The 2016 Election Outcome in One Article

[Virgil Showlion]

I'm trying to stay away from the morass that is US electoral politics, but the following had to be shared:

www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-16/artists-impression-who-really-won-democrats-debate

Read the media reviews and then look at the viewer polls. Laughs are guaranteed so long as you can handle the inevitability of Ms. Clinton's victory in 2016.

[Virgil Showlion]

As for, the debate I don't know who won; I didn't watch it.

The article basically points out that who won depends entirely on who you ask.

If you ask the media, Ms. Clinton stole the show (and was having fun!)

If you ask the public, Mr. Sanders won by a landslide.

The disconnect between the two is approaching the level of absurdity. Some of the fawning comments about Ms. Clinton excerpted in the article are good for a laugh.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 18, 2015 8:33:12 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

Oct 18, 2015 8:21:08 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The article basically points out that who won depends entirely on who you ask.

If you ask the media, Ms. Clinton stole the show (and was having fun!)

If you ask the public, Mr. Sanders won by a landslide.

The disconnect between the two is approaching the level of absurdity. Some of the fawning comments about Ms. Clinton excerpted in the article are good for a laugh.

Oh! I'm glad you said that...when I clicked on the link it was a blank page so I thought you meant it as a joke. My computer doesn't do well with a lot of the links here.

I find it hard to believe that Mr. Sanders is that popular, but then again Hillary is very unpopular with many people so maybe it's a vote against her more than a vote for him. I'm going to pass on reading the fawning comments from the adoring public LoL. If I want to kill brain cells I'll do it the old fashioned way...with alcohol .  I'm sure they're full of wisdom though.  Keep the government out of our vaginas, give tax dollars to planned parenthood!  Make gun control laws, that way people who break laws won't have guns! 

Ms. Clinton is going to win the 2016 presidency. The outstanding question is "How forced will it look?"

If Mr. Sanders remains overwhelmingly popular right up until Ms. Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, the silver lining is that some Americans might be shocked enough by the "upset" to wake up. At least a few of them will begin to wonder why Mr. Sanders' popularity amounted to nothing.

[dondub]

Bernie is a socialist so naturally he is opposed to anybody having guns except the government.


You might want to ratchet that back a bit.

www.huffingtonpost.com/anhvinh-doanvo/lets-talk-about-bernie-sa_b_8023768.html

[djAdvocate]

Oct 18, 2015 11:36:04 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 18, 2015 8:33:12 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

Oh! I'm glad you said that...when I clicked on the link it was a blank page so I thought you meant it as a joke. My computer doesn't do well with a lot of the links here.

I find it hard to believe that Mr. Sanders is that popular, but then again Hillary is very unpopular with many people so maybe it's a vote against her more than a vote for him. I'm going to pass on reading the fawning comments from the adoring public LoL. If I want to kill brain cells I'll do it the old fashioned way...with alcohol .  I'm sure they're full of wisdom though.  Keep the government out of our vaginas, give tax dollars to planned parenthood!  Make gun control laws, that way people who break laws won't have guns! 

Ms. Clinton is going to win the 2016 presidency. The outstanding question is "How forced will it look?"

If Mr. Sanders remains overwhelmingly popular right up until Ms. Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, the silver lining is that some Americans might be shocked enough by the "upset" to wake up. At least a few of them will begin to wonder why Mr. Sanders' popularity amounted to nothing.

same reason the Clinton's popularity didn't matter in 2008.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 18, 2015 14:06:18 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 18, 2015 11:36:04 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Ms. Clinton is going to win the 2016 presidency. The outstanding question is "How forced will it look?"

If Mr. Sanders remains overwhelmingly popular right up until Ms. Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, the silver lining is that some Americans might be shocked enough by the "upset" to wake up. At least a few of them will begin to wonder why Mr. Sanders' popularity amounted to nothing.

same reason the Clinton's popularity didn't matter in 2008.

