MSNBC Poll: 86% Will Not Vote for Hillary

[StevenC]

Who woulda thunk? I mean it is MSNBC, but still, 86%?

Poll Hillary 2016 MSNBC

That's a straw poll. Its essentially meaningless. As interested parties can vote. And they can vote multiple times.

True but it is on MSNBC. You would think it would favor Hillary.
Just as polls on FOX mostly favor repubs.

You're quoting it. That means conservatives have definitely gotten wind of it.

Do you think they'd favor Hillary?

Straw polls are famously meaningless. As Ron Paul demonstrated about a dozen times in every election he participated in.

That is your opinion.

 

[daws101]

Who woulda thunk? I mean it is MSNBC, but still, 86%?

Poll Hillary 2016 MSNBC

That's a straw poll. Its essentially meaningless. As interested parties can vote. And they can vote multiple times.

True but it is on MSNBC. You would think it would favor Hillary.
Just as polls on FOX mostly favor repubs.

false! unlike faux msnbc favors no one ,that's what real news networks do.

Thanks for the laugh. Also now I know not to take anything you say a serious.

thanks for showcasing your ignorance.

 

[Flopper]

I wonder how it feels to be reduced to hoping that your opponent slips up or gets ill?

Here is the biggest problem that the GOP field has:

The Clinton's are pretty astute politicians. And...they get it. Listen to Bill speaking about the economy. Pay close attention to what Sec. Clinton emphasizes on the campaign trail. My educated guess is that her prepared comments will be overwhelmingly focused on the economy and the middle class. When asked....she will discuss the social issues.....but she'll quickly turn the discussion back to the economy.

She is more hawkish than most of the GOP field....so it will be hard for any of them to gain points there. Unless they are willing to alienate their base, that is.

I'm laughing at Rubio and Paul....trying to saddle Sec. Clinton with the "Obama economy"......because just about every sane American knows that it is far better than when he took office. It's not a winner for you idiots.

Whaddya think, thereisnospoon and The Rabbi ? Did I contribute? Ya losers.

Hilary wins regardless of who the Republicans nominate. Bush is the most likely winner of the nomination. A Hillary Bush match up is not likely to inspire anyone. However, Hillary's years of experience, popularity with women, and the fact that she is a know quantity will make her a winner. An ex-Senator, 8 years in the Whitehouse, ex-Secretary of State that's on a first name basis with most world leaders and Washington power brokers is going to be hard to beat.

Except for the marginal Secretary of State performance, she failed to Obama of all people with the credentials you listed.

Not really. Failed Obama? No, Obama in his first term was the most controlling foreign policy president since Nixon. Hillary has done his bidding becoming one of the most conservative secretaries. in many years. It's true she negotiated no indelible peace sealed with her handshake, no war averted, no nuclear crisis defused. What she has done in her term as Secretary is put out more fires in a 100 countries, met with more foreign heads of state than any secretary in many years. The point is compared any of her potential opponents she has more knowledge and experience than all of them combined.

 

[Roadrunner]

Aside from being a lying, corrupt, scumbag ***** . . .

She. Is. Too. Damn. Old.

Personally I don't think she is healthy enough either, I think there is something more that we know going on with regards to her health.

oh please! she not near as old a ronny ray gun..

"ronny ray gun"????


That got old around March, 1965.

really? odd as it didn't come into use till Reagans second term.
besides you just might have been out of diapers in 65

You are wrong.

Grace Slick was using it when he was still Cal governor.

 

[Skylar]

Who woulda thunk? I mean it is MSNBC, but still, 86%?

Poll Hillary 2016 MSNBC

That's a straw poll. Its essentially meaningless. As interested parties can vote. And they can vote multiple times.

True but it is on MSNBC. You would think it would favor Hillary.
Just as polls on FOX mostly favor repubs.

You're quoting it. That means conservatives have definitely gotten wind of it.

Do you think they'd favor Hillary?

Straw polls are famously meaningless. As Ron Paul demonstrated about a dozen times in every election he participated in.

That is your opinion.

That's history. Shall we compare voting results with straw poll predictions? You'll find a record far worse than guessing.

 

[Borillar]

86% may not vote for her, but a good percentage will vote against her opponent.

 

[FA_Q2]

Who woulda thunk? I mean it is MSNBC, but still, 86%?

Poll Hillary 2016 MSNBC

That's a straw poll. Its essentially meaningless. As interested parties can vote. And they can vote multiple times.

