Hillary Clinton has at least 20 point lead over GOP in new poll

[Oldstyle]

As for the respect that Hillary has around the world? Do you think she has more respect NOW after having been the Secretary of State for the Obama Administration or do you think she might have had more respect BEFORE she was the figurehead for Obama foreign policy?

 

[Statistikhengst]

As for the respect that Hillary has around the world? Do you think she has more respect NOW after having been the Secretary of State for the Obama Administration or do you think she might have had more respect BEFORE she was the figurehead for Obama foreign policy?

Excuse me, but that is exactly the job of an SOS: to represent the President's views and policy on foreign policy.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It's 2008 all over again!

Hillary so far ahead in the polls whats the point of even having an election

LOL!!!

 

[Oldstyle]

Hillary Clinton has at least 20 point lead over GOP in new poll | Early & Often

--------------------------------------------------
Way To Go!! We have your back, Hillary!!

How many points does Hillary have vs. Elizabeth Warren?

Since they are both obviously very popular the current consensus among many is that Elizabeth should run as Hillary's Vice-President. Now with that Winning Team it would be extremely hard for any Republican to beat let's face it. I hope she does choose Elizabeth! They would make a Great team for the country, unequivocally!

It's not only a ticket that would energize the base, the women's vote, and highlight the GOP war on women moving the issue front and center...the move actually is one of the better fits. The skill sets compliment one another very well. The old geographic "balance" argument means zip in this day and age of 35-38 entrenched states (unless you can find a rock star from one of the 12-15 you pick the person who is best for the job).

The "war on women"? Really, Candy? LOL Look, that was a stroke of genius by the Obama folks last time (what do you run on when you've fucked everything up? You run on something that doesn't exist of course!) but at some point don't you think it would be to the betterment of the country if you liberals ran someone who had concrete plans to fix what's wrong with the economy...and with foreign affairs? Hillary was part of the problem with the Obama Administration.

The GOP war on women is real.

It wouldn't receive the rampant denials every time it is brought up. Despite the denials, it's real. The restrictions on women's health care get more vindictive every month. The GOP nominee for President wanted to overturn Roe and completely do away with Title X. Senatorial candidates from the GOP wonder about whether rape is legitimate (in the first case) and (in the second case) talks about a woman being able to simply will herself not to be pregnant. If such will power didn't exist, she would have to carry the child to term in a GOP world; a constant reminder of the sexual assault.

Despite your denial of what is obvious to everyone--Obama won the women's vote handly as will any Democratic nominee in 2016; you know that don't you???--you are correct about one thing.

If Hillary does run, she will have to run, in part, on Obama's record. Americans are used to rewarding folks who make a difference, not slow and steady improvement. As Obama's Secretary of State, she has some of his "baggage" if you want to call it that.

Foreign affairs are not going to be a problem. Hillary is well respected around the globe and for good reason.

In 2012, Obama won the female vote by +11

Presidential Race - 2012 Election Center - Elections & Politics from CNN.com


In state poll after state poll after state poll, Hillary Clinton is winning in the female vote by by between +15 and +20, including in red states where we expect her to lose that particular state. In national poll after national poll after national poll, she is also winning the female vote by between +15 and +20. I am referring to pollsters who release their internals. Not all do.

Example. two days ago, PPP, North Carolina:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_NC_8201205.pdf

Overall:

Clinton 45 / Christie 38, Margin: Clinton +7
Clinton 47 / Cruz 41, Margin: Clinton +6
Clinton 47 / Paul 42, Margin: Clinton +5
Clinton 46 / Bush, J 42, Margin: Clinton +5
Clinton 45 / Huckabee 44, Margin: Clinton +1

Historical comparison:

Obama won NC in 2008 by a squeaker +0.33%
Romney picked-up NC in 2014 by +2.04%

Former President George W. Bush landslided in NC in 2004, with +12.43, also with +12.83% in 2000.

So, the Tarheel State has gone from being a rock-solid GOP bastion to a true battleground state within the last 8 years.

In the same PPP (D) poll, here are the internals vis-a-vis the female vote:

Women only:

Clinton 51 / Christie 35, Margin: Clinton +16
Clinton 40 / Cruz 38, Margin: Clinton +12
Clinton 52 / Paul 35, Margin: Clinton +17
Clinton 52 / Bush, J 37, Margin: Clinton +15
Clinton 50 / Huckabee 38, Margin: Clinton +12

So, overall, her margin by this poll is between +1 and +7, but among women, between +12 and +17 - and that in a heavy battleground state.

Let's look at New York, from yesterday:


New York State (NY) Poll - August 21, 2014 - Clinton Or Cuomo Thump GOP In | Quinnipiac University Connecticut

Overall:

Clinton 61 / Paul 30, Margin: Clinton +31
Clinton 60 / Bush, J 29, Margin: Clinton +31
Clinton 54 / Christie 34, Margin: Clinton +20


New York, female vote:


Clinton 66 / Paul 25, Margin: Clinton +41
Clinton 65 / Bush, J 26, Margin: Clinton +39
Clinton 60 / Christie 27, Margin: Clinton +33



And, Ohio, from 07/31/2014:

Ohio (OH) Poll - July 31, 2014 - Obama Approval In Ohio Nears A | Quinnipiac University Connecticut

Clinton 48 / Bush, J 37, Margin: Clinton +11
Clinton 46 / Christie 37, Margin: Clinton +9
Clinton 47 / Kasich 40, Margin: Clinton +7
Clinton 46 / Paul 42, Margin: Clinton +4


And in the female vote, Ohio, this poll:

Clinton 55 / Bush, J 31, Margin: Clinton +24
Clinton 54 / Christie 31, Margin: Clinton +23
Clinton 53 / Kasich 33, Margin: Clinton +20
Clinton 55 / Paul 33, Margin: Clinton +22

So, in this poll, Clinton is leading in THE quintessential battleground state by between +4 (close to Obama's 2008 margin) and +11 (no Democrat has done that well since LBJ in 1964), but by between +20 and +24 in the female vote.

That's the data.

A party that is losing the female vote by 20 points cannot, I repeat, cannot compete nationally.

@candycorn

My only response to your use of current polls, Stats is what were the polls looking like two years before the 2008 race? Was Hillary Clinton not a runaway favorite? Was Barack Obama even a blip on the radar?

I think you are correct about the GOP needing to win more of the female vote but predicting what will take place several years from now on polling done now is nothing more than an amusing way to while away the hours.

 

[Mathbud1]

Yeah, as well she did in 2007... how'd that work out?

The dems have so bungled everything from the ME to the economy, couple that with her age, health and integrity issues... I just don't see it. Now we know the moonbat brigade will vote for her no matter what; but that's just a collection of crazies and hacks. And it's a small group.. I hope.

Hope? I lost most of my hope for the rationality of the country when they voted Obama back in.

 

[Oldstyle]

As for the respect that Hillary has around the world? Do you think she has more respect NOW after having been the Secretary of State for the Obama Administration or do you think she might have had more respect BEFORE she was the figurehead for Obama foreign policy?

Excuse me, but that is exactly the job of an SOS: to represent the President's views and policy on foreign policy.

You are completely correct, Stats...that IS the job of a Secretary of State! It is a job however that is normally taken on because you BELIEVE in the views and policies of the President of the United States. If you stand in front of podiums for years talking the talk and promoting the agenda...then you ARE going to take ownership of those views and those policies. That's a political fact of life.

What you're seeing Hillary Clinton attempt to do now...is to eat her cake and have it too!

 

[Statistikhengst]

Hillary Clinton has at least 20 point lead over GOP in new poll | Early & Often

--------------------------------------------------
Way To Go!! We have your back, Hillary!!

How many points does Hillary have vs. Elizabeth Warren?

Since they are both obviously very popular the current consensus among many is that Elizabeth should run as Hillary's Vice-President. Now with that Winning Team it would be extremely hard for any Republican to beat let's face it. I hope she does choose Elizabeth! They would make a Great team for the country, unequivocally!

It's not only a ticket that would energize the base, the women's vote, and highlight the GOP war on women moving the issue front and center...the move actually is one of the better fits. The skill sets compliment one another very well. The old geographic "balance" argument means zip in this day and age of 35-38 entrenched states (unless you can find a rock star from one of the 12-15 you pick the person who is best for the job).

The "war on women"? Really, Candy? LOL Look, that was a stroke of genius by the Obama folks last time (what do you run on when you've fucked everything up? You run on something that doesn't exist of course!) but at some point don't you think it would be to the betterment of the country if you liberals ran someone who had concrete plans to fix what's wrong with the economy...and with foreign affairs? Hillary was part of the problem with the Obama Administration.

