Surprising Rasmussen poll, 2016: Hillary vs. GOP field

[rightwinger]

Photoshop Charlie defends Republican chances in 2016

His party is doomed

 

[Vigilante]

 

[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

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?

It is 2014.

The elections are 2016.


Breathe.

 

[I.P.Freely]

Name recognition is very powerful in politics.

Thats fucked Jeb Bush then

 

[Vigilante]

 

[rightwinger]

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?

It is 2014.

The elections are 2016.


Breathe.

My point exactly. Republicans need to make big strides in Swing States and they haven't done a thing

Time is running out for a significant demographic shift in those states

Do they really think "Benghazi" is going to do it?

 

[Nyvin]

I see the presidential election as being 4 tiered, and the GOP unfortunately has to win all four tiers

Tier 1: Win Florida

Tier 2: Win either Ohio or (Virginia and Colorado)

Tier 3: Win between 4 and 8 EV's from blue-leaning swing states like NH, IA, OR, or WI

Tier 4: Do not lose red-leaning states like North Carolina, Arizona, Indiana, or eventually...Texas.

They have to run a perfect score card while the Democrat just needs 1 of the 4. It's not an easy feat to accomplish and the situation is just getting worse every 4 years. Bush BARELY made it 14 years ago and the country without a doubt has shifted leftward since then.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Since 1992, the lowest the Democratic EV column sunk was to 242 (based on 2012 electoral votes):

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: ELECTORAL COLUMNS - a map display

This means that the states that have gone DEMOCRATIC for 6 out of 6 cycles currently have the value of 242 electoral votes.

The lowest republican electoral column in the last 6 cycles was McCain's 173 EV from 2008, decidedly under 242.
(Actually, the states that were 6 for 6 GOP in the last 20 years = 102 EV)

Back to the Democratic column: NM, IA and NH are 5-for-6 DEM states. Add them to the likely DEM column, no matter what happens and the low end of the DEM column is 257 EV.

The DEMS have a far shorter path to 270 than the Republican Party.

President George W. Bush, Jr. (43), in spite of the advantage of the incumbency, was unable to pick up Pennsylvania, thus making him the first president ever in a time of war to not win Pennyslvania and the only Republican president ever in our history to have never won Pennsylvania. This is how deep the BLUE-DNA runs in PA, as John Kings says so eloquently on CNN. And in spite of moving his NPV electoral statistic 2.98 point to the Right in 2004 over 2000, Bush lost New Hampshire.

So, the best any Republican has been able to do in New Hampshire since 1992 was to win it once, by +1.2%, only to lose it the next time around.

With the outright hostility towards Latinos of all stripes coming out of the GOP, the party has pretty much permanently ceded NM and NV to the Democratic party.

Add NV to the likely DEM column, and 257 becomes 263.

With that, the DEMS need only one key battleground state to win IT every time.

The electoral cards are now stacked against the GOP and the GOP itself is at fault for most of this.

It's really that simple.

 

[Yurt]

i like how dems, like statist, approve of rasmussen when he polls in their favor, but cry bias when he polls not in their favor

 

[Statistikhengst]

i like how dems, like statist, approve of rasmussen when he polls in their favor, but cry bias when he polls not in their favor

You are misunderstanding something here.

The bias I speak of is mathematical in nature.

In fact, I write it like that pretty much every single time.

In other words, the difference between final polls and actual results in elections automatically creates a mathematical bias. If it happens almost always on one side or another, then a recognizable trend appears.

Over the last 6 years, Rasmussen has had a mathematically proveable and verifiable mathematical bias of circa +4 points to the Right, on the average, sometimes considerably more, sometimes somewhat less, but the average is right around +4.

Here, here it is in the OP:

...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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...

Now, I know it takes intelligence and some discernment to read my OPs, which are aimed at adults, but do try to keep up, if you can.

 

[Yurt]

if stat knew anything about stats, he would know +/- 4 percent is an acceptable ratio and doesn't negate the stats.

poor stat

further, stat is a liar and can't read his own OP, here is the part stat didn't highlight:

very Right-Wing leaning pollster

you lose again stat, i know exactly what you said

 

[Samson]

if stat knew anything about stats, he would know +/- 4 percent is an acceptable ratio and doesn't negate the stats.

poor stat

further, stat is a liar and can't read his own OP, here is the part stat didn't highlight:

very Right-Wing leaning pollster

you lose again stat, i know exactly what you said

<<<<<sigh>>>>>

The point is that if a "Right Leaning" Pollster has Hillary ahead of any hypothetical Republican contender, then they may be manipulating the "Real" poll which would show the spread to be even larger.

The fallicy is that the Republicans have not chosen any candidate, but the Demorats have (en de facto): Thus any poll between any Republican and Hillary Clinton will favor Clinton.

 

[Picaro]

I have every confidence the RNC will nominate another clueless 0.1%er in the mode of Romney again, thus alienating enough of their own base and fence sitting indies to guarantee any Democrat will win, no matter how incompetent. They couldn't even dredge up a candidate that could beat a hack from the utterly corrupt Chicago Democratic Machine, after all; most of America now lives within 30 miles of at least 100 better and more qualified black candidates than what the DNC ever offers, so naturally the Democrats don't have to care what their base wants. Maybe the RNC doesn't want the White House at all, since they've made it clear they aren't about to nominate anybody who can win?

 

[Vigilante]

 

[protectionist]

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...

How would she rate against ex-UN ambassador John Bolton, or retired four-star general and former Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army, Jack Keane ?

 

[Statistikhengst]

if stat knew anything about stats, he would know +/- 4 percent is an acceptable ratio and doesn't negate the stats.

poor stat

further, stat is a liar and can't read his own OP, here is the part stat didn't highlight:

very Right-Wing leaning pollster

you lose again stat, i know exactly what you said

<<<<<sigh>>>>>

The point is that if a "Right Leaning" Pollster has Hillary ahead of any hypothetical Republican contender, then they may be manipulating the "Real" poll which would show the spread to be even larger.

The fallicy is that the Republicans have not chosen any candidate, but the Demorats have (en de facto): Thus any poll between any Republican and Hillary Clinton will favor Clinton.

Now, what is interesting here, [MENTION=21821]Samson[/MENTION], is that the party out of power during 2-terms of the other party having control of the White House usually has a very open field for a good long time going into the next prez cycle, but it is also not unusual that the party in the White House, after 8 years, also has an open field.

In 1967-1968, both parties had wide-open fields.

1976 is almost impossible to categorize, as we had the only completely non-elected president (who was also the only non-elected Vice President beforehand) who had served two years, who was caught in a massive primary battle with an icon from the Right (Ford vs. Reagan), but the DEM field was wide open. 1976 was an incumbent election, but it was NOT a re-election, of course.

In 1988, after eight years of Reagan, the DEM field was wide-open.

In 1992, after 12 years of Reagan/Bush, the DEM fireld was even more wide-open.

in 2000, after eight years of Clinton, the GOP field was wide up, but Bush, Jr. established dominance pretty early in 2000.

In 2008, both the DEM and GOP fields were wide open, with John McCain acheiving practically the impossible with a massive Hail-Mary pass after South Carolina, coming back to win the GOP nomination, and the DEMS locked in the most epic two-man battle ever within their party's electoral history.

So, the fact that the GOP field is right open right now is not only absolutelly in line with electoral history, I also think it is healthy for the opposition party. What is unusual is the "Hillary Clinton factor".

Come on, let's be real: usually, it's the DEMS who are totally disunified and in disarray, sometimes up to the convention (1968, 1972, 1976, 1984) and for the first time ever on the Democratic side of the equation, we are seeing the equivalent of a draft-like movement for Hillary Clinton, the first draft movement since Ike (R) 1950-1951. That's what makes this unusual.

When the GOP nominee becomes clearer, these numbers may get closer, but then again, maybe not.

I propose to you that 2016 is going to be unlike any other year in our nation's history. I do not dismiss the idea of a completely locked GOP convention and a dark-horse candidate. And I don't dismiss the idea of a DEM ticket with a Latino in the VP slot.

We made history in 2008 and it sure looks like we will be making history in 2012.

That all being said, the value of starting such a thread over Rasmussen (threads over other pollsters will follow in this year) is that we establish a baseline to look back at in the next two years. If Hillary's numbers crash and she falls behind, you will be able to reach back to this thread and remind the world of this point. But if the numbers remain stable, with Clinton remaining ahead by mostly landslide margins (which has now been the case in national polling and all of the battleground state polling across the board, consistently, for 17 months now), then I can reach back and remind that I posted this information a long, long time ago.

Either way, the information is important.

If you think that GOP statisticians are not looking at this data with great alarm, then think again. The GOP number crunchers are every bit as smart and capable as the DEM number crunchers, for they are devoted to the neutrality of the numbers, just as I am.

Should these numbers turn on their head, and suddenly Clinton were to be behind, you can bet I will be the first person here to report it, and with exactly the same veracity. When a Republican is as demonstrably ahead as Clinton is now, I used exactly the same descriptors. A landslide is a landslide is a landslide and a squeaker is a squeaker is a squeaker, regardless of party designations.

Early polling DOES count for something, more than people realize. Especially in a cycle that is going to be as unique as 2016 is shaping up to be.

BTW, in 2004, I predicted a narrow Bush win, much to the anger of some of my Democratic friends. The numbers tell their own story.

 

[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...

How would she rate against ex-UN ambassador John Bolton, or retired four-star general and former Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army, Jack Keane ?

Who knows? You could commission a poll from a reputable pollster and find out for yourself.

 

[The Rabbi]

I have every confidence the RNC will nominate another clueless 0.1%er in the mode of Romney again, thus alienating enough of their own base and fence sitting indies to guarantee any Democrat will win, no matter how incompetent. They couldn't even dredge up a candidate that could beat a hack from the utterly corrupt Chicago Democratic Machine, after all; most of America now lives within 30 miles of at least 100 better and more qualified black candidates than what the DNC ever offers, so naturally the Democrats don't have to care what their base wants. Maybe the RNC doesn't want the White House at all, since they've made it clear they aren't about to nominate anybody who can win?

You understand Hillary is a 1%er, right?

Anyway, Hillary is toast. The press is openly laughing at her presumptions of poverty. Her book sales suck. She comes across as mean, condescending, and absolutely no one anyone would trust in any position of authority. I doubt she will even run.
The GOP has a large stable of well qualified candidates with actual accomplishments who have some ideas to reverse the failed policies of Barack Hussein Obama.

 

[Statistikhengst]

if stat knew anything about stats, he would know +/- 4 percent is an acceptable ratio and doesn't negate the stats.

poor stat

further, stat is a liar and can't read his own OP, here is the part stat didn't highlight:

very Right-Wing leaning pollster

you lose again stat, i know exactly what you said

No. Wrong.

The absolute outside of the acceptable MoE is +/-3.5 at most, most pollsters are down to +/-3.0 these days. Not only that, no pollster wants to be off +4 in one direction for practically all of it's end polls; that ruins business for that firm. It's really that simple.

Grow up and stop trolling.

 

[JoeB131]

[

How would she rate against ex-UN ambassador John Bolton, or retired four-star general and former Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army, Jack Keane ?

You mean a nut and a general no one ever heard of? Probably pretty well.

Now, yeah, MAYBE if the GOP put up an Ike, they could fix some of the damage they've done to themselves. Petreaus would have been a good pick, if he hadn't let his dick do his thinking for him.