# Current 2016 Presidential Polling in Florida



## Statistikhengst (Jul 24, 2014)

This is somewhat a continuation of this thread from six months ago, but there is so much new data, it's just better to start fresh.

Of the nine largest states in the nation (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia and Michigan), which currently account for 50.26% of our total population, there can be no doubt that the closest and most fought-out electoral battleground state is Florida.

Since 2013, now into the month of July, 2014, there have been 13 polls taken of Florida vis-a-vis the 2016 election, pitting *Hillary Clinton (D)* against a field of potential GOP candidates. Within those 13 polls, there have now been 46 individual one-on-one matchups, and Hillary has decisively won all 46 of those matchups.

Two days ago, on July 22, 2014, SUSA released a large poll from Florida.
Today, Quinnipiac released a large poll from Florida.

The results are mostly very similar to each other, and in one case, they are absolutely identical to each other.

The Quinnipiac poll can be compared to a complete poll from May 1, 2014.
The SUSA poll can be compared to two smaller SUSA polls, from July 7th and from June 10th, 2014, but only concerning two candidates.

So, I am going to present the latest of polls in two ways.

First, Quinnipiac alongside SUSA:

Quinnipiac, July 24, 2014:

Florida (FL) Poll - July 24, 2014 - Obama In Slump, But Clinton Sc | Quinnipiac University Connecticut

Survey group: 1,251 RV. MoE= +/-2.8


SUSA, July 22, 2014:

SurveyUSA Election Poll #21475

Survey group: 836 RV. MoE= +/-3.5

Qpiac: *Hillary Clinton (D) 49* / Jeb Bush 42
SUSA: *Hillary Clinton (D) 47* / Jeb Bush 41

Margin: Qpiac - *Clinton +7*  / SUSA *Clinton +6*
Margin disparity: Qpiac Clinton +1



Qpiac: *Hillary Clinton (D) 51* / Paul Ryan 38
SUSA: no Clinton /Ryan matchup taken

Margin: Qpiac - *Clinton +13*  / *SUSA N/A*




Qpiac: *Hillary Clinton (D) 53* / Mario Rubio 39
SUSA: *Hillary Clinton (D) 53* / Mario Rubio 39

Margin: Qpiac - *Clinton +14*  / SUSA *Clinton +14*
Margin disparity: NULL (identical margins)



Qpiac: *Hillary Clinton (D) 53* / Rand Paul 37
SUSA: *Hillary Clinton (D) 46* / Rand Paul 42

Margin: Qpiac - *Clinton +16*  / SUSA *Clinton +4*
Margin disparity: Qpiac Clinton +12



Qpiac: *Hillary Clinton (D) 54* / Chris Christie 33
SUSA: *Hillary Clinton (D) 49* / Chris Christie 38

Margin: Qpiac - *Clinton +21*  / SUSA *Clinton +11*
Margin disparity: Qpiac Clinton +10



So, just comparing the two polls from independent-from-each-other pollsters, there are some similarities:

-in both polls, Jeb Bush comes the closest to Hillary Clinton and he is the only GOP candidate to come within single-digits, albeit high single-digits, of her.

-in both polls, Chris Christie fares the worse and after checking, 2014 is the first time in 26 years (the 1988 Bush vs. Dukakis election) that I have seen a Florida poll showing a candidate at +20 or more over another candidate. It's now happened twice in Florida, and twice for Hillary. Hillary Clinton's margin over Chris Christie in the Qpiac poll is an astounding *+21*, really quite unheard of in this state.

-the Hillary Clinton / Mario Rubio toplines and margins are absolutely identical to each other: 53/39, Clinton +14.

-in 4 of 5 Qpiac matchups, Hillary is over the 50% mark.
-in 2 of 4 SUSA matchups, Hillary is over the 50% mark.

Florida is usually a state where both candidates stay in the low to mid fourties until primary season, and then, usually one of the two gets closer to the 50 mark.


There are also disparities:

-again, vis-a-vis Chris Christie, Clinton is at +21 in the Qpiac poll, but at +11 (still a landslide margin) in the SUSA poll. That is a very, very large disparity, actually, too large. The average of those two polls would be Clinton +16, which, btw, was exactly the Clinton/Christie margin of the Qpiac poll from January 2014.

-against Rand Paul, Qpiac shows Clinton +16 (a very large landslide margin) but the SUSA poll shows Clinton +4 (almost within the MoE). This is an even larger disparity, and really should not be. The average would be: Clinton +10.


Let's dig deeper into the internals, into the *female vote*:

Qpiac: Clinton 56 / Bush 36, *Clinton +20*
Qpiac: Clinton 58 / Rubio 33, *Clinton +25*
Qpiac: Clinton 58 /Ryan 32, *Clinton +26*
Qpiac: Clinton 61 / Paul 29, *Clinton +32*
Qpiac: Clinton 61 / Paul 28, *Clinton +33*


So, according to Qpiac, Hillary Clinton is beating the GOP in the female vote by a minimum of *+20* and a maxium of *+33*.

Historical context:

In 2008, nationally, then-candidate Obama (D) won the female vote by *+13*, *56*/43:

National Exit Polls - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com


In Florida, Obama won the female vote by only *+5*, *52*/47:

Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

However, female voters were 53% of the Florida electorate in 2008.

Obama won the state in 2008 by *+2.81%*.

*Fast forward to 2012.* In 2012, President Obama won re-election nationally and took the female vote by *+11*, *55*/44:

Presidential Race - 2012 Election Center - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

(So, he lost 2% on margin in the female voter over 2008).

In Florida, Obama actually improved on his statistic in the female vote, winning it by *+7*, *53*/46

female voters were *55%* of the Florida electorate in 2008.

(So, while Obama lost 2% on margin in the female vote nationally, he gained 2% on the female vote in Florida).

Obama won the state in 2012 by *+0.88%*.

_Sidenote: the fact that the female vote spiked in 2012 over 2008 and that Obama improved his margin among women voters but his statewide margin shrank by 2 points over 2008 can only mean that he, while having improved upon the female vote in Florida, took a major hit in the male vote at the same time._


*The point I am making here should be crystal-clear:* if a Democrat can win the state of Florida in a close presidential election with only between *+5* and *+7* in the female vote (well under the national margin in the female vote), then it is easy to see why the race for a Democrat would win a large landslide-margin in any state if she is winning by *+20 *or more in the female vote.  It's really simple math.

This is the major warning sign for the GOP going into 2016.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Back to the Qpiac poll. Let's compare it to the one before it.

BOTH QPIACS:

Quinnipiac, July 24, 2014:

Florida (FL) Poll - July 24, 2014 - Obama In Slump, But Clinton Sc | Quinnipiac University Connecticut

Survey group: 1,251 RV. MoE= +/-2.8

-and-

Quinnipiac, May 1, 2014:

Florida (FL) Poll - May 1, 2014 - Jeb Bush Is Top Dog In Florida | Quinnipiac University Connecticut

Survey group: 1,413 RV. MoE= +/-2.6

In terms of poll group size and MoE, the two polls are evenly matched with each other.

(The older Qpiac values are in parentheses)

*Hillary Clinton (D) 49 (49)* / Jeb Bush 42 _(41)_
Margin: Clinton +7 _(+8)_
Margin difference: latest Qpiac *Bush, J +1*



*Hillary Clinton (D) 51 (56)* / Paul Ryan 38 _(36)_
Margin: Clinton +13 _(+20)_
Margin difference: latest Qpiac *Ryan +7*


*Hillary Clinton (D) 53 (52)* / Mario Rubio 39 _(40)_
Margin: Clinton +14 _(+12)_
Margin difference: latest Qpiac *Clinton +2*


*Hillary Clinton (D) 53 (55)* / Rand Paul 37 _(37)_
Margin: Clinton +16 _(+18)_
Margin difference: latest Qpiac *Paul +2*


*Hillary Clinton (D) 54 (52)* / Chris Christie 33 _(34)_
Margin: Clinton +21 _(+18)_
Margin difference: latest Qpiac *Clinton +3*


Now, here is where comparing gets fun, for actually, compared to May, 2014, Bush, Ryan and Paul have actually improved their statistic somewhat, but losing by a landslide is still losing by a landslide is still losing by a landslide. Meanwhile, Clinton improved her statistic over Christie and Rubio, but a shift of +2 or +3 means that only 1 to 1.5 percent of the polling group has shifted sides, which could just as likely be some statistical noise - so, both Clinton shifts, plus the Paul and Bush shift essentially mean very little. But the Ryan shift is noticeable - he closed the margin between himself and Clinton by 7 points, and that is worthy of attention.

Now, these are just two polls, and more are to come, but they essentially continue exactly what we have seen in the 11 polls before these two: that Hillary Clinton is handily winning in one of the 5 absolute key battlegrounds in the Union, and a state that is absolutely essential for a GOP win nationally. Face it: without Florida in it's column, the GOP will not win.


Here is the electoral bio I did of Florida at the end of 2011, going into the 2012 election (it will be updated at the end of 2015, looking into 2016):

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: Rank 27 / 25: Florida

There is a lot of data there that might really interest people, but bring a cup of coffee with you, there is a lot of data to sift through.

