• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where did all the hardcore "bern or bust" types go?

ReverendHellh0und said:
I see all this, but you have to admit, if you took all those sanders rally's with 10's of thousands, like trump, and compare them to hillary's 100's of people etc, don't you think that would be a clue as to what is going on?

You can't trust the media, they are in an all out attack on trump, (again I'm not a trump supporter.) yet the polls that aren't skewed show them in a dead heat....


what say you of this?
Click to expand...

I would say that those who support Trump and Sanders were very enthusiastic. That they wore that enthusiasm on their sleeves and went to rallies in the thousands. That those who attended Clinton rallies were more subdued as they already knew what they were getting and satisfied with it. Where Trump and Sanders could light fires within some, Clinton shored up her silent support among more. Clinton had the more laid back, calm, been there and done that crowd. In other words Clinton supporters were more of the silent majority type, Sanders and Trump, the vocal minority when it came to rallies even though more people attended the Sanders Trump Rallies. Those who supported Clinton didn't feel the need to get out and rah, rah at a rally. They did their talking in the ballot box which led to a 60-40 win in the popular vote when all the Democratic primary votes were counted. Silent and steady won out over vocal and large rallies.

Trump also generated that enthusiasm and attracted large vocal crowds whereas the other GOP candidates didn't But in the end, Trump also received 40% of the GOP primary vote, identical to Sanders, but Trump didn't have a Clinton to contend with. 60% of all Republicans voted against or for someone else other than Trump. But Trump benefited from a large field where those who opposed him couldn't decide or settle on any one candidate.

Large rallies during a primary doesn't mean one is getting the majority of the support of all the people in whichever parties primary. It means they are getting the support of the very vocal, what percentage that vocal is remains to be determined until the end of the primary process. In both Trump's and Sander's cases, it came out to 40%. Enough for one to win, not enough for the other.
 
vash1012 said:
Trump and Bernie were exciting candidates with lots of very energetic supporters, many of whom were getting into politics for the first time or first time in a while. They drew big crowds in rallies because of that energy. Most people don't even pay attention to primaries though and within the ones that do, most of them don't go to rallies. Just because Trump and Bernie were more of a spectacle than Hillary or others doesn't mean Hillary didn't enjoy more widespread support. On name recognition alone, she had a huge advantage.
Click to expand...

Not so sure about that.... Trumps getting 10's of thousands wherever he goes. So did Bernie. Bernie lost because of democrat party operatives dirty pool....

as for popularity... here's but one example regarding "name recognition" you may find interesting.

clintrump.JPG



As far as polls go, they are all "skewed". Depending on which formulas you use to determine likely voters and which statistical models you put the data through, you get widely different results. That's why its good to take an average of all the respectable poll models. This composite has Hillary with a comfortable lead after the first debate.
Click to expand...


Agree, however when you have an outright activist left wing media, including pollsters you are getting a very unlcear picture of the reality. I think one CNN poll was 75% democrats or something? I have to look that up.


You see the establishment and it's media whores are in full panic mode with an all out assault on the outside candidate. It's both amazing and scary to watch,
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Not so sure about that.... Trumps getting 10's of thousands wherever he goes. So did Bernie. Bernie lost because of democrat party operatives dirty pool....

as for popularity... here's but one example regarding "name recognition" you may find interesting.

View attachment 67208179






Agree, however when you have an outright activist left wing media, including pollsters you are getting a very unlcear picture of the reality. I think one CNN poll was 75% democrats or something? I have to look that up.


You see the establishment and it's media whores are in full panic mode with an all out assault on the outside candidate. It's both amazing and scary to watch,
Click to expand...

ReverendHellh0und said:
Not so sure about that.... Trumps getting 10's of thousands wherever he goes. So did Bernie. Bernie lost because of democrat party operatives dirty pool....

as for popularity... here's but one example regarding "name recognition" you may find interesting.

View attachment 67208179






Agree, however when you have an outright activist left wing media, including pollsters you are getting a very unlcear picture of the reality. I think one CNN poll was 75% democrats or something? I have to look that up.


You see the establishment and it's media whores are in full panic mode with an all out assault on the outside candidate. It's both amazing and scary to watch,
Click to expand...

Ten's of thousands at a campaign rally are still just a drop in the bucket of the millions of voters. Especially these days when you can get all the information you would ever need from your smart phone. Rallies don't mean anything. Why would you go to a Hillary rally? She's not exciting at all. She's never going to say anything you haven't heard before and what she does say is 50% canned talking points and 50% vague policy details you can better read on her website. Trump on the other hand is scandalous and bombastic. Hell, I'd go to a Trump rally for fun and I despise the man.

As far as google searching goes, the same thing applies. Trump is CONSTANTLY in the news. People who love him want info on him. People who hate him want even more info on him. Hillary is playing this cautiously and staying out of the news letting Trump hang himself. He's shown himself to be pretty resilient to actually tanking his campaign, but he's still doing very little that would help him actually win.

I agree there is left wing bias in news journalism in general, but that doesn't mean there aren't journalists that are capable of being objective. Media isn't a monolith and the answer to the general liberal bias isn't to turn to Fox news or conservative sites. I refuse to read a single article from Huffington Post and generally avoid Slate and Washington Post, just like I won't watch Fox news or read Breitbart or Info Wars. Conservatives claimed polls were unreliable and the country really actually supported Romney last go around, and yet it turns out the polls were right. Polls were generally accurate during the primaries despite the "outright liberal bias". Polls are just estimates with a large margin of error, but they are generally able to predict the winner.

Pew Research?s Record on the Popular Vote | Pew Research Center

Election Polls -- Accuracy Record in Presidential Elections | Gallup Historical Trends

I don't really know how to argue with someone who is so distrustful of the information available. Of course, this is a good reason why Trump is doing as well. So many people no longer trust our leaders, academics, or media, sometimes for great reasons, and he uses that distrust better than anyone I've ever seen.
 
vash1012 said:
Ten's of thousands at a campaign rally are still just a drop in the bucket of the millions of voters. Especially these days when you can get all the information you would ever need from your smart phone. Rallies don't mean anything. Why would you go to a Hillary rally? She's not exciting at all. She's never going to say anything you haven't heard before and what she does say is 50% canned talking points and 50% vague policy details you can better read on her website. Trump on the other hand is scandalous and bombastic. Hell, I'd go to a Trump rally for fun and I despise the man.

As far as google searching goes, the same thing applies. Trump is CONSTANTLY in the news. People who love him want info on him. People who hate him want even more info on him. Hillary is playing this cautiously and staying out of the news letting Trump hang himself. He's shown himself to be pretty resilient to actually tanking his campaign, but he's still doing very little that would help him actually win.

I agree there is left wing bias in news journalism in general, but that doesn't mean there aren't journalists that are capable of being objective. Media isn't a monolith and the answer to the general liberal bias isn't to turn to Fox news or conservative sites. I refuse to read a single article from Huffington Post and generally avoid Slate and Washington Post, just like I won't watch Fox news or read Breitbart or Info Wars. Conservatives claimed polls were unreliable and the country really actually supported Romney last go around, and yet it turns out the polls were right. Polls were generally accurate during the primaries despite the "outright liberal bias". Polls are just estimates with a large margin of error, but they are generally able to predict the winner.

Pew Research?s Record on the Popular Vote | Pew Research Center

Election Polls -- Accuracy Record in Presidential Elections | Gallup Historical Trends

I don't really know how to argue with someone who is so distrustful of the information available. Of course, this is a good reason why Trump is doing as well. So many people no longer trust our leaders, academics, or media, sometimes for great reasons, and he uses that distrust better than anyone I've ever seen.
Click to expand...




I agree it's would be hard to argue with me on stats I view as suspect.... and I agree with you why trump is doing so well.. he;s the way way wrong horse in such the right race......
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
expound on your freak like comment.
Click to expand...

No, I think I won't, particularly when you seem to have little interest in genuine conversation, and instead are using a conversation as cover for vacuous, emotive commentary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom