Emails, Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, etc...Still No Republicans Coming Close to Beating Hillary

[candycorn]

Something else the ever-expanding GOP clowncar is doing. Eventually, Princess is going to have to figure out what to do with the limited GOP debates he has gone "all in" with as a way of toning down the crazy in his stable of hyenas.

According to GOP.com, here are the 9 debates they've announced.

1. Fox News
August 2015
Ohio

2. CNN
September 2015
California

3. CNBC
October 2015
Colorado

4. Fox Business
November 2015
Wisconsin

5. CNN
December 2015
Nevada

6. Fox News
January 2016
Iowa

7. ABC News
February 2016
New Hampshire

8. CBS News
February 2016
South Carolina

9. NBC/Telemundo
February 2016
Florida

So far, here are the contestants:

1. Carson
2. Cruz
3. Fiorina
4. Huckster
5. Paul
6. Rubio

Those expected to enter but haven't yet

1. Bush
2. Christie
3. Graham
4. Jindal
5. Kasich
6. Perry
7. Santorum
8. Walker

If you have 14 candidates, obviously you're not going to be able to have an effective debate among all of them and GOP Queenpin Princess will have to cull the herd somewhat.

It will be interesting to see what happens when Paul and Cruz get sequestered as they are sure to be polling very low in the national scene but polling very well among republicans. While it's true that the GOP leader should only care what the fellow members of the GOP think, those who lose 3 straight elections to the Democrats are probably going to be looking for work soon; Princess will definitely have one eye on his constituents and another eye on his job.

Those who are sequestered will likely not do it but it is possible that given the fractured GOP of 2015, those who are kicked off the stage will likely find some appeal on Newsmax or The Blaze or whatever they call that network. Might there be two GOP debates on one night??? It's helpful to note that both parties go through this sequestration each year. Buddy Romer was not invited to any of the debates in 2012.

 

[Jarhead]

Like I said, it wouldn't matter to you what I said. Ignorant sheep such as yourself are predictable

Again....you can't name a "good candidate" the GOP has. It's okay, Foxfyre couldn't do it either.

Again, it wouldn't matter to you, loon. Look cupcake, anyone using that whore Fluke's pic for an avatar isn't too bright. A sad fact but none the less a fact.

Foxfyre another conservative using a "whore" word. This is why the nation is getting more and more liberal...to avoid having to identify yourself with people like you two...

Meanwhile...still waiting for the names of the "good candidates" the GOP has.

to you, no one will be a good GOP candidate. I can give you a name and you will spin the truth of the candidates motivations and intentions. It is what you do on this board. Most of your posts play on spin and rhetoric.

But right now, there are 3 solid, good GOP candidates.

And there are two democratic candidates.

One is an admitted socialist who I don't think will get the votes.

And the other is a candidate who was given a golden opportunity to show us her leadership skills.

And what does she do?

She wrongfully blamed an American who was exercising his right to free speech for the attack on a US consulate. I mean...really? That showed good leadership? She had a choice, at that point of time, to blame no one, blame a planned terrorist attack, or blame an American exercising one of our sacred rights that is one of the reasons hard core Muslims hate us....and she chose "blame one of the things they hate about us"....

A true leader would have bent over backwards to not blame an American exercising his right to free speech. She JUMPED on the opportunity.

Some leader.

So you can't name the good candidates either? Hillary may have an easier time than I thought next November.

I told you...I can name three.

Why are you acting like a child?

 

[candycorn]

Again....you can't name a "good candidate" the GOP has. It's okay, Foxfyre couldn't do it either.

Again, it wouldn't matter to you, loon. Look cupcake, anyone using that whore Fluke's pic for an avatar isn't too bright. A sad fact but none the less a fact.

Foxfyre another conservative using a "whore" word. This is why the nation is getting more and more liberal...to avoid having to identify yourself with people like you two...

Meanwhile...still waiting for the names of the "good candidates" the GOP has.

to you, no one will be a good GOP candidate. I can give you a name and you will spin the truth of the candidates motivations and intentions. It is what you do on this board. Most of your posts play on spin and rhetoric.

But right now, there are 3 solid, good GOP candidates.

And there are two democratic candidates.

One is an admitted socialist who I don't think will get the votes.

And the other is a candidate who was given a golden opportunity to show us her leadership skills.

And what does she do?

She wrongfully blamed an American who was exercising his right to free speech for the attack on a US consulate. I mean...really? That showed good leadership? She had a choice, at that point of time, to blame no one, blame a planned terrorist attack, or blame an American exercising one of our sacred rights that is one of the reasons hard core Muslims hate us....and she chose "blame one of the things they hate about us"....

A true leader would have bent over backwards to not blame an American exercising his right to free speech. She JUMPED on the opportunity.

Some leader.

So you can't name the good candidates either? Hillary may have an easier time than I thought next November.

I told you...I can name three.

Why are you acting like a child?

Adults don't play games....little boy. If you can name 3 good candidates from this group of GOP hopefuls, you would have done it. I'd bet that the 3 you name will not be around come convention time.

 

[Jarhead]

Again, it wouldn't matter to you, loon. Look cupcake, anyone using that whore Fluke's pic for an avatar isn't too bright. A sad fact but none the less a fact.

Foxfyre another conservative using a "whore" word. This is why the nation is getting more and more liberal...to avoid having to identify yourself with people like you two...

Meanwhile...still waiting for the names of the "good candidates" the GOP has.

to you, no one will be a good GOP candidate. I can give you a name and you will spin the truth of the candidates motivations and intentions. It is what you do on this board. Most of your posts play on spin and rhetoric.

But right now, there are 3 solid, good GOP candidates.

And there are two democratic candidates.

One is an admitted socialist who I don't think will get the votes.

And the other is a candidate who was given a golden opportunity to show us her leadership skills.

And what does she do?

She wrongfully blamed an American who was exercising his right to free speech for the attack on a US consulate. I mean...really? That showed good leadership? She had a choice, at that point of time, to blame no one, blame a planned terrorist attack, or blame an American exercising one of our sacred rights that is one of the reasons hard core Muslims hate us....and she chose "blame one of the things they hate about us"....

A true leader would have bent over backwards to not blame an American exercising his right to free speech. She JUMPED on the opportunity.

Some leader.

So you can't name the good candidates either? Hillary may have an easier time than I thought next November.

I told you...I can name three.

Why are you acting like a child?

Adults don't play games....little boy. If you can name 3 good candidates from this group of GOP hopefuls, you would have done it. I'd bet that the 3 you name will not be around come convention time.

Actually, adults do play games. Maybe if you had some fun once in a while, you wouldn't be such a bitter lonely woman.

That being said, I do not need to name the names. There are 3 good candidates, but you obviously do not see any of them as good or you wouldn't have asked me to name just one.

So I decided I am not going to feed your desire to use your spin, rhetoric and lack of insight.

Sorry. Not interested in your style of "game playing"..

Shoo.

 

[toxicmedia]

With the GOP likely nominations coming out, like Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, and Marco Rubio...and Fox News focusing on Hillary scandals 24/7...none of the GOP nominees are getting closer to Hillary.

I planned to vote Republican in 2016, no matter who they nominate (except Ted Cruz or Ben Carson) because I want to see the Republicans get an unopposed shot at governing.

I hope the GOP has more tricks up their sleeves, or we're going to see 2016-2020 full of vetos by the President, and more dysfunction in Washington

2016 Presidential Race
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 4/26 - 4/30 RV -- 49 43 Clinton +6
FOX News 4/19 - 4/21 1012 RV 3.0 45 41 Clinton +4
Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 46 39 Clinton +7
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 56 39 Clinton +17
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 46 40 Clinton +6
ABC News/Wash Post 3/26 - 3/29 RV 4.0 53 41 Clinton +12
McClatchy/Marist 3/1 - 3/4 514 RV 4.3 49 42 Clinton +7
All General Election: Bush vs. Clinton Polling Data

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 4/26 - 4/30 RV -- 50 40 Clinton +10
FOX News 4/19 - 4/21 1012 RV 3.0 46 40 Clinton +6
Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 46 41 Clinton +5
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 59 37 Clinton +22
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 46 42 Clinton +4
ABC News/Wash Post 3/26 - 3/29 RV 4.0 54 40 Clinton +14
McClatchy/Marist 3/1 - 3/4 522 RV 4.3 48 44 Clinton +4
All General Election: Walker vs. Clinton Polling Data

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 4/26 - 4/30 RV -- 49 43 Clinton +6
FOX News 4/19 - 4/21 1012 RV 3.0 46 42 Clinton +4
Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 45 43 Clinton +2
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 55 41 Clinton +14
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 46 43 Clinton +3
ABC News/Wash Post 3/26 - 3/29 RV 4.0 54 39 Clinton +15
McClatchy/Marist 3/1 - 3/4 522 RV 4.3 49 42 Clinton +7
All General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton Polling Data

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 4/26 - 4/30 RV -- 47 44 Clinton +3
FOX News 4/19 - 4/21 1012 RV 3.0 46 43 Clinton +3
Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 46 42 Clinton +4
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 58 39 Clinton +19
Rasmussen Reports 4/9 - 4/12 1000 LV 3.0 47 37 Clinton +10
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 46 42 Clinton +4
McClatchy/Marist 3/1 - 3/4 514 RV 4.3 51 40 Clinton +11
All General Election: Paul vs. Clinton Polling Data

FOX News 4/19 - 4/21 1012 RV 3.0 47 42 Clinton +5
Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 48 41 Clinton +7
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 60 36 Clinton +24
Rasmussen Reports 4/9 - 4/12 1000 LV 3.0 47 38 Clinton +9
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 49 43 Clinton +6
ABC News/Wash Post 3/26 - 3/29 RV 4.0 56 39 Clinton +17
McClatchy/Marist 3/1 - 3/4 514 RV 4.3 53 39 Clinton +14
All General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton Polling Data

Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 47 42 Clinton +5
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 58 37 Clinton +21
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 48 41 Clinton +7
All General Election: Huckabee vs. Clinton Polling Data

Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 45 40 Clinton +5
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 58 39 Clinton +19
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 46 37 Clinton +9
All General Election: Christie vs. Clinton Polling Data

CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 60 36 Clinton +24
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 47 42 Clinton +5
Rasmussen Reports 2/28 - 3/1 1000 LV 3.0 47 36 Clinton +11

Werent you alive 2000-2006 they controlled all three "almost" the entire time and that caused the great recession. You want to try that again?

Need me to remind you the GOP was/is so bad the american people elected a black rather than them.

Women want to see the first woman president.

I believe the same demographic combination, has the same potential, to turn out and vote for Hillary like they did Obama. Including emphasis on women, who make up a far larger percentage of the electorate than blacks do.

I don't find blaming the housing bubble recession on the Bush administration to be intellectually sound. The President and his cabinet can only push the economy and unemployment + or - 5% depending on whether or not they make good decision, or bad ones. Plus there will be an overlapping policy effect from one admin to another.

I want to give the GOP free reign because the lack of that has caused all this anti government back seat driving to become a problem. Different approaches need to be tried so we can decide which approach is better, and the Tea Party approach is untested, so they can run around all day being annoying. Time to put them to the test

 

[Jarhead]

She's lost six points since March....sinking faster than a submarine with a screen door

How is she sinking?

She remains, through the worst Fox and the GOP has to dish out, still 5-15 points ahead of all Republican challengers.

