It does come off differently though. Republican pollsters seem to be almost excessively concerned with different religious denominations, which I personally don't get because the majority of highly religious people (at least within Christian denominations) are going to vote Republican anyway.
I have some rabid Bernie supporter friends and I'm going to send this to them to see what they think. They think I want HIllary to be president but it's only pretend bc it'd be boring if we all sided with him. I side with HIllary and we argue at lunch but somehow I get a beat down every time 👀
I have some rabid Bernie supporter friends and I'm going to send this to them to see what they think. They think I want HIllary to be president lol but its just pretend. I side with HIllary and we argue at lunch but somehow I get a beat down every time 👀
obvi you can't expect to win if your heart isn't truly in it
It does come off differently though. Republican pollsters seem to be almost excessively concerned with different religious denominations, which I personally don't get because the majority of highly religious people (at least within Christian denominations) are going to vote Republican anyway.
Well that's because there are high concentrations of certain religions in states. For example in Utah there are many Mormons so whichever candidate can get the Mormon vote will have an easier time winning that particular state. That's why it's interesting to see
It does come off differently though. Republican pollsters seem to be almost excessively concerned with different religious denominations, which I personally don't get because the majority of highly religious people (at least within Christian denominations) are going to vote Republican anyway.
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
Yeah, most highly religious people are so socially conservative (according to the data, anyway) that they just default Republican.
Quote:
Originally posted by that G.U.Y.
Christianity is universally against abortion. Democrats are generally in favor of abortion, so there is just a complete conflict of interest.
But the vast majority of America is Christian anyway, so it seems impossible to me that a Democratic candidate would win without "the Christian vote"
But the vast majority of America is Christian anyway, so it seems impossible to me that a Democratic candidate would win without "the Christian vote"
But just like there are different sects there are different types too: The really conservative ones, the live and let live practicing Christians, and the ones who only say they are a Christian on the census but don't actually practice (I know a lot in my family).
But the vast majority of America is Christian anyway, so it seems impossible to me that a Democratic candidate would win without "the Christian vote"
It usually just means the "hardcore" Christian vote - devout practitioners of their faith.
My mom, for example, was raised Methodist and still believes in God and Jesus, but doesn't attend church and now holds different and much less stringent views on religion, so she's not a part of that metric.
My best friend from high school, on the other hand, went to church regularly, and her church's interpretation of the Bible was highly influential upon her own faith. Her own faith was, in turn, significant enough in her sense of self and in the way she views the world that she's probably considered a part of the "Christian vote" as Republicans would refer to it.
I think it's more discussed during primary season as a measure of which Republicans are supported by which faiths, since the statistic is clearly inherently biased toward the conservatives and thus isn't a good measure of anything during the general election.
obvi you can't expect to win if your heart isn't truly in it
-They bring up Sanders' history of getting things passed in the Senate when I mention how many of his policies on key issues would be v difficult to pass Congress. They mention Hillary would be even more hated than Sanders and that Republicans would refuse to work with her at all as a president.
-They say he's more electable in the GE because he has a more likable image + has appeal to Republicans and Independents who might be alienated with Trump as a GOP nominee. Democrats who supported Hillary would be forced to support Bernie over a (likely) Trump nominee
I know they've always closely followed politics + they really are smart people.
speaking as a (fake) Hillary supporter , how can I counter these points?
-They bring up Sanders' history of getting things passed in the Senate when I mention how many of his policies on key issues would be v difficult to pass Congress. They mention Hillary would be even more hated than Sanders and that Republicans would refuse to work with her at all as a president.
-They say he's more electable in the GE because he has a more likable image + has appeal to Republicans and Independents who might be alienated with Trump as a GOP nominee. Democrats who supported Hillary would be forced to support Bernie over a (likely) Trump nominee
I know they've always closely followed politics + they really are smart people.
speaking as a (fake) Hillary supporter , how can I counter these points?
Granted, it's still early to tell. Hillary has the upper hand in some polls. Hopefully we get some good exit poll data from NH and Iowa, but I definitely wouldn't count out Bernie.
From the WSJ link, it seems like a Trump or Cruz presidency isn't that likely (although still within the realm of possibility), and we should be worrying about a Rubio vs Democrat scenario.
Granted, it's still early to tell. Hillary has the upper hand in some polls. Hopefully we get some good exit poll data from NH and Iowa, but I definitely wouldn't count.
