You guys are so funny if you believe CNN, or the Clinton News Network.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/cnns-wolf-blitzer-celebrates-after-at-the-democrat-convention/
CNN just put out a new poll showing Hillary up 9 52-43.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politics/trump-vs-clinton-presidential-polls-election-2016/index.html
You guys are so funny if you believe CNN, or the Clinton News Network.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/cnns-wolf-blitzer-celebrates-after-at-the-democrat-convention/
You guys are so funny if you believe CNN, or the Clinton News Network.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/cnns-wolf-blitzer-celebrates-after-at-the-democrat-convention/
You guys are so funny if you believe CNN, or the Clinton News Network.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/cnns-wolf-blitzer-celebrates-after-at-the-democrat-convention/
blaaararrraahhhgggh
the very first link you posted in the OP of this thread currently has Hillary up by 4.4
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
It's the same poll which showed Trump up +4 just one week ago. Did CNN/ORC suddenly get a pro-Clinton bias in the last 7 days?
Idiot.
I can't agree with your equivalency. Clinton already was President for 8 years and the country didn't burn to the ground (it did quite well actually). I'm far from convinced that the same could be said of a Trump administration.I really don't understand the pleasure people take in these polls. Trump is winning? Fine - that just means President Trump is more likely. Hillary is winning? Fine - that just means President Hillary is more likely. It's one thing to desperately continue trying to find that clean end on the turd, quite another to celebrate its theoretical existence.
the very first link you posted in the OP of this thread currently has Hillary up by 4.4
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
I really don't understand the pleasure people take in these polls. Trump is winning? Fine - that just means President Trump is more likely. Hillary is winning? Fine - that just means President Hillary is more likely. It's one thing to desperately continue trying to find that clean end on the turd, quite another to celebrate its theoretical existence.
It's the same poll which showed Trump up +4 just one week ago. Did CNN/ORC suddenly get a pro-Clinton bias in the last 7 days?
Idiot.
Um, BILL Clinton was President, not Hillary. And he also had a Republican Congress to keep him in line.I can't agree with your equivalency. Clinton already was President for 8 years and the country didn't burn to the ground (it did quite well actually). I'm far from convinced that the same could be said of a Trump administration.
Understood. Just understand that there all almost as many people (slightly more at times) who believe the same as you, but about Trump. The left believes as an article of faith that everyone knows Hillary will be a competent President, but half the nation is going to hold its collective nose and vote for Trump because he's Team R. That simply isn't true. Even if you don't accept that they are equally bad, at least recognize that each has their detractors and their supporters. Hell, Trump attracts much bigger crowds. These aren't people who want the world to burn, they are people convinced that only Trump can keep it from burning.This may come as a surprise to you, but not everyone in the world shares your exact assessment of these candidates. Some of us think one of them is quite a bit better than the other. Many of us do.
Um, I'm not voting for Trump. And my point isn't that "they are both just as bad", it's "they are both too bad to warrant my vote - or make comparisons useful."The "they are both just as bad" logic is how republicans can live with actually voting for trump.
Understood. Just understand that there all almost as many people (slightly more at times) who believe the same as you, but about Trump.
The left believes as an article of faith that everyone knows Hillary will be a competent President, but half the nation is going to hold its collective nose and vote for Trump because he's Team R.
That simply isn't true. Even if you don't accept that they are equally bad, at least recognize that each has their detractors and their supporters. Hell, Trump attracts much bigger crowds. These aren't people who want the world to burn, they are people convinced that only Trump can keep it from burning.
These aren't people who want the world to burn, they are people convinced that only Trump can keep it from burning.
Understood. But again, one doesn't have to agree that both candidates are equally pieces of shit to understand that there can be no joy from this election. If I'm to be shot in the face or the back, why would I cheer on one or the other, even if I have a preference?Didn't you notice that my statement was generic? I said there are many people who favor one candidate over the other. Full stop.
It goes both ways. Which is to say, not everyone agrees with you that both candidates are equally shitty. That was my point. It wasn't a pro-Clinton statement.
"The left" is not a person. People believe things. Abstract ideologies are insubstantial and hold no beliefs. What you are doing is over-generalizing. This lefty knows full well that many people are going to vote for Trump because he is with team R. He also knows that many people on the right, most people actually, have a very dim view of Clinton.
Again, I wasn't picking a side in that post. I was disagreeing with your expression of incredulity that people actually care about the polls because in your opinion both candidates are equally pieces of shit. Knowing that most people favor one candidate over the other, you shouldn't be in the least bit incredulous that people care about the polls. Sp33demon cares about the polls, and so do I. Because we both favor one candidate over the other. Not everyone thinks the candidates are the same, and those who think one is clearly better/worse than the other should care about the polls, because it turns out aggregated polls are pretty predictive of election outcomes.
If you want to talk about which candidate is shittier, I definitely have an opinion on that but that is a different discussion which had nothing to do with my reply.
No earthly idea. From where I'm sitting, every one of Hillary's fatal flaws is also present in Trump, in usually equal and often greater portion. Maybe just because he's not one of the political class.Serious question....
Why do they believe that?
Understood. But again, one doesn't have to agree that both candidates are equally pieces of shit to understand that there can be no joy from this election.
Understood. But again, one doesn't have to agree that both candidates are equally pieces of shit to understand that there can be no joy from this election. If I'm to be shot in the face or the back, why would I cheer on one or the other, even if I have a preference?
It really says something when the right wing thinks their guy is just as bad as arguably most hated democrat of all time.
Come on, dude. She accepts millions in donations as SecState from people with business in front of her in her desire to do good? She operates her own private email server while admonishing other people for occasionally using non-government email in her desire to do good?Yes, but at the risk of being redundant, just as not everyone thinks they are equally shitty, some people actually like one or the other. Many Trump supporters think he's the Second Coming. Myself, I think he's pond scum, literally the worse piece of filth to have run for POTUS in my lifetime, by a long shot.
Hillary Clinton, OTOH, I have mixed feelings about. Although I don't buy into all the "scandals" the GOP has cooked up, I'm overall not crazy about her personal ethics. On the other hand, she has many qualities which are core competencies for being an effective POTUS: intelligence, work ethic, persistence, poise under pressure, and a thick skin. I also think she has a genuine desire to do good, which is also part of the problem: she likely justifies unethical behavior on the theory that this is the only way to get into office and do good. This I think is true of both her and her husband. Yes, I think she tries to do good AND is ethically compromised, all at once. People can be complicated like that. But in the end, her husband, who is the same or worse than her ethically, wasn't a bad POTUS. I have no reason to believe she will be either. The first Clinton presidency was a collaboration between the two, and so too will the second.
For me, the choice is easy. It's someone who MIGHT be a good POTUS versus someone who WILL be a total disaster. So yeah, the polls very much matter to me.
Hair Furor - that's awesome!I think Hair Furor is working hard to end up with only getting a proportion of the vote that is equal to the crazification factor.
...
Hair Furor - that's awesome!
The "they are both just as bad" logic is how republicans can live with actually voting for trump.
The November outcome should be within 1 SD of current polls approximately two-thirds of the time. Hillary Clintons polling margin over Donald Trump is currently +8% (median of 19 pollsters since mid-March) twice the standard deviation. Based on past years, how likely is it that Trump can catch up? It is possible to convert Clintons lead to a probability using the t-distribution*, which can account for outlier events like 1964 and 1980. Using this approach, the probability that Trump can catch up by November is 9%, and the probability that Clinton will remain ahead of Trump is 91%**.