Surprising Rasmussen poll, 2016: Hillary vs. GOP field

[Derideo_Te]

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.

You have already had what, a dozen inquiries and found squat. Are you trying to break your own repeal record with time wasting inquiries in the worst do nothing congress in the history of the nation?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

You have already had what, a dozen inquiries and found squat. Are you trying to break your own repeal record with time wasting inquiries in the worst do nothing congress in the history of the nation?

Squat? I hardly think so. More and more unanswered questions. That isnt squat.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

The rest of the country realizes they didnt

The 2012 election proved it, what makes you think 2016 will be different?

 

[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?

The rest of the country realizes they didnt

The 2012 election proved it, what makes you think 2016 will be different?

No, it was lied about and the cover up was on until AFTER the election. We know that, subversives try that bullshit, but it doesn't fly!

 

[Samson]

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.

"Important" historically? or Personally?

Frankly I'm astonished that you'd look forward to giving Rasmussen credibility, after you've very clearly stated the pollster has none. You appear to be cherry picking.

If Hillary's numbers crash, it may not be a function of her opponent's efforts as much as implosion (the same thing that caused her to lose the democratic nomination in 2008). Thus the current poll may be easily rendered irrelevant.

 

[S.J.]

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?

The rest of the country realizes they didnt

The 2012 election proved it, what makes you think 2016 will be different?

I don't expect it will be any different. I'm sure Hillary will receive 110% of the vote in all the Democrat controlled districts the same way Obama did.

 

[Picaro]

Given the Citizens United ruling, comparing name recognition between candidates at this stage may be a bit premature; a couple hundred million dollars in PR expenditures can raise name recognition almost overnight and keep the exposure going for many months, if not years, and we have a couple of years worth of hyperbole and hubris before the 2016 election.

 

[jillian]

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

The rest of the country realizes they didnt

The 2012 election proved it, what makes you think 2016 will be different?

I don't expect it will be any different. I'm sure Hillary will receive 110% of the vote in all the Democrat controlled districts the same way Obama did.

because that so happens

poor little whiner... let's pretend you didn't lose the last election by 5 million votes.

 

[Faun]

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

The rest of the country realizes they didnt

The 2012 election proved it, what makes you think 2016 will be different?

I don't expect it will be any different. I'm sure Hillary will receive 110% of the vote in all the Democrat controlled districts the same way Obama did.

Oh? In which district did Obama receive 110% of the vote?

 

[S.J.]

The rest of the country realizes they didnt

The 2012 election proved it, what makes you think 2016 will be different?

I don't expect it will be any different. I'm sure Hillary will receive 110% of the vote in all the Democrat controlled districts the same way Obama did.

Oh? In which district did Obama receive 110% of the vote?

I'm not here to do your searches.

 

[Faun]

I don't expect it will be any different. I'm sure Hillahiry will receive 110% of the vote in all the Democrat controlled districts the same way Obama did.

Oh? In which district did Obama receive 110% of the vote?

I'm not here to do your searches.

No one asked you to search. I figured you knew what you were talking about. Seems you don't. Oh well.

 

[S.J.]

Oh? In which district did Obama receive 110% of the vote?

I'm not here to do your searches.

No one asked you to search. I figured you knew what you were talking about. Seems you don't. Oh well.

Yeah, like nobody knows the Democrats commit voter fraud on a national scale.

 

[Faun]

I'm not here to do your searches.

No one asked you to search. I figured you knew what you were talking about. Seems you don't. Oh well.

Yeah, like nobody knows the Democrats commit voter fraud on a national scale.

You made the claim that there was at least one district in which Obama received 110% of the vote. It appears you were lying since you're incapable of naming any such district. Do I looked shocked?

 

[S.J.]

No one asked you to search. I figured you knew what you were talking about. Seems you don't. Oh well.

Yeah, like nobody knows the Democrats commit voter fraud on a national scale.

You made the claim that there was at least one district in which Obama received 110% of the vote. It appears you were lying since you're incapable of naming any such district. Do I looked shocked?

Knock yourself out.

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...spv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=voter fraud in 2008 and 2012

 

[Faun]

Yeah, like nobody knows the Democrats commit voter fraud on a national scale.

You made the claim that there was at least one district in which Obama received 110% of the vote. It appears you were lying since you're incapable of naming any such district. Do I looked shocked?

Knock yourself out.

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...spv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=voter fraud in 2008 and 2012

Imagine my surprise when not a single link I perused on that first page revealed any districts where Obama received 110% of the votes. Why don't you just admit you were lying when you made that ridiculous claim?

 

[S.J.]

You made the claim that there was at least one district in which Obama received 110% of the vote. It appears you were lying since you're incapable of naming any such district. Do I looked shocked?

Knock yourself out.

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...spv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=voter fraud in 2008 and 2012

Imagine my surprise when not a single link I perused on that first page revealed any districts where Obama received 110% of the votes. Why don't you just admit you were lying when you made that ridiculous claim?

Yeah, we all know there wasn't even a smidgen of voter fraud, don't we?

 

[Nutz]

None of the Republicans or teaper pieces of shit in that poll are going to get the GOP nod. NONE of them! So the poll is useless.

 

[Faun]

Knock yourself out.

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...spv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=voter fraud in 2008 and 2012

Imagine my surprise when not a single link I perused on that first page revealed any districts where Obama received 110% of the votes. Why don't you just admit you were lying when you made that ridiculous claim?

Yeah, we all know there wasn't even a smidgen of voter fraud, don't we?

So now you think you can divert from your lie with that pathetic strawman?? I never denied there is voter fraud. From both sides. What I asked for, but you can't deliver, is evidence you weren't lying when you claimed there was a district where Obama won 110% of the votes.

 

[Shanty]

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...

Ben Carson? Really? He's got a record of saying some completely ignorant shit, but other than that, nothing. The GOP are really scraping the bottom of the shit barrel, trying to find a lucky penny. All they're coming up with is shit.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Shanty!!!




Glad you are back.