The GOP war on women is real.

It wouldn't receive the rampant denials every time it is brought up. Despite the denials, it's real. The restrictions on women's health care get more vindictive every month. The GOP nominee for President wanted to overturn Roe and completely do away with Title X. Senatorial candidates from the GOP wonder about whether rape is legitimate (in the first case) and (in the second case) talks about a woman being able to simply will herself not to be pregnant. If such will power didn't exist, she would have to carry the child to term in a GOP world; a constant reminder of the sexual assault.

Despite your denial of what is obvious to everyone--Obama won the women's vote handly as will any Democratic nominee in 2016; you know that don't you???--you are correct about one thing.

If Hillary does run, she will have to run, in part, on Obama's record. Americans are used to rewarding folks who make a difference, not slow and steady improvement. As Obama's Secretary of State, she has some of his "baggage" if you want to call it that.

Foreign affairs are not going to be a problem. Hillary is well respected around the globe and for good reason.

In 2012, Obama won the female vote by +11

Presidential Race - 2012 Election Center - Elections & Politics from CNN.com


In state poll after state poll after state poll, Hillary Clinton is winning in the female vote by by between +15 and +20, including in red states where we expect her to lose that particular state. In national poll after national poll after national poll, she is also winning the female vote by between +15 and +20. I am referring to pollsters who release their internals. Not all do.

Example. two days ago, PPP, North Carolina:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_NC_8201205.pdf

Overall:

Clinton 45 / Christie 38, Margin: Clinton +7
Clinton 47 / Cruz 41, Margin: Clinton +6
Clinton 47 / Paul 42, Margin: Clinton +5
Clinton 46 / Bush, J 42, Margin: Clinton +5
Clinton 45 / Huckabee 44, Margin: Clinton +1

Historical comparison:

Obama won NC in 2008 by a squeaker +0.33%
Romney picked-up NC in 2014 by +2.04%

Former President George W. Bush landslided in NC in 2004, with +12.43, also with +12.83% in 2000.

So, the Tarheel State has gone from being a rock-solid GOP bastion to a true battleground state within the last 8 years.

In the same PPP (D) poll, here are the internals vis-a-vis the female vote:

Women only:

Clinton 51 / Christie 35, Margin: Clinton +16
Clinton 40 / Cruz 38, Margin: Clinton +12
Clinton 52 / Paul 35, Margin: Clinton +17
Clinton 52 / Bush, J 37, Margin: Clinton +15
Clinton 50 / Huckabee 38, Margin: Clinton +12

So, overall, her margin by this poll is between +1 and +7, but among women, between +12 and +17 - and that in a heavy battleground state.

Let's look at New York, from yesterday:


New York State (NY) Poll - August 21, 2014 - Clinton Or Cuomo Thump GOP In | Quinnipiac University Connecticut

Overall:

Clinton 61 / Paul 30, Margin: Clinton +31
Clinton 60 / Bush, J 29, Margin: Clinton +31
Clinton 54 / Christie 34, Margin: Clinton +20


New York, female vote:


Clinton 66 / Paul 25, Margin: Clinton +41
Clinton 65 / Bush, J 26, Margin: Clinton +39
Clinton 60 / Christie 27, Margin: Clinton +33



And, Ohio, from 07/31/2014:

Ohio (OH) Poll - July 31, 2014 - Obama Approval In Ohio Nears A | Quinnipiac University Connecticut

Clinton 48 / Bush, J 37, Margin: Clinton +11
Clinton 46 / Christie 37, Margin: Clinton +9
Clinton 47 / Kasich 40, Margin: Clinton +7
Clinton 46 / Paul 42, Margin: Clinton +4


And in the female vote, Ohio, this poll:

Clinton 55 / Bush, J 31, Margin: Clinton +24
Clinton 54 / Christie 31, Margin: Clinton +23
Clinton 53 / Kasich 33, Margin: Clinton +20
Clinton 55 / Paul 33, Margin: Clinton +22

So, in this poll, Clinton is leading in THE quintessential battleground state by between +4 (close to Obama's 2008 margin) and +11 (no Democrat has done that well since LBJ in 1964), but by between +20 and +24 in the female vote.

That's the data.

A party that is losing the female vote by 20 points cannot, I repeat, cannot compete nationally.

@candycorn

My only response to your use of current polls, Stats is what were the polls looking like two years before the 2008 race? Was Hillary Clinton not a runaway favorite? Was Barack Obama even a blip on the radar?

