The GOP has a stable of potential winners, the Dems have one old mare

[JimH52]

Its very amusing to watch the dims twist and turn trying to justify running the old, tired, lying, corrupt, failed ***** HRC. But she is all they have, they have no one else. Its hilarious.

.

"The GOP has a stable of potential winners, the Dems have one old mare"

There are a number of interesting metaphors involving whips with that proclamation.

.

I was thinking more about the bit in the mouth analogy.....

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Its very amusing to watch the dims twist and turn trying to justify running the old, tired, lying, corrupt, failed ***** HRC. But she is all they have, they have no one else. Its hilarious.

:0) Talk about amusing .. there isn't one single republican who can win an national office .. not ONE.

In case you haven't noticed, republicans don't have enough white voters to win the presidency.

How sad. :0)

Data suggests that the Republicans have a substantially better chance than you seem to be estimating. Note for example that if you look at the actual national poll numbers you'll see that one major poll has put Clinton a point behind Jeb in a general election, and others have put her only a hair ahead of Rubio in multiple swing-state polls. But it sounds like from this comment and others you've made that you assign a very high probability to the Democrats winning the Presidency. What chance do you assign to the Democrats winning the Presidency?

I appreciate your sane response .. although I disagree with it. First, it isn't just my estimation of the boxed position that republicans have put themselves in. The ever-shrinking republican base is no secret to anyone who has been paying attention. I'm sure republicans don't want to admit or talk about it, but them not talking about it changes nothing. It is essentially an all-white party in a land of rapidly changing demographics that does not favor the right.

.. and given that approximately 42% of the white vote goes to democrats .. it doesn't take rocket science to see the box that republicans have not only put themselves in .. but continue to dig the hole even deeper.

If you want to talk about the facts .. I'm good with that.

 

[rightwinger]

Its very amusing to watch the dims twist and turn trying to justify running the old, tired, lying, corrupt, failed ***** HRC. But she is all they have, they have no one else. Its hilarious.

:0) Talk about amusing .. there isn't one single republican who can win an national office .. not ONE.

In case you haven't noticed, republicans don't have enough white voters to win the presidency.

How sad. :0)

Data suggests that the Republicans have a substantially better chance than you seem to be estimating. Note for example that if you look at the actual national poll numbers you'll see that one major poll has put Clinton a point behind Jeb in a general election, and others have put her only a hair ahead of Rubio in multiple swing-state polls. But it sounds like from this comment and others you've made that you assign a very high probability to the Democrats winning the Presidency. What chance do you assign to the Democrats winning the Presidency?

Have....have you checked those numbers lately? Clinton beats Bush by 6 to 11 points. Over and over. Virtually single poll for the last month has the same range....save one.

Fox News has Bush by 1. I can seen why you referred to it as 'one major poll', but didn't describe it.

I'm not sure what your point is. Fox News is a reliable pollster with only a slight right-ward bias. Their polling is much more respected than their news is. Frankly, if the race occurred tomorrow, Hillary would win. But it doesn't. You can if you want answer the question though: what probability do you assign to the Democrats winning the Presidency? (If it helps my own estimate is 55%).

I think you know exactly what my point is. You didn't accidentally refer to it as 'one major poll'. Your omission of the source of the poll was quite intentional. Fox Polls skew to the right.

Take....gay marriage. Everyone from Gallup to PPP to ABC and CNN puts gay marriage support in a clear majority. Only Fox shows it opposition leading. Take the 2012 election. Most polls had Obama leading. Fox consistently showed a Romney victory or a tie.

It wasn't a Romney Victory. It wasn't a tie. It wasn't even close, with Romney losing by 5 million popular votes and 125 electoral votes. Fox skews to the right. For crying out loud, Fox polling still refuses to call cell phones when polling.

And with poll after poll putting Hillary as high as 20 points above Bush (most showing 6 to 10 points), do you honestly expect us to believe that its random coincidence that you picked the ONE poll that gave Bush a 1% edge as the poll you'll cite?

You're cherry picking. That's also my point.

An

The polls would be a good indicator if we had a popular vote. We have an electoral college and Hillary has a huge advantage in any electoral college estimation

 

[Skylar]

:0) Talk about amusing .. there isn't one single republican who can win an national office .. not ONE.

