A tale of 2 Quinnipiacs - from Florida

[jillian]

Christie's done.

if what they are saying is true, he is finished.

if it turns out by some stroke of luck that the allegations are unfounded, christie will benefit from people thinking he was somehow mistreated.

that said, what was said today doesn't exactly increase one's faith in him.

Hey Jillian, great to see you

hey spoon! good to see you, too!

 

[RandallFlagg]

As I've said many times, if Hillary runs, she will win. There isn't a candidate who can beat her on the GOP side. Christie was the closest, but he pretty much screwed himself with these latest scandals and will have a hard time shaking the bully image. Hillary has experience and is tough and capable. Benghazi is only an issue against her to those who won't vote for her anyway and they aren't enough to keep her out of the WH.

Right now, her path to the Presidency is the easiest path our nation has seen since Eisenhower in 1952. That of course can change, but the numbers back up my supposition.

A Democratic candidate who is so far ahead in FL and VA this early in the game --- well, it's a definite harbinger of things to come.

Her health isn't that good. Odds are she'll keel over dead before the election.

Hopefully someone will capture it on video.

We should be so lucky. Look, I come to this discussion a tad more "qualified" than most. I was a Security Specialist at several embassies and consulates throughout the late 70s and 80s. I have been there and done that. I KNOW how things work in foreign countries. I KNOW the channels that are used by Ambassadors when requesting additional security.

And I KNOW that the SOS - that worthless bitch - (in my opinion) allowed those men to die and never lifted a finger.

And now the left looks to their next "savior". Stupid, stupid sheeple.

 

[Ernie S.]

if what they are saying is true, he is finished.

if it turns out by some stroke of luck that the allegations are unfounded, christie will benefit from people thinking he was somehow mistreated.

that said, what was said today doesn't exactly increase one's faith in him.

Hey Jillian, great to see you

hey spoon! good to see you, too!

Jill!!!

 

[Ernie S.]

As I've said many times, if Hillary runs, she will win. There isn't a candidate who can beat her on the GOP side. Christie was the closest, but he pretty much screwed himself with these latest scandals and will have a hard time shaking the bully image. Hillary has experience and is tough and capable. Benghazi is only an issue against her to those who won't vote for her anyway and they aren't enough to keep her out of the WH.

Right now, her path to the Presidency is the easiest path our nation has seen since Eisenhower in 1952. That of course can change, but the numbers back up my supposition.

A Democratic candidate who is so far ahead in FL and VA this early in the game --- well, it's a definite harbinger of things to come.

Her health isn't that good. Odds are she'll keel over dead before the election.

Hopefully someone will capture it on video.

Agreed! I don't believe she will be capable of running by 2016. I'm not even sure she will be breathing by then.

 

[Spoonman]

if what they are saying is true, he is finished.

if it turns out by some stroke of luck that the allegations are unfounded, christie will benefit from people thinking he was somehow mistreated.

that said, what was said today doesn't exactly increase one's faith in him.

Hey Jillian, great to see you

hey spoon! good to see you, too!

you've been away for awhile

 

[Wolfsister77]

It's nice that some of you are hoping she'll die before she can run. Then again, if you have to sink to that level to trash her, you really don't have anything. Calling her fat. Hoping her death will be caught on video. That's some top quality posting there. Great job.

 

[Statistikhengst]

As I've said many times, if Hillary runs, she will win. There isn't a candidate who can beat her on the GOP side. Christie was the closest, but he pretty much screwed himself with these latest scandals and will have a hard time shaking the bully image. Hillary has experience and is tough and capable. Benghazi is only an issue against her to those who won't vote for her anyway and they aren't enough to keep her out of the WH.

Right now, her path to the Presidency is the easiest path our nation has seen since Eisenhower in 1952. That of course can change, but the numbers back up my supposition.

A Democratic candidate who is so far ahead in FL and VA this early in the game --- well, it's a definite harbinger of things to come.

Her health isn't that good. Odds are she'll keel over dead before the election.

Hopefully someone will capture it on video.

Well, that was disgusting.

Now we know why you have been here all of 4 years and have barely over 330 rep.

 

[Statistikhengst]

As I've said many times, if Hillary runs, she will win. There isn't a candidate who can beat her on the GOP side. Christie was the closest, but he pretty much screwed himself with these latest scandals and will have a hard time shaking the bully image. Hillary has experience and is tough and capable. Benghazi is only an issue against her to those who won't vote for her anyway and they aren't enough to keep her out of the WH.

