Poll: Hillary Clinton still tops in 2016

[DonViejo]

Last edited Wed Mar 18, 2015, 11:21 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: CNN

By Jennifer Agiesta, CNN Polling Director
Updated 9:36 AM ET, Wed March 18, 2015

Washington (CNN)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. 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%.

In the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton holds a nearly 50-point lead over Vice President Joe Biden, her closest competitor in the field, 62% to 15%. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren rounds out the top three on the Democratic side with 10%. No other potential candidate tops 5%.

-snip-



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

[BlueCaliDem]

1. I'm not so sure Hillary Clinton will run in 2016. I don't know, but I don't get that sense.

Of course, I could be wrong.

But if she decides not to run, I'd like her to campaign for Joe, of course!

[brooklynite]

17. I met with RFH on Monday; she's running

Everything is still unofficial, but she's clearly recruiting staff, commenting on current issues in a way a retiree doesn't, and making every possible move to lead to an official declaration.

[BlueCaliDem]

21. Thanks for this update, brooklynite!

I wasn't certain that she was interested in running because I didn't get that sense. It could be a strategy to silence her critics (all of M$M and all political talking heads) until she has everything in place. I appreciate the update!

[Thinkingabout]

2. Good news, the more I hear about world news the more I see the need for an

experiences foreign policy person as our next commander-in-chief. Looking forward to working in the primary and general election for Hillary.

[Fred Sanders]

3. I see an absolute, non-negotiable imperative for anyone other than "President Racist Christofascist"....

Democrats should be united, and seen to be united, in celebration that the White House is OURS for another 8 years, SCOTUS will be OURS, not engaging in house cat food fights.

United we stand, divided we fall to the fascists.

[Thinkingabout]

5. Exactly, we need to be in control.

[ColesCountyDem]

10. I agree.

Secretary Clinton would not be my choice, in an ideal world, but I absolutely will NOT engage in trashing her! If she is our nominee, I will work like a dog to see that she is elected POTUS in 2016.

[cosmicone]

14. +1,000,000

Unfortunately, too many on DU are of the mindset that if they don't get Warren or Sanders, they will stay home.

[ColesCountyDem]

19. And when their failure to vote D in the GE gives the election to a Teapublican...

... they will blame the Democrats for not nominating their 'better candidate'.

[cosmicone]

22. I bet a lot of the Warren/Sanders crowd voted for Ralph Nader

in 2000 because he was ideologically closer to their position. I don't know how many will admit it though.

[ColesCountyDem]

28. You may be right.

I love Sen. Warren and Sen. Sanders, but I am a big 'D' Democrat, and I support our party's nominee-- period.

[BlueCaliDem]

23. Yep.

Failing, of course, to see that their opinion of a better candidate isn't necessarily shared with the majority of Americans.

[ColesCountyDem]

27. Exactly!

I fully realize that I am generally further to the left than the majority of the Democratic Party. We have primaries and caucuses to determine who will win the nomination. If my candidate doesn't get the nomination, I'm not going to take my bat and ball and go home, thereby allowing my infantile, electoral temper tantrum to inflict a Teapublican on the nation.

[BlueCaliDem]

31. Exactly! And I believe your justified opinion is shared by the majority.

I have my preferred candidate, too (as you can see in my sig line), and should he run, I will vote for him in the primaries, but should Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination, I will vote for her with a big smile and no sense of "the lesser of two evils". She's a strong Democrat who can beat any Republican (Neo-Confederate) candidate, and I will enthusiastically work to get her elected because we just can't afford another Republican in the White House.

My only hope is that whoever wins the Democratic nom, that they choose one of the Castro brothers as their VP running mate. Should they do that, there's NO WAY a Republican will win the White House, and it would excite the Latino community enough to maybe come out en masse to the point that the Senate is all but guaranteed to return into able Democratic hands, but maybe even the House, too.

[ColesCountyDem]

33. Your thinking about the Castros is identical to mine.

It would be a one-two, knockout punch to the GOP.

[cosmicone]

38. Julian Castro I'd like

Joaquin won't be as good.

[earthside]

32. Don't worry about the DUers ... they will vote.

But among average, low-information Democratic Party voters ... well, Hillary is a loser.

Among nominal Democratic voters that a Democratic presidential nominee must have to win, Hillary inspires about as much enthusiasm as yesterday's cold, wilted left over boiled cabbage.

[ColesCountyDem]

36. "Among nominal Democratic voters that a Democratic presidential nominee must have to win...."

Until such time as 50+% of likely voters self-identify as nominal Democrats, we must also have enough likely voters who do NOT self-identify as nominal Democrats to create the 50.1% majority necessary to win in each state.

[cosmicone]

39. All the opinion polls disagree with you.

Among registered democrats and/or likely democratic voters, Hillary consistently polls over 85%.

[earthside]

43. Big deal.

Low information Democratic leaning voters haven't even heard of anyone else running.

Pffftt.

[cosmicone]

44. So you condescendingly relegate Hillary supporters

to a group of "low information democrats?"

I like Warren (she is NOT running) and I like Bernie Sanders (he is NOT a democrat) and I like grandpa Joe Biden ... and I know all about them, still I support Hillary.

Does that make me a "low information democrat?"

[earthside]

45. Don't put words in my mouth.

Low information, nominal Democratic voters are those millions and millions who do not pay attention to a tenth of the things DUers pay attention to; they are too busy making a living to worry about Hillary's emails or the latest stupid remarks from Ted Cruz.

If polled, these good folks will likely say they support Hillary because they haven't heard of anyone else -- she has good name ID.

When I talk to these kinds of registered Democrats in Colorado, when I press the subject, they want something new and exciting -- they are not enthusiastic in the slightest in a retread from the 1990s.

[cosmicone]

12. Very well put n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

41. Agreed.

[blm]

4. I'm in Warren camp, but, the BEST thing that could come out of a Clinton-Bush election

matchup is the SIMPLE JUDGEMENT that American people in general will be making:

Is the country better off with Bush policies in the WH or Clinton policies in the WH?

Many Americans will only be answering that question on election day. Those of us who are already engaged in policy know what the policy differences are, our priorities, how we are going to vote and why.

There really is no spinning the majority of voters on this. They have already EXPERIENCED both. Perhaps that is what the corporate media is finding so annoying, and why they have been treating Jeb with kid gloves.

[cosmicone]

40. Warren is not running and won't run. She is better off with HRC as POTUS.

Being in the Warren camp makes as much sense as being in the FDR or JFK camps. (The latter two aren't running either no matter how much I like them and want them to run.)

[blm]

46. Perhaps you didn't read my entire post.

I know Warren isn't running - I am in the camp that would like to see her run one day, but, for now I see a distinct advantage for our party in 2016 based on the basic question America will be answering on election day.

[leveymg]

6. The inevitability of Hillary, Bibi, and a major war in the Mideast. We're stuck with Bibi, but can

still do something about the other two looming inevitabilities.

[wolfie001]

7. Keep the petty attacks coming repukes....

.....it just secures her bid. The knuckle-draggers fail to see the irony.

[Fred Sanders]

8. Clinton is a fighter, not a con liar, folks love that as much as they hate pettiness, keep the evidence free attacks coming...indeed.

"What difference does it make?" is one for the ages, and for the Voters sick of GOP pettiness and hatred of the common man.

Obama's steady job approval numbers and economic numbers speak volumes...so must be hushed with Beltway self-stroking congratulations at uncovering....nothing.

[wolfie001]

9. Every attack on the Clinton's has been petty....

....of course that would be my opinion. She'll make a very competent President! Potential greatness here!

[Proud Public Servant]

11. Nobody else has her name recognition

And that's all a poll really registers at this point -- name recognition. These gaps will continue to narrow as people start paying attention to the coming election, but that won't actually start happening until a couple of months before Iowa.

[frylock]

15. Brand A appeals to people

[candelista]

18. Exactly.

Polls at this point are meaningless.

[groundloop]

20. Not to mention that right wing attacks/lies haven't really begun yet

Of course we're seeing a lot about email-gate and Benghazi right now, but that's all just a warm-up act. It's a no-brainer that (if Hillary is the nominee) she'll be facing the full onslaught of Rove's attack machine after the convention and unfortunately a lot of people will believe the crap that is put out there.

[cosmicone]

25. I doubt the attacks will have any effect on independents and moderate republicans

The attacks only seem to work in the Faux/Hannity/Limbaugh echo-chamber and on the 24% who still believe GWB was a great president.