How did the pollsters do in Florida in 2012?

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: The moment of truth: how did the pollsters do?

And very specifically, in terms of Florida:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...0U3aFBuT09zQ2xXQ29fTjlJRlE&usp=sharing#gid=18

There were 113 polls of Florida in 2012, the end polling average pointed to *Romney +0.61* in the final week average of polls. Obama won by *+0.88*, so the difference is *1.49* points, well within any MoE.

The pollsters who nailed it in Florida in the last week, with Obama +1:

PPP (D), Grove (D), Quinnipiac 

The two pollsters that were the most off:

Insider Advantage: Romney +5 / Mason-Dixon Romney +6. It is interesting to note that these pollsters  hide their results behind a paywall and do not release any internals. 


I am pointing this out because some people could say "bah, just a couple of polls showing Hillary ahead in Florida, big deal", and were it just one poll, I would agree. And indeed, in Florida, there was one pollster in 2012 who was so ridiculously off (Foster-McCollum), I doubt we will hear much from them again.

However, in counting the 46 matchups to date in Florida, in 22 of them, Hillary won with a double-digit margin, way outside of the MoE.

For further information, here the complete presidential electoral (statewide) data from Florida, in one excel chart:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=12&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*FACIT:* We have a long way to go until election day, but the polling data coming out of Florida (and Ohio, for that matter) should be of great concern for the GOP. Right now, it's Hillary's race to lose in Florida, and if these numbers hold, then the state would not even really be a battleground in 2016.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 24, 2014)

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=46750]Knightfall[/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=34688]Grandma[/MENTION] [MENTION=48060]guno[/MENTION] [MENTION=42946]Howey[/MENTION] [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION] [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] [MENTION=48010]Machaut[/MENTION] [MENTION=39530]AceRothstein[/MENTION] [MENTION=25493]kiwiman127[/MENTION] [MENTION=42949]bendog[/MENTION] [MENTION=49463]PoliticalTorch[/MENTION] [MENTION=39852]TheOldSchool[/MENTION] [MENTION=45739]Jughead[/MENTION] [MENTION=36528]cereal_killer[/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 onto the list, just let me know. I really am trying to make this a totally non-partisan list.

Thanks, 

-Stat

Folks, please do not quote this posting, otherwise, you send out the mention list again. Thanks.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 24, 2014)

Disclaimer for [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION]:


_"Hillary Clinton is not going to be the Democratic Nominee in 2016"_


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jul 24, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Disclaimer for [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION]:
> 
> 
> _"Hillary Clinton is not going to be the Democratic Nominee in 2016"_




  Are you sure?!?



I hope you're right.  But I'm concerned


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 24, 2014)

I think the fact she leads Jeb and Marco Rubio is very telling.  Floridians know who these guys are and apparently don't want to give them a promotion.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 24, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> I think the fact she leads Jeb and Marco Rubio is very telling.  Floridians know who these guys are and apparently don't want to give them a promotion.



Jeb Bush comes the closest, at -6 or -7.

But Rubio is way underwater.

And Christie has sunk to a point where I can imagine his advisors mulling whether he should run at all.

The names missing from these polls that I personally would have like to have seen in the mix as well:

Mike Huckabee
Rick Perry
Ben Carson
Rick Santorum


But polling is expensive and most polls poll a maximum of 6 candidate matchups.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 24, 2014)

AVG-JOE said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Disclaimer for [MENTION=19448]CrusaderFrank[/MENTION]:
> ...




The numbers are what they are.

And Hillary is making all the moves that a "non-candidate" makes when he/she is definitely planning to run.


----------



## Gracie (Jul 24, 2014)

Has she even said she plans to run?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 24, 2014)

Gracie said:


> Has she even said she plans to run?



Not yet.

But all the indicators that she is indeed going to run are there to see.

Which reminds me to remind that never before in history has an undeclared "candidate" been polled as frequently as Hillary Clinton.


----------



## Sallow (Jul 24, 2014)

The current field of republicans are dismal.

If they want the Tea party monkey off their backs, they'd let Rand Paul run.

That would be the second Goldwater moment.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 24, 2014)

so One state make's it a shoo in? 

when are elections, a year and half away

good grief

I do find it funny you all passed over Hillary and made her a LOSER to put in the MAN community agitator nobody ever heard of, now you want Hillary...
so much for loyalty eh?


----------



## Toro (Jul 24, 2014)

If Jeb runs, the political establishment will rally behind him, and he will win the state.

I can't say the same thing about Rubio.


----------



## Howey (Jul 24, 2014)

Toro said:


> If Jeb runs, the political establishment will rally behind him, and he will win the state.
> 
> I can't say the same thing about Rubio.



Jeb destroyed this state.


----------



## Howey (Jul 24, 2014)

...and thanks to his pro immigration stance will never get the Republican nod.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 24, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > I think the fact she leads Jeb and Marco Rubio is very telling.  Floridians know who these guys are and apparently don't want to give them a promotion.
> ...



I think Christies moment has probably passed. 

Carson is just the token black guy Republicans put up there to say , "We're not racist!" and Carson isn't as batshit crazy as Herman Cain or Alan Keyes, but he's not a contender. 

Santorum's only value was as a "not Romney" for evangelicals who just could not bring themselves to support a Mormon. He has no future. ..

Huckabee has too many dead bodies attached to people he let out of prison because they said "Jesus" sincerely enough. I don't think he survives that. 

That leaves Rick Perry. Rick might be viable if he can keep his profile high and if he can get to 2016 without saying something really stupid. The problem is he now has "Quayle's Disease".  No matter how many smart things you say, they just want you to say something stupid.  

(not to be confused with Palin's Disease,where you just say stupid shit and no one cares.)


----------



## william the wie (Jul 24, 2014)

The China crash is catching up with us according to new home sales. The McKinsey prediction that US productivity will price China out of many markets seems to be understated. But so far with the exception of NYS the Blues are getting stuck with the bills and the Reds with the revenues of these changes. Even with the unprepossessing GOP candidates the Fed taper looks like it will save them.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jul 24, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



That's a pretty big 'if'.
Jus' sayin'...​


----------



## Nyvin (Jul 24, 2014)

william the wie said:


> The China crash is catching up with us according to new home sales. The McKinsey prediction that US productivity will price China out of many markets seems to be understated. But so far with the exception of NYS the Blues are getting stuck with the bills and the Reds with the revenues of these changes. Even with the unprepossessing GOP candidates the Fed taper looks like it will save them.



What???


----------



## Toro (Jul 25, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > I think the fact she leads Jeb and Marco Rubio is very telling.  Floridians know who these guys are and apparently don't want to give them a promotion.
> ...



To win the nomination, you need money and infrastructure.  Everything else is just smoke.

These are the four Republicans who are currently raising money and building an infrastructure;

Jeb Bush
Chris Christie
Rand Paul
Scott Walker

The nominee will be one of those four until someone else also gets serious about running a campaign.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 25, 2014)

Toro said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




True, but it's entirely possible for another candidate or two to start building infrastructure as well, like Ted Cruz and most definitely Mike Huckabee.

Interestingly enough, there has been very little polling Clinton vs. Walker, but in every matchup that has happened, for instance, in Wisconsin, a couple of times nationally, also a number of times in Iowa, she has beat him handily.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 25, 2014)

william the wie said:


> The China crash is catching up with us according to new home sales. The McKinsey prediction that US productivity will price China out of many markets seems to be understated. But so far with the exception of NYS the Blues are getting stuck with the bills and the Reds with the revenues of these changes. Even with the unprepossessing GOP candidates the Fed taper looks like it will save them.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 25, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> so One state make's it a shoo in?
> 
> when are elections, a year and half away
> 
> ...




Gee, Stephanie, how little you know of your own party's electoral history. I cannot blame you for your ignorance of easy-to-learn facts, but I CAN laugh about it.

In 1976, your great icon Ronald Reagan LOST the nomination battle against Gerald Ford. What a shame that Reagan didn't go on to win the presidency at a later time.

Oh, wait. He did.

Learn from this moment, Stephanie, learn from it.

And btw, ever heard of the phrase "a rising tide lifts all boats"?

And I notice that, once again, as for the actual data in the OP, you have nothing to say at all.... over your head, what?? There, there...

Hillary is up on the GOP crowd by double digits in Ohio, Virginia and Florida - the three most critical battleground states of all. IF these numbers hold, then that means that these states would not even really be battlegrounds in 2016.

So, yes, from one state, especially a critical state like Florida, we can surmize a great deal about 2016.

And of course, there's the fact that she is only slightly behind in LA and MS and somewhat ahead in AR, thus putting three more rock solid southern states into play.

FACIT: when Hillary gets nominated, the GOP electoral column will collapse in many places.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 25, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > so One state make's it a shoo in?
> ...



I am more cautious because a lot can happen between now and 2016 and politics are capricious at best.

That said these statistics are painting a picture that shows a turning tide in my opinion. Perhaps most telling were the numbers coming out of Mississippi. That is not a swing state but it shows the same trend as we are seeing in the swing states.

Put those all in aggregate together with the demographic shift and the GOP does need to come up with a plan B for 2016 in my opinion.

