• 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!

For Democratic voters

for democratic voters

  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 12 30.8%

  • Elizabeth Warren

    Votes: 27 69.2%
  • Total voters
    39
Navy Pride said:
It means if I made and other choice that is all you lefties would choose.
Click to expand...

What are you, a mind reader? And even if a lot of people took "other," so what? Maybe some of us prefer other candidates.
 
TeleKat said:
A good chunk of her own party doesn't like her. She has extremely heavy baggage whereas Warren is the Democratic sweetheart. I see a Hillary Clinton nomination, if she can manage to get it, driving rifts in the party between the Country Club Dems and the so-called "Anti-Corporatists."
Click to expand...

Just like a whole chunk of the GOP didn't like McCain or Romney...but they sure as heck voted for them. Why? Because they were what the GOP saw as the "lesser of two evils".

Likewise, we Dems would unite behind Hillary. And there would be eight more years of a Democratic presidency, assuming she lives that long. Warren is less electable...but I strongly prefer her to Hillary.
 
Perotista said:
It is my opinion that Hillary may be the easiest nominee to beat and I use the term easiest very loosely here as I also think any democratic nominee in 2016 will be the favorite. Now those known to be interested in the nomination are Clinton, Biden, Warren, Cuomo, O'Malley and Schweitzer. But Hillary has plenty of baggage and the independent voter only gives here a 41% favorable rating with a 48% unfavorable. Hillary is so well known I doubt if those numbers change much.

Contrast Hillary's number with Warrens among independents, 21% favorable 13% unfavorable. But with 64% either undecided or haven't ever heard of her, Warren could improve immensely or she could tank. There is a ton of unknowns about Warren whereas much not is unknown about Clinton.
Click to expand...

Very good analysis. As another poster pointed out, too many people think Clinton is the only viable candidate the Dems have for 2016. The truth is they have several more, some of whom I believe are far more viable than Clinton is

However, I will admit I like Warren a lot.
 
Perotista said:
Each has their own opinion. When I look at the favorable/unfavorable ratings of each candidate among independents, Hillary is the only one with an unfavorable rating in the high 40's. Also I said I used the term easiest in a very loosely manner and that any Democratic nominee would be the favorite. Hillary will probably lose the independent vote if her favorables/unfavorables remain constant with what they are today. But she can afford to lose the independent vote as long as it isn't by a whole bunch. The bigger Democratic base allows her to do so. Using Gallup's June 8th figures the Democrat Party makes up 28% of the electorate whereas the Republicans have only 24%. So if those figures were to remain constant which they will not, they are dynamic, Hillary would have 4 points to play with.

This is not going into the electoral college which is a whole another ball of wax.
Click to expand...

Instead of depending on what percentage of the electorate belongs to which party, you'd be better served by checking what groups voted for whom. For instance, who would whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Women, millenials, LGBT's, and so on vote for...because everyone belongs to at least one of those groups...

...and there is only one major group that the GOP has can count on for a majority: whites (and especially older white men). The GOP cognoscenti know this - why do you think they're pushing voter ID laws so much even when they know that there's precisely zero evidence of widespread voter fraud?
 
Redress said:
Do some reading on the Obama campaign "machine". He innovated in a number of ways, and his get out the vote works where effective like nothing seen before. Better and best are two different things, and gaining any edge, even a small one can matter(ask Bush).



I expect to see those numbers change somewhat as we get into early 2016. When there are more clear cut people to compare against, I think that is when those numbers will firm up.



2016 is an uphill battle for republicans. Demographics works against them. They have to define who they are going forward. They have to find a way, or at least a candidate, who can appeal to those groups republican typically lose. They do not have to win those groups, but they need more of them. And they need to do those things in the states you mention. It is certainly doable, but I would not bet money them being successful.

Always a pleasure to chat with you. You do good post.
Click to expand...

Exactly, all the numbers I cite are dynamic and all will change from day to day. What you say about a name is true. Back in December of 2011 and January of 2012, Mr. Generic Republican Presidential Candidate was always beating President Obama. But once a name replaced Mr. Generic Republican Presidential Candidate President Obama surged ahead and stayed there.