In case you haven't noticed, republicans don't have enough white voters to win the presidency.

How sad. :0)

Data suggests that the Republicans have a substantially better chance than you seem to be estimating. Note for example that if you look at the actual national poll numbers you'll see that one major poll has put Clinton a point behind Jeb in a general election, and others have put her only a hair ahead of Rubio in multiple swing-state polls. But it sounds like from this comment and others you've made that you assign a very high probability to the Democrats winning the Presidency. What chance do you assign to the Democrats winning the Presidency?

Have....have you checked those numbers lately? Clinton beats Bush by 6 to 11 points. Over and over. Virtually single poll for the last month has the same range....save one.

Fox News has Bush by 1. I can seen why you referred to it as 'one major poll', but didn't describe it.

I'm not sure what your point is. Fox News is a reliable pollster with only a slight right-ward bias. Their polling is much more respected than their news is. Frankly, if the race occurred tomorrow, Hillary would win. But it doesn't. You can if you want answer the question though: what probability do you assign to the Democrats winning the Presidency? (If it helps my own estimate is 55%).

I think you know exactly what my point is. You didn't accidentally refer to it as 'one major poll'. Your omission of the source of the poll was quite intentional. Fox Polls skew to the right.

Take....gay marriage. Everyone from Gallup to PPP to ABC and CNN puts gay marriage support in a clear majority. Only Fox shows it opposition leading. Take the 2012 election. Most polls had Obama leading. Fox consistently showed a Romney victory or a tie.

It wasn't a Romney Victory. It wasn't a tie. It wasn't even close, with Romney losing by 5 million popular votes and 125 electoral votes. Fox skews to the right. For crying out loud, Fox polling still refuses to call cell phones when polling.

And with poll after poll putting Hillary as high as 20 points above Bush (most showing 6 to 10 points), do you honestly expect us to believe that its random coincidence that you picked the ONE poll that gave Bush a 1% edge as the poll you'll cite?

You're cherry picking. That's also my point.

An

The polls would be a good indicator if we had a popular vote. We have an electoral college and Hillary has a huge advantage in any electoral college estimation

The electoral vote follows the popular vote about 95% of the time. So its clearly a useful indicator. Though its true that Hillary has a strong electoral advantage.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Its very amusing to watch the dims twist and turn trying to justify running the old, tired, lying, corrupt, failed ***** HRC. But she is all they have, they have no one else. Its hilarious.

:0) Talk about amusing .. there isn't one single republican who can win an national office .. not ONE.

In case you haven't noticed, republicans don't have enough white voters to win the presidency.

How sad. :0)

Data suggests that the Republicans have a substantially better chance than you seem to be estimating. Note for example that if you look at the actual national poll numbers you'll see that one major poll has put Clinton a point behind Jeb in a general election, and others have put her only a hair ahead of Rubio in multiple swing-state polls. But it sounds like from this comment and others you've made that you assign a very high probability to the Democrats winning the Presidency. What chance do you assign to the Democrats winning the Presidency?

Have....have you checked those numbers lately? Clinton beats Bush by 6 to 11 points. Over and over. Virtually single poll for the last month has the same range....save one.

Fox News has Bush by 1. I can seen why you referred to it as 'one major poll', but didn't describe it.

I'm not sure what your point is. Fox News is a reliable pollster with only a slight right-ward bias. Their polling is much more respected than their news is. Frankly, if the race occurred tomorrow, Hillary would win. But it doesn't. You can if you want answer the question though: what probability do you assign to the Democrats winning the Presidency? (If it helps my own estimate is 55%).

My point is what seems to be an open secret .. secret to those on the right who post on message boards and watch Fox News. ANY poll that would suggest that Jeb Bush would win over Hillary Clinton is not polling that should be trusted by anyone.

The open secret .. The Republican Party is now essentially a regional party .. mostly in the south. It almost doesn't exist in the Northeast.

Republicans scream about Clinton because they know she would crush them. I am not a Clinton supporter .. I am not a democrat, and most certainly not a republican.

This has been discussed many times in the world outside of Fox News.

Exactly what 'stable' of potential candidates are republicans talking about? That's absolutely laughable.

 

[NYcarbineer]

George Pataki is a potential winner?

 

[BlackAsCoal]

The stable of 'potential' winners. :0)

 

[JoshuaZ]

Its very amusing to watch the dims twist and turn trying to justify running the old, tired, lying, corrupt, failed ***** HRC. But she is all they have, they have no one else. Its hilarious.

:0) Talk about amusing .. there isn't one single republican who can win an national office .. not ONE.

In case you haven't noticed, republicans don't have enough white voters to win the presidency.

How sad. :0)

Data suggests that the Republicans have a substantially better chance than you seem to be estimating. Note for example that if you look at the actual national poll numbers you'll see that one major poll has put Clinton a point behind Jeb in a general election, and others have put her only a hair ahead of Rubio in multiple swing-state polls. But it sounds like from this comment and others you've made that you assign a very high probability to the Democrats winning the Presidency. What chance do you assign to the Democrats winning the Presidency?

Have....have you checked those numbers lately? Clinton beats Bush by 6 to 11 points. Over and over. Virtually single poll for the last month has the same range....save one.

Fox News has Bush by 1. I can seen why you referred to it as 'one major poll', but didn't describe it.

I'm not sure what your point is. Fox News is a reliable pollster with only a slight right-ward bias. Their polling is much more respected than their news is. Frankly, if the race occurred tomorrow, Hillary would win. But it doesn't. You can if you want answer the question though: what probability do you assign to the Democrats winning the Presidency? (If it helps my own estimate is 55%).

I think you know exactly what my point is. You didn't accidentally refer to it as 'one major poll'. Your omission of the source of the poll was quite intentional. Fox Polls skew to the right.

Take....gay marriage. Everyone from Gallup to PPP to ABC and CNN puts gay marriage support in a clear majority. Only Fox shows it opposition leading. Take the 2012 election. Most polls had Obama leading. Fox consistently showed a Romney victory or a tie.

It wasn't a Romney Victory. It wasn't a tie. It wasn't even close, with Romney losing by 5 million popular votes and 125 electoral votes. Fox skews to the right. For crying out loud, Fox polling still refuses to call cell phones when polling.

And with poll after poll putting Hillary as high as 20 points above Bush (most showing 6 to 10 points), do you honestly expect us to believe that its random coincidence that you picked the ONE poll that gave Bush a 1% edge as the poll you'll cite?

You're cherry picking. That's also my point.

An

Fox skews right yes. As does Gallup and Rasmussen. Note that Gallup also showed that Romney was up a point over Obama. See here. Nate Silver's analysis showed that Fox is of about average in terms of reliability of major pollsters and a slight rightward slant. See here. I'm not sure what you think you mean by random coincidence. Of course I pointed out that there was a poll that showed Hillary not ahead- I said a poll. I didn't say multiple polls- the entire point was that there was at least one major poll showing that. Frankly, I think what is actually happening in this specific poll is a combination of Fox's slight righward bias and a slight outlier together, but my confidence in that assessment is very low.

So, if you think the situation is more extreme than that, what probability do you estimate that the Democrats will win the Presidency?

 

[JoshuaZ]

. But she is all they have, they have no one else. Its hilarious.

Well in all honesty they do have that idiot commie clown Sanders.

All of these Moon Bats are denying The Hildabeast nowadays because they know the ***** is toxic and they claim they are going to vote for Sanders.

2016 is going to be a very bad year for the Moon Bats. The tremendous increase in health care insurance caused by Obamacare is going to hit next year. That by itself is going to piss off many swing voters.

The Democrats got their asses beat real bad in 2014. The way things are looking now 2016 is going to be a repeat of 2014.

Serves the right for being stupid Moon Bats.

Does this mean you expect the Republicans to gain in the House and Senate in addition to winning the Presidency?

 

[Skylar]

:0) Talk about amusing .. there isn't one single republican who can win an national office .. not ONE.

In case you haven't noticed, republicans don't have enough white voters to win the presidency.

