Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

eridani

(51,907 posts)
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 02:01 AM Sep 2015

Question about polls--is the sampling always of "likely voters"?

That would leave out most of the 63% who sat out 2014. Is it even possible for a poll to account for the involvement of large numbers of the previously alienated, most of whom don't even have landlines?

I have yet to hear a single story about self-organizing by previously uninvolved people who support Clinton. There are thousands of examples for Sanders. The local organizer for South Seattle is a 26 year old woman who has never voted. She just missed being old enough in 2008, and never saw a reason to get involved since. She and most of the younger attendees are very turned off to Democrats, but they do realize that they need us old leftover New Deal farts to teach them how to navigate the caucus system.

On September 6, a young man in SW King County has called a Sanders meeting in the Burien public library. Looked him up in VoteBuilder--No Data for party ID classification. No one in the 33rd or 34th LD Dem organizations has heard of him, and I don't know him from any of the issue groups I work with either. (Check the Events thread under WA State--I do get around quite a bit and am on lots of lists.)

There is no way in hell that Clinton appeals to any of these kids. They despise banksters and anyone perceived to be in league with them.

The older crowd of Sanders supporters are Democrats, and therefore willing to support Clinton in the general election. But the kids are not, and they will just stay home is she is the nominee.

68 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Question about polls--is the sampling always of "likely voters"? (Original Post) eridani Sep 2015 OP
Polling and adults, youth, registered and likely voters... PoliticAverse Sep 2015 #1
OK--only likely voters for Gallup. Any other pollsters who differ with their process? n/t eridani Sep 2015 #2
Here's the methodology of the often cited on DU Public Policy Polling PoliticAverse Sep 2015 #3
Again, angling for the 'likely voter" n/t eridani Sep 2015 #5
That is one of the criticism nadinbrzezinski Sep 2015 #4
Because close to voting time those people will have to have registered and will respond PoliticAverse Sep 2015 #6
Agreed. nadinbrzezinski Sep 2015 #16
Not true that most do "likely." Most, including Gallup, report "registered voters" till very close to the election. pnwmom Sep 2015 #11
No, not likely voters now. You need to read to the end of the piece, which was written pnwmom Sep 2015 #10
Apparently HRC thinks she can win without the support of the 63% eridani Sep 2015 #7
Hillary already has organizations in all 50 states, which are actively recruiting, so why pnwmom Sep 2015 #9
Self-organization means enthusiasm eridani Sep 2015 #17
It means enthusiasm even though there is no organization. If there is already an organization pnwmom Sep 2015 #39
Organizations that don't give a shit about bringing in new voters are useless n/t eridani Sep 2015 #44
That's true. But it doesn't apply to HRC. n/t pnwmom Sep 2015 #50
In WA State in 2007, her team contacted chairs of local county and LD organizations eridani Sep 2015 #51
Interesting. I have an acquaintance who was involved in her campaign in 2008 -- pnwmom Sep 2015 #52
Many newbies held local party offices as a result of the Dean and Kucinich campaigns eridani Sep 2015 #54
What is this 63%? Agschmid Sep 2015 #13
The percent of people eligible to vote who did not vote in 2014 eridani Sep 2015 #18
These people are a problem. Agschmid Sep 2015 #19
Lectures are so very, very helpful in motivating the alienated eridani Sep 2015 #21
They alienate themselves. Agschmid Sep 2015 #24
You've just explained why Repukes are cleaning our clocks, when even in red states-- eridani Sep 2015 #26
If people don't care enough to vote... Agschmid Sep 2015 #28
They do care enough when there is something to vote FOR eridani Sep 2015 #32
They've been able to vote "for something" this whole time... Agschmid Sep 2015 #34
Voting for sucking less? What an alternative! n/t eridani Sep 2015 #37
Yup... Agschmid Sep 2015 #40
Sucking less was quite a successful message in 2014 eridani Sep 2015 #45
Again you can vote for whoever you want... but you should vote. Agschmid Sep 2015 #61
As a Democrat, I am a strategic voter. The alienated are not. The only way that changes is-- eridani Sep 2015 #65
Again it's on them. Agschmid Sep 2015 #66
No, these people are a symptom of a larger problem Scootaloo Sep 2015 #29
They sat out because they are stubborn... Agschmid Sep 2015 #30
They sat out because they see nothing worth voting for. Scootaloo Sep 2015 #33
I'm not concerned about their comfort... Agschmid Sep 2015 #35
It's not about comfort, it's about issues and responsiveness. Scootaloo Sep 2015 #42
Oh please... I make people stay home rather than vote? Agschmid Sep 2015 #62
Typically, in years past, pollsters report results of registered voters until closer pnwmom Sep 2015 #8
It varies from poll to poll. Some poll RVs, some LVs. DanTex Sep 2015 #12
On college campuses in Florida - they know and like Hillary Sancho Sep 2015 #14
They are so thrilled that they are organizing groups to get her elected? eridani Sep 2015 #20
Banks don't matter much to people who are undocumented... Sancho Sep 2015 #22
I get that Sanders is much better than Clinton on those issues eridani Sep 2015 #23
Can't use public banking if you aren't documented...no SS#, no DL. Sancho Sep 2015 #27
Clinton hasn't proposed anything any different than any other Dem candidate eridani Sep 2015 #31
Sorry...you're wrong again Sancho Sep 2015 #36
I have, and I don't see any differences. With any Dem we win on those issues n/t eridani Sep 2015 #38
Look, I've lived this for 25 years here... Sancho Sep 2015 #41
There are no Democrats who don't support the DREAM act eridani Sep 2015 #43
You keep bringing up old memes, but they don't hold up if you look at them... Sancho Sep 2015 #46
That "track record" includes voting for permanent war in the ME-- eridani Sep 2015 #47
Just to get you started and make it easy for you... Sancho Sep 2015 #48
That's the one that recommends Sanders, and I've already read it n/t eridani Sep 2015 #49
Then read my posts in that thread... Sancho Sep 2015 #53
Name recognition is the only issue you are really talking about eridani Sep 2015 #55
Most of those points I posted on in the thread... Sancho Sep 2015 #56
Please save that "not voting for war" crap for people too stupid not to know what Bush-- eridani Sep 2015 #57
Hillary is right on the SS issue... Sancho Sep 2015 #58
The 1%ers think NAFTA was great! What a shock! eridani Sep 2015 #59
That's simply not true. Sancho Sep 2015 #60
Sorry--I don't belong to a social class that ever has had need for a tax lawyer eridani Sep 2015 #64
It was one of the Bernie group that posted the Forbes article... Sancho Sep 2015 #67
Totally tone-deaf about what constitutes "middle class" No business is a "job creator" eridani Sep 2015 #68
We are playing semantics here DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2015 #15
Keep in mind "likely voter" is a calculation each pollster does Recursion Sep 2015 #25
There is a lot of political information on the news and other media sources. Thinkingabout Sep 2015 #63
 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
4. That is one of the criticism
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 02:36 AM
Sep 2015

Gallup added some cell phone sampling. But the polls are showing they can be accurate...2012, but that there are starting to have a few cracks. Most do likely. Very few look at other things like people who have never voted.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
6. Because close to voting time those people will have to have registered and will respond
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 02:45 AM
Sep 2015

that they will likely be voting. Most people understand that this far out polls aren't that meaningful,
Clinton still had a good lead over Obama at this time in 2007.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
16. Agreed.
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 11:38 AM
Sep 2015

Right now they are useful to ignore people, if they are not catching, and for campaigns to adjust messages, nothing more. I treat them as useful noise, especially the national polls. When State polls are within six months, they start to be far more important than just trends.

I just chuckle, my poll, your poll. I share them, not here, but am aware of how much noise they really are.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
11. Not true that most do "likely." Most, including Gallup, report "registered voters" till very close to the election.
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 05:18 AM
Sep 2015

This is from the Gallup link above, in a piece written in September of 2008. And it describes generally accepted polling practice.

Second, we are at this point reporting likely voter estimates on only an occasional basis. We feel that the trends among registered voters give us the best way to track election preferences in our daily poll, in part because many voters are not yet in a position to accurately estimate their chances of voting on Election Day. But from time to time, we do estimate (and report) likely voter results to give us a feel for the potential difference turnout could make in November. So far this summer, there have been occasions when -- as was the case this past weekend after the GOP convention -- likely voters were decidedly more Republican. But there have also been occasions when there was little difference between the vote patterns of likely voters and those of registered voters. We will continue to monitor these patterns as Election Day draws closer.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
10. No, not likely voters now. You need to read to the end of the piece, which was written
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 05:11 AM
Sep 2015

in September of 2008.

They mostly report results of registered voters till closer to an election. Even in September they were still reporting mostly results of registered voters.

Here's how the last paragraph sums it up:

Second, we are at this point reporting likely voter estimates on only an occasional basis. We feel that the trends among registered voters give us the best way to track election preferences in our daily poll, in part because many voters are not yet in a position to accurately estimate their chances of voting on Election Day. But from time to time, we do estimate (and report) likely voter results to give us a feel for the potential difference turnout could make in November. So far this summer, there have been occasions when -- as was the case this past weekend after the GOP convention -- likely voters were decidedly more Republican. But there have also been occasions when there was little difference between the vote patterns of likely voters and those of registered voters. We will continue to monitor these patterns as Election Day draws closer.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
7. Apparently HRC thinks she can win without the support of the 63%
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 02:53 AM
Sep 2015
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251446345

Still not even one anecdote about anyone self-organizing for Clinton, or any answer at all for the question of how to involve alienated voters.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
9. Hillary already has organizations in all 50 states, which are actively recruiting, so why
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 05:06 AM
Sep 2015

would people need to self-organize?

eridani

(51,907 posts)
17. Self-organization means enthusiasm
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 09:46 PM
Sep 2015

People who don't stand around passively waiting to be recruited get far more done.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
39. It means enthusiasm even though there is no organization. If there is already an organization
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 10:47 PM
Sep 2015

there is no need to self-organize.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
51. In WA State in 2007, her team contacted chairs of local county and LD organizations
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 12:15 AM
Sep 2015

--and threatened them with consequences regarding their possible political careers if they didn't get on board with the inevitable candidate. In contrast, Obama's organizers asked PCOs what their issues were. This time around, Sanders is getting people involved in the caucus system who have never before been involved. The Clinton campaign has no presence whatsoever here at summer community festivals or other outreach events that are deluged with delegations of candidates running for state and local office.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
52. Interesting. I have an acquaintance who was involved in her campaign in 2008 --
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 12:18 AM
Sep 2015

I haven't been in touch so I don't know about this time. If I run into her I'll be curious to find out what her take on this is.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
54. Many newbies held local party offices as a result of the Dean and Kucinich campaigns
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 12:22 AM
Sep 2015

They were totally freaked out by the threats. Old timers just saw business as usual.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
18. The percent of people eligible to vote who did not vote in 2014
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 09:48 PM
Sep 2015

No Clinton supporter has yet explained her plan for attracting alienated voters. Helpful hint--most are turned off by blow-dried scripted campaigns.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
21. Lectures are so very, very helpful in motivating the alienated
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 09:52 PM
Sep 2015

Not. They prefer hearing about policies that will benefit the 99%

Agschmid

(28,749 posts)
24. They alienate themselves.
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 10:10 PM
Sep 2015

It's certainly not my job to make them vote of select a candidate which "appeases" them...

eridani

(51,907 posts)
26. You've just explained why Repukes are cleaning our clocks, when even in red states--
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 10:23 PM
Sep 2015

--they favor Democratic policies. More business as usual contempt for people who are being fucked over is not what we need.

Agschmid

(28,749 posts)
28. If people don't care enough to vote...
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 10:29 PM
Sep 2015

Then what does that say about them? Guess what it's America you can write in anyone you want, don't like the candidate du jour? Pick your own.

There is no excuse for people who just "choose" not to vote.

It's bullshit. Especially considering the people who are still regularly disenfranchised by RW tactics.

Vote. It's that easy.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
32. They do care enough when there is something to vote FOR
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 10:33 PM
Sep 2015

People who have never voted are now committed to caucusing for Sanders in WA State. We'll need them in November next year.

Agschmid

(28,749 posts)
34. They've been able to vote "for something" this whole time...
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 10:36 PM
Sep 2015

They choose not to.

I really have no patience for people who sit out elections... Again you can write in anyone you want.

You could have been voting for Bernie Sanders for the last 20 years... Sitting out an election? No excuse.

Agschmid

(28,749 posts)
40. Yup...
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 10:47 PM
Sep 2015

That's exactly it.



We all have the right to excercise our vote, you choose not to do it, you have to live with the consequences of that action.

I've always been able to vote "for" someone it hasn't been a problem for me.

Guess I'm lucky having lived in VT I got to vote for Sanders, and having lived in Mass I got to vote for Warren.

Sure feels good.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
45. Sucking less was quite a successful message in 2014
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 11:38 PM
Sep 2015

Not. I'd rather vote for war as only a last resort, for reigning in banksters, for no more shitty "trade" agreements, etc.

Agschmid

(28,749 posts)
61. Again you can vote for whoever you want... but you should vote.
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 09:42 AM
Sep 2015

To not vote is an exercise in futility.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
65. As a Democrat, I am a strategic voter. The alienated are not. The only way that changes is--
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 11:58 PM
Sep 2015

--through involvement. I know because I didn't pay attention to any political policies until the Iraq war. Dean and Kucinich changed a lot of us in 2004, and those of us who stayed with the Democratic Party learned to think more long term. Sanders is inspiring more of that. Clinton is not.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
29. No, these people are a symptom of a larger problem
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 10:30 PM
Sep 2015
Why did they sit it out?

Address that issue, and you will address the problem that they aren't voting.

Agschmid

(28,749 posts)
30. They sat out because they are stubborn...
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 10:31 PM
Sep 2015

You can write in anyone you damn well please.

"Sitting out" an election is bullshit.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
33. They sat out because they see nothing worth voting for.
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 10:35 PM
Sep 2015

Write-ins? Okay. So you get the same effect that you would by staying home, but without hte comfort of actually staying home. That sounds like a winning strategy, doesn't it?

The answer is to find out what's going on there and field candidates that have appeal to people who feel disillusioned and disaffected.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
42. It's not about comfort, it's about issues and responsiveness.
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 11:00 PM
Sep 2015

And your glib, smug dismissal is a perfect example of what makesp eople stay home.

You can't complain when they do so, then.

Agschmid

(28,749 posts)
62. Oh please... I make people stay home rather than vote?
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 09:43 AM
Sep 2015

Wow... I am a "successful" anonymous internet poster than.

Get over it, vote.

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
8. Typically, in years past, pollsters report results of registered voters until closer
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 05:05 AM
Sep 2015

to an election, at which point they switch to polls of likely voters.

This can cause some confusion, because the switch can mean they're comparing apples to oranges.

Right now they're probably reporting registered voters.

P.S. I think your last sentence is a generalization that isn't borne out by the young people I know. They are often just like his older supporters. They prefer Bernie but will vote for Hillary rather than see a detestable Rethug as President.

And many young women like the idea of the first Female President, even if they're not thrilled with Hillary.

Sancho

(9,067 posts)
14. On college campuses in Florida - they know and like Hillary
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 07:06 AM
Sep 2015

There are very few polls, but it's not hard to get anecdotal evidence. For example, I was at a State Senator rally yesterday with some college faculty, teachers, and students.

Lots of college students know about Hillary. Immigrants, lots of young women interested in equal pay, and women's health. Much less awareness or support for Bernie. Nothing like the lunch rally I saw yesterday.

Hillary is known and liked in most Florida Democratic communities. College students here appreciate her efforts on the part of children and women. Many have not heard much from Bernie. His reputation on Univision is awful. Hillary on Univision is positive. It's very international here. 25% born out of the country. Almost half have some international connection.

Polls here are difficult. Most people simply refuse to answer the phone because we are bombarded with push polls and robocalls.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
20. They are so thrilled that they are organizing groups to get her elected?
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 09:50 PM
Sep 2015

Endless war and unaccountable banksters turn them on?

Sancho

(9,067 posts)
22. Banks don't matter much to people who are undocumented...
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 10:02 PM
Sep 2015

they are outside the system even though they have lived in the US for 20-30 years since they were children.

Also, their parents were fleeing war and terror in many cases.

So no, with over 25% in Florida born outside the US, they don't care about Wall Street or Iraq.

They DO care about a path to citizenship, social justice, and voting rights. That's why Hillary appeals to them

Sorry you don't get it.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
23. I get that Sanders is much better than Clinton on those issues
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 10:04 PM
Sep 2015

And public banking can help the unbanked--something that I can't see Clinton ever supporting.

Sancho

(9,067 posts)
27. Can't use public banking if you aren't documented...no SS#, no DL.
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 10:25 PM
Sep 2015

I guess you can't see it...Bernie simply is wrong and not in touch with social justice. This is just one area where his proposals are naive, simplistic, and unworkable.

College students in Florida get it. At least the few hundred I saw yesterday did...even when they are legal over half have a relative in the US who isn't.

Clinton has proposed EXACTLY what is needed - voting rights, path to citizenship for starters.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
31. Clinton hasn't proposed anything any different than any other Dem candidate
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 10:31 PM
Sep 2015

Funny how all the born again "social justice" folks think that keeping people poor is no big deal.

Social justice is irrelevant as a campaign issue mainly because there are no serious distinctions among Democratic candidates on these issues. Any Democrat will support reproductive rights, a good pathway to citizenship and demilitarizing the police. OK--not quite irrelevant. Clinton supports the death penalty, which targets minorities disproportionately. Sanders and O'Malley do not.

Sancho

(9,067 posts)
36. Sorry...you're wrong again
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 10:42 PM
Sep 2015

I don't have time to post AGAIN Hillary's proposals and years of work on immigration. It's easy to find and different than other candidates.

Same with voting rights. Look it up if you wish.

Sancho

(9,067 posts)
41. Look, I've lived this for 25 years here...
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 10:59 PM
Sep 2015

I can tell you that there are real differences. I'll give you one small one, but these have been argued before.

NY and Maryland have tuition equity. (So does Florida for most public colleges). That means that if you were brought to the US as a 5 year old and you are undocumented - you pay in state tuition.

If you live in VERMONT (note that's Bernie's state), you either pay out-of-state tuition or maybe can't get into college at all if you are undocumented. Immigrants are very aware of these differences.

Those "little things" are part of a large fabric of efforts by Hillary. She has been on Univision here for years. A lot of the work has been through the Clinton foundation, not the US Government. She has had an outreach for decades in the schools, with women, with minorities, and with immigrants. Here's a snippet:

http://correctrecord.org/ and the Clinton Foundation. If anything, there's no hagiography that really captures ALL that Hillary has done over the decades - and she has constantly been on the front lines (we see it on Univision, etc.) or working with African American churches...you can be critical of Hillary for whatever you want, but her hands-on record with minority and latinos is the best of all the candidates of both parties.

-------------------------------

Hillary Clinton has called passage of DREAM Act “long overdue.”

She was one of the two cosponsors of Senator Ted Kennedy’s 2004 bill, the S.O.L.V.E. Act, and during her time in the Senate she continued to cosponsor and vote for comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

Hillary Clinton introduced the Legal Immigrant Children’s Health Improvement Act.

Hillary Clinton developed and introduced legislation to expand job training access to people with limited English language skills.

Hillary Clinton called for passage of legislation so that “All immigrants on the verge of gaining residency status should not be forced to leave this country while they wait for the INS to process their application.”

In 2007, during debate over the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, Hillary Clinton introduced an amendment to reclassify the spouses and minor children of lawful permanent residents as immediate relatives.

Senator Clinton stood with the nation’s governors and mayors in 2003 against budget reductions to the AmeriCorps program.

The Alliance for a Healthier Generation, founded by the American Heart Association and the Clinton Foundation, works to reduce the prevalence of childhood obesity and to empower kids to develop lifelong, healthy habits. The Alliance works with schools, companies, community organizations, healthcare professionals and families to transform the conditions and systems that lead to healthier children. - See more at: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/our-work/alliance-healthier-generation#sthash.ROXdcrsH.dpuf

We’re working with our partners – one playground at a time – to transform public, community spaces into inclusive environments that are fully accessible to children and families of all backgrounds and abilities. With conversation prompts in both Spanish and English, we hope to encourage fun, language-rich interactions between parents and children as a regular component of playtime. - See more at: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/blog/2015/07/18/transforming-playgrounds-make-play-time-talk-time#sthash.Wgz3M2ut.dpuf

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/hillary-clinton-attend-clementa-pinckney-funeral-119448.html
Clinton was in Charleston on the day of the shooting, which killed nine African-American churchgoers on June 17, though she left the state earlier in the evening after a pair of campaign stops and a fundraiser in town.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/univision-hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-117851.html
Inside the Univision-Clinton network
The ties between the Clintons and the Spanish language television network run deep.

Hillary Clinton Has Deep History With Latinos And There’s Not A Lot The GOP Can Do About It

Hillary Clinton applauds United Farm Workers President Arturo Rodriguez during a rally in Salinas, California, on Jan. 22, 2008.

Republicans are keenly aware that they must begin to peel away Latino voters from Democrats, who gave President Obama 71% of their vote in 2012. But there’s a huge problem for those 2016 efforts, rarely discussed and largely forgotten.

Hillary Clinton, the presumptive favorite for the Democratic nomination, beat Obama 2–1 among Latino voters in the 2008 primary. It wasn’t just name recognition, either. The Clintons have a robust network of Latino leaders and activists, and long history with outreach that dates back to 1970s in Texas.

This is not to say Clinton’s path is totally clear — her 2008 campaign was not without stumbles, and she faced difficult questions last year from activists on immigration. If Jeb Bush were the Republican nominee, some argue, he might actually compete for a significant share of Latino support, something activists aren’t totally closed to. But there is no other candidate both as likely to win a party nomination and who will start with the established, enduring Latino support, as Clinton.

“Republicans have a Latino problem,” said Alfonso Aguilar, a former official in the George W. Bush administration and director of the American Principles Project’s Latino Partnership, which promotes conservative values to the Latino community. He described the Republican policies around immigration that put the party stuck between an Obama “amnesty” position and a Steve King “enforcement-only” stance.

“Hillary would be a formidable candidate with Hispanics,” he said.

Even for a candidate who has been on the national stage for decades, Clinton’s history with Latino voters goes back a surprisingly long way.

In 1972, when a young Hillary and Bill Clinton were working the ill-fated George McGovern campaign, she worked closely with well-respected union leader, Franklin Garcia, who took her under his wing as she helped register Latino voters in south Texas and along the Rio Grande Valley.

“Hispanics in South Texas were,” she wrote in her 2003 memoir Living History, “understandably, wary of a blond girl from Chicago who didn’t speak a word of Spanish.” But Garcia “took me places I could never have gone alone and vouched for me to Mexican Americans who worried I might be from the immigration service or some other government agency.” Garcia drove her and Bill across the border to Matamoros, a dive that had only a “decent mariachi band,” she wrote, but where she indulged in barbecued cabrito, or goat.

Garry Mauro, one of her first contacts in Texas, told the San Antonio Express in 2008 that back then she had a “cultural affinity with Hispanics,” asking questions and listening to their concerns, a dynamic that would be on display again, more than three decades later in Nevada, as she tried to woo an influential Latino activist.

Eddie Escobedo was a flashy dresser — suits and hats to match — and hotly in demand by Democratic politicians.

The owner of a radio station and El Mundo newspaper, both of which he used to great effect, the late Escobedo was an important ally for anyone who wanted to get their message out to Latinos in Nevada. That’s why Brian Greenspun, a Clinton ally who runs the Greenspun Media Group (which includes the Las Vegas Sun, Las Vegas Weekly, and Las Vegas Magazine), invited Escobedo along with other minority leaders to his home for dinner to meet with Clinton as she was exploring a 2008 campaign.

“She had a way about her,” says Eddie Escobedo Jr., who was at the dinner. His father died in 2010 and left El Mundo to him

The way my dad explained it, she was somebody you could talk to,” Escobedo Jr. said. “She spoke from the heart and asked about what the Hispanic community was going through and what had to be done. My dad was taken aback by Hillary, by how she was able to communicate and listen and how she wanted to help Hispanics.”

"Escobedo supported Clinton “tooth and nail,” his son says — but of course she did not win. Obama campaign senior advisers repeatedly went to the El Mundo offices to wear down the activist, and finally got him to take a call from Obama. The two eventually had a meeting at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, where Escobedo presented Obama with a T-shirt and hat with the words “El Jefe” — the boss — on them.

When Escobedo died from cancer in 2010, the Clintons offered their condolences in a letter to the family and Obama called Escobedo Jr.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/hillary-clinton-has-deep-history-with-latinos-and-theres-not#.puq3DPp9X

eridani

(51,907 posts)
43. There are no Democrats who don't support the DREAM act
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 11:29 PM
Sep 2015

And executing people of color on death row is no big deal to HRC.

Sancho

(9,067 posts)
46. You keep bringing up old memes, but they don't hold up if you look at them...
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 11:40 PM
Sep 2015

simply put, NONE of the Democratic candidate have the experience and track record in the trenches that comes close to Hillary. You can throw out irrational criticisms all you want, but most of us who are objective can see the evidence.

That's why polls of immigrants and women and minorities have her way ahead: it's NOT a "plan" or a "speech". They have seen Hillary in their neighborhood for 35 years!!

It's not just work as a Senator - but work with Children's Defense Fund, the Clinton Foundation, Women's rights and personal interventions. People in those groups have seen it first hand.

No other candidate is in the ball park.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
47. That "track record" includes voting for permanent war in the ME--
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 11:48 PM
Sep 2015

Tough on crime, financial deregulation (foreclosures disproportionately affecting people of color obviously don't matter), shitty "trade" deals that have lost millions of family wage jobs. BTW, her best pal Marian Wright Edelman from the Children's Defense Fund denounced welfare "reform" in 1996 with no effect whatsoever on HRC.

Sancho

(9,067 posts)
48. Just to get you started and make it easy for you...
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 11:52 PM
Sep 2015

read all the empirical evidence and links in this thread. When you finish that one I'll get you plenty more.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251561348

Sancho

(9,067 posts)
53. Then read my posts in that thread...
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 12:18 AM
Sep 2015

You'll see why it's not so simple. You don't have to agree with me, but I see what the majority see, and that's why Hillary is ahead in the sunbelt with voters outside of the NE and Mid-west suburbs.

I've listened to Bernie for years on Thom Hartmann, so I know his positions well. For my issues and in my view, Hillary is by far the better candidate.

After all the arguments on DU, I've looked into the candidates more carefully. If anything, I've lowered my opinion of Bernie as I've investigated, and that has nothing to do with the constant personal attacks on DU.

I'm very objective, I don't vote on "one issue", and I try to consider what's practical.

The vast majority of voters won't carefully examine all the candidates; they will vote a certain way because they are affiliated with a group (union, Democrat, race, gender, etc.), or they will vote on the basis of an issue (woman's rights, SS, path to citizenship, etc.) or they will vote for a particular personality (Bill and Obama were good ones). The undecided with be influenced by a barrage of advertising.

Right now, Hillary is winning on the group identifications and majority of the issues for me. She has the resources to put up a fight against the GOP on advertising. Neither Bernie or Hillary are "TV" type personalities. On balance, she's the stronger candidate.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
55. Name recognition is the only issue you are really talking about
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 12:30 AM
Sep 2015

I don't vote on one issue either. Wherever Clinton is right on an issue, she is very little different than all the other Dem candidates. Where she is wrong, she is a walking disaster.

Being a Democrat, I'll campaign for her if she gets the nomination. But it is going to be damned hard to get my old bones out of bed to campaign for the following--

--endless war
--TPP
--Keystone XL
--sucking up to banksters and fucking over homeowners
--tough on crime
--welfare "reform"
--the death penalty
--chained CPI

Sancho

(9,067 posts)
56. Most of those points I posted on in the thread...
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 12:53 AM
Sep 2015

and I would disagree with Bernie on some of those.

As to endless war (my father was an MD during Korea and I was A1 in the Vietnam draft), watch the new Michael Moore movie when it come out. Hillary did not vote a declaration of war - and neither did Congress:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=556376

The TPP is not done yet, and trade agreements are not all bad. I pointed that out in other thread.

Keystone is dead, but Hillary has worked nationally and internationally for decades to deal with renewables. Again, that is touched on in my response linked earlier.

Crime when Bill was coming into office was at an all time high. Now it's at an all time low. It's not prison, but demographics that likely are the reason for the change. Also, environmental factors.

At any rate, SS will only be protected by a Democratic President.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
57. Please save that "not voting for war" crap for people too stupid not to know what Bush--
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 01:04 AM
Sep 2015

--and Cheney were capable of.

And yes, modern "trade" agreements are all bad. They used to be about negotiating mutual tariff reductions, and I certainly have no problem with that. NAFTA and everything since have been about empowering corporations over elected governments, racing to the bottom, and nothing else.

Just in the past few years:
• A French company sued Egypt after Egypt raised its minimum wage.
• A Swedish company sued Germany because Germany wanted to phase out nuclear power for safety reasons.
• A Dutch company sued the Czech Republic because the Czech Republic didn't bail out a bank that the Dutch company partially owned.
• Philip Morris is using ISDS right now to try to stop countries like Australia and Uruguay from implementing new rules that are intended to cut smoking rates – because the new laws might eat into the tobacco giant’s profits.

There are no significant differences among Dem candidates on protecting reproductive rights and enacting the DREAM Act. There are significant differences on SocSec, though. O'Malley and Sanders have come out for expanding Social Security and Scrapping the Cap. Clinton said that the latter hurts "the middle class," as defined by her 1%er perspective. Unless she comes out in direct opposition to chained CPI, I'm assuming that it's on the table. She has not endorsed the existing Expand Social Security Act, as Sanders and O'Malley have.

Sancho

(9,067 posts)
58. Hillary is right on the SS issue...
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 01:15 AM
Sep 2015

There are easy tax dodges for wealthy people if the cap on SS is lifted. The tax will end up hurting the middle class and the rich will not pay it anyway.

Sorry, but almost all the items you mention are not what you think. On NAFTA and TPP alone (and I've posted this before). Read the links, but first listen to the Rhem shows.

ttp://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-12-30/nafta-20-years-after-neither-miracle-nor-disaster

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1212/pros-and-cons-of-nafta.aspx

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/u-s-economy-since-nafta-18-charts/

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/nafta-20-years-later-benefits-outweigh-costs/

http://www.ttgconsultants.com/articles/freetrade.html

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-06-16/what-the-proposed-pacific-trade-deal-could-mean-for-u-s-jobs
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-02-03/understanding_the_trans_pacific_partnership_and_what_the_trade_deal_could_mean_for_the_u_s_economy

eridani

(51,907 posts)
59. The 1%ers think NAFTA was great! What a shock!
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 01:22 AM
Sep 2015

The thing about FICA is that you can't dodge it, so spare us the nonsense about how it gives anyone a tax break. What kind of tone-deaf idiot thinks that $110K to $500K is "middle class"?

Clinton is shilling for 1%ers and banksters, and it will be very hard for me to work for her in the general election. Though I'll do it because of the far worse alternative.

Sancho

(9,067 posts)
60. That's simply not true.
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 05:49 AM
Sep 2015

All you have to do to avoid FICA is move income to a "nontaxable" shelter - you can talk to your favorite tax lawyer about that, but I've posted a link already. Since the rich move money offshore they don't even need a shelter in many cases.

Bernie (and you) simply don't understand and I'm not an "idiot" or "tone-deaf". See what I mean by the personal attacks. You are the one who is not looking at the links and you don't seem to understand. The fact is that Bernie has a plan that will not work.

Clinton is NOT shilling. I'll give you the link again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=561850

First, NONE of the Democratic candidates would touch SS, and everyone of them would expand it, strengthen it, and prevent it's privatization at all costs. In that sense they are the same.

Bernie is trying to hawk another of his simplistic economic solutions that he thinks would make a difference to the inequity we've all talked about for a few years. He proposes raising the SS cap on taxable income. NOTE THEY LAST PART: Taxable Income. Even a post on DU this week demonstrated a tax dodge to get around this new law - if it ever passed:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251560231

[the Forbes tax dodge]
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2015/08/30/tax-planning-for-the-risk-of-a-bernie-sanders-win/

Social Security

This proposal is huge in my mind. They would apply the social security tax on incomes over $250,000 The current limit is $118,500. So it seems like there would be a tax-free bubble between $118,500 and $250,000. It’s hard to see the policy justification for the bubble, but that is neither here nor there. This change would cost Sanders main opponent Hillary Clinton well over $1,000,000 in self-employment tax on her self-employment income, mainly from speeches, of over $13,390,499. The current solution, not open to Hillary probably for political reasons, is to do what Newt Gingrich did and run your income through an S Corporation.

If you have thought about converting your business to an S Corporation and passed it by, you should probably think again. There is an immediate savings on the medicare tax, as long as you are not piggy about it and it would pay off big time if this change went through. Certainly if you are running a professional practice as a C corporation and bonusing everything out, you should really take another look. You probably should do that anyway, but here is an extra incentive.


Hillary is well aware of ways to protect SS, and she has mentioned raising the cap as a possible change years ago. She is also aware it's a waste of time without closing loopholes. Hillary has repeatedly states she would protect SS. She also does not want to increase taxes on the middle class. Simply raising the cap would likely affect more middle class families, while the wealthy would simply use a tax dodge to avoid paying the increase. Bernie's plan needs to avoid that regressive problem, and that's the main reason it's not a simple fix. Remember that with inflation, what affects the rich now will be "middle class" in a decade or two. Raising the cap might work in favor of the rich and against the middle class if it's not implemented correctly, so maybe it's not a good idea.

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Social_Security.htm

Privatization off the table; but maybe payroll cap increase

During her 2008 presidential bid, Clinton was relatively non-committal about reforms to the Social Security program. She said in 2007 that certain reforms such as cutting benefits, privatizing the program or raising the retirement age were "off the table." There were some articles at the time that gave mixed signals on whether she would be willing to increase payroll taxes.
One account from the Associated Press featured a conversation between a campaigning Clinton and an Iowa voter in which the candidate said she might consider committing more of workers' income to Social Security. "She told him she didn't want to put an additional tax burden on the middle class but would consider a 'gap,' with no Social Security taxes on income from $97,500 to around $200,000. Anything above that could be taxed," according to the article.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
64. Sorry--I don't belong to a social class that ever has had need for a tax lawyer
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 11:45 PM
Sep 2015

I'm in the 1040EZ class. There are always ways to close loopholes. Clinton would prefer not to raise taxes on her bankster friends. If we could have much higher tax rates in the 50s (to afford stuff like the interstate highway system) we can have it again Your attitude seems to be that the non-rich should just bend over and take it.

Sancho

(9,067 posts)
67. It was one of the Bernie group that posted the Forbes article...
Fri Sep 4, 2015, 06:42 AM
Sep 2015

Bernie's plan allows the rich to avoid SS tax increases. Hillary is the one being careful to say we need to close the loopholes instead of simply raising taxes on the average person, small business, and middle class while the rich continue to pay nothing.

Sorry if you didn't read the article or understand it.

Bernie's plan WON'T WORK! Even though it's just a proposal (probably would never pass Congress), Forbes magazine has ALREADY written an article stating one way to avoid Bernie's SS cap tax!! The wealthy will have no problem getting around it just like they often do.

Hillary is correctly explaining that raising the SS cap will affect family businesses (middle class), and as inflation raising wages (just like the alternative minimum tax, etc.), raising the SS cap will include more and more middle class families. It will become a regressive tax, where the average tax payer loses out and the rich get away again.

I sent you links. Bernie has a number of proposals that are too simple and won't work. If you don't like it, that's fine, but those are the facts. Bernie is wrong on this issue. That's as clear as anyone can make it.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
68. Totally tone-deaf about what constitutes "middle class" No business is a "job creator"
Fri Sep 4, 2015, 07:55 PM
Sep 2015

Job creators are those who have enough disposable income to buy things. Legislation can always be modified to cut off possible consequences at the pass. Clinton doesn't give a shit, because her constituency is people making more than $110K.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
15. We are playing semantics here
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 08:25 AM
Sep 2015

Methodologies differ from poll to poll but most pollsters ask the respondents if they are likely to vote and if the answer is yes they are categorized as likely voters. Consequently if a voter who never voted before or voted regularly he or she would be included as a likely voter, regardless of who he or she is voting for.




Recursion

(56,582 posts)
25. Keep in mind "likely voter" is a calculation each pollster does
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 10:11 PM
Sep 2015

That's pretty much their only real value-add, for that matter, is having a model for who will actually vote.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
63. There is a lot of political information on the news and other media sources.
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 04:50 PM
Sep 2015

What should excite those who do not make the effort to vote is getting more responsive answers from the ones in power. Under current conditions the ones elected can make a judgement everything I just fine with any decision is made so they do not have to make anyone happy but the Republicans who have voted in the majority.

I am sure the GOTV campaigns made enough noise to have been heard, but maybe it hasn't. The Grassroots campaign run by Obama worked hard on getting people out to vote.

What would motivate me to vote every election is knowing if I dont vote the party in favor handling the issues near and dear to me. If I dont vote then I should not bitch because I have not put forth an effort. Everyone wants to ride on the wagon on easy street but does take a turn to push the wagon.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Question about polls--is ...