Almost Every Major Poll Shows Bernie Sanders Challenging Clinton and Defeating Republicans. - Polidicks

[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/almost-every-major-poll-shows-bernie-sanders_b_7937906.html[/url] [QUOTE]Bernie Sanders is closing in on Hillary Clinton, according to new polling from New Hampshire. In a WMUR/University of New Hampshire poll released Tuesday, the Vermont senator is in a statistical tie with the Democratic presidential frontrunner, trailing her by six percentage points, which is just within the poll's margin of error... Sanders and Clinton are virtually tied in terms of net electability, polling at 30 percent and 32 percent, respectively.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]In several matchups in Iowa and Colorado, another Democratic contender, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, runs as well as, or better than Clinton against Rubio, Bush and Walker. Clinton gets markedly negative favorability ratings in each state, 35-56 percent in Colorado, 33-56 percent in Iowa and 41-50 percent in Virginia. "Hillary Clinton's numbers have dropped among voters in the key swing states of Colorado, Iowa and Virginia. She has lost ground in the horserace and on key questions about her honesty and leadership," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.[/QUOTE]

I really hope Hilary doesn't win. I don't even know how the fuck Trump is even a candidate to begin with.

[QUOTE=HookerVomit;48387277]I really hope Hilary doesn't win. I don't even know how the fuck Trump is even a candidate to begin with.[/QUOTE] My dad likes Trump. He says he's a man who can "get stuff done" and is a "self-made billionaire, several times over." The only fucking reason he is several times over is because the idiot keeps going bankrupt.

[QUOTE=HookerVomit;48387277]I really hope Hilary doesn't win. I don't even know how the fuck Trump is even a candidate to begin with.[/QUOTE] It is important to say though, if bernie can't win the democrat nomination it's still important to vote for hillary. As it's very likely that while she isn't that great, she'll likely be better than whomever the republicans put up (of course, it's too early to say.). Unless we want a repeat of ralph nader in 2000. Though, the plus side to trump is that comedians will have more fresh material than they know what to do with for 2016-2020. So there's that

What stances does Sander have on issues that makes everyone approve of him around here?

[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;48387305]What stances does Sander have on issues that makes everyone approve of him around here?[/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/bernie_sanders.htm[/URL] if you want a general overview generally people here like him for being a Scandinavian style social democrat, who is also much more honest and consistent than many of the other candidates. I mean, hillary is pretty much willing to change her position on things if it will help her out, for example, she was against gay marriage until it started to become pretty indefinsible to do so as a democrat (2011, or 2013 I believe. somewhere around then).

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;48387300]It is important to say though, if bernie can't win the democrat nomination it's still important to vote for hillary. As it's very likely that while she isn't that great, she'll likely be better than whomever the republicans put up (of course, it's too early to say.). Unless we want a repeat of ralph nader in 2000. Though, the plus side to trump is that comedians will have more fresh material than they know what to do with for 2016-2020. So there's that[/QUOTE] Martin O'Malley is a better democratic possibility than Clinton. Even Carson and Paul wouldn't be terrible republican presidents

[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;48387305]What stances does Sander have on issues that makes everyone approve of him around here?[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;S5vOKKMipSA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5vOKKMipSA[/video] If you've got minutes to burn to hear his stance on issues And yet while Bernie is gaining high popularity, for-profit news still hasn't really said anything about him and eventually they're gonna' have to cave in and say something ridiculous about him.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;48387300]It is important to say though, if bernie can't win the democrat nomination it's still important to vote for hillary.[/QUOTE] No thanks. Hillary combines much of what I don't like about Democrats and Republicans into one package.

[quote]"Hillary Clinton's numbers have dropped among voters in the key swing states of Colorado, Iowa and Virginia. She has lost ground in the horserace[/quote] I was just thinking, isn't there a saying along the lines that the horse that takes the lead at the start of the race never ends up winning it? We're relatively isolated from the 2016 Presidential campaigns so far here in Australia, but even here on Facepunch I haven't heard much at all of Clinton's campaigning so far, if at all. Despite that, she's still marginally ahead of Sanders not accounting for standard deviation. Yet Sanders has thrown everything at it so far. I don't think Clinton should be underestimated once she gets the ball rolling. Sanders might as well just be Ron Paul in 2012.

