Surprising Rasmussen poll, 2016: Hillary vs. GOP field

[rightwinger]

Is Mr. O'Relly running for President?

Or are you just functionally incapable of realizing that this was a direct comparison between potentional presidential candidates?

And you do realize that there is a difference between an autobiography and a work of fiction, right?


Sheesh...

Irrespective of book sales it is votes that win elections

I have little doubt that Republicans can sell books to their constituents or get them to watch FoxNews. I have serious doubts about whether Republicans are still capable of winning Presidential elections

Winning 270 electoral votes is becoming increasingly impossible for Republicans

Demographics is Destiny.


It is really that simple.

Republicans claim that Demographics do not apply to them

If it is good enough for wealthy, christian, white guys....it is good enough for you

 

[daws101]

Irrespective of book sales it is votes that win elections

I have little doubt that Republicans can sell books to their constituents or get them to watch FoxNews. I have serious doubts about whether Republicans are still capable of winning Presidential elections

Winning 270 electoral votes is becoming increasingly impossible for Republicans

Demographics is Destiny.


It is really that simple.

Republicans claim that Demographics do not apply to them

If it is good enough for wealthy, christian, white guys....it is good enough for you

what if you're poor white trash?

 

[rightwinger]

Demographics is Destiny.


It is really that simple.

Republicans claim that Demographics do not apply to them

If it is good enough for wealthy, christian, white guys....it is good enough for you

what if you're poor white trash?

In that case they will make sure you have guns

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Picaro]

Paul, Carson Are Now Hillary?s Closest GOP Challengers - Rasmussen Reports?

Release date: June 23, 2014
1,000 LV, MoE = +/-3.0


Hillary Clinton (D): 46
Rand Paul (R): 39
margin: Clinton +7

Hillary Clinton (D): 46
Ben Carson (R): 38
margin: Clinton +8

Hillary Clinton (D): 47
Marco Rubio (R): 36
margin: Clinton +11

Hillary Clinton (D): 50
Ted Cruz (R): 37
margin: Clinton +13

Hillary Clinton (D): 47
Chris Christie(R): 33
margin: Clinton +14

Hillary Clinton (D): 50
Rick Perry (R): 36
margin: Clinton +14


From an earlier Rasmussen poll (03/06/2014):

Hillary Clinton (D): 47
Jeb Bush (R): 33
margin: Clinton +14

What to take away from this?​

Well, it's just one poll, and that is indeed true. So, I won't try to read the future from it, but Rasmussen is anything but a Democratic-friendly outfit.

It is also the very first Rasmussen poll to pit Clinton against a large field of candidates all at once. So, in many ways, this is like the starting-shot for 2016 for Rasmussen. We can start to build a baseline for Rasmussen based on these results as the next two years unfold.

Facts:​

Of the six results from this poll, Hillary wins every match-up, from between +7 and +14 over her prospective GOP challengers. Average: Clinton +11.17%. In two of those match-ups, she wins with an upper-single-digit margin. In the other four match-ups, she wins with landslide double-digit margins and hits the 50-mark twice. This is the first Rasmussen poll ever since the founding of the company in 2003 where I have seen values like this for a Democratic candidate.

All of the margins are outside the MoE. In fact they are outside the MoE doubled as well.

In 2008, 2010 and in 2012, Rasmussen had a provable mathematical bias of +4 to the RIGHT, not to the left, so it is entirely possible that these margins are actually underplaying how strong Clinton actually is when compared to these names. This means that for the vast majority of their end polling, their predictions were at least 4 points off. Now, whether Rasmussen is still using the same methodology as before is anyone's guess, since Rasmussen is one of the only pollsters who refuses to release internals.

Also interesting is that, for the first time I am aware, Ben Carson was polled against Hillary Clinton and he had the second strongest showing, behind Rand Paul.


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

Just for the sake of historical accuracy, here is my analysis of the pollsters, post-2012:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: The moment of truth: how did the pollsters do?

