Today hasn't exactly been a BANNER day for HRC polling wise, some good news (a new Florida poll showing her up 2, a poll of Wisconsin with her up 6 and PA up 4) but polls showing her down in Nevada and North Carolina aren't great. Of course she CAN win without them, but it's still slightly worrying.

I'm not worried anymore. Her win is so certain at this point, because her polling has been so good in Colorado, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Virginia through basically all of the election. Trump's chances of getting any of those states are quite small at this point. Plus, the fact that Florida, North Carolina, and Nevada are 50/50 at this point, and Clinton doesn't need to win any of them, while Trump needs them all and more. She has much more room for error than Trump does, and I'd rather be in her position than his. She may not defeat him in an electoral landslide like her supporters want, but a win is a win in the end.

Edited November 2, 20168 yr by bluesunstorm

As I have bern saying all along: a weak candidate.

I'm not worried anymore. Her win is so certain at this point, because her polling has been so good in Colorado, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Virginia through basically all of the election. Trump's chances of getting any of those states are quite small at this point. Plus, the fact that Florida, North Carolina, and Nevada are 50/50 at this point, and Clinton doesn't need to win any of them, while Trump needs them all and more. She has much more room for error than Trump does, and I'd rather be in her position than his. She may not defeat him in an electoral landslide like her supporters want, but a win is a win in the end.

 

I'm still about 70% certain she will win, but the MOMENTUM is trending downwards.

As I have bern saying all along: a weak candidate.

People are always so quick to label Clinton as a "weak candidate", but what does that say about Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders? She defeated one by a wide margin, and has been leading the other in the polling average all election. She really just needs to break the glass ceiling already.

She's a 'weak' candidate among the general electorate, not so much among Democratic primary voters. We'll obviously never actually know but I still don't buy the claim that Hillary is doing better now than Bernie would have if he won the Dem primary, simply based on the overwhelming consensus from head-to-head polls during the primaries that Bernie defeated Republicans by larger margins than Hillary. And Bernie simply would not have had the scandals that have predictably harmed Hillary during the general election.

 

(And yes, Trump is also a weak candidate. It's pretty shambolic that the general election came down to two candidates who are both disliked by a majority of the population)

I'm still about 70% certain she will win, but the MOMENTUM is trending downwards.

 

 

I TOLD you!!

 

And I was warning about his momentum since last week!!

She's the only candidate who came close to stopping Obama, the most talented politician in a generation - god knows the Republicans never came close. The only reason she didn't immediately dispatch Bernie was because he had a legion of people willing to fund him to go all the way through - any other candidate with Bernie's delegate count would have dropped out after Super Tuesday (which is normally where the dreamers make it to before they get suffocated) in the clear knowledge they didn't have a realistic route to victory. She has consistently led over Trump all year, and would have consistently led over the only other viable candidate for the Republicans this year in Ted Cruz. I think she's tremendously underrated as a candidate for someone who's literally only lost to Obama.

It is fair to say that the 2008 primary was close, but I always thought the fact that Hillary lost that primary at all was kind of iffy because she had such a massive advantage at the time from her name alone, and while Barack's claim at making history was much more exciting, the fact that she had one at all was a big deal. I still remember how much of a done deal Hillary being the nominee was considered at one point, and as I remember she never had her name dragged through the mud like she has this time around. Hill losing that one was more down to Obama inspiring people than anything else, but I think it says something about her not being stellar at garnering votes. The 2016 primary was a comfortable win in the end but I think it was factually unusually close for a Democratic primary and I don't feel like Bernie would have gotten anywhere near 23 state wins in a more competitive year.

 

I kind of just disagree on how Hillary would do against a different Republican candidate. The realistic alternatives are basically Trump but capable of going 5 minutes without making themselves look bad. Sure, they wouldn't develop quite the same stanbase, but everyone who supports Trump with such enthusiasm would still vote for them.

 

She's a 'weak' candidate among the general electorate, not so much among Democratic primary voters. We'll obviously never actually know but I still don't buy the claim that Hillary is doing better now than Bernie would have if he won the Dem primary, simply based on the overwhelming consensus from head-to-head polls during the primaries that Bernie defeated Republicans by larger margins than Hillary. And Bernie simply would not have had the scandals that have predictably harmed Hillary during the general election.