But I have always been of the mind, one election at a time and 2014 needs to be in the books before any serious look at 2016. What happens in November of this year will effect what happens in 2016, there is no way around that.
 
sangha said:
Very good analysis. As another poster pointed out, too many people think Clinton is the only viable candidate the Dems have for 2016. The truth is they have several more, some of whom I believe are far more viable than Clinton is

However, I will admit I like Warren a lot.
Click to expand...

Personally I like Schweitzer, but I do not think he has much of a chance to win the nomination. But one can always dream. Right now I do not think it matters that much whom the nominee is, whomever is the nominee will definitely be the favorite. That is unless the right candidate comes along as Eisenhower did in 1952 to put a stop to 5 straight presidential Democratic election victories. Without IKE, I am pretty sure Stevenson would have beaten Senator Taft to continue the Democratic roll.

I really do not see any Republican candidate on the horizon as of yet who can win in 2016. I thought the pre-bridgegate Christie could be than candidate. But unlike most, I am not looking at the popular vote, but at the electoral college. It is going to be pretty darn difficult for a Republican in 2016 to amass 270 electoral votes. Not impossible, but at this point in time, not probable either.
 
Perotista said:
Personally I like Schweitzer, but I do not think he has much of a chance to win the nomination. But one can always dream. Right now I do not think it matters that much whom the nominee is, whomever is the nominee will definitely be the favorite. That is unless the right candidate comes along as Eisenhower did in 1952 to put a stop to 5 straight presidential Democratic election victories. Without IKE, I am pretty sure Stevenson would have beaten Senator Taft to continue the Democratic roll.

I really do not see any Republican candidate on the horizon as of yet who can win in 2016. I thought the pre-bridgegate Christie could be than candidate. But unlike most, I am not looking at the popular vote, but at the electoral college. It is going to be pretty darn difficult for a Republican in 2016 to amass 270 electoral votes. Not impossible, but at this point in time, not probable either.
Click to expand...

I can see why, but you really should consider Warren. She's one of the few possible candidates in either party who is willing to take on the moneyed interests (ie Wall St.) Maybe the only one.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Instead of depending on what percentage of the electorate belongs to which party, you'd be better served by checking what groups voted for whom. For instance, who would whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Women, millenials, LGBT's, and so on vote for...because everyone belongs to at least one of those groups...

...and there is only one major group that the GOP has can count on for a majority: whites (and especially older white men). The GOP cognoscenti know this - why do you think they're pushing voter ID laws so much even when they know that there's precisely zero evidence of widespread voter fraud?
Click to expand...

No, I find it easier to go with party affiliation. the demographics then take care of themselves. I call it my KISS principal. I know as of 8 June 2014, that 28% of the electorate identify with the Democratic Party, 24% with the Republican Party and 46% proclaim they are independents. Then I can break down the independents, 16% lean towards the Democratic party and 20% toward the Republican Party with 10% in what I call pure independents who profess no leaning. The demographics are taken care of as they are the ones who make up the percentages of each party.

Now these are dynamic and change all the time. I haven't seen the figures for July yet as Gallup hasn't released them. But over the last few years here is a sample.

Year…Dem…Rep…Ind…Ind.Lean.Dem….Ind.Lean.Rep…..True.Ind
2005…34……33……30………..14…………………....8…………………8
2010…32……33…..34………..12……………………15…………………7
2011…30……27…..42………..18……………………15…………………9
2012…35……30…..33………..16……………………12…………………5
2013…30……24….44………..14…………………..18………………..13
2014…28……24….46………..16…………………..20………………..10…..As of June 8 2014
 
sangha said:
I can see why, but you really should consider Warren. She's one of the few possible candidates in either party who is willing to take on the moneyed interests (ie Wall St.) Maybe the only one.
Click to expand...

I will wait to see how the campaign donations goes. Wall Street donated heavily to Obama over McCain but switched their allegiance to Romney in 2012.
 
Kobie said:
I have a feeling our reasons are different.
Click to expand...

Well if I had to chose between Warren and Hillary I would chose Warren.....Thank God I don't have to make that choice.
 