Of all the GOP candidates only Rand Paul sounds credible enough to win the general but that same moderate credibility will be a liability for him in the primaries where Ted Cruz will be tearing him a new hanging chad or two in the debates for those moderate positions.

2016 will not be like the elections of yore. There will be a fight on the right for the heart and soul of the party in the primaries followed by what I believe will be the roughest election in living memory if the TP candidate gets the nomination.


----------



## Toro (Jul 25, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



That's true, but they have to start soon if they want to be serious contenders. Most of the names listed above in this thread aren't serious contenders. 

It's too early to read too much into polls. Hillary was leading Obama by 20-30 points at this time 8 years ago.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 25, 2014)

Toro said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Notice my very last paragraph and notice the word "if". That clears is up right there.

It's too early to prognosticate, but it's never too early to build a baseline.

 to baselines!


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 25, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...




Quite possibly.


----------



## Interpol (Jul 25, 2014)

I think Hillary Clinton probably has a better shot than any other candidate running for either party at winning Florida. I think there's a lot of affection for the Clinton days among a lot of those older, moderate white voters. 

A good deal of people who lost their jobs the last few years were working class Republicans and Democrats who were middle aged and who tend to be moderate, swing voters. The Clinton brand brought them prosperity in the 90's when they were working and doing well and starting to save for the first time. 

Hillary just benefits from a brand that mainstream America associates with prosperity and easier times. The 90's were great for a lot of us. There were international conflicts as there always are, but but nothing like the paranoia and tense times ever since 9/11. 

Ohio is really the state that I think is going to be the close one. Republicans will try to make her out to be the Romney candidate in '16, which is to say, they'll run on the idea that she's rich and famous now and out of touch with regular people. Just look at bananas they all went when she made that offhand remark about being practically dirt broke after leaving the White House. 

If she wins the presidency, it will be because she uses that Republican talking point to her advantage. Romney was the rich guy with an economic plan that said government should be more encouraging to other rich people instead of people at the bottom. Hillary gets to play the rich person who is actually asking us to raise her taxes very modestly in order to nip the rest of our deficit in the butt.


----------



## birddog (Jul 25, 2014)

If Hillary had 4-5 other viable candidates competing for the D nomination, the aforementioned polls would mean more.  However, as it  is, she gets most of the recognition  and appears fiercer than she is.

When the Rs elect a strong candidate, the polls, one on one, likely will even out or swing the other way.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 25, 2014)

birddog said:


> If Hillary had 4-5 other viable candidates competing for the D nomination, the aforementioned polls would mean more.  However, as it  is, she gets most of the recognition  and appears fiercer than she is.
> 
> When the Rs elect a strong candidate, the polls, one on one, likely will even out or swing the other way.



1) The Rs don't have a strong candidate. 

2) Even if they did, they can't overcome the demographics that got Obama elected twice. 

I have no love for Romney or McCain, but i don't see anyone on the GOP wish list who is stronger.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 25, 2014)

Hillary "Not Getting the Nomination" Clinton ahead by <>%!!!!


----------



## Nyvin (Jul 25, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hillary "Not Getting the Nomination" Clinton ahead by <>%!!!!



What makes you always suggests this?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 25, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Hillary "Not Getting the Nomination" Clinton ahead by <>%!!!!
> ...



What on Earth makes you think she's getting the nomination?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 25, 2014)

Better chance for a Led Zeppelin reunion than for Hillary getting the nomination


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 25, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Better chance for a Led Zeppelin reunion than for Hillary getting the nomination


----------



## Zander (Jul 25, 2014)

I don't think these polls have any value for anyone except stat geeks......

Lets look at these same polls in 24 months.


----------



## Votto (Jul 25, 2014)

What does it matter?


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 25, 2014)

Running SCARED???? ROTFLMFAO

*Hillary Team Calls for Media Blackout of Anti-Clinton Books*

Breitbart ^


 Soon there will be three anti-Clinton books on the market, which is apparently enough to have gotten under the skin of Team Hillary. The First Family Detail by Ronald Kessler, set for release next month, will join Clinton, Inc. by the Weekly Standard&#8217;s Daniel Halper and Blood Feud by Ed Klein on bookshelves. Yesterday we reported that Clinton, Inc. has shot up the charts and now both Halper and Klein&#8217;s books are outselling Hillary Clinton&#8217;s recent memoir Hard Choices. &#8220;With Klein, Halper and Kessler, we now have a Hat Trick of despicable actors concocting trashy nonsense,&#8221; Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill...


----------



## Votto (Jul 25, 2014)

Zander said:


> I don't think these polls have any value for anyone except stat geeks......
> 
> Lets look at these same polls in 24 months.



Instead of looking at polls of future elections to try and determine where the American people are, how about looking at the last two decades of elections that saw both "W" and Obama win two terms.

Americans are brain dead half wits.


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 25, 2014)

Hey Rep Frog Boy....send her some WHITENING STRIPS for those horrible colored teeth....You'd think with her money, she could buy a COMPLETE MAKEOVER, and not look like a prune!


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 25, 2014)

Zander said:


> I don't think these polls have any value for anyone except stat geeks......
> 
> Lets look at these same polls in 24 months.




Actually, you just supported my argument, for I have been saying all along, on every single one of these threads, that by doing this, I am building a data baseline.

So, yes, let's look at these polls in 24 months. You are exactly right.

I will remind: 16 months ago, the same kind of numbers were coming out of Florida.
12 months ago, the same kind of numbers were coming out of Florida.
6 months ago, the same kind of numbers were coming out of Florida.

See a pattern here?

This is why data-people establish baselines to begin with.

So, thanks for your help!


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 25, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Hey Rep Frog Boy....send her some WHITENING STRIPS for those horrible colored teeth....You'd think with her money, she could buy a COMPLETE MAKEOVER, and not look like a prune!





This thread is about electoral data, not about someone's teeth.

Grow up and post like an adult.


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 25, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Rep Frog Boy....send her some WHITENING STRIPS for those horrible colored teeth....You'd think with her money, she could buy a COMPLETE MAKEOVER, and not look like a prune!
> ...



Yes, Nixon thought the TV debate was all about important shit, until the poll after the show told him, his NO MAKEUP FUCK UP probably cost him the election....Most that heard the debate on the radio said Nixon put JFK away! ... You're right, DON'T tell her she looks like the wicked witch...NO PROBLEMO!


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 25, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...




How old are you? 12?


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 25, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



If you didn't post that picture of the Hildebeasty, I wouldn't have noticed how the comparison with Nixon's polls went..... Apparently, I spoiled your circle jerk over a poll that means nothing to the event over 2 years away... Go back to the Rep Stack thread where you won't look like a spoiled brat!


----------



## Zander (Jul 25, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think these polls have any value for anyone except stat geeks......
> ...



Well, you are a stat geek! Of course this is exciting stuff to you.  I am glad you're excited about your work and I applaud your effort to be non-partisan.  Build your baselines and we'll see what happens.


----------



## Shanty (Jul 26, 2014)

Sallow said:


> The current field of republicans are dismal.
> 
> If they want the Tea party monkey off their backs, they'd let Rand Paul run.
> 
> That would be the second Goldwater moment.


Goldwater was the one who somewhat kickstarted the run to the right and insanity.


----------



## Shanty (Jul 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Apparently, Ben Carson has that disease, like Palin. Maybe just not quite as covered as she is.


----------



## Shanty (Jul 26, 2014)

william the wie said:


> The China crash is catching up with us according to new home sales. The McKinsey prediction that US productivity will price China out of many markets seems to be understated. But so far with the exception of NYS the Blues are getting stuck with the bills and the Reds with the revenues of these changes. Even with the unprepossessing GOP candidates the Fed taper looks like it will save them.



Word salad mixed with the dressing of irrelevant economics is awesome.


----------



## Meathead (Jul 26, 2014)

I think America would be proud that a woman so broke a few years ago worked her way out of abject poverty to become president! Just wait till the news comes out about her being born in a log cabin. That might even top Obama's straw hut.


----------



## Shanty (Jul 26, 2014)

Toro said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



They sgtill have some hangers on thinking Mitt might be the answer this time. 

LOL!


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 26, 2014)

Zander said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...





Aye, aye, sir!!


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 26, 2014)

Shanty said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



Hey, it could be possible!!!


----------



## Shanty (Jul 26, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> I am more cautious because a lot can happen between now and 2016 and politics are capricious at best.
> 
> That said these statistics are painting a picture that shows a turning tide in my opinion. Perhaps most telling were the numbers coming out of Mississippi. That is not a swing state but it shows the same trend as we are seeing in the swing states.
> 
> ...



Is it the fight on the right that does them in for a generation? Or the demographics change? Or will it be a combination of both? I'm leaning towards the guess of both. 

Look... their economics on the whole of the right is an abject failure, and is being pulled into different directions of failure between the Austrian School weenies, Neoclassical dummies and (funniest of all) the Ayn Rand acolytes. Their hatred towards people of color and immigrants is repulsive to people of color and immigrants. And their base is dying off from old age.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 26, 2014)

Shanty said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > I am more cautious because a lot can happen between now and 2016 and politics are capricious at best.
> ...