 

(And yes, Trump is also a weak candidate. It's pretty shambolic that the general election came down to two candidates who are both disliked by a majority of the population)

I never really understood the Bernie vs. Republicans polls and I don't think they would have proved accurate. You're free to ask me why on this given that it's super vague justification in my head but Hillary just seems like a more natural alternative to people who'd like to vote Republican but hate Trump, to me. Bernie's too defined by his liberalism and every criticism of her policies would be thrown at him too, possibly moreso.

I TOLD you!!

 

And I was warning about his momentum since last week!!

If you say "momentum" one more time I'm going to warn you and start deleting your posts. You're not contributing to the discussion.

She's a 'weak' candidate among the general electorate, not so much among Democratic primary voters. We'll obviously never actually know but I still don't buy the claim that Hillary is doing better now than Bernie would have if he won the Dem primary, simply based on the overwhelming consensus from head-to-head polls during the primaries that Bernie defeated Republicans by larger margins than Hillary. And Bernie simply would not have had the scandals that have predictably harmed Hillary during the general election.

In a nation where two thirds of voters think their taxes are already too high, a policy of increasing most people's taxes by about 10 cents in the dollar would be...not particularly popular, to say the least. It's all well and good winning match-ups when all you're known for is 'the system is stacked against ordinary Americans'. Ordinary Americans aren't likely to take too kindly to any solutions that involve them paying more for something that they've been told until that point is entirely the elite's fault.

It is fair to say that the 2008 primary was close, but I always thought the fact that Hillary lost that primary at all was kind of iffy because she had such a massive advantage at the time from her name alone, and while Barack's claim at making history was much more exciting, the fact that she had one at all was a big deal. I still remember how much of a done deal Hillary being the nominee was considered at one point, and as I remember she never had her name dragged through the mud like she has this time around. Hill losing that one was more down to Obama inspiring people than anything else, but I think it says something about her not being stellar at garnering votes. The 2016 primary was a comfortable win in the end but I think it was factually unusually close for a Democratic primary and I don't feel like Bernie would have gotten anywhere near 23 state wins in a more competitive year.

 

It's also forgotten that one of the main things that helped Clinton push Obama so hard in 2008 was that she picked up the votes of racist white voters' whose main priority was just to stop the black candidate. A literal JAIL INMATE managed to come close to beating Obama in the West Virginia primary in 2012, so the idea that people there (and in similar states) were positively voting for Clinton in 2008, rather than just casting a default anti-Obama vote, isn't very convincing. Any semi-decent politician would've done the exact same.

 

No matter how intelligent Clinton undoubtedly is, and however good a president she might arguably be if/when she gets there, she is just a God-awful politician. She's not a good speaker, she's not good at engaging an audience or getting their attention - that means the "average voter" doesn't really listen to her when she comes on TV or whatever, and so the only things they hear about her are the hysterical caricatures coming from her opponents (similar to Ed Miliband last year). As much as some people are saying the opposition Clinton gets is unfair, Obama got worse than this treatment - in the days before the 2008 election, Sarah Palin was going to every rally dog-whistling about how he "palled around with terrorists" and "doesn't see America like *WE* [translation: white people] see America". But that didn't matter because Obama was a talented enough politician to get people to see and hear who he really was. Clinton doesn't have that talent, she doesn't get people to pay attention to what she's actually saying or who she actually is in the way Obama does, so there's nothing that reaches the public's ears that goes contrary to the image that the Republicans are painting of her.

Edited November 3, 20168 yr by Danny

It's also forgotten that one of the main things that helped Clinton push Obama so hard in 2008 was that she picked up the votes of racist white voters' whose main priority was just to stop the black candidate. A literal JAIL INMATE managed to come close to beating Obama in the West Virginia primary in 2012, so the idea that people there (and in similar states) were positively voting for Clinton in 2008, rather than just casting a default anti-Obama vote, isn't very convincing. Any semi-decent politician would've done the exact same.

