Are black people going to show up to vote for an old white women (or any white candidate) the way they did for obama?
[/quote]
Valid point Aggv but they are certainly not voting republican.
96% of black voters supported Obama! In the 2004 election (pre Obama) John Kerry captured 88% of the black vote. There is no reason to believe that Hillary Clinton will do much better than this (maybe worse). Keep in mind that Bush handily defeated Kerry that year by about 6.5%.
[/quote]
More incorrect information from the Minister of Misinformation (ZEB). Bush beat Kerry by about 2%. Come on man- that one was easy and you whiffed again. What else have you misrepresented?
Do you need me to show you the link??? I thought so.
If I were you I’d stay clear of using numbers in my arguments and leave that to the non-numerically challenged…
Here are a few more polls for you to look at. Again the point of posting both older and new polls is to show that she continues to take a downward slide. Just when you think she can’t go any lower regarding her negatives BANG she takes another slide downward. And her handlers know that so they keep her out of the public eye all they can. But what happens when people are seeing her and hearing her on a regular basis in 2016? OUCH!
Keep in mind she has no where to go but down. People already know her and have for the past 23 years or so. What does she have left to show them? NADA! As opposed to a fresh new republican face.
Think about it…
She was so lovable back in 08’ that her own party threw her to the curb for practically a freshman Senator–LOL.
But, but, now you see…now she’s popular…um people really love her. Uh huh. Do you have any facts to back that up? Nope. According to the polls and political history (both you know nothing about) she might just not be in for an old fashion close race loss but a colossal landslide! I’m not yet predicting she loses by a landslide. But I am suggesting that she is headed in that direction and depending on who the republican candidate is she could very well lose by 10 or more points. Now that IS my opinion but it is based on some very good evidence. That word evidence should means something to you by now even though you have produced none of your own.
Read em and weep…
Zebby-
Congrats on posting years old data. You have links -you win!!![/quote]
You are either a complete imbecile, or you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts. Right now I would not bet either way on which it is.
As I have repeatedly told you Hillary’s poll numbers suck. The old ones are bad and the new ones are worse I have posted both.
[quote]BTW- when you refer to negatives, I hope you realize that they do not exist in a vacuum- other candidates have negatives too… You don’t think Santorum has negatives???
jnd
[/quote]
Oh my…let me help you understand.
Rick Santorum, just like Hillary, is never going to be elected to the Presidency…EVER. He also suffers from some of the same things as Hillary. He has been around a long time and there isn’t much that people don’t know about him. Just like Hillary he has high negatives that are not coming down.
Get it yet?
Candidates who occupy a space in voters minds over a long period of time such as Santorum and especially Hillary (23 years) have no where to go. The voters know them and over all they don’t like them.
I know these concepts are difficult for you to grasp. After reading your posts I’m sure that lunch is difficult for you to grasp…But, unlike Rubio, or many of the other candidates who are appearing on the national stage for the first time Hillary and Santorum are very old news. Their negatives are high and they have no way to bring them down the public knows who they are (name recognition) and just doesn’t like them (high negatives) now what?
Here, let me put it in terms you have a chance of understanding. Your old Uncle Joe is a first class A hole. You know who he is (name recognition) but you just don’t like him (high negative poll numbers). Now, unlike the guy who just moved in across the street you know Joe and you dislike him. The new neighbor may or may not prove to be more likeable than Uncle Joe. But he has time to win you over and shape his image. Joe on the other hand had time and didn’t win you over.
If you don’t understand what’s going on at this point I don’t know what else to tell.
Read everything twice and let me know if you have any questions.
This is an interesting link as I have repeatedly said the republicans do not win the White House unless they win Ohio’s 18 electoral votes and Florida’s 29 electoral votes. Very cut and dry (even jnd can understand I bet…okay maybe not).
Fortunately, the republicans have not one but three candidates in the race who represent either Florida or Ohio. Any combination where the top of the ticket represents one of these states and the bottom represents the other will give the republicans a huge advantage. And neither candidate will have to look good in a pants suit
There are other important states represented by the many republican candidates which will help them defeat Clinton. But these are the two biggest in play.
