Surprising Rasmussen poll, 2016: Hillary vs. GOP field

[Statistikhengst]

As bad as those numbers look for Republicans they cover up the true impact of the 2016 election.

When you apply those type of numbers to the current electoral vote laydown you end up with an insurmountable lead for Hillary regardless of which stiff the Republicans run against her

Correct, and statewide polling is proving this to be exactly the case:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...-ge-hillary-clinton-vs-gop-field-part-iv.html

In statewide polling, she is guaranteed every single Gore and Kerry state. So, her starting point is 256.

She is winning with double digit margins in Ohio, Virginia and Florida.

That puts here at 332, right where Obama was in 2012.

On top of that, she is ahead in NC, AR and extremely competitive in LA. No polling yet from MO.

If she wins all of the Obama 2012 states (332) + NC + AR + MO, she is then at 373.

I believe she will carry 4 of the 6 "Clinton 6" from 1992/1996, so add KY and LA to that mix. That brings Hillary to 390.

She only needs either IN or AZ to break over 400 EV.

With GA added, this brings here to about 416, plus NE-02, brings here to 417, possibly 428. She may swing either SD or AK (not pooh pooh this idea too quickly), which then brings here to 431-434.

I have been predicting now for more than one year that Hillary wins the 2016 GE with 57% of the NPV and either hits or goes over 400 EV. The last President to go over 400 EV: George H.W. Bush, in 1988.

The scary part for Republicans is that you can substitute any generic Democrat and get almost the same results

The bottom line is that Republicans have done NOTHING to improve their prospects in swing states. If anything, their prospects have gotten worse

Obama won in 2012 with 51.01% of the vote.

He got 93% of the black vote. Most DEMS get around 90%.

He got 71% of the Latino vote. If Hillary gets 80% (and I bet she will), then that increases her percentage from 51.01% (Obama) to 54.2 or so.

He got 55% of the female vote. She will likely get 60% or more. That adds at least 5% more to the NPV percentage. That brings her to 59.4%, minus some of the black vote that would probably recede to the usual 89-90% for a DEM candidate and probably some backlash among white male voters in some southern (cough, cough) states. This is why it is so easy for me to prognosticate 57% for Hillary Clinton for 2016.

And yes, I agree with you that any DEM would have a much easier path to 270 than any of the Republicans currently being discussed.

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh look. A Gallup poll from 2006 showing Hillary way ahead. And barack Obama is right behind. Oh no, Barack Obama appears nowhere on the poll.
Clinton, Giuliani Top 2008 Presidential Nomination Polls

And here's a poll showing Giuliana beating Clinton by 11 points. McCain beating her by 13 points.

02/09/06 FOX News Poll: Republicans Have Edge in Early 2008 Presidential Matchups | Fox News

Yeah remind me how accurate polling 2 years ahead of the election is.

 

[Derideo_Te]

.

Wow, I don't know much about this stuff, but it's surprising to see Christie down there with Perry at -14.

.

Christie is going to be covered in mud from the indictments and subsequent trials of his appointees. The Manhatten DA and the SEC now have solid cases for securities fraud against the Christie admin for siphoning $1+ billion in bonds out of the Port Authority and using it for a NJ traffic project.

There is no way his denials about knowing nothing about that is ever going to exonerate him sufficiently to be a viable candidate by 2016.

 

[Zander]

Oh look. A Gallup poll from 2006 showing Hillary way ahead. And barack Obama is right behind. Oh no, Barack Obama appears nowhere on the poll.
Clinton, Giuliani Top 2008 Presidential Nomination Polls

And here's a poll showing Giuliana beating Clinton by 11 points. McCain beating her by 13 points.

02/09/06 FOX News Poll: Republicans Have Edge in Early 2008 Presidential Matchups | Fox News

Yeah remind me how accurate polling 2 years ahead of the election is.

 

[JoeB131]

[


Obama won in 2012 with 51.01% of the vote.

He got 93% of the black vote. Most DEMS get around 90%.

He got 71% of the Latino vote. If Hillary gets 80% (and I bet she will), then that increases her percentage from 51.01% (Obama) to 54.2 or so.

He got 55% of the female vote. She will likely get 60% or more. That adds at least 5% more to the NPV percentage. That brings her to 59.4%, minus some of the black vote that would probably recede to the usual 89-90% for a DEM candidate and probably some backlash among white male voters in some southern (cough, cough) states. This is why it is so easy for me to prognosticate 57% for Hillary Clinton for 2016.

And yes, I agree with you that any DEM would have a much easier path to 270 than any of the Republicans currently being discussed.

