If the US election was held in Europe instead, Hillary Cllinton would win in a landslide - YouGov po - Polidicks

[QUOTE=sb27;50063614]A lot of people are saying Clinton is only in the lead in this poll because Europeans are 'uninformed'. Really? Don't people use the same argument, by referring to voting Americans, when Clinton beats Bernie in a primary or caucus? Is it not the case that informed people could just like Hillary? Also, Bernie has said in the past that he looked at governments, like in Denmark, for inspiration for his policies. But ironically, those governments have attempted to distance themselves from Bernie. Eg pretty sure Denmark's PM has reaffirmed his country is one that uses a market economy, rather than anything that is socialist. Given the resurgence of the right in Europe, I'm sure Hillary's relative support isn't just 'uninformed Europeans'.[/QUOTE] I don't think Sanders would necessarily lead the poll if people were more informed but he would certainly get more than 14%.

[QUOTE=EskillV2;50061434]I know i wouldn't vote for Clinton. Or Trump for that matter.[/QUOTE] Don't really know any Norwegians who say they would specifically vote for Clinton, but there is an overwhelming support of Clinton over Trump here.

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;50061111]That aside, Europe wants another criminal instead of the other options. I mean really, the Democrat nomination will either be a socialist or a criminal. So take your pick, I guess.[/QUOTE] For some reason i think that "I used a private mail server stored in my basement in a guarded compound managed by a security company when i should have been using government servers" doesn't exactly trigger "What a huge criminal, how can we ever trust her!" enough to sway a vote to drastically different policies. Most of the European political spectrum would be as left or even more left then the USA Democrats. She wins on being the front runner that somewhat aligns with their political direction, it probably has very little to do with her herself. If you just made them fill in a "Who should i vote for poll", based on policies and ideologies, it would still have a massive democrat support, but the candidate distribution would be vastly different.

[QUOTE=Black;50065259]Don't really know any Norwegians who say they would specifically vote for Clinton, but there is an overwhelming support of Clinton over Trump here.[/QUOTE] As soon as Clinton proposed paying for college she would lose all or most support in Scandinavia and probably other parts if Europe as well.

[QUOTE=Coffee;50060785]Yeah it's like the Superbowl, we just have to watch and pretend to take part because Trump has turned it into a shitshow.[/QUOTE] The elections, sure it's something we all pretty much follow. But the superbowl? For the longest time I thought it was a bowling competition, I'm not very informed about sport stuff :pudge:

[QUOTE=DaMastez;50065019]How many people are going to bother looking up the views and history of every candidate in an election for another country in enough detail to make an informed decision when the average person in Europe did not know--or even care--who was running for the President of European Commission in 2014? [url=http://www.aecr.eu/media/AECRAMR-European-election-poll.pdf]1[/url] [url=http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=6491]2[/url][/QUOTE] That's because it matters very little in my day to day life. The president of the US probably has more influence on my life than the president of the European commission.

[QUOTE=.Lain;50061383]uninformed europeans opt to vote for the one they've heard the most of. big shocker[/QUOTE] We've heard way more about Trump, and yet that doesn't reflect in the results.

[QUOTE=Black;50065259]Don't really know any Norwegians who say they would specifically vote for Clinton, but there is an overwhelming support of Clinton over Trump here.[/QUOTE] My entire family would vote on Hillary over any other candidate. I suspect it could be name recognition. [editline]4th April 2016[/editline] One of the reasons my mother would never vote on Trump is because she says he's a disgusting one.

[QUOTE=Dom Pyroshark;50065097]I really doubt majority of these people even knew who these people were so they went with the option they know most about. I pretty much wouldn't know who Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders is if I didn't hang around FP or browse SH. Why should I or anyone who isn't from US even care, it's not like I can do anything about it no matter what my opinion is.[/QUOTE] Do you never watch TV / read the news, or is the media in your country not focusing on foreign affairs? Genuine question.

[QUOTE=Ahyred Ghun;50064806]This is why no one asks for Europe's opinion on anything.[/QUOTE] That's an interesting thing to say given the american popularity of Trump.

