# Surprising Rasmussen poll, 2016: Hillary vs. GOP field



## 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...


----------



## Statistikhengst

A friendly shout out to some folks who may really enjoy the information in the OP:  [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]  [MENTION=9429]AVG-JOE[/MENTION]  [MENTION=45886]Mad_Cabbie[/MENTION]  [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]  [MENTION=38281]Wolfsister77[/MENTION]  [MENTION=21679]william the wie[/MENTION]  [MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION]  [MENTION=37250]aaronleland[/MENTION]  [MENTION=36767]Bloodrock44[/MENTION]  [MENTION=30999]daws101[/MENTION]  [MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION]  [MENTION=33449]BreezeWood[/MENTION]  [MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION]  [MENTION=20594]Mr Clean[/MENTION]  [MENTION=20704]Nosmo King[/MENTION]  [MENTION=45320]Nyvin[/MENTION]  [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION]  [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION]  [MENTION=21524]oldfart[/MENTION]  [MENTION=46193]Thx[/MENTION]  [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION]  [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]  [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION]  [MENTION=18990]Barb[/MENTION]  [MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION]  [MENTION=11278]editec[/MENTION]  [MENTION=22983]Flopper[/MENTION]  [MENTION=46136]dreolin[/MENTION]  [MENTION=47936]AntiParty[/MENTION]  [MENTION=34688]Grandma[/MENTION]  [MENTION=48060]guno[/MENTION]  [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION]  [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]  [MENTION=48010]Machaut[/MENTION]  [MENTION=48981]DiabloBlanco[/MENTION]  [MENTION=45104]WelfareQueen[/MENTION] [MENTION=39688]RosieS[/MENTION]


Anyone who doesn't want to be on this occasional mention list: just let me know, I will drop the name immediately. If you want on the list, let me know.

Thanks, 

-Stat


PS. Please do not quote this posting, otherwise you will send out the @ list again. Thanks.


----------



## BobPlumb

Name recognition is very powerful in politics.


----------



## JoeB131

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.


----------



## Vermonter

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.


----------



## rightwinger

But, but...

Hillary is old and has cankles....how can she possibly be preferred to the best available Republican?

Can I show you some photoshop?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Vermonter said:


> 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.


----------



## Nyvin

Statistikhengst said:


> Vermonter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## CrusaderFrank

It will be even more surprising when Hillary is not the nominee


----------



## Nyvin

CrusaderFrank said:


> It will be even more surprising when Hillary is not the nominee



What exactly makes you so confident of that?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Nyvin said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will be even more surprising when Hillary is not the nominee
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly makes you so confident of that?
Click to expand...


Knowing Progressives


----------



## bendog

Hillary's question is whether she can connect with underemployed aging former union Whites in places like Ohio, Mich, Wisc .....

Imo, Rand Paul has some upside.  Personally, I think he's start raving mad, but crazy like a Fox.  His views on things like the Fed, gold standard and isolationism are repudiations of everything the greatest generation suffered through and persevered to create the middle class.  

But, trying to make that argument today is difficult because Paul can pretty much just say "well, you say so, but that doesn't make it so."  So you're left with Ben Beranke trying to do econ 101.  And, it's like shooting ducks in a barrel for him to compare Nato to the neocons invasion of Iraq.

And the issues that move younger voters are equal rights for GLBT and immigration.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

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

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Toro

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.


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> 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.


----------



## GHook93

Statistikhengst said:


> 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!


----------



## Mertex

JoeB131 said:


> 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.



Women like her....that's a big group.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## CrusaderFrank

GHook93 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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!
Click to expand...

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

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr Natural

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


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Mr Clean said:


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


from the 57 states Party

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Wry Catcher

CrusaderFrank said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP has more of a clown car than a field.
> 
> 
> 
> from the 57 states Party
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


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

Statistikhengst said:


> 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

Nyvin said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vermonter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup,  the GOP got clobbered in the 1986 midterms but HW Bush still won in 1988.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## The Rabbi

Statistikhengst said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yepp, and that is just one example. There are many.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Statistikhengst

Toro said:


> 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

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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
Click to expand...




lol....


----------



## Statistikhengst

CrusaderFrank said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scott Walker. He's faced the non stop Progressive barrage and continued to move forward
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Statistikhengst

The Rabbi said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



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

JoeB131 said:


> 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

CrusaderFrank said:


> 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

JakeStarkey said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## JoeB131

The Rabbi said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> [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.
Click to expand...


----------



## 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

Statistikhengst said:


> 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

bendog said:


> 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

Sarah G said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want the race to be between Hillary and Rand.  Now that would be interesting.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## bendog

Bush92 said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


I voted for BushI several times.  The son, once.  And I regret it.  I did so for the name.

P may have promise.


----------



## Nyvin

Derideo_Te said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


If Rand Paul wins the nomination it very well could entirely transform the Republican Party.    I don't know if it'd be for the better or worse, but it'd for sure change quite majorly.   

I see John McCain and Paul as almost polar opposites in a lot of ways, as much opposites as you can be and still both be in the GOP.

Rand Paul as president would be....very weird.   But maybe that's what we need I guess...


----------



## Derideo_Te

Nyvin said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Rand Paul wins the nomination it very well could entirely transform the Republican Party.    I don't know if it'd be for the better or worse, but it'd for sure change quite majorly.
> 
> I see John McCain and Paul as almost polar opposites in a lot of ways, as much opposites as you can be and still both be in the GOP.
> 
> Rand Paul as president would be....very weird.   But maybe that's what we need I guess...
Click to expand...


Rand Paul needs to prove his bona fides to be POTUS to me, and a majority of the nation, if he expects to be in the White house. However he most certainly deserves the opportunity because out of all the candidates on the right today he is the one who talks the most sense and has the least baggage. 

Previously I supported Christie but the Bridgegate scandal has tainted him to the point where I wouldn't trust his judgment and/or his henchmen....er, appointees.  

That makes Rand Paul the most viable of the GOP candidates in my opinion. I will be watching him closely in the primaries.


----------



## Zander

Hillary 2006 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!! 
Hillary 2007 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!! 
Hillary 2008 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!! 
Hillary 2009 = loser of 2008 primaries. 

Hillary 2014 = Frontrunner!! A lock!!! She can't lose!!
Hillary 2015 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!! 
Hillary 2016 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!! 
Hillary 2017 = loser of 2016 primaries??


----------



## rightwinger

Zander said:


> Hillary 2006 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2007 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2008 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2009 = loser of 2008 primaries.
> 
> Hillary 2014 = Frontrunner!! A lock!!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2015 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2016 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2017 = loser of 2016 primaries??



Hillary lost by a hair to the future President

Save us from your drama. She does get to run against a Republican you know


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Derideo_Te said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Rand Paul wins the nomination it very well could entirely transform the Republican Party.    I don't know if it'd be for the better or worse, but it'd for sure change quite majorly.
> 
> I see John McCain and Paul as almost polar opposites in a lot of ways, as much opposites as you can be and still both be in the GOP.
> 
> Rand Paul as president would be....very weird.   But maybe that's what we need I guess...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rand Paul needs to prove his bona fides to be POTUS to me, and a majority of the nation, if he expects to be in the White house. However he most certainly deserves the opportunity because out of all the candidates on the right today he is the one who talks the most sense and has the least baggage.
> 
> Previously I supported Christie but the Bridgegate scandal has tainted him to the point where I wouldn't trust his judgment and/or his henchmen....er, appointees.
> 
> That makes Rand Paul the most viable of the GOP candidates in my opinion. I will be watching him closely in the primaries.
Click to expand...


Rand is going to spend 2015 organizing communities


----------



## The Rabbi

rightwinger said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary 2006 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2007 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2008 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2009 = loser of 2008 primaries.
> 
> Hillary 2014 = Frontrunner!! A lock!!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2015 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2016 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2017 = loser of 2016 primaries??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary lost by a hair to the future President
> 
> Save us from your drama. She does get to run against a Republican you know
Click to expand...


She lost to a no name pol with no experience and excess melanin.  She will lose again to Deval Patrick, who will be Obama's choice.


----------



## Zander

rightwinger said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary 2006 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2007 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2008 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2009 = loser of 2008 primaries.
> 
> Hillary 2014 = Frontrunner!! A lock!!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2015 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2016 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2017 = loser of 2016 primaries??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary lost by a hair to the future President
> 
> Save us from your drama. She does get to run against a Republican you know
Click to expand...


Maybe. But first she has to win against Democrats. That is not going to be easy. 

Truth is - LWNJ's like you don't want Hillary. She's not "progressive" or "liberal"  enough.  

Hillary is just a placeholder until "anyone else" comes along.


----------



## daws101

CrusaderFrank said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will be even more surprising when Hillary is not the nominee
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly makes you so confident of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Knowing Progressives
Click to expand...

right!.....


----------



## rightwinger

Zander said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary 2006 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2007 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2008 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2009 = loser of 2008 primaries.
> 
> Hillary 2014 = Frontrunner!! A lock!!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2015 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2016 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2017 = loser of 2016 primaries??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary lost by a hair to the future President
> 
> Save us from your drama. She does get to run against a Republican you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe. But first she has to win against Democrats. That is not going to be easy.
> 
> Truth is - LWNJ's like you don't want Hillary. She's not "progressive" or "liberal"  enough.
> 
> Hillary is just a placeholder until "anyone else" comes along.
Click to expand...


Democrats will not fill up the Clown Car like Republicans do

Hillary will have a few credible Democratic opponents who will drop out of the race early

Meanwhile the Republican Clown Car will keep running until the end of the GOP primaries


----------



## Sarah G

Zander said:


> Hillary 2006 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2007 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2008 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2009 = loser of 2008 primaries.
> 
> Hillary 2014 = Frontrunner!! A lock!!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2015 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2016 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2017 = loser of 2016 primaries??



Did you know Hillary and Barack each took 18,000,000 votes in the Primaries?

True story.  It was a horserace and she lost but not really.


----------



## Zander

Sarah G said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary 2006 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2007 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2008 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2009 = loser of 2008 primaries.
> 
> Hillary 2014 = Frontrunner!! A lock!!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2015 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2016 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2017 = loser of 2016 primaries??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know Hillary and Barack each took 18,000,000 votes in the Primaries?
> 
> True story.  It was a horserace and she lost but not really.
Click to expand...


  A loss is a loss. She lost, really. 

Be honest, are you excited about Hillary 2016? Wouldn't you prefer another candidate?


----------



## daws101

the right is cannibalizing it's self....but that's not the problem .
lack of turnout is the problem.....
don't vote? don't bitch!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

daws101 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly makes you so confident of that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing Progressives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right!.....
Click to expand...


The NYTimes and NPR shivved her. You don't know how your kind operates.

She has NO CHANCE AT ALL of getting the nomination. NONE. ZERO. Hillary Duff has a better shot at it


----------



## Zander

rightwinger said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary lost by a hair to the future President
> 
> Save us from your drama. She does get to run against a Republican you know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe. But first she has to win against Democrats. That is not going to be easy.
> 
> Truth is - LWNJ's like you don't want Hillary. She's not "progressive" or "liberal"  enough.
> 
> Hillary is just a placeholder until "anyone else" comes along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats will not fill up the Clown Car like Republicans do
> 
> Hillary will have a few credible Democratic opponents who will drop out of the race early
> 
> Meanwhile the Republican Clown Car will keep running until the end of the GOP primaries
Click to expand...


Here's a partial list of the "clown car" for the Democrats, so far....

Hillary Clinton
Martin O'Malley
Deval Patrick
Elizabeth Warren
Bernie Sanders
Joe Biden
Andrew Cuomo
Mark Warner
Corey Booker
Amy Klobuchar
Jim Webb
Kirsten Gillibrand
Howard Dean
Brian Schweitzer 

It's gonna be crowded.......


----------



## Sarah G

Zander said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary 2006 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2007 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2008 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2009 = loser of 2008 primaries.
> 
> Hillary 2014 = Frontrunner!! A lock!!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2015 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2016 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2017 = loser of 2016 primaries??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know Hillary and Barack each took 18,000,000 votes in the Primaries?
> 
> True story.  It was a horserace and she lost but not really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A loss is a loss. She lost, really.
> 
> Be honest, are you excited about Hillary 2016? Wouldn't you prefer another candidate?
Click to expand...


I really like her an she will take the WH if she runs.  There is no R who can take her.  I voted for her in the 2008 primaries.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Zander said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe. But first she has to win against Democrats. That is not going to be easy.
> 
> Truth is - LWNJ's like you don't want Hillary. She's not "progressive" or "liberal"  enough.
> 
> Hillary is just a placeholder until "anyone else" comes along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats will not fill up the Clown Car like Republicans do
> 
> Hillary will have a few credible Democratic opponents who will drop out of the race early
> 
> Meanwhile the Republican Clown Car will keep running until the end of the GOP primaries
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a partial list of the "clown car" for the Democrats, so far....
> 
> Hillary Clinton
> Martin O'Malley
> Deval Patrick
> Elizabeth Warren
> Bernie Sanders
> Joe Biden
> Andrew Cuomo
> Mark Warner
> Corey Booker
> Amy Klobuchar
> Jim Webb
> 
> It's gonna be crowded.......
Click to expand...


Lois Lerner
John Koskinen
Al Sadr


----------



## daws101

CrusaderFrank said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing Progressives
> 
> 
> 
> right!.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The NYTimes and NPR shivved her. You don't know how your kind operates.
> 
> She has NO CHANCE AT ALL of getting the nomination. NONE. ZERO. Hillary Duff has a better shot at it
Click to expand...

you're having that dream again....


----------



## BobPlumb

I'm scared of clowns!

[ame=http://youtu.be/JHQkIK46_1g]Scary Killer Clowns - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Sallow

I'm sorta surprised that Rand Paul is only 7 points behind.

That's probably because no one really knows him yet.


----------



## Zander

Sarah G said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know Hillary and Barack each took 18,000,000 votes in the Primaries?
> 
> True story.  It was a horserace and she lost but not really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A loss is a loss. She lost, really.
> 
> Be honest, are you excited about Hillary 2016? Wouldn't you prefer another candidate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really like her an she will take the WH if she runs.  There is no R who can take her.  I voted for her in the 2008 primaries.
Click to expand...


From my experience, you are the exception. Every Democrat I have spoken to (I live in Los Angeles and almost everyone here is a Democrat) has told that while they would vote for her, they'd really prefer someone else.


----------



## Sarah G

Sallow said:


> I'm sorta surprised that Rand Paul is only 7 points behind.
> 
> That's probably because no one really knows him yet.



A lot will come out I'm sure but if their candidate is Ted Cruz or one of those idiots, it will be boring.


----------



## Sarah G

Zander said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> A loss is a loss. She lost, really.
> 
> Be honest, are you excited about Hillary 2016? Wouldn't you prefer another candidate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really like her an she will take the WH if she runs.  There is no R who can take her.  I voted for her in the 2008 primaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From my experience, you are the exception. Every Democrat I have spoken to (I live in Los Angeles and almost everyone here is a Democrat) has told that while they would vote for her, they'd really prefer someone else.
Click to expand...


I'm not the exception, Zander.  I was trying to explain her popularity in the 2008 primaries but you just blew all that off.


----------



## chikenwing

daws101 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> right!.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NYTimes and NPR shivved her. You don't know how your kind operates.
> 
> She has NO CHANCE AT ALL of getting the nomination. NONE. ZERO. Hillary Duff has a better shot at it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're having that dream again....
Click to expand...


Same dream as in 2008,she will not be the one.


----------



## JoeB131

Zander said:


> Hillary 2006 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2007 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2008 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2009 = loser of 2008 primaries.
> 
> Hillary 2014 = Frontrunner!! A lock!!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2015 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2016 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2017 = loser of 2016 primaries??



Well, let's look at that. 

The Democrats had three strong candidates in 2008-  Hillary, Obama and John Edwards. Edwards self-destructed, leaving Hillary and Obama. 

Hillary did make a number of tactical errors. She didn't have a plan past Super Tuesday, allowing Obama to lap her.  

However, she did get more votes than Obama did.  Some of them didn't count because the states she won jumped the line in primaries, but it was the Superdelegates that put Obama over the top. 

Two things did her in.  First was her inability to read how much the base HATED the Iraq war and her part in making it happen.  Obama said the Iraq War was a terrible idea when it wasn't cool to say so yet.  

Second- a lot of Democrats would have been happy with either, but concluded that with Hillary, they'd be going through eight more years of the GOP batshit crazy "Who Killed Vince Foster" nonsense, and thought they could avoid that with Obama. 

Obviously, they forgot how crazy and racist the GOP base is.


----------



## Sallow

Sarah G said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorta surprised that Rand Paul is only 7 points behind.
> 
> That's probably because no one really knows him yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot will come out I'm sure but if their candidate is Ted Cruz or one of those idiots, it will be boring.
Click to expand...


I personally appreciate his views on privacy and foreign intervention.

However?

He's way too "state's rights" and all that comes with that.

That will lose him most Americans that live outside the south, and close of half that do.


----------



## daws101

chikenwing said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NYTimes and NPR shivved her. You don't know how your kind operates.
> 
> She has NO CHANCE AT ALL of getting the nomination. NONE. ZERO. Hillary Duff has a better shot at it
> 
> 
> 
> you're having that dream again....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same dream as in 2008,she will not be the one.
Click to expand...

 you know this how?


----------



## Sarah G

Sallow said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorta surprised that Rand Paul is only 7 points behind.
> 
> That's probably because no one really knows him yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot will come out I'm sure but if their candidate is Ted Cruz or one of those idiots, it will be boring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I personally appreciate his views on privacy and foreign intervention.
> 
> However?
> 
> He's way too "state's rights" and all that comes with that.
> 
> That will lose him most Americans that live outside the south, and close of half that do.
Click to expand...


I want to see how he does in the primaries.  Hillary has some different views on issues like amnesty, she got herself into trouble with her point that they should be allowed driver's licenses.  Whatever the topic, you can expect some heated and original discussion.

Not so with Teaparty talking points.


----------



## The Rabbi

And third was her skin was the wrong color.  Actually that was all three problems right there.


----------



## Nyvin

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary 2006 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2007 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2008 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2009 = loser of 2008 primaries.
> 
> Hillary 2014 = Frontrunner!! A lock!!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2015 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2016 = Frontrunner!! A lock!! She can't lose!!
> Hillary 2017 = loser of 2016 primaries??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary lost by a hair to the future President
> 
> Save us from your drama. She does get to run against a Republican you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She lost to a no name pol with no experience and excess melanin.  She will lose again to Deval Patrick, who will be Obama's choice.
Click to expand...


She won the popular vote in 2008,  she just lost a couple key races in some states that sent her behind in the delegate count.


----------



## PoliticalTorch

Statistikhengst said:


> 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...


It just goes to show that Hillary is LEADING the pack! And whether the poll is from Rasmussen or other ones it still shows her in Strong leads with virtually every one of her potential challengers! That has to be Great news for Hillary and the Democrats!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Wait until Joe Biden throws his hat in the ring

Just wait


----------



## daws101

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wait until Joe Biden throws his hat in the ring
> 
> Just wait


can you be vice president for three terms?


----------



## rightwinger

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wait until Joe Biden throws his hat in the ring
> 
> Just wait



Biden would beat any Republican they throw out there. So would John Kerry


----------



## CrusaderFrank

rightwinger said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait until Joe Biden throws his hat in the ring
> 
> Just wait
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biden would beat any Republican they throw out there. So would John Kerry
Click to expand...


The Lunatic and the War Criminal


----------



## Zander

Sarah G said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really like her an she will take the WH if she runs.  There is no R who can take her.  I voted for her in the 2008 primaries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From my experience, you are the exception. Every Democrat I have spoken to (I live in Los Angeles and almost everyone here is a Democrat) has told that while they would vote for her, they'd really prefer someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the exception, Zander.  I was trying to explain her popularity in the 2008 primaries but you just blew all that off.
Click to expand...


Hillary may be popular,  but she wasn't popular enough to win in 2008. it doesn't matter how close she came, or how many votes she garnered. She lost the nomination to a Jr Senator with ZERO experience who spoke in metaphors....

I predict she'll lose the 2016 nomination again. (if she even runs)


----------



## Zander

rightwinger said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait until Joe Biden throws his hat in the ring
> 
> Just wait
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biden would beat any Republican they throw out there. So would John Kerry
Click to expand...




What about 2014? How many seats are the Dems going to pick up in the House and Senate?


----------



## S.J.

Obama and his communist friends are laughing at all these polls behind closed doors as they plot their false flag operation to keep him in office beyond 2016.  Hillary will be punked again by the Chicago political machine.


----------



## Sarah G

Zander said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> From my experience, you are the exception. Every Democrat I have spoken to (I live in Los Angeles and almost everyone here is a Democrat) has told that while they would vote for her, they'd really prefer someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the exception, Zander.  I was trying to explain her popularity in the 2008 primaries but you just blew all that off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hillary may be popular,  but she wasn't popular enough to win in 2008. it doesn't matter how close she came, or how many votes she garnered. She lost the nomination to a Jr Senator with ZERO experience who spoke in metaphors....
> 
> I predict she'll lose the 2016 nomination again. (if she even runs)
Click to expand...


Sure, well, that's your opinion.  It really doesn't matter anymore than mine would if we were discussing your guys.  You are in the minority taking that stance.  

Many have left this board in shame after making silly predictions like that.


----------



## Sarah G

S.J. said:


> Obama and his communist friends are laughing at all these polls behind closed doors as they plot their false flag operation to keep him in office beyond 2016.  Hillary will be punked again by the Chicago political machine.



And that is what is scaring the living shit out of you guys.  

Obama in a third term.


----------



## Zander

Sarah G said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the exception, Zander.  I was trying to explain her popularity in the 2008 primaries but you just blew all that off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary may be popular,  but she wasn't popular enough to win in 2008. it doesn't matter how close she came, or how many votes she garnered. She lost the nomination to a Jr Senator with ZERO experience who spoke in metaphors....
> 
> I predict she'll lose the 2016 nomination again. (if she even runs)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, well, that's your opinion.  It really doesn't matter anymore than mine would if we were discussing your guys.  You are in the minority taking that stance.
> 
> Many have left this board in shame after making silly predictions like that.
Click to expand...


No worries Sarah. I made my fortune being "in the minority"...... 

Besides, Hillary 2016 is just a silly distraction.  We have an important election in just a few months. Democrats do not want to talk about that though.... why is that? 

PS- Why would I or anyone else be ashamed at making a prediction?  You've made a prediction yourself,  right in this thread!


----------



## Sarah G

Zander said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary may be popular,  but she wasn't popular enough to win in 2008. it doesn't matter how close she came, or how many votes she garnered. She lost the nomination to a Jr Senator with ZERO experience who spoke in metaphors....
> 
> I predict she'll lose the 2016 nomination again. (if she even runs)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, well, that's your opinion.  It really doesn't matter anymore than mine would if we were discussing your guys.  You are in the minority taking that stance.
> 
> Many have left this board in shame after making silly predictions like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No worries Sarah. I made my fortune being "in the minority"......
> 
> Besides, Hillary 2016 is just a silly distraction.  We have an important election in just a few months. Democrats do not want to talk about that though.... why is that?
> 
> PS- Why would I or anyone else be ashamed at making a prediction?  *You've made a prediction yourself,  right in this thread!*
Click to expand...


Mine will happen, yours won't.


----------



## Zander

Sarah G said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, well, that's your opinion.  It really doesn't matter anymore than mine would if we were discussing your guys.  You are in the minority taking that stance.
> 
> Many have left this board in shame after making silly predictions like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No worries Sarah. I made my fortune being "in the minority"......
> 
> Besides, Hillary 2016 is just a silly distraction.  We have an important election in just a few months. Democrats do not want to talk about that though.... why is that?
> 
> PS- Why would I or anyone else be ashamed at making a prediction?  *You've made a prediction yourself,  right in this thread!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mine will happen, yours won't.
Click to expand...


If not, you'll be leaving the board in shame....right?


----------



## Sarah G

Zander said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> No worries Sarah. I made my fortune being "in the minority"......
> 
> Besides, Hillary 2016 is just a silly distraction.  We have an important election in just a few months. Democrats do not want to talk about that though.... why is that?
> 
> PS- Why would I or anyone else be ashamed at making a prediction?  *You've made a prediction yourself,  right in this thread!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mine will happen, yours won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If not, you'll be leaving the board in shame....right?
Click to expand...


There's no "if not".


----------



## Zander

Sarah G said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mine will happen, yours won't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If not, you'll be leaving the board in shame....right?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no "if not".
Click to expand...


Bookmarked!!


----------



## Sarah G

Zander said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> If not, you'll be leaving the board in shame....right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no "if not".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bookmarked!!
Click to expand...


Whatever, Zander.


----------



## Howey

Statistikhengst said:


> 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...



WTF? No shoutout?

None of them will beat Hillary.

*CLINTON/CASTRO 2016!*


----------



## Mac1958

.

Wow, I don't know much about this stuff, but it's surprising to see Christie down there with Perry at -14.

.


----------



## Nyvin

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Wow, I don't know much about this stuff, but it's surprising to see Christie down there with Perry at -14.
> 
> .



Christie is done, he can't even find big donors anymore


----------



## mamooth

Zander said:


> She lost the nomination to a Jr Senator with ZERO experience who spoke in metaphors....



Because she voted for the Iraq war. Obama was not a senator at the time of that vote, but consistently stated his opposition to the war. That tipped the balance.



> I predict she'll lose the 2016 nomination again. (if she even runs)



Except the war vote isn't an issue now. Paul would be able to attack her on that vote, but he won't be the nominee. The rest have no standing to attack her.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Sarah G said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want the race to be between Hillary and Rand.  Now that would be interesting.
Click to expand...



Indeed.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Derideo_Te said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


----------



## Statistikhengst

Zander said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> A loss is a loss. She lost, really.
> 
> Be honest, are you excited about Hillary 2016? Wouldn't you prefer another candidate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really like her an she will take the WH if she runs.  There is no R who can take her.  I voted for her in the 2008 primaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From my experience, you are the exception. Every Democrat I have spoken to (I live in Los Angeles and almost everyone here is a Democrat) has told that while they would vote for her, they'd really prefer someone else.
Click to expand...


Oh, no. I prefer her. She is absolutely my first choice and she will get my vote.

The GOP has absolutely no idea what kind of steamroller is coming squarely at it.

She will win with 57% of the NPV in 2016 and will hit or go over 400 EV.

Y'all can feel free to bookmark this posting.


----------



## Zander

mamooth said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> She lost the nomination to a Jr Senator with ZERO experience who spoke in metaphors....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because she voted for the Iraq war. Obama was not a senator at the time of that vote, but consistently stated his opposition to the war. That tipped the balance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I predict she'll lose the 2016 nomination again. (if she even runs)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except the war vote isn't an issue now. Paul would be able to attack her on that vote, but he won't be the nominee. The rest have no standing to attack her.
Click to expand...


Foreign policy divided the left in 2008, and it will undoubtedly divide them in 2016. Nothing has changed.  We still have major problems with Iraq and the Mideast.  It will be a topic of discussion. Hillary voted for the war in Iraq. Period.  Because of that she will never appeal to a large portion of the Democrat base. 

Then there is the immigration issue. She's way too conservative. Scratch another large percentage of primary voting liberals....She's going to face a very tough, uphill battle......from her own party. She's too moderate. 

PS-nominees really don't attack each other much anymore. Negative campaigns are seen negatively even though they work exceptionally well.  Smart candidates are always careful about slinging too much mud- they know it might splash back on them! These days they have the PACS and SUPER PACS do it for them. 

Can you imagine the ads against Hillary? She is what's called "low hanging fruit".


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## blackhawk

I take nothing from it Hillary Clinton has high name recognition and is currently in the middle of her book tour where she gets lots good press and for the most part easy interviews that changes quickly when she or any candidate officially declares they are running for President.


----------



## The Rabbi

Statistikhengst said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really like her an she will take the WH if she runs.  There is no R who can take her.  I voted for her in the 2008 primaries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From my experience, you are the exception. Every Democrat I have spoken to (I live in Los Angeles and almost everyone here is a Democrat) has told that while they would vote for her, they'd really prefer someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, no. I prefer her. She is absolutely my first choice and she will get my vote.
> 
> The GOP has absolutely no idea what kind of steamroller is coming squarely at it.
> 
> She will win with 57% of the NPV in 2016 and will hit or go over 400 EV.
> 
> Y'all can feel free to bookmark this posting.
Click to expand...

Do you like her because she has the ethics of a child molester or because her grasp of domestic and foreign policy falls into the "Duh" range?


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## rightwinger

Statistikhengst said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really like her an she will take the WH if she runs.  There is no R who can take her.  I voted for her in the 2008 primaries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From my experience, you are the exception. Every Democrat I have spoken to (I live in Los Angeles and almost everyone here is a Democrat) has told that while they would vote for her, they'd really prefer someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, no. I prefer her. She is absolutely my first choice and she will get my vote.
> 
> The GOP has absolutely no idea what kind of steamroller is coming squarely at it.
> 
> She will win with 57% of the NPV in 2016 and will hit or go over 400 EV.
> 
> Y'all can feel free to bookmark this posting.
Click to expand...


I have to agree with you

Given the current GOP platform and evolving demographics, I don't see Republicans winning a single swing state. I also see Hillary competing in Arizona and Georgia

400 EV is entirely possible. If she does, I see 57 Senate seats


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Sarah G

Vigilante said:


>



You know this was a good thread before you got here, troll.


----------



## Vigilante

Sarah G said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know this was a good thread before you got here, troll.
Click to expand...


Now, it's even better....you scum can't handle the TRUTH well!


----------



## daws101

CrusaderFrank said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait until Joe Biden throws his hat in the ring
> 
> Just wait
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biden would beat any Republican they throw out there. So would John Kerry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Lunatic and the War Criminal
Click to expand...

now you're having that other dream..


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Slyhunter

Was this poll taken before Benghazi? Or for that matter before she declared how poor she was when she wasn't poor? I don't understand how anyone could vote for her.


----------



## Sarah G

Vigilante said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know this was a good thread before you got here, troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, it's even better....you scum can't handle the TRUTH well!
Click to expand...


Go away, loser.


----------



## daws101

S.J. said:


> Obama and his communist friends are laughing at all these polls behind closed doors as they plot their false flag operation to keep him in office beyond 2016.  Hillary will be punked again by the Chicago political machine.


bahahahahahahah! you conspiracy nut sacks should get some new material...
the same bullshit was said about bush...Reagan too.


----------



## rightwinger

Slyhunter said:


> Was this poll taken before Benghazi? Or for that matter before she declared how poor she was when she wasn't poor? I don't understand how anyone could vote for her.



You will see 70 to 80 million Americans vote for her


----------



## daws101

Vigilante said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know this was a good thread before you got here, troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, it's even better....you scum can't handle the TRUTH well!
Click to expand...

quoting jack Nicolson in a shitty movie really ups you credibility...


----------



## daws101

rightwinger said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was this poll taken before Benghazi? Or for that matter before she declared how poor she was when she wasn't poor? I don't understand how anyone could vote for her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will see 70 to 80 million Americans vote for her
Click to expand...

more I will venture a GUESS and say lots of republican women will party jump just to see a woman as president..


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## daws101




----------



## Vigilante




----------



## daws101

Vigilante said:


>


the more this asshat posts the, more I think he's got major wood for ole Hilary!


----------



## Vigilante

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D-jRWmozkQ"]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/ame]


----------



## Nyvin

Does this thread really have to devolve into spamming corny cartoons or pics with captions?   Please...no.


----------



## The Rabbi

Slyhunter said:


> Was this poll taken before Benghazi? Or for that matter before she declared how poor she was when she wasn't poor? I don't understand how anyone could vote for her.



I've asked this question several times.  The answer seems to be "Because she'll beat anyone the GOP nominates."  That's it.  It's not her experience. It's not her views. It's certainly not her ethics.  It's "she can win."  Because with the left that's all that's important.  It's win, screw the other guy. To them politics occurs about at the level of high school football.


----------



## The Rabbi

daws101 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was this poll taken before Benghazi? Or for that matter before she declared how poor she was when she wasn't poor? I don't understand how anyone could vote for her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will see 70 to 80 million Americans vote for her
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more I will venture a GUESS and say lots of republican women will party jump just to see a woman as president..
Click to expand...


Republican women are not like Democratic women.  Throw free stuff at their vaginas and Democratic women will swoon over a candidate.  Republican women make their minds up based on a candidate's views on economic, domestic and foreign policy.


----------



## Nyvin

The Rabbi said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will see 70 to 80 million Americans vote for her
> 
> 
> 
> more I will venture a GUESS and say lots of republican women will party jump just to see a woman as president..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republican women are not like Democratic women.  Throw free stuff at their vaginas and Democratic women will swoon over a candidate.  Republican women make their minds up based on a candidate's views on economic, domestic and foreign policy.
Click to expand...


Wow...very civil conversation here huh


----------



## The Rabbi

The cartoons are HYSTERICAL. Double points to Vigilante for posting these.  I didnt think it was possible to caricature a caricature.  But he did it.


----------



## The Rabbi

Nyvin said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> more I will venture a GUESS and say lots of republican women will party jump just to see a woman as president..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republican women are not like Democratic women.  Throw free stuff at their vaginas and Democratic women will swoon over a candidate.  Republican women make their minds up based on a candidate's views on economic, domestic and foreign policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow...very civil conversation here huh
Click to expand...


Translation: Wow, he nailed that one.


----------



## Vigilante

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFZWjbqn4pw"]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





[/ame]


----------



## Nyvin

Well crap,  i guess the trolls overtook this thread,  it was nice while it lasted.


----------



## Faun

The Rabbi said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was this poll taken before Benghazi? Or for that matter before she declared how poor she was when she wasn't poor? I don't understand how anyone could vote for her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked this question several times.  The answer seems to be "Because she'll beat anyone the GOP nominates."  That's it.  It's not her experience. It's not her views. It's certainly not her ethics.  It's "she can win."  Because with the left that's all that's important.  It's win, screw the other guy. To them politics occurs about at the level of high school football.
Click to expand...

For the sake of the nation, it's to keep a Republican out of the White House. But the bigger prize is more Liberal justices on the Supreme Court.


----------



## The Rabbi

Faun said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was this poll taken before Benghazi? Or for that matter before she declared how poor she was when she wasn't poor? I don't understand how anyone could vote for her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked this question several times.  The answer seems to be "Because she'll beat anyone the GOP nominates."  That's it.  It's not her experience. It's not her views. It's certainly not her ethics.  It's "she can win."  Because with the left that's all that's important.  It's win, screw the other guy. To them politics occurs about at the level of high school football.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the sake of the nation, it's to keep a Republican out of the White House. But the bigger prize is more Liberal justices on the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...


See, the reason is "WE WIN!" YAY!!!

Yeah, try selling more of the same 8 years to the American public.  Somehow I doubt they'll go for more lies and bullshit.


----------



## Faun

The Rabbi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked this question several times.  The answer seems to be "Because she'll beat anyone the GOP nominates."  That's it.  It's not her experience. It's not her views. It's certainly not her ethics.  It's "she can win."  Because with the left that's all that's important.  It's win, screw the other guy. To them politics occurs about at the level of high school football.
> 
> 
> 
> For the sake of the nation, it's to keep a Republican out of the White House. But the bigger prize is more Liberal justices on the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, the reason is "WE WIN!" YAY!!!
> 
> Yeah, try selling more of the same 8 years to the American public.  Somehow I doubt they'll go for more lies and bullshit.
Click to expand...

Too bad you don't understand English. * Again * ... the reason is for the sake of the nation.


----------



## daws101

Nyvin said:


> Does this thread really have to devolve into spamming corny cartoons or pics with captions?   Please...no.


I didn't invite him did you?


----------



## The Rabbi

Faun said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the sake of the nation, it's to keep a Republican out of the White House. But the bigger prize is more Liberal justices on the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, the reason is "WE WIN!" YAY!!!
> 
> Yeah, try selling more of the same 8 years to the American public.  Somehow I doubt they'll go for more lies and bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad you don't understand English. * Again * ... the reason is for the sake of the nation.
Click to expand...


