Hillary's lead over Bernie evaporating

[SP33Demon]

Bernie leading in Iowa according to Quinnipac!!

We know that Bernie Sanders leads Clinton by four percentage points in this new poll — 49-45 — basically where he was when Quinnipiac surveyed earlier this month. Martin O'Malley gets 4 percent, which is actually important and which we'll come back to.
...
Men are 14 points more likely to back Sanders than voters overall! That's a huge split.
...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-bernie-sanders-leading-with-some-red-flags/

 

[Texashiker]

Only a revolution of the people can restore democracy to them. Only Sanders is saying that fact.

Democracy is nothing more than mob rules.

As for Bernie, I like him, just a little bit.

 

[nextJin]

Aren't libertarians anarchists honestly?

Just think about it..

There are subsets of libertarians who are anarcho-capitalists, anarchists, etc. but there are far more extremely limited government types.

Same deal with other parties and their multitude of factions.

 

[crashtech]

I can't put my finger on why I find Hillary repulsive, but there it is. I do like Bernie as a person, and on some social issues. If they were the only two candidates, there'd be no question that I'd take Bernie. I don't mean that as some underhanded way to boost the other side's nominee, sinceI can't really get behind any of them either.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Again, Hillary's DW-NOMINATE score is about -.350. The mean Republican senator's DW-NOMINATE score is +.492. She is about +.170 more conservative than Sanders while the mean Republican senator is about +.842 more conservative than she is. That is not even remotely close.

Lots of people try and claim that either both parties are the same, or that Hillary is basically a Republican, etc, etc. You'll notice they always cherry pick specific votes or just make blanket pronouncements about things. You'll never see any real analysis of it because it's laughably wrong.

Looks like Jhnnnn is a lot more informed about her relative ideology than you are, so who's really the useful idiot?

That's interesting, and your remarks are spot on for the science and art of indexes. It would be the only logical approach to "measurement" in political inclination.

I "co-supported" Edwards and Obama, and Edwards was -- of course -- a disappointment. If I'd had to choose between them, Edwards would've come in as close second.

Hillary's activism goes back to the days of the Chicago 7 or COINTELPRO. You can't say she hasn't been consistent with her "takes a village" mantra.

I'd give both of them half my planned donation for the forthcoming year -- that is, Bernie and Hillary. It's bothersome -- the meteor-shower of e-mail solicitations that I refuse to block while abjuring use of my credit card.

But look at the way it's turned out before. Wasn't Biden a candidate in the 2008 Primary? And wasn't the ACA -- really -- Hillary's main cause from the mid-90s?

Bernie offers up the problem-set. Hillary offers more in addition to diplomatic experience -- a pragmatist. She had been wrong here or there, but the Iraq War vote got its cue from hysteria, completely false information and a constituency close to ground-zero in the Big Apple.

There might even be a cabinet slot for O'Malley.

 

[Indus]

Seems we hate Trump and we hate Hillary but not many hate Sanders.

I wonder if people will vote for divided government with Sanders at the top, pretty much a kick the can down the field for another 4 years again so nothing gets done as usual?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Seems we hate Trump and we hate Hillary but not many hate Sanders.

I wonder if people will vote for divided government with Sanders at the top, pretty much a kick the can down the field for another 4 years again so nothing gets done as usual?

Well . . . that consideration would be useful for an option of political strategy, wouldn't it?

You'll generally find a cohort of folks who are just angry, don't see the whole for the parts, cherry-pick their facts to argue their gripes.

The entire undercurrent of Rightist thinking seems to have a layer of "no compromise." But that's the way the system was supposed to work. There may have been a problem of "democracy in deficit" from the various log-rolling and quid-pro-quo behaviors, but it requires something else than "just being madder'n hell and not gonna take it anymore."

 

[Hugo Drax]

Yes, clearly being a woman is a huge advantage in running for president. That's why we have had so many of them in the past.

It was not an advantage then. But it is now in this election cycle. Too bad Elisabeth Warren did not step up to the plate, she would have been the best candidate.

