[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[Biggles]

Yea, nobody likes to stick up for the minority unless it's en vogue, but suspending the rights of the minority is always a human rights offense. At one point in time we thought it was ok to suspend the rights of black people in this country (it wasn't), and that doing so benefited everyone (it didn't). Today we think it's ok to suspend rights based on income (it isn't), and that doing so benefits everyone (it doesn't). Class warfare is about as productive as racial warfare.

The principle is the same, check my signature.

At one point in time we thought it was ok to suspend the rights of black people in this country - well, it really wasn't "one point in time" , was it? It was for a couple of hundred years - most of the history of the United States in fact & the consequences of that 200 year "suspension" are still, not surprisingly, with us.

Sanders rhetoric against the rich reminds me of Hitler demonizing the Jews, pointing to a single small minority group and blaming them for all the ills of the country. Different group and MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES (Bernie speak) aren't defenseless like the Jews were, but the principle is the same.

Actually, Sanders doesn't "blame the rich for all the ills of the country". He wants them to pay higher tax rates. And yes, the rich aren't "defenseless", in fact they're living extremely comfortable lives ... nothing at all like the Jews being herded into concentration camps & gassed to death by the millions.

There really is a difference "in principle" between paying higher tax rates because you have more money & being enslaved, beaten or lynched for being black, or sent to the gas chamber for being Jewish.

Danoff your major concern when it comes to "human rights" always seems to be the injustice of progressive taxes while you constantly downplay the significance of other much more egregious human rights abuses. What's with that?

Your signature? Why would you treat Ayn Rand like the fountainhead of some kind of transcendent truth? I am struggling to understand why you, or any thinking person, would base their belief system on the ideas of a third rate, philosopher, mediocre novelist & terrible human being like Ayn Rand. It should be abundantly clear that her ideas are largely a product of the era she lived in, her particular life experiences & her own fundamental misanthropy. That's not to say that there isn't some value in her ideas, but a lot of what she writes is pure, unmitigated rubbish. Step outside, breathe the fresh air, read around, consider other viewpoints, broaden your horizons. Embrace the possibility that the world may contain more variabilities than can be contained in a one sentence aphorism.

 

[mustafur]

Such as? The only big state that I could see being a challenge are Florida for example. New York is hers, Michigan hers, Illinois hers, California...what else is left after she's won all those? Nothing.

Where is your polling data?

Sanders still leads Hillary in majority of Polls against republicans which suggests not many democrats are favourable to her, her name recognition advantage is obvious and who is to say Sanders can't reel that in considering how much he has in national polling since the start of the year.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Where is your polling data?

Sanders still leads Hillary in majority of Polls against republicans which suggests not many democrats are favourable to her, her name recognition advantage is obvious and who is to say Sanders can't reel that in considering how much he has in national polling since the start of the year.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

Yeah I'm well aware with Rubio and Cruz having a closer fight to Sanders than Trump, and surely you can do better than the huffington. My data comes from CNN which is similar to what you posted, but even their data is skewed so I didn't bother. I could post up more trusting data from local media of the states in question.

 

[mustafur]

look at that sources of that poll, before discrediting it.

The polls are not all equal because of how many people they poll, but combining most of them together gives you a more reliable figure.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

look at that sources of that poll, before discrediting it.

The polls are not all equal because of how many people they poll, but combining most of them together gives you a more reliable figure.

I did. And no not exactly, statistical analysis isn't quite that clean and cut, considering as you put it sample size from the population they poll are obviously not going to be the same. You also have differing demographics between each data set, and how the data alone is ultimately understood.

 

[mustafur]

The point im making is Sanders name recognition has increased substantially, and while there is a margin of Error there is no doubt it has increased the longer this has gone, Hillary has been in the limelight for 20 years so that advantage is always going to make a huge difference in the early stages.

 

[GTPorsche]

With the way Sanders has been making gains on Hillary, I feel as though if he had started on his campaign sooner, it might be a different outcome we'd be looking at right now.

But, none of us have a what-if machine, and he's got a hill to climb to beat Hillary at this point.

 

[mustafur]

With the way Sanders has been making gains on Hillary, I feel as though if he had started on his campaign sooner, it might be a different outcome we'd be looking at right now.

But, none of us have a what-if machine, and he's got a hill to climb to beat Hillary at this point.

For this campaign I think he started at the right time and it was still very early, the problem is no one knew he he was at the time, if he had of done a previous Nomination bid in 2008, I think that would of helped him get to where he is now months before the voting started.

Ron Paul is a good example of this, whilst I think his demographic is significantly less populous then Sanders so his potential was always going to be less in this environment(combined with the fact most of where he needed to get his New voters from where likely democrat members making it difficult to vote in GOP member only Primarys), his Second run in 2012 was helped massively from his 2008 run.

