Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

left-of-center2012

(34,195 posts)
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 07:11 AM Oct 2015

Clinton down 10 points in one week

Just days before she will take the stage in the first Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton's lead over rival Bernie Sanders has narrowed, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.
Clinton's support among Democratic voters fell 10 points within less than a week.

From October 4 to October 9, Clinton saw her support tumble from 51 percent of Democratic support to just 41 percent.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/10/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0S32NZ20151010

91 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Clinton down 10 points in one week (Original Post) left-of-center2012 Oct 2015 OP
Reuters online poll is held in low regard by Nate Silver Sliceo Oct 2015 #1
This was same as a phone poll. n/t ColesCountyDem Oct 2015 #2
No it wasn't Godhumor Oct 2015 #4
Yes it was. ColesCountyDem Oct 2015 #5
Because that is what the "poll" is Godhumor Oct 2015 #6
Again, where do you get that it is an online poll? ColesCountyDem Oct 2015 #8
Here wyldwolf Oct 2015 #9
There's an enormous difference between using online surveys and it being an 'online poll'. ColesCountyDem Oct 2015 #10
Have fun with it. Mitt Romney and his supporters did. wyldwolf Oct 2015 #11
What does that non-sequitur have to do with anything? n/t ColesCountyDem Oct 2015 #12
Because Romney's crew believed these... intersectionality Oct 2015 #15
You're suggesting that Reuter's numbers are incorrect? ColesCountyDem Oct 2015 #18
Give it up. Godhumor is right. It is an online poll. No phones at all Sliceo Oct 2015 #59
No, he's not correct, and neither are you. ColesCountyDem Oct 2015 #62
That's the same thing I said Sliceo Oct 2015 #76
I'm just fine, and that not 'the same thing I said'. ColesCountyDem Oct 2015 #78
You wrote "This was a phone poll" oberliner Oct 2015 #81
No, it exposes a brain cramp. ColesCountyDem Oct 2015 #84
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2015 #91
Thank you for the information. I thought this was wrong to begin with. Laser102 Oct 2015 #19
Same Nate Silver who predicted Scott Walker would get GOP nom? HooptieWagon Oct 2015 #14
When did he predict that? Sliceo Oct 2015 #77
This is a lie oberliner Oct 2015 #82
Is that the same Nate Silver Le Taz Hot Oct 2015 #21
Nope. That was someone on his staff. Adrahil Oct 2015 #26
Just like it was someone on Hillary's staff who ordered the backup server to overwrite data leveymg Oct 2015 #29
What? Adrahil Oct 2015 #49
Movement in a deep downward shift for Clinton, and a one hell of a jump for Bernie. Time_Lord Oct 2015 #60
We shall see. It could happen. But I doubt it. Adrahil Oct 2015 #66
You'd be amazed... Time_Lord Oct 2015 #67
His rise is not out of line with previous "insurgent" candidates. Adrahil Oct 2015 #74
Some of this Sander support is starting to look like FUD and acting like it too uponit7771 Oct 2015 #75
"Sanders has plateaued" left-of-center2012 Oct 2015 #42
Well, that's what the data shows.... Adrahil Oct 2015 #48
This is also a lie oberliner Oct 2015 #83
This was a phone poll. And if they contacted people who do not use landlines sabrina 1 Oct 2015 #43
To be fair, she'd just seen a small bump moving her up against challengers. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Oct 2015 #3
Online poll? JaneyVee Oct 2015 #7
Apparently a "survey" with a "credibility interval" of + or - 4.5....not even an on-line poll! Fred Sanders Oct 2015 #13
I know nothing about Bayesian statistics magical thyme Oct 2015 #23
Possibly she did go down.... Adrahil Oct 2015 #27
