Probably not fair, but interesting indeed...

[Statistikhengst]

Fox news put out a poll measuring many things, including 2016 presidential matchups, which I will be logging with all the other polls that came in after Tuesday of this week - with next weeks polling-dump thread.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/04/23/fox-news-poll-042315/

In the FOX poll, there are 7 presidential matchups and Hillary is winning all of them. That is not a big surprise, since she has won 281 of the 288 matchups to-date.

But there were also these two important gold-nuggets within the poll. Kind of makes me feel sorry for Jeb Bush:

On the question of leader of the past vs. leader of the future it's Bush 48 leader of the past, 31 leader of the future, making for a -17 margin for "leader of the future". But for Clinton it's 41 leader of the past, 43 leader of the future, making for a +2 margin for "leader of the future". That's a margin difference of 19 points between the two, not to Bush's advantage.

On the question as to whether being related to previous presidents is an advantage or disadvantage, the numbers Bush v. Clinton are close to mirror images of each other. 58% say that it's a DISADVANTAGE for Jeb Bush, while 52% say it's an ADVANTAGE for Hillary Clinton. Advantage margin Bush = -24. Advantage margin Clinton = +13, a 27 point difference.

So, both of them come from families that have had at least one president in the White House in the last soon-to-be 28 years, but Bush is being viewed very differently than Clinton.

Now, this is just one poll (my usual caveat), but I find this information to be especially interesting since it is coming from the FOX poll, which is a very Democrat-unfriendly polling outfit and was notoriously bad in it's polling in 2012, every bit as bad as Rasmussen was, "bad" meaning a verifiable mathematical bias to the RIGHT, not to the LEFT, based on comparing it's 2012 end-polling to the actual results.

So, this means that the Clinton margins in the matchups are probably considerably larger than FOX is reporting.

And as I alluded to in the title, it's kind of unfair to Jeb Bush, but this data is very, very interesting. I think it's also an ominous sign for him and the GOP going into 2016. If 52% of respondents in a FOX survey think that Hillary Clinton's family situation is to her advantage, then you can be guaranteed that in the real, non-Fox world, that statistic is actually far higher.

Discuss. What do you make of those two data points that I highlighted?

 

[g5000]

I think it was Bush, Sr's plan to have Jeb be President, but Dubya jumped the pecking order and then proceeded to destroy the brand.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I think it was Bush, Sr's plan to have Jeb be President, but Dubya jumped the pecking order and then proceeded to destroy the brand.

Quite possibly.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"So, both of them come from families that have had at least one president in the White House in the last soon-to-be 28 years, but Bush is being viewed very differently than Clinton."

Not that either can do anything about it.

 

[Michelle420]

I'm sick of Bush/Clinton.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Looks like Dubya's legacy is still a fairly fresh wound. Good.

I sure would like to see a lack of those two big names on the ballot. Enough already.

.

 

[blackhawk]

At this point in time I don't think it means much of anything it gives cable news something to fill up air time with and us on message boards something to kick around but that's about it.

 

[JoshuaZ]

Thanks. That's very interesting data. At this point, Bush is looking like less and less of a front runner for the Republican nomination, but I'd still assign a pretty high probability, around 40% that he's going to win. If someone wanted to bet on him winning the nomination, I'd probably take it, but only just barely.

And it helps to remember that at about the same time in the runup to the 1992 election, almost no one had even heard of Bill Clinton.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What those questions tell me is that voters have memories of what life was like for themselves under Clinton and at least one of the Bush administrations if not both.

And that is something that they will weigh when it comes to voting in 2016 if either of those two are on the ballot irrespective if the other is opposing them.

 

[Statistikhengst]

"So, both of them come from families that have had at least one president in the White House in the last soon-to-be 28 years, but Bush is being viewed very differently than Clinton."

Not that either can do anything about it.

True.

 

[g5000]

I think if Hillary and Jeb are the two choices on the ballot, we'd probably see the lowest voter turnout for a Presidential election in 200 years.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yawn

Neither one will be the nominee

 

[g5000]

Hmmm...low voter turnouts historically favor the GOP.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I think if Hillary and Jeb are the two choices on the ballot, we'd probably see the lowest voter turnout for a Presidential election in 200 years.

Not so sure about that.

Or, we could see a viable third party candidate.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I think if Hillary and Jeb are the two choices on the ballot, we'd probably see the lowest voter turnout for a Presidential election in 200 years.

The unfortunate part is that is probably how the tickets will end up and yes, a low voter turnout might happen. On the other hand it might be an incentive to vote AGAINST the person you don't want in the oval office.

 

[g5000]

I think if Hillary and Jeb are the two choices on the ballot, we'd probably see the lowest voter turnout for a Presidential election in 200 years.

The unfortunate part is that is probably how the tickets will end up and yes, a low voter turnout might happen. On the other hand it might be an incentive to vote AGAINST the person you don't want in the oval office.

Voting against someone means you have to vote for the other guy. If you vote for the other guy, he thinks you are telling him he is doing something right.

I absolutely refuse to tell either of the two evils they are doing something right.

Sharona Fleming: I never vote. It only encourages them.

 

[g5000]

Bush/Clinton. We could recycle the 1992 ballots!

Just black out Perot's name.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Actually, I am thinking that voter participation is going to go up in 2016. But that's probably stuff for another thread.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Bush/Clinton. We could recycle the 1992 ballots!

Just black out Perot's name.

Lol.....

"giant sucking sound"

 

[Agit8r]

I'd like to see how a generic Democrat fairs against each Republican. My guess is that the results would be similar to Hillary.