General Discussion

cascadiance

(19,537 posts)

123. So, just NOT having a poll on a someone is "rigging that poll"....

Mon Oct 13, 2014, 03:45 PM

Oct 2014

Rigging a poll (doctoring results, etc.) is one thing.

Rigging a SYSTEM (NOT a poll... I guess I have to repeat myself in an effort for you to either understand or accept that you've lost this debating point), where you choose to run polls only on certain individuals is rigging the PROCESS for who has polls published about them, NOT who rigging the process of the poll itself to have one person get poll results that aren't accurate.

Romney was complaining about the poll itself being "rigged" (even if he might be wrong). I was complaining about the PROCESS being rigged which has news stories as well as polls focused on Clinton now instead of other potential contenders and trying to make her sound inevitable by what is written in those articles (not what was "doctored" in any poll whether it was on Clinton or someone else, which you are FALSELY implying I'm saying here).

That's enough for me in this BS discussion. It is clear that if you can't understand my response this time, either your brain is missing a few gears, or you are paid to continue to deny anything that in reality rebuts your statements.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

156 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hillary: how inevitable? [View all] MannyGoldstein Oct 2014 OP

K&R 99Forever Oct 2014 #1

I would say more inevitable than last time, but... JaneyVee Oct 2014 #2

The only chance she has of not running customerserviceguy Oct 2014 #74

Who is going to run against her? No one is on the horizon right now. randome Oct 2014 #3

"as of right now, she is inevitable." MannyGoldstein Oct 2014 #4

Do you have a candidate who can beat Hillary, bring them on. Thinkingabout Oct 2014 #7

Yes, Hillary beats Hillary. That's what scares me about her. InAbLuEsTaTe Oct 2014 #10

Just rest your weary heart, Hillary has it covered. Don't be afraid. Thinkingabout Oct 2014 #18

Warren could...and even beat Jeb moonbeam23 Oct 2014 #54

Astrology aside. (Not a believer.) JDPriestly Oct 2014 #58

If Warren is going to beat Hillary or Jeb she is going to need to launch with a rocket launcher in Thinkingabout Oct 2014 #67

Every hour of every day is a potential change in the future. randome Oct 2014 #14

Yes and the oligarchs are jumping for joy. Goldman-Sachs are beside themselves. rhett o rick Oct 2014 #9

Geeze, will you get off your crying horse? randome Oct 2014 #12

I won't get off my horse and I will cry as loud as I can. "We don't need another Wall Street rhett o rick Oct 2014 #15

Agreed. I wish we had more vibrant candidates to choose from. randome Oct 2014 #16

I agree. I don't mean to aim my frustration at you. Looks like we can't stop rhett o rick Oct 2014 #19

I would love to see Warren as president, she well might be the radical change this country needs. RKP5637 Oct 2014 #79

She will have an uphill battle. All the big money will be behind H. Clinton. nm rhett o rick Oct 2014 #84

Yep, Wall Street has supported Warren Thinkingabout Oct 2014 #20

Are you trying to say that Sen Warren is as beholden to Wall Street as the Clintons? rhett o rick Oct 2014 #29

She has accepted campaign donations from corporations, she has already said she has, don't Thinkingabout Oct 2014 #36

She's not been a good "investment" if you REALLY think she's beholden to them... cascadiance Oct 2014 #45

But HRC has accepted money for her personal bank account from Wall Street. There is a difference. rhett o rick Oct 2014 #51

HRC record does nit agree with you, yes HRC is in demand for speaking engagements and yes she Thinkingabout Oct 2014 #81

I've seen and commented on that list. Most of it is pure rhetoric and some is pure rhett o rick Oct 2014 #82

I guess you call votes in Congress nonsense and rhetoric, then proof may not be enough. Thinkingabout Oct 2014 #94

While campaigning in 2007 she told the unions that she was "Outraged at CEO compensation." rhett o rick Oct 2014 #104

Are you willing to have a candidate run on their record or with things said today? Thinkingabout Oct 2014 #111

What? You want to dismiss what she says she stands for today? She stands with the banksters. rhett o rick Oct 2014 #112

Are you having a hard time admitting HRC has the best record, has the experience and is qualifird Thinkingabout Oct 2014 #117

There is a huge difference between voting record and campaign rhetoric. When you posted the list rhett o rick Oct 2014 #121

Hillary on the issues has the voting record and statements she has made, prove them wrong. Thinkingabout Oct 2014 #122

Tap dance all you want, HRC does not represent the 99%. Why you want so very hard rhett o rick Oct 2014 #154

I have not been tap dancing, I have provided you proof but still waiting for you to provide your Thinkingabout Oct 2014 #155

Warren and Hillary: two peas in a pod. MannyGoldstein Oct 2014 #73

I think she will flat out win. hrmjustin Oct 2014 #5

If HRC is inevitable, why would a primary be a good thing? Maybe make Democrats think they actually rhett o rick Oct 2014 #11

And your opinion is shared by a good number in our party and a primary is a good hrmjustin Oct 2014 #17

Don't misunderstand me. I want a lively primary. I wan't Sen Sanders to explain to the country that rhett o rick Oct 2014 #22

And if he or Warren I think we as a party will be better served. hrmjustin Oct 2014 #23

I agree that that would make it lively. nm rhett o rick Oct 2014 #30

They say "a primary is good because it will provoke discussion", or similar. I don't know. NYC_SKP Dec 2014 #156

Nothing In Politics Is Inevitable cantbeserious Oct 2014 #6

The first inevitable was a beta. This one is for realz: Inevitable 2.0 LawDeeDah Oct 2014 #8

Just as inevitable as last time. SheilaT Oct 2014 #13

Where is your candidate who can beat her? Thinkingabout Oct 2014 #25

If she runs, she will win the nomination this time. onehandle Oct 2014 #21

Sounds JUST like the conditions BEFORE Obama announced then! cascadiance Oct 2014 #28

I see a lot of words there, but no names. onehandle Oct 2014 #38

The question isn't if she's inevitable.. But WHY should ANYONE be "inevitable" at this point? cascadiance Oct 2014 #41

Among my several fears about her, is that if SheilaT Oct 2014 #66

Do you think they hate her more than a black President? onehandle Oct 2014 #72

They hate her every bit as much. SheilaT Oct 2014 #83

Double-plus inevitable. GeorgeGist Oct 2014 #24

++ Fumesucker Oct 2014 #98

Shame, shame! Manny, you shouldn't be distracting us from 2014 election now! cascadiance Oct 2014 #26

This post will look foolish if she does win... DontTreadOnMe Oct 2014 #27

It looks pretty silly now. wyldwolf Oct 2014 #35

Only for Hillary fans. Nt Logical Oct 2014 #85

only for everyone. wyldwolf Oct 2014 #86

Hillary managed to lose a 20 point lead in 2008, I am confident.... Logical Oct 2014 #89

which would still put her substantially ahead of her closest challenger. wyldwolf Oct 2014 #90

LOL, like in 2008? nt Logical Oct 2014 #91

LOL, no, like in 2016 wyldwolf Oct 2014 #92

Explain 2008 please! Nt Logical Oct 2014 #93

No! wyldwolf Oct 2014 #95

Keep dreaming! Nt Logical Oct 2014 #96

dreaming about what? wyldwolf Oct 2014 #97

Make believe is FUN! nt Logical Oct 2014 #103

your name is quite ironic. LOL. wyldwolf Oct 2014 #105

We will see in about a year who looks really clueless! nt Logical Oct 2014 #106

yes! we! will! wyldwolf Oct 2014 #107

Think she doesn't remember ... think she'll ignore the caucus states? JoePhilly Oct 2014 #128

that will be the big difference questionseverything Oct 2014 #133

Its unlikely anyone is going to sneak up on her this time around. JoePhilly Oct 2014 #135

sadly u r probably questionseverything Oct 2014 #136

Folks should have spent more time trying to create alternative candidates. JoePhilly Oct 2014 #138

LOL, you people crack me up. nt Logical Oct 2014 #139

yes, I did hear she is way ahead of the poles. LawDeeDah Oct 2014 #60

By any reasonable measure she is in a posiition that she is immensely likely to win dsc Oct 2014 #31

The question coming up then sadoldgirl Oct 2014 #32

Why do you think she loses to Jeb? wyldwolf Oct 2014 #37

Probably the same reasons you think that Warren would lose to him... cascadiance Oct 2014 #39

There are polls showing Clinton stomps Jeb wyldwolf Oct 2014 #40

Just the person that the corporate media running those polls want to push! cascadiance Oct 2014 #42

oh, you subscribe to the Mitt Romney school of polling wyldwolf Oct 2014 #50

So... You think that I follow a belief of Romney that Warren might stomp Jeb Bush?... cascadiance Oct 2014 #61

you just professed a belief polls are rigged. Mitt Romney, 2012. wyldwolf Oct 2014 #62

So... You think that I believe that a "liberal media" has the polls rigged against corporatists? cascadiance Oct 2014 #64

"corporate media running those polls want to push!" - You believe the polls are rigged. Romney, 2012 wyldwolf Oct 2014 #65

So... Are you saying that Romney believes that the *CORPORATE MEDIA* had the polls rigged? cascadiance Oct 2014 #68

Romney and his ilk claimed the 2012 polls were rigged against him. You're denying that happened?? wyldwolf Oct 2014 #69

How does that have ANYTHING to do with what I said!? cascadiance Oct 2014 #70

You said the media is pushing one person in particular. That they're rigging the polls. wyldwolf Oct 2014 #71

If they know that real UNRIGGED polls support THEIR candidates (Clinton)... cascadiance Oct 2014 #76

Simple. The polls are not rigged. wyldwolf Oct 2014 #77

So, just NOT having a poll on a someone is "rigging that poll".... cascadiance Oct 2014 #123

evidence "the process is rigged"? wyldwolf Oct 2014 #124

I've always stated that it is my BELIEF that it is rigged... cascadiance Oct 2014 #125

and that belief isn't based on evidence? wyldwolf Oct 2014 #132

It's believed on by the FACT that most of our media is owned by a handful of corporations! cascadiance Oct 2014 #141

which doesn't prove polls are being rigged! wyldwolf Oct 2014 #143

I DID NOT SAY THE POLLS WERE RIGGED! cascadiance Oct 2014 #145

YES YOU DID! lol! wyldwolf Oct 2014 #146

I guess wyldwolf doesn't understand what constitutes poll rigging! GOT IT! cascadiance Oct 2014 #147

Just referring to your words. wyldwolf Oct 2014 #148

I am too... cascadiance Oct 2014 #149

then we agree. You think the polls are rigged for Hillary - the same way Romney whined about polls wyldwolf Oct 2014 #150

That's it.. Your continued CRAP that you spew about me just earned you an ignore! cascadiance Oct 2014 #151

I'm only repeating your crap back to you. wyldwolf Oct 2014 #152

Next time, practice debate with these guys as a warm up MannyGoldstein Oct 2014 #80

Don't get me wrong sadoldgirl Oct 2014 #46

Perhaps if Jeb offers to double any tax cuts on the 1% Hillary end up proposing? closeupready Oct 2014 #115

if Jupiter gets smacked with a comet the left will be blamed MisterP Oct 2014 #56

Another stupid poll Andy823 Oct 2014 #33

IMO, the outcome of the Senate elections will be a major factor in who runs and who doesn't. CK_John Oct 2014 #34

I want a ticket to the coronation ball RobertEarl Oct 2014 #43

These push polls are puerile./NT DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2014 #44

I voted other. leeroysphitz Oct 2014 #47

Once again: only the anti-Hillary people are using the word "inevitable" brooklynite Oct 2014 #48

Eau Gawd!! LuvLoogie Oct 2014 #49

Then the NSA . orpupilofnature57 Oct 2014 #53

Defeat Anyone that can't prove they've put our interest ahead of their own, and orpupilofnature57 Oct 2014 #52

Less inevitable if Elizabeth Warren runs Hippo_Tron Oct 2014 #55

"The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men, gang aft agley." Robert Burns Tierra_y_Libertad Oct 2014 #57

As inevitable AnalystInParadise Oct 2014 #59

The New Democratic Party and 3rd way believe she is Republican enough to win and smart enough whereisjustice Oct 2014 #63

Other: I really don't know. NaturalHigh Oct 2014 #75

voted other..... mojowork_n Oct 2014 #78

obviously she is the front runner, of course. A progressive candidate could put up a very serious Douglas Carpenter Oct 2014 #87

As inevitable as last time. baldguy Oct 2014 #88

She'll run in the primaries, but hopefully Democrats will choose a more suitable candidate. chrisa Oct 2014 #99

I have no idea. Xyzse Oct 2014 #100

+10000000 JustAnotherGen Oct 2014 #101

About as inevitable as one of these threads.. Peacetrain Oct 2014 #102

I think she could be beaten by just about anyone, to be honest. Marr Oct 2014 #108

I used to do this on tea leaves Progressive dog Oct 2014 #109

Goldman Saks made a $400k bet on her chances. Tierra_y_Libertad Oct 2014 #110

I live in Iowa... CoffeeCat Oct 2014 #113

Everyone seems to forget that SHE CAN NOT WIN IOWA. ieoeja Oct 2014 #140

I find it so hilarious that DU who now hate Obama and Raffi Ella Oct 2014 #114

They'll be complaining about President Hillary Clinton for 8 years. JoePhilly Oct 2014 #129

The DU hates Obama? Please provide proof of this silly statement. nt Logical Oct 2014 #144

It's inevitable that she will run AgingAmerican Oct 2014 #116

If Dems run Hillary, woo me with science Oct 2014 #118

+1 R.Quinn Oct 2014 #119

Is Biden going to run? Jamastiene Oct 2014 #120

I hope not. bigwillq Oct 2014 #142

"Manny": how repetitive? n/t Jeff Rosenzweig Oct 2014 #126

Well, in fairness, blog-posting the same point is a lot easier than actually finding a candidate... brooklynite Oct 2014 #137

Uh..... What? HRC's nomination is a done deal. Period. WinkyDink Oct 2014 #127

There is a 100% chance she will lose in November. tridim Oct 2014 #130

Clinton, 2-1; Senator Marco Rubio, R-Fla., 6-1; former Flordia Governor Jeb Bush, 9-1 LanternWaste Oct 2014 #131

Seattle Seahawks, 66/1 frylock Oct 2014 #134

Relentless, yes. Inevitable? About as much as last time. n/t Smarmie Doofus Oct 2014 #153