I don't know what happened in 2008. America was desperate for hope and change, and got drunk on Barack Obama. It was a singular event in my lifetime.

It's not going to happen again.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 18, 2015 15:57:09 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 18, 2015 14:06:18 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

same reason the Clinton's popularity didn't matter in 2008.

I don't know what happened in 2008. America was desperate for hope and change, and got drunk on Barack Obama. It was a singular event in my lifetime.

It's not going to happen again.

Hope And Change Spring Eternal.

if you are not for Hope and Change, you have nothing to run for.  that is why staking out that territory EARLY is crucial to success in politics.

[Virgil Showlion]

[djAdvocate]

the media acquiesces to power.  when they perceive that Sanders has it, he will do just fine.

until then, it is Clinton's contest to lose.

[Value Buy]

I an avowed conservative Republican, watched the debate along with about 15 million so-called Democrats.
Please note 24 million watched the first Republican debate, but I think a lot of Democrats cheated and watched too

I read Virgil's article, and I agree with it.
After the debate ended, one of the cable networks (I believe it was CNN) said Bernie scored  at the rate of, 76% considered him the winner.
The next morning it was all about Hillary's astounding victory........

[djAdvocate]

Oct 18, 2015 21:37:18 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

I an avowed conservative Republican, watched the debate along with about 15 million so-called Democrats.
Please note 24 million watched the first Republican debate, but I think a lot of Democrats cheated and watched too

I read Virgil's article, and I agree with it.
After the debate ended, one of the cable networks (I believe it was CNN) said Bernie scored  at the rate of, 76% considered him the winner.
The next morning it was all about Hillary's astounding victory........

if it was an online poll, there is every reason in the world to NOT publish it.

if it was not, then CNN is covering up.

which was it?

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 18, 2015 22:11:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 18, 2015 21:37:18 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

I an avowed conservative Republican, watched the debate along with about 15 million so-called Democrats.
Please note 24 million watched the first Republican debate, but I think a lot of Democrats cheated and watched too

I read Virgil's article, and I agree with it.
After the debate ended, one of the cable networks (I believe it was CNN) said Bernie scored  at the rate of, 76% considered him the winner.
The next morning it was all about Hillary's astounding victory........

if it was an online poll, there is every reason in the world to NOT publish it.

if it was not, then CNN is covering up.

which was it?

They don't conduct "Who do you think won the debate?" polls by phone. It was an online poll.

While I share your misgivings about online polling, note that i) the results of the polling were consistent with other gauges (see article) of popularity that can't be easily fudged, and ii) the media, including CNN, specifically claimed that Ms. Clinton had wowed "the online audience".

[Tennesseer]

Oct 18, 2015 21:37:18 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

I an avowed conservative Republican, watched the debate along with about 15 million so-called Democrats.
Please note 24 million watched the first Republican debate, but I think a lot of Democrats cheated and watched too

I read Virgil's article, and I agree with it.
After the debate ended, one of the cable networks (I believe it was CNN) said Bernie scored  at the rate of, 76% considered him the winner.
The next morning it was all about Hillary's astounding victory........

Snopes: Poll the Bern

[happyhoix]

Oct 18, 2015 12:24:57 GMT -5 dondub said:

Bernie is a socialist so naturally he is opposed to anybody having guns except the government.


You might want to ratchet that back a bit.

www.huffingtonpost.com/anhvinh-doanvo/lets-talk-about-bernie-sa_b_8023768.html

Watch the debate.

Bernie voted against the bill that would have held shop owners responsible for gun sales to criminals   - both Clinton and O'Malley made a lot of hay out of that. Bernie kept insisting that for rural states like Vermont, gun control wasn't a popular option.

[happyhoix]

Oct 18, 2015 21:37:18 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

I an avowed conservative Republican, watched the debate along with about 15 million so-called Democrats.
Please note 24 million watched the first Republican debate, but I think a lot of Democrats cheated and watched too

I read Virgil's article, and I agree with it.
After the debate ended, one of the cable networks (I believe it was CNN) said Bernie scored  at the rate of, 76% considered him the winner.
The next morning it was all about Hillary's astounding victory........

