MSNBC Poll: 86% Will Not Vote for Hillary

[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.

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

57% say she's going to win against one (1) opponent who is as yet unknown is positive for her? Meanwhile she's been dropping in the polls because she comes of as dishonest and elitist. Meanwhile, 87% of over 80k on a decidedly Dem leaning site say they will not vote for her.

This was not supposed to happen. The predicted huge groundswell of support for Hillary is obviously not apparent.

 

[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.

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

Precious.

These Internet polls are really ridiculous. You can vote as many times as you like. The respondents are not necessary voters and in fact can be anyone that can connect to the internet.

Anyone with a little programming knowledge can write a script which would connect to the web page, place a vote, delete the cookie that stops multi-votes, disconnects and repeats the process. One person with one computer could cast thousands of votes a day.

 

[Flopper]

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.

You wish

 

[Meathead]

Anyone with a little programming knowledge can write a script which would connect to the web page, place a vote, delete the cookie that stops multi-votes, disconnects and repeats the process. One person with one computer could cast thousands of votes a day.

Yeah, that could done to vote for Hillary as well. For all we know, 80% or more that voted for Hillary was exactly in the scenario above. So what's your point?

 

[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 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

57% say she's going to win against one (1) opponent who is as yet unknown is positive for her? Meanwhile she's been dropping in the polls because she comes of as dishonest and elitist. Meanwhile, 87% of over 80k on a decidedly Dem leaning site say they will not vote for her.

This was not supposed to happen. The predicted huge groundswell of support for Hillary is obviously not apparent.

I doubt that Hillary will be doing any really serious campaigning until the Republican nominee is determined. The public knows Hillary and there's not much point in attacking an unknown opponent. Once her opponent is known and her target is identified, the Clinton campaign will go into attack mode. There's not much new her opponent can use against. She's been under near constant attack by conservatives since she was First Lady. Regardless of who the Republicans nominate, there will be plenty of new material for her to use against her opponent. That's when you'll start seeing meaningful polls.

 

[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.

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

57% say she's going to win against one (1) opponent who is as yet unknown is positive for her? Meanwhile she's been dropping in the polls because she comes of as dishonest and elitist. Meanwhile, 87% of over 80k on a decidedly Dem leaning site say they will not vote for her.

This was not supposed to happen. The predicted huge groundswell of support for Hillary is obviously not apparent.

I doubt that Hillary will be doing any really serious campaigning until the Republican nominee is determined. The public knows Hillary and there's not much point in attacking an unknown opponent. Once her opponent is known and her target is identified, the Clinton campaign will go into attack mode. There's not much new her opponent can use against. She's been under near constant attack by conservatives since she was First Lady. Regardless of who the Republicans nominate, there will be plenty of new material for her to use against her opponent. That's when you'll start seeing meaningful polls.

Do you think in three hotly contested gubernatorial elections in the past four years someone like Scot Walker hasn't been vetted seriously?

Don't you understand Hillary's going to be called to testify at the Benghazi committee to answer for her actions and the deletion of her emails while she is running for president. Why do you think the committee has been taking so much time. The later, the better, eh?

Come on, as time goes by the trail of slime under Hillary is thickening.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Poll: Scott Walker Approval Underwater, Trails Hillary In Head-To-Head

A new Marquette University poll has some bad news for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R).

The poll, released Thursday, found Walker's approval rating among registered voters at 41 percent while 56 percent said they disapproved of the job he's been doing. In October 2014, 49 percent said they approved of Walker's job performance while 47 percent said they disapproved.

Walker, who has taken serious steps toward running for president in 2016, generally polls at the front or near the front of surveys of likely Republican primary candidates. But he trails in a head-to-head with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who's running for the Democratic nomination for president.

The poll found that in a head-to-head match-up, 52 percent of Wisconsinites surveyed said they would support Clinton, while 40 percent said they would support Walker.

Charles Franklin, who conducts the Marquette poll, told TPM Walker's approval numbers in the new poll were "by far" the lowest they had been for him since 2012.

 

[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.

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

57% say she's going to win against one (1) opponent who is as yet unknown is positive for her? Meanwhile she's been dropping in the polls because she comes of as dishonest and elitist. Meanwhile, 87% of over 80k on a decidedly Dem leaning site say they will not vote for her.

A straw poll is effectively meaningless. As interested parties can vote. And vote as many times as they want.

Ron Paul won virtually every straw poll by wide margins. But failed to win a single vote. Even guessing provides better odds of being right than a straw poll.

And yet you cite a straw poll as authoritative. Odd that.

 

[Meathead]

Poll: Scott Walker Approval Underwater, Trails Hillary In Head-To-Head

A new Marquette University poll has some bad news for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R).

The poll, released Thursday, found Walker's approval rating among registered voters at 41 percent while 56 percent said they disapproved of the job he's been doing. In October 2014, 49 percent said they approved of Walker's job performance while 47 percent said they disapproved.

Walker, who has taken serious steps toward running for president in 2016, generally polls at the front or near the front of surveys of likely Republican primary candidates. But he trails in a head-to-head with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who's running for the Democratic nomination for president.

The poll found that in a head-to-head match-up, 52 percent of Wisconsinites surveyed said they would support Clinton, while 40 percent said they would support Walker.