True but it is on MSNBC. You would think it would favor Hillary.
Just as polls on FOX mostly favor repubs.

false! unlike faux msnbc favors no one ,that's what real news networks do.

 

[Meathead]

Now it's 87% of 78k voters on MSNBC who would not vote for Hillary.

Precious!

Dems, you really, really need a plan B.

 

[daws101]

Aside from being a lying, corrupt, scumbag ***** . . .

She. Is. Too. Damn. Old.

Personally I don't think she is healthy enough either, I think there is something more that we know going on with regards to her health.

oh please! she not near as old a ronny ray gun..

"ronny ray gun"????


That got old around March, 1965.

really? odd as it didn't come into use till Reagans second term.
besides you just might have been out of diapers in 65

You are wrong.

Grace Slick was using it when he was still Cal governor.

bullshit

 

[BlindBoo]

Who woulda thunk? I mean it is MSNBC, but still, 86%?

Poll Hillary 2016 MSNBC

86% of what? WMSH's or what?

 

[Skylar]

Now it's 87% of 78k voters on MSNBC who would not vote for Hillary.

Precious!

Dems, you really, really need a plan B.

A poster thinks straw polls actually measure public sentiment or reliably predict electoral outcomes.

Precious.

 

[daws101]

Now it's 87% of 78k voters on MSNBC who would not vote for Hillary.

Precious!

Dems, you really, really need a plan B.

A poster thinks straw polls actually measure public sentiment or reliably predict electoral outcomes.

Precious.

yeah, that is funny! it's also a sign of desperation.

 

[rightwinger]

Who woulda thunk? I mean it is MSNBC, but still, 86%?

Poll Hillary 2016 MSNBC

An internet poll?

If internet polls had any validity, Ron Paul would have been elected President three times

 

[Meathead]

These are the results you'd expect from a Fox poll. The hag has had it.

 

[Flopper]

Now it's 87% of 78k voters on MSNBC who would not vote for Hillary.

Precious!

Dems, you really, really need a plan B.

The MSNBC is not a scientific poll; that is, respondents are not a cross of voters. Responds can vote as many times as they like and can come from any place in the world where there is an internet connection. By contrast, the Ramussen poll shows 57% of the voters believe Hillary Clinton will be the next president. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. This is actually quite high considering she just announced, hasn't rolled out her campaign, and her opponent has not been determined.

The 57 Think Hillary Clinton Likely To Win in 2016 - Rasmussen Reports

 

[rightwinger]

Now it's 87% of 78k voters on MSNBC who would not vote for Hillary.

Precious!

Dems, you really, really need a plan B.

The MSNBC is not a scientific poll; that is, respondents are not a cross of voters. Responds can vote as many times as they like and can come from any place in world where there is an internet connection. By contrast, the Ramussen poll shows 57% of the voters believe Hillary Clinton will be next president. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. This is actually quite high considering she just announced, hasn't rolled out her campaign, and her opponent has not been determined.

The 57 Think Hillary Clinton Likely To Win in 2016 - Rasmussen Reports

The anti-Hillary crowd floods the poll with negtive votes and then start threads about how "nobody" is voting for Hillary

 

[HenryBHough]

Pointless thread, pointless discussion.

Hillary will not be the Democrat nominee. She'll be thrown under the bus in the first vote at the convention and they'll run with some cleans-up-nice, articulate, gay (or lesbian) person of either colour or hispanic surname. In short, the shiny-object-du-jour.

 

[daws101]

Pointless thread, pointless discussion.

Hillary will not be the Democrat nominee. She'll be thrown under the bus in the first vote at the convention and they'll run with some cleans-up-nice, articulate, gay (or lesbian) person of either colour or hispanic surname. In short, the shiny-object-du-jour.

wake up henry you'RE having that dream again.

 

[Skylar]

Pointless thread, pointless discussion.

Hillary will not be the Democrat nominee. She'll be thrown under the bus in the first vote at the convention and they'll run with some cleans-up-nice, articulate, gay (or lesbian) person of either colour or hispanic surname. In short, the shiny-object-du-jour.

Or.....you have no idea what you're talking about. And your predictions aren't worth the pressure you applied to the keyboard.

One of the two.

 

[HenryBHough]

86%?

87%?

OK, not surprising that 13 or 14% of low-information liberals will vote for Hilllary even when she's not their party's nominee. What is surprising, considering that her name won't be on the ballot, is that they might be able to form enough letters to "write her in". But most will also forget to tick the box next to the scrawled name so they're less harmful that many imagine.