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

[quote=[Green]]I'm not surprised, considering the amount of economists in Europe.[/quote] I love this narrative of "because economists say so." It's delightfully obscure enough to be used as an excuse to push terrible ideas. There are plenty of economists, just as credible, who would contend that the shoddy economic policies that Hilary Clinton would almost certainly continue are fundamentally broken. They're the kind of ideas we can't even claim have failed the lower classes because they were never meant to help them in the first place. It's the same logic that was pushed in my country for 10 years as an excuse to gut our social safety net and environmental protections, and it's amazingly depressing that anyone still buys it.

[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] To say bernie is as sleazy as clinton is a pipedream for republicans

we're all economists in europe. i don't know anyone who isn't an economist

[QUOTE=Medevila;50066852]you aren't looking very hard then, although frankly [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/01/why-hillary-clinton-is-justifiably-annoyed-by-critiques-of-her-big-oil-fundraising/"]$54,000 is peanuts anyway[/URL] fossil fuel resources can be (and need to be) developed responsibly, both candidates recognize this... it has important economic ramifications, both domestically and geopolitically (breaking up OPEC/Russian cartel is pretty crucial)[/QUOTE] It said in that article that the CRP lumped donations from employees into the "fossil fuel donations" category. Which is essentially the scenario in my previous post. I have a hard time believing that anything in that $54,000 is a corporate donation. It's likely to be all individuals who have work in that industry.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;50067086]It said in that article that the CRP lumped donations from employees into the "fossil fuel donations" category. Which is essentially the scenario in my previous post. I have a hard time believing that anything in that $54,000 is a corporate donation. It's likely to be all individuals who have work in that industry.[/QUOTE] Which is the exact same scenario for Clinton.

[QUOTE=Firewarrior;50066700]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.[/QUOTE] I do not think so, and think it's a useless excuse of an article.

[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] Your post is basically about how one has a lot of experience having been in government for a [I]long[/I] time, but I'd that's totally unfair to compare to a guy who has been an independent basically until the point he announced his nomination. People aren't stupid to vote for a guy that represents their opinions, just because the other choice may be more pragmatic. Also you just kinda assume you know the reason why Wall Street wants Clinton, but you're making some assumptions that really aren't backed by anything more than the reverse. You say she's an ideologist, but then why isn't she pushing for universal health care now, as she did twenty years ago? Why was she against gay marriage, and only came out for it so late? Clinton should be allowed to have a change of heart, but I just can't get myself to like her person. At all. Not to mention the just totally uncomfortable feeling of having [I]yet another[/I] family so close to power that they can procure two presidents in 20 years' time. It's ugly.

This is horrible, why :(

[QUOTE='[Green];50065713'][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. [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] Your argument that Sanders and his supporters are stupid and naive is just as ignorant as your claim that Hillary is the only hope we have. The foreign policy experience that makes her electable in your eyes, is also held in contempt by many Americans. Giving her a free pass for her vote on the Iraq War -- which is also a tacit endorsement of her other interventionist policies -- is a mistake. The invasion of Iraq was one of the worst foreign policy mistakes in our modern history. It was a massive, expensive mistake. Destabilization of countries like Iraq, Libya, and Syria, is what has allowed ISIL to take a foothold in the Middle East. I don't want to support someone who voted for the Iraq War, especially if their reasoning was that doing otherwise would be "political suicide". Sanders is the only candidate opposed to unilateral military actions. He's the only one who views war as a last resort. He is the only candidate saying sensible things about a two state solution for Israel-Palestine. Saying that he has "little interest" in foreign policy is flat out wrong, as he has campaigned against war practically his whole life. His biggest focus in the Senate was veteran care. Campaign finance reform is one of the most important domestic issues facing Americans. Frankly, it's not just Wall Street funding her -- in fact, some firms are highly opposed to her. The problem is that these massive sources of funding are being used for political purposes at all. The problem is that we are allowing public elections to be entirely funded by a very small, but wealthy percentage of people. It's a failure of democracy. The risk of corruption runs much higher, when elections are funded in this way. It affects every other issue.

why is this news?