Clinton is just another Political hack.

 

[Exophase]

Yes, clearly being a woman is a huge advantage in running for president. That's why we have had so many of them in the past.

There are a lot of steps along the way to becoming a viable presidential candidate that one must spend decades pursuing, and I don't doubt that during those last several decades those things were on measure a lot harder for women. Hillary did not have an easy path getting to where she is by any means. Even discounting the political exposure and opportunities she got through her marriage.

But after clearing that, today in the DNC primaries being a woman is absolutely helping her for some class of voters. She polls much better among women than men, there are a ton of people saying they're excited to elect the first female president. Some people are straight up calling people who don't support her sexist which can be an effective coercive tool these days. Her campaign has often played the first female president card so they obviously think it resonates with people. There are PACs like EMILY's list that have very explicitly favored candidates for being female.

I don't know how much the opposite, people voting against her because she's a woman, factors in as a counterbalance. But it's not something I'm seeing signs of anywhere and really not something I expect much of among Democrat primary voters.

For the general election maybe this would be different, especially if she's running against Trump who could probably find a way to instill more sexist doubt against her. But for now this isn't how it looks.

 

[fskimospy]

There are a lot of steps along the way to becoming a viable presidential candidate that one must spend decades pursuing, and I don't doubt that during those last several decades those things were on measure a lot harder for women. Hillary did not have an easy path getting to where she is by any means. Even discounting the political exposure and opportunities she got through her marriage.

But after clearing that, today in the DNC primaries being a woman is absolutely helping her for some class of voters. She polls much better among women than men, there are a ton of people saying they're excited to elect the first female president. Some people are straight up calling people who don't support her sexist which can be an effective coercive tool these days. Her campaign has often played the first female president card so they obviously think it resonates with people. There are PACs like EMILY's list that have very explicitly favored candidates for being female.

I don't know how much the opposite, people voting against her because she's a woman, factors in as a counterbalance. But it's not something I'm seeing signs of anywhere and really not something I expect much of among Democrat primary voters.

For the general election maybe this would be different, especially if she's running against Trump who could probably find a way to instill more sexist doubt against her. But for now this isn't how it looks.

What's your basis for this though? As I said before polling better among women than men could be a function of women liking her more because she's a woman or men liking her less because she's a woman. There were groups that explicitly favored Obama for being black but I would hope nobody would try to argue that Obama being black was an electoral asset.

Historically, being a woman has provided a strong electoral disadvantage for many of the reasons you outlined above. (can't get into the game) There's very little evidence for any electoral advantage for women once they are in a campaign though and I haven't seen any difference here.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

It was not an advantage then. But it is now in this election cycle. Too bad Elisabeth Warren did not step up to the plate, she would have been the best candidate.

Clinton is just another Political hack.

I'll give :thumbsup::thumbsup: to that. But with the musical chairs, you have again the prospect of Scott Brown. If she declined running this year over a broader concern, I'd defer to her judgment in the reasoning of it.

 

[momeNt]

Yes, clearly being a woman is a huge advantage in running for president. That's why we have had so many of them in the past.

I think a fairly plausible reason for this being the case THEN as opposed to NOW, was how commonplace LGBT and sex change operations have become in America. I think a lot of men wouldn't have voted for women simply out of envy. Now that those men can become women, they probably will just vote for the woman as opposed to hating her.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hell, Hillary's record practically makes her a Republican. But useful idiots like Jghghhjqwbnnn will vote her. Because reasons.

Supposing that I could go along with your both sides are worthless, scenario, a condition I can easily argue for, I can't go as far as to say that both sides are equally worthless, or that all the candidates are equally worthless.

So, given the likelihood that no third party candidate will represent anything but an opportunity for moral purists to pretend they voted with clean hands, a cowardly evasion of moral responsibility, in my opinion, would not my vote have to go to Republican-lite candidate Hillary Clinton if it's between her and one of the real Republican mad men, given that's my take on all of them, with the possible exception of potential Black Swan President Trump?

