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

[billyerock1991]

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

and the stupid one keep prove he's stupid day in and day out mudpacker, the boards moron...

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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

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

I would vote for your dog before Hillary.

 

[mudwhistle]

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

and the stupid one keep prove he's stupid day in and day out mudpacker, the boards moron...

Wow! You have an impressive command of the English language Billybob.

If you're going to tell everyone how stupid someone is, you'd better get your spelling and punctuation correct first.

Not using capitals doesn't mean you're cool either. It just means you're lazy.

 

[Lovebears65]

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

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

She also had a lead over Obama so this means nothing this early on.

 

[Mathbud1]

Did you ever think race and sex have nothing to do with why we oppose them?

 

[candycorn]

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.

I doubt it..unless you're saying we couldn't take Governor Romney at his word. He would have appointed justices that would have over turned Roe given the opportunity. Obama will appoint justices that will leave Roe in tact (given the opportunity).

 

[candycorn]

She should have been the Dim nominee in '08, but the Dims instead chose a not-ready-for-primetime divider.

Anyway, Hillary I'm certain will be the next president, but she sure isn't going to win by 20 points.

I have stated it openly more than 10 times in USMB. I will say it again, and you can gladly bookmark it:

Hillary will win in 2016 with 57% of the NPV and more than 400 EV, perhaps considerably more.

Demographics, demographics, demographics.

And with a Republican House and a Republican Senate she will be a lame duck.

Even her exceptional beauty and charm can not change that

The Dems will re-take the Senate in 2016. Guaranteed (the only caveat is if they don't lose the Senate in 2014 by some miracle)

And Obama will serve a third term! Count on it! Hope N Change, boys and girls.

If he could run, his chances of winning a 3rd term are better than Mitt's chances of winning a first...or Rand Paul's or Ted Cruz's or Adam West or most any other GOP flavor of the week...

 

[Redfish]

Did you ever think race and sex have nothing to do with why we oppose them?

They know it, but its all they have. Their liberal policies have failed miserably, their kenyan messiah has failed miserably, HRC will never be POTUS. So all the dems and libs can do is cry and whine---------racist, sexist.

They are braindead sheep. Its really sad to see what the party of Kennedy and Truman has become.

 

[candycorn]

Did you ever think race and sex have nothing to do with why we oppose them?

They know it, but its all they have. Their liberal policies have failed miserably, their kenyan messiah has failed miserably, HRC will never be POTUS. So all the dems and libs can do is cry and whine---------racist, sexist.

They are braindead sheep. Its really sad to see what the party of Kennedy and Truman has become.

Sure...that is why there are unending comments about her appearance and comments about Obama's "purple lips"

It's not the only reason...but GOP hatred always starts with identifying what makes people different, not what they have in common.

Case in point, the ground zero Mosque....remember that?

 

[Mac1958]

.

Hillary's popularity is one thing, but the fact is that the closest things the GOP has to a viable national candidate are Jeb & Mitt.

The party may want to concentrate more on that problem than Hillary right now.

.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I would just like to go back to the actual OP for a second and remind of a couple of things worth mulling about.

It's just one poll. One poll alone doesn't say much, but the aggregate of many polls, especially from very disparate pollsters, says alot.

If it's a poll from a rock-solid bastion state for either team red or team blue, we can still learn a lot, because of the principle of "a rising tide lifts all boats".

NY is most of the time a +20 to +30 state for Democrats in national elections in which the Democrat wins both the state and nationally (at least in the NPV).