Charles Franklin, who conducts the Marquette poll, told TPM Walker's approval numbers in the new poll were "by far" the lowest they had been for him since 2012.

I've read Walker's obituary about four or five times in the last few years. Yet, he keeps winning in a deep blue state. Things are changing even faster than Hillary's hormones if there are any left

 

[HenryBHough]

I doubt that Hillary will be doing any really serious campaigning until the Republican nominee is determined. The public knows Hillary and there's not much point in attacking an unknown opponent. Once her opponent is known and her target is identified, the Clinton campaign will go into attack mode........

I'd call that accurate as far as it goes but it needs a little qualification.

Hillary has no KNOWN opponent at this moment. But it won't be just after a Repbulican nominee is chosen. The first opponent will emerge too late for Her Thighness to campaign against it.

The magic moment will come on the floor of the convention.

That's when The Democrat Party's fair-haired (or kinky headed) champion will emerge. Just as happened the first time Hillary expected to be the nominee by acclamation.

 

[Clementine]

Final cash roundup before she retires. Notice she wants nothing to do with people.

Here's a TMZ video of a reporter approaching Rubio and later, Hillary. Notice the difference in attitudes. Hillary just walked past without a word. Rubio stopped to chat and was quite friendly.

Politics VIDEO Same TMZ reporter approaches Rubio and Hillary Best of Cain

She is not a 'people person.' Funny that the MSNBC poll shows that the majority won't vote for her. You'd think the people voting would be mostly liberals.

I am sure she thinks her campaign managers can fool people and I expect there will be many attacks on those who bring up the many scandals. I hope she fails miserably.

 

[Flopper]

Anyone with a little programming knowledge can write a script which would connect to the web page, place a vote, delete the cookie that stops multi-votes, disconnects and repeats the process. One person with one computer could cast thousands of votes a day.

Yeah, that could done to vote for Hillary as well. For all we know, 80% or more that voted for Hillary was exactly in the scenario above. So what's your point?

The point is Internet polls are meaningless. Either side can easily control the outcome. It's just a matter of who wants to spend the time and money to do so. At this stage, campaigning is all about raising money and playing with Internet polls is not productive. PACs may do this but not the campaigns.

 

[Skylar]

I doubt that Hillary will be doing any really serious campaigning until the Republican nominee is determined. The public knows Hillary and there's not much point in attacking an unknown opponent. Once her opponent is known and her target is identified, the Clinton campaign will go into attack mode........

I'd call that accurate as far as it goes but it needs a little qualification.

Hillary has no KNOWN opponent at this moment. But it won't be just after a Repbulican nominee is chosen. The first opponent will emerge too late for Her Thighness to campaign against it.

Fellow republicans will shred each other long before Hillary needs to spend a penny doing it herself.

That's when The Democrat Party's fair-haired (or kinky headed) champion will emerge. Just as happened the first time Hillary expected to be the nominee by acclamation.

And when none of this actually happens, will you admit you didn't have the slightest clue what you were talking about?

 

[Skylar]

Final cash roundup before she retires. Notice she wants nothing to do with people.

Here's a TMZ video of a reporter approaching Rubio and later, Hillary. Notice the difference in attitudes. Hillary just walked past without a word. Rubio stopped to chat and was quite friendly.

Politics VIDEO Same TMZ reporter approaches Rubio and Hillary Best of Cain

She is not a 'people person.' Funny that the MSNBC poll shows that the majority won't vote for her. You'd think the people voting would be mostly liberals.

Given that its republicans who are overwhelmingly talking about this poll, that seems an assumption that don't hold up.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Flopper]

I doubt that Hillary will be doing any really serious campaigning until the Republican nominee is determined. The public knows Hillary and there's not much point in attacking an unknown opponent. Once her opponent is known and her target is identified, the Clinton campaign will go into attack mode........

I'd call that accurate as far as it goes but it needs a little qualification.

Hillary has no KNOWN opponent at this moment. But it won't be just after a Repbulican nominee is chosen. The first opponent will emerge too late for Her Thighness to campaign against it.

The magic moment will come on the floor of the convention.

That's when The Democrat Party's fair-haired (or kinky headed) champion will emerge. Just as happened the first time Hillary expected to be the nominee by acclamation.

If you're suggesting she won't be nominated, you're just dreaming. The only way she won't be is if she drops out which is pretty unlikely.
I say this two reasons.

First is money. The Clintons can raise money like no other candidates, Republican or Democrat. She had over 250 million in the bag the day she announced. She is very likely to raise a billion before the convention. By comparison Obama only raised 760 million.

Second is name recognition. There is no other potential Democratic candidate that can come close. A large part of the campaigning is developing name recognition. This is why you see millions of signs with practically nothing but the name of the candidate. Everyone knows Clinton and most voters know a lot about her. This means the millions that would be needed to introduce the candidate can be spent on attacking the opponent and promoting the platform.

Her most likely opponent at this point, Jeb Bush has a serious name recognition problem. Most voters know little about him since he's been out of the public eye for over 8 years and what is know about his name is not likely to attract votes. Bush has a double problem with name recognition. He has to introduce himself to the voters and second he has to deal with a name that's badly tarnished by his brother.