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

[EatMorChikin]

I'm not a republican, I am a conservative. I will sometimes vote republican, but mainly to prevent commie progressives from winning and destroying this nation faster.

The republican party has morons behind it. They are going to push Romney through, handing it to Killary if she runs. They don't want fresh blood, they want to champion the same tired old establishment.

If I were them, I would make Allen West the face of the party, it would be funny for the morons calling conservatives racist than.

Allen West would be a great idea.....go for it I say

On behalf of every liberal in the country "PLEASE RUN ALLEN WEST FOR PREASIDENT" please please please please please

I'm betting you don't know a damn thing about the man. You support a sissy girl president, West is a real man.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm not a republican, I am a conservative. I will sometimes vote republican, but mainly to prevent commie progressives from winning and destroying this nation faster.

The republican party has morons behind it. They are going to push Romney through, handing it to Killary if she runs. They don't want fresh blood, they want to champion the same tired old establishment.

If I were them, I would make Allen West the face of the party, it would be funny for the morons calling conservatives racist than.

Allen West would be a great idea.....go for it I say

On behalf of every liberal in the country "PLEASE RUN ALLEN WEST FOR PREASIDENT" please please please please please

I'm betting you don't know a damn thing about the man. You support a sissy girl president, West is a real man.

I know he is an idiot.

 

[EatMorChikin]

I know he is an idiot.

My case in point!

You obviously know jack shit about Allen West. And I suppose you are an Obumble supporter? That wise dude who called our navy personal "corpse" men. HA!

 

[BULLDOG]

I know he is an idiot.

My case in point!

You obviously know jack shit about Allen West. And I suppose you are an Obumble supporter? That wise dude who called our navy personal "corpse" men. HA!

Are we talking about the same Allen west who was kicked out of the military, and later advocated censoring American news agencies? That idiot?

 

[EatMorChikin]

I know he is an idiot.

My case in point!

You obviously know jack shit about Allen West. And I suppose you are an Obumble supporter? That wise dude who called our navy personal "corpse" men. HA!

Are we talking about the same Allen west who was kicked out of the military, and later advocated censoring American news agencies? That idiot?

Resign or face court martial, for using interrogation tactics used for decades in this country. And I hardly view wiki leaks as media. He supports censoring for anyone leaking important classified information. He is the only one I have seen actually care about the border crisis, and put it as a top priority. That is not a left or right issue, that is an American issue as we all need jobs. But I suppose you would favor more progressives, the insane assholes who favor no borders at all. It would be great if any raghead could enter our country at any time!

And for the record: progressives and liberals are not the same thing. Liberals are mostly patriotic, progressives hate everything about America, and want her destroyed.

 

[Nyvin]

I know he is an idiot.

My case in point!

You obviously know jack shit about Allen West. And I suppose you are an Obumble supporter? That wise dude who called our navy personal "corpse" men. HA!

Are we talking about the same Allen west who was kicked out of the military, and later advocated censoring American news agencies? That idiot?

Resign or face court martial, for using interrogation tactics used for decades in this country. And I hardly view wiki leaks as media. He supports censoring for anyone leaking important classified information. He is the only one I have seen actually care about the border crisis, and put it as a top priority. That is not a left or right issue, that is an American issue as we all need jobs. But I suppose you would favor more progressives, the insane assholes who favor no borders at all. It would be great if any raghead could enter our country at any time!

And for the record: progressives and liberals are not the same thing. Liberals are mostly patriotic, progressives hate everything about America, and want her destroyed.

Progressives embrace changes from the status quo for the better of the public or environment.

Liberals are against oppressive authority.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Keeping a promise, based on this text from the OP:

Because a major poll from Pennyslvania should come out in the next days, it will be a good way to compare new data to this now very large baseline.

And here it is:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_122925.pdf

(The previous PPP poll from Pennsylvania was from June, 2014:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_PA_605.pdf)

1,042 RV, MoE = +/-3.0 (Values from the older PPP poll in parentheses)