Again, I’ll answer all of your questions and do so very gently.
;)[/quote]
You are so fulla of it isn’t even funny. You were very clearly using percentages of black or women voters and then you switched to electoral votes for the 6.5%??? Which of those electoral votes were black? or women?
Why not just say that you made a mistake??? Oh, the arrogance…I forgot.
Again, I’ll answer all of your questions and do so very gently.
;)[/quote]
You are so fulla of it isn’t even funny. You were very clearly using percentages of black or women voters and then you switched to electoral votes for the 6.5%??? Which of those electoral votes were black? or women?
Why not just say that you made a mistake??? Oh, the arrogance…I forgot.
[/quote]
No mistake made. I was very clear (and correct) about the black vote. I was also clear about the margin of victory that Bush won by in his most recent Presidential victory. Not admitting you were wrong is childish but expected.
In the future if you want me, or anyone else to take you seriously you are going to have to sharpen up.
Look back over your posts. Where is your
Polls, historical data etc.
All you do is personally attack me. I’m sure there are many left wing nuts on this board that would love to see you take me down with some facts. Yet, none ever appear on your part.
Saying the following does not prove me wrong:
“Zeb you are arrogant and mean I hate you na na na na na”
You see those things can be duplicated by any child, so no points for you there.
If the following is not included in your very next post I am going to stop taking you seriously (okay that was a stretch I have not really been taking you all that seriously since I read your first post–but you drop down to an entirely new level if you don’t respond I kind)
So again, I ask you, tell us all why Hillary is such a great candidate. Tell us all what attributes that she brings to a national race that will help her become the next President of the United States. Explain in detail why the many polling data that I’ve posted from early on to this month 2015 is all wrong. Tell us exactly how she overcomes her high negatives.
Support your opinion with some good links. You know respond like an intelligent thinking adult.
Show me what you have jnd? will you simply name call again and have most skip over your post, or will you actually make an attempt to defend that pathetic shit on a stick candidate Hillary Clinton and her oh so lying ways?
Here are a few more polls for you to look at. Again the point of posting both older and new polls is to show that she continues to take a downward slide. Just when you think she can’t go any lower regarding her negatives BANG she takes another slide downward. And her handlers know that so they keep her out of the public eye all they can. But what happens when people are seeing her and hearing her on a regular basis in 2016? OUCH!
Keep in mind she has no where to go but down. People already know her and have for the past 23 years or so. What does she have left to show them? NADA! As opposed to a fresh new republican face.
Think about it…
She was so lovable back in 08’ that her own party threw her to the curb for practically a freshman Senator–LOL.
But, but, now you see…now she’s popular…um people really love her. Uh huh. Do you have any facts to back that up? Nope. According to the polls and political history (both you know nothing about) she might just not be in for an old fashion close race loss but a colossal landslide! I’m not yet predicting she loses by a landslide. But I am suggesting that she is headed in that direction and depending on who the republican candidate is she could very well lose by 10 or more points. Now that IS my opinion but it is based on some very good evidence. That word evidence should means something to you by now even though you have produced none of your own.
Here are a few more polls for you to look at. Again the point of posting both older and new polls is to show that she continues to take a downward slide. Just when you think she can’t go any lower regarding her negatives BANG she takes another slide downward. And her handlers know that so they keep her out of the public eye all they can. But what happens when people are seeing her and hearing her on a regular basis in 2016? OUCH!
Keep in mind she has no where to go but down. People already know her and have for the past 23 years or so. What does she have left to show them? NADA! As opposed to a fresh new republican face.
Think about it…
She was so lovable back in 08’ that her own party threw her to the curb for practically a freshman Senator–LOL.
