Hillary Clinton has at least 20 point lead over GOP in new poll

[Vigilante]

 

[Oldstyle]

Hillary Clinton has at least 20 point lead over GOP in new poll | Early & Often

--------------------------------------------------
Way To Go!! We have your back, Hillary!!

How many points does Hillary have vs. Elizabeth Warren?

Since they are both obviously very popular the current consensus among many is that Elizabeth should run as Hillary's Vice-President. Now with that Winning Team it would be extremely hard for any Republican to beat let's face it. I hope she does choose Elizabeth! They would make a Great team for the country, unequivocally!

It's not only a ticket that would energize the base, the women's vote, and highlight the GOP war on women moving the issue front and center...the move actually is one of the better fits. The skill sets compliment one another very well. The old geographic "balance" argument means zip in this day and age of 35-38 entrenched states (unless you can find a rock star from one of the 12-15 you pick the person who is best for the job).

The "war on women"? Really, Candy? LOL Look, that was a stroke of genius by the Obama folks last time (what do you run on when you've fucked everything up? You run on something that doesn't exist of course!) but at some point don't you think it would be to the betterment of the country if you liberals ran someone who had concrete plans to fix what's wrong with the economy...and with foreign affairs? Hillary was part of the problem with the Obama Administration.

The GOP war on women is real.

It wouldn't receive the rampant denials every time it is brought up. Despite the denials, it's real. The restrictions on women's health care get more vindictive every month. The GOP nominee for President wanted to overturn Roe and completely do away with Title X. Senatorial candidates from the GOP wonder about whether rape is legitimate (in the first case) and (in the second case) talks about a woman being able to simply will herself not to be pregnant. If such will power didn't exist, she would have to carry the child to term in a GOP world; a constant reminder of the sexual assault.

Despite your denial of what is obvious to everyone--Obama won the women's vote handly as will any Democratic nominee in 2016; you know that don't you???--you are correct about one thing.

If Hillary does run, she will have to run, in part, on Obama's record. Americans are used to rewarding folks who make a difference, not slow and steady improvement. As Obama's Secretary of State, she has some of his "baggage" if you want to call it that.

Foreign affairs are not going to be a problem. Hillary is well respected around the globe and for good reason.

So let me see if I understand how this works in "CandyLand"...

The GOP's denials of an alleged "war on women" is the proof that it exists? Because if it didn't exist they wouldn't deny it? Is that your logic, Candy? Wow...I mean WOW!!!

So if I accuse you of being a murderer and you respond with "rampant denials" that you ARE a murderer that only means that you're obviously guilty of murder?

If you could provide examples by learned opposition (as I did), you may be on to something.

You know what, Candy? I always judge politicians by what they have "done" rather than what they "say" especially in a campaign for office. I'm experienced enough to realize that talk means nothing.

One of the reasons I felt comfortable supporting Mitt Romney for President despite being pro-choice myself is what he had "done" on that issue over the years.

The truth is...Mitt Romney would have done exactly what Barack Obama has done when it comes to Roe v Wade...he would have avoided it like the plague.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Hillary Clinton has at least 20 point lead over GOP in new poll | Early & Often

--------------------------------------------------
Way To Go!! We have your back, Hillary!!

Oh please please please PLEASE let Hilliary run. You want a land slide defeat for Democrats? Run Hilliary. The only way that the GOP could possibly lose an election against Hilliary, is if they ran Stalin, Mao, Hitler, or Bill Clinton on their ticket.

I did not vote for McCain, or Romney, because to me they were about as Democrap as you could get, without having a donkey tattoo'd on their forehead.

But you people run Hilliary.... I'd vote for absolutely ANYONE..... as in ANYONE the GOP ran opposite Hilliary.

You want to see a united GOP? Run Hilliary in 2016. People HATE Hilliary. Obama? People didn't like Obama's policies. But they didn't HATE him. People honestly truly HATE Hilliary Clinton. She is truly an EVIL person. Just flat out EVIL. The GOP would have to run Pol Pot to lose against Hilliary with how many people absolutely HATE her.

That diatribe sure sounds like you're pretty desperate right now as you see the polls all going in favor of Hillary. And any spin you can put on that you feel will save your party -- it won't. People have come to realize that Republicans cannot and will not do anything for anyone in a category below their rich constituent's. Therefore, A Vote For A Republican Is A Vote for Your Own Hardship and Demise, unless you're quite well to do that is.

PLEASE run Hilliary. By all means! I would personally LOVE to see Hilliary run for president. For the first time in my entirely life, I would actually get complete pleasure just from voting against Hilliary Clinton. No matter who the GOP ran against her, I would not care in the slightest... just voting AGAINST Hilliary would be worth it. They could pick ANYONE. They could pick Ralph Nader, Bruce Springsteen, Robert Pattinson from the twilight movies, ANYONE. ABSOLUTELY ANYONE, just to vote against Hilliary.

You people on the left have no idea. None at all. If it wasn't for Obama, McCain would have won in 2008, by a land slide. People *HATE* Hilliary. I would have voted for McCain or Romney, or even Bob Dole, had the Democrats run Hilliary, and I would have done so with euphoric joy.

In 2000, when Hilliary was running for Senate in New York, one of my neighbors here in Ohio, had a vote against Hilliary sign. He was a Democrat, and voted for Gore, and Obama. But he put up a "No Hilliary" sign in 2000, when she was running in New York.

People HATE Hilliary. PLEASE run Hilliary Clinton. PLEASE believe the polls. PLEASE put her on the ballot. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE. It would be the first time in 20 years, I would take a vacation day, just to vote, and watch the election coverage on TV with absolute sadistic GLEE. Just absolutely GLEE, watching Hilliary cannon ball the deep end and never return.

Better still, have Sarah Palin run against her, just to rub as much salt into the wound as possible. Hilliary is EVIL. Pure EVIL. I can't wait for her to go down in flames.