Just last week all the rage was a "survey" claiming Sanders leads in all 50 states! Fred Sanders Oct 2015 #33
Explain the science behind polls re Primary Candidates that include people who are not running? sabrina 1 Oct 2015 #44
How can I put this more succinctly and clearly? Let me borrow a phrase, modified: Fred Sanders Oct 2015 #46
How can I put this succintly? I do not like h or her supporters. artislife Oct 2015 #50
Even so, the low 40's is where many of the polls have found her support to be HereSince1628 Oct 2015 #16
But their headline is written for its sensationalism - "Clinton down 10 points"!! HORROR! George II Oct 2015 #31
Polls, or no polls SmittynMo Oct 2015 #17
Her supporters can spin this any way they want Le Taz Hot Oct 2015 #20
So, is she toast? Helen Borg Oct 2015 #22
Not yet. Le Taz Hot Oct 2015 #25
Clinton Machine is on its very last legs.. Time_Lord Oct 2015 #61
Better headline: "Polls Swing 5 Points in Either Direction on a Regular Basis" DLnyc Oct 2015 #24
Another better headline: "Wild Swings in Clinton Popularity Are Within 9% 'Credibility Interval'*" Fred Sanders Oct 2015 #30
Even if Sanders sulphurdunn Oct 2015 #28
Congrats...first out of the gate with the "it is all fixed" refrain! And it is only October! Fred Sanders Oct 2015 #32
I honestly didn't expect that until late night Super Tuesday wyldwolf Oct 2015 #34
Of course you wouldn't. sulphurdunn Oct 2015 #36
your reply is completely irrelevant to the conversation. wyldwolf Oct 2015 #37
The conspiracy cards have not yet been played, but they have been shuffled and are on the table. Fred Sanders Oct 2015 #39
I referenced the 1944 Democratic Convention sulphurdunn Oct 2015 #40
So? wyldwolf Oct 2015 #45
P-l-e-a-s-e sulphurdunn Oct 2015 #57
If you have an issue with how and why Truman replaced Wallace.. wyldwolf Oct 2015 #58
I do, sulphurdunn Oct 2015 #63
You act as though Wallace had some kind of right to be FDR's veep wyldwolf Oct 2015 #70
You know what projection is? sulphurdunn Oct 2015 #72
something that in no way applies here wyldwolf Oct 2015 #73
Wallace won the first ballot sulphurdunn Oct 2015 #79
And eventually lost, as he did in the general of '48. wyldwolf Oct 2015 #85
What do you have against Henry Wallace? sulphurdunn Oct 2015 #87
other than the historical revisionism the left have created around him, nothing. wyldwolf Oct 2015 #88
Please don't put your words sulphurdunn Oct 2015 #35
If this is true, why didn't she get the nomination in '08? lunamagica Oct 2015 #47
She didn't get it in '08 sulphurdunn Oct 2015 #56
So, are you saying that Hillary legitimately won the nomination and it was taken from her? lunamagica Oct 2015 #65
What I'm saying is there is no 'rightful' nominee, sulphurdunn Oct 2015 #68
Please feel free to explain how this would happen? mythology Oct 2015 #86
You can do all sorts of things: sulphurdunn Oct 2015 #89
stay the course, Hillary FlatBaroque Oct 2015 #38
Full-speed ahead, Hillary, damn the torpedoes and the icebergs, and the rock jetty to starboard. leveymg Oct 2015 #51
Those poor passengers FlatBaroque Oct 2015 #53
Don't worry, the First Class pool has a lifeguard. We know our priorities on this cruise line. leveymg Oct 2015 #55
Touché! nt FlatBaroque Oct 2015 #69
The poll shows a promising trend: Democrats are waking up senz Oct 2015 #41
It's not clear which Hillary is polled. HooptieWagon Oct 2015 #52
"It's not clear which Hillary was polled" left-of-center2012 Oct 2015 #54
LOL. There have been more Hillarys than there are hifiguy Oct 2015 #71
Online poll, click bait screaming headline workinclasszero Oct 2015 #64
That poll is suspect.. it jumps around erratically. DCBob Oct 2015 #80
"click bait screaming headline" left-of-center2012 Oct 2015 #90
 

