2016 GE: Hillary Clinton vs. GOP Field, Part III

[Statistikhengst]

All three of this points are good, solid points and were voiced in a respectful, adult fashion, something I just love, and I thank both of you for it! Bravo, this is the way things are going to be.

At this point I think only the 2014 Senate and House polls have any, if only tenuous, contact with reality. I look forward to such an analysis by you so please PM me when you put on that thread.

[MENTION=21679]william the wie[/MENTION] - I will gladly do that.

My me, the main reason for collecting very early polls is to develop a trend-line over time. I will give Mitt Romney as an example: I collected every GOP nomination poll from the end of 2008 through the end of 2011, 158 polls:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ao6IyAPQ8DmmdFhiaXN5eGRYa0xrQkgtVGhFVnJEaFE&usp=sharing

The early data shows clearly that Romney struggled to get over 23% for almost 3 long years. He stayed in that mode until April of 2012, and then the dominos fell and Romney got the nomination.

Likewise, early national polling from 2011 showed Obama with an average of +4 over Romney nationally and in the key battleground state of Ohio:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: 2012 National Polling update

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: 2012 State Polling update: Alabama through New Hampshire

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: 2012 State Polling update: New Jersey through Wyoming

On election night, Obama won by +4, exactly as the early polling composites were showing all the way along.

In 2008, Survey USA put out two massive 50-state polling maps, one in March, the other in October. the March map looked amazingly predictive of November:

SurveyUSA » Blog Archive » Electoral Math as of 03/06/08: Obama 280, McCain 258

The map is not perfect, but it gets almost everything in the West just right, including NE-02. It missed PA, NJ, NJ, IN and FL, but in the October poll, had them. It also had a hard-on for ND, but a lot of pollsters did in that year, including Rasmussen. That was a little weirdity from 2008 that most do not remember anymore.

My point is that there is a certain value in seeing a long line of early polling. The unbelievably consistent early polling out of Ohio in 2011 was likely the strongest warning sign to the GOP that it was in trouble in 2012.

IF Hillary was going to be the nominee, she would have been 2008. The Lefties rejected her and will again when they look back and get reminded of why they didn't like her then.

Hello, [MENTION=42934]hunarcy[/MENTION]

I must disagree with you and will use a piece of your own party's electoral history to back it up:

In 1976, Gerald R. Ford narrowly beat Ronald Reagan for the nomination. The GOP "rejected" Reagan as well, and yet, four years later, Reagan captured the nomination and beat Jimmy Carter in a +9.74% landslide, the beginning of the Reagan Revolution. It wasn't a matter of people not liking Hillary in 2008, just as it was not a matter of people not liking Reagan in 1976. In both cases, voters had a choice of two excellent candidates who fought a spirited, close race to the nomination.

At this point I think only the 2014 Senate and House polls have any, if only tenuous, contact with reality. I look forward to such an analysis by you so please PM me when you put on that thread.

Much can happen between now and 2016. Obama was not even on the radar for the 2008 election this far out (3 years).

This is true, much can happen.

 

[william the wie]

All three of this points are good, solid points and were voiced in a respectful, adult fashion, something I just love, and I thank both of you for it! Bravo, this is the way things are going to be.

At this point I think only the 2014 Senate and House polls have any, if only tenuous, contact with reality. I look forward to such an analysis by you so please PM me when you put on that thread.

[MENTION=21679]william the wie[/MENTION] - I will gladly do that.

My me, the main reason for collecting very early polls is to develop a trend-line over time. I will give Mitt Romney as an example: I collected every GOP nomination poll from the end of 2008 through the end of 2011, 158 polls:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ao6IyAPQ8DmmdFhiaXN5eGRYa0xrQkgtVGhFVnJEaFE&usp=sharing

The early data shows clearly that Romney struggled to get over 23% for almost 3 long years. He stayed in that mode until April of 2012, and then the dominos fell and Romney got the nomination.

Likewise, early national polling from 2011 showed Obama with an average of +4 over Romney nationally and in the key battleground state of Ohio:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: 2012 National Polling update

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: 2012 State Polling update: Alabama through New Hampshire

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: 2012 State Polling update: New Jersey through Wyoming

On election night, Obama won by +4, exactly as the early polling composites were showing all the way along.