The difference between Hillary and other potential Democrats now, is very different than Hillary VS other potential Democratic nominees in 2008. There is no Obama, with the potential to promote the concept of "hope and change". Elizabeth Warren does not represent anything new that Hillary couldn't bring to the office.

I'm surprised anyone would be arguing against the numbers. It's like you guys are seeing the "Hillary +10" or "Hillary +7".....in January 2015, and still in May 2015.....but you're just not seeing them or something.

Kind of odd.

Not really odd. Hillary has had the greatest name recognition for years. All the average Joe, non political, middle America people heard about Cruz was "green eggs and ham". All they heard about Walker was his recall election. All they heard about Huckabee was his Evangelical approach. All they heard about Carson was....well....pretty much nothing.

And they are just noticing that cool sounding kid by the name of Rubio.

At this stage you can not look at "head to head".....I mean, heck.....most people struggle between Kerry and Biden when asked who the VP is. Most people only know a few names in Politics after the President.

At this stage, you need to look at Hillary's favorability, likability, and trustworthiness rankings to determine where she stands.

And those numbers are sinking.

What about the favorability, likability, and trustworthiness rankings of the GOP challengers?

Honestly...what you're saying Democrats should be concerned about, sounds just like what Fox News and the GOP wishes Democrats were concerned about.

Right now, Clinton is sitting back biding their time, waiting to unleash the same teams that got Bill elected in 1990, when they need to. Right now they don't

huh?

You said something was odd......so.,.........

I simply explained to you why Clinton head to head rankings are not really moving much whereas her likability and trustworthiness rankings are dipping.

I did not say anything as to what democrats should be concerned about.

Likewise, I did not see any reason to address the GOP challengers and what they lack for you did not say that was odd.

If you prefer just orating and not having a conversation....just say so and I will gladly sit back and let you run the show.

By the way......my premise? Is the exact reason as to why you found something as odd...that is not odd at all.

What I found odd was "why anyone would be arguing against the numbers" that clearly show Hillary polling better than all Republican challengers for the whole year so far.

Threads have topics, and Hillary's numbers, compared to the GOP field, is the topic.

But I'm a reasonable man, and I hate when people try and stifle discussion on other threads because something they don't want to consider is "off topic"

So!...in the interest of conversation...let me try an initiate some, with a question.

Barring some new legitimate scandal, that gains traction with the 95% of Americans who don't watch Fox News, what could happen that would eliminate that 10+ point lead Hillary has over the GOP challengers?

As I remember, the debates do have the potential to swing votes 5% + or -

And why hasn't Karl Rove been busting out his 1980's white board on these polls?

I find it interesting that you refuse to address the reason WHY.

I have explained it to you numerous times, yet you continue to say the same thing as being odd...

It is not odd.

Early on during the primary season, those with name recognition (be it for good reason or bad) tend to poll better than others without name recognition when compared head to head. It is because most Americans are not politically "in the know"...so when they are polled "who would you vote for"...they usually pick the name they recognize.

If most Americans were asked "what party is Hillary Clinton affiliated with", I bet 50% would say republican and 50% would say republican....and 50% of all of them would have been guessing.

Likewise, if the poll simply said "who would you vote for" and no names were given.....most people would not even know who the republican candidates are.

It is the way it is. It has been that way for decades.

It is not odd. It is to be expected

 

[candycorn]

Foxfyre another conservative using a "whore" word. This is why the nation is getting more and more liberal...to avoid having to identify yourself with people like you two...

Meanwhile...still waiting for the names of the "good candidates" the GOP has.

to you, no one will be a good GOP candidate. I can give you a name and you will spin the truth of the candidates motivations and intentions. It is what you do on this board. Most of your posts play on spin and rhetoric.

But right now, there are 3 solid, good GOP candidates.

And there are two democratic candidates.

One is an admitted socialist who I don't think will get the votes.

And the other is a candidate who was given a golden opportunity to show us her leadership skills.

And what does she do?

She wrongfully blamed an American who was exercising his right to free speech for the attack on a US consulate. I mean...really? That showed good leadership? She had a choice, at that point of time, to blame no one, blame a planned terrorist attack, or blame an American exercising one of our sacred rights that is one of the reasons hard core Muslims hate us....and she chose "blame one of the things they hate about us"....

A true leader would have bent over backwards to not blame an American exercising his right to free speech. She JUMPED on the opportunity.

Some leader.

So you can't name the good candidates either? Hillary may have an easier time than I thought next November.

I told you...I can name three.

Why are you acting like a child?

Adults don't play games....little boy. If you can name 3 good candidates from this group of GOP hopefuls, you would have done it. I'd bet that the 3 you name will not be around come convention time.

Actually, adults do play games. Maybe if you had some fun once in a while, you wouldn't be such a bitter lonely woman.

That being said, I do not need to name the names. There are 3 good candidates, but you obviously do not see any of them as good or you wouldn't have asked me to name just one.

So I decided I am not going to feed your desire to use your spin, rhetoric and lack of insight.

Sorry. Not interested in your style of "game playing"..

Shoo.

Running from the challenge? Typical conservative...all talk and then they all welch on their bets anyway.

 

[sealybobo]

They and their policies arent popular. I hope you run Cruz.

Oh, and if a republican had Obamas success they'd be putting his head on mt rushmore. You must be too young to remember the 90s and the GOP run gov for 6 years starting in 2000.

I dont have the time or energy to explain why you are wrong but I get what you are thinking. You just dont know how insane it would be to trust the GOP again.

Let me remind you when the GOP were destroying the economy they swore things were fine and we were just winers. Now the economy is fine and they're wining.

 

[peach174]

They and their policies arent popular. I hope you run Cruz.

Oh, and if a republican had Obamas success they'd be putting his head on mt rushmore. You must be too young to remember the 90s and the GOP run gov for 6 years starting in 2000.

