shouldn't be a problem as his base are either trolls or use flip phones and dial up.

I wonder at what point Republicans won't be able to say crime or immigration is getting worse in order to earn support. At what point does the data become some robust that the jig is up? I suppose there's always ways to manipulate the data.

My guess is when the Baby Boomers pass away. 65 and older voters think crime and illegal immigration are huge problems that are getting worse, with the moral slippery slope of society and all. It's always been pretty easy to see through the racial undertones of that rhetoric, but Trump has been less insidious about it than previous Republicans.

When we will we finally admit to ourselves that it's just an outlet for racism? The data doesn't support their claims, it's an emotional argument. Illegal immigration and crime aren't getting worse, old Conservative voters just like to demonize brown people (Mexicans with immigration, Blacks with crime) and that's why this type of rhetoric has been so effective since Goldwater and Nixon in the 1960s, data be damned.

if a conseravtive voter is black or brown skinned is he or she demonizing his or herself?

People vote for parties and candidates for various reasons. A Black person or Mexican could be voting for a Republican because they are fiscally Conservative.

My overall point is about the data relating to illegal immigration and crime. The data does not support the claims that these problems are becoming worse, but I don't think baby boomer voters care about that since it's mainly an emotional (racial) form of persuasion that Republican candidates have employed over the years on these topics.

They certainly have their own data that they point to, but it's typically not as accurate or robust. People have already came to their own conclusions on these issues, and they posses an extreme amount of confirmation bias on these topics because they've already felt their way into it emotionally.

its going to work until the economy comes back and violent crime isn't a problem.

I mean, sure we can look at declining stats, and we can look at the body count each weekend in Chicago.

We can look at declining immigration, and we can look at damage to economy stats.

I agree it shouldn't be a party's main platform but violent crime, and the flawed fixes the GOP offers, will draw votes for a long time.

...But I didn't say it didn't count, I said that statement doesn't mean anything on its own and it doesn't. The context of what numbers we're used to seeing for our politicians and where we are re: their popularity in the aggregate is everything. Clinton's favorability rating is exactly in line with our climate. We've seen -9% before, I cited two specific examples of when we just saw it. Exactly as I said: you can go back and look at post-primary Romney, and Obama's had that rating for much of his second term, and we can extrapolate from there. -9% and -32% are not the same thing, we've never seen -32% before. And Clinton's disliked because the political press plays by a different set of rules with her, that's why her ratings shoot up when the press isn't able to play their game.

Sanders isn't a major party nominee. The other obvious difference is that his numbers are artificially inflated by virtue of the odd circumstances of the primary he ran in: he was allowed to run in a heads-up race where his opponent was such an overwhelming favorite she didn't even have to advertise against him. He didn't even come close to beating Clinton. Her margins of victory were so overwhelming in virtually all off the populous states that she didn't even have to run a single negative ad against him; that's a major reason why his favs are artificially inflated. Were he subjected to a traditional campaign the numbers would sink just like everyone else's, and that goes 2x if he advanced to the GE.



I mean the data is the data. It's easy enough for me to point to it and cite it; it's not going anywhere. You're free to ignore it and stay blind, deaf, and dumb if you really want to, but pretending that I'm the one who's saying nothing while you laughably flail around is just absurd. Thanks for the fucking laugh.

As I said earlier: you just let me know which basic fact you want to contest first, and we'll proceed from there. I obviously won't be holding my breath.

Sanders artificially inflated, Clinton artificially deflated, got it.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Oct 21 2016 02:23pm

Who said Clinton's rating is artificially deflated? Are you just simply making things up and trying to attribute to them my posts because you have trouble understanding what's written in them? Clinton's relationship with the press isn't a new phenomenon; it's baked into the cake. It'll always be there.

And of course Sanders' favs ratings are inflated. We can't just deny political realities; national candidates don't get to run the length of the entire primary calendar without facing a negative ad, that just does not get to happen at the national level. When you combine that with his prolific fundraising and the press' desperate need for copy and disdain for Clinton, he had an opportunity that only a handful of individuals in history have had. There's a reason that his coverage scores were historically positive (and not just in relation to the other candidates, but just on their own merits); he was given freedom that most other candidates never dream of: http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/

You're right Clinton isn't disliked more than anyone else.