I'm curious what your reasoning is for the bolded section. While I think Hillary will do well with Hispanics, I don't see her going above Obama's number, especially if her opponent is Jeb Bush (married to a Hispanic, doesn't say crazy shit about Immigration.)

I think Hillary will hit above 51% and win easily, but the margin of that victory will depend how crazy the GOP gets.

God help us, their best pick is Jeb Bush, and hoping everyone has amnesia about his brother.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Statistikhengst]

[


Obama won in 2012 with 51.01% of the vote.

He got 93% of the black vote. Most DEMS get around 90%.

He got 71% of the Latino vote. If Hillary gets 80% (and I bet she will), then that increases her percentage from 51.01% (Obama) to 54.2 or so.

He got 55% of the female vote. She will likely get 60% or more. That adds at least 5% more to the NPV percentage. That brings her to 59.4%, minus some of the black vote that would probably recede to the usual 89-90% for a DEM candidate and probably some backlash among white male voters in some southern (cough, cough) states. This is why it is so easy for me to prognosticate 57% for Hillary Clinton for 2016.

And yes, I agree with you that any DEM would have a much easier path to 270 than any of the Republicans currently being discussed.

I'm curious what your reasoning is for the bolded section. While I think Hillary will do well with Hispanics, I don't see her going above Obama's number, especially if her opponent is Jeb Bush (married to a Hispanic, doesn't say crazy shit about Immigration.)

I think Hillary will hit above 51% and win easily, but the margin of that victory will depend how crazy the GOP gets.

God help us, their best pick is Jeb Bush, and hoping everyone has amnesia about his brother.

Well sure: she will shoot up among latino women just as she will among women in general. Plus, I am relatively certain she will select a Latino for the VP slot, like Sanchez or Castro. And I sincerely doubt that Jeb Bush is going to get the nomination. My money is on Rand Paul.

 

[JoeB131]

You see, I just don't see rand expanding beyond that 10% of nuts who supported his dad.

 

[The Rabbi]

[


Obama won in 2012 with 51.01% of the vote.

He got 93% of the black vote. Most DEMS get around 90%.

He got 71% of the Latino vote. If Hillary gets 80% (and I bet she will), then that increases her percentage from 51.01% (Obama) to 54.2 or so.

He got 55% of the female vote. She will likely get 60% or more. That adds at least 5% more to the NPV percentage. That brings her to 59.4%, minus some of the black vote that would probably recede to the usual 89-90% for a DEM candidate and probably some backlash among white male voters in some southern (cough, cough) states. This is why it is so easy for me to prognosticate 57% for Hillary Clinton for 2016.

And yes, I agree with you that any DEM would have a much easier path to 270 than any of the Republicans currently being discussed.

I'm curious what your reasoning is for the bolded section. While I think Hillary will do well with Hispanics, I don't see her going above Obama's number, especially if her opponent is Jeb Bush (married to a Hispanic, doesn't say crazy shit about Immigration.)

I think Hillary will hit above 51% and win easily, but the margin of that victory will depend how crazy the GOP gets.

God help us, their best pick is Jeb Bush, and hoping everyone has amnesia about his brother.

Well sure: she will shoot up among latino women just as she will among women in general. Plus, I am relatively certain she will select a Latino for the VP slot, like Sanchez or Castro. And I sincerely doubt that Jeb Bush is going to get the nomination. My money is on Rand Paul.

Smart women think about policies and qualifications.
Stupid women vote for whomever throws free stuff at their vaginas.

 

[emilynghiem]

The best candidates I have seen on the GOP are either
not popular enough to be chosen for promotions (based on "name recognition in the media")
or not unifying enough to get all the votes out even if they are in the media which only promotes CONFLICT not working solutions.
The ones who could lead solutions are falling under the radar, because they work behind the scenes, not pimping themselves in the media.
If GOP keeps listening to the media, that of course
will only PUBLICIZE the DIVISIVE candidates to set them up to fail.
GOP needs to get smart and listen to their party members and not the media games,
quit pushing people who will not unite the party and not get the vote out but just divide it
(out of fear that the really effective leaders and solutions aren't "popular enough" in the media to win.
So why not focus on publicizing those leaders directly in UNITY around solutions
instead of playing the same divisive media games set up to fail?)

The Democrats will rally around the biggest name,
whoever turns out can carry the media and win.
As always the whole party will sell out and sacrifice principles
just to get all their votes onto the person with the "D" by their name.

Getting votes and elections by the numbers is all they can do to make
a political statement, so that's all they use. Trying to actually reform
and write meaningful legislation "takes too much work" -- so all the
money and resources goes to "sound good" campaigns which can be done professionally in the media.
(Forget legislation, which can be hired out to private interests and lobbies to do the work so it comes out crappy.)