In 2008, Survey USA put out two massive 50-state polling maps, one in March, the other in October. the March map looked amazingly predictive of November:

SurveyUSA » Blog Archive » Electoral Math as of 03/06/08: Obama 280, McCain 258

The map is not perfect, but it gets almost everything in the West just right, including NE-02. It missed PA, NJ, NJ, IN and FL, but in the October poll, had them. It also had a hard-on for ND, but a lot of pollsters did in that year, including Rasmussen. That was a little weirdity from 2008 that most do not remember anymore.

My point is that there is a certain value in seeing a long line of early polling. The unbelievably consistent early polling out of Ohio in 2011 was likely the strongest warning sign to the GOP that it was in trouble in 2012.

IF Hillary was going to be the nominee, she would have been 2008. The Lefties rejected her and will again when they look back and get reminded of why they didn't like her then.

Hello, [MENTION=42934]hunarcy[/MENTION]

I must disagree with you and will use a piece of your own party's electoral history to back it up:

In 1976, Gerald R. Ford narrowly beat Ronald Reagan for the nomination. The GOP "rejected" Reagan as well, and yet, four years later, Reagan captured the nomination and beat Jimmy Carter in a +9.74% landslide, the beginning of the Reagan Revolution. It wasn't a matter of people not liking Hillary in 2008, just as it was not a matter of people not liking Reagan in 1976. In both cases, voters had a choice of two excellent candidates who fought a spirited, close race to the nomination.

At this point I think only the 2014 Senate and House polls have any, if only tenuous, contact with reality. I look forward to such an analysis by you so please PM me when you put on that thread.

Much can happen between now and 2016. Obama was not even on the radar for the 2008 election this far out (3 years).

This is true, much can happen.

I may disagree with you but based on economic stats, not political.

For example, the first year of the next president is likely to be a kitchen sink year of epic proportions based on both the census cycle and presidential cycle.

In 2007 all the political operatives will be prepping for the perfect gerrymander in each and every state which also requires going to every county commission @2,500 to negotiate about locations of polling places in 2007-8 so the desired result will be seen in 2009-10. Since this will be funded by corporations who want to minimize their future bribery and campaign expenses it also means that stock prices and real investment needs will get less attention.

Also in 2007 a pack of nubes will be grabbing the levers of power in DC while trying to find out where the canteen and potty are. That usually creates epic economic uncertainty.

In the case of Hillary I think the trajectory of bond ratings in Blue states vs. Red states plus the movement of banking operations from NYC to Salt Lake City precludes her from winning in 2017. If New York City loses any more banking jobs to Utah and NC she won't be able to get any political capital from her New York connections. Her hometown of Chicago is three steps from junk status as is the state of Illinois. Arkansas doesn't play well either.

So, even if Obamacare arises and walks it certainly won't overcome the growing story of Blue state insolvency. (IL has to watch toilet tissue budgets because it hasn't had vendor credit in years.) I don't see a blue Christmas in 2016. Of course a forced slash and burn budget will not be real popular either no matter who wins to be scapegoat in chief for 2017.

 

[Statistikhengst]

All three of this points are good, solid points and were voiced in a respectful, adult fashion, something I just love, and I thank both of you for it! Bravo, this is the way things are going to be.

At this point I think only the 2014 Senate and House polls have any, if only tenuous, contact with reality. I look forward to such an analysis by you so please PM me when you put on that thread.

[MENTION=21679]william the wie[/MENTION] - I will gladly do that.

My me, the main reason for collecting very early polls is to develop a trend-line over time. I will give Mitt Romney as an example: I collected every GOP nomination poll from the end of 2008 through the end of 2011, 158 polls:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ao6IyAPQ8DmmdFhiaXN5eGRYa0xrQkgtVGhFVnJEaFE&usp=sharing

The early data shows clearly that Romney struggled to get over 23% for almost 3 long years. He stayed in that mode until April of 2012, and then the dominos fell and Romney got the nomination.

Likewise, early national polling from 2011 showed Obama with an average of +4 over Romney nationally and in the key battleground state of Ohio:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: 2012 National Polling update

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: 2012 State Polling update: Alabama through New Hampshire

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: 2012 State Polling update: New Jersey through Wyoming

On election night, Obama won by +4, exactly as the early polling composites were showing all the way along.

In 2008, Survey USA put out two massive 50-state polling maps, one in March, the other in October. the March map looked amazingly predictive of November:

SurveyUSA » Blog Archive » Electoral Math as of 03/06/08: Obama 280, McCain 258

The map is not perfect, but it gets almost everything in the West just right, including NE-02. It missed PA, NJ, NJ, IN and FL, but in the October poll, had them. It also had a hard-on for ND, but a lot of pollsters did in that year, including Rasmussen. That was a little weirdity from 2008 that most do not remember anymore.