The fight on the right has been brewing for about 3 decades now. It began when the religious right came up with the "Moral Majority" and that morphed into the "Term Limiters" who turned into the "Crotch Watchers". They assumed that they had "won" when they put "their man in the WH" only that turned out to be nothing but pandering window dressing. They changed their name to "Main Street America" for W's 2nd term and were falling apart in 2007. But Ron Paul managed to coalesce the libertarians into the original Tea Party and Sarah Palin energized the "Birthers".

Then we had the 2008 economic collapse and the hijacking of the Tea Party to generate support for the anti-ACA crusade. The 2010 elections were a huge boost to the extreme right because there was considerable justifiable anger over the state of the job market. This was exploited and finally resulted in a sizable number of extremist candidates winning seats in both the House and the Senate. 

2012 turned out to be a setback because the gains that the extreme right expected to make never materialized. Quite the opposite and that is why we are now approaching the semi finals for the fight on the right. 2014 is the last real chance for what is now the Tea Party to prove that it can win elections for the GOP. If they take a majority in the Senate then they will be able to dictate who will be the candidate in 2016. But if they fail then the establishment GOP will try to retake control and run a moderate candidate instead. 

The fight on the right will occur when the establishment tries to reassert control over the Republican Party. The establishment knows that there is a demographic shift and that an "all-white" electorate is no longer a viable power base. The need to appeal to a broader base means embracing the things that have meaning for those parts of the electorate. 

So we are at the turning point heading into November. It will be the gauge for the relative strength of each side. This election will hinge on the Senate races and while it is true that the Dems will probably lose seats the question that needs to be answered is how many?

In 2012 it was the extreme right that cost the GOP Senate seats that they could have won with establishment candidates. 2014 is shaping up to be a similar showdown. If the Dems hold 50 seats after the election the Tea Party will probably take the blame in my opinion. If the Dems are reduced to 49 or less the Tea Party will claim a victory and demand that they get to pick the 2016 candidate.

Going to be an interesting election to watch in my opinion.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 26, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Shanty said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Interesting analysis and lots of food for thought.

Also interesting to note that had it not been the Tea Party and anger over the job market and the ACA, it would have been something else, for historically, the opposition party has massive massive inroads in virtually every single mid-term election since the inclusion of the GOP on the national ballot, in 1854. This has been especially applicable to a 2nd term president, the notable exception over the last more than 100 years being Bill Clinton and the 1998 mid-terms.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jul 26, 2014)

Votto said:


> View attachment 30872
> 
> What does it matter?



If taken in context, she was absolutely correct. 

RWs know that so, as usual, they will only quote it out of context.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jul 26, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Running SCARED???? ROTFLMFAO
> 
> *Hillary Team Calls for Media Blackout of Anti-Clinton Books*
> 
> ...




Are you really saying they're attempting to keep these books from the public? 

How would they accomplish this?

You and britebart are delusional.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jul 26, 2014)

Meathead said:


> I think America would be proud that a woman so broke a few years ago worked her way out of abject poverty to become president! Just wait till the news comes out about her being born in a log cabin. That might even top Obama's straw hut.



Actually, like the Obamas, the Clintons  came from very modest circumstances and worked their way up to where they are now. 

Both presidents vastly improved the lot of the average American during their time in office. Both followed a disastrous Republican president who left the country in a shambles. 

Hopefully, that is what people will remember when they're considering a vote for Hilary.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jul 26, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > I think the fact she leads Jeb and Marco Rubio is very telling.  Floridians know who these guys are and apparently don't want to give them a promotion.
> ...



Just like the last general election, the GOP has no one who can win.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 26, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Shanty said:
> ...



The "wild card" in this election is the lawsuit against Obama. If it is filed then both sides are going to exploit it to the maximum they can. That much is readily apparent just on the "news" that it was going to happen. The GOP establishment is using the lawsuit as a means of containing the extreme right in the run up to the 2014 election. Palin is calling it out as BS and demanding impeachment instead. That alone is a sparring bout for the fight on the right. 

From the Dem's point of view the lawsuit is both a reason for Obama to get out on the road and stump up support and a way to remind voters of 1998. From their side it is a "win-win" because if it moves forward they have something to campaign on and if it excites talk of impeachment then the "crazy talk" ends up in the media. Let's not forget that it was the "crazy talk" by GOP Senate candidates that cost them so dearly in 2012.

So I am keeping an eye on that factor because I can see it being used as a tool to generate base voter turnout for both sides.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 26, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Rand Paul is positioning himself as the tea Party moderate who could appeal to the establishment. He is going to be hammered for that in the primaries so I am giving about a 50-50 chance of becoming the GOP candidate for 2016.


----------



## birddog (Jul 26, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Not true!  There are several good candidates such as Bush, Huckabee, Paul, or Perry who will not let Hillary get away with her lies like Romney did for Barry!  If Hillary gets nominated, which I doubt, a strong R candidate will beat her pants off!  Hopefully not literally as that would be a ghastly sight!


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jul 26, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



I suspect you're right but can he win?

Not much in the way of qualifications and a lot of baggage.  Teebaggers have getting voted out and hopefully that will continue. And, just came across this -

Ted Cruz Is Beating Rand Paul in the Tea Party Primary - Molly Ball - The Atlantic



> MANCHESTER, N.H.Rand Paul has been methodically planning his run for president. Now Ted Cruz could come along and spoil the whole thing.
> 
> Both senators have a path to the Republican nomination that rests on the support of the Tea Party. And when forced to choose, that segment appears to prefer Cruz, whose speech to an activists' gathering here over the weekend was the more enthusiastically received of the two.
> 
> ...



Or, put another way, never underestimate the stupidity of a very vocal minority who love the prospect of a fascist president owned and operated by the Koch's.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jul 26, 2014)

Then there's this  -

A New Wave of Wacko Evangelicals Swept GOP Primaries?and Could Win Several Seats in Washington | Alternet



> July 25, 2014  |
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Meathead (Jul 26, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > I think America would be proud that a woman so broke a few years ago worked her way out of abject poverty to become president! Just wait till the news comes out about her being born in a log cabin. That might even top Obama's straw hut.
> ...


Clinton was very bright and talented and a good president although seriously flawed.

Obama presidency has been testimony to mediocrity and affirmative action. For all the gushing of his liberal base, there is no way that can be spun otherwise.


----------



## Nyvin (Jul 26, 2014)

Meathead said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Meathead said:
> ...



I would say Obama is inexperienced and probably could be more proactive on some things.  

But on the other hand, he was given probably the worst time to be president in the last ~60 years,  and the huge partisan divide in the country isn't helping any either.


----------



## Meathead (Jul 26, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


He was given a difficult task which he has not arisen to. Weak presidents never do. The next president will have a far more arduous task given the division of the country for which he is squarely responsible.


----------



## Avorysuds (Jul 26, 2014)

Sallow said:


> The current field of republicans are dismal.
> 
> If they want the Tea party monkey off their backs, they'd let Rand Paul run.
> 
> That would be the second Goldwater moment.



I love how guys come up with this crap. 

Dems have a SINGLE candidate, and rapidly as time goes forward she is doing worse and worse in polling across the board. 

You big hope is that Hillary pulls the female vote, that is because she happens to have a vagina... Basically, you hope people vote for someone like them, like racists and bigots. That's your game plan. You better hope the GOP does not get a female lead that is credible or a VP female that is credible.

Rand might be the main on the Rep ticket, and a life long politician with no accomplishments like Clinton will have a very hard time beating a highly educated doctor. I get the far left progressives like yourself switched to hating doctors and loving sell out politicians who made all their money due to politics, but realistically it won't take much *many* people, to swing the election in Rand's favor.

So keep on bullshitting yourself that you have some great field of ONE candidate, who is quickly becoming very unlikable no matter how poor they tell people they were.

Maybe we'll she Clinton talk like a *black* again, or maybe she will turn on a form of female dialect when speaking to rooms full of feminists voting for a vagina but have no clue what the policies are.... Oddly so far Hillary has not even taken one single position on policy, a Progressives wet dream!!! You find out after you elect her, or pass it...


----------



## Nyvin (Jul 26, 2014)

> or a VP female that is credible.



I'm almost certain Kelly Ayotte will be the 2016 GOP VP candidate regardless of the Presidential Nominee.


----------



## Samson (Jul 26, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> A friendly shout out to some folks who may really enjoy the information in the OP:
> 
> [Mostly Partisan Dems]
> 
> ...





"Non-Partisan"



Bravo, for "Really Trying"


----------



## Samson (Jul 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> I think the fact she leads Jeb and Marco Rubio is very telling.  Floridians know who these guys are and apparently don't want to give them a promotion.



The only thing that's "very telling" is that the OP is a thinly veiled Democratic Partisan.

Otherwise there would be a balanced analysis of poll results which would include the disclaimer that the Republican Field of candidates is splintered into 6-8 while there is no choice among Democratic contenders except Clinton.


----------



## Peach (Jul 27, 2014)

The poll reflects little more than dissatisfaction with Rick "Never indicted" Scott, and as Samson noted, no choices for Democratic nominee BUT Clinton. I have doubts she will run, plus, the prospect of "Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Clinton" is too.......'dynasty'.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 27, 2014)

Samson said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > I think the fact she leads Jeb and Marco Rubio is very telling.  Floridians know who these guys are and apparently don't want to give them a promotion.
> ...




