Media forces for and against Hillary Rodham Clinton

[Statistikhengst]

It simply amazes me how the Left tells the right not to attack their candidates when that is all the left has done since 08......

Wait a minute: exactly WHO here on this thread is telling you that you cannot attack a DEM candidate? Who?

Allow me to rephrase then. Change the word tells to advises. And not only in this thread,

Well, ok. Now, exactly WHO advised you to not attack and DEM candidate?? And where?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Now, to some actual data since "Bridgegate": Chris Christie is slumping all over in polling, and the slump is uniform.


Nationally:

NBC / Marist / McClatchy, released 01/15/2014:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/ChristiePoll.pdf

Clinton 50
Christie 37

Margin: Clinton +13


Quinnipiac, released 01/21/2014:

National (US) Poll - January 21, 2014 - Bridgegate Takes Toll On Chris | Quinnipiac University Connecticut

Clinton 46
Christie 38
Margin: Clinton +8

Also:

Clinton 49 / Paul 39 - Clinton +10
Clinton 49 / Bush, J. 38 - Clinton +11
Clinton 50 / Cruz 35 - Clinton 15


And in NY State:

Siena Poll, 01/20/2014

http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/...nity/community_page/sri/SNY0114 Crosstabs.pdf

Clinton 60
Christie 32
Margin: Clinton +28

But the shocker, released TODAY, is Rutgers/Eagleton, for NEW JERSEY:

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~redlawsk/EP/Tables2014/ChristieRatingsGWBScandalJan2014.pdf

Clinton 55
Christie 34
Margin: Clinton +21

The poll before this one, from Monmouth, one month ago, had Christie up by +3.

How good is Rutgers/Eagleton? Well:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...0U3aFBuT09zQ2xXQ29fTjlJRlE&usp=sharing#gid=61

In 2012, the final Rutgers/Eagleton poll for New Jersey showed Obama +17. He won by +17.68 (+18). So, Rutgers was the closest to the actual results in this state and actually had a very slight CONSERVATIVE mathematical bias.

So, Rutgers is currently the GOLD STANDARD for New Jersey, and that is mathematically provable.

Little tidbit for you. Obama and Bill Clinton's electoral records in New Jersey are almost perfect mirror images of each other.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=34&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state

Clinton won NJ by almost +18 in 92 and by close to +16 in 96.
Obama won NJ by close to +16 in 08 and by almost +18 in 12.

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

Now, if this were just one poll in the last days, I would say, pfft, one poll.

But here are four, three of them in the last 48 hours, and they ALL show a shift. And if Christie cannot even be close to competitive in his home state of New Jersey, a state he would desperately need if he cannot pry Virgina away from Clinton (there have been 9 polls of VA so far with 21 match-ups and Clinton has won 20 of them), then he cannot win nationally.

Those are the current numbers.

Wowsa!! that that surely is impressive.....especially 3 years before the 2016 Presidential election and before either one of them has announced their candidacy.

I think I'm gonna bookmark that for the day after the 2016 election...

 

[Statistikhengst]

3 years out? I hope both parties have better choices by then.........

Silly SFC Olllie!! This is already decided!

It's gonna be Triple C from the NJZ
VERSUS
Hill -a-ree from the (carpetbagger) NYC.

PS- there is no N/E liberal bias in the media- none!!

Well, ok, if you feel that way. You sure did miss the point of the OP, however, and you definitely miss the point of the last posting of mine that you quoted. You definitely missed the last sentence.

Just to be clear, in more than one years time, since the beginning of 2013, there have been 108 Hillary polls with 318 matchup and Hillary has won 72% of them.

Your right to stay fact-free, if that's your fancy, but I watch most all of the data.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Now, to some actual data since "Bridgegate": Chris Christie is slumping all over in polling, and the slump is uniform.


Nationally:

NBC / Marist / McClatchy, released 01/15/2014:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/ChristiePoll.pdf

Clinton 50
Christie 37

Margin: Clinton +13


Quinnipiac, released 01/21/2014:

National (US) Poll - January 21, 2014 - Bridgegate Takes Toll On Chris | Quinnipiac University Connecticut

Clinton 46
Christie 38
Margin: Clinton +8

Also:

Clinton 49 / Paul 39 - Clinton +10
Clinton 49 / Bush, J. 38 - Clinton +11
Clinton 50 / Cruz 35 - Clinton 15


And in NY State:

Siena Poll, 01/20/2014

http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/...nity/community_page/sri/SNY0114 Crosstabs.pdf

Clinton 60
Christie 32
Margin: Clinton +28

But the shocker, released TODAY, is Rutgers/Eagleton, for NEW JERSEY:

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~redlawsk/EP/Tables2014/ChristieRatingsGWBScandalJan2014.pdf

Clinton 55
Christie 34
Margin: Clinton +21

The poll before this one, from Monmouth, one month ago, had Christie up by +3.

How good is Rutgers/Eagleton? Well:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...0U3aFBuT09zQ2xXQ29fTjlJRlE&usp=sharing#gid=61

In 2012, the final Rutgers/Eagleton poll for New Jersey showed Obama +17. He won by +17.68 (+18). So, Rutgers was the closest to the actual results in this state and actually had a very slight CONSERVATIVE mathematical bias.

So, Rutgers is currently the GOLD STANDARD for New Jersey, and that is mathematically provable.

Little tidbit for you. Obama and Bill Clinton's electoral records in New Jersey are almost perfect mirror images of each other.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=34&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state

Clinton won NJ by almost +18 in 92 and by close to +16 in 96.
Obama won NJ by close to +16 in 08 and by almost +18 in 12.

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

Now, if this were just one poll in the last days, I would say, pfft, one poll.

But here are four, three of them in the last 48 hours, and they ALL show a shift. And if Christie cannot even be close to competitive in his home state of New Jersey, a state he would desperately need if he cannot pry Virgina away from Clinton (there have been 9 polls of VA so far with 21 match-ups and Clinton has won 20 of them), then he cannot win nationally.

Those are the current numbers.
[MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION] [MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION] [MENTION=45104]WelfareQueen[/MENTION] [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION]

Right now Crispy, I mean uh...Christie is toast.

However, we have 3 years to go.

A LOT can happen in that time.

The operative sentence was the last sentence of my post:

Those are the current numbers.

 

[Unkotare]

]I'm an Elizabeth Warren man myself. Would LOVE to see her run.

So if you had to choose between Hillary and Elizabeth Warren who gets your vote in the primary?

Warren all the way.

Warren is for the People.

What people? People who lie about their ethnicity in order to land jobs they are not qualified for? Arrogant socialist ideologues? Buffoons with an unearned sense of entitlement?

We've already got one of those in the White House and it's not working out so well...

 

[JoeB131]

It simply amazes me how the Left tells the right not to attack their candidates when that is all the left has done since 08......

When did they do that?

Frankly, McCain wasn't really attacked by the left.

Romney was attacked, but most of what happened to Romney was self-inflicted.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It simply amazes me how the Left tells the right not to attack their candidates when that is all the left has done since 08......

When did they do that?

Frankly, McCain wasn't really attacked by the left.

Romney was attacked, but most of what happened to Romney was self-inflicted.

Romney shot most of the holes in his own ship, he needed only a thumb-full of help from Obama to get it to go under.



But I notice that the main part of Ollie's sentence is in present tense.

 

[Zander]

3 years out? I hope both parties have better choices by then.........

Silly SFC Olllie!! This is already decided!

It's gonna be Triple C from the NJZ
VERSUS
Hill -a-ree from the (carpetbagger) NYC.

PS- there is no N/E liberal bias in the media- none!!

Well, ok, if you feel that way. You sure did miss the point of the OP, however, and you definitely miss the point of the last posting of mine that you quoted. You definitely missed the last sentence.

Just to be clear, in more than one years time, since the beginning of 2013, there have been 108 Hillary polls with 318 matchup and Hillary has won 72% of them.

Your right to stay fact-free, if that's your fancy, but I watch most all of the data.

I didn't miss any point - We both agree that electoral opinion polls using hypothetical candidates 3 years prior to an election have little to no predictive value. That was your point, right?

 

[Zander]

]I'm an Elizabeth Warren man myself. Would LOVE to see her run.

So if you had to choose between Hillary and Elizabeth Warren who gets your vote in the primary?

Warren all the way.

Warren is for the People.
Clinton is a corporatist.
Hillary over any Republican of course.
At least any Republican on the scene today.

Thanks!

Elizabeth Warren is a far left wingnut radical, and every liberal I have asked prefers her over Hillary....apparently, Hillary is not extreme enough for many liberals....

 

[Spoonman]

It simply amazes me how the Left tells the right not to attack their candidates when that is all the left has done since 08......

When did they do that?

Frankly, McCain wasn't really attacked by the left.

Romney was attacked, but most of what happened to Romney was self-inflicted.

Romney shot most of the holes in his own ship, he needed only a thumb-full of help from Obama to get it to go under.



But I notice that the main part of Ollie's sentence is in present tense.

ows and the general revolt against the 1% is what killed romney. he did a poor job by trying to play down his tenure at bain rather than trying to promote it. he had quite a success story to tell. obama's crew capitalized on painting him as mr for the people, anti corporate while he was selling the healthcare industry out to the insurance companies and big pharma.

Mccain was't as heavilly attacked. all the focus was put on palin. mccain was painted as the decrepid old man who was going to croak in office and leave palin as president.

 

[SFC Ollie]

It simply amazes me how the Left tells the right not to attack their candidates when that is all the left has done since 08......

When did they do that?

Frankly, McCain wasn't really attacked by the left.

Romney was attacked, but most of what happened to Romney was self-inflicted.

Maybe McCain wasn't attacked as Much as His running mate, but when was the last time Republicans went digging through Obamas garbage to dig up dirt on him? The Dems sure did attack Palin like that. Anything they could dream up.

You mean like allowing his son to adopt a black baby? Really?

But none of that matters.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Silly SFC Olllie!! This is already decided!

It's gonna be Triple C from the NJZ
VERSUS
Hill -a-ree from the (carpetbagger) NYC.

PS- there is no N/E liberal bias in the media- none!!

Well, ok, if you feel that way. You sure did miss the point of the OP, however, and you definitely miss the point of the last posting of mine that you quoted. You definitely missed the last sentence.

Just to be clear, in more than one years time, since the beginning of 2013, there have been 108 Hillary polls with 318 matchup and Hillary has won 72% of them.

Your right to stay fact-free, if that's your fancy, but I watch most all of the data.

I didn't miss any point - We both agree that electoral opinion polls using hypothetical candidates 3 years prior to an election have little to no predictive value. That was your point, right?

Actually, we do not agree on that. Nate Silver proved twice (and I have done it too, btw) that early polls tend to be more predicative than people realize.

That being said, that was NOT the point of that post. The only point of that post was to give current data, nothing more. And that data is important, for it shows a Bridgegate shift away from Christie. If the trend continues, that could be a problem for him.

Again, look at the last sentence of that long data post. That will answer your question.

 

[Statistikhengst]

So, this is more of what I meant by creating this thread. Actual data about what is going on right now. Pro - and - Contra Hillary.

Points - and - Counterpoint, crossposted from Boop's http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...beral-super-pac-raising-cash-for-clinton.html

Biggest liberal super PAC raising cash for Clinton - SFGate

In the latest sign that Hillary Rodham Clinton will run for president, the nation's largest left-leaning super PAC said Thursday that it is raising money for the former secretary of state - an effort that will be led in part by two Bay Area residents.

Jennifer Granholm, a former Michigan governor who now lives in Oakland and teaches public policy at UC Berkeley, will co-chair the Priorities Action USA political action committee, along with President Obama's former campaign manager, Jim Messina. UC Berkeley law Professor Maria Echaveste, White House deputy chief of staff under President Bill Clinton, was also named Thursday to the PAC's12-member board.

Messina's presence is a sign that animosities that built up between the Clinton and Obama camps during the 2008 Democratic primaries have eased. Another indication of improved ties: The executive director of Priorities Action USA is Buffy Wicks, Obama's 2008 California field director.

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION] You are welcome to use this post if you can find the "equal but opposite" that would belong in your thread.

Not like it didn't already look such - and maybe nobody else appears to be running just because it is so very damn early ... but this makes her running feel more real.

Yes, there is already a PAC running against Hillary:

Stop Hillary PAC | StopHillaryPAC.org | Stop Hillary PAC | StopHillaryPAC.org


In fact, it started before priorities USA...

Here's the "who's who" of the PAC.

I will cross post this on my thread, with your permission.

Thanks, [MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION]

 

[Zander]

Well, ok, if you feel that way. You sure did miss the point of the OP, however, and you definitely miss the point of the last posting of mine that you quoted. You definitely missed the last sentence.

Just to be clear, in more than one years time, since the beginning of 2013, there have been 108 Hillary polls with 318 matchup and Hillary has won 72% of them.

Your right to stay fact-free, if that's your fancy, but I watch most all of the data.

I didn't miss any point - We both agree that electoral opinion polls using hypothetical candidates 3 years prior to an election have little to no predictive value. That was your point, right?

Actually, we do not agree on that. Nate Silver proved twice (and I have done it too, btw) that early polls tend to be more predicative than people realize.

That being said, that was NOT the point of that post. The only point of that post was to give current data, nothing more. And that data is important, for it shows a Bridgegate shift away from Christie. If the trend continues, that could be a problem for him.

Again, look at the last sentence of that long data post. That will answer your question.

So you think you're Nate Silver now?

 

[Statistikhengst]

I didn't miss any point - We both agree that electoral opinion polls using hypothetical candidates 3 years prior to an election have little to no predictive value. That was your point, right?

Actually, we do not agree on that. Nate Silver proved twice (and I have done it too, btw) that early polls tend to be more predicative than people realize.

That being said, that was NOT the point of that post. The only point of that post was to give current data, nothing more. And that data is important, for it shows a Bridgegate shift away from Christie. If the trend continues, that could be a problem for him.

Again, look at the last sentence of that long data post. That will answer your question.

So you think you're Nate Silver now?

No, I'm a Statistikhengst. And I do numbers just like he does....

 

[Rozman]

The thing that puts Hillary in play is her gender..
We are all pretty much done with the Bush and Clinton deal.
She has age on her and health issues against her...
But people want to be part of the history angle.They want to be part of the voters that put the first woman in the WH....

Being black made all the difference in the world for Obama.
That's how he made it.He wasn't vetted by the media.
He was 10 minutes in the office of state Senator and all of 15 minutes as a United States senator.

As as Biden put it he was a clean,articulate black man who the media pushed and the low information voters fell in love with.

But don't count Hillary out.When the Clintons want stuff they go balls to the walls for it.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Thank you stat for including me on you might be interested list.

This pre pre pre pre election talk is dispiriting on many fronts. Don't some people get it,we don't want another bush( jeb) and we don't want another Clinton. This is not a monarchy and although in the early days of the republic we had lots of Adams and later Roosevelt's all but the media are tired of the soap opera.

I would agree that the only attraction of Hilary is the first woman president, but that is no reason to be elected. No one seems to have commented on the baggage that any demo candidate will have to carry in 2016. Obamacare will live in infamy for the next three years and the fullness of failure that will dog Obama for the rest of his life will be fodder for any smart pol in the future either dem or rep. And let's face it, Obama could not have been elected without bill Clinton's support and Hilary will not be elected without his continual stumping either. God I hope we don't have to endure Chelsea for a whole election cycle. And nothing is going to change if Hilary is elected, it will continue to be special interests over the country's interests. Dull and boring. Finally, Hilary took very little intErest in her appearance in her waning years as sec of state, many times looking like a slob. While this is admittably sexist, if the country has to look at that untended hair and that out of control ass politics will be even more of a turnoff.

Repubs don't have a front runner but they need more of a change in strategy and tactics. If they continue to fail to respond vigorously to the democratic play book they will continue to deserve the dem lite monicker. Obama always gets the talking points right but does not have the talent and abilities to close the deal. Repubs have so many opportunities to counter this mediocrity but themselves cannot get their heads out of their asses. All it would take for starters is to put the country before your career, but both sides are sorely lacking for honorable men and women. When the other side gives you their play book and you still can't score more points it's time to change the coaches and the team.

Who do I like? I have always thought SenJohn Thune of the Dakotas would make a good candidate, or maybe I should say a good pres. The question remains though in the post Obama era whether an unglamorous, grounded, thoughtful, and patriotic Midwesterner could successfully run the gauntlet. Speculation guys, speculation, that's all this is. How about the boards offering a billion dollars for the one who gets all the candidates, all the primaries and the general election right?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Thank you stat for including me on you might be interested list.

This pre pre pre pre election talk is dispiriting on many fronts. Don't some people get it,we don't want another bush( jeb) and we don't want another Clinton. This is not a monarchy and although in the early days of the republic we had lots of Adams and later Roosevelt's all but the media are tired of the soap opera.

I would agree that the only attraction of Hilary is the first woman president, but that is no reason to be elected. No one seems to have commented on the baggage that any demo candidate will have to carry in 2016. Obamacare will live in infamy for the next three years and the fullness of failure that will dog Obama for the rest of his life will be fodder for any smart pol in the future either dem or rep. And let's face it, Obama could not have been elected without bill Clinton's support and Hilary will not be elected without his continual stumping either. God I hope we don't have to endure Chelsea for a whole election cycle. And nothing is going to change if Hilary is elected, it will continue to be special interests over the country's interests. Dull and boring. Finally, Hilary took very little intErest in her appearance in her waning years as sec of state, many times looking like a slob. While this is admittably sexist, if the country has to look at that untended hair and that out of control ass politics will be even more of a turnoff.