I think you are correct about the GOP needing to win more of the female vote but predicting what will take place several years from now on polling done now is nothing more than an amusing way to while away the hours.

Your question is a good one, but I think you are trying to compare the wrong cycles.

I will give you a very good example.

In 1976, your icon Ronald Reagan LOST the GOP nomination to incumbent Gerald R. Ford. Four years later, he was elected president. And the sparse polling that started already in early 1979 showed Reagan the clear favorite for the nomination, and later, for the White House.

In other words, the early polling for another candidate who once LOST the nomination ended up being spot-on.

Fast forward 34 years, and again, we have a very, very likely candidate who once LOST the nomination who is storming the polls. Look, it's only 2014 and there have already been 193 polls with almost 560 matchups - from very, very disparate pollsters, and Clinton is cleaning the GOP's clock.

People want to compare to 2008, thinking open election after a two term incumbent, but there are other factors in play this time. The much better comparison is to 1979-1980 in some respects.

And in closing, it is not "several years" before the election. It is roughly one year before most candidates will likely have declared and already put their money making machines in motion. Planning a presidential run takes up to 3 years. Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy for 2008 on January 20th, 2007, almost two years before the election. Just a few short weeks later, then Senator Barack Obama announced his candidacy. But you can bet that months of exploratory work went into it before they made their decisions.

And one more point, upon which people can definitely DISAGREE: early polling tends to be far more predictive than we realize.

And I agree with you: your party has a lot of work ahead of it in gaining the female vote.

 

[Statistikhengst]

As for the respect that Hillary has around the world? Do you think she has more respect NOW after having been the Secretary of State for the Obama Administration or do you think she might have had more respect BEFORE she was the figurehead for Obama foreign policy?

Excuse me, but that is exactly the job of an SOS: to represent the President's views and policy on foreign policy.

You are completely correct, Stats...that IS the job of a Secretary of State! It is a job however that is normally taken on because you BELIEVE in the views and policies of the President of the United States. If you stand in front of podiums for years talking the talk and promoting the agenda...then you ARE going to take ownership of those views and those policies. That's a political fact of life.

What you're seeing Hillary Clinton attempt to do now...is to eat her cake and have it too!

No, I disagree with your final statement, with respect. In terms of foreign policy, Clinton and Obama are, in most respects, very close to each other. It is not uncommon for a likely presidential successor to start to separate him (her)self from his/her predecessor in order to make the differences known. Gore also did this with Bill Clinton in 2000. Bush 41 did this with Reagan in 1987-1988.

 

[PoliticalTorch]

Hillary Clinton has at least 20 point lead over GOP in new poll | Early & Often

--------------------------------------------------
Way To Go!! We have your back, Hillary!!

I'm rather baffled by your claim, PT. I was watching CNN a few nights ago and they were doing a segment on Hilary Clinton's shrinking poll numbers against a number of different GOP candidates.

Watching the ol' Faux again I see. CNN has had many stories and polls with Hillary leading at this point, fyi.

Do you not comprehend the written word? The segment I referred to was on CNN.

This is the story that truly matters with CNN in the mention.

CNN poll Hillary doing better with white voters than any Democrat since Jimmy Carter Hot Air

Hillary Clinton has at least 20 point lead over GOP in new poll | Early & Often

--------------------------------------------------
Way To Go!! We have your back, Hillary!!

It's not just your dog that's snoring Gramps, it's your Whole Party that's why the American people continue to suffer due to their inaction just like your dog that well represents your party.

That makes total sense considering the gop is poised to take the Senate.

Or maybe not. Don't count your chickens before they've hatched. Remember "DEWEY WON"??

Ironic considering the entire premise of this thread is counting chickens

Yet out of the chicken comes the egg and out of the egg comes LIFE!! And Life is what the Democratic Party is all about. Life for the American people where all they see is gloom, doom and despair from Republicans.

Has anyone ever told you that you suffer from a rather bad case of "bumper sticker-itus"?

"Yet out of the chicken comes the egg and out of the egg comes LIFE!! And Life is what the Democratic Party is all about."

LOL...all I can say is I hope you're VERY stoned right now...

Actually no, but It sure appears quite obvious that you are, along with your convoluted thinking every time you post.