Sanders still has a Record number of Individual Donations coming in which expands his advertising and Rally budget, So in theory it can definitely close right up.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The point im making is Sanders name recognition has increased substantially, and while there is a margin of Error there is no doubt it has increased the longer this has gone, Hillary has been in the limelight for 20 years so that advantage is always going to make a huge difference in the early stages.

Then why argue? When the point that is being made and has been made, is one of Hillary having distance on Sanders that makes it a struggle for him to win or even gain on her for that matter.

 

[GTPorsche]

For this campaign I think he started at the right time and it was still very early, the problem is no one knew he he was at the time, if he had of done a previous Nomination bid in 2008, I think that would of helped him get to where he is now months before the voting started.

Ron Paul is a good example of this, whilst I think his demographic is significantly less populous then Sanders so his potential was always going to be less in this environment(combined with the fact most of where he needed to get his New voters from where likely democrat members making it difficult to vote in GOP member only Primarys), his Second run in 2012 was helped massively from his 2008 run.

Sanders still has a Record number of Individual Donations coming in which expands his advertising and Rally budget, So in theory it can definitely close right up.

Can be said for any primary in a state that requires one to be registered under a party allegiance.

 

[mustafur]

Then why argue? When the point that is being made and has been made, is one of Hillary having distance on Sanders that makes it a struggle for him to win or even gain on her for that matter.

Because like I have been saying all this time the gap is closing and hasn't exactly stopped in closing in name recognition, do you even listen to what is replied?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Because like I have been saying all this time the gap is closing and hasn't exactly stopped in closing in name recognition, do you even listen to what is replied?

I read replies, can't quite listen to a forum since it's text and all. Also your comments are all over the place so in reality I don't even know if you know what you're point is. You go from talking about how the gap is closing, but not closing cause Hillary has a 20 year head start due to name alone. Yet it's closing.

Delegate count shows that it isn't "closing", also with the establishment basically strong arming Sanders out with obvious super delegate set up in her favor, which you just basically jumped over after your initial comment was retorted. Then there is the Financial gap, polls show a disparity between the two with many favoring her against him, but despite him being more favored against republicans than her.

All in all you say one thing, or show one thing an then say or show the opposite. I mean maybe a more concise consistent argument. I've basically put mine out there. I'm against all the top runners in both parties, simple. From there as to why that is, gets quite descriptive.

 

[mustafur]

I read replies, can't quite listen to a forum since it's text and all. Also your comments are all over the place so in reality I don't even know if you know what you're point is. You go from talking about how the gap is closing, but not closing cause Hillary has a 20 year head start due to name alone. Yet it's closing.

Delegate count shows that it isn't "closing", also with the establishment basically strong arming Sanders out with obvious super delegate set up in her favor, which you just basically jumped over after your initial comment was retorted. Then there is the Financial gap, polls show a disparity between the two with many favoring her against him, but despite him being more favored against republicans than her.

All in all you say one thing, or show one thing an then say or show the opposite. I mean maybe a more concise consistent argument. I've basically put mine out there. I'm against all the top runners in both parties, simple. From there as to why that is, gets quite descriptive.

I was originally responding to your first comment on the last page about Sanders and I broke it down, I talked about the super delegate situation numerous times in the past few pages as well.

The financial gap is actually less then you think Clinton has raised similar money each month well before the election but in the last two months Bernie has raised more.

I have said Clinton is still favorite just like you said, all i have been doing is breaking it down on where she won, and what is coming next. The Chance for Bernie to succeed is still there and I dispute your Claim with evidence that he is still got growing support at the same time Clintons has been at a Stalemate.

You can argue it all you want but unless you have something other then your word everything your saying still is water.

Also on the Super delegate situation, back in 2008 Hillary had most of the Super delegates already when at the start, and then when Obama started to catch up and pass her on Pledged Delegates the Super delegates moved to Obama, now whilst Obama has proven to be another Establishment candidate, the proof that this has Happened in the past can't be ruled out at this stage.

 

[squadops]

Establishment being the key word.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I was originally responding to your first comment on the last page about Sanders and I broke it down, I talked about the super delegate situation numerous times in the past few pages as well.

Yeah saw that, your point seems lost in translation still.

The financial gap is actually less then you think Clinton has raised similar money each month well before the election but in the last two months Bernie has raised more.

That's just for the single month, also doesn't give an outlook on what Bernie has on hand, thus we can't tell if he's spending more than her or not. Just that he was given more in donations. Which really means nothing without further insight. Also the break down of donations for Hillary doesn't include her super pacs, nor does it speculate if she's blown through that money. Especially when it quote her team as hitting their quotes for fundraising. I myself looked to see if their was a better break down but there isn't one that I could find.

I have said Clinton is still favorite just like you said, all i have been doing is breaking it down on where she won, and what is coming next. The Chance for Bernie to succeed is still there and I dispute your Claim with evidence that he is still got growing support at the same time Clintons has been at a Stalemate.

you can argue it all you want but unless you have something other then your word everything your saying still is water.

What evidence did you show, a vague summation done by huffington, with a collection of various and differing data collection? Michigan has her 60% on average lead over Bernie with a supposed 98% certainty level in a state that carries a crucial delegate count and may set the rest of the tone to the end. California showed a 11 point lead.

Here I'll link where I usually check polls for ease, and even use your method of mass collection since that will be the only thing to satisfy you.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/michigan-democratic/
http://www.desertsun.com/story/news...dential-choice-unclear-poll-its-way/81155708/ (also this was done in January but the main polling sites show the same numbers)
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/illinois-democratic/
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/louisiana-democratic/
http://politics.heraldtribune.com/2016/02/29/clinton-has-big-lead-in-new-florida-poll/

 

[Joel]

And yes, the rich aren't "defenseless", in fact they're living extremely comfortable lives ... nothing at all like the Jews being herded into concentration camps & gassed to death by the millions.

There really is a difference "in principle" between paying higher tax rates because you have more money & being enslaved, beaten or lynched for being black, or sent to the gas chamber for being Jewish..

This reminds me of when Libertarians gets up in arms about drunk driving charges being a victimless crime. Logically consistent, but missing the point to such a degree that it becomes completely tone deaf.

 

[mustafur]

@LMSCorvetteGT2 So I use a poll that links multiple sources of the same poll together to get an average and that is vague, but you give one off polls for each different state and that isn't?

yeah ok..

 

[squadops]

This reminds me of when Libertarians gets up in arms about drunk driving charges being a victimless crime. Logically consistent, but missing the point to such a degree that it becomes completely tone deaf.

If there is no victim then there is no crime, pretty simple to understand.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

@LMSCorvetteGT2 So I use a poll that links multiple sources of the same poll together to get an average and that is vague, but you give one off polls for each different state and that isn't?

yeah ok..

They're not one off, they're local polls that have been done over and over during a certain duration. Thus consistent. Look at Illinois or Ohio data over the offered time period. I've already given reasons why I find the huffington post data skewed, which you've yet to argue. Cause I don't see any growing perception of Bernie, I also don't see how they're one offs when they give sources of various data on each page (except two of the links). Thus you can compare individual info and not shoehorned summation of it all that would only cause more error.

If there is a decreasing deficit between the two please show it, if not then what are you trying to prove by saying Hilary is in reach (not a distant reach either)? I mean it seems more or less the same as a couple others, you have it out for one person and support another and thus subjectively argue in that manner. I could be wrong.

 

[mustafur]

They're not one off, they're local polls that have been done over and over during a certain duration. Thus consistent. Look at Illinois or Ohio data over the offered time period. I've already given reasons why I find the huffington post data skewed, which you've yet to argue. Cause I don't see any growing perception of Bernie, I also don't see how they're one offs when they give sources of various data on each page (except two of the links). Thus you can compare individual info and not shoehorned summation of it all that would only cause more error.

If there is a decreasing deficit between the two please show it, if not then what are you trying to prove by saying Hilary is in reach (not a distant reach either)? I mean it seems more or less the same as a couple others, you have it out for one person and support another and thus subjectively argue in that manner. I could be wrong.

Im sorry, but look at those polls by five thirty eight, the plus polls are completely fabricated with there own system which has failed epically on the republican candidates already, they bump up numbers based on endorsements which is ludicrous as you can't work that out, rubio and Cruz should be Dominating Trump if that was the case.

Second of all your argument on the Huffington post one makes no sense, there is no real evidence a local poll is more accurate then one that isn't, the accuracy is actually weighted on how many people they poll.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Actually, Sanders doesn't "blame the rich for all the ills of the country". He wants them to pay higher tax rates. And yes, the rich aren't "defenseless", in fact they're living extremely comfortable lives ... nothing at all like the Jews being herded into concentration camps & gassed to death by the millions.

There really is a difference "in principle" between paying higher tax rates because you have more money & being enslaved, beaten or lynched for being black, or sent to the gas chamber for being Jewish.

I said it reminds me of Adolph, I didn't say it was identical. The principle is the same. Pick an easy target that few people sympathize with, put the blame on them, everyone unites against them.
So Bernie doesn't blame the rich eh?

"Let us wage a moral and political war against the billionaires and corporate leaders, on Wall Street and elsewhere, whose policies and greed are destroying the middle class of America."

"Do the elected officials in Washington stand with ordinary Americans - working families, children, the elderly, the poor - or will the extraordinary power of billionaire campaign contributors and Big Money prevail? The American people, by the millions, must send Congress the answer to that question."

