Nobody's within ten of Clinton-Republican challengers destroyed!!!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Last edited Wed Mar 18, 2015, 10:11 AM - Edit history (1)

Hillary Clinton continues to be a dominant force heading into the 2016 presidential election, according to a new CNN/ORC poll. The former secretary of state maintains a broad lead over the field of potential Democratic challengers she could face in a nomination contest and sizable advantages over the leading contenders from the Republican side in general election match-ups.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush tops the possible field for the Republican Party's nomination race, followed by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former neurosurgeon Ben Carson all in a tight cluster.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush tops the possible field for the Republican Party's nomination race, followed by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former neurosurgeon Ben Carson all in a tight cluster.


But none of the top candidates in this field gets within 10 points of Hillary Clinton in a series of hypothetical general election matchups.

Rand Paul comes closest, with 43% saying they'd be more likely to back him while 54% choose Clinton. The two candidates who currently top the GOP field, Bush and Walker, match up equally against Clinton, with each carrying 40% to her 55%. Huckabee gets 41% to Clinton's 55% and Carson has 40% to Clinton's 56%.







http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/18/politics/2016-election-poll-clinton-bush/index.html

[MANative]

1. The most important number in all of this is 54.

That's her lowest level of support against likely Republican challengers, and it's well more than half of those polled. That's the benchmark that every candidate I've ever worked for looks for. Break the 50% number - maintain it over 50% - and the game's over. Did President Obama ever poll over 50%, particularly in the 2012 round? I could certainly be wrong, but I don't think he did.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. And this is after two weeks of unrelenting bad press...

It reminds me of Bill Clinton who was never more popular than during his bogus impeachment trial.

[MANative]

4. Yes, wasn't it somewhere north of 68%? It was amazing! nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. Here

[MANative]

8. Thanks!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Elections are about the future, not the past. I get that

But whenever I hear pundits say that these fabricated scandals remind voters of the worse aspects of the 90's I laugh. They didn't give a rat's patootie. In fact the pundits weren't offended by them either because it gave them something to bray about.

[MANative]

16. Exactly. It's all about the noise machine making money off it.

As stupid as Romney was in the way he phrased his thinking, he also wasn't entirely wrong when he said that there were 47% that he would never reach. Same is true in the inverse. There's that chunk of the electorate that Hillary can never hope to capture because they've been so (literally) brainwashed into believing that she - and all "libruls" - are evil. But it seems clear that she has the ability to capture the remaining 53%. In fact, she's slightly out-performing the range. I love that this will drive them nuts! My biggest concern is not over her ability to gain the support, it's about the strong likelihood that dirty tricks well beyond those employed by Georgie in 2000 and 2004 will be wielded against the American voter. (It's not against Hillary, truly, it's a direct attack on free democratic elections.)

You're right that the general population doesn't give a crap about these "scandals" and sees them for what they are - manufactured outrage. Bill's popularity after the impeachment was strong evidence; Hillary is proving it true again.

[MineralMan]

2. Those are good early poll results, but still early.

If Hillary Clinton runs in the primaries and ends up as the nominee, I hope that polling holds up through the general election. As the primary field emerges, we'll see some other polling for her opponents. That will provide some indication of how her competition will do in the general election.

[NM_Birder]

6. 20 months to go, ...........

And a CNN poll has Hillary ahead.
Does ORC stand for "online resource center" ?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. She is ahead in every poll:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_christie_vs_clinton-3766.html



I regret if reporting these numbers cause you consternation or unease.


Oh, I believe ORC is an acronym for Opinion Research Center.

[NM_Birder]

15. lol, nah don't have regrets, and I'll be ok, thanks.

settling in for a LOOOOONG poll reporting season.

It's just me, .... CNN poll 20 months out, showing Hillary is still the front runner is impressive, with less than 80 weeks to go until election this is awesome, more proof that the GOP is in it's last desperate gasp for air.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. I regret the sarcastic tone then. I just like good news...There is always enough bad news...

[TexasProgresive]

10. I remember when President Obama was 1st elected

and the Republican party was destroyed. Ms. Clinton may be ahead in the polls but the pukes are still breathing and fuming.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Baby steps.

And they are like roaches who I believe are equipped to survive a nuclear war.

[madokie]

12. It don't matter to me who the democratic nominee is

I'm supporting and voting for them.

If doesn't matter if its the worm out on the drive looking for a dry place in all this rain if it is our nominee I'll be there to cast my vote.

[NCTraveler]

13. Really is lining up to be a great election season for civil rights....

and the betterment of society. Punks are already resorting to things like the email issue as if it was going to hurt us. Pathetic little wimps showing their true colors a little early in the season. We have rock stars like Hillary, Sanders, Warren, O'Malley, Dean, and Biden. They have circus animals like Gowdy, Paul, and Rubio.

Great times to be a Democrat. Time to weaken the Republican image at every turn.

Love the picture.

[still_one]

51. The biggest problem is the disenfranchising of voters. Whoever our nominee is, it is not going to

be easy. Just looks how the MSM does their reporting. It will be an uphill battle no matter who the nominee is, especially given the fact that the Southern Strategy is alive and well, and the midterms presented some very disturbing results.

The republican who may come out of the woodwork is Walker.

You are right, their candidates are as extreme as they come, and if anyone who supports labor, women's rights, civil rights, etc. is paying attention, then we have a chance.

[NCTraveler]

54. I don't disagree with you completely.

I do think the Democrats have put themselves in a position to do very well in national elections. I really do think we have turned the tide at the national level and have a very good chance to hold the White House for sixteen years. I think our biggest problem, and one the Republicans see to be better at, is on the local level.

[Savannahmann]

14. Outstanding.

With the election already won, I can focus my energies on other pursuits. No worries about donating to the candidate, or the party. No problems with talking the candidate up to friends, relatives, and neighbors. No long hours calling people at the phone banks. I can just relax and coast through the election season. In fact, I may just put Hillary in my auto ignore feature, and relax secure that the election has already been won. It won't be a nomination so much as a coronation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. If that is what you took away from my reporting there is nothing I can do...

If that is what you took away from my reporting there is nothing I can do I can do to disabuse you of that notion. But thank you for kicking my thread.

[Savannahmann]

20. That was your whole point.

Nobody else is leading the Republican potentials eight and a half months before the first primary. So everyone else should shut up, sit down, and support the eventual nominee. All of us should get behind her, because polling eight and a half months before the first primary have her in the lead.

You are accustomed to me arguing that she's a terrible candidate. I'm not doing that. I'm not going over her long list of negatives. I'm not going to do a damn thing from now on. I'm going to sit down, relax, and let her be nominated. When she is nominated, I'm not going to donate one damned dollar, nor one hour of my time to help her get elected. I'm not going to use my minivan to drive people to the polls. I'm not going to sit at phone banks. I'm not going to put a sign up along my part of the busy county road. I'm going to relax and just chill out and enjoy the victory without any effort.

Now the funny part, is going to be where you blame me when she loses. It will be my fault in your weird little world. It will be my fault that I didn't donate money to her campaign. It will be my fault that I didn't go sit at the phone banks, and attend rallies and events to increase public awareness.

But I don't have to. Hillary has won, all others are destroyed by your own thread. Of course, that won't make a bit of difference, you will still blame me.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. I am a Democrat reporting good news to my fellow Democrats...

I am not responsible for the myriad of inferences you are drawing from my reporting.

[PowerToThePeople]

19. i need to put Hillary on ignore here @ du.

I think I will do it now.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. Thank you for kicking my thread though. I hope you are having a terrific week./NT

[PowerToThePeople]

23. you are welcome

Seeing I trash canned all Hillary type words, this might be good bye for now. I'll see how DU looks without her for a bit...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. I might try it with different names to see what the board looks like under certain conditions...

But I have a hard enough time navigating this board.

[PowerToThePeople]

26. I have used trash by keyword

At several different points in the past. Typically it is during media frenzie times. I had to trash "christie" and "bridge" for several weeks sometime this last year.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. I might try it with different names to see what the board looks like under certain conditions...

But I have a hard enough time navigating this board.

[jeff47]

27. Good thing the election was held today!

Oh wait.....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. Did I suggest it did?

"Oh wait...."

As an aside, ellipsis points consist of three evenly spaced dots, ergo:

An ellipsis [ … ] proves to be a handy device when you're quoting material and you want to omit some words. The ellipsis consists of three evenly spaced dots (periods) with spaces between the ellipsis and surrounding letters or other marks. Let's take the sentence, "The ceremony honored twelve brilliant athletes from the Caribbean who were visiting the U.S." and leave out "from the Caribbean who were":

anything more is superfluous.