 

[M14 Shooter]

27 months out -- sounds like a lock.
:roll:

 

[Oldstyle]

Hillary Clinton has at least 20 point lead over GOP in new poll | Early & Often

--------------------------------------------------
Way To Go!! We have your back, Hillary!!

I'm rather baffled by your claim, PT. I was watching CNN a few nights ago and they were doing a segment on Hilary Clinton's shrinking poll numbers against a number of different GOP candidates.

Watching the ol' Faux again I see. CNN has had many stories and polls with Hillary leading at this point, fyi.

Do you not comprehend the written word? The segment I referred to was on CNN.

This is the story that truly matters with CNN in the mention.

CNN poll Hillary doing better with white voters than any Democrat since Jimmy Carter Hot Air

Hillary Clinton has at least 20 point lead over GOP in new poll | Early & Often

--------------------------------------------------
Way To Go!! We have your back, Hillary!!

It's not just your dog that's snoring Gramps, it's your Whole Party that's why the American people continue to suffer due to their inaction just like your dog that well represents your party.

That makes total sense considering the gop is poised to take the Senate.

Or maybe not. Don't count your chickens before they've hatched. Remember "DEWEY WON"??

Ironic considering the entire premise of this thread is counting chickens

Yet out of the chicken comes the egg and out of the egg comes LIFE!! And Life is what the Democratic Party is all about. Life for the American people where all they see is gloom, doom and despair from Republicans.

Has anyone ever told you that you suffer from a rather bad case of "bumper sticker-itus"?

"Yet out of the chicken comes the egg and out of the egg comes LIFE!! And Life is what the Democratic Party is all about."

LOL...all I can say is I hope you're VERY stoned right now...

Actually no, but It sure appears quite obvious that you are, along with your convoluted thinking every time you post.

Dude...you are the one with the very lame saying...not me! That's just plain stupid...

 

[Oldstyle]

As for the respect that Hillary has around the world? Do you think she has more respect NOW after having been the Secretary of State for the Obama Administration or do you think she might have had more respect BEFORE she was the figurehead for Obama foreign policy?

Excuse me, but that is exactly the job of an SOS: to represent the President's views and policy on foreign policy.

You are completely correct, Stats...that IS the job of a Secretary of State! It is a job however that is normally taken on because you BELIEVE in the views and policies of the President of the United States. If you stand in front of podiums for years talking the talk and promoting the agenda...then you ARE going to take ownership of those views and those policies. That's a political fact of life.

What you're seeing Hillary Clinton attempt to do now...is to eat her cake and have it too!

No, I disagree with your final statement, with respect. In terms of foreign policy, Clinton and Obama are, in most respects, very close to each other. It is not uncommon for a likely presidential successor to start to separate him (her)self from his/her predecessor in order to make the differences known. Gore also did this with Bill Clinton in 2000. Bush 41 did this with Reagan in 1987-1988.

Not seeing how you disagree with my final statement, Stats. You say that Clinton and Obama are very close to each other on foreign policy but then excuse Clinton's attempts to separate herself from Obama by saying it's common political practice. Isn't that Clinton having her cake and eating it too? She agreed with Obama's foreign policy when it was advantageous for her and now comes out against it when she feels THAT will be advantageous.

I'm not in anyway surprised by Clinton's actions. Bill and Hillary Clinton have ALWAYS been political animals first and foremost.

 

[Statistikhengst]

As for the respect that Hillary has around the world? Do you think she has more respect NOW after having been the Secretary of State for the Obama Administration or do you think she might have had more respect BEFORE she was the figurehead for Obama foreign policy?

Excuse me, but that is exactly the job of an SOS: to represent the President's views and policy on foreign policy.

You are completely correct, Stats...that IS the job of a Secretary of State! It is a job however that is normally taken on because you BELIEVE in the views and policies of the President of the United States. If you stand in front of podiums for years talking the talk and promoting the agenda...then you ARE going to take ownership of those views and those policies. That's a political fact of life.

What you're seeing Hillary Clinton attempt to do now...is to eat her cake and have it too!

No, I disagree with your final statement, with respect. In terms of foreign policy, Clinton and Obama are, in most respects, very close to each other. It is not uncommon for a likely presidential successor to start to separate him (her)self from his/her predecessor in order to make the differences known. Gore also did this with Bill Clinton in 2000. Bush 41 did this with Reagan in 1987-1988.