This is a joke right? Literally no reason at all why someone might positively vote for Hillary Clinton in some of those states?

 

Also, if white supremacy is your thing...you probably weren't voting in the Democratic primaries in 2008. The shift to the Republicans has been in place for a while now. Even in West Virginia, probably up there for the most racist state, only 22% said race was the main governing factor for their vote in 2008. Admittedly it may have been more subconscious for many, but I doubt something like the bitter clingers affair endeared Obama all that much to them.

 

Obama got worse than this treatment - in the days before the 2008 election, Sarah Palin was going to every rally dog-whistling about how he "palled around with terrorists" and "doesn't see America like *WE* [translation: white people] see America".

Hillary is being called a criminal who should not have been allowed to run in the election and who created ISIS by her opponent. Of course, nothing by comparison. It's kind of moved on from dog whistle to open shouting.

This is a joke right? Literally no reason at all why someone might positively vote for Hillary Clinton in some of those states?

 

If working-class white voters were voting positively for Clinton back in 2008 (rather than just voting to stop the black man), then why did Clinton do/is doing so badly with those very same voters in the primaries/election this year? (Indeed, generally speaking, a lot of the states that went strongest for Clinton in 2008 are likely to be the strongest states for Trump this time - that says a lot).

Edited November 3, 20168 yr by Danny

I'm still about 70% certain she will win, but the MOMENTUM is trending downwards.

I'm still about 99% certain Donald Duck will win. God bless this Earth with peace. :drink:

I do think there was an element of racism in Hillary's favour in 2008, honestly. Not to the point of being a huge factor but I think it's naive to think the Democratic primaries, particularly in the (semi-recent) past, wouldn't be affected by racial issues. The party was not as progressive in 2008 as it is now and I think a lot of that comes down to Obama's nomination forcing a group of people to realise that the Democrats didn't cater to them anymore. I think it's a stretch to call Hillary a God-awful politician or call anti-black sentiment a defining factor in 2008 but I would probably list racial issues as one of her more modest advantages iin that primary, yes.

I'm still about 99% certain Donald Duck will win. God bless this Earth with peace. :drink:

 

L

O

L

If working-class white voters were voting positively for Clinton back in 2008 (rather than just voting to stop the black man), then why did Clinton do/is doing so badly with those very same voters in the primaries/election this year? (Indeed, generally speaking, a lot of the states that went strongest for Clinton in 2008 are likely to be the strongest states for Trump this time - that says a lot).

Honestly? Because I think they would've voted for an economic populist had one been on offer at the time, and failing that Blue Dog Democrats fitted culturally better with Democratic views in those states than Obama's liberalism (Hillary's wholesale adoption of that this year has been a factor too, I think. She basically kept identity politics completely out of her pitch until she had no choice in '08. This year it was front and centre.)

 

There was some racism, no doubt. But it's a real stretch to look at the states Hillary won and the margins she won by and claim it was the defining factor.

Honestly? Because I think they would've voted for an economic populist had one been on offer at the time, and failing that Blue Dog Democrats fitted culturally better with Democratic views in those states than Obama's liberalism (Hillary's wholesale adoption of that this year has been a factor too, I think. She basically kept identity politics completely out of her pitch until she had no choice in '08. This year it was front and centre.)

 

There was some racism, no doubt. But it's a real stretch to look at the states Hillary won and the margins she won by and claim it was the defining factor.

 

Well, it depends what you mean by "defining factor". I don't think racism was the reason she got most of her votes in 2008. But I do think it was the one factor that turned her candidacy from a Bernie Sanders-type showing, into a down-to-the-wire fight (which, going back to your point, was the argument for Hillary supposedly being a good politician).

Clinton's chances of winning have gone up slightly in fivethirtyeight.com after falling for several days.

Financial times show a 2.5% difference in the polls for Clinton including a marginal win in Florida, as of 21:00. these various polls by broadcasters are a way to keep people revisiting their websites to up the hits. Since when has there been a US election without fanfare? This one is more noticeable but for, sadly, the wrong reasons. I genuinely believe this is Clintons to lose.

Edited November 4, 20168 yr by ScottyEm