The attacks will probably backfire in moderate swing states as even republican women would identify with what they have gone through in their lives with the glass ceiling.

Plus, once Big Dawg starts campaigning, the repukes will look like petty whining school kids. Big Dawg is a nuclear weapon in the Clinton arsenal.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

37. ikr! 56-40 ova Ben Carson! Hillary shud hava 60 pt lead, not 16, this far out! Her poll #s only decline...

as she campaigns and keeps puttin her foot in her mouth.

Elisabeth's numbers would only grow as she becomes better known. I predict she will have no choice but to accept efforts to draft her as Hillary's poll numbers continue to decline.

[George II]

13. What is mind boggling is the number of people who have NEVER HEARD OF these "candidates"...

....look at the comparison:

Hillary Clinton 1%
Joe Biden 6%
Jeb Bush 14%
Ben Carson 56%
Chris Christie 24%
Mike Huckabee 26%
Rand Paul 29%
Marco Rubio 39%
Scott Walker 48%

Almost half the people polled never heard of the self-proclaimed republican front runner!?!? Those are amazing numbers for a pack of guys who think they could be President.

[Proud Public Servant]

24. That's not mind-boggling at all

I live in Washington and swim in politics, but whenever I visit family and friends beyond the Beltway I discover anew how little people care about this nonsense on a day-to-day basis. They'll start caring when they need to -- i.e., when their states are on the verge of their primaries -- but why should they give a crap beforehand? Journalists, political junkies, and shut-ins who watch cable news all day are not representative of the American population -- and that's a good thing.

[George II]

26. I can see not being too involved until the primaries and elections draw near, but.....

....most of those people are in office now and have been prominent in the news over the last year. To not have an opinion about some or all of them is one thing, but to not have even heard of them? That is what I find surprising and disappointing.

[Proud Public Servant]

34. "Prominent in the news" ain't what it used to be

Newspaper readership is way down, as are the ratings of network news broadcasts; local news -- which as an aggregate attracts far, far more viewers than network news -- rarely covers these clowns. The internet is full of news, but so much so that you can seek out what you like and never read anything you're not interested in -- which is why some people don't know who Scott Walker is, and some (like me) don't know the name of that singer who did "Call Me Maybe" (and I guarantee you that "Call Me Maybe" got WAY more coverage than Scott Walker ever has).

Also, it would be interesting to know whether those people who DO recognize the names could cite a single, concrete thing their candidate of choice has done to merit their support. And I mean concrete; I know plenty of people who think Hillary was a good Secretary of State, but when simple asked "why?" have no answer.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

29. A good thing for whom?

It's certainly not a good thing for the country. We've got the crap elected officials we've got for exactly that reason. People aren't paying attention to what they actually do in office, and re-elect them time and again based on misleading sound bites and commercials during campaign season.

If everyone actually paid attention, we'd get rid of a lot of corrupt incumbents every cycle.

[Proud Public Servant]

35. You could just as easily make the argument

That we have crap politicians because they're more interested in campaigning than governing, and the media that should be holding them accountable is more interested in the horse race than the fate of the Republic. From that point of view, polls and even election news stories this far out don't reveal deficiencies; they contribute to them.

[ananda]

16. Yes!

This is good news.

That Scott Walker is such a creep.

[RedstDem]

30. she only has to win one poll

And it ain't gonna be the one in November. Sucks
Its like a damned setup.

I guess we'll get used to Bush/Walker in time.

[blkmusclmachine]

42. BUT... Who does Diebold/SES like???

[0rganism]

47. i think the poll lowballs the other GOP candidates

if Rand Paul gets 43%, IMHO we can safely assume that ANY republican candidate will pull close to 43% and Clinton's support really tops out at 54%. the likelihood of a Rand Paul voter switching to support Clinton if a not-Paul gets nominated seems vanishingly small to me. we're looking at moderate conservative swing voters and single-issue drug legalization voters, who seem to represent less and less of the voting public every year.

[Muldoon]

48. The uncertainty of polling

This site has an interesting poll going on the election.Clinton and Trump in a face-off.Fiorina and Sanders coming in third and forth respectively.You can vote and leave comments.





[link:http://www.rankopedia.com/Best-Candidate-to-win-the-2016-US-Presidential-Election/Step1/32775.htm?refresh=52913271|

[ColesCountyDem]

49. Interesting choice of website. n/t