You can see my analysis of Rasmussen there.

Of the 21 end-polls from Rasmussen, RAS was to the Right from between +2 and +10 in 15 of those end polls. It was to the Left by +1 to +6 in 5 of those polls, and absolutely nailed Pennsylvania with 0 mathematical bias. So, Rasmussen was off to the Right in 3/4 of it's end polling and the intensity of being off was much higher than for the 5 polls where it was off to the Left.

Rasmussen also miscalled 6 of the 12 battleground states. Mathematically, for all states combined, it's mathematical bias was +2.71 to the Right, but for the 12 battlegrounds, it was +4.50 to the Right. In national polling, Rasmussens final poll showed Romney 49 / Obama 48 and since Obama won by +4, this means that Rasmussen was off +5 to the Right in the national polling. No one can, with any credibility, accuse Rasmussen of having a Liberal bias in it's polling.

The point I am making here is that a +14 for Clinton over Perry, for instance, could actually be a +18 in reality.


Again, this is just one poll, but it really sticks out since it is from a very Right-Wing leaning pollster.


More updates on Rasmussen in the future...

Yes, Rasmussen is the GOP house polling company. This is why all of the usual GOP 'talking points' outlets are in Hillary bashing mode so early; when your own PArty has nothing to point to, go for negative campaigning against the other Party's leading candidates . Hillary probably should have been the nominee in 2008, but got submarined by her own Party's leadership in favor of Obama in 2008. Didn't read the rest of the thread, since it's just a given the majority of it is Fever Swamp raving given the OP content. The last page of this thread even has the usual racist attacks one can expect as usual.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[rightwinger]

Paul, Carson Are Now Hillary?s Closest GOP Challengers - Rasmussen Reports?

Release date: June 23, 2014
1,000 LV, MoE = +/-3.0


Hillary Clinton (D): 46
Rand Paul (R): 39
margin: Clinton +7

Hillary Clinton (D): 46
Ben Carson (R): 38
margin: Clinton +8

Hillary Clinton (D): 47
Marco Rubio (R): 36
margin: Clinton +11

Hillary Clinton (D): 50
Ted Cruz (R): 37
margin: Clinton +13

Hillary Clinton (D): 47
Chris Christie(R): 33
margin: Clinton +14

Hillary Clinton (D): 50
Rick Perry (R): 36
margin: Clinton +14


From an earlier Rasmussen poll (03/06/2014):

Hillary Clinton (D): 47
Jeb Bush (R): 33
margin: Clinton +14

What to take away from this?​

Well, it's just one poll, and that is indeed true. So, I won't try to read the future from it, but Rasmussen is anything but a Democratic-friendly outfit.

It is also the very first Rasmussen poll to pit Clinton against a large field of candidates all at once. So, in many ways, this is like the starting-shot for 2016 for Rasmussen. We can start to build a baseline for Rasmussen based on these results as the next two years unfold.

Facts:​

Of the six results from this poll, Hillary wins every match-up, from between +7 and +14 over her prospective GOP challengers. Average: Clinton +11.17%. In two of those match-ups, she wins with an upper-single-digit margin. In the other four match-ups, she wins with landslide double-digit margins and hits the 50-mark twice. This is the first Rasmussen poll ever since the founding of the company in 2003 where I have seen values like this for a Democratic candidate.

All of the margins are outside the MoE. In fact they are outside the MoE doubled as well.

In 2008, 2010 and in 2012, Rasmussen had a provable mathematical bias of +4 to the RIGHT, not to the left, so it is entirely possible that these margins are actually underplaying how strong Clinton actually is when compared to these names. This means that for the vast majority of their end polling, their predictions were at least 4 points off. Now, whether Rasmussen is still using the same methodology as before is anyone's guess, since Rasmussen is one of the only pollsters who refuses to release internals.

Also interesting is that, for the first time I am aware, Ben Carson was polled against Hillary Clinton and he had the second strongest showing, behind Rand Paul.


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

Just for the sake of historical accuracy, here is my analysis of the pollsters, post-2012:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: The moment of truth: how did the pollsters do?

You can see my analysis of Rasmussen there.

Of the 21 end-polls from Rasmussen, RAS was to the Right from between +2 and +10 in 15 of those end polls. It was to the Left by +1 to +6 in 5 of those polls, and absolutely nailed Pennsylvania with 0 mathematical bias. So, Rasmussen was off to the Right in 3/4 of it's end polling and the intensity of being off was much higher than for the 5 polls where it was off to the Left.

Rasmussen also miscalled 6 of the 12 battleground states. Mathematically, for all states combined, it's mathematical bias was +2.71 to the Right, but for the 12 battlegrounds, it was +4.50 to the Right. In national polling, Rasmussens final poll showed Romney 49 / Obama 48 and since Obama won by +4, this means that Rasmussen was off +5 to the Right in the national polling. No one can, with any credibility, accuse Rasmussen of having a Liberal bias in it's polling.

The point I am making here is that a +14 for Clinton over Perry, for instance, could actually be a +18 in reality.


Again, this is just one poll, but it really sticks out since it is from a very Right-Wing leaning pollster.


More updates on Rasmussen in the future...

Yes, Rasmussen is the GOP house polling company. This is why all of the usual GOP 'talking points' outlets are in Hillary bashing mode so early; when your own PArty has nothing to point to, go for negative campaigning against the other Party's leading candidates . Hillary probably should have been the nominee in 2008, but got submarined by her own Party's leadership in favor of Obama in 2008. Didn't read the rest of the thread, since it's just a given the majority of it is Fever Swamp raving given the OP content. The last page of this thread even has the usual racist attacks one can expect as usual.

Republicans realize they do not match up against Hillary. They are showing their desperation.

Their biggest problem is they somehow think they can win with Vince Foster, blowjobs and Benghazi

Some are so desperate that they resort to photoshop attacks

 

[Statistikhengst]

Paul, Carson Are Now Hillary?s Closest GOP Challengers - Rasmussen Reports?

Release date: June 23, 2014
1,000 LV, MoE = +/-3.0


Hillary Clinton (D): 46
Rand Paul (R): 39
margin: Clinton +7

Hillary Clinton (D): 46
Ben Carson (R): 38
margin: Clinton +8

Hillary Clinton (D): 47
Marco Rubio (R): 36
margin: Clinton +11

Hillary Clinton (D): 50
Ted Cruz (R): 37
margin: Clinton +13

Hillary Clinton (D): 47
Chris Christie(R): 33
margin: Clinton +14

Hillary Clinton (D): 50
Rick Perry (R): 36
margin: Clinton +14


From an earlier Rasmussen poll (03/06/2014):

Hillary Clinton (D): 47
Jeb Bush (R): 33
margin: Clinton +14

What to take away from this?​

Well, it's just one poll, and that is indeed true. So, I won't try to read the future from it, but Rasmussen is anything but a Democratic-friendly outfit.

It is also the very first Rasmussen poll to pit Clinton against a large field of candidates all at once. So, in many ways, this is like the starting-shot for 2016 for Rasmussen. We can start to build a baseline for Rasmussen based on these results as the next two years unfold.

Facts:​

Of the six results from this poll, Hillary wins every match-up, from between +7 and +14 over her prospective GOP challengers. Average: Clinton +11.17%. In two of those match-ups, she wins with an upper-single-digit margin. In the other four match-ups, she wins with landslide double-digit margins and hits the 50-mark twice. This is the first Rasmussen poll ever since the founding of the company in 2003 where I have seen values like this for a Democratic candidate.

All of the margins are outside the MoE. In fact they are outside the MoE doubled as well.

In 2008, 2010 and in 2012, Rasmussen had a provable mathematical bias of +4 to the RIGHT, not to the left, so it is entirely possible that these margins are actually underplaying how strong Clinton actually is when compared to these names. This means that for the vast majority of their end polling, their predictions were at least 4 points off. Now, whether Rasmussen is still using the same methodology as before is anyone's guess, since Rasmussen is one of the only pollsters who refuses to release internals.

Also interesting is that, for the first time I am aware, Ben Carson was polled against Hillary Clinton and he had the second strongest showing, behind Rand Paul.


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

Just for the sake of historical accuracy, here is my analysis of the pollsters, post-2012:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: The moment of truth: how did the pollsters do?

You can see my analysis of Rasmussen there.

Of the 21 end-polls from Rasmussen, RAS was to the Right from between +2 and +10 in 15 of those end polls. It was to the Left by +1 to +6 in 5 of those polls, and absolutely nailed Pennsylvania with 0 mathematical bias. So, Rasmussen was off to the Right in 3/4 of it's end polling and the intensity of being off was much higher than for the 5 polls where it was off to the Left.

Rasmussen also miscalled 6 of the 12 battleground states. Mathematically, for all states combined, it's mathematical bias was +2.71 to the Right, but for the 12 battlegrounds, it was +4.50 to the Right. In national polling, Rasmussens final poll showed Romney 49 / Obama 48 and since Obama won by +4, this means that Rasmussen was off +5 to the Right in the national polling. No one can, with any credibility, accuse Rasmussen of having a Liberal bias in it's polling.

The point I am making here is that a +14 for Clinton over Perry, for instance, could actually be a +18 in reality.


Again, this is just one poll, but it really sticks out since it is from a very Right-Wing leaning pollster.


More updates on Rasmussen in the future...

Yes, Rasmussen is the GOP house polling company. This is why all of the usual GOP 'talking points' outlets are in Hillary bashing mode so early; when your own PArty has nothing to point to, go for negative campaigning against the other Party's leading candidates . Hillary probably should have been the nominee in 2008, but got submarined by her own Party's leadership in favor of Obama in 2008. Didn't read the rest of the thread, since it's just a given the majority of it is Fever Swamp raving given the OP content. The last page of this thread even has the usual racist attacks one can expect as usual.

Republicans realize they do not match up against Hillary. They are showing their desperation.

Their biggest problem is they somehow think they can win with Vince Foster, blowjobs and Benghazi

Some are so desperate that they resort to photoshop attacks

Yes, it would be sad were it not so unbelievably amusing.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, Rasmussen is the GOP house polling company. This is why all of the usual GOP 'talking points' outlets are in Hillary bashing mode so early; when your own PArty has nothing to point to, go for negative campaigning against the other Party's leading candidates . Hillary probably should have been the nominee in 2008, but got submarined by her own Party's leadership in favor of Obama in 2008. Didn't read the rest of the thread, since it's just a given the majority of it is Fever Swamp raving given the OP content. The last page of this thread even has the usual racist attacks one can expect as usual.

Republicans realize they do not match up against Hillary. They are showing their desperation.

Their biggest problem is they somehow think they can win with Vince Foster, blowjobs and Benghazi

Some are so desperate that they resort to photoshop attacks

Yes, it would be sad were it not so unbelievably amusing.

Their biggest problem is that they think the tactics that do so well on Limbaugh and Hannity will work with the general public

Republicans have been chasing away moderates and somehow they think these Hillary tactics will work

 

[Statistikhengst]

Republicans realize they do not match up against Hillary. They are showing their desperation.

Their biggest problem is they somehow think they can win with Vince Foster, blowjobs and Benghazi

Some are so desperate that they resort to photoshop attacks

Yes, it would be sad were it not so unbelievably amusing.

Their biggest problem is that they think the tactics that do so well on Limbaugh and Hannity will work with the general public

Republicans have been chasing away moderates and somehow they think these Hillary tactics will work

Well, any candidate is beatable, but the GOP is plain old doing it wrong, as they have been doing with practically every demographic group that is not

a.) white
b.) male


So, I expect the GOP to get a pasting at the national level in both 2016 and 2020. Maybe, just maybe, by 2024, they will have learned their lesson.

 

[Samson]

What to take away from this?​

Well, it's just one poll, and that is indeed true. So, I won't try to read the future from it, but Rasmussen is anything but a Democratic-friendly outfit.

It is also the very first Rasmussen poll to pit Clinton against a large field of candidates all at once. So, in many ways, this is like the starting-shot for 2016 for Rasmussen.

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

Just for the sake of historical accuracy, here is my analysis of the pollsters, post-2012:

More updates on Rasmussen in the future...​

What to take away from this seems obvious.

Republicans have not chosen a candidate.

Democrats have.

Comparing past polls of chosen candidates with this Rassmussen poll I suppose has som mental masturbatory benefit, but for practical purposes you may as well get out an apple and compare it with an orange.​

 

[Statistikhengst]

What to take away from this?​

Well, it's just one poll, and that is indeed true. So, I won't try to read the future from it, but Rasmussen is anything but a Democratic-friendly outfit.

It is also the very first Rasmussen poll to pit Clinton against a large field of candidates all at once. So, in many ways, this is like the starting-shot for 2016 for Rasmussen.

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

Just for the sake of historical accuracy, here is my analysis of the pollsters, post-2012:

More updates on Rasmussen in the future...​

What to take away from this seems obvious.

Republicans have not chosen a candidate.

Democrats have.

Comparing past polls of chosen candidates with this Rassmussen poll I suppose has som mental masturbatory benefit, but for practical purposes you may as well get out an apple and compare it with an orange.​

Well, ok, but masturbation was definitely not something I was thinking about....



And actually, the begin of baseline data for Ras is kind of important to note.

Let's see what happens when I update RAS quarterly or so....​

 

[Samson]

What to take away from this?​

Well, it's just one poll, and that is indeed true. So, I won't try to read the future from it, but Rasmussen is anything but a Democratic-friendly outfit.

It is also the very first Rasmussen poll to pit Clinton against a large field of candidates all at once. So, in many ways, this is like the starting-shot for 2016 for Rasmussen.

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

Just for the sake of historical accuracy, here is my analysis of the pollsters, post-2012:

More updates on Rasmussen in the future...​

What to take away from this seems obvious.

Republicans have not chosen a candidate.

Democrats have.

Comparing past polls of chosen candidates with this Rassmussen poll I suppose has som mental masturbatory benefit, but for practical purposes you may as well get out an apple and compare it with an orange.​

Well, ok, but masturbation was definitely not something I was thinking about....



And actually, the begin of baseline data for Ras is kind of important to note.

Let's see what happens when I update RAS quarterly or so....​

The only possible benefit would be to evaluate Republican candidates, all of which, as may be expected, have about the same 2014 name recogintion as 2016 Presidential Candidates.

Then, if the theory that Rassmussan is "bias" toward any Republican Candidate is correct, we can then expect that candidate's numbers to look better than any others. Afterward, the opposing partisans will have a target, and we can expect those numbers to erode...or not.

Assuming Rassumsan IS purely partisan, we can only conclude that these polls are an early effort to force the Republican Party to coalesce.​

 

[Statistikhengst]

What to take away from this seems obvious.

Republicans have not chosen a candidate.

Democrats have.

Comparing past polls of chosen candidates with this Rassmussen poll I suppose has som mental masturbatory benefit, but for practical purposes you may as well get out an apple and compare it with an orange.

Well, ok, but masturbation was definitely not something I was thinking about....



And actually, the begin of baseline data for Ras is kind of important to note.

Let's see what happens when I update RAS quarterly or so....

The only possible benefit would be to evaluate Republican candidates, all of which, as may be expected, have about the same 2014 name recogintion as 2016 Presidential Candidates.

Then, if the theory that Rassmussan is "bias" toward any Republican Candidate is correct, we can then expect that candidate's numbers to look better than any others. Afterward, the opposing partisans will have a target, and we can expect those numbers to erode...or not.

Assuming Rassumsan IS purely partisan, we can only conclude that these polls are an early effort to force the Republican Party to coalesce.

That could be a possibility. Also a possibilty that the almost-draft-like movement for Hillary Clinton ala Ike 1950-1951 is simply moving things up.

The dynamic of 2016 will, imo, be completely different than in 2008 and 2012.

 

[rightwinger]

Well, ok, but masturbation was definitely not something I was thinking about....



And actually, the begin of baseline data for Ras is kind of important to note.

Let's see what happens when I update RAS quarterly or so....

The only possible benefit would be to evaluate Republican candidates, all of which, as may be expected, have about the same 2014 name recogintion as 2016 Presidential Candidates.

Then, if the theory that Rassmussan is "bias" toward any Republican Candidate is correct, we can then expect that candidate's numbers to look better than any others. Afterward, the opposing partisans will have a target, and we can expect those numbers to erode...or not.

Assuming Rassumsan IS purely partisan, we can only conclude that these polls are an early effort to force the Republican Party to coalesce.

That could be a possibility. Also a possibilty that the almost-draft-like movement for Hillary Clinton ala Ike 1950-1951 is simply moving things up.

The dynamic of 2016 will, imo, be completely different than in 2008 and 2012.

I think the dynamic in 2016 has moved to where Republicans can no longer elect a President. Bush barely reached 270, the political alignment has turned more blue since then

 

[Samson]

The only possible benefit would be to evaluate Republican candidates, all of which, as may be expected, have about the same 2014 name recogintion as 2016 Presidential Candidates.

Then, if the theory that Rassmussan is "bias" toward any Republican Candidate is correct, we can then expect that candidate's numbers to look better than any others. Afterward, the opposing partisans will have a target, and we can expect those numbers to erode...or not.

Assuming Rassumsan IS purely partisan, we can only conclude that these polls are an early effort to force the Republican Party to coalesce.

That could be a possibility. Also a possibilty that the almost-draft-like movement for Hillary Clinton ala Ike 1950-1951 is simply moving things up.

The dynamic of 2016 will, imo, be completely different than in 2008 and 2012.

I think the dynamic in 2016 has moved to where Republicans can no longer elect a President. Bush barely reached 270, the political alignment has turned more blue since then

Being predictably partisan means ignoring the possibilities.

Bravo

 

[Nyvin]

That could be a possibility. Also a possibilty that the almost-draft-like movement for Hillary Clinton ala Ike 1950-1951 is simply moving things up.

The dynamic of 2016 will, imo, be completely different than in 2008 and 2012.

I think the dynamic in 2016 has moved to where Republicans can no longer elect a President. Bush barely reached 270, the political alignment has turned more blue since then

Being predictably partisan means ignoring the possibilities.

Bravo

So what possibilities are there for the GOP for presidential elections? I don't see any easy path to 270 for them either.

 

[Samson]

I think the dynamic in 2016 has moved to where Republicans can no longer elect a President. Bush barely reached 270, the political alignment has turned more blue since then

Being predictably partisan means ignoring the possibilities.

Bravo

So what possibilities are there for the GOP for presidential elections? I don't see any easy path to 270 for them either.

I wonder if that's what the Republican primaries will be for?




Will someone please connect the dots for partisan Dems before their heads explode?

 

[rightwinger]

That could be a possibility. Also a possibilty that the almost-draft-like movement for Hillary Clinton ala Ike 1950-1951 is simply moving things up.

The dynamic of 2016 will, imo, be completely different than in 2008 and 2012.

I think the dynamic in 2016 has moved to where Republicans can no longer elect a President. Bush barely reached 270, the political alignment has turned more blue since then

Being predictably partisan means ignoring the possibilities.

Bravo

What are the possibilities? Democrats begin with a huge EV lead before the election starts. Republucans must win two of three swing state EVs

What have they done to improve their chances at that?

 

[Vigilante]