Hillary's poll numbers tanking...

[Max Raker]

[ QUOTE ]

It has nothing to do with her bad month, it has to do with Republican turnout. There is always going to be dislike for a candidate from the opposite party, but not to the level of the Republicans and Hillary. I'm not exactly saying ground-breaking stuff here, so the fact that you are acting like I made some sort of shocking statement is a little baffling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the stuff you are saying is obvious, everybody knows that some people hate Hillary. What is baffling is that you are using this fact to arrive at a conclusion so far off from what polls, gambling sites and pundits are saying.

The polarizing argument is so ridiculous. If 40% of the electorate would rather die then see you elected but the other 60% vote for you, you will win. All a person that hates Hillary can do is vote for the other guy. They don't get to vote twice or put a negative vote for Hillary. If Hillary doesn't win it will be because not enough people want her to be president. Can't believe I had to type that.

[Jeremy517]

[ QUOTE ]
The polarizing argument is so ridiculous. If 40% of the electorate would rather die then see you elected but the other 60% vote for you, you will win.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would require all swing voters to go for her. Good luck with that one. Some percentage of the 50% will show up to vote against her. Some percentage of the Democratic base that will vote for the Democratic candidate no matter what will show up. The difference has to be made up (or not lost, if it is in your favor) in the swing voters. The size of the hole/mountain is the question.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Some percentage of the 50% will show up to vote against her. Some percentage of the Democratic base that will vote for the Democratic candidate no matter what will show up. The difference has to be made up (or not lost, if it is in your favor) in the swing voters. The size of the hole/mountain is the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
What is baffling is that you are using this fact to arrive at a conclusion so far off from what polls, gambling sites and pundits are saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

^ Read this again

We can ignore the pundits, but perhaps you should consider the polling and prediction markets before continuing any further with the "Hillary can't win because she's too polarizing" argument. Actually, maybe you should have considered polling, prediction markets, obvious fund-raising cues, etc. first, but better late than never, right?

I mean, I get the argument; clearly there exists a meme that Hillary is too polarizing to win in a general election. Okay. Fair enough. Is that narrative true?

Well, what kind of indicators and empirical evidence do we have to suggest this isn't true?

Head to head polling shows her not only competitive with the top GOP candidates but beating them. She's "winning" the fund-raising battle in many of the top industries and special interests who aren't so much ideologically inclined as they are looking to hedge their bets and maintain their influence peddling. And not only that, pretty much eveery [censored] gambling site spreading odds says she's the favorite.

Scientific polling, fundraising evidence, and predictions markets probably trump whatever you or I or some right-wing blowhard has to say on the matter, yes?

So smart money says "Hillary is too polarizing to win" probably isn't a true statement.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
The polarizing argument is so ridiculous. If 40% of the electorate would rather die then see you elected but the other 60% vote for you, you will win. All a person that hates Hillary can do is vote for the other guy. They don't get to vote twice or put a negative vote for Hillary. If Hillary doesn't win it will be because not enough people want her to be president. Can't believe I had to type that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You aren't considering turnout. If 40% of the electorate would rather die than see you win, and the other 60% like you, you'll probably lose, because your people won't all vote.

[Max Raker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The polarizing argument is so ridiculous. If 40% of the electorate would rather die then see you elected but the other 60% vote for you, you will win. All a person that hates Hillary can do is vote for the other guy. They don't get to vote twice or put a negative vote for Hillary. If Hillary doesn't win it will be because not enough people want her to be president. Can't believe I had to type that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You aren't considering turnout. If 40% of the electorate would rather die than see you win, and the other 60% like you, you'll probably lose, because your people won't all vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was using electorate as people who come out and actually vote, not just people who can legally vote, sorry for not being clear. My statement was pretty stupid, but people don't seem to understand why candidates lose. The point is if win the nomination and lose the election it will be because your people didn't come out to vote for you. Put another way, it doesn't matter if the people who don't vote for you hate you alot or just a little.

Also, GWB was very polarizing when he ran the second time. Many people where in the "anybody but Bush camp". This is part of the reason why Nader did so much worse in 2004 than 2000. Bush was able to win because he got enough support from his base. The fact that a decent percent of the country hate him makes no difference.

[Jeremy517]

[ QUOTE ]
What is baffling is that you are using this fact to arrive at a conclusion so far off from what polls, gambling sites and pundits are saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

BTW, at this point, Intrade, Iowa Electronic Markets, etc investors aren't necessarily predicting who will win, but rather who they can make off of by selling the contract at a later date. Even though I don't think Hillary can win the general election, if you don't think I'd buy into her for the right price (to be sold at a later date for a profit), then you are fooling yourself.

Regarding pundits, some pundits are saying the same thing that I am.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is baffling is that you are using this fact to arrive at a conclusion so far off from what polls, gambling sites and pundits are saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

BTW, at this point, Intrade, Iowa Electronic Markets, etc investors aren't necessarily predicting who will win, but rather who they can make off of by selling the contract at a later date. Even though I don't think Hillary can win the general election, if you don't think I'd buy into her for the right price (to be sold at a later date for a profit), then you are fooling yourself.

Regarding pundits, some pundits are saying the same thing that I am.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you explain the fact that Hillary is clearly winning in head-to-head match-ups with every GOP candidate? According to the realclearpolitics.com poll database, Hillary beats Giuliani in 9 out of the 10 most recent polls, and beats Romney and Thompson in all 10 of the 10 most recent polls.

If Hillary is the nominee, she is going to get a lot of votes from people who don't really like her.

[Max Raker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is baffling is that you are using this fact to arrive at a conclusion so far off from what polls, gambling sites and pundits are saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

BTW, at this point, Intrade, Iowa Electronic Markets, etc investors aren't necessarily predicting who will win, but rather who they can make off of by selling the contract at a later date. Even though I don't think Hillary can win the general election, if you don't think I'd buy into her for the right price (to be sold at a later date for a profit), then you are fooling yourself.

Regarding pundits, some pundits are saying the same thing that I am.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the polls are by far the strongest evidence that you are wrong and you didn't address that. The polls are 100% trying to predict who will win and they all show that Hilldog is in great shape

(The internet poll cited before is obviously not reliable as predictor of the voting public.)

[Jeremy517]

[ QUOTE ]
Well the polls are by far the strongest evidence that you are wrong and you didn't address that. The polls are 100% trying to predict who will win and they all show that Hilldog is in great shape

[/ QUOTE ]

Polls are "likely voters". They doesn't take into account the percentages that actually show up. Since my point was about who is going to actually show up in greater numbers, the polls don't prove or disprove my point.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
Polls are "likely voters". They doesn't take into account the percentages that actually show up.

[/ QUOTE ]
Does not compute.