I think it's a little unfair to imply that the republicans had the more popular candidates and therefore drew more viewers.

The Republicans have a carnival barker running for office - one that all the rest of them hate and want to take down. Of course that was going to be a lot more entertaining debate than five candidates who mostly agree with each other.

[Tennesseer]

What does "so-called Democrats" even mean?  

How does the poster know he was the only "avowed conservative Republican" among the almost 15 million who watched the Democratic candidates' debate?

[djAdvocate]

Oct 19, 2015 6:50:12 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 18, 2015 22:11:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

if it was an online poll, there is every reason in the world to NOT publish it.

if it was not, then CNN is covering up.

which was it?

They don't conduct "Who do you think won the debate?" polls by phone. It was an online poll.

While I share your misgivings about online polling, note that i) the results of the polling were consistent with other gauges (see article) of popularity that can't be easily fudged, and ii) the media, including CNN, specifically claimed that Ms. Clinton had wowed "the online audience".

online polls have no accuracy whatsoever.  FOX quashed the poll that showed Ron Paul winning the debates in 2008 for the same reason.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 19, 2015 12:13:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 19, 2015 6:50:12 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

They don't conduct "Who do you think won the debate?" polls by phone. It was an online poll.

While I share your misgivings about online polling, note that i) the results of the polling were consistent with other gauges (see article) of popularity that can't be easily fudged, and ii) the media, including CNN, specifically claimed that Ms. Clinton had wowed "the online audience".

online polls have no accuracy whatsoever.  FOX quashed the poll that showed Ron Paul winning the debates in 2008 for the same reason.

He may very well have won the debates. Winning a debate doesn't mean winning the nomination. If I believed that, I wouldn't be touting the inevitability of Ms. Clinton getting the nomination.

[billisonboard]

Wish to offer what might be a weird concept:

If the goal of the debates is to help the American voter gain information on who would best serve them as POTUS, than the only "winner" or "loser" would be the American voter, i.e. was understanding of who the candidates are and where they stand advanced by the debate?

[weltschmerz]

Oct 19, 2015 16:24:10 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 19, 2015 12:13:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

online polls have no accuracy whatsoever.  FOX quashed the poll that showed Ron Paul winning the debates in 2008 for the same reason.

He may very well have won the debates. Winning a debate doesn't mean winning the nomination. If I believed that, I wouldn't be touting the inevitability of Ms. Clinton getting the nomination.

Did you vote in your OWN election?

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 19, 2015 16:37:26 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Wish to offer what might be a weird concept:

If the goal of the debates is to help the American voter gain information on who would best serve them as POTUS, than the only "winner" or "loser" would be the American voter, i.e. was understanding of who the candidates are and where they stand advanced by the debate?

Traditionally, the "winner" of a political debate is taken to be the participant whose favourability improved the most as a result of the debate. Hence if Ms. Clinton had 80% support and Mr. Sanders had 10% going into the debate, and the two came out with 75% and 15% support respectively, Mr. Sanders would be deemed the winner even though he still trailed in popularity.

In theory, the favourability of a candidate increases as (s)he espouses popular policies and exhibits leadership potential. Hence to answer your question: the information that voters gain by watching the debate influences their perceptions, and the candidate that influences perceptions most favourably is the "winner".

How well this translates into reality, I don't know. I get the impression more than a few voters base favourability on the number of times Mr. Sanders' jowls flapped, or the number of times Ms. Clinton cackled.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 19, 2015 16:45:12 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Oct 19, 2015 16:24:10 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

He may very well have won the debates. Winning a debate doesn't mean winning the nomination. If I believed that, I wouldn't be touting the inevitability of Ms. Clinton getting the nomination.

Did you vote in your OWN election?

No.

There are many reasons why. Suffice it to say here that I value the ability to claim I didn't vote for or against any political party.

The good news is that abstaining from the vote is prudent even sans moral objections. A vote is statistically meaningless, and this year in particular I don't support any of the major parties' platforms.

[billisonboard]

Oct 19, 2015 16:54:13 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 19, 2015 16:37:26 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Wish to offer what might be a weird concept:

If the goal of the debates is to help the American voter gain information on who would best serve them as POTUS, than the only "winner" or "loser" would be the American voter, i.e. was understanding of who the candidates are and where they stand advanced by the debate?

Traditionally, the "winner" of a political debate is taken to be the participant whose favourability improved the most as a result of the debate. Hence if Ms. Clinton had 80% support and Mr. Sanders had 10% going into the debate, and the two came out with 75% and 15% support respectively, Mr. Sanders would be deemed the winner even though he still trailed in popularity.

In theory, the favourability of a candidate increases as (s)he espouses popular policies and exhibits leadership potential. Hence to answer your question: the information that voters gain by watching the debate influences their perceptions, and the candidate that influences perceptions most favourably is the "winner".

How well this translates into reality, I don't know. I get the impression more than a few voters base favourability on the number of times Mr. Sanders' jowls flapped, or the number of times Ms. Clinton cackled.

I suspect there is truth in that final paragraph. And I guess if those are important criteria, the American voters were winners having gained that information. It is also why I don't support holding "debates".

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 19, 2015 17:07:37 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 19, 2015 16:54:13 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Traditionally, the "winner" of a political debate is taken to be the participant whose favourability improved the most as a result of the debate. Hence if Ms. Clinton had 80% support and Mr. Sanders had 10% going into the debate, and the two came out with 75% and 15% support respectively, Mr. Sanders would be deemed the winner even though he still trailed in popularity.

In theory, the favourability of a candidate increases as (s)he espouses popular policies and exhibits leadership potential. Hence to answer your question: the information that voters gain by watching the debate influences their perceptions, and the candidate that influences perceptions most favourably is the "winner".

How well this translates into reality, I don't know. I get the impression more than a few voters base favourability on the number of times Mr. Sanders' jowls flapped, or the number of times Ms. Clinton cackled.

I suspect there is truth in that final paragraph. And I guess if those are important criteria, the American voters were winners having gained that information. It is also why I don't support holding "debates".

"Debates" used to be actual debates, not unlike this discussion we're having now with point and counterpoint. One on one, usually focusing on just one or two key issues.

In-party US election debates circa 2015 are really more "meet n' greet"s. There are too many debaters, too many subjects to be covered, and not nearly enough time for any meaningful, sustained criticism of opponents' positions. Besides that, anybody who makes it to the debate podium is so loaded with baggage that it's really not in their interest to criticize. Blatant hypocrisy tends not to win a lot of hearts and minds.

The GOP debates suffered from too many candidates, but benefited from the fact that Mr. Trump's baggage is of a distinctly different variety than the baggage of his opponents, hence the two sides felt more at liberty to throw stones.

[djAdvocate]

i think you will see Clinton's numbers generally recover, but i don't think it has to do with her debate performance.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 19, 2015 17:44:32 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think you will see Clinton's numbers generally recover, but i don't think it has to do with her debate performance.

I know they'll recover. The question is whether they'll recover enough that Democrats won't be scratching their heads when she wins the Democratic nomination.

The same thing with Jeb Bush. He's polling at 6%, and that will grow. 12%... 15%... maybe 20% by "Super Tuesday". But will it have risen enough to avoid raising eyebrows when he's declared a lock for the GOP nomination? I don't know.

As I say, my hope is that their numbers do remain unimpressive right up until the wire so that Americans are shocked and bewildered by their winning the nominations. Many are still under the impression that popularity with the public matters, and the sooner that myth is dispelled, the better.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 19, 2015 17:50:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 19, 2015 17:44:32 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think you will see Clinton's numbers generally recover, but i don't think it has to do with her debate performance.