From the WSJ link, it seems like a Trump or Cruz presidency isn't that likely (although still within the realm of possibility), and we should be worrying about a Rubio vs Democrat scenario.
-They bring up Sanders' history of getting things passed in the Senate when I mention how many of his policies on key issues would be v difficult to pass Congress. They mention Hillary would be even more hated than Sanders and that Republicans would refuse to work with her at all as a president.
-They say he's more electable in the GE because he has a more likable image + has appeal to Republicans and Independents who might be alienated with Trump as a GOP nominee. Democrats who supported Hillary would be forced to support Bernie over a (likely) Trump nominee
I know they've always closely followed politics + they really are smart people.
speaking as a (fake) Hillary supporter , how can I counter these points?
I mean, I'm not personally a real expert here, but...
- If I were arguing against that point, I'd point out that Sanders proposals throughout his presidential campaign have been more liberal than a lot of his historical compromises. His most touted compromise was actually about veterans, which is a very different concept from campaign finance, raising taxes to pay for free public college, reforming healthcare to an even more liberal degree, a fifteen dollar minimum wage, and other Bernie proposals. They're positions that are far harder to negotiate and that tend heavily toward a socialist, extreme left ideal that Republicans will vehemently oppose - they'll likely even oppose incremental compromise on most of these issues. They're not easy "compromise" issues. Hillary's proposals and policies are easier to pass without compromise and, despite Republicans' demonization of her, she has a solid history of compromise and negotiation with the right wing in her own right.
- I don't think any of that is accurate at all (speaking as how I would argue). I'd say that Bernie's image is largely a facade and that he's as much a seasoned politician as the next guy, and maintains that image to draw in the "common man" and impressionable, idealistic millennials. Most Republicans and right wing independents won't be particularly deterred by Trump, and the same holds true for both Bernie and Hillary on the other side. Most people hold their party and core ideals closer to their heart than anything, and all the major frontrunners and runners-up follow these ideals to an acceptable degree. Additionally, a lot of people understand that the President is also an important symbolic figurehead for the party; even if you elect a very moderate example from one of the parties, that party will likely see a surge in elected officials and general popularity and press. It stands to reason from that line of thought that many people will vote within their party to keep someone with the "Democrat" or "Republican" label in office.
That's just the beginning of all of it and what I could think of on the spot.
Granted, it's still early to tell. Hillary has the upper hand in some polls. Hopefully we get some good exit poll data from NH and Iowa, but I definitely wouldn't count.
From the WSJ link, it seems like a Trump or Cruz presidency isn't that likely (although still within the realm of possibility), and we should be worrying about a Rubio vs Democrat scenario.
We had this discussion recently, but most people agree that these polls don't really mean much of anything until after primary season, and there's quite a lot of historical evidence to support the idea that they're not accurate.
The most important one to note is the Bush vs. Gore election - around this time or a little earlier or later, Bush led the popular vote in GE polls by something like 12%. In the actual election months later, he lost the popular vote by about a half a percent.
It's best just to wait until we have solid frontrunners and the real race gets well under way before we draw conclusions from polling as to who would beat who and by how much.
We had this discussion recently, but most people agree that these polls don't really mean much of anything until after primary season, and there's quite a lot of historical evidence to support the idea that they're not accurate.
The most important one to note is the Bush vs. Gore election - around this time or a little earlier or later, Bush led the popular vote in GE polls by something like 12%. In the actual election months later, he lost the popular vote by about a half a percent.
It's best just to wait until we have solid frontrunners and the real race gets well under way before we draw conclusions from polling as to who would beat who and by how much.
This is basically what I was getting at anyway. Neither Hillary nor Bernie are guaranteed to win the nomination or the GE. Hell, we may even see Trump flop. Just wanted to point out that Bernie still has a good chance.
Don't know why O'Malley and Bush are still in this though. Has anyone ever gotten the nomination with their early numbers this low? What about winning the GE?
This is basically what I was getting at anyway. Neither Hillary nor Bernie are guaranteed to win the nomination or the GE. Hell, we may even see Trump flop. Just wanted to point out that Bernie still has a good chance.
Don't know why O'Malley and Bush are still in this though. Has anyone ever gotten the nomination with their early numbers this low? What about winning the GE?
It's pretty rare that a candidate would end up winning the nomination, let alone the general, without being T2 / having a decent percentage in literally any state this late into the primary. I don't know the exact historical precedent or lack thereof but I don't think it's reasonably possible for Jeb or O'Malley to win at this point.
Hillary supporter , how can I counter these points?