Not seeing how you disagree with my final statement, Stats. You say that Clinton and Obama are very close to each other on foreign policy but then excuse Clinton's attempts to separate herself from Obama by saying it's common political practice. Isn't that Clinton having her cake and eating it too? She agreed with Obama's foreign policy when it was advantageous for her and now comes out against it when she feels THAT will be advantageous.

I'm not in anyway surprised by Clinton's actions. Bill and Hillary Clinton have ALWAYS been political animals first and foremost.

You missed three important words that are bold and in red. There is your answer.

 

[Oldstyle]

Hillary Clinton has at least 20 point lead over GOP in new poll | Early & Often

--------------------------------------------------
Way To Go!! We have your back, Hillary!!

How many points does Hillary have vs. Elizabeth Warren?

Since they are both obviously very popular the current consensus among many is that Elizabeth should run as Hillary's Vice-President. Now with that Winning Team it would be extremely hard for any Republican to beat let's face it. I hope she does choose Elizabeth! They would make a Great team for the country, unequivocally!

It's not only a ticket that would energize the base, the women's vote, and highlight the GOP war on women moving the issue front and center...the move actually is one of the better fits. The skill sets compliment one another very well. The old geographic "balance" argument means zip in this day and age of 35-38 entrenched states (unless you can find a rock star from one of the 12-15 you pick the person who is best for the job).

The "war on women"? Really, Candy? LOL Look, that was a stroke of genius by the Obama folks last time (what do you run on when you've fucked everything up? You run on something that doesn't exist of course!) but at some point don't you think it would be to the betterment of the country if you liberals ran someone who had concrete plans to fix what's wrong with the economy...and with foreign affairs? Hillary was part of the problem with the Obama Administration.

The GOP war on women is real.

It wouldn't receive the rampant denials every time it is brought up. Despite the denials, it's real. The restrictions on women's health care get more vindictive every month. The GOP nominee for President wanted to overturn Roe and completely do away with Title X. Senatorial candidates from the GOP wonder about whether rape is legitimate (in the first case) and (in the second case) talks about a woman being able to simply will herself not to be pregnant. If such will power didn't exist, she would have to carry the child to term in a GOP world; a constant reminder of the sexual assault.

Despite your denial of what is obvious to everyone--Obama won the women's vote handly as will any Democratic nominee in 2016; you know that don't you???--you are correct about one thing.

If Hillary does run, she will have to run, in part, on Obama's record. Americans are used to rewarding folks who make a difference, not slow and steady improvement. As Obama's Secretary of State, she has some of his "baggage" if you want to call it that.

Foreign affairs are not going to be a problem. Hillary is well respected around the globe and for good reason.

In 2012, Obama won the female vote by +11

Presidential Race - 2012 Election Center - Elections & Politics from CNN.com


In state poll after state poll after state poll, Hillary Clinton is winning in the female vote by by between +15 and +20, including in red states where we expect her to lose that particular state. In national poll after national poll after national poll, she is also winning the female vote by between +15 and +20. I am referring to pollsters who release their internals. Not all do.

Example. two days ago, PPP, North Carolina:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_NC_8201205.pdf

Overall:

Clinton 45 / Christie 38, Margin: Clinton +7
Clinton 47 / Cruz 41, Margin: Clinton +6
Clinton 47 / Paul 42, Margin: Clinton +5
Clinton 46 / Bush, J 42, Margin: Clinton +5
Clinton 45 / Huckabee 44, Margin: Clinton +1

Historical comparison:

Obama won NC in 2008 by a squeaker +0.33%
Romney picked-up NC in 2014 by +2.04%

Former President George W. Bush landslided in NC in 2004, with +12.43, also with +12.83% in 2000.

So, the Tarheel State has gone from being a rock-solid GOP bastion to a true battleground state within the last 8 years.

In the same PPP (D) poll, here are the internals vis-a-vis the female vote:

Women only:

Clinton 51 / Christie 35, Margin: Clinton +16
Clinton 40 / Cruz 38, Margin: Clinton +12
Clinton 52 / Paul 35, Margin: Clinton +17
Clinton 52 / Bush, J 37, Margin: Clinton +15
Clinton 50 / Huckabee 38, Margin: Clinton +12

So, overall, her margin by this poll is between +1 and +7, but among women, between +12 and +17 - and that in a heavy battleground state.