[QUOTE=lolo;48387370]And yet while Bernie is gaining high popularity, for-profit news still hasn't really said anything about him and eventually they're gonna' have to cave in and say something ridiculous about him.[/QUOTE] to be fair the republican primary is a lot more interesting. clinton, sanders, o'malley, webb, chafee -- they're all pretty mild if not outright bland.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48387375]No thanks. Hillary combines much of what I don't like about Democrats and Republicans into one package.[/QUOTE] People say this, but when you look at her stances on individual issues, Facepunchers would find more in common with her than even the most moderate of Republicans.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48387383]I was just thinking, isn't there a saying along the lines that the horse that takes the lead at the start of the race never ends up winning it? We're relatively isolated from the 2016 Presidential campaigns so far here in Australia, but even here on Facepunch I haven't heard much at all of Clinton's campaigning so far, if at all. Despite that, she's still marginally ahead of Sanders not accounting for standard deviation. Yet Sanders has thrown everything at it so far. I don't think Clinton should be underestimated once she gets the ball rolling. Sanders might as well just be Ron Paul in 2012.[/QUOTE] This is what I was thinking. While I'm all in favor of Sanders, candidates like Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, and Ron Paul had fairly large popular support that vaporized later in their respective races. If a victory demands that Sanders raise money at the rate that Obama did in 2008, then Sanders is certainly doomed to fail. Even if we assume that he retains his current rate of contributions, which isn't likely due to his reliance on fairly small donors, it's just too far out of reach. I'm too lazy to post my math on this, but a look at the numbers makes it quite clear.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48387375]No thanks. Hillary combines much of what I don't like about Democrats and Republicans into one package.[/QUOTE] She's too much like Bush to be honest.

[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;48387305]What stances does Sander have on issues that makes everyone approve of him around here?[/QUOTE] Fairly leftist views mostly, which usually can be found in fairly high numbers for one reason or the other in the groups FP caters to (young adults, college kids, "intellectuals", those sort of groups.)

[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;48387305]What stances does Sander have on issues that makes everyone approve of him around here?[/QUOTE] I like him because the only criticism people have against him is the fact that he's older than the rest of the candidates.

[QUOTE=daschnek;48387424]This is what I was thinking. While I'm all in favor of Sanders, candidates like Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, and Ron Paul had fairly large popular support that vaporized later in their respective races. If a victory demands that Sanders raise money at the rate that Obama did in 2008, then Sanders is certainly doomed to fail. Even if we assume that he retains his current rate of contributions, which isn't likely due to his reliance on fairly small donors, it's just too far out of reach. I'm too lazy to post my math on this, but a look at the numbers makes it quite clear.[/QUOTE] the logic about campaign donations is often backwards it's usually not that candidates become more popular because of more contributions rather, candidates receive contributions because they're more popular. sanders' fundraising is unconventional and yields a pittance in comparison to the hundreds of millions that bush and clinton get through super PACs, but it's also grassroots. a little money from a lot of people, rather than a lot of money from a small number of people.

[QUOTE=joes33431;48387442]the logic about campaign donations is often backwards it's usually not that candidates become more popular because of more contributions rather, candidates receive contributions because they're more popular. sanders' fundraising is unconventional and yields a pittance in comparison to the hundreds of millions that bush and clinton get through super PACs, but it's also grassroots. a little money from a lot of people, rather than a lot of money from a small number of people.[/QUOTE] I'm not seeing it - in '08 Obama spent close to double what McCain did on a per vote basis (nearly 11 dollars per vote for Obama compared to McCain spending less than six). Obama's extra spending still only got him ten million more votes than McCain in the election. It's a small gap compared to the gap in what the two spent. Obama spending far more to reach each voter is what seems to have propelled him so far.

[QUOTE=daschnek;48387488]I'm not seeing it - in '08 Obama spent close to double what McCain did on a per vote basis (nearly 11 dollars per vote for Obama compared to McCain spending less than six). Obama's extra spending still only got him ten million more votes than McCain in the election. It's a small gap compared to the gap in what the two spent. Obama spending far more to reach each voter is what seems to have propelled him so far.[/QUOTE] i'd think that that'd be evidence to prove my point -- if there were a direct relationship between campaign spending and winning elections, then obama should have won by a much larger margin. in fact, it was improbable that he even got to the general election in the first place - clinton was seen again as the frontrunner, while obama ran an insurgent campaign.

[QUOTE=daschnek;48387488]I'm not seeing it - in '08 Obama spent close to double what McCain did on a per vote basis (nearly 11 dollars per vote for Obama compared to McCain spending less than six). Obama's extra spending still only got him ten million more votes than McCain in the election. It's a small gap compared to the gap in what the two spent. Obama spending far more to reach each voter is what seems to have propelled him so far.[/QUOTE] Nobody had a choice but to vote for Obama since he out of both elections was a far less malicious candidate that was available back in '08 and '12, now that Bernie is up with a almost totally unarguable views against the views of basically all other opponents he can actually gain ground without the need of millions of dollars that previous candidates had used prior to him, because money doesn't make people want you as president but rather your views on political issues today, Hillary's campaign money doesn't seem to be working all that much against Bernie's union funded campaign.

I'm not gonna lie, if it's Trump Vs Sanders, I'm going to be laughing my ass off because Trump is this unabashed asshole, and Sanders is this very kind old man, I almost feel like if there was a debate it would mostly be Trump saying stupid shit while Sanders kindly points out the errors of his judgement, in between Trump being a douche bag thinking he's right. Give me one presidential debate like this, please.

[QUOTE=Jrose14;48387299]My dad likes Trump. He says he's a man who can "get stuff done" and is a "self-made billionaire, several times over." The only fucking reason he is several times over is because the idiot keeps going bankrupt.[/QUOTE] Also by age 5 was worth millions, "self made" somehow means being the son of the largest real estate owner in Manhattan in the 1960s, just sitting on that would have made him a billionaire from inflation His father was self made, trump had more than enough cash and connections to make money

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;48387300]It is important to say though, if bernie can't win the democrat nomination it's still important to vote for hillary. As it's very likely that while she isn't that great, she'll likely be better than whomever the republicans put up (of course, it's too early to say.). Unless we want a repeat of ralph nader in 2000. Though, the plus side to trump is that comedians will have more fresh material than they know what to do with for 2016-2020. So there's that[/QUOTE] Honestly jeb is probably better than clinton imo.

[QUOTE=lolo;48387547]Nobody had a choice but to vote for Obama since he out of both elections was a far less malicious candidate that was available back in '08 and '12, now that Bernie is up with a almost totally unarguable views against the views of basically all other opponents he can actually gain ground without the need of millions of dollars that previous candidates had used prior to him, because money doesn't make people want you as president but rather your views on political issues today, Hillary's campaign money doesn't seem to be working all that much against Bernie's union funded campaign.[/QUOTE] Do you remember how close those elections were, especially 2012? It was Bush/Gore levels of close as far as the majority vote went. People will easily vote for the wrong person for the wrong reasons.

[QUOTE=LSK;48387585]Do you remember how close those elections were, especially 2012? It was Bush/Gore levels of close as far as the majority vote went. People will easily vote for the wrong person for the wrong reasons.[/QUOTE] That's why Bernie is planning on starting a grassroots movement to have your average man and woman be educated on what's really going on politics, he's not expecting to be president because what truly matters is if the many millions of U.S citizens start waking up to growing corruption that would have prevented them from voting on those people in the 2012 elections. Skip to 11:31 in the Vox conversation video posted above to hear him out on grassroots activism

[QUOTE=redBadger;48387578]Honestly jeb is probably better than clinton imo.[/QUOTE] Honestly I don't really mind him too much, his foreign policy unfortunately seems pretty similar to bush's. But clinton is in the same boat. We'll see though, when debates actually begin

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;48387300]It is important to say though, if bernie can't win the democrat nomination it's still important to [B]vote for hillary[/B]. As it's very likely that while she isn't that great, she'll likely be better than whomever the republicans put up (of course, it's too early to say.). Unless we want a repeat of ralph nader in 2000. [/QUOTE]First Paul, then Rubio, then Bush, and then I take a shit on the voting form because even that's already ten times better than Hillary Clinton.

[QUOTE=daschnek;48387424]This is what I was thinking. While I'm all in favor of Sanders, candidates like Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, and Ron Paul had fairly large popular support that vaporized later in their respective races. If a victory demands that Sanders raise money at the rate that Obama did in 2008, then Sanders is certainly doomed to fail. Even if we assume that he retains his current rate of contributions, which isn't likely due to his reliance on fairly small donors, it's just too far out of reach. I'm too lazy to post my math on this, but a look at the numbers makes it quite clear.[/QUOTE] That and the mass-market appeal of the "first woman president" gives Hillary and edge alone that an old white guy simply cannot match. I mean, I do not want Hillary in the White House. A repeat of Obama's philandering, underproductive presidency, while perhaps not awful, is definitely not what this country needs. In particular, the government needs a huge kick in the ass to weed out the corruption, because the Senate right now is functionally the same as the fucking House of Lords. Like the HoL, they may as well be landed, hereditary nobility for fuck sake since they are basically nobles already in all but name. [editline]booty[/editline] And if anybody but Bernie shows up on that ticket come next election (the first election I can vote in, mind you) then I will burn my ballot. Being forced to choose between another Clinton and Bush (or worse, a Clinton and Trump) is like the worlds toughest game of "would you rather". I'd rather throw myself into a goddamn trash compactor than vote for either of those dolled-up personas that are so out of touch with the reality of the common man they may as well be aliens.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48387383]I was just thinking, isn't there a saying along the lines that the horse that takes the lead at the start of the race never ends up winning it? We're relatively isolated from the 2016 Presidential campaigns so far here in Australia, but even here on Facepunch I haven't heard much at all of Clinton's campaigning so far, if at all. Despite that, she's still marginally ahead of Sanders not accounting for standard deviation. Yet Sanders has thrown everything at it so far. I don't think Clinton should be underestimated once she gets the ball rolling. Sanders might as well just be Ron Paul in 2012.[/QUOTE] The Sanders campaign has yet to air ads, go around towns and get involved in the community, etc. They haven't 'thrown everything at it". Yet.

As much as I would like it to be the case, I doubt Ol' Sandman will win. Having a good president just seem like an impossible thing.