But, but, now you see…now she’s popular…um people really love her. Uh huh. Do you have any facts to back that up? Nope. According to the polls and political history (both you know nothing about) she might just not be in for an old fashion close race loss but a colossal landslide! I’m not yet predicting she loses by a landslide. But I am suggesting that she is headed in that direction and depending on who the republican candidate is she could very well lose by 10 or more points. Now that IS my opinion but it is based on some very good evidence. That word evidence should means something to you by now even though you have produced none of your own.
Its no suprise when I say I like Sanders the most of the current crop of candidates and it is perhaps a futile excercise to argue for Sanders on this forum, but fuck it I feel like Don Quixote today.
First let me try to ease your minds my socialistphobic brethren when it comes to Sanders’s socialist label. If you listen to what he says and his policy proposals, the man is much more of a Keynes, than a Marx. He is not calling for the expropriation of all private property over the means of production and the end of capitalism, but are rather proposing a more progressive tax system and more government spending within a capitalist framework. I know this ain’t glad tidings for conservatives, but it makes him more of a tax and spend liberal, than the second coming of Stalin. In a sense is his message kinda “reactionary” in so far that he is calling for a return to the “liberal consensus” of the 50’s. 60’s and 70’s.( Offcourse without segregration, the cold war etc ). One can say that his message in some way is the mirror image of the tea-party movement with its call’s for a return to the “golden days” of the founding of your country.
Secondly his main cause is anti-corruption rather than class-warfare. He rightly warns about the growing influence of money in the political sphere and how its influence are transforming your democratic republic into a plutocratic republic. Last time I checked it was the classical-liberalist’s who first championed democracy and republicanism over autocracy and monarchism. And on this issue he is not only talking the talk, but he also walks the walk. He has refused to take money from Super Pac’s and most of his contributions are from regular voters( average contribution is roughly 40$ ) and labor unions( btw union are not big money compared to huge corporations ). You might disagree with him on 99% of the issues, but thats more one can say of Hillary who also have voiced concern over the citizens united ruling while she at the same time is saturated in corporate money.
Thirdly he is dead right on income inequality. Now some will say this is pure class-warfare and pandering, but the reality is that the class-war is allready here and the working class( or middle-class and working family’s as Sanders says ) is loosing and have been for a long time( to paraprhase Warren Buffet ). Now his policy proposals to combat this is anti-etical to what most here believes, but atleast he have some proposals. Offcourse some of the GOP candidates have also given lip-service to this problem, but no real solutions. The fact is that the only solution to combating income inequality is taxing the rich more and increase spending directed at poor people. Now if you dont give a shit about income inequality, then you can keep on arguing for less taxes( or a more regressive tax system ) and less public spending directed against the poor and still be consistent. But to pretend to care, but offer no solutions is just disgusting.
Fourthly he seems more genuin and less coached than the typical politician. Now this is probably what Countingbeans is calling “voting with your feelings” rather than your intellect and I agree that this kinds of factors should be at the bottom of the list for why you vote for someone. Still compared to especially Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz, Bernie comes off as an actual human, while they come off as trained dogs. I can add I think Jeb Bush comes off as a human too( So I am not 100% partisan, only 99,9% ).
I know I am not making any friends here for posting this, but one positive Sanders post in here will not end the world.
Btw: I hope Beans prediction is right, but I doubt it Bernie wins.
ps. I am not an American citizen and cannot vote in this race, but are watching from the outside and finds it fascinating.
[quote]florelius wrote:
its influence are transforming your democratic republic [/quote]
Constitutional republic… sigh
Can you show, without using the words “fair” or any feelings, empirical evidence that income inequality is even a bad thing?
Can you show how the inequality of today compares with say, 100, 200 and 500 years ago? (As in what did the 1% have in each time, compared to what the say bottom 70% did?)
[quote]florelius wrote:
its influence are transforming your democratic republic [/quote]
Constitutional republic… sigh
Can you show, without using the words “fair” or any feelings, empirical evidence that income inequality is even a bad thing?
Can you show how the inequality of today compares with say, 100, 200 and 500 years ago? (As in what did the 1% have in each time, compared to what the say bottom 70% did?)