My point is that there is a certain value in seeing a long line of early polling. The unbelievably consistent early polling out of Ohio in 2011 was likely the strongest warning sign to the GOP that it was in trouble in 2012.



Hello, [MENTION=42934]hunarcy[/MENTION]

I must disagree with you and will use a piece of your own party's electoral history to back it up:

In 1976, Gerald R. Ford narrowly beat Ronald Reagan for the nomination. The GOP "rejected" Reagan as well, and yet, four years later, Reagan captured the nomination and beat Jimmy Carter in a +9.74% landslide, the beginning of the Reagan Revolution. It wasn't a matter of people not liking Hillary in 2008, just as it was not a matter of people not liking Reagan in 1976. In both cases, voters had a choice of two excellent candidates who fought a spirited, close race to the nomination.

Much can happen between now and 2016. Obama was not even on the radar for the 2008 election this far out (3 years).

This is true, much can happen.

I may disagree with you but based on economic stats, not political.

For example, the first year of the next president is likely to be a kitchen sink year of epic proportions based on both the census cycle and presidential cycle.

In 2007 all the political operatives will be prepping for the perfect gerrymander in each and every state which also requires going to every county commission @2,500 to negotiate about locations of polling places in 2007-8 so the desired result will be seen in 2009-10. Since this will be funded by corporations who want to minimize their future bribery and campaign expenses it also means that stock prices and real investment needs will get less attention.

Also in 2007 a pack of nubes will be grabbing the levers of power in DC while trying to find out where the canteen and potty are. That usually creates epic economic uncertainty.

In the case of Hillary I think the trajectory of bond ratings in Blue states vs. Red states plus the movement of banking operations from NYC to Salt Lake City precludes her from winning in 2017. If New York City loses any more banking jobs to Utah and NC she won't be able to get any political capital from her New York connections. Her hometown of Chicago is three steps from junk status as is the state of Illinois. Arkansas doesn't play well either.

So, even if Obamacare arises and walks it certainly won't overcome the growing story of Blue state insolvency. (IL has to watch toilet tissue budgets because it hasn't had vendor credit in years.) I don't see a blue Christmas in 2016. Of course a forced slash and burn budget will not be real popular either no matter who wins to be scapegoat in chief for 2017.

Interesting information. I think you mean 2017 and not 2007 in the first couple of paragraphs. Is that correct?

Nice to hear from you and thanks for both the respectful and information nature of your writing.

 

[william the wie]

yeah, that was an oops

 

[Statistikhengst]

yeah, that was an oops

Dude, it happens, no biggie. I was understanding you. Cool, that.

 

[HenryBHough]

Pocahontas will be the Democrat nominee - or die trying.

If Cankles decides she wants the nod then the probability of the latter exceeds that of the former.

Ask Vince Foster!

 

[TooTall]

A thread with the name "Clinton" in it is all you need....

...and then they come out like moths to the light.

Your last poll was too soon to capture the growing damage since Obama's "mea culpa" speech so I am waiting to see what the trendlines will be. Nice analysis but out of date.

As up to date as it can be. Was published on 15 Nov, since then, only two state polls have come in, no national polls. But thank you for the kind words.

We presently have the disaster called Obamacare and when Hillary runs her failed record on Hillarycare will be a campaign issue.

 

[william the wie]

The key unanswered question about 2014, 2016 and other later elections is how things unrelated to domestic politics and unintended consequences are attributed to politics or not.

Unintended consequences are a biggie. For example the stated goal of ACA of reducing medical costs also means that its stated goal is to reduce GDP by that cut times 0.16. Did Pelosi, Reid and Obama realize that they were trying to reduce GDP by roughly 9.6% 2013-2016 when they passed this bill?

Or did they misunderstand the consequences of the famous McKinsey report predicting US productivity intercepting Chinese wages in 2015 and think that would save them? That would be an even bigger boo-boo.

Chinese GDP taking a hit from production moving back to the does not translate into US GDP going up by a similar amount.

The Chinese real estate bubble is growing by roughly a German GDP each year with cumulative mis and mal investment of 50-100 trillion US dollars.

That Democratic party leadership thought(?) that popping a bubble 2-4 times the size of the 1993-2006 real estate bubble in the US and reducing Chinese GDP by 6 trillion dollars a year would improve US GDP is a bigger real concern than if they simply thought that -2.4% GDP 2013-16 was a good idea.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Pocahontas will be the Democrat nominee - or die trying.