 

[Exophase]

I think a fairly plausible reason for this being the case THEN as opposed to NOW, was how commonplace LGBT and sex change operations have become in America. I think a lot of men wouldn't have voted for women simply out of envy. Now that those men can become women, they probably will just vote for the woman as opposed to hating her.

That's a really weird theory, do you actually seriously mean that?

Sex change operations are not anywhere close to common place, they're just talked about a lot in the media. Actual number of people who get them are well under 1 out of 100. And trans people still face a ton of scrutiny, they're very far from universally respected. The other LGB classes don't really have anything to do with gender.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think a fairly plausible reason for this being the case THEN as opposed to NOW, was how commonplace LGBT and sex change operations have become in America. I think a lot of men wouldn't have voted for women simply out of envy. Now that those men can become women, they probably will just vote for the woman as opposed to hating her.

Oh boy. And here I thought it was contrails.

 

[Exophase]

What's your basis for this though? As I said before polling better among women than men could be a function of women liking her more because she's a woman or men liking her less because she's a woman. There were groups that explicitly favored Obama for being black but I would hope nobody would try to argue that Obama being black was an electoral asset.

Historically, being a woman has provided a strong electoral disadvantage for many of the reasons you outlined above. (can't get into the game) There's very little evidence for any electoral advantage for women once they are in a campaign though and I haven't seen any difference here.

I gave several things as my basis. People are saying outright that Hillary's gender is a positive for them. They do it when they say they want a female president. They do it when the contribute to political groups that say they want more female politicians.

One thing I see evidence for, the other thing (that people view her gender as a negative factor) I don't see evidence for. You said you think that the bias against her gender outweighs the bias for her gender, do you have evidence? Since I gave something I think it's your tour turn.

History changes. And the obstacles and gatekeepers along the way in becoming a presidential candidate are not the same as those in a popular election. Especially popular elections where the whole country can vote and are generally more interested in voting in than other elections. Where 50% of those prospective voters are women, and where it's a popular idea that electing a female president would be moving the bar forward for American women everywhere.

Gender and race are not the same kind of thing, sexism and racism are not the same thing (even if a lot of people treat them like they are), so I'm not going to argue for whether or not Obama's race hurt or helped him more.

 

[fskimospy]

I gave several things as my basis. People are saying outright that Hillary's gender is a positive for them. They do it when they say they want a female president. They do it when the contribute to political groups that say they want more female politicians.

Right, but people said the same thing about Obama, that they were excited to elect a black president. That doesn't make it an advantage.

One thing I see evidence for, the other thing (that people view her gender as a negative factor) I don't see evidence for. You said you think that the bias against her gender outweighs the bias for her gender, do you have evidence? Since I gave something I think it's your tour turn.

The political science research on female candidates doesn't show any advantage for them (generally). Also much like with Obama and anti-black bias people aren't going to admit that they won't vote for her because she's a woman. You can't really say that in modern society. I would not have taken people saying they were going to vote for Obama because he was black and people not saying that they wouldn't vote for him because he was black as evidence that being black was an advantage and I doubt you would have either. Same deal here.

More importantly, my stance is the null hypothesis. I see no evidence for her having an advantage for being a woman. It's up to you guys to show otherwise and the evidence I've seen is extremely weak.

History changes. And the obstacles and gatekeepers along the way in becoming a presidential candidate are not the same as those in a popular election. Especially popular elections where the whole country can vote and are generally more interested in voting in than other elections. Where 50% of those prospective voters are women, and where it's a popular idea that electing a female president would be moving the bar forward for American women everywhere.

Things MIGHT be different this time, but I see little evidence for it so far.

Gender and race are not the same kind of thing, sexism and racism are not the same thing (even if a lot of people treat them like they are), so I'm not going to argue for whether or not Obama's race hurt or helped him more.

Well the empirical research comes down pretty strongly for Obama's race hurting him as I've already linked. While it's true that sexism and racism aren't the same thing that doesn't mean we can't look at one to inform ourselves about the other.

