If you ran a poll of Rick Perry vs. the Democrats you'd find Perry doing pretty well. You never compare one specific person against a group. That's stupid. Only an idiot like Statistheilhitler would fall for it/
In any case, I am sure all the polls in 2006 showed Hillary was a shoo-in. Actually I recall looking back at this and yes they did. Whether the match up was Hillary v. McCain or Hillary v. Giuliani, who was the front runner.
Well, aren't you a stupid ******. Each one of those matchups is a one-on-one matchup. Just because a pollster is pitting one candidate on one side against a number of candidates from the other side doesn't mean that the matchups themselves are not individual. Now, rub your two remaining brain cells together and let's see if you can figure that one out, fake Rabbi.
And btw, I have indicated more than once that one individual poll is of not much worth, but the aggregate of many polls does indeed tell us something.
Hey, when Hillary Clinton sweeps on election night 2016 with 57% and well over 400 EV, let's talk again.
Ahhh, yet another Rightie who, when his logic (if he had any at all) fails him, goes for personal attacks instead.
So a matchup of one vs. a party is really one vs one. You make much sense. If you're stoned.
Polls at this stage in 2006 universally showed Hillary as candidate beating either Romney or Giuliani. How did those work out?
Stupid fake-ass ****** you are.
Well, let's take a look at that again, you stupid retarded ****.
You keep saying it's a matchup between one vs. a party, but dumbfuck, each one of those matchups has two very specific names, one being Hillary Clinton, the other being one of the names of presumed GOP candidates. Put down what you are smoking and learn something for a change, you stupid retarded ****. Of the 534 (yes, 534) matchups I have recorded, exactly ONE is a generic match up. The other 533 are specific name to name matchups.
And, you stupid ****, you keep going back to 2006, but you don't have courage to go back to 2010-2011, where Obama was consistently leading Romney by +3 to +4 in Ohio in all that early polling and by +4 nationally, and on election night, you stupid retarded fake Rabbi ****, Obama won Ohio by +3 and nationally by +4.
So, yeah, stupid retarded ****, early polling is often quite predictive.
No wonder the GOP keeps losing, with retarded ***** like you speaking for it. You by far one of the most vile pieces of excrement to every creep around USMB and until, I have been halfway nice to you. Not any more, you shitstain.
So, I've addressed the OP and the extra details about polling, and you have attacked people instead, you stupid moronic waste-of-breathable-air ****.