[jeff47]

31. Yes. Your post's entire theme is Clinton has the general election completely won.

As an aside, ellipsis points consist of three evenly spaced dots (...) anything more is superfluous.

It wasn't a quote. Therefore, describing how an ellipsis should be used when quoting people is quite wrong.

Also, you might wanna google the term "vernacular".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Oh, colloquialisms or idiomatic English...

And even in informal writing anything more than three ellipsis points is superfluous, ergo:

Informal writing

In informal writing, an ellipsis can be used to represent a trailing off of thought.

If only she had . . . Oh, it doesn’t matter now.

An ellipsis can also indicate hesitation, though in this case the punctuation is more accurately described as suspension points.

I wasn’t really . . . well, what I mean . . . see, the thing is . . . I didn’t mean it.

Like the exclamation point, the ellipsis is at risk of overuse.

Back to my topic. I was sharing good news with my fellow Democrats. I can not be responsible for the inferences of some as they can not be responsible for the inferences of mine.

If I said Mayweather has had forty seven fights and won all of them I am not suggesting he has his upcoming fight with Manny Pacquiao already won .

You made a remark intended to upset me. I responded in kind. It is what it is.

[jeff47]

33. Really. You think "Challengers Destroyed" is not supposed to indicate victory.

You aren't a moron. Stop trying to hide behind "I didn't think people would take it that way" and own up to your actions.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. I really loathe tussling with my fellow Democrats...I really do...

It's like arguing with a loved one to me...

I got up this morning with the mother of all headaches, turned on CNN, and saw the anchor refer to a fresh presidential poll. I went to their website and found it and because the news was so good I almost forgot about my headache.

I subscribe to the notion that any good news is good news and the fact Hillary Clinton , despite getting the Hell beat out of her in the press for two weeks, is polling so well is exceptionally good news to me. That's the reason for the hyperbole.

[Jim Lane]

36. Your view of the ellipsis is too narrow.

In formal legal writing (a brief or a law review article), correct style is to use the three spaced periods as you state for an internal omission. If the omission comes at the end of a declarative sentence, however, one leaves in the period that ends the sentence, even though it makes four in a row. For example, here's the correct format for a shortened version of the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution . . . .

In informal writing, I see nothing wrong with using four spaced periods at the end of the sentence to indicate a trailing off of the voice (which in speech would typically convey uncertainty, or leaving the conclusion to the listener: "If Clinton runs, she'll be the favorite. If she doesn't run . . . ."

As for the "evenly spaced" part, when I write on DU I often leave out the spaces.

If Clinton is our nominee, I'll almost certainly vote for her regardless of whether she opts for three periods or four. I'm a two-blank-spaces-after-a-sentence man myself, but I can also live with it if she leaves only one. I do hope she'll come out against the TPP, though.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. TY./NT

[Cosmic Kitten]

28. A poll of 1009 people! big whoopdeedo

So Hillary has about 500 people who
like her...
and republicans get about 400 votes
Ha Ha

Gee, with stunning numbers like
540 to 430 what's to worry about?
Clearly she is INEVITABLE!!!111!1!!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Here is a list of almost every available poll

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_christie_vs_clinton-3766.html


Please unskew all of them and report to me /us your findings.

Thank you in advance.


Oh, thanks for kicking my thread.

[Cosmic Kitten]

35. Free kicks for DSB

Yes, Hillery is "winning" in the polls

Those polls are essentially worthless
except as a tool to manipulate perception.

The ONLY practical use of a poll of a
VERY small and discrete slice of the populous
is to create an ILLUSION of inevitability.

Asking 1000 people what they think
is NOT a legitimate mesure of election outcomes.

How much was Bibi Netenyahoo behind
in the polls prior to his reelection?

Polls are a tool for cheerleaders.
Post the raw data, and create a thread that
reflects the ACTUAL numbers not the percentages.

Lemme show you how absurd these threads would look.

OUT OF 1000 people polled...
NO republican within 100 votes of Clinton!
Republican challengers destroyed!!!!!1!1!

kinda pathetic, eh?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. Asking 1000 people what they think is NOT a legitimate mesure of election outcomes.

Of course it is...It's Inferential statistics 101, ergo:

For instance, we use inferential statistics to try to infer from the sample data what the population might think. Or, we use inferential statistics to make judgments of the probability that an observed difference between groups is a dependable one or one that might have happened by chance in this study.

Oh, thanks for kicking my thread for the afternoon and evening crowd.

[Cosmic Kitten]

39. No problem...

fair enough that the literal interpretation
of "legitimate" isn't worth debating.

However, a poll of 1000 people who say what
they might do is not representative of what
millions will actually do.

Polls are nothing but a tool to create
an illusion of inevitability.

Pretending that a difference of 100 people
out of 1000 is "winning" is about as low as
you could go and still use the word
"DESTROYED" with a straight face.

If she was leading by 50 would that still be
"DESTROYING" the opposition?

When Hillery has a lead of 300 votes them maybe,
maybe you could use the term DESTROYED.

100 out of 1000 is definitively NOT "DESTROYED".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. Each one of those polled represent about 130,000 voters or so...

If that poll was properly conducted with the appropriate controls and I have no reason to believe it wasn't then every respondent represents 130,00 voters and in toto that poll represents how the entire electorate would vote if the election was held today.

[Cosmic Kitten]

41. Meh

Polls are done for political
and business purposes.

These political polls are NOT
done under rigorous scientific
standards with proper controls.

They are heavily biased, with arbitrary
weighting to reflect national demographics.

Why would you try to defend political
polling when there is ample evidence
that they are biased and fraught
with unreliable or misleading data?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. Why would you try to defend political polling...

Why would you try to defend political
polling when there is ample evidence
that they are biased and fraught
with unreliable or misleading data?

Because I have completed post grad work in Political Science which included looking at reams and reams of research and understand that polling if done correctly adequately captures the universe it is intended to measure. It's also based on the scientific method which we all learn in the seventh grade. It can be repeated and if it is repeated using the same methods the results would be the same.

You are libeling the organization that performed the poll by suggesting they are incompetent based on nothing other than your own bias and you are impeaching social science research , all because you don't like the results. It's really not a good look.

[Cosmic Kitten]

44. ...polling if done correctly...

We are talking about CNN, right?
When did the MSM regain
it's credibility?

Are you aware of any recent poll
commissioned by a political entity t
hat did not reflect well on the candidate?

Cite a few polls that were "accurate"
BEFORE weighting.
The weighting of polls amounts to nothing
more than putting a thumb on the scale.

Link to a poll's raw numbers that have been
accurate in reflecting election outcomes?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. Raw numbers are meaningless...Of course polls have to be weighted to measure the universe ...

Raw numbers are meaningless...Of course polls have to be weighted to measure the universe they are intended to.

If inferential statistics are meaningless they might as well close down all the statistics sociology, political science, economics,and political science departments in every college and university as they rely heavily on them.


It is sad that the results of this poll have made you so upset that you have declared war on quantitative research on which so much we know about human behavior is based.

[Cosmic Kitten]

47. You are not the only...

Srsly, lets just admit
we all know and understand
the issues revolving around
stats, methods, analysis, K?

You are insulting all of us otherwise.

Pretending some MSM poll "proves"
anything, is not only futile it's
damaging to your credibility.

Lets just admit the polls are propaganda?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. If you don't believe in the efficacy of the scientific method and quantitative research

If you don't believe in the efficacy of the scientific method and quantitative research there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.


I will make it easier for you. You can just perform a poll of your own and report back to me/us the results. If your finding depart significantly from the poll I cited I will revisit my opinion as to its efficacy.

Please ensure it meets industry standards for transparency and methodology.

Thank you in advance.

[Cosmic Kitten]

52. Science is a sound method of discovery and finding proof

But political polling results
are not presented HONESTLY.

If you have a poll of 1000 people
from a specific zip code, of predominantly
50+ year old, wealthy, white,
college educated people, present it as such.

Pretending a poll with an unknown or skewed
sample is representative of "Democrats", not simply
the democrats of a particular demographic,
is misleading.

Of course, the whole point of pretending
70% of "Democrats" support anything IS
to mislead public perceptions.

It's not "science" that's unreliable,
it's the people who use statistics to mislead
other people into false narratives.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. Easy

If you doubt the credibility of the poll I cited you can conduct a poll of your own and report to me/us your findings.


Please ensure it conforms to industry standards and practices:

http://www.aapor.org/AAPORKentico/Standards-Ethics.aspx

before submitting it.


Thank you in advance.

[Cosmic Kitten]

56. Seriously? That's your best retort?

Rather than admit that
the issue is how polling results
are twisted to mislead people
you are suggesting that I start
a polling group?

Srsly?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. You said the poll is not credible.

The only way to demonstrate the poll is not credible is to cite other polls , taken during the same time frame, that contradict it in significant ways, or conduct a poll of your own.

What part of that don't you understand?

[Cosmic Kitten]

60. Is the poll sample truely random?

Does the poll cite specifically
where the poll was conducted?

Does the poll cite specifically
the weighting applied the results?

If you can't verify the sample
and you don't know the weighting
bias, the results are suspect.

The MAIN POINT is less about
the validity of the polling methods.
The POINT is, PRETENDING that a
poll of 1000 people is representative
of ALL Democratic Voters.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

62. Here is the link to the pollster's locations

http://www.orcinternational.com/us/about-us/locations

Please link this thread and ask them if their research meets industry standards or they just made it all up.

Oh, I'm sure they liked being libeled on a public message board.


While you are at it you can direct your questions to all the other pollsters in the field who have found roughly similar numbers:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_christie_vs_clinton-3766.html

[BainsBane]

42. Polls at this stage mean very little

Certainly I would love to say Clinton or whomever is the D. nominee will eviscerate the Republicans, but we haven't yet had a campaign, which can and usually does change a great deal. The good news is that most of America doesn't share the Clinton derangement syndrome that has gripped so many on DU.

[Rex]

46. She is the only person that can make herself lose. She has this one in the bag.

Sorry, I just call it like I see it. Said it months ago. Unless she does something dire, it's hers. I know nobody wants to hear that, but if I see it like that I am going to say it.

We got a long way to go (despite some saying time is running out) yet I just don't see anyone on the horizon.

[Marr]

48. Hillary Clinton will be a weak candidate. Her fans really need to stop and

ask themselves if they aren't throwing the election by promoting a candidate who is too far to the right for so many other Democrats.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. You are proffering a theory in search of reality, ergo:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_christie_vs_clinton-3766.html

And she has a 86% favorability rating among Democrats:

Hillary's almost-universal support among Democrats: As for the Democratic race using the same scale, here are the numbers:

Hillary Clinton 86%-13% (+73)

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/why-hillary-clinton-needs-jeb-bush-n320646

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

-John Adams

[Cosmic Kitten]

58. She won't survive the scandals if she is the nominee

Once the swift boating begins
the Democrats are sunk.
Down ballot candidates will suffer.

The MSM will turn off a large swath
of people who only have memories
or idealize her.

Once her reality is on their TeeVee
24/7 that "idealized" image of her
will wilt and her support fade.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. That's your opinion.

"Opinions are like noses .Everybody has one."

I point to the data. You point to your value laden analysis. Empiricism wins.

[Cosmic Kitten]

61. an opinion based on past experience is useful

Ask John Kerry how effective and
damaging the swift boating campaign
was in sinking his candidacy.

Learn from the past or risk
making the same mistakes over and over...

[Marr]

63. Universal support among Democrats... and she lost the last primary to a guy

who had the biggest demographic mountain to climb in the history of politics.

She just isn't as popular as her fans think she is. That 'support' among Democrats is just name recognition and a general, healthy distaste for blowhard Republicans.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. We will see in the fullness of time.

All I can do is go by the data and the data indicates she has a infinitely high probability of being the nominee should she decide to run and is more likely than not to beat her Republican opponent in the general election.

[Marr]

66. I sincerely hope we have some good choices in the primaries.

If we end up with Hillary Clinton, which I agree seems likely unless there's an unusually appealing alternative, I honestly think we'll lose the general. She's got too long a track record to play 'fill in the blanks with what you hope I am', as Obama could do, and just plain too much baggage.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

My opinion is voters are more concerned about their own lives than the scandals or so called scandals of their electeds leaders. And if they are thinking about things beyond their own immediate lives and livelihoods they are thinking about their favorite sports team and what Kim Kardashian and Kanye West are up to.

[CanonRay]

53. Putin is a product of the Soviet KGB

and he thinks and acts that way. Why be surprised at this?

[WilliamPitt]

65. I support the PATRIOT Act, and the Iraq invasion, and Keystone XL, and Wall St.!

I am a Democrat!

...wait, what?