Surprising Rasmussen poll, 2016: Hillary vs. GOP field

[Zander]

I'm not the exception, Zander. I was trying to explain her popularity in the 2008 primaries but you just blew all that off.

Hillary may be popular, but she wasn't popular enough to win in 2008. it doesn't matter how close she came, or how many votes she garnered. She lost the nomination to a Jr Senator with ZERO experience who spoke in metaphors....

I predict she'll lose the 2016 nomination again. (if she even runs)

Sure, well, that's your opinion. It really doesn't matter anymore than mine would if we were discussing your guys. You are in the minority taking that stance.

Many have left this board in shame after making silly predictions like that.

No worries Sarah. I made my fortune being "in the minority"......

Besides, Hillary 2016 is just a silly distraction. We have an important election in just a few months. Democrats do not want to talk about that though.... why is that?

PS- Why would I or anyone else be ashamed at making a prediction? You've made a prediction yourself, right in this thread!

 

[Sarah G]

Hillary may be popular, but she wasn't popular enough to win in 2008. it doesn't matter how close she came, or how many votes she garnered. She lost the nomination to a Jr Senator with ZERO experience who spoke in metaphors....

I predict she'll lose the 2016 nomination again. (if she even runs)

Sure, well, that's your opinion. It really doesn't matter anymore than mine would if we were discussing your guys. You are in the minority taking that stance.

Many have left this board in shame after making silly predictions like that.

No worries Sarah. I made my fortune being "in the minority"......

Besides, Hillary 2016 is just a silly distraction. We have an important election in just a few months. Democrats do not want to talk about that though.... why is that?

PS- Why would I or anyone else be ashamed at making a prediction? You've made a prediction yourself, right in this thread!

Mine will happen, yours won't.

 

[Zander]

Sure, well, that's your opinion. It really doesn't matter anymore than mine would if we were discussing your guys. You are in the minority taking that stance.

Many have left this board in shame after making silly predictions like that.

No worries Sarah. I made my fortune being "in the minority"......

Besides, Hillary 2016 is just a silly distraction. We have an important election in just a few months. Democrats do not want to talk about that though.... why is that?

PS- Why would I or anyone else be ashamed at making a prediction? You've made a prediction yourself, right in this thread!

Mine will happen, yours won't.

If not, you'll be leaving the board in shame....right?

 

[Sarah G]

No worries Sarah. I made my fortune being "in the minority"......

Besides, Hillary 2016 is just a silly distraction. We have an important election in just a few months. Democrats do not want to talk about that though.... why is that?

PS- Why would I or anyone else be ashamed at making a prediction? You've made a prediction yourself, right in this thread!

Mine will happen, yours won't.

If not, you'll be leaving the board in shame....right?

There's no "if not".

 

[Zander]

Mine will happen, yours won't.

If not, you'll be leaving the board in shame....right?

There's no "if not".

Bookmarked!!

 

[Sarah G]

If not, you'll be leaving the board in shame....right?

There's no "if not".

Bookmarked!!

Whatever, Zander.

 

[Howey]

Paul, Carson Are Now Hillary?s Closest GOP Challengers - Rasmussen Reports?

Release date: June 23, 2014
1,000 LV, MoE = +/-3.0


Hillary Clinton (D): 46
Rand Paul (R): 39
margin: Clinton +7

Hillary Clinton (D): 46
Ben Carson (R): 38
margin: Clinton +8

Hillary Clinton (D): 47
Marco Rubio (R): 36
margin: Clinton +11

Hillary Clinton (D): 50
Ted Cruz (R): 37
margin: Clinton +13

Hillary Clinton (D): 47
Chris Christie(R): 33
margin: Clinton +14

Hillary Clinton (D): 50
Rick Perry (R): 36
margin: Clinton +14


From an earlier Rasmussen poll (03/06/2014):

Hillary Clinton (D): 47
Jeb Bush (R): 33
margin: Clinton +14

What to take away from this?​

Well, it's just one poll, and that is indeed true. So, I won't try to read the future from it, but Rasmussen is anything but a Democratic-friendly outfit.