Examples:

1964: LBJ +37.25 in NY (+22.58 nationally) - 14.67 over the national average
1992: Clinton +15.85 in a three man race (+5.56 nationally) - 10.29 over the national average
1996: Clinton +28.86 in a more like two man race (+8.52 nationally) - 20.34 over the national average
2000: Gore +25.00 (Gore +0.52 in the NPV, Bush 43 of course won in the EC) - 24.48 over the national average
2008: Obama +26.86 (+7.26 nationally) - 19.60 over the national average
2012: Obama +28.18 (+3.86 nationally) - 24.32 over the national average

The only elections in the last 54, soon to be, last 56 years, where a Democrat won nationally but won NY by single digits, were 1960 and 1976:

1960: Kennedy +5.26 (+0.16 nationally) +5.10 over the national aveage
1976: Carter +4.42 (+2.06 nationally) +2.36 over the national average

Elections since 1960 where the Democrat won NY but lost the election to a Republican:

1968: Humphrey +5.46 (Nixon won by +0.70 nationally) - 6.16 over the national average, to the left
1988: Dukakis +4.10 (Bush 41 won by +7.73 nationally) - 11.83 over the national average,to the left
2004: Kerry +18.29 (Bush 43 won by +2.46 nationally) - 20.75 over the national average, to the left

And the three elections in the last 64 years where a Republican won NY state and also the national election:

1972: Nixon +17.34 (+23.15 nationally) - -5.81 under the national average, or 5.81 to the left.
1980: Reagan +2.67 (+9.74 nationally) - -7.07 under the national average, or 7.07 to the left.
1984: Reagaon +8.01 (+18.22 nationally) - -10.21 under the national average, or 10.21 to the left.

In every single case of a Democratic win in NY state and nationally 1960 to present, the NY margin was to the left of the national margin.

In every single case of a Democratic win in NY state but a Republican win nationally 1960 to present, the NY margin was to the left of the national margin.

In every single case of a Republican win in NY state and also a Republican win nationally 1960 to present, the NY margin was to the left of the national margin.

But it is the SIZE of the NY margin that is important, once again, according to the principle of "a rising tide lifts all boats".

With Clinton between +20 and +31 in this one poll, that puts here in the "normal" NY zone for a Democratic win nationally. And in other new York polls, she has climbed well over +30.

This is why is never ignore polls from rock solid states for either team. The information from those polls often tells us more than we realize.

This is why in 2008, as polling was showing a real horserace in, of all places, Indiana, I knew that Obama was heading for a substantial win nationally.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I would just like to go back to the actual OP for a second and remind of a couple of things worth mulling about.

It's just one poll. One poll alone doesn't say much, but the aggregate of many polls, especially from very disparate pollsters, says alot.

If it's a poll from a rock-solid bastion state for either team red or team blue, we can still learn a lot, because of the principle of "a rising tide lifts all boats".

NY is most of the time a +20 to +30 state for Democrats in national elections in which the Democrat wins both the state and nationally (at least in the NPV).

Examples:

1964: LBJ +37.25 in NY (+22.58 nationally) - 14.67 over the national average
1992: Clinton +15.85 in a three man race (+5.56 nationally) - 10.29 over the national average
1996: Clinton +28.86 in a more like two man race (+8.52 nationally) - 20.34 over the national average
2000: Gore +25.00 (Gore +0.52 in the NPV, Bush 43 of course won in the EC) - 24.48 over the national average
2008: Obama +26.86 (+7.26 nationally) - 19.60 over the national average
2012: Obama +28.18 (+3.86 nationally) - 24.32 over the national average

The only elections in the last 54, soon to be, last 56 years, where a Democrat won nationally but won NY by single digits, were 1960 and 1976:

1960: Kennedy +5.26 (+0.16 nationally) +5.10 over the national aveage
1976: Carter +4.42 (+2.06 nationally) +2.36 over the national average

Elections since 1960 where the Democrat won NY but lost the election to a Republican:

1968: Humphrey +5.46 (Nixon won by +0.70 nationally) - 6.16 over the national average, to the left
1988: Dukakis +4.10 (Bush 41 won by +7.73 nationally) - 11.83 over the national average,to the left
2004: Kerry +18.29 (Bush 43 won by +2.46 nationally) - 20.75 over the national average, to the left

And the three elections in the last 64 years where a Republican won NY state and also the national election:

1972: Nixon +17.34 (+23.15 nationally) - -5.81 under the national average, or 5.81 to the left.
1980: Reagan +2.67 (+9.74 nationally) - -7.07 under the national average, or 7.07 to the left.
1984: Reagaon +8.01 (+18.22 nationally) - -10.21 under the national average, or 10.21 to the left.

In every single case of a Democratic win in NY state and nationally 1960 to present, the NY margin was to the left of the national margin.

In every single case of a Democratic win in NY state but a Republican win nationally 1960 to present, the NY margin was to the left of the national margin.

In every single case of a Republican win in NY state and also a Republican win nationally 1960 to present, the NY margin was to the left of the national margin.

But it is the SIZE of the NY margin that is important, once again, according to the principle of "a rising tide lifts all boats".

With Clinton between +20 and +31 in this one poll, that puts here in the "normal" NY zone for a Democratic win nationally. And in other new York polls, she has climbed well over +30.

This is why is never ignore polls from rock solid states for either team. The information from those polls often tells us more than we realize.

This is why in 2008, as polling was showing a real horserace in, of all places, Indiana, I knew that Obama was heading for a substantial win nationally.

 

[RandallFlagg]

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

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

In her home state by a university poll. Early and often is the motto of the left promoting illegal voting practices. Typical way they win.

Hillary Clinton doesn't have enough sense to pour piss out of a boot - I'm not worried about this air-head in the least. No one should be - unless your first name is Vince and your last name is Foster.

 

[The Rabbi]

She should have been the Dim nominee in '08, but the Dims instead chose a not-ready-for-primetime divider.

Anyway, Hillary I'm certain will be the next president, but she sure isn't going to win by 20 points.

I have stated it openly more than 10 times in USMB. I will say it again, and you can gladly bookmark it:

Hillary will win in 2016 with 57% of the NPV and more than 400 EV, perhaps considerably more.

Demographics, demographics, demographics.

And with a Republican House and a Republican Senate she will be a lame duck.

Even her exceptional beauty and charm can not change that

The Dems will re-take the Senate in 2016. Guaranteed (the only caveat is if they don't lose the Senate in 2014 by some miracle)

And Obama will serve a third term! Count on it! Hope N Change, boys and girls.

If he could run, his chances of winning a 3rd term are better than Mitt's chances of winning a first...or Rand Paul's or Ted Cruz's or Adam West or most any other GOP flavor of the week...

I know, amazing isnt it? The worst president in history. Household income, down, household wealth, down, debt up, credit rating down, regulation up, foreign policy way down, obamacare a failure. Dodd-frank a failure. No domestic policy victories. No foreign policy victories. And Dems would line up to vote for him again.

 

[g5000]

So, PoliticalTorch, I asked three days ago some important policy questions regarding Hillary Clinton, since it would be retarded to drool and cream your jeans over Hillary if you didn't have a fucking clue what she would do if elected, right?

You have had three whole days to ruminate, and you have totally dodged responding.

This does not bode well for your intellectual weight.

 

[The Rabbi]

So, PoliticalTorch, I asked three days ago some important policy questions regarding Hillary Clinton, since it would be retarded to drool and cream your jeans over Hillary if you didn't have a fucking clue what she would do if elected, right?

You have had three whole days to ruminate, and you have totally dodged responding.

This does not bode well for your intellectual weight.

You're just figuring out he has no intellectual weight? Are you slow on the uptake?

 

[RandallFlagg]

She should have been the Dim nominee in '08, but the Dims instead chose a not-ready-for-primetime divider.

Anyway, Hillary I'm certain will be the next president, but she sure isn't going to win by 20 points.

I have stated it openly more than 10 times in USMB. I will say it again, and you can gladly bookmark it:

Hillary will win in 2016 with 57% of the NPV and more than 400 EV, perhaps considerably more.

Demographics, demographics, demographics.

And with a Republican House and a Republican Senate she will be a lame duck.

Even her exceptional beauty and charm can not change that

The Dems will re-take the Senate in 2016. Guaranteed (the only caveat is if they don't lose the Senate in 2014 by some miracle)

And Obama will serve a third term! Count on it! Hope N Change, boys and girls.

If he could run, his chances of winning a 3rd term are better than Mitt's chances of winning a first...or Rand Paul's or Ted Cruz's or Adam West or most any other GOP flavor of the week...

I know, amazing isnt it? The worst president in history. Household income, down, household wealth, down, debt up, credit rating down, regulation up, foreign policy way down, obamacare a failure. Dodd-frank a failure. No domestic policy victories. No foreign policy victories. And Dems would line up to vote for him again.

That's precisely why the Nazi left would vote for this clown again. He is incompetent, impotent and worthless. Classic conditions required to be a liberal.

 

[g5000]

So, PoliticalTorch, I asked three days ago some important policy questions regarding Hillary Clinton, since it would be retarded to drool and cream your jeans over Hillary if you didn't have a fucking clue what she would do if elected, right?

You have had three whole days to ruminate, and you have totally dodged responding.

This does not bode well for your intellectual weight.

You're just figuring out he has no intellectual weight? Are you slow on the uptake?

Oh, don't worry. I'll be asking the same questions of those who support whoever Hillary's opponent is. And I will get identical results, I'm sure.

It's pretty obvious people around here think out of their asses. The only difference is whether their asses are red or blue.

"What does the Daily Caller say I should believe today?" "What does MSNBC say I should believe today?"

 

[candycorn]

She should have been the Dim nominee in '08, but the Dims instead chose a not-ready-for-primetime divider.

Anyway, Hillary I'm certain will be the next president, but she sure isn't going to win by 20 points.

I have stated it openly more than 10 times in USMB. I will say it again, and you can gladly bookmark it:

Hillary will win in 2016 with 57% of the NPV and more than 400 EV, perhaps considerably more.

Demographics, demographics, demographics.

And with a Republican House and a Republican Senate she will be a lame duck.

Even her exceptional beauty and charm can not change that

The Dems will re-take the Senate in 2016. Guaranteed (the only caveat is if they don't lose the Senate in 2014 by some miracle)

And Obama will serve a third term! Count on it! Hope N Change, boys and girls.

If he could run, his chances of winning a 3rd term are better than Mitt's chances of winning a first...or Rand Paul's or Ted Cruz's or Adam West or most any other GOP flavor of the week...

I know, amazing isnt it? The worst president in history. Household income, down, household wealth, down, debt up, credit rating down, regulation up, foreign policy way down, obamacare a failure. Dodd-frank a failure. No domestic policy victories. No foreign policy victories. And Dems would line up to vote for him again.

And so will the American people when given a glimpse into the GOP fiscal "plans" which involve targeting

The elderly
The sick
The impoverished

To the GOP's credit they rotate their hit list.

Socially, women are treated as second class citizens by your party and the GLBT community isn't even seen as "real" Americans by folks like yourself Shirley.

 

[Statistikhengst]

She should have been the Dim nominee in '08, but the Dims instead chose a not-ready-for-primetime divider.

Anyway, Hillary I'm certain will be the next president, but she sure isn't going to win by 20 points.

I have stated it openly more than 10 times in USMB. I will say it again, and you can gladly bookmark it:

Hillary will win in 2016 with 57% of the NPV and more than 400 EV, perhaps considerably more.

Demographics, demographics, demographics.

And with a Republican House and a Republican Senate she will be a lame duck.

Even her exceptional beauty and charm can not change that

The Dems will re-take the Senate in 2016. Guaranteed (the only caveat is if they don't lose the Senate in 2014 by some miracle)

And Obama will serve a third term! Count on it! Hope N Change, boys and girls.

If he could run, his chances of winning a 3rd term are better than Mitt's chances of winning a first...or Rand Paul's or Ted Cruz's or Adam West or most any other GOP flavor of the week...

I know, amazing isnt it? The worst president in history. Household income, down, household wealth, down, debt up, credit rating down, regulation up, foreign policy way down, obamacare a failure. Dodd-frank a failure. No domestic policy victories. No foreign policy victories. And Dems would line up to vote for him again.

And so will the American people when given a glimpse into the GOP fiscal "plans" which involve targeting

The elderly
The sick
The impoverished

To the GOP's credit they rotate their hit list.

Socially, women are treated as second class citizens by your party and the GLBT community isn't even seen as "real" Americans by folks like yourself Shirley.

Oh, details, details...