The bolded, in red.

NO.

In all match-up polling of McCain versus Clinton or Obama, through April, even May of 2008, Clinton was tromping McCain. Tromping. And I can prove it:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond Poll Data Convergence II - March-April 2008

All of the polling values are there for both Obama and Clinton vs. McCain.

Through end of April, in most cases, Hillary did better than Obama.

And then there was this:

SurveyUSA Blog Archive Electoral Math as of 03 06 08 Clinton 276 McCain 262


Back to the first link - it's all there in 50 state tables.

In Arizona - all McCain winning margins over Clinton were narrower than over Obama.
In Alaska - Obama did better than Hillary.
In Arkansas - Clinton was winning, Obama was losing.
In California - the margins were almost identical and WAY under Obama's actual +24 on election night.
In Colorado - Obama was doing better than Hillary
In Florida - Obama was losing, Hillary was winning against McCain.
In Massachusetts, Hillary was polling much more strongly than Obama against McCain
In Mississippi, Hillary made the margin leaner against McCain than Obama.
In Nevada, the margins were almost identical to each other.
In New Hampshire, McCain was beating both by the same margin.
In New Jersey, Hillary had a larger polling average lead than Obama.
In New Mexco, both Obama and Hillary were ahead of McCain by almost exactly the same margin.
In New York, Hillary was doing considerably better than Obama on the whole. On election night, Obama won NY by +25.
In North Carolina, borth were losing to McCain but indeed, Obama was doing considerably better.
Conversely, in Ohio, Obama was losting to McCain, while Hillary was beating McCain.
In Oklahoma, of course, McCain was winning against both, but Hillary came far closer to him than Obama.
In Oregon, Obama was doing considerably better than Hillary.
But in Pennsylvania, Hillary was beating McCain, Obama was tied with McCain.
In Tennessee, McCain was winning, but his margin over Obama was three times as much as over Hillary.
In Virginia, at that time, McCain was beating both, but indeed his margin over Obama was less than over Hillary.

Hillary would have created a different electoral map than Obama in 2008, but the outcome would have been the same. She would have run.

Even Ann Coulter was willing to vote for her.

You have every right to your anger and your opinion, but you don't have the same right to your own "facts".

Hillary was winning against McCain, just as Obama was. Even in April, 2008.

 

[mudwhistle]

This is why Hillary will never do the bucket challenge.......

 

[Oldstyle]

Hillary Clinton has at least 20 point lead over GOP in new poll | Early & Often

--------------------------------------------------
Way To Go!! We have your back, Hillary!!

Oh please please please PLEASE let Hilliary run. You want a land slide defeat for Democrats? Run Hilliary. The only way that the GOP could possibly lose an election against Hilliary, is if they ran Stalin, Mao, Hitler, or Bill Clinton on their ticket.

I did not vote for McCain, or Romney, because to me they were about as Democrap as you could get, without having a donkey tattoo'd on their forehead.

But you people run Hilliary.... I'd vote for absolutely ANYONE..... as in ANYONE the GOP ran opposite Hilliary.

You want to see a united GOP? Run Hilliary in 2016. People HATE Hilliary. Obama? People didn't like Obama's policies. But they didn't HATE him. People honestly truly HATE Hilliary Clinton. She is truly an EVIL person. Just flat out EVIL. The GOP would have to run Pol Pot to lose against Hilliary with how many people absolutely HATE her.

That diatribe sure sounds like you're pretty desperate right now as you see the polls all going in favor of Hillary. And any spin you can put on that you feel will save your party -- it won't. People have come to realize that Republicans cannot and will not do anything for anyone in a category below their rich constituent's. Therefore, A Vote For A Republican Is A Vote for Your Own Hardship and Demise, unless you're quite well to do that is.

PLEASE run Hilliary. By all means! I would personally LOVE to see Hilliary run for president. For the first time in my entirely life, I would actually get complete pleasure just from voting against Hilliary Clinton. No matter who the GOP ran against her, I would not care in the slightest... just voting AGAINST Hilliary would be worth it. They could pick ANYONE. They could pick Ralph Nader, Bruce Springsteen, Robert Pattinson from the twilight movies, ANYONE. ABSOLUTELY ANYONE, just to vote against Hilliary.

You people on the left have no idea. None at all. If it wasn't for Obama, McCain would have won in 2008, by a land slide. People *HATE* Hilliary. I would have voted for McCain or Romney, or even Bob Dole, had the Democrats run Hilliary, and I would have done so with euphoric joy.

In 2000, when Hilliary was running for Senate in New York, one of my neighbors here in Ohio, had a vote against Hilliary sign. He was a Democrat, and voted for Gore, and Obama. But he put up a "No Hilliary" sign in 2000, when she was running in New York.

People HATE Hilliary. PLEASE run Hilliary Clinton. PLEASE believe the polls. PLEASE put her on the ballot. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE. It would be the first time in 20 years, I would take a vacation day, just to vote, and watch the election coverage on TV with absolute sadistic GLEE. Just absolutely GLEE, watching Hilliary cannon ball the deep end and never return.

Better still, have Sarah Palin run against her, just to rub as much salt into the wound as possible. Hilliary is EVIL. Pure EVIL. I can't wait for her to go down in flames.

The bolded, in red.

NO.

In all match-up polling of McCain versus Clinton or Obama, through April, even May of 2008, Clinton was tromping McCain. Tromping. And I can prove it:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond Poll Data Convergence II - March-April 2008

All of the polling values are there for both Obama and Clinton vs. McCain.

Through end of April, in most cases, Hillary did better than Obama.

And then there was this:

SurveyUSA Blog Archive Electoral Math as of 03 06 08 Clinton 276 McCain 262


Back to the first link - it's all there in 50 state tables.

