Dems start electoral college with 240 votes, how do they loose? (illegal, Obama)

[WeHa]

Originally Posted by Dequindre

3. You can't deny that there is a very active socialist-wing of the Democratic Party. You can't give Elizabeth Warren credit for that, she has only been a Senator for what, 3 years? There was always a socialist wing of the party, whether you want to admit it or not. Luckily for Republicans, that socialist wing isn't eager to vote for someone like Hillary who has been propped up by corporations and large banks. Heck, she was on Walmart's board of directors!

I wouldn't count on that. Are a lot of Sanders supporters people who wouldn't otherwise vote? Maybe. But even if they are they will show up for the primary and by that point will be heavily engaged in the race. I'm not saying all of them will accept Hillary and show up to vote, but I do believe many of them realize Hillary is still better than any Republican and since they're now well aware of the issues, I wouldn't be surprised if they did come out and vote in the Presidential.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Dequindre

1. It's not just Hillary's favorability numbers that are low, her likability, trustworthiness, and "does she care about me" numbers are all in double digit negative territory.

2. Hillary is the defacto Democratic candidate at this point. People in the general public know very little about the Republican candidates because the field is so massive. Expect Republican poll numbers to rise once the field thins out.

3. You can't deny that there is a very active socialist-wing of the Democratic Party. You can't give Elizabeth Warren credit for that, she has only been a Senator for what, 3 years? There was always a socialist wing of the party, whether you want to admit it or not. Luckily for Republicans, that socialist wing isn't eager to vote for someone like Hillary who has been propped up by corporations and large banks. Heck, she was on Walmart's board of directors!

1. I think like likability and favorably are interchangeable in polls as I have not seen any poll both.

The last " Do they care poll" I can find is from May 31st and it says that those who answered yes, did so for Clinton at a higher margin than any GOP candidate. And in that poll, it is not double digit negative territory, its 5%.

2. Was Barack Obama not the defacto Democratic Nominiee in 2012 ???

3.You said it was Sander's wing. Since Sanders has only been in the national scene for 5 or 6 months, you cant very well claim it belongs to him, where as Warren has been a much more prominent figure for the last 4 years.

Also, im pretty sure all those polls that say," is there any Democratic candidate you arent willing to vote for " all have that number in single digits, meaning they would vote for Clinton.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Dequindre

Oh, that's good then. Hillary is losing Independents by double-digit margins in a very wide Republican field.

You do realize Romney lost right ????

[bluesjuke]

Originally Posted by bellhead

Republicans, answer me how do the dems loose with the nation being more polarized and Red becoming Redder and Blue becoming Bluer?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...d0c_story.html

Democrats have a built-in edge in the Electoral College. But it guarantees them nothing for 2016

1 there aren't a hell of a lot of "swing states." Giving that extra Nebraska vote to the GOP, all that remains are 10 states, totaling 116 electoral votes, that have offered their electoral votes to both parties since 2000.

2 the Republicans have to win the outsized majority of those "swing" electoral votes to win the presidency. If the Democrats can hold onto just 24 percent of the electoral votes "in play," they win the White House.

So Dems will win every Presidential for the foreseeable future?
For decades perhaps?


Nah.

[MTQ3000]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Mitt Romney won independents by 5% and still lost the election.

However, what's interesting is that Obama beat Romney 56-41% among those who identified themselves as "moderates" in political philosophy.

Mick

[Dequindre]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

1. I think like likability and favorably are interchangeable in polls as I have not seen any poll both.

The last " Do they care poll" I can find is from May 31st and it says that those who answered yes, did so for Clinton at a higher margin than any GOP candidate. And in that poll, it is not double digit negative territory, its 5%.

2. Was Barack Obama not the defacto Democratic Nominiee in 2012 ???

3.You said it was Sander's wing. Since Sanders has only been in the national scene for 5 or 6 months, you cant very well claim it belongs to him, where as Warren has been a much more prominent figure for the last 4 years.

Also, im pretty sure all those polls that say," is there any Democratic candidate you arent willing to vote for " all have that number in single digits, meaning they would vote for Clinton.

1. Here's an outdated "Does she care" data set, but it's older:

In Colorado, voters say “57 – 39 percent that she does not care about their needs and problems.”

In Iowa, “she does not care about their needs and problems, voters say 55 – 39 percent.”

And in Virginia, “she does not care about their needs and problems, voters say 50 – 45 percent.”

https://www.americarisingpac.org/q-p...ters-problems/

Please mind the link, it's has the actual Quinnipiac poll attached.

2. Of course he was, but were his likability and trust numbers as low as Clinton's are?

3. I specifically called it the socialist-wing. Socialism has been around a heck of a lot longer than Bernie has.

[Dequindre]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

You do realize Romney lost right ????

If we're to believe current polling, but that metric, Republicans are already at an advantage with the Independent vote. Is that a fair statement?

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by Dequindre

Is Hillary going to inspire them though? You have a whole Bernie-wing of the party calling her a corporate sellout, which is one of the reasons why they're flocking to Bernie. That's a divide that may be too deep to overcome.

Mrs. Clinton doesn't have to be the most inspiring candidate that ever lived. Given the choice between Clinton and some right-wing GOP candidate, even the most liberal Democrat is going to hold their nose and vote for Mrs. Clinton. It's like the joke about two friends in the woods that see a bear. One says, "if the bear runs towards us, I'm going to run." The other says, "do you think you can outrun a bear?" The first then replies, "I don't have to outrun the bear -- I just have to outrun you."

Mrs. Clinton only needs to beat the GOP candidate -- not a mythical ideal candidate. All the current GOP candidates are flawed, even though people here look at people like Trump as a magnet for voters. They don't realize that Trump only has support among 30% of Republicans. That means that 70% of Republicans want someone else and that doesn't even include his disfavor among Democrats, especially Hispanic voters. Whoever thinks Trump can capture 375 directorial votes swallowed a dose of wishful thinking.

[bellhead]

What I love is when I started this thread I wanted one republican poster to tell me how they were going to win and to this point none have.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by Dequindre

If we're to believe current polling, but that metric, Republicans are already at an advantage with the Independent vote. Is that a fair statement?

No, it is not a fair statement. I see no reason to think that independent voters favor Republican presidential candidates over Democrats.