Nice use of a grown up word, but that’s still batshit insane.
So you respond to charges of making personal attacks by making more personal attacks. Excellent argument tactics. This is the same approach used by Beliebers to troll fans in the comments section of Selena Gomez videos at YouTube. I can live with that if you can.
If you aren’t winning an election, you are not enacting policy.
You’re literally contradicting yourself. Do you even know what you stand for anymore?
I base merit of a political party on their ability to enact the policies they put forward.
This is where you and I differ. The Nazi Party of Germany under Adolf Hitler was very much able to enact its policies. They killed millions of people, just like they said they would. They started the biggest war in history, just like they said they would. They marginalized, vilified, and murdered members of the gay community, delivering on the policies they put forward.
Yet, I do not consider them meritorious; I consider them just the opposite — utterly immoral. I do not consider the Republicans or Democrats meritorious because of their ability to rig the American political system and continue enacting policies that promote injustice; I consider them quite the opposite — corrupt and malignant.
I like to consider the ethics of policies themselves in evaluating the merits of the people putting forth those policies. But I’m the batshit insane one, right?
Yes, like right here, and here where they said Romney had a turnout edge. Very reputable outfit there.
I like how you cite a group of polls with less data than the group of polls I cited. You are literally removing data to corroborate your fiction. It’s the exact same set of polls; I just included more of the available data. This is how you lie with statistics, by only telling part of the story.
Never mind that you don’t seem to have a basic understanding of how polling works. Polling gives a prediction, complete with a range for error, and polls change throughout the campaign cycle. It is possible for a candidate to poll ahead at one point and then ultimately lose; that does not shatter a polling organization’s credibility.
Because in the end, you get to choose A or B, steak or fish, red or blue. While people like Clinton less than Obama, her lead is built on the backs of the exact same groups of voters as President Obama, showing that the rationalization for a vote is largely formed by social constructs and the paradigm of the race, while the actual votes themselves are largely predictable.
People actually liked Obama. Now, regarding Clinton voters, at least half of them just dislike Trump (which is a totally valid position to have, since he is at least as repugnant as Clinton). But, if you drink the Kool Aid, you believe you only get to choose A or B, so said thirsty Kool Aid drinkers will still make the choice for their “team.” You think their reasons for voting are irrelevant, but I don’t. I think why people do the things they do is important to consider if you respect them as human beings, not just numbers in a poll.
Remember when Hillary Clinton was universally loved in 2012?
No. I remember when she lost in 2008, held a 32% unfavorable rating through much of 2012, then got dragged through the mud in 2012 for Benghazi. Is that what it means to be universally loved? Or are you referring again to your sample size of one guy, where you, yourself, universally loved Clinton in 2012?
Polling favorability numbers would have suggested that Bernie Sanders should have overtaken Hillary Clinton- and that never got close to happening.