This is where you are very wrong.

I am strongly Democratic, which makes me very partisan and I make no secret of it.

But when it comes to numbers themselves, and I have written this many, many times in USMB, I am brutally neutral. The numbers tell their own story. They don't need any spin from me or anyone else.

If you don't like it, then tough fuck for you.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 27, 2014)

Peach said:


> The poll reflects little more than dissatisfaction with Rick "Never indicted" Scott, and as Samson noted, no choices for Democratic nominee BUT Clinton. I have doubts she will run, plus, the prospect of "Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Clinton" is too.......'dynasty'.



And here is where you are very, very wrong.

It's not just one poll.

It's not just two polls - completely independent from each other.

It's 13 different polls and 46 individual matchups.

Plus, none of the pollsters ask for the "why" of why poll participants make their choice, for that is a private issue. You can of course feel free to speculate that "The poll reflects little more than dissatisfaction with Rick "Never indicted" Scott, and as Samson noted, no choices for Democratic nominee BUT Clinton..." but that is only speculation and there is not one speck of evidence you can provide to prove it.

I, on the other hand, could make you look embarrassed, because many of these polls also poll Joe Biden against the GOP as well, so that killed half of your argument right there.  Had you actually gone to the plethora of links I have provided, you would have known this.

The title of this OP is:

 Current 2016 Presidential Polling in Florida


That's it. It's about data for a Florida baseline of data now looking into 2016.

What a shame that so many posters here don't actually have the patience to actually READ an OP and maybe discern some.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 27, 2014)

Samson said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > A friendly shout out to some folks who may really enjoy the information in the OP:
> ...



And what do you mean by that? If you want on the mention list, just let me know. There are Conservatives on the list, just as there are Liberals and some Centrists.

Your point? Or are you just trolling cuz that turns you on?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 27, 2014)

Avorysuds said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > The current field of republicans are dismal.
> ...



Well, that's interesting, because the polling data from all over the place does not show Hillary Clinton doing worse. As a matter of fact, it shows her generally doing better and putting states into play that have not been in play since 92 and 96.

Now, just to be real blunt: your reference to her vagina is the very reason why the Right is killing itself in the female vote. And women realize this about Righties like you.


So, good job at backing up the arguments against your own party!


----------



## Sarah G (Jul 27, 2014)

Sallow said:


> The current field of republicans are dismal.
> 
> If they want the Tea party monkey off their backs, they'd let Rand Paul run.
> 
> That would be the second Goldwater moment.



I would love a Clinton/Rand Paul race.  The debates would be so interesting and the campaign trail would be fun to follow.  

I want this race.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 27, 2014)

Sarah G said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > The current field of republicans are dismal.
> ...




I agree with you that that could be a very, very interesting race to follow, probably unlike anything we have seen in our lifetimes.


----------



## Nyvin (Jul 27, 2014)

Sarah G said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > The current field of republicans are dismal.
> ...



What would fricking awesome about this race is it would leave social conservatives mostly without a candidate.   They probably don't really realize this yet.


----------



## Samson (Jul 27, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



My point is not too complex for you to grasp:

You are duplicitous.

There are few members that do not share your own partisan democratic POV on the list where you claim to be "really trying" to form anything more than a cheerleading squad to support the scant evidence presented as your subjective analysis of poll data.

Certainly, I cannot be the first to have noticed this. Interestingly, although it is so clearly part of your character for many, duplicity seems to be a trait you claim eschew. Wouldn't it be simpler to just embrace it as much as Rasmussen has embraced his bias?

Perhaps self-denial is easier.


----------



## Samson (Jul 27, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



The very factual mention that Hillary Clinton has a vagina would be interpreted as some sort of insult for females again illustrates an amazing predisposition for duplicity. Would males be offended if anyone noted a candidate had a penis?

Your reaction almost makes one wonder if you realize females have vaginas?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 27, 2014)

Samson said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...




Well, I suppose when you have nothing in the hand, the only think left for you to do is to attack the person instead of the ideas.

I am anything but duplicitous. But you are free to your opinion, it's a free country. 

Just as I am free to have the opinion that you are a nasty fucking troll with not enough grey cells in your brain to be able to understand a poll, much less the 1,800 polls I analyzed in 2008 and the 1,900 polls I analyzed in 2012. So, enjoy your opinion.

You are also welcome to be on that mention list, if you like. Like I said, it's supposed to be a non-partisan list.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 27, 2014)

Samson said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Avorysuds said:
> ...




It's context. It's the way he mentioned it. But I understand that for Right-Wing drones like you, that's probably pretty damned hard to understand that context plays a role in most things in life.  Alone the fact that he felt the need to mention her genitalia should tell you something right there. But I bet you won't get it.

Actually, what you just said about my reaction, I could also ask about you.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 27, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



I agree with that assessment. Rand Paul's "moderation" is a liability in the primaries against the likes of Ted Cruz.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 27, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



As I said of Mitt Romney for months on end in 2011 and 2012: all the batshit crazy things he said to throw red-meat to the Conservatives in his party were the things that were his poison pill in the General Election against President Obama in November of 2012.

Now, whether that paradigm will change in 2016 remains to be seen.


----------



## Zander (Jul 27, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



How will Hillary will be immune from the same problem with the far left wingnut fringe?

Can you provide a few examples of  "the batshit crazy things" Romney said.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 27, 2014)

Zander said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Well, we could start with "self-deportation" of Latinos.....


----------



## Zander (Jul 27, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



If we cracked down on employers and made it costly for them to hire illegals ( major fines, penalties, even jail time)  - they'd go home. They are here for jobs- so they can send money home. No jobs= no money....What is crazy about that?


----------



## Samson (Jul 27, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...





Hit a nerve.

Clearly you're unaccustomed to being challenged.

I would prescribe less self-pity, and more objectivity if you plan to be more than a Rasmussen wannabe in your polling "analysis."

A clear admission that poll results that compare one candidate against a large field of candidates from the opposing party would naturally be skewed toward the single candidate from the opposition party would be a nice start.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 27, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Exactly!

The Catch-22 behind the fight on the right. In order to win the nomination they have to "out crazy" everyone else but then the candidate has to "walk back" the crazy talk and convince a majority of the nation that they were only kidding when said those things. 

Contrast that to the debates between Obama and Clinton in 2008. Respectful policy debates focusing on the issues rather than the individuals themselves. Almost boring because they were cerebral rather than just a smorsgaboard of soundbite one liners.

Yes, the Republican primaries are more entertaining but the nation is not looking for who will be Entertainer-In-Chief. They want someone who understands the issues and the plight of the average working american. Rand Paul can make that connection with the voters with his message of moderation but he loses out to the fire and brimstone rhetoric of Ted Cruz. 

Like Sarah I want to see the Clinton vs Paul debates in 2016 because I do believe they will be serious and focus on the issues that are important to everyone in this nation no matter where they stand politically.


----------



## Samson (Jul 27, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



Weave and Dodge.

Would males be offended if anyone noted a candidtae had a penis?

No.

Then why would females be insulted if anyone noted a candidate had a vagina?

They wouldn't, outside of your hyper-partisan imagination.


----------



## Samson (Jul 27, 2014)

Zander said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



Stop trolling poor Stat with common sense.

You'll upset him.

Just agree with his POV because he "analyzes polls."


----------



## Nyvin (Jul 27, 2014)

Samson said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



It's the generalizations.   It's like saying there is nothing significant about having a female candidate.   Kind of like saying "the one with the dark skin" or something along those lines.

The actuality is that a lot of voters would like to see congress with more female members and if the female voters associate more with the female candidate then yet another white male candidate, then that probably will create some bias in her favor.


----------



## Shanty (Jul 27, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> The fight on the right has been brewing for about 3 decades now. It began when the religious right came up with the "Moral Majority" and that morphed into the "Term Limiters" who turned into the "Crotch Watchers". They assumed that they had "won" when they put "their man in the WH" only that turned out to be nothing but pandering window dressing. They changed their name to "Main Street America" for W's 2nd term and were falling apart in 2007. But Ron Paul managed to coalesce the libertarians into the original Tea Party and Sarah Palin energized the "Birthers".
> 
> Then we had the 2008 economic collapse and the hijacking of the Tea Party to generate support for the anti-ACA crusade. The 2010 elections were a huge boost to the extreme right because there was considerable justifiable anger over the state of the job market. This was exploited and finally resulted in a sizable number of extremist candidates winning seats in both the House and the Senate.
> 
> ...


 first, there's nothing moderate about the establishment wing of the wing nuts. 

Second, the TeaBagged wingers lost almost all of their caucus in 2012 when guys like Allen West lost, and Even Michelle Bachmann was nearly toppled. She's gone at the end of this year, and all that's left is Rand Paul looking to get friendly with the establishment, and Ted Cruz moving himself into the hinterlands of politics. 

And the fight that brewed has it's roots in a few corporate funded PR campaigns, the Evangelical right being brought in by Wall Street, and the states rights/racist aspect that Goldwater used as his platform.


