson's wheels fall off. Is Marco Rubio going to be the last man standing for the GOP?

 

[jammin83]

I think that's what the networks want at least since their boy jeb has fallen off.

He kind of gets on my nerves. Very anti weed. Wants to go after states where it is legal. Thinks you can't use it responsibly recreationally. Thinks sentences should be reduced very carefully whatever that means. Kind of hypocritical that a republican wants to use the power of the federal government to shut down something that's legal in a state. I think Christie wants to do the same thing. ugh.

 

[Belisarius]

Rubio is the only realistic GOP front-man. Unfortunately for the the Republicans, they're stuck with the fact that their most popular candidates are the ones least likely to make past the primaries, let alone win the general election. I have no desire to see him win, but he's the least reprehensible choice by a country mile.

 

[alasdairm]

Kind of hypocritical that a republican wants to use the power of the federal government to shut down something that's legal in a state.

that's because republicans only believe in smaller government and keeping their nose out of citizens' business when it's related to issues with which they agree. it's called paying lip service to an idea. they do it a lot

alasdair

 

[jammin83]

lol^

Thought the debate last night was pretty good actually as far as actually talking about policies and moderating go.

I thought Rand did pretty well. Better than he had done before at least. I thought the back and forth between him and rubio was mildly entertaining. Rubio wants to spend all kinds of cash on the military.

Kasich had some good moments and bad moments but seemed like he improved overall.

I liked that Cruz wanted to cut 5 fed agencies but named four lol. He's abolishing the IRS. nice.

The whole idea of shipping 11 million immigrants back to mexico seems pretty comical to me. According to Trump, we just aren't driving them far enough south.

Besides maybe Rand and Kasich, most of them scare the shit out of me with their foreign policy. The way some of them were talking, the next world war might be underway.

Trump was trump and carson was carson. Nothing really new from either one of them but Trump's composure was a little better.

Taxes need to be simplified, but I really don't see how a 10% flat tax would work.

More informative than some of the others I suppose.

 

[nuttynutskin]

Taking on the really important fucking issues...

 

[Bardeaux]

^I didn't realize Starbucks was a church?

Obvious non-issue pandering is obvious.

Rubio is the only realistic GOP front-man. Unfortunately for the the Republicans, they're stuck with the fact that their most popular candidates are the ones least likely to make past the primaries, let alone win the general election. I have no desire to see him win, but he's the least reprehensible choice by a country mile.

Indeed, Rubio is the only candidate on the GOP side that doesn't come off as a complete wacka-a-doo to the majority of Americans. He seems pretty intelligent, tactful, composed. His platform is atrocious, but I agree, he's the only realistic candidate the Republicans have put forward this year, and the only one that stands a real chance against Sanders or Clinton.

 

[drug_mentor]

^ I don't know shit about Marco Rubio but I found that whole welders make more than philosophers remark pretty funny. He really made himself look like an uninformed ass hole. All the statistics I have read suggest that philosophy majors earn tens of thousands of dollars more annually than welders after the first few years of employment.

I am quite biased, but the tendency for right wing politicians (and scientists) to lambaste the humanities and social sciences is a pet peeve of mine.