What Wall Street and credit card companies are doing is really not much different from what gangsters and loan sharks do who make predatory loans. While the bankers wear three-piece suits and don't break the knee caps of those who can't pay back, they still are destroying people's lives.

Substitute the word "Jew" for the relevant term and could easily be mistaken for a Hitler quote. I don't see how this approach is any different than the Donald painting Mexicans with a broad brush. The only difference is that MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES aren't quite as sympathetic with the general public. An easy target in other words. Like the Jews.

 

[mustafur]

I said it reminds me of Adolph, I didn't say it was identical. The principle is the same. Pick an easy target that few people sympathize with, put the blame on them, everyone unites against them.
So Bernie doesn't blame the rich eh?

"Let us wage a moral and political war against the billionaires and corporate leaders, on Wall Street and elsewhere, whose policies and greed are destroying the middle class of America."

"Do the elected officials in Washington stand with ordinary Americans - working families, children, the elderly, the poor - or will the extraordinary power of billionaire campaign contributors and Big Money prevail? The American people, by the millions, must send Congress the answer to that question."

What Wall Street and credit card companies are doing is really not much different from what gangsters and loan sharks do who make predatory loans. While the bankers wear three-piece suits and don't break the knee caps of those who can't pay back, they still are destroying people's lives.

Substitute the word "Jew" for the relevant term and could easily be mistaken for a Hitler quote. I don't see how this approach is any different than the Donald painting Mexicans with a broad brush. The only difference is that MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES aren't quite as sympathetic with the general public. An easy target in other words. Like the Jews.

You could say the same thing about police targeting gangsters, does it make it all the same?

Only an idiot would see it that way.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You could say the same thing about police targeting gangsters, does it make it all the same?

Only an idiot would see it that way.

Your analogy makes no sense, however, you could say the same thing about a lot of things, but the police aren't running for POTUS and Bernie is. I'm not a fan of demonizing groups of people. Are you? Is it ok to demonize a handful of people to achieve your political ends? Isn't that what Trump is doing and part of the reason why he's so hated in many circles? Please explain the difference.

 

[mustafur]

Your analogy makes not sense, however, you could say the same thing about a lot of things, but the police aren't running for POTUS and Bernie is. I'm not a fan of demonizing groups of people. Are you? Is it ok to demonize a handful of people to achieve your political ends? Isn't that what Trump is doing and part of the reason why he's so hated in many circles? Please explain the difference.

So your not ok with demonizing groups that are known to twist laws in their favour?

weren't you the one saying not long ago in an other thread about how great democracy is?

Your Quote in full in the ISIS thread:

The government of Syria was first overthrown in 1949 by a military coup funded by the CIA. Regardless of past history, the answer is, and always will be, democracy. So long as the region is dominated by monotheistic states run by unelected dictators who answer to no one but themselves and highly radicalized clergy, the region will be in chaos. Equal rights for all, free elections and secular governments are the way forward.

Highlighted for point.

 

[Johnnypenso]

So your not ok with demonizing groups that are known to twist laws in their favour?

weren't you the one saying not long ago in an other thread about how great democracy is?

Your Quote in full in the ISIS thread:


Highlighted for point.

I don't know what connection you're trying to make there, sorry. Can you just respond to my questions instead?

 

[mustafur]

I don't know what connection you're trying to make there, sorry. Can you just respond to my questions instead?

Stopping people from gaining power in law making positions when they where never voted into those positions isn't classed as a ''demonized'' group.

Sanders is against Big Corporations and multinationals from Lobbying the government to make them pass laws that favour them, would you be against this move yes or no?

 

[Tornado]

Romney sure is handsome compared to Trump.

 

[Danoff]

This reminds me of when Libertarians gets up in arms about drunk driving charges being a victimless crime. Logically consistent, but missing the point to such a degree that it becomes completely tone deaf.

A libertarian who has thought through the situation carefully will realize that reckless driving is an appropriate citation while drunk driving is not. In almost all cases, someone pulled over for drunk driving could be cited for reckless driving, with intoxication being a factor in the severity of the penalty. In reality, the way a libertarian might implement things would look almost no different than it is now but with a few very subtle changes. Sobriety check points are right out though.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Stopping people from gaining power in law making positions when they where never voted into those positions isn't classed as a ''demonized'' group.

Sanders is against Big Corporations and multinationals from Lobbying the government to make them pass laws that favour them, would you be against this move yes or no?

Wait until you answer all of my questions before weighing in with your own.

I'm not a fan of demonizing groups of people. Are you?
Is it ok to demonize a handful of people to achieve your political ends?
Isn't that what Trump is doing and part of the reason why he's so hated in many circles? Please explain the difference.

In particular the last request.

 

[DK]

Romney sure is handsome compared to Trump.

Yep, but I doubt his intervention is going to make any dent in Trump's advantage if the hypothesis of "Trump's supporters are largely pissed off with the Establishment" holds.