 

[pcgeek11]

Agreed. What we're seeing is a lot of Repub trolling in an attempt to convince Dems to nominate a candidate more likely to lose in the general election than Hillary.

The OP probably wouldn't vote for a Dem with a gun held to his head but he'll tell us which Dem we should vote for. There's a lot of that bullshit going around.

This is actually a double edged sword. And is true on both sides of the fence.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hillary's gender just makes it different. She may garner more women's votes because of it. She'll likely lose some, too, because a lot of middle aged men & up have problems with women as authority figures.

Just sayin'...

 

[Moonbeam]

The number of women who have been President of the US should tell us something about the advantages women have being elected.

 

[Exophase]

Right, but people said the same thing about Obama, that they were excited to elect a black president. That doesn't make it an advantage.

Yeah and you keep bringing up Obama but I'm really not interested in that parallel. Take it or leave it. You say you can look at one to inform the other, I say you can't and you're going to have to actually demonstrate this to me before going any further with that. Sexism and racism have VERY different motivations.

Here, I can give two other examples in where I see female gender being a positive influence:

I read in Bitch magazine (it was my girlfriend's) a table comparing people running in the primaries. Carly Fiorina was listed, and compared to the other R runners she got a pretty favorable listing. Despite the fact that she's wildly anti-abortion and has been doing damage to public perception of Planned Parenthood and the like, something that a feminist publication would normally be super against. It seemed pretty blatant to me that she was favored because she's the female candidate.

The other example is that I have seen Hillary's campaign on at least two occasions has called Bernie or his campaigners sexist over things that have no real grounds. Campaigns make accusations over what they think will resonate with prospective voters. They know accusations of sexism will make people want to support her more. That sort of thing happens all over the place in the media and it only works if you're a woman.

Yes it's harder to get away with blatant sexism against women these days but there still have to be signs of it to say anything. Even if those signs are subtle and coded. I'm just not seeing them in Bernie supporters, or not anything like I'm seeing the overt bias I'm seeing in Hillary supporters in articles, comment sections, tweets, etc.

There is a popular narrative today, perhaps more popular than ever, that women are always disadvantaged and never advantaged in every possible sphere in society. And the very popularity of that narrative is just yet another thing which biases voters towards women. They want to fight this perceived sexism that everyone knows will always exist and therefore always needs to be fought against without cares for updating empirical evidence.

Today there are even still people advocating for affirmative action favoring women in general admission to universities. Something that maybe made sense decades ago, but today women are already admitted more than men. History changes.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah and you keep bringing up Obama but I'm really not interested in that parallel. Take it or leave it. You say you can look at one to inform the other, I say you can't and you're going to have to actually demonstrate this to me before going any further with that. Sexism and racism have VERY different motivations.

I'm sorry if you aren't interested in it but you don't get to decide what counts. It's very salient to what we are talking about here whether you want to admit it or not.

Here, I can give two other examples in where I see female gender being a positive influence:

I read in Bitch magazine (it was my girlfriend's) a table comparing people running in the primaries. Carly Fiorina was listed, and compared to the other R runners she got a pretty favorable listing. Despite the fact that she's wildly anti-abortion and has been doing damage to public perception of Planned Parenthood and the like, something that a feminist publication would normally be super against. It seemed pretty blatant to me that she was favored because she's the female candidate.

The other example is that I have seen Hillary's campaign on at least two occasions has called Bernie or his campaigners sexist over things that have no real grounds. Campaigns make accusations over what they think will resonate with prospective voters. They know accusations of sexism will make people want to support her more. That sort of thing happens all over the place in the media and it only works if you're a woman.

Yes it's harder to get away with blatant sexism against women these days but there still have to be signs of it to say anything. Even if those signs are subtle and coded. I'm just not seeing them in Bernie supporters, or not anything like I'm seeing the overt bias I'm seeing in Hillary supporters in articles, comment sections, tweets, etc.