Well I know for the majority of my own family who pays even a little bit of attention to the US election, the reason they believe/hope Clinton wins is simply because she's the only one they know even the slightest bit about. They think Trump is an absolute nutjob, and they have zero faith in Sanders. I think this can also be applied to most other people. As much as I want Sanders to win, there's no denying he only became known once the Presidential nominations began, and Trump was just some random guy you only heard about every once in a while. Clinton, on the other hand, that's a name most people know, and so they simply look to something they're familiar with.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;50060779]Do many Europeans give that much of a shit about our election? Like do you guys actually pay much attention to our candidates and what they're doing and all that? Because I'm wondering if this is something that's generally an informed decision or not.[/QUOTE] Seeing how germany is bascially the bitch of the US, it's detrimental to know what's going on over there.

[QUOTE=Cold;50065275]For some reason i think that "I used a private mail server stored in my basement in a guarded compound managed by a security company when i shouldn't have been using government servers" doesn't exactly trigger "What a huge criminal, how can we ever trust her!" enough to sway a vote. Most of the European political spectrum would be as left or even more left then the USA Democrats. She wins on being the front runner that somewhat aligns with their political direction, it probably has very little to do with her herself. If you just made them fill in a "Who should i vote for poll", based on policies and ideologies, it wouldn't look anything like this.[/QUOTE] Because fuck-ups like that are all too common in European governments these days. Fucking hell, our government seems to have a scandal every two months or so. Or the fact that they keep making some terrible deals. They just don't seem to learn. [QUOTE=DrDevil;50065361]Seeing how germany is bascially the bitch of the US, it's detrimental to know what's going on over there.[/QUOTE] Clinton wants to be Merkel 2.0. I am seriously baffled why people think that Merkel is still doing a decent job. In the last 3/4th year, she managed to fuck up both her country and Europe tremendously on all fronts.

Bear in mind, most people in Europe have no idea about the social and economic issues facing the US. They have very little interest in the candidates' manifestos because they don't really understand what the US [i]needs[/i], which has become fairly clear it needs a President with an attitude like Bernie's. This poll is complete bullshit because to really care about who's the next President you have to have driven on fucked-up roads, suffered from droughts and outages, seen your kids' educations get fucked up because of shitty school districts and terrible policy, and seen the awful political process prevent any progress from being made in the last term. Terrible idea to conduct this poll as most people's reasoning goes either 'But muh first female President' or 'Obama's right hand should be President next'.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;50060779]Do many Europeans give that much of a shit about our election? Like do you guys actually pay much attention to our candidates and what they're doing and all that? Because I'm wondering if this is something that's generally an informed decision or not.[/QUOTE] We are in NATO, the politics in America affects us. So yes, we give a shit. Also I highly doubt people like hilarious clitoris here.

A little note, though. In most European countries (in the Netherlands, anyway), people vote for parties, not presidents. When you convert candidates to parties you end up with (by our standards, sort of): Bernie: Far Left Clinton: Moderate Left/Right Trump: Far Right Kasich: Religious vote bait It's not a perfect comparison, but that's because I'm not super informed on their ideology/goals/targets, and I don't think most other Europeans are either. At the end of the day, it really isn't that weird that Clinton is so popular. You just have to keep in mind that when Europeans say they'd vote for Clinton, they mean they'd vote for that party, not the person. We put far less emphasis on what would effectively be the 'party leader' here. In most cases, they're just a representative face.

[QUOTE=Jon27;50065506]Bear in mind, most people in Europe have no idea about the social and economic issues facing the US. They have very little interest in the candidates' manifestos because they don't really understand what the US [i]needs[/i], which has become fairly clear it needs a President with an attitude like Bernie's. This poll is complete bullshit because to really care about who's the next President you have to have driven on fucked-up roads, suffered from droughts and outages, seen your kids' educations get fucked up because of shitty school districts and terrible policy, and seen the awful political process prevent any progress from being made in the last term. Terrible idea to conduct this poll as most people's reasoning goes either 'But muh first female President' or 'Obama's right hand should be President next'.[/QUOTE] To be fair we haven't really been living under a rock, we know there are huge lower-middleclass issues, health care, education and incarceration. Although we're obviously not there ... ( but to be fair neither are most Americans exposed to all these issues.) But you also don't really need to be more then just be human to have an opinion on Gay Marriage, Abortion, Marijuana, Vaccinations, Healthcare, Equality, GMO, Geneva convention violations, Net Neutrality, NSA Practices, etc etc.

[B]I'm not surprised, considering the amount of economists in Europe. Many of them side with Clinton and for good reason, as do I. If you want a European's opinion, here you go. I've kept an eye because the US is a major power in the world and how their politics change can influence my country as well.[/B] - It seems to be a forgotten fact today, but throughout the Bill Clinton administration, Hillary Clinton was well-known to be an idealist and left-leaning, having the first attempt at a National Universal Healthcare plan for some time, and frequently causing internal administration strife against the more centrist Al Gore. She doesn't have to prove her ideological bona fides to me, she already proved them a long time ago; even ages ago there was rancor thrown at her for this. Since then, she's become a much more subdued compromiser, and I don't see this as a weakness, but as a strength. While any Democratic president's avenue for options on domestic issues will be incredibly limited until 2022 most likely (for Census redistricting of the House), she has the best possible options there of the three candidates, given that O'Malley's a pure technocrat (putting aside his questionable issues on criminal justice.) - She has a ridiculous amount of prior foreign policy experience, which will minimize the disruption between the two administrations -- essential, because the US is in a number of extremely precarious diplomatic situations. This is an area where the president is unparalleled in power, to boot. -- As an addendum, you shouldn't hold the Iraq War vote against her. It would have been political suicide by a slow stagnation with no benefit but one's own moral self-confidence to oppose it then, and it's stupid to vote people into office for political courage unless that political courage actually has a good chance of making a long-term difference. That's the difference between bravery and stupidity, as they say -- however personally admirable an ideal may be. - As for her support from much of Wall Street, it's actually a good thing. Yes, they are -- as a whole -- rather greedy and amoral if not immoral. I don't have to be convinced of this, I am for outright wealth redistribution. But education also correlates with leftism somewhat, they are very well-educated on Wall Street, and you don't have to look hard to find examples of the super-rich who even supported movements like Occupy. Further, while what's good for Wall Street is not necessarily good for America, it does not follow that what's bad for Wall Street is necessarily good for America. Quite frankly, the number of debt crises provoked by Republicans in recent times has a lot of them with longer views scared of a Republican president. Their support for her is predicated on her -stability-. And the best changes are generally stable ones, slow and over time. Radical changes can be of benefit of time, but they are a medium-term liability as political capital must be expended until people accept the new-normal, and we're not going to have the political capital to enact radical changes anytime soon. - If nothing else, the incredibly long Benghazi committee pretty much shows that the woman has the composure to deal with any challenge that comes her way, and composure is one of the most important things for a president, particularly when dealing with foreign leaders. [B]And before you go tooting how wallbanging amazing Sanders is...[/B] - President Obama has acknowledged that one of his key weaknesses as a president was his legislative leadership, and he has furthermore admitted that the president is a coalition-builder-in-chief more than anything else. Now, few objective observers would criticize him for not being willing to compromise enough with the Republicans, but his unwillingness to plan, discuss, compromise, and negotiate with Democrats was a constant criticism from insiders, and made his support from the Democratically controlled houses of Congress weaker than it already would have been. Bernie Sanders is not exactly at a Ted Cruz level, but despite a very long legislative history, has accomplished few legislative victories and is well-known for basically not wanting to plan, discuss, compromise, or negotiate with Democrats. There's a place for firebrands, and you can certainly support Sanders as a legislator in a safe seat... not at the top of the ticket. - Despite his long political history, Sanders not only isn't known for being a coalition builder, he has little leadership or executive roles of note under his belt. (Mayoralty of a town in Vermont isn't exactly having to deal with a lot of different small factions with very deep dividing lines.) He's had a long time to learn leadership and hasn't displayed it, it's a gamble to assume that he suddenly can. - He also has displayed little past facile or interest with foreign policy, which is, I think, the most important possible arena for the president right now along with SCOTUS appointments. Who will Sanders call on when he needs to figure out which justices he can trust for a long-term appointment? He doesn't have a deep well of political advice based on his internal party dealings. [B]So if you want a simple and naive good vs. evil narrative go ahead and vote for Sanders because everything is so corrupt and Sanders will fix everything magically, but Clinton is more qualified to be a president than any other candidate. She's also your best hope at getting anything actually done. [U]Given all of the above, I don't see why Americans would be so stupid as to vote for a guy who doesn't have a grip on reality over a woman with experience and cunning.[/U][/B]

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;50060779]Do many Europeans give that much of a shit about our election? Like do you guys actually pay much attention to our candidates and what they're doing and all that? Because I'm wondering if this is something that's generally an informed decision or not.[/QUOTE] We mostly watch the elections for entertainment reasons.