How sad. :0)

Data suggests that the Republicans have a substantially better chance than you seem to be estimating. Note for example that if you look at the actual national poll numbers you'll see that one major poll has put Clinton a point behind Jeb in a general election, and others have put her only a hair ahead of Rubio in multiple swing-state polls. But it sounds like from this comment and others you've made that you assign a very high probability to the Democrats winning the Presidency. What chance do you assign to the Democrats winning the Presidency?

Have....have you checked those numbers lately? Clinton beats Bush by 6 to 11 points. Over and over. Virtually single poll for the last month has the same range....save one.

Fox News has Bush by 1. I can seen why you referred to it as 'one major poll', but didn't describe it.

I'm not sure what your point is. Fox News is a reliable pollster with only a slight right-ward bias. Their polling is much more respected than their news is. Frankly, if the race occurred tomorrow, Hillary would win. But it doesn't. You can if you want answer the question though: what probability do you assign to the Democrats winning the Presidency? (If it helps my own estimate is 55%).

I think you know exactly what my point is. You didn't accidentally refer to it as 'one major poll'. Your omission of the source of the poll was quite intentional. Fox Polls skew to the right.

Take....gay marriage. Everyone from Gallup to PPP to ABC and CNN puts gay marriage support in a clear majority. Only Fox shows it opposition leading. Take the 2012 election. Most polls had Obama leading. Fox consistently showed a Romney victory or a tie.

It wasn't a Romney Victory. It wasn't a tie. It wasn't even close, with Romney losing by 5 million popular votes and 125 electoral votes. Fox skews to the right. For crying out loud, Fox polling still refuses to call cell phones when polling.

And with poll after poll putting Hillary as high as 20 points above Bush (most showing 6 to 10 points), do you honestly expect us to believe that its random coincidence that you picked the ONE poll that gave Bush a 1% edge as the poll you'll cite?

You're cherry picking. That's also my point.

An

Fox skews right yes. As does Gallup and Rasmussen. Note that Gallup also showed that Romney was up a point over Obama. See here. Nate Silver's analysis showed that Fox is of about average in terms of reliability of major pollsters and a slight rightward slant.

Sometimes. Gallup also had Obama up by 2 only a month before the election. Fox was always Romney for the last 2 months of the election. And Nate Silver gives Fox a C+.

And Nate would also tell you that its statistically unlikely for most of the polls to break in the same direction if actual public support were moving in the opposite direction. And Hillary is polling ahead of Bush with almost perfect consistency. You picked the one poll that gave Bush a 1 point lead. And ignored the multiple polls that put Hillary at between 6 and 20 points above Bush.

That's cherry picking. Where you pick the data that matches what you want to believe and ignore the rest. That has notoriously poor record of accuracy. Its a fallacy of logic for a reason.

Now, in fairness, Nate would also tell you its way to early to tell if Hillary is actually going to win. As the factors that will effect her election haven't happened yet. We don't know what the economic conditions are going be before the election, we don't know who the republican nominee is going to be, we don't know what Obama's popularity will be as he leaves office. These issues probably won't start coming into focus until early next year.

 

[Kondor3]

Sad isn't it?

Republicans have 15-20 candidates and not one is capable of beating an old hag like Hillary

10 to 15 and they're still terrified. I'm not keen on Hillery but have yet to see any GOPr I'd pick over her.

Ummmm... it's a good guess that Mother Theresa could be running on the GOP ticket and you'd still vote Democrat.

 

[JoshuaZ]

The polls would be a good indicator if we had a popular vote. We have an electoral college and Hillary has a huge advantage in any electoral college estimation

You may want to see Nate Silver's analysis which doesn't see there being a strong electoral advantage to the Democrats.

 

[Kondor3]

Let's not forget, folks that the only polls (in this context) that really matter, are held in the Primary and General Election voting booths.

The Pubs have a rich but confusing field of possibilities, and a number of schools of thought can now vie for the attention and support of the American People.

The Dems are, for all intents and purposes, serving-up a One-Trick-Pony scenario this time, with a pre-ordained outcome, regardless of what the American People want.

Both parties make mistakes like that, from time to time.

For the 2015-2016 election season...

It's the Democrats' turn in the barrel...

Bon appetit...

 

[Skylar]

Sad isn't it?

Republicans have 15-20 candidates and not one is capable of beating an old hag like Hillary

10 to 15 and they're still terrified. I'm not keen on Hillery but have yet to see any GOPr I'd pick over her.

Ummmm... it's a good guess that Mother Theresa could be running on the GOP ticket and you'd still vote Democrat.

Would the GOP have the same policies under Mother Theresa as it does now? If yes, then of course I'd vote democrat. If no, then they wouldn't be the GOP.

 

[sealybobo]

Its very amusing to watch the dims twist and turn trying to justify running the old, tired, lying, corrupt, failed ***** HRC. But she is all they have, they have no one else. Its hilarious.

There is no difference between every GOP contender. Youre basically trying to figure out who's got the best chance against hillary and right now none of them has a snowballs chance in hell.

 

[sealybobo]

Let's not forget, folks that the only polls (in this context) that really matter, are held in the Primary and General Election voting booths.

The Pubs have a rich but confusing field of possibilities, and a number of schools of thought can now vie for the attention and support of the American People.

The Dems are, for all intents and purposes, serving-up a One-Trick-Pony scenario this time, with a pre-ordained outcome, regardless of what the American People want.

Both parties make mistakes like that, from time to time.

For the 2015-2016 election season...

It's the Democrats' turn in the barrel...

Bon appetit...

Bernie sanders will debate her and they will remind america why to vote left.

Dont forget when the economy was taking a dump on bush in 2007 you said bush was good vote McCain. Now the economy is back and doing fine you want to say something? Who takes you seriously?

 

[Skylar]

Its very amusing to watch the dims twist and turn trying to justify running the old, tired, lying, corrupt, failed ***** HRC. But she is all they have, they have no one else. Its hilarious.

:0) Talk about amusing .. there isn't one single republican who can win an national office .. not ONE.

In case you haven't noticed, republicans don't have enough white voters to win the presidency.

How sad. :0)

Data suggests that the Republicans have a substantially better chance than you seem to be estimating. Note for example that if you look at the actual national poll numbers you'll see that one major poll has put Clinton a point behind Jeb in a general election, and others have put her only a hair ahead of Rubio in multiple swing-state polls. But it sounds like from this comment and others you've made that you assign a very high probability to the Democrats winning the Presidency. What chance do you assign to the Democrats winning the Presidency?

I appreciate your sane response .. although I disagree with it. First, it isn't just my estimation of the boxed position that republicans have put themselves in. The ever-shrinking republican base is no secret to anyone who has been paying attention. I'm sure republicans don't want to admit or talk about it, but them not talking about it changes nothing. It is essentially an all-white party in a land of rapidly changing demographics that does not favor the right.

.. and given that approximately 42% of the white vote goes to democrats .. it doesn't take rocket science to see the box that republicans have not only put themselves in .. but continue to dig the hole even deeper.

If you want to talk about the facts .. I'm good with that.

I don't know about 'all white'. But 87% of Romney voters were white.

 

[Care4all]

Old and wise,
or young and foolish,
tis the question of the hour......

Hmmm, was that your line in 2008? I think not.

WRONG! I was a Hillary supporter in 2008, and did not vote for President Obama in 2008 or 2012.

Try again!

 

[sealybobo]

Any fool republican who denies the economy is strong again needs to argue with michigan gov rick Snyder who is taking credit for Obamas fine job.

Just notice the GOP are talking out of both sides of they're mouths. GOP governors are saying the economy is great and its their doing. Not at all what you guys are saying.

 

[Kondor3]

...Bernie sanders will debate her and they will remind america why to vote left...

Bernie is there for window dressing and his just-uncovered 'women fantasize about being gang-raped' remarks may deny him even that role in the coming days.

...Dont forget when the economy was taking a dump on bush in 2007 you said bush was good vote McCain...

Nope. I was stupid enough to vote for Obama. Twice. We've had enough socialism and autocracy for a while.

...Now the economy is back and doing fine you want to say something? Who takes you seriously?

Eight years of namby-pamby limp-wristed touchy-feely types is quite enough, thank you.

Time for the other guys to get another turn at-bat.