There is a popular narrative today, perhaps more popular than ever, that women are always disadvantaged and never advantaged in every possible sphere in society. And the very popularity of that narrative is just yet another thing which biases voters towards women. They want to fight this perceived sexism that everyone knows will always exist and therefore always needs to be fought against without cares for updating empirical evidence.

Today there are even still people advocating for affirmative action favoring women in general admission to universities. Something that maybe made sense decades ago, but today women are already admitted more than men. History changes.

I don't find the imagined motivations of a tiny quarterly Portland magazine and a statement that Hillary can call Sanders sexist to be even slightly compelling evidence, sorry.

 

[Exophase]

I'm sorry if you aren't interested in it but you don't get to decide what counts. It's very salient to what we are talking about here whether you want to admit it or not.

Okay, I guess you get to assert whatever you want without evidence while insisting I keep providing something. Is your assertion that racism informs sexism also covered by the null theorem?

I don't find the imagined motivations of a tiny quarterly Portland magazine and a statement that Hillary can call Sanders sexist to be even slightly compelling evidence, sorry.

These examples I gave aren't coming from a vacuum. There's an undercurrent in society that influences this. And of course Hillary can do whatever she wants but her campaign isn't going to do something without a good, informed reason to believe that it resonates with potential voters. They didn't make it this far by doing differently. And accusations of sexism do very well. You can't walk two steps in the direction of any major online publication today without running into one.

But what are we talking about here exactly?

I'm giving evidence that there are people who are biased towards Hillary because of her gender. That's pretty much indisputable. That alone doesn't mean it was enough to decide their vote, and it doesn't mean it isn't outweighed by bias in the opposite direction. But you're giving me nothing to work with and you think that it's because it's already established that there's all this bias against her in the democrat primary voting base.

 

[Jhhnn]

You're a horrible human being.

For pointing that out, or for realizing it at all?

Hell, Hillary's record practically makes her a Republican. But useful idiots like Jghghhjqwbnnn will vote her. Because reasons.

Start at the top & tell us how she's practically like a Republican-

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

What's the first heading? Abortion? Just like a Republican, obviously.

Maybe this-

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

Or just keep telling yourself whatever it takes to maintain a shitty attitude.

 

[werepossum]

Again, Hillary's DW-NOMINATE score is about -.350. The mean Republican senator's DW-NOMINATE score is +.492. She is about +.170 more conservative than Sanders while the mean Republican senator is about +.842 more conservative than she is. That is not even remotely close.

Lots of people try and claim that either both parties are the same, or that Hillary is basically a Republican, etc, etc. You'll notice they always cherry pick specific votes or just make blanket pronouncements about things. You'll never see any real analysis of it because it's laughably wrong.

Looks like Jhnnnn is a lot more informed about her relative ideology than you are, so who's really the useful idiot?

Given that Jhnnnn will vote for whomever the Democrats vomit up whilst BoberFett will vote for neither Democrat nor Republican, clearly Jhnnnn is the useful idiot.

That's interesting, and your remarks are spot on for the science and art of indexes. It would be the only logical approach to "measurement" in political inclination.

I "co-supported" Edwards and Obama, and Edwards was -- of course -- a disappointment. If I'd had to choose between them, Edwards would've come in as close second.

Hillary's activism goes back to the days of the Chicago 7 or COINTELPRO. You can't say she hasn't been consistent with her "takes a village" mantra.

I'd give both of them half my planned donation for the forthcoming year -- that is, Bernie and Hillary. It's bothersome -- the meteor-shower of e-mail solicitations that I refuse to block while abjuring use of my credit card.

But look at the way it's turned out before. Wasn't Biden a candidate in the 2008 Primary? And wasn't the ACA -- really -- Hillary's main cause from the mid-90s?

Bernie offers up the problem-set. Hillary offers more in addition to diplomatic experience -- a pragmatist. She had been wrong here or there, but the Iraq War vote got its cue from hysteria, completely false information and a constituency close to ground-zero in the Big Apple.

There might even be a cabinet slot for O'Malley.

It is interesting to me how many people who supported Obama, the candidate with literally no useful experience, now tout Hillary's experience. Curious, that.