Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
AOC update from Quinnipiac University poll
RaceBannon
Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 113,883 
in Tug Tavern
Comments
-
And people wonder why democrats want to lower the voting age...
-
No one wonders that.greenblood said:And people wonder why democrats want to lower the voting age...
-
She needs to get the editing finished on her sex tape so The Throbber can move into the somewhat favorable column.
Without that, she's just a loud mouth.
-
I doBennyBeaver said:
No one wonders that.greenblood said:And people wonder why democrats want to lower the voting age...
-
Imagine being scared of a little brown girl.
-
Sounds like people without degrees are smarter than those with them.
Also looks like she could win a Democratic nomination (if it wasn't rigged against her) and then get trounced by Trump. -
She's too young to run. Not surprised you don't know that.PurpleJ said:Sounds like people without degrees are smarter than those with them.
Also looks like she could win a Democratic nomination (if it wasn't rigged against her) and then get trounced by Trump.
That being said, why do you think Democrats and Independents are almost twice as likely to never have heard of her? -
Because they're poorly informed dipshits like you?2001400ex said:
She's too young to run. Not surprised you don't know that.PurpleJ said:Sounds like people without degrees are smarter than those with them.
Also looks like she could win a Democratic nomination (if it wasn't rigged against her) and then get trounced by Trump.
That being said, why do you think Democrats and Independents are almost twice as likely to never have heard of her? -
Beat me to itSFGbob said:
Because they're poorly informed dipshits like you?2001400ex said:
She's too young to run. Not surprised you don't know that.PurpleJ said:Sounds like people without degrees are smarter than those with them.
Also looks like she could win a Democratic nomination (if it wasn't rigged against her) and then get trounced by Trump.
That being said, why do you think Democrats and Independents are almost twice as likely to never have heard of her?
Older conservative males are smarter -
Jokes write themselves with Hondo.RaceBannon said:
Beat me to itSFGbob said:
Because they're poorly informed dipshits like you?2001400ex said:
She's too young to run. Not surprised you don't know that.PurpleJ said:Sounds like people without degrees are smarter than those with them.
Also looks like she could win a Democratic nomination (if it wasn't rigged against her) and then get trounced by Trump.
That being said, why do you think Democrats and Independents are almost twice as likely to never have heard of her?
Older conservative males are smarter -
Humor understood and noted. That said, I feel like "scared" isn't the right word for her. It's more so a curiosity as to why she's such a rising star. Young voters in this country are motivated by the stupidest shit.MikeDamone said:Imagine being scared of a little brown girl.
-
2001400ex said:
She's too young to run. Not surprised you don't know that.PurpleJ said:Sounds like people without degrees are smarter than those with them.
Also looks like she could win a Democratic nomination (if it wasn't rigged against her) and then get trounced by Trump.
That being said, why do you think Democrats and Independents are almost twice as likely to never have heard of her?
J is talking about AOC getting her ass kicked by IVANKA Trump in 2028.
*too lazy too look whether AOC will be 40 in 2028. -
Even staying away for a little while puts you at risk for inside jokesYellowSnow said:
Humor understood and noted. That said, I feel like "scared" isn't the right word for her. It's more so a curiosity as to why she's such a rising star. Young voters in this country are motivated by the stupidest shit.MikeDamone said:Imagine being scared of a little brown girl.
Hondo like to think that when we discuss someone who embarrasses him because of their ideas we are scared of that person
Of course its ridiculous. Its hondo -
IronicSFGbob said:
Because they're poorly informed dipshits like you?2001400ex said:
She's too young to run. Not surprised you don't know that.PurpleJ said:Sounds like people without degrees are smarter than those with them.
Also looks like she could win a Democratic nomination (if it wasn't rigged against her) and then get trounced by Trump.
That being said, why do you think Democrats and Independents are almost twice as likely to never have heard of her? -
Yeah, I see what you mean.2001400ex said:
IronicSFGbob said:
Because they're poorly informed dipshits like you?2001400ex said:
She's too young to run. Not surprised you don't know that.PurpleJ said:Sounds like people without degrees are smarter than those with them.
Also looks like she could win a Democratic nomination (if it wasn't rigged against her) and then get trounced by Trump.
That being said, why do you think Democrats and Independents are almost twice as likely to never have heard of her?
And it's a documented fact that Trump's team met with a Russian team to discuss giving DNC emails and Hillary emails to Trump. -
AOC is a disaster for the dems. It's hilarious.
She's become the shining star to the super progressives and everyone else is embarrassed of her. -
-
Favorable/unfavorable among dems is 47 to 7. What a disaster.
Her numbers in that poll are very good, if you can’t see that it’s because you don’t know how to read polls. -
According to hondo Democrats haven't heard of her
Depends on how the 44% breaks
Very good is a stretch
They aren't horrible -
We can have different interpretations of these numbers, it’s really messy when the proportion of people that don’t know who she is so large. But for me, the fact that you’re willing to concede that they aren’t horrible just reaffirms my position that they’re actually very good.RaceBannon said:According to hondo Democrats haven't heard of her
Depends on how the 44% breaks
Very good is a stretch
They aren't horrible
It’s pretty clear how the 44% is going to break. The people least likely to have heard her are women, young people, blacks and Hispanics. Those are the people most likely to give her a favorable rating.
I also think the independent numbers are misleading. There was a poll a few weeks ago with similar numbers but it had a political leaning numbers for liberal, moderate and conservative and she did better with moderate there. It wasn’t amazing, iirc it was 30% favorable and 36% unfavorable, but an ok number. I think that’s the middle ground voter you want to find. My hunch is libertarians are fucking up the polling numbers for “independents”. -
She's going to have to veer more centrist in the debates or that monumental exposure will destroy her ratingsallpurpleallgold said:
We can have different interpretations of these numbers, it’s really messy when the proportion of people that don’t know who she is so large. But for me, the fact that you’re willing to concede that they aren’t horrible just reaffirms my position that they’re actually very good.RaceBannon said:According to hondo Democrats haven't heard of her
Depends on how the 44% breaks
Very good is a stretch
They aren't horrible
It’s pretty clear how the 44% is going to break. The people least likely to have heard her are women, young people, blacks and Hispanics. Those are the people most likely to give her a favorable rating.
I also think the independent numbers are misleading. There was a poll a few weeks ago with similar numbers but it had a political leaning numbers for liberal, moderate and conservative and she did better with moderate there. It wasn’t amazing, iirc it was 30% favorable and 36% unfavorable, but an ok number. I think that’s the middle ground voter you want to find. My hunch is libertarians are fucking up the polling numbers for “independents”. -
I literally just said her numbers with moderates aren’t bad. I think there is a specific type of “centrist” that doesn’t like her and makes a lot of noise but I’m not convinced that voting block is relevant. Howard Schultz thought he’d be president running against her as a centrist and hows that going?DerekJohnson said:
She's going to have to veer more centrist in the debates or that monumental exposure will destroy her ratingsallpurpleallgold said:
We can have different interpretations of these numbers, it’s really messy when the proportion of people that don’t know who she is so large. But for me, the fact that you’re willing to concede that they aren’t horrible just reaffirms my position that they’re actually very good.RaceBannon said:According to hondo Democrats haven't heard of her
Depends on how the 44% breaks
Very good is a stretch
They aren't horrible
It’s pretty clear how the 44% is going to break. The people least likely to have heard her are women, young people, blacks and Hispanics. Those are the people most likely to give her a favorable rating.
I also think the independent numbers are misleading. There was a poll a few weeks ago with similar numbers but it had a political leaning numbers for liberal, moderate and conservative and she did better with moderate there. It wasn’t amazing, iirc it was 30% favorable and 36% unfavorable, but an ok number. I think that’s the middle ground voter you want to find. My hunch is libertarians are fucking up the polling numbers for “independents”. -
When it comes to AOC, you get very defensive over a simple opinionallpurpleallgold said:
I literally just said her numbers with moderates aren’t bad. I think there is a specific type of “centrist” that doesn’t like her and makes a lot of noise but I’m not convinced that voting block is relevant. Howard Schultz thought he’d be president running against her as a centrist and hows that going?DerekJohnson said:
She's going to have to veer more centrist in the debates or that monumental exposure will destroy her ratingsallpurpleallgold said:
We can have different interpretations of these numbers, it’s really messy when the proportion of people that don’t know who she is so large. But for me, the fact that you’re willing to concede that they aren’t horrible just reaffirms my position that they’re actually very good.RaceBannon said:According to hondo Democrats haven't heard of her
Depends on how the 44% breaks
Very good is a stretch
They aren't horrible
It’s pretty clear how the 44% is going to break. The people least likely to have heard her are women, young people, blacks and Hispanics. Those are the people most likely to give her a favorable rating.
I also think the independent numbers are misleading. There was a poll a few weeks ago with similar numbers but it had a political leaning numbers for liberal, moderate and conservative and she did better with moderate there. It wasn’t amazing, iirc it was 30% favorable and 36% unfavorable, but an ok number. I think that’s the middle ground voter you want to find. My hunch is libertarians are fucking up the polling numbers for “independents”.
refer back to my post later on if you want and we'll see if I was right -
According to your poll, 44% of Democrats don't know who she is. Idiot.RaceBannon said:According to hondo Democrats haven't heard of her
Depends on how the 44% breaks
Very good is a stretch
They aren't horrible
And you know exactly why more Republicans know who she is..... Cause their news source is afraid of her and trying their best to tear her down. -
Why so angry?2001400ex said:
According to your poll, 44% of Democrats don't know who she is. Idiot.RaceBannon said:According to hondo Democrats haven't heard of her
Depends on how the 44% breaks
Very good is a stretch
They aren't horrible
And you know exactly why more Republicans know who she is..... Cause their news source is afraid of her and trying their best to tear her down.
Take it up with @allpurpleallgold -
Angry? You read people about as well as you read for comprehension.RaceBannon said:
Why so angry?2001400ex said:
According to your poll, 44% of Democrats don't know who she is. Idiot.RaceBannon said:According to hondo Democrats haven't heard of her
Depends on how the 44% breaks
Very good is a stretch
They aren't horrible
And you know exactly why more Republicans know who she is..... Cause their news source is afraid of her and trying their best to tear her down.
Take it up with @allpurpleallgold -
Calm down. No need to get upset2001400ex said:
Angry? You read people about as well as you read for comprehension.RaceBannon said:
Why so angry?2001400ex said:
According to your poll, 44% of Democrats don't know who she is. Idiot.RaceBannon said:According to hondo Democrats haven't heard of her
Depends on how the 44% breaks
Very good is a stretch
They aren't horrible
And you know exactly why more Republicans know who she is..... Cause their news source is afraid of her and trying their best to tear her down.
Take it up with @allpurpleallgold -
Agree with this. The country is full of well-informed moderate liberal Democrats who know she is the embodiment of Clinton's focus on transgender bathrooms. It's a loser. She's passionate, yes. She's forward-thinking, yes. She's progressive, yes. Hell, is she possibly ahead of her time? Yes. All of that is good for academic discussion. But her policies are too radical and too unrealistic and she's going to scare people away. Mark that down. Just like Hillary did pandering to the left edge of her constituency group .... trying to be too many things to too many people.Pitchfork51 said:AOC is a disaster for the dems. It's hilarious.
She's become the shining star to the super progressives and everyone else is embarrassed of her.
The thing about Hillary is that people have it all wrong about her. There is nothing unqualified about Hillary. She just made a error in campaign calculation. She should not have played to the AOC wing of the party. There really aren't enough of them IMO, and I'm convinced they don't vote as big as they talk.
The harder call for Hillary was gay marriage. That alienates a lot of people in the middle and on the right; but as a liberal turning your back on the gay community on their most important issue is quite risky. There are a lot of gay people, and they do fucking vote. -
That's exactly all why the right keeps bringing her up. They are trying to use her platform to broadbrush all Democrats.creepycoug said:
Agree with this. The country is full of well-informed moderate liberal Democrats who know she is the embodiment of Clinton's focus on transgender bathrooms. It's a loser. She's passionate, yes. She's forward-thinking, yes. She's progressive, yes. Hell, is she possibly ahead of her time? Yes. All of that is good for academic discussion. But her policies are too radical and too unrealistic and she's going to scare people away. Mark that down. Just like Hillary did pandering to the left edge of her constituency group .... trying to be too many things to too many people.Pitchfork51 said:AOC is a disaster for the dems. It's hilarious.
She's become the shining star to the super progressives and everyone else is embarrassed of her.
The thing about Hillary is that people have it all wrong about her. There is nothing unqualified about Hillary. She just made a error in campaign calculation. She should not have played to the AOC wing of the party. There really aren't enough of them IMO, and I'm convinced they don't vote as big as they talk.
The harder call for Hillary was gay marriage. That alienates a lot of people in the middle and on the right; but as a liberal turning your back on the gay community on their most important issue is quite risky. There are a lot of gay people, and they do fucking vote. -
Way to state the obvious Hondbag. Politicians and politics love, almost need, a polarizing foe or issue to campaign against. AOC is a somewhat unusual case in that she's young, pretty, and minority. Everything else fits perfectly, and the aberrations help capture more attention.2001400ex said:
That's exactly all why the right keeps bringing her up. They are trying to use her platform to broadbrush all Democrats.creepycoug said:
Agree with this. The country is full of well-informed moderate liberal Democrats who know she is the embodiment of Clinton's focus on transgender bathrooms. It's a loser. She's passionate, yes. She's forward-thinking, yes. She's progressive, yes. Hell, is she possibly ahead of her time? Yes. All of that is good for academic discussion. But her policies are too radical and too unrealistic and she's going to scare people away. Mark that down. Just like Hillary did pandering to the left edge of her constituency group .... trying to be too many things to too many people.Pitchfork51 said:AOC is a disaster for the dems. It's hilarious.
She's become the shining star to the super progressives and everyone else is embarrassed of her.
The thing about Hillary is that people have it all wrong about her. There is nothing unqualified about Hillary. She just made a error in campaign calculation. She should not have played to the AOC wing of the party. There really aren't enough of them IMO, and I'm convinced they don't vote as big as they talk.
The harder call for Hillary was gay marriage. That alienates a lot of people in the middle and on the right; but as a liberal turning your back on the gay community on their most important issue is quite risky. There are a lot of gay people, and they do fucking vote.
