Surprising Rasmussen poll, 2016: Hillary vs. GOP field

[rightwinger]

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

Forget something?

Where is the photoshop?

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

Doesn't every photoshop poster say the same thing?

Honest....she really looks like that

Trust me

 

[rightwinger]

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

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

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

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

 

[Statistikhengst]

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

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

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

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

Psssh!

You are letting the secret out.

 

[rightwinger]

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

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

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

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

Psssh!

You are letting the secret out.

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

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

 

[Statistikhengst]

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

All of the relevant information is in the OP.

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

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

All of the relevant information is in the OP.

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

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

I'm disputing that Hillary will be the Nominee

 

[rightwinger]

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

All of the relevant information is in the OP.

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

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

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

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

 

[Statistikhengst]

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

2004

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

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


2008

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

(36 Rasmussen national polls)


2012:

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

(47 Rasmussen national polls)


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

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

 

[Statistikhengst]

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

All of the relevant information is in the OP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Statistikhengst]

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

All of the relevant information is in the OP.

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

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

I'm disputing that Hillary will be the Nominee

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

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

 

[The Rabbi]

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

All of the relevant information is in the OP.

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

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

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

 

[The Rabbi]

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

All of the relevant information is in the OP.

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

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

I'm disputing that Hillary will be the Nominee

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

 

[Statistikhengst]

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

All of the relevant information is in the OP.

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

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

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

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

Oh, wait...

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

 

[The Rabbi]

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

All of the relevant information is in the OP.

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

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

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

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

Oh, wait...

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

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

 

[Statistikhengst]

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

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

Oh, wait...

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

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

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

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






Now, back to the OP:

Surprising Rasmussen poll, 2016: Hillary vs. GOP field

 

[rightwinger]

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

Oh, wait...

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

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

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

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






Now, back to the OP:

Surprising Rasmussen poll, 2016: Hillary vs. GOP field

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

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Oh, wait...

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

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

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

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






Now, back to the OP:

Surprising Rasmussen poll, 2016: Hillary vs. GOP field

/post fail.
/thread fail.

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

 

[Statistikhengst]

 

[The Rabbi]

 

[rightwinger]

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

All of the relevant information is in the OP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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