Hillary is STOMPING Christie, Jeb Bush and Walker in NJ

[martybegan]

That "war on women" thing went sooo fucking well for you in 2014....

The woman vote at worst skews 60-40. Are we at "war" with the 40% floor that votes republican as well?

That would be +20 for the Democratic candidate. No Republican can win the White House and lose the female vote by 20 points, especially considering that a Republican cannot expect more than 10% of the Black vote, if at all, 30% of the Asian vote, 20% of the American Indian vote, and if things continue, 20% of the Latino vote.

Right now, Clinton is winning in the women's vote in most state polls and in most matchups by circa +25, sometimes as high as +32.

It's simple arithmetic.

That would work except for the electoral college. You guys keep forgetting about that one.

Oh, no, I haven't forgotten that. Right now, according to polling, Hillary is STARTING at 311 EV. STARTING.

In February 2015. That's like going 4-0 in pre-season football a season earlier.

Well, ok. And when in one year, just as one year ago, the same data is coming in showing the GOP getting a pasting from Hillary all over the place, I will remind you of this thread.

I'm sure of it. I'll be ready for all of your side's complaints of cheating when Hillary loses.

 

[martybegan]

I dunno, can we maybe actually stick to the topic of the OP?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

NEVER!

Too bland. Needs color.

Now, back to the OP:

the reason why the data is so interesting is not that Hillary is winning in NJ. We expect that to happen. It's the massive margins, uncharacteristic of this state, that make it worth looking at.

NJ elected Krispie Kreme as a backlash against the Goldman-Sachs mogul with the broken leg. It is also one of the most informed electorates in the nation IMO. His re-election was a combination of Hurricane Sandy and political election gerrymandering by excluding Cory Booker from November at the expense of NJ taxpayers.

His Bridgegate albatross has exposed him as being, at best, a very poor judge of character to have surrounded himself with a gang of criminals.

So his lousy polling makes him unlikely to attract GOP establishment funding for 2016 since it doesn't look like he can carry his own home state. At this point he is toast IMO.

Hilary's numbers in NJ might foretell a sweep but they give hope to other Dem candidates. I would love to see how Warren matches up in NJ.

LOL. "Bridgegate" in Jersey politics is business as usual. If NJ has one of the most informed electorates, why do they go negative right off the bat? Have you ever SEEN NJ political ads? They don't run on position, they run on smear.

States elect Republican governors because they realize Democrats have spent all of the money in the piggy bank, and unlike the country as a whole, people who get soaked to cover the costs CAN MOVE AWAY. Connecticut is going through that right now.

 

[Mertex]

That would be +20 for the Democratic candidate. No Republican can win the White House and lose the female vote by 20 points, especially considering that a Republican cannot expect more than 10% of the Black vote, if at all, 30% of the Asian vote, 20% of the American Indian vote, and if things continue, 20% of the Latino vote.

Right now, Clinton is winning in the women's vote in most state polls and in most matchups by circa +25, sometimes as high as +32.

It's simple arithmetic.

That would work except for the electoral college. You guys keep forgetting about that one.

Oh, no, I haven't forgotten that. Right now, according to polling, Hillary is STARTING at 311 EV. STARTING.

In February 2015. That's like going 4-0 in pre-season football a season earlier.

Well, ok. And when in one year, just as one year ago, the same data is coming in showing the GOP getting a pasting from Hillary all over the place, I will remind you of this thread.

I'm sure of it. I'll be ready for all of your side's complaints of cheating when Hillary loses.

Isn't that what you all were saying about Romney in 2012.....right up to, no wait, right after Obama was declared winner? Just sayin............

 

[Mertex]

The way the GOP has gone against women, it's no wonder that Hillary tops them all. Republicans need to realize that women vote.........in numbers.......

GOP needs improve their outreach to women by keeping 16 year old women as sex slaves.

Maybe they should try the factual information instead of tabloid approach. Just saying...