----------



## Shanty (Jul 27, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Shanty said:
> ...


 And George W. Bush in 2002, I believe. Of course, that was while he was ginning up a war based in lies...


----------



## Nyvin (Jul 27, 2014)

Shanty said:


> > Interesting analysis and lots of food for thought.
> >
> > Also interesting to note that had it not been the Tea Party and anger over the job market and the ACA, it would have been something else, for historically, the opposition party has massive massive inroads in virtually every single mid-term election since the inclusion of the GOP on the national ballot, in 1854. This has been especially applicable to a 2nd term president, the notable exception over the last more than 100 years being Bill Clinton and the 1998 mid-terms.
> 
> ...



Bush wasn't a second term president in 2002.   The historical norm is for presidents to have 1 major loss in congress during one of their midterms.  For Bush it was 2006, for Clinton it was 1994, Truman was 1946 (big one!), for Obama it's almost certainly going to be 2010.   Reagan is an odd ball since he had big loses in the House in 82, but also had big loses in the Senate in 86.


----------



## Bush92 (Jul 27, 2014)

What year is it? Oh, 2014. Hillary has name recognition in polls? Wheres the story with that? She will fall on her ass in 2016 (causing tremors as far away as China) and not even get the Dem's nomination.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 27, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> Shanty said:
> 
> 
> > > Interesting analysis and lots of food for thought.
> ...




*No*. This historical norm is for 2-term presidents to have losses in BOTH mid-terms.

The outliers are:

Kennedy 1962
Clinton 1998
Bush, Jr. 2002

That's pretty much it, out of 80 mid-term cycles since 1854.

The data is here:

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


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 27, 2014)

Bush92 said:


> What year is it? Oh, 2014. Hillary has name recognition in polls? Wheres the story with that? She will fall on her ass in 2016 (causing tremors as far away as China) and not even get the Dem's nomination.




You have the right to your own opinion.


----------



## Nyvin (Jul 27, 2014)

Bush92 said:


> What year is it? Oh, 2014. Hillary has name recognition in polls? Wheres the story with that? She will fall on her ass in 2016 (causing tremors as far away as China) and not even get the Dem's nomination.



If you look around at the mega-donors it's quite obvious they have their eye on promoting Clinton.   Believe me there are plenty of democrats who would love the same spotlight Clinton is getting, but they can't get it because all the big money is behind Clinton.  

People like Jerry Brown, Martin O'Malley, or Deval Patrick would all love to be getting some attention.   They can't....because Clinton is flooding them out.    She just has that much of a commanding presence right now.    

I think right wingers have it backwards...They think that other dems aren't well known and that's why Clinton is getting all the attention......it isn't.    Other Dems are plenty well known...but can't compete with Clinton.


----------



## Samson (Jul 27, 2014)

Bush92 said:


> What year is it? Oh, 2014. Hillary has name recognition in polls? Wheres the story with that? She will fall on her ass in 2016 (causing tremors as far away as China) and not even get the Dem's nomination.



Hillary will receive the nomination.

She'll be as popular as the last box of pizza and a flat keg of Lite at an weekend frat party.

It's called diminishing returns: After two years of saturating message boards with irrelevant poll results, book releases, and appearances on daytime TV, Hillary will be her own cliche for a weary voting base.


----------



## Nyvin (Jul 27, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> > Shanty said:
> ...



Key word being "major"

1934 FDR had no loses
1954 wasn't major (not compared to 1958!!) for Eisenhower
in 1962 Kennedy had minimal loses
Even the 1970 midterm for Nixon didn't really change much and certainly can't be considered a "major" loss.
In 1982 Reagan lost no Senate seats
in 1998 Clinton had no loses
in 2002 Bush had no loses.   

That covers all but one two-term president (counting JFK & LBJ as one...) ever since FDR.   

Truman could be considered having two bad midterms...but the 1946 loss was so much worse then 1950 there's no way you could make 1950 the "major" loss.

Now look at the other midterms:

1938:  Major loss
1946:  Major loss
1958:  Major loss
1966:  Major loss
1974:  Major loss for the house, moderate in senate
(Reagan is an oddball...)
1994: Major loss
2006:  Major loss


----------



## Shanty (Jul 27, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Running SCARED???? ROTFLMFAO
> ...



The Clintons have already been through the books written about them all through the 1990s. Guess what? Mellon-Scaife creating the cottage industry aligned with JFK conspiracy theories, 9/11/01 "truthers" and now "birthers" kept coming out and fleecing idiots from their money. And in the end, the Clintons moved on and remained popular and saw Hillary Clinton become a Senator and Secretary of State, and still in the hunt for the Democratic nomination soon.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 27, 2014)

Samson said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > What year is it? Oh, 2014. Hillary has name recognition in polls? Wheres the story with that? She will fall on her ass in 2016 (causing tremors as far away as China) and not even get the Dem's nomination.
> ...



The vast majority of the voting public is not paying any attention to who will be the nominees in 2016 and probably won't care until August of 2016.


----------



## Bush92 (Jul 27, 2014)

Iowa Dem's always like to upset the apple cart. Remember: 1988 Dukakis finished 3rd. 1992 had favorite son Tom Harkin winning and 2000 saw Al Gore face no challenge of significance from Bradley. 2004 big $$$ favorite Howard Dean collapsed and finished 3rd, and 2008 saw an unknown Barack Hussein Obama beating the odds on favorite Hillary Clinton. So Iowa Dem's like to sir the pot. Then Billary will have to take their political circus to New Hampshire where Indian Princess and fellow New Englander, Liz Warren will win. After that it will be off to South Carolina where Bill had a major dust up with S.C. Democratic Party. At  this juncture the Billary train will be off its tracks. What about Nevada you say? Hillary had backing of big shot Dem's and did win there, but did not get support of organized labor as they threw in with Obama, so anything is possible. I look for her to stay away until super Tuesday and spend $$$ in those states instead taking the chance of a giant killer stopping her in the first couple of states.


----------



## Shanty (Jul 27, 2014)

Sarah G said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > The current field of republicans are dismal.
> ...


on the right, a circus. On the left, Hillary Clinton being everything to all people. 

I'm not thrilled about Clinton being the nominee, if she ultimately runs and wins. But she isn't bat shit crazy like the wing nuts from the GOP side.


----------



## Shanty (Jul 27, 2014)

Samson said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...


You're probably trolling him. I've seen him stick to the numbers when it gave bad news to Democrats. Basically, you're hoping he's the kind of reality denial it's that you seem to be presenting yourself as. But when numbers in heavily polled races start showing a trend, it's usually a losing point of argument to fight against it. He's setting g up a baseline for his own polling aggregate, like Nate Silver did. The conservatives loved Silver in 2010 because his aggregates showed the GOP cruising to a crushing victory. Then, conservatives disliked Silver when his aggregates showed Romney losing, and the Democrats holding onto the Senate. If you don't understand polling aggregates, ask the statistics guy, and I'm sure he'd be very glad to educate you out of your apparent ignorance and attempt to strengthen your epistemic closure.


----------



## Shanty (Jul 27, 2014)

Zander said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...


That's not really what "self-deportation" meant.


----------



## Samson (Jul 27, 2014)

Shanty said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



You're probably an idiot.

Stat is no Nate Silver, and I've yet to see "him stick to the numbers when it gave bad news to democrats."

But don't let that stop you to masturbating over his posts.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 27, 2014)

Samson said:


> Shanty said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



He knows me from a forum where I was for 3 years and also did the numbers there. His testimony is accurate.  In case the polls show the winds turning against Hillary Clinton, I will report them, in exquiste detail, with exactly the same vigor as you have seen me report other polls.

Again, when it comes to the numbers themselves, I am brutally neutral.

You are just to blinded to see it.  What a shame.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 27, 2014)

Bush92 said:


> Iowa Dem's always like to upset the apple cart. Remember: 1988 Dukakis finished 3rd. 1992 had favorite son Tom Harkin winning and 2000 saw Al Gore face no challenge of significance from Bradley. 2004 big $$$ favorite Howard Dean collapsed and finished 3rd, and 2008 saw an unknown Barack Hussein Obama beating the odds on favorite Hillary Clinton. So Iowa Dem's like to sir the pot. Then *Billary* will have to take their political circus to New Hampshire where Indian Princess and fellow New Englander, Liz Warren will win. After that it will be off to South Carolina where Bill had a major dust up with S.C. Democratic Party. At  this juncture the Billary train will be off its tracks. What about Nevada you say? Hillary had backing of big shot Dem's and did win there, but did not get support of organized labor as they threw in with Obama, so anything is possible. I look for her to stay away until super Tuesday and spend $$$ in those states instead taking the chance of a giant killer stopping her in the first couple of states.




Oh, my...


----------



## Samson (Jul 27, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Shanty said:
> ...



Opinion.