In Arizona - all McCain winning margins over Clinton were narrower than over Obama.
In Alaska - Obama did better than Hillary.
In Arkansas - Clinton was winning, Obama was losing.
In California - the margins were almost identical and WAY under Obama's actual +24 on election night.
In Colorado - Obama was doing better than Hillary
In Florida - Obama was losing, Hillary was winning against McCain.
In Massachusetts, Hillary was polling much more strongly than Obama against McCain
In Mississippi, Hillary made the margin leaner against McCain than Obama.
In Nevada, the margins were almost identical to each other.
In New Hampshire, McCain was beating both by the same margin.
In New Jersey, Hillary had a larger polling average lead than Obama.
In New Mexco, both Obama and Hillary were ahead of McCain by almost exactly the same margin.
In New York, Hillary was doing considerably better than Obama on the whole. On election night, Obama won NY by +25.
In North Carolina, borth were losing to McCain but indeed, Obama was doing considerably better.
Conversely, in Ohio, Obama was losting to McCain, while Hillary was beating McCain.
In Oklahoma, of course, McCain was winning against both, but Hillary came far closer to him than Obama.
In Oregon, Obama was doing considerably better than Hillary.
But in Pennsylvania, Hillary was beating McCain, Obama was tied with McCain.
In Tennessee, McCain was winning, but his margin over Obama was three times as much as over Hillary.
In Virginia, at that time, McCain was beating both, but indeed his margin over Obama was less than over Hillary.

Hillary would have created a different electoral map than Obama in 2008, but the outcome would have been the same. She would have run.

Even Ann Coulter was willing to vote for her.

You have every right to your anger and your opinion, but you don't have the same right to your own "facts".

Hillary was winning against McCain, just as Obama was. Even in April, 2008.

With all due respect, Stats...I think your premise that Hillary would have won easily over McCain is based on Hillary getting the same type of main stream media coverage that Barack Obama received and quite frankly I don't think that would have happened.

Surely you'll admit that there was very little vetting of Obama by the main stream media during the primaries or leading up to the election? He was basically given a free pass. He could make vague statements about Hope and Change...give very little in the way of specifics...and nobody challenged him on his facts or his proposed agenda because they were all terrified that they would be perceived as "racists". I almost felt bad for Hillary because she COULDN'T attack Obama even though you could tell she desperately wanted to!

 

[Silhouette]

Yes Hillary enjoys a lead. Meanwhile in the real world as the kabuki theater ramps up in the ME, who do you suppose voters will pick in 2016 as this "interesting" "army" continues its takeover of Iraq's oil? A feeble older woman who was mush mush while Secretary of state and had to be hand led through most of it by a man, or a younger, stronger, bolder man?

 

[Silhouette]

Hillary won't win. She won't. She would've before. Just not now. Too old. The nation won't elect an old woman suspected of having had a stroke before over a younger, stronger male during crisis times. That's human nature. Though I'm sure the GOP is hoping the dems will nominate her. *wink*

 

[Andylusion]

Hillary Clinton has at least 20 point lead over GOP in new poll | Early & Often

--------------------------------------------------
Way To Go!! We have your back, Hillary!!

Oh please please please PLEASE let Hilliary run. You want a land slide defeat for Democrats? Run Hilliary. The only way that the GOP could possibly lose an election against Hilliary, is if they ran Stalin, Mao, Hitler, or Bill Clinton on their ticket.

I did not vote for McCain, or Romney, because to me they were about as Democrap as you could get, without having a donkey tattoo'd on their forehead.

But you people run Hilliary.... I'd vote for absolutely ANYONE..... as in ANYONE the GOP ran opposite Hilliary.

You want to see a united GOP? Run Hilliary in 2016. People HATE Hilliary. Obama? People didn't like Obama's policies. But they didn't HATE him. People honestly truly HATE Hilliary Clinton. She is truly an EVIL person. Just flat out EVIL. The GOP would have to run Pol Pot to lose against Hilliary with how many people absolutely HATE her.

That diatribe sure sounds like you're pretty desperate right now as you see the polls all going in favor of Hillary. And any spin you can put on that you feel will save your party -- it won't. People have come to realize that Republicans cannot and will not do anything for anyone in a category below their rich constituent's. Therefore, A Vote For A Republican Is A Vote for Your Own Hardship and Demise, unless you're quite well to do that is.

PLEASE run Hilliary. By all means! I would personally LOVE to see Hilliary run for president. For the first time in my entirely life, I would actually get complete pleasure just from voting against Hilliary Clinton. No matter who the GOP ran against her, I would not care in the slightest... just voting AGAINST Hilliary would be worth it. They could pick ANYONE. They could pick Ralph Nader, Bruce Springsteen, Robert Pattinson from the twilight movies, ANYONE. ABSOLUTELY ANYONE, just to vote against Hilliary.

You people on the left have no idea. None at all. If it wasn't for Obama, McCain would have won in 2008, by a land slide. People *HATE* Hilliary. I would have voted for McCain or Romney, or even Bob Dole, had the Democrats run Hilliary, and I would have done so with euphoric joy.

In 2000, when Hilliary was running for Senate in New York, one of my neighbors here in Ohio, had a vote against Hilliary sign. He was a Democrat, and voted for Gore, and Obama. But he put up a "No Hilliary" sign in 2000, when she was running in New York.

People HATE Hilliary. PLEASE run Hilliary Clinton. PLEASE believe the polls. PLEASE put her on the ballot. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE. It would be the first time in 20 years, I would take a vacation day, just to vote, and watch the election coverage on TV with absolute sadistic GLEE. Just absolutely GLEE, watching Hilliary cannon ball the deep end and never return.

Better still, have Sarah Palin run against her, just to rub as much salt into the wound as possible. Hilliary is EVIL. Pure EVIL. I can't wait for her to go down in flames.

The bolded, in red.

NO.

In all match-up polling of McCain versus Clinton or Obama, through April, even May of 2008, Clinton was tromping McCain. Tromping. And I can prove it:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond Poll Data Convergence II - March-April 2008

All of the polling values are there for both Obama and Clinton vs. McCain.

Through end of April, in most cases, Hillary did better than Obama.

And then there was this:

SurveyUSA Blog Archive Electoral Math as of 03 06 08 Clinton 276 McCain 262


Back to the first link - it's all there in 50 state tables.

In Arizona - all McCain winning margins over Clinton were narrower than over Obama.
In Alaska - Obama did better than Hillary.
In Arkansas - Clinton was winning, Obama was losing.
In California - the margins were almost identical and WAY under Obama's actual +24 on election night.
In Colorado - Obama was doing better than Hillary
In Florida - Obama was losing, Hillary was winning against McCain.
In Massachusetts, Hillary was polling much more strongly than Obama against McCain
In Mississippi, Hillary made the margin leaner against McCain than Obama.
In Nevada, the margins were almost identical to each other.
In New Hampshire, McCain was beating both by the same margin.
In New Jersey, Hillary had a larger polling average lead than Obama.
In New Mexco, both Obama and Hillary were ahead of McCain by almost exactly the same margin.
In New York, Hillary was doing considerably better than Obama on the whole. On election night, Obama won NY by +25.
In North Carolina, borth were losing to McCain but indeed, Obama was doing considerably better.
Conversely, in Ohio, Obama was losting to McCain, while Hillary was beating McCain.
In Oklahoma, of course, McCain was winning against both, but Hillary came far closer to him than Obama.
In Oregon, Obama was doing considerably better than Hillary.
But in Pennsylvania, Hillary was beating McCain, Obama was tied with McCain.
In Tennessee, McCain was winning, but his margin over Obama was three times as much as over Hillary.
In Virginia, at that time, McCain was beating both, but indeed his margin over Obama was less than over Hillary.

Hillary would have created a different electoral map than Obama in 2008, but the outcome would have been the same. She would have run.

Even Ann Coulter was willing to vote for her.

You have every right to your anger and your opinion, but you don't have the same right to your own "facts".

Hillary was winning against McCain, just as Obama was. Even in April, 2008.

I'm sure all the polling shows as much. But the reality is you know as well as I do, that the true dirt starts flying, when the main election campaign starts. And honestly, many people don't even pay attention to the primaries.

Thousands, if not a few million registered Republicans, voted for Obama. They did so because Obama had no baggage. No long rap sheet. He had a fairly unremarkable record in the Senate, and before that not a whole lot.

That's why, his opponents were bringing up Rev. Wright, and Bill Ayers, and such. While those things are worth considering, it's nothing like having a direct track record of bad actions himself. I knew none of those things would swing the election, the moment the Right-wing brought them up.

But Hilliary? Oh good heavens, she has enough dirt in her history, to build a new Washington Monument.

The 1993 Hillary Health care attempt? The Travel Gate office trumpted up charges, to give jobs to friends of Hillary? The Rose Law Firm billing records that 'magically' appeared in the white house, and shockingly had Hillary's finger prints, that she amazingly couldn't remember anything about? Or how about the Tyson Foods, with that $1K investment, magically turning into $100K in 6 months?

Or even how when Bill Clinton was found screwing around with everyone, and then there was Hilliary claiming it wasn't really Bill's fault.... but rather "a vast right-wing conspiracy" was to blame. Right....

Do you people remember any of this insanity?

See, all of this would have come out in a full campaign, which didn't during the primaries, and people would have paid attention, which they didn't during the primaries.

Yes, I'm sure the polls said she would win, and perhaps if they had just skipped straight to the election, Hillary would have won. But there is so much dirt on Hillary, that Cheney would have had to hire Halliburton to excavate it all.

No, I PROMISE YOU, she would have lost. The very fact, that a no-name, unknown junior Senator, that no one even knew existed, easily surpassed Hillary in mere months before the primary, prove that.

PLEASE run Hillary. I would *LOVE* to see her crash and burn.

 

[Silhouette]

No, Hillary vs McCain at any day or time would be a Clinton victory. I'm just saying this time the GOP isn't going to be so foolish to run a schmuck like McCain or Romney and instead is going to put out a serious contender like Christie. Someone who will get the far right [because what, they're going to vote for Hillary?..lol..] and the middle crowd votes.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hillary 2020: Just because.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Hillary Clinton has at least 20 point lead over GOP in new poll | Early & Often

--------------------------------------------------
Way To Go!! We have your back, Hillary!!

Oh please please please PLEASE let Hilliary run. You want a land slide defeat for Democrats? Run Hilliary. The only way that the GOP could possibly lose an election against Hilliary, is if they ran Stalin, Mao, Hitler, or Bill Clinton on their ticket.

I did not vote for McCain, or Romney, because to me they were about as Democrap as you could get, without having a donkey tattoo'd on their forehead.

But you people run Hilliary.... I'd vote for absolutely ANYONE..... as in ANYONE the GOP ran opposite Hilliary.

You want to see a united GOP? Run Hilliary in 2016. People HATE Hilliary. Obama? People didn't like Obama's policies. But they didn't HATE him. People honestly truly HATE Hilliary Clinton. She is truly an EVIL person. Just flat out EVIL. The GOP would have to run Pol Pot to lose against Hilliary with how many people absolutely HATE her.

That diatribe sure sounds like you're pretty desperate right now as you see the polls all going in favor of Hillary. And any spin you can put on that you feel will save your party -- it won't. People have come to realize that Republicans cannot and will not do anything for anyone in a category below their rich constituent's. Therefore, A Vote For A Republican Is A Vote for Your Own Hardship and Demise, unless you're quite well to do that is.

PLEASE run Hilliary. By all means! I would personally LOVE to see Hilliary run for president. For the first time in my entirely life, I would actually get complete pleasure just from voting against Hilliary Clinton. No matter who the GOP ran against her, I would not care in the slightest... just voting AGAINST Hilliary would be worth it. They could pick ANYONE. They could pick Ralph Nader, Bruce Springsteen, Robert Pattinson from the twilight movies, ANYONE. ABSOLUTELY ANYONE, just to vote against Hilliary.

You people on the left have no idea. None at all. If it wasn't for Obama, McCain would have won in 2008, by a land slide. People *HATE* Hilliary. I would have voted for McCain or Romney, or even Bob Dole, had the Democrats run Hilliary, and I would have done so with euphoric joy.

In 2000, when Hilliary was running for Senate in New York, one of my neighbors here in Ohio, had a vote against Hilliary sign. He was a Democrat, and voted for Gore, and Obama. But he put up a "No Hilliary" sign in 2000, when she was running in New York.

People HATE Hilliary. PLEASE run Hilliary Clinton. PLEASE believe the polls. PLEASE put her on the ballot. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE. It would be the first time in 20 years, I would take a vacation day, just to vote, and watch the election coverage on TV with absolute sadistic GLEE. Just absolutely GLEE, watching Hilliary cannon ball the deep end and never return.

Better still, have Sarah Palin run against her, just to rub as much salt into the wound as possible. Hilliary is EVIL. Pure EVIL. I can't wait for her to go down in flames.

The bolded, in red.

NO.

In all match-up polling of McCain versus Clinton or Obama, through April, even May of 2008, Clinton was tromping McCain. Tromping. And I can prove it:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond Poll Data Convergence II - March-April 2008

All of the polling values are there for both Obama and Clinton vs. McCain.

Through end of April, in most cases, Hillary did better than Obama.

And then there was this:

SurveyUSA Blog Archive Electoral Math as of 03 06 08 Clinton 276 McCain 262


Back to the first link - it's all there in 50 state tables.

In Arizona - all McCain winning margins over Clinton were narrower than over Obama.
In Alaska - Obama did better than Hillary.
In Arkansas - Clinton was winning, Obama was losing.
In California - the margins were almost identical and WAY under Obama's actual +24 on election night.
In Colorado - Obama was doing better than Hillary
In Florida - Obama was losing, Hillary was winning against McCain.
In Massachusetts, Hillary was polling much more strongly than Obama against McCain
In Mississippi, Hillary made the margin leaner against McCain than Obama.
In Nevada, the margins were almost identical to each other.
In New Hampshire, McCain was beating both by the same margin.
In New Jersey, Hillary had a larger polling average lead than Obama.
In New Mexco, both Obama and Hillary were ahead of McCain by almost exactly the same margin.
In New York, Hillary was doing considerably better than Obama on the whole. On election night, Obama won NY by +25.
In North Carolina, borth were losing to McCain but indeed, Obama was doing considerably better.
Conversely, in Ohio, Obama was losting to McCain, while Hillary was beating McCain.
In Oklahoma, of course, McCain was winning against both, but Hillary came far closer to him than Obama.
In Oregon, Obama was doing considerably better than Hillary.
But in Pennsylvania, Hillary was beating McCain, Obama was tied with McCain.
In Tennessee, McCain was winning, but his margin over Obama was three times as much as over Hillary.
In Virginia, at that time, McCain was beating both, but indeed his margin over Obama was less than over Hillary.

Hillary would have created a different electoral map than Obama in 2008, but the outcome would have been the same. She would have run.

Even Ann Coulter was willing to vote for her.

You have every right to your anger and your opinion, but you don't have the same right to your own "facts".

Hillary was winning against McCain, just as Obama was. Even in April, 2008.

I'm sure all the polling shows as much. But the reality is you know as well as I do, that the true dirt starts flying, when the main election campaign starts. And honestly, many people don't even pay attention to the primaries.

Thousands, if not a few million registered Republicans, voted for Obama. They did so because Obama had no baggage. No long rap sheet. He had a fairly unremarkable record in the Senate, and before that not a whole lot.

That's why, his opponents were bringing up Rev. Wright, and Bill Ayers, and such. While those things are worth considering, it's nothing like having a direct track record of bad actions himself. I knew none of those things would swing the election, the moment the Right-wing brought them up.

But Hilliary? Oh good heavens, she has enough dirt in her history, to build a new Washington Monument.

The 1993 Hillary Health care attempt? The Travel Gate office trumpted up charges, to give jobs to friends of Hillary? The Rose Law Firm billing records that 'magically' appeared in the white house, and shockingly had Hillary's finger prints, that she amazingly couldn't remember anything about? Or how about the Tyson Foods, with that $1K investment, magically turning into $100K in 6 months?

Or even how when Bill Clinton was found screwing around with everyone, and then there was Hilliary claiming it wasn't really Bill's fault.... but rather "a vast right-wing conspiracy" was to blame. Right....

Do you people remember any of this insanity?

See, all of this would have come out in a full campaign, which didn't during the primaries, and people would have paid attention, which they didn't during the primaries.

Yes, I'm sure the polls said she would win, and perhaps if they had just skipped straight to the election, Hillary would have won. But there is so much dirt on Hillary, that Cheney would have had to hire Halliburton to excavate it all.

No, I PROMISE YOU, she would have lost. The very fact, that a no-name, unknown junior Senator, that no one even knew existed, easily surpassed Hillary in mere months before the primary, prove that.

PLEASE run Hillary. I would *LOVE* to see her crash and burn.

Untrue. Obama got 9% of the Republican vote in 2008. That is the standard value in pretty much every election, to get between 8-10% of the opposite party's votes. Obama built a new coallition in 2008, many first time voters.

Once again, your "facts" are way off.

Obama won by +10 million in 2008 and by +5 million in 2012.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Andylusion]

Hillary Clinton has at least 20 point lead over GOP in new poll | Early & Often

--------------------------------------------------
Way To Go!! We have your back, Hillary!!

Oh please please please PLEASE let Hilliary run. You want a land slide defeat for Democrats? Run Hilliary. The only way that the GOP could possibly lose an election against Hilliary, is if they ran Stalin, Mao, Hitler, or Bill Clinton on their ticket.