Those are the only points I have time to address. [/quote]
Regarding the Constitutional republic thing. We had this discussion before, so no need to have that one more time. In short my argument would be that constitutional republic = constitutional and representative democracy( without a king, that would be a constitutional monarchy like Uk or Norway ). The Us and Norway do both have a form of a democratic system, but they are not identical.
Regarding income inequality: For me it is a moral issue or as you call it, my starting point is my “feelings”( or rather my moral compass ). Like a libertarian thinks a high degree of liberty in a society is a good thing in itself, the same goes for me when it comes to equality.( And liberty for that matter, but I obviously understands liberty somewhat different than a libertarian ). In essence my concern about income and wealth inequality is ideologically rootet, because like the french revolutionary’s I believe a good society must be buildt on the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. Now my hunch is that more material egalitarian societys have less crime, are less polarized and if they are modern industrialized countrys do also have less poverty. However that are hunches since I havent studied the subject of equality and inequality that much. I can come back to you with some empirical data after I have studied it some. However regarding the history of inequality I think Pickettys “Capital in the 21th century” has a hypothesis that in essence says that inequality have been the norm and that the more egalitarian post-war period i western Europa and Usa( relative to the pre-war period and today ) was atypical. However if you add in the pre-historical period( paleolitich and neolitich era ) humans have for most of their existence lived in rather small and egalitarian societys.( hunther gather tribes ) Offcourse hardship was probably a constant in that same pre-historic period.
[quote]florelius wrote:
Its no suprise when I say I like Sanders the most of the current crop of candidates and it is perhaps a futile excercise to argue for Sanders on this forum, but fuck it I feel like Don Quixote today.
First let me try to ease your minds my socialistphobic brethren when it comes to Sanders’s socialist label. If you listen to what he says and his policy proposals, the man is much more of a Keynes, than a Marx. He is not calling for the expropriation of all private property over the means of production and the end of capitalism, but are rather proposing a more progressive tax system and more government spending within a capitalist framework. I know this ain’t glad tidings for conservatives, but it makes him more of a tax and spend liberal, than the second coming of Stalin. In a sense is his message kinda “reactionary” in so far that he is calling for a return to the “liberal consensus” of the 50’s. 60’s and 70’s.( Offcourse without segregration, the cold war etc ). One can say that his message in some way is the mirror image of the tea-party movement with its call’s for a return to the “golden days” of the founding of your country.
Secondly his main cause is anti-corruption rather than class-warfare. He rightly warns about the growing influence of money in the political sphere and how its influence are transforming your democratic republic into a plutocratic republic. Last time I checked it was the classical-liberalist’s who first championed democracy and republicanism over autocracy and monarchism. And on this issue he is not only talking the talk, but he also walks the walk. He has refused to take money from Super Pac’s and most of his contributions are from regular voters( average contribution is roughly 40$ ) and labor unions( btw union are not big money compared to huge corporations ). You might disagree with him on 99% of the issues, but thats more one can say of Hillary who also have voiced concern over the citizens united ruling while she at the same time is saturated in corporate money.
Thirdly he is dead right on income inequality. Now some will say this is pure class-warfare and pandering, but the reality is that the class-war is allready here and the working class( or middle-class and working family’s as Sanders says ) is loosing and have been for a long time( to paraprhase Warren Buffet ). Now his policy proposals to combat this is anti-etical to what most here believes, but atleast he have some proposals. Offcourse some of the GOP candidates have also given lip-service to this problem, but no real solutions. The fact is that the only solution to combating income inequality is taxing the rich more and increase spending directed at poor people. Now if you dont give a shit about income inequality, then you can keep on arguing for less taxes( or a more regressive tax system ) and less public spending directed against the poor and still be consistent. But to pretend to care, but offer no solutions is just disgusting.
Fourthly he seems more genuin and less coached than the typical politician. Now this is probably what Countingbeans is calling “voting with your feelings” rather than your intellect and I agree that this kinds of factors should be at the bottom of the list for why you vote for someone. Still compared to especially Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz, Bernie comes off as an actual human, while they come off as trained dogs. I can add I think Jeb Bush comes off as a human too( So I am not 100% partisan, only 99,9% ).