Sliceo

(39 posts)
1. Reuters online poll is held in low regard by Nate Silver
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 07:18 AM
Oct 2015

Their phone polls are good. As opposed to that rolling online thing.

Godhumor

(6,437 posts)
6. Because that is what the "poll" is
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 08:19 AM
Oct 2015

Reuters/Ipsos is an online always open tracker that they take a weekly five day snapshot of to write up.

In this case the range is Oct 4 to Oct 9 filtered to Democrats only, as they do every week.

wyldwolf

(43,865 posts)
9. Here
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 08:45 AM
Oct 2015
This Reuters / Ipsos poll began in January 2012 and since then continuously polled between 2,000 and 3,000 people a week. Over that period, we have asked hundreds of questions ranging from presidential politics to the Oscars, from the Syrian civil war to the perception of social networks, such as Facebook and Twitter.

Unlike almost all mainstream polls, the data is entirely collected via online surveys. Online surveys allow us to collect far more data and to be more flexible and fast-moving than phone research, and online is also where the future of polling lies.


Here they claim to be the most accurate:

This methodology may be different from the ‘traditional’ (telephone) approach used by others, but it is highly accurate: It was the most accurate national poll of US residents published immediately before the November 2012 general election.


Go HERE, click ABOUT

However, here is what Silver says about it's methodology (remember, it was the Reuters / Ipsos poll that had Romney thinking he'd win.)

Now it becomes easier to understand why the poll showed such distinct results from others conducted at the same time: it used a very different, and possibly rather dubious, methodology.

Internet-based polls are very likely to be a part of polling’s future, and my view is not necessarily that they should be dismissed out of hand. However, they need to be approached with caution.

The central challenge that Internet polls face is in collecting a random sample, which is the sine qua non of a scientific survey. There is no centralized database of e-mail addresses, nor any other method to “ping” someone at random to invite them to participate in an online poll. Many people have several e-mail addresses, while about 20 percent of Americans still do not go online at all.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/before-citing-a-poll-read-the-fine-print/


Defend the poll all you want. It will make primary day even funnier for us.

ColesCountyDem

(6,943 posts)
10. There's an enormous difference between using online surveys and it being an 'online poll'.
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 08:51 AM
Oct 2015

We both know that 'online poll' means a 'fan-driven' beauty contest, whereas a poll that uses a scientifically-chosen group of people and surveys them via the internet is not an 'online poll'.
'Online poll' is shorthand for 'unscientific'.

ColesCountyDem

(6,943 posts)
18. You're suggesting that Reuter's numbers are incorrect?
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 09:17 AM
Oct 2015

Why, and even if they might be, what does that have to do with mischaracterizing their poll as an 'online poll'?

 

Sliceo

(39 posts)
59. Give it up. Godhumor is right. It is an online poll. No phones at all
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 03:23 PM
Oct 2015

Reuters/Ipsos is an online poll. From their own website:

"Unlike almost all mainstream polls, the data is entirely collected via online surveys."



http://polling.reuters.com/#!

ColesCountyDem

(6,943 posts)
62. No, he's not correct, and neither are you.
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 03:40 PM
Oct 2015

What part of 'online surveys' is not clear to you? The traditional method uses telephone surveys. That. Is. The. Only. Difference.

ColesCountyDem

(6,943 posts)
78. I'm just fine, and that not 'the same thing I said'.
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 06:01 PM
Oct 2015

You do understand the difference between an 'online poll', and a poll that uses each respondent's PC and the pollster's website to accumulate data, rather than using a telephone to do the same thing, don't you?

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
81. You wrote "This was a phone poll"
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 07:00 PM
Oct 2015

And then when informed that it wasn't a phone poll, you wrote "yes, it was."

As it turns out, you were wrong and this was not a phone poll.

ColesCountyDem

(6,943 posts)
84. No, it exposes a brain cramp.
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 07:03 PM
Oct 2015

I was busy MIRT-ing and a thousand other things, and forgot to put 'same as' in the post. Thanks for pointing that out though.

Response to ColesCountyDem (Reply #18)

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
26. Nope. That was someone on his staff.
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 10:06 AM
Oct 2015

But looking at the latest poll analysis, it's pretty clear Sanders has plateaued, or at least dramtically slowed in his increase in support. He seems to have settled into the mid-upper 20's. We'll see if the debate makes a difference.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
29. Just like it was someone on Hillary's staff who ordered the backup server to overwrite data
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 10:16 AM
Oct 2015

every 30 days, after a subpoena was issued. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251653290

BTW: Hillary isn't picking up, she's still declining, and what isn't going to Sanders is now lining up behind Biden. If Biden runs, it's a good sign that the Justice Department is going to proceed in some way to start prosecution of HRC and/or her immediate circle. She's already toast.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
49. What?
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 01:30 PM
Oct 2015

Well, Silver DOES have a staff there... He doesn't write everything.