I'm sure Hillary's primary opponents will do their own fact finding

Sure they will........they'll go to Rush Limbaugh for support.......

 

[martybegan]

That would work except for the electoral college. You guys keep forgetting about that one.

Oh, no, I haven't forgotten that. Right now, according to polling, Hillary is STARTING at 311 EV. STARTING.

In February 2015. That's like going 4-0 in pre-season football a season earlier.

Well, ok. And when in one year, just as one year ago, the same data is coming in showing the GOP getting a pasting from Hillary all over the place, I will remind you of this thread.

I'm sure of it. I'll be ready for all of your side's complaints of cheating when Hillary loses.

Isn't that what you all were saying about Romney in 2012.....right up to, no wait, right after Obama was declared winner? Just sayin............

I thought Romney had a chance, but I knew beating an incumbent is difficult. Bill Clinton only did it because of the Perot effect.

Try and find any accusations of Cheating I posted on this forum in 2012.

 

[Mertex]

Oh, no, I haven't forgotten that. Right now, according to polling, Hillary is STARTING at 311 EV. STARTING.

In February 2015. That's like going 4-0 in pre-season football a season earlier.

Well, ok. And when in one year, just as one year ago, the same data is coming in showing the GOP getting a pasting from Hillary all over the place, I will remind you of this thread.

I'm sure of it. I'll be ready for all of your side's complaints of cheating when Hillary loses.

Isn't that what you all were saying about Romney in 2012.....right up to, no wait, right after Obama was declared winner? Just sayin............

I thought Romney had a chance, but I knew beating an incumbent is difficult. Bill Clinton only did it because of the Perot effect.

Try and find any accusations of Cheating I posted on this forum in 2012.

I said "you all" - not saying you specifically...........but, the point I was trying to make is that Hillary isn't going to lose.....the polls showed Obama was going to win and "you all" were so sure that Romney was going to win...that's what I was referring to.

 

[Statistikhengst]

That would be +20 for the Democratic candidate. No Republican can win the White House and lose the female vote by 20 points, especially considering that a Republican cannot expect more than 10% of the Black vote, if at all, 30% of the Asian vote, 20% of the American Indian vote, and if things continue, 20% of the Latino vote.

Right now, Clinton is winning in the women's vote in most state polls and in most matchups by circa +25, sometimes as high as +32.

It's simple arithmetic.

That would work except for the electoral college. You guys keep forgetting about that one.

Oh, no, I haven't forgotten that. Right now, according to polling, Hillary is STARTING at 311 EV. STARTING.

In February 2015. That's like going 4-0 in pre-season football a season earlier.

Well, ok. And when in one year, just as one year ago, the same data is coming in showing the GOP getting a pasting from Hillary all over the place, I will remind you of this thread.

I'm sure of it. I'll be ready for all of your side's complaints of cheating when Hillary loses.

Election Night 2016: Hillary with 57% of the NPV (when the final canvasses are in), and over 400 EV.

Good luck with that one, li'l slugger!

 

[mudwhistle]

As long as she stays silent and in hiding she's a shoein

 

[Statistikhengst]

Oh, no, I haven't forgotten that. Right now, according to polling, Hillary is STARTING at 311 EV. STARTING.

In February 2015. That's like going 4-0 in pre-season football a season earlier.

Well, ok. And when in one year, just as one year ago, the same data is coming in showing the GOP getting a pasting from Hillary all over the place, I will remind you of this thread.

I'm sure of it. I'll be ready for all of your side's complaints of cheating when Hillary loses.

Isn't that what you all were saying about Romney in 2012.....right up to, no wait, right after Obama was declared winner? Just sayin............

I thought Romney had a chance, but I knew beating an incumbent is difficult. Bill Clinton only did it because of the Perot effect.

Try and find any accusations of Cheating I posted on this forum in 2012.

No. This is false, very false.