I know I am not making any friends here for posting this, but one positive Sanders post in here will not end the world.
Btw: I hope Beans prediction is right, but I doubt it Bernie wins.
ps. I am not an American citizen and cannot vote in this race, but are watching from the outside and finds it fascinating.
[/quote]
Well written and articulated. Our political ideologies share little in common, can see where you are coming from and share some one your concerns, especially concerning the widening income inequality.
Regarding income inequality: For me it is a moral issue or as you call it, my starting point is my “feelings”[/quote]
So… Your entire, and Bernie’s too, political and economic stance rests on feelings and emotion then?
Great, just what we need. Forget the science, forget reality, let’s govern based on emotional whims… Sounds fantastic.
They are, given your political leanings, connotation and the means by which you want to achieve equality, mutually exclusive.
How can liberty mean anything other than liberty?
[quote]However regarding the history of inequality I think Pickettys “Capital in the 21th century” has a hypothesis that in essence says that inequality have been the norm and that the more egalitarian post-war period i western Europa and Usa( relative to the pre-war period and today ) was atypical. However if you add in the pre-historical period( paleolitich and neolitich era ) humans have for most of their existence lived in rather small and egalitarian societys.( hunther gather tribes ) Offcourse hardship was probably a constant in that same pre-historic period.
[/quote]
I’ll give you a hint. The difference between the relative comfort the ultra rich American has today, and the relative comfort the poor in America have today is significantly more narrow than the spread was 100 years ago, and even more drastically close as it was 200 years ago too. In fact, the further you go back, the wider the divide.
The rich today may enjoy a “higher class” of things, but the poor have all the same “necessities” and “comforts” that the rich do. In America in particular, the poor man’s toilet water is cleaner after he shits in it, than the vast majority of the rest of the world’s drinking water. This “income inequality” is utter nonsense and just politicized envy. It’s sad to see more and more smart people fall into the collectivist trap.
Don’t worry, you’ll get your wish. Our country is doomed to fall into the proven failure of socialism/communism/collectivism… When my children are slaves of the state, you’ll be able to say “I told you so”.
[quote]florelius wrote:
Its no suprise when I say I like Sanders the most of the current crop of candidates and it is perhaps a futile excercise to argue for Sanders on this forum, but fuck it I feel like Don Quixote today.
First let me try to ease your minds my socialistphobic brethren when it comes to Sanders’s socialist label. If you listen to what he says and his policy proposals, the man is much more of a Keynes, than a Marx. He is not calling for the expropriation of all private property over the means of production and the end of capitalism, but are rather proposing a more progressive tax system and more government spending within a capitalist framework. I know this ain’t glad tidings for conservatives, but it makes him more of a tax and spend liberal, than the second coming of Stalin. In a sense is his message kinda “reactionary” in so far that he is calling for a return to the “liberal consensus” of the 50’s. 60’s and 70’s.( Offcourse without segregration, the cold war etc ). One can say that his message in some way is the mirror image of the tea-party movement with its call’s for a return to the “golden days” of the founding of your country.
Secondly his main cause is anti-corruption rather than class-warfare. He rightly warns about the growing influence of money in the political sphere and how its influence are transforming your democratic republic into a plutocratic republic. Last time I checked it was the classical-liberalist’s who first championed democracy and republicanism over autocracy and monarchism. And on this issue he is not only talking the talk, but he also walks the walk. He has refused to take money from Super Pac’s and most of his contributions are from regular voters( average contribution is roughly 40$ ) and labor unions( btw union are not big money compared to huge corporations ). You might disagree with him on 99% of the issues, but thats more one can say of Hillary who also have voiced concern over the citizens united ruling while she at the same time is saturated in corporate money.