Again this means compromising principles and representation,
not only for the real Democrat membership who suffer from corporate politicians,
but the whole Nation suffering from lack of representation in order to pour all money and attention into playing "media politics."
This is like watching parents spend all their hard earned money gambling
and not taking care of the actual household and family with that money.
They both lose billions of dollars and only one gets the job;
and the media conglomerates get all that money they both spent on airtime.

TOO BAD the GOP cannot get its act together, but keeps listening
to where the media tells them to focus (on conflicts) which means losing,
instead of supporting their real leaders who can write up solutions
(which the media can't control and the Democrats can't do either
so they focus on campaigns which they know how to do well)

The Democrat Party will just keep playing with politics and media to say
whatever swings the media and elections their way, at all other cost.

SAME GAME different names
What a shame....

 

[rightwinger]

Regardless of who the Republicans run, they will lose big to Hillary. There is no Barack Obama waiting in the wings for Democrats. When Hillary runs, she will win, and win big

In terms of Electoral Votes, Republicans hit their high mark with George Bush in 2000 and 2004. At their high mark, Bush barely eked out 270. Republicans have regressed in the last ten years. Bush did well with Hispanics. Republicans have since driven them away in droves

They got 45% of the women's vote in 2012. With Hillary, they might get 40%

The numbers do not add up and Republicans have done nothing to change those numbers

Can I hear a Benghazi?

 

[oldunclemark]

I see the GOP war on women I alive and well

 

[Vigilante]

Regardless of who the Republicans run, they will lose big to Hillary. There is no Barack Obama waiting in the wings for Democrats. When Hillary runs, she will win, and win big

In terms of Electoral Votes, Republicans hit their high mark with George Bush in 2000 and 2004. At their high mark, Bush barely eked out 270. Republicans have regressed in the last ten years. Bush did well with Hispanics. Republicans have since driven them away in droves

They got 45% of the women's vote in 2012. With Hillary, they might get 40%

The numbers do not add up and Republicans have done nothing to change those numbers

Can I hear a Benghazi?

It's no longer "What difference does it make" it's ....

 

[emilynghiem]

Smart women think about policies and qualifications.
Stupid women vote for whomever throws free stuff at their vaginas.

Smart men write their own legislation and don't wait for others to do it.
Other men donate millions to candidates, which could have funded solutions directly,
then when they don't get the reform or legislation they want, blame the other party,
and use that to raise more funds for more campaigns to repeat the cycle.

1. The public donates billions to both parties for campaigns (without guaranteed results as only one of the candidates being gambled on wins each office),
2. then donates again for each legislative campaign (also for and against, at double cost
because officials don't sit down and write out agreed legislation in the first place)
3. while paying the cost of current govt programs already in place (and more added)
4. while paying to run the programs, nonprofits, schools and businesses that are really doing "all the work" (that could be funded directly instead of paying THREE times
the cost as above: for candidates to campaign, then legislative lobbying, and govt costs)

Why not take the ideas and solutions you already want
and just invest in #4 directly and quit paying 1, 2, 3.
Shift all the work, energy, resources, leadership, JOBS to level 4
and everyone can control, write, fund and represent their own programs
WITHOUT PAYING BILLIONS TO LOBBY and PAY FOR IT THREE TIMES already.

When I buy a car, I research pick the car I want, buy it, register/insure it and use it.
Directly.

What if I paid money to go "campaign for Candidate X" to go out and get that car "for me."
(and competing groups do this too, so we both spend funds to cancel each other out)

Then I pay money to "lobby for the written procedure" to be approved to get this car.
(while competing groups do this too, because they want a different procedure)

Then I pay for govt to manage the process of voting, passing laws, etc. to get the car.
While I still have to buy, borrow or rent a car to get to work in the meantime.

Why not just go out and buy your own cars?
Where nobody competes with anyone else, we can all have our own?
And drive around and take care of things ourselves?

Isn't that cheaper than gambling 3 to 6 times as much WITHOUT guaranteeing
ANYONE will get what represents us, because of competing with other people?

 

[emilynghiem]

Regardless of who the Republicans run, they will lose big to Hillary. There is no Barack Obama waiting in the wings for Democrats. When Hillary runs, she will win, and win big

In terms of Electoral Votes, Republicans hit their high mark with George Bush in 2000 and 2004. At their high mark, Bush barely eked out 270. Republicans have regressed in the last ten years. Bush did well with Hispanics. Republicans have since driven them away in droves

They got 45% of the women's vote in 2012. With Hillary, they might get 40%

The numbers do not add up and Republicans have done nothing to change those numbers

Can I hear a Benghazi?

As a Democrat I would vote for Vern Wuensche before I voted for Hillary.