Hillary Clinton (D): 50
Mitt Romney (R): 40
margin: Clinton (D) +10

Hillary Clinton (D): 49 (49)
Chris Christie (R): 39 (39)
margin: Clinton (D) +10

Hillary Clinton (D): 50 (52)
Rand Paul (R): 39 (38)
margin: Clinton (D) +11

Hillary Clinton (D): 49 (51)
Jeb Bush (R): 38 (37)
margin: Clinton (D) +11

Hillary Clinton (D): 51
Mike Huckabee (R): 39
margin: Clinton (D) +12

Hillary Clinton (D): 51
Ben Carson (R): 37
margin: Clinton (D) +14

Hillary Clinton (D): 52 (51)
Rick Santorum (R): 36 (40)
margin: Clinton (D) +16

So, against 7 potential GOP challengers, 5 of whom were also polled last June, Hillary wins STARTING at +10 in Pennsylvania and goes as high as +16 in a state that has been a single-digit win state for 16 of the last 21 presidential cycles (all the way back to the year 1932), and mid-to-low single digit wins in 8 of those 16 single-digit wins. Here the exact stats:

1.) 1888: Bush 41 +2.32 (topline 50.70%)
2.) 1960: Kennedy +2.32 (topline 51.06%)
3.) 2004: Kerry +2.50
4.) 1976: Carter +2.66
5.) 1944: FDR +2.78
6.) 1968: Humphrey +3.57
7.) 1948: Dewey +4.01
8.) 2000: Gore +4.17
----------------------------------------------------------
9.) 2012: Obama +5.38
10.) 1932: Hoover +5.51
11.) 1952: Eisenhower +5.88
12.) 1940: FDR +6.89
13.) 1980: Reagan +7.11
14.) 1984: Reagan +7.35
15.) 1992: Clinton, B +9.02
16.) 1996: Clinton, B +9.20
------------------------------------------------------------
17.) 2008: Obama +10.31
18.) 1956: Eisenhower +13.19
19.) 1936: FDR +16.04
20.) 1972: Nixon +19.98
21.) 1964: LBJ +30.22

Were Hillary to win PA with +16, as against Santorum at present, her landslide would be in line with Eisenhowers landslide from 1956. In 2008, Obama was the first to carry with state with with a double digit margin since 1972 and most polling in PA showed Obama in single digits. Hillary's polling is starting WAY above that point.

If these numbers hold over the next 22 months, then Pennsylvania would not even be a battleground state in 2016.

BTW, in the PPP poll internals, the women's vote:

Clinton 53 / Christie 38, +15
Clinton 53 / Romney 37, +18
Clinton 54 / Bush, J 36, +18
Clinton 54 / Santorum 35, +19
Clinton 56 / Huckabee 36, +20
Clinton 55 / Paul 34, +21
Clinton 56 / Carson 34, +22

So, where she is winning the state by +10 to +16 in Pennsylvania (according to PPP at this time) she is tromping in the women's vote by +15 to +22. That's probably the most telling statistic in all of this.

 

[Conservative65]

Keeping a promise, based on this text from the OP:

Because a major poll from Pennyslvania should come out in the next days, it will be a good way to compare new data to this now very large baseline.

And here it is:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_122925.pdf

(The previous PPP poll from Pennsylvania was from June, 2014:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_PA_605.pdf)

1,042 RV, MoE = +/-3.0 (Values from the older PPP poll in parentheses)

Hillary Clinton (D): 50
Mitt Romney (R): 40
margin: Clinton (D) +10

Hillary Clinton (D): 49 (49)
Chris Christie (R): 39 (39)
margin: Clinton (D) +10

Hillary Clinton (D): 50 (52)
Rand Paul (R): 39 (38)
margin: Clinton (D) +11

Hillary Clinton (D): 49 (51)
Jeb Bush (R): 38 (37)
margin: Clinton (D) +11

Hillary Clinton (D): 51
Mike Huckabee (R): 39
margin: Clinton (D) +12

Hillary Clinton (D): 51
Ben Carson (R): 37
margin: Clinton (D) +14

Hillary Clinton (D): 52 (51)
Rick Santorum (R): 36 (40)
margin: Clinton (D) +16

So, against 7 potential GOP challengers, 5 of whom were also polled last June, Hillary wins STARTING at +10 in Pennsylvania and goes as high as +16 in a state that has been a single-digit win state for 16 of the last 21 presidential cycles (all the way back to the year 1932), and mid-to-low single digit wins in 8 of those 16 single-digit wins. Here the exact stats:

1.) 1888: Bush 41 +2.32 (topline 50.70%)
2.) 1960: Kennedy +2.32 (topline 51.06%)
3.) 2004: Kerry +2.50
4.) 1976: Carter +2.66
5.) 1944: FDR +2.78
6.) 1968: Humphrey +3.57
7.) 1948: Dewey +4.01
8.) 2000: Gore +4.17
----------------------------------------------------------
9.) 2012: Obama +5.38
10.) 1932: Hoover +5.51
11.) 1952: Eisenhower +5.88
12.) 1940: FDR +6.89
13.) 1980: Reagan +7.11
14.) 1984: Reagan +7.35
15.) 1992: Clinton, B +9.02
16.) 1996: Clinton, B +9.20
------------------------------------------------------------
17.) 2008: Obama +10.31
18.) 1956: Eisenhower +13.19
19.) 1936: FDR +16.04
20.) 1972: Nixon +19.98
21.) 1964: LBJ +30.22

Were Hillary to win PA with +16, as against Santorum at present, her landslide would be in line with Eisenhowers landslide from 1956. In 2008, Obama was the first to carry with state with with a double digit margin since 1972 and most polling in PA showed Obama in single digits. Hillary's polling is starting WAY above that point.

If these numbers hold over the next 22 months, then Pennsylvania would not even be a battleground state in 2016.

BTW, in the PPP poll internals, the women's vote:

Clinton 53 / Christie 38, +15
Clinton 53 / Romney 37, +18
Clinton 54 / Bush, J 36, +18
Clinton 54 / Santorum 35, +19
Clinton 56 / Huckabee 36, +20
Clinton 55 / Paul 34, +21
Clinton 56 / Carson 34, +22

So, where she is winning the state by +10 to +16 in Pennsylvania (according to PPP at this time) she is tromping in the women's vote by +15 to +22. That's probably the most telling statistic in all of this.

That shows nothing more than the concept of getting a vagina in office. You got your black and that ranked higher than reproductive organ. Since you met that goal, all that's left is vagina.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Keeping a promise, based on this text from the OP:

Because a major poll from Pennyslvania should come out in the next days, it will be a good way to compare new data to this now very large baseline.

And here it is:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_122925.pdf

(The previous PPP poll from Pennsylvania was from June, 2014:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_PA_605.pdf)

1,042 RV, MoE = +/-3.0 (Values from the older PPP poll in parentheses)

Hillary Clinton (D): 50
Mitt Romney (R): 40
margin: Clinton (D) +10

Hillary Clinton (D): 49 (49)
Chris Christie (R): 39 (39)
margin: Clinton (D) +10

Hillary Clinton (D): 50 (52)
Rand Paul (R): 39 (38)
margin: Clinton (D) +11

Hillary Clinton (D): 49 (51)
Jeb Bush (R): 38 (37)
margin: Clinton (D) +11

Hillary Clinton (D): 51
Mike Huckabee (R): 39
margin: Clinton (D) +12

Hillary Clinton (D): 51
Ben Carson (R): 37
margin: Clinton (D) +14

Hillary Clinton (D): 52 (51)
Rick Santorum (R): 36 (40)
margin: Clinton (D) +16

So, against 7 potential GOP challengers, 5 of whom were also polled last June, Hillary wins STARTING at +10 in Pennsylvania and goes as high as +16 in a state that has been a single-digit win state for 16 of the last 21 presidential cycles (all the way back to the year 1932), and mid-to-low single digit wins in 8 of those 16 single-digit wins. Here the exact stats:

1.) 1888: Bush 41 +2.32 (topline 50.70%)
2.) 1960: Kennedy +2.32 (topline 51.06%)
3.) 2004: Kerry +2.50
4.) 1976: Carter +2.66
5.) 1944: FDR +2.78
6.) 1968: Humphrey +3.57
7.) 1948: Dewey +4.01
8.) 2000: Gore +4.17
----------------------------------------------------------
9.) 2012: Obama +5.38
10.) 1932: Hoover +5.51
11.) 1952: Eisenhower +5.88
12.) 1940: FDR +6.89
13.) 1980: Reagan +7.11
14.) 1984: Reagan +7.35
15.) 1992: Clinton, B +9.02
16.) 1996: Clinton, B +9.20
------------------------------------------------------------
17.) 2008: Obama +10.31
18.) 1956: Eisenhower +13.19
19.) 1936: FDR +16.04
20.) 1972: Nixon +19.98
21.) 1964: LBJ +30.22

Were Hillary to win PA with +16, as against Santorum at present, her landslide would be in line with Eisenhowers landslide from 1956. In 2008, Obama was the first to carry with state with with a double digit margin since 1972 and most polling in PA showed Obama in single digits. Hillary's polling is starting WAY above that point.

If these numbers hold over the next 22 months, then Pennsylvania would not even be a battleground state in 2016.

BTW, in the PPP poll internals, the women's vote:

Clinton 53 / Christie 38, +15
Clinton 53 / Romney 37, +18
Clinton 54 / Bush, J 36, +18
Clinton 54 / Santorum 35, +19
Clinton 56 / Huckabee 36, +20
Clinton 55 / Paul 34, +21
Clinton 56 / Carson 34, +22

So, where she is winning the state by +10 to +16 in Pennsylvania (according to PPP at this time) she is tromping in the women's vote by +15 to +22. That's probably the most telling statistic in all of this.

That shows nothing more than the concept of getting a vagina in office. You got your black and that ranked higher than reproductive organ. Since you met that goal, all that's left is vagina.

What about a Latino?

Or gays?

Or Asian-Americans?

How about a Native-American president?

Plenty of minorities still to go and with 8 years each that means racist AWG's like you don't stand a hope anymore.

 

[Esmeralda]

Keeping a promise, based on this text from the OP:

Because a major poll from Pennyslvania should come out in the next days, it will be a good way to compare new data to this now very large baseline.

And here it is:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_122925.pdf

(The previous PPP poll from Pennsylvania was from June, 2014:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_PA_605.pdf)

1,042 RV, MoE = +/-3.0 (Values from the older PPP poll in parentheses)

Hillary Clinton (D): 50
Mitt Romney (R): 40
margin: Clinton (D) +10

Hillary Clinton (D): 49 (49)
Chris Christie (R): 39 (39)
margin: Clinton (D) +10

Hillary Clinton (D): 50 (52)
Rand Paul (R): 39 (38)
margin: Clinton (D) +11

Hillary Clinton (D): 49 (51)
Jeb Bush (R): 38 (37)
margin: Clinton (D) +11

Hillary Clinton (D): 51
Mike Huckabee (R): 39
margin: Clinton (D) +12

Hillary Clinton (D): 51
Ben Carson (R): 37
margin: Clinton (D) +14

Hillary Clinton (D): 52 (51)
Rick Santorum (R): 36 (40)
margin: Clinton (D) +16

So, against 7 potential GOP challengers, 5 of whom were also polled last June, Hillary wins STARTING at +10 in Pennsylvania and goes as high as +16 in a state that has been a single-digit win state for 16 of the last 21 presidential cycles (all the way back to the year 1932), and mid-to-low single digit wins in 8 of those 16 single-digit wins. Here the exact stats:

1.) 1888: Bush 41 +2.32 (topline 50.70%)
2.) 1960: Kennedy +2.32 (topline 51.06%)
3.) 2004: Kerry +2.50
4.) 1976: Carter +2.66
5.) 1944: FDR +2.78
6.) 1968: Humphrey +3.57
7.) 1948: Dewey +4.01
8.) 2000: Gore +4.17
----------------------------------------------------------
9.) 2012: Obama +5.38
10.) 1932: Hoover +5.51
11.) 1952: Eisenhower +5.88
12.) 1940: FDR +6.89
13.) 1980: Reagan +7.11
14.) 1984: Reagan +7.35
15.) 1992: Clinton, B +9.02
16.) 1996: Clinton, B +9.20
------------------------------------------------------------
17.) 2008: Obama +10.31
18.) 1956: Eisenhower +13.19
19.) 1936: FDR +16.04
20.) 1972: Nixon +19.98
21.) 1964: LBJ +30.22

Were Hillary to win PA with +16, as against Santorum at present, her landslide would be in line with Eisenhowers landslide from 1956. In 2008, Obama was the first to carry with state with with a double digit margin since 1972 and most polling in PA showed Obama in single digits. Hillary's polling is starting WAY above that point.

If these numbers hold over the next 22 months, then Pennsylvania would not even be a battleground state in 2016.

BTW, in the PPP poll internals, the women's vote:

Clinton 53 / Christie 38, +15
Clinton 53 / Romney 37, +18
Clinton 54 / Bush, J 36, +18
Clinton 54 / Santorum 35, +19
Clinton 56 / Huckabee 36, +20
Clinton 55 / Paul 34, +21
Clinton 56 / Carson 34, +22

So, where she is winning the state by +10 to +16 in Pennsylvania (according to PPP at this time) she is tromping in the women's vote by +15 to +22. That's probably the most telling statistic in all of this.

That shows nothing more than the concept of getting a vagina in office. You got your black and that ranked higher than reproductive organ. Since you met that goal, all that's left is vagina.

What kind of sick asshole refers to women as vaginas?

 

[Mac1958]

.

Pretty interesting scenario overall. Assuming Hillary runs, the 200 or so GOP candidates will beat the living shit out of each other for a year or so while she watches them do her work for her. If she doesn't run (hard to believe), there might be a mad scramble on the Dem side if Warren is serious about staying out.

Not one dynamic leader in the litter.

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Not one dynamic leader in the litter.

A litter of runts?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Keeping a promise, based on this text from the OP:

Because a major poll from Pennyslvania should come out in the next days, it will be a good way to compare new data to this now very large baseline.

And here it is:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_122925.pdf

(The previous PPP poll from Pennsylvania was from June, 2014:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_PA_605.pdf)

1,042 RV, MoE = +/-3.0 (Values from the older PPP poll in parentheses)

Hillary Clinton (D): 50
Mitt Romney (R): 40
margin: Clinton (D) +10

Hillary Clinton (D): 49 (49)
Chris Christie (R): 39 (39)
margin: Clinton (D) +10

Hillary Clinton (D): 50 (52)
Rand Paul (R): 39 (38)
margin: Clinton (D) +11

Hillary Clinton (D): 49 (51)
Jeb Bush (R): 38 (37)
margin: Clinton (D) +11

Hillary Clinton (D): 51
Mike Huckabee (R): 39
margin: Clinton (D) +12

Hillary Clinton (D): 51
Ben Carson (R): 37
margin: Clinton (D) +14

Hillary Clinton (D): 52 (51)
Rick Santorum (R): 36 (40)
margin: Clinton (D) +16

So, against 7 potential GOP challengers, 5 of whom were also polled last June, Hillary wins STARTING at +10 in Pennsylvania and goes as high as +16 in a state that has been a single-digit win state for 16 of the last 21 presidential cycles (all the way back to the year 1932), and mid-to-low single digit wins in 8 of those 16 single-digit wins. Here the exact stats:

1.) 1888: Bush 41 +2.32 (topline 50.70%)
2.) 1960: Kennedy +2.32 (topline 51.06%)
3.) 2004: Kerry +2.50
4.) 1976: Carter +2.66
5.) 1944: FDR +2.78
6.) 1968: Humphrey +3.57
7.) 1948: Dewey +4.01
8.) 2000: Gore +4.17
----------------------------------------------------------
9.) 2012: Obama +5.38
10.) 1932: Hoover +5.51
11.) 1952: Eisenhower +5.88
12.) 1940: FDR +6.89
13.) 1980: Reagan +7.11
14.) 1984: Reagan +7.35
15.) 1992: Clinton, B +9.02
16.) 1996: Clinton, B +9.20
------------------------------------------------------------
17.) 2008: Obama +10.31
18.) 1956: Eisenhower +13.19
19.) 1936: FDR +16.04
20.) 1972: Nixon +19.98
21.) 1964: LBJ +30.22

Were Hillary to win PA with +16, as against Santorum at present, her landslide would be in line with Eisenhowers landslide from 1956. In 2008, Obama was the first to carry with state with with a double digit margin since 1972 and most polling in PA showed Obama in single digits. Hillary's polling is starting WAY above that point.

If these numbers hold over the next 22 months, then Pennsylvania would not even be a battleground state in 2016.

BTW, in the PPP poll internals, the women's vote:

Clinton 53 / Christie 38, +15
Clinton 53 / Romney 37, +18
Clinton 54 / Bush, J 36, +18
Clinton 54 / Santorum 35, +19
Clinton 56 / Huckabee 36, +20
Clinton 55 / Paul 34, +21
Clinton 56 / Carson 34, +22

So, where she is winning the state by +10 to +16 in Pennsylvania (according to PPP at this time) she is tromping in the women's vote by +15 to +22. That's probably the most telling statistic in all of this.

That shows nothing more than the concept of getting a vagina in office. You got your black and that ranked higher than reproductive organ. Since you met that goal, all that's left is vagina.

Oh, I am sensing a sudden change in the force within USMB!!

Now, back to polling, which is what this thread is about. A New Jersey Quinnipiac from yesterday also produced these results:


New Jersey NJ Poll - January 22 2015 - Clinton Christie Lead Primary Quinnipiac University Connecticut

Values in parentheses are from the former Quinnipiac poll, for purposes of comparison.

Hillary Clinton (D): 52 (50)
Chris Christie (R): 39 (39)
margin: Clinton (D) +13

Hillary Clinton (D): 53 (52)
Mitt Romney (R): 38 (35)
margin: Clinton (D) +15

Hillary Clinton (D): 53 (53)
Jeb Bush (R): 37 (31)
margin: Clinton (D) +16

Hillary Clinton (D): 54 (55)
Rand Paul (R): 35 (31)
margin: Clinton (D) +19

Hillary Clinton (D): 56
Mike Huckabee (R): 33
margin: Clinton (D) +23

So, in New Jersey, Chris Christie's home-state, Hillary is winning by between +13 and +23.

How do these values shape up with the last 22 presidential cycles in New Jersey?

2012: Obama +17.74% (strict constitutionalists, en garde!!)
2008: Obama +15.53%
2004: Kerry +6.68%
2000: Gore +15.83%
1996: Clinton, B +17.86% (three-man race)
1992: Clinton, B +2.87% (three-man race)
1988: Bush 41 +13.64%
1984: Reagan +20.89%
1980: Reagan +13.42%
1976: Ford +2.16% (NJ was a major battleground in 1976)
1972: Nixon +24.80%
1968: Nixon +2.13% (three-man race)
1964: LBJ +31.75%
1960: Kennedy +0.80%
1956: Eisenhower +30.46%
1952: Eisenhower +14.83%
1948: Dewey +4.39%
1944: FDR +1.35%
1940: FDR +3.62%
1936: FDR +19.97%
1932: FDR +1.90%
1928: Hoover +19.98%

Of the last 22 cycles, going back to 1928 for New Jersey, 12 DEM wins, 10 GOP wins. Of the last 6 cycles, 4 of the six are at +15.5 or above for the Democrat. In this time, the only time a Democrat lost both in the PV and the EC (2004, Kerry), he only won NJ by single-digits. Hillary's numbers in New Jersey put her right up there with Clinton, B 1996, Gore 2000, and Obama 2008 and 2012.

Also, just a little historical footnote. Look at 1936, 1956, 1972, 1984, 1992 and 2012. In those years where a president was re-elected and won New Jersey both times,his margin went up the second time. New Jersey rewards winners the second time around. And in 2004, when Bush 43 won nationally but still lost New Jersey (making him the first Republican ever in history to have lost New Jersey twice), he still cut considerably into the Democratic margin. So, although New Jersey is in no way a bellwether, it is definitely a Blue-Wall state, the polling margins tell us alot about the national state of things, according to the saying "a rising tide lifts all boats".

Hillary is doing just fine in New Jersey. If Christie cannot even get close to her in his home state, how can he win Pennsylvania (a major Clinton stronghold)? Ohio? LOL....

 

[Conservative65]

Keeping a promise, based on this text from the OP:

Because a major poll from Pennyslvania should come out in the next days, it will be a good way to compare new data to this now very large baseline.

And here it is:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_122925.pdf

(The previous PPP poll from Pennsylvania was from June, 2014:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_PA_605.pdf)

1,042 RV, MoE = +/-3.0 (Values from the older PPP poll in parentheses)

Hillary Clinton (D): 50
Mitt Romney (R): 40
margin: Clinton (D) +10

Hillary Clinton (D): 49 (49)
Chris Christie (R): 39 (39)
margin: Clinton (D) +10

Hillary Clinton (D): 50 (52)
Rand Paul (R): 39 (38)
margin: Clinton (D) +11

Hillary Clinton (D): 49 (51)
Jeb Bush (R): 38 (37)
margin: Clinton (D) +11

Hillary Clinton (D): 51
Mike Huckabee (R): 39
margin: Clinton (D) +12

Hillary Clinton (D): 51
Ben Carson (R): 37
margin: Clinton (D) +14

Hillary Clinton (D): 52 (51)
Rick Santorum (R): 36 (40)
margin: Clinton (D) +16

So, against 7 potential GOP challengers, 5 of whom were also polled last June, Hillary wins STARTING at +10 in Pennsylvania and goes as high as +16 in a state that has been a single-digit win state for 16 of the last 21 presidential cycles (all the way back to the year 1932), and mid-to-low single digit wins in 8 of those 16 single-digit wins. Here the exact stats:

1.) 1888: Bush 41 +2.32 (topline 50.70%)
2.) 1960: Kennedy +2.32 (topline 51.06%)
3.) 2004: Kerry +2.50
4.) 1976: Carter +2.66
5.) 1944: FDR +2.78
6.) 1968: Humphrey +3.57
7.) 1948: Dewey +4.01
8.) 2000: Gore +4.17
----------------------------------------------------------
9.) 2012: Obama +5.38
10.) 1932: Hoover +5.51
11.) 1952: Eisenhower +5.88
12.) 1940: FDR +6.89
13.) 1980: Reagan +7.11
14.) 1984: Reagan +7.35
15.) 1992: Clinton, B +9.02
16.) 1996: Clinton, B +9.20
------------------------------------------------------------
17.) 2008: Obama +10.31
18.) 1956: Eisenhower +13.19
19.) 1936: FDR +16.04
20.) 1972: Nixon +19.98
21.) 1964: LBJ +30.22

Were Hillary to win PA with +16, as against Santorum at present, her landslide would be in line with Eisenhowers landslide from 1956. In 2008, Obama was the first to carry with state with with a double digit margin since 1972 and most polling in PA showed Obama in single digits. Hillary's polling is starting WAY above that point.

If these numbers hold over the next 22 months, then Pennsylvania would not even be a battleground state in 2016.

BTW, in the PPP poll internals, the women's vote:

Clinton 53 / Christie 38, +15
Clinton 53 / Romney 37, +18
Clinton 54 / Bush, J 36, +18
Clinton 54 / Santorum 35, +19
Clinton 56 / Huckabee 36, +20
Clinton 55 / Paul 34, +21
Clinton 56 / Carson 34, +22

So, where she is winning the state by +10 to +16 in Pennsylvania (according to PPP at this time) she is tromping in the women's vote by +15 to +22. That's probably the most telling statistic in all of this.

That shows nothing more than the concept of getting a vagina in office. You got your black and that ranked higher than reproductive organ. Since you met that goal, all that's left is vagina.

What kind of sick asshole refers to women as vaginas?

I didn't refer to her as one. I said far too many will vote for her because she has one and nothing else.

 

[Conservative65]

Not one dynamic leader in the litter.

A litter of runts?

Better than the half breed that is the by product of an alcoholic, runaway sperm donor and a piece of white trash.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Not one dynamic leader in the litter.

A litter of runts?

Better than the half breed that is the by product of an alcoholic, runaway sperm donor and a piece of white trash.

Ahhh, I see that conservatives are keeping it classy.

 

[Old Rocks]

Not one dynamic leader in the litter.

A litter of runts?

Better than the half breed that is the by product of an alcoholic, runaway sperm donor and a piece of white trash.

LOL. My dear little corksmoker, note that Barack Obama is President of the United States of America, and you, dear turd, are nothing more than an anonymous flap-yapper on an internet board, same as the rest of us. I would say that 'half breed' has achieved far more in his life, thus far, than 1000 like you.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Not one dynamic leader in the litter.

A litter of runts?

Better than the half breed that is the by product of an alcoholic, runaway sperm donor and a piece of white trash.

LOL. My dear little corksmoker, note that Barack Obama is President of the United States of America, and you, dear turd, are nothing more than an anonymous flap-yapper on an internet board, same as the rest of us. I would say that 'half breed' has achieved far more in his life, thus far, than 1000 like you.

Yepp. Haters are such sad sacks.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Thank you, my Friend.

She looks really old in the OP.

Also, have you looked at HER cheekbones? She may have some Cherokee in her as well

plus she may have rekindle her story of landing

in Bosnia under sniper fire

--LOL

She might, but you definitely need to come up with some new things to whine about. All you have now are old and silly, and never made much sense to start with.

she is old and busted

she surely is not going to fire up the youth base

--LOL

We will be electing a president, not a cute girlfriend. The requirements are not the same.

so what she is still old and busted

not appealing to the youth

Her hubby has a thing for 16 year olds

 

[Statistikhengst]

plus she may have rekindle her story of landing

in Bosnia under sniper fire

--LOL

She might, but you definitely need to come up with some new things to whine about. All you have now are old and silly, and never made much sense to start with.

she is old and busted

she surely is not going to fire up the youth base

--LOL

We will be electing a president, not a cute girlfriend. The requirements are not the same.

so what she is still old and busted

not appealing to the youth

Her hubby has a thing for 16 year olds

Proof? Photos? Video? Audio? Eyewitness accounts?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk