Surprising Rasmussen poll, 2016: Hillary vs. GOP field

[JoeB131]

[

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.

I remember when Bill Clinton was declared dead in 1992 after he lost Iowa and New Hampshire. Then he started winning primaries and they called him "the Comeback Kid".

I remember when people declared John McCain dead in 2007. Then Guliani imploded, Huckabee scared the shit out of Wall Street and the Christians wouldn't get behind Romney. McCain was the only guy you had who remotely looked like a President. Then he blew it by taking Bible Spice as a running mate.

So I'm not going to be that concerned that Hillary's book tour isn't going well. Shit, I don't even remember Romney's book tour. I think Bush had a book Tour, but no one believed he wrote that book.

But again, regardless of who the Democrats run, the Republicans still have the same problem.

There aren't enough angry white males to win an election anymore.

Let us put it in perspective.

in 1988, George H. Bush (the Smart one) got 60% of the White vote vote. he got 11% of the Black vote and 30% of the Hispanic vote.

And he won 53% because Whites at that time made up 85% of the electorate. He won 40 states.

IN 2012, the Weird Mormon Robot you guys decided to run for reasons that still baffle me, got 59% of the White vote, 6% of the Black vote and 27% of the Hispanic vote. Numbers pretty close to what Bush the Smarter got in 1988. But in 2012, Whites only made up 72% of the electorate.

Romney got 47% of the electorate and only won 206 electoral votes.

Now, going into 2012, HIllary is going to have two major advantages Obama doesn't have.

1) She's White. A lot of the racism that has been animating your party like a shambling zombie won't be there next time.

2) She's a woman. A lot of women will vote for her for no other reason to finally see a woman in the White House.

So even assuming that you guys manage to avoid nominating a whack like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, even if you have the good sense to nominate a mainstream governor who isn't named Bush who had a good economic record, you are still going to be facing the demagraphic problem mentioned above.

But you'll probably win some Senate Races in barely populated Red States this year and think that you've solved the problems.

 

[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...

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 ?

Bolton would not win a single state

 

[rightwinger]

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.

You guys just don't get it

Democrats can be rich. Democrats can be FUCKING rich
But they vote against their wealth. They push programs for the poor, unemployed and working poor. They vote for tax increases on themselves

Republucans only look out for the interests of he one percent

 

[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.

You guys just don't get it

Democrats can be rich. Democrats can be FUCKING rich
But they vote against their wealth. They push programs for the poor, unemployed and working poor. They vote for tax increases on themselves

Republucans only look out for the interests of he one percent

Hillary and Bill set up a trust of the type they say the oppose. You can bet any legislation from Hillary would grandfather in her trust.
Libs dont get it. Rich liberals vote taxes on other people, not themselves. They made their money and now they dont want anyone else doing what they did.
Liberals are the biggest hypocrites to walk the planet. THey get away with it because the voters are stupid.

Hillary will not run. The negatives are way too high. She represents a continuation of Obama and while people are putting up with Obama because he's black she gets no such pass, despite her desperate attempts to play the female victim card. No one is buying it.

 

[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

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.

ZOMG.....so according to YOU, off by .5% from your alleged standard MOE makes them biased



look in the mirror troll

 

[Statistikhengst]

Actually, Scott Ramussen himself said - and this is on video - that the goal of his firm was to be off by no more than 2 points. I am sure that if you google enough, you can find the video.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

You guys just don't get it

Democrats can be rich. Democrats can be FUCKING rich
But they vote against their wealth. They push programs for the poor, unemployed and working poor. They vote for tax increases on themselves

Republucans only look out for the interests of he one percent

Hillary and Bill set up a trust of the type they say the oppose. You can bet any legislation from Hillary would grandfather in her trust.
Libs dont get it. Rich liberals vote taxes on other people, not themselves. They made their money and now they dont want anyone else doing what they did.
Liberals are the biggest hypocrites to walk the planet. THey get away with it because the voters are stupid.

Hillary will not run. The negatives are way too high. She represents a continuation of Obama and while people are putting up with Obama because he's black she gets no such pass, despite her desperate attempts to play the female victim card. No one is buying it.

Well, at least you are not calling Hillary racist terms as you are calling Obama, so I suppose that in some universe somewhere, that is progress...

 

[Vigilante]

She's done, turn her over to cook on the other side!

A plurality of voters continues to believe the Benghazi controversy will negatively impact Hillary Clinton’s expected bid for the presidency, little changed in surveys since last fall.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 44% of Likely U.S. Voters think the circumstances surrounding the murder of the U.S. ambassador and three other U.S. Embassy employees in Libya will hurt the former secretary of State if she runs for president in 2016. That compares to 46% in January and 43% who felt that way when we first asked the question last October. Seven percent (7%) think the Benghazi issue will help Clinton if she runs for the White House. Thirty-eight percent (38%) say it will have no impact. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.

44% Still Think Benghazi Will Hurt Hillary Clinton in 2016 - Rasmussen Reports?

 

[S.J.]

You guys just don't get it

Democrats can be rich. Democrats can be FUCKING rich
But they vote against their wealth. They push programs for the poor, unemployed and working poor. They vote for tax increases on themselves

Republucans only look out for the interests of he one percent

Hillary and Bill set up a trust of the type they say the oppose. You can bet any legislation from Hillary would grandfather in her trust.
Libs dont get it. Rich liberals vote taxes on other people, not themselves. They made their money and now they dont want anyone else doing what they did.
Liberals are the biggest hypocrites to walk the planet. THey get away with it because the voters are stupid.

Hillary will not run. The negatives are way too high. She represents a continuation of Obama and while people are putting up with Obama because he's black she gets no such pass, despite her desperate attempts to play the female victim card. No one is buying it.

Well, at least you are not calling Hillary racist terms as you are calling Obama, so I suppose that in some universe somewhere, that is progress...

Specifically what racist terms are you referring to, and by whom?

 

[Yurt]

Actually, Scott Ramussen himself said - and this is on video - that the goal of his firm was to be off by no more than 2 points. I am sure that if you google enough, you can find the video.

well, he didn't meet his goal, doesn't mean that supports your OP big boy

 

[Nyvin]

She's done, turn her over to cook on the other side!

A plurality of voters continues to believe the Benghazi controversy will negatively impact Hillary Clinton’s expected bid for the presidency, little changed in surveys since last fall.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 44% of Likely U.S. Voters think the circumstances surrounding the murder of the U.S. ambassador and three other U.S. Embassy employees in Libya will hurt the former secretary of State if she runs for president in 2016. That compares to 46% in January and 43% who felt that way when we first asked the question last October. Seven percent (7%) think the Benghazi issue will help Clinton if she runs for the White House. Thirty-eight percent (38%) say it will have no impact. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.

44% Still Think Benghazi Will Hurt Hillary Clinton in 2016 - Rasmussen Reports?

I'm utterly convinced by 2016 the Benghazi witch hunt will be a distant memory. The GOP needs to stop trying to milk that for all it's worth.

 

[S.J.]

She's done, turn her over to cook on the other side!

A plurality of voters continues to believe the Benghazi controversy will negatively impact Hillary Clinton’s expected bid for the presidency, little changed in surveys since last fall.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 44% of Likely U.S. Voters think the circumstances surrounding the murder of the U.S. ambassador and three other U.S. Embassy employees in Libya will hurt the former secretary of State if she runs for president in 2016. That compares to 46% in January and 43% who felt that way when we first asked the question last October. Seven percent (7%) think the Benghazi issue will help Clinton if she runs for the White House. Thirty-eight percent (38%) say it will have no impact. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.

44% Still Think Benghazi Will Hurt Hillary Clinton in 2016 - Rasmussen Reports?

I'm utterly convinced by 2016 the Benghazi witch hunt will be a distant memory. The GOP needs to stop trying to milk that for all it's worth.

And who cares if our president and secretary of state looked the other way while 4 Americans were murdered, right?

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Vigilante]

She's REALLY TOAST at this point in time when her ADORING PRESS starts to turn on her!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImpYydux2WI]NBC's Andrea Mitchell: Hillary Clinton Lacks Self-Awareness, Still Out Of Touch - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Nyvin]

She's done, turn her over to cook on the other side!

A plurality of voters continues to believe the Benghazi controversy will negatively impact Hillary Clinton’s expected bid for the presidency, little changed in surveys since last fall.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 44% of Likely U.S. Voters think the circumstances surrounding the murder of the U.S. ambassador and three other U.S. Embassy employees in Libya will hurt the former secretary of State if she runs for president in 2016. That compares to 46% in January and 43% who felt that way when we first asked the question last October. Seven percent (7%) think the Benghazi issue will help Clinton if she runs for the White House. Thirty-eight percent (38%) say it will have no impact. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.

44% Still Think Benghazi Will Hurt Hillary Clinton in 2016 - Rasmussen Reports?

I'm utterly convinced by 2016 the Benghazi witch hunt will be a distant memory. The GOP needs to stop trying to milk that for all it's worth.

And who cares if our president and secretary of state looked the other way while 4 Americans were murdered, right?

It was the Republicans that lowered the security budget for the embassy.

 

[Yurt]

I'm utterly convinced by 2016 the Benghazi witch hunt will be a distant memory. The GOP needs to stop trying to milk that for all it's worth.

And who cares if our president and secretary of state looked the other way while 4 Americans were murdered, right?

It was the Republicans that lowered the security budget for the embassy.

you do realize the senate report said the budget had ZERO effect on what happened....right?

 

[Vigilante]

I'm utterly convinced by 2016 the Benghazi witch hunt will be a distant memory. The GOP needs to stop trying to milk that for all it's worth.

And who cares if our president and secretary of state looked the other way while 4 Americans were murdered, right?

It was the Republicans that lowered the security budget for the embassy.

Ah, no, they simply cut the raise wanted, but they still got a raise in their budget! But, don't let small facts, and the liberal subversive media spin clear your fucked up mind!

 

[The Rabbi]

And who cares if our president and secretary of state looked the other way while 4 Americans were murdered, right?

It was the Republicans that lowered the security budget for the embassy.

you do realize the senate report said the budget had ZERO effect on what happened....right?

That claim has been repeatedly debunked but it has not stopped libs here from repeating it. That is why it is useless to argue with them.

 

[Derideo_Te]

She's done, turn her over to cook on the other side!

A plurality of voters continues to believe the Benghazi controversy will negatively impact Hillary Clinton’s expected bid for the presidency, little changed in surveys since last fall.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 44% of Likely U.S. Voters think the circumstances surrounding the murder of the U.S. ambassador and three other U.S. Embassy employees in Libya will hurt the former secretary of State if she runs for president in 2016. That compares to 46% in January and 43% who felt that way when we first asked the question last October. Seven percent (7%) think the Benghazi issue will help Clinton if she runs for the White House. Thirty-eight percent (38%) say it will have no impact. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.

44% Still Think Benghazi Will Hurt Hillary Clinton in 2016 - Rasmussen Reports?

I'm utterly convinced by 2016 the Benghazi witch hunt will be a distant memory. The GOP needs to stop trying to milk that for all it's worth.

When all you have is a dead horse, the Going Obsolete Party will milk it regardless of how curdled it may already be!

 

[The Rabbi]

She's done, turn her over to cook on the other side!

A plurality of voters continues to believe the Benghazi controversy will negatively impact Hillary Clinton’s expected bid for the presidency, little changed in surveys since last fall.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 44% of Likely U.S. Voters think the circumstances surrounding the murder of the U.S. ambassador and three other U.S. Embassy employees in Libya will hurt the former secretary of State if she runs for president in 2016. That compares to 46% in January and 43% who felt that way when we first asked the question last October. Seven percent (7%) think the Benghazi issue will help Clinton if she runs for the White House. Thirty-eight percent (38%) say it will have no impact. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.

44% Still Think Benghazi Will Hurt Hillary Clinton in 2016 - Rasmussen Reports?

I'm utterly convinced by 2016 the Benghazi witch hunt will be a distant memory. The GOP needs to stop trying to milk that for all it's worth.

When all you have is a dead horse, the Going Obsolete Party will milk it regardless of how curdled it may already be!

Once we know all the facts then it will start to fade. In the meantime it is a legitiamte subject of inquiry.
After Benghazi there will be many many scandals to consider. Such is the nature of the Democrats. A never ending source of scandal.