Right now, her path to the Presidency is the easiest path our nation has seen since Eisenhower in 1952. That of course can change, but the numbers back up my supposition.

A Democratic candidate who is so far ahead in FL and VA this early in the game --- well, it's a definite harbinger of things to come.

Wow….the stupidity never ceases to amaze me on this forum. So that fat murdering bitch already has it won, right?

I suggest that you go back to the last time the fat ass ran. At this point in time she was way out in front of her nearest competitor. She lost.

I tend to agree that that wicked son of a bitch will run and there is a better than even chance that you communists and marxists will get your wish - the final destruction of this country. Hell, there isn't an ethical liberal on this site. Not one of you want to hold that sorry bitch to account - hell, you don't care. As long as the ends justify the means, you are happy.

God help us.

Hi [MENTION=41494]RandallFlagg[/MENTION], thanks for stopping by.

Well, let's take a look at what you wrote and what the OP actually says.

You wrote:

So that fat murdering bitch already has it won, right?

Nope. The OP is specifically about polling in Florida, and here is the key statement:

Again, this is just one poll, and polls can be wrong. But they cannot ALL be wrong. And ALL polling in Florida, from 2013 to current, is pointing in the same direction: in the Sunshine State, Hillary is cleaning the GOP's clock, plain and simple.

Without Florida in it's electoral column, the GOP simply cannot win nationally.

You wrote:

I suggest that you go back to the last time the fat ass ran. At this point in time she was way out in front of her nearest competitor. She lost.

Uh, no. At this point in time in 2006 neither Clinton nor Obama had announced and furthermore, there was not even one single 2008 prez poll taken at that time. But you are right: once both announced (Hillary on January 20, 2007, Obama in February 2007), she was way ahead.

However, a data point out of YOUR OWN party's history destroys your argument.

In 1975, GOP nomination polling was already showing Ronald Reagan decisively ahead of Gerald Ford (R-Inc). Gerald Ford BEAT Ronald Reagan at the convention and then went on to lose to Jimmy Carter in 1976. Four years later, Reagan came back and clinched the GOP nomination. So, it's not like this hasn't happened before. It has, and within the last 40 years, even.

You wrote this:

Hell, there isn't an ethical liberal on this site. Not one of you want to hold that sorry bitch to account - hell, you don't care

Wrong. Your anger is getting the better of you. Did you know that extreme anger disrupts higher brain functions and causes people to say things they really didn't mean.

Now, you were one of the first members here to rep me and make me feel welcome, and I have never forgotten it. I am not going to attack you for what you said, but what you said about liberals, especially including me, is wrong.

If Benghazi makes you so mad, then I bet you were ready to just throttle Reagan in 1983 after Beirut, right?

I could just as easily write that there isn't a sane Conservative here, one who isn't frothing-at-the-mouth, but the statement would be untrue. I have met a number of Conservatives here who are quite reasonable.

I suggest to you that you should rethink your posting. If an analysis of just 2 polls makes you this livid, imagine what the 2016 campaign could do to you. And I mean that with sincerity.

Had the second poll from Quinnipiac showed exactly the opposite, that the GOP was suddenly sweeping in Florida, I would have created a thread about that instead of this one. The numbers are what they are and there is more than ample empirical data to prove that early numbers are more telling than people realize.

Again, thanks for stopping by.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Right now, her path to the Presidency is the easiest path our nation has seen since Eisenhower in 1952. That of course can change, but the numbers back up my supposition.

A Democratic candidate who is so far ahead in FL and VA this early in the game --- well, it's a definite harbinger of things to come.

Wow….the stupidity never ceases to amaze me on this forum. So that fat murdering bitch already has it won, right?

I suggest that you go back to the last time the fat ass ran. At this point in time she was way out in front of her nearest competitor. She lost.

I tend to agree that that wicked son of a bitch will run and there is a better than even chance that you communists and marxists will get your wish - the final destruction of this country. Hell, there isn't an ethical liberal on this site. Not one of you want to hold that sorry bitch to account - hell, you don't care. As long as the ends justify the means, you are happy.

God help us.

Hi [MENTION=41494]RandallFlagg[/MENTION], thanks for stopping by.

Well, let's take a look at what you wrote and what the OP actually says.

You wrote:



Nope. The OP is specifically about polling in Florida, and here is the key statement:



You wrote:

I suggest that you go back to the last time the fat ass ran. At this point in time she was way out in front of her nearest competitor. She lost.

Uh, no. At this point in time in 2006 neither Clinton nor Obama had announced and furthermore, there was not even one single 2008 prez poll taken at that time. But you are right: once both announced (Hillary on January 20, 2007, Obama in February 2007), she was way ahead.

However, a data point out of YOUR OWN party's history destroys your argument.

In 1975, GOP nomination polling was already showing Ronald Reagan decisively ahead of Gerald Ford (R-Inc). Gerald Ford BEAT Ronald Reagan at the convention and then went on to lose to Jimmy Carter in 1976. Four years later, Reagan came back and clinched the GOP nomination. So, it's not like this hasn't happened before. It has, and within the last 40 years, even.

You wrote this:

Hell, there isn't an ethical liberal on this site. Not one of you want to hold that sorry bitch to account - hell, you don't care

Wrong. Your anger is getting the better of you. Did you know that extreme anger disrupts higher brain functions and causes people to say things they really didn't mean.

Now, you were one of the first members here to rep me and make me feel welcome, and I have never forgotten it. I am not going to attack you for what you said, but what you said about liberals, especially including me, is wrong.

If Benghazi makes you so mad, then I bet you were ready to just throttle Reagan in 1983 after Beirut, right?

I could just as easily write that there isn't a sane Conservative here, one who isn't frothing-at-the-mouth, but the statement would be untrue. I have met a number of Conservatives here who are quite reasonable.

I suggest to you that you should rethink your posting. If an analysis of just 2 polls makes you this livid, imagine what the 2016 campaign could do to you. And I mean that with sincerity.

Had the second poll from Quinnipiac showed exactly the opposite, that the GOP was suddenly sweeping in Florida, I would have created a thread about that instead of this one. The numbers are what they are and there is more than ample empirical data to prove that early numbers are more telling than people realize.

Again, thanks for stopping by.

(1) I highly encourage you to read my post. I served in Embassies and Consulates around the world from the 70s through the 80s. I know how matters are addressed when requesting additional security. I also know that these men were left to fend for themselves after requesting additional security numerous times. Hillary Clinton is DIRECTLY responsible for the death of these men and YOUR party refuses to hold her accountable. As usual, the left chooses it's "battles" carefully. Lane closures on the George Washington bridge seem much more "important" than an attack on our interests overseas. Again, No big surprise there.

(2) Why would I be ready to "throttle" Reagan as you suggest, over Beirut? I had been at that barracks a mere three weeks before the attack. The only "blame" there lies not with Reagan but with the Commander of the installation. There was ample security stationed there. Unfortunately, the majority of the Marines at the barracks were not issued live ammunition, which makes "defense" highly improbable. Additional security was never requested at Beirut, while it was denied repeatedly by your "candidate" for president and subsequently accorded the "What difference does it make!" line that the bitch made infamous. Again - I sadly dread the 3AM phone call that that incompetent, worn out dyke gets - she will roll over and go back to sleep while Bill is diddling some 19 year old in the West Wing.

(3) Yes, I was one of the first to engage you when you came here. You are a liberal, however and, as such, see things through rose colored glasses. Again, it is far more important to your ilk to destroy, rather than build. You fail to hold those in your party responsible for reprehensible behavior while taking delight in the other sides' foibles. There is no common ground for you. It is all or nothing.

(4) Again - I wouldn't crown that dyke president just yet. If we ever get an Attorney General that actually works for the people and not the current administration and chooses to actually INSTIGATE his investigative powers, rather than ignore those in his party and their crimes, the American people might actually receive justice. Keep remembering this as you pronounce the republicans as "evil" and your party as "righteous". You make yourself, and those like you, look ridiculous.

 

[Barb]

Florida has seen demographic shifts in several areas. They were poised to become a more populous state than NY recently - I don't know if that has occurred yet. Retired people from NY are a significant contributor to that increase, although, if I remember correctly, not the biggest. Women are still likely to live longer than men, so the #s from the Northeast are more likely to be weightier in females. Where this becomes interesting is in the rift that took place within the voting democrats because Obama got the Dem endorsement rather than Clinton. Many of the elderly female voters were sorely disappointed because they saw that election as the last in their lifetimes that they would see, potentially, a woman president! Their hopes were dashed, and they were further embittered when Obama chose Biden, rather than Clinton for his VP. Her appointment to Sec of State did little to ameliorate that bitterness.

Here we are, and many of those same voters now see a second chance for Hillary.