If Cankles decides she wants the nod then the probability of the latter exceeds that of the former.

Ask Vince Foster!

You have a very interesting, and actually, very attractive avatar. I sense that you are an intelligent person.

Why, then, do you feel the need to stoop to names like "Pocahantas" (for Elizabeth Warren, I assume) or "Cankles" for former First Lady, former Senator and former SOS Hillary Clinton? Do you really think that strengthens any argument you will want to make?

There is not even the slightest hint of a whiff of a sniff of an indication that Elizabeth Warren is even remotely interested in a presidential run. Just to be crystal clear.

Now, was there anything FACTUAL from the OP that you would like to discuss, or should I just assume that Righties here is USMB are incapable of discussing facts and/or data? Hmmmm???

 

[william the wie]

Pocahontas will be the Democrat nominee - or die trying.

If Cankles decides she wants the nod then the probability of the latter exceeds that of the former.

Ask Vince Foster!

You have a very interesting, and actually, very attractive avatar. I sense that you are an intelligent person.

Why, then, do you feel the need to stoop to names like "Pocahantas" (for Elizabeth Warren, I assume) or "Cankles" for former First Lady, former Senator and former SOS Hillary Clinton? Do you really think that strengthens any argument you will want to make?

There is not even the slightest hint of a whiff of a sniff of an indication that Elizabeth Warren is even remotely interested in a presidential run. Just to be crystal clear.

Now, was there anything FACTUAL from the OP that you would like to discuss, or should I just assume that Righties here is USMB are incapable of discussing facts and/or data? Hmmmm???

Actually Elizabeth Warren almost certainly will poll better in D primaries than Hillary. Both Clintons and Obama are regularly attacked as DINOs by liberal activists. That is despite known youthful flirtations with communism in all three cases. Go figure.

Warren effectively has zero probability of winning the GE and Hillary currently looks like a shoe-in to win the GE. But someone has been leaking purportedly credible information that Warren could win the nomination. And not just here but even more so on more leftwing boards and news sites I check the Ds are all excited about getting rid of "Right of Center" and winning with a true Democrat like Warren.

 

[hunarcy]

Pocahontas will be the Democrat nominee - or die trying.

If Cankles decides she wants the nod then the probability of the latter exceeds that of the former.

Ask Vince Foster!

You have a very interesting, and actually, very attractive avatar. I sense that you are an intelligent person.

Why, then, do you feel the need to stoop to names like "Pocahantas" (for Elizabeth Warren, I assume) or "Cankles" for former First Lady, former Senator and former SOS Hillary Clinton? Do you really think that strengthens any argument you will want to make?

There is not even the slightest hint of a whiff of a sniff of an indication that Elizabeth Warren is even remotely interested in a presidential run. Just to be crystal clear.

Now, was there anything FACTUAL from the OP that you would like to discuss, or should I just assume that Righties here is USMB are incapable of discussing facts and/or data? Hmmmm???

Actually Elizabeth Warren almost certainly will poll better in D primaries than Hillary. Both Clintons and Obama are regularly attacked as DINOs by liberal activists. That is despite known youthful flirtations with communism in all three cases. Go figure.

Warren effectively has zero probability of winning the GE and Hillary currently looks like a shoe-in to win the GE. But someone has been leaking purportedly credible information that Warren could win the nomination. And not just here but even more so on more leftwing boards and news sites I check the Ds are all excited about getting rid of "Right of Center" and winning with a true Democrat like Warren.

Opinion: Why Democrats might reject Hillary Clinton in 2016 - Keith Koffler - POLITICO.com

 

[Jackson]

Pocahontas will be the Democrat nominee - or die trying.

If Cankles decides she wants the nod then the probability of the latter exceeds that of the former.

Ask Vince Foster!

That would be difficult.

 

[HenryBHough]

Pocahontas will be the Democrat nominee - or die trying.

If Cankles decides she wants the nod then the probability of the latter exceeds that of the former.

Ask Vince Foster!

That would be difficult.

Unless you wait for him to exit the polling place. Then, EASY.

 

[BobPlumb]

Do we really want HC taking that 3 am phone call?

 

[Jackson]

Do we really want HC taking that 3 am phone call?

Hell NO! Let's give those in trouble a chance to live!

 

[Statistikhengst]

Pocahontas will be the Democrat nominee - or die trying.

If Cankles decides she wants the nod then the probability of the latter exceeds that of the former.

Ask Vince Foster!