I did not vote for McCain, or Romney, because to me they were about as Democrap as you could get, without having a donkey tattoo'd on their forehead.

But you people run Hilliary.... I'd vote for absolutely ANYONE..... as in ANYONE the GOP ran opposite Hilliary.

You want to see a united GOP? Run Hilliary in 2016. People HATE Hilliary. Obama? People didn't like Obama's policies. But they didn't HATE him. People honestly truly HATE Hilliary Clinton. She is truly an EVIL person. Just flat out EVIL. The GOP would have to run Pol Pot to lose against Hilliary with how many people absolutely HATE her.

That diatribe sure sounds like you're pretty desperate right now as you see the polls all going in favor of Hillary. And any spin you can put on that you feel will save your party -- it won't. People have come to realize that Republicans cannot and will not do anything for anyone in a category below their rich constituent's. Therefore, A Vote For A Republican Is A Vote for Your Own Hardship and Demise, unless you're quite well to do that is.

PLEASE run Hilliary. By all means! I would personally LOVE to see Hilliary run for president. For the first time in my entirely life, I would actually get complete pleasure just from voting against Hilliary Clinton. No matter who the GOP ran against her, I would not care in the slightest... just voting AGAINST Hilliary would be worth it. They could pick ANYONE. They could pick Ralph Nader, Bruce Springsteen, Robert Pattinson from the twilight movies, ANYONE. ABSOLUTELY ANYONE, just to vote against Hilliary.

You people on the left have no idea. None at all. If it wasn't for Obama, McCain would have won in 2008, by a land slide. People *HATE* Hilliary. I would have voted for McCain or Romney, or even Bob Dole, had the Democrats run Hilliary, and I would have done so with euphoric joy.

In 2000, when Hilliary was running for Senate in New York, one of my neighbors here in Ohio, had a vote against Hilliary sign. He was a Democrat, and voted for Gore, and Obama. But he put up a "No Hilliary" sign in 2000, when she was running in New York.

People HATE Hilliary. PLEASE run Hilliary Clinton. PLEASE believe the polls. PLEASE put her on the ballot. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE. It would be the first time in 20 years, I would take a vacation day, just to vote, and watch the election coverage on TV with absolute sadistic GLEE. Just absolutely GLEE, watching Hilliary cannon ball the deep end and never return.

Better still, have Sarah Palin run against her, just to rub as much salt into the wound as possible. Hilliary is EVIL. Pure EVIL. I can't wait for her to go down in flames.

The bolded, in red.

NO.

In all match-up polling of McCain versus Clinton or Obama, through April, even May of 2008, Clinton was tromping McCain. Tromping. And I can prove it:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond Poll Data Convergence II - March-April 2008

All of the polling values are there for both Obama and Clinton vs. McCain.

Through end of April, in most cases, Hillary did better than Obama.

And then there was this:

SurveyUSA Blog Archive Electoral Math as of 03 06 08 Clinton 276 McCain 262


Back to the first link - it's all there in 50 state tables.

In Arizona - all McCain winning margins over Clinton were narrower than over Obama.
In Alaska - Obama did better than Hillary.
In Arkansas - Clinton was winning, Obama was losing.
In California - the margins were almost identical and WAY under Obama's actual +24 on election night.
In Colorado - Obama was doing better than Hillary
In Florida - Obama was losing, Hillary was winning against McCain.
In Massachusetts, Hillary was polling much more strongly than Obama against McCain
In Mississippi, Hillary made the margin leaner against McCain than Obama.
In Nevada, the margins were almost identical to each other.
In New Hampshire, McCain was beating both by the same margin.
In New Jersey, Hillary had a larger polling average lead than Obama.
In New Mexco, both Obama and Hillary were ahead of McCain by almost exactly the same margin.
In New York, Hillary was doing considerably better than Obama on the whole. On election night, Obama won NY by +25.
In North Carolina, borth were losing to McCain but indeed, Obama was doing considerably better.
Conversely, in Ohio, Obama was losting to McCain, while Hillary was beating McCain.
In Oklahoma, of course, McCain was winning against both, but Hillary came far closer to him than Obama.
In Oregon, Obama was doing considerably better than Hillary.
But in Pennsylvania, Hillary was beating McCain, Obama was tied with McCain.
In Tennessee, McCain was winning, but his margin over Obama was three times as much as over Hillary.
In Virginia, at that time, McCain was beating both, but indeed his margin over Obama was less than over Hillary.

Hillary would have created a different electoral map than Obama in 2008, but the outcome would have been the same. She would have run.

Even Ann Coulter was willing to vote for her.

You have every right to your anger and your opinion, but you don't have the same right to your own "facts".

Hillary was winning against McCain, just as Obama was. Even in April, 2008.

I'm sure all the polling shows as much. But the reality is you know as well as I do, that the true dirt starts flying, when the main election campaign starts. And honestly, many people don't even pay attention to the primaries.

Thousands, if not a few million registered Republicans, voted for Obama. They did so because Obama had no baggage. No long rap sheet. He had a fairly unremarkable record in the Senate, and before that not a whole lot.

That's why, his opponents were bringing up Rev. Wright, and Bill Ayers, and such. While those things are worth considering, it's nothing like having a direct track record of bad actions himself. I knew none of those things would swing the election, the moment the Right-wing brought them up.

But Hilliary? Oh good heavens, she has enough dirt in her history, to build a new Washington Monument.

The 1993 Hillary Health care attempt? The Travel Gate office trumpted up charges, to give jobs to friends of Hillary? The Rose Law Firm billing records that 'magically' appeared in the white house, and shockingly had Hillary's finger prints, that she amazingly couldn't remember anything about? Or how about the Tyson Foods, with that $1K investment, magically turning into $100K in 6 months?

Or even how when Bill Clinton was found screwing around with everyone, and then there was Hilliary claiming it wasn't really Bill's fault.... but rather "a vast right-wing conspiracy" was to blame. Right....

Do you people remember any of this insanity?

See, all of this would have come out in a full campaign, which didn't during the primaries, and people would have paid attention, which they didn't during the primaries.

Yes, I'm sure the polls said she would win, and perhaps if they had just skipped straight to the election, Hillary would have won. But there is so much dirt on Hillary, that Cheney would have had to hire Halliburton to excavate it all.

No, I PROMISE YOU, she would have lost. The very fact, that a no-name, unknown junior Senator, that no one even knew existed, easily surpassed Hillary in mere months before the primary, prove that.

PLEASE run Hillary. I would *LOVE* to see her crash and burn.

Untrue. Obama got 9% of the Republican vote in 2008. That is the standard value in pretty much every election, to get between 8-10% of the opposite party's votes. Obama built a new coallition in 2008, many first time voters.

Once again, your "facts" are way off.

Obama won by +10 million in 2008 and by +5 million in 2012.

You are completely wrong. There were in fact a total of Six Candidate, and Bob Barr was the Libertarian nominee. Once again, your facts are way off. [/sarcasm]

Why did I say that?

You say my facts are way off, and yet didn't actually show any evidence of such. I didn't give a percentage of opposite party votes. I never suggest Obama did not build a coalition of first time voters either. Nor did I give any numbers as to how many million votes ahead he was.

So basically, you spouted a bunch of factoid, that I didn't post, or question.... and suggested that I was wrong in the facts I never posted or referred to.

In order to claim someone's facts are off, you have to actually talk about the facts they posted. Not make up facts no one said, and attack them as wrong.

That's called a 'straw-man' argument.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[percysunshine]

Hillary Clinton has at least 20 point lead over GOP in new poll | Early & Often

--------------------------------------------------
Way To Go!! We have your back, Hillary!!

Presented by Bluecross/Blueshield of Chicago Illinois?

Hmmm...a poll conducted by the corporate beneficiaries of socialized medicine.

What a coincidence.

.

 

[auditor0007]

Hillary Clinton has at least 20 point lead over GOP in new poll | Early & Often

--------------------------------------------------
Way To Go!! We have your back, Hillary!!

This is no surprise to anyone. Thinking any Republican has a chance at taking NY is nonsense, so Hillary leading by 20 pts in NY makes sense. What should be troubling for Republicans is that she leads Christie in NJ and Bush in FL. The bottom line is that it is going to be extremely difficult to keep Hillary out of the White House.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Yes, I can already hear raging Righties hootin and hollerin about that "vagina vote" as they call it quite often, and the scratching their heads and wondering why they are getting absolutely pummeled in the female vote.

Well, duh...

 

[Statistikhengst]

Now that I just typed that posting before this one, cue some nutbag Rightie who will come along and say something golden like "so, what you are saying is that women will vote for (pick a RWNJ perjorative for Hillary Clinton) because she's a woman? What the fuck has she ever done for America?"

Or something like that.

(GRIN)

 

[Statistikhengst]

Hillary Clinton has at least 20 point lead over GOP in new poll | Early & Often

--------------------------------------------------
Way To Go!! We have your back, Hillary!!

Oh please please please PLEASE let Hilliary run. You want a land slide defeat for Democrats? Run Hilliary. The only way that the GOP could possibly lose an election against Hilliary, is if they ran Stalin, Mao, Hitler, or Bill Clinton on their ticket.

I did not vote for McCain, or Romney, because to me they were about as Democrap as you could get, without having a donkey tattoo'd on their forehead.

But you people run Hilliary.... I'd vote for absolutely ANYONE..... as in ANYONE the GOP ran opposite Hilliary.

You want to see a united GOP? Run Hilliary in 2016. People HATE Hilliary. Obama? People didn't like Obama's policies. But they didn't HATE him. People honestly truly HATE Hilliary Clinton. She is truly an EVIL person. Just flat out EVIL. The GOP would have to run Pol Pot to lose against Hilliary with how many people absolutely HATE her.

That diatribe sure sounds like you're pretty desperate right now as you see the polls all going in favor of Hillary. And any spin you can put on that you feel will save your party -- it won't. People have come to realize that Republicans cannot and will not do anything for anyone in a category below their rich constituent's. Therefore, A Vote For A Republican Is A Vote for Your Own Hardship and Demise, unless you're quite well to do that is.

PLEASE run Hilliary. By all means! I would personally LOVE to see Hilliary run for president. For the first time in my entirely life, I would actually get complete pleasure just from voting against Hilliary Clinton. No matter who the GOP ran against her, I would not care in the slightest... just voting AGAINST Hilliary would be worth it. They could pick ANYONE. They could pick Ralph Nader, Bruce Springsteen, Robert Pattinson from the twilight movies, ANYONE. ABSOLUTELY ANYONE, just to vote against Hilliary.

You people on the left have no idea. None at all. If it wasn't for Obama, McCain would have won in 2008, by a land slide. People *HATE* Hilliary. I would have voted for McCain or Romney, or even Bob Dole, had the Democrats run Hilliary, and I would have done so with euphoric joy.

In 2000, when Hilliary was running for Senate in New York, one of my neighbors here in Ohio, had a vote against Hilliary sign. He was a Democrat, and voted for Gore, and Obama. But he put up a "No Hilliary" sign in 2000, when she was running in New York.

People HATE Hilliary. PLEASE run Hilliary Clinton. PLEASE believe the polls. PLEASE put her on the ballot. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE. It would be the first time in 20 years, I would take a vacation day, just to vote, and watch the election coverage on TV with absolute sadistic GLEE. Just absolutely GLEE, watching Hilliary cannon ball the deep end and never return.

Better still, have Sarah Palin run against her, just to rub as much salt into the wound as possible. Hilliary is EVIL. Pure EVIL. I can't wait for her to go down in flames.

The bolded, in red.

NO.

In all match-up polling of McCain versus Clinton or Obama, through April, even May of 2008, Clinton was tromping McCain. Tromping. And I can prove it:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond Poll Data Convergence II - March-April 2008

All of the polling values are there for both Obama and Clinton vs. McCain.

Through end of April, in most cases, Hillary did better than Obama.

And then there was this:

SurveyUSA Blog Archive Electoral Math as of 03 06 08 Clinton 276 McCain 262


Back to the first link - it's all there in 50 state tables.

In Arizona - all McCain winning margins over Clinton were narrower than over Obama.
In Alaska - Obama did better than Hillary.
In Arkansas - Clinton was winning, Obama was losing.
In California - the margins were almost identical and WAY under Obama's actual +24 on election night.
In Colorado - Obama was doing better than Hillary
In Florida - Obama was losing, Hillary was winning against McCain.
In Massachusetts, Hillary was polling much more strongly than Obama against McCain
In Mississippi, Hillary made the margin leaner against McCain than Obama.
In Nevada, the margins were almost identical to each other.
In New Hampshire, McCain was beating both by the same margin.
In New Jersey, Hillary had a larger polling average lead than Obama.
In New Mexco, both Obama and Hillary were ahead of McCain by almost exactly the same margin.
In New York, Hillary was doing considerably better than Obama on the whole. On election night, Obama won NY by +25.
In North Carolina, borth were losing to McCain but indeed, Obama was doing considerably better.
Conversely, in Ohio, Obama was losting to McCain, while Hillary was beating McCain.
In Oklahoma, of course, McCain was winning against both, but Hillary came far closer to him than Obama.
In Oregon, Obama was doing considerably better than Hillary.
But in Pennsylvania, Hillary was beating McCain, Obama was tied with McCain.
In Tennessee, McCain was winning, but his margin over Obama was three times as much as over Hillary.
In Virginia, at that time, McCain was beating both, but indeed his margin over Obama was less than over Hillary.

Hillary would have created a different electoral map than Obama in 2008, but the outcome would have been the same. She would have run.

Even Ann Coulter was willing to vote for her.

You have every right to your anger and your opinion, but you don't have the same right to your own "facts".

Hillary was winning against McCain, just as Obama was. Even in April, 2008.

I'm sure all the polling shows as much. But the reality is you know as well as I do, that the true dirt starts flying, when the main election campaign starts. And honestly, many people don't even pay attention to the primaries.

Thousands, if not a few million registered Republicans, voted for Obama. They did so because Obama had no baggage. No long rap sheet. He had a fairly unremarkable record in the Senate, and before that not a whole lot.

That's why, his opponents were bringing up Rev. Wright, and Bill Ayers, and such. While those things are worth considering, it's nothing like having a direct track record of bad actions himself. I knew none of those things would swing the election, the moment the Right-wing brought them up.

But Hilliary? Oh good heavens, she has enough dirt in her history, to build a new Washington Monument.

The 1993 Hillary Health care attempt? The Travel Gate office trumpted up charges, to give jobs to friends of Hillary? The Rose Law Firm billing records that 'magically' appeared in the white house, and shockingly had Hillary's finger prints, that she amazingly couldn't remember anything about? Or how about the Tyson Foods, with that $1K investment, magically turning into $100K in 6 months?

Or even how when Bill Clinton was found screwing around with everyone, and then there was Hilliary claiming it wasn't really Bill's fault.... but rather "a vast right-wing conspiracy" was to blame. Right....

Do you people remember any of this insanity?

See, all of this would have come out in a full campaign, which didn't during the primaries, and people would have paid attention, which they didn't during the primaries.

Yes, I'm sure the polls said she would win, and perhaps if they had just skipped straight to the election, Hillary would have won. But there is so much dirt on Hillary, that Cheney would have had to hire Halliburton to excavate it all.

No, I PROMISE YOU, she would have lost. The very fact, that a no-name, unknown junior Senator, that no one even knew existed, easily surpassed Hillary in mere months before the primary, prove that.

PLEASE run Hillary. I would *LOVE* to see her crash and burn.

Untrue. Obama got 9% of the Republican vote in 2008. That is the standard value in pretty much every election, to get between 8-10% of the opposite party's votes. Obama built a new coallition in 2008, many first time voters.

Once again, your "facts" are way off.

Obama won by +10 million in 2008 and by +5 million in 2012.

You are completely wrong. There were in fact a total of Six Candidate, and Bob Barr was the Libertarian nominee. Once again, your facts are way off. [/sarcasm]

Why did I say that?

You say my facts are way off, and yet didn't actually show any evidence of such. I didn't give a percentage of opposite party votes. I never suggest Obama did not build a coalition of first time voters either. Nor did I give any numbers as to how many million votes ahead he was.

So basically, you spouted a bunch of factoid, that I didn't post, or question.... and suggested that I was wrong in the facts I never posted or referred to.

In order to claim someone's facts are off, you have to actually talk about the facts they posted. Not make up facts no one said, and attack them as wrong.

That's called a 'straw-man' argument.

You said that "a few million registered republicans" voted for Obama in 2008. That is a lie. Obama got the same percentage of the opposition party vote that most candidates get in pretty much every election.

Learn to interpret numbers. I am not gonna play math teacher for you, have more important stuff to do, youngling.

 

[billyerock1991]

If you ran a poll of Rick Perry vs. the Democrats you'd find Perry doing pretty well. You never compare one specific person against a group. That's stupid. Only an idiot like Statistheilhitler would fall for it/
In any case, I am sure all the polls in 2006 showed Hillary was a shoo-in. Actually I recall looking back at this and yes they did. Whether the match up was Hillary v. McCain or Hillary v. Giuliani, who was the front runner.

you're kidding arent you ???? Rick (I CAN'T REMEMBER THE THREE THINGS THAT I'M AGAINST) Perry ??? You're hysterical