Oh, no, it checks out. 48% Bozo, 51% Clarabell and trace elements of John Wayne Gacy.
A point which has already been made about hubby Bill.
I’d rather vote for someone I couldn’t trust to do the right thing than someone I could absolutely trust to do the wrong thing.
Feeble dodge. If you don’t want to put any effort into your arguments, just carry on as you’ve been doing.
When presented with an opinionated assertion, an opinionated assertion is a sufficient rebuttal. If the GOP candidates are all unserious, it should reflect in their approval numbers. To the extent that they are known, they are polling right about how Clinton is: about even approval/disapproval. And none of them have been fixed as untrustworthy in the voters’ minds yet.
Of course, the argument here seems to be that that’s not too much of a handicap. That sounds like just plain hope to me. If Democrats didn’t believe in the power of “Liar!” they wouldn’t have shouted it at Mitt Romney so often. We don’t even have to shout it at Clinton. Even Democrats no longer regard her as honest. Except for a few dead enders here on this board. Refer to the last poll that Lance Turbo posted.
Not according to the polling I’ve seen – the Republican candidates have been in the negative for approval/disapproval or favorable/unfavorable, unlike Hillary.
None of them have been “fixed” in anything yet, because they’re mostly unknowns.
I’m sure negative ratings on trustworthiness are not helpful in campaigning, but you haven’t established that they are significant handicaps. It wouldn’t be hard to try and look for a correlation in past elections – how did Romney’s and McCain’s polling on this compare to Obama’s? How did Kerry and Gore compare to W? How did Bush I and Dole compare to Clinton?
Why not look this stuff up? It would spark interesting discussion, and it might (or might not) support your assertion.
I don’t think she’s particularly honest either, though I believe she’s significantly less dishonest than most Republicans (including Romney/McCain/Boehner/McConnell), and Politifact supports this. But I don’t think many people base their vote on who is more honest and trustworthy – I think most people base their vote on who is better on the issues.
Again, just support your argument. I’ve even told you how to do it. Why not spend a few minutes looking up some old polls? It might be interesting.
Actually, Nate Silver would tell you that candidates win or lose based on only a few fundamental factors: how long the incumbent party has been in office, approval numbers of the incumbent(even when the incumbent isn’t running), the state of the economy, whether we are at war, etc.
Issue voters are usually not swing voters. Character voters are swing voters, though.
No he wouldn’t. He would tell us that those are significant factors, but they are far, far from the only ones that matter, and different factors gain and lose importance in different elections.
I don’t believe you without a cite.
Then you don’t think much. Think about what an issue is and what character is and think about why my statement is logical. Logic doesn’t need to be proven by cites, it’s proven by using your own mind.
It’s not logical. It’s not illogical either. This is not a question logic can answer – “character” voters might be far more likely to be evangelical Christians, which would mostly make them non-swing voters. Or “character” voters might be more likely to be feminists, civil-rights supporters, and the like, and thus mostly non-swing voters. Or something else.
I don’t accept your assertions without cites.
Why not put real effort into your arguments? Wouldn’t it be interesting to see polling on trustworthiness and honesty in the last several presidential elections?
An assertion that “trustworthiness” is a reliable predictor of electoral results is a statement of fact, not “logic” (even in your own individual definition) or even opinion. As an alleged fact, it is demonstrable or not. If the allegation is based on facts, those facts are citeable. If they are invented instead, that is proven by responses to cite requests just like the ones you have provided. It’s not that hard.
IOW, we know as well as you do where you got that from. You’re not kidding anyone but yourself.
I’ve tried to find it. Pollsters didn’t get particularly interested in polling that on candidates until now. Before they only polled that characteristic on Presidents.
If you’re actually interested in the answer to the question, maybe your google fu is better than mine.
As for issues vs. character, you’re not getting it. Even if you’re an evangelical, the more liberal candidate can be the more honest, the better family man, and can share your personal values better than the conservative candidate. If you don’t care about that and vote based on abortion and gays, then you’re an issue voter, not a character voter.
Character voters are swing voters because whether the candidate is honest, competent, a good leader, loyal to his family, works well with others, etc., has nothing to do with their ideology or party. Whereas how a candidate stands on the issues has everything to do with ideology and party. So most issues voters are not persuadable unless it’s one of those rare issues, like trade, or the deficit, where you can find a little to like and a little to hate in both parties.
No, because “abortion and gays” might count as character in the eyes of many voters. In a sense, I’m a character voter – someone who opposes gay marriage and wants to ban abortion has poor character, or at least that belief reflects poorly on their character (in my opinion). Romney’s 47% statement reflected poorly on his character, to me – disdain for the poor is a poor character trait, in my view.
If it was all just a matter of opinion about what “character” was, you needn’t have asked for a cite. Sometimes it’s sufficient to just disagree.
Thankfully, my argument wasn’t dependent on what an individual voter thinks character is. Some voters like to massage their egos and think that their vote is really up for grabs when it isn’t. Your “character”-based voting will somehow always lead to a vote for a Democrat, even if they are a twelve-time felon, because they think the right things on the ISSUES, and therefore have better character. I believe such thinking is dangerous to our democracy, but whatever, your mileage may vary.
However, what I meant was that ACTUAL character voters, who vote for a leader based on personal qualities which have nothing to do with ideology or party, are swing voters, and if one candidate has significantly better character than the other, that can be a significant advantage. Candidates know this, which is why they fight hard to define their personal qualities in the minds of the voters even more than their issue stances. Family man, Christian, modest origins, patriotic, yada yada. Barack Obama’s candidacy was built big around these aspects of his life, and he regarded threats to those aspects of his candidacy as something to be dealt with as quickly and effectively as possible, whereas issues differences(such as the individual mandate) could just sorta sit out there.
You also said issue voters weren’t swing voters, which also isn’t necessarily true – it depends on the issues. “Who has the better plan for the economy” is an issue, and such a voter might choose either candidate depending on who they think presents a better plan.
When you make solid assertions as if they are factual, generally we need cites. As it applies to this thread – Hillary Clinton – some polling that she is not considered terribly honest doesn’t mean necessarily she has lost the “character voters”, even as you define them… voters might decide that while her character is not perfect, it’s still better than her opponent’s.
Once again you’re personally wrong about me. I will look at a candidate comprehensively, and these issues feature prominently. A twelve-time felon would have to be running against someone particularly terrible on the issues (or have a particularly good story on why they’ve turned themselves around) to earn my vote.
I know I’m not a swing voter, and I’ve never claimed to be.
For the way you’ve defined it, sure. Not that “character” can be measured objectively, though.
I’m pretty sure Nate Silver thinks there’s no evidence for this. Why do you think he thinks this?
Link.
I don’t think I’ve seen this poll’s results talked about:
These New Hampshire polls I like better:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
She trails Bush and Walker, leads all the others, although only Cruz and Huck are behind by more than the MOE.
I will continue to post polls I like as they come in.
I was just looking at that NH poll and it looks like you may have a piece evidence supporting your hypothesis.
There are a couple of weird things about that poll. Sample size is sort of small (355) which is not that weird. The really weird thing is that Dartmouth polls have way more undecideds than other pollsters polling New Hampshire, I’m not sure what would cause that. Perhaps the word the question differently.
But not ones you don’t? 
Well, that does mean your post count is going to decrease, so we got that going for us, which is nice.