I'll wait to see objectivity myself.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 27, 2014)




----------



## william the wie (Jul 27, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Iowa Dem's always like to upset the apple cart. Remember: 1988 Dukakis finished 3rd. 1992 had favorite son Tom Harkin winning and 2000 saw Al Gore face no challenge of significance from Bradley. 2004 big $$$ favorite Howard Dean collapsed and finished 3rd, and 2008 saw an unknown Barack Hussein Obama beating the odds on favorite Hillary Clinton. So Iowa Dem's like to sir the pot. Then *Billary* will have to take their political circus to New Hampshire where Indian Princess and fellow New Englander, Liz Warren will win. After that it will be off to South Carolina where Bill had a major dust up with S.C. Democratic Party. At  this juncture the Billary train will be off its tracks. What about Nevada you say? Hillary had backing of big shot Dem's and did win there, but did not get support of organized labor as they threw in with Obama, so anything is possible. I look for her to stay away until super Tuesday and spend $$$ in those states instead taking the chance of a giant killer stopping her in the first couple of states.
> ...


Try some of the demographic arguments or take some of the arguments about when and how badly China crashed. Short form:

Obama has turned millennials into opponents but not necessarily republicans.

China is still making sure their GDP numbers are double baked and deep fat fried not merely cooked.  (Want to do a sticky on the current number of ghost cities in China? A stat guy like you could become a professional talking head doing that, all the China bears are eating that up.)


----------



## Samson (Jul 27, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


>



Somehow it appears you mysteriously have missed the opportunity for non-partisan opining in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...had-elected-mitt-romney-instead-of-obama.html

I'm certain you cannot wait to demonstrate how you "stick to the numbers when it gave bad news to Democrats," and to prove [MENTION=43316]Shanty[/MENTION] is anything more than your personal ass-licker.


----------



## Zander (Jul 27, 2014)

Shanty said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



No,  that is exactly what it means.

Romney on immigration: I'm for "self-deportation" - CBS News


----------



## Shanty (Jul 28, 2014)

Zander said:


> Shanty said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...


 His own party would stop that from happening. Why? It means stiffer penalties on companies who hire undocumented immigrants. And the Chamber of Commerce won't stand for having cheap labor being thwarted from being exploited.


----------



## Samson (Jul 28, 2014)

Shanty said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Shanty said:
> ...



Having blown your credibility about the subject, how would you possibly know anything about what would or would not happen with self deportation?



Please continue though: Morons are at least entertaining.


----------



## MarcATL (Jul 29, 2014)

Sallow said:


> The current field of republicans are dismal.
> 
> If they want the Tea party monkey off their backs, they'd let Rand Paul run.
> 
> That would be the second Goldwater moment.


They really want a hard RWer this time around though.

I suspect Rand has an up-hill battle ahead. And that's putting it mildly.


----------



## Zander (Jul 29, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > The current field of republicans are dismal.
> ...



What does a "hard RWer" represent to you?


----------



## MarcATL (Jul 30, 2014)

Zander said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


A person that's unreasonable. Every solution needs to be more right, as in..to the right.

Authoritarian, belligerent, offensive, ignorant & hypocritical.

Pretty much the average USMB Republican.

A real-life representation of this are the person of Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin.

  [MENTION=20854]Zander[/MENTION]


----------



## Zander (Jul 30, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Fair enough. But i think you perfectly described a "hard LWer' just as accurately. 

Real life representation =  Alan Grayson, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Liz Warren, Barack Obama, Charles Rangel, etc...


----------



## Nyvin (Jul 30, 2014)

Zander said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



Harry Reid is pretty moderate.    Ideologically he's in the same range as Lisa Murkowski.


----------



## william the wie (Jul 31, 2014)

You've just described the raving lunatic wing of the left as moderate.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jul 31, 2014)

no, it is the progressive wing of the left that is moderate ...

.


----------



## Peach (Aug 19, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> True, but it's entirely possible for another candidate or two to start building infrastructure as well, like Ted Cruz and most definitely Mike Huckabee.
> 
> Interestingly enough, there has been very little polling Clinton vs. Walker, but in every matchup that has happened, for instance, in Wisconsin, a couple of times nationally, also a number of times in Iowa, she has beat him handily.



I'm interested in the Governor's race myself.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Aug 19, 2014)

Peach said:


> I'm interested in the Governor's race myself.




Looks like it is going to be a horserace, according to polling aggregates.


----------



## Peach (Aug 19, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Looks like it is going to be a horserace, according to polling aggregates.



Crist was an approvement over Jeb!, Jeb! would be an approvement over Scott.


----------



## Toro (Aug 19, 2014)

I think that if Scott is within a few points, he'll win.

The state Dems don't have much of an infrastructure and they're running an ex-Republican whore.


----------



## jillian (Aug 19, 2014)

Toro said:


> To win the nomination, you need money and infrastructure.  Everything else is just smoke.
> 
> These are the four Republicans who are currently raising money and building an infrastructure;
> 
> ...



my money is on rand paul for the nomination. he's the only one the teaparty types can almost tolerate. 

I don't see him beating Hillary... not even a little.


----------



## jillian (Aug 19, 2014)

Toro said:


> I think that if Scott is within a few points, he'll win.
> 
> The state Dems don't have much of an infrastructure and they're running an ex-Republican whore.



I think they have buyers regret for even picking scott over crist in the first place. and it was clear that the GOP deserted Crist.... not the other way around.


----------



## Toro (Aug 19, 2014)

jillian said:


> I think they have buyers regret for even picking scott over crist in the first place. and it was clear that the GOP deserted Crist.... not the other way around.



Crist didn't run against Scott.  After one term, he decided he wanted to be a Senator.  That's much easier, you know.  But then he lost to Rubio in the primaries.

The guy is a political charlatan.  On the one hand, it would be nice to have a Democrat governor since the Republicans control everything here in the state.  But on the other hand, I've seen both up fairly close, and Scott looks miles better than Crist, though he's so milquetoast.


----------



## jillian (Aug 19, 2014)

Toro said:


> Crist didn't run against Scott.  After one term, he decided he wanted to be a Senator.  That's much easier, you know.  But then he lost to Rubio in the primaries.
> 
> The guy is a political charlatan.  On the one hand, it would be nice to have a Democrat governor since the Republicans control everything here in the state.  But on the other hand, I've seen both up fairly close, and Scott looks miles better than Crist, though he's so milquetoast.



you're right. thanks for refreshing my recollection.

what is correct, however, is that the GOP withdrew its support of Crist in favor of the teapartier Marco Rubio because of Crist being a moderate who supported the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. (better know, I believe, as bush's "bailout").


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 19, 2014)

jillian said:


> my money is on rand paul for the nomination. he's the only one the teaparty types can almost tolerate.
> 
> I don't see him beating Hillary... not even a little.



Rand Paul is setting himself as the moderate GOP option. How he will stack up against Hilary depends upon who is backing him. Make no mistake that he will have full TP support even if he isn't their first choice. 

Hilary's support will be substantial but I am expecting it to narrow as the election becomes serious after the conventions in 2016. 

So who holds the FL governor's seat could be crucial for those who can recall the 2000 debacle.


----------



## jillian (Aug 19, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Rand Paul is setting himself as the moderate GOP option. How he will stack up against Hilary depends upon who is backing him. Make no mistake that he will have full TP support even if he isn't their first choice.
> 
> Hilary's support will be substantial but I am expecting it to narrow as the election becomes serious after the conventions in 2016.
> 
> So who holds the FL governor's seat could be crucial for those who can recall the 2000 debacle.



I agree. And Rick Scott is not the person I would like to see holding that spot in 2016.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 19, 2014)

jillian said:


> I agree. And Rick Scott is not the person I would like to see holding that spot in 2016.



Me neither. Way too slimy for my taste.


----------



## jillian (Aug 19, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Me neither. Way too slimy for my taste.



True dat.


----------



## jillian (Aug 19, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> A person that's unreasonable. Every solution needs to be more right, as in..to the right.
> 
> Authoritarian, belligerent, offensive, ignorant & hypocritical.
> 
> ...



luckily they are not the norm. they represent the basest, most vulgar, most extreme recesses of the right.


----------



## Toro (Aug 19, 2014)

jillian said:


> you're right. thanks for refreshing my recollection.
> 
> what is correct, however, is that the GOP withdrew its support of Crist in favor of the teapartier Marco Rubio because of Crist being a moderate who supported the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. (better know, I believe, as bush's "bailout").



That's true.

It was also true that Crist hugged Obama (a sin in the GOP) and that he was a wishy-washy windsock while Marco Rubio was a Tea Party favourite.

The guy has little spine.  In the 90s, when he was pretending to be a Republican, he was for longer prison sentences and attacked public education, hardly liberal shibboleths.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 19, 2014)

Hillary has less than a zero chance of getting the nomination


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 19, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hillary has less than a zero chance of getting the nomination



What do you even base that on?


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 19, 2014)

Democrats will not back her...incredibly she is not far enough left for the base of her own party.


----------



## HenryBHough (Aug 19, 2014)

A nation stupid enough to have elected an inexperienced amateur to the highest office fully deserves eight years of Her Thighness!  Betcha she wouldn't be mouthing off about what yo chillins oughta be eatin'!  Unless she's a hypocrite as well as a full-blown Marxist.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Aug 20, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hillary has less than a zero chance of getting the nomination




Atta boy!  I knew you would come through with that one sometime soon!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 20, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> What do you even base that on?


Wishful 'thinking.'