Perotista said:
No, I find it easier to go with party affiliation. the demographics then take care of themselves. I call it my KISS principal. I know as of 8 June 2014, that 28% of the electorate identify with the Democratic Party, 24% with the Republican Party and 46% proclaim they are independents. Then I can break down the independents, 16% lean towards the Democratic party and 20% toward the Republican Party with 10% in what I call pure independents who profess no leaning. The demographics are taken care of as they are the ones who make up the percentages of each party.

Now these are dynamic and change all the time. I haven't seen the figures for July yet as Gallup hasn't released them. But over the last few years here is a sample.

Year…Dem…Rep…Ind…Ind.Lean.Dem….Ind.Lean.Rep…..True.Ind
2005…34……33……30………..14…………………....8…………………8
2010…32……33…..34………..12……………………15…………………7
2011…30……27…..42………..18……………………15…………………9
2012…35……30…..33………..16……………………12…………………5
2013…30……24….44………..14…………………..18………………..13
2014…28……24….46………..16…………………..20………………..10…..As of June 8 2014
Click to expand...

And that provides for women voters how? Because they broke for Obama by something like 10 points versus Romney...and then when it's Hillary, the break might be even wider. That's something that mere party affiliation can't account for, especially since what a woman does in a voting booth may be very different from what their husbands and family and friends might hear.
 
Navy Pride said:
Well if I had to chose between Warren and Hillary I would chose Warren.....Thank God I don't have to make that choice.
Click to expand...

If you knew anything about Warren you wouldn't say that NP....the only reason you would vote for Warren is because of the hatred you have towards Hilary because she was married to Bill.
 
Navy Pride said:
Well if I had to chose between Warren and Hillary I would chose Warren.....Thank God I don't have to make that choice.
Click to expand...

If you knew anything about Warren you wouldn't say that NP....the only reason you would vote for Warren is because of the hatred you have towards Hilary because she was married to Bill.
 
Warren. While experience teaches us that we never know what the hell we're gonna get once they're actually in office, the thing about Hillary is that we already know she's going to just continue a lot of the current crap that's going on, and she's not an actual progressive. She's a moderate who's not terribly concerned with change or even efficacy, like nearly all Dems these days.

Warren is a progressive, and has a very good track record of such. She has changed very little since coming to national prominence. All of that is a good sign.

That could still change as soon as she's occupying our highest office -- it has with many presidents before. But worst case scenario, we just get the same thing that we would have gotten with Hillary. I'd rather take the risk than settle for the known mediocrity.
 
Navy Pride said:
Assuming they both run, whod do you favor in the 2016 race?
Click to expand...

Neither.

Hillary is too much like reelecting Bill. They both just need to go away.

Warren is too far Left for me. But, my wife likes her. So, she'd get one vote from this household.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Warren. While experience teaches us that we never know what the hell we're gonna get once they're actually in office, the thing about Hillary is that we already know she's going to just continue a lot of the current crap that's going on, and she's not an actual progressive. She's a moderate who's not terribly concerned with change or even efficacy, like nearly all Dems these days.

Warren is a progressive, and has a very good track record of such. She has changed very little since coming to national prominence. All of that is a good sign.

That could still change as soon as she's occupying our highest office -- it has with many presidents before. But worst case scenario, we just get the same thing that we would have gotten with Hillary. I'd rather take the risk than settle for the known mediocrity.
Click to expand...

if she got in office and decided not to change... she'd be a lame duck.

the whole " my way or the highway" shtick from both parties is absolute bull****.....we don't need any more ideologues in high office, we need competent executives who know divisiveness is counterproductive.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
And that provides for women voters how? Because they broke for Obama by something like 10 points versus Romney...and then when it's Hillary, the break might be even wider. That's something that mere party affiliation can't account for, especially since what a woman does in a voting booth may be very different from what their husbands and family and friends might hear.
Click to expand...

you seem not to understand. It doesn't matter how the woman's vote breaks down or how the Hispanic or even the white vote breaks down. They are all included in the numbers. The reason the Democratic base or party affiliation to use the June figures is at 28% is because there are more women, more hispanics, more blacks, etc in that 28% figure than whites. It doesn't matter if 90% of the 24% of the Republican affiliation is white, black, purple or green, they simply make up 24% of the electorate. The demographics are included or what makes up the total for each party.

In 2012 President Obama received 51% of the total vote, look at my chart 35% of the electorate identified as Democrat, that 35% included all the women, all the blacks, all the Hispanics and Asians, along with whites who said they were Democrats. The independent lean democrat of 16% included all the women, all the blacks, all the Hispanics and Asians, along with whites who said they were independents but leaned towards when it comes time to vote the Democratic Party.

Romney received 59% of the white vote, 27% of the Hispanic vote, 6% of the black vote and what ever percentage of Asian and women and men, but they are all included in the 30% who identified themselves as Republicans and the 12% who lean Republican.

When using party identification/association the demographics are already included in that identification/association. What Gallup is doing is counting up everyone regardless of sex, race, etc that state they identify with one party or the other. They do the same with independents but asked them which party do they tend to lean towards. Again without regards to sex, race, etc.
 
Thrilla said:
if she got in office and decided not to change... she'd be a lame duck.

the whole " my way or the highway" shtick from both parties is absolute bull****.....we don't need any more ideologues in high office, we need competent executives who know divisiveness is counterproductive.
Click to expand...

Likely true. Everyone over-estimates the amount of influence presidents really have.

But the thing is, just about anyone would be a lame duck with Congress "functioning" (and I use the term loosely) the way they are. We have the most ineffectual Congress in all of American history.

There's no single human being who can convince Congress to stop roadblocking each other, or voting themselves vacation time and extra pay simply because they can, which is really the main issue.
 
Perotista said:
you seem not to understand. It doesn't matter how the woman's vote breaks down or how the Hispanic or even the white vote breaks down. They are all included in the numbers. The reason the Democratic base or party affiliation to use the June figures is at 28% is because there are more women, more hispanics, more blacks, etc in that 28% figure than whites. It doesn't matter if 90% of the 24% of the Republican affiliation is white, black, purple or green, they simply make up 24% of the electorate. The demographics are included or what makes up the total for each party.

In 2012 President Obama received 51% of the total vote, look at my chart 35% of the electorate identified as Democrat, that 35% included all the women, all the blacks, all the Hispanics and Asians, along with whites who said they were Democrats. The independent lean democrat of 16% included all the women, all the blacks, all the Hispanics and Asians, along with whites who said they were independents but leaned towards when it comes time to vote the Democratic Party.

Romney received 59% of the white vote, 27% of the Hispanic vote, 6% of the black vote and what ever percentage of Asian and women and men, but they are all included in the 30% who identified themselves as Republicans and the 12% who lean Republican.

When using party identification/association the demographics are already included in that identification/association. What Gallup is doing is counting up everyone regardless of sex, race, etc that state they identify with one party or the other. They do the same with independents but asked them which party do they tend to lean towards. Again without regards to sex, race, etc.
Click to expand...

Okay, fine - you go with yours, I'll go with mine, and we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
The only thing that worries me about Hillary is the GOPers would treat her worst then Obama. Not saying Warren would get much understanding from the GOP. But with Hillary it would be Benghazi 24/7/365.

Warren however I don't think will run. And with Hillary expecting a grandchild I don't think she is a guarantee in running either.
 
voyager1 said:
The only thing that worries me about Hillary is the GOPers would treat her worst then Obama. Not saying Warren would get much understanding from the GOP. But with Hillary it would be Benghazi 24/7/365.

Warren however I don't think will run. And with Hillary expecting a grandchild I don't think she is a guarantee in running either.
Click to expand...

I think that's a naive belief. The GOP will do the same thing to any Democrat
 
Crosscheck said:
10, 9, 8, 7, Waiting for the follow up post of NP to fantasize about Hillary Clinton's ankles


For some reason some men get as excited about Hillary's ankles as a group of gay blind nudists at a wiener roast.
Click to expand...

Heh, she doesn't have ankles. What she's got are called cankles (look it up). Get with the program.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom