Surprising Rasmussen poll, 2016: Hillary vs. GOP field

[CrusaderFrank]

The GOP has more of a clown car than a field.

from the 57 states Party

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Wry Catcher]

The GOP has more of a clown car than a field.

from the 57 states Party

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

CrusaderFrank is still the Queen of the Idiot-Gram. One wonders why he posts, desperate for attention?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It means a lot more Benhazi investigations and phony ObamaCare repeal votes in our future.

 

[The Rabbi]

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...

Statistheilhitler reveals why he is the tool bag of USMB. Pit a well known person against lesser known people, all of whom's views are unknown to the public 2 years before an election and see the results.
I am certain a match up of Barack Obama and Clinton in 2005 would have elicited "Barack who?".
Feh, to the faux yid failure.

 

[Statistikhengst]

This means absolutely nothing. After November, when the candidates start declaring, the polls may have some meaning, but everybody who is the least bit interested is gonna wait to see whether or not there's gonna be a political bloodbath in November.

Non-sequitor, absolute non-sequitor.

History have proven that the results of mid-term elections, both first and second term, have absolutely no bearing on the results of the following Presidential election. Not even in the slightest.

Here, inform yourself:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...pared-to-presidential-terms-1855-present.html


Furthermore, Nate Silver and a number of other statistician have mathematically proven that early polling is far more predictive than people want to admit.

Yup, the GOP got clobbered in the 1986 midterms but HW Bush still won in 1988.

Yepp, and that is just one example. There are many.

 

[The Rabbi]

Non-sequitor, absolute non-sequitor.

History have proven that the results of mid-term elections, both first and second term, have absolutely no bearing on the results of the following Presidential election. Not even in the slightest.

Here, inform yourself:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...pared-to-presidential-terms-1855-present.html


Furthermore, Nate Silver and a number of other statistician have mathematically proven that early polling is far more predictive than people want to admit.

Yup, the GOP got clobbered in the 1986 midterms but HW Bush still won in 1988.

Yepp, and that is just one example. There are many.

Yeah the GOP got clobbered in the 2006 mid terms but went on to win in 2008. Oh, wait.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It's not surprising in that it's consistent with all the other polls.

I had heard that with the exception of 2000, the presumed favorite in the Democrat primary did not win the nomination in a year when the Democrat President wasn't seeking reelection.

It is surprising in that it comes from Rasmussen.

The bolded: there is some validity to this, but we have never seen this kind of draft-like movement for a DEM candidate so early, either. There are some historical parallels between Clinton 2014 and Eisenhower 1950-1951 and will likely be a big parallel in the nomination with Reagan 1980.

Plus, that's a statistic you are quoting that is easy to fullfill. Since 1960, we have only had 5 Democratic Presidents, and one of them died in office. So, actually, in terms of this kind of thing, we are talking about 4.

Narrow that down to a year where the incumbent Democrat either could not (because of term-limits) or would not not run, then your only two possibilities are 1968 and 2000, and now, coming up, 2016.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Rand Paul's principled stand on freedom got him a standing ovation on progressive home turf

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Please, please, please nominate Rand Paul.

No matter which Republican gets elected we're going to turn the IRS on our enemies. Might be a drone strike in the future too

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

lol....

 

[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...

We will see. Right now it's very early, so these polls don't do much. Nevertheless I like the field of GOP candidates. My choices top to bottom.

(1) Herman Cain - His 999 plan is brilliant, the Chilean "Privatize" Social Security model has been proven to dramatically cut government spending (10-15% of the budget would be cut) and provide retirees 10%+ more money at retirement. His only signing into law "small" bills, like it used to be, is so common senses it hurts.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v59n3/v59n3p45.pdf

(2) Ron Paul and Ted Cruz - Tie. I like both of them and YES both would be strong candidates.

(4) Ben Carson - Yes I am sold on his.

(5) Mitch Daniels - Look what he has done in Indiana.

(6) Christie - He might be more left leaning on social issues then many like, but I am a social moderate. He is fiscal conservative, a strong personality and left and right leaning moderates like him.

I like the field!

Scott Walker. He's faced the non stop Progressive barrage and continued to move forward

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

He is in the middle of a criminal investigation. Wait and see.

 

[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...

Statistheilhitler reveals why he is the tool bag of USMB. Pit a well known person against lesser known people, all of whom's views are unknown to the public 2 years before an election and see the results.
I am certain a match up of Barack Obama and Clinton in 2005 would have elicited "Barack who?".
Feh, to the faux yid failure.

Much butthurt in that one. Poor you.

Are you saying that Chris Christie is not well known? Jeb Bush?

LOL....

With you, it is just one excuse after another, false Rabbi.
Of course, since you have no facts on your side, you attack the bringer of the message instead.

Vintage false Rabbi.

But it's all good in the hood. Carry on.

 

[Sarah G]

I'm not sure if this really means anything at this point.

Polls had Hillary clobbering Obama in the primary race in 2008, all the way up until they took the votes.

Hillary has got one major liability. She kind of grates on people. That's at least partially because of a little sexism we have in this society, but her voice is kind of shrill and she doesn't come off as matronly. (Something that successful female politicians need to do.)

Could she still beat the GOP Clown Car? Probably. The GOP has done little to fix the demographics that made them lose in 2012 and in some ways have made them worse. and gains in the Special Olympics Midterms are going to bolster their confidence that anti-immigration, anti-worker, anti-poor rhetoric serves them well.

Really, I wouldn't trust Rasmussen polling for anything but especially in an exploratory sense.

She really doesn't grate on me, btw. I like her sense of humor and her laugh and she always has something interesting to talk about.

If she runs, I sure hope she wins because I don't see anyone else on the Democratic side right now either.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rand Paul's principled stand on freedom got him a standing ovation on progressive home turf

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

I look forward to both of us working together to elect Rand.

 

[Sarah G]

Rand Paul's principled stand on freedom got him a standing ovation on progressive home turf

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

I look forward to both of us working together to elect Rand.

I want the race to be between Hillary and Rand. Now that would be interesting.

 

[JoeB131]

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

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




Statistheilhitler reveals why he is the tool bag of USMB. Pit a well known person against lesser known people, all of whom's views are unknown to the public 2 years before an election and see the results.
I am certain a match up of Barack Obama and Clinton in 2005 would have elicited "Barack who?".
Feh, to the faux yid failure.

Jeb Bush is a "lesser known person"?

Do I think some of these guys might close the gap when they are better known.

Probably.

But they have the same problem that Romney and the Not Romney's had.

Current Demographics get them nowhere near 50%+1.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Hillary is a horrible retail politician. She's probably the best of the Dems in a way, but that isn't saying much. I think it would really make things interesting if Elizabeth Warren entered the race.

 

[Bush92]

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...

Considering Hillary's name recognition value she should be leading right now.

 

[Bush92]

Considering name recognition she should be ahead in the polls. No surprise here. I think in the summer of 2003 Howard Dean was leading President W. Bush.

 

[bendog]

I don't think a Bush ever can complain of name recognition. At this point that seems a negative for them though.

 

[Bush92]

I don't think a Bush ever can complain of name recognition. At this point that seems a negative for them though.

H Bush stock is rising but his neocon son did little for the brand name.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Rand Paul's principled stand on freedom got him a standing ovation on progressive home turf

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

I look forward to both of us working together to elect Rand.

I want the race to be between Hillary and Rand. Now that would be interesting.

I have to agree because it would not be your usual left vs right.

Rand Paul has some really interesting positions that are worthy of open debate and I can see them attracting a following if he gets a national platform to air them. Personally I believe this is overdue and it will go a long way towards clarifying what We the People stand for.

It would be good for the nation to have those issues out in the open and let the people decide on which is the better choice.