As for what's hpening now.... Please see here. The race has stabilized for now. Of course, the debate is next week, so I expect to see some movement.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary#!mindate=2015-08-01&estimate=custom

 

Time_Lord

(60 posts)
60. Movement in a deep downward shift for Clinton, and a one hell of a jump for Bernie.
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 03:26 PM
Oct 2015

Biden is no longer a factor. Polls will be removing Biden shortly after the debates.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
66. We shall see. It could happen. But I doubt it.
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 03:57 PM
Oct 2015

As for Biden? His support will slowly fade, unless he decides to jump in. If he DOES stay out, I expect HRC's support to jump back over 50%. But this is Bernie's Big Chance (tm).

 

Time_Lord

(60 posts)
67. You'd be amazed...
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 04:03 PM
Oct 2015

He went from 5% to around 25-30% (depending on who you see) without any televised ads, on a shoe-string budget, and raised over 40 million in two quarters with the capability to tap at his supporters for more as the primaries are underway. I'm just not seeing anything that makes me think Clinton would be a winner anywhere. Not even one single bumper sticker or yard signs. I know it may be early, but I'm seeing bumper stickers for Bernie. More grows every day. Even my neighborhood already has a watch party booked full, and just about full on a second watch party. People are interested in what Bernie is saying, not what Clinton is trying to sell them.

Bernie is a leader, Clinton is a follower.

Leader leads, followers follow leaders.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
74. His rise is not out of line with previous "insurgent" candidates.
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 05:17 PM
Oct 2015

Lots of folks here are casually forgetting what happens in the real world. Unless he can really grab attention at the debates, I think he's at, or near, his support ceiling. I could be wrong, but that's my prediction.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
48. Well, that's what the data shows....
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 01:27 PM
Oct 2015

Doesn't mean it will stay that way. But you can cherry pick data if you like... No skin off my nose.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
43. This was a phone poll. And if they contacted people who do not use landlines
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 12:11 PM
Oct 2015

her numbers would be even lower. A majority of Americans do not use landlines anymore.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
3. To be fair, she'd just seen a small bump moving her up against challengers.
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 07:57 AM
Oct 2015

So the overall change is probably half that or less from where she was before that uptick. But still, it keeps the trend moving in the right direction.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
13. Apparently a "survey" with a "credibility interval" of + or - 4.5....not even an on-line poll!
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 09:01 AM
Oct 2015

"The October 9 survey includes 624 respondents and has a credibility interval of 4.5 percent."

Did you know thst Gallup has abandoned the multi-day "rolling average polling" for anything as they deemed it inaccurate and unreliable? And they pioneered the method!



 

magical thyme

(14,881 posts)
23. I know nothing about Bayesian statistics
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 09:59 AM
Oct 2015

and I just wasted half an hour skimming through a bunch of stuff "explaining" it. I still have zero idea what a credibility interval represents. And zero idea what "posterior probability distribution" means.

Now I have a headache. Until I find something that 'splains it to me like I'm 8 years old, I think I'll just stick to confidence intervals and moe.

I will, though, trust that if it shows her numbers going down, then they're probably going down.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
27. Possibly she did go down....
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 10:13 AM
Oct 2015

But ten points in a week? Bloody unlikely. What we have here is a vlassic case of tolerance stacking. The last survey was likely too high, and this one likely too low. She probably hovered arounf 45-46 precent the entire time. The Dem nomination race has been fairly stable for the last 4-5 weeks. And nothing happened to cause such a sufden movement, especially when compared to other polls.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
33. Just last week all the rage was a "survey" claiming Sanders leads in all 50 states!
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 10:31 AM
Oct 2015

I used to think all liberals loved science and understood statistical science like other science, and not tea leaf reading, but just another thing I am wrong about!

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
44. Explain the science behind polls re Primary Candidates that include people who are not running?
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 12:17 PM
Oct 2015

Is it that the 'scientific' pollsters are working for the Parties, testing which corporate funded candidate might be the best to beat any 'upstart' who is not corporate funded?

I would love to hear why non candidates are included in Primary Candidate polls. I used to think Liberals were interested in what people had to say, not willing to be led around by Corporations.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
46. How can I put this more succinctly and clearly? Let me borrow a phrase, modified:
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 12:27 PM
Oct 2015

"I like your Bernie. I do not like your Bernie supporters. Your Bernie supporters are so unlike Bernie."