Thirdly he is dead right on income inequality. Now some will say this is pure class-warfare and pandering, but the reality is that the class-war is allready here and the working class( or middle-class and working family’s as Sanders says ) is loosing and have been for a long time( to paraprhase Warren Buffet ). Now his policy proposals to combat this is anti-etical to what most here believes, but atleast he have some proposals. Offcourse some of the GOP candidates have also given lip-service to this problem, but no real solutions. The fact is that the only solution to combating income inequality is taxing the rich more and increase spending directed at poor people. Now if you dont give a shit about income inequality, then you can keep on arguing for less taxes( or a more regressive tax system ) and less public spending directed against the poor and still be consistent. But to pretend to care, but offer no solutions is just disgusting.
Fourthly he seems more genuin and less coached than the typical politician. Now this is probably what Countingbeans is calling “voting with your feelings” rather than your intellect and I agree that this kinds of factors should be at the bottom of the list for why you vote for someone. Still compared to especially Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz, Bernie comes off as an actual human, while they come off as trained dogs. I can add I think Jeb Bush comes off as a human too( So I am not 100% partisan, only 99,9% ).
I know I am not making any friends here for posting this, but one positive Sanders post in here will not end the world.
Btw: I hope Beans prediction is right, but I doubt it Bernie wins.
ps. I am not an American citizen and cannot vote in this race, but are watching from the outside and finds it fascinating.
[/quote]
Well written and articulated. Our political ideologies share little in common, can see where you are coming from and share some one your concerns, especially concerning the widening income inequality.
I only have a few minutes so I am going to run over your post like a truck hitting a chipmunk who is caught with the lights in his eyes in the middle of a highway.
[quote]florelius wrote:
Its no suprise when I say I like Sanders [/quote]
I actually like Bernie Saunders more than you–He will drag Hillary so far left she will be even less attractive to the general public than she is now. By the time the general election rolls around she will get steam rolled by almost anyone who wins the republican nomination. God bless Bernie and his mission to help the republican party! Oh wait…he’s not trying to help is he? Matters not HE IS!
You sir are relevant. You are a smart guy with lots of good insights. However, Bernie is so irrelevant (other than pulling Hillary to the left) what you have written above about Bernie doesn’t really matter does it> N O P E.
It’s actually about this: “Wha boo hoo my neighbor has a Mercedes and I can’t afford the payment on my old Chevy.” Okay…you can fill in what the have nots are jealous about (would they be half as jealous if left wing nut Obama did not fan the flames of class warfare? No.) But here is a clue. In a free society there will always be those who have more than other people. It’s never fair ever… and when government jumps in and tries to make it fair it gets royally screwed up and we end up with all, or most, of the power in government hands- never a good thing. Tell me are you as smart or smarter than your siblings? See what I’m saying? Life isn’t fair so the left wing nuts should strop trying to make it fair. It only harms the process.
[quote]Fourthly he seems more genuin and less coached than the typical politician.
[/quote]
So is Donald Trump. Ya know why pal? Neither have a ghost of a chance of winning the Presidency (yes I know The Donald is second only to Jeb Bush in the polls currently. But, as I have said early on it’s all about name recognition and that’s it!) so they can be who they are. Simple.
I’m not a Jeb Bush fan. But I’ll support him over any democrat that is on the horizon. Other than Chris Christie Jeb is the closest thing that we have to a democrat. And as you probably already know I’m not fond of Democrats. When they are elected to the Presidency they want more of my hard earned money. Of course they suck for many other reasons but the money thing…that’s enough to keep me on the republican side.
I’m your friend you are one of the smartest people on this board. You just happen to be on the wrong side
It would be difficult for me to be happier than I am now about a republican win against Hillary. But I assure you if somehow God smiled on the USA (and it would almost have to be an act of God) and handed Bernie Saunders the nomination I would be absolutely thrilled! And (depending on who wins the republican nomination) we might have one of the largest landslides in the history of Presidential elections. Because my friend the average voter is NOT voting for Bernie Saunders in any sort of numbers that would make the election even remotely close. Ahh…you’ve really got me hoping ha.