A second shift, not in demographic #s, but in a more aggressive and a not-to-be-disenfranchised participation from poor people convinced that their participation in the political process actually CAN make a difference, so long as they ignore the media that routinely ignores them.

All that said, I don't think another Clinton is the best pick for the American people, or even the most electable Democrat, but one that the corporate and financial world would consider the least odious democrat if they couldn't get a Republican. They will, therefore, feed the idea that she is the only viable Dem candidate. Her Husband, for all the benefits he did bring, was also extremely corporate and establishment friendly, and as Sec of State, so was Hillary.

I believe that if the democrat voters again ignored the media that routinely ignores us, we could get an Elizabeth Warren / Bernie Sanders ticket (and could I expand my wish list to then see Al Franken in a high cabinet post?), one that would TRULY represent the people of this country, rather that the corporations and financial markets that have been allowed to ghost write the laws WE the people have suffered under for so long.

 

[racewright]

Florida has seen demographic shifts in several areas. They were poised to become a more populous state than NY recently - I don't know if that has occurred yet. Retired people from NY are a significant contributor to that increase, although, if I remember correctly, not the biggest. Women are still likely to live longer than men, so the #s from the Northeast are more likely to be weightier in females. Where this becomes interesting is in the rift that took place within the voting democrats because Obama got the Dem endorsement rather than Clinton. Many of the elderly female voters were sorely disappointed because they saw that election as the last in their lifetimes that they would see, potentially, a woman president! Their hopes were dashed, and they were further embittered when Obama chose Biden, rather than Clinton for his VP. Her appointment to Sec of State did little to ameliorate that bitterness.

Here we are, and many of those same voters now see a second chance for Hillary.

A second shift, not in demographic #s, but in a more aggressive and a not-to-be-disenfranchised participation from poor people convinced that their participation in the political process actually CAN make a difference, so long as they ignore the media that routinely ignores them.

All that said, I don't think another Clinton is the best pick for the American people, or even the most electable Democrat, but one that the corporate and financial world would consider the least odious democrat if they couldn't get a Republican. They will, therefore, feed the idea that she is the only viable Dem candidate. Her Husband, for all the benefits he did bring, was also extremely corporate and establishment friendly, and as Sec of State, so was Hillary.

I believe that if the democrat voters again ignored the media that routinely ignores us, we could get an Elizabeth Warren / Bernie Sanders ticket (and could I expand my wish list to then see Al Franken in a high cabinet post?), one that would TRULY represent the people of this country, rather that the corporations and financial markets that have been allowed to ghost write the laws WE the people have suffered under for so long.

I know you do not like this Sorry.
The racial component of the next Presidential election will be the determining factor.
In todays political arena the Policies mean little.
Owbama won by about 5 million votes. True 5 million is a large number but remember 60 million voted for Mitt and 65 million for Owbama. All blacks voted for him I just do not believe all blacks will show up to vote for a white candidate. It was not a vote for the best one for the job but a vote against the white business man..Very shallow of the American voter,and sad.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Wow….the stupidity never ceases to amaze me on this forum. So that fat murdering bitch already has it won, right?

I suggest that you go back to the last time the fat ass ran. At this point in time she was way out in front of her nearest competitor. She lost.

I tend to agree that that wicked son of a bitch will run and there is a better than even chance that you communists and marxists will get your wish - the final destruction of this country. Hell, there isn't an ethical liberal on this site. Not one of you want to hold that sorry bitch to account - hell, you don't care. As long as the ends justify the means, you are happy.

God help us.

Hi [MENTION=41494]RandallFlagg[/MENTION], thanks for stopping by.

Well, let's take a look at what you wrote and what the OP actually says.

You wrote:



Nope. The OP is specifically about polling in Florida, and here is the key statement:



You wrote:




Uh, no. At this point in time in 2006 neither Clinton nor Obama had announced and furthermore, there was not even one single 2008 prez poll taken at that time. But you are right: once both announced (Hillary on January 20, 2007, Obama in February 2007), she was way ahead.

However, a data point out of YOUR OWN party's history destroys your argument.

In 1975, GOP nomination polling was already showing Ronald Reagan decisively ahead of Gerald Ford (R-Inc). Gerald Ford BEAT Ronald Reagan at the convention and then went on to lose to Jimmy Carter in 1976. Four years later, Reagan came back and clinched the GOP nomination. So, it's not like this hasn't happened before. It has, and within the last 40 years, even.

You wrote this:

Hell, there isn't an ethical liberal on this site. Not one of you want to hold that sorry bitch to account - hell, you don't care

Wrong. Your anger is getting the better of you. Did you know that extreme anger disrupts higher brain functions and causes people to say things they really didn't mean.

Now, you were one of the first members here to rep me and make me feel welcome, and I have never forgotten it. I am not going to attack you for what you said, but what you said about liberals, especially including me, is wrong.

If Benghazi makes you so mad, then I bet you were ready to just throttle Reagan in 1983 after Beirut, right?

I could just as easily write that there isn't a sane Conservative here, one who isn't frothing-at-the-mouth, but the statement would be untrue. I have met a number of Conservatives here who are quite reasonable.

I suggest to you that you should rethink your posting. If an analysis of just 2 polls makes you this livid, imagine what the 2016 campaign could do to you. And I mean that with sincerity.

Had the second poll from Quinnipiac showed exactly the opposite, that the GOP was suddenly sweeping in Florida, I would have created a thread about that instead of this one. The numbers are what they are and there is more than ample empirical data to prove that early numbers are more telling than people realize.

Again, thanks for stopping by.

(1) I highly encourage you to read my post. I served in Embassies and Consulates around the world from the 70s through the 80s. I know how matters are addressed when requesting additional security. I also know that these men were left to fend for themselves after requesting additional security numerous times. Hillary Clinton is DIRECTLY responsible for the death of these men and YOUR party refuses to hold her accountable. As usual, the left chooses it's "battles" carefully. Lane closures on the George Washington bridge seem much more "important" than an attack on our interests overseas. Again, No big surprise there.

(2) Why would I be ready to "throttle" Reagan as you suggest, over Beirut? I had been at that barracks a mere three weeks before the attack. The only "blame" there lies not with Reagan but with the Commander of the installation. There was ample security stationed there. Unfortunately, the majority of the Marines at the barracks were not issued live ammunition, which makes "defense" highly improbable. Additional security was never requested at Beirut, while it was denied repeatedly by your "candidate" for president and subsequently accorded the "What difference does it make!" line that the bitch made infamous. Again - I sadly dread the 3AM phone call that that incompetent, worn out dyke gets - she will roll over and go back to sleep while Bill is diddling some 19 year old in the West Wing.

(3) Yes, I was one of the first to engage you when you came here. You are a liberal, however and, as such, see things through rose colored glasses. Again, it is far more important to your ilk to destroy, rather than build. You fail to hold those in your party responsible for reprehensible behavior while taking delight in the other sides' foibles. There is no common ground for you. It is all or nothing.

(4) Again - I wouldn't crown that dyke president just yet. If we ever get an Attorney General that actually works for the people and not the current administration and chooses to actually INSTIGATE his investigative powers, rather than ignore those in his party and their crimes, the American people might actually receive justice. Keep remembering this as you pronounce the republicans as "evil" and your party as "righteous". You make yourself, and those like you, look ridiculous.

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

 

[Barb]

Florida has seen demographic shifts in several areas. They were poised to become a more populous state than NY recently - I don't know if that has occurred yet. Retired people from NY are a significant contributor to that increase, although, if I remember correctly, not the biggest. Women are still likely to live longer than men, so the #s from the Northeast are more likely to be weightier in females. Where this becomes interesting is in the rift that took place within the voting democrats because Obama got the Dem endorsement rather than Clinton. Many of the elderly female voters were sorely disappointed because they saw that election as the last in their lifetimes that they would see, potentially, a woman president! Their hopes were dashed, and they were further embittered when Obama chose Biden, rather than Clinton for his VP. Her appointment to Sec of State did little to ameliorate that bitterness.

Here we are, and many of those same voters now see a second chance for Hillary.

A second shift, not in demographic #s, but in a more aggressive and a not-to-be-disenfranchised participation from poor people convinced that their participation in the political process actually CAN make a difference, so long as they ignore the media that routinely ignores them.

All that said, I don't think another Clinton is the best pick for the American people, or even the most electable Democrat, but one that the corporate and financial world would consider the least odious democrat if they couldn't get a Republican. They will, therefore, feed the idea that she is the only viable Dem candidate. Her Husband, for all the benefits he did bring, was also extremely corporate and establishment friendly, and as Sec of State, so was Hillary.

I believe that if the democrat voters again ignored the media that routinely ignores us, we could get an Elizabeth Warren / Bernie Sanders ticket (and could I expand my wish list to then see Al Franken in a high cabinet post?), one that would TRULY represent the people of this country, rather that the corporations and financial markets that have been allowed to ghost write the laws WE the people have suffered under for so long.

I know you do not like this Sorry.
The racial component of the next Presidential election will be the determining factor.
In todays political arena the Policies mean little.
Owbama won by about 5 million votes. True 5 million is a large number but remember 60 million voted for Mitt and 65 million for Owbama. All blacks voted for him I just do not believe all blacks will show up to vote for a white candidate. It was not a vote for the best one for the job but a vote against the white business man..Very shallow of the American voter,and sad.

I disagree with your theory that that race is a greater motivator than shared economic concerns. I will acknowledge that "feelings," be they feelings of group solidarity, group opposition, or some shared group resentment (wedge issues) trumps the consideration of any study of any platform's policies and how they represent the socioeconomic interests of the voters or their progeny. That IS sad, but the shallowness is manufactured by corporate driven moneyed interests that PREFER ignorant and easily misled voters.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Florida has seen demographic shifts in several areas. They were poised to become a more populous state than NY recently - I don't know if that has occurred yet. Retired people from NY are a significant contributor to that increase, although, if I remember correctly, not the biggest. Women are still likely to live longer than men, so the #s from the Northeast are more likely to be weightier in females. Where this becomes interesting is in the rift that took place within the voting democrats because Obama got the Dem endorsement rather than Clinton. Many of the elderly female voters were sorely disappointed because they saw that election as the last in their lifetimes that they would see, potentially, a woman president! Their hopes were dashed, and they were further embittered when Obama chose Biden, rather than Clinton for his VP. Her appointment to Sec of State did little to ameliorate that bitterness.

Here we are, and many of those same voters now see a second chance for Hillary.

A second shift, not in demographic #s, but in a more aggressive and a not-to-be-disenfranchised participation from poor people convinced that their participation in the political process actually CAN make a difference, so long as they ignore the media that routinely ignores them.

All that said, I don't think another Clinton is the best pick for the American people, or even the most electable Democrat, but one that the corporate and financial world would consider the least odious democrat if they couldn't get a Republican. They will, therefore, feed the idea that she is the only viable Dem candidate. Her Husband, for all the benefits he did bring, was also extremely corporate and establishment friendly, and as Sec of State, so was Hillary.

I believe that if the democrat voters again ignored the media that routinely ignores us, we could get an Elizabeth Warren / Bernie Sanders ticket (and could I expand my wish list to then see Al Franken in a high cabinet post?), one that would TRULY represent the people of this country, rather that the corporations and financial markets that have been allowed to ghost write the laws WE the people have suffered under for so long.

I know you do not like this Sorry.
The racial component of the next Presidential election will be the determining factor.
In todays political arena the Policies mean little.
Owbama won by about 5 million votes. True 5 million is a large number but remember 60 million voted for Mitt and 65 million for Owbama. All blacks voted for him I just do not believe all blacks will show up to vote for a white candidate. It was not a vote for the best one for the job but a vote against the white business man..Very shallow of the American voter,and sad.

I disagree with your theory that that race is a greater motivator than shared economic concerns. I will acknowledge that "feelings," be they feelings of group solidarity, group opposition, or some shared group resentment (wedge issues) trumps the consideration of any study of any platform's policies and how they represent the socioeconomic interests of the voters or their progeny. That IS sad, but the shallowness is manufactured by corporate driven moneyed interests that PREFER ignorant and easily misled voters.

Take a look at his user name. It tells you all you need to know.

 

[PredFan]

This is interesting for a number of reasons. And a bad omen for the GOP if Hillary Clinton ends up being the Democratic nominee.

In 2013, the state of Florida was polled for 2016 pres matchups 6 times, making for 16 match-ups, all of which Hillary Clinton won.

You can see that data for 5 of those six polls here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...UlSZU52bGdZemNzZ2VNVmVRYnc&usp=sharing#gid=10

The 6th poll, from Quinnipiac, came in in December, after I had already done the "Hillary vs. GOP analysis III", which you can read here:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: 2016 GE: Hillary Clinton vs. GOP Field, Part III

Today, an update of the Quinnipiac, post- "Bridgegate", came in, and the results are pretty eye-popping:

(numbers in parentheses = value from the last Quinnipiac)

Today's Quinnipiac:

Florida (FL) Poll - January 31, 2014 - Bridgegate Drives Christie To | Quinnipiac University Connecticut


Clinton (D): 49 (47)
Bush, J. (R): 43 (45)
margin: Clinton +7 (+2)
margin shift from November 2013: Clinton +5

Clinton (D): 52 (50)
Ryan (R): 39 (42)
margin: Clinton +13 (+8)
margin shift from November 2013: Clinton +5

Clinton (D): 53 (51)
Paul (R): 38 (41)
margin: Clinton +15 (+10)
margin shift from November 2013: Clinton +5

Clinton (D): 51 (45)
Christie (R): 35 (41)
margin: Clinton +16 (+4)
margin shift from November 2013: Clinton +12

Clinton (D): 54 (52)
Cruz (R): 34 (36)
margin: Clinton +20 (+16)
margin shift from November 2013: Clinton +5

Ok, what to take away from this:

1.) There is a substantial change in margin over Chris Christie. In November, Hillary was in the mid 40s and only 4 up on Christie, she is now 16 up. Her margin over Gov. Christie has QUADRUPLED. Of the 5 polls, three polls showed a margin shift of +5 toward Hillary, one showed a shift of +4 toward Hillary, and then there is this massive jump of +12 in the race against Christie, which is why it stands out so much.

2.) the margins from this latest poll range from +7 (against Bush, J) to +20 (against Cruz). Even "just" a +7 would be higher than any presidential candidate has won in Florida since 1988!

3.) I have looked at all Florida polling for 2008, 2004. 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988 (only a scattering), 1980 (2 polls), 1976 (6 polls) and cannot find one single poll with as many high values for a Democrat as Hillary has been enjoying all through 2013.

Now, this is just one poll, but the change over the last poll from Quinnipiac is significant.

And now, with 7 polls and 21 matchups, Clinton has won every single one of them.

The last time a Democrat won Florida with a double-digit margin was with Truman (D) in 1948. Even with the highest winning percentage a President has ever won (1964, 61.05%), Johnson (D) carried Florida by only +2.30%. You can see all the past presidential margins in Florida here for yourself:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=12&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state

So, a Democrat polling in double digits in Florida is a real warning sign for the GOP.

Now, a PPP (D) poll of Florida should be rolling along in the next couple of days, and it will be interesting to see what the numbers look like. PPP (D) was one of only two pollsters to correctly predict Florida for Obama in 2012, btw.


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

How did Quinnipiac do in 2012? You can read that HERE:

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

More recently, Quinnipiac was the closest to Terry McAuliffe's margin in the Virginia Gubernatorial from November 2013.

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

Again, this is just one poll, and polls can be wrong. But they cannot ALL be wrong. And ALL polling in Florida, from 2013 to current, is pointing in the same direction: in the Sunshine State, Hillary is cleaning the GOP's clock, plain and simple.

Without Florida in it's electoral column, the GOP simply cannot win nationally.

Wow! I live in Florida. I wasn't asked, no one I know was asked, no one on my 162 facebook friends were asked. I'm not bothered in the least.

 

[PredFan]

Meh, Let Hillary have it. Let all of the democrats have it. The American voter is stupid enough to vote them in, they were stupid enough to vote Obama in, are stupid enough to continue to vote for Reid, Pelosi, etc., they deserve what is coming. This country is probably irretrievably broken. Let it fall apart under their watch. I used to feel sorry for the young but not any more. It's mostly their fault.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Ok!

 

[Derideo_Te]

when it comes to the president polls are pretty useless. the electoral talks. red states are going red, blue blue. its the swing states that matter. democrats haven't delivered for the swing states they won. if it Christie, even though NJ is a blue state. Christie will carry it. that's a should be in the bag blue state Hillary will lose. that's a pretty big swing.

Latest polls in NJ show that Christie is losing support even amongst Republicans. Granted he still has time to recover but usually things like this need time. Christie would have a hard time carrying NJ against Clinton in 2016 with this hanging over him. In 2020 he would do a whole better in my opinion.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Wow….the stupidity never ceases to amaze me on this forum. So that fat murdering bitch already has it won, right?

I suggest that you go back to the last time the fat ass ran. At this point in time she was way out in front of her nearest competitor. She lost.

I tend to agree that that wicked son of a bitch will run and there is a better than even chance that you communists and marxists will get your wish - the final destruction of this country. Hell, there isn't an ethical liberal on this site. Not one of you want to hold that sorry bitch to account - hell, you don't care. As long as the ends justify the means, you are happy.

God help us.