CNN/ORC and a number of different pollsters still ran two-man matchups all the way up to election night 1992. Their final poll showed Clinton +6 over Bush 41 and Perot, but their 2-man poll showed him at +10, 55-45. The Perot effect would have actually helped Clinton had it vanished, which we clearly see from the 1996 race.

 

[martybegan]

In February 2015. That's like going 4-0 in pre-season football a season earlier.

Well, ok. And when in one year, just as one year ago, the same data is coming in showing the GOP getting a pasting from Hillary all over the place, I will remind you of this thread.

I'm sure of it. I'll be ready for all of your side's complaints of cheating when Hillary loses.

Isn't that what you all were saying about Romney in 2012.....right up to, no wait, right after Obama was declared winner? Just sayin............

I thought Romney had a chance, but I knew beating an incumbent is difficult. Bill Clinton only did it because of the Perot effect.

Try and find any accusations of Cheating I posted on this forum in 2012.

I said "you all" - not saying you specifically...........but, the point I was trying to make is that Hillary isn't going to lose.....the polls showed Obama was going to win and "you all" were so sure that Romney was going to win...that's what I was referring to.

That was leading up to the election, when it as a one on one fight.

But keep shoring yourself up with early 2015 polls, I guess the ass kickings "you all" took in 2014 still sting.

 

[martybegan]

In February 2015. That's like going 4-0 in pre-season football a season earlier.

Well, ok. And when in one year, just as one year ago, the same data is coming in showing the GOP getting a pasting from Hillary all over the place, I will remind you of this thread.

I'm sure of it. I'll be ready for all of your side's complaints of cheating when Hillary loses.

Isn't that what you all were saying about Romney in 2012.....right up to, no wait, right after Obama was declared winner? Just sayin............

I thought Romney had a chance, but I knew beating an incumbent is difficult. Bill Clinton only did it because of the Perot effect.

Try and find any accusations of Cheating I posted on this forum in 2012.

No. This is false, very false.

CNN/ORC and a number of different pollsters still ran two-man matchups all the way up to election night 1992. Their final poll showed Clinton +6 over Bush 41 and Perot, but their 2-man poll showed him at +10, 55-45. The Perot effect would have actually helped Clinton had it vanished, which we clearly see from the 1996 race.

So Perot did not cost Bush a single state? Again you ignore the electoral college.

 

[martybegan]

That would work except for the electoral college. You guys keep forgetting about that one.

Oh, no, I haven't forgotten that. Right now, according to polling, Hillary is STARTING at 311 EV. STARTING.

In February 2015. That's like going 4-0 in pre-season football a season earlier.

Well, ok. And when in one year, just as one year ago, the same data is coming in showing the GOP getting a pasting from Hillary all over the place, I will remind you of this thread.

I'm sure of it. I'll be ready for all of your side's complaints of cheating when Hillary loses.

Election Night 2016: Hillary with 57% of the NPV (when the final canvasses are in), and over 400 EV.

Good luck with that one, li'l slugger!

So i guess you know who is going to win the superbowl in January of 2017, because that is basically what you are trying to do with the 2016 election.

But if you have to tell yourself "unbeatable Hillary" Stories so you can sleep at night, go ahead.

 

[fmdog44]

What month/ year is it? The real tragedy facing America is while the Republicans struggle to find a front runner the Democrats can't come up with anyone better than an old woman whose time has long passed. America is shriveling as evidence by it lack of leaders. No. 2016 is a long way away and our current "leader" continues to embarrass the free people of the world.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Well, ok. And when in one year, just as one year ago, the same data is coming in showing the GOP getting a pasting from Hillary all over the place, I will remind you of this thread.

I'm sure of it. I'll be ready for all of your side's complaints of cheating when Hillary loses.

Isn't that what you all were saying about Romney in 2012.....right up to, no wait, right after Obama was declared winner? Just sayin............

I thought Romney had a chance, but I knew beating an incumbent is difficult. Bill Clinton only did it because of the Perot effect.

Try and find any accusations of Cheating I posted on this forum in 2012.

No. This is false, very false.

CNN/ORC and a number of different pollsters still ran two-man matchups all the way up to election night 1992. Their final poll showed Clinton +6 over Bush 41 and Perot, but their 2-man poll showed him at +10, 55-45. The Perot effect would have actually helped Clinton had it vanished, which we clearly see from the 1996 race.

So Perot did not cost Bush a single state? Again you ignore the electoral college.

And again, you miss the point. Without Perot, Clinton would also have sailed over 400 EV, quite easily. No candidate has ever won a circa +10 or more race in the last 80+ and not come in at about 400 EV or more.

Reagan 1984, 1980
Nixon 1972
LBJ 1964
Eisenhower 1956, 1952
FDR 1940, 1936, 1932
Hoover 1928

And then there's Bush 41 1988 and FDR 1944, where both won by around +7.5% in the NPV and still came over 400 EV.

Pay attention.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Oh, no, I haven't forgotten that. Right now, according to polling, Hillary is STARTING at 311 EV. STARTING.

In February 2015. That's like going 4-0 in pre-season football a season earlier.

Well, ok. And when in one year, just as one year ago, the same data is coming in showing the GOP getting a pasting from Hillary all over the place, I will remind you of this thread.

I'm sure of it. I'll be ready for all of your side's complaints of cheating when Hillary loses.

Election Night 2016: Hillary with 57% of the NPV (when the final canvasses are in), and over 400 EV.

Good luck with that one, li'l slugger!

So i guess you know who is going to win the superbowl in January of 2017, because that is basically what you are trying to do with the 2016 election.

But if you have to tell yourself "unbeatable Hillary" Stories so you can sleep at night, go ahead.

You seem angry. I am just reporting the numbers, and btw, I have only written about a hundred times thus far in USMB: "if these numbers hold..."

That's enough of a disclaimer. Pay attention.

 

[martybegan]

I'm sure of it. I'll be ready for all of your side's complaints of cheating when Hillary loses.

Isn't that what you all were saying about Romney in 2012.....right up to, no wait, right after Obama was declared winner? Just sayin............

I thought Romney had a chance, but I knew beating an incumbent is difficult. Bill Clinton only did it because of the Perot effect.

Try and find any accusations of Cheating I posted on this forum in 2012.

No. This is false, very false.

CNN/ORC and a number of different pollsters still ran two-man matchups all the way up to election night 1992. Their final poll showed Clinton +6 over Bush 41 and Perot, but their 2-man poll showed him at +10, 55-45. The Perot effect would have actually helped Clinton had it vanished, which we clearly see from the 1996 race.

So Perot did not cost Bush a single state? Again you ignore the electoral college.

And again, you miss the point. Without Perot, Clinton would also have sailed over 400 EV, quite easily. No candidate has ever won a circa +10 or more race in the last 80+ and not come in at about 400 EV or more.

Reagan 1984, 1980
Nixon 1972
LBJ 1964
Eisenhower 1956, 1952
FDR 1940, 1936, 1932
Hoover 1928

And then there's Bush 41 1988 and FDR 1944, where both won by around +7.5% in the NPV and still came over 400 EV.

Pay attention.

Again, you are using national numbers, not state level numbers.

Are you saying Perot did not cost Bush a single state?

 

[martybegan]

In February 2015. That's like going 4-0 in pre-season football a season earlier.

Well, ok. And when in one year, just as one year ago, the same data is coming in showing the GOP getting a pasting from Hillary all over the place, I will remind you of this thread.

I'm sure of it. I'll be ready for all of your side's complaints of cheating when Hillary loses.

Election Night 2016: Hillary with 57% of the NPV (when the final canvasses are in), and over 400 EV.

Good luck with that one, li'l slugger!

So i guess you know who is going to win the superbowl in January of 2017, because that is basically what you are trying to do with the 2016 election.

But if you have to tell yourself "unbeatable Hillary" Stories so you can sleep at night, go ahead.

You seem angry. I am just reporting the numbers, and btw, I have only written about a hundred times thus far in USMB: "if these numbers hold..."

That's enough of a disclaimer. Pay attention.

You are not just "reporting the numbers." You are drawing conclusions from them which agree with your political views.

Stop with this "I'm above it all because, numbers" bullshit. Its about as sad as JakeFarkey claiming he is a Republican.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Isn't that what you all were saying about Romney in 2012.....right up to, no wait, right after Obama was declared winner? Just sayin............

I thought Romney had a chance, but I knew beating an incumbent is difficult. Bill Clinton only did it because of the Perot effect.

Try and find any accusations of Cheating I posted on this forum in 2012.

No. This is false, very false.

CNN/ORC and a number of different pollsters still ran two-man matchups all the way up to election night 1992. Their final poll showed Clinton +6 over Bush 41 and Perot, but their 2-man poll showed him at +10, 55-45. The Perot effect would have actually helped Clinton had it vanished, which we clearly see from the 1996 race.

So Perot did not cost Bush a single state? Again you ignore the electoral college.

And again, you miss the point. Without Perot, Clinton would also have sailed over 400 EV, quite easily. No candidate has ever won a circa +10 or more race in the last 80+ and not come in at about 400 EV or more.

Reagan 1984, 1980
Nixon 1972
LBJ 1964
Eisenhower 1956, 1952
FDR 1940, 1936, 1932
Hoover 1928

And then there's Bush 41 1988 and FDR 1944, where both won by around +7.5% in the NPV and still came over 400 EV.

Pay attention.

Again, you are using national numbers, not state level numbers.

Are you saying Perot did not cost Bush a single state?

If the polling showed it at +6 for Clinton nationally in a three-way but at +10 in a two-way, that can only mean that Clinton would have done better in the respective states where it was relatively close. For instance, Clinton barely lost Florida in 1992. Without Perot, he probably would have won both that state and North Carolina. Also, polling in Indiana was the closest for a Democrat there since 1948 (excepting LBJs out and out win in 1964), so in a two man race, Clinton could easily have won the Hoosier state, 16 years before Obama did in a two man race in 2008. His numbers were also high enough in Georgia that I believe he would have kept the state in a two man race. Clinton very narrowly won the Peach state in 1992.

Montana, on the other hand, could indeed have swung for Bush in 1992 in a two man race.


So, after losing about 40 more EV, Bush could have picked up 3. What a deal!

 

[Statistikhengst]

Well, ok. And when in one year, just as one year ago, the same data is coming in showing the GOP getting a pasting from Hillary all over the place, I will remind you of this thread.

I'm sure of it. I'll be ready for all of your side's complaints of cheating when Hillary loses.

Election Night 2016: Hillary with 57% of the NPV (when the final canvasses are in), and over 400 EV.

Good luck with that one, li'l slugger!

So i guess you know who is going to win the superbowl in January of 2017, because that is basically what you are trying to do with the 2016 election.

But if you have to tell yourself "unbeatable Hillary" Stories so you can sleep at night, go ahead.

You seem angry. I am just reporting the numbers, and btw, I have only written about a hundred times thus far in USMB: "if these numbers hold..."

That's enough of a disclaimer. Pay attention.

You are not just "reporting the numbers." You are drawing conclusions from them which agree with your political views.

Stop with this "I'm above it all because, numbers" bullshit. Its about as sad as JakeFarkey claiming he is a Republican.

I am all about the numbers. You are the one getting mad, not I.

I bet you have never really read my analyses from stem to stern. Were you to do that, you would realize that I truly am a numbers man, whether you like to admit it or not.

Pay attention.

And have a great day.

 

[Mertex]

As long as she stays silent and in hiding she's a shoein

Yeah, I know exactly what you mean.....the Republican candidates will open their mouths and remove all doubt.....can hardly wait...