[QUOTE=DMGaina;50065774]We mostly watch the elections for entertainment reasons.[/QUOTE] Speak for yourself; for people with a keen eye in politics of the planet, it's an important event because almost every country is heavily globalized and what happens in one corner of the world can quickly impact all other places. It's no longer about just them, how they do things is something we have to care about just as much. While we don't have to pay for Trump's wall if he wins, the ramifications in cultural, political and economical aspects [B]will[/B] be felt in Europe.

[QUOTE=phaedon;50060818]Well, while Europe has an image of being leftist (it isn't), and the far-right has gotten some political power in recent years, it's centre-right politics that are pretty much dominant. So it makes sense why Europeans would prefer Clinton over Sanders, and definitely Trump.[/QUOTE] In fact it's the right with leftist social ideas (but only when they apply to the people in the country), here for example the very right winged people's part is voted a lot but they are have a lot of leftist ideals like health care.

I couldn't think of a more accurate word to describe Hillary Clinton than a brand. A cheap commodity that has no value or meaning beyond what is on the box. That's the Clinton's, and that's sleazy politicians for you.

[QUOTE='[Green];50065713'] [U]Given all of the above, I don't see why Americans would be so stupid as to vote for a guy who doesn't have a grip on reality over a woman with experience and cunning.[/U][/B][/QUOTE] no go away she is a war criminal and traitor and hates video games

[QUOTE=plunger435;50060791]Why would Europeans be informed enough about the US election to make an informed decision.[/QUOTE] Why wouldn't they be? Also if you think this poll is anywhere near an accurate representation of which US president Europe would pick, then you are an idiot. The fact that Americans like polling more than they like voting itself seems.. kinda insane to me. Fuck off with the polls that hardly ever mean anything.

[QUOTE=Medevila;50066295]Bernie is just as sleazy, the Reddit (facepunch too) bubble just doesn't want to look that deeply [editline]4th April 2016[/editline] he's principled, sure, but he's just as big of a politician- and that's not a knock against him, it's a knock against the trite contempt in which people hold politicians[/QUOTE] He may be a "big politician", but where exactly do you derive sleazy from?

If the Nevada caucus thing had happened the other way around, the thread on it here would be 100 pages long and they'd be burning Clinton in effigy.

If the US election was held in Europe people would be more aware of the candidates and this poll would be different. So it's pretty useless.

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;50066266]Why wouldn't they be? [B] Also if you think this poll is anywhere near an accurate representation of which US president Europe would pick, then you are an idiot. The fact that Americans like polling more than they like voting itself seems.. kinda insane to me. Fuck off with the polls that hardly ever mean anything.[/B][/QUOTE] Well it's a good thing I never claimed either of those two things then.

[QUOTE=Medevila;50066495]let's just take the latest example, with his accusations of fossil fuel money @ Hillary clinton only 2.3% of fossil fuel contributions this cycle have gone to Democrats (neither Democratic candidate is a friend of the "fossil fuel industry"), of that, Bernie Sanders received $54,000 (of course he won't tell you that) furthermore, the way Bernie is totaling up Hillary's fossil fuel money includes lobbyists who aren't lobbying for fossil fuel companies with their contributions, but whose clients happen to include fossil fuel companies [editline]4th April 2016[/editline] full disclosure: I am voting for Bernie in my state's primary[/QUOTE] I can't find anything with a front-page search on Google about the $54,000. Only a donation of $24 from an employee of a fossil fuel company, who later commented on the separation of personal and career choices. The real issue lies in that she has taken more than he has, and yet she hasn't really come out with anything concrete against fossil fuels. She just rides the fence as far as she can. Sanders, however, is very outspoken with his carbon tax plan.

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;50066266]Why wouldn't they be? Also if you think this poll is anywhere near an accurate representation of which US president Europe would pick, then you are an idiot. The fact that Americans like polling more than they like voting itself seems.. kinda insane to me. Fuck off with the polls that hardly ever mean anything.[/QUOTE] And why wouldn't it be an accurate representation? They are nationally representive and I do think with the current knowledge people have about the elections, it's probably true.