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
16. Even so, the low 40's is where many of the polls have found her support to be
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 09:13 AM
Oct 2015

going all the way back to mid-September. This poll doesn't really suggest a decline as much as it suggest that this poll is now showing what earlier polls showed.

Looked at in that way, it's possible to argue that Clinton's celebrated 'decline' seems, at least for a few weeks, to have not really further declined.

IMO the primary campaigns are moving into the real heavy work of the middle-game. Where a lot of effort must be made to move (or hold onto) 6%-8% of support that is going to make the ultimate difference in the contest for the nomination.

In that respect, the first debate is well timed to give Bernie and O'M an important and needed opportunity to step up, and the drip drip of news about the second server and suspected mishandling of information isn't such good news for H>.

George II

(67,782 posts)
31. But their headline is written for its sensationalism - "Clinton down 10 points"!! HORROR!
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 10:26 AM
Oct 2015

Interesting that even though it was less than one point, not a peep about the fact that Sanders dropped, too.

The implication is that she dropped precipitously, but there also was no mention that their last poll had her higher than any other poll NOR is there a mention that at the beginning of September (only a month ago) the same Reuters/Ipsos poll had her at 42% and in mid-September she was only at 40%!

So what Reuters essentially is saying is that from the beginning of September to now her number is basically the same.

I'm inclined to agree with some here, it's not a very accurate poll.

From Huffington Pollster, which gathers all the poll figures and lists them, here are the last several Reuters/Ipsos polls going back to mid-August (they seem to put one out every few days!) - they seem to be all over the place.

44 27
46 25
40 30
46 25
42 28
48 22
47 23

I don't recall seeing anything said when Sanders lost 1/6th of his support, "plunging" from 30 to 25 a few weeks ago.

SmittynMo

(3,544 posts)
17. Polls, or no polls
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 09:15 AM
Oct 2015

I expect to see her numbers go down even more.

Bernie is resonating in this country, in a big way. Give it time. Still a year to go.

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)
20. Her supporters can spin this any way they want
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 09:36 AM
Oct 2015

but in 40 years of being glued to politics I've NEVER seen a freefall like this. A 10-point loss in ONE WEEK. Part of that is the email stuff (rightly or wrongly, it's being obsessed over by the MSM) AND her "reversal" on the TPP which pretty much EVERYONE knows is complete bullshit.

And this is BEFORE the first debate. I think she'll get a little kick up after the debate but Bernie's will be MUCH higher. MUCH.

Normally, at this point, people would start bailing on the campaign but they'll stay knowing that the Party Machine is 100% behind her and all those juicy super delegates just eager to ignore the will of the people and vote as they've been ordered to vote.

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)
25. Not yet.
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 10:05 AM
Oct 2015

She still has the party machine and those super delegates in her pockets that are eager to thwart the will of the people. But they'll do it at their own peril because it will spell the demise not only of the Clintons but of the Democratic Party. The stakes are as high as they come.

 

Time_Lord

(60 posts)
61. Clinton Machine is on its very last legs..
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 03:30 PM
Oct 2015

After the the first two debates, the machine will be dead. Clinton political machine is so 90s and we do need to move forward to something else that isn't entrenched in status quo for the past 35 years.

DLnyc

(2,479 posts)
24. Better headline: "Polls Swing 5 Points in Either Direction on a Regular Basis"
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 10:01 AM
Oct 2015

Absent any great event explaining the swing, I am assuming it's just a movement from one end of the margin of error (which is 4 or 5% in this case) to the other.

I do believe there is a very good chance Bernie is going to eventually win the nomination. But this "10 points in one week" just says to me these polls have a big margin of error.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
30. Another better headline: "Wild Swings in Clinton Popularity Are Within 9% 'Credibility Interval'*"
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 10:25 AM
Oct 2015

*no one knows what that means.

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
28. Even if Sanders
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 10:16 AM
Oct 2015

was ahead by 90 points in the polls, the HRC wing of the party would still control the primaries and the convention. Even if Sanders wins a majority of the primaries, and is supported by the majority of democrats, he may not get the nomination, because the Democratic Party isn't very democratic. This is nothing new. That kind of insider fix goes back to at least 1944, and the vice presidential nomination of Harry Truman over Henry Wallace.

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
36. Of course you wouldn't.
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 10:47 AM
Oct 2015

I'm sure you also sincerely believe that HRC is a beacon of virtue who opposes the TTP and was genuinely mislead in her support of the Iraq War.

wyldwolf

(43,865 posts)
37. your reply is completely irrelevant to the conversation.
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 10:52 AM
Oct 2015

Regardless of the person you believe Clinton to be, 'progressives' have a history of blaming nefarious outside sources for their losses. I didn't expect the conspiracy card to be played until the Super Tuesday results rolled in.

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
40. I referenced the 1944 Democratic Convention
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 11:21 AM
Oct 2015

to support my argument, which was that those who control political parties are not above making things come out the way they want them to. Simple dismissiveness of that fact by way of the conspiracy canard is a bad combination of denial and credulity.

wyldwolf

(43,865 posts)
45. So?
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 12:20 PM
Oct 2015

In your reference to 1944, you neglect to reveal even a basic understanding of how an organized political party works. But that's another weakness of the progressive movement.

wyldwolf

(43,865 posts)
58. If you have an issue with how and why Truman replaced Wallace..
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 03:14 PM
Oct 2015

... then you have a fundamental problem with how organized political parties work.

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
63. I do,
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 03:46 PM
Oct 2015

and that's exactly why I wouldn't put it past the 'organized political party' to perform the same service for Hillary it did for Truman, and for the same basic reasons: The leadership knew Roosevelt would not likely live out his term, and they decided that Wallace was too liberal and too pro-labor. That act of brilliance by the 'organized political party' may well have made the Cold War inevitable and directed the course of history for the last half of the 20th century. HRC is Truman with a pedigree.

wyldwolf

(43,865 posts)
70. You act as though Wallace had some kind of right to be FDR's veep
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 04:23 PM
Oct 2015

Truth is, he didn't. Just as he was dumped by FDR, he was also put into that role by FDR over protests by the Party.

Time magazine called him one of the nation's worst VPs ever and he was immensely unpopular within the party and the party rank and file.

I understand you have an Oliver Stone-inspired theory as to what Wallace MAY have done had he remained on the ticket, other have a very different view - like making too many concessions to Stalin.

What you're actually doing now is preparing your excuses for when the Democrat beats the non-Democrat in the primary elections.

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
72. You know what projection is?
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 05:06 PM
Oct 2015

The anointed one is not Sanders. Time Magazine? Did it print that the same month it put Truman on its cover? Time's allegation of Wallace's unpopularity with the rank and file is not borne out by the facts.

What might have been with a President Wallace is not 'an Oliver Stone inspired theory' even though Stone may be right and is most certainly not wrong because he is Oliver Stone. I do wish you Clinton people could see fit to steer away from ad homimen fallacies.

I've already stated that real democrat will not win the nomination. He will not win because the Democratic Party is merely a somewhat kinder and gentler corporatist front. No excuses are necessary for stating that obvious fact.

wyldwolf

(43,865 posts)
73. something that in no way applies here
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 05:15 PM
Oct 2015
Time's allegation of Wallace's unpopularity with the rank and file is not borne out by the facts.


Sure. Wallace managed to get exactly ZERO electoral votes in the '48 election. The argument over his popularity with rank and file Democrats was settled then.

What might have been with a President Wallace is not 'an Oliver Stone inspired theory' even though Stone may be right and is most certainly not wrong because he is Oliver Stone. I do wish you Clinton people could see fit to steer away from ad homimen fallacies.


Certainly no ad homimen fallacy. Your conjecture is shared by Oliver Stone. I see no reason to believe you thought of it first or independent of him.

Sanders is not a 'real Democrat.' And he has stated as such.
 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
79. Wallace won the first ballot
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 06:54 PM
Oct 2015

at the '44 convention. That was when the big shots stepped in to take control. Wallace ran as a third party candidate in '48 and did about as well as most such candidates. You must have just forgot to mention those things.

I was raised on ILWU unionism and the Democratic Party. Henry Wallace was an icon in my home. Who knows when Oliver Stone first thought of Henry Wallace? Why would you even suggest that I'm an Oliver Stone parrot if not to be personally offensive?

Is there some definition of 'a real democrat' I missed? I don't see why Sanders can't be a socialist and democrat if HRC can be a corporate tool and a democrat? Can you? Personally, I don't believe that HRC amounts to a pimple on a real democrats ass, but that's just my opinion, and opinions don't mean much, mine or yours. Try not to keep confusing yours with fact.

wyldwolf

(43,865 posts)
85. And eventually lost, as he did in the general of '48.
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 07:09 PM
Oct 2015

Argument of his popularity settled.

Lots of left wing revisionism regarding Wallace these day among the netroots. Never sources. Truthiness.

Other than being a religious zealot of sorts, both FDR and Eleanor thought Wallace to be horrible presidential material and bumped him from the ticket. Good thing, too. His '48 platform included disarmament, an end to the Marshall Plan and no assistance to European countries facing Soviet threats.

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
87. What do you have against Henry Wallace?
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 09:18 PM
Oct 2015

And leftists? It's OK to disagree with them, but you sound like that asshole Rahm Emanuel. No wonder Sanders is so popular. This has been a most enlightening discussion. I am now absolutely convinced that the Third Way Democratic Party has been weighed in the scales and found to be nothing but light weight republican. You guys keep moving right and you'll loose the damn election.

wyldwolf

(43,865 posts)
88. other than the historical revisionism the left have created around him, nothing.
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 09:19 PM
Oct 2015

But Roosevelt made the correct call.

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
35. Please don't put your words
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 10:44 AM
Oct 2015

in my mouth. Mockery is not a rebuttal. If you have an argument with supporting evidence that the fix is never in, let's hear it. Otherwise, spare me.

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
56. She didn't get it in '08
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 03:05 PM
Oct 2015

because the big money in the party decided Obama could win. They threw her the Secretary of State bone and told her to wait until '16.

lunamagica

(9,967 posts)
65. So, are you saying that Hillary legitimately won the nomination and it was taken from her?
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 03:55 PM
Oct 2015

That she should have been the rightful nominee and it was given to Obama?

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
68. What I'm saying is there is no 'rightful' nominee,
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 04:05 PM
Oct 2015

She lost the nomination because the big donors decided to back Obama, and the money decides the vote.

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
86. Please feel free to explain how this would happen?
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 07:52 PM
Oct 2015

The number of delegates needed to win the nomination is known. The number of delegates awarded in each primary and caucus along with the number of super delegates is known.

The delegates awarded in each primary or caucus are sent from the candidate. So unless the Clinton campaign stuck moles in the Sanders campaign who secretly vote for Clinton at the convention, you are pushing a conspiracy theory without even the slightest proof.

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
89. You can do all sorts of things:
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 09:45 PM
Oct 2015

You can change the rules with a voice vote rather than a recorded vote that disqualifies a candidates delegates at the state level. You can keep a candidates delegates out of the convention by challenging their credentials or making it otherwise onerous for them to attend the convention. Finally, the party can move to decertify the candidate regardless of the number of delegates he has. The party can even move to decertify the primaries altogether or change dates and times to discomfit one candidate or the other. The party leadership can do pretty much whatever it wants. Does that help?

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
51. Full-speed ahead, Hillary, damn the torpedoes and the icebergs, and the rock jetty to starboard.
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 01:38 PM
Oct 2015

We have the biggest ship, and you still have the lead, damnit, increase the throttles. Full power! Give the passengers a real thrill . . . what was that noise? Oooops.



 

senz

(11,945 posts)
41. The poll shows a promising trend: Democrats are waking up
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 11:39 AM
Oct 2015

despite Hillary's desperate attempts to appear more liberal than she is.

An excellent trend. For the good of the country, may it continue.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
52. It's not clear which Hillary is polled.
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 01:45 PM
Oct 2015

Is it the 'unabashed centrist' Hillary, or the 'what Beernie said' Hillary? Maybe it was the war-mongering Hillary? Or is it the Goldwater Girl Hillary? Perhaps several Hillarys should be included in the poll....that would help her point her red weathervane arrow.

left-of-center2012

(34,195 posts)
54. "It's not clear which Hillary was polled"
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 02:37 PM
Oct 2015

Was it the Hillary before all her flip flopping,
or the "new and improved" Hillary
after all the flip flopping she did
to make her appear to be a "Bernie-clone"?

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Clinton down 10 points in...