Hi [MENTION=41494]RandallFlagg[/MENTION], thanks for stopping by.

Well, let's take a look at what you wrote and what the OP actually says.

You wrote:



Nope. The OP is specifically about polling in Florida, and here is the key statement:



You wrote:




Uh, no. At this point in time in 2006 neither Clinton nor Obama had announced and furthermore, there was not even one single 2008 prez poll taken at that time. But you are right: once both announced (Hillary on January 20, 2007, Obama in February 2007), she was way ahead.

However, a data point out of YOUR OWN party's history destroys your argument.

In 1975, GOP nomination polling was already showing Ronald Reagan decisively ahead of Gerald Ford (R-Inc). Gerald Ford BEAT Ronald Reagan at the convention and then went on to lose to Jimmy Carter in 1976. Four years later, Reagan came back and clinched the GOP nomination. So, it's not like this hasn't happened before. It has, and within the last 40 years, even.

You wrote this:

Hell, there isn't an ethical liberal on this site. Not one of you want to hold that sorry bitch to account - hell, you don't care

Wrong. Your anger is getting the better of you. Did you know that extreme anger disrupts higher brain functions and causes people to say things they really didn't mean.

Now, you were one of the first members here to rep me and make me feel welcome, and I have never forgotten it. I am not going to attack you for what you said, but what you said about liberals, especially including me, is wrong.

If Benghazi makes you so mad, then I bet you were ready to just throttle Reagan in 1983 after Beirut, right?

I could just as easily write that there isn't a sane Conservative here, one who isn't frothing-at-the-mouth, but the statement would be untrue. I have met a number of Conservatives here who are quite reasonable.

I suggest to you that you should rethink your posting. If an analysis of just 2 polls makes you this livid, imagine what the 2016 campaign could do to you. And I mean that with sincerity.

Had the second poll from Quinnipiac showed exactly the opposite, that the GOP was suddenly sweeping in Florida, I would have created a thread about that instead of this one. The numbers are what they are and there is more than ample empirical data to prove that early numbers are more telling than people realize.

Again, thanks for stopping by.

(1) I highly encourage you to read my post. I served in Embassies and Consulates around the world from the 70s through the 80s. I know how matters are addressed when requesting additional security. I also know that these men were left to fend for themselves after requesting additional security numerous times. Hillary Clinton is DIRECTLY responsible for the death of these men and YOUR party refuses to hold her accountable. As usual, the left chooses it's "battles" carefully. Lane closures on the George Washington bridge seem much more "important" than an attack on our interests overseas. Again, No big surprise there.

(2) Why would I be ready to "throttle" Reagan as you suggest, over Beirut? I had been at that barracks a mere three weeks before the attack. The only "blame" there lies not with Reagan but with the Commander of the installation. There was ample security stationed there. Unfortunately, the majority of the Marines at the barracks were not issued live ammunition, which makes "defense" highly improbable. Additional security was never requested at Beirut, while it was denied repeatedly by your "candidate" for president and subsequently accorded the "What difference does it make!" line that the bitch made infamous. Again - I sadly dread the 3AM phone call that that incompetent, worn out dyke gets - she will roll over and go back to sleep while Bill is diddling some 19 year old in the West Wing.

(3) Yes, I was one of the first to engage you when you came here. You are a liberal, however and, as such, see things through rose colored glasses. Again, it is far more important to your ilk to destroy, rather than build. You fail to hold those in your party responsible for reprehensible behavior while taking delight in the other sides' foibles. There is no common ground for you. It is all or nothing.

(4) Again - I wouldn't crown that dyke president just yet. If we ever get an Attorney General that actually works for the people and not the current administration and chooses to actually INSTIGATE his investigative powers, rather than ignore those in his party and their crimes, the American people might actually receive justice. Keep remembering this as you pronounce the republicans as "evil" and your party as "righteous". You make yourself, and those like you, look ridiculous.

Live ammunition would not have stopped the bomb from being detonated by remote control which is how the 2nd bomb at the French barracks was set off after the driver was killed.

 

[Mertex]

when it comes to the president polls are pretty useless. the electoral talks. red states are going red, blue blue. its the swing states that matter. democrats haven't delivered for the swing states they won. if it Christie, even though NJ is a blue state. Christie will carry it. that's a should be in the bag blue state Hillary will lose. that's a pretty big swing.

You really think that Christie would still carry NJ, even after the latest scandals? Especially the Sandy one, that affected so many NJ residents.