You have a very interesting, and actually, very attractive avatar. I sense that you are an intelligent person.

Why, then, do you feel the need to stoop to names like "Pocahantas" (for Elizabeth Warren, I assume) or "Cankles" for former First Lady, former Senator and former SOS Hillary Clinton? Do you really think that strengthens any argument you will want to make?

There is not even the slightest hint of a whiff of a sniff of an indication that Elizabeth Warren is even remotely interested in a presidential run. Just to be crystal clear.

Now, was there anything FACTUAL from the OP that you would like to discuss, or should I just assume that Righties here is USMB are incapable of discussing facts and/or data? Hmmmm???

Actually Elizabeth Warren almost certainly will poll better in D primaries than Hillary. Both Clintons and Obama are regularly attacked as DINOs by liberal activists. That is despite known youthful flirtations with communism in all three cases. Go figure.

Warren effectively has zero probability of winning the GE and Hillary currently looks like a shoe-in to win the GE. But someone has been leaking purportedly credible information that Warren could win the nomination. And not just here but even more so on more leftwing boards and news sites I check the Ds are all excited about getting rid of "Right of Center" and winning with a true Democrat like Warren.

I see no sign at all that Warren is going to run. It is Hillary for 2016.

 

[Statistikhengst]

You have a very interesting, and actually, very attractive avatar. I sense that you are an intelligent person.

Why, then, do you feel the need to stoop to names like "Pocahantas" (for Elizabeth Warren, I assume) or "Cankles" for former First Lady, former Senator and former SOS Hillary Clinton? Do you really think that strengthens any argument you will want to make?

There is not even the slightest hint of a whiff of a sniff of an indication that Elizabeth Warren is even remotely interested in a presidential run. Just to be crystal clear.

Now, was there anything FACTUAL from the OP that you would like to discuss, or should I just assume that Righties here is USMB are incapable of discussing facts and/or data? Hmmmm???

Actually Elizabeth Warren almost certainly will poll better in D primaries than Hillary. Both Clintons and Obama are regularly attacked as DINOs by liberal activists. That is despite known youthful flirtations with communism in all three cases. Go figure.

Warren effectively has zero probability of winning the GE and Hillary currently looks like a shoe-in to win the GE. But someone has been leaking purportedly credible information that Warren could win the nomination. And not just here but even more so on more leftwing boards and news sites I check the Ds are all excited about getting rid of "Right of Center" and winning with a true Democrat like Warren.

Opinion: Why Democrats might reject Hillary Clinton in 2016 - Keith Koffler - POLITICO.com

Oh, you mean this Keith Koffler:

The Tea Party is Both Sensible and Victorious | The Blog on Obama: White House Dossier


http://mediamatters.org/tags/keith-koffler


Haaa! Good one...

 

[JoeB131]

I think Ben Ghazi should run against her.

I would not be surprised if she goes on to win the presidential election in 2016. Now that a black has been elected, the media will really be pushing for a woman to be president. The media will not turn on HC again like they did in 2008.

First, thanks for stopping by, [MENTION=44536]BobPlumb[/MENTION]!

I don't agree with your assessment that the media was somehow against Hillary in 2008. It was a tight numbers game, Obama ran a better end-game in the caucus states, but that nomination race was not over until the South Dakota primary in early June of 2008!

If you go to my electoral statistics vault here:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond

And go to the Archive for 2008 and go through the months of January through June, you will see detailed analyses of how close this race for the DEM nomination was. It will go down in history as one of two most monumental nomination battles, next to Ford/Reagan 1976.

I think the problem with Plumb's assertation is that the media has more influence than it really has.

There are several reasons why Hillary lost the nomination in 2008.

The first, as Stat says, is that she really didn't have a gameplan for after Super Tuesday, where she thought she'd have it wrapped up. But the way that the Dems allocated delegates, Obama got more delegates even though Hillary won more primaries and garnered more votes.

The second was that a lot of rank and file Democrats looked at the non-stop scandal mongering and hate and figured, putting another Clinton in office would be like waiving a red flag in front of a bull. They just didn't want the drama with the GOP again. But Obama got elected and the GOP went even nuttier than they were with Clinton.

The third reason was that a lot of the Democratic Rank and File NEVER forgave Hillary for her vote for the Iraq War, which was the big issue. Obama served himself well by coming out against the war early, and being proven right when the rest of the country figured out it was a terrible idea.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hillary: Not getting the Dem Nomination

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Said it before, I will book all the Hillary 2016 bets you want to make here

She's not getting the nomination