Repubs don't have a front runner but they need more of a change in strategy and tactics. If they continue to fail to respond vigorously to the democratic play book they will continue to deserve the dem lite monicker. Obama always gets the talking points right but does not have the talent and abilities to close the deal. Repubs have so many opportunities to counter this mediocrity but themselves cannot get their heads out of their asses. All it would take for starters is to put the country before your career, but both sides are sorely lacking for honorable men and women. When the other side gives you their play book and you still can't score more points it's time to change the coaches and the team.

Who do I like? I have always thought SenJohn Thune of the Dakotas would make a good candidate, or maybe I should say a good pres. The question remains though in the post Obama era whether an unglamorous, grounded, thoughtful, and patriotic Midwesterner could successfully run the gauntlet. Speculation guys, speculation, that's all this is. How about the boards offering a billion dollars for the one who gets all the candidates, all the primaries and the general election right?

Dude, I am really glad you stopped by. And thanks for the sane posting. A lot of your thoughts I share.

If you notice the tone of the opening post, I never indicated that I am a massive fan of Hillary's, I am simply pointing out the media war that is being presented in front of us right away.

Then again, we just had a totally unknown candidate shoot to the front and win the Presidency not once, but twice: Barack Obama (D). So, it is entirely possible that people might - even though they would say the opposite in public - be amenable to a "family" name in the mix in 2016.

It is also entirely possible that for the first time since 1940, a true dark horse candidate could appear among the Republicans. It certainly is not uncommon that the presidential field of the opposing party is larger and more racous than that of the party in power in the WH, regardless whether the next election is a re-election campaign or an open election. See: DEMs 1968, 1972, 1976, 2004 GOP 1996, 2008, 2012. I am quite sure that there are a number of very competent Republicans who could make a decent president. Ditto for the Democratic side. But getting there is the problem.

At this point in time, Hillary is stomping the GOP field, and she hasn't even announced yet. Wait until the polls show the announcement bump that she is very likely to get. I personally think that Mitch Daniels should not be underestimated. And it is too early for Susanne Martinez right now, but in the future, she could make it to prime time. But the most unsung hero of the GOP is probably Haley Barbour - a stalwart, steady kind of guy.

I am pretty sure that Scott Walker has his eyes on the White House - could be very interesting, also for Wisconsin electoral politics. Wait and see.

 

[JoeB131]

The thing that puts Hillary in play is her gender..
We are all pretty much done with the Bush and Clinton deal.
She has age on her and health issues against her...
But people want to be part of the history angle.They want to be part of the voters that put the first woman in the WH....

Being black made all the difference in the world for Obama.
That's how he made it.He wasn't vetted by the media.He was 10 minutes in the office of state Senator and all of 15 minutes as a United States senator.

As as Biden put it he was a clean,articulate black man who the media pushed and the low information voters fell in love with.

But don't count Hillary out.When the Clintons want stuff they go balls to the walls for it.

You know, you wingnuts keep repeating the bolded, but exactly WHAT wasn't vetted about Obama?

What fact was there about him that we didn't fully know before we went to the polls in 2008 (or 2012 for that matter)?

Obama won because Bush fucked up everything.

It really isn't that complicated.

The GOP brand name from Nixon to Bush-41 was "We're assholes, but we get the job done!"

And after Bush, it was "We're assholes, and we fucked it all up!"

 

[Sallow]

It simply amazes me how the Left tells the right not to attack their candidates when that is all the left has done since 08......

When did they do that?

Frankly, McCain wasn't really attacked by the left.

Romney was attacked, but most of what happened to Romney was self-inflicted.

Maybe McCain wasn't attacked as Much as His running mate, but when was the last time Republicans went digging through Obamas garbage to dig up dirt on him? The Dems sure did attack Palin like that. Anything they could dream up.

You mean like allowing his son to adopt a black baby? Really?

But none of that matters.

Is that a reference to McCain?

That was done, by the way, by the George W. Bush campaign. And McCain's still sore about it.

Palin? She beat herself up. Interviewers just let her talk and it became blazingly apparent how clueless she was about national and world affairs. That, along with her vicious and nonsensical attacks on President Obama did her in.