It is also the very first Rasmussen poll to pit Clinton against a large field of candidates all at once. So, in many ways, this is like the starting-shot for 2016 for Rasmussen. We can start to build a baseline for Rasmussen based on these results as the next two years unfold.

Facts:​

Of the six results from this poll, Hillary wins every match-up, from between +7 and +14 over her prospective GOP challengers. Average: Clinton +11.17%. In two of those match-ups, she wins with an upper-single-digit margin. In the other four match-ups, she wins with landslide double-digit margins and hits the 50-mark twice. This is the first Rasmussen poll ever since the founding of the company in 2003 where I have seen values like this for a Democratic candidate.

All of the margins are outside the MoE. In fact they are outside the MoE doubled as well.

In 2008, 2010 and in 2012, Rasmussen had a provable mathematical bias of +4 to the RIGHT, not to the left, so it is entirely possible that these margins are actually underplaying how strong Clinton actually is when compared to these names. This means that for the vast majority of their end polling, their predictions were at least 4 points off. Now, whether Rasmussen is still using the same methodology as before is anyone's guess, since Rasmussen is one of the only pollsters who refuses to release internals.

Also interesting is that, for the first time I am aware, Ben Carson was polled against Hillary Clinton and he had the second strongest showing, behind Rand Paul.


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

Just for the sake of historical accuracy, here is my analysis of the pollsters, post-2012:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: The moment of truth: how did the pollsters do?

You can see my analysis of Rasmussen there.

Of the 21 end-polls from Rasmussen, RAS was to the Right from between +2 and +10 in 15 of those end polls. It was to the Left by +1 to +6 in 5 of those polls, and absolutely nailed Pennsylvania with 0 mathematical bias. So, Rasmussen was off to the Right in 3/4 of it's end polling and the intensity of being off was much higher than for the 5 polls where it was off to the Left.

Rasmussen also miscalled 6 of the 12 battleground states. Mathematically, for all states combined, it's mathematical bias was +2.71 to the Right, but for the 12 battlegrounds, it was +4.50 to the Right. In national polling, Rasmussens final poll showed Romney 49 / Obama 48 and since Obama won by +4, this means that Rasmussen was off +5 to the Right in the national polling. No one can, with any credibility, accuse Rasmussen of having a Liberal bias in it's polling.

The point I am making here is that a +14 for Clinton over Perry, for instance, could actually be a +18 in reality.


Again, this is just one poll, but it really sticks out since it is from a very Right-Wing leaning pollster.


More updates on Rasmussen in the future...

WTF? No shoutout?

None of them will beat Hillary.

CLINTON/CASTRO 2016!

 

[Mac1958]

.

Wow, I don't know much about this stuff, but it's surprising to see Christie down there with Perry at -14.

.

 

[Nyvin]

.

Wow, I don't know much about this stuff, but it's surprising to see Christie down there with Perry at -14.

.

Christie is done, he can't even find big donors anymore

 

[mamooth]

She lost the nomination to a Jr Senator with ZERO experience who spoke in metaphors....

Because she voted for the Iraq war. Obama was not a senator at the time of that vote, but consistently stated his opposition to the war. That tipped the balance.

I predict she'll lose the 2016 nomination again. (if she even runs)

Except the war vote isn't an issue now. Paul would be able to attack her on that vote, but he won't be the nominee. The rest have no standing to attack her.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Rand Paul's principled stand on freedom got him a standing ovation on progressive home turf

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

I look forward to both of us working together to elect Rand.

I want the race to be between Hillary and Rand. Now that would be interesting.

Indeed.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I look forward to both of us working together to elect Rand.

I want the race to be between Hillary and Rand. Now that would be interesting.

I have to agree because it would not be your usual left vs right.