I would ask Vern to tag on someone like Wendy Davis as VP to unite both parties,
but he would say no and stick to conservative traditional routes.

He is too nice, normal, and reasonable with plain common business sense.
So the media would not be able to play up controversies off him.

They can market Hillary to the hilt with the bad rap working in their favor.
They market the most conflicting inciteful angles
and leave the real problem solvers working behind the scenes
because that's too much work to do things right, ethical, sustainable = not sexy enough.

The media needs the Bill and Hillary Clintons, the cowboy Bush and Reagan.

As a Democrat, I will keep pushing ways to require the ENTIRE party to pay the public back for political fraud and abuses done by Democrat candidates and campaigns.

That would either expose corrupt politicians who want the fame not the work to fix abuses.
Or would make careers for candidates in the trenches, doing the work and putting together longterm solutions that are NOT sell out shortcuts or sexy sound bytes in the media.
And put the focus on the Vern Wuenche's, the Damian La Croix's, the Gladys House
and Ray Hill's I know, liberal Democrats, conservative Republicans and sustainable Greens who do deserve publicity for the work they can do.

But can't beat this media game that focuses on political bullcrap to sell hype, ratings and catfights to drive high dollar campaigns.

If I could address all the parties I support, and ask help to form teams to put media focus on REAL solutions from all parties combined, correcting these abuses by political gaming.

Maybe we can do something different by the next election cycle.
What if we poured all our resources into solutions leaders from all parties
compiled together in unison, resolving all conflicts, and redressing past issues.
And all govt money wasted on conflicts and wrongdoing will be reimbursed
back to taxpayers to fund these cooperative solutions. What if we set it up
ourselves, and then pressured the media to focus on what WE push together.

Would that stop the waste of funding, lobbying back and forth,
when this same money could be invested directly into solutions without fighting at all?

 

[daws101]

Now, getting back to the OP, it is about one specific, large poll from Rasmussen, which is NOT a Democratic-leaning firm, showing Hillary Clinton with sizeable leads nationally (from +7 to +14, depending on the GOP candidate pitted against her).

All of the relevant information is in the OP.

I have yet to see a Rightie call this data from Rasmussen into dispute.

And at some point in time, trolls like Vigilante will learn that this here is not the FZ.

I'm disputing that Hillary will be the Nominee

of you would you'd' pick a fight with a stop sign.

 

[daws101]

Oh look. A Gallup poll from 2006 showing Hillary way ahead. And barack Obama is right behind. Oh no, Barack Obama appears nowhere on the poll.
Clinton, Giuliani Top 2008 Presidential Nomination Polls

And here's a poll showing Giuliana beating Clinton by 11 points. McCain beating her by 13 points.

02/09/06 FOX News Poll: Republicans Have Edge in Early 2008 Presidential Matchups | Fox News

Yeah remind me how accurate polling 2 years ahead of the election is.

fox news from 08....?

 

[Nyvin]

Now, getting back to the OP, it is about one specific, large poll from Rasmussen, which is NOT a Democratic-leaning firm, showing Hillary Clinton with sizeable leads nationally (from +7 to +14, depending on the GOP candidate pitted against her).

All of the relevant information is in the OP.

I have yet to see a Rightie call this data from Rasmussen into dispute.

And at some point in time, trolls like Vigilante will learn that this here is not the FZ.

I'm disputing that Hillary will be the Nominee

Given her paltry showing in book sales and the insane crap she's spewing about being poor, that even the media is laughing at, I suspect she will up and decide she's got better things to do.

Clinton has sold roughly 135,000 copies of "Hard Choices"

Huckabee, the GOP's best seller with "Dear Chandler", has sold roughly 35,500

Marco Rubio's book was second to Huckabee with 35,000 copies of "An American Son"

No other GOP written books have reached 20,000 in sales.

If Clinton is doing "paltry" then the GOP as a whole is downright pathetic.

 

[Vigilante]

I'm disputing that Hillary will be the Nominee

Given her paltry showing in book sales and the insane crap she's spewing about being poor, that even the media is laughing at, I suspect she will up and decide she's got better things to do.

Clinton has sold roughly 135,000 copies of "Hard Choices"

Huckabee, the GOP's best seller with "Dear Chandler", has sold roughly 35,500

Marco Rubio's book was second to Huckabee with 35,000 copies of "An American Son"

No other GOP written books have reached 20,000 in sales.

If Clinton is doing "paltry" then the GOP as a whole is downright pathetic.

A memoir authored by the 2008 Republican Vice President nominee and
former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin sold a whopping 700,000 copies in
the first week of release.

Sales of Hillary's New Memoir Drop Sharply in 2nd Week...