Let's look at New York, from yesterday:


New York State (NY) Poll - August 21, 2014 - Clinton Or Cuomo Thump GOP In | Quinnipiac University Connecticut

Overall:

Clinton 61 / Paul 30, Margin: Clinton +31
Clinton 60 / Bush, J 29, Margin: Clinton +31
Clinton 54 / Christie 34, Margin: Clinton +20


New York, female vote:


Clinton 66 / Paul 25, Margin: Clinton +41
Clinton 65 / Bush, J 26, Margin: Clinton +39
Clinton 60 / Christie 27, Margin: Clinton +33



And, Ohio, from 07/31/2014:

Ohio (OH) Poll - July 31, 2014 - Obama Approval In Ohio Nears A | Quinnipiac University Connecticut

Clinton 48 / Bush, J 37, Margin: Clinton +11
Clinton 46 / Christie 37, Margin: Clinton +9
Clinton 47 / Kasich 40, Margin: Clinton +7
Clinton 46 / Paul 42, Margin: Clinton +4


And in the female vote, Ohio, this poll:

Clinton 55 / Bush, J 31, Margin: Clinton +24
Clinton 54 / Christie 31, Margin: Clinton +23
Clinton 53 / Kasich 33, Margin: Clinton +20
Clinton 55 / Paul 33, Margin: Clinton +22

So, in this poll, Clinton is leading in THE quintessential battleground state by between +4 (close to Obama's 2008 margin) and +11 (no Democrat has done that well since LBJ in 1964), but by between +20 and +24 in the female vote.

That's the data.

A party that is losing the female vote by 20 points cannot, I repeat, cannot compete nationally.

@candycorn

My only response to your use of current polls, Stats is what were the polls looking like two years before the 2008 race? Was Hillary Clinton not a runaway favorite? Was Barack Obama even a blip on the radar?

I think you are correct about the GOP needing to win more of the female vote but predicting what will take place several years from now on polling done now is nothing more than an amusing way to while away the hours.

Your question is a good one, but I think you are trying to compare the wrong cycles.

I will give you a very good example.

In 1976, your icon Ronald Reagan LOST the GOP nomination to incumbent Gerald R. Ford. Four years later, he was elected president. And the sparse polling that started already in early 1979 showed Reagan the clear favorite for the nomination, and later, for the White House.

In other words, the early polling for another candidate who once LOST the nomination ended up being spot-on.

Fast forward 34 years, and again, we have a very, very likely candidate who once LOST the nomination who is storming the polls. Look, it's only 2014 and there have already been 193 polls with almost 560 matchups - from very, very disparate pollsters, and Clinton is cleaning the GOP's clock.

People want to compare to 2008, thinking open election after a two term incumbent, but there are other factors in play this time. The much better comparison is to 1979-1980 in some respects.

And in closing, it is not "several years" before the election. It is roughly one year before most candidates will likely have declared and already put their money making machines in motion. Planning a presidential run takes up to 3 years. Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy for 2008 on January 20th, 2007, almost two years before the election. Just a few short weeks later, then Senator Barack Obama announced his candidacy. But you can bet that months of exploratory work went into it before they made their decisions.

And one more point, upon which people can definitely DISAGREE: early polling tends to be far more predictive than we realize.

And I agree with you: your party has a lot of work ahead of it in gaining the female vote.

I couldn't disagree MORE with the statement that early polling tends to be far more predictive than we realize.

As for when people "announce" their candidacy? Surely you're not saying that just because Hillary or any other politician hasn't officially announced a run for the Presidency that they aren't in fact running?

 

[Oldstyle]

As for the respect that Hillary has around the world? Do you think she has more respect NOW after having been the Secretary of State for the Obama Administration or do you think she might have had more respect BEFORE she was the figurehead for Obama foreign policy?

Excuse me, but that is exactly the job of an SOS: to represent the President's views and policy on foreign policy.

You are completely correct, Stats...that IS the job of a Secretary of State! It is a job however that is normally taken on because you BELIEVE in the views and policies of the President of the United States. If you stand in front of podiums for years talking the talk and promoting the agenda...then you ARE going to take ownership of those views and those policies. That's a political fact of life.

What you're seeing Hillary Clinton attempt to do now...is to eat her cake and have it too!

No, I disagree with your final statement, with respect. In terms of foreign policy, Clinton and Obama are, in most respects, very close to each other. It is not uncommon for a likely presidential successor to start to separate him (her)self from his/her predecessor in order to make the differences known. Gore also did this with Bill Clinton in 2000. Bush 41 did this with Reagan in 1987-1988.

Not seeing how you disagree with my final statement, Stats. You say that Clinton and Obama are very close to each other on foreign policy but then excuse Clinton's attempts to separate herself from Obama by saying it's common political practice. Isn't that Clinton having her cake and eating it too? She agreed with Obama's foreign policy when it was advantageous for her and now comes out against it when she feels THAT will be advantageous.

I'm not in anyway surprised by Clinton's actions. Bill and Hillary Clinton have ALWAYS been political animals first and foremost.

You missed three important words that are bold and in red. There is your answer.

I didn't miss anything. Hillary Clinton is attempting to distance herself after the fact from policies that have proven to be ill advised. It's akin to saying "I agreed with every plan that we put forth that worked...but I was against the ones that didn't work." It's at best "convenient".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is it too early for Hillary to start her 2020 reelection campaign?

 

[FJO]

She should have been the Dim nominee in '08, but the Dims instead chose a not-ready-for-primetime divider.

Anyway, Hillary I'm certain will be the next president, but she sure isn't going to win by 20 points.

I have stated it openly more than 10 times in USMB. I will say it again, and you can gladly bookmark it:

Hillary will win in 2016 with 57% of the NPV and more than 400 EV, perhaps considerably more.

Demographics, demographics, demographics.

And with a Republican House and a Republican Senate she will be a lame duck.

Even her exceptional beauty and charm can not change that

 

[Staidhup]

Who gives a shit at this point, you will recall she was way ahead of Obama until........a long way away from securing the nomination. My bet is on Gore, former VP, master of smoke and mirrors, inventor of the internet, global warming, possessor of the key to the lock box, Nobel Prize Winner, is due about as much credibility as a dried up wanna be from the 60's.

 

[ScienceRocks]

My advise for the gop.

1. Drop libertriamism
2. Put together a message of work and efficiency
3. Choose white.

 

[candycorn]

Hillary Clinton has at least 20 point lead over GOP in new poll | Early & Often

--------------------------------------------------
Way To Go!! We have your back, Hillary!!

How many points does Hillary have vs. Elizabeth Warren?

Since they are both obviously very popular the current consensus among many is that Elizabeth should run as Hillary's Vice-President. Now with that Winning Team it would be extremely hard for any Republican to beat let's face it. I hope she does choose Elizabeth! They would make a Great team for the country, unequivocally!

It's not only a ticket that would energize the base, the women's vote, and highlight the GOP war on women moving the issue front and center...the move actually is one of the better fits. The skill sets compliment one another very well. The old geographic "balance" argument means zip in this day and age of 35-38 entrenched states (unless you can find a rock star from one of the 12-15 you pick the person who is best for the job).

The "war on women"? Really, Candy? LOL Look, that was a stroke of genius by the Obama folks last time (what do you run on when you've fucked everything up? You run on something that doesn't exist of course!) but at some point don't you think it would be to the betterment of the country if you liberals ran someone who had concrete plans to fix what's wrong with the economy...and with foreign affairs? Hillary was part of the problem with the Obama Administration.

The GOP war on women is real.

It wouldn't receive the rampant denials every time it is brought up. Despite the denials, it's real. The restrictions on women's health care get more vindictive every month. The GOP nominee for President wanted to overturn Roe and completely do away with Title X. Senatorial candidates from the GOP wonder about whether rape is legitimate (in the first case) and (in the second case) talks about a woman being able to simply will herself not to be pregnant. If such will power didn't exist, she would have to carry the child to term in a GOP world; a constant reminder of the sexual assault.

Despite your denial of what is obvious to everyone--Obama won the women's vote handly as will any Democratic nominee in 2016; you know that don't you???--you are correct about one thing.

If Hillary does run, she will have to run, in part, on Obama's record. Americans are used to rewarding folks who make a difference, not slow and steady improvement. As Obama's Secretary of State, she has some of his "baggage" if you want to call it that.

Foreign affairs are not going to be a problem. Hillary is well respected around the globe and for good reason.

So let me see if I understand how this works in "CandyLand"...

The GOP's denials of an alleged "war on women" is the proof that it exists? Because if it didn't exist they wouldn't deny it? Is that your logic, Candy? Wow...I mean WOW!!!

So if I accuse you of being a murderer and you respond with "rampant denials" that you ARE a murderer that only means that you're obviously guilty of murder?

If you could provide examples by learned opposition (as I did), you may be on to something.