I know they'll recover. The question is whether they'll recover enough that Democrats won't be scratching their heads when she wins the Democratic nomination.

The same thing with Jeb Bush. He's polling at 6%, and that will grow. 12%... 15%... maybe 20% by "Super Tuesday". But will it have risen enough to avoid raising eyebrows when he's declared a lock for the GOP nomination? I don't know.

As I say, my hope is that their numbers do remain unimpressive right up until the wire so that Americans are shocked and bewildered by their winning the nominations. Many are still under the impression that popularity with the public matters, and the sooner that myth is dispelled, the better.

Jeb's average is 8%.  yes, he has hit 6% a couple of times, but not as often as he has hit double digits.

i really have no idea if he can recover, either.  but i think he is splitting share with Cruz and Rubio, and that the first one to drop out will get a boost from the other two.  of course, i would like to see the other TEN drop out, as well, and help their fellow congressmen and senators along, and make it a lot more interesting for King Donald.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 19, 2015 18:01:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 19, 2015 17:50:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I know they'll recover. The question is whether they'll recover enough that Democrats won't be scratching their heads when she wins the Democratic nomination.

The same thing with Jeb Bush. He's polling at 6%, and that will grow. 12%... 15%... maybe 20% by "Super Tuesday". But will it have risen enough to avoid raising eyebrows when he's declared a lock for the GOP nomination? I don't know.

As I say, my hope is that their numbers do remain unimpressive right up until the wire so that Americans are shocked and bewildered by their winning the nominations. Many are still under the impression that popularity with the public matters, and the sooner that myth is dispelled, the better.

Jeb's average is 8%.  yes, he has hit 6% a couple of times, but not as often as he has hit double digits.

i really have no idea if he can recover, either.  but i think he is splitting share with Cruz and Rubio, and that the first one to drop out will get a boost from the other two.  of course, i would like to see the other TEN drop out, as well, and help their fellow congressmen and senators along, and make it a lot more interesting for King Donald.

I agree with you that Mr. Trump will probably be a footnote by February.

If by some fantastic set of circumstances he wins the GOP nomination--I hereby pledge change my name to "Virgil Snow Leopard" for a week if that happens, just to prove how ridiculously unlikely I find the prospect--and by some even more fantastic set of circumstances wins the Presidency, TPTB will probe him for a few months to see how willing he is to fall in line. If he attempts to make good on even half of what he's promised, he'll have a bullet through his head before June 2017.

Multi-layered insurance policy.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 19, 2015 19:36:19 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 19, 2015 18:01:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jeb's average is 8%.  yes, he has hit 6% a couple of times, but not as often as he has hit double digits.

i really have no idea if he can recover, either.  but i think he is splitting share with Cruz and Rubio, and that the first one to drop out will get a boost from the other two.  of course, i would like to see the other TEN drop out, as well, and help their fellow congressmen and senators along, and make it a lot more interesting for King Donald.

I agree with you that Mr. Trump will probably be a footnote by February.

If by some fantastic set of circumstances he wins the GOP nomination--I hereby pledge change my name to "Virgil Snow Leopard" for a week if that happens, just to prove how ridiculously unlikely I find the prospect--and by some even more fantastic set of circumstances wins the Presidency, TPTB will probe him for a few months to see how willing he is to fall in line. If he attempts to make good on even half of what he's promised, he'll have a bullet through his head before June 2017.

Multi-layered insurance policy.

i think he has a good chance of winning the nomination.  i just don't think he will win it.  does that make sense?

honestly- the longer Carson or Rubio waits to catch up, the more likely Archduke Trump seems to be.

[billisonboard]

Oct 19, 2015 19:50:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

...i think he has a good chance of winning the nomination.  i just don't think he will win it.  does that make sense?

...

Yes, it makes sense.