Please explain how electing Hillary will be for the sake of the nation.
This ought to be good.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## daws101

The Rabbi said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will see 70 to 80 million Americans vote for her
> 
> 
> 
> more I will venture a GUESS and say lots of republican women will party jump just to see a woman as president..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republican women are not like Democratic women.  Throw free stuff at their vaginas and Democratic women will swoon over a candidate.  Republican women make their minds up based on a candidate's views on economic, domestic and foreign policy.
Click to expand...

how would you know anything about women?
, any woman who would go near you would have to be at least as mentally unhinged as you are.
thanks for proving you know zero about women..


----------



## daws101

The Rabbi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, the reason is "WE WIN!" YAY!!!
> 
> Yeah, try selling more of the same 8 years to the American public.  Somehow I doubt they'll go for more lies and bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad you don't understand English. * Again * ... the reason is for the sake of the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain how electing Hillary will be for the sake of the nation.
> This ought to be good.
Click to expand...

Michele Bachmann 

Paul Ryan  mitt Romney 

nuff said.


----------



## Faun

The Rabbi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, the reason is "WE WIN!" YAY!!!
> 
> Yeah, try selling more of the same 8 years to the American public.  Somehow I doubt they'll go for more lies and bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad you don't understand English. * Again * ... the reason is for the sake of the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain how electing Hillary will be for the sake of the nation.
> This ought to be good.
Click to expand...

Holy shit!  I * just * explained it. You really should do something about your English comprehension issues you suffer from. If you can, that is.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## rightwinger

Faun said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was this poll taken before Benghazi? Or for that matter before she declared how poor she was when she wasn't poor? I don't understand how anyone could vote for her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked this question several times.  The answer seems to be "Because she'll beat anyone the GOP nominates."  That's it.  It's not her experience. It's not her views. It's certainly not her ethics.  It's "she can win."  Because with the left that's all that's important.  It's win, screw the other guy. To them politics occurs about at the level of high school football.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the sake of the nation, it's to keep a Republican out of the White House. But the bigger prize is more Liberal justices on the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...


Good point

Once Hillary becomes president, she will be able to appoint three justices to the Supreme Court. Give the liberals a 7-2 advantage for the next 20 years
More importantly, she can stock the lower courts with liberals


----------



## Faun

rightwinger said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked this question several times.  The answer seems to be "Because she'll beat anyone the GOP nominates."  That's it.  It's not her experience. It's not her views. It's certainly not her ethics.  It's "she can win."  Because with the left that's all that's important.  It's win, screw the other guy. To them politics occurs about at the level of high school football.
> 
> 
> 
> For the sake of the nation, it's to keep a Republican out of the White House. But the bigger prize is more Liberal justices on the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point
> 
> Once Hillary becomes president, she will be able to appoint three justices to the Supreme Court. Give the liberals a 7-2 advantage for the next 20 years
> More importantly, she can stock the lower courts with liberals
Click to expand...

Exactly.

The prize.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Statistikhengst

Vigilante said:


>




Oh, I dunno, you could always try some crayola placards or snoopy cartoons..... to get your point across.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Yes, the trolls are here.  But it's all good in the hood.


----------



## Vigilante

*Hillary Interview Ratings Underwhelm on CNN and Fox*






*Hillary Clinton* sat down for two heavily-promoted interviews on cable news Tuesday evening, but they did not deliver the blockbuster ratings CNN and Fox News were likely expecting &#8212; or at least hoping for.

 Clinton&#8217;s town hall-style event with *Christiane Amanpour* was a distant second place at 5 p.m. and dropped to third when it re-aired in primetime at 9 p.m. And while her joint interview with Fox&#8217;s *Bret Baier* and *Greta Van Susteren* did keep Fox News in first place at 6 and 7 p.m., the numbers paled in comparison to the rest of Fox&#8217;s evening lineup.
 Beginning with C
 NN, the 5 p.m. hour averaged *115K* viewers in the 25-54 demo and *521K* total viewers. That put it barely ahead of MSNBC&#8217;s _The Ed Show_, which had 105K in the demo and 506K total viewers. Meanwhile, Fox&#8217;s _The Five_ led the time slot with 336K in the demo and 1.876M total viewers. 

 When CNN re-aired the interview at 9 p.m. its number increased slightly to *146K* in the demo and *593K* in the demo. While those were the best ratings CNN had all night, it still put them in third place for the hour behind Fox&#8217;s _The Kelly File_ (377K in the demo, 2.126M total) and MSNBC&#8217;s _The Rachel Maddow Show_ (168K in the demo, 918K total). 

 Relatively speaking, things did not look all that much better for Fox. That network split its Clinton interview between the last 15 minutes of _Special Report with Bret Baier_ at 6 p.m. and the first 15 minutes of _On the Record with Greta Van Susteren_ at 7 p.m. The first hour averaged *271K* in the demo and *1.779M* total viewers, which represented a nearly 20% drop in the demo compared to _The Five_ an hour earlier. 

 When *Greta Van Susteren*&#8216;s 7 p.m. show began mid-interview, the network clocked another drop, this time to *264K* in the demo and *1.751M* total viewers. When _The O&#8217;Reilly Factor_ began at 8 p.m., Fox&#8217;s numbers reliably jumped back up to 413K in the demo and 2.415M total viewers. 

 The bottom line is that the Hillary Clinton interviews were not able to move the needle in any significant way for CNN or Fox. A much-hyped, internationally-broadcast town hall event was not enough to lift CNN out of third place in primetime. And it appeared that Fox News viewers were not as eager to see right-leaning anchors confront the potential 2016 Democratic presidential nominee as many would have expected. The reaction from conservatives on Twitter demonstrated that those who did watch the Fox interview were not so thrilled with what they saw. 

 Unfortunately for Clinton, this could be an indication that Hillary-fatigue has set in even among those Americans who spend their afternoons watching cable news. While Clinton&#8217;s first major interview with *Diane Sawyer* last week drew 6.1 million viewers on network TV, cable news couldn&#8217;t come close. 

*As for that book she&#8217;s been dutifully promoting, sales show some signs of flagging as well. While [ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1476751447/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1476751447&linkCode=as2&tag=musicv03-20&linkId=UOOZOLSM7OG4JLMH"]Hard Choices[/ame]



 debuted at [ame="http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillarys-book-already-getting-savaged-by-amazons-amateur-reviewers/"]#2 overall on Amazon[/ame], it has since dropped to #5 behind a book about a [ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0982301820/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0982301820&linkCode=as2&tag=musicv03-20&linkId=TQTN3YDPVJKHLJR7"]10-day green smoothie juice cleanse[/ame]



. *

Hillary Interview Ratings Underwhelm on CNN and Fox | Mediaite


----------



## Spoonman

Derideo_Te said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Rand Paul wins the nomination it very well could entirely transform the Republican Party.    I don't know if it'd be for the better or worse, but it'd for sure change quite majorly.
> 
> I see John McCain and Paul as almost polar opposites in a lot of ways, as much opposites as you can be and still both be in the GOP.
> 
> Rand Paul as president would be....very weird.   But maybe that's what we need I guess...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rand Paul needs to prove his bona fides to be POTUS to me, and a majority of the nation, if he expects to be in the White house. However he most certainly deserves the opportunity because out of all the candidates on the right today he is the one who talks the most sense and has the least baggage.
> 
> Previously I supported Christie but the Bridgegate scandal has tainted him to the point where I wouldn't trust his judgment and/or his henchmen....er, appointees.
> 
> That makes Rand Paul the most viable of the GOP candidates in my opinion. I will be watching him closely in the primaries.
Click to expand...


would you trust hillary with benghazi and all of her other baggage?


----------



## The Rabbi

Faun said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad you don't understand English. * Again * ... the reason is for the sake of the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how electing Hillary will be for the sake of the nation.
> This ought to be good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy shit!  I * just * explained it. You really should do something about your English comprehension issues you suffer from. If you can, that is.
Click to expand...


We win!  YAy our team!
It's all Democrats know.


----------



## Vigilante

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0XDomYmjqI"]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





[/ame]


----------



## The Rabbi

Faun said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the sake of the nation, it's to keep a Republican out of the White House. But the bigger prize is more Liberal justices on the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point
> 
> Once Hillary becomes president, she will be able to appoint three justices to the Supreme Court. Give the liberals a 7-2 advantage for the next 20 years
> More importantly, she can stock the lower courts with liberals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> The prize.
Click to expand...

Yay!  We win!  Our side, our side!!  Yay.

It's all you'ev got.
What a worthless pile of chicken shit the liberals are.  All they care about is winning.  The good of the country, the integrity of the Constitution and the government means nothing to them.
Lying scumbags, every one.


----------



## rightwinger

GOP Plan to defeat Hillary in 2016......Photoshop


----------



## rightwinger

The Rabbi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good point
> 
> Once Hillary becomes president, she will be able to appoint three justices to the Supreme Court. Give the liberals a 7-2 advantage for the next 20 years
> More importantly, she can stock the lower courts with liberals
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> The prize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yay!  We win!  Our side, our side!!  Yay.
> 
> It's all you'ev got.
> What a worthless pile of chicken shit the liberals are.  All they care about is winning.  The good of the country, the integrity of the Constitution and the government means nothing to them.
> Lying scumbags, every one.
Click to expand...


Sour Grapes?

Complain much when Conservatives packed the court?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Oh, I think RightWinger meant it a little facetiously, with some lightness and mirth in his tone.

Rabbi, chill out. if you get much angrier, you may blow a fuse, and I don't know if anyone keeps those really antiquated fuses around...


----------



## Vigilante

rightwinger said:


> GOP Plan to defeat Hillary in 2016......Photoshop



Yes, subversives do voter fraud, and SEIU, and Black Panther voter intimidation, immune from Federal prosecution by a subversive AG...we have photoshop....arrest me! 

 [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE9_jVU2WLU"]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/ame]


----------



## Statistikhengst

rightwinger said:


> GOP Plan to defeat Hillary in 2016......Photoshop




Yes, I think they are signing a contract with Vagisil Communications, Inc.


Ok, enough mirth. How dare we Lefties enjoy some moments of mirth and levity.  We need to be flogged for this, of course.

Now, back the the OP:


* Surprising Rasmussen poll, 2016: Hillary vs. GOP field*


As I wrote in the OP, the Rasmussen data now provides us with a baseline for that particular polling firm, looking at 2016.  So, it's a start, and with 7 different GOP candidates having been measured against Hillary Clinton, that gives us a good amount of data to follow as time goes on.


----------



## Vigilante

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFZWjbqn4pw"]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/ame]


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Statistikhengst

Ahhh, Photoshop-trolling.


----------



## Vigilante

Statistikhengst said:


> Ahhh, Photoshop-trolling.



Ah, and the FISH keep nibbling at the BAIT!...


----------



## rightwinger

Statistikhengst said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOP Plan to defeat Hillary in 2016......Photoshop
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I think they are signing a contract with Vagisil Communications, Inc.
> 
> 
> Ok, enough mirth. How dare we Lefties enjoy some moments of mirth and levity.  We need to be flogged for this, of course.
> 
> Now, back the the OP:
> 
> 
> * Surprising Rasmussen poll, 2016: Hillary vs. GOP field*
> 
> 
> As I wrote in the OP, the Rasmussen data now provides us with a baseline for that particular polling firm, looking at 2016.  So, it's a start, and with 7 different GOP candidates having been measured against Hillary Clinton, that gives us a good amount of data to follow as time goes on.
Click to expand...


Photoshop does not seem to be having much of an impact on Hillary's popularity

I think Vagisil needs to double his efforts in trolling threads


----------



## Vigilante

rightwinger said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOP Plan to defeat Hillary in 2016......Photoshop
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I think they are signing a contract with Vagisil Communications, Inc.
> 
> 
> Ok, enough mirth. How dare we Lefties enjoy some moments of mirth and levity. We need to be flogged for this, of course.
> 
> Now, back the the OP:
> 
> 
> *Surprising Rasmussen poll, 2016: Hillary vs. GOP field*
> 
> 
> As I wrote in the OP, the Rasmussen data now provides us with a baseline for that particular polling firm, looking at 2016. So, it's a start, and with 7 different GOP candidates having been measured against Hillary Clinton, that gives us a good amount of data to follow as time goes on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Photoshop does not seem to be having much of an impact on Hillary's popularity
> 
> I think Vagisil needs to double his efforts in trolling threads
Click to expand...


Ah....LOOK!.....Another Guppy!


----------



## rightwinger

Vigilante said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I think they are signing a contract with Vagisil Communications, Inc.
> 
> 
> Ok, enough mirth. How dare we Lefties enjoy some moments of mirth and levity. We need to be flogged for this, of course.
> 
> Now, back the the OP:
> 
> 
> *Surprising Rasmussen poll, 2016: Hillary vs. GOP field*
> 
> 
> As I wrote in the OP, the Rasmussen data now provides us with a baseline for that particular polling firm, looking at 2016. So, it's a start, and with 7 different GOP candidates having been measured against Hillary Clinton, that gives us a good amount of data to follow as time goes on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photoshop does not seem to be having much of an impact on Hillary's popularity
> 
> I think Vagisil needs to double his efforts in trolling threads
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah....LOOK!.....Another Guppy!
Click to expand...


Forget something?

Where is the photoshop?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Vigilante said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, Photoshop-trolling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, and the FISH keep nibbling at the BAIT!...
Click to expand...



If you call us laughing our asses over over you "nibbling at the BAIT", then so be it.

You are most excellent entertainment, at least for now.


----------



## The Rabbi

rightwinger said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Photoshop does not seem to be having much of an impact on Hillary's popularity
> 
> I think Vagisil needs to double his efforts in trolling threads
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah....LOOK!.....Another Guppy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Forget something?
> 
> Where is the photoshop?
Click to expand...

I have news for you: None of what he posted was photoshopped.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Right. Uhuh.


----------



## The Rabbi

Statistikhengst said:


> Right. Uhuh.



How many Hillary jokes are there?
One.  ALl the rest are true.


----------



## rightwinger

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah....LOOK!.....Another Guppy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forget something?
> 
> Where is the photoshop?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have news for you: None of what he posted was photoshopped.
Click to expand...


Doesn't every photoshop poster say the same thing?

Honest....she really looks like that

Trust me


----------



## rightwinger

What I enjoy the most about far rightwing Republicans is that they think these locker room taunts and tactics are effective

Hillary is old, cankles...giggle giggle, fat ugly bitch

Republicans drew only 45% of the womens vote in 2012. With your opponent running a female candidate, you will draw even less. Tack on some anti-woman taunts and you will be lucky to draw 40% of the womens vote

Add in the regressive Republican tactics against Hispanics as well as the near unanamous Democratic vote among blacks and gays and you get Hillary winning by a landslide


----------



## Statistikhengst

rightwinger said:


> What I enjoy the most about far rightwing Republicans is that they think these locker room taunts and tactics are effective
> 
> Hillary is old, cankles...giggle giggle, fat ugly bitch
> 
> Republicans drew only 45% of the womens vote in 2012. With your opponent running a female candidate, you will draw even less. Tack on some anti-woman taunts and you will be lucky to draw 40% of the womens vote
> 
> Add in the regressive Republican tactics against Hispanics as well as the near unanamous Democratic vote among blacks and gays and you get Hillary winning by a landslide





Psssh!

You are letting the secret out.


----------



## rightwinger

Statistikhengst said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I enjoy the most about far rightwing Republicans is that they think these locker room taunts and tactics are effective
> 
> Hillary is old, cankles...giggle giggle, fat ugly bitch
> 
> Republicans drew only 45% of the womens vote in 2012. With your opponent running a female candidate, you will draw even less. Tack on some anti-woman taunts and you will be lucky to draw 40% of the womens vote
> 
> Add in the regressive Republican tactics against Hispanics as well as the near unanamous Democratic vote among blacks and gays and you get Hillary winning by a landslide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psssh!
> 
> You are letting the secret out.
Click to expand...


Somehow, Republicans think that demographics don't apply to them

If our policies are good enough for wealthy, white, christian males...they should be good enough for you


----------



## Statistikhengst

Now, *getting back to the OP*, it is about one specific, large poll from Rasmussen, which is NOT a Democratic-leaning firm, showing Hillary Clinton with sizeable leads nationally (from +7 to +14, depending on the GOP candidate pitted against her).

All of the relevant information is in the OP.

I have yet to see a Rightie call this data from Rasmussen into dispute.

And at some point in time, trolls like Vigilante will learn that this here is not the FZ.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Statistikhengst said:


> Now, *getting back to the OP*, it is about one specific, large poll from Rasmussen, which is NOT a Democratic-leaning firm, showing Hillary Clinton with sizeable leads nationally (from +7 to +14, depending on the GOP candidate pitted against her).
> 
> All of the relevant information is in the OP.
> 
> I have yet to see a Rightie call this data from Rasmussen into dispute.
> 
> And at some point in time, trolls like Vigilante will learn that this here is not the FZ.



I'm disputing that Hillary will be the Nominee


----------



## rightwinger

Statistikhengst said:


> Now, *getting back to the OP*, it is about one specific, large poll from Rasmussen, which is NOT a Democratic-leaning firm, showing Hillary Clinton with sizeable leads nationally (from +7 to +14, depending on the GOP candidate pitted against her).
> 
> All of the relevant information is in the OP.
> 
> I have yet to see a Rightie call this data from Rasmussen into dispute.
> 
> And at some point in time, trolls like Vigilante will learn that this here is not the FZ.



As bad as those numbers look for Republicans they cover up the true impact of the 2016 election.

When you apply those type of numbers to the current electoral vote laydown you end up with an insurmountable lead for Hillary regardless of which stiff the Republicans run against her


----------



## Statistikhengst

And to help put this thread back on track, here are the RCP national polling pages for 2004, 2008 and 2012:

*2004*

RealClearPolitics - Election 2004 - General Election: Bush vs. Kerry

(only 3 Rasmussen national polls - Rasmussen was founded in 2003)


*2008*

RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - General Election: McCain vs. Obama

(36 Rasmussen national polls)


*2012:*

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

(47 Rasmussen national polls)


Take a look at the Democratic values (Kerry, Obama, Obama) in those 86 polls. In late 2008, you will find Obama above 50, but in the summer and spring, the values are mid-fourties.

The point is that Clinton's numbers against the GOP right right now, more than 2 years away from the Democratic National Convention, are miles better than what Obama or Kerry ever received in Rasmussen polling. The numbers are there for every person to see.


----------



## Statistikhengst

rightwinger said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, *getting back to the OP*, it is about one specific, large poll from Rasmussen, which is NOT a Democratic-leaning firm, showing Hillary Clinton with sizeable leads nationally (from +7 to +14, depending on the GOP candidate pitted against her).
> 
> All of the relevant information is in the OP.
> 
> I have yet to see a Rightie call this data from Rasmussen into dispute.
> 
> And at some point in time, trolls like Vigilante will learn that this here is not the FZ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As bad as those numbers look for Republicans they cover up the true impact of the 2016 election.
> 
> When you apply those type of numbers to the current electoral vote laydown you end up with an insurmountable lead for Hillary regardless of which stiff the Republicans run against her
Click to expand...




Correct, and statewide polling is proving this to be exactly the case:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...-ge-hillary-clinton-vs-gop-field-part-iv.html

In statewide polling, she is guaranteed every single Gore and Kerry state. So, her starting point is 256.

She is winning with double digit margins in Ohio, Virginia and Florida.

That puts here at 332, right where Obama was in 2012.

On top of that, she is ahead in NC, AR and extremely competitive in LA. No polling yet from MO.

If she wins all of the Obama 2012 states (332) + NC + AR + MO, she is then at 373.

I believe she will carry 4 of the 6 "Clinton 6" from 1992/1996, so add KY and LA to that mix. That brings Hillary to 390.

She only needs either IN or AZ to break over 400 EV.

With GA added, this brings here to about 416, plus NE-02, brings here to 417, possibly 428. She may swing either SD or AK (not pooh pooh this idea too quickly), which then brings here to 431-434.

I have been predicting now for more than one year that Hillary wins the 2016 GE with 57% of the NPV and either hits or goes over 400 EV. The last President to go over 400 EV: George H.W. Bush, in 1988.


----------



## Statistikhengst

CrusaderFrank said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, *getting back to the OP*, it is about one specific, large poll from Rasmussen, which is NOT a Democratic-leaning firm, showing Hillary Clinton with sizeable leads nationally (from +7 to +14, depending on the GOP candidate pitted against her).
> 
> All of the relevant information is in the OP.
> 
> I have yet to see a Rightie call this data from Rasmussen into dispute.
> 
> And at some point in time, trolls like Vigilante will learn that this here is not the FZ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm disputing that Hillary will be the Nominee
Click to expand...



And I accept your viewpoint and have not ridiculed it, or?

But my viewpoint is that she will most definitely run, win the nomination and win the GE.


----------



## The Rabbi

Statistikhengst said:


> Now, *getting back to the OP*, it is about one specific, large poll from Rasmussen, which is NOT a Democratic-leaning firm, showing Hillary Clinton with sizeable leads nationally (from +7 to +14, depending on the GOP candidate pitted against her).
> 
> All of the relevant information is in the OP.
> 
> I have yet to see a Rightie call this data from Rasmussen into dispute.
> 
> And at some point in time, trolls like Vigilante will learn that this here is not the FZ.



Doesnt Rasmussen show Obama's approval rating as the highest of any polling org?  Why, yes it does,
The poll is meaningless twaddle.  A mere measure of name recognition and nothing more.  It can and will change like the wind.
Only a complete and utter moron would attach any importance to it whatsoever.  Oh wait...


----------



## The Rabbi

CrusaderFrank said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, *getting back to the OP*, it is about one specific, large poll from Rasmussen, which is NOT a Democratic-leaning firm, showing Hillary Clinton with sizeable leads nationally (from +7 to +14, depending on the GOP candidate pitted against her).
> 
> All of the relevant information is in the OP.
> 
> I have yet to see a Rightie call this data from Rasmussen into dispute.
> 
> And at some point in time, trolls like Vigilante will learn that this here is not the FZ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm disputing that Hillary will be the Nominee
Click to expand...


Given her paltry showing in book sales and the insane crap she's spewing about being poor, that even the media is laughing at, I suspect she will up and decide she's got better things to do.


----------



## Statistikhengst

The Rabbi said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, *getting back to the OP*, it is about one specific, large poll from Rasmussen, which is NOT a Democratic-leaning firm, showing Hillary Clinton with sizeable leads nationally (from +7 to +14, depending on the GOP candidate pitted against her).
> 
> All of the relevant information is in the OP.
> 
> I have yet to see a Rightie call this data from Rasmussen into dispute.
> 
> And at some point in time, trolls like Vigilante will learn that this here is not the FZ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesnt Rasmussen show Obama's approval rating as the highest of any polling org?  Why, yes it does,
> The poll is meaningless twaddle.  A mere measure of name recognition and nothing more.  It can and will change like the wind.
> Only a complete and utter moron would attach any importance to it whatsoever.  Oh wait...
Click to expand...


There are drops you can buy for your eyes if all that data is making you confused and woozy.

Oh, wait...

I also brought up comparative data from 2004, 2008 and 2012. You may get even woozier!


----------



## The Rabbi

Statistikhengst said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, *getting back to the OP*, it is about one specific, large poll from Rasmussen, which is NOT a Democratic-leaning firm, showing Hillary Clinton with sizeable leads nationally (from +7 to +14, depending on the GOP candidate pitted against her).
> 
> All of the relevant information is in the OP.
> 
> I have yet to see a Rightie call this data from Rasmussen into dispute.
> 
> And at some point in time, trolls like Vigilante will learn that this here is not the FZ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesnt Rasmussen show Obama's approval rating as the highest of any polling org?  Why, yes it does,
> The poll is meaningless twaddle.  A mere measure of name recognition and nothing more.  It can and will change like the wind.
> Only a complete and utter moron would attach any importance to it whatsoever.  Oh wait...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are drops you can buy for your eyes if all that data is making you confused and woozy.
> 
> Oh, wait...
> 
> I also brought up comparative data from 2004, 2008 and 2012. You may get even woozier!
Click to expand...


Translation: If I can't dazzle him with my brilliance I'll baffle him with my bull.


----------



## Statistikhengst

The Rabbi said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesnt Rasmussen show Obama's approval rating as the highest of any polling org?  Why, yes it does,
> The poll is meaningless twaddle.  A mere measure of name recognition and nothing more.  It can and will change like the wind.
> Only a complete and utter moron would attach any importance to it whatsoever.  Oh wait...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are drops you can buy for your eyes if all that data is making you confused and woozy.
> 
> Oh, wait...
> 
> I also brought up comparative data from 2004, 2008 and 2012. You may get even woozier!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation: If I can't dazzle him with my brilliance I'll baffle him with my bull.
Click to expand...



It must take a lot of energy for you to keep that faux rage up.

Translation: (Fake Rabbi) I'm too fucking stupid to know how to interpret simple math, so I'll just growl GRRRRRRRR really loud.






Now, back to the OP:

*Surprising Rasmussen poll, 2016: Hillary vs. GOP field*


----------



## rightwinger

Statistikhengst said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are drops you can buy for your eyes if all that data is making you confused and woozy.
> 
> Oh, wait...
> 
> I also brought up comparative data from 2004, 2008 and 2012. You may get even woozier!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: If I can't dazzle him with my brilliance I'll baffle him with my bull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It must take a lot of energy for you to keep that faux rage up.
> 
> Translation: (Fake Rabbi) I'm too fucking stupid to know how to interpret simple math, so I'll just growl GRRRRRRRR really loud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, back to the OP:
> 
> *Surprising Rasmussen poll, 2016: Hillary vs. GOP field*
Click to expand...


My favorite trait of the Rabbi is that he never actually comes out and tells you who he supports. I seem to remember that he supported Rick Perry at one time but quickly jumped off the bandwagon


----------



## The Rabbi

Statistikhengst said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are drops you can buy for your eyes if all that data is making you confused and woozy.
> 
> Oh, wait...
> 
> I also brought up comparative data from 2004, 2008 and 2012. You may get even woozier!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: If I can't dazzle him with my brilliance I'll baffle him with my bull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It must take a lot of energy for you to keep that faux rage up.
> 
> Translation: (Fake Rabbi) I'm too fucking stupid to know how to interpret simple math, so I'll just growl GRRRRRRRR really loud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, back to the OP:
> 
> *Surprising Rasmussen poll, 2016: Hillary vs. GOP field*
Click to expand...


/post fail.
/thread fail.

Hillary wont be the nominee.  Hillary wont be president.  Get over it.  Jump on some other band wagon.  The Deval Patrick wagon still has plenty of openings and since I strongly suspect he'll be the nominee you want to start.


----------



## Statistikhengst




----------



## The Rabbi

Statistikhengst said:


>


----------



## rightwinger

Statistikhengst said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, *getting back to the OP*, it is about one specific, large poll from Rasmussen, which is NOT a Democratic-leaning firm, showing Hillary Clinton with sizeable leads nationally (from +7 to +14, depending on the GOP candidate pitted against her).
> 
> All of the relevant information is in the OP.
> 
> I have yet to see a Rightie call this data from Rasmussen into dispute.
> 
> And at some point in time, trolls like Vigilante will learn that this here is not the FZ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As bad as those numbers look for Republicans they cover up the true impact of the 2016 election.
> 
> When you apply those type of numbers to the current electoral vote laydown you end up with an insurmountable lead for Hillary regardless of which stiff the Republicans run against her
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, and statewide polling is proving this to be exactly the case:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...-ge-hillary-clinton-vs-gop-field-part-iv.html
> 
> In statewide polling, she is guaranteed every single Gore and Kerry state. So, her starting point is 256.
> 
> She is winning with double digit margins in Ohio, Virginia and Florida.
> 
> That puts here at 332, right where Obama was in 2012.
> 
> On top of that, she is ahead in NC, AR and extremely competitive in LA. No polling yet from MO.
> 
> If she wins all of the Obama 2012 states (332) + NC + AR + MO, she is then at 373.
> 
> I believe she will carry 4 of the 6 "Clinton 6" from 1992/1996, so add KY and LA to that mix. That brings Hillary to 390.
> 
> She only needs either IN or AZ to break over 400 EV.
> 
> With GA added, this brings here to about 416, plus NE-02, brings here to 417, possibly 428. She may swing either SD or AK (not pooh pooh this idea too quickly), which then brings here to 431-434.
> 
> I have been predicting now for more than one year that Hillary wins the 2016 GE with 57% of the NPV and either hits or goes over 400 EV. The last President to go over 400 EV: George H.W. Bush, in 1988.
Click to expand...


The scary part for Republicans is that you can substitute any generic Democrat and get almost the same results

The bottom line is that Republicans have done NOTHING to improve their prospects in swing states. If anything, their prospects have gotten worse


----------



## Statistikhengst

rightwinger said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As bad as those numbers look for Republicans they cover up the true impact of the 2016 election.
> 
> When you apply those type of numbers to the current electoral vote laydown you end up with an insurmountable lead for Hillary regardless of which stiff the Republicans run against her
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, and statewide polling is proving this to be exactly the case:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...-ge-hillary-clinton-vs-gop-field-part-iv.html
> 
> In statewide polling, she is guaranteed every single Gore and Kerry state. So, her starting point is 256.
> 
> She is winning with double digit margins in Ohio, Virginia and Florida.
> 
> That puts here at 332, right where Obama was in 2012.
> 
> On top of that, she is ahead in NC, AR and extremely competitive in LA. No polling yet from MO.
> 
> If she wins all of the Obama 2012 states (332) + NC + AR + MO, she is then at 373.
> 
> I believe she will carry 4 of the 6 "Clinton 6" from 1992/1996, so add KY and LA to that mix. That brings Hillary to 390.
> 
> She only needs either IN or AZ to break over 400 EV.
> 
> With GA added, this brings here to about 416, plus NE-02, brings here to 417, possibly 428. She may swing either SD or AK (not pooh pooh this idea too quickly), which then brings here to 431-434.
> 
> I have been predicting now for more than one year that Hillary wins the 2016 GE with 57% of the NPV and either hits or goes over 400 EV. The last President to go over 400 EV: George H.W. Bush, in 1988.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The scary part for Republicans is that you can substitute any generic Democrat and get almost the same results
> 
> The bottom line is that Republicans have done NOTHING to improve their prospects in swing states. If anything, their prospects have gotten worse
Click to expand...


Obama won in 2012 with 51.01% of the vote.

He got 93% of the black vote. Most DEMS get around 90%.

He got 71% of the Latino vote. If Hillary gets 80% (and I bet she will), then that increases her percentage from 51.01% (Obama) to 54.2 or so.

He got 55% of the female vote. She will likely get 60% or more. That adds at least 5% more to the NPV percentage.  That brings her to 59.4%, minus some of the black vote that would probably recede to the usual 89-90% for a DEM candidate and probably some backlash among white male voters in some southern (cough, cough) states. This is why it is so easy for me to prognosticate 57% for Hillary Clinton for 2016.

And yes, I agree with you that any DEM would have a much easier path to 270 than any of the Republicans currently being discussed.


----------



## The Rabbi

Oh look.  A Gallup poll from 2006 showing Hillary way ahead.  And barack Obama is right behind.  Oh no, Barack Obama appears nowhere on the poll.
Clinton, Giuliani Top 2008 Presidential Nomination Polls

And here's a poll showing Giuliana beating Clinton by 11 points.  McCain beating her by 13 points.

02/09/06 FOX News Poll: Republicans Have Edge in Early 2008 Presidential Matchups | Fox News

Yeah remind me how accurate polling 2 years ahead of the election is.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Wow, I don't know much about this stuff, but it's surprising to see Christie down there with Perry at -14.
> 
> .



Christie is going to be covered in mud from the indictments and subsequent trials of his appointees. The Manhatten DA and the SEC now have solid cases for securities fraud against the Christie admin for siphoning $1+ billion in bonds out of the Port Authority and using it for a NJ traffic project.

There is no way his denials about knowing nothing about that is ever going to exonerate him sufficiently to be a viable candidate by 2016.


----------



## Zander

The Rabbi said:


> Oh look.  A Gallup poll from 2006 showing Hillary way ahead.  And barack Obama is right behind.  Oh no, Barack Obama appears nowhere on the poll.
> Clinton, Giuliani Top 2008 Presidential Nomination Polls
> 
> And here's a poll showing Giuliana beating Clinton by 11 points.  McCain beating her by 13 points.
> 
> 02/09/06 FOX News Poll: Republicans Have Edge in Early 2008 Presidential Matchups | Fox News
> 
> Yeah remind me how accurate polling 2 years ahead of the election is.


----------



## JoeB131

Statistikhengst said:


> [
> 
> 
> Obama won in 2012 with 51.01% of the vote.
> 
> He got 93% of the black vote. Most DEMS get around 90%.
> 
> *He got 71% of the Latino vote. If Hillary gets 80% (and I bet she will), then that increases her percentage from 51.01% (Obama) to 54.2 or so.*
> 
> He got 55% of the female vote. She will likely get 60% or more. That adds at least 5% more to the NPV percentage.  That brings her to 59.4%, minus some of the black vote that would probably recede to the usual 89-90% for a DEM candidate and probably some backlash among white male voters in some southern (cough, cough) states. This is why it is so easy for me to prognosticate 57% for Hillary Clinton for 2016.
> 
> And yes, I agree with you that any DEM would have a much easier path to 270 than any of the Republicans currently being discussed.



I'm curious what your reasoning is for the bolded section.  While I think Hillary will do well with Hispanics, I don't see her going above Obama's number, especially if her opponent is Jeb Bush (married to a Hispanic, doesn't say crazy shit about Immigration.) 

I think Hillary will hit above 51% and win easily, but the margin of that victory will depend how crazy the GOP gets. 

God help us, their best pick is Jeb Bush, and hoping everyone has amnesia about his brother.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Statistikhengst

JoeB131 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Obama won in 2012 with 51.01% of the vote.
> 
> He got 93% of the black vote. Most DEMS get around 90%.
> 
> *He got 71% of the Latino vote. If Hillary gets 80% (and I bet she will), then that increases her percentage from 51.01% (Obama) to 54.2 or so.*
> 
> He got 55% of the female vote. She will likely get 60% or more. That adds at least 5% more to the NPV percentage.  That brings her to 59.4%, minus some of the black vote that would probably recede to the usual 89-90% for a DEM candidate and probably some backlash among white male voters in some southern (cough, cough) states. This is why it is so easy for me to prognosticate 57% for Hillary Clinton for 2016.
> 
> And yes, I agree with you that any DEM would have a much easier path to 270 than any of the Republicans currently being discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious what your reasoning is for the bolded section.  While I think Hillary will do well with Hispanics, I don't see her going above Obama's number, especially if her opponent is Jeb Bush (married to a Hispanic, doesn't say crazy shit about Immigration.)
> 
> I think Hillary will hit above 51% and win easily, but the margin of that victory will depend how crazy the GOP gets.
> 
> God help us, their best pick is Jeb Bush, and hoping everyone has amnesia about his brother.
Click to expand...


Well sure: she will shoot up among latino women just as she will among women in general. Plus, I am relatively certain she will select a Latino for the VP slot, like Sanchez or Castro. And I sincerely doubt that Jeb Bush is going to get the nomination. My money is on Rand Paul.


----------



## JoeB131

You see, I just don't see rand expanding beyond that 10% of nuts who supported his dad.


----------



## The Rabbi

Statistikhengst said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Obama won in 2012 with 51.01% of the vote.
> 
> He got 93% of the black vote. Most DEMS get around 90%.
> 
> *He got 71% of the Latino vote. If Hillary gets 80% (and I bet she will), then that increases her percentage from 51.01% (Obama) to 54.2 or so.*
> 
> He got 55% of the female vote. She will likely get 60% or more. That adds at least 5% more to the NPV percentage.  That brings her to 59.4%, minus some of the black vote that would probably recede to the usual 89-90% for a DEM candidate and probably some backlash among white male voters in some southern (cough, cough) states. This is why it is so easy for me to prognosticate 57% for Hillary Clinton for 2016.
> 
> And yes, I agree with you that any DEM would have a much easier path to 270 than any of the Republicans currently being discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious what your reasoning is for the bolded section.  While I think Hillary will do well with Hispanics, I don't see her going above Obama's number, especially if her opponent is Jeb Bush (married to a Hispanic, doesn't say crazy shit about Immigration.)
> 
> I think Hillary will hit above 51% and win easily, but the margin of that victory will depend how crazy the GOP gets.
> 
> God help us, their best pick is Jeb Bush, and hoping everyone has amnesia about his brother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well sure: she will shoot up among latino women just as she will among women in general. Plus, I am relatively certain she will select a Latino for the VP slot, like Sanchez or Castro. And I sincerely doubt that Jeb Bush is going to get the nomination. My money is on Rand Paul.
Click to expand...


Smart women think about policies and qualifications.
Stupid women vote for whomever throws free stuff at their vaginas.


----------



## emilynghiem

The best candidates I have seen on the GOP are either
not popular enough to be chosen for promotions (based on "name recognition in the media")
or not unifying enough to get all the votes out even if they are in the media which only promotes CONFLICT not working solutions.
The ones who could lead solutions are falling under the radar, because they work behind the scenes, not pimping themselves in the media.
If GOP keeps listening to the media, that of course
will only PUBLICIZE the DIVISIVE candidates to set them up to fail.
GOP needs to get smart and listen to their party members and not the media games, 
quit pushing people who will not unite the party and not get the vote out but just divide it
(out of fear that the really effective leaders and solutions aren't "popular enough" in the media to win.
So why not focus on publicizing those leaders directly in UNITY around solutions
instead of playing the same divisive media games set up to fail?)

The Democrats will rally around the biggest name,
whoever turns out can carry the media and win.
As always the whole party will sell out and sacrifice principles
just to get all their votes onto the person with the "D" by their name.

Getting votes and elections by the numbers is all they can do to make
a political statement, so that's all they use. Trying to actually reform
and write meaningful legislation "takes too much work" -- so all the
money and resources goes to "sound good" campaigns which can be done professionally in the media.
(Forget legislation, which can be hired out to private interests and lobbies to do the work so it comes out crappy.)

Again this means compromising principles and representation,
not only for the real Democrat membership who suffer from corporate politicians,
but the whole Nation suffering from lack of representation in order to pour all money and attention into playing "media politics."
This is like watching parents spend all their hard earned money gambling
and not taking care of the actual household and family with that money.
They both lose billions of dollars and only one gets the job; 
and the media conglomerates get all that money they both spent on airtime.

TOO BAD the GOP cannot get its act together, but keeps listening
to where the media tells them to focus (on conflicts) which means losing,
instead of supporting their real leaders who can write up solutions
(which the media can't control and the Democrats can't do either
so they focus on campaigns which they know how to do well)

The Democrat Party will just keep playing with politics and media to say
whatever swings the media and elections their way, at all other cost.

SAME GAME different names
What a shame....


----------



## rightwinger

Regardless of who the Republicans run, they will lose big to Hillary. There is no Barack Obama waiting in the wings for Democrats. When Hillary runs, she will win, and win big

In terms of Electoral Votes, Republicans hit their high mark with George Bush in 2000 and 2004. At their high mark, Bush barely eked out 270. Republicans have regressed in the last ten years. Bush did well with Hispanics. Republicans have since driven them away in droves

They got 45% of the women's vote in 2012. With Hillary, they might get 40%

The numbers do not add up and Republicans have done nothing to change those numbers

Can I hear a Benghazi?


----------



## oldunclemark

I see the GOP war on women I alive and well


----------



## Vigilante

rightwinger said:


> Regardless of who the Republicans run, they will lose big to Hillary. There is no Barack Obama waiting in the wings for Democrats. When Hillary runs, she will win, and win big
> 
> In terms of Electoral Votes, Republicans hit their high mark with George Bush in 2000 and 2004. At their high mark, Bush barely eked out 270. Republicans have regressed in the last ten years. Bush did well with Hispanics. Republicans have since driven them away in droves
> 
> They got 45% of the women's vote in 2012. With Hillary, they might get 40%
> 
> The numbers do not add up and Republicans have done nothing to change those numbers
> 
> Can I hear a Benghazi?



 It's no longer "What difference does it make" it's ....


----------



## emilynghiem

The Rabbi said:


> Smart women think about policies and qualifications.
> Stupid women vote for whomever throws free stuff at their vaginas.



Smart men write their own legislation and don't wait for others to do it.
Other men donate millions to candidates, which could have funded solutions directly,
then when they don't get the reform or legislation they want, blame the other party,
and use that to raise more funds for more campaigns to repeat the cycle.

1. The public donates billions to both parties for campaigns (without guaranteed results as only one of the candidates being gambled on wins each office),
2. then donates again for each legislative campaign (also for and against, at double cost
because officials don't sit down and write out agreed legislation in the first place)
3. while paying the cost of current govt programs already in place (and more added)
4. while paying to run the programs, nonprofits, schools and businesses that are really doing "all the work" (that could be funded directly instead of paying THREE times
the cost as above: for candidates to campaign, then legislative lobbying, and govt costs)

Why not take the ideas and solutions you already want
and just invest in #4 directly and quit paying 1, 2, 3.
Shift all the work, energy, resources, leadership, JOBS to level 4
and everyone can control, write, fund and represent their own programs
WITHOUT PAYING BILLIONS TO LOBBY and PAY FOR IT THREE TIMES already.

When I buy a car, I research pick the car I want, buy it, register/insure it and use it.
Directly.

What if I paid money to go "campaign for Candidate X" to go out and get that car "for me."
(and competing groups do this too, so we both spend funds to cancel each other out)

Then I pay money to "lobby for the written procedure" to be approved to get this car.
(while competing groups do this too, because they want a different procedure)

Then I pay for govt to manage the process of voting, passing laws, etc. to get the car.
While I still have to buy, borrow or rent a car to get to work in the meantime.

Why not just go out and buy your own cars?
Where nobody competes with anyone else, we can all have our own?
And drive around and take care of things ourselves?

Isn't that cheaper than gambling 3 to 6 times as much WITHOUT guaranteeing
ANYONE will get what represents us, because of competing with other people?


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> Regardless of who the Republicans run, they will lose big to Hillary. There is no Barack Obama waiting in the wings for Democrats. When Hillary runs, she will win, and win big
> 
> In terms of Electoral Votes, Republicans hit their high mark with George Bush in 2000 and 2004. At their high mark, Bush barely eked out 270. Republicans have regressed in the last ten years. Bush did well with Hispanics. Republicans have since driven them away in droves
> 
> They got 45% of the women's vote in 2012. With Hillary, they might get 40%
> 
> The numbers do not add up and Republicans have done nothing to change those numbers
> 
> Can I hear a Benghazi?



As a Democrat I would vote for Vern Wuensche before I voted for Hillary.

I would ask Vern to tag on someone like Wendy Davis as VP to unite both parties,
but he would say no and stick to conservative traditional routes.

He is too nice, normal, and reasonable with plain common business sense.
So the media would not be able to play up controversies off him.

They can market Hillary to the hilt with the bad rap working in their favor.
They market the most conflicting inciteful angles
and leave the real problem solvers working behind the scenes
because that's too much work to do things right, ethical, sustainable = not sexy enough.

The media needs the Bill and Hillary Clintons, the cowboy Bush and Reagan.

As a Democrat, I will keep pushing ways to require the ENTIRE  party to pay the public back for political fraud and abuses done by Democrat candidates and campaigns.

That would either expose corrupt politicians who want the fame not the work to fix abuses.
Or would make careers for candidates in the trenches, doing the work and putting together longterm solutions that are NOT sell out shortcuts or sexy sound bytes in the media.
And put the focus on the Vern Wuenche's, the Damian La Croix's, the Gladys House
and Ray Hill's I know, liberal Democrats, conservative Republicans and sustainable Greens who do deserve publicity for the work they can do. 

But can't beat this media game that focuses on political bullcrap to sell hype, ratings and catfights to drive high dollar campaigns.

If I could address all the parties I support, and ask help to form teams to put media focus on REAL solutions from all parties combined, correcting these abuses by political gaming.

Maybe we can do something different by the next election cycle.
What if we poured all our resources into solutions leaders from all parties
compiled together in unison, resolving all conflicts, and redressing past issues.
And all govt money wasted on conflicts and wrongdoing will be reimbursed
back to taxpayers to fund these cooperative solutions. What if we set it up
ourselves, and then pressured the media to focus on what WE push together.

Would that stop the waste of funding, lobbying back and forth,
when this same money could be invested directly into solutions without fighting at all?


----------



## daws101

CrusaderFrank said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, *getting back to the OP*, it is about one specific, large poll from Rasmussen, which is NOT a Democratic-leaning firm, showing Hillary Clinton with sizeable leads nationally (from +7 to +14, depending on the GOP candidate pitted against her).
> 
> All of the relevant information is in the OP.
> 
> I have yet to see a Rightie call this data from Rasmussen into dispute.
> 
> And at some point in time, trolls like Vigilante will learn that this here is not the FZ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm disputing that Hillary will be the Nominee
Click to expand...

of you would you'd' pick a fight with a stop sign.


----------



## daws101

The Rabbi said:


> Oh look.  A Gallup poll from 2006 showing Hillary way ahead.  And barack Obama is right behind.  Oh no, Barack Obama appears nowhere on the poll.
> Clinton, Giuliani Top 2008 Presidential Nomination Polls
> 
> And here's a poll showing Giuliana beating Clinton by 11 points.  McCain beating her by 13 points.
> 
> 02/09/06 FOX News Poll: Republicans Have Edge in Early 2008 Presidential Matchups | Fox News
> 
> Yeah remind me how accurate polling 2 years ahead of the election is.


fox news from 08....?


----------



## Nyvin

The Rabbi said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, *getting back to the OP*, it is about one specific, large poll from Rasmussen, which is NOT a Democratic-leaning firm, showing Hillary Clinton with sizeable leads nationally (from +7 to +14, depending on the GOP candidate pitted against her).
> 
> All of the relevant information is in the OP.
> 
> I have yet to see a Rightie call this data from Rasmussen into dispute.
> 
> And at some point in time, trolls like Vigilante will learn that this here is not the FZ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm disputing that Hillary will be the Nominee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given her paltry showing in book sales and the insane crap she's spewing about being poor, that even the media is laughing at, I suspect she will up and decide she's got better things to do.
Click to expand...


Clinton has sold roughly 135,000 copies of "Hard Choices"

Huckabee, the GOP's best seller with "Dear Chandler",  has sold roughly 35,500

Marco Rubio's book was second to Huckabee with 35,000 copies of "An American Son"

No other GOP written books have reached 20,000 in sales.

If Clinton is doing "paltry" then the GOP as a whole is downright pathetic.


----------



## Vigilante

Nyvin said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm disputing that Hillary will be the Nominee
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given her paltry showing in book sales and the insane crap she's spewing about being poor, that even the media is laughing at, I suspect she will up and decide she's got better things to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clinton has sold roughly 135,000 copies of "Hard Choices"
> 
> Huckabee, the GOP's best seller with "Dear Chandler", has sold roughly 35,500
> 
> Marco Rubio's book was second to Huckabee with 35,000 copies of "An American Son"
> 
> No other GOP written books have reached 20,000 in sales.
> 
> If Clinton is doing "paltry" then the GOP as a whole is downright pathetic.
Click to expand...


A memoir authored by the 2008 Republican Vice President nominee and
former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin sold a whopping 700,000 copies in
the first week of release.

*Sales of Hillary's New Memoir Drop Sharply in 2nd Week... *


----------



## The Rabbi

daws101 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look.  A Gallup poll from 2006 showing Hillary way ahead.  And barack Obama is right behind.  Oh no, Barack Obama appears nowhere on the poll.
> Clinton, Giuliani Top 2008 Presidential Nomination Polls
> 
> And here's a poll showing Giuliana beating Clinton by 11 points.  McCain beating her by 13 points.
> 
> 02/09/06 FOX News Poll: Republicans Have Edge in Early 2008 Presidential Matchups | Fox News
> 
> Yeah remind me how accurate polling 2 years ahead of the election is.
> 
> 
> 
> fox news from 08....?
Click to expand...


Thats the point, dumbshit.  And its not 2008 nbut 2006.  Back in 06 polls showed Hillary sweeping the nomination but losing to McCain or Giuliani.  We know how that turned out.  Thsi wont turn out any better.  Espeically now that Hillary is getting laughed at for her impersonation of a low income person.


----------



## Nyvin

Vigilante said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given her paltry showing in book sales and the insane crap she's spewing about being poor, that even the media is laughing at, I suspect she will up and decide she's got better things to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton has sold roughly 135,000 copies of "Hard Choices"
> 
> Huckabee, the GOP's best seller with "Dear Chandler", has sold roughly 35,500
> 
> Marco Rubio's book was second to Huckabee with 35,000 copies of "An American Son"
> 
> No other GOP written books have reached 20,000 in sales.
> 
> If Clinton is doing "paltry" then the GOP as a whole is downright pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A memoir authored by the 2008 Republican Vice President nominee and
> former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin sold a whopping 700,000 copies in
> the first week of release.
> 
> *Sales of Hillary's New Memoir Drop Sharply in 2nd Week... *
Click to expand...


That's because "Going Rogue" was sensationalized through the media and Palin was a main player in a national election.   

Not to mention all the...media...attention...let's say...Palin received through things like SNL and Katie Couric.

Ever look at how many books Obama has sold?   Bill Clinton?   Al Gore?  Even Jimmy Carter....people that take part in a national election generally do well in book sales,  big surprise...

Someone that didn't do too well at book selling was George W Bush, with only about 430,000 books sold total.

Joe Biden doesn't do so hot either,  49,000 sold total...lol.


----------



## Vigilante

Nyvin said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton has sold roughly 135,000 copies of "Hard Choices"
> 
> Huckabee, the GOP's best seller with "Dear Chandler", has sold roughly 35,500
> 
> Marco Rubio's book was second to Huckabee with 35,000 copies of "An American Son"
> 
> No other GOP written books have reached 20,000 in sales.
> 
> If Clinton is doing "paltry" then the GOP as a whole is downright pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A memoir authored by the 2008 Republican Vice President nominee and
> former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin sold a whopping 700,000 copies in
> the first week of release.
> 
> *Sales of Hillary's New Memoir Drop Sharply in 2nd Week... *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because "Going Rogue" was sensationalized through the media and Palin was a main player in a national election.
> 
> Not to mention all the...media...attention...let's say...Palin received through things like SNL and Katie Couric.
Click to expand...


Come on, you wrote "No other GOP written books have reached 20,000 in sales.", and  I showed you that you were wrong again!   
 You trying to tell us, that her Thighness, isn't getting all sorts of press and MSM coverage on her way around the country on a book tour, that, as the link above provided, is BOMBING?... Did you even bother to read the Drudge Headlines I posted, or do you just like to take shots from the hip, and constantly miss your target?


----------



## Nyvin

Vigilante said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> A memoir authored by the 2008 Republican Vice President nominee and
> former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin sold a whopping 700,000 copies in
> the first week of release.
> 
> *Sales of Hillary's New Memoir Drop Sharply in 2nd Week... *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because "Going Rogue" was sensationalized through the media and Palin was a main player in a national election.
> 
> Not to mention all the...media...attention...let's say...Palin received through things like SNL and Katie Couric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on, you wrote "No other GOP written books have reached 20,000 in sales.", and  I showed you that you were wrong again!
> You trying to tell us, that her Thighness, isn't getting all sorts of press and MSM coverage on her way around the country on a book tour, that, as the link above provided, is BOMBING?... Did you even bother to read the Drudge Headlines I posted, or do you just like to take shots from the hip, and constantly miss your target?
Click to expand...


I was comparing her to GOP contenders for the 2016 presidential bid.   None of her rivals has book sales even remotely approaching hers....so how can the right say her sales are poor?   

Like I said, if Clinton's sales are paltry, then the GOP "current" sales are pathetic.


----------



## Vigilante

Nyvin said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because "Going Rogue" was sensationalized through the media and Palin was a main player in a national election.
> 
> Not to mention all the...media...attention...let's say...Palin received through things like SNL and Katie Couric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, you wrote "No other GOP written books have reached 20,000 in sales.", and I showed you that you were wrong again!
> You trying to tell us, that her Thighness, isn't getting all sorts of press and MSM coverage on her way around the country on a book tour, that, as the link above provided, is BOMBING?... Did you even bother to read the Drudge Headlines I posted, or do you just like to take shots from the hip, and constantly miss your target?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was comparing her to GOP contenders for the 2016 presidential bid. None of her rivals has book sales even remotely approaching hers....so how can the right say her sales are poor?
> 
> Like I said, if Clinton's sales are paltry, then the GOP "current" sales are pathetic.
Click to expand...


I consider Sarah Palin a contender, just as much as Hillary who, as with Sarah, hasn't declared her intentions. Thus making the Hildebeasty's sales PATHETIC!


----------



## Nyvin

Vigilante said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, you wrote "No other GOP written books have reached 20,000 in sales.", and I showed you that you were wrong again!
> You trying to tell us, that her Thighness, isn't getting all sorts of press and MSM coverage on her way around the country on a book tour, that, as the link above provided, is BOMBING?... Did you even bother to read the Drudge Headlines I posted, or do you just like to take shots from the hip, and constantly miss your target?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was comparing her to GOP contenders for the 2016 presidential bid. None of her rivals has book sales even remotely approaching hers....so how can the right say her sales are poor?
> 
> Like I said, if Clinton's sales are paltry, then the GOP "current" sales are pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I consider Sarah Palin a contender, just as much as Hillary who, as with Sarah, hasn't declared her intentions. Thus making the Hildebeasty's sales PATHETIC!
Click to expand...


Lol...yeah okay, sure good luck with that.


----------



## Vigilante

Nyvin said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was comparing her to GOP contenders for the 2016 presidential bid. None of her rivals has book sales even remotely approaching hers....so how can the right say her sales are poor?
> 
> Like I said, if Clinton's sales are paltry, then the GOP "current" sales are pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I consider Sarah Palin a contender, just as much as Hillary who, as with Sarah, hasn't declared her intentions. Thus making the Hildebeasty's sales PATHETIC!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol...yeah okay, sure good luck with that.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately I can't wish you the same for the Hildebeasty....I care about my country, and that bitch is just NO FUCKING GOOD!


----------



## Nyvin

Vigilante said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> I consider Sarah Palin a contender, just as much as Hillary who, as with Sarah, hasn't declared her intentions. Thus making the Hildebeasty's sales PATHETIC!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol...yeah okay, sure good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately I can't wish you the same for the Hildebeasty....I care about my country, and that bitch is just NO FUCKING GOOD!
Click to expand...


You care about your country and you want Sarah Palin to be president?   You need your priorities straightened out.


----------



## Vigilante

Nyvin said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol...yeah okay, sure good luck with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately I can't wish you the same for the Hildebeasty....I care about my country, and that bitch is just NO FUCKING GOOD!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You care about your country and you want Sarah Palin to be president? You need your priorities straightened out.
Click to expand...


Yet you want a woman, who lies multiple times, conspired to violate the Constitution, fabricates stories that even the MSM has uncovered, never mind the insider stock trading, and her attempts to smear woman her husband ABUSED!

 I'm sorry, I forget your a subversive, that doesn't believes in anything that this country was built on, one of the many who should be where the good Senator McCarthy would have liked to have sent his subversives.


----------



## Slyhunter

Nyvin said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm disputing that Hillary will be the Nominee
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given her paltry showing in book sales and the insane crap she's spewing about being poor, that even the media is laughing at, I suspect she will up and decide she's got better things to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clinton has sold roughly 135,000 copies of "Hard Choices"
> 
> Huckabee, the GOP's best seller with "Dear Chandler",  has sold roughly 35,500
> 
> Marco Rubio's book was second to Huckabee with 35,000 copies of "An American Son"
> 
> No other GOP written books have reached 20,000 in sales.
> 
> If Clinton is doing "paltry" then the GOP as a whole is downright pathetic.
Click to expand...




> In the 65 weeks since Killing Lincoln was released in fall 2011, Mr. OReilly has owned territory near the top of The New York Timess best-seller list for hardcover nonfiction. It would have been an extraordinary run by itself, but in October he released Killing Kennedy, which has since sold about one million copies.
> 
> For the last full week of the year he snagged both the No. 1 and 2 spots on the list, a rare feat.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/b...ardcover-best-seller-list.html?pagewanted=all


----------



## Statistikhengst

Slyhunter said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given her paltry showing in book sales and the insane crap she's spewing about being poor, that even the media is laughing at, I suspect she will up and decide she's got better things to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton has sold roughly 135,000 copies of "Hard Choices"
> 
> Huckabee, the GOP's best seller with "Dear Chandler",  has sold roughly 35,500
> 
> Marco Rubio's book was second to Huckabee with 35,000 copies of "An American Son"
> 
> No other GOP written books have reached 20,000 in sales.
> 
> If Clinton is doing "paltry" then the GOP as a whole is downright pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the 65 weeks since Killing Lincoln was released in fall 2011, Mr. OReilly has owned territory near the top of The New York Timess best-seller list for hardcover nonfiction. It would have been an extraordinary run by itself, but in October he released Killing Kennedy, which has since sold about one million copies.
> 
> For the last full week of the year he snagged both the No. 1 and 2 spots on the list, a rare feat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/b...ardcover-best-seller-list.html?pagewanted=all
Click to expand...


Is Mr. O'Relly running for President?

Or are you just functionally incapable of realizing that this was a direct comparison between potentional presidential candidates?

And you do realize that there is a difference between an autobiography and a work of fiction, right?


Sheesh...


----------



## Statistikhengst

Vigilante said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, you wrote "No other GOP written books have reached 20,000 in sales.", and I showed you that you were wrong again!
> You trying to tell us, that her Thighness, isn't getting all sorts of press and MSM coverage on her way around the country on a book tour, that, as the link above provided, is BOMBING?... Did you even bother to read the Drudge Headlines I posted, or do you just like to take shots from the hip, and constantly miss your target?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was comparing her to GOP contenders for the 2016 presidential bid. None of her rivals has book sales even remotely approaching hers....so how can the right say her sales are poor?
> 
> Like I said, if Clinton's sales are paltry, then the GOP "current" sales are pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I consider Sarah Palin a contender, just as much as Hillary who, as with Sarah, hasn't declared her intentions. Thus making the Hildebeasty's sales PATHETIC!
Click to expand...


Please.


Pretty please.


Pretty please with much sugar on it:


MAKE SARAH PALIN THE GOP PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE IN 2016.


Please do that.


Make my day.


----------



## Slyhunter

Statistikhengst said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton has sold roughly 135,000 copies of "Hard Choices"
> 
> Huckabee, the GOP's best seller with "Dear Chandler",  has sold roughly 35,500
> 
> Marco Rubio's book was second to Huckabee with 35,000 copies of "An American Son"
> 
> No other GOP written books have reached 20,000 in sales.
> 
> If Clinton is doing "paltry" then the GOP as a whole is downright pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the 65 weeks since Killing Lincoln was released in fall 2011, Mr. OReilly has owned territory near the top of The New York Timess best-seller list for hardcover nonfiction. It would have been an extraordinary run by itself, but in October he released Killing Kennedy, which has since sold about one million copies.
> 
> For the last full week of the year he snagged both the No. 1 and 2 spots on the list, a rare feat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/b...ardcover-best-seller-list.html?pagewanted=all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is Mr. O'Relly running for President?
> 
> Or are you just functionally incapable of realizing that this was a direct comparison between potentional presidential candidates?
> 
> And you do realize that there is a difference between an autobiography and a work of fiction, right?
> 
> 
> Sheesh...
Click to expand...


What work of fiction?
Maybe O'reilly should run for President? Interesting idea.


----------



## Nyvin

Slyhunter said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given her paltry showing in book sales and the insane crap she's spewing about being poor, that even the media is laughing at, I suspect she will up and decide she's got better things to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton has sold roughly 135,000 copies of "Hard Choices"
> 
> Huckabee, the GOP's best seller with "Dear Chandler",  has sold roughly 35,500
> 
> Marco Rubio's book was second to Huckabee with 35,000 copies of "An American Son"
> 
> No other GOP written books have reached 20,000 in sales.
> 
> If Clinton is doing "paltry" then the GOP as a whole is downright pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the 65 weeks since Killing Lincoln was released in fall 2011, Mr. OReilly has owned territory near the top of The New York Timess best-seller list for hardcover nonfiction. It would have been an extraordinary run by itself, but in October he released Killing Kennedy, which has since sold about one million copies.
> 
> For the last full week of the year he snagged both the No. 1 and 2 spots on the list, a rare feat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/b...ardcover-best-seller-list.html?pagewanted=all
Click to expand...


Okay, so now Bill-O is running in 2016 too?   Boy this just keeps getting more and more interesting.


----------



## Vigilante

Statistikhengst said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was comparing her to GOP contenders for the 2016 presidential bid. None of her rivals has book sales even remotely approaching hers....so how can the right say her sales are poor?
> 
> Like I said, if Clinton's sales are paltry, then the GOP "current" sales are pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I consider Sarah Palin a contender, just as much as Hillary who, as with Sarah, hasn't declared her intentions. Thus making the Hildebeasty's sales PATHETIC!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please.
> 
> 
> Pretty please.
> 
> 
> Pretty please with much sugar on it:
> 
> 
> MAKE SARAH PALIN THE GOP PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE IN 2016.
> 
> 
> Please do that.
> 
> 
> Make my day.
Click to expand...


Would make mine also, Rep Frog Boy!


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## daws101

Vigilante said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given her paltry showing in book sales and the insane crap she's spewing about being poor, that even the media is laughing at, I suspect she will up and decide she's got better things to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton has sold roughly 135,000 copies of "Hard Choices"
> 
> Huckabee, the GOP's best seller with "Dear Chandler", has sold roughly 35,500
> 
> Marco Rubio's book was second to Huckabee with 35,000 copies of "An American Son"
> 
> No other GOP written books have reached 20,000 in sales.
> 
> If Clinton is doing "paltry" then the GOP as a whole is downright pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A memoir authored by the 2008 Republican Vice President nominee and
> former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin sold a whopping 700,000 copies in
> the first week of release.
> 
> *Sales of Hillary's New Memoir Drop Sharply in 2nd Week... *
Click to expand...

it was mostly pictures just perfect for her followers..


----------



## daws101

The Rabbi said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look.  A Gallup poll from 2006 showing Hillary way ahead.  And barack Obama is right behind.  Oh no, Barack Obama appears nowhere on the poll.
> Clinton, Giuliani Top 2008 Presidential Nomination Polls
> 
> And here's a poll showing Giuliana beating Clinton by 11 points.  McCain beating her by 13 points.
> 
> 02/09/06 FOX News Poll: Republicans Have Edge in Early 2008 Presidential Matchups | Fox News
> 
> Yeah remind me how accurate polling 2 years ahead of the election is.
> 
> 
> 
> fox news from 08....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats the point, dumbshit.  And its not 2008 nbut 2006.  Back in 06 polls showed Hillary sweeping the nomination but losing to McCain or Giuliani.  We know how that turned out.  Thsi wont turn out any better.  Espeically now that Hillary is getting laughed at for her impersonation of a low income person.
Click to expand...

right laughed by the same ass hats that would laugh at her anyway it's meaningless,,


----------



## rightwinger

Statistikhengst said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton has sold roughly 135,000 copies of "Hard Choices"
> 
> Huckabee, the GOP's best seller with "Dear Chandler",  has sold roughly 35,500
> 
> Marco Rubio's book was second to Huckabee with 35,000 copies of "An American Son"
> 
> No other GOP written books have reached 20,000 in sales.
> 
> If Clinton is doing "paltry" then the GOP as a whole is downright pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the 65 weeks since Killing Lincoln was released in fall 2011, Mr. OReilly has owned territory near the top of The New York Timess best-seller list for hardcover nonfiction. It would have been an extraordinary run by itself, but in October he released Killing Kennedy, which has since sold about one million copies.
> 
> For the last full week of the year he snagged both the No. 1 and 2 spots on the list, a rare feat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/b...ardcover-best-seller-list.html?pagewanted=all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is Mr. O'Relly running for President?
> 
> Or are you just functionally incapable of realizing that this was a direct comparison between potentional presidential candidates?
> 
> And you do realize that there is a difference between an autobiography and a work of fiction, right?
> 
> 
> Sheesh...
Click to expand...


Irrespective of book sales it is votes that win elections

I have little doubt that Republicans can sell books to their constituents or get them to watch FoxNews. I have serious doubts about whether Republicans are still capable of winning Presidential elections

Winning 270 electoral votes is becoming increasingly impossible for Republicans


----------



## Statistikhengst

rightwinger said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/b...ardcover-best-seller-list.html?pagewanted=all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Mr. O'Relly running for President?
> 
> Or are you just functionally incapable of realizing that this was a direct comparison between potentional presidential candidates?
> 
> And you do realize that there is a difference between an autobiography and a work of fiction, right?
> 
> 
> Sheesh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrespective of book sales it is votes that win elections
> 
> I have little doubt that Republicans can sell books to their constituents or get them to watch FoxNews. I have serious doubts about whether Republicans are still capable of winning Presidential elections
> 
> Winning 270 electoral votes is becoming increasingly impossible for Republicans
Click to expand...



Demographics is Destiny.


It is really that simple.


----------



## rightwinger

Statistikhengst said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Mr. O'Relly running for President?
> 
> Or are you just functionally incapable of realizing that this was a direct comparison between potentional presidential candidates?
> 
> And you do realize that there is a difference between an autobiography and a work of fiction, right?
> 
> 
> Sheesh...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrespective of book sales it is votes that win elections
> 
> I have little doubt that Republicans can sell books to their constituents or get them to watch FoxNews. I have serious doubts about whether Republicans are still capable of winning Presidential elections
> 
> Winning 270 electoral votes is becoming increasingly impossible for Republicans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Demographics is Destiny.
> 
> 
> It is really that simple.
Click to expand...


Republicans claim that Demographics do not apply to them

If it is good enough for wealthy, christian, white guys....it is good enough for you


----------



## daws101

rightwinger said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrespective of book sales it is votes that win elections
> 
> I have little doubt that Republicans can sell books to their constituents or get them to watch FoxNews. I have serious doubts about whether Republicans are still capable of winning Presidential elections
> 
> Winning 270 electoral votes is becoming increasingly impossible for Republicans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demographics is Destiny.
> 
> 
> It is really that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republicans claim that Demographics do not apply to them
> 
> If it is good enough for wealthy, christian, white guys....it is good enough for you
Click to expand...

what if you're poor white trash?


----------



## rightwinger

daws101 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Demographics is Destiny.
> 
> 
> It is really that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans claim that Demographics do not apply to them
> 
> If it is good enough for wealthy, christian, white guys....it is good enough for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what if you're poor white trash?
Click to expand...


In that case they will make sure you have guns


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Picaro

Statistikhengst said:


> 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...



Yes, Rasmussen is the GOP house polling company. This is why all of the usual GOP 'talking points' outlets are in Hillary bashing mode so early; when your own PArty has nothing to point to, go for negative campaigning against the other Party's leading candidates . Hillary probably should have been the nominee in 2008, but got submarined by her own Party's leadership in favor of Obama in 2008. Didn't read the rest of the thread, since it's just a given the majority of it is Fever Swamp raving given the OP content. The last page of this thread even has the usual racist attacks one can expect as usual.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## rightwinger

Picaro said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Rasmussen is the GOP house polling company. This is why all of the usual GOP 'talking points' outlets are in Hillary bashing mode so early; when your own PArty has nothing to point to, go for negative campaigning against the other Party's leading candidates . Hillary probably should have been the nominee in 2008, but got submarined by her own Party's leadership in favor of Obama in 2008. Didn't read the rest of the thread, since it's just a given the majority of it is Fever Swamp raving given the OP content. The last page of this thread even has the usual racist attacks one can expect as usual.
Click to expand...


Republicans realize they do not match up against Hillary. They are showing their desperation. 

Their biggest problem is they somehow think they can win with Vince Foster, blowjobs and Benghazi

Some are so desperate that they resort to photoshop attacks


----------



## Statistikhengst

rightwinger said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Rasmussen is the GOP house polling company. This is why all of the usual GOP 'talking points' outlets are in Hillary bashing mode so early; when your own PArty has nothing to point to, go for negative campaigning against the other Party's leading candidates . Hillary probably should have been the nominee in 2008, but got submarined by her own Party's leadership in favor of Obama in 2008. Didn't read the rest of the thread, since it's just a given the majority of it is Fever Swamp raving given the OP content. The last page of this thread even has the usual racist attacks one can expect as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republicans realize they do not match up against Hillary. They are showing their desperation.
> 
> Their biggest problem is they somehow *think they can win with Vince Foster, blowjobs and Benghazi
> *
> Some are so desperate that they *resort to photoshop attacks*
Click to expand...



Yes, it would be sad were it not so unbelievably amusing.


----------



## rightwinger

Statistikhengst said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Rasmussen is the GOP house polling company. This is why all of the usual GOP 'talking points' outlets are in Hillary bashing mode so early; when your own PArty has nothing to point to, go for negative campaigning against the other Party's leading candidates . Hillary probably should have been the nominee in 2008, but got submarined by her own Party's leadership in favor of Obama in 2008. Didn't read the rest of the thread, since it's just a given the majority of it is Fever Swamp raving given the OP content. The last page of this thread even has the usual racist attacks one can expect as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans realize they do not match up against Hillary. They are showing their desperation.
> 
> Their biggest problem is they somehow *think they can win with Vince Foster, blowjobs and Benghazi
> *
> Some are so desperate that they *resort to photoshop attacks*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it would be sad were it not so unbelievably amusing.
Click to expand...


Their biggest problem is that they think the tactics that do so well on Limbaugh and Hannity will work with the general public

Republicans have been chasing away moderates and somehow they think these Hillary tactics will work


----------



## Statistikhengst

rightwinger said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans realize they do not match up against Hillary. They are showing their desperation.
> 
> Their biggest problem is they somehow *think they can win with Vince Foster, blowjobs and Benghazi
> *
> Some are so desperate that they *resort to photoshop attacks*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it would be sad were it not so unbelievably amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their biggest problem is that they think the tactics that do so well on Limbaugh and Hannity will work with the general public
> 
> Republicans have been chasing away moderates and somehow they think these Hillary tactics will work
Click to expand...



Well, any candidate is beatable, but the GOP is plain old doing it wrong, as they have been doing with practically every demographic group that is not 

a.) white
b.) male


So, I expect the GOP to get a pasting at the national level in both 2016 and 2020. Maybe, just maybe, by 2024, they will have learned their lesson.


----------



## Samson

Statistikhengst said:


> *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.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Just for the sake of historical accuracy, here is my analysis of the pollsters, post-2012:
> 
> More updates on Rasmussen in the future...​




What to take away from this seems obvious.

Republicans have not chosen a candidate.

Democrats have.

Comparing past polls of chosen candidates with this Rassmussen poll I suppose has som mental masturbatory benefit, but for practical purposes you may as well get out an apple and compare it with an orange.​


----------



## Statistikhengst

Samson said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Just for the sake of historical accuracy, here is my analysis of the pollsters, post-2012:
> 
> More updates on Rasmussen in the future...​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What to take away from this seems obvious.
> 
> Republicans have not chosen a candidate.
> 
> Democrats have.
> 
> Comparing past polls of chosen candidates with this Rassmussen poll I suppose has som mental masturbatory benefit, but for practical purposes you may as well get out an apple and compare it with an orange.​
Click to expand...



Well, ok, but masturbation was definitely not something I was thinking about....



And actually, the begin of baseline data for Ras is kind of important to note.

Let's see what happens when I update RAS quarterly or so....​


----------



## Samson

Statistikhengst said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *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.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Just for the sake of historical accuracy, here is my analysis of the pollsters, post-2012:
> 
> More updates on Rasmussen in the future...​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What to take away from this seems obvious.
> 
> Republicans have not chosen a candidate.
> 
> Democrats have.
> 
> Comparing past polls of chosen candidates with this Rassmussen poll I suppose has som mental masturbatory benefit, but for practical purposes you may as well get out an apple and compare it with an orange.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, ok, but masturbation was definitely not something I was thinking about....
> 
> 
> 
> And actually, the begin of baseline data for Ras is kind of important to note.
> 
> Let's see what happens when I update RAS quarterly or so....​
Click to expand...



The only possible benefit would be to evaluate Republican candidates, all of which, as may be expected, have about the same 2014 name recogintion as 2016 Presidential Candidates.

Then, if the theory that Rassmussan is "bias" toward any Republican Candidate is correct, we can then expect that candidate's numbers to look better than any others. Afterward, the opposing partisans will have a target, and we can expect those numbers to erode...or not.

Assuming Rassumsan IS purely partisan, we can only conclude that these polls are an early effort to force the Republican Party to coalesce.​


----------



## Statistikhengst

Samson said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> What to take away from this seems obvious.
> 
> Republicans have not chosen a candidate.
> 
> Democrats have.
> 
> Comparing past polls of chosen candidates with this Rassmussen poll I suppose has som mental masturbatory benefit, but for practical purposes you may as well get out an apple and compare it with an orange.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, ok, but masturbation was definitely not something I was thinking about....
> 
> 
> 
> And actually, the begin of baseline data for Ras is kind of important to note.
> 
> Let's see what happens when I update RAS quarterly or so....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only possible benefit would be to evaluate Republican candidates, all of which, as may be expected, have about the same 2014 name recogintion as 2016 Presidential Candidates.
> 
> Then, if the theory that Rassmussan is "bias" toward any Republican Candidate is correct, we can then expect that candidate's numbers to look better than any others. Afterward, the opposing partisans will have a target, and we can expect those numbers to erode...or not.
> 
> Assuming Rassumsan IS purely partisan, we can only conclude that these polls are an early effort to force the Republican Party to coalesce.
Click to expand...


That could be a possibility. Also a possibilty that the almost-draft-like movement for Hillary Clinton ala Ike 1950-1951 is simply moving things up.

The dynamic of 2016 will, imo, be completely different than in 2008 and 2012.


----------



## rightwinger

Statistikhengst said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, ok, but masturbation was definitely not something I was thinking about....
> 
> 
> 
> And actually, the begin of baseline data for Ras is kind of important to note.
> 
> Let's see what happens when I update RAS quarterly or so....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only possible benefit would be to evaluate Republican candidates, all of which, as may be expected, have about the same 2014 name recogintion as 2016 Presidential Candidates.
> 
> Then, if the theory that Rassmussan is "bias" toward any Republican Candidate is correct, we can then expect that candidate's numbers to look better than any others. Afterward, the opposing partisans will have a target, and we can expect those numbers to erode...or not.
> 
> Assuming Rassumsan IS purely partisan, we can only conclude that these polls are an early effort to force the Republican Party to coalesce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That could be a possibility. Also a possibilty that the almost-draft-like movement for Hillary Clinton ala Ike 1950-1951 is simply moving things up.
> 
> The dynamic of 2016 will, imo, be completely different than in 2008 and 2012.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Samson

rightwinger said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only possible benefit would be to evaluate Republican candidates, all of which, as may be expected, have about the same 2014 name recogintion as 2016 Presidential Candidates.
> 
> Then, if the theory that Rassmussan is "bias" toward any Republican Candidate is correct, we can then expect that candidate's numbers to look better than any others. Afterward, the opposing partisans will have a target, and we can expect those numbers to erode...or not.
> 
> Assuming Rassumsan IS purely partisan, we can only conclude that these polls are an early effort to force the Republican Party to coalesce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That could be a possibility. Also a possibilty that the almost-draft-like movement for Hillary Clinton ala Ike 1950-1951 is simply moving things up.
> 
> The dynamic of 2016 will, imo, be completely different than in 2008 and 2012.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...





Being predictably partisan means ignoring the possibilities.

Bravo


----------



## Nyvin

Samson said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> That could be a possibility. Also a possibilty that the almost-draft-like movement for Hillary Clinton ala Ike 1950-1951 is simply moving things up.
> 
> The dynamic of 2016 will, imo, be completely different than in 2008 and 2012.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being predictably partisan means ignoring the possibilities.
> 
> Bravo
Click to expand...


So what possibilities are there for the GOP for presidential elections?    I don't see any easy path to 270 for them either.


----------



## Samson

Nyvin said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what possibilities are there for the GOP for presidential elections?    I don't see any easy path to 270 for them either.
Click to expand...


I wonder if that's what the Republican primaries will be for?




Will someone please connect the dots for partisan Dems before their heads explode?


----------



## rightwinger

Samson said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> That could be a possibility. Also a possibilty that the almost-draft-like movement for Hillary Clinton ala Ike 1950-1951 is simply moving things up.
> 
> The dynamic of 2016 will, imo, be completely different than in 2008 and 2012.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being predictably partisan means ignoring the possibilities.
> 
> Bravo
Click to expand...


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?


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## rightwinger

Vigilante said:


>



Photoshop Charlie defends Republican chances in 2016

His party is doomed


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Samson

rightwinger said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


It is 2014.

The elections are 2016.


Breathe.


----------



## I.P.Freely

BobPlumb said:


> Name recognition is very powerful in politics.


Thats fucked Jeb Bush then


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## rightwinger

Samson said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is 2014.
> 
> The elections are 2016.
> 
> 
> Breathe.
Click to expand...


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

Yurt said:


> 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:



Statistikhengst said:


> ...
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 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

Yurt said:


> 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

Statistikhengst said:


> 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

Samson said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



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

protectionist said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 ?
Click to expand...



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


----------



## The Rabbi

Picaro said:


> 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

Yurt said:


> 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

protectionist said:


> [
> 
> 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.


----------



## JoeB131

The Rabbi said:


> [
> 
> 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

protectionist said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 ?
Click to expand...


Bolton would not win a single state


----------



## rightwinger

The Rabbi said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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

Statistikhengst said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...




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&#8217;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.

Statistikhengst said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *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...
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Yurt

Statistikhengst said:


> 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

Vigilante said:


> 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.

Nyvin said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

S.J. said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who cares if our president and secretary of state looked the other way while 4 Americans were murdered, right?
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Yurt

Nyvin said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was the Republicans that lowered the security budget for the embassy.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Vigilante

Nyvin said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was the Republicans that lowered the security budget for the embassy.
Click to expand...


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

Yurt said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you do realize the senate report said the budget had ZERO effect on what happened....right?
Click to expand...


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

Nyvin said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Derideo_Te said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When all you have is a dead horse, the Going Obsolete Party will milk it regardless of how curdled it may already be!
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Derideo_Te

The Rabbi said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Derideo_Te said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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


----------



## rightwinger

S.J. said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who cares if our president and secretary of state looked the other way while 4 Americans were murdered, right?
Click to expand...


The rest of the country realizes they didnt

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


----------



## Vigilante

rightwinger said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rest of the country realizes they didnt
> 
> The 2012 election proved it, what makes you think 2016 will be different?
Click to expand...


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

Statistikhengst said:


> 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.

rightwinger said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rest of the country realizes they didnt
> 
> The 2012 election proved it, what makes you think 2016 will be different?
Click to expand...

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

S.J. said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


because that so happens

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


----------



## Faun

S.J. said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## S.J.

Faun said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? In which district did Obama receive 110% of the vote?
Click to expand...

I'm not here to do your searches.


----------



## Faun

S.J. said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not here to do your searches.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## S.J.

Faun said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? In which district did Obama receive 110% of the vote?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not here to do your searches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one asked you to search. I figured you knew what you were talking about. Seems you don't. Oh well.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Faun

S.J. said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, like nobody knows the Democrats commit voter fraud on a national scale.
Click to expand...

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.

Faun said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...

Knock yourself out.

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


----------



## Faun

S.J. said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Knock yourself out.
> 
> https://www.google.com/webhp?source...spv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=voter fraud in 2008 and 2012
Click to expand...

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.

Faun said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...

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

S.J. said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, we all know there wasn't even a smidgen of voter fraud, don't we?
Click to expand...

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

Statistikhengst said:


> 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.


----------



## S.J.

Faun said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Well, we'll never know for sure how many illegal votes were cast by Obama's minions, just as we'll never know the truth about Benghazi and the IRS, but we DO know that it's Democrats who oppose all efforts to stop voter fraud.  That kind of tells you who commits it and wants to continue to commit it.  And you libs like to include both parties when you acknowledge voter fraud but you know the truth is that it's almost 100% committed by the left.


----------



## The Rabbi

Here's Politifact whitewashing Obama taking 100% in districts in OH and PA.
Emails, blog posts claim Mitt Romney got zero votes in some Greater Cleveland precincts | PolitiFact Ohio
The truth is it is statistically impossible for Obama, or anyone, to receive 100% of the vote.  Mere error would suggest Romney would get one or two votes.
There was ample evidence of voter fraud but since it was committed in black districts the Justice Dept won't investigate.


----------



## Faun

S.J. said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, we'll never know for sure how many illegal votes were cast by Obama's minions, just as we'll never know the truth about Benghazi and the IRS, but we DO know that it's Democrats who oppose all efforts to stop voter fraud.  That kind of tells you who commits it and wants to continue to commit it.  And you libs like to include both parties when you acknowledge voter fraud but you know the truth is that it's almost 100% committed by the left.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to either admit you were lying when you fallaciously claimed there was a district where Obama got 110% of the vote or prove it........ other than that, your diversions fail to provide you cover from slithering away from your bald-face lie.


----------



## S.J.

Faun said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we'll never know for sure how many illegal votes were cast by Obama's minions, just as we'll never know the truth about Benghazi and the IRS, but we DO know that it's Democrats who oppose all efforts to stop voter fraud.  That kind of tells you who commits it and wants to continue to commit it.  And you libs like to include both parties when you acknowledge voter fraud but you know the truth is that it's almost 100% committed by the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for you to either admit you were lying when you fallaciously claimed there was a district where Obama got 110% of the vote or prove it........ other than that, your diversions fail to provide you cover from slithering away from your bald-face lie.
Click to expand...

I don't have to prove shit to you and nobody gives a shit, so I guess you can pound sand.


----------



## Faun

S.J. said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we'll never know for sure how many illegal votes were cast by Obama's minions, just as we'll never know the truth about Benghazi and the IRS, but we DO know that it's Democrats who oppose all efforts to stop voter fraud.  That kind of tells you who commits it and wants to continue to commit it.  And you libs like to include both parties when you acknowledge voter fraud but you know the truth is that it's almost 100% committed by the left.
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for you to either admit you were lying when you fallaciously claimed there was a district where Obama got 110% of the vote or prove it........ other than that, your diversions fail to provide you cover from slithering away from your bald-face lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to prove shit to you and nobody gives a shit, so I guess you can pound sand.
Click to expand...

Why would I pound sand because a liar got caught lying? It's enough for me that you lie was exposed.


----------



## The Rabbi

Faun said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we'll never know for sure how many illegal votes were cast by Obama's minions, just as we'll never know the truth about Benghazi and the IRS, but we DO know that it's Democrats who oppose all efforts to stop voter fraud.  That kind of tells you who commits it and wants to continue to commit it.  And you libs like to include both parties when you acknowledge voter fraud but you know the truth is that it's almost 100% committed by the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for you to either admit you were lying when you fallaciously claimed there was a district where Obama got 110% of the vote or prove it........ other than that, your diversions fail to provide you cover from slithering away from your bald-face lie.
Click to expand...


Yawn.  Is that all you've got?


----------



## S.J.

Faun said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for you to either admit you were lying when you fallaciously claimed there was a district where Obama got 110% of the vote or prove it........ other than that, your diversions fail to provide you cover from slithering away from your bald-face lie.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove shit to you and nobody gives a shit, so I guess you can pound sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I pound sand because a liar got caught lying? It's enough for me that you lie was exposed.
Click to expand...

Pundit Press: Good News: Obama Won County in Ohio with 108% Voter Registration


----------



## Faun

The Rabbi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we'll never know for sure how many illegal votes were cast by Obama's minions, just as we'll never know the truth about Benghazi and the IRS, but we DO know that it's Democrats who oppose all efforts to stop voter fraud.  That kind of tells you who commits it and wants to continue to commit it.  And you libs like to include both parties when you acknowledge voter fraud but you know the truth is that it's almost 100% committed by the left.
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for you to either admit you were lying when you fallaciously claimed there was a district where Obama got 110% of the vote or prove it........ other than that, your diversions fail to provide you cover from slithering away from your bald-face lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn.  Is that all you've got?
Click to expand...

Pretty funny coming from the rightard I bitch-slapped out of his own thread.


----------



## S.J.

Colorado Counties Have More Voters Than People | RedState


----------



## S.J.

Online petition claims Obama got more votes in one Ohio county than there are registered voters: PolitiFact Ohio | cleveland.com


----------



## The Rabbi

Faun said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for you to either admit you were lying when you fallaciously claimed there was a district where Obama got 110% of the vote or prove it........ other than that, your diversions fail to provide you cover from slithering away from your bald-face lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.  Is that all you've got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty funny coming from the rightard I bitch-slapped out of his own thread.
Click to expand...


^^Unhinged.


----------



## S.J.

Since Faun wasn't able to find any of these in all the links he clicked on, I guess I'll have to post them.

THE BIG LIST of vote fraud reports


----------



## Faun

S.J. said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove shit to you and nobody gives a shit, so I guess you can pound sand.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I pound sand because a liar got caught lying? It's enough for me that you lie was exposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pundit Press: Good News: Obama Won County in Ohio with 108% Voter Registration
Click to expand...

Ok, so not only are you a liar, you're a retard as well....

Obama won Wood County with 51% of the vote, not 110%.You falsely claimed there was at least one district where Obama got 110% of the vote and now you idiotically post a link about a county where Obama got 51% of the vote, about 30% of all the registered voters, in a county where only about 60% of the register voters voted.

Ohio Election Results 2012 - Map, County Results, Live Updates - POLITICO.com


----------



## Faun

The Rabbi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.  Is that all you've got?
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty funny coming from the rightard I bitch-slapped out of his own thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^^Unhinged.
Click to expand...


^^ Delusional denial


----------



## Faun

S.J. said:


> Since Faun wasn't able to find any of these in all the links he clicked on, I guess I'll have to post them.
> 
> THE BIG LIST of vote fraud reports



Great, yet another link which doesn't show where Obama got 110% of the vote anywhere. 

Just admit you're full of shit and move on. Actually, at this point, you don't have to admit it. It's pretty obvious.


----------



## S.J.

Faun said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Faun wasn't able to find any of these in all the links he clicked on, I guess I'll have to post them.
> 
> THE BIG LIST of vote fraud reports
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great, yet another link which doesn't show where Obama got 110% of the vote anywhere.
> 
> Just admit you're full of shit and move on. Actually, at this point, you don't have to admit it. It's pretty obvious.
Click to expand...

I posted examples of voter fraud, and apparently you missed this one.

Pundit Press: Good News: Obama Won County in Ohio with 108% Voter Registration


----------



## JoeB131

The Rabbi said:


> Here's Politifact whitewashing Obama taking 100% in districts in OH and PA.
> Emails, blog posts claim Mitt Romney got zero votes in some Greater Cleveland precincts | PolitiFact Ohio
> The truth is it is statistically impossible for Obama, or anyone, to receive 100% of the vote.  Mere error would suggest Romney would get one or two votes.
> There was ample evidence of voter fraud but since it was committed in black districts the Justice Dept won't investigate.



Or if you are black and live in Cleveland, there's no way you would vote for a member of a Racist Cult who says stuff like '47% of you are moochers" and "I like to fire people".  

It's like finding out that none of the Chickens voted for Colonel Sanders.


----------



## rightwinger

S.J. said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Faun wasn't able to find any of these in all the links he clicked on, I guess I'll have to post them.
> 
> THE BIG LIST of vote fraud reports
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great, yet another link which doesn't show where Obama got 110% of the vote anywhere.
> 
> Just admit you're full of shit and move on. Actually, at this point, you don't have to admit it. It's pretty obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted examples of voter fraud, and apparently you missed this one.
> 
> Pundit Press: Good News: Obama Won County in Ohio with 108% Voter Registration
Click to expand...


Votes are voter fraud not outdated registrations


----------



## JoeB131

rightwinger said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great, yet another link which doesn't show where Obama got 110% of the vote anywhere.
> 
> Just admit you're full of shit and move on. Actually, at this point, you don't have to admit it. It's pretty obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> I posted examples of voter fraud, and apparently you missed this one.
> 
> Pundit Press: Good News: Obama Won County in Ohio with 108% Voter Registration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Votes are voter fraud not outdated registrations
Click to expand...


I do see a bit of a problem, though, in that voter registrations are not updated. 

When I worked on Tammy Duckworth's campaign in 2012, they gave us lists of voters, and some of these registered voters were well into their 90's.   Of course, when we called, the phone was either disconnected, or someone else had the number now and didn't know who we were talking about. 

There should be a process where when a death certificate is issued, that person should be struck from the voter rolls.


----------



## Statistikhengst

JoeB131 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted examples of voter fraud, and apparently you missed this one.
> 
> Pundit Press: Good News: Obama Won County in Ohio with 108% Voter Registration
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votes are voter fraud not outdated registrations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do see a bit of a problem, though, in that voter registrations are not updated.
> 
> When I worked on Tammy Duckworth's campaign in 2012, they gave us lists of voters, and some of these registered voters were well into their 90's.   Of course, when we called, the phone was either disconnected, or someone else had the number now and didn't know who we were talking about.
> 
> There should be a process where when a death certificate is issued, that person should be struck from the voter rolls.
Click to expand...


This is always a problem because of Federalism. Because of Federalism, each state gets to decide how to keep it's rolls clean. And many states even go down to the county level and let each individual county decide how to do this.

And after every election, some asswipe from the Right tries to come back with voter fraud. But often, it is just a record-keeping thing that has nothing to do with either the GOP or the Democratic Party. Asswipes who try this stuff forget that even on or just before election day, people die and sometimes, their votes must must be extracted, either from election day tabulations or from early voting.  Because of swelled rolls like this, many states have an active VR file and an inactive VR file. The active file never goes over 100% VR, of course.

PA is an outstanding state to look to in terms of VR organization. PA provides, on a weekly basis, as excel data, a complete listing of VR changes, from those who have just  registered to those who have left the system, to party switchers - and by exact stats from county to county. In terms of VR, PA runs a very tight ship.

ND, on the other hand, a RED state, has no VR at all. And there are no voter identification requirements at polling places in ND.


----------



## The Rabbi

JoeB131 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's Politifact whitewashing Obama taking 100% in districts in OH and PA.
> Emails, blog posts claim Mitt Romney got zero votes in some Greater Cleveland precincts | PolitiFact Ohio
> The truth is it is statistically impossible for Obama, or anyone, to receive 100% of the vote.  Mere error would suggest Romney would get one or two votes.
> There was ample evidence of voter fraud but since it was committed in black districts the Justice Dept won't investigate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or if you are black and live in Cleveland, there's no way you would vote for a member of a Racist Cult who says stuff like '47% of you are moochers" and "I like to fire people".
> 
> It's like finding out that none of the Chickens voted for Colonel Sanders.
Click to expand...


Actually if you are black in those places there is some chance you are barely literate and will make a mistake casting a ballot.
There is also a better chance you look at what Democrats have done to the black community and think "there must be a better way."
Either way it is statistically impossible for there to be no votes for Romney.


----------



## rightwinger

The Rabbi said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's Politifact whitewashing Obama taking 100% in districts in OH and PA.
> Emails, blog posts claim Mitt Romney got zero votes in some Greater Cleveland precincts | PolitiFact Ohio
> The truth is it is statistically impossible for Obama, or anyone, to receive 100% of the vote.  Mere error would suggest Romney would get one or two votes.
> There was ample evidence of voter fraud but since it was committed in black districts the Justice Dept won't investigate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or if you are black and live in Cleveland, there's no way you would vote for a member of a Racist Cult who says stuff like '47% of you are moochers" and "I like to fire people".
> 
> It's like finding out that none of the Chickens voted for Colonel Sanders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually if you are black in those places there is some chance you are barely literate and will make a mistake casting a ballot.
> There is also a better chance you look at what Democrats have done to the black community and think "there must be a better way."
> Either way *it is statistically impossible for there to be no votes for Romney*.
Click to expand...


No it isn't

Nationwide, only 7% of blacks voted for Romney. What makes you think there can't be areas where no blacks voted for Romney against a black president?


----------



## The Rabbi

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or if you are black and live in Cleveland, there's no way you would vote for a member of a Racist Cult who says stuff like '47% of you are moochers" and "I like to fire people".
> 
> It's like finding out that none of the Chickens voted for Colonel Sanders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if you are black in those places there is some chance you are barely literate and will make a mistake casting a ballot.
> There is also a better chance you look at what Democrats have done to the black community and think "there must be a better way."
> Either way *it is statistically impossible for there to be no votes for Romney*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isn't
> 
> Nationwide, only 7% of blacks voted for Romney. What makes you think there can't be areas where no blacks voted for Romney against a black president?
Click to expand...

It is statistically impossible.  Just random mistakes would account for one or two votes.


----------



## rightwinger

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if you are black in those places there is some chance you are barely literate and will make a mistake casting a ballot.
> There is also a better chance you look at what Democrats have done to the black community and think "there must be a better way."
> Either way *it is statistically impossible for there to be no votes for Romney*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't
> 
> Nationwide, only 7% of blacks voted for Romney. What makes you think there can't be areas where no blacks voted for Romney against a black president?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is statistically impossible.  Just random mistakes would account for one or two votes.
Click to expand...


No they wouldn't

For most residents in those black communities, a vote for Obama is the sole reason they are there. It is unlikely they would make a mistake


----------



## Vigilante

Shanty said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


But the Hildebeasty lying and unethical behavior in the Watergate investigation, her 100K Cattle insider information grab, her BOSNIA SNIPER lies, her being a co- conspirator in Benghazi, and her I'M FUCKING BROKER THAN THE AVERAGE AMERICAN bullshit, matters.... Oh, how about she owes what she is to the BIBLE?...That alone should frost you subversives scumbags!


----------



## Vigilante

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't
> 
> Nationwide, only 7% of blacks voted for Romney. What makes you think there can't be areas where no blacks voted for Romney against a black president?
> 
> 
> 
> It is statistically impossible. Just random mistakes would account for one or two votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they wouldn't
> 
> For most residents in those black communities, a vote for Obama is the sole reason they are there. It is unlikely they would make a mistake
Click to expand...


Asshole, even a low 2 digit IQ like yours realizes that many of those voting districts had rejected any Republican to oversee the election and FRAUD was rampant.... but the AG of the U.S. won't investigate that!


----------



## The Rabbi

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't
> 
> Nationwide, only 7% of blacks voted for Romney. What makes you think there can't be areas where no blacks voted for Romney against a black president?
> 
> 
> 
> It is statistically impossible.  Just random mistakes would account for one or two votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they wouldn't
> 
> For most residents in those black communities, a vote for Obama is the sole reason they are there. It is unlikely they would make a mistake
Click to expand...

Note the word "most" in your post.  You're already lying.
I also note the racism in thinking that black residents in a city all think the same way.
Tsk tsk.  Who are you to speak for all black people?


----------



## rightwinger

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is statistically impossible.  Just random mistakes would account for one or two votes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they wouldn't
> 
> For most residents in those black communities, a vote for Obama is the sole reason they are there. It is unlikely they would make a mistake
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Note the word "most" in your post.  You're already lying.
> I also note the racism in thinking that black residents in a city all think the same way.
> Tsk tsk.  Who are you to speak for all black people?
Click to expand...


Kind of looks like the votes in those districts show how they feel

Regardless, a candidate who only draws 7% of the vote in a population is going to see some areas where he draws zero percent

And yes, black people vote for Obama


----------



## Faun

S.J. said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Faun wasn't able to find any of these in all the links he clicked on, I guess I'll have to post them.
> 
> THE BIG LIST of vote fraud reports
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great, yet another link which doesn't show where Obama got 110% of the vote anywhere.
> 
> Just admit you're full of shit and move on. Actually, at this point, you don't have to admit it. It's pretty obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted examples of voter fraud, and apparently you missed this one.
> 
> Pundit Press: Good News: Obama Won County in Ohio with 108% Voter Registration
Click to expand...

Who knows why you're posting that link *again*? It failed you the first time you posted it. 

Let me remind you what you ignorantly claimed ... you said there were Democrat controlled districts where Obama received 110% of the vote. The link you now posted twice is about Wood county in Ohio, where as you've been shown, Obama received about half  of all those who voted and about 30% of all registered voters in that county. Let me explain it to ya since you obviously struggle with numbers .... that ain't 110%.


----------



## Faun

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if you are black in those places there is some chance you are barely literate and will make a mistake casting a ballot.
> There is also a better chance you look at what Democrats have done to the black community and think "there must be a better way."
> Either way *it is statistically impossible for there to be no votes for Romney*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't
> 
> Nationwide, only 7% of blacks voted for Romney. What makes you think there can't be areas where no blacks voted for Romney against a black president?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is statistically impossible.  Just random mistakes would account for one or two votes.
Click to expand...

Imbecile...

 Obama reportedly received 0 votes in some Utah precincts


----------



## The Rabbi

Faun said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't
> 
> Nationwide, only 7% of blacks voted for Romney. What makes you think there can't be areas where no blacks voted for Romney against a black president?
> 
> 
> 
> It is statistically impossible.  Just random mistakes would account for one or two votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imbecile...
> 
> Opinion: In Some Utah Precincts, Obama Received No Votes | NBC Chicago
Click to expand...


I am sure you are smart enough to understand why those aren't equivalent.
Oh, wait.


----------



## Faun

The Rabbi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is statistically impossible.  Just random mistakes would account for one or two votes.
> 
> 
> 
> Imbecile...
> 
> Opinion: In Some Utah Precincts, Obama Received No Votes | NBC Chicago
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure you are smart enough to understand why those aren't equivalent.
> Oh, wait.
Click to expand...

Sure, those would be folks voting for the Republican candidate, not the Democrat.


----------



## rightwinger

Faun said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't
> 
> Nationwide, only 7% of blacks voted for Romney. What makes you think there can't be areas where no blacks voted for Romney against a black president?
> 
> 
> 
> It is statistically impossible.  Just random mistakes would account for one or two votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imbecile...
> 
> Obama reportedly received 0 votes in some Utah precincts
Click to expand...


In a whole precinct not a single vote was cast for a sitting President?

Rabbi would be outraged.....statistical impossibility and all


----------



## The Rabbi

Faun said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imbecile...
> 
> Opinion: In Some Utah Precincts, Obama Received No Votes | NBC Chicago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you are smart enough to understand why those aren't equivalent.
> Oh, wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, those would be folks voting for the Republican candidate, not the Democrat.
Click to expand...


Yeah, all right I was right.  You are not smart enough to see the difference between a district with 20 votes and a district with thousands of votes.


----------



## Slyhunter

Faun said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great, yet another link which doesn't show where Obama got 110% of the vote anywhere.
> 
> Just admit you're full of shit and move on. Actually, at this point, you don't have to admit it. It's pretty obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> I posted examples of voter fraud, and apparently you missed this one.
> 
> Pundit Press: Good News: Obama Won County in Ohio with 108% Voter Registration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows why you're posting that link *again*? It failed you the first time you posted it.
> 
> Let me remind you what you ignorantly claimed ... you said there were Democrat controlled districts where Obama received 110% of the vote. The link you now posted twice is about Wood county in Ohio, where as you've been shown, Obama received about half  of all those who voted and about 30% of all registered voters in that county. Let me explain it to ya since you obviously struggle with numbers .... that ain't 110%.
Click to expand...


You don't find it puzzling that they had 108% turnout in that county?


----------



## rightwinger

Slyhunter said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted examples of voter fraud, and apparently you missed this one.
> 
> Pundit Press: Good News: Obama Won County in Ohio with 108% Voter Registration
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows why you're posting that link *again*? It failed you the first time you posted it.
> 
> Let me remind you what you ignorantly claimed ... you said there were Democrat controlled districts where Obama received 110% of the vote. The link you now posted twice is about Wood county in Ohio, where as you've been shown, Obama received about half  of all those who voted and about 30% of all registered voters in that county. Let me explain it to ya since you obviously struggle with numbers .... that ain't 110%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't find it puzzling that they had 108% turnout in that county?
Click to expand...


Look up what voter turnout is and then what voter registration is


----------



## Faun

The Rabbi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you are smart enough to understand why those aren't equivalent.
> Oh, wait.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, those would be folks voting for the Republican candidate, not the Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, all right I was right.  You are not smart enough to see the difference between a district with 20 votes and a district with thousands of votes.
Click to expand...

Hisses the forum jester who doesn't know the difference between a precinct and a district. 

First of all, there were other precincts in other states which also recorded 0 votes for Obama, but more to the point, if the precincts which recorded 0 votes for Romney were due to fraud, then certainly, you can produce thousands of disenfranchised Romney voters screaming they voted for Romney in any of the precincts where Romney got no votes.........


----------



## The Rabbi

Faun said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, those would be folks voting for the Republican candidate, not the Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, all right I was right.  You are not smart enough to see the difference between a district with 20 votes and a district with thousands of votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hisses the forum jester who doesn't know the difference between a precinct and a district.
> 
> First of all, there were other precincts in other states which also recorded 0 votes for Obama, but more to the point, if the precincts which recorded 0 votes for Romney were due to fraud, then certainly, you can produce thousands of disenfranchised Romney voters screaming they voted for Romney in any of the precincts where Romney got no votes.........
Click to expand...


1) Ignore the point.
2) Move the goalposts.

You are intellectually worthless.  The mental equivalent of spoiled potato salad.


----------



## Zander

Hillary is inevitable!! She's the next POTUS!! She can't be stopped. No one can beat her!! She'll win all 57 States!! 

Yet somehow, even though she is only running against herself, she is dropping in the polls.....

Nothing to worry about though, the science is settled!!


----------



## Slyhunter

rightwinger said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows why you're posting that link *again*? It failed you the first time you posted it.
> 
> Let me remind you what you ignorantly claimed ... you said there were Democrat controlled districts where Obama received 110% of the vote. The link you now posted twice is about Wood county in Ohio, where as you've been shown, Obama received about half  of all those who voted and about 30% of all registered voters in that county. Let me explain it to ya since you obviously struggle with numbers .... that ain't 110%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't find it puzzling that they had 108% turnout in that county?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look up what voter turnout is and then what voter registration is
Click to expand...

fine let me clear up my misspoken question.
You don't find it puzzling that they had 108% voter registration?
It's called fraud.


----------



## Faun

Slyhunter said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted examples of voter fraud, and apparently you missed this one.
> 
> Pundit Press: Good News: Obama Won County in Ohio with 108% Voter Registration
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows why you're posting that link *again*? It failed you the first time you posted it.
> 
> Let me remind you what you ignorantly claimed ... you said there were Democrat controlled districts where Obama received 110% of the vote. The link you now posted twice is about Wood county in Ohio, where as you've been shown, Obama received about half  of all those who voted and about 30% of all registered voters in that county. Let me explain it to ya since you obviously struggle with numbers .... that ain't 110%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't find it puzzling that they had 108% turnout in that county?
Click to expand...


They didn't have 108% turnout in y hat county. I posted this before but I don't mind posting it again ....

Ohio Election Results 2012 - Map, County Results, Live Updates - POLITICO.com

As you can see, less than 62,000 people came out to vote in Wood county out of about 106,000 registered voters. That's about 58% turnout, not 108%.

But this is meant to distract from SJ's bullshit claim that there were districts where Obama received 110% of the vote; while he is incapable of backing up that ludicrous claim, his attempts to distract from it are working on people like you, who are too lazy to do their own homework.


----------



## Faun

The Rabbi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, all right I was right.  You are not smart enough to see the difference between a district with 20 votes and a di4strict with thousands of votes.
> 
> 
> 
> Hisses the forum jester who doesn't know the difference between a precinct and a district.
> 
> First of all, there were other precincts in other states which also recorded 0 votes for Obama, but more to the point, if the precincts which recorded 0 votes for Romney were due to fraud, then certainly, you can produce thousands of disenfranchised Romney voters screaming they voted for Romney in any of the precincts where Romney got no votes.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) Ignore the point.
> 2) Move the goalposts.
> 
> You are intellectually worthless.  The mental equivalent of spoiled potato salad.
Click to expand...

Your delusions are noted. Funny how I didn't make onto the list of dumbest Liberals in that thread where rightards are venting about such. But then again, you are delusional, so .........


----------



## Slyhunter

Faun said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows why you're posting that link *again*? It failed you the first time you posted it.
> 
> Let me remind you what you ignorantly claimed ... you said there were Democrat controlled districts where Obama received 110% of the vote. The link you now posted twice is about Wood county in Ohio, where as you've been shown, Obama received about half  of all those who voted and about 30% of all registered voters in that county. Let me explain it to ya since you obviously struggle with numbers .... that ain't 110%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't find it puzzling that they had 108% turnout in that county?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't have 108% turnout in y hat county. I posted this before but I don't mind posting it again ....
> 
> Ohio Election Results 2012 - Map, County Results, Live Updates - POLITICO.com
> 
> As you can see, less than 62,000 people came out to vote in Wood county out of about 106,000 registered voters. That's about 58% turnout, not 108%.
> 
> But this is meant to distract from SJ's bullshit claim that there were districts where Obama received 110% of the vote; while he is incapable of backing up that ludicrous claim, his attempts to distract from it are working on people like you, who are too lazy to do their own homework.
Click to expand...

Fine 108% registration is definitely fraudulent.


----------



## rightwinger

Slyhunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't find it puzzling that they had 108% turnout in that county?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look up what voter turnout is and then what voter registration is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fine let me clear up my misspoken question.
> You don't find it puzzling that they had 108% voter registration?
> It's called fraud.
Click to expand...


No, it is called sloppy record keeping by the county registrar. People move out, people die, their name remains on the voter registration list

It does not become fraud until someone votes under those names


----------



## Faun

Slyhunter said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't find it puzzling that they had 108% turnout in that county?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't have 108% turnout in y hat county. I posted this before but I don't mind posting it again ....
> 
> Ohio Election Results 2012 - Map, County Results, Live Updates - POLITICO.com
> 
> As you can see, less than 62,000 people came out to vote in Wood county out of about 106,000 registered voters. That's about 58% turnout, not 108%.
> 
> But this is meant to distract from SJ's bullshit claim that there were districts where Obama received 110% of the vote; while he is incapable of backing up that ludicrous claim, his attempts to distract from it are working on people like you, who are too lazy to do their own homework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine 108% registration is definitely fraudulent.
Click to expand...


There isn't even 108% registration. The numbers are fluid as people move in and out of the area. Case in point, the number of registered voters seems to have been updated in September, 2012 (according to the link given), but who knows when the number of people of 18 years and older was produced. Hell, that could have come from the 2010 census, for all you know. Also, I read somewhere that Wood Country is where Brown University is located. Could be the census was taken while school was in session but the county counted the number of registered voters while school was out during the summer in 2012.

At any rate, you can't say it was "definitely fraudulent" with any amount of certainty and more to the point, only about 58% of the registered voters came out to vote, so there is no indication of fraud there.


----------



## S.J.

Liberals who defend and try to explain away voter fraud remind me of the Democrats claiming Lois Lerner's emails were lost because her hard drive crashed, when everyone knows that's bullshit.


----------



## Faun

S.J. said:


> Liberals who defend and try to explain away voter fraud remind me of the Democrats claiming Lois Lerner's emails were lost because her hard drive crashed, when everyone knows that's bullshit.



Spits the liar who falsely claimed that Obama won at least one district with 110% of the vote -- then posts a link (twice) to an article which didn't show that.


----------



## daws101

S.J. said:


> Liberals who defend and try to explain away voter fraud remind me of the Democrats claiming Lois Lerner's emails were lost because her hard drive crashed, when everyone knows that's bullshit.


funny how everyone knows and common knowledge...are always absolutely wrong, always...


----------



## The Rabbi

daws101 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals who defend and try to explain away voter fraud remind me of the Democrats claiming Lois Lerner's emails were lost because her hard drive crashed, when everyone knows that's bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> funny how everyone knows and common knowledge...are always absolutely wrong, always...
Click to expand...


Actually he was spot on.  It is impossible that Lois Lerner's emails disappeared because her hard drive crashed.


----------



## JoeB131

The Rabbi said:


> [
> 
> Actually if you are black in those places there is some chance you are barely literate and will make a mistake casting a ballot.
> There is also a better chance you look at what Democrats have done to the black community and think "there must be a better way."
> Either way it is statistically impossible for there to be no votes for Romney.



75% of Republicans didn't want to vote for Romney, and the Establishment foisted him on you anyway.  

Sorry, guy a precinct where Romney got no votes is completely plausible.


----------



## Zander

2 words folks....

*"Hillary Fatigue"*


She's dropping like a stone in the polls......keep that Cuckquean talkin'!


----------



## Vigilante




----------

