>This isn't even logic - it's just pollster math.

then why would you provide poll results as 'objective data'? clue me in cuz im genuinely confused.

imagine basing medical research and development entirely on questionnaires on what doctors want to happen or think would happen in the near future.

the most objective data is actual results. which i keep stating but for some reason yall are trying to overrule it with wishes and theories.



>again - you're speaking as if the electorate math in a primary
>mirrors the electorate in a general, but it doesn't. Do you
>honestly think that Sanders would've gotten swept in the rust
>belt?

you and concretecharlie continue to base your entire outlook on 'i think...'. im basing mine on 'what happened...'.

nothing is guaranteed. but the best predictor of the future is the past (which is why we teach history and store data). and the best predictor of general election behavior is primary election behavior (which is why campaigns heavily target likely primary voters for their general election campaigns).

and theres a big difference between variance from a low turnout district primary to the general...and a national general election following a robust nationwide primary carried out over several demographically diverse states with millions of people.

in fact. do me a favor. name me any other *presidential* election in modern history where the stronger (allegedly) general election candidate lost in the primary (by over 10% at that lol).

cuz its honestly a phenomenon ive never heard of until 2016.

is it possible that youre overlooking consistently defined behavior...and retrofitting logic/common sense...just to appease your favoritism? give some serious thought to that question.



>It's correct to note that Clinton had stronger support in the
>Democratic primary electorate (though Sanders certainly tested
>that in a way that nobody thought he could could) - but the
>electorate in a General election features markedly different
>voting trends/behavior. The aforementioned polls (again, not
>my opinion) reflected that.

but the general electorate doesnt feature markedly different voting trends/behavior. maybe slightly different to marginally/nominally different. but not 'completely upending' entire history and conventional wisdom' different.

in fact...when you look at trumps victory strictly through the prism of historical trends and traditional/orthodox rules of thumb...it was completely predictable. running against 3rd term party incumbent, running against candidate relatively unpopular with her own party, etc.

it was a strong case of historical voter behavior patterns overshadowing the specifics.


>I'm not supporting Sanders in this primary (he's not my first
>choice, though I would gladly get behind him if he emerges as
>the favorite), but it's funny that you are talking about
>"folklore" when I just gave you polling facts.
>
>But I'd like to check out some data to support your claim if
>you'd like to share.


'polling facts'? did you really just say that? lol.

what claim do you want me to support with data? the results of the 2016 primary? you dont believe anything i said happened...happened?