A Quinnipiac University poll also showed that both Hillary and Bernie would defeat any Republican who would win the nomination. In other words, panic mode is a bit of a stretch, to say the least.
Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk
Indeed. To-date, 93 national polls, 398 matchups, Hillary has won 388 of them, most of them, resoundingly.
Even a rabid RW nutcase birther pollster (Gravis, for WND) cannot get Hillary under 50....
Fun, fun, fun...
I must not be understanding you. I have seen polls where she is less than 50, and matter of fact, Sanders waqs at a statistical tie and even better in some polls.
It's true Hillary performed magnificently in earlier polls. But there is the present where she is not doing well. What is going to make the difference are the FBI headlines!
Sanders is only close to her in New Hampshire and that's it.
And quite often, the candidate who won NH lost the nomination. Remember nominee Buchanan, nominee Tsongas? LOL!!
In Iowa, she is
at least +20 ahead of him, and nationally, in poll after poll after poll, she is at +30 most of the time. Yes, it was +50 about 5 months ago, when no one else was in. +30 is a blowout margin. Even the latest CNN poll makes it clear that in Iowa, without Biden as a Choice, Clinton springs up to 58% and Sanders doesn't budge. Practically the entire time, Hillary has been hanging more often that not at 60%. In South Carolina, which has the most delegates of the first four states, she is at 70%.
So, you see, there is perception.
And then, there is math.
And I would be writing the same stuff about Republicans.
A +30 margin is a crushing margin. It's simple math.
Thanks Stat! It's early. Let's see what December brings. Will it be a gift for you or for me?
I'm gonna let you in on a secret, but shhhhhh, don't tell anyone. Any process where we the people actually decide something is a gift for me.
And I am a
big fan of landslide wins, even when it is sometimes "my" side that loses, because a landslide means beyond a shadow of a doubt that we the people have decided, without ifs or buts or whatevers.
And I am not an automatic Democratic voter, contary to what some people here may think.
I will openly admit, not only do I like Clinton, I am personally convinced that she is the
superior candidate to every one out there, in both fields.
But there are two Republicans out there whom, were either one of them to be nominated, I would take a hard look at before making my final decision. The other 15 do not interest me in the slightest, I think they are terrible. But that's my personal opinion. I also think that 3 Democratic candidates are also terrible and I would not vote for them in the primaries. I can, without reservations, reject them.
In 2012, I sat down for two full hours and went over the GOP platform, word for word, I researched Romney's proposals, all of them, word for word.
Then, I read the Democratic platform, word for word and went through all of the President's proposals, word for word.
I lined up the platforms and the proposals next to each other and noted the differences.
Then, I made my choice.
I will vote for the person whom I am convinced will do the best possible job from the Executive branch.
That's my private side.
My numbers-side is pretty damned neutral. I see the polling, I recognize the trends and see where things are going. It was very obvious to me in October 2004 that President Bush was going to be re-elected. The math was saying it. Just as it was obvious to me that 2008 was going to be a big realignment election, and it was.
At the end of the day, I don't think the 2016 race is going to be close at all.