[QUOTE=rilez;50069088]Your argument that Sanders and his supporters are stupid and naive is just as ignorant as your claim that Hillary is the only hope we have. The foreign policy experience that makes her electable in your eyes, is also held in contempt by many Americans. Giving her a free pass for her vote on the Iraq War -- which is also a tacit endorsement of her other interventionist policies -- is a mistake. The invasion of Iraq was one of the worst foreign policy mistakes in our modern history. It was a massive, expensive mistake. Destabilization of countries like Iraq, Libya, and Syria, is what has allowed ISIL to take a foothold in the Middle East. I don't want to support someone who voted for the Iraq War, especially if their reasoning was that doing otherwise would be "political suicide". Sanders is the only candidate opposed to unilateral military actions. He's the only one who views war as a last resort. He is the only candidate saying sensible things about a two state solution for Israel-Palestine. Saying that he has "little interest" in foreign policy is flat out wrong, as he has campaigned against war practically his whole life. His biggest focus in the Senate was veteran care. Campaign finance reform is one of the most important domestic issues facing Americans. Frankly, it's not just Wall Street funding her -- in fact, some firms are highly opposed to her. The problem is that these massive sources of funding are being used for political purposes at all. The problem is that we are allowing public elections to be entirely funded by a very small, but wealthy percentage of people. It's a failure of democracy. The risk of corruption runs much higher, when elections are funded in this way. It affects every other issue.[/QUOTE] Thank you for a sensible reply. I'll concede the results of the Iraq War as being detriments to Clinton's case, yes. You've brought up good points, so I'll have to take a moment and formulate a reply that is equally worthwhile!

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;50060819]So, Europe wants a criminal...again. I guess people tend to overlook her having classified emails on her personal Exchange server in her house. Real stand-up candidate right there (not).[/QUOTE] what a dumb thing to say. lotta people are misinformed to that means they want a criminal as potus yeah no

[QUOTE='[Green];50069804']Thank you for a sensible reply. I'll concede the results of the Iraq War as being detriments to Clinton's case, yes. You've brought up good points, so I'll have to take a moment and formulate a reply that is equally worthwhile![/QUOTE] It's also worth noting that many don't consider her foreign policy repertoire as a positive because of her deep connections and support of Henry Kissinger. Although she is very experienced in the field of foreign policy it's naive to assume that all experience is good experience, when a very sizable portion of it is massively negative to a good portion to Americans, if not riddled with sizable and objective mistakes.

[QUOTE=V12US;50065622]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] By our standards Bernie Sanders is just a Left-Winger, would be relunctant to call him a socialist which is what our far-leftists are. And Hillary is a Centrist.

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;50068521]I do not think so, and think it's a useless excuse of an article.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but what one thinks often isn't based on knowledge. The uselessness of the article itself doesn't have much to do with the poll itself - both are seperate things.

[QUOTE=Black;50072293]By our standards Bernie Sanders is just a Left-Winger, would be relunctant to call him a socialist which is what our far-leftists are. And Hillary is a Centrist.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I'm pretty sure Bernie would find "Enhedslisten" here in Denmark somewhat extreme, and they're actually pretty mainstream. Clinton would probably be on the right, perhaps even further than liberal alliance, but it's of course pretty hard to talk about US policies in a danish context, eg. Liberal alliance wants to lower the taxes, but even their (stated) ideal goal would result in a pretty hefty tax increase in the US afaik, iirc and all the other acronyms.

This poll is very unrealistic i would never vote for Hillary Clinton at all. To be honest most if not all the candidates are just as bad this time, I don't know how you Americans can cope with it. :ohno:

I'm almost willing to bet money on these numbers being purely because of her being much more known, and as far as most Europeans are aware Clinton was highly popular (which means he must've done something right, so she'd probably do things right as well etc). Sanders is virtually entirely unknown for Europeans outside the people who actively follow the election. Every European I know who follows the election would vote for Sanders.

I pay zero to no attention to the US elections. All I see is a giant shitfest. The only candidate that seems to be reasonable is Bernie Sanders.

[QUOTE=X-JIDE;50072412]This poll is very unrealistic i would never vote for Hillary Clinton at all. To be honest most if not all the candidates are just as bad this time, I don't know how you Americans can cope with it. :ohno:[/QUOTE] "The statistic is unrealistic, i would not do that"