I dont have the time or energy to explain why you are wrong but I get what you are thinking. You just dont know how insane it would be to trust the GOP again.

Let me remind you when the GOP were destroying the economy they swore things were fine and we were just winers. Now the economy is fine and they're wining.

No they didn't.
It was the GOP that had proof of Freddie Mac caught red handed doing illegal hedge fund trading and Dems who said everything was just fine.
Then the Frank Dodd Amendment leaves them exempt from their bill so that it can happen again in the future.

 

[toxicmedia]

How is she sinking?

She remains, through the worst Fox and the GOP has to dish out, still 5-15 points ahead of all Republican challengers.

The difference between Hillary and other potential Democrats now, is very different than Hillary VS other potential Democratic nominees in 2008. There is no Obama, with the potential to promote the concept of "hope and change". Elizabeth Warren does not represent anything new that Hillary couldn't bring to the office.

I'm surprised anyone would be arguing against the numbers. It's like you guys are seeing the "Hillary +10" or "Hillary +7".....in January 2015, and still in May 2015.....but you're just not seeing them or something.

Kind of odd.

Not really odd. Hillary has had the greatest name recognition for years. All the average Joe, non political, middle America people heard about Cruz was "green eggs and ham". All they heard about Walker was his recall election. All they heard about Huckabee was his Evangelical approach. All they heard about Carson was....well....pretty much nothing.

And they are just noticing that cool sounding kid by the name of Rubio.

At this stage you can not look at "head to head".....I mean, heck.....most people struggle between Kerry and Biden when asked who the VP is. Most people only know a few names in Politics after the President.

At this stage, you need to look at Hillary's favorability, likability, and trustworthiness rankings to determine where she stands.

And those numbers are sinking.

What about the favorability, likability, and trustworthiness rankings of the GOP challengers?

Honestly...what you're saying Democrats should be concerned about, sounds just like what Fox News and the GOP wishes Democrats were concerned about.

Right now, Clinton is sitting back biding their time, waiting to unleash the same teams that got Bill elected in 1990, when they need to. Right now they don't

huh?

You said something was odd......so.,.........

I simply explained to you why Clinton head to head rankings are not really moving much whereas her likability and trustworthiness rankings are dipping.

I did not say anything as to what democrats should be concerned about.

Likewise, I did not see any reason to address the GOP challengers and what they lack for you did not say that was odd.

If you prefer just orating and not having a conversation....just say so and I will gladly sit back and let you run the show.

By the way......my premise? Is the exact reason as to why you found something as odd...that is not odd at all.

What I found odd was "why anyone would be arguing against the numbers" that clearly show Hillary polling better than all Republican challengers for the whole year so far.

Threads have topics, and Hillary's numbers, compared to the GOP field, is the topic.

But I'm a reasonable man, and I hate when people try and stifle discussion on other threads because something they don't want to consider is "off topic"

So!...in the interest of conversation...let me try an initiate some, with a question.

Barring some new legitimate scandal, that gains traction with the 95% of Americans who don't watch Fox News, what could happen that would eliminate that 10+ point lead Hillary has over the GOP challengers?

As I remember, the debates do have the potential to swing votes 5% + or -

And why hasn't Karl Rove been busting out his 1980's white board on these polls?

I find it interesting that you refuse to address the reason WHY.

I have explained it to you numerous times, yet you continue to say the same thing as being odd...

It is not odd.

Early on during the primary season, those with name recognition (be it for good reason or bad) tend to poll better than others without name recognition when compared head to head. It is because most Americans are not politically "in the know"...so when they are polled "who would you vote for"...they usually pick the name they recognize.

If most Americans were asked "what party is Hillary Clinton affiliated with", I bet 50% would say republican and 50% would say republican....and 50% of all of them would have been guessing.

Likewise, if the poll simply said "who would you vote for" and no names were given.....most people would not even know who the republican candidates are.

It is the way it is. It has been that way for decades.

It is not odd. It is to be expected

Ah...you've misunderstood what I view as odd.

I agree that the lack of name recognition for the Republicans is something that will likely be lestened to remedied by Presidential debates, and non stop media focus when the GOP challenger is chosen.

What I view as "odd"...is the apparent denial of the lead Hillary has right now over all potential GOP challengers.

You've simply tried to dismiss it with an "explanation" that I agree with in concept, but in scope.

They've denied it.

 

[toxicmedia]

to you, no one will be a good GOP candidate. I can give you a name and you will spin the truth of the candidates motivations and intentions. It is what you do on this board. Most of your posts play on spin and rhetoric.

But right now, there are 3 solid, good GOP candidates.

And there are two democratic candidates.

One is an admitted socialist who I don't think will get the votes.

And the other is a candidate who was given a golden opportunity to show us her leadership skills.

And what does she do?

She wrongfully blamed an American who was exercising his right to free speech for the attack on a US consulate. I mean...really? That showed good leadership? She had a choice, at that point of time, to blame no one, blame a planned terrorist attack, or blame an American exercising one of our sacred rights that is one of the reasons hard core Muslims hate us....and she chose "blame one of the things they hate about us"....

A true leader would have bent over backwards to not blame an American exercising his right to free speech. She JUMPED on the opportunity.

Some leader.

So you can't name the good candidates either? Hillary may have an easier time than I thought next November.

I told you...I can name three.

Why are you acting like a child?

Adults don't play games....little boy. If you can name 3 good candidates from this group of GOP hopefuls, you would have done it. I'd bet that the 3 you name will not be around come convention time.

Actually, adults do play games. Maybe if you had some fun once in a while, you wouldn't be such a bitter lonely woman.

That being said, I do not need to name the names. There are 3 good candidates, but you obviously do not see any of them as good or you wouldn't have asked me to name just one.

So I decided I am not going to feed your desire to use your spin, rhetoric and lack of insight.

Sorry. Not interested in your style of "game playing"..