----------



## jillian (Aug 20, 2014)

Toro said:


> That's true.
> 
> It was also true that Crist hugged Obama (a sin in the GOP) and that he was a wishy-washy windsock while Marco Rubio was a Tea Party favourite.
> 
> The guy has little spine.  In the 90s, when he was pretending to be a Republican, he was for longer prison sentences and attacked public education, hardly liberal shibboleths.



ah yes... the ultimate sin of a republican politician.... not being obama deranged. i don't see that as being wishy washy.... just not insane. i still haven't seen any substance from rubio, who truly is wishy washy and spineless. if crust had been spineless, he'd have played rightwing wacko to win.

i don't expect crist to be a liberal. he isn't one. he's a moderate. i'm not quite sure why you would say he pretended to be a republican when it's pretty clear he was run out of the party as it went extreme right.


----------



## Toro (Aug 20, 2014)

jillian said:


> ah yes... the ultimate sin of a republican politician.... not being obama deranged. i don't see that as being wishy washy.... just not insane. i still haven't seen any substance from rubio, who truly is wishy washy and spineless. if crust had been spineless, he'd have played rightwing wacko to win.
> 
> i don't expect crist to be a liberal. he isn't one. he's a moderate. i'm not quite sure why you would say he pretended to be a republican when it's pretty clear he was run out of the party as it went extreme right.



He's coming across as a moderate because that's what he thinks he should be to win votes.  He used to be a conservative when he thought that's what he should be to win votes.  If all of San Francisco moved to Florida, he'd be a liberal to win votes.


----------



## jillian (Aug 20, 2014)

Toro said:


> He's coming across as a moderate because that's what he thinks he should be to win votes.  He used to be a conservative when he thought that's what he should be to win votes.  If all of San Francisco moved to Florida, he'd be a liberal to win votes.



i'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on this one. i never disliked his politics even where i didn't agree with him... which is how i know he always presented himself as a moderate. he never walked the party line. and he certainly didn't go wacko to win . i understand you disagree.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 20, 2014)

It's possible CNN will hire Hillary as a political commentator for the 2016 election


----------



## jillian (Aug 20, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> It's possible CNN will hire Hillary as a political commentator for the 2016 election



good luck with that, hon.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 20, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> What do you even base that on?



My keen insight into human nature and the Modern Progressive party


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 20, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Atta boy!  I knew you would come through with that one sometime soon!



You might not like it, but it's best if you take the time to prepare yourself for he inevitable "Hillary Not Getting the Nomination"


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 20, 2014)

Toro said:


> He's coming across as a moderate because that's what he thinks he should be to win votes.  He used to be a conservative when he thought that's what he should be to win votes.  If all of San Francisco moved to Florida, he'd be a liberal to win votes.



That just makes Crist your typical politician, one who will say whatever is needed in order to be elected. What matters more is what he did once he was in office. Same applies for the current incumbent. Of the two options it is a no brainer which is more likely to be nothing but a shill for corporate special interests as opposed to actually thinking about representing We the People occasionally. 

Charlie Crist on the Issues
Rick Scott on the Issues


----------



## Toro (Aug 20, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> That just makes Crist your typical politician, one who will say whatever is needed in order to be elected. What matters more is what he did once he was in office. Same applies for the current incumbent. Of the two options it is a no brainer which is more likely to be nothing but a shill for corporate special interests as opposed to actually thinking about representing We the People occasionally.
> 
> Charlie Crist on the Issues
> Rick Scott on the Issues



I haven't decided whom I will vote for but I don't respect Crist at all.  Crist imperiled this state when he was governor by limiting necessary insurance increases which would have bankrupted Florida had a major storm hit a major population area.  That's been fixed now but Governor Windsock put his finger in the air and rolled the dice rather than exhibit badly needed leadership. 

Scott OTOH has done pretty much what he said he'd do. Unfortunately for him, that made him the most unpopular governor since they began polling in the state. He's been tacking back to the center and the polls have narrowed, but after seeing both up fairly close, I think Scott has much more of a spine and moral center than Crist.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 20, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > What do you even base that on?
> ...



YOu mean the one where everyone left of HItler is a communist?


----------



## Shrimpbox (Aug 31, 2014)

Crist is a mediocrity even for a politician. He has never believed in anything except his personal advancement. I live in Florida, and have children who work for,the state. I have to say I am embarassed about our choices for governor, but crist is bereft of any ethical or moral capacity.

I don't share the posters view that Rubio is toast. He has been out of the public spotlight for a number f years since he was rolled by democrats over immigration. He is young, believes in an American vision, experienced, and is Hispanic. He will have to shed the nice guy image, go for the jugular, and wear platform shoes.  But with the right team he could leapfrog to prominence.

If anyone but Hilary runs for the dems for president, they will lose.


----------



## william the wie (Sep 1, 2014)

With everything, that reasonably can, breaking R in the current election and all bad news for the current administration being postponed until after the election the D problem is that 2015 and 2016 will see an unending series of bad news, blamed on them.


----------



## Bush92 (Sep 1, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Current Democratic Party is to the left of McGovern for fucks sake.


----------



## Bush92 (Sep 1, 2014)

Hillary 2016 after her campaign derails.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Sep 1, 2014)

Well, the GOP can just go back to the drawing board. The entire list of prospective candidates sucks donkey dicks, so it looks like 2016 could be quite fun...


----------



## Bush92 (Sep 1, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Well, the GOP can just go back to the drawing board. The entire list of prospective candidates sucks donkey dicks, so it looks like 2016 could be quite fun...


Ryan and Perry will be effective. But I think Paul Ryan is the guy. Democrats are biased against him because he is a White male.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Sep 1, 2014)

Bush92 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Well, the GOP can just go back to the drawing board. The entire list of prospective candidates sucks donkey dicks, so it looks like 2016 could be quite fun...
> ...




Yes, that is why the DEMS didn't nominate Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter or LBJ or Kennedy, because they were white males.

Oh, wait, they did.

Hmmmm, pretty big fucking hole in your argument.


----------



## william the wie (Sep 1, 2014)

I certainly agree Stat but given all the postponements of enforcement of bills to 2015 and 2016 the Ds will lose.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Well, the GOP can just go back to the drawing board. The entire list of prospective candidates sucks donkey dicks, so it looks like 2016 could be quite fun...



Stat, usually love your stuff, but you need to get a little less cocky.  

The economy goes south again in 2015 or 2016, any one of these awful candidates could win. 

Hillary is NOT a good candidate.  The idea of Hillary (First woman president, bring back the Clinton operation) is not as appealing as the reality of Hillary.  (Shrill, unpleasant, a sense of entitlement.) 

What concerns me is that at the end of the day, elections are not decided by the 45% of us on either side that are firm in our beliefs, but by that 10% in the middle who treat voting for president less seriously than who they vote for on _American Idol_. 

The person who currently polls the best against Hillary right now is Rand Paul.  The guy is batshit crazy, but he has fire the rest of these guys don't have.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Sep 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Well, the GOP can just go back to the drawing board. The entire list of prospective candidates sucks donkey dicks, so it looks like 2016 could be quite fun...
> ...




Uh, actually no. Rand Paul is not polling as well against Hillary in the states that matter (VA, OH, FL, NC, PA) as Jeb Bush. The one common denominator is, however, Ted Cruz. GOP: run Ted Cruz and expect 36-37% of the NPV at the max in November, 2016.

I still think that Robert Bentley (R-AL) would be a formidable candidate.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



Individual states aren't really important at this stage in the game. 

the successful GOP candidate is the one who can peel off votes that Obama got.  

Rand Paul can get the youth vote and can get some of the anti-war vote, especially since Hillary is talking hawkish shit again like she didn't learn a thing from 2008. 

Jeb Bush can't get these votes.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Sep 2, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




Oh, I disagree, respectfully. The 9 established battleground states are important to watch indeed, above all, the Quintifecta.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2014)

The battleground states are only important in a close election, which kind of describes the last four, I guess.  (Although 2008 wasn't close.)  

I don't think 2016 will be a close election.  Either Hillary will peal back some of those white Suburban voters Obama lost, or the GOP will peel off Youth and anti-War voters.  

The GOP NEEDS to change the electoral mix, they can't win with the current numbers.  They have to appeal to either the youth vote or the hispanic vote to win.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Sep 2, 2014)

Oh, I definitely agree with you that 2016 is not going to be a close election.

2008 was not close, either. It was quite similar to 1988 in terms of scope.


----------



## Toro (Sep 2, 2014)

It's far far too early to make predictions of a blow-out. 28 months is a long time in politics.


----------



## william the wie (Sep 2, 2014)

Toro said:


> It's far far too early to make predictions of a blow-out. 28 months is a long time in politics.


particularly with Obama back loading the bad news into 2015/2016


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 8, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



The last 35 years have seen a mind blowing demographic shift in this country....Going from over 85% white in Kennedies time to 66% today.

Getting harder.


----------



## Bush92 (Sep 8, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


Post Obama era. White male will not be the nominee unless he's a far left weirdo like Brown. Democrats do not look for moderates now. They look to the most culturally diverse candidate they can find because that's all they care about. Social justice obsession will be downfall of Democratic Party.


----------