Rand Paul has some really interesting positions that are worthy of open debate and I can see them attracting a following if he gets a national platform to air them. Personally I believe this is overdue and it will go a long way towards clarifying what We the People stand for.

It would be good for the nation to have those issues out in the open and let the people decide on which is the better choice.

 

[Statistikhengst]

A loss is a loss. She lost, really.

Be honest, are you excited about Hillary 2016? Wouldn't you prefer another candidate?

I really like her an she will take the WH if she runs. There is no R who can take her. I voted for her in the 2008 primaries.

From my experience, you are the exception. Every Democrat I have spoken to (I live in Los Angeles and almost everyone here is a Democrat) has told that while they would vote for her, they'd really prefer someone else.

Oh, no. I prefer her. She is absolutely my first choice and she will get my vote.

The GOP has absolutely no idea what kind of steamroller is coming squarely at it.

She will win with 57% of the NPV in 2016 and will hit or go over 400 EV.

Y'all can feel free to bookmark this posting.

 

[Zander]

She lost the nomination to a Jr Senator with ZERO experience who spoke in metaphors....

Because she voted for the Iraq war. Obama was not a senator at the time of that vote, but consistently stated his opposition to the war. That tipped the balance.

I predict she'll lose the 2016 nomination again. (if she even runs)

Except the war vote isn't an issue now. Paul would be able to attack her on that vote, but he won't be the nominee. The rest have no standing to attack her.

Foreign policy divided the left in 2008, and it will undoubtedly divide them in 2016. Nothing has changed. We still have major problems with Iraq and the Mideast. It will be a topic of discussion. Hillary voted for the war in Iraq. Period. Because of that she will never appeal to a large portion of the Democrat base.

Then there is the immigration issue. She's way too conservative. Scratch another large percentage of primary voting liberals....She's going to face a very tough, uphill battle......from her own party. She's too moderate.

PS-nominees really don't attack each other much anymore. Negative campaigns are seen negatively even though they work exceptionally well. Smart candidates are always careful about slinging too much mud- they know it might splash back on them! These days they have the PACS and SUPER PACS do it for them.

Can you imagine the ads against Hillary? She is what's called "low hanging fruit".

 

[Vigilante]

 

[blackhawk]

I take nothing from it Hillary Clinton has high name recognition and is currently in the middle of her book tour where she gets lots good press and for the most part easy interviews that changes quickly when she or any candidate officially declares they are running for President.

 

[The Rabbi]

I really like her an she will take the WH if she runs. There is no R who can take her. I voted for her in the 2008 primaries.

From my experience, you are the exception. Every Democrat I have spoken to (I live in Los Angeles and almost everyone here is a Democrat) has told that while they would vote for her, they'd really prefer someone else.

Oh, no. I prefer her. She is absolutely my first choice and she will get my vote.

The GOP has absolutely no idea what kind of steamroller is coming squarely at it.

She will win with 57% of the NPV in 2016 and will hit or go over 400 EV.

Y'all can feel free to bookmark this posting.

Do you like her because she has the ethics of a child molester or because her grasp of domestic and foreign policy falls into the "Duh" range?

 

[Vigilante]

 

[rightwinger]

I really like her an she will take the WH if she runs. There is no R who can take her. I voted for her in the 2008 primaries.

From my experience, you are the exception. Every Democrat I have spoken to (I live in Los Angeles and almost everyone here is a Democrat) has told that while they would vote for her, they'd really prefer someone else.

Oh, no. I prefer her. She is absolutely my first choice and she will get my vote.

The GOP has absolutely no idea what kind of steamroller is coming squarely at it.

She will win with 57% of the NPV in 2016 and will hit or go over 400 EV.

Y'all can feel free to bookmark this posting.

I have to agree with you

Given the current GOP platform and evolving demographics, I don't see Republicans winning a single swing state. I also see Hillary competing in Arizona and Georgia

400 EV is entirely possible. If she does, I see 57 Senate seats

 

[Vigilante]