Shoo.

Running from the challenge? Typical conservative...all talk and then they all welch on their bets anyway.

He's got this fixation on the notion that people who criticize conservative candidates would never vote for one.

He tried that on me too.

You may in fact never vote for one, but he seems to have the typical conception of what "liberals think"...no doubt based on what conservative media tells him they think.

The next thing guys like him do is say "liberal posters on this site say things that make me view liberals that way"

Then when asked to produce quotes from liberals, on this site, you'll get obfuscation, deflection, or crickets.

All in all, entirely unremarkable

 

[Foxfyre]

Not really odd. Hillary has had the greatest name recognition for years. All the average Joe, non political, middle America people heard about Cruz was "green eggs and ham". All they heard about Walker was his recall election. All they heard about Huckabee was his Evangelical approach. All they heard about Carson was....well....pretty much nothing.

And they are just noticing that cool sounding kid by the name of Rubio.

At this stage you can not look at "head to head".....I mean, heck.....most people struggle between Kerry and Biden when asked who the VP is. Most people only know a few names in Politics after the President.

At this stage, you need to look at Hillary's favorability, likability, and trustworthiness rankings to determine where she stands.

And those numbers are sinking.

What about the favorability, likability, and trustworthiness rankings of the GOP challengers?

Honestly...what you're saying Democrats should be concerned about, sounds just like what Fox News and the GOP wishes Democrats were concerned about.

Right now, Clinton is sitting back biding their time, waiting to unleash the same teams that got Bill elected in 1990, when they need to. Right now they don't

huh?

You said something was odd......so.,.........

I simply explained to you why Clinton head to head rankings are not really moving much whereas her likability and trustworthiness rankings are dipping.

I did not say anything as to what democrats should be concerned about.

Likewise, I did not see any reason to address the GOP challengers and what they lack for you did not say that was odd.

If you prefer just orating and not having a conversation....just say so and I will gladly sit back and let you run the show.

By the way......my premise? Is the exact reason as to why you found something as odd...that is not odd at all.

What I found odd was "why anyone would be arguing against the numbers" that clearly show Hillary polling better than all Republican challengers for the whole year so far.

Threads have topics, and Hillary's numbers, compared to the GOP field, is the topic.

But I'm a reasonable man, and I hate when people try and stifle discussion on other threads because something they don't want to consider is "off topic"

So!...in the interest of conversation...let me try an initiate some, with a question.

Barring some new legitimate scandal, that gains traction with the 95% of Americans who don't watch Fox News, what could happen that would eliminate that 10+ point lead Hillary has over the GOP challengers?

As I remember, the debates do have the potential to swing votes 5% + or -

And why hasn't Karl Rove been busting out his 1980's white board on these polls?

I find it interesting that you refuse to address the reason WHY.

I have explained it to you numerous times, yet you continue to say the same thing as being odd...

It is not odd.

Early on during the primary season, those with name recognition (be it for good reason or bad) tend to poll better than others without name recognition when compared head to head. It is because most Americans are not politically "in the know"...so when they are polled "who would you vote for"...they usually pick the name they recognize.

If most Americans were asked "what party is Hillary Clinton affiliated with", I bet 50% would say republican and 50% would say republican....and 50% of all of them would have been guessing.

Likewise, if the poll simply said "who would you vote for" and no names were given.....most people would not even know who the republican candidates are.

It is the way it is. It has been that way for decades.

It is not odd. It is to be expected

Ah...you've misunderstood what I view as odd.

I agree that the lack of name recognition for the Republicans is something that will likely be lestened to remedied by Presidential debates, and non stop media focus when the GOP challenger is chosen.

What I view as "odd"...is the apparent denial of the lead Hillary has right now over all potential GOP challengers.

You've simply tried to dismiss it with an "explanation" that I agree with in concept, but in scope.

They've denied it.

But I did explain that and was ignored.

 

[toxicmedia]

What about the favorability, likability, and trustworthiness rankings of the GOP challengers?

Honestly...what you're saying Democrats should be concerned about, sounds just like what Fox News and the GOP wishes Democrats were concerned about.

Right now, Clinton is sitting back biding their time, waiting to unleash the same teams that got Bill elected in 1990, when they need to. Right now they don't

huh?

You said something was odd......so.,.........

I simply explained to you why Clinton head to head rankings are not really moving much whereas her likability and trustworthiness rankings are dipping.

I did not say anything as to what democrats should be concerned about.

Likewise, I did not see any reason to address the GOP challengers and what they lack for you did not say that was odd.

If you prefer just orating and not having a conversation....just say so and I will gladly sit back and let you run the show.

By the way......my premise? Is the exact reason as to why you found something as odd...that is not odd at all.

What I found odd was "why anyone would be arguing against the numbers" that clearly show Hillary polling better than all Republican challengers for the whole year so far.

Threads have topics, and Hillary's numbers, compared to the GOP field, is the topic.

But I'm a reasonable man, and I hate when people try and stifle discussion on other threads because something they don't want to consider is "off topic"

So!...in the interest of conversation...let me try an initiate some, with a question.

Barring some new legitimate scandal, that gains traction with the 95% of Americans who don't watch Fox News, what could happen that would eliminate that 10+ point lead Hillary has over the GOP challengers?

As I remember, the debates do have the potential to swing votes 5% + or -

And why hasn't Karl Rove been busting out his 1980's white board on these polls?

I find it interesting that you refuse to address the reason WHY.

I have explained it to you numerous times, yet you continue to say the same thing as being odd...

It is not odd.

Early on during the primary season, those with name recognition (be it for good reason or bad) tend to poll better than others without name recognition when compared head to head. It is because most Americans are not politically "in the know"...so when they are polled "who would you vote for"...they usually pick the name they recognize.

If most Americans were asked "what party is Hillary Clinton affiliated with", I bet 50% would say republican and 50% would say republican....and 50% of all of them would have been guessing.

Likewise, if the poll simply said "who would you vote for" and no names were given.....most people would not even know who the republican candidates are.

It is the way it is. It has been that way for decades.

It is not odd. It is to be expected

Ah...you've misunderstood what I view as odd.

I agree that the lack of name recognition for the Republicans is something that will likely be lestened to remedied by Presidential debates, and non stop media focus when the GOP challenger is chosen.

What I view as "odd"...is the apparent denial of the lead Hillary has right now over all potential GOP challengers.

You've simply tried to dismiss it with an "explanation" that I agree with in concept, but in scope.

They've denied it.

But I did explain that and was ignored.

I guess I deserve that,,,,,,

 

[Foxfyre]

huh?

You said something was odd......so.,.........

I simply explained to you why Clinton head to head rankings are not really moving much whereas her likability and trustworthiness rankings are dipping.

I did not say anything as to what democrats should be concerned about.

Likewise, I did not see any reason to address the GOP challengers and what they lack for you did not say that was odd.

If you prefer just orating and not having a conversation....just say so and I will gladly sit back and let you run the show.

By the way......my premise? Is the exact reason as to why you found something as odd...that is not odd at all.

What I found odd was "why anyone would be arguing against the numbers" that clearly show Hillary polling better than all Republican challengers for the whole year so far.

Threads have topics, and Hillary's numbers, compared to the GOP field, is the topic.

But I'm a reasonable man, and I hate when people try and stifle discussion on other threads because something they don't want to consider is "off topic"

So!...in the interest of conversation...let me try an initiate some, with a question.

Barring some new legitimate scandal, that gains traction with the 95% of Americans who don't watch Fox News, what could happen that would eliminate that 10+ point lead Hillary has over the GOP challengers?

As I remember, the debates do have the potential to swing votes 5% + or -

And why hasn't Karl Rove been busting out his 1980's white board on these polls?

I find it interesting that you refuse to address the reason WHY.

I have explained it to you numerous times, yet you continue to say the same thing as being odd...

It is not odd.

Early on during the primary season, those with name recognition (be it for good reason or bad) tend to poll better than others without name recognition when compared head to head. It is because most Americans are not politically "in the know"...so when they are polled "who would you vote for"...they usually pick the name they recognize.

If most Americans were asked "what party is Hillary Clinton affiliated with", I bet 50% would say republican and 50% would say republican....and 50% of all of them would have been guessing.

Likewise, if the poll simply said "who would you vote for" and no names were given.....most people would not even know who the republican candidates are.

It is the way it is. It has been that way for decades.

It is not odd. It is to be expected

Ah...you've misunderstood what I view as odd.

I agree that the lack of name recognition for the Republicans is something that will likely be lestened to remedied by Presidential debates, and non stop media focus when the GOP challenger is chosen.

What I view as "odd"...is the apparent denial of the lead Hillary has right now over all potential GOP challengers.

You've simply tried to dismiss it with an "explanation" that I agree with in concept, but in scope.

They've denied it.

But I did explain that and was ignored.

I guess I deserve that,,,,,,

LOL. I think we're going to get along just fine

 

[Meathead]

Meanwhile, this from a state that supported Obama the last two presidentials:

Hillary Clinton trails three of her Republican challengers — former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) — in a new WMUR Granite State Poll from the University of New Hampshire.

Bush staged an 18-point turnaround since February. He now leads Clinton by a margin of 47 percent to 41 percent, after Clinton led in February by a margin of 51 percent to 39 percent.

Paul also turned around his fortunes from February, when he trailed by 10 percentage points, and now leads Clinton 47 percent to 43 percent.

Rubio leads Clinton by 5 percentage points, 47 percent to 42 percent, while Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker ties her with 44 percent each.

Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) is the only candidate tested in the poll that loses to Clinton, but she only leads by one percentage point at 46 percent to 45 percent.

Poll Clinton trails Bush Paul and Rubio in NH TheHill

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Emails, Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, etc...Still No Republicans Coming Close to Beating Hillary"

Emails, Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, etc, and still no republicans explaining their policy positions and that of the GOP, only pointless, unfounded attacks on Clinton.

The voters want to hear what the republican agenda is, and what the republican candidates' positions on the issue are – the voters already know republicans hate Clinton, and they don't care.

 

[Claudette]

With the GOP likely nominations coming out, like Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, and Marco Rubio...and Fox News focusing on Hillary scandals 24/7...none of the GOP nominees are getting closer to Hillary.

I planned to vote Republican in 2016, no matter who they nominate (except Ted Cruz or Ben Carson) because I want to see the Republicans get an unopposed shot at governing.

I hope the GOP has more tricks up their sleeves, or we're going to see 2016-2020 full of vetos by the President, and more dysfunction in Washington

2016 Presidential Race
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 4/26 - 4/30 RV -- 49 43 Clinton +6
FOX News 4/19 - 4/21 1012 RV 3.0 45 41 Clinton +4
Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 46 39 Clinton +7
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 56 39 Clinton +17
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 46 40 Clinton +6
ABC News/Wash Post 3/26 - 3/29 RV 4.0 53 41 Clinton +12
McClatchy/Marist 3/1 - 3/4 514 RV 4.3 49 42 Clinton +7
All General Election: Bush vs. Clinton Polling Data

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 4/26 - 4/30 RV -- 50 40 Clinton +10
FOX News 4/19 - 4/21 1012 RV 3.0 46 40 Clinton +6
Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 46 41 Clinton +5
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 59 37 Clinton +22
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 46 42 Clinton +4
ABC News/Wash Post 3/26 - 3/29 RV 4.0 54 40 Clinton +14
McClatchy/Marist 3/1 - 3/4 522 RV 4.3 48 44 Clinton +4
All General Election: Walker vs. Clinton Polling Data

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 4/26 - 4/30 RV -- 49 43 Clinton +6
FOX News 4/19 - 4/21 1012 RV 3.0 46 42 Clinton +4
Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 45 43 Clinton +2
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 55 41 Clinton +14
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 46 43 Clinton +3
ABC News/Wash Post 3/26 - 3/29 RV 4.0 54 39 Clinton +15
McClatchy/Marist 3/1 - 3/4 522 RV 4.3 49 42 Clinton +7
All General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton Polling Data

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 4/26 - 4/30 RV -- 47 44 Clinton +3
FOX News 4/19 - 4/21 1012 RV 3.0 46 43 Clinton +3
Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 46 42 Clinton +4
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 58 39 Clinton +19
Rasmussen Reports 4/9 - 4/12 1000 LV 3.0 47 37 Clinton +10
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 46 42 Clinton +4
McClatchy/Marist 3/1 - 3/4 514 RV 4.3 51 40 Clinton +11
All General Election: Paul vs. Clinton Polling Data

FOX News 4/19 - 4/21 1012 RV 3.0 47 42 Clinton +5
Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 48 41 Clinton +7
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 60 36 Clinton +24
Rasmussen Reports 4/9 - 4/12 1000 LV 3.0 47 38 Clinton +9
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 49 43 Clinton +6
ABC News/Wash Post 3/26 - 3/29 RV 4.0 56 39 Clinton +17
McClatchy/Marist 3/1 - 3/4 514 RV 4.3 53 39 Clinton +14
All General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton Polling Data

Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 47 42 Clinton +5
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 58 37 Clinton +21
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 48 41 Clinton +7
All General Election: Huckabee vs. Clinton Polling Data

Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 45 40 Clinton +5
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 58 39 Clinton +19
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 46 37 Clinton +9
All General Election: Christie vs. Clinton Polling Data

CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 60 36 Clinton +24
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 47 42 Clinton +5
Rasmussen Reports 2/28 - 3/1 1000 LV 3.0 47 36 Clinton +11

Gee as I recall Hillary was a shoe in back in 2008. A shoe in until her party decided to throw her under the bus for the half black guy.

Hillary isn't fit to be POTUS anymore than the boy king was.

Her handling of Benghazi showed the world just how unqualified that bitch is.

I do have a job she could probably handle though. It concerns the rear end of my horse. I'm sure she could shovel shit. She's been doing it for years.

 

[toxicmedia]

With the GOP likely nominations coming out, like Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, and Marco Rubio...and Fox News focusing on Hillary scandals 24/7...none of the GOP nominees are getting closer to Hillary.

I planned to vote Republican in 2016, no matter who they nominate (except Ted Cruz or Ben Carson) because I want to see the Republicans get an unopposed shot at governing.

I hope the GOP has more tricks up their sleeves, or we're going to see 2016-2020 full of vetos by the President, and more dysfunction in Washington

2016 Presidential Race
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 4/26 - 4/30 RV -- 49 43 Clinton +6
FOX News 4/19 - 4/21 1012 RV 3.0 45 41 Clinton +4
Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 46 39 Clinton +7
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 56 39 Clinton +17
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 46 40 Clinton +6
ABC News/Wash Post 3/26 - 3/29 RV 4.0 53 41 Clinton +12
McClatchy/Marist 3/1 - 3/4 514 RV 4.3 49 42 Clinton +7
All General Election: Bush vs. Clinton Polling Data

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 4/26 - 4/30 RV -- 50 40 Clinton +10
FOX News 4/19 - 4/21 1012 RV 3.0 46 40 Clinton +6
Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 46 41 Clinton +5
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 59 37 Clinton +22
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 46 42 Clinton +4
ABC News/Wash Post 3/26 - 3/29 RV 4.0 54 40 Clinton +14
McClatchy/Marist 3/1 - 3/4 522 RV 4.3 48 44 Clinton +4
All General Election: Walker vs. Clinton Polling Data

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 4/26 - 4/30 RV -- 49 43 Clinton +6
FOX News 4/19 - 4/21 1012 RV 3.0 46 42 Clinton +4
Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 45 43 Clinton +2
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 55 41 Clinton +14
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 46 43 Clinton +3
ABC News/Wash Post 3/26 - 3/29 RV 4.0 54 39 Clinton +15
McClatchy/Marist 3/1 - 3/4 522 RV 4.3 49 42 Clinton +7
All General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton Polling Data

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 4/26 - 4/30 RV -- 47 44 Clinton +3
FOX News 4/19 - 4/21 1012 RV 3.0 46 43 Clinton +3
Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 46 42 Clinton +4
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 58 39 Clinton +19
Rasmussen Reports 4/9 - 4/12 1000 LV 3.0 47 37 Clinton +10
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 46 42 Clinton +4
McClatchy/Marist 3/1 - 3/4 514 RV 4.3 51 40 Clinton +11
All General Election: Paul vs. Clinton Polling Data

FOX News 4/19 - 4/21 1012 RV 3.0 47 42 Clinton +5
Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 48 41 Clinton +7
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 60 36 Clinton +24
Rasmussen Reports 4/9 - 4/12 1000 LV 3.0 47 38 Clinton +9
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 49 43 Clinton +6
ABC News/Wash Post 3/26 - 3/29 RV 4.0 56 39 Clinton +17
McClatchy/Marist 3/1 - 3/4 514 RV 4.3 53 39 Clinton +14
All General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton Polling Data

Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 47 42 Clinton +5
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 58 37 Clinton +21
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 48 41 Clinton +7
All General Election: Huckabee vs. Clinton Polling Data

Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 45 40 Clinton +5
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 58 39 Clinton +19
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 46 37 Clinton +9
All General Election: Christie vs. Clinton Polling Data

CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 60 36 Clinton +24
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 47 42 Clinton +5
Rasmussen Reports 2/28 - 3/1 1000 LV 3.0 47 36 Clinton +11

Gee as I recall Hillary was a shoe in back in 2008. A shoe in until her party decided to throw her under the bus for the half black guy.

Hillary isn't fit to be POTUS anymore than the boy king was.

Her handling of Benghazi showed the world just how unqualified that bitch is.

I do have a job she could probably handle though. It concerns the rear end of my horse. I'm sure she could shovel shit. She's been doing it for years.

At this same time in the Democratic Party primary race, in 2007, Hillary had a 37% share, Obama had 22%, and Edwards had 10 or so %.

Right now, Hillary has 62%, and no other Democratic challengers have even 10%.

Right now, in 2007, the last time no incumbents were in the Presidential race, Democrats at Republicans were only 2-5 points ahead or behind the likely other challengers...not 5-15, like the GOP candidates are with Hillary.

The only way the GOP can fight this exceptional situation, is to downplay it as normal

And it's far from that.

 

[Dot Com]

With the GOP likely nominations coming out, like Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, and Marco Rubio...and Fox News focusing on Hillary scandals 24/7...none of the GOP nominees are getting closer to Hillary.

I planned to vote Republican in 2016, no matter who they nominate (except Ted Cruz or Ben Carson) because I want to see the Republicans get an unopposed shot at governing.

I hope the GOP has more tricks up their sleeves, or we're going to see 2016-2020 full of vetos by the President, and more dysfunction in Washington

2016 Presidential Race
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 4/26 - 4/30 RV -- 49 43 Clinton +6
FOX News 4/19 - 4/21 1012 RV 3.0 45 41 Clinton +4
Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 46 39 Clinton +7
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 56 39 Clinton +17
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 46 40 Clinton +6
ABC News/Wash Post 3/26 - 3/29 RV 4.0 53 41 Clinton +12
McClatchy/Marist 3/1 - 3/4 514 RV 4.3 49 42 Clinton +7
All General Election: Bush vs. Clinton Polling Data

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 4/26 - 4/30 RV -- 50 40 Clinton +10
FOX News 4/19 - 4/21 1012 RV 3.0 46 40 Clinton +6
Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 46 41 Clinton +5
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 59 37 Clinton +22
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 46 42 Clinton +4
ABC News/Wash Post 3/26 - 3/29 RV 4.0 54 40 Clinton +14
McClatchy/Marist 3/1 - 3/4 522 RV 4.3 48 44 Clinton +4
All General Election: Walker vs. Clinton Polling Data

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 4/26 - 4/30 RV -- 49 43 Clinton +6
FOX News 4/19 - 4/21 1012 RV 3.0 46 42 Clinton +4
Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 45 43 Clinton +2
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 55 41 Clinton +14
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 46 43 Clinton +3
ABC News/Wash Post 3/26 - 3/29 RV 4.0 54 39 Clinton +15
McClatchy/Marist 3/1 - 3/4 522 RV 4.3 49 42 Clinton +7
All General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton Polling Data

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 4/26 - 4/30 RV -- 47 44 Clinton +3
FOX News 4/19 - 4/21 1012 RV 3.0 46 43 Clinton +3
Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 46 42 Clinton +4
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 58 39 Clinton +19
Rasmussen Reports 4/9 - 4/12 1000 LV 3.0 47 37 Clinton +10
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 46 42 Clinton +4
McClatchy/Marist 3/1 - 3/4 514 RV 4.3 51 40 Clinton +11
All General Election: Paul vs. Clinton Polling Data

FOX News 4/19 - 4/21 1012 RV 3.0 47 42 Clinton +5
Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 48 41 Clinton +7
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 60 36 Clinton +24
Rasmussen Reports 4/9 - 4/12 1000 LV 3.0 47 38 Clinton +9
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 49 43 Clinton +6
ABC News/Wash Post 3/26 - 3/29 RV 4.0 56 39 Clinton +17
McClatchy/Marist 3/1 - 3/4 514 RV 4.3 53 39 Clinton +14
All General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton Polling Data

Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 47 42 Clinton +5
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 58 37 Clinton +21
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 48 41 Clinton +7
All General Election: Huckabee vs. Clinton Polling Data

Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 45 40 Clinton +5
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 58 39 Clinton +19
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 46 37 Clinton +9
All General Election: Christie vs. Clinton Polling Data

CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 60 36 Clinton +24
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 47 42 Clinton +5
Rasmussen Reports 2/28 - 3/1 1000 LV 3.0 47 36 Clinton +11

it is a very telling commentary on how bereft the Repub party is of any serious contenders for Prez. You have to get more than your eXtreme rw 30% base to win a Presidential election.

 

[toxicmedia]

Meanwhile, this from a state that supported Obama the last two presidentials:

Hillary Clinton trails three of her Republican challengers — former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) — in a new WMUR Granite State Poll from the University of New Hampshire.

Bush staged an 18-point turnaround since February. He now leads Clinton by a margin of 47 percent to 41 percent, after Clinton led in February by a margin of 51 percent to 39 percent.

Paul also turned around his fortunes from February, when he trailed by 10 percentage points, and now leads Clinton 47 percent to 43 percent.

Rubio leads Clinton by 5 percentage points, 47 percent to 42 percent, while Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker ties her with 44 percent each.

Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) is the only candidate tested in the poll that loses to Clinton, but she only leads by one percentage point at 46 percent to 45 percent.

Poll Clinton trails Bush Paul and Rubio in NH TheHill

That poll is less than 500 people in NH, and........

Party Registration
Democrat 144 25%
Republican 170 30%

Party Indentification
Democrat 40%
Republican 43%

But don't let me interrupt your cherry picking. With this poll you'll have enough to make a pie.

